I checked in a few times to watch, and kept abreast of the outcomes, but for me the Laver Cup is just not compelling enough to warrant organizing my days around watching. That could just be me.
I do think it compares well, and in a good way, to the regular weekend matches between the best players at clubs around the world: they all know each other's games, play knowing they're less than sanctioned (sic) matches, really want to win, can have fun, cheer each other on, and are comfortable enough with the format to have beers together afterwards. So in that sense, all good imo.
Any opinions, Matthew, on why the return differential?
And btw, I think it's kind of neat that we get to see ATP players going at it this way, given that they otherwise don't have the arena to do what rest of us do to get our competition hungers satisfied, i.e., play matches that are less than life-and-death (or, points), but still fueled by wanting the W.
Easiest explanation for return differential is that team world comprises of: Isner, Opelka, Kyrgios, Shapovalov, and FAA (with Schwartzman as the lone great returner), although FAA returned very well vs Berrettini on day 1. When 3/6 guys are close to, or at, the absolute bottom of the return performance rankings you're going to struggle considering that huge 1st serves are not a competitive advantage anymore in elite men's tennis, they're expected. As for technical reasons, none of Isner, Opelka or Shapo successfully block enough returns and give their opponents a boat load of easy service points and Kyrgios is just nowhere near match fit enough to have one of his rare good days on return of serve, movement wise. Diego is a brilliant returner but even he still struggles with that short wingspan on reaching 1st serve returns and FAA can regularly go for too much (but is improving). Team Europe have Medvedev (ie the 2nd or 3rd best returner on tour right now), Zverev (both of whom use that deep position well and have huge wingspan for smothering reach), Tsitsipas (who actually liked the slow Laver Cup court more than usual hard courts despite his dodgy first serve returns in general), and then Ruud and Rublev who are both decent returners.
My poorly worded question was meant to be more about why it is that the return differential exists rather than the facts of the various players' return stats. Me, I will suggest that while most of the world has focused on clay court play it's still an outlier in North America (not all of The World outside of Europe, but still...). Whether that's good or bad is another discussion, but the fact is that all the ATP courts have slowed down (grass is different, as we all know, and there are so few grass tourneys, plus there's no carpet of course) as racquets and strings have increased the potency of returns. I think that promotes the value of returns in players' development and dampens the point-winning potential of big serves.
To be honest it hasn't grabbed my attention this year (or really, any year, although I did watch the odd match), and I'm not really sure what it's USP is. If it's trying to showcase the fun, futuristic, relaxed side of tennis, I think it would sell itself much better it was a joint ATP - WTA event (which would also allow more doubles plus mixed doubles, generally more fun/relaxed events). We also might be moving into an era where the biggest WTA names are much closer in global profile to the ATP's, so bringing them alone might help attract more viewers in more markets. I really enjoyed the Hopman Cup, so I'm biased, but I think there's something in that approach.
If it's trying to be the most elite men's team competition, I don't think the draft rules or format help it. As you observe, Europe is just much stronger (and some selection decisions seem to be about marketability more than performance). The format also results in the early matches being trivial, and close matches ending too quickly. Would have been better to have given the captains an open draft, make each match roughly of equal importance, and make them normal length (or vary length depending on match importance).
Yeah, agree there are definitely a few format tweaks that would make sense. And does seem like the best chance of a marquee mixed event considering the WTA show no signs of building something themselves. The Hopman cup is missed.
I checked in a few times to watch, and kept abreast of the outcomes, but for me the Laver Cup is just not compelling enough to warrant organizing my days around watching. That could just be me.
I do think it compares well, and in a good way, to the regular weekend matches between the best players at clubs around the world: they all know each other's games, play knowing they're less than sanctioned (sic) matches, really want to win, can have fun, cheer each other on, and are comfortable enough with the format to have beers together afterwards. So in that sense, all good imo.
Any opinions, Matthew, on why the return differential?
And btw, I think it's kind of neat that we get to see ATP players going at it this way, given that they otherwise don't have the arena to do what rest of us do to get our competition hungers satisfied, i.e., play matches that are less than life-and-death (or, points), but still fueled by wanting the W.
Easiest explanation for return differential is that team world comprises of: Isner, Opelka, Kyrgios, Shapovalov, and FAA (with Schwartzman as the lone great returner), although FAA returned very well vs Berrettini on day 1. When 3/6 guys are close to, or at, the absolute bottom of the return performance rankings you're going to struggle considering that huge 1st serves are not a competitive advantage anymore in elite men's tennis, they're expected. As for technical reasons, none of Isner, Opelka or Shapo successfully block enough returns and give their opponents a boat load of easy service points and Kyrgios is just nowhere near match fit enough to have one of his rare good days on return of serve, movement wise. Diego is a brilliant returner but even he still struggles with that short wingspan on reaching 1st serve returns and FAA can regularly go for too much (but is improving). Team Europe have Medvedev (ie the 2nd or 3rd best returner on tour right now), Zverev (both of whom use that deep position well and have huge wingspan for smothering reach), Tsitsipas (who actually liked the slow Laver Cup court more than usual hard courts despite his dodgy first serve returns in general), and then Ruud and Rublev who are both decent returners.
My poorly worded question was meant to be more about why it is that the return differential exists rather than the facts of the various players' return stats. Me, I will suggest that while most of the world has focused on clay court play it's still an outlier in North America (not all of The World outside of Europe, but still...). Whether that's good or bad is another discussion, but the fact is that all the ATP courts have slowed down (grass is different, as we all know, and there are so few grass tourneys, plus there's no carpet of course) as racquets and strings have increased the potency of returns. I think that promotes the value of returns in players' development and dampens the point-winning potential of big serves.
To be honest it hasn't grabbed my attention this year (or really, any year, although I did watch the odd match), and I'm not really sure what it's USP is. If it's trying to showcase the fun, futuristic, relaxed side of tennis, I think it would sell itself much better it was a joint ATP - WTA event (which would also allow more doubles plus mixed doubles, generally more fun/relaxed events). We also might be moving into an era where the biggest WTA names are much closer in global profile to the ATP's, so bringing them alone might help attract more viewers in more markets. I really enjoyed the Hopman Cup, so I'm biased, but I think there's something in that approach.
If it's trying to be the most elite men's team competition, I don't think the draft rules or format help it. As you observe, Europe is just much stronger (and some selection decisions seem to be about marketability more than performance). The format also results in the early matches being trivial, and close matches ending too quickly. Would have been better to have given the captains an open draft, make each match roughly of equal importance, and make them normal length (or vary length depending on match importance).
Yeah, agree there are definitely a few format tweaks that would make sense. And does seem like the best chance of a marquee mixed event considering the WTA show no signs of building something themselves. The Hopman cup is missed.