Claire going down in doubles was sad. I think someone on the board pointed out that when Cal was at its full line-up last year, they never lost a dual match.
The most disappointing player at USC has been Fansler. She had a stellar freshman year and then since then has played like a mediocre player (like Lindsay Burdette). Its always interesting to see top junior players not be great college players (often the result of them hitting their tennis playing peak earlier). Pulido Velasco and Lao should help USC out. I imagine the order should be 1. Pulido Velasco, 2. Sanchez, 3. Fansler, 4. Lao, 5. Ramos, 6. Entekahbi...maybe even bumping up Lao to 3.
I think UCLA will have a rather weak year again. I've been a bit underwhelmed by Hoffpauir and Montez. Out of those two and Pantic, Johansson, Seguso, and Hickey...they're all good No. 4-6 players none are really strong No. 3 players. Looking at the future, UCLA really needs to recruit a No. 1 player. I'm assuming Dolehide will slide into No. 2/3 her freshman year with Remynse taking No. 1.
Yes, Cal was really the no. 1 team at Pac-10 last season.
As an example when Cal lost to USC, Cossou didn't play singles and Juricova didn't play doubles.
And yes, Fansler didn't do that well recently..but she did win against Johansson in the crucial duals match and #3 Washington player at the NCAA 2nd round..and she had to play against Cecil at the NCAA -.- Of course losing to Dartmouth player at WAATC was disappointing, but she did decently at the later ASU? invite or something. Granted, she was the highest ranked player of her class in the 1st year, I hope she would step up this season.
And I think Sanchez will get no.1, she did win back to back SW R championship, and Pulido lost to Micaela Hein of ASU, I think..but I think doubles is the more trouble, singles spots can be varied per game, I guess (I'm 'thinking' too much
Of UCLA, they certainly have depth, and Schnack is as good as ever, Remynse dispatched McKenna easily at SW R (yes, she did get dispatched by Will at WAATC)..no. 3 spot, as you said, might be the problem, but I think they can cover that by doing well at the lower positions..
And UCLA is traditionally good at doubles too, so..
It's good discussing this with someone.