If you can’t understand why Davis Cup is such a popular competition everywhere but in the U.S., and why most of the grandiose plans to reformat it (mostly to accommodate disgruntled U.S. television executives and big stars who don’t like all the travel built into the current system) are stoopid, look no further than the past week. Here are some of the highlights: In a moving, historic and delightful story, the Cup final will be contested between two nations that have never been in a final before—not because they didn’t have tennis players, but because they weren’t even nations until just a few years ago.
You like rooting for the underdog (like all those phony fan-for-a-day types who descend on the U.S. Open)? You like feel-good stories? Start feeling this one: Slovakia is just 12 years old as a nation and it has a population of 5.4 million—about two-thirds that of the City of New York. Croatia has been playing Davis Cup since 1993, after the breakup of Yugoslavia.
Slovakia and Croatia get to face off because they upset Argentina and Russia, respectively. One of the key elements in each win was home ground advantage—real-world meaning: choice of surface. It was more of a factor in the Croatia-Russia tie, in which the fast indoor carpet clearly favored the Croatian bomb squad, Mario Ancic and Ivan Ljubicic. The key in both ties was the doubles (see also the post below "Dude—It’s, Like, a Buck Hunt"), which tipped the scales for the winners.
The ITF home page has a nice wrap (it’s a PDF, so you’re on your own) of all the action in its "This Week" feature, but note the almost giddy, child-like joy expressed by the Slovaks, who decided to shave their heads in a fit of solidarity and youthful exuberance.
I don’t know of too many other international sports where small nations can stay in the hunt for as long, or as often, as they do in Davis Cup (it happens sometimes in World Cup soccer, too). In that regard, the growth of tennis worldwide has been an enormous boon and Davis Cup has flourished everywhere but in the U.S., where the sports editors in the mainstream media continue to bury the event—as much out of myopia and prejudice as “news-value judgment.”
Once upon a time, the best you could expect from a small nation was one world-class player, and perhaps two or three borderline ones. Now, nearly any nation with a Top 20 player (meaning a guy capable of beating anyone on a given day, especially on his preferred surface, before an inspiring home crowd) has a legitimate shot at winning the Davis Cup, because most nations with a Top 20 guy also have a few other guys lurking in the Top 100.
This geopolitical shift ("expansion" is more accurate) has served to make choice-of-ground a more critical—and ingenious—feature of Davis Cup than it ever has been before. In case you don’t know, it works like this: Nations alternate the role of host. If Slovakia was host the last time it played Croatia, then next time Croatia is host.
The most important advantage of being host is that it gives you choice of site and surface. So imagine the pride the Slovaks will feel, hosting the Davis Cup at their own National Tennis Center—and how they’ll chortle and rub their hands together when they install slow clay courts to blunt the Croatians’ firepower. Kind of makes up for that puny 5.4 million population, doesn’t it?
I’m really happy for Slovak captain Miloslav Mecir, the “Big Cat,” whose own career as a pro was cut short by a back injury.
And so what if the Davis Cup final between Slovakia and Croatia is not going to make the ESPN guys start thinking about how to get their transmission trucks over to Bratislava? This is a great story and a great testament to the integrity and value of Davis Cup. The only thing wrong with the competition is that the U.S. audience (including television and marketing executives) doesn’t appreciate it.
The zaniness, controversy, and color that choice-of-site/surface sometimes triggers isn't just the icing on the cake. It isthe cake, and any format that would eliminate it is unacceptable.