The recent Tennis Channel Open in Las Vegas was a week to remember for former world No. 1 Lleyton Hewitt, who played the game with renewed vigor to win his first tournament since Queen’s Club last summer. The former world No. 1 displayed his old point playing prowess and unwavering intensity.
Unfortunately, the revitalized Hewitt was not the biggest story of the week. His triumph was overshadowed in many ways by the failure of the round robin system to function effectively. Here is what happened. Defending champion James Blake—the man who had ousted Hewitt in the 2006 championship match--- had lost his opening round robin clash to the Russian Evgeny Korolev. He then needed to beat Argentina’s Juan Martin del Petro decisively to stand a chance of surviving the round robin cut and reaching the quarterfinals. Tournament officials projected that Blake could afford to lose no more than five or six games against del Petro, or else he would be out of the tournament.
Blake was well on his way to recording the required clear cut victory. He led 6-1, 3-1. But del Petro was having respiratory problems. He retired at that point. Blake was initially told by ATP Tour officials that he was out of the tournament, but then ATP Chairman and President Etienne de Villiers stepped in. He ruled that Blake should advance, basing his judgment on the fact that Blake was so close to winning, understandably wanting to end an awkward situation with fairness and justice. That was late Thursday evening.
On Friday morning, however, Blake was informed by ATP Tour officials that he was, in fact, eliminated from the event. De Villiers had inadvertently overstepped his authority and made an incorrect ruling. An incomplete match is not allowed to count for a player who retires before the end of a match. Had Del Petro remained on court, gone through the motions and played three more games, Blake would have moved on. But he was strangely penalized by the rules. Therefore, tour officials had acted to stand by procedure and reinstate Korolev as the winner of that round robin group. The matter was finally settled. De Villiers apologized for his role on adding the confusion. Korolev made it to the semifinals and lost to Jurgen Melzer, who then bowed to Hewitt in the final.
The game was dealt a heavy blow by how this all unfolded. It was not professional. The round robin may have been a noble experiment, but the players will never have any faith in that format again. At the year-end Tennis Masters Cup (formerly known at the ATP World Championships and The Masters) the top eight players all fight it out in a round robin format featuring two groups of four players, with the top two men from each group advancing to the semifinals.
By and large, that has worked out reasonably well despite sporadic problems with player injuries and "dead rubbers" where players have no incentive to go full out in their final round robin showdowns. In one remarkable case--- a few years before the advent of a point penalty system--- Arthur Ashe faced Ilie Nastase in Stockholm. In that 1975 clash--- the opening round robin contest for both players---Ashe led 4-1,15-40 in the final set. Nastase kept stalling and calling out, " Are you ready Mr. Ashe?" The normally imperturbable Ashe ran out of patience. He walked off the court, carrying out what he later called a "citizens arrest". Tournament officials met and decided to award Ashe the victory, recognizing that the umpire had not properly clamped down on Nastase. Ironically, Nastase recouped to win his next two matches and won the tournament over Bjorn Borg.
In the case of the Tennis Masters Cup, the round robin is worthwhile. It guarantees some sparkling matchups among the top players. The players and public can follow the proceedings relatively easily. I hope it stays that way for that significant event. But round robin is not going to last as an alternative to single elimination play for the rest of the year in tournaments. The Las Vegas incident demonstrated that there are inherent flaws in the format. Leading players--- most notably world No. 1 Roger Federer--- have never been in favor of the experiment. And now there will be a rising tide of players speaking out against round robin competition.
The hope here is that this experiment will be quickly discarded. The ATP wanted to give the round robin a chance at scattered events across the season, but it is time for the authorities to revisit the issue and go back to tradition. The game benefits by the high drama of a player knowing there are no second chances. Once he loses a match in a tournament, he is gone. It is as simple as that.
The above
article was taken from Steve's BLOG, posted
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Why Davis Cup Must
Be Changed
The opening round of the 2007 Davis Cup this past weekend was intriguing across the board. Andy Roddick and the Bryan brothers led the U.S. past the Czech Republic and the imposing Tomas Berdych on clay, which was no mean feat. Russia held back Chile. Germany toppled Croatia. France and Sweden advanced. It was fun to follow it all on the Davis Cup web site as the results unfolded.
But there was one
major clash between
nations that did not
live up to
expectations, and
did not even come
close to what many
anticipated. That,
of course, was the
battle between Spain
and Switzerland.
When those two
countries were drawn
to play each other,
everyone relished
the thought of a
Sunday afternoon
collision featuring
the game’s two best
players. What could
possibly surpass
Roger Federer facing
Rafael Nadal in the
opening round of the
Davis Cup?
It was not to be.
Federer chose not to
represent his nation
and Nadal was
injured and did not
compete. Spain
stopped Switzerland
3-2. And now the
critics will blame
Federer for not
making the journey
to Palexpo,
Switzerland. They
will say he should
have been there for
his country. They
will contend that he
owed it to
Switzerland to give
them the benefit of
his talent and big
match temperament.
They will claim that
it is up to every
leading player to
make himself
available any time
his nation calls.
I will not join the
critics. Federer had
every right to not
play Davis Cup. Why?
Because the
scheduling of the
event is ludicrous.
How can you ask the
world No. 1 to be
ready to perform at
peak level less than
two weeks after
capturing the
season’s first Grand
Slam event in
Melbourne? Federer
has a serious chance
this year at the
height of his powers
to become the first
man since Rod Laver
in 1969 to win the
Grand Slam. The key
to his 2006
campaign--- when he
made it to all four
major finals and won
three of the premier
prizes--- was pacing
himself superbly.
In 2006, he played
17 tournaments and
won 12 of them. He
played 97 matches,
which is an awful
lot of tennis in one
year. But whenever
he sensed he might
be overtaxing
himself, he wisely
stepped aside. After
losing a marathon
five set final to
Nadal at the Italian
Open that lasted
over five hours, he
did not fulfill his
commitment to the
next Masters Series
event in Hamburg. He
had no other choice.
Later in the year---
after winning back
to back tournaments
indoors in Madrid
and Basel--- he
pulled out of the
Paris Masters Series
tournament to avoid
playing three weeks
in a row.
I am sure his
thinking was much
the same this time
around with Davis
Cup. He has a
demanding year ahead
of him and needs to
make certain to be
fresh and fit for
all of the Grand
Slam events. To play
Davis Cup so soon
after Australia
would have been
foolish. Like all
top players, Federer
has to pick and
choose his
commitments very
carefully. He made
the best possible
decision when he
elected not to
represent
Switzerland this
time around. Had
there been an extra
week or two to
recover from the
campaign "Down
Under", Federer
might well have been
there for his
nation.
In the 1990’s, when
Pete Sampras and
Andre Agassi were at
and near the top of
the rankings, there
were times when they
played Davis Cup.
But in other cases,
they chose not to do
it. I felt then---
and still do--- that
they were fully
justified not to
play. They were
looking after
themselves. Federer
is doing the same
thing now. This is,
after all, an
individual sport.
The players enjoy
the team spirit that
develops when they
join forces in Davis
Cup competition, but
the year is too
crowded for them to
do everything that
is asked of them.
That is an
impossible task.
So don’t blame Roger
Federer; blame the
schedule. It is time
for the powers that
be to rethink the
whole concept of
Davis Cup. The
tradition of home
and away ties has
tremendous appeal,
but to spread four
World Group rounds
out over the course
of a year is not a
good game plan. The
time has come once
and for all to play
the Davis Cup at one
site every year over
a two to three week
period. The public
would have a much
easier time
following it. The
players would get
much more excited
about performing.
Everyone would
benefit.
If the Davis Cup was
held at one location
every year, the
television exposure
worldwide would
inevitably rise
dramatically. Roger
Federer and all
other leading
players should not
be put in the
position of choosing
between their nation
and themselves. That
doesn’t make any
sense. The
International Tennis
Federation should
address this
paramount issue and
find a way to make
Davis Cup as
important as it
could be. They
should find out
whether or not the
top nations would be
open to a true Davis
Cup season rather
than spreading out
the dates across
winter, spring,
summer and fall.
Otherwise, it will
not ever fully
capture the
imagination of the
sports public, or
the game’s greatest
players.
In the meantime,
don’t criticize
Roger Federer. He
did what he needed
to do and protected
himself for the rest
of 2007. He was
demonstrating once
more what a
remarkable
professional he is.
