For the sake of the fans, Davis Cup should retain its format

The ITF is planning a major overhaul of the Davis Cup with the backing of the investment group Kosmos, founded by the soccer star Gerard Piqué. In a 25-year, $3 billion partnership with Kosmos, the Davis Cup World Group would abandon its current format in favor of a seven-day season-ending World Cup of Tennis event, played at a neutral venue with 18 teams. The zone group competition would continue with the current format of home and away ties.

Home and away ties have been the identity of the Davis Cup. The home crowds have created a unique atmosphere for the Davis Cup ties, and those ties have been an opportunity for fans in countries without big tournaments to see their favorites playing important matches against some of the best players in the world.

However, the Davis Cup has been lacking the participation of the big names of the game. Despite the great heritage of the tournament, it has not been among the top priorities of the players. Surface changes, distant locations, scheduling issues, and lack of capable teammates have led to infrequent participation by top players and some former champions. Though rising stars of the game, like Nick Kyrgios and David Goffin, have shown commitment to the Davis Cup as they are still to win the title.

Better scheduling, reinstating ranking points, and even introducing individual prize money could have been solutions to make the Davis Cup more attractive to players without changing the format. Though scheduling and awarding points is up to another organization, the ATP, while a modest prize money might not be enough to attract the biggest stars of the game.

A switch to a single-week, neutral-venue format might help to attract the big names joining their national teams for the event, although the week after the Nitto ATP Finals creates scheduling difficulties. Another thing is if the World Cup of Tennis made the Davis Cup a better event.

If the World Cup format led to a frequent participation of the big names, it could boost the TV ratings. As big as the Davis Cup ties can be in the participating countries, the casual fans around the world want to see the biggest stars of the game.

However, even the greatest participation of star players wouldn't necessarily guarantee seeing them in the final. A France-Belgium final at a neutral venue would hardly interest the casual fans outside those countries any more than last year's final did, except that the neutral venue won't have the passionate fans of the local team.

If the atmosphere reminiscent of soccer matches has made the Davis Cup a unique event in the tennis schedule, you can't expect the same at a neutral venue. Singapore is believed to be the likely host for the first editions of the World Cup format tournaments. It is hard to see legions of fans arriving there from overseas when you can't even know if and when your favorite team is playing after the round robin. It will likely be your typical Asian tennis crowd for the event without the passion of the home crowd that you can expect with the current format.

You can't compare the proposed World Cup of Tennis with the FIFA World Cup. Yes, fans travel even to the other side of the world to cheer for their favorite soccer team. But the FIFA World Cup takes place only every four years, making each edition more special. And the World Cup is the biggest event in soccer, the Davis Cup isn't that in tennis, no matter what format it uses. And soccer is a team sport, tennis is primarily an individual sport.

It would be a pity to lose the current Davis Cup format which is something unique in tennis. I'm not convinced the single-week format would take the public interest in the Davis Cup to a greater level. If anything, the event would lose its best selling point, your national team playing on the home soil.

It's up to the ITF annual general meeting to accept or reject this proposal with a two-thirds majority needed for the overhaul of the Davis Cup. It would surely be hard to reject a 25-year, $3 billion investment into the sport, though André Stein, the president of the Belgian Tennis Federation, has already said he will vote against the proposal and he thinks a lot of the European federations will do the same.

For the sake of tradition and fans, I hope the World Cup proposal gets rejected and the Davis Cup retains its current format. Once the past decade's top players have retired, a new generation will take the attention. And their pursue of the Davis Cup can take the event to a greater level, regardless of the format.

Laver Cup is no replacement for Davis Cup

The inaugural Laver Cup has got a mixed reception. The points system where Friday's matches have little importance to keep the Cup open until Sunday makes the event look like an exhibition, and the disparity between the Team Europe and the Team World didn't make it look very exciting. Despite that it has been a competitive event as opposed to an exhibition and it has featured a field of a high quality.

The way I see the Laver Cup it's an all-star event for men's tennis but not a World Cup. The Davis Cup is the World Cup but it's in a crisis.

There are so many great things in the Davis Cup. I like how it rewards quality over quantity. No matter how many top-100 players your country produces, you can choose only four players into the team. You can succeed even with an effectively two-player team, like Switzerland when Roger Federer and Stan Wawrinka play both singles and doubles.

The Davis Cup also has the atmosphere of team sports because each tie has a home team and an away team. There is lots of variety in surfaces as the home team tries to choose a favorable surface. It is the only event outside the Grand Slam tournaments and the Olympic final to feature the best-of-five format. The fifth rubbers are special matches, often the biggest matches in the career of those nations' No. 2 ranked players. And the Davis Cup is one of those rare events where the top singles players play in doubles.

Yet the lack of big names is the problem of the Davis Cup. Given the heavy schedule of the ATP World Tour, the early rounds of the Davis Cup are not high in the priorities of the big names.

There have been proposals to change the format of the Davis Cup to make it more attractive for players. The ITF's board's proposal to make the singles rubbers best-of-three, yet the annual general meeting voted against it. I don't think the best-of-five format is such a big problem in the Davis Cup; the calendar slots and the surface transitions are bigger problems.

There have also been proposals for a neutral venue for a Davis Cup tournament. I am not a huge fan of that idea. If the Davis Cup was condensed to a one-week event, best-of-five would probably be gone, ties might be only three-rubbers like in the Hopman Cup, and the event would lose the atmosphere of a home team facing an away team. Even if all the big names participated in the Davis Cup at a neutral venue, the final might still feature none of the biggest names. That would be hard to sell unless one of the final teams would be playing in their home country.

What I think the Davis Cup needs is better scheduling. There are four months between the Australian Open and the French Open; that should be enough for the first two rounds of the Davis Cup without needing to schedule the first round for the week after the Australian Open. Give players some time after the major events before a Davis Cup tie and a possible surface transition. The semifinals after the US Open or the final after the ATP Finals aren't quite as bad as players don't want to miss those ties. Though some big names were missing from the World Group playoffs after the US Open, especially as the Laver Cup was only a week away.

I would also reinstate the ranking points for the World Group. Playing in the Davis Cup is away from playing elsewhere; the ranking points would make it more worthwhile to play in the Davis Cup. Those players who didn't make the Davis Cup team can't score points that week, though they have the advantage of getting an off week from the tour. Very much the only problem with the World Group ranking points is that players from countries in the lower groups can't score points even if they play in the Davis Cup.

Individual prize money is my third idea to make the Davis Cup more attractive. While individual prize money goes against the ideals of playing for your country, it may be needed to make the Davis Cup more attractive. If you don't play in the Davis Cup, you can probably play more tournaments and earn prize money and gain ranking points there. The Davis Cup needs points and individual prize money to remain attractive for players.

Time will tell if the Laver Cup becomes a fixture in the tennis calendar. The Laver Cup surely features two great teams of players, though fans don't cheer for their home continents like the cheer for their home countries. The Laver Cup is the all-star event of men's tennis, the Davis Cup is the World Cup. Even if the Laver Cup becomes a success, the traditions of the 117-year old Davis Cup need to be honored and protected.

Is the ATP schedule too taxing?

The ATP World Tour continues next week with a Masters 1000 tournament in Montreal. Of the top six in the ATP ranking, four players will be missing from Montreal. Of those, Stan Wawrinka and Novak Djokovic will be aside for the rest of the season.

Wawrinka and Djokovic are in a similar situation as Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal last year as those missed the US Open and the rest of the season. Yet this year, those two have swept the Grand Slam titles and Nadal, followed by Federer, leads the Race to London ranking.

At the age of 35, Federer needs smart scheduling to allow his body more years on the top of the game. This year he skipped the entire clay season, including the French Open, to be fresh for the grass season. That worked for him as he won the record eighth Wimbledon title. Yet the cost of missing the clay season was three zero-pointers for his ranking.

Tennis has a short offseason. The season ends in late November and the new season begins at the beginning of January with the Australian Open starting in the third week of the season. In that one month of offseason, players play in the IPTL and exhibitions.

Once the season has started, it is hard for the players to have a longer break from the tour without compromising their ranking. February and April are the only months without mandatory events. As most of the Masters 1000s are back-to-back events, it's hard to have a longer break from the tour without multiple zero-pointers for the ranking.

I think the ATP World Tour schedule is too taxing for the players. The rankings should show who can play the best, not who can play the most. I would give the players more freedom in making their schedules and reduce the number of mandatory tournaments. Most top players would probably still play the Masters 1000s in Montreal and Cincinnati as a preparation for the US Open even if those were not mandatory.

I'd leave only the Grand Slam tournaments and some selected Masters 1000s as mandatory events. Indian Wells is a special Masters 1000 event. It's not preceding a bigger tournament, instead it's over a month after the Australian Open and over two months before the French Open. Given it's considered to be the biggest non-major, it could be mandatory. The following Masters 1000 event in Miami gets overshadowed by Indian Wells and I don't think it should be mandatory. Shanghai is another Masters 1000 I think should be mandatory. It may have the shortest history but is important for the ATP to attract new fans in Asia.

Making most of the Masters 1000s non-mandatory wouldn't probably change players' schedules a lot, players would still play them to prepare for the following Grand Slam tournaments. In addition to reducing mandatory events, I think the season needs to allow a longer offseason. Apart from the ranking points available, the European late-season indoor events serve little purpose. I think the ATP Finals could take place right after the Shanghai Masters 1000. As the season would be shorter, the number of tournaments included in the ranking should be reduced by one or two from the current 18.

Davis Cup suffers from the heavy season

The Davis Cup suffers from the absence of star players, especially in the early rounds. In a season that takes players to their physical limits, the star players are not particularly willing to play anything additional, possibly involving a transition to another surface for a single weekend and traveling to another continent.

The ITF Board proposed a switch from best-of-five to best-of-three in Davis Cup singles. The proposal got the support from the majority in the ITF annual general meeting but not the required majority of two thirds. However, the AGM gave the Board the authority to change the Davis Cup format without AGM voting. So the Davis Cup may still eventually become best-of-three in singles.

One must not underestimate the physical demands of Davis Cup ties. A Davis Cup tie with best-of-five singles means six to ten sets in singles, comparable to three or four best-of-three matches. Add to that possibly playing a best-of-five doubles match. A Davis Cup tie is comparable to playing a regular tournament, and away from playing elsewhere. But even with best-of-three singles, a Davis Cup tie would still be away from playing elsewhere. And you can't play more than your body allows to.

I doubt a change from best-of-five to best-of-three would bring the big names into Davis Cup ties. The traveling and the surface transitions are the problem. To make the Davis Cup flourish again, the ITF and the ATP need to find weeks where the ties are not too close to important tournaments. That's important especially for the early rounds; the chance of the title motivates the players more in the semifinal and final stages.

I'd also re-introduce the ranking points for the Davis Cup World Group. Winning two singles rubbers is comparable to making the semifinals or the final in a 250- or 500-point tournament, it should also be rewarded respectively. That was very much the case with the points system from 2009 to 2015 when there were 80 to 275 points available in World Group ties depending on the round.

2014 Davis Cup Final preview

The ATP World Tour Finals last week were a big disappointment with predictable results, slow surface not providing attractive tennis, and the final being a walkover. But there is still one big event of 2014 left, the Davis Cup Final which will hopefully be more interesting. France will be hosting Switzerland on indoor clay. Until last Saturday, I would've said everything looks fine for Switzerland. Federer was playing excellent tennis and Wawrinka had found his lost form. But Federer has injured his back and there are reports about Federer and Wawrinka having had some conflict after the Tour Finals semifinal. For sure those controversies don't do good for the team spirit but I am even more worried about Federer's back. Without Federer, it would be hard for Switzerand to get the needed three points.

As for France, Tsonga seems like an obvious choice for singles. The other singles player could be the French No. 2 Gael Monfils but they could also pick Richard Gasquet who played well in the Davis Cup semifinal on clay. France will probably need a singles player also in doubles. Tsonga/Gasquet won the doubles rubber in the semifinal so they might be the best option. But if they want to rest either of these, they might pick Benneteau to doubles.

Switzerland has also a dilemma around doubles. Whether to play with Federer/Wawrinka or rest Federer and play with Chiudinelli/Wawrinka, like in the semifinal? Or even rest both Federer and Wawrinka and play with Chiudinelli/Lammer like on the first round? Switzerland have better chances in singles, so resting makes sense but is risky if they aren't 2-0 after Friday.

The first day looks like it will be Monfils or Gasquet vs. Federer and Tsonga vs. Wawrinka. Assuming Federer's back is OK, he should win. The other match can be trickier to predict. Wawrinka should be the favourite but Tsonga seems like the better player under pressure. Given Wawrinka's promising form at the Tour Finals, I give this to Stan, but Jo can be just as good as Stan.

Doubles is hard to predict. Federer/Wawrinka can be a good team but France should have a good team, too. If Federer or Wawrinka rests, then I give this to France.

The final day seems like it is Tsonga vs. Federer and Monfils or Gasquet vs. Wawrinka. On paper, that should be two points for Switzerland but with Wawrinka's fluctuations in form, you never know. Tsonga is a player who has beaten Federer on clay but Federer is the favourite. If France want to win the title, they had better lead before Sunday.

My prediction is that Federer will finish it for Switzerland in the fourth rubber. But if he isn't healthy, then France will win.