DAVIS CUP - AUSTRALIA vs FRANCE

December 2, 1999

Boris Becker

MODERATOR: Questions, please.

MR. RICCI BITTI: We are very confident that this atmosphere is a confirmation of that, what we feel. Davis Cup is unique. Davis Cup is strong. Surely there are problems, scheduling problems, but we are working for that, so we are not very worried about the future. If you attend these two days, everybody feels that we have a good future, I guess, for Davis Cup, because the atmosphere yesterday, in my opinion, at least partly it was not a great doubles as a tennis match, but it was a great excitement, so this is more important. It's a unique value of Davis Cup. We follow the evolution of the game. We are working together with the other constituencies. We are very confident that we have a good future.

MR. BECKER: All at the same time (laughter)?

MR. PIETRANGELI: We play doubles (laughter).

MR. BECKER: My most memorable match was probably in relegation in 1987 when Germany played against America, it was also one of the longest matches ever played, against John McEnroe. We played over six and a half hours on a Friday. You know, just imagine being out there. Pioline was on Friday out for almost four hours. I was another three and a half hours longer on the court. That only allowed us to come back then, because we stayed in the World Group in 1987, America went down to second division, to come back in '88 and win the whole tie altogether. That's my most memorable match.

MR. ARMITRAJ: I think for a country like India where we all grew up playing Davis Cup, as the "in" thing, if you get good enough, you want to play Davis Cup, that's the reason you play tennis as we grew up in India. One of the highlights for us was the fact that I played for so long, but more than that, I think the importance of playing a match that perhaps we might have given away in '87 to Israel which, in fact, we originally defaulted, then came back after my conversation with the prime minister to play the match, eventually winning that tie under heavy security and going on to reach the final that year, which was only the second time in our career that we reached the finals 13 years after we defaulted to South Africa in '74. That was a special moment for us. We ended up not only playing that match, which was the first sporting contact between our two countries, but it paved the way for India to have full diplomatic ties with Israel five years later.

MR. SMITH: I guess my most memorable match was playing Romania. Some of you might have been there, older people. It was exciting. The first tie behind the Iron Curtain. It was the first time I think I'd seen the relatives be involved in the tie on the lines, calling the lines for the players (laughter). I got to meet all the representatives of some of the players, Nastase, Tiriac. That was an exciting match. It was probably the most difficult situation I've ever been in. That made it that much more exciting to be able to win that match. Boris played that long match, I think the second longest match. We played a match in Little Rock, Arkansas, the next year in 1973. We lost the first set - lost the second set 39-37. The one set was four hours in itself (laughter). The whole match was about six and a half hours, two days. That only happens in Davis Cup. Of course, it doesn't happen anymore. The non-tiebreaker days were really long.

MR. PIETRANGELI: Well, believe it or not, the match I remember the most is the match I didn't play. It was the first time we got to 2-All in the last day against the United States in Australia, Orlando was playing. It was worse. When you're on the court, it's okay, but when you're outside, it's much worse. I remember the last point, match point for Orlando, and Barry served a double-fault. The second ball did not even get to the net (laughter). I didn't know if I had to cry or jump. That was maybe one of the most exciting match I've been involved in.

MR. RICCI BITTI: The rule of tennis is a key issue. I would say what I feel after having considered that ITF has a leading role in this real change. I think tennis is a very conservative sport in general. On the other side, we have to take care to make it attractive, so we have to think about the future. We try to experiment. I would say that the environment, again, is very conservative. But making it attractive means perhaps to shorten a little bit the matches because the television coverage is very important. We are competing with many other sports. Tennis doesn't have, by definition, to change many things because it's still the game that was played. But the tool, the racquet, the surface, the ball, have changed, so I think the duty of the ITF is to look what could be changed preserving the integrity of the game that we like all, with the cooperation of the other, as I said, other constituencies; that means the Tour, the Grand Slams. We are looking to some experiments, as you perhaps know. Last year in the AGM in July in Holland, two proposals were put forward about Davis Cup. One was approved; that was the free replacement of the player in the third day, also if the match is still uncertain, 2-1. The other one was not, was turned down. That was the tiebreak in the fifth set. But perhaps we will try again. I don't know. This is our duty, to bring forward new changes, changes of the rules. But we are very happy about our game. The main issue is to keep the integrity of the game, changing what follows the evolution of our audience, of our tools, surface. This is our duty. We work on that. We are doing experiments.

MR. ARMITRAJ: Well, first of all, McEnroe says a lot of things that probably doesn't need a response. Well, completely out of that area, I think doubles is something that has always been very much a part of tennis. Great players, as these guys are all here, have all played doubles at the highest level. I think the importance of doubles has always been that the average tennis player around the world has always played doubles. I think there are a lot more doubles players than there will be singles players, constantly, as age becomes a factor. If you talk to the average guy, doubles has always been very much something that he would like to watch. I think getting rid of doubles, first of all, is not a thought that somebody should have in their mind. It's very much a part of tennis. Davis Cup, which has always relied -- the pivotal match has always ended up being doubles, for whatever reason. I think the issue is perhaps to try to induce more players with high-profile names to end up playing more doubles to perhaps give it more of the lift that it perhaps needs. But as far as the quality and skill is concerned, there is no comparison at all. It has always been a good event and will continue to be so. The reason that even comes up is because in the days of Stan and Nicola and all them, they played doubles regularly. Today they perhaps don't with the top players. I think if they did, it will enhance doubles even more.

MR. BECKER: Well, as far as I know, with the Federation Cup and all the countries and players have competed, I think everybody, all the top players, all the top nations have competed this year. I don't really understand fully the question.

MR. BECKER: I think maybe that's more a question for The President to answer. Obviously, he knows more about Federation Cup.

MR. RICCI BITTI: First of all, it's a younger competition. Second, the women's game has grown very recently to a very attractive game compared to the men. Now it's very important part of tennis because we have very young players, new kind of tennis, if you want, more powerful, more compatible. On some surfaces like the very fast surface, the women's game is attractive as least as much as the men. I think this is a recent problem. We had a change in the format a few years ago to a format. First we played all together in a place, in a venue, the final of the Davis Cup. Now we've moved to the Davis Cup format. It was very successful in some parts of the world. But then financially and from many other standpoint, player support and so on, it was not so positive, so the International Tennis Federation has stepped back from last year. So we see what is going to happen this year. The main point is surely the player support. I attended the last final of Fed Cup in the United States in California, with a very strong team by United States. The match was not very close. But anyhow, the success was assured because many people watch this match. I am very confident that the future of Fed Cup will be successful. Again, is our duty to follow the evolution of the game. I guess at the end, the format of Davis Cup is very good. But perhaps in the women's game, we are not yet ready to have this.

MR. BECKER: Well, you know, Mr. President talked about the scheduling of the whole year, you know. Tennis has, as everybody knows, many, many major championships, including team competition. You know, we're in the beginning of December, with the last official event of the tennis year, the tennis calendar. In three, four weeks' time down the road, we have to start the new season. I think that is a problem that everybody is aware of. We have too full a schedule, too full a year. We have to somehow put it and make it a bit slimmer.

MR. ARMITRAJ: I think as far as the Davis Cup is concerned, it's a question of how the top players are able to prioritize their importance. If you look at the entire year and say that the Davis Cup and the four Grand Slams, along with the Tour events, which are the Super 9's, are the critical element to the game, then I don't think it's that much tennis to play for an athlete of the standard of a Sampras or Andre Agassi or any of the top guys today. As far as the changes in the rules of the Davis Cup, I think it has lived very well for 100 years. Perhaps the biggest change that was ever made was introducing the tiebreaker into the game, to shorten it perhaps, and for television. But I don't think there really should be any change to this competition. It is done extremely well. As a matter of fact, even the format of the draw, which has now been changed, with the No. 1 player plays the No. 2 player on Day 1, is something we didn't play under or Stan or Nicola didn't play under.

MR. BECKER: What do you mean?

MR. ARMITRAJ: You're too young. Okay, he played under the old system as well (laughter). If you keep taking a little more of the excitement away, the No. 2 player knows he's playing the No. 1 player Day 1; it's a question of whether he plays first or second. The same thing with the last match, whether they're going to play the fifth match or not. I think for it to come out of the hat is a critical element to Davis Cup. I also don't think that the third day that the format should be changed for any reason, to let a third guy, another guy play in it. You have to be fit. You have to live with the tension. The captain should have made the right call. The captain's role is vital. I think the Davis Cup has done extremely well over the years. It is just a question of maintaining that and looking after it the way Dwight Davis wanted it to be looked after.

MR. SMITH: I think in the United States we have a bit of a problem in that the top players haven't supported the Davis Cup in the last ten years. Partly it's because of so many other sports we're competing with in the United States. One of the reasons I think Sampras was not as excited about playing is the fact that when he did go to Russia and played that difficult match, cramped up, came back and played, played a tremendous match, he came back to the United States, was kind of ho-hum. He got injured later another time against Sweden, and didn't really make that much difference. That's a bit of an issue. It has to be -- Davis Cup has to be a bit stronger in the United States, which is a key thing as far as just the United States is concerned. Otherwise, in other parts of the world, I think it's gone quite well. Playing Davis Cup is very, very special, so much different than playing as an -- even playing at Wimbledon or the US Open or the French or Australian. The other thing I think we need - the ITF - I would like to say, we need to be open to rule changes. In my opinion, we've had rule changes in other sports that are fairly significant. It's made those sports better. I think the tiebreaker is probably the only real change we've had in the last 50 years or so. I think we have to be open to maybe even some dimensions of the court, other rules as far as serving, the number of serves, that sort of thing. I think we have to be careful of the fact, because the game has changed, not just for the fact of changing, but the change as far as power is concerned. I think we need to be open to make some changes.

MR. SMITH: What was the question again?

MR. SMITH: Well, I guess it was a centenary type of issue, the fact that the first match ever held was held in Boston, so therefore the ITF made that decision. I don't think Australia was too worried. They thought US was going to lose to England. When the US beat England in that unbelievable match, obviously it became an issue with Australia. From the Australian point of view, I guess it wasn't too far. But the initial statement was made that because of the centenary of the Davis Cup, they wanted to have that match played in Boston.

MR. PIETRANGELI: The only thing I can say, when you're the last one to speak, there's not much left to say (laughter). The only thing I would suggest, the opposite. I would suggest the big tournaments, Grand Slam and other tournaments, to copy something from the Davis Cup. Many times it happens that you see the coach from far away making strange signs (indicating). I heard they were supposed to get a fine for this. So why not having him on the court? I mean, if I have a friend and I trust him, like I trust my captain, why not on the court instead of making very strange signs? Besides this, I love the Davis Cup. I think the way it is now, why to change it if it's so successful? My opinion on players not playing Davis Cup has always been the same: they are scared to play Davis Cup, because Davis Cup is something so different. They have the pressure. You've seen it here. Yesterday it looked like the Woodies won Wimbledon or something like that. They won a normal doubles. The other day when Pioline won his singles, he was congratulated by all his friends like he would have, I don't know, just won Paris or something like that. This would never happen in a normal tournament. That's why Davis Cup is so different.

MR. RICCI BITTI: No. I think this question, first of all, you should not be in trouble to convince the audience. I think it's a problem in some countries, as Stan just rightly said, mentioned about the United States, where there is a big choice, a big competition between sports, the cultural problem, the background. I think Davis Cup is something different. The team sometimes is more important than the player. This has been proved. We believe also it's very exciting for many countries to have the possibility to win. A country with one top player, one medium, could win Davis Cup? This is very attractive. You could see from the other side. If we would have a team of ten players, perhaps Davis Cup would be a matter of three country, two country. I guess we are credible as we are, and we discuss many times this method. We are very happy also if sometime we don't need to have a Davis Cup champion that is best tennis country, first of all, because everybody could have his own chance. But we believe a big value in Davis Cup is that the small country or a medium country, with a top player, with a good player, for instance, could win Davis Cup. This is a very attractive point.

MR. RICCI BITTI: I don't think it will be announced, but we work for that. I can assure you, all of us, we are working very hard to achieve this. This is not the end of the story because the schedule is very tough also if we merge. The willing is to merge. I guess we are very close to that. I don't think the 9th will be. There are a lot of legal implication, as you can imagine. We are very close. What I can say is that all the party involved wants. So with this situation, I guess we really achieve what we want.

MR. SMITH: Well, I think that first of all, I was talking about rule changes in the game itself, not necessarily Davis Cup. I actually like most of the aspects of Davis Cup. That's why it was such a big part of my life. As far as the US and getting players to play Davis Cup and the public response, I think it's just there's so many other sports out there that are competing for the time and the interest of the public that that's the biggest factor. Like I said, Sampras probably, you know, felt there wasn't as much support for him to play Davis Cup to represent the country as there should have been. I think it is an issue of the USTA possibly promoting Davis Cup a bit more. I think the fact that McEnroe is going to be captain, there's a lot of positives and negatives, but I think one of the positives will be that he's speaking out so people are hearing this and the fact that he's captain might bring a little more interest into the Davis Cup. That may be helpful. We'll see what happens in that respect. I don't think it's an issue of the Davis Cup format so much. It's more of an issue of a problem in the US.