May 18, 1973: Missing in Action

Niki Pilić

The week before the French Open, the 1973 Davis Cup really got rolling. 16 European Zone nations and a passel of famous names squared off in head-to-head ties scattered from Cairo to Oslo.

Many stars made their first Cup appearances of the season when the ties opened on May 18th. Ilie Năstase won in straight sets as Romania took on Tom Okker and the Netherlands. Czechoslovakia’s Jan Kodeš made quick work of his Egyptian opponent, Ibrahim Mahmoud. Manuel Orantes of Spain turned in the best performance of the day in Båstad, Sweden, defeating 16-year-old Björn Borg with the loss of just four games.

There were surprises, too. Great Britain boasted two standouts from the World Championship Tennis circuit, Roger Taylor and Mark Cox. Yet on clay in Munich, they fell to a 0-2 deficit against West Germany. The British stars lost to Karl Meiler and Jürgen Fassbender, respectively.

The day’s heroics belonged to the overlooked Soviet player Teimuraz Kakulia, who outlasted his Hungarian foe, Balázs Taróczy, 1-6, 6-0, 6-8, 7-5, 7-5. Alex Metreveli made progress on the Soviet Union’s second victory, but Kakulia’s three-and-a-half-hour struggle had pushed it so late that his teammate wasn’t able to complete the second match until the next day.

At the start of the weekend, the tie between Yugoslavia and New Zealand seemed to be one of the least important of the lot. (Countries who didn’t belong to an existing geographical zone could choose which one to enter, which is why the Kiwis were competing in Europe.) Neither nation boasted any big-name stars, and whichever side advanced would almost certainly lose to Romania in the next round.

Of course, the two squads themselves didn’t see things that way. The Yugoslavians had looked forward to the return of 33-year-old left-hander Niki Pilić, a Croatian who ranked as his country’s best. Pilić had been a Cup stalwart from 1961 to 1967, helping his team to a zonal final in 1962 and quarter-finals in the three following years. But in 1968, Pilić had signed on with the WCT circuit. That made him a “contract professional,” ineligible for Davis Cup play.

Only in 1973 did that rule finally change. The Australians could once again use Rod Laver, and the Yugoslavians regained their own lefty star, Pilić. Or so they thought. The Yugoslavian captain was under the impression that Pilić had committed to play–or perhaps he simply assumed that every one of his country’s players was at his disposal. Niki would claim that he never made any promises. He entered the Alan King Classic in Las Vegas instead. He lost early and, in theory, could have made it to Zagreb in time for the tie. But he cabled team officials to confirm that he wouldn’t be there.

The hosts could have used him. On the 18th, Boro Jovanović lost a four-setter to Onny Parun. Željko Franulović, the last-minute Pilić replacement, pulled out a five-set victory over Brian Fairlie to even the tie. The Kiwis won the doubles in a rout, and Parun beat Franulović to clinch the victory.

The same day that the Yugoslavians lost the doubles rubber, the federation hit back at its wayward star, suspending him for his “refusal” to play the tie. It was a serious penalty: Without the blessing of his national association, Pilić wouldn’t be allowed to enter the French Open, Wimbledon, and many other prestigious events. His only recourse was to appeal to the International Lawn Tennis Federation, which he quickly did.

Ironically, Pilić, with his competing loyalties, was one of the few top men to enjoy several days of rest before play began at Roland Garros. He didn’t even know whether he would be allowed to enter, but at least he didn’t have to make a mad dash from Las Vegas or Båstad for his first-round match.

While Yugoslavia was out of the Davis Cup, l’affaire Pilić would cast a long shadow over tennis’s summer of 1973. For 70 years, young men had dreamed of one day playing Davis Cup for their countries. Now, as professionals, they would fight for the right not to.

* * *

This post is part of my series about the 1973 season, Battles, Boycotts, and Breakouts. Keep up with the project by checking the TennisAbstract.com front page, which shows an up-to-date Table of Contents after I post each installment.

You can also subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

 

May 12, 1973: The B Team Heads South

Raúl Ramírez

When the United States opened its 1973 campaign in Mexico City on May 11th, it was already the tenth weekend of the year that featured, somewhere around the globe, a Davis Cup tie. Regional zones around the world progressed on different schedules, and the 53-nation draw made substantial demands of weaker countries. Canada and Colombia held an opening-round tilt in February, and when the Colombians took on Mexico a month later, it was already their third round.

The Americans, by comparison, had it easy. As defending champions, they received multiple byes. A few other countries did as well. The Romanians, among other European squads given first-round passes, wouldn’t get going for another week.

The byes carried a disadvantage, however. Once they took the court, there was no coasting past uncompetitive squads like Canada or Venezuela. The byes also cost Dennis Ralston’s US team the advantage of playing at home. They hadn’t played in the United States for two and half years, and they planned to host Mexico in Little Rock, Arkansas. Mexico protested to the ILTF, which sided with the underdogs. The Americans would head back to Mexico City, where they had swept the 1972 zonal finals just eleven months earlier.

The team that flew south in May 1973 was not the same one that had made the previous trip. Stan Smith, linchpin of the US side, was top seed at the World Championship Tennis Finals in Dallas, contested over the same three-day weekend as the Davis Cup tie. Arthur Ashe and Marty Riessen, the next-best American players, were also in the eight-man WCT draw. 27-year-old Cup veteran Tom Gorman would lead the team instead. Ralston was lucky that Gorman hadn’t played a little better in March and April, or else he might have been in Dallas as well.

In 1972, Gorman had straight-setted Mexico’s Joaquín Loyo Mayo. This year, he found himself opening the tie against a fresh face, 19-year-old Raúl Ramírez. Ramírez had blasted his way through the American Zone, winning four singles and two doubles matches for his country in March. His Davis Cup momentum, combined with his proficiency on clay courts, carried over into the Gorman match. The newcomer made it look easy, defeating the American 6-4, 6-2, 6-3. It was over in less than two hours.

The upset drastically changed the outlook of the tie. Gorman was expected to win both of his singles rubbers. The other American singles options–20-year-old Harold Solomon and 22-year-old Dick Stockton–were less accomplished. Doubles stalwart Erik van Dillen mixed brilliance with a puzzling inconsistency. Suddenly, the Mexicans had a path to victory.

Coach Ralston didn’t relax for three more sets, until Solomon had polished off Loyo Mayo, 7-5, 6-4, 7-5. Solomon’s two-handed backhand and heavy spin were ideal for the surface, his attitude even more so. “He doesn’t have a big serve or volley,” said Ralston. “He’s just tough from the back and he never gives up.”

Knotted at one-all, the visitors were back in the driver’s seat. On May 12th, Gorman and van Dillen beat Ramírez and Vicente Zarazúa, dropping a 14-12 second set en route to a four-set victory. The next day, overshadowed by the exploits of Smith in Dallas and Bobby Riggs in California, Team USA would sweep the rest of the tie. They clinched when Solomon outlasted Ramírez, 8-6, 7-5, 7-5. They would face Chile in the American Zone finals in August.

Having cleared the initial hurdle, Ralston had plenty to look forward to. Smith would likely suit up for the next round, and best of all, they’d finally get a chance to play on home soil.

* * *

This post is part of my series about the 1973 season, Battles, Boycotts, and Breakouts. Keep up with the project by checking the TennisAbstract.com front page, which shows an up-to-date Table of Contents after I post each installment.

You can also subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

 

April 21, 1973: One Down, Three To Go

John Newcombe

After nearly six years of waiting, the Aussie steamroller was back in action. The once-invincible Davis Cup squad from Down Under began its 1973 campaign in Japan, a giant against a minnow for a place in the Eastern Zone final.

Australian captain Neale Fraser wasn’t yet able to call upon his full forces. Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, and Roy Emerson had commitments elsewhere. But despite a hiccup in Hong Kong on the way to Tokyo, the Aussie side looked strong. Leading the team was 30-year-old Australian Open champ John Newcombe. Slated for second singles was 38-year-old Mal Anderson, who returned to Davis Cup play in 1972 after a 14-year absence.

Not long before, the Davis Cup trophy had a near-permanent home in Oz. Australia won the tournament on 15 of 18 tries between 1950 and 1967, replenishing its stock of stars as one after another defected to the pros. Coach Harry Hopman identified and developed talent like no one else in the world, helped by his nation’s passion for tennis and a federation that prized the Davis Cup above all else. Anderson had played for the Cup-winning side in 1957, Fraser had contributed to titles from 1958 to 1962, and Newcombe had donned the colors from 1963 to 1967.

But when tennis went “Open” in 1968, the Davis Cup didn’t quite follow suit. Professionals were allowed, but not “contract” professionals–the men signed to deals with the likes of the National Tennis League and World Championship Tennis. That included all of the best Australian players: Laver, Rosewall, Newk, Emerson, and more. The second-string Aussies couldn’t compete with the teams from the United States and Romania that dominated the Cup in the first years of the Open era.

Then, in 1973, contract pros were allowed back in. The U.S. was the defending champion, but in a fully open Davis Cup, there could be only one favorite.

In a tie that began on April 21st, Japan became the Aussies’ first victim. Armed with little other than home-court advantage, Jun Kamiwazumi and Toshiro Sakai took on Newcombe and Anderson, respectively. Both played better than expected; neither managed an upset. Kamiwazumi, the Japanese number one, was a particular surprise. He snatched the second set before Newk streaked back, taking 20 of 24 points to secure the third.

The next day, the Japanese doubles pairing of Kamiwazumi and Sakai targeted Geoff Masters, the Australian they considered to be the team’s weakest link. But there weren’t really any weak Aussies on the doubles court. Masters certainly belonged there, leading Newk to a straight-set victory, clinching the tie.

Reclaiming the Davis Cup would require victories in four rounds: The opening tie in Tokyo, the zonal final, an inter-zone semi-final against a European champion, and the final in December. While the Aussies took care of Japan, Vijay Amritraj and his Indian team swept past Pakistan, setting up an India-Australia clash for early May.

Newcombe looked ahead from the moment he stepped off the doubles court. The first words out of his mouth: “One down–three to go.”

* * *

This post is part of my series about the 1973 season, Battles, Boycotts, and Breakouts. Keep up with the project by checking the TennisAbstract.com front page, which shows an up-to-date Table of Contents after I post each installment.

You can also subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

 

April 15, 1973: A Wake-Up Call From India

Vijay Amritraj in Davis Cup action

Australia did not take the 1973 Davis Cup campaign lightly. The lads from Down Under had watched the trophy go to the United States for five years running, the longest Australian drought since the 1930s.

1973 promised to be different. While tennis went Open in 1968, the Davis Cup did not. The International Lawn Tennis Federation (ILTF) banned contract professionals from the competition, leaving a Murderer’s Row of Australians–Rod Laver, Ken Rosewall, John Newcombe, and more–on the sidelines. The ILTF finally came to its senses and dropped the exclusion in 1973. The Aussie stars were getting old, and they weren’t about to let this first opportunity slip by.

Captain Neale Fraser got his squad together well in advance of their opening Eastern Zone tie, a tilt hosted by Japan starting on April 20th. En route, the Australian stopped in Hong Kong for the National Hardcourt Championships. Laver and Rosewall were committed to pro events elsewhere, but Fraser’s group was still the class of the Hong Kong event. Newcombe was there, joined by veteran Mal Anderson, former Wimbledon quarter-finalist John Cooper, and doubles stalwart Geoff Masters.

Hong Kong was supposed to be a warmup–both a confidence-builder and an opportunity for Fraser to get a final look at his charges.

Instead, it turned into the Vijay Amritraj show. The 19-year-old Indian had Davis Cup aspirations of his own, and he was rapidly developing into his country’s best player. The year before, he had spent two weeks in Las Vegas working on his serve with none other than his idol, Richard González.

In the quarter-finals, Amritraj upset Anderson, the 1957 US National champion and a likely singles player for Fraser’s side. In the semis, as Cooper knocked out Newcombe in a five-setter, Amritraj beat Masters in a marathon of his own. Finally, on April 15th, Vijay went another five sets, taking advantage of eight net-cord winners to beat Cooper and complete his set of Australian Davis Cup scalps.

Amritraj’s title was worth $3,000, just short of his entire 1972 haul of $3,500.

The Aussies had reason to worry: Assuming they beat Japan, they would likely face Vijay and company in the Eastern Zone final. The tie would be hosted by India, in Amritraj’s hometown of Madras.

Fraser managed to put a positive spin on the Australian oh-fer. “I am not really upset by their losses,” he told The Age. “It’s probably a blessing in disguise. Firstly the boys may have tended to take the Indians too lightly, but now Mal has been beaten by Vijay, they realize it won’t be easy in India if we beat Japan.”

Then he called ahead to Tokyo. His boys were arriving soon, and he needed to make sure that practice courts were booked and ready.

* * *

Elsewhere this week:

  • Billie Jean King quickly recovered her form after a one-month layoff, but not enough to beat Margaret Court. In Quincy, Court added yet another title to her 1973 haul with a 6-2, 6-4, 59-minute victory over Billie Jean.
  • On the rival USLTA circuit, Evonne Goolagong played some of the best tennis of her season, reaching the final in Miami Beach. She lost only five games in four matches. But it still wasn’t enough to topple Chris Evert, who beat Evonne for the fourth time in a row in the final.
  • Ken Rosewall, the “old man” of the circuit, picked up his second title in a row with a straight-set win over Roger Taylor in Cleveland. His backhand passing shots, always his bread and butter, were in top form.
  • Stan Smith continued to roll, winning in Brussels for his fourth consecutive title. Even sweeter, it was his third straight victory against Rod Laver. Laver was slowed by a back injury, and the American reeled off three sets in just 80 minutes.

* * *

This post is part of my series about the 1973 season, Battles, Boycotts, and Breakouts. Keep up with the project by checking the TennisAbstract.com front page, which shows an up-to-date Table of Contents after I post each installment.

You can also subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

 

April 13, 1973: Vilas Stops South Africa

Guillermo Vilas in 1975

South Africa was a problem. Many world leaders were quick to condemn the racist policies of the apartheid government. Less clear was what exactly to do about it. As always, international sporting events fell in the crosshairs.

Eastern Bloc nations were willing to sacrifice the most. In 1968 Davis Cup play, South Africa advanced to the final of the European Zone when Romania gave them a walkover. (There was no separate Africa zone, and “zoneless” nations were free to choose another region in which to compete.) In 1969, both Poland and Czechoslovakia refused to play them. In 1970, South Africa was banned from the competition altogether.

There was never a consensus to exclude the country, and South Africa returned to competition in 1973. It chose to enter the South American zone, where the political ramifications were likely to be the least. Conveniently enough, the competition wasn’t particularly strong, either. In March, South Africa brushed aside Uruguay while Argentina defeated Brazil, setting up a zonal semi-final between the two, set to be hosted in Argentina.

The Argentines found themselves in a sticky situation. The federation had anticipated no problems; golf and rugby teams from South Africa had visited in the previous two years. But Davis Cup was one of the biggest events on the global sporting calendar, and the public outcry couldn’t be ignored. If the tie were played in Argentina, there would be protests, possibly substantial ones. On the other hand, it was unthinkable to forfeit the round, as the Eastern Europeans had done. Thanks in large part to charismatic 20-year-old star Guillermo Vilas, the tennis boom had reached Argentina. If they could get past the South Africans, Argentina would face regional rival Chile in the zonal final and push the sport’s popularity to even higher peaks.

It’s difficult to overstate just how much the South African issue roiled international sports. Arguably, it was an even more prominent, divisive issue than the fate of Russian and Belarussian athletes in 2023. The same week that Argentina’s tennis federation made its final preparations, New Zealand Prime Minister Norman Kirk settled a long-standing dispute by barring a visit from the South African rugby team. “Arguments over the tour,” wrote the New York Times, “have continued more than two years, spilling over party and racial boundaries and far eclipsing such international issues as the Vietnam War.”

Back in Argentina, the federation, pressured by the country’s Foreign Ministry, settled on a compromise. The tie would be held in Montevideo, just across the border in Uruguay. And to keep publicity down even further, the dates would be moved up by a month, from mid-May to mid-April. Once again, politics served as a cover for a bit of gamesmanship. Fiddling with the dates would keep South African standouts Cliff Drysdale, Bob Hewitt, and Frew McMillan on the sidelines. All three were committed to the World Championship Tennis circuit and couldn’t accommodate the revised schedule.

The 1972 Davis Cup draw, with South Africa nowhere to be seen

On April 13th, at the Carrasco Lawn Tennis Club, the sides could finally get down to business. With the WCT stars out of commission, the inexperienced Argentinian squad faced an even greener South African squad. In the first rubber, Argentina’s Julián Ganzábal held off doubles specialist Pat Cramer 6-2, 6-0, 3-6, 6-0. In the second, Vilas shut down 18-year-old Bernard Mitton in straight sets.

Vilas was far from the superstar he would later become, but the left-hander’s potential was becoming clear. He had reached finals in Cincinnati and Buenos Aires the previous year, and the Mitton match was his fifth straight victory of Argentina’s 1973 Davis Cup campaign. On the slow clay of the Carrasco Club, he may well have beaten Drysdale or McMillan, too.

But he didn’t have to. After the South Africans won the doubles on day two–the country was second only to Australia in its ability to churn out top-tier doubles players–Vilas made quick work of another teenager, Deon Joubert. Argentina’s top player lost just five games in three sets.

The international tennis community breathed a collective sigh of relief. Fractures were everywhere: The same day that the South Africans were eliminated, a spokesman for the International Lawn Tennis Federation threatened to suspend the women of the Virginia Slims tour if they continued to defy their national federations. Had Argentina lost, the Marxist government in Chile may well have forced its side to forfeit the zonal final. South Africa would have advanced to a bigger stage and the controversy would have multiplied.

Vilas hardly solved the South Africa problem, but he did punt it one year down the road. In the political and bureaucratic mess that was tennis in 1973, that counted as a major victory.

* * *

This post is part of my series about the 1973 season, Battles, Boycotts, and Breakouts. Keep up with the project by checking the TennisAbstract.com front page, which shows an up-to-date Table of Contents after I post each installment.

You can also subscribe to the blog to receive each new post by email:

 

How to (Partly) Fix the Davis Cup Finals

This is a guest post by Sébastien Rannaud.

There was plenty to criticize about the new-look Davis Cup Finals. Fans and pundits alike took aim at the atmosphere, the one-sided home support for Spain, the horrendous app and website, the lack of TV coverage, and the sleep-defying scheduling.

But perhaps the biggest controversy concerned something more arcane: Canada’s walkover in a dead doubles rubber against the United States. Why? The organizers gave the United States a double bagel win (6-0, 6-0) which padded their percentages in the Group F standings, thus increasing its chances of qualifying for the knockout stage as one of the two “best runners-up Nations” in round robin play.

To determine how the runners-up from each group are ranked against each other, the following order applies:

  1. Highest percentage of matches won
  2. Highest percentage of sets won
  3. Highest percentage of games won
  4. The Nations’ positions on the Davis Cup Rankings of the Monday of the week of the Finals

As you can see, that double bagel win for the US padded their stats in criteria #1 through #3.

Other tournaments, such as the ATP and WTA Finals use this criteria, but they don’t have walkovers, because they rely on substitute players in case of injury. The Davis Cup Finals is a different beast altogether, because of the “dead rubber” in round robin play. There are no incentives, sporting or financial, to play and win that match if you’ve already clinched your place in the quarter-finals, as Canada did before its doubles match against the US.

Odd constraints

This convoluted format is mainly due to two major factors. First, the Davis Cup Finals is comprised of 18 nations. Why use such a random number, when the knockout stage only involves eight nations? The only possible solution is to give wildcards to runner-up teams to complete the eight-team draw, hence the complicated tie-breaking procedure.

The second factor is that the tournament is played over a seven-day span. The organizers (Kosmos Group and ITF) would rather have a two-week timeslot for the event, but for now, seven days is the most they could get considering the not-so-ideal timeslot. If it is necessary to have three rounds in the knockout stage (quarter-finals, semi-finals, final), then you’re left with very limited round robin play, which explains the tiny three-team groups, playing only two ties each.

Such a small number of matches ensures that the tie breaking rules will come into play, making every match–including every doubles rubber–extremely important.  Therefore, when a team decides to forfeit its doubles match, rules need to be in place to ensure that the team benefitting from the walkover doesn’t have an unfair advantage over second-place teams from other groups.

Journalists, pundits and Twitter users have critiqued this major flaw in the format, but few have considered possible solutions. Let’s consider some of the adjustments that could be made and if they could work within the tournament’s constraints. 

The first solutions: Dead rubber tweaks

Let’s assume that the organizers would allow all dead rubbers to be skipped. In some cases, fans would buy tickets for only two matches, not three. The organizers would have to adjust the ticket prices somehow to reflect that likelihood, if they want to show fairness and respect to the ticket buyers.

Scenario A:

  • Same as current format (18 teams, 3-round knockout stage)
  • Dead rubber policy: walkover from clinching team. Winning team gets 1 point, but match does NOT count towards % of matches won, % of sets won, and % of games won

The team getting stomped on in the first two singles matches would not get the opportunity in the doubles match to make up for its bad percentages in the prior singles matches, while the winning team would be rewarded with keeping its near-perfect percentages. It is a system based on results, so it’d be difficult for a losing team to argue that it’s unfair to them, especially considering the fact that it gets to rest and go to bed earlier, on the eve of its do-or-die tie the next day against the other nation in the group.

Scenario B:

  • Same as current format (18 teams, 3-round knockout stage)
  • Dead rubber policy: walkover from clinching team. Winning team gets 1 point, but with a score of 6-4, 4-6, 6-4 counting towards % of matches won, % of sets won, and % of games won

Let’s say the two singles matches were lost in straight sets. The team benefitting from the walkover go from 0% of sets won to 29% of sets won. That seems reasonable and much less extreme that a 6-0, 6-0 score.

Scenario C:

  • Same as current format (18 teams, 3-round knockout stage)
  • Dead rubber policy: doubles match must be played. Bonus prize money ($100,000) will be given to the two players winning the match

We can assume that a clinching team would play its “second tier” players for the doubles rubber. These players would have a six-figure incentive to win the rubber–even at 4:00 AM–a serious motivation for doubles players who compete for smaller prize pools than singles players throughout the year. Because there would only be just a few dead rubbers each year, it wouldn’t be that much more costly for tournament organizers.

More solutions: 16 teams

Scenario D:

  • Round robin: 16 teams split into 4 groups; 3 ties played each
  • 8 teams qualify for knockout stage of 3 rounds (quarters, semis, final)
  • Dead rubber policy: winning team gets 1 point, but match does NOT count towards % of matches won, % of sets won, and % of games won

By playing three ties in the round robin stage, the dead rubber would likely only happen in the third tie, meaning teams would have already played between six and eight tennis matches (singles and doubles) before the dead rubber occurs. The weight of this forfeited match would be no more than one-seventh (14.2%) of the total matches played in the round robin stage. That’s less important than in the current round robin format of two ties, in which the forfeited match counts for one-sixth (16.7%). Moreover, by having groups of four nations, all four teams could play their ties at the same time, meaning that some teams would start the doubles rubber without knowing whether they had yet clinched their quarter-final spot.

Unfortunately, this scenario simply cannot work within the existing seven-day limit, because it would result in both finalists playing a total of six ties over seven days (or between 12 and 18 tennis matches). That is excessively grueling, especially for countries such as Canada and Russia, who essentially competed this year with two-man teams. That is simply not going to fly, especially for elites such as Nadal and Djokovic, who could have played up to five matches the previous week in the ATP Finals.

Scenario E:

  • Round robin: 16 teams split into 4 groups; 3 ties played each
  • 4 teams qualify for knockout stage of 2 rounds (semis, final)
  • Dead rubber policy: winning team gets 1 point, but match does NOT count towards % of matches won, % of sets won, and % of games won

By shortening the knockout stage, we get back to the much more palatable number of five ties in seven days. The upside is that the dead doubles rubber would be of even less importance that the prior scenario, since only the group winning teams would qualify for the knockout stage. The current tiebreaking procedure wouldn’t even matter since the group winning team would likely qualify on ties won and matches won alone.

Tradeoffs

However, solving one issue just raises others.

First, knockout ties are much more compelling for fans than round robin ties. In some cases, the last round robin tie has almost the same “do or die” quality as a quarter-finals tie, but on average, there is less drama. Which leads us to the second issue: teams ranked third or fourth in the group prior to the final round robin tie might already be mathematically eliminated from qualifying for the knockout stage. You could even end up with the third-place team and the fourth-place team playing each other in the last, meaningless “dead tie”–a new term for the tennis glossary that we can only hope never needs to be used. 

While a dead tie would be unlikely, the downside risk is enormous. It’s difficult to imagine how depressing this six-hour tie would feel in the stadium, especially in a neutral venue for both teams with few fans on-site. The ITF/Kosmos Group would be forced to assume that these teams would be professional enough to play the tie, at least in respect of the few hundred fans who show up. But even an 84-shot rally couldn’t salvage such a spectacle.

The only way to solve this would be to add incentives for teams stuck in these dead ties. In a 16-team tournament, you could give each runner-up team a direct entry for the following year’s Davis Cup Finals (in addition to the four group winning teams). Teams battling for third place in the group would be rewarded with the home court advantage in the March qualifying tie. Teams finishing last in the group would get the “away” tie in March or fall to a lower tier in the Davis Cup zone groups. With those incentives, the doubles rubber would usually retain some interest.

For the ITF and the Kosmos Group, cutting back from 18 to 16 teams would be much more complicated than tweaking the tiebreaker rules. With all the problems of this year’s Finals, the dead rubber policy probably isn’t on top of anyone’s to-do list. However, if they stay idle, more teams like Canada and Australia will exploit the loophole, and some day, a team will advance to the quarter-finals because of that double bagel win, leading to a public relations nightmare for the event organizers–not to mention a gut punch for the team that goes home early. 

Sport is only compelling so long as fans perceive an underlying level of fairness. The Davis Cup Finals narrowly skirted disaster this year, calling the format into question for attentive followers. Let’s hope that in the next 12 months, they figure out how to fix it.

Sébastien Rannaud is a pension actuary living in Montreal, Canada. You can find him on Twitter at @morggo.

The Likelihood of Live Doubles Rubber in the New Davis Cup

In the new Davis Cup Finals format, each country-versus-country tie consists of three matches: two singles and one doubles. The singles rubbers are played first, so it’s possible that the doubles rubber will be “dead”–irrelevant to the result of the tie.

The Davis Cup Finals organizers aimed to make the doubles matter more, by using tiebreakers (based on sets and games won) to determine which sides advance from the round-robin phase to the knock-out rounds. It may have helped keep dead doubles rubbers interesting at first, but by the final days of the round-robin stage, teams that automatically qualified for the knock-out rounds had no remaining incentive to play doubles. Canada gave the United States a walkover, and Australia retired after one game. This was probably inevitable, but it isn’t ideal. Fans would presumably prefer to watch more tennis, and unfinished matches could wreak havoc with the tiebreaker system.

There are a lot of possible ways to restructure the event–so many that I’m not going to explore that topic today. Since dead doubles rubbers are inevitable, I’d instead like to look at how often we should expect them to occur and, given that they will occur, whether that truly sidelines doubles in comparison with singles.

Live doubles

This topic was prompted by a question ahead of this week’s podcast:

The most extreme way of handling dead doubles rubbers is simply not to play them. If we went that route, how many doubles matches would we see?

At the Davis Cup Finals last week, there were 25 ties: 18 in the round-robin stage, and 7 knock-out ties. 12 of the 25 featured a live doubles rubber: 7 of the 18 round-robin ties, and 5 of the 7 knock-outs. Using Luke’s proposed methodology, that’s roughly what we’d expect. The average tie (across all stages) had a 43% chance of reaching a deciding doubles rubber, suggesting that 11 doubles matches would matter.

Here is a list of the 25 ties, along with the probability that the two sides would split the singles rubbers. I’ve also shown whether the doubles rubber turned out to be necessary. Elo ratings didn’t do a very good job predicting which ties would require a doubles decider, even though they do give us a good estimate of how often the doubles will make the difference.

Tie                  Decider Odds  Decider Actual  
Semi: GBR vs ESP            56.2%             YES  
Quarter: SRB vs RUS         54.3%             YES  
Semi: RUS vs CAN            53.3%             YES  
RR: FRA vs SRB              52.5%              NO  
RR: ARG vs GER              51.6%              NO  
RR: USA vs CAN              51.4%              NO  
RR: ITA vs CAN              50.0%              NO  
Quarter: GBR vs GER         50.0%              NO  
RR: GBR vs KAZ              49.8%             YES  
RR: ESP vs RUS              49.4%             YES  
Quarter: AUS vs CAN         49.4%             YES  
RR: USA vs ITA              48.7%             YES  
RR: BEL vs AUS              46.1%              NO  
RR: KAZ vs NED              46.0%             YES  
RR: CRO vs RUS              45.7%              NO  
RR: GER vs CHI              44.2%             YES  
RR: ARG vs CHI              43.6%              NO  
RR: FRA vs JPN              43.4%             YES  
Final: CAN vs ESP           40.8%              NO  
RR: GBR vs NED              37.5%             YES  
RR: BEL vs COL              36.2%              NO  
Quarter: ARG vs ESP         34.6%             YES  
RR: SRB vs JPN              26.1%              NO  
RR: AUS vs COL              10.4%              NO  
RR: CRO vs ESP               7.3%              NO

Only a few ties were near-guarantees of a singles sweep. Even with a fairly deep 18-team draw, most countries were able to bring two solid singles players, while few sides featured more than one singles elite.

A decade of context

This wasn’t just a fluke. I went through all World Group ties (not including the Playoff round) from 2010-18, and identified the two best singles players who appeared on court for each side. Using their Elo ratings at the time of the contest for the new best-of-three-sets format, I estimated how often we would get a deciding doubles rubber.

Across those 135 ties, the average likelihood of a doubles decider was 41%, only a bit lower than the observed rate this year. Barring some radical shift in the geography of global tennis, that gives us a pretty good idea of how frequently we should expect to see a two-match singles sweep in the new Davis Cup format.

How much does doubles matter?

When doubles matches are live, they are particularly important. Each singles rubber has a great deal of influence on each side’s chances of winning the three-match tie, but once the doubles rubber is in play, it has all the influence.

Think of this in terms of leverage, the concept I usually use for in-match shifts from one point or game to the next. Imagine two identical sides, and consider their chances of winning at each step of the process. Each side has a 50% chance of winning each rubber, which means:

  • Each side has a 50% chance of winning the tie.
  • Whichever side wins the first rubber will have a 75% chance of winning the tie.
  • If the two sides split the singles rubbers, each side will once again have a 50% chance of winning the tie.

Now consider the leverage of each match from the perspective of the first side:

  • If they win the first singles rubber, their chances of winning the tie improve to 75%. Otherwise, they fall to 25%. That’s a leverage value of 75% – 25% = 50%.
  • Assume they win the first singles rubber. If they win the second, they win the tie–a probability of 100%. If they lose, it falls to 50%. Again, that’s a leverage value of 100% – 50% = 50%. (If they lose the first rubber, the math is the same, just with probabilities of 50% and 0% instead of 100% and 50%.)
  • If there is a deciding doubles rubber, the pre-match probability of winning the tie is 50%. Win the doubles, and the likelihood increases to 100%; lose it, and the probability is 0%. That’s a leverage value of 100% – 0% = 100%.

Maybe you think this is excessively formal and long-winded, and you might be right. The point is, given two equal sides, the doubles is twice as important. Plenty of other sports have similar features in which certain players appear infrequently, but at key moments. Consider baseball closers, who don’t pitch in every game, only appearing late in tight games. Or NFL kickers, who only take part in a handful of plays each game, but have the potential to score on many of them.

Theory and reality

In the sample framework I’ve just laid out, the doubles rubber will be live exactly 50% of the time, and it is twice as important as each singles rubber. That isn’t exactly how it works out in real life, since the doubles rubber is only decisive a little more than 40% of the time.

Still, when the doubles rubber matters, it is always make-or-break–or, in my terms above, it has a leverage value of 100%.

I’m happy to leave dead doubles rubbers unplayed. Doubles specialists might be unhappy with such a decision, and I fear the wrath of Davis Cup traditionalists. However, this way of thinking about what’s at stake might soften the blow. In a 16- to 18-team Davis Cup structure, the teams are typically balanced enough that the doubles rubber is necessary almost half the time. And when it is, the oft-unsung doubles specialists get to play a match that is–literally!–twice as important as each ratings-grabbing singles rubber.

Forecasting the Davis Cup Finals

It took more than a year to decide on a new format, but barely a week to make the draw. With 12 countries qualifying for the inaugural Davis Cup Finals in home-and-away ties earlier in month, the field of 18 is set. Using the ITF’s own system to rank countries, the 18 teams were divided into three “pots,” then assigned to the six round-robin groups that will kick off the tournament this November in Madrid.

The new format sounds complicated, but as round-robin events go, it’s easy enough to understand. Each of the six round-robin groups will send a winning team to the quarter-finals. Two second-place sides will also advance to the final eight, as determined by matches won, then sets won, and so on as necessary, until John Isner and Ivo Karlovic stand back to back to determine which one is really taller. From that point, it’s an eight-team knock-out tournament.

Here are the groups, as determined by yesterday’s draw, with seeded countries indicated:

  • Group A: France (1), Serbia, Japan
  • Group B: Croatia (2), Spain, Russia
  • Group C: Argentina (3), Germany, Chile
  • Group D: Belgium (4), Australia, Colombia
  • Group E: Great Britain (5), Kazakhstan, Netherlands
  • Group F: United States (6), Italy, Canada

The ITF ranking system considers the last four years of Davis Cup results, so Spain’s brief exit from the World Group makes the seedings a bit wonky. As it turns out, not only is it a top team (Croatia) who will have to deal with early ties against the Spaniards, the entire Group B trio constitutes a group of death. Russia would be an up-and-coming squad in any format, and it is clearly the most dangerous of the six lowest-ranked sides.

Madrid to Monte Carlo

Last week, I introduced a more accurate, predictive rating system for Davis Cup, involving surface-specific Elo ratings for the players likely to compete. Those rankings put Spain at the top, Croatia second, Russia fifth, and fourth-seeded Belgium 14th in the 18-team field.

Now that we have a draw, we can use those ratings to run Monte Carlo simulations of the entire Davis Cup carnival Finals. As in my post last week, I’m estimating that singles players have a 75% chance of playing at any given opportunity and doubles players have an 85% chance. Those are just guesses–there’s no data involved in this step. Surely some teams are more fragile than others, perhaps because their stars are particularly susceptible to injury or just uninterested in the next event. I’ve excluded Andy Murray, but for the moment, I’m keeping Novak Djokovic and Alexander Zverev in the mix.

(We’re using Elo ratings for each individual player, which means the simulation is telling us what would be likely to happen if it were played today. Things will change between now and November, even if every eligible player shows up. A proper forecast that takes the time lag into account would probably give a slight boost for younger teams [whose players will have nine months to mature] and a penalty for older ones [who are more likely to be hit by injury]. And overall, it would shift all of the championship probabilities a bit toward the mean.)

Here are the results of 100,000 simulations of the draw, with percentages given for each country’s chance of winning their group, then reaching each of the knock-out rounds:

Country  Group     QF     SF      F      W  
ESP      46.1%  59.1%  41.9%  30.3%  19.3%  
FRA      54.2%  66.6%  40.6%  25.1%  14.6%  
AUS      74.5%  84.4%  46.0%  23.8%  12.1%  
USA      53.0%  65.5%  36.8%  19.7%  10.4%  
CRO      31.0%  43.0%  27.2%  17.8%   9.8%  
GER      52.5%  67.9%  39.7%  17.6%   7.7%  
RUS      22.9%  33.1%  19.5%  12.0%   6.1%  
SRB      33.0%  47.9%  24.1%  12.6%   6.0%  
GBR      66.8%  78.7%  35.9%  12.5%   4.4%  
ARG      39.7%  56.6%  28.6%  10.4%   3.8%  
ITA      24.3%  35.9%  14.6%   5.5%   2.1%  
CAN      22.7%  33.4%  13.1%   4.9%   1.8%  
JPN      12.8%  19.5%   7.2%   2.8%   0.9%  
BEL      20.3%  32.0%   8.5%   2.1%   0.6%  
NED      21.7%  35.5%   8.6%   1.7%   0.3%  
CHI       7.8%  12.9%   3.4%   0.6%   0.1%  
KAZ      11.5%  19.0%   3.2%   0.5%   0.1%  
COL       5.1%   8.9%   1.2%   0.1%   0.0%

Spain is our clear favorite, despite their path through the group of death. Five teams have a better chance of winning their group and reaching the quarters than the Spaniards do, but their chances in the single-elimination rounds make the difference. At the other extreme, Australia seems to be the biggest beneficiary of draw luck. My rankings put them sixth, and they landed in a group with Belgium (the lowest-rated seed) and Colombia (the weakest team in the field). Their good fortune makes them the most likely country to reach the final four, even if Spain and France have a better chance of advancing to the championship tie.

Less randomness, more Spain

What if we run the simulation one step earlier in the process? That is to say, ignore yesterday’s draw and see what each country’s chances were before their round-robin assignments were determined. For this simulation, we’ll keep the ITF’s seeds, so Spain is still a floater. Here’s how it looked ahead of the ceremony:

Country  Group     QF     SF      F      W  
ESP      63.0%  75.9%  52.9%  35.0%  22.6%  
FRA      56.8%  70.8%  43.9%  25.7%  14.5%  
CRO      55.5%  69.4%  42.2%  25.1%  13.5%  
USA      51.3%  65.6%  38.5%  19.8%  10.0%  
AUS      48.3%  62.9%  34.8%  17.7%   8.5%  
RUS      40.6%  53.5%  30.2%  15.8%   7.9%  
SRB      42.9%  55.8%  28.3%  13.5%   5.9%  
GER      42.0%  55.7%  27.3%  12.5%   5.4%  
ARG      35.9%  49.1%  20.9%   7.9%   2.8%  
ITA      33.6%  47.1%  19.2%   7.2%   2.5%  
GBR      34.9%  48.3%  20.3%   7.5%   2.5%  
CAN      24.5%  35.5%  14.3%   5.3%   1.9%  
JPN      19.8%  29.4%  10.6%   3.6%   1.1%  
BEL      20.9%  30.4%   7.5%   1.8%   0.4%  
NED       9.5%  15.5%   3.5%   0.7%   0.1%  
CHI       7.9%  13.3%   2.6%   0.4%   0.1%  
KAZ       8.4%  14.1%   2.1%   0.3%   0.0%  
COL       4.3%   7.5%   1.1%   0.2%   0.0%

With the “group of death” out of the picture, Croatia jumps from fifth to third, swapping places with Australia. The defending champs lost the most from the draw, while Spain suffered a bit as well.

Elo in charge

Another variation is to ignore the ITF rankings and generate the entire draw based on my Elo-based ratings. In this case, the top six seeds would be Spain, Croatia, France, USA, Russia, and Australia, in that order. Argentina and Great Britain would fall to the middle group, and Belgium would drop to the bottom third. Here’s how that simulation looks:

Country  Group     QF     SF      F      W  
ESP      71.6%  82.8%  57.3%  38.0%  24.1%  
FRA      64.6%  77.6%  45.8%  26.7%  14.4%  
CRO      63.1%  76.3%  45.8%  25.6%  13.6%  
USA      59.7%  73.3%  41.1%  20.2%  10.2%  
RUS      58.6%  71.2%  37.0%  19.7%   9.5%  
AUS      57.7%  71.4%  37.7%  17.7%   8.8%  
SRB      37.1%  53.0%  26.1%  12.1%   5.3%  
GER      35.3%  52.3%  24.5%  10.9%   4.6%  
ARG      28.0%  44.2%  17.5%   6.4%   2.2%  
ITA      27.4%  43.6%  16.9%   6.2%   2.1%  
GBR      27.0%  43.1%  16.5%   6.0%   2.0%  
CAN      26.7%  41.8%  16.0%   5.8%   2.0%  
JPN      15.9%  23.6%   8.1%   2.6%   0.8%  
BEL       9.4%  15.1%   3.9%   0.9%   0.2%  
NED       6.5%  10.8%   2.3%   0.5%   0.1%  
CHI       5.3%   9.0%   1.8%   0.3%   0.1%  
KAZ       3.2%   5.8%   0.9%   0.1%   0.0%  
COL       3.1%   5.2%   0.8%   0.1%   0.0%

The big winners in the Elo scenario are the Russians, who gain a seed and avoid a round-robin encounter with either Spain or Croatia. Australia gets a seed as well, but the benefit of protection from the powerhouses isn’t as valuable as the luck than shone on the Aussies in the actual draw.

Imagine a world with no rankings

Finally, let’s see what happens if we ignore the rankings altogether. It would be unusual for the tournament to take such an approach, but if there’s ever a time to have a tennis event with no seedings, this is it. The existing rankings are far too dependent on years-old results, leaving young teams at a disadvantage. And my system, while more accurate, doesn’t quite feel appropriate either. It is based on individual player ratings, and this is a team event.

Whatever the likelihood of a ranking-free draw in the Davis Cup future, here’s what a simulation looks like with completely random assignment of nations into round-robin groups:

Country  Group     QF     SF      F      W  
ESP      62.8%  75.4%  52.4%  34.8%  22.5%  
FRA      54.8%  68.6%  42.6%  25.0%  13.9%  
CRO      53.4%  67.2%  41.0%  23.6%  13.0%  
USA      48.8%  62.9%  35.9%  19.1%   9.7%  
RUS      47.9%  61.0%  34.8%  18.5%   9.3%  
AUS      47.1%  61.1%  34.1%  17.6%   8.5%  
SRB      41.5%  54.3%  28.0%  13.5%   6.1%  
GER      40.3%  53.6%  26.7%  12.3%   5.3%  
ARG      31.9%  44.9%  18.8%   7.2%   2.6%  
ITA      31.5%  44.2%  18.6%   7.1%   2.5%  
GBR      30.7%  43.4%  17.6%   6.5%   2.3%  
CAN      30.4%  42.7%  17.4%   6.4%   2.2%  
JPN      25.9%  36.4%  13.5%   4.6%   1.4%  
BEL      17.2%  25.9%   7.2%   1.8%   0.4%  
NED      12.5%  20.0%   4.6%   0.9%   0.2%  
CHI      10.4%  16.9%   3.5%   0.6%   0.1%  
KAZ       7.0%  11.8%   1.9%   0.3%   0.0%  
COL       5.9%   9.7%   1.5%   0.2%   0.0%

Round-robin formats do a decent job of surfacing the best teams, so the fully random approach doesn’t give us wildly different results than the seeded simulations. The main effect of the no-seed version is to give the weakest sides a slightly better chance at advancing past the group stage, since there is a better chance for them to avoid strong round-robin competition.

Madrid or Maldives redux

Some top players are likely to skip the event. Zverev has said he’ll be in the Maldives, and Djokovic has hinted he may miss the tournament as well. The new three-rubber format means that teams will suffer a bit less from the absence of a singles star, assuming he also isn’t one of the best doubles options as well. Still, both Germany and Serbia would much rather head to the party with a top-three singles player on their side.

Here are the results of the intial simulation–based on the actual draw–but without Djokovic or Zverev:

Country  Group     QF     SF      F      W  
ESP      46.5%  59.5%  44.0%  33.2%  21.3%  
FRA      68.2%  79.3%  49.6%  30.6%  17.8%  
AUS      74.3%  84.5%  46.1%  24.2%  12.6%  
USA      53.4%  66.2%  37.5%  20.4%  10.8%  
CRO      30.3%  42.5%  28.4%  19.6%  10.8%  
RUS      23.2%  33.6%  21.1%  13.8%   7.0%  
GBR      67.0%  79.0%  40.9%  14.6%   5.2%  
ARG      52.1%  66.9%  35.5%  12.9%   4.9%  
GER      36.4%  52.3%  23.3%   7.2%   2.2%  
ITA      24.2%  35.9%  14.5%   5.7%   2.2%  
CAN      22.4%  33.2%  13.4%   5.2%   2.0%  
JPN      19.4%  31.7%  11.5%   4.8%   1.6%  
BEL      20.5%  32.4%   8.6%   2.3%   0.6%  
SRB      12.4%  21.1%   6.0%   1.9%   0.5%  
NED      21.6%  35.5%   9.8%   2.0%   0.4%  
CHI      11.4%  18.5%   4.9%   0.9%   0.2%  
KAZ      11.3%  19.1%   3.8%   0.5%   0.1%  
COL       5.2%   9.0%   1.2%   0.2%   0.0%

Germany’s chances of winning the inaugural Pique Cup would fall from 7.7% to 2.2%, and Serbia’s odds drop from 6.0% to 0.5%. Argentina and France, the seeded teams sharing groups with Germany and Serbia, respectively, would be the biggest gainers from such high-profile absences.

Anybody’s game

I’ve been skeptical of the new Davis Cup, and while I remain unconvinced that it’s an improvement, I find myself getting excited for the weeklong tennis hootenanny in Madrid. These simulations were even more encouraging. As always, the ranking and seeding isn’t the way I’d do it, but in this format, the differences are minimal. The event format will give us a chance to see plenty of tennis from every qualifying nation, and the high level of competition from most of these countries ensures that most teams have a shot at going all the way.

Picking Favorites With Better Davis Cup Rankings

Yesterday, the ITF announced the seedings for the first new-look Davis Cup Finals, to be held in Madrid this November. The 18-country field was completed by the 12 home-and-way ties contested last weekend. Those 12 winners will join France, Croatia, Spain, and USA (last year’s semi-finalists) along with the two wild cards, recent champions Argentina and Great Britain.

The six nations who skipped the qualifying round will make up five of the top six seeds. (Spain is 7th, while Belgium, who had to qualify, is 4th.) The preliminary round of the November event will feature six round-robin groups of three, each consisting of one top-six seed, a second country ranked 7-12, and a third ranked 13-18. Seeding really matters, as a top position (deserved or not!) guarantees that a side will avoid dangerous opponents like last year’s finalists France and Croatia. Even the difference between 12 and 13 could prove decisive, as a 7-through-12 spot ensures that a nation will steer clear of the always-strong Spaniards, who are seeded 7th.

The seeds are based on the Davis Cup’s ranking system, which relies entirely on previous Davis Cup results. While the formula is long-winded, the concept is simple: A country gets more points for advancing further each season, and recent years are worth the most. The last four years of competition are taken into consideration. It’s not how I would do it, but the results aren’t bad. Four or five of the top six seeds will field strong sides, and one of the exceptions–Great Britain–would have done so had Andy Murray’s hip cooperated. Spain is obviously misranked, but given the limitations of the Davis Cup ranking system, it’s understandable, as the 2011 champions spent 2015 and 2016 languishing outside the World Group.

We can do better

The Davis Cup rankings have several flaws. First, they rely heavily on a lot of old results. If we’re interested in how teams will compete in November, it doesn’t matter how well a side fared three or four years ago, especially if some of their best players are no longer in the mix. Second, they don’t reflect the change in format. Until last year, doubles represented one rubber in a best-of-five-match tie. A good doubles pair helped, but it wasn’t particularly necessary. Now, there are only two singles matches alongside the doubles rubber. The quality of a nation’s doubles team is more important than it used to be.

Let’s see what happens to the rankings when we generate a more forward-looking rating system. Using singles and doubles Elo, I’m going to make a few assumptions:

  • Each country’s top two singles players have a 75% chance of participating (due to the possibility of injury, fatigue, or indifference), and if either one doesn’t take part, the country’s third-best player will replace him.
  • Same idea for doubles, but the top two doubles players have an 85% chance of showing up, to be replaced by the third-best doubles player if necessary.
  • The three matches are equally important. (This isn’t technically true–the third match is likely to be necessary less than half the time, though when it does decide the tie, it is twice as important as the other two matches.)
  • Andy Murray won’t play.

Those assumptions allow us to combine the singles and doubles Elo ratings of the best players of each nation. The result is a weighted rating for each side, one that has a lot of bones to pick with the official Davis Cup rankings.

Forward-looking rankings

The following table shows the 18 countries at the Davis Cup finals along with the 12 losing qualifiers. For each team, I’ve listed their Davis Cup ranking, and their finals seed (if applicable). To demonstrate my results, I’ve shown each nation’s weighted Elo rank and rating and their hard-court Elo rank and rating. The table is sorted by hard-court Elo:

Country  DC Rank  Seed  Elo Rank   Elo  sElo Rank  sElo  
ESP            7     7         1  1936          1  1891  
CRO            2     2         2  1898          2  1849  
FRA            1     1         3  1880          3  1845  
USA            6     6         4  1876          4  1835  
RUS           21    17         7  1855          5  1827  
AUS            9     9         5  1857          6  1820  
SRB            8     8         8  1849          7  1808  
GER           11    11         6  1855          8  1799  
AUT           16              10  1800          9  1766  
ARG            3     3         9  1803         10  1755  
                                                         
Country  DC Rank  Seed  Elo Rank   Elo  sElo Rank  sElo  
GBR            5     5        11  1796         11  1750  
SUI           24              14  1763         12  1749  
ITA           10    10        12  1780         13  1745  
CAN           14    13        13  1777         14  1744  
JPN           17    14        15  1735         15  1719  
BEL            4     4        17  1688         16  1673  
CZE           13              16  1712         17  1661  
NED           19    16        18  1685         18  1643  
BRA           28              20  1659         19  1638  
IND           20              21  1652         20  1621  
                                                         
Country  DC Rank  Seed  Elo Rank   Elo  sElo Rank  sElo  
SVK           29              22  1645         21  1617  
CHI           22    18        19  1682         22  1609  
KAZ           12    12        26  1582         23  1574  
COL           18    15        24  1597         24  1551  
SWE           15              27  1570         25  1542  
BIH           27              28  1552         26  1540  
POR           26              23  1610         27  1535  
HUN           23              25  1583         28  1533  
UZB           25              29  1491         29  1489  
CHN           30              30  1468         30  1465

Spain is the comfortable favorite, regardless of whether we look at overall Elo or hard-court Elo. When the draw is conducted, we’ll see which top-six seed is unlucky enough to end up with the Spaniards in their group, and whether the hosts will remain the favorite.

The biggest mismatch between the Davis Cup rankings and my Elo-based approach is in our assessment of the Russian squad. Daniil Medvedev is up to sixth in my singles Elo ratings, with Karen Khachanov at 10th. Those ratings might be a little aggressive, but as it stands, Russia is the only player with two top-ten Elo singles players. Spain is close, with Rafael Nadal ranked 2nd and Roberto Bautista Agut 11th, and the hosts have the additional advantage of a deep reservoir of doubles talent from which to choose.

In the opposite direction, my rankings do not forecast good things for the Belgians. David Goffin has fallen out of the Elo top 20, and there are no superstar doubles players to pick up the slack. In a just world, Spain and Belgium will land in the same round-robin group–preferably one without the Russians as well.

Madrid or Maldives

The results I’ve shown assume that every top singles player has the same chance of participating. That’s certainly not the case, with high-profile stars like Alexander Zverev telling the press that they’ll be spending the week on holiday in the Maldives. Some teams are heavily dependent on one singles player who could make or break their chances with a decision or an injury.

As it stands, Germany is 8th in the surface-weighted Elo. If we take Zverev entirely out of the mix, they drop to a tie for 14th with Japan. It’s something the German side would prefer to avoid, but it’s not catastrophic, partly because the Germans were never among the favorites, and partly because Zverev could play only one singles rubber per tie and the doubles replacements are competent.

Even more reliant on a single player is the Serbian side, which qualified last weekend without the help of their most dangerous threat, Novak Djokovic. With Djokovic, the Serbs rank 7th–a case where my surface Elo ratings almost agree with the official rankings. But without the 15-time major winner, the Serbs fall down to a tie with Belgium in 16th place. While the Serbs are unlikely to take home the trophy regardless, Novak would make a huge difference.

The draw will take place next Thursday. We’ll check back then to see which sides have the best forecasts, nine months out from the showdown in Madrid.

Podcast Episode 47: Davis Cup and Another Week of Tennis Shenanigans

Episode 47 of the Tennis Abstract Podcast, with Carl Bialik of the Thirty Love podcast, takes a look at all things Davis Cup, including the early exit of a Federer-less Swiss team, the unexpected La Liga sponsorship, and the shrinking opportunities for players at ITF events despite all the money that Davis Cup is apparently worth.

We also plow through a list of miscellaneous topics, including a second title for 18-year-old Dayana Yastremska, a career-best final for Donna Vekic, the demise of the Connecticut Open, the persistence of the serve clock, the career slam of Herbert-Mahut, and some new mixed doubles stats.

Thanks for listening!

(Note: this week’s episode is about 65 minutes long; in some browsers the audio player may display a different length. Sorry about that!)

Click to listen, subscribe on iTunes, or use our feed to get updates on your favorite podcast software.