Why Davis Cup has such stupid rules ?? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Why Davis Cup has such stupid rules ??

Loremaster
09-23-2006, 08:34 PM
I don't understand this :), even if USA wins in Russia (wjich is unlikely but still possible ) they will play against Aregtina in Argentina , so whoever wins these two ties (Australia already lost but it is not a point ) final would be played on the field of a Team which choose surface for semifinal(Russia or Aregentia will have right to choose surface two times in row), I think this rule must be changed !!, Why both teams could not choose surface ?? Home crowad is alone huge boost. So for example if USA want fast hard court or grass and Spain/Argentina wants slow clay they should choose fast clay(like in Rome ) or very slow harcourt (Rebound Ace or something ) I think it would be more fair and far more enterteining , beacuse matches like ARG/AUS are too much predictable and boring

~*BGT*~
09-23-2006, 08:44 PM
It's predetermined which countries, when they play each other, choose the surface.

Look at this page and click on "Choice of Ground" on the bottom left side of the screen.

http://www.daviscup.com/results/index.asp

Jelena
09-23-2006, 08:47 PM
Also, when USA and Argentina play the final this year, and they meet somewhen later again, the tie will then be played in USA. And then they can choose the surface.....

Hendu
09-23-2006, 08:49 PM
I don't understand this :), even if USA wins in Russia (wjich is unlikely but still possible ) they will play against Aregtina in Argentina , so whoever wins these two ties (Australia already lost but it is not a point ) final would be played on the field of a Team which choose surface for semifinal(Russia or Aregentia will have right to choose surface two times in row), I think this rule must be changed !!, Why both teams could not choose surface ?? Home crowad is alone huge boost. So for example if USA want fast hard court or grass and Spain/Argentina wants slow clay they should choose fast clay(like in Rome ) or very slow harcourt (Rebound Ace or something ) I think it would be more fair and far more enterteining , beacuse matches like ARG/AUS are too much predictable and boring

Wasn't the victory of Argentina in Australia surprising?

Thats the good thing about Davis Cup. To win it, usually you have to win in the least favorable conditions.

rexman
09-23-2006, 09:17 PM
It's as fair as possible. Sometime a team will sneak through playing all at home (Slovakia last year) or a team will unfortunately have to play all away but it evens out because next time they have the opposite.

NyGeL
09-23-2006, 10:19 PM
USA defeated Chile on grass, so there is no complain about playing on clay.

Even Slovakia played all their ties at home during 2005 and they couldn't win the cup.

GlennMirnyi
09-23-2006, 10:21 PM
Stupid is to question the most exciting rule of the DC: the home-away scheme. That's what makes it interesting.

Melvins
09-23-2006, 10:45 PM
I think the perfect method is a two leg matchs. Nation A receive B to x matches and trip to nation B to play 2nd leg, but I don't think that it's possible make a caledar with that.

So, I don't know what ITF can doing. But this system is unfair.

shotgun
09-23-2006, 11:08 PM
The current system is fine as it is. Grand Slams and Davis Cup are the most traditional competitions in tennis, to change the rules would be taken as another MM stunt by the ATP.

jayjay
09-23-2006, 11:13 PM
The system is fine as it is, sometimes you get a good draw sometimes you don't. Deal with it. We lost 3 SF's in recent years away from home, so what? Tough shit. Now we were at home and we took the chance like the other teams did to us.

DC is a great competition and needs no tinkering. To the original poster, let's just say that America do beat Russia (which they won't) and have to come to Argentina. 1. If you are good enough to win in Russia on clay, then you should be confident enough to come and be competitive in Argentina on clay and 2. Next year if you have to play Russia and Argentina, you'll be playing in the US prob on grass so you won't be complaining then, will you?

croat123
09-23-2006, 11:33 PM
i think the system is great :) davis cup would lose its charm without it

lau
09-23-2006, 11:36 PM
In Mark Darcy´s words, I like it very much, just as it is. :p

*Viva Chile*
09-24-2006, 01:23 AM
Last time that Argentina vs. USA played against each other was in USA, and that time americans had the chance to choice the surface, so I don't find what's wrong about the rule.

ASP0315
09-24-2006, 01:48 AM
The system is perfect. i dont have any problems with it. :) .
Homecrowd and homesurface does't neccasarily means Home team will have advantage.You see what happened to USA last year or France in DC finals in 2002. As a proffesional player, you should deal with that.

JW10S
09-24-2006, 02:25 AM
The system is good as is. If a team plays another at home then the next time they play the same team it will be away. For example; this year the US played Chile in the US on grass. Therefore the next time these 2 teams meet the match will be played in Chile on clay courts that you can bet will be as slow as the beach. It's fair.

khanazam
09-24-2006, 02:29 AM
i think they should have 3 games in one country and 2 in the other country.

JW10S
09-24-2006, 02:32 AM
i think they should have 3 games in one country and 2 in the other country.

When the two teams competing are on different continents that would be logistically impossible. The system is good as is.

its.like.that
09-24-2006, 07:28 AM
Loremaster, you will be in the Arseclown champs next year for sure.

Action Jackson
09-24-2006, 07:41 AM
System is fine as it is. The Belarussians can play on a very fast surface and then the next time they play Spain for example they will play on a very slow clay.

It's a test of character for these players to play all sorts of conditions and not solely playing for yourself either.

sanpo
09-24-2006, 02:37 PM
This is how the choice of ground are determined by the way:


8 Choice of Ground

Choice of ground shall be determined in the following sequence: -

(i) If the previous Tie between the two Nations was played on a neutral ground, choice shall be decided by lot. If this is not applicable, then
(ii) If the previous Tie between the two Nations was not played for any reason, choice shall be decided by lot. If this is not applicable, then
(iii) If one Nation has been entitled to choice for its Tie with another Nation in 1970 Competition, or in any later Competition, the latter shall have choice on the occasion of the next meeting with that Nation. If this is not applicable, then
(iv) Choice shall be decided by lot.


It's all fair.

Melvins
09-24-2006, 03:27 PM
How can you say that this system is fair?

Apart of choice of the ground, this year we didn't see Portugal in home... :rolleyes:

Portugal was promote in last year to Group I, this year all matches were away. Do is this fair? :confused: How? :confused:

controlfreak
09-24-2006, 03:35 PM
I guess they would never get enough spectators if they tried to play the final at a neutral venue.

Action Jackson
09-24-2006, 03:36 PM
How can you say that this system is fair?

Apart of choice of the ground, this year we didn't see Portugal in home... :rolleyes:

Portugal was promote in last year to Group I, this year all matches were away. Do is this fair? :confused: How? :confused:

France won the DC in 2001 without playing a tie at home and they didn't bitch about it.

FaceyFacem
09-24-2006, 06:36 PM
France won the DC in 2001 without playing a tie at home and they didn't bitch about it.

italians won fed cup all on the road as well...

Action Jackson
09-24-2006, 07:01 PM
italians won fed cup all on the road as well...

www.wtaworld.com

RickDaStick
09-24-2006, 07:45 PM
I don't understand this :), even if USA wins in Russia (wjich is unlikely but still possible ) they will play against Aregtina in Argentina , so whoever wins these two ties (Australia already lost but it is not a point ) final would be played on the field of a Team which choose surface for semifinal(Russia or Aregentia will have right to choose surface two times in row), I think this rule must be changed !!, Why both teams could not choose surface ?? Home crowad is alone huge boost. So for example if USA want fast hard court or grass and Spain/Argentina wants slow clay they should choose fast clay(like in Rome ) or very slow harcourt (Rebound Ace or something ) I think it would be more fair and far more enterteining , beacuse matches like ARG/AUS are too much predictable and boring

I'd be willing to bet you weren't saying this when the USA put the Chileans on grass earlier this year.

darnyelb
09-24-2006, 07:47 PM
I would love to see one country have the balls to host the US team on a surface other than clay. Maybe it's been done recently, but no instance that I can remember.

Action Jackson
09-24-2006, 07:49 PM
I would love to see one country have the balls to host the US team on a surface other than clay. Maybe it's been done recently, but no instance that I can remember.

Stop whining. So the next time that say Argentina come to the US and play they should lay down a clay court?

Ivan, said it before. The American choose surfaces that suit their teams and or disadvantage the opposition. The perfect example is Chile,

Melvins
09-24-2006, 07:49 PM
France won the DC in 2001 without playing a tie at home and they didn't bitch about it.

:scratch: Oh, ok! With this point, this system is fair. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Action Jackson
09-24-2006, 07:53 PM
:scratch: Oh, ok! With this point, this system is fair. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Did they whine about it? The answer is no. The French in that year have more of a reason to bitch about it, but they didn't.

Look at Argentina, they have played the last 5 semis away from home, before this one against Australia. That's the way it goes.

There isn't a problem with the system, considering Portugal will be getting more home ties cause they played away previously. No neutral grounds would not work.

darnyelb
09-24-2006, 08:14 PM
Stop whining. So the next time that say Argentina come to the US and play they should lay down a clay court?

Ivan, said it before. The American choose surfaces that suit their teams and or disadvantage the opposition. The perfect example is Chile,

I don't think my comment was "whining." I have nothing against teams that employ the opposition's weakest surface - I'd do the same thing if I were coach, but I'd love to see a home team decide they want to win Davis Cup on a more neutral surface. Sorta takes the excitement out of the event when it's a foregone conclusion which team will take the tie/championship.

Norrage
09-24-2006, 08:40 PM
There are only a few countries that cant play on all services, and those are America, Sweden, England (although now with Murray....) and Australia (although Hewitt is ok on clay)....
All other countries are about as good on all surfaces if you ask me...Maybe you can doubt Spain on a surface like grass, but there hardly and countries that can host that...

Especially now we have more and more baseliners it begins to get more equal...Its just especially those Americans that keep whining about the surface...Just learn to play on clay....

Melvins
09-24-2006, 08:51 PM
Did they whine about it? The answer is no. The French in that year have more of a reason to bitch about it, but they didn't.

Look at Argentina, they have played the last 5 semis away from home, before this one against Australia. That's the way it goes.

There isn't a problem with the system, considering Portugal will be getting more home ties cause they played away previously. No neutral grounds would not work.

- Do you really thing a team that won all four matches in World Group in home is a fair champion? Better, this team is the best of the year?

- Do you thing that Nadal is better than Federer just because won all h2h matches in clay?

Melvins
09-24-2006, 08:55 PM
There are only a few countries that cant play on all services, and those are America, Sweden, England (although now with Murray....) and Australia (although Hewitt is ok on clay)....
All other countries are about as good on all surfaces if you ask me...Maybe you can doubt Spain on a surface like grass, but there hardly and countries that can host that...

Especially now we have more and more baseliners it begins to get more equal...Its just especially those Americans that keep whining about the surface...Just learn to play on clay....

What? :eek: :rolleyes:

Put Brazil, Chile, Spain, Italy, Argentina, ..., in grass against USA, Croatia, ...! :rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
09-24-2006, 08:56 PM
- Do you really thing a team that won all four matches in World Group in home is a fair champion? Better, this team is the best of the year?
- Do you thing that Nadal is better than Federer just because won all h2h matches in clay?

If you're playing all your matches as host, it means that you played a lot away before.
Davis Cup is really fair.

GlennMirnyi
09-24-2006, 09:02 PM
What? :eek: :rolleyes:

Put Brazil, Chile, Spain, Italy, Argentina, ..., in grass against USA, Croatia, ...! :rolleyes:

That guy has no clue. England is a zonal team, shouldn't even be mentioned.

These are examples of teams that are competitive on only one kind of surface:
Brazil - only clay
Spain - only clay
Italy - only clay
Argentina - only clay
Belarus - only carpet - fast surfaces
Chile - only clay

Here examples of teams that are competitive except on one kind of surface:
US - not clay
Australia - not clay
Sweden - not clay
Thailand - not clay

Those are examples, I'm not doing a thorough analysis of all teams.

Action Jackson
09-24-2006, 09:03 PM
- Do you really thing a team that won all four matches in World Group in home is a fair champion? Better, this team is the best of the year?

- Do you thing that Nadal is better than Federer just because won all h2h matches in clay?

Spain won in 2000 and they had all home ties, then France won it next year not playing at home. Russia won in 2002 away from home and they lost finals at home to the USA and Sweden.

Croatia won ties against the Yanks and the Slovaks away from home when they won it last year. If the team has enough depth and then they will do well.

The two best teams made the final this year and they won away ties. Got to win under all conditions and since you don't have an alternative and if you do, how would it compensate the various federations who make money out of DC and the ITF, if they don't have home ties?

Action Jackson
09-24-2006, 09:04 PM
That guy has no clue. England is a zonal team, shouldn't even be mentioned.

These are examples of teams that are competitive on only one kind of surface:
Brazil - only clay
Spain - only clay
Italy - only clay
Argentina - only clay
Belarus - only carpet - fast surfaces
Chile - only clay

Here examples of teams that are competitive except on one kind of surface:
US - not clay
Australia - not clay
Sweden - not clay
Thailand - not clay

Those are examples, I'm not doing a thorough analysis of all teams.

Chile are capable on hardcourts.

How does a team that can only play on clay win 4-1 on grass?

GlennMirnyi
09-24-2006, 09:10 PM
Chile are capable on hardcourts.

How does a team that can only play on clay win 4-1 on grass?

Argentina? Please, we all know that was like a passage of the Halley's Comet. Once in a 75-76 years it will happen again.

Action Jackson
09-24-2006, 09:12 PM
Argentina? Please, we all know that was like a passage of the Halley's Comet. Once in a 75-76 years it will happen again.

Did the do it? Yes, they did and no excuses. The Aussies got caught out.

Thanks.

Jimnik
09-24-2006, 09:14 PM
That guy has no clue. England is a zonal team, shouldn't even be mentioned.

These are examples of teams that are competitive on only one kind of surface:
Brazil - only clay
Spain - only clay
Italy - only clay
Argentina - only clay
Belarus - only carpet - fast surfaces
Chile - only clay

Here examples of teams that are competitive except on one kind of surface:
US - not clay
Australia - not clay
Sweden - not clay
Thailand - not clay

Those are examples, I'm not doing a thorough analysis of all teams.
Every team, without exception, has weaknesses. But it depends where you draw the line. Sweden, as we speak, are beating Brazil on clay. Last year, USA beat Belgium on clay.

Russia, Switzerland and (maybe) Argentina are the only teams that can compete with every team on every surface. But even these teams have weaknesses. Federer could beat every team on a fast surface. But if he can't beat Nadal on clay, would that be called weak?

GlennMirnyi
09-24-2006, 09:15 PM
Did the do it? Yes, they did and no excuses. The Aussies got caught out.

Thanks.

What's the great thing about winning something like that and then take a beating on a HC?

GlennMirnyi
09-24-2006, 09:16 PM
Every team, without exception, has weaknesses. But it depends where you draw the line. Sweden, as we speak, are beating Brazil on clay. Last year, USA beat Belgium on clay.

Russia, Switzerland and (maybe) Argentina are the only teams that can compete with every team on every surface. But even these teams have weaknesses. Federer could beat every team on a fast surface. But if he can't beat Nadal on clay, would that be called weak?

Brazil's team nowadays is beatable even by Belarus on clay. I speak being a Brazilian.

Action Jackson
09-24-2006, 09:17 PM
What's the great thing about winning something like that and then take a beating on a HC?

They weren't even supposed to get past the stage. I was at the match it was a beatdown. Why else do you think the Aussies played on grass? They thought guaranteed win and once could understand them.

The surface didn't beat them in Slovakia.

GlennMirnyi
09-24-2006, 09:19 PM
They weren't even supposed to get past the stage. I was at the match it was a beatdown. Why else do you think the Aussies played on grass? They thought guaranteed win and once could understand them.

The surface didn't beat them in Slovakia.

Who did it then? Beck and Mertinak?

Action Jackson
09-24-2006, 09:21 PM
Who did it then? Beck and Mertinak?

It's pretty simple they weren't good enough and if you tried not being hilariously biased for a rare time then it would be plain to see. Coria played like crap and got what he deserved and they couldn't win the doubles.

It's not hard to work out. If a team is good enough, then they will win, irrespective of where they play. It's not like splitting atoms.

GlennMirnyi
09-24-2006, 09:24 PM
It's pretty simple they weren't good enough and if you tried not being hilariously biased for a rare time then it would be plain to see. Coria played like crap and got what he deserved and they couldn't win the doubles.

It's not hard to work out. If a team is good enough, then they will win, irrespective of where they play. It's not like splitting atoms.

You're being biased now. Of course they wouldn't do good when Coria is playing on a fast surface. It would be like puttin' Voltchkov on clay. That's what I'm saying. The argies have not a #2 in fast surfaces.

Action Jackson
09-24-2006, 09:27 PM
You're being biased now. Of course they wouldn't do good when Coria is playing on a fast surface. It would be like puttin' Voltchkov on clay. That's what I'm saying. The argies have not a #2 in fast surfaces.

How am I being biased? Come on don't take the piss man.

I said they got what they deserved in Slovakia. I don't like Coria and never have, but he has made finals on all surfaces and you can check that out if you think I am making that up. Coria was #1 in that tie, that was the problem.

Sorry to disappoint you that Argentina have won ties away from home.

GlennMirnyi
09-24-2006, 09:37 PM
How am I being biased? Come on don't take the piss man.

I said they got what they deserved in Slovakia. I don't like Coria and never have, but he has made finals on all surfaces and you can check that out if you think I am making that up. Coria was #1 in that tie, that was the problem.

Sorry to disappoint you that Argentina have won ties away from home.

He was #1 because there was no other player to play in a faster surface besides Nalbandian.

Melvins
09-24-2006, 10:38 PM
If you're playing all your matches as host, it means that you played a lot away before.
Davis Cup is really fair.

:rolleyes:
Portugal played all 2006 ties away. Imagine that Portugal was relegate to Group II - Fair? You say: Next year play everytime in home and they'll promote to Group I again. I say: When they come back again to Group I, it's possible play again more two match away and be relegate. You say: bla bla. I say: bla bla :rolleyes:

Melvins
09-24-2006, 10:43 PM
Spain won in 2000 and they had all home ties, then France won it next year not playing at home. Russia won in 2002 away from home and they lost finals at home to the USA and Sweden.

Croatia won ties against the Yanks and the Slovaks away from home when they won it last year. If the team has enough depth and then they will do well.

The two best teams made the final this year and they won away ties. Got to win under all conditions and since you don't have an alternative and if you do, how would it compensate the various federations who make money out of DC and the ITF, if they don't have home ties?

Do you answer to my questions? :confused: (Questions of true or false)

Who are the two best teams? Russia and Argentina? Of course, they are the two best teams with this system. Do can you say with 50% of sure that Russia won if semis were played in hardcourts?

I said in a post of this thread I think that ITF can't change this system! ;) But don't tell me that this is a fair system.

ys
09-24-2006, 11:20 PM
Sometimes it is indeed a bit unfair, like when it happened few years ago when Spain first won it by playing all four home ties. But this year, it is really not that bad. Say, Russia has just played its first home tie of the year. So with final it will be 2 and 2. And the same will be for Argentina.

Broomie
09-25-2006, 04:33 AM
Who are the two best teams? Russia and Argentina? Of course, they are the two best teams with this system. Do can you say with 50% of sure that Russia won if semis were played in hardcourts?

I'm pretty sure that if this tie had been on HC russia chances to win still would have been approximately 50%. Clay just anniled some of american players strenght (power, serve...). But none of the players they aligned was a true claycourter: Safin, Tursunov and even Youzhny play better on fast surface.
Last time they played USA it was in America, so it is fair that they got to play home this time.
Why should it be played on a neutral surface? Players should know how to win whatever the surface.
That is why a team like Russia is difficult to host, because no matter the surface, you will never be a HUGE favorite. (unless you have fed or rafa with you :lol: ) France had a headache, just trying to choose which surface should they receive the russians on. Little did they know safin would be back. It was fair that they had the home court advantage since russia had it the previous time. I don't see what is so unfair about all this :confused:
And if portugal is not good enough to maintain in the world group so that it plays some matches home, blame the players not the system. Every team had to go through that to maintain...

Action Jackson
09-25-2006, 09:11 AM
Do you answer to my questions? :confused: (Questions of true or false)

Who are the two best teams? Russia and Argentina? Of course, they are the two best teams with this system. Do can you say with 50% of sure that Russia won if semis were played in hardcourts?

I said in a post of this thread I think that ITF can't change this system! ;) But don't tell me that this is a fair system.

I have answered your questions already. The system is the same for everyone and how can it be changed and even if it was it would be unfair as well cause of the reasons I mentioned earlier with the ITF.

This conversation is going nowhere. ys and myself have stated clear examples of what can happen, but you still whine about it. Russia 2 home times this year and Argentina 2 home times and it will be their 4th match.

Got to win under all conditions and that's the same for everyone or has that slipped your mind?

Melvins
09-25-2006, 03:33 PM
I'm pretty sure that if this tie had been on HC russia chances to win still would have been approximately 50%. Clay just anniled some of american players strenght (power, serve...). But none of the players they aligned was a true claycourter: Safin, Tursunov and even Youzhny play better on fast surface.
Last time they played USA it was in America, so it is fair that they got to play home this time.
Why should it be played on a neutral surface? Players should know how to win whatever the surface.
That is why a team like Russia is difficult to host, because no matter the surface, you will never be a HUGE favorite. (unless you have fed or rafa with you :lol: ) France had a headache, just trying to choose which surface should they receive the russians on. Little did they know safin would be back. It was fair that they had the home court advantage since russia had it the previous time. I don't see what is so unfair about all this :confused:
And if portugal is not good enough to maintain in the world group so that it plays some matches home, blame the players not the system. Every team had to go through that to maintain...

1st - I think that in a neutral ground and country USA has advantage over Russia now. Just see last US Open and rankings... :rolleyes:

2nd - If you had read all my posts, you know that I'm not against this system (at least that exist a better system) and all countries have same rules, so no advantage to any team. ;)

But you can tell that this is fair, because you can't tell that the Champion of Davis Cup was the best team of the year.

3rd - Portugal never was in World Group. Portugal played all matches away this year, but don't be relegate because won play-off in Morocco, so I don't need blame the system. :rolleyes:

TheBoiledEgg
09-25-2006, 03:50 PM
Did the do it? Yes, they did and no excuses. The Aussies got caught out.

Thanks.

that was a bit like GB losing at home to Ecuador on grass :rolls: :tape: :haha:
then the next time they went to Ecuador and won on clay :bolt: :eek:

TheBoiledEgg
09-25-2006, 03:54 PM
1st - I think that in a neutral ground and country USA has advantage over Russia now. Just see last US Open and rankings... :rolleyes:

2nd - If you had read all my posts, you know that I'm not against this system (at least that exist a better system) and all countries have same rules, so no advantage to any team. ;)

But you can tell that this is fair, because you can't tell that the Champion of Davis Cup was the best team of the year.

3rd - Portugal never was in World Group. Portugal played all matches away this year, but don't be relegate because won play-off in Morocco, so I don't need blame the system. :rolleyes:

there is no better system :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
just cos your team/country are useless doesnt mean the system fails..
get some good players.

Lee
09-25-2006, 04:42 PM
But you can tell that this is fair, because you can't tell that the Champion of Davis Cup was the best team of the year.


I don't know how you define the 'best team'? Base on the rankings of individual players?

DC is a 'team' game. Not an individual game in an ATP tournament. Compare the performance of Hewitt on clay when he played in DC ties vs ATP tournaments. Look at how Waske played for Germany this weekend. Same for the Croatia team last year. There are players raised their games when playing for their countries. And that's what 'team' stands for.

Moreover, a team can't only have ONE good player to carry the team all the way. Look at Switzerland, a team with the best player for the last 3 years but has the team even get close to a final?

If you looked back at last few years (I don't even ask for the history), every winning team has more than one player other than the country's #1 player to save the day.

2005 - Ancic
2004 - Moya
2003 - Philippoussis
2002 - Youzhny
2001 - Escude

Jimnik
09-25-2006, 04:48 PM
I don't know how you define the 'best team'? Base on the rankings of individual players?

DC is a 'team' game. Not an individual game in an ATP tournament. Compare the performance of Hewitt on clay when he played in DC ties vs ATP tournaments. Look at how Waske played for Germany this weekend. Same for the Croatia team last year. There are players raised their games when playing for their countries. And that's what 'team' stands for.

Moreover, a team can't only have ONE good player to carry the team all the way. Look at Switzerland, a team with the best player for the last 3 years but has the team even get close to a final?

If you looked back at last few years (I don't even ask for the history), every winning team has more than one player other than the country's #1 player to save the day.

2005 - Ancic
2004 - Moya
2003 - Philippoussis
2002 - Youzhny
2001 - Escude
I wouldn't agree with that. Ljubicic won the Davis Cup almost on his own, last year. Ancic only helped in the doubles.

Lee
09-25-2006, 04:53 PM
I wouldn't agree with that. Ljubicic won the Davis Cup almost on his own, last year. Ancic only helped in the doubles.

I do agree that's a little bit of stretch, but honestly, Ljubicic needs a good enough doubles player to win those important doubles, doesn't he? And if you look at Switzerland's example, Federer himself should be able to win all the ties and bring DC championship to his country, right?

And how about other champions?

Jimnik
09-25-2006, 05:40 PM
I do agree that's a little bit of stretch, but honestly, Ljubicic needs a good enough doubles player to win those important doubles, doesn't he? And if you look at Switzerland's example, Federer himself should be able to win all the ties and bring DC championship to his country, right?

And how about other champions?
I think Federer could win the Davis Cup for Switzerland. Him and Allegro would beat just as many doubles pairs as Ljubicic/Ancic and Wawrinka would provide adequate back-up.

It's a question of whether Federer is willing to commit to ties.

liptea
09-25-2006, 05:52 PM
I really don't have a huge problem with the system, except I think it might be more logical to have the teams alternate surface/location? So if Spain were playing at home, they'd play on grass. If Russia were playing in America, they'd play on clay. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Melvins
09-25-2006, 06:23 PM
I really don't have a huge problem with the system, except I think it might be more logical to have the teams alternate surface/location? So if Spain were playing at home, they'd play on grass. If Russia were playing in America, they'd play on clay. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Grass in Spain? :confused:

nobama
09-25-2006, 06:40 PM
I think Federer could win the Davis Cup for Switzerland. Him and Allegro would beat just as many doubles pairs as Ljubicic/Ancic and Wawrinka would provide adequate back-up.

It's a question of whether Federer is willing to commit to ties.And right now he seems more committed to GS than DC. If Wawrinka could step up it would help because maybe then they could win a tie without Roger and he could step in in the QF or SF.

liptea
09-25-2006, 08:02 PM
Grass in Spain? :confused:

well, clearly Spain wouldn't pick grass as their top surface. And they have courts that built in prep for their final against Australia. :)

Jimnik
09-25-2006, 11:00 PM
Grass in Spain? :confused:
I think Ferrero has grass courts at his academy.

partygirl
09-25-2006, 11:19 PM
I think if you have the home team choice of surface, it should have to be of quality -high quality...at least make it competitive.

I'm not bitter.:drink:

Lee
09-26-2006, 12:30 AM
I think Federer could win the Davis Cup for Switzerland. Him and Allegro would beat just as many doubles pairs as Ljubicic/Ancic and Wawrinka would provide adequate back-up.

It's a question of whether Federer is willing to commit to ties.

Federer partner up with other Swiss players in doubles and on a whole, not very successful. That further proved that you could not have one player to carry the whole team. And Federer did team up with Allegro vs France in 2004 QF and lost to a more experience doubles team (but ranking wise is not really outstanding) of Escude/Llorda.

Melvins
09-26-2006, 12:47 AM
I think Ferrero has grass courts at his academy.

Isn't artificial grass? :confused:

atheneglaukopis
09-26-2006, 12:49 AM
Isn't artificial grass? :confused:Like the stuff in Easter baskets? :lol:

GlennMirnyi
09-26-2006, 12:58 AM
Federer partner up with other Swiss players in doubles and on a whole, not very successful. That further proved that you could not have one player to carry the whole team. And Federer did team up with Allegro vs France in 2004 QF and lost to a more experience doubles team (but ranking wise is not really outstanding) of Escude/Llorda.

Hasn't Llodra won the doubles MC last year with Santoro?

ys
09-26-2006, 01:18 AM
Last time they played USA it was in America


Still remember that match when Zhenya schooled both Agassi and Courier, and Courier needed all his oncourt antics to unsttle 18yo Safin who was blowing him off the court otherwise..

Lee
09-26-2006, 02:43 AM
Hasn't Llodra won the doubles MC last year with Santoro?

He won with Santoro but not with Escude. Llodra's best doubles results are with Santoro and with some success with Clement but not with Escude.

Melvins
09-26-2006, 02:58 AM
Hasn't Llodra won the doubles MC last year with Santoro?

Santoro + France's Captain = :boxing:

Melvins
09-26-2006, 03:03 AM
Like the stuff in Easter baskets? :lol:

I don't know what you're talking! :confused:

But, in Portugal, no one real grass court, only artificial grass. But artificial grass's game is very different, not like real grass.

I'll be real surprise if Spain has real grass courts. They say that grass is for cows. Spain = Clay. Even hardcourts aren't much.

JW10S
09-26-2006, 03:14 AM
I don't get what all the fuss is about. In every team sport in the world there is the element of the home team vs. the away team. The home team always has an advantage in every sport--thus the term 'home team advantage'. How the away team deals with the environment of the home team is a compelling aspect of team sports. The system is fair as the US will not have to play on clay in Russia 2 times in a row just as Australia will not have to play Argentina 2 times in a row on clay in Argentina. Yes there may be a year when a team has to play all their matches away. That will be evened as they may also get a year where they play all their matches at home. Who and where they play depends on who wins in the previous round. It is all a matter of chance. There is no conspiracy. The system is fair as is.

atheneglaukopis
09-26-2006, 03:56 AM
I don't know what you're talking! :confused: It is a custom in the States--about other countries I don't know--to give children baskets filled with candy and sometimes toys on Easter, and these baskets always have strips of translucent green plastic at the bottom to simulate grass. It is utterly useless to customers except to make the basket look like spring, cleaning it up to throw it out is the bane of all mothers, and I imagine it will biodegrade only when the sun supernovas and consumes the Earth, but they continue to pad baskets with it because it makes the basket look fuller.

Lee
09-26-2006, 04:01 AM
It is a custom in the States--about other countries I don't know--to give children baskets filled with candy and sometimes toys on Easter, and these baskets always have strips of translucent green plastic at the bottom to simulate grass. It is utterly useless to customers except to make the basket look like spring, cleaning it up to throw it out is the bane of all mothers, and I imagine it will biodegrade only when the sun supernovas and consumes the Earth, but they continue to pad baskets with it because it makes the basket look fuller.

I believe those are green cellophane went through a paper shredder. :lol:

atheneglaukopis
09-26-2006, 04:05 AM
I believe those are green cellophane went through a paper shredder. :lol:So, to bring this back on topic, how do we think the Spaniards would adapt to such a surface? ;)

Lee
09-26-2006, 04:07 AM
So, to bring this back on topic, how do we think the Spaniards would adapt to such a surface? ;)

They are as slippy so no problem for the Spaniards as they can slip and slide all like they are on clay ;) :lol:

Seriously, I never run/play on any artificial grass court/field so I have no idea and I'm not sure ITF ok this kind of surface.

JW10S
09-26-2006, 04:28 AM
I've played on artificial grass courts. It is nothing like what you'd find in an Easter basket. The speed of the court can be greatly altered by adding sand to the court. It can play very slow but otherwise is nowhere near as fast as real grass. I cannot remember an ATP, WTA or ITF event that has been played on synthetic grass. So the discussion is moot one.

atheneglaukopis
09-26-2006, 04:35 AM
I've played on artificial grass courts. It is nothing like what you'd find in an Easter basket. The speed of the court can be greatly altered by adding sand to the court. It can play very slow but otherwise is nowhere near as fast as real grass. I cannot remember an ATP, WTA or ITF event that has been played on synthetic grass. So the discussion is moot one.I realize that it's nothiing like Easter basket grass. I was just playing around because it's a funny image. :lol: Anyway, thanks for the info on real artificial grass.

Action Jackson
09-26-2006, 04:46 AM
Artificial grass is crap and should be ripped up at any given opportunity.

In Australia where there is a lot of artificial grass courts, funding will be cut to sport centres that install it.

liptea
09-26-2006, 05:22 AM
ok, so what if the ITF had to inspect courts to make sure that the home court wasn't skewing the surface to their advantage? then would it make sense to have the team that was playing away pick the surface?

Melvins
09-26-2006, 02:27 PM
I think Ferrero has grass courts at his academy.

It's artificial grass.

www.equelite.com

Melvins
09-28-2006, 03:40 PM
Portugal will play 2nd year away.

2006
Luxembourg 4-1 Portugal
Morocco 2-3 Portugal

2007
Georgia vs Portugal
If wins...
Serbia vs Portugal
If lost...
Netherlands vs Portugal (no hope in Great Britain loose)

Only if Portugal wins in Georgia and Serbia exist a possibility of play World Group Play-off in home. Or Great Britain lost in home to Netherlands.:rolleyes: