You're right, skip1515. As tennis fans, we often have to take what we are given in terms of what's available to view, and everyone finds their own good things to appreciate. Not every match contains riproaring, barnstorming or warrior-like tennis. But that doesn't mean that all matches that don't aren't worth watching.

If there wasn't a Marat Safin on the ATP tour they would have to invent one

skip: Great points, especially the team sports vs. tennis. As a big fan of both football (American variety) and tennis, your analogy hit home for me. Winning is certainly more meaningful than beautiful tennis, and it's nice when you have both, as is the case with Federer.

Tough as nails, never backs down, maximizes his abilities in a way someone like Safin can't even dream of, enters every match believing he can win, and has posted consistent and big results in a long career in the stratosphere of tennis, if not the ionosphere.

Very well said skip. Effort has to amount for something. If winning was the only thing then there's 127 players in a grandslam draw who end up being garbage.
If winning was the only thing that mattered, then there was no difference at all between Argentina and France this weekend and that is wrong.

Lucy
I am beginning to think that fitness is an issue that is symptomatic of most French players. Fabrice, Monfils, Gasquet have all had fitness issues in the past.

*hugs lucy for hugging kolya*

So what was the more hurtful strategy- Guy Forget trying to keep his singles players fresh for the doubles, or Emilio Sanchez saving David Ferrer for Sunday, which allowed the US to take an insurmountable 2-0 lead on Friday?

Hi all:

I love watching the French play tennis. As an observer, I am much more interested in a beautifully constructed point, or a wonderfully hit one-handed backhand, or an elegant serve and volley, than in whether or not someone or another grinds out a win.

But Grosjean/Mathieu? Can you think of two players less suited to pulling out a win when it counts than these two?

"Okay, it's fun to rag on Marat for being such a knucklehead (hey, he gets all the chicas, fair is fair!). But it was brilliant of Tarpischev to hand him the ball with the game on the line because Safin has a champion's aura."

Well said, Pete.

For all the struggles he has with his inner demon, Marat has come through for the Russian team more often than not. For that, I give him a ton of credit.

about santoro not being in the team, a sad long story i try to resume.
for many reasons, forget never picked fabrice in the past ties, and last year after reaching his firs QF at the AO, he was out because santoro choose to play an exo with nadal in tarbes ( for the petits as) and refuse to give up the commitment he had, to go on training with the rest of the team, and forget did not accept to get things done one a player's terms and not his. santoro was so upset he cried in front of the cameras.
IMO, i really think forget let santoro made his choices before asking him to give them up for the team, which is the meanest thing to do to get rid of someone you were not likely to add to the team, because he had other choices for the players and plenty of time to say to him he could potentially be part of the team and advise him to avoid any other commitment, and he just didn't.
many fans were shocked about that story and forget did get some bad critics, but the team went on beating the germans on grass and forget gotted away with it in the end.
after that story, it would be more than surprising to see santoro being part of any DC tie in the future, even if he has winning records agains many players and he's very talented in doubles.
Forget kind of likes to dominate his team, santoro doesn't fit in that, IMO.

Ed McGrogan

"Aside from this tie, every other one was already decided after day two. And not just in the world group - the Zone groups as well!"

Obviously you didn't follow India vs. Kazhakstan.....Paes, who stopped playing singles few years ago, had to put himself in the live 5th rubber to save India....Anyone who follows Indian tennis knows Paes is THE MAN when it comes to Davis Cup...(Over the years he has beaten players ranked 100 positions above him when it came to Davis Cup...Too bad we don't have another person who knows how to play tennis...)

I agree, Todd. Gasquet & Mauresmo stand out among the current French crop, but in the past I loved watching Noah, Forget, and Leconte play. Only one Slam among the three, but in terms of being fun to watch they rank high in my book.

ptenisnet - well said in your 9:15 post

Oops, 10:36 was me (using a different computer today)

marieJ and Desi...

You both are speaking straight to my heart, because I love both tose players -- Fzbrice Santoro and Leander Paes. I first saw Santoro play in person in the Masters Series event in Montreal in 1997. He was amazing, and beat Muster, I believe. I had first seen Paes in person in Newport on the grass, where he lost in the final. I was amazed at his athleticism and his ability to connect with the crowd. What a showman! Then in the 1997 Montreal event, my brother and I watched Paes and Bhupati win their first round, and from there on we were saying they would take the title. We even told Paes that, and he laughed and thought we were crazy. Well, they won their first big title there, and went on to a few world doubles and Grand Slam titles.

It's a shame about Fabrice. He's a fierce individualist, no doubt, and perhaps that doesn't sit well with Captain Guy Forget. But he can play some doubles!

MarieJ - thanks for the backstory on Forget-Santoro, I remember that brouhaha over the exo that Santoro decided to play but had quite forgotten its lingering effects. And a hat tip to P.for alerting us to the Safin-Santoro record. Granted, Santoro is winding down now and not the player he was three, four years ago, but all in all it's another justification for criticizing and second-guessing Forget.

Count me out of the Safin love-fest. He lost my respect a long time ago, and has done nothing since to get it back.

well Davis Cup in Winston-Salem was a blast even though getting there was a nightmare enough said about that the better! If anyone knows how to throw a party it is the US. I have never seen drums, jugglers, fireworks and such team spirits as this weekend. The fans were there in numbers and even the small Spanish crowd managed to conjur up a guy who could sure play the trumpet at the right time!

Sunday was really the best day as it is light hearted and a lot of fun and even tho dead the players gave the crowd something to cheer about. James was awesome and one shot between the legs left the crowd breathless and then roaring as the ball went in. Alll the players were there even tho Andy opted out of the second singles - he did his job and it was a wonderful weekend. Now if I can only find out how to get there without 6 hour delays!!!!

It's funny that a lot of people think it was Tarpi's genius. Tarpi had no player left to play that last match. Youzhny didn't recover after friday (he couldn't even lift his leg in the morning without help). So Marat was the only one who could play. In fact russians didn't beleive much that Marat would win it. Nobody (including Marat) expected him to play so well. May be only Kafel was more or less confident in him.

Pete,

In case my e-mail has not come through yet, the answer is unequivocally yes! And thank you for asking.

Don (aka Slice-n-dice)

Tanya - I don't believe Safin was fit, either. And you can bet that if there were no other options, Youzhny would have found a way to lift his legs. It's not like he got them blown off by a grenade or anything and he had a reasonable if not ideal recovery time. He's a professional athlete, he's supposed to be able to play two five set matches in three days with a day of rest in between. No pity or hand-wringing here...

Pete regarding your @ 11:43 PM post are you a Gogol fan?

I'm still waiting for another random Safin-run to a slam victory. When the sleeping giant wakes up and plays as well on the regular tour as he does in DC, look out everyone else! Following Safin logic, wimbledon would be the next place for his 3rd slam. That's right you heard it here first-Safin def. Davydenko in the wimbledon final lol!

Seriously, I do think Safin has 1 more run in him at a major. Which of the 4 it'll be is anyone's guess.

Anon - that's a fine observation because I hadn't even thought of that but now that you did, and having read Gogol (albeit not in ages), I see where that came from . . .hat tip to you, my Anonymous friend!

Tanya: I wish that I could think of one of those cute definitions of "genius" that would fit perfectly what Tarpishev did with the Safin decision and has done with Safin et al (see leaving Davy out of the last tie which many thought was absolute insanity) in many other ties. Hey, maybe, he even arranged for Maria to have to pull out of her FC debut! LOL

EdG: It was just in the ties before these just completed ones that the rubber after Day 2 was live in EVERY tie. So I wouldn't complain too much about last weekend in which, as far as the results of the whole ties were concerned, the suspense was over after Day 2. It seems that, in all countries, there was still a great deal of excitement and exciting pla on Day 3. (I missed the end of the Blake-Lopez match -- and the famous Blake shot -- that someone mentioned, but I hope to catch it some time on a TTC repeat of the match.)

pteniset: Thanks for the support re: the singles players rule. maybe, we should write the ITF about it. :) I just heard that they might be considering such a change.

Does anyone remember the tie when the USA tried to sneak in Sampras (I think it was) to play instead of Todd Martin on Day 3 because Martin had played so badly on Day 1? But the referee (correctly) did not fall for the USA claim that Martin was "injured," and he had to play on just as both of the Russian Day 1 players would have had to play this past weekend if the rules had not been changed. As someone said, it shouldn't come down to a chess match between captains. It should be a case of captains' choosing their four guys and having to stick with them -- barring a serious and verifiable injury or a (not pre-existing)illness.

Oops, anonymous at 11:56 was me.

Pete I liked it. References to at least two of my favorite books in one post. Nice.

marieJ...Thanks for the background on Santoro, Forget and the French Davis Cup team. I was shocked to hear that Santoro would not be on the team because he was judged, "disruptive." I didn't know anything else beyond that. I think it's unforgiveable that Fabrice is denied a spot on the team. He is one of my favorite players of all time. He's like the Pete Rose of tennis.

Santoro's biggest strength as a tennis player is that he is "disruptive".

Good point, ptenisnet!

MrsSanta - the other one being "The 120 Days of Sodom and Other Writings" (by the Marquis de Sade)?

Re Gasket: Everybody is going to try his hardest, no matter the circumstances, in a DC match. You can't slouch away or tank because you've got too many people sitting right there on the sidelines depending on you. So I wouldn't use DC as a gauge as to how someone might compete in a regular tournament, when it's easier to get away with chickening out when a match gets close.

Pete no. I was referring to the two Gogol references in your comment. "Dead Souls" obviously but the more interesting one is the reference to the pathetic letter pilfering postmaster from the "Inspector General". I will now permanently picture Kolya in that role every time I read it. He's perfect for it too.

MrsSanta: Aw, and I was hoping to make you blush! Just to keep the record straight, I have not nor ever plan to read "The 120 Days".

Pete: Don't knock that novel. It's a good read (provided you see past the subject matter and see the method behind the madness) and is a great example of how a writer can desensitize his audience from the subject.

Did I completely miss a joke! That's clearly somehow Safin's fault.

Now that Sade had been tainted by the Safin association I will never read him. Sad.

I see your point, Steggs, but I don't generally like to read stuff that asks me to see past the subject matter, the subject matter usually being the reason I'm staring at the danged book. Are you over at the tournament yet?

Pete: Nope; can't go over until after work.

I'll carry on and assume that the garbage that appears at 2:47 pm will be wiped out by our ever vigilant Steggy.

Pete: If Stegs will allow me to insert it here, I just want to tell you that there won't be any Marquis de Sade at my house tonight; but right now, my copy of your favorite author Cormac McCarthy's The Road is on my dining room table (I haven't yet read it) because I intend to insist that my 5-woman book group, meeting here tonight, read it as our May selection. And I'm hoping that Oprah's having selected it for her Book Club (that happened after I'd decided to suggest it for our group) won't make my friends -- snobbily -- turn against it. :)

Anything McCarthy gets a pass here! I have to warn you that The Road is hard going, emotionally. I know you liked No Country for Old Men, and while I think Blood Meridian is CM's greatest work, my favorite is the middle book of the "Pretty Horses" trilogy, The Crossing. One thing you don't get in NCOM or The Road is CM's amazingly evocative and rich descriptions of landscape and the Southwest.

"Does any nation produce comparable numbers of gifted players who can't win squat?"

While French philosophers always win. If John Lennon was right to say the Beatles were more popular than Jesus Christ, then the French philosophes are more influential than Him. Every university in the known universe bases instruction on Derrida, Foucault and Baudrillard.

"it's fun to rag on Marat for being such a knucklehead (hey, he gets all the chicas, fair is fair!)."

Just so. Who cares if Reeshard and PHM bite the dust? You can't have it all.

When I was at University the other most Professors mocked me for studying Derrida.

P. Bodo wrote:

"The realist in me says that if you're going to survive match points and stretch it to five, you had better win the bloody danged thing or what the hail use is it?"

Hmm. I think there is absolutely some value in stretching a match, at least from a player integrity and fan point of view. "All or nothing" encourages an attitude of "If I dont win it's worthless, so why try?" which creates JH^2 pulling out of the 2006 Aussie Open final because she, at that point, could not justify playing if she couldnt win. So - she deprives the fans and doesnt give it a go, and goes out a loser. On the other hand, you have Tatiana Golovin, who in the Key Biscayne Semifinal 2006 is down 6-2, 5-1 to M. Sharapova, looks ready to throw in the towel, and, buoyed by a noisy group of fans - most of who were on the verge of leaving themselves but stayed in order to avoid the heavy traffic created by the mass exodus of other fans who had to get more sleep - fights off several match points and ties it 4-4 in the third before turning her ankle and heading out of the stadium on crutches. Now, one of them is Rocky in this set of instances, and one of them was not. Equally, there was total value in A. Roddick coming back from 2 sets down in Davis Cup 2006 in Russia - though losing it 17-15 in the fifth, he showed total fight.

Golovin and Roddick could have hit the showers without turning ankles or heading to the aspirin bottle. They didn't. I look up to them for not giving in. Now, on paper they lost. But really, how badly are each of them doing in '07? Is there any wonder that Roddick is the steady performer of the U.S., and that Golovin wins her first title? Perhaps the realist may widen that perspective to value the warrior he or she purports to...there is more to losing than just the W-L column and loss of glory. I respect Gasquet for deciding to wake up and make a match of it. That can only be a good experience for his development, and it's a hail of a lot better than being up two sets to love, putting yourself in position to gain match point, and squanding the match like an anti-champ.