Really what more do you expect? The player right now, except for Andy are not good enough even for this level.

John can't perform miracles.

No, I don't think he does a very good job - he lives in America and knows next to nothing about the players other than Andy. Greg Rusedski gave this as a reason why the play-offs were held, so that Lloyd could assess the players.

Greg makes it very obvious that he would like the job, and though I am by no means a fan of his, I think he probably would make a pretty good captain.

And there is always the plus that then we wouldn't have to listen to him commentating. . .

I would only want JL out if there was someone else I really wanted to get the job. I cannot think anyone outstanding so no, I dont think JL should go at this time.

If we lose doubles to Poland, we have to win 3 out of 4 singles matches. With or without Andy I do not think we can be confident of that. We may have new low's to hit yet

Merv - i'm not asking for miracles and Jam, by impressively i meant with a few wins.

i dont see the captains job as just getting to andy to play, but as making sure we get the best out of the rest. andy cant play 5, and will sometimes be reluctant to play 3.

when your number 1 player admits he got his tactics wrong, knew it at the time, yet couldnt change it concerns must be raised.

Good question Jak.

I am starting to look in the longer term when thinking about the GB Davis Cup squad. I agree with Lloyd when he said yesterday that with Andy we are potential world group class without him we are a group 1 team.

Been thinking about the various scenarios we could have had this weekend. Say Boggo and Bloomers both played and we won 3-1 or something. Are we any further forward in our aspirations in developing an up and coming group of players fighting for DC places and gaining the experience for the bigger stage? It would have been nice to have won this weekend and in the scenario above it would have been positive for those players. But honestly those players are heading towards the back end of their careers. Im not being disrespectful to them and I do agree that Richard has not had a fair crack of the whip in earlier years with the Davis Cup team.

So in that respect I tend to agree that the team played this weekend was the right one. I do not agree with the playoffs though. If he were unsure about which players could play 5 sets then it should have been more of a training camp with the 6 next best ranked players and 2 captains 'wild card' picks invited. Sure it was exciting following all those txts from Josh and the 21-19 result and all that but that was not the point of it...was it ?

Also if 3 or 4 points had gone our way....yes just 3 or 4 then we could be sitting 2-1 up waiting for the reverse singles. It was that close. We perhaps would not be having this conversation.

I do have sympathy for Bloomers...thats the biggest mistake than Lloyd has made over the last few weeks but would I sack him for that ? Probably not.

One point that Steven made elsewhere is about the fact that Lloyd lives in the states and dose not really know the crop of players he has around him this week. Well Steven he has worked that out for himself and at last nights PC he confirmed twice that he will be spending less time with Andy and much more time on the Challenger circuit "..to get to know these guys much better...I feel its important to do that..."

It 'appears' that Lloyd has the backing of the players. Its not just what they said in public but body language and little bits of gossip and not one of the established Journos has mentioned anything about 'lack of team spirit'...they have not had a real go at Lloyd and not one mention of 'John dont you think its time for a change of captain talk...'

I can assure you that if Josh, Chris and Co were at odds with Lloyd the press would know about it.

I would like to have a crack at Poland without Andy. If we cannot beat them with the players and resources on offer then and then only would I perhaps call for a change of Captain.

I don't think the choice of Wimbledon for the Austria tie was wrong, if Koubek had (as expected) played it would have been the best place as he is a stone-cold claycourter.

I would keep JL as DC captain; to my mind it won't make a difference to how this team plays. He picked the top ranked players for the Austria tie and it didn't work. He changed tract and tried picking the form players for this tie but that didn't work either. Are you telling me Annacone would have suddenly picked a side that played like a Roger/Rafa/Bryans dream team?

I disagree that his treatment of Boggo was unfair. Remembering the derisive and sickening response he got from the press after the Peya match, it would have been unthinkable to have considered picking Alex. Ive been a Boggo fan for over 7 years but that match was too predictable for words

Living in the USA

It wasn't me that mentioned JL living in the States, I don't think. That doesn't necessarily stop someone being a good captain (it didn't stop Jurgen Klinsmann managing a rubbish German team to a World Cup semi-final) as long as they are prepared to do what it takes to keep up with what the players are up to. I did say I was wondering whether he had scouted the opposition properly (meaning Marchenko), but obviously I don't know what he did there - I've since heard him claiming that he did do the research.

Rapport with the players

You make a good point about the team not seeming to have a problem with him. In the BBC pre-match question and answer sessions, both Josh and Colin said "nothing" when asked what was the worst thing about JL. I thought that if the atmosphere had been really good, they would have said something innocuous like 'his jokes' - saying nothing just suggest fear of not being picked again. However, all the comments made about him by the players in the courtside interviews seemed genuinely positive.

Nevertheless, I agree with the Count that there seemed to be no rapport while they were on court, and the fact that he clearly wasn't able to help Josh sort himself out in the first rubber adds to the impression that something was wrong there.

Media relations

I think JL comes across pretty well (superficially, at least) with the media, but he always gives the impression that when the pressure's really on, he'll throw one of his players to the wolves rather than carry the can himself. YHe also made the Greg issue much more awkward than it needed to be.

He hasn't laid into his players this time, but that may only be because the media are giving him a relatively easy ride here.

The playoffs

Judging by what the players who took part said about them, the playoffs were a reasonable success for those who took part and did well in them. I can imagine they were better preparation than the obligatory pre-DC training fortnights there have been in the past, but I still think it's counter-productive to deny players the chance to score points for three weeks in a row. (I realise Tipton means it's only two weeks in a row for those below Challenger level)

I also think the playoffs missed the point, which is that in DC we need Brits capable of sticking it to non-Brits, which does not necessarily mean the Brits who are best at beating each other - since then you;d pick Boggo or Bloomers anyway. Hence my view that basing picks on results in real tournaments would have made more sense. Putting Greg in the playoffs might have helped there, since he's not part of the current group of players and if one of them had beaten him, they'd be more confident in their chances of beating more experienced players from other countries.

The other argument against the playoffs was that JL is paid to pick the team, so he shouldn't abdicate that responsibility. I can see his point, though, that at the 200-400 level, things can change very fast and a couple of good runs in Challengers and/or lucky draws can turn the order of the players upside down very quickly, and certainly the lower down the rankings you go, the more flawed they are as a guide to which of two players is stronger.

However, once he had decided to hold playoffs, I believe that he should have followed that logic completely and invited, say, six players based on the rankings plus a couple of WCs to take part, instead of the "reverse WC" system he actually used, i.e. pick players based on ranking then exclude three of them because you don't like them and put the boot into them with the media as well. That, more than anything else, is why he should go.

Saying that players are past it at 24/25 doesn't make sense to me either.

Pandering to Andy

If, as Drew suggests, JL has finally realised that his job should be less about sucking up to Andy and more about finding ways to win the rubbers Andy doesn't play in (e.g. picking the no. 2 and the surface to give our no. 2 the best chance of beating their possible no. 2s, while still ensuring that you don't pick a surface so out of season that it makes it understandable for Andy to refuse to play), then that would be the biggest plus to have come out of this tie.

Indeed, if he can sort out the rest of the team such that Andy feels he wouldn't have to carry the team on his own, then that's going to make Muzza more keen to play than any amount of sucking up.

The Poland tie

I'd like us to have a crack at Poland without Andy too, since it's the best chance we're going to get to win a tie with Andy not in the team without dropping down into EA Group 2 (if we do drop down there, it'll be pointless him playing until the others have shown themselves capable of getting back out of it) - and, though it's not a big consideration obviously, Poland were the last team we beat without a top 100 player in our team, 18 long years ago.

This isn't going to happen if Andy makes himself available because JL knows he'd get crucified by the press if Andy was available and he tried to do without him.

-- Edited by steven at 13:22, 2009-03-08

-- Edited by steven at 13:28, 2009-03-08