Davis Cup dead rubbers

[August]

Seems like the German fans weren't too happy about the only rubber being played on Sunday was Brands-RBA. Kohli, Haas, and Mayer weren't able to play citing injuries. Yet Haas and Kohli are playing in Zagreb this week.

For sure the spectators felt betrayed, they thought that there are at least two dead rubbers, even though dead rubbers may not be so great matches. But I understand the players, Mayer hurt his shoulder on Friday, Haas wasn't able to play on Friday, what's the point in playing a dead rubber when you'd better not play it. Only Kohli's injury might look suspicious to me. And I've read some people have said the previous night had something to do with players inability to play.

For sure the spectators want rather see two dead rubbers than only one. But my proposal for that would be allowing non-DC team players play if the DC team players are unable to play. In Hopman Cup, you can see some Aussie youngsters playing for other teams, would it be so bad if a non-DC team player would replace in injured DC player in a dead rubber? Don't the teams have non-playing 5th players with them, they could play in dead rubbers.

 

[Front242]

Imo in situations like this the best incentive would be to offer ranking points for the dead rubbers as currently there aren't any given. 40 points seems about right but maybe they could offer 50/60 and I'm sure then the players would consider it.

Here are the Davis Cup ranking points.

http://www.daviscup.com/en/rankings/atp-ranking-points.aspx

 

[Moxie]

I didn't look this up, but if both rubbers are dead on the Sunday, I thought they were only required to play one. But I take your point. Since they're essentially exhibitions, dead rubbers, why don't they open the fifth match up to local discretion, or something? If you've paid your ticket expecting 2 matches, it seems you deserve them.

 

[August]

I don't like the idea of ranking points for dead rubbers, practically exhos.

But I've said this also before. I remember an article where Kevin Andersn defended not playing DC as it would've required travelling long distance and forced him to skip next week's ATP event where he could earn money. That's why I'd introduce kind of prize money.

You can compare a DC tie to a usual tournament, if you play both singles and doubles, and an average match is 4 sets, it's 12 sets that week. If an average Bo3 match is 2.5 sets, then a DC week is equal to five Bo3 matches, i.e. making a final in a field of 32. And you can't play a limitless number of events in a year, your body can't take it all. If your team makes the DC final, you cannot have played as many events as you would have without the DC. And I would compensate that with prize money. And that prize money could be available also in dead rubbers, as an incentive to play.

 

[Front242]

I don't like the idea of ranking points for dead rubbers either but seriously, is there any other incentive to play them? A resounding no I'm sure for everyone. Prize money as you say is the only other incentive but a lot of them couldn't care less and would fancy their chances at a proper tour event for money.

 

[Moxie]

I don't like the idea of ranking points for dead rubbers either but seriously, is there any other incentive to play them? A resounding no I'm sure for everyone. Prize money as you say is the only other incentive but a lot of them couldn't care less and would fancy their chances at a proper tour event for money.

I think this is probably right, Front. You have to incentivize somehow. And if the ITF is going to take Davis Cup seriously, they have to award points, including for dead rubbers. It's still a match played an won, played in good faith by both players. Also, it's one incentive also to play more seriously that just an exhibition. I'd be more in favor of eliminating points for the Olympics. (If not eliminating pro tennis from the Olympics, all together.) There, they have clear incentive and don't need the points, which are kind of unfair and disruptive for the medalists, since they fall off without the ability to defend them.

 

[Front242]

Sounds good about eliminating Olympics points alright and the inability to defend them sucks too, yup.

 

[Haelfix]

They just need to pay the athletes a portion of the proceeds for a win. I mean the only reason the ATP doesn't just eliminate dead rubbers is b/c tourneys have financial incentive to keep them. It makes no sense that the players are left out of this since there is absolutely no other incentive and only the threat of injury or fatigue.

 

[August]

I don't like the idea of ranking points for dead rubbers either but seriously, is there any other incentive to play them? A resounding no I'm sure for everyone. Prize money as you say is the only other incentive but a lot of them couldn't care less and would fancy their chances at a proper tour event for money.

I think this is probably right, Front. You have to incentivize somehow. And if the ITF is going to take Davis Cup seriously, they have to award points, including for dead rubbers. It's still a match played an won, played in good faith by both players. Also, it's one incentive also to play more seriously that just an exhibition. I'd be more in favor of eliminating points for the Olympics. (If not eliminating pro tennis from the Olympics, all together.) There, they have clear incentive and don't need the points, which are kind of unfair and disruptive for the medalists, since they fall off without the ability to defend them.

I believe most players outside top 10 would really like to play a dead rubber if there was money available.

And despite the fact that I'm against tennis' Olympic inclusion, I think points need to be awarded from there. The rankings' aim is to show who are the best players of the last 52 weeks, and that's why I think also the Olympics need to be counted in. It would be just so wrong that the Washington 500 champ would have more points from the Olympic week than the Olympic champ.

Of course, the Olympics are a bit problematic for the rankings for two reasons:

1. No Olympics in the following year
2. Top 60 players who aren't in the top 4 of their own country

That's why I think 750 points is the right amount of points, even though players rate it above M1000s. Those top 60 players just need one or two wins more in the weak 250/500 of that week. If the Olympics were an "ATP 1500", then it would get harder. Also, 750 points could be defended indirectly. Let's assume you've won at the Olympics and a 250. Next season you win two 500s. 750+250=500+500. With more points from the Olympics, it'd get harder.

And I also think giving no points from the Olympics would weaken the field. Some top 20 players would definitely go for easy points in a 250/500. Plus let's assume the #6 wins the Olympic gold and that would raise him to #4, meaning an easier draw in the upcoming USO. I think he'd really deserve those points.