Poll. Laver Cup World vs Europe isn´t working. What other kind of match-ups might work better?

What should be the teams at the Laver Cup?

  • Nike vs Rest

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    55

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Another idea: Big 3 against the rest.

On any day Federer/Nadal/Djokovic all play a singles match and there is also one double each day, so over the weekend we have each possible pairing once.

So there are 12 Big 3 matches in a row. That would guarantee permanent entertainment.

And maybe to make it a bit closer the opponent should always start with a break lead in every set (just 1-0 and then serving).
Best we give them a whole set lead.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
I think people pretending to find "World" confusing are just arguing for argument's sake.
Of course Europe belongs to the "world", but this has been a standard designation in sports (most notably in exhibition football matches) for many years now.
Nobody says it´s confusing. Perhaps my post confused you.

I merely said it was dumb. Because WHY would Europe play the rest of the world? They´ve pretty much won everything in the last 15 years.

Plus it sounds dumb."Europe vs Rest" or "Europe vs World". It´s meant to be bombastic-sounding but it´s almost arbitrary.

I´ve offered a bunch of alternatives that would be genuinely fun. What´s fun about a dumb geographical divide? We already have that In Hopman Cup, David Cup.

But I guess most people fear innovation or new things. They scare them.
 
Nobody says it´s confusing. Perhaps my post confused you.

I merely said it was dumb. Because WHY would Europe play the rest of the world? They´ve pretty much won everything in the last 15 years.

Plus it sounds dumb."Europe vs Rest" or "Europe vs World". It´s meant to be bombastic-sounding but it´s almost arbitrary.

I´ve offered a bunch of alternatives that would be genuinely fun. What´s fun about a dumb geographical divide? We already have that In Hopman Cup, David Cup.

But I guess most people fear innovation or new things. They scare them.
Perhaps the word "confusing" isn't the best, but it's clear to me that many people have argued against this format using precisely the facetious arguments I criticised (I wasn't writing to you personally).
And to your question about it being dumb to use such a format, I will answer in the same way: 1) domination in tennis is transitory and there is no way to predict the future or to create a system that won't eventually struggle with the same sort of problems (in the case of oldies vs. next generations, the exact same thing - utter domination by one side - has been happening, and yet you're presenting it as an alternative to Europe vs. World); 2) it's as flawed and arbitrary as any other dichotomy (perhaps less so than some of the more preposterous - tongue in cheek, I suppose - suggestions you generously presented in the poll).

Also, innovation isn't necessarily virtuous, and none of the examples you gave is immune to be considered 1) dumb and "bombastic-sounding" or 2) completely arbitrary.
It seems you don't like this format for aesthetic reasons rather than practical ones, as changing the terms of the dichotomy wouldn't change an iota in terms of general structure.
You're of course entitled to that opinion: personally, I would prefer players who prefer the Beatles vs. players who prefer the Rolling Stones.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
Perhaps the word "confusing" isn't the best, but it's clear to me that many people have argued against this format using precisely the facetious arguments I criticised (I wasn't writing to you personally).
And to your question about it being dumb to use such a format, I will answer in the same way: 1) domination in tennis is transitory and there is no way to predict the future or to create a system that won't eventually struggle with the same sort of problems (in the case of oldies vs. next generations, the exact same thing - utter domination by one side - has been happening, and yet you're presenting it as an alternative to Europe vs. World); 2) it's as flawed and arbitrary as any other dichotomy (perhaps less so than some of the more preposterous - tongue in cheek, I suppose - suggestions you generously presented in the poll).

Also, innovation isn't necessarily virtuous, and none of the examples you gave is immune to be considered 1) dumb and "bombastic-sounding" or 2) completely arbitrary.
It seems you don't like this format for aesthetic reasons rather than practical ones, as changing the terms of the dichotomy wouldn't change an iota in terms of general structure.
You're of course entitled to that opinion: personally, I would prefer players who prefer the Beatles vs. players who prefer the Rolling Stones.
There is a difference between dumb (as in boring) and silly (as in fun). Some of my suggestions are silly goofy fun, as exhibitions should be.

Squaring off short vs tall players would be tremendous fun, and would offer fans something completely new, whereas geography-based match-ups are so over-the-hill dull, I could give a hoot whether Europe or "World" wins, I can´t rally behind either because neither are identifiable as such. Because world includes the Antarctic as much as Mongolia and Canada, and Europe as I explained isn´t an entity in any way shape or form. It´s just a continent with a lot of variation.

Now, give people bachelors vs. marrieds or 1HBH vs 2HBH and you will find people getting into it, picking their favourite with ease. Whose gonna be interested in whether World or Europe wins?
 

natalia

Hall of Fame
I was honestly about to create a thread similar to this one. Three scenarios I had in mind were:

1. Federer and Nadal get to fantasy draft. Someone mentioned this above but these two will get to assemble their own squads (of six or seven) to face-off against one another; with Fedal being the team captains of course. Whoever is ranked higher at the time of the event will get first pick.

2. The world number 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14 form a team to go against the world number 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13. The winning team gets an additional 250 ranking points giving all these players extra incentive to compete to their fullest.

E.g. In this case, Djokovic, Medvedev, Zverev, Nishikori, RBA, Monfils, and Goffin will be one team, and Nadal, Federer, Thiem, Stefanos, Khachanov, Fognini, and Berrettini will be the other squad.

3. 30s vs 20s. You read that right. Players in their 30s will form a team of seven players and go neck-to-neck against players in their 20s in a battle between older millennials who are established legends/superstars and younger millennials who are either just getting started or have underachieved so far in their careers

E.g. The golden era in their 30s such as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, and Cilic (assuming everyone is healthy) will take on the lost/next gen players currently in their 20s including Raonic, Dimitrov, Thiem, Stefanos, Zverev, Medvedev and Shapo (Kei is basically 30 so not counting him).
I like your no.2 idea - but I would say no. 1, 3, 5 etc against no. 2, 4, 6 etc. as they appear after USO.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
It is working, you just don't like the result! Plus, you sound young.
"You sound young".

If ever there was a convincing "argument" to crush all further debate, it´s that one.

I must be the only person on the planet who´s been following pro tennis since the early 90s yet am "young".

I must be a genius then. Coz following tennis since my diaper years or before I was even born...
 
The issue here is that there should be an automatic entry for double teams as well, not limited to singles only. For years, #1 team was Bryan's brothers. Top 4 singles and top 2 double team per team plus 2 captain picks (1 single and 1 doubles team (2players)
 

Rina

Professional
"You sound young".

If ever there was a convincing "argument" to crush all further debate, it´s that one.

I must be the only person on the planet who´s been following pro tennis since the early 90s yet am "young".

I must be a genius then. Coz following tennis since my diaper years or before I was even born...
Yes, you are young, since 90s? Get a grip, kid!
 

Raul_SJ

Legend
Europe isn´t a country, and it´s not even unified, and the World actually should include Europe as well (last time I checked us Europeans aren´t on Mars), but also Africa and Asia. It´s just such a silly, and boring concept.

Besides, Europeans dominate tennis, they always win.

Any suggestions, aside from the options given in the poll?

You can vote for 3 options.
The Aryans vs The Non-Aryans?
:(
 

Midaso240

Hall of Fame
Would have to just be Team Federer and Team Nadal and they pick players one by one like we used to in school. When it's just Jack Sock left one will say "Oh you can have him",then the other "No you have him" and on and on...
 

JaoSousa

Semi-Pro
E.g. The golden era in their 30s such as Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro, and Cilic (assuming everyone is healthy) will take on the lost/next gen players currently in their 20s including Raonic, Dimitrov, Thiem, Stefanos, Zverev, Medvedev and Shapo (Kei is basically 30 so not counting him).
Yeah the golden era is going to win every single time. Fedalkovic can basically beat all of them.
 

_GOATbis

Rookie
Recreate different wars. Start with WW2.

Axis vs Allies

Fed and Stan don't get to play.

Axis: (coached by Becker)
Zverev
Fognini
Nishikori
Berrettini
Thiem
Dimitrov
Cilic

Allies: (coached by McEnroe)
Murray
Edmund
Fritz
Isner
Pouille
Medvedev
Rublev
Kyrgios
Tsitsipas
Fritz isn’t a ally surname thought
 

hoodjem

G.O.A.T.
USA versus rest of the world.

o_O (n)Oh wait, we'd get trounced every time. (With no. 19 Isner as our highest-ranked player.)
 

Raiden

Hall of Fame
The current system is the best. Any other geographical division is even more imbalanced. This was created with the idea that Europe was already strong, that's why it was isolated from the rest. Had this been the 1970s it would have made more sense to divide it US versus the rest.

The better solution to keep the overall Europe—World division but subtract Russia from Europe and add it into the World group (under the pretext that Russia is also partly outside Europe so the excuse would even remain technically correct).

The bigger issue is not the geographic division but the marketing of that division. Perhaps add a sports nickname for both teams (North American style descrptive noun that both teams can be identified by. That also minimizes the geographic identification and allow fans to take side of any team wthout appearing like they are traitors of their "home" team.
 
Last edited:

Demented

Rookie
They should just cave in and make it team Nadal vs team Federer and keep the rivalry alive forever. Even when they retire they could still play a match every year. If you want to get even more intrigue, throw Djoker in and have a 3 team romp with the big 3 playing each other again once a year.
 

UnderratedSlam

Hall of Fame
They should just cave in and make it team Nadal vs team Federer and keep the rivalry alive forever. Even when they retire they could still play a match every year. If you want to get even more intrigue, throw Djoker in and have a 3 team romp with the big 3 playing each other again once a year.
A 3-team competition with the Big 3 choosing players, and later just coaching?

Great idea.
 
Top