[The Davis Cup] Is it just me...

[El Dude]

I didn't want to "threadcrap" the Davis Cup thread for those enjoying the tournament, but am curious about something. I have absolutely no interest in the Davis Cup. I'm not exactly sure why, but I pay about as much attention to it as I do an ATP 250 that doesn't feature a favorite player. I just don't care. I suspect it has something to do with the rankings impact being minimal (isn't the whole thing worth something like an ATP 500?), or maybe it has to do with the national aspect of it and I tend not to get into "my country vs. your country" (one of the reasons I don't care about the Olympics either).

So what about you? Do you care about the Davis Cup? Or rather, how much do you care?

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I didn't want to "threadcrap" the Davis Cup thread for those enjoying the tournament, but am curious about something. I have absolutely no interest in the Davis Cup. I'm not exactly sure why, but I pay about as much attention to it as I do an ATP 250 that doesn't feature a favorite player. I just don't care. I suspect it has something to do with the rankings impact being minimal (isn't the whole thing worth something like an ATP 500?), or maybe it has to do with the national aspect of it and I tend not to get into "my country vs. your country" (one of the reasons I don't care about the Olympics either).

So what about you? Do you care about the Davis Cup? Or rather, how much do you care?

I care less about DC than I do abou masters 1000s and slams, but I do care. I find that you see lower ranked players rise to the occasion and elite players often crumble under pressure.

The fact is you see things in DC you just don't see anywhere else. Improbable comebacks, underdog surprises, and tremendous spectacles. Tennis is a selfish, individual sport and DC is the one meaningful time you will see a team situation.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

DC matches are very passionate due to the team environment. Just see the first round
of Switzerland last year. The doubles team fought hard and lost. I don't remember the
score line, but it was one hell of a match.

Also, often DC inspires weaker players to give a scintillating performance (see
Ward this year for UK). So, it is always fun.

Very few players play Davis cup with the points as the primary motive. The
primary motive is to represent the country and hopefully bring the cup home.
In fact the DC points are a new phenomena.

 

[Moxie]

I have only become interested in Davis Cup in the last 6-10 years. Here is why: primarily, because, since it's not structured like a normal tournament, it gives a chance for players who normally lurk in the shadows to shine. (Like James Ward over the weekend, v. Querrey.)

Also, because I have a theory about the "Davis Cup Bump." Sometimes, when playing for country, when players have helped their team to a DC title, or big win, they've gotten a big boost in confidence that translates to singles results. (Verdasco, after helping underdog Spain beat Argentina on their home soil in '08, went on to the best patch of his career; Djokovic won DC for Serbia in '10 - enough said; Ferrer's resurgence could be traced to a fantastic come-from-behind win over Stepanek to help Spain win in '09; Isner's win on clay in France in '12 took his career to a new level; and while Nadal was perhaps going to do what he would, anyway, a win over Roddick to help Spain beat the US in '04 was a clutch win, and, I believe, propelled him into a career-making '05.) I always think this is worth looking out for.

My third reason is that it's usually raucous, for tennis, and generally good fun.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I have only become interested in Davis Cup in the last 6-10 years. Here is why: primarily, because, since it's not structured like a normal tournament, it gives a chance for players who normally lurk in the shadows to shine. (Like James Ward over the weekend, v. Querrey.)

Also, because I have a theory about the "Davis Cup Bump." Sometimes, when playing for country, when players have helped their team to a DC title, or big win, they've gotten a big boost in confidence that translates to singles results. (Verdasco, after helping underdog Spain beat Argentina on their home soil in '08, went on to the best patch of his career; Djokovic won DC for Serbia in '10 - enough said; Ferrer's resurgence could be traced to a fantastic come-from-behind win over Stepanek to help Spain win in '09; Isner's win on clay in France in '12 took his career to a new level; and while Nadal was perhaps going to do what he would, anyway, a win over Roddick to help Spain beat the US in '04 was a clutch win, and, I believe, propelled him into a career-making '05.) I always think this is worth looking out for.

My third reason is that it's usually raucous, for tennis, and generally good fun.

Absolutely spot on Mox. The DC bump is huge.

I absolutely have always thought the Nadal triumph over Roddick in '04 was a huge factor in his rise. Nadal, in his book said that 04 tie was massive for him and established his sense of belonging.

I watched that match live and I was shocked at his performance and saw the carry over into the 2005 clay court season with those epic matches and his first win at RG.

Let us not forget Djoker leading Serbia to victory which was followed by his massive 2012 season.

 

[Moxie]

I have only become interested in Davis Cup in the last 6-10 years. Here is why: primarily, because, since it's not structured like a normal tournament, it gives a chance for players who normally lurk in the shadows to shine. (Like James Ward over the weekend, v. Querrey.)

Also, because I have a theory about the "Davis Cup Bump." Sometimes, when playing for country, when players have helped their team to a DC title, or big win, they've gotten a big boost in confidence that translates to singles results. (Verdasco, after helping underdog Spain beat Argentina on their home soil in '08, went on to the best patch of his career; Djokovic won DC for Serbia in '10 - enough said; Ferrer's resurgence could be traced to a fantastic come-from-behind win over Stepanek to help Spain win in '09; Isner's win on clay in France in '12 took his career to a new level; and while Nadal was perhaps going to do what he would, anyway, a win over Roddick to help Spain beat the US in '04 was a clutch win, and, I believe, propelled him into a career-making '05.) I always think this is worth looking out for.

My third reason is that it's usually raucous, for tennis, and generally good fun.

Absolutely spot on Mox. The DC bump is huge.

I absolutely have always thought the Nadal triumph over Roddick in '04 was a huge factor in his rise. Nadal, in his book said that 04 tie was massive for him and established his sense of belonging.

I watched that match live and I was shocked at his performance and saw the carry over into the 2005 clay court season with those epic matches and his first win at RG.

Let us not forget Djoker leading Serbia to victory which was followed by his massive 2012 season.

I'm sure you mean Nole's 2011 season. But yes, we've all talked here about how that DC victory was key to his confidence, which, combined with his increased fitness, kickstarted his 2011 streak. The win over Roger in the SF at the USO started it, but I remember that he was clearly pegging the DC, kind of passing on other individual events to peak for winning that DC.

Sometime after he lost that match to Nadal in '04, Roddick said, "I felt like I'd awakened a sleeping giant."

Another one I'll pick out, that I mentioned above: Ferrer beating Stepanek in '09. He was 2 sets and a break down in the 3rd. He, and his team and the crowd absolutely pulled him from the crypt on that one. I'd never paid much attention to Ferrer before that match, but he won my admiration that day, and I think that's when he became the pit bull we know him to be. You can track his rise in the rankings from there.

So, yes, since you're asking, Dude, Davis Cup can be worth watching, for reasons other than national rah-rah, and "there's no other tennis to watch."

 

[Luxilon Borg]

I have only become interested in Davis Cup in the last 6-10 years. Here is why: primarily, because, since it's not structured like a normal tournament, it gives a chance for players who normally lurk in the shadows to shine. (Like James Ward over the weekend, v. Querrey.)

Also, because I have a theory about the "Davis Cup Bump." Sometimes, when playing for country, when players have helped their team to a DC title, or big win, they've gotten a big boost in confidence that translates to singles results. (Verdasco, after helping underdog Spain beat Argentina on their home soil in '08, went on to the best patch of his career; Djokovic won DC for Serbia in '10 - enough said; Ferrer's resurgence could be traced to a fantastic come-from-behind win over Stepanek to help Spain win in '09; Isner's win on clay in France in '12 took his career to a new level; and while Nadal was perhaps going to do what he would, anyway, a win over Roddick to help Spain beat the US in '04 was a clutch win, and, I believe, propelled him into a career-making '05.) I always think this is worth looking out for.

My third reason is that it's usually raucous, for tennis, and generally good fun.

Absolutely spot on Mox. The DC bump is huge.

I absolutely have always thought the Nadal triumph over Roddick in '04 was a huge factor in his rise. Nadal, in his book said that 04 tie was massive for him and established his sense of belonging.

I watched that match live and I was shocked at his performance and saw the carry over into the 2005 clay court season with those epic matches and his first win at RG.

Let us not forget Djoker leading Serbia to victory which was followed by his massive 2012 season.

I'm sure you mean Nole's 2011 season. But yes, we've all talked here about how that DC victory was key to his confidence, which, combined with his increased fitness, kickstarted his 2011 streak. The win over Roger in the SF at the USO started it, but I remember that he was clearly pegging the DC, kind of passing on other individual events to peak for winning that DC.

Sometime after he lost that match to Nadal in '04, Roddick said, "I felt like I'd awakened a sleeping giant."

Another one I'll pick out, that I mentioned above: Ferrer beating Stepanek in '09. He was 2 sets and a break down in the 3rd. He, and his team and the crowd absolutely pulled him from the crypt on that one. I'd never paid much attention to Ferrer before that match, but he won my admiration that day, and I think that's when he became the pit bull we know him to be. You can track his rise in the rankings from there.

So, yes, since you're asking, Dude, Davis Cup can be worth watching, for reasons other than national rah-rah, and "there's no other tennis to watch."

Yes sir I did mean 2011.

To summarize what you said, many stars are born during DC.

I can only imagine the confidence and self belief that must result in leading your team mates, your country, and your self to victory under intensely pressure filled conditions.

One match I will never forget is hewitt's 2 set comeback against fed (on grass?) and how about
the French shocking the USA in 92....lots of good stuff.

 

[askh]

I find DC electrifying -- even in case of players/countries I don't necessarily care for. I like the passion and the drama (when it is there).

 

[Front242]

I have only become interested in Davis Cup in the last 6-10 years. Here is why: primarily, because, since it's not structured like a normal tournament, it gives a chance for players who normally lurk in the shadows to shine. (Like James Ward over the weekend, v. Querrey.)

Also, because I have a theory about the "Davis Cup Bump." Sometimes, when playing for country, when players have helped their team to a DC title, or big win, they've gotten a big boost in confidence that translates to singles results. (Verdasco, after helping underdog Spain beat Argentina on their home soil in '08, went on to the best patch of his career; Djokovic won DC for Serbia in '10 - enough said; Ferrer's resurgence could be traced to a fantastic come-from-behind win over Stepanek to help Spain win in '09; Isner's win on clay in France in '12 took his career to a new level; and while Nadal was perhaps going to do what he would, anyway, a win over Roddick to help Spain beat the US in '04 was a clutch win, and, I believe, propelled him into a career-making '05.) I always think this is worth looking out for.

My third reason is that it's usually raucous, for tennis, and generally good fun.

Absolutely spot on Mox. The DC bump is huge.

I absolutely have always thought the Nadal triumph over Roddick in '04 was a huge factor in his rise. Nadal, in his book said that 04 tie was massive for him and established his sense of belonging.

I watched that match live and I was shocked at his performance and saw the carry over into the 2005 clay court season with those epic matches and his first win at RG.

Let us not forget Djoker leading Serbia to victory which was followed by his massive 2012 season.

I'm sure you mean Nole's 2011 season. But yes, we've all talked here about how that DC victory was key to his confidence, which, combined with his increased fitness, kickstarted his 2011 streak. The win over Roger in the SF at the USO started it, but I remember that he was clearly pegging the DC, kind of passing on other individual events to peak for winning that DC.

Sometime after he lost that match to Nadal in '04, Roddick said, "I felt like I'd awakened a sleeping giant."

Another one I'll pick out, that I mentioned above: Ferrer beating Stepanek in '09. He was 2 sets and a break down in the 3rd. He, and his team and the crowd absolutely pulled him from the crypt on that one. I'd never paid much attention to Ferrer before that match, but he won my admiration that day, and I think that's when he became the pit bull we know him to be. You can track his rise in the rankings from there.

So, yes, since you're asking, Dude, Davis Cup can be worth watching, for reasons other than national rah-rah, and "there's no other tennis to watch."

For all the Roddick wasn't good on clay talk (he wasn't) he played quite a match there against a young Nadal, with another great performance against Tursunov which he actually lost 17-15 in the 5th in 2006 in another DC match.

 

[Moxie]

For all the Roddick wasn't good on clay talk (he wasn't) he played quite a match there against a young Nadal, with another great performance against Tursunov which he actually lost 17-15 in the 5th in 2006 in another DC match.

Yes, he did play well against Nadal in that match. He won the first set, and took the 3rd to a TB. He was ranked #2 in the world at that time. Nadal was ranked around #50, and his very participation in that match was somewhat controversial in Spain. He was chosen over Robredo and Ferrero. It was a breakout match for Nadal. Roddick actually had his second-best results on clay, you'd be surprised to learn (I was):

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ro/A/Andy-Roddick.aspx?t=mr

 

[Kieran]

I like the Davis Cup: I like the idea that players have to work in a team and put something other than their own self-gratification first. Tennis is a hugely egotistical business, they operate removed from normal boundaries and play to succeed as individuals, so that demands that their primary purpose is to look after #1.

But the Davis Cup opens it up a little, and gives them a format that most players love: national pride, being part of a team, and playing for the actual pleasure of winning for others, as much as for yourself. I used to go to all of Ireland's Davis Cup matches, but it's been a while nw. Back in the day, I saw them play against Switzerland - easy, tiger, Federer was dribling snots on his mammy's lap at the time. Heinz Gunthardt and Jacob Hlasek played for Switzerland and we battered them boys. Murdered 'em.

McEnroe came to Ireland to play for the States back in the eighties, they put us in our place, but Mac's Irish anyway. Eliot Teltcher played wingman, with Fleming playing doubles. At the time, McEnroe was in the height of his genius and I remember watching him dismantle big Matt Doyle (who, conversely, is American, playing for Ireland at the time) in three awe-struck sets.

I think McEnroe's commitment to the Davis Cup was instrumental is stopping it being utterly eclipsed, when tennis boom years arrived in the 70's and 80's. Of course, then Swden had magnificent sides in the u80's. One of the great matches was McEnroe against the bullish calf Wilander in 1982. Such a long match, they only finished it last week. Mac also had a barn burner with Becker. So these committed efforts showed how important the event is. Moxie mentioned how Djoker came to life after winning the DC with Serbia in 2010.

Great players, and they're trying hard to win and event that has a great history...

 

[Moxie]

^Kieran, why is it that when you describe it, it has more the feel of bare-knuckles fisticuffs? And somehow, I can smell the Guinness and the sawdust? :laydownlaughing

 

[Kieran]

^Kieran, why is it that when you describe it, it has more the feel of bare-knuckles fisticuffs? And somehow, I can smell the Guinness and the sawdust? :laydownlaughing

Well, tennis is metaphorically gladiatorial, and when you throw the undeniable whiff of nationalism into the mix, it takes on an undeniably potent sense of urgency and tribal primacy. I think it's great that the Davis Cup exists - to me, a victory there is much greater than the Olympics, which I still can't get past viewing as a novelty event, but with brighter baubles...

 

[Moxie]

^Kieran, why is it that when you describe it, it has more the feel of bare-knuckles fisticuffs? And somehow, I can smell the Guinness and the sawdust? :laydownlaughing

Well, tennis is metaphorically gladiatorial, and when you throw the undeniable whiff of nationalism into the mix, it takes on an undeniably potent sense of urgency and tribal primacy. I think it's great that the Davis Cup exists - to me, a victory there is much greater than the Olympics, which I still can't get past viewing as a novelty event, but with brighter baubles...

That's well-said, and I agree. I don't think tennis belongs in the Olympics, or at least pro-tennis. Davis Cup and Fed Cup line up better with the sport. A once-in-four-years event doesn't make that much sense for a sport where the peak years are about 5. The timing worked out great for Rafa, and Andy, which help jumpstart him. All good. But it does seem that for Roger, especially, and Novak, it's been bad timing, more than anything.

 

[Kieran]

^Kieran, why is it that when you describe it, it has more the feel of bare-knuckles fisticuffs? And somehow, I can smell the Guinness and the sawdust? :laydownlaughing

Well, tennis is metaphorically gladiatorial, and when you throw the undeniable whiff of nationalism into the mix, it takes on an undeniably potent sense of urgency and tribal primacy. I think it's great that the Davis Cup exists - to me, a victory there is much greater than the Olympics, which I still can't get past viewing as a novelty event, but with brighter baubles...

That's well-said, and I agree. I don't think tennis belongs in the Olympics, or at least pro-tennis. Davis Cup and Fed Cup line up better with the sport. A once-in-four-years event doesn't make that much sense for a sport where the peak years are about 5. The timing worked out great for Rafa, and Andy, which help jumpstart him. All good. But it does seem that for Roger, especially, and Novak, it's been bad timing, more than anything.

Well, the timing for Nole is similar to Andy, and Roger was #1 in the world at the 2004 and 2008 Olympics, but yeah, Olympic seems a bit mickey-do, as my old ma often says...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I am good with Davis Cup, except I wish it was held every other year.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

^Kieran, why is it that when you describe it, it has more the feel of bare-knuckles fisticuffs? And somehow, I can smell the Guinness and the sawdust? :laydownlaughing

Well, tennis is metaphorically gladiatorial, and when you throw the undeniable whiff of nationalism into the mix, it takes on an undeniably potent sense of urgency and tribal primacy. I think it's great that the Davis Cup exists - to me, a victory there is much greater than the Olympics, which I still can't get past viewing as a novelty event, but with brighter baubles...

That's well-said, and I agree. I don't think tennis belongs in the Olympics, or at least pro-tennis. Davis Cup and Fed Cup line up better with the sport. A once-in-four-years event doesn't make that much sense for a sport where the peak years are about 5. The timing worked out great for Rafa, and Andy, which help jumpstart him. All good. But it does seem that for Roger, especially, and Novak, it's been bad timing, more than anything.

Jezus I have been saying for years pro tennis does not belong in the Olympics.

 

[Riotbeard]

I like Davis Cup. I pay less attention to it than a Masters, but more than 500s, although I will probably pay little attention this year, since the U.S. is already out. I like sports nationalism (as long as it doesn't bleed over into real nationalism). A couple of weekends a year, it adds a very different dimension to what is a fairly borderless game.

 

[Front242]

I am good with Davis Cup, except I wish it was held every other year.

Exactly my thoughts on it too.

 

[Front242]

Good to see Berdych recognizes the need to focus on his game and may not play the DC quarters. On concur on the focus part, Tomas. Hope Roger focuses on not losing to you in any big matches too

"I need to re-focus a little bit on my career,” he said. “That means the second round with Japan is still with a big question mark for me but the Czech team is good enough to win without me."

http://www.tennis.com/pro-game/2014/02/federer-play-davis-cup-quarterfinals-berdych-questionable/50490/#.UvAEwbRttBE