THE announcement earlier this week that the ITF are planning for a World Cup of Tennis come hot on the heels of last month’s revelation that the Davis Cup is to be revamped.
Currently, the Davis Cup is something of a hit or a miss competition - in recent years, the majority of the world’s best players have given the team event a body-swerve, with the winners often being whichever nation turns out to be the best of a bad lot rather than the best country in the world.
A change was certainly needed. If the Davis Cup had continued as it was, sooner or later it was going to die. So, last month, the International Tennis Federation (ITF) revealed plans to scrap the current Davis Cup format which sees countries play either home or away several times a year depending how far they progress.
The new plans, however, will see the competition, which is expected to begin next year if everything is approved, be turned into an 18-nation World Cup of Tennis Finals, where the nations will battle it out over the course of a week, with the country coming out on top being crowned world champions.
But just a few days ago, it was revealed that the ATP are also planning on adding a new tournament, which would be very similar to the ITF World Cup of Tennis, with the ATP hoping for their event to begin in 2020.
The idea to refresh the Davis Cup format is a welcome one but already, before things have even been finalised, it has gone too far. The ITF and the ATP and now in something of a war of egos as to who gets their tournament in the calendar.
But the issue is that there is scarce room in the tennis schedule for one new tournament never mind two.
Already, there has been talk that both the ITF and the ATP will not be kept happy - that only one of the bodies will see their tournament ultimately come to fruition.
Jamie Murray, a member of the ATP Player Council since 2016, said there is no room for both events in the schedule.
“No, it’s not going to happen,” he told the BBC. “I think it’s kind of a race against time now to see who can officially announce it.”
Tennis is close to breaking point already in terms of the fullness of the schedule. As things stand, the men’s tour finishes in mid-November with the ATP Tour Finals and begins again before the new year, giving the top male players only a month off.
The calendar is already jam-packed full, which is why so many of the top players already choose to skip the Davis Cup.
The idea behind switching the Davis Cup from a multi-week event throughout the year to a one-week event is that the top players are more likely to commit one week of their schedule rather than a number of weekends, and the travelling that entails, to their diaries.
This, in itself, is understandable.
But if this change is made, the entire essence of the Davis Cup is lost. The Davis Cup is made special by the home crowds, which are often far more raucous than are at week-to-week tournaments, would be lost entirely.
The Davis Cup is, for many, their only chance to see world-class tennis and by changing to a one-week event, many, many fans will be deprived of seeing top-class play.
But in fact, the bigger issue is that those in charge of tennis appear to not have what’s best for the game and the players at the forefront of their minds.
As it stands, a significant amount of the world’s best male players are carrying injuries, a number of which are so serious is remains questionable whether or not they will ever return to their best.
Many, if not most of these injuries are as a result of playing week in, week out.
The battering these top players bodies take as a result of their tournament and travelling schedule is considerable and if the calendar is not amended - and made lighter - the game will suffer significantly as the top players will be out of action more and more regularly.
Removing a few Davis Cup weekends and replacing them with a one-week event will, in the grand scheme of things, make very little difference. If men’s tennis is to be improved, a few tweaks to the Davis Cup format will not make a jot of difference.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here