Coup Droit wrote:

---

As tweeted by Stuart Fraser:

"In response to claims that GB voted for Davis Cup reforms, representative David Rawlinson says: "The LTA board agreed to vote to oppose the Davis Cup reforms at the ITF's annual general meeting. I can give absolute assurance that I voted in accordance with our decision."

---

I'm glad they clarified. I can think of at least one possible scenario that might explain some of this.

The guy from the DTB (German tennis federation) who raised doubts about the LTA's votes also complained that Corrie was going round lobbying for the changes. There were enough reports of that before the vote that I wouldn't be surprised if it was true, though I've seen no direct evidence.

As far as I can tell, Corrie was there in his ITF capacity, not in his LTA capacity, so if he believed in the changes, I guess he felt there would be no conflict of interest if he put on his ITF 'hat' and helped Haggerty campaign for them.

So, it seems at least plausible that Rawlinson did indeed vote no, but Corrie campaigned for yes. Then it's easy too imagine that, since he had previously always been known as an LTA person too, some "no" delegates smelt a rat - it's hardly surprising that conspiracy theories abound in that kind of fevered atmosphere, when the issue is so polarising and the result so shocking, but that doesn't mean the conspiracy theories are necessarily accurate.

Anyway, that would mean the LTA didn't lie about the way they voted. If they secretly agreed that Rawlinson would vote no but Corrie should campaign for yes (i.e. if they played for opposite sides with the blessing of the LTA), that would still be scandalous but I haven't seen any evidence of that. If not, then I'm not sure Corrie campaigning for a yes vote off his own bat (I repeat *IF* he actually did that) would have been entirely ethical, unless he has severed his ties with the LTA completely by now, but our ire shouldn't be directed at the LTA in that case.

I wonder if we'll later find out that Corrie had severed his ties with the LTA and suddenly find that he's got a job with the AELTC ... but no, that's naughty, unwarranted speculation, isn't it.

So what are the criteria for being a WC selection?

Or is the supposed elite international team competition going to join the elite Slams in punting folk into the main event at some committee's collective whim?

Actually that would probably be worse than my minority view on Slam MD WCs.

indiana wrote:

---

So what are the criteria for being a WC selection?

Or is the supposed elite international team competition going to join the elite Slams in punting folk into the main event at some committee's collective whim?

Actually that would probably be worse than my minority view on Slam MD WCs.

---

 There should only be one "wc" - for the host nation as that would make sense for ticket sales and line up with the policy in football, Rugby union, Olympics etc.

Coup Droit wrote:

---

Sim wrote:

---

indiana wrote:

---

So what are the criteria for being a WC selection?

Or is the supposed elite international team competition going to join the elite Slams in punting folk into the main event at some committee's collective whim?

Actually that would probably be worse than my minority view on Slam MD WCs.

---

 There should only be one "wc" - for the host nation as that would make sense for ticket sales and line up with the policy in football, Rugby union, Olympics etc.

---

 Yes. Exactly.

---

Indeed. But the other one, stinky poo. And the host nation should be rotated from year to year.

mike55 wrote:

---

How would the finals work with 18 teams? They've got to be reduced to 4 semi-finalists. Would they have two RR groups of 9 with the top two from each going through? That means each team would have to play 8 others, which would take more than a week. Have they thought this through?

---

6 groups of 3.  Winners of each group plus best two runners up will make the QFs.

So we are going to have to get out the calculators and we will be looking at games won/played and working out percentages.

indiana wrote:

---

Bob in Spain wrote:

---

mike55 wrote:

---

How would the finals work with 18 teams? They've got to be reduced to 4 semi-finalists. Would they have two RR groups of 9 with the top two from each going through? That means each team would have to play 8 others, which would take more than a week. Have they thought this through?

---

6 groups of 3.  Winners of each group plus best two runners up will make the QFs.

So we are going to have to get out the calculators and we will be looking at games won/played and working out percentages.

---

Oh great  

What a magnificently well thought out number of finalists - not, and then that mess to deal with it. That's just not spectator / tennis follower friendly. Not sure great for the players either as a competition structure.

---

It is a horrible situation when a player is on court knowing that a 6-2 final set loss is good enough to make it through but 6-1 isn't.  Just defeats that object of tennis, which is to win the match.