PDA

View Full Version : 2010 Dual Match Line-Ups


Tennisace
Jan 23rd, 2010, 06:16 PM
It's very early in the season but I think it would be interesting to see how line-ups change over the course of the dual match and possibly speculate at questionable line-ups. Most teams have challenge matches once a week to "determine" line-ups. Teams are suppose to set-up line-ups based on order of strength (i.e. challenges).

The Watch List
Duke
Arkansas
Georgia Tech
Tennessee

First team of interest is Duke. They played twice this week. The person of interest is Elizabeth Plotkin, who played No. 1 (without Zsilinszka in the line-up) in the first dual match of the year and then three days later she is playing No. 4 behind Zsilinszka, Nze, and Granson.

I know its early in the season but what's with the big switch on Plotkin? I'm curious at what the line-up will be for Indoor qualifying next week.

#1 Duke 7, Memphis 0
Jan 19, 2010 at Durham, N.C. (Sheffield Tennis Center)
Singles competition
1. Elizabeth Plotkin (DU) def. Ashley Murdock (MEMPHIS) 6-3, 6-1
2. #91 Ellah Nze (DU) def. Courtney Collins (MEMPHIS) 6-0, 6-1
3. #80 Amanda Granson (DU) def. Marjorie Ondeck (MEMPHIS) 6-0, 6-1
4. Mary Clayton (DU) def. Amanda Brown (MEMPHIS) 6-0, 6-1
5. #63 Monica Gorny (DU) def. Kelly Gray (MEMPHIS) 6-1, 6-0
6. Jessica Stiles (DU) def. Andrea Arques-Garcia (MEMPHIS) 6-0, 6-0

Doubles competition
1. Amanda Granson/Ellah Nze (DU) def. Ashley Murdock/Courtney Collins (MEMPHIS) 8-3
2. Elizabeth Plotkin/Jessica Stiles (DU) def. Dara Toulch/Amanda Brown (MEMPHIS) 8-2
3. Monica Gorny/Mary Clayton (DU) def. Marjorie Ondeck/Kelly Gray (MEMPHIS) 8-3

#1 Duke 6, Old Dominion 1
Jan 22, 2010 at Durham, N.C. (Sheffield Tennis Center)
Singles competition
1. #21 Nadine Fahoum (ODU) def. #20 Reka Zsilinszka (DU) 5-5, retired
2. #91 Ellah Nze (DU) def. Joanna Dobrowolska (ODU) 6-3, 7-6 (7-5)
3. #80 Amanda Granson (DU) def. Irina Dementyeva (ODU) 6-0, 6-0
4. Elizabeth Plotkin (DU) def. Diana Ivanova (ODU) 6-1, 6-0
5. Mary Clayton (DU) def. Juliana Pires (ODU) 6-3, 6-1
6. Jessica Stiles (DU) def. Marija Citic (ODU) 6-1, 6-1

Doubles competition
1. Amanda Granson/Ellah Nze (DU) def. Nadine Fahoum/Joanna Dobrowolska (ODU) 8-2
2. Elizabeth Plotkin/Reka Zsilinszka (DU) def. Irina Dementyeva/Juliana Pires (ODU) 8-0
3. Jessica Stiles/Monica Gorny (DU) def. #44 Diana Ivanova/Marija Citic (ODU) 8-1

fantic
Jan 24th, 2010, 12:45 AM
such a drastic change :lol:

Tennisace
Jan 24th, 2010, 07:59 PM
I know that Amanda McDowell is coming back from injury but playing No. 4 singles against early competition (Yes, Auburn is pretty good but not good enough where you have to put McDowell at No. 4)? This is her second match at No. 4. Or is Coach Shelton putting Amanda at No. 4 now so he can put her at No. 4 against ASU in Indoor qualifying.

#10 Georgia Tech 7, #35 Auburn 0
Jan 24, 2010 at Auburn, Ala.
Singles competition
1. #1 Irina Falconi (GT) def. #71 Fani Chifchieva (AU) 6-1, 6-1
2. #66 Sasha Krupina (GT) def. Myrthe Molenveld (AU) 6-2, 7-5
3. Viet Ha Ngo (GT) def. Caroline Thornton (AU) 6-1, 6-1
4. Amanda McDowell (GT) def. Daniela Vukadinovic (AU) 6-1, 6-0
5. Lynn Blau (GT) def. Paulina Schippers (AU) 6-4, 6-3
6. Elizabeth Kilborn (GT) def. Jil Hastenrath (AU) 6-2, 6-4

Doubles competition
1. Irina Falconi/Sasha Krupina (GT) def. Fani Chifchieva/Caroline Thornton (AU) 8-1
2. Hillary Davis/Viet Ha Ngo (GT) def. Myrthe Molenveld/Daniela Vukadinovic (AU) 8-1
3. Paulina Schippers/Plamena Kurteva (AU) def. Lynn Blau/Elizabeth Kilborn (GT) 8-7

#10 Georgia Tech 7, Chattanooga 0
Jan 18, 2010 at Atlanta, Ga.
Singles competition
1. #1 Irina Falconi (GT) def. Jenna Nurik (CHAT) 6-1, 6-2
2. #66 Sasha Krupina (GT) def. Emily Hangstefer (CHAT) 6-2, 6-2
3. Viet Ha Ngo (GT) def. Shaina Singh (CHAT) 6-0, 6-1
4. Amanda McDowell (GT) def. Charlotte Bossy (CHAT) 6-0, 6-0
5. Lynn Blau (GT) def. Jennifer Taylor (CHAT) 6-2, 6-0
6. Elizabeth Kilborn (GT) def. Annie Green (CHAT) 6-2, 6-2

Doubles competition
1. Irina Falconi/Sasha Krupina (GT) def. Jenna Nurik/Emily Hangstefer (CHAT) 8-0
2. Viet Ha Ngo/Hillary Davis (GT) def. Shaina Singh/Grace Robinette (CHAT) 8-3
3. Lynn Blau/Elizabeth Kilborn (GT) def. Jennifer Taylor/Annie Green (CHAT) 8-0

fantic
Jan 25th, 2010, 02:13 AM
hmmm I dunno which position Smith will play, but last year's ASU single lineup was
McKenna, Abdala, Hein, Abdala(Graduated), Bricki..so B might play at #4 and she is a good player..

Tennisace
Jan 29th, 2010, 07:32 PM
Looks like Arkansas is doing some shady shuffling to avoid being upset by Washington. They moved up their No. 4 player to the No. 2 spot (against #3 ranked Dy). Let's see if it works.

Arkansas 7 Oklahoma State 0

Doubles
Order of Finish: 2, 1, 3

No. 1: Anouk Tigu / Claudine Paulson (ARK) def. Alisa Buslaieva / Iryna Khatstsko (OSU) 8-5
No. 2: Kate Lukomskaya / Kelsey Sundaram (ARK) def. Sara Meghoufel / Malika Rose (OSU) 8-0
No. 3: Stephanie Roy/Valentina Starkova (ARK) def. Nataliya Shatkovskaya/Alexandria Cristello (OSU) 8-6

Singles
Order of Finish: 1, 6, 2*, 4, 3, 5

No. 1: Anouk Tigu (ARK) def. Nataliya Shatkovskaya (OSU) 6-4, 6-0
No. 2: Kate Lukomskaya (ARK) def. Alisa Buslaieva (OSU) 6-1, 7-6 (4)
No. 3: Emily Carbone (ARK) def. Sara Meghoufel (OSU) 6-3, 6-4
No. 4: Stephanie Roy (ARK) def. Iryna Khastsko (OSU) 6-4, 2-6, 6-1
No. 5: Kelsey Sundaram (ARK) def. Malika Rose (OSU) 6-0, 7-5
No. 6: Claudine Paulson (ARK) def. Alexandria Cristello (OSU) 6-4, 6-0

Complete Results vs. Saint Louis

Arkansas 6 Saint Louis 1

Doubles
Order of Finish: 1, 2, 3

No. 1: Kate Lukomakaya/Kelsey Sundaram (ARK) def. Casey Miller/Sara Septein (SLU) 8-0
No. 1: Claudine Paulson/Annemijin Koenen (ARK) def. Hailee Elmore/Mia Elmore (SLU) 8-2
No. 1: Stephanie Roy/Valentina Starkova (ARK) def. Cailtin McKenna/Kasia Tomalak (SLU) 8-4

Singles
Order of Finish: 6, 5, 3, 4, 2, 1

No. 1: Hailee Elmore (SLU) def. Emily Carbone (ARK) 6-4, 4-6, 1-0 (4)
No. 2: Stephanie Roy (ARK) def. Casey Miller (SLU) 6-7(4), 6-1, 1-0(7)
No. 3: Valentina Starkova (ARK) def. Sarah Septein (SLU) 6-2, 6-0
No. 4: Kelsey Sundaram (ARK) def. Mia Elmore (SLU) 6-1, 6-2
No. 5: Claudine Paulson (ARK) def. Caitlin McKenna (SLU) 6-4, 6-1
No. 6: Fernanda Perrotta (ARK) def. Kasia Tomalak (SLU) 6-1, 6-2

Arkansas 5 Washington 2
Singles
1. Anouk Tigu (UA) def. No. 11 Venise Chan (WU) 6-4, 5-7, 7-5
2. No. 3 Denise Dy (WU) def. Stephanie Roy (UA) 6-1, 6-1
3. Kate Lukomskaya (UA) def. Lina Xu 6-0, 6-7(5), 6-4
4. Joyce Ardies (WU) def. Emily Carbone 4-6, 6-3, 6-0
5. Kelsey Sundaram (UA) def. Samantha Smith 0-6, 6-4, 6-1
6. Claudine Paulson (UA) def. Aleksandra Malovic (WU) 6-2, 7-6(6)

Doubles
1. No. 11 Ardies/Dy (WU) def. Tigu/Paulson (UA) 8-6
2. Lukomskaya/Sundaram (UA) def. Smith/Chan (WU) 8-2
3. Roy/Starkova (UA) def. Malovic/Xu (WU) 8-2

johnnytennis
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:08 PM
Looks like Arkansas is doing some shady shuffling to avoid being upset by Washington. They moved up their No. 4 player to the No. 2 spot (against #3 ranked Dy). Let's see if it works.

I was thinking the exact same thing. Dont they know people are watching?

Tennisace
Jan 29th, 2010, 10:09 PM
Add Tennessee to the list. I can't believe they were not called out on this. In the first dual match of the season, Pluskota is slotted at No. 3 and defaults her match. Then two days later, she is put at No. 5 and defaults again. Why is this such a problem? Well not only is she moved down the line-up but Tennessee has more than 6 players so they easily could have put another player at No. 6. But of course doing so would increase the chances of an upset (which almost happened) and keeping Pluskota in the line-up would prevent players behind her from playing up a spot. Shady.

#11 Tennessee 4, #33 Illinois 3
Jan 22, 2010 at Knoxville, Tenn. (Goodfriend Tennis Center)
Singles competition
1. #6 Caitlin Whoriskey (TENN) def. #33 Rachael White (ILLINOIS) 6-4, 7-6 (7-5)
2. #51 Maria Sorbello (TENN) def. Megan Fudge (ILLINOIS) 7-6 (7-4), 6-1
3. Chelcie Abajian (ILLINOIS) def. Natalie Pluskota (TENN), by default
4. Breanne Smutko (ILLINOIS) def. Rosalia Alda (TENN) 5-7, 6-3, 7-5
5. Zsofia Zubor (TENN) def. Amy Allin (ILLINOIS) 6-1, 6-1
6. Marisa Lambropoulos (ILLINOIS) def. Katie Lee (TENN) 6-0, 6-3

Doubles competition
1. #1 Caitlin Whoriskey/Natalie Pluskota (TENN) def. Chelcie Abajian/Leigh Finnegan (ILLINOIS) 8-4
2. Rosalia Alda/Zsofia Zubor (TENN) def. Rachael White/Marisa Lambropoulos (ILLINOIS) 8-6
3. Maria Sorbello/Katie Lee (TENN) def. Kristina Minor/Megan Fudge (ILLINOIS) 8-7 (7-4)

#11 Tennessee 4, ETSU 3
Jan 24, 2010 at Knoxville, Tenn. (Goodfriend Tennis Center)
Singles competition
1. #6 Caitlin Whoriskey (TENN) def. Yevgeniya Stupak (ETSU) 6-0, 6-1
2. Paula Jaime (ETSU) def. #51 Maria Sorbello (TENN) 6-0, 5-7, 1-0 (10-8)
3. Rosalia Alda (TENN) def. Kelly Hotzhausen (ETSU) 6-2, 6-3
4. Zs�fia Zubor (TENN) def. Karina Kedzo (ETSU) 6-3, 6-4
5. Diana Navrostska (ETSU) def. Natalie Pluskota (TENN), by walkover
6. Andra Voinea (ETSU) def. Katie Lee (TENN) 3-6, 6-4, 1-0 (10-4)

Doubles competition
1. #1 Caitlin Whoriskey/Natalie Pluskota (TENN) def. Yevgeniya Stupak/Kelly Hotzhausen (ETSU) 8-2
2. Rosalia Alda/Zs�fia Zubor (TENN) def. Paula Jaime/Karina Kedzo (ETSU) 8-4
3. Katie Lee/Maria Sorbello (TENN) def. Andra Voinea/Tara Sheets (ETSU) 8-2

Tennisace
Jan 29th, 2010, 11:10 PM
I was thinking the exact same thing. Dont they know people are watching?

Apparently coaches had to submit their line-ups for Indoors and there was a procedure for coaches to challenge line-ups...what are Michigan, South Carolina, and Washington thinking especially considering that this regional is one of the closest on paper.

Tennisace
Jan 30th, 2010, 06:53 PM
Duke doing some more flip flops. Last time out it was:

1. Zsilinszka,
2. Nze
3. Granson
4. Plotkin

And now they are:
1. Zsilinszka
2. Plotkin
3. Granson
4. Nze

gouci
Jan 31st, 2010, 02:55 AM
#51 Long Beach St. def. Maryland 6-1

Doubles

1. #58 Alawi/Manasse, LBSU def. Miller/MacKeever, UM 8-6
2. Armstrong/Dallara, LBSU def. Hansbrough/Brand, UM 8-6
3. Cantlay/Luzar, LBSU def. Huschke/Kurkan, UM 8-6

Singles

1. Deborah Armstrong, LBSU def. Lisa Miller, UM 6-3, 6-1
2. Anais Dallara, LBSU def. Maggie MacKeever, UM 6-2, 6-3
3. Jaklin Alawi, LBSU def. Julia Huschke, UM 6-2, 6-0
4. Rachel Manasse, LBSU def. Jordan Hansbrough, UM 6-2, 6-3
5. Lexi Brand, UM def. Julie Luzar, LBSU 7-6, 6-7, 10-8
6. Anna Jeczmionka, LBSU def. Bruce Kurkan, UM 6-2, 6-4

- Lexi Brand was probably Maryland's best player based on her Fall results of beating 5 stars like Virginia's Neela Vaez and Harvard's Agnes Sibilski. But Maryland planted her at #5 to get their lone point. :lol:

- Anais Dallara was Long Beach St.'s only nationally ranked singles player at #121 in the pre-season raising eyebrows why she didn't play #1 against USC. Then after Dallara easily defeated USC's #2 Sarah Fansler and still didn't get bumped up to #1 LBS has some explaining to do. :devil:

gouci
Feb 1st, 2010, 01:31 AM
Syracuse def. Rutgers 7-0

1. Harman def. Zhang 6-2, 6-2
2. Parra def. Holzberg 6-1, 3-6, 6-2
3. Tan def. Arlak 6-1, 2-6, 10-2
4. Peters def. Mulchutsky 6-2, 6-1
5. #102 Kalhorn def. Michelle Green 6-2, 6-2
6. #74 Sardinha def. Slatnick 6-1, 6-1

For the 3rd straight match blue chippers Elenor Peters and #74 C.C. Sardinha have played #4 & #6 singles for Syracuse. :eek:
If Sardinha is really their #6 singles then Syracuse is a contender for the national title this year. :happy:

This shadiness coming from a coaching staff that likes to squat their school name on neglected top player profiles at TRN. :lol:

gouci
Feb 1st, 2010, 01:35 AM
The Watch List Continued

Syracuse
Oklahoma
Long Beach St.

Maryland

form
Feb 1st, 2010, 04:52 AM
New year but same gouci Karl Rove like baloney.

LB

Where did Armsrong and Dallara play in line up last year?

Who was hurt much of fall and barely played?

How much did USCPlay Fansler this weekend?

In comparing results, are the opponents at 1 harder than 2 typically so its not apples to apples?

Has LB flipped players more than 1 spot per match like most other examples on this thread?

Is gouci really jealous and thus a false accusation throwing amateur with no real understanding of this subject?

Last thought: Fantic... I find ur posts informative as you personally observe and do not rely on envy and hunch. Welcome.

Tennisace
Feb 1st, 2010, 04:58 AM
It was interesting to see that Arkansas did not use Stephanie Roy in the singles line-up against Michigan. I wonder if some of the coaches caught wift of what was going on.

Tennessee on the other hand has no business being at the Indoors given their antics they used to get there. I hope the other teams figure out the Pluskota trick they have been pulling all dual match season so far.

I wonder what would have happened had Cal left Ilcinkas in the line-up of the NCAA team championships final and then defaulted her so that the rest of the singles line-up could stay intact. It wouldn't fly because that's poor sportsmanship. Tennessee shame on you.

gouci
Feb 1st, 2010, 05:37 AM
New year but same gouci Karl Rove like baloney.

Where did Armsrong and Dallara play in line up last year?

Form how did you know I was a Republican? :kiss:

You bring up a very good point! Last season Dallara won 21 of her last 22 matches playing at #4 singles and NEVER got moved up to #3 singles once. :scratch:

I suspect with San Diego St. coming up LBS will have Deborah "sacrificial lamb" Armstrong at #1 to lose to Trunks and Dallara to steal a point at #2. SDSU's #5 beat UCI so why not drop Julie Luzar to #6 and flip Anna Jeczmionka up to #5. :lol:

form
Feb 1st, 2010, 02:04 PM
Add to watch list: UC Irvine

Impressive frosh Kristina Smith buried at 6 behind Becca Kwan at 5 who is incredibly inconsistent.

In fact mr. Gouci's latest target from LB, Julie Luzar, beat Kwan at BW Tourney or UCI might have finally won one.

Why does UCI not play Smith higher while than Kwan? Seeking a free point at 6?

Add UCI to your watch list.

barboza
Feb 1st, 2010, 05:08 PM
Fresno state ranked way too high

gouci
Feb 1st, 2010, 07:30 PM
Add to watch list: UC Irvine

Impressive frosh Kristina Smith buried at 6 but constant loser Becca Kwan at 5.
Form you have a selective memory which seems to skew your recollection of things.

Ex. You remember Kwan losing to 2 star Kelsey Costales (who's now a 4 star) in a tournament and so you think of her as a constant loser. Well that loss happened at the Summer Circuit which doesn't count for anything! You can't even find that loss on Kwan's college record. :lol:

But Kwan's college record shows she's not a constant loser. Here are Kwan's big wins from last season.

UCI def. #51 FIU = Kwan def. Jones in 3
UCI def. #71 Cal Poly = Kwan def. Filip in 2
UCI def. #35 Sac. St. = Kwan def. Valenzuela in 3
UCI def. #59 St. Mary's = Kwan def. Calvo in 3
UCI vs #44 LBS Rd. 1 = Kwan def. Luzar in 3
UCI def. Nevada = Kwan def. Lombard in 2
UCI def. UCSB BWT = Kwan def. Onaga in 2

By my count Kwan pulled her weight in 6 of UCI's biggest wins last season.
Now why don't you list Luzar's big wins if she even has any outside of the Big West Tournament?

In fact mr. Gouci's latest target from LB, Julie Luzar, beat Kwan at BW Tourney or UCI might have finally won one.
Since you bring it up let me give you my thoughts on this.

During the BWT since Luzar was LBS's worst doubles player she got to sit out all the doubles matches and not as a strategy. When Kwan and Luzar round 2 took place Kwan was more fatigued with the additional 3 doubles matches she had to play that weekend in the grueling 107 degree desert heat.

And don't even imply skipping doubles has no advantage. Hammel lost to Grady in straight sets the 1st time they played. But in round 2 when Hammel rested for Grady by sitting out the doubles vs LBS, Hammel almost upset Grady in 3 sets.

So considering Kwan and Luzar had a close 3 set match in Round 1 the fatigue factor may have allowed Luzar to beat Kwan in the 2nd set tie-breaker of Round 2. In their 1st meeting Kwan won that 2nd set tie-breaker and went on to win the 3rd set. In the end Luzar may have lucked into her only big win of the season because she was just so bad in doubles.

fantic
Feb 2nd, 2010, 12:44 AM
I try to be objective.. :lol: but thanks

Tennisace
Feb 2nd, 2010, 10:32 PM
Line-up rules at the Indoors.

LINE-UP RULES

Three principles were used to arrive at the line-up procedures listed below. First, there should
be some flexibility in the line-up rule. Some coaches still have not set their line-ups and would
like to rotate some players. Second, coaches should not be able to rotate their line-up simply
to “match-up” better against an opponent. A coach should be rotating players only if he/she
feels they are of equal ability and both deserve to play a certain position. Third, since this is a
National Championship tournament, the seeding and line-up rules should resemble a
tournament of that caliber as closely as possible.

Keeping these three principles in mind, the line-up rules are as follows:

1. Master line-ups must be submitted on the ITA website no later than Monday, February 8th at 12
Noon (Eastern time). The direct link to the page is:
http://www.itatennis.com/Events/ITANationalChampionships/DIWomensTeamIndoors.htm.
2. Line-ups will be compiled and emailed to the 16 participating coaches at approximately 1pm on
Monday, February 8th. All line-up protests must be emailed to Jen Evans
(jevans@itatennis.com) by midnight that same day.
3. The National Tournament Committee will have a conference call on Tuesday, February 9th to
make final ruling on all protests.
4. A singles player may move one position up or down, but not both, from the master line-up.
Example: Your #3 player can also play #2 or #4, but not both.

5. A doubles team may move one position up or down, but not both. For example, your #2 team
can play #1 or #3, but not both.

6. YOU MUST PLAY YOUR MASTER LINE-UP TWO OUT OF YOUR FIRST THREE MATCHES
OF THE TOURNAMENT.
A. The master line-up will be considered played if the line-up submitted before the match
begins qualifies as a master line-up. Once the match begins, if the line-up is changed
due to injury, default or if the doubles is changed because the match has been decided,
the master line-up will still be considered played.
B. A submitted line-up will not be considered the master line-up if it was not originally the
master line-up but became that in the course of the match.
C. A submitted line-up qualifies as the master line-up as long as the players are in rank
order in relationship to the original master line-up. For example, if the #3 singles player
is held out of play, and everyone moves up, the line-up would be considered the master
line-up.

7. THE ON-SITE GAMES COMMITTEE WILL HAVE FINAL LINE-UP APPROVAL IF AN
OPPOSING COACH CHALLENGES A ROTATED LINE-UP. Example: You have a clear-cut #1
or #6 player on your team. If you decide to rotate that position, and the opposing coach
challenges it, the Games Committee will have the final say in setting the line-up. Remember:
You must have your dual match scorebook with you and all fall/winter individual results
for each team member.

8. ALTHOUGH ROTATING PLAYERS IS ALLOWED, NORMAL ITA LINE-UP RULES STILL
APPLY. Reminder: Rule H.2."In singles, players must compete in order of ability, the best player
on the team playing at the No.1 position, the second best at No. 2 and so on through all
positions. This rule shall also apply to doubles play with the strongest doubles team at No. 1,
etc."

johnnytennis
Feb 5th, 2010, 10:40 PM
Syracuse def. Rutgers 7-0

1. Harman def. Zhang 6-2, 6-2
2. Parra def. Holzberg 6-1, 3-6, 6-2
3. Tan def. Arlak 6-1, 2-6, 10-2
4. Peters def. Mulchutsky 6-2, 6-1
5. #102 Kalhorn def. Michelle Green 6-2, 6-2
6. #74 Sardinha def. Slatnick 6-1, 6-1

For the 3rd straight match blue chippers Elenor Peters and #74 C.C. Sardinha have played #4 & #6 singles for Syracuse. :eek:
If Sardinha is really their #6 singles then Syracuse is a contender for the national title this year. :happy:

This shadiness coming from a coaching staff that likes to squat their school name on neglected top player profiles at TRN. :lol:

Gouci....You are right about this Syracuse program. They are the biggest joke when it comes to stacking the lineup. They played Eastern Michigan today and beat them 4-3. The coach for Eastern Michigan is filing a formal complaint protesting the match on Syracuse putting the best players at the bottom half of the lineup. For Syracuse, The top three players lost and bottom three won. Is Luke Jensen going to get called on the carpet for this? He should be! I guess it got real ugly!
http://www.emueagles.com/news/2010/2/5/WTEN_0205103721.aspx

Embittered
Feb 6th, 2010, 01:13 PM
If Sardinha is really their #6 singles then Syracuse is a contender for the national title this year. :happy:

Sounds fishy to me.



Sorry. Couldn't help myself.:sad:

Embittered
Feb 7th, 2010, 08:32 AM
This (http://www.emueagles.com/news/2010/2/5/WTEN_0205103721.aspx) was quoted on zootennis (http://tenniskalamazoo.blogspot.com/2010/02/virginia-men-georgia-women-upset.html):

“You’re supposed to place your players according to skill level with one being your highest ranked and six being your lowest ranked,” Ray explained. “They had their best player in the five position. This player had beaten two ranked opponents in the fall and established a national ranking for herself. She was not their fifth-best player.

Ray said he plans to appeal the decision and if overturned, the Eagles would claim a victory in the match.

gouci
Feb 8th, 2010, 03:49 AM
Oklahoma upsets #30 Alabama 4-3

Doubles
1. McLane/Guarachi (BAMA) def. #39 Constantinescu/Tsertsvadze (OU), 8-3
2. Eckel/Kalashnikova (OU) def. Bigos/Foehse (BAMA), 8-1
3. Connelly/Huet (OU) def. Tunaru/Emery (BAMA), 8-3
Order of Finish: 2, 3, 1

Singles
1. Courtney McLane (BAMA) def. #56 Ana-Maria Constantinescu (OU), 6-3, 7-6(6)
2. #82 Alexa Guarachi (BAMA) def. Marie-Pier Huet (OU), 6-4, 6-2
3. Maria Kalashnikova (OU) def. Paulina Bigos (BAMA), 4-6, 6-1, 6-3
4. Meritt Emery (BAMA) def. Teona Tsertsvadze (OU), 6-2, 7-5
5. Kristina Radan (OU) def. Antonio Foehse (BAMA), 6-4, 7-5
6. Tara Eckel (OU) def. Alice Tunaru (BAMA), 6-4, 6-4
Order of Finish: 2, 4, 1, 6, 5, 3

Huet played mostly #4-6 singles last season but was planted at #2.

Kalashnikova played mostly at #2 singles last season but was planted at #3.

For some reason Alabama's junior Tiffany Welcher (#1 last year) and sophomore Taylor Lindsey (#5 last year) have been missing from the line-up.

Tennisace
Feb 8th, 2010, 06:26 PM
'Almost' on the questionable line up list is UCLA women. They had an illegal multi-spot jump vs Tulsa when they dropped Johannson from 4 to 6 in just one match. You can't do that

After charting their first four matches, they are actually 'barely' legal except for that move.

After first two matches they had established the following order when adjusted for legal substitionss:
1) Schnack, 2) Remynse, 3) Hickey, 4) Johansson, 5) Hoffpauir, 6) Pantic, 7) Seguso, 8) Montez

Then they jumped Johansson behind (missing Hoffpauir) both Seguso and Pantic... you can't do that... match # 3

Now UCLA appears to be given their subsitution pattern from match to match:
1) Schnack, 2) Remynse, 3) Hickey, 4) Hoffpauir, 5) Pantic, 6) Seguso, 7) Johansson, 8) Montez

UCLA is sneaky because they have so many players that can actually compete at Division I, they are able to flip flop and disorient coaches from catching on. They were on my radar earlier but I'm glad someone actually figured them out :)

Tennisace
Feb 13th, 2010, 09:45 PM
Although "legal" UCLA moves Remynse to No. 3 and Hickey to No. 2 against Cal despite both losing to Miami. Looks like a defensive move from UCLA to guarantee a split at No. 2/3 as opposed to taking a chance at a split or even a 0-2 hole.

UCLA knows that the match is going to be won at the bottom of the line-up.

fantic
Feb 14th, 2010, 04:58 AM
and actually Hickey won and Remynse lost, it's a bit hilarious :lol:

gouci
Feb 14th, 2010, 10:55 AM
Below is the record for Anais Dallara since 2/1/09 playing behind Deborah "sacrificial lamb" Armstrong but NEVER moving up even 1 spot higher.

"Sacrificial Lamb's" record = 13-11 (2 DNF)
46% losing percentage

Anais Dallara's record = 24-1 (1 DNF)
96% winning percentage


Spring 2010 examples

1. Trunk (San Diego St.) def. Armstrong 6-1,6-0
2. Dallara (LBS) def. Julia Wais (SDSU) 6-4,6-3

1. Jacqui Corba (George Washington) def. Armstrong 6-1,6-4
2. Dallara (LBS) def. Mimi Hamling (GW) 6-0,6-0

1. Sanchez (USC) def. Armstrong 6-2,6-2
2. Dallara (LBS) def. Sarah Fansler (USC) 6-2,6-2



Who else thinks this is a blatant violation :shout: of the "players must compete in order of ability" rule?

If losing 1-6,0-6 doesn't bump the sacrificial lamb down :rolleyes: then maybe a formal protest will? :help:

UC Riverside the next LBS opponent has nothing to lose and should protest the match if Dallara plays behind the sacrificial lamb yet again. :fiery:
.

Tennisace
Feb 14th, 2010, 01:34 PM
and actually Hickey won and Remynse lost, it's a bit hilarious :lol:

Haha I did not see that coming at all. Cal only won because they pulled of the doubles point. They led something like 7-4 at No. 2 doubles and went down 7-8 before winning it in the tie breaker. That would have been the difference.

fantic
Feb 14th, 2010, 02:14 PM
yeah I also didn't see Cal winning the dbles pt, either, #2 weren't that good so far.. :lol:

gouci
Mar 2nd, 2010, 05:59 PM
By overturning Syracuse's win the ITA is sending a strong message about cracking down on stacked line-ups. :bigclap:
The effect this will hopefully have is teams using stacked line-ups will be scared straight. :scared:

Ex. This announcement came out on 2/18. On 2/19 Long Beach St. moved Deborah Armstrong from #1 to #2 singles. On 2/20 Armstrong moved again from #2 to #3 singles. So just 2 days after the ITA announced they overturned Syracuse's win for a stacked line-up, LBS was scared straight into immediately dropping Deborah "sacrificial lamb" Armstrong from #1 to #3 singles. :lol:

gouci
Mar 8th, 2010, 02:23 AM
Here's an article below about New Braunfels High School in Texas, where blue chip Lilly Kimbell and 5 star Samantha Adams attends. They're the 3 time defending Texas state champions and were nailed cheating.

Lilly Kimbell is one of the girls caught cheating on tape. Her high school had an "off-campus physical education class" which was just a front to have private training for the players at a tennis academy during school hours. :lol:

New Braunfels stripped of tennis titles. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/high_school/New_Braunfels_stripped_of_tennis_titles.html)

Embittered
Mar 8th, 2010, 11:20 AM
This is even further outside my area of expertise (assuming I have one) than my usual clueless witterings, but...
Here's an article below about New Braunfels High School in Texas, where blue chip Lilly Kimbell and 5 star Samantha Adams attends. They're the 3 time defending Texas state champions and were nailed cheating.

Lilly Kimbell is one of the girls caught cheating on tape. Her high school had an "off-campus physical education class" which was just a front to have private training for the players at a tennis academy during school hours. :lol:

New Braunfels stripped of tennis titles. (http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/high_school/New_Braunfels_stripped_of_tennis_titles.html)
That's a very emotive phrase, especially the 'c' word. Personally, I don't see any stain on Kimbell's character here. I'd prefer something like 'found in breach of the rules'. And it is subject to appeal. I see Karma in the comments section on mysantonio wasn't impressed!

Some poor girl in Texas has to live with the fact that her father (I'm guessing) hired a private investigator to win her a title that she couldn't win through her skill on the tennis court.:sad: And now the creative ambiguity that allowed Texas girls to play school matches against opponents of the stature of Kimbell has been destroyed.

gouci
Mar 8th, 2010, 02:15 PM
This is even further outside my area of expertise (assuming I have one) than my usual clueless witterings, Embittered in my humble opinion you are way off on this issue. :lol:

1. Extra benefits.

In college for example players are made ineligible over small extra benefits. How much of an extra benefit do you think offering "Tennis Academy 101" is worth?

(pro instructor hourly rate)times(# of players)times(# of days class held) = $$$ in extra benefits

2. Facilities.

In high school you're supposed to practice using the high school tennis courts and not the resources and facilities of a tennis academy which is ten times better. :eek:

3. Coaching.

High school tennis doesn't work where a superstar player can train with her private coach separately from the rest of the team and then the superstar can just show up at matches. :lol:

4. Probably other things I'm missing. Such as the ability to recruit players with "Tennis Academy 101" as the lure.


Embittered if you want to look at getting extra benefits, better facilities and better coaching as just a "breach of rules" and not cheating than you're naive or crazy. :cuckoo:

gouci
Mar 8th, 2010, 04:35 PM
Embittered is that you posting a rebuttal under the name "Facts"?

My I say I'm a neutral party that has no rooting interest who wins the HS tennis championships in Texas. :angel:

Facts
Mar 8th, 2010, 04:43 PM
Gouci, If you are a senior member of this forum, you had better get your facts together before slandering someone. Your post scares me with your hatred and ignorance. It is a team tennis championship made up of 44 members that we are talking about.

Lilly Kimbell was not on tape. 2 of the Unicorn boys were. Rumor has it that a Westlake parent hired a P.I. The P.I. followed the boys (who are both top students in their class and want to be doctors, no kidding) from school over to Newk's. They were getting ready to leave for a tournament. It was 11:00 in the morning, not even during high school tennis season (December, 2008) He hired a private investigator to film them. His intimation was that the kids got off at noon'ish to practice tennis, which of course is ridiculous. Isn't it scary too that the P.I. knew that they'd be there at that time, because normally they aren't? Isn't that against privacy laws?

NBHS found out about it at a coaches meeting and started checking into it. They found that no of course no kids were onsite normally at the academy at 11:00 a.m., but they did get questions about the Newk's class.

The class in question is group lessons, so your little math equation is all wrong. She isn't taking any privates, even at Newk's, except with her family. The class also has been going on for 27 years. It is a P.E. class that high school kids can attend. Little kids are in it too; my ten year old is in your version of "elite tennis classes"; kids from all over the San Antonio area go to it, including your high school. The only reason it got "investigated" is because NBHS has won the state title and the other schools are jealous. The class is in the school catalog. Nothing was hidden. Been that way for 27 years.

The rules are not clear. The UIL book says that you can have outside/private (which are really group) lessons. The UIL book also says that you have to have a full-time district employee onsite. So which is it? It is a muddy area.

The dog-eat-dog-we-are-going-to-take-NBHS-down-because-we've-been-jealous-of-NBHS-for years "committee" that decided this 27 year old class wasn't ok, was comprised only of competitor schools (principals and AD's). Schools that have been jealous for years, and whose kids would directly benefit by taking away the team championship. That is objective?

If you think that either Sam or Lilly really wanted to play high school tennis to just be the champion, you have to be kidding. People make fun of hs tennis in the real tennis world; they act like it is nothing. However, their parents played high school tennis and loved it; then pushed them into it at the beginning, and then they loved the camaraderie. That is why they play hs tennis. By the way, Lilly also played freshman NBHS basketball. If she is such a superstar, would she really have done that? She certainly doesn't think she is any kind of a star, for sure! She'd still have kept with bball, but sprained her ankle 2x in a summer league so thought she better stop.

By the way, the NBHS kids left school at 3:10 p.m. They traveled over to Newk's and got there about 3:30 (construction). Regular school gets out at 3:50 p.m. That is the timeframe w are talking. Newk's doesn't start until 4:00. (Officially they start at 3:30, but there is talking, joking, dinking around, so they don't hit balls until 4:00). So where is the cheating? Were the kids supposed to say, "Hey, wait, I want to stay another 40 minutes at school so I can't go?" Why are the kids being penalized? If the class is not ok with the rules, change the class, but don't punish the kids.

By the way, they tell us that 90% of the time, the UIL sides with that very objective committee made up of dog-eat-dog competitors. But now you know the facts.

Embittered
Mar 8th, 2010, 06:20 PM
Embittered is that you posting a rebuttal under the name "Facts"?

My I say I'm a neutral party that has no rooting interest who wins the HS tennis championships in Texas. :angel:
Um, no. I think I'm done on this topic for the nonce.:)

Whether or not sock-puppetry is the sort of thing I'd do, I'd be quite incapable of showing that level of knowledge, indeed any non-zero level of knowledge, of Texas schools' tennis.

But how on earth did you manage to respond before Facts posted?!?

Amalgamate
Mar 8th, 2010, 06:20 PM
:spit: “A parent hired a private investigator to come in and spy on New Braunfels,”

This is all incredibly catty! :lol:

gouci
Mar 9th, 2010, 04:54 AM
But how on earth did you manage to respond before Facts posted?!?I made a huge mistake :banghead::banghead::banghead: by revealing to everyone here my biggest secret..... I'm psychic! :happy:

Embittered
Mar 14th, 2010, 11:23 AM
The database was being migrated here, meanwhile in Texas...

Texas A&M women have filed an official protest over their 5-2 loss to SMU (http://twitter.com/txcollege10s/status/10338851203) [over Vankova playing at no. 2 and retiring at 0-5].

Main story from the Texas College Tennis Blogger: http://www.texascollegetennis.com/?p=2289 and later tweet (http://twitter.com/txcollege10s/statuses/10389658244) reiterating his sympathies.

I tried googling for other versions of the story, but didn't find anything.:confused:

Embittered
Mar 18th, 2010, 08:06 PM
http://twitter.com/txcollege10s/statuses/10674107716
Well the team result has been swiped off the book in the A&M-SMU fiasco, but all individual results stand. A&M appealing the appeal
There's also a piece (http://www.texascollegetennis.com/?p=2390) on his website.