i never believed he was truely was injured, also you wonder if jamie would have still beaten Calleri if it was a 5th live rubber? it may have made the tie more exciting, tho, with it going into that match.

My only quibble with the whole situation was how badly it was handled and Andy has to take some responsibility for that. If he didn't want to play because he feared aggravating a weakness in his knee, he should have had the guts to come clean and say so. He certainly shouldn't have left it to the last minute. He's not the most charismatic of characters and put some people's backs up by his thoughtlessness. It won't stop me supporting him, goodness knows there's not many of his potential in the Brit ranks. I'm pleased he won in Marseille but my pleasure is tempered by what went before.

-- Edited by helki at 19:04, 2008-02-19

I think I have already made my opinion of this clear. Andy never said he was too injured to play at all, he said that switching surfaces could cause problems to the knee condition he already has.

In view of the fact that he had 285 points to defend last week and this, I find that very understandable. When you think of the injury problems he had last year I can see why he is a little paranoid about possible injuries.Granted he should not have left the decision so late but it was probably a very difficult decision for him and he probably didn't make up his own mind until the last minute.

With regard to Jamie's win over Calleri - no, I don't think it would have happened in a live rubber. I'm sure Calleri didn't want to lose but from what I have read the Argentine team were celebrating heavily the night before, so Calleri was more than likely a bit hung over. If it had been live that wouldn't have happened.

other for me: I was bitterly disappointed, and very skeptical about how injured Andy was/how much damage it would really do but really the thing that bothered me was the way it was handled, not the decision itself.

john wrote:

---

Still bitterly disappointed and I agree that in a way it makes it worse because Andy clearly wasn't injured if he's capable of taking an ATP title the very next week.

However, I think he does feel bad about it and given his guarantee that he will play in subsequent Davis Cup ties I'm willing to let this one go and give Andy my full support.

---

It's an interesting point John. How much do people think that players that utilise the resouces of their country have an 'obligation' to play Davis Cup.

Would you support him less if he never played another Davis Cup match, would it make it worthwhile if he then went on and won wimbledon.

Personally I have never been as bothered about Davis Cup as I have about the tour but I think I may be in a minority. Not saying that it isnt of interest, simply that it isnt a big priority.

I wouldnt be at all suprised given our paucity of talent and Andy's apparent fraility if he didnt say sooner rather than later, "that's me packing up Davis Cup".

He seemed to make a fairly pointed remark that: 'Jamie doesn't know what it's like to play three five set matches in three days' and I wonder if he is long term considering his position regarding Davis Cup.

I can't see him showing much interest in euro africa zone 1 matches if he is spending the rest of his time at the show and then has to go and play morocco away to save us from relegation.

So a slight variation on the original question, 'would andy quitting davis cup affect how you felt about him/ much you supported him?'