\u2022 This piece<\/a> from tennis-lovin\u2019 Katie Baker\u2014with a reference to the Newport debacle\u2014is a joy to read.<\/p>\n \u2022 Zizou Bergs got unlucky in the Davis Cup last week. Judging from his father\u2019s message<\/a> following his loss, he hit the parental lottery.<\/p>\n \u2022 Your men\u2019s and women\u2019s NCAA singles champions<\/a>: Michael Zheng and Reese Brantmeier.<\/p>\n \u2022 This week\u2019s unsolicited book recommendation: Touched by Matt Morrison<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u2022 HAPPY THANKSGIVING (to those who celebrate)!<\/p>\n Onward with a short mailbag \u2026<\/p>\n Jon,<\/p>\n I think most would agree that the Davis Cup is a shadow of its former self. Most of the negative commentary I\u2019ve read about it cites the schedule and the lack of the home country competition. For me, there is far too much focus on the world\u2019s top singles players, though this is how the competition is sold to us. Are we to see a playoff between the world\u2019s top 10 singles players every year (or every two years as some suggest)? Davis Cup is supposed to be an inter-nation competition and is the only one of its kind (for the men). The old reverse singles format also needs to be reinstated so that the competition is not dominated by countries with two top singles players and doubles becomes an afterthought. The competition this year was highlighted by the few doubles matches that were played.<\/p>\n I will watch for your forthcoming mailbag with interest.<\/p>\n Sincerely, Peter W. French<\/p>\n \u2022 Sadly\u2014if tellingly\u2014there were several of Davis Cup communiques this week, and virtually all of them lamented the state of the competition. \u201cIs it too late for [Carlos] Alcaraz & [Jannik] Sinner to opt in for Davis Cup?\u201d JB from Portland asked. \u201cWhen you watch the Italia vs. Belgium Davis Cup \u2026 between [Flavio] Cobolli and Bergs, you realize what a joke Laver Cup is,\u201d J.G. from New York lamented.\u00a0<\/p>\n My overarching question about the Davis Cup: Has it outlived its usefulness? For decades, it was a referendum on countries and their systems. Our warriors against yours. How would, say, the Aussies fare against the Americans?<\/p>\n A) In this globalized world, players hail from, train and live all over the world. Alex de Minaur is off to train in Spain. Novak Djokovic has relocated to Greece<\/a>. Japan\u2019s Naomi Osaka lives in California. Half of tennis, it seems, lived in the U.S. to play college tennis. All of this is healthy. Technology and freedom of movement have made borders and nationality less essential in pro tennis. Athletes are empowered to go where the money and opportunities are. But this blunts interest in country-on-country competition, does it not?<\/p>\n B) The frantic scheduling and the congealed tennis calendar scare off the stars. (If Sinner and Alcaraz fall out of the competition, does it make a sound?)<\/p>\n C) If you really want country vs. country competition, there\u2019s always the Olympics every four years.<\/p>\n Hey Jon,<\/p>\n Hope you\u2019re doing well. As we watch the Davis Cup Finals this week, I can\u2019t help but feel that Davis Cup and BJK Cup would really benefit from taking place every two or four years instead of every year. Top players would be more likely to play (Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz support changing to a biennial competition<\/a>), home and away ties could potentially be brought back with the extra time to do the qualification rounds, and the \u201cWorld Cups of Men\u2019s and Women\u2019s Tennis\u201d would actually have some buildup and weight behind them. Any thoughts?<\/p>\n Collin<\/p>\n \u2022 While we\u2019re here, read Ben Rothenberg\u2019s investigation<\/a> of 1xBet, the Russian-founded betting website that has a deal with the Billie Jean King Cup (among other tennis and sports entities.)<\/p>\n The big issue: For many countries\u2019 tennis associations, the revenues from the Davis Cup and Billie Jean King Cup are central to their funding. So turning this into a biennial and quadrennial competition would really hinder their finances.\u00a0<\/p>\n But I\u2019m with you, in theory. Scarcity would help lure top players to commit. It would also imbue the competition with more heft among casual fans.<\/p>\n As it stands, Italy won the Davis Cup without its top players. I\u2019m not sure if that\u2019s more a statement about the depth of Italian tennis, or the fading relevance of this competition.\u00a0<\/p>\n Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner dominated tennis this year, splitting the 2025 major titles. \/ Robert Deutsch-Imagn Images<\/p>\n Hey Jon seems like Alcarez & Sinner deserve serious consideration for [Sports Illustrated\u2019s] Sportspeople of the Year. That photo of them with arms around each other after the ATP Finals says it all: the best at their sport, full of respect for each other.<\/p>\n @twitchell_keith<\/p>\n \u2022 I like your thinking. Ordinarily, I\u2019m inclined to lobby for more tennis. But If we are being honest here (and when are we not?), I think it\u2019s hard to confer a Sportsperson of the Year<\/a> honor on a player the same year he served a suspension tied to doping<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n I\u2019ve been pretty clear that I think Sinner\u2019s positive test was a result of (gobsmacking) negligence and carelessness, not a nefarious attempt by him to subvert fair competition. That he couldn\u2019t have received zero punishment, but a one-year suspension seemed unduly harsh. That either the threshold levels in tennis for a positive test are unreasonably strict, or the sport is so dirty that both 2025 Wimbledon singles champions weighed the risk against reward and still decided to cheat. (Obviously, I think it\u2019s the former.) That Sinner did his time, faced his humiliation, and now deserves the right of rehabilitation.<\/p>\n All that being said, it\u2019s hard to confer on him a Sportsperson honor this year. For the same reason, I would be inclined to vote for Alcaraz as the ATP\u2019s Player of the Year, even if they won the same number of majors.\u00a0<\/p>\n Hi Jon,<\/p>\n I\u2019ve loved your recent discussions with Andy [Roddick] about the tour scheduling issues. It obviously needs a fix, all the more so with a new Masters 1000 on the way. With all the complaints from top players, I feel like the ATP and WTA are missing an opportunity. Why force your best players to play the most, rather than creating new marketing machines out of lower ranked players? With [Valentin] Vacherot\u2019s recent run in Shanghai I found myself watching second round matches at the Paris masters to see if he could top his cousin for a second time in a row. With Jo\u00e3o Fonseca going for his first 500, I\u2019m checking scores at the tournament in Basel for the first time ever. Etc. Etc.\u00a0<\/p>\n The stars will be stars and will always drive the most dollars, but why not try to create more stars while allowing the top stars to rest, recover, and deliver their top level tennis at the events that matter most? That way more players become household names and interest grows, even at the tournaments Alcaraz and Sinner decide to skip.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2022 Andy\u2019s fall schedule idea answers a lot of these concerns. Wrap the season earlier so that the top players\u2014who routinely go deep in events\u2014get the rest they deserve. Shift the 250s and 500s so the players seeking opportunities can get them. It might be the Vacherots, seeking to ride a hot hand, but it might also be former stars trying to improve their rankings or secure benefits.<\/p>\n Jon, I love your podcast with Andy Roddick! But you brought something up last week and never answered the question. How CAN Carlos Alcaraz and Jannik Sinner be tied with the same number of points against each when Alcaraz has won 10 of their 16 meetings. Can this be right?<\/p>\n ML, NYC<\/p>\n \u2022 This is the beauty\u2014and\/or cruelty\u2014of the tennis scoring system. It\u2019s impossible to win fewer points and lose the game. But it\u2019s entirely possible to win more points than your opponent and still lose the set, or even the match. It\u2019s about winning the right points, not the most points.\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p>\n