Should the Davis Cup be modified to bi-annual schedule?

“Less is More When it Comes to Davis Cup Tennis”, by Granville Swope

The truly "elite" national team championships do not come around every year. I'm not talking about baseball or football or other predominantly American sports. I'm talking about the multi-national sports championships played all over the world, such as World Cup Soccer, the America's Cup (sailing), World Cup Hockey and, of course, the Olympics. While four years may be too long to be without Davis Cup tennis, a bi-annual Davis Cup competition every two years would be a far better schedule AND may help spark the national pride tennis once shared in the United States in the '70's and early '80's.

The current ATP tournament schedule has no "off-season", which may be the root of the problem. But since the players are members of the ATP Tour, I'll assume they like the schedule as it is or they would change it. The best players in the world though, including Americans Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras, are either too tired or simply not willing to commit to a minimum of four rounds of Davis Cup every year, in addition to their regular tournament schedule. Who can blame them? Davis Cup is big travel, low bucks, and very tough tennis - both physically and mentally.

A bi-annual Davis cup format could use the newly created "off-year" for qualifying the other Zonal Groups. Along with going to a bi-annual format, the number of qualified teams should be reduced to eight rather than sixteen. This would free up another month for the players of the top eight teams by eliminating that first round requirement. Case in point - in 1998, three of the four second round matches were blow-outs! USA beat Belgium 4-1, Italy beat Zimbabwe 5-0, and Spain defeated Switzerland 4-1. The only close first round was between Sweden and Germany at 3-2 and Sweden went on to beat Italy in the final 4-1. Frankly, there are only 5 or 6 teams who have a chance of winning this tournament anyway. Why not let the other teams "qualify" for a spot in the top eight (similar to the current ATP year end event)?

Until the number of regular ATP tournaments is reduced, holding the Davis Cup tournament every two years will accomplish much for the sport, it's players and it's fans. The bi-annual format will elevate tennis to the more "elite" status shared by the Olympics. More importantly, the players will be more likely to compete as it will more easily fit their regular tournament schedule and the fans will get more from the event as nationalism will fuel the competitive fever.

"Bi-annual Davis Cup Format Would Cause More Problems Than it Solves" by Dan Jenkins

Davis Cup is the largest annual team competition in sports. One hundred and thirty six countries have entered the 2000 Davis Cup, making it the largest "annual" international team competition in the world - quite a distinction for tennis and the Davis Cup. Like companies, sporting events grow because they're successful within a system. Davis Cup is successful as an annual event. It has been for 100 years. The idea of making it a bi-annual event because a few top players need more nap time, or because of a few early round blow outs, is ludicrous.

Let's first clarify that the ATP Tour and Davis Cup are separate entities. The ATP looks after its own - end of story. Sure they coordinate dates when possible, but for the most part the ATP keeps its tournament calendar packed to the hilt. However, pros are free to schedule their ATP tournament plans around Davis Cup competition. It's a freedom afforded to them - and rightfully so. If a player is too tired to play Davis Cup he has no one to blame but himself. Switching to a bi-annual schedule won't address this issue in any justifiable way. The only advantage would be that we would only have to hear this sorry excuse for not playing every other year.

Today's players are supposed to be so much bigger and stronger than the players from yesteryear but they're too tired to play Davis Cup? John McEnroe played for the United States Davis Cup Team for 12 years without suffering any ill effects, and became a legend in the process. I think it's the ATP and the players that need a good, long look in the mirror - not the Davis Cup.

What hasn't been addressed here is what Davis Cup gives back to the countries that compete and the implications involved in changing to a bi-annual format. Last time I looked this was not a forced competition. Countries volunteer to field teams. Who's going to tell the nation of Namibia that the schedule is being cut back because they'll get blown out in the first round, or the ATP schedule is too tiring for pros of the top nations? No one has that right. What does an annual showdown between the countries of Bahrain and Tajikistan bring to those nations? Publicity and growth of the sport in those countries for one and increased, NOT decreased national pride for another. And let's not forget the almighty dollar. Hosting cities benefit (and in some cases rely on) the revenues Davis Cup brings with it. Changing to a bi-annual format cuts all these benefits in half - it just doesn't make any sense. Let's not deny every country their right to compete annually because of unfounded complaints by an elite few.

Harvard student Dwight Filley Davis, who founded the most celebrated tennis competition in the world back in 1900, wanted his vision for the Davis Cup to not be forgotten, saying, "It is meant to travel. Its appearance in any country brings a flock of exterior implications very beneficial to sporting unity in the tennis world......" Let's remember those words and preserve what was originally intended - for every participating country to have a shot at the shiny sterling cup he donated back at the start of the 19th century - YEARLY.

Send us your thoughts on this subject.... woodytennis@yahoo.com