By Randy Walker
@TennisPublisher
One of the great privileges of my life was being the press officer for the U.S. Davis Cup team from 1997 to 2005. I harbor a deep love of the competition and the ideals of the Cup founder Dwight Davis, an international tennis competition to foster better relations and understanding among nations. I loved the event so much that my U.S. Tennis Association co-workers at the time joked that I would name my first-born child “Davis.”
I had become very concerned in recent months about this sporting contest that I found so magical when the International Tennis Federation began suggesting radical change to the competition that took away the home-and-way element of the event. I certainly recognized the need to tweak the format and the dates of the event but not to completely overturn the event, taking away the soul of the event.
When many Davis Cup legends and fans also expressed disgust with the proposed new format, the ITF came out and said that the format would again be tweaked to include home and away matches for part of the event. Now, I have to say, after analysis, that I am warmed by the new potential compromised format that has been put forth (with some liberties that I am suggesting).
So what would the Davis Cup potentially look like in a new format in 2019? Here’s how it hypothetically could unfold.
The first round of Davis Cup will feature 12 first round matches, the ITF has announced. These matches would be in the traditional home and away format, played over three days, as before. This will feature 24 teams in total and would, by accounts, be played the week after the Australian Open in late January/early February.
The winners of these 12 matches would advance into the one-site Davis Cup final, where they will be joined by the four teams that reached the semifinals the previous year and received a “bye” in to the “finals.” This would provide for an even number of 16 teams competing in the “Davis Cup Final,” although in some news reports, ITF President Dave Haggerty has mentioned two wild card teams – or two “invited teams” – which I don’t understand the need for (and which does not sound like something with any competitive integrity) and would increase the number of nations in the one-site Davis Cup Final from 16 to 18.
These final 16 teams would be divided into four round-robin groups of four teams (although it has been reported that plans had 18 teams divided into six round robin groups of three teams, with two wild card teams also advancing into a quarterfinal round, but problems with tiebreakers in round-robin play if three teams finish with 1-1 round robin records should dissuade officials, hopefully, to avoid that kind of round robin grouping.)
With four round robin groups of four teams in each group, you would have more clear-cut winners of each round robin group who would not only advance into the semifinal round, but also clinch a “bye” into this Davis Cup final round the next year and they would not have to play in the home-and-away first round. Win your round-robin group and advance to the semifinals and get a bye the next year – that’s is easy to understand for players and fans.
The 12 losing teams that do not advance out of round-robin play would then have play in the home-and-away round to start the next year. The four teams that win each round-robin group would then play in a semifinal and final round to determine the Davis Cup champion.
At the same time as this Davis Cup final week, the 12 teams that lost the previous January/February would play in 12 “Playoff Round” matches in home and away match format (to again appease the traditionalists) with the winner of these advancing into the Davis Cup “first round” to be played after the Australian Open.
Using the most recent Davis Cup team rankings, under the rules outlined above, this is how the Davis Cup competition would look like and unfold, going strictly by the rankings.
The Top 4 Seeds (exempt from first round home/away matches, taken from Davis Cup rankings)
1 – France
2 – Argentina
3 – Belgium
4 – Croatia
The next 12 (taken from Davis Cup rankings, presumed to have won their home/away matches in January/February)
Great Britain
USA
Spain
Australia
Switzerland
Serbia
Italy
Germany
Kazakhstan
Canada
Czech Republic
Japan
They would be grouped against (in ranking order, but would be determined by lot, but just for visualization purposes). These matches would be played in late January/early February after the Australian Open)
Great Britain vs. Colombia
USA vs. Netherlands
Spain vs. Hungary
Australia vs. India
Switzerland vs. Sweden
Serbia vs. Austria
Italy vs. Russia
Germany vs. Brazil
Kazakhstan vs. Uzbekistan
Canada vs. Chile
Czech Republic vs. Bosnia
Japan vs. China
We will, for argument sake and for visualization purposes, say that the highest ranking nation advances into the “final” and would be joined by the top four seeds – France, Argentina, Belgium and Croatia. The four round-robin groupings would then be put together, based on team rankings and would look like this.
The Groupings (in order)
France, Great Britain, Switzerland, Kazakhstan
Argentina, USA, Serbia, Canada
Belgium, Spain, Italy, Czech Republic
Croatia, Australia, Germany, Japan
This is how a schedule of play can look like, using round-robin play from two of the four groups each day. These matches would feature No. 1 and No. 2 singles and a doubles rubber with matches being best two of three sets. This would have two team matches per day on a Stadium Court (Arthur Ashe Stadium in NYC, Philippe Chartrier in Paris and Santana Stadium in Madrid, for example) and two team matches per day on a No. 2 court (Louis Armstrong Stadium in NYC, Suzanne Lenglen Court in Paris, Sanchez Vicario Court in Madrid, for example). There would be a maximum of six matches per day per court, with matches sold as separate tickets. Using just two match courts (two stadium courts/arenas) opens up many more potential venues around the world that could host the Davis Cup Final competition, especially if it were to be held indoors.
This format would allow for players to have a day off between round-robin team matches and would take eight days to complete the entire competition (the same time frame as the ATP World Tour Finals), as outlined below.
Day One
France vs. Great Britain; Switzerland vs. Kazakhstan
Argentina vs. USA; Serbia vs. Canada
Day Two
Belgium vs. Spain; Italy vs. Czech Republic
Croatia vs. Australia; Germany vs. Japan
Day Three
France vs. Switzerland; Great Britain vs. Kazakhstan
Argentina vs. Serbia; Canada vs. USA
Day Four
Belgium vs. Italy; Spain vs. Czech
Croatia vs. Germany; Australia vs. Japan
Day Five
France vs. Kazakhstan; Great Britain vs. Switzerland
Argentina vs. Canada; USA vs. Serbia
Day Six
Belgium vs. Czech; Spain vs. Italy
Croatia vs. Japan; Australia vs. Germany
Day Seven – Semifinals (All Four Round-Robin Group Winners Advancing)
France vs. Argentina
Belgium vs. Croatia
Day Eight – Final
France vs. Argentina
Meanwhile, while the final is going on, the 12 teams that lost in the January/February first round would have to play against 12 teams that advance from the American Zone, European/African Zone and Asia/Oceania Zone. For geographic parity, four teams from these three zones will advance into this “Playoff Round” to determine 12 of the teams that will play in the January/February first round. These matches will be home and away, like the traditional format as well. The teams with hypothetical match-ups are seen below.
Colombia vs. Portugal (Euro/Africa Zone No. 1 ranked team)
Netherlands vs. Israel (Euro/Africa Zone No. 2 ranked team)
Hungary vs. Dominican Republic (American Zone No. 1 ranked team)
India vs. Belarus (Euro/Africa Zone No. 3 ranked team)
Sweden vs. Slovakia (Euro/Africa Zone No. 4 ranked team)
Austria vs. Pakistan (Asia/Oceania No. 1 ranked team)
Russia vs. Korea (Asia/Oceania No. 2 ranked team)
Brazil vs. Ecuador (American Zone No. 2 ranked team)
Uzbekistan vs. New Zealand (Asia/Oceania No. 3 ranked team)
Chile vs. Barbados (American Zone No. 3 ranked team)
Bosnia vs. Thailand (Asia/Oceania Zone No. 4 ranked team)
China vs. Venezuela (American Zone No. 4 ranked team)
Perhaps to not compete with the attention and excitement of the Davis Cup Final matches, these “Playoff Round” matches are played in the weekend leading into the Davis Cup Final.
This format would have for the Davis Cup “Final” feature 16 teams and, with four-person teams, 64 total players competing. If you also have the “Playoff Round” played within the same 10-day period – featuring 12 playoff round matches – then an additional 96 players would be playing during this time, meaning that 160 players would be competing during this 10-day period at the end of the year. Considering that there is a controversy on the tennis season lasting too long with no off season, perhaps having the Davis Cup “Final” and the “Playoff Round” matches played earlier in the Fall, perhaps two weeks after the U.S. Open in mid/late September. Also, since the results of these matches will determine what a nation’s team and its players schedule will be the week after the Australian Open for the Davis Cup “First Round” – there will need to be more than eight weeks advance notice if the Davis Cup “Final” and “Playoff Round” are played in late November so National Associations can properly plan and promote home matches and players can make their schedules. Hosting these matches in September also opens up more potential venues to host matches, in particular outdoor matches, in such places as Roland Garros in Paris, the Indian Wells Tennis Garden in California, Madrid, Rome and others.
A rule that can be considered is that the team that wins the Davis Cup gets the opportunity to host this 16-team “final” in their country, harkening back to the tradition (which is good to revert to with Davis Cup) of the old “Challenge Round” format where the winning team hosted the final – or Challenge Round – against the emerging challenging nation the following year. Should this nation not be able to host the event in one facility or in one city, it could, potentially, be held in two nearby cities, similar to World Cup soccer being played in multiple cities. Perhaps a rule could be implemented that says one nation may not host the 16-team Davis Cup final more than one time in a five-year period so as to open up the competition to one of the other three teams that reach the Davis Cup semifinals (and to guarantee that the event will have a “host” nation that will play in front of their own fans.) If a Davis Cup champion nation had hosted the 16-team Davis Cup final within five years, the runner-up nation would receive the nod to host the event and then if that nation had also hosted within five years, it would be offered to the semifinalists.
The “first round” matches after the Australian Open would feature 24 teams and, with four-person teams, 96 total players competing during that week, not including any potential zonal matches that would be played at that time as well.
This format would take up, at maximum, three weeks of the tennis calendar year (as opposed to the current four), but it would be only two weeks for the players (potentially three weekends) and would only be two “trips” for players that are planned well in advance. This is a big improvement from the previous four weeks with home and away matches where players don’t know their Davis Cup schedule until later in the year as the results unfold. It also allows for year-long of pre-promotion of the Davis Cup “Final” and also for “Playoff Round” matches, hopefully played in late September.
Looking at all of the teams that would be potentially involved in the mix and in real contention for the Davis Cup title makes for more interesting match-ups between nations. Seeing teams like Thailand, Barbados, China, Dominican Republic and Pakistan being within a match of qualifying for either the first round or the “Final” will go a long way in the continued global growth of tennis and the popularity of this event. It also makes it more possible for smaller and developing nations to play and potentially host higher-stakes Davis Cup matches. I think Dwight Davis would find that quite appealing.
