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?
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).
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?
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).