Davis Cup finals - Surface mishaps

[Laurie]

Now that we know the result of this monumental Davis cup final for Britain Last month I wrote an article as a bit of fun where in the last 20 years, showing how home nations have chosen a surface to put off the opposing team which backfired considerably. The surface of choice has often been indoor clay; has been more like the surface of doom for many home nations, but they still insist on doing it!!

Read on...

The tennis world has applauded Great Britain making it through to their first Davis cup final since 1978, with the opportunity to be crowned champions for the first time since 1936! Great Britain go in as favourites against Belgium with Andy Murray being the difference maker, while Belgium have chosen indoor clay as the surface of choice, rather unsurprisingly. This intrigues me as the Davis cup final is littered with examples of a home nation choosing a surface to negate the opposition but backfiring spectacularly, let us look at some recent scenarios.

http://burnstennis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/davis-cup-finals-surface-mishaps.html

 

[Mainad]

Thanks for that interesting account, Laurie. Looks like the curse of the home surface choice has struck again! I guess the Belgians figured that clay being the worst surface for British players would play into their hands. Unfortunately, they overlooked the fact that Murray has been having his best ever clay season this year!

It is indeed strange that France is the home of Roland Garros, the supreme clay tournament, and yet their own players seem to perform better on grass. Maybe they should think of switching surfaces and they might start to produce a few more home-grown champions!!!

*BTW, the 2014 final between France and Switzerland was played in Lille, not Lyon.

 

[Nachiket Nolefam]

Murray is great hard court, grass court and good clay court player. What could Belgium have done?

 

[Nachiket Nolefam]

2014 France v Switzerland

Maybe if Fed injury was known 2 months ago, France could have chosen Grass. With Tsonga and Gasquet having capability of playing well, at least as well as Wawrinka.

 

[Laurie]

Thanks Mainad, updated to Lille.

 

[PeterHo]

They should pick a venue significantly different to the rest of the tour, with as many environmental variables as possible (this gives a better chance to the inferior team)

So somewhere up in the mountains, with heaps of wind, might be good. In a place with few amenities, only the local food, etc.

 

[Laurie]

Murray is great hard court, grass court and good clay court player. What could Belgium have done?

That's a good question. In 1991, France beat USA on a quick indoor court, they said we can match our players with yours. But recently many nations are worrying more about the opponents' strengths than their own facets.

 

[Shaolin]

Murray has slam titles on hardcourt and grass. Clay was their best bet.

 

[The Green Mile]

Good read. Thanks. I enjoy your articles.

 

[HipRotation]

It wasn't exactly a backfire, they would've won the same rubbers on any surface. It would've been a spectacular backfire if Edmund was able to win another set off Goffin. Now that would've been a spectacular failure of surface choice indeed.

 

[Laurie]

It wasn't exactly a backfire, they would've won the same rubbers on any surface. It would've been a spectacular backfire if Edmund was able to win another set off Goffin. Now that would've been a spectacular failure of surface choice indeed.

Well, that depends.

For instance, if the players would prefer to play on an indoor hardcourt but go along with the decision of the Captain and Federation to play on indoor clay to stop the opposition, then its a backfire. If the players want to play on indoor clay as a first choice, then its not a backfire.

France who lost in 1999, 2002 and 2014; I don't imagine their plyers wanting to play on indoor clay as a first choice, their top players have invariably been grass court specialists, and solid fast court players.

Czech Republic for both men and women go with what they know when they play at home, which is to play on indoor hardcourt regardless of who the opposition is because it suits their own players.

 

[Laurie]

Good read. Thanks. I enjoy your articles.

Thanks

 

[Gazelle]

Belgium would have lost regardless of surface, that much is clear.

Didn't read the whole article but the first examples didn't make much sense. Yes, the home nation lost. But it wasn't necessarily because of a wrong choice of surface. Sometimes the right surface was chosen but clearly the home nation simply didn't play well enough. F.e. if Russia couldn't beat Sampras on clay they wouldn't haven beaten him on fast indoor hardcourt.

A true backfire was probly in 2008, when Argentina chose to play Spain on a lightning quick hardcourt, to negate Nadal's clay prowess. Unfortunately Nadal couldn't play because of injury and Deliciano played in his place, who liked the surface very much and upset Del Potro.