Anyone else feel uncomfortable about Laver Cup?

pj80

Hall of Fame
Don't forget Djokovic retiring with a sore throat at 2008 Monte Carlo. Federer wasn't impressed, and had told Djokovic's parents to "be quiet" during the match.
Also during ESPN broadcast of Fed-Delpo 2009 AO. Cahill asked MaryJo Fernandes if Roger watched the Roddick/Djokovic match and what he thought of retirement... MaryJoe replied "he expected it, they played in Monte Carlo last year and when he shook hands with Roger he said 'I have sore throat' so Roger thought that was a bit soft...Cahill then proceeded "Not something Federer would do I would imagine..." MaryJo: "I don't think so...or Rafa"
 

SandV28

New User
I didn't watch it this year, but watched a lot the first year, and lesser amounts the next couple years.
In the first edition, there was some electricity, especially with Roger and Rafa playing doubles. After that, some of that novelty wore off.

Now, I can't judge the quality of this year's play, but when one team (who has now won all four editions) wins 14-1, and you cancel the remaining (was it three?) matches, that's not only a problem, but a joke. A ripoff. I mean, can't you have some other events planned, or just...I don't know...play the stinkin' matches that were scheduled. It's not as if the outcome of the team competition was in much doubt.

Contrast this with the Ryder Cup which was just held this weekend. I'm much more of a tennis than a golf fan, but the Ryder Cup has many built-in advantages:
  • By now, an almost 100-year history.
  • Natural teams: Would you rather play for the USA, or "the rest of the world"? And while it's questionable that there is that much pan-European pride, there is in the Ryder Cup, as often Europe is the underdog to the US. Over its recent history, they also seem to respond to the the team format better than the American players.
  • In Ryder Cup, every match is worth a full point, which could be halved. In Laver Cup, they escalate the point value of matches (gimmicky) and yet this year, they still had to cancel matches today. Ridiculous.
  • Plus, the Ryder Cup is played every two years, which makes it a little more special for that reason alone.
What else? Counting this exhibition toward head-to-head records is insulting. Now, if they start awarding ranking points, it will have jumped a bunch of sharks.
Europe obviously dominated as far as the point total but most of the Tennis was competitive. I actually think it was the perfect conditions for good Tennis where it was indoors, motivation to win, but not quite as much pressure you would have in a normal tournament.

I was very confused as far as today’s schedule and happy I didn’t wind up going(even though I had tickets) given the time involved driving in. They need to refine the format so it’s clearer what you are getting on the final day.
 

Omega_7000

Legend
I just can’t shake this disquieting feeling watching this year’s Laver Cup. It’s a little sickening watching a bunch of multi-millionaire top players and of course the world’s absolute richest in Federer line their already deep pockets like this. It’s the final Sunday and spectators are going to get 2 low quality doubles matches in exchange for their $250+ seats.

Laver Cup is an ATP-sanctioned, yet completely uncompetitive (and non-inclusive, male only) exho for the world’s richest players, who make nearly a million in appearance fees.. when you see it juxtaposed with this week’s ATP 250s and WTA 500 winners making <$50k for winning it is pretty tough to observe.

The dichotomy couldn’t be more pronounced. It’s great for the top players, I suppose, but for me it simply highlights the growing division between the haves and have nots in tennis and feels hollow and greedy.

Thoughts?
So the top pros who have worked harder than others to rise to the top should not try to earn as much as they can? Let me know when you're in that position and decide to turn down opportunities to make money because you already have a lot. It's easy to be a keyboard warrior and post this stuff online....not so easy when you're actually in that position.
 

Omega_7000

Legend
Mostly Djokovic and some Nadal fans cr@pping on the tournament because they hate Fed...

The tournament was designed to be different. Not to be taken as seriously as a slam but not a just a exhibition either...something unique to draw a different demographic to the sport. Probably will slowly grow with some tweaks to the format as the years go by...
 

fedfan08

Professional
I didn't watch it this year, but watched a lot the first year, and lesser amounts the next couple years.
In the first edition, there was some electricity, especially with Roger and Rafa playing doubles. After that, some of that novelty wore off.

Now, I can't judge the quality of this year's play, but when one team (who has now won all four editions) wins 14-1, and you cancel the remaining (was it three?) matches, that's not only a problem, but a joke. A ripoff. I mean, can't you have some other events planned, or just...I don't know...play the stinkin' matches that were scheduled. It's not as if the outcome of the team competition was in much doubt.

Contrast this with the Ryder Cup which was just held this weekend. I'm much more of a tennis than a golf fan, but the Ryder Cup has many built-in advantages:
  • By now, an almost 100-year history.
  • Natural teams: Would you rather play for the USA, or "the rest of the world"? And while it's questionable that there is that much pan-European pride, there is in the Ryder Cup, as often Europe is the underdog to the US. Over its recent history, they also seem to respond to the the team format better than the American players.
  • In Ryder Cup, every match is worth a full point, which could be halved. In Laver Cup, they escalate the point value of matches (gimmicky) and yet this year, they still had to cancel matches today. Ridiculous.
  • Plus, the Ryder Cup is played every two years, which makes it a little more special for that reason alone.
What else? Counting this exhibition toward head-to-head records is insulting. Now, if they start awarding ranking points, it will have jumped a bunch of sharks.
I think they could do something about dead matches besides cancelling them. Maybe turn those into a real ‘exhibition‘ or fun hit and giggle. Something to entertain the fans. I watched some of the Ryder Cup this year and I thought it was kind of boring. Team Europe was crap and it was pretty obvious after day 1 that team USA was going to win in a blowout (which is what happened). The way it stands now I wouldn’t be surprised if team USA goes on a streak of wins now. I watched most of the first two days of Laver Cup and several of the matches could have gone either way. There were a couple team World should have won. I don’t think the teams were as lopsided as the score suggests. It’s just right now in mens tennis the best players happen to be from Europe. That wasn’t always the case.
 

fedfan08

Professional
To work properly, like the Ryder Cup, it needs bigger promotion, and no other tournaments on. Its prestige needs to be played up a lot more. It must not be just like any other run-of-the-mill tennis tournament. It would be interesting to see the higher ranked players always playing, and the pressure is different. Tiger Woods thrived in individual majors, but not so much in Ryder Cup. It's been the opposite for Colin Montgomerie and Ian Poulter.
I wish people would stop comparing it to the Ryder Cup (and yes I know that’s what the organizers said they modeled it after). The Ryder Cup has been around for decades. No one can expect an event in it’s 4th year to have the prestige of something that’s been around for decades. Even still who knows what the ratings were for the Ryder Cup as it was going up against college/pro football and it wasn’t very competitive.
 

fedfan08

Professional
I went last night and thoroughly enjoyed it. I was fortunate enough to get my tickets off of stubhub super cheap so that definitely helped. The quality of Tennis was incredibly high and it seemed like everyone was having fun. It was a very diverse crowd as far as race, age, gender, etc.

The negative is that this event got ZERO coverage locally. I rarely go on Facebook but have checked it a few times this weekend and not one person I’m friends with posted about going which is odd considering how many Tennis friends I have around Boston.

I’m sure this has been posted a lot but we really need to get more Tennis, including Laver Cup, back on ESPN. Where I live it’s pretty expensive to get TC and I doubt anyone other than the real diehards ever check it out.
The commentators kept talking about the slow courts. I’m not sure who decides on court speed but I think it would have helped team World if the courts had been a bit faster.
 

socallefty

Legend
I was ok with it as an exhibition. I wasn’t happy when Federer used his influence to get if officially sanctioned by the ATP and counted in head-to-head records. But, in the bigger scheme of things, who cares?
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
I think they could do something about dead matches besides cancelling them. Maybe turn those into a real ‘exhibition‘ or fun hit and giggle. Something to entertain the fans. I watched some of the Ryder Cup this year and I thought it was kind of boring. Team Europe was crap and it was pretty obvious after day 1 that team USA was going to win in a blowout (which is what happened). The way it stands now I wouldn’t be surprised if team USA goes on a streak of wins now. I watched most of the first two days of Laver Cup and several of the matches could have gone either way. There were a couple team World should have won. I don’t think the teams were as lopsided as the score suggests. It’s just right now in mens tennis the best players happen to be from Europe. That wasn’t always the case.
I think team world were very unlucky on tie breaks. I also blame McEnroe for his team selection. I’m sure he could find a couple of good players other than Isner and Opelka. Lloyd Harris is a great talent and he wasn’t used. Kyrgios isn’t fit enough to play singles, he should have been used only for doubles. Tiafoe, Garin, de Minaur, Korda, Millman would have been good options.
 
I just can’t shake this disquieting feeling watching this year’s Laver Cup. It’s a little sickening watching a bunch of multi-millionaire top players and of course the world’s absolute richest in Federer line their already deep pockets like this. It’s the final Sunday and spectators are going to get 2 low quality doubles matches in exchange for their $250+ seats.

Laver Cup is an ATP-sanctioned, yet completely uncompetitive (and non-inclusive, male only) exho for the world’s richest players, who make nearly a million in appearance fees.. when you see it juxtaposed with this week’s ATP 250s and WTA 500 winners making <$50k for winning it is pretty tough to observe.

The dichotomy couldn’t be more pronounced. It’s great for the top players, I suppose, but for me it simply highlights the growing division between the haves and have nots in tennis and feels hollow and greedy.

Thoughts?
I haven't tuned in to watch.
They really need a draft to make the teams more balanced at the very least. It’s no fun watching the Monstars beat up on the Toon Squad (n)

Eh I remain unconvinced by the PTPA for a number of reasons, namely the fact that they have yet to actually propose anything concrete lol.

I certainly can understand the sentiments behind it though, a day like today highlighting them perfectly.
Tennis is part of the entertainment industry. The top guys get paid a lot because they make money for tournament organizers and help the branding of the advertisers/sponsors. Others get paid less if they don’t attract as many fans, advertisers, sponsors etc. It is just capitalism at work.

As the consumer, you can control what entertainment you partake of. I’ve watched a total of about 4 Laver Cup matches since it started years ago since I consider it an uninteresting exhibition with maybe even an unspoken understanding to lose the second set after winning the first set in many matches.

There is no fairness in sport when it is a blockbuster revenue source for many companies and organizations.
Agree

I mean I'd say for the casual fan it's probably about as good as tennis gets. For the more hardcore fan it can be an amusing aside, and for the people organizing I would assume a pretty big success. The part about people buying tickets for the final day and then seeing crap is a fair point, but that's the risk you run (which I'm sure most know) when they pay, and it's certainly not specific to the Laver Cup :D Same thing would happen in the old Davis Cup, same thing happens in football games or basketball games when teams decide to rest their starters, it happens in tennis all the time! Imagine how many people probably got tickets to the womens US Open final in 2015 hoping to see their hero go for the grand slam, and instead they got Flavs and Vinci.
This is a very good point. As much as I am disinterested in Laver Cup myself, I have come to realize the value proposition of just how many casual sports fans Laver Cup hooks in. I cant believe I'm saying this but in terms of a global casual viewing audience, Laver Cup really pulls in non-tennis fans.

They may have hit on the perfect formula of match length, team format, curated selection of players and high octane TV presentation style that gets eyeballs on tennis that are not normally there, even for the majors. As much as I dont care for the event, there is some value to it if just for that.
 

fedfan08

Professional
Agree



This is a very good point. As much as I am disinterested in Laver Cup myself, I have come to realize the value proposition of just how many casual sports fans Laver Cup hooks in. I cant believe I'm saying this but in terms of a global casual viewing audience, Laver Cup really pulls in non-tennis fans.

They may have hit on the perfect formula of match length, team format, curated selection of players and high octane TV presentation style that gets eyeballs on tennis that are not normally there, even for the majors. As much as I dont care for the event, there is some value to it if just for that.
Tony Godsick (Fed’s agent) is no dummy. He knows there’s a demographic for this kind of event. They pretty much have to play it in the fall so it will never end up on ESPN but I think a lot more households get the Tennis Channel now and their coverage was good.
 

fedfan08

Professional
I think team world were very unlucky on tie breaks. I also blame McEnroe for his team selection. I’m sure he could find a couple of good players other than Isner and Opelka. Lloyd Harris is a great talent and he wasn’t used. Kyrgios isn’t fit enough to play singles, he should have been used only for doubles. Tiafoe, Garin, de Minaur, Korda, Millman would have been good options.
Yeah I don’t know how the selection process works but I was surprised Tiafoe wasn’t there. Going back to the Ryder Cup, I remember when Europe was dominating some of the American players were really sour on the event saying they preferred the Presidents Cup. This narrative that every pro golfer out there lives for the Ryder Cup is bunk. Maybe on the European side that was the case because Ryder Cup was the only thing they were dominating.
 

Kralingen

Legend
I thought this is exactly what you were saying in different words. Nothing wrong with that mind you. It is shocking that a bunch of kids who hit a ball with a racket are making millions, no?
It is of course easier to argue against something when you can misconstrue it in a straw man, lol.

a serious answer because I think you’re a good poster and worth talking to:

I do cede the point that tennis in general is a fraught institution in terms of wealth inequality and the world, don’t get me wrong. It’s all a pisstake to enrich the sponsors and elites. So I am being slightly hypocritical here.

But at least there is a semblance of real competition at other tournaments and Slams. The Laver Cup exists solely for itself, the “competition” and fanfare completely contrived, and the façade seems to be crumbling a bit. They’re caught in this in between of it being a serious thing like the Ryder Cup and it being a spectacle for exhibition, like an All-Star tournament.

I guess the same could be said about Legends Tour but those are far more affordable and I think more charity-focused. Plus everyone knows going in that these are old guys playing to entertain, it’s not an official ATP event, they intentionally play to the crowd, etc.

Really I think is what hurts the Laver Cup, the complete lack of a charity element. I know similar events like the NBA All Star game and exhos in European football are huuuge on charity. If they added that in, the event has a greater purpose, and I think it would be a solution that could suit all parties.
 

Russeljones

G.O.A.T.
I just can’t shake this disquieting feeling watching this year’s Laver Cup. It’s a little sickening watching a bunch of multi-millionaire top players and of course the world’s absolute richest in Federer line their already deep pockets like this. It’s the final Sunday and spectators are going to get 2 low quality doubles matches in exchange for their $250+ seats.

Laver Cup is an ATP-sanctioned, yet completely uncompetitive (and non-inclusive, male only) exho for the world’s richest players, who make nearly a million in appearance fees.. when you see it juxtaposed with this week’s ATP 250s and WTA 500 winners making <$50k for winning it is pretty tough to observe.

The dichotomy couldn’t be more pronounced. It’s great for the top players, I suppose, but for me it simply highlights the growing division between the haves and have nots in tennis and feels hollow and greedy.

Thoughts?
The event does more to raise the overall appeal of the game. I am sure many will disagree with you over the competitive nature of the event.

In case you don't follow, the "appeal" can translate into better sponsorship globally. It's down to the ATP, tournament organisers and players themselves to utilise this.

Myself, I hate lazy tropes about inequality.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
It is of course easier to argue against something when you can misconstrue it in a straw man, lol.

a serious answer because I think you’re a good poster and worth talking to:

I do cede the point that tennis in general is a fraught institution in terms of wealth inequality and the world, don’t get me wrong. It’s all a pisstake to enrich the sponsors and elites. So I am being slightly hypocritical here.

But at least there is a semblance of real competition at other tournaments and Slams. The Laver Cup exists solely for itself, the “competition” and fanfare completely contrived, and the façade seems to be crumbling a bit. They’re caught in this in between of it being a serious thing like the Ryder Cup and it being a spectacle for exhibition, like an All-Star tournament.

I guess the same could be said about Legends Tour but those are far more affordable and I think more charity-focused. Plus everyone knows going in that these are old guys playing to entertain, it’s not an official ATP event, they intentionally play to the crowd, etc.

Really I think is what hurts the Laver Cup, the complete lack of a charity element. I know similar events like the NBA All Star game and exhos in European football are huuuge on charity. If they added that in, the event has a greater purpose, and I think it would be a solution that could suit all parties.
You do make some good points and some not so good ones. At the end, Laver Cup isn’t worth arguing about so I’ll just say this :)

I personally like it for two reasons.
1. I like to see top players who are normally fierce competitors act in a friendly and even brotherly way. You could see that Europe team had very good chemistry even when the press makes you believe they all hate each other. They look like they genuinely get along like good friends.
2. I think the competition is real. None of these players will be happy to lose for the show. They want to win and they put in the effort. But I like the stress free environment. They play more relaxed and consequently better. No gamesmanship, no toilet breaks, no winning at any cost approach. I wish more serious competitions were played this way.

Now I agree with you that the charity aspect is lacking. It would have been better but to me it’s not very important. All those guys have their own charity contributions and projects. They do contribute in other ways. Ultimately this is good stress free show that I enjoy watching.
 

Kralingen

Legend
The event does more to raise the overall appeal of the game. I am sure many will disagree with you over the competitive nature of the event.

In case you don't follow, the "appeal" can translate into better sponsorship globally. It's down to the ATP, tournament organisers and players themselves to utilise this.

Myself, I hate lazy tropes about inequality.
Fair points. If the true purpose of this is to make the top guys like Zverev and Tsitsipas more palatable to larger mainstream audiences and give them a star-level platform to become household names, it’s not a bad idea.

I agree with the 2nd point for sure. Still feels like it coasts mainly off Fed/Borg/Mac’s star power at the moment, but that’s an issue with the ATP’s promotion of game in general moreso than Laver Cup.

you didn’t have to be condescending though, with “in case you don’t follow”
 

zagor

Bionic Poster
I just can’t shake this disquieting feeling watching this year’s Laver Cup. It’s a little sickening watching a bunch of multi-millionaire top players and of course the world’s absolute richest in Federer line their already deep pockets like this. It’s the final Sunday and spectators are going to get 2 low quality doubles matches in exchange for their $250+ seats.

Laver Cup is an ATP-sanctioned, yet completely uncompetitive (and non-inclusive, male only) exho for the world’s richest players, who make nearly a million in appearance fees.. when you see it juxtaposed with this week’s ATP 250s and WTA 500 winners making <$50k for winning it is pretty tough to observe.

The dichotomy couldn’t be more pronounced. It’s great for the top players, I suppose, but for me it simply highlights the growing division between the haves and have nots in tennis and feels hollow and greedy.

Thoughts?
It's just an exo event (I don't care if it's ATP-sanctioned) and Fed's pet project, you're reading/projecting waaay too much into it. It has no bearing on prize distribution in tennis.

Nobody's pointing a gun at spectators to buy those overpriced tickets and absolutely no one is stopping WTA star players from creating a similar event, why would they need to piggyback Fed and co.
 

Beacon Hill

Hall of Fame
Tennis is part of the entertainment industry. The top guys get paid a lot because they make money for tournament organizers and help the branding of the advertisers/sponsors. Others get paid less if they don’t attract as many fans, advertisers, sponsors etc. It is just capitalism at work.

As the consumer, you can control what entertainment you partake of. I’ve watched a total of about 4 Laver Cup matches since it started years ago since I consider it an uninteresting exhibition with maybe even an unspoken understanding to lose the second set after winning the first set in many matches.

There is no fairness in sport when it is a blockbuster revenue source for many companies and organizations.
I've watched every match for four years and have never seen that. There are valid reasons to criticize this event, but that isn't one of them.
 

Fedforever

Hall of Fame
I definitely think there's a better format they could have - there are several ways you could do this.

But the usual complaint is that it's fixed - well, it clearly isn't because no way would the organisers have fixed that outcome on the last day.
 

wangs78

Hall of Fame
Laver Cup is a total money grab but the demand exists. There are enough well to do ppl in dozens of cities around the world who will gladly pay the inflated ticket prices to just have something to do on a weekend in September. Its too bad the world puts so much money into entertainment these days bc all it does is put more money into the pockets of a small number of entetainers and producers of an event.
 

tex123

Professional
I just can’t shake this disquieting feeling watching this year’s Laver Cup. It’s a little sickening watching a bunch of multi-millionaire top players and of course the world’s absolute richest in Federer line their already deep pockets like this. It’s the final Sunday and spectators are going to get 2 low quality doubles matches in exchange for their $250+ seats.

Laver Cup is an ATP-sanctioned, yet completely uncompetitive (and non-inclusive, male only) exho for the world’s richest players, who make nearly a million in appearance fees.. when you see it juxtaposed with this week’s ATP 250s and WTA 500 winners making <$50k for winning it is pretty tough to observe.

The dichotomy couldn’t be more pronounced. It’s great for the top players, I suppose, but for me it simply highlights the growing division between the haves and have nots in tennis and feels hollow and greedy.

Thoughts?
Erm .. they weren't multi millionaires to start with. It is a result of blood, sweat and tears going through the best of the best and proving their worth. Isn't that what drives everyone? If you get there, you should be able to enjoy fruits of your labour. In the process, also care for the others but not too much so that there is no incentive to become best of the best i.e. Venezuela's socialism. If you go to Asian countries, you'll see billionaires and millionaires with high rise building and a few metres away a slum. It is everywhere. Why do you pick tennis?

It's like saying it is sickening to see Oscars or Grammys or Met Gala being hosted when there are children being killed in Syria or Afghanistan.
 

Arak

Hall of Fame
I said it in an earlier post but I will repeat it for emphasis. The greatest thing about the Laver Cup is that it brought together a group of enemies and fierce rivals and forced them to become friends. Competition after LC will never be like before. When Rune, Tsitsipas, Berettini, Zverev, Rublev and Medvedev meet on the court next time, they will have already shared some great memories together and I hope there will be more fairness and less gamesmanship.
 
Last edited:

fedfan08

Professional
I've watched every match for four years and have never seen that. There are valid reasons to criticize this event, but that isn't one of them.
And it’s a dumb one too. If any of the matches were fixed believe me it would leak and be all over social media.
 

Frenchy-Player

Professional
In the 90's there was "the grand slam cup" whos was perhaps more "uncomfortable" :

 

merwy

G.O.A.T.
I said it in an earlier post but I will repeat it for emphasis. The greatest thing about the Laver Cup is that it brought together a group of enemies and fierce rivals and forced them to become friends. Competition after LC will never be like before. When Rune, Tsitsipas, Berettini, Zverev, Rublev and Medvedev meet on the court next time, they will have already shared some great memories together and I hope there will be more fairness and less gamesmanship.
I think you mean Ruud, lol
 

Patogen

Rookie
I watched a bit of the Toiletbreaker vs SundayNight match. It's what it is. Obsolete. It kinda reminds me of the WTF in the sense I cannot bring myself to care no matter how hard I try, and with LC, I don't even try that hard.
 

TimHenmanATG

Hall of Fame
This has always been the problem with the end-of-season WTF exo.

Although, at least the Laver Cup doesn't have ranking points to add to the "snouts in the trough" c0rruption of the you finals...
 

liriel

Semi-Pro
I've always said that Tennis is a rich man's sport and Federer represents the aristocrats while Novak represents the downtrodden/peasants/third world
If only he was as charismatic and classy like Roger then he would have done that in a better way, he comes as anti establishment
In the real world I feel Novak was disliked in the beginning because he came across as confident and outspoken, remember when he beat Fed at
Football players are paid too much. Tennis players as well. But those who earn that much have a huge talent, are chosen ones and work very hard especially tennis players. we only see the 0,01%. Compare it to one night in paris and kim kardashian's tapes. The latter does "work" a lot (what counts as work? selfies or grinding the shots. galas vs matches). It's not the world I want to live in. Then you have the tiktok. several millions for one video of a few seconds of dance movement. more followers than all tennis players (I clearly don't understand tiktok). Several of team world/europe could make millions being models and wooden actors.
Sunny, I enjoyed both of your posts but I feel like you contradict yourself from time to time. You're making Roger a bad guy OTT and don't see he's a grandpa Roger now and obviously he changed. My personality changed within 15 years and I'm sure it'll again. Also now I play a "young blonde" card and know when my looks fade I'll be "oh, the adventures I had. Being wise and at peace with yourself is what matters".
Novak is very charismatic and one of the smartest players out there. He just didn't click as much as he could have. Maybe because there was a golden boy - Roger already. Only one queen bee. Novak tried and tries a different PR angles as well. Changed his personality. He made a few mistakes and still does say things that are bizarre. You can't explain some things he did say. so OTT weird. I do like him.
Federer was in the right place at the right time and felt a void with his magic touch. He wasn't that arrogant and that snobby. He had more class than Serena Williams. It's a projection and knowing that now he's a legend. He didn't do anything so bad to make headlines. Got angry or was sad or knew his worth. Big deal.
Nadal is trickier. I wouldn't say Rafa never threatened Roger and his image. Rafa barely spoke English at first and is very humble but for my friends it was a magician vs fighter. The fighter persona got him fans. Roger did everything with ease - that's huge part of his appeal, Rafa - had to fight run outdo himself. I believe that's why world loved that particular rivalry.
Anyway, I'm going to London next year for Fedal!
 
Top