SmashTalk: Davis Cup, money & the future No.1

Some weeks, SmashTalk likes to deal with big stuff. Stuff like value and money and the circle of life. This is one of those weeks. We asked our panel of self-appointed experts for their views on these matters, now have your say on our SmashTalk topics on Facebook and Twitter:

With so many big names choosing not to play, is the Davis Cup still valued as a competition?
Viv Christie: The value exists, but is it sustainable? It seems that once a top player has that coveted team title on their record, they quickly cross it off their priorities list. We’ve seen it with Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal in recent years, and Andy Murray was a notable absentee from Great Britain’s quarterfinal tie against Serbia. On the one hand it’s understandable given that schedules are packed; on the other hand, fans want to see the top names play. Time to consider a bi-annual Davis Cup format?

Paul Moore: Honestly? I don’t think so. When was the last time all of the top players in the world turned out for their countries at the same time (or consistently, for that matter)? Sure, there are players who still want to represent their country on the tennis court, but the reality is that when it comes to a choice between the Davis Cup and a tournament of any sort of gravitas, the big names – which is the benchmark of success or not for any event – choose the tournament.

Matt Trollope: In theory, yes. In practice, no. And there’s a few reasons why. Firstly, the continued growth and prestige of Grand Slam tournaments has relegated the Davis Cup to a distant second when it comes to achievement in the game. No young tennis player grows up aspiring to be a Davis Cup champion when the glittering dream of a major trophy is more prominent. And rarely will a player sacrifice their chances at a major for Davis Cup glory, which leads into the second point – the Davis Cup schedule compromises the competition. Having to regroup and (often) change surface for a Davis Cup tie so soon after a Grand Slam tournament will always encourage withdrawals (Exhibit A: Andy Murray). Thirdly, tennis players are individual athletes. If they wanted to play in a team, they wouldn’t choose tennis. With the schedule and the sporting prestige geared towards the Grand Slams, players will always look out for number one – often at the expense of the team competition.

The US Open upped prize money by 10% this year. Do the Grand Slams need to keep paying the players more?
VC: The USD $3.5 million (AUD 4.6 m) that the respective male and female US Open champions will receive in 2016 is an admittedly eye-boggling amount – especially when you consider that Dustin Johnson won USD $1.8 million for his 2016 US Open victory in golf. It’s hard to argue that such increases are needed but Slams are big business – in some ways, the lucrative nature of them adds to the entertainment factor overall.

PM: This is a tricky one. Of course, the tournaments need to adjust their prize money according to business factors (inflation, commercial agreements etc). But recently, it feels like the Grand Slams (in particular) are in an arms race to see who can pay out the most. And while the players understandably welcome it, would Novak, Roger or Serena turn up to the US Open if they had said they were holding the prize money levels as they were in 2015? Of course they would.

MT: One wonders when we will hit the Grand Slam prize money ceiling. But as long as Grand Slam total revenue continues to grow, then player prize money should grow with it. Players are the biggest and most important drawcard at a slam, so it makes little sense to ask them to receive a diminishing percentage of the tournament’s gross revenue. Compared to golfers and athletes in other major team sports, tennis players earn significantly less prize money already. Upping Grand Slam earnings may go some way to reducing this curious disparity.

With Vika’s impending absence from the WTA, who is the player most likely to challenge Serena over the next year?
VC: Can any one player challenge Serena? Angelique Kerber and Garbine Muguruza have each denied Serena Grand Slam titles in 2016 – and yet neither has dominated consistently, which is a trend that seems entrenched among top women. Victoria Azarenka’s absence adds to the sense that the next world No.1 will almost get there by default. Serena will turn 35 soon; her renowned physical and mental strength must wane eventually.

PM: While Vika’s pregnancy is obviously great for her, it’s not so much for the sport. Of all the players snapping at Serena’s heels, Vika was arguably the most credible contender for the World No.1 crown – if she could avoid more injuries. With her out for at least 12 months (you’d expect), Garbine Muguruza or Angie Kerber are the strongest contenders, if only they could find some consistency…

MT: Garbine Muguruza. And she’s already challenging Serena more than Vika ever has. Twice now, Muguruza has beaten Serena at a major – something Azarenka hasn’t managed once, let alone twice – and has shown a history of playing Serena tough in other matches. The only thing Muguruza requires more of is consistency – which the Belarusian had in spades – to put herself in a position more often to face Serena. Favouring Muguruza is the fact that Serena’s level is highly unlikely to improve at this stage of her career. At age 35, a gradual decline is surely inevitable, and perhaps not far away. Meanwhile, at age 22, Muguruza can probably only go up.