James Hird’s plans to radically revolutionise tennis are still in the hands of international tennis powerbrokers, but if given the green light, men’s tennis will enter a new era.
Known under the banner of the “Grand Slam of Nations”, the concept is based on a 10-day tournament featuring 32 nations, shorter matches and mid-match substitutions.
It would be played once every two years, have tie breaks which would be the first to five points and have only a maximum of 25 seconds allowed between points. While it has gained support from key tennis officials, “Is it really a better option than the Davis Cup?”, possibly, but both have their own advantages.
If Hird’s World Cup style tournament was introduced, it could spell the death of Davis Cup tennis. Many traditionalists will be hoping that the 110 year old current format is continued, however it is more than likely their is no place available for its existence. Players have always wanted extra breaks during their hectic tennis schedules and Hird’s new concept would enable longer recovery periods.
Instead of being spread over four weekends during the year like the Davis Cup, the “Grand Slam of Nations” would only last 10 days. This would work well as the tournament isn’t being split apart during a busy year for players. It will also be a big winner for sponsors and bring the best players to compete.
Television networks will also reap the benefits more than what the Davis Cup produces right now. As the past has shown, not all players have decided to play every Davis Cup tie, especially when versing a lower ranked opponent. Hird’s concept will get the best on show, and with two substitutions you could have potentially have a match with Rafael Nadal, (Fernando Verdasco and David Ferrer – substitutions) for example on court for Spain.
Viewing, it could be spectacular and be more than good value for money for spectators. Big prize money on offer will tempt any player on the circuit. But on the reverse, the traditional game of tennis again is changed, especially with player substitutions. As the world is changing minute by minute, so do ideas and this is inevitable.
Technology, for instance, is a big player.
Tennis has seen the introduction of Hawk-Eye and it has proven a winner, but if Hird’s idea was agreed, the substitutions would be on tennis fans end only wanted for the single tournament every two years so the game we have known since we were born is kept as original as possible.
Played between the September-October timeslot, it would give enough space between the Grand Slam period including the Australian Open (January), French Open (Late May-June), Wimbledon (Late June-Early July) and US Open (Late August-September) on current timing. Some might say it is too close to the US OPEN, but soon results to opinions will come out in full.
Hird and “Gemba” will earn a fortune if their bid is successful. Anyone can come up with an idea, but it seems they have hit the nail on the head. Players will have to commit to the idea and it will have to be backed by the majority of the higher order of tennis administration.
As Hird said, “Today’s consumers want their entertainment in a different form” – and this would be the answer.
Australia will lose their dominance of the Davis Cup and will have to fight even harder to win in this new concept. We’ve won the Davis Cup 28 times and are only second to the United States in terms of times being Davis Cup champions.
Some could say it is like a Twenty20 style of tennis and is the way to go. James Hird did say he loved the Davis Cup in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald in January, yet it could be the end of history for the long running tournament.
The “Grand Slam of Nations” could be on tennis’ doorstep from 2011. It’ll be interesting to see if the idea gets the all clear, but from now on, we can only wait and see for a decision.
beaver fever
Guest
Yep i imagine that Hird is a former Australian tennis player, probably a current one as well, i know i am.
Daniel Dufty
Roar Rookie
Thanks for your feedback Rory. Yes it has its up's and down's. If I had to choose - I'd be for the concept. The entertainment value is what is going to swing me towards the idea, but still yes its just a money making business. Over time though, it'll start at the highest point then drop to a sustainable level in terms of spectators. While it might be new and seem like its the newest product/competition on the market if you say it like that, it'll fall back into its place after the first run. You got into the deep end with your response. Interesting you say "The sport has no feelings either way", never thought about that one. You're on the money there. Cheers.
Rory
Guest
Daniel, "As the world is changing minute by minute, so do ideas and this is inevitable" is a pretty sweeping but ultimately empty statement. It does, however, symbolise the types of justifications being used for this proposed new format. An idea isn't necessary good just because it is new, or because it might be pofitable for certain interests. As you mention, sponsors and television networks will be big winners from this. From what I have heard there is a reasonable chance that it will get off the ground and that it will adversely affect the Davis Cup. It has the support of some top players. I hope it gets buried because it is about money, not about the game. You compared it to 20/20 Cricket, which is apt. I'd venture that traditional cricket fans, those who would watch and enjoy a five day test, would have no need for 20/20, which in effect boils the game down to a highlights package in order to attract those without an understanding of the game's finer points or with short attention spans. As someone with only a moderate interest in cricket, I am possibly more likely to watch a 20/20 match than a test. Some use the argument that by attracting a larger audience it is "good for the game". A load of bollocks, really, as a "sport" still exists whether millions of people play it around the globe or a just a handful play it in a local park. The sport has no feelings either way. Increasing audiences is good for the vested interests that run off the sport. On the other hand, given the way participation in tennis at club level has waned in Australia over the last three decades, something needs to happen to ensure the infrastructure doesn't all but disappear. I just don't think this is the answer, though. If this event happens many will say that it increases the sports value as an entertainment spectacle, and that it will be shiny and new and exciting. But really this concept is quite predictable and not imaginative at all, and frankly I find it tiresome. Nice, detailed article, though.
Scamp
Guest
Daft idea. Is it April 1st?
AndrewMc
Roar Rookie
So... he doesn't know diddly squat about the game and when he walks in the room, all the governors of tennis see is another businessman trying to make a buck. Sounds like a recipe for success if you ask me....
mds1970
Roar Guru
James Hird (my favourite genius) is a former great AFL player, retiring a couple of years ago. He never played tennis at the elite level, if at all, but maintains an interest in the sport.
AndrewMc
Roar Rookie
Sorry, I don't live in Australia, is James Hird a former Australian tennis player...?