Davis Cup Needs Major Revision

There is a movement in the power structure of tennis to make the Davis Cup into some things it currently is not. Such as:

High profile. Recognizable. Understandable. Marketable. Compelling. A general interest event that has some appeal to the masses of general interest sports fans.

Davis Cup will be played at the Great Western Forum Friday through Sunday, the United States versus the Czech Republic in a quarterfinal of the World Group. As Davis Cup matches go, this one is a big deal, but certainly not because of anything generic about the concept of Davis Cup. It is a big deal because it is a team from the United States, which currently features the two best singles players in the world in Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi and the best doubles team in the world in Alex O’Brien and Jared Palmer. And it is a big deal because its captain, John McEnroe, is one of the few people whose personality transcends the game he played.

This is a team with star quality, playing in a city where star quality matters plenty. The opponent, the Czech Republic, is likely to get Hollywood glitzed and dazzled, both on and off the court.

Also, this is a city that has more tennis-types per capita than most in the world. It is warm here; you can play year-round. It is generally affluent here, and tennis plays to that. It also is a city of fitness nuts, who are so for reasons deep (good health) and shallow (How many fat people do you see walking down Rodeo Drive?).

But they aren’t knocking down the walls of the Forum to get in, nor are the guys at Murray’s Tickets planning early retirement off the take from this event. If you are a sports fan here this weekend, you might buy a ticket to the Davis Cup, although most are for all three days, so that might give you pause. Or, you might go see the Kings Friday night, the Lakers Saturday night, the Ducks and the Kings Sunday, the Angels against the Red Sox any or all of the three days or the Santa Anita Derby Saturday. Even more likely, you might decide to stay home and watch the Masters on TV. No traffic, no parking, no hassles, no costs.

Right now, those who choose the Davis Cup from that menu will be true tennis fans. Period.

So, what some of the bigger movers and shakers are pushing for in the Davis Cup is an upgrade, a mega-event feel. They want something that captures the media, which in turn captures the public, which in turn would mean that staying home and watching the Masters on TV would suddenly not be the thing to do.

“We’re looking for the March Madness of tennis,” said Cliff Drysdale, a former South African Davis Cup player, who broadcasts Davis Cup matches for ESPN and is among the leaders of the NDCFM (New Davis Cup Format Movement).

Drysdale wrote a recent article in Tennis Magazine advocating changes, and he is being joined, in only slightly varying levels of enthusiasm, by key tournament directors Charlie Pasarell of Indian Wells and Butch Buchholz of Ericsson, as well as the likes of Donald Dell and Gene Scott. Mark Miles, CEO of the men’s ATP tour, reportedly is open to change, and Judy Levering, president of the U.S. Tennis Assn., said Tuesday that “this definitely has to be looked at with some idea of change in mind.”

Although radical Davis Cup format change likely is a few years away, if at all in the face of possible resistance from the sanctioning International Tennis Federation, what is going on now is much more than idle talk and one magazine article. On March 17, during Pasarell’s tournament in the desert, Pasarell and Drysdale, among others now serving on a USTA Davis Cup Advisory Committee, met, discussed and put in writing their thoughts.

“I’m pleased they’re getting together,” Levering said. “That’s the only way anything is going to happen, if the players and former players get behind something.”

Drysdale, along with Buchholz and Pasarell the ringleaders, actually is not looking for March Madness. More like November-December Madness. In interviews with him and others, the following concept/proposal emerged.

* The Davis Cup would not be played every year, but every other year.

* The men’s pro tour schedule would be changed in those years to end in October, thereby leaving November and the early part of December for one huge Davis Cup tournament.

* The current World Group, which consists of 16 teams drawn into a normal 16-team bracket, would be replaced with a field of 13 teams that would have the right to compete for the Cup.

* One of those 13 teams would be the defending champion, and it would play host to a Final Four, probably the first or second week of December. It would pick the site and the surface to be played on, shortly after it wins the Davis Cup, giving promoters, players and officials two years to plan and market the next event. This would be designated the Challenge Round, which is what it was called until 1972, when the Davis Cup champion waited all year for the other teams to play their way to a final against the defending champion.

* The other 12 teams, drawn into the World Group on the basis of past play, would compete for the three spots in three separate nine-day tournaments to join the reigning champion. Each tournament would be a round-robin event, meaning there would be no dead rubber--matches that don’t count but are played as exhibitions because tickets were sold. A team that was leading, 3-0, would have a stake in making that 4-1 or 5-0.

* One team from each of the three tournaments, played in November, would emerge to make up the Final Four, and one team from each of the three tournaments, the fourth-place finisher, would drop out of the World Group to make room for new qualifiers.

* The Challenge Round--semifinals and final--would be single elimination.

It is a creative plan that addresses many of the current Davis Cup failings, such as pressure on players’ schedules.

Sampras, who committed to play this year when McEnroe signed on despite being fairly outspoken about the difficulties such commitments force on players, said Tuesday, “If you’re going to give Davis Cup its better due, you need to give it a better schedule. [For example] someone like [Gustavo] Kuerten had to hop on a plane [from Miami], go to Brazil and get ready in three days time to play on clay.

“We’re all in agreement about the problem. One of the ways we could get this done is if all the top players get together and kind of boycotted. I don’t see that happening. But the format should be changed.”

McEnroe agreed, saying that out of 100 people, 99 couldn’t say when the next Davis Cup match is and why it is spread over 12 months.

“It has to change,” he said.

Pasarell said that the current way is not working, that there is no time to market or organize or establish any cohesiveness to a bunch of mini-matches scattered all over the world.

“A few years ago, Sweden was Davis Cup champion,” he said. “The next year, they played three matches at home, and lost money on all three.

“Also, a few years ago, Pete and Andre committed to get back into the Davis Cup, and we flew them to a match in Italy, where they ended up playing at some little tennis club in Palermo. And we wonder why players don’t want to play.”

Drysdale sees a lofty purpose in this movement.

“My feeling,” he said, “is that, for my generation of player, fixing the Davis Cup is the best legacy we can leave for the sport.”

Both Drysdale and Pasarell take similar approaches to the issue of longtime ITF reticence to format changes.

“I think this would be the best thing that ever happened to the ITF,” Drysdale said, “and they just don’t know it. I think the way to do it is to get the USTA and the ATP Tour together and have them take it to the ITF as a fait accompli.”

Pasarell’s stance was even more proactive.

“If we could convince John [McEnroe] to believe in this, we’re well along,” he said. “If McEnroe believes in this concept, and takes it to heart, he’ll intimidate people.”

*

Times staffer Lisa Dillman contributed to this story.