I know it's a week on but just out of curiousity if you had been Jim Courier would you have chosen Bradley Klahn rather than Donald Young to replace Isner. Personally I would have done even though I've never actually seen him play but given:-
a) he is only ranked a few places below Young which is neither here nor there
b) Ross Hutchins suggested he could have been an option and has done very well considering he only turned pro late 2012 (I think - correct me if I'm wrong) so perhaps more of an unknown factor than Donald Young and maybe would have stretched Andy Murray a bit more though no one would have reasonably expected him to beat Murray.
c) Has already beaten Dan Evans (twice) - albeit narrowly - but beating Dan Evans is not easy these days and one of those victories did come after the US Open and he has already beaten a number of top 100 players.
How John Lloyd can say that Courier had no option but to go with Young just astounds me - you would think he'd know better! I think Courier made a mistake and I think the British Team - who thoroughly deserved to win the tie - possible thought so as well. Based on what I saw he might even had been a better option than Querrey. Would GB have won if Isner and Klahn had played the singles as opposed to Querrey and Young? Hypothetical I know but what do others think?
You have the unpredictable Rhyne Williams as well who made the Houston SFs last year, and Odesnik who is something of a rare specimen in that he's an American who seems to actually favour clay, both would probably have been at least somewhat more effective that Young.
Truthfully though, replacing Querrey with anyone was always going to be a gamble, and given how well Querrey is capable of playing (even on clay), he should've been favourite to beat Ward. It's not really Courier's fault Ward was playing out of his skin for the last two sets. So ultimately the only difference it would have made is that the second choice might have given Murray a bit more of a game, but realistically no-one they could've chosen - especially once Isner pulled out - would have had a serious chance of beating Murray.
I don't think John Lloyd really has a clue what is going on in tennis outside the top 50 players or so.
That's the impression I get and he often tries to backtrack/change his opinion as the match goes on. During the Ward/Querrey match he couldn't seem to make his mind up as to his opinion of Querrey. One time he says he's a good player but not a great player, then he's mantally fragile then the following day described him as a class player or a 'player of his class'. I think he does tend to be a little bias as well as well as overly patriotic.
This guy is a psychological mystery! _ now I wonder if it made Dan realise he's got to prove to Leon he can do better than Wardy and he can get to the no. 2 spot, and he's gone away to prove it ...
It's also possible that Leon realises this also, which is why he didn't pick him!
This guy is a psychological mystery! _ now I wonder if it made Dan realise he's got to prove to Leon he can do better than Wardy and he can get to the no. 2 spot, and he's gone away to prove it ...
It's also possible that Leon realises this also, which is why he didn't pick him!
I don't subscribe to this analysis because I am convinced that by pulling out of Maui he was pretty much saying that he didn't want to play the Davis Cup tie. I suspect that the thought of playing Isner on clay and then possibly not having a match on Day 3 or having to play a deciding rubber on clay was not the most appealing of prospects and that he took the practical decision to instead prepare for indoor tournaments that suit his game.
However I can easily imagine that Ward's win and all the attention it got would have been a motivating factor for Dan. I am guessing that he might not be too keen on playing in Italy on clay but that he would want to be back in the team next time we play a home tie or an away trip on hard court.