\u2022 Happy 5786 to those who celebrate.<\/p>\n
\u2022 A busy week means a short mailbag.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Onward \u2026<\/p>\n
So, most of the chatter this week was about the Laver Cup and specifically the persistent question: Is it an exhibition?<\/p>\n
I would say this:<\/p>\n
A) Whatever it is, it\u2019s great for tennis. Not just as a competitive event, but as a kind of traveling tennis festival. It\u2019s a braiding of generations and engages with the host community (tennis community). Before we get too caught up in classifications, let\u2019s acknowledge this as a force of good.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
B) If an event departs from the rankings, and eligibility is not determined with strictly objective metrics, it is, by definition, an invitational (i.e., an exhibition). An event that allows the promoter to select the player field\u2014superseding the meritocratic\/democratic aspects of the ranking system\u2014is in a different category. (Yes, tournaments may quietly hope that Player X is in the field and Player Y is not, but they can\u2019t depart from the rankings to include a neon player and exclude a higher-ranked pastel.) So, by this definition, the Laver Cup is an exo.<\/p>\n
C) However, the real reason \u201cexo\u201d is a loaded term is that it implies that the players are not 100% invested in the competition. That there is nothing at stake. At its most obvious, it\u2019s the hit-and-giggle. (The clich\u00e9 move is to hand a racket to the ballkids.) Even the wink-wink, you win a set; I win a set; we play for real in the third set, is iffy.<\/p>\n
The Laver Cup has none of this. The players are all-in. They compete as they do at a tournament. They get tight (a telltale sign of a legit event).
They argue calls, as Alex Zverev did Saturday. They are euphoric when they win. (Anyone can fake energy for a bit. No one can fake it over three days.)<\/p>\n
Here\u2019s what I wrote<\/a> the other day:<\/p>\n \u2022 The players\u2019 motivation for participating in the Laver Cup does not come from the money. It\u2019s not Europe vs. World pride. There are no ranking points. No, it\u2019s reputational. It\u2019s the drive\/instinct\/compulsion to perform well in such proximity to your rivalries and peers. But unlike a tournament, the people whose opinions you value most\u2014who can most relate to what you\u2019re doing\u2014are watching every point in real time, right there courtside, the equivalent of looking over your shoulder at work. (Oh, and Roger Federer is in the stands, near John McEnroe and Rod Laver.) This is where the magic of the event resides.<\/p>\n Alex de Minaur helped lift Team World to victory with wins over Jakub Men\u0161\u00edk and Alexander Zverev. \/ David Gonzales-Imagn Images<\/p>\n Jon, care to weigh in on Taylor Townsend?<\/p>\n Bob C, The OC<\/p>\n \u2022 I hate to give it more oxygen, but if you missed it, Taylor Townsend made some injudicious remarks on an Instagram video<\/a> about Chinese cuisine. She then apologized profusely. This should be the end of it. People can still decide for themselves how mad they want to be or how much this ought to cloud their opinion. But, alas, one of the fundamental hallmarks of our age: shaming-as-sport.<\/p>\n Fueled by the enragement machine that is social media, a misstep rockets around the globe, gets accentuated and accelerated. The bad-faith actors get hold of it, and it pops to the top of feeds. <\/p>\n Full disclosure: I know and like Taylor, and I have worked with her on occasion at Tennis Channel. That aside, she posted something that she shouldn\u2019t have. She apologized and owned it. She has a body of work to offset this unforced error, suggesting this is no reflection of who she is. Let\u2019s move on, shall we?<\/p>\n Same, by the way, for Je\u013cena Ostapenko. And Daniil Medvedev. And on it goes. In sports, we are pretty good at judging athletes based on their overall body of work, rather than just their best or worst day. A bad loss doesn\u2019t negate all the wins. Why are we so reluctant to do the same for off-court results?<\/p>\n Editorializing: For all the chatter about Townsend\u2019s misstep and apology, there were ZERO other questions this week about the Billie Jean King Cup, which was equally disappointing and remarkable. Its thunder was pilfered by the Laver Cup. It was held in China, which\u2014apart from being problematic for a women\u2019s tennis event in particular<\/a>\u2014makes for lousy time differences from the U.S. and Europe.<\/p>\n For the record, bravo to the Italian team, which defended its crown, taking out the Americans in the final. Elisabetta Cocciaretto (who, ironically, beat Jessica Pegula at Wimbledon) took out Emma Navarro. Then, Jasmine Paolini beat Pegula. And there was no need for the much-anticipated Paolini\/Sara Errani vs. Townsend\/Pegula doubles final. Italy has now won six titles at this event (formerly known as the Fed Cup), all of which have occurred this century.<\/p>\n Hi Jon,<\/p>\n Can we just officially say the largely American push to have the Davis Cup played in a single country in mostly dull atmospheres has been a disaster? That the scenes and emotions in the home and away ties on the weekend prove that Davis Cup belongs only in a home and away format, or not at all?<\/p>\n Russell, Melbourne, Australia\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2022 I might quibble with \u201clargely American push.\u201d In fact, I will quibble with it. But your point stands. After years of neglect\u2014and telling critics why they were wrong to cite the Davis Cup\u2019s defects and its slouch toward irrelevance\u2014the ITF blew up the model. Apart from the financial catastrophe<\/a>, this new iteration ain\u2019t working. Half the energy came from the home crowd and the partisan atmosphere. The Davis Cup is how many federations get a lot of their funding. So, the calls to simply cut bait aren\u2019t realistic, but the single-site approach isn\u2019t the answer.<\/p>\n \u2022 This occurred several months but was asked to mention it. RIP Gary Kitchell<\/a>, who worked with many players over the years.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n