* !102749417
*
by Pete Bodo
Afternoon, everyone. Two of the Davis Cup World Group quarterfinal ties are over as I write this, and as is often the case in Davis Cup, what looked like a crippled weekend has opened with some results that might cause you to spill coffee all over your keyboard. Gael Monfils over David Ferrer, No. 2 on the ATP "matches won" list? Michael Llodra over Fernando Verdasco? David Nalbandian over Nikolay Davydenko—Whhaaaaaat?
Yep, that David Nalbandian. The guy who hasn't played an official match since mid-April. World No. 153 Nalbandian, the guy with the Budweiser (or Argentine equivalent thereof) front porch. Nalbandian pommeled Russia's Davydenko (ATP No. 6), 6-4, 7-6, 7-6 to open this round with a mighty blast that reaffirms the old maxim: Never, ever, take anything for granted in Davis Cup.
Doesn't that alone make Davis Cup an event to cherish?
And Nalbandian did it as a visitor in Moscow, on a court chosen by the host Russians.
I wrote about the nature of this crippled weekend over at ESPN today, although for some reason the post isn't up yet. But here's the short version: I suggested that while the weekend may be short on conventional drama, what with some key participants (including Rafael Nadal and Tomas Berdych, opponents in the Wimbledon final less than a week ago) choosing to sit this one out, it also serves as a good prism through which to view the Davis Cup, warts and all.
Most of you know that I'm a proud Davis Cup nut, but over the last year or so I've been pulled toward the reform camp. That is, I've been more open to the idea that the International Tennis Federation ought to tweak the format to make it more appealing to the players. But let's not overstate the case, as so many reformers do. It isn't like the ATP rank-and-file is down on Davis Cup. The main problem is that Davis Cup tends to lose its allure for those higher up in the food chain. Every great player of this generation has played Davis Cup, and a few of them (Nadal, Andy Roddick and Davydenko) have been on teams that won the whole shooting match.
How often have you heard the complaint, Roger Federer doesn't play Davis Cup! Well, Federer has a 37-11 Davis Cup record. Davis Cup is a career-long option and opportunity (or, for some, annoyance), which some critics ought to keep in mind when this or that top star decides to take a hiatus. Nobody played Davis Cup with as much heart and soul as Roddick, and he's also taken a pass this year. That's bad news for the USA Davis Cup squad, but I can hear the minds whirring down in Colombia, where the USA next plays in the playoff round, hoping to remain up in the World Group.
The frequent lack of participation by the very top players has an upside. Just ask the French, who just put the defending champs Spain in a nasty spot (down 0-2 in this best-of-five match format). Oh, sure, Nadal isn't playing. So what? The world goes right on spinning and I imagine those French fans at the Spain vs. France tie (in Clemont-Ferrand, France) aren't thinking about Nadal, even if the Spanish are. On paper, Spain looked the better team, even without Rafa.
Over the past few months, I've talked about the "Davis Cup problem" with plenty of tennis' wise men, including Patrick McEnroe (the captain of the USA team) and his pal and ESPN booth-mate, Cliff Drysdale. I think there's momentum building for Davis Cup reform. Two of the more intriguing ideas I've heard bandied about are deliciously ironic, in that they don't represent some logical next step forward, but a retreat to the past—and a reminder of that old maxim, If it ain't broke, don't fix it...
One of these ideas is a return to zonal competition, even if we preserve the "new" (since 1981) World Group approach. Zonal play, which would organize the Davis Cup nations by region, would eliminate one of the great complaints stressed-out player make about Davis Cup - the hardships imposed by having to travel halfway around the world to play ties when it's least convenient (this week is a great example. Had Berdych decided to play, he would have to have traveled directly from London to Chile with no rest at all).
Imagine if Argentine could played Chile (instead of Russia, in Moscow) this week, or the Czechs could have played the Russians, instead of having to go to Chile. It certainly would have made the players lives easier, without impacting the integrity or unique nature of the competition.
I won't go into the details, but people have worked out schemes in which zonal play as a precursor to the finals would be doable.
!102745354 Then there's that abandoned "Challenge Round." The Davis Cup champion used to be like the heavyweight boxing champ - he/they sat out the competition of the following year, waiting for a final-round challenger to materialize from the inter-zonal semifinals. There's a lot to be said for that approach, since most Davis Cup powers (Spain is a good example) have a blue-chip player (Nadal) available. Spain may lose—its almost a done deal as I write this—this week, but it will lose without the services of its best player. Now, does anyone doubt that Nadal would commit to playing for Spain in a final if the Challenge Round system were in effect?
Another good reason to return to the Challenge Round has to do with the debate over whether the Davis Cup ought to be an annual event, or more like those quadrennial or biennial international competitions. With the Challenge Round, an annual competition remains more viable. One of the great flaws of Davis Cup has been that the winning team can be out of the competition two months after they've spent a year securing the Cup. But a return to the Challenge Round would solves that problem, and thereby makes an annual Davis Cup competition seem more viable.
The Challenge Round opens the door to many other possibilities, including reducing the four week Davis Cup commitment (for at least the two finalists) to a three-week one. And it would be especially manageable if the semis and final were played at one site, perhaps on the turf of the holder. Sure, Spain with Nadal could win the Cup 10 times in a row on red Spanish soil. But that sort of success rate hasn't hurt the New York Yankees, nor those Michael Jordan Chicago Bulls, right?
If the Challenge Round/zonal play approaches were re-thought and re-instituted, some squads might have to play as much and perhaps even more than they do now, in order to fight their way into the upper echelon. But that's fine. The only teams that are punished under the present format are the best ones, or the ones in nations that happen to have a great player.
You can ask the Spanish about that tonight. Or the Swiss, most anytime these days.