PDA

View Full Version : Order of Strength Discussion


2nd_serve
Jan 31st, 2011, 04:31 PM
It seems like we love to argue about order of strength, possible stacking. When Tennisace open a lineup violation thread, it got a lot of posts about order of strength speculation. I [propose we separate those two themes. Cut and dry lineup violation where a player is moved more than one lineup spot between matches, and arguments that the order of strength is suspect.

fantic
Jan 31st, 2011, 04:49 PM
stacking is rife this season :devil:

Tennisace
Feb 1st, 2011, 01:28 AM
I agree that Duke is talented and very deep however there seems to be something fishy going on and injury doesn't seem to be a factor:

Versus Hawaii the line-up was:
1. Fahoum
2. Zslinszka
3. Clayton
4. Plotkin
5. Mar
6. Gorny

with Nze and Kahan TBA.

Versus William and Mary Nze and Kahan are in the line-up and Clayton sits out:
1. Fahoum
2. Zslinszka
3. Plotkin
4. Nze
5. Kahan
6. Mar

This tells us that the order is roughly:
1. Fahoum
2. Zslinszka
3. Clayton
4. Plotkin
5. Nze
6. Kahan
7. Mar
8. Gorny

Clayton is No. 3 because she is ahead of Plotkin in the Hawaii match.

Versus Brown the line-up was:
1. Zslinszka
2. Plotkin
3. Nze
4. Kahan
5. Clayton
6. Gorny

Here comes the major shift in the order:
1. Fahoum
2. Zslinszka
3. Plotkin
4. Nze
5. Kahan
6. Clayton
7. Mar
8. Gorny

And then in their last match against Texas A&M, Clayton sits out and the line-up above remains intact. Essentially she moved down three spots from where she originally started. The thing with line-ups is that they are supposed to be ordered in terms of ability and you are not suppose to tamper with the line-up due to injury. If someone is coming back from an injury, you can't place them lower in the order of strength. In others words, the order of strength is always determined by if everyone was at 100%. Sure you could argue that Plotkin, Nze, Clayton, and Kahan are evenly matched and could replace each other at any position...but really that is just a convenient way of saying I can place them in any order I choose...I will acknowledge the possibility that the other three girls just got a lot better in the last three weeks...but how can anyone really prove that?

Tennisace
Feb 1st, 2011, 01:36 AM
Just so I can demonstrate that I can remain impartial...while Cal never had an obvious issue with the line-up last year, I will say that Siwosz had no business playing No. 4 ahead of Goransson and Davis. That clearly was a move to help win at No. 5 and No. 6. A lot of teams do such actions, but that by no means makes it okay.

Lindsay Burdette at No. 2 for Stanford last year was another example in my opinion of "sacrificial lamb."

fantic
Feb 1st, 2011, 03:40 AM
Just so I can demonstrate that I can remain impartial...while Cal never had an obvious issue with the line-up last year, I will say that Siwosz had no business playing No. 4 ahead of Goransson and Davis. That clearly was a move to help win at No. 5 and No. 6. A lot of teams do such actions, but that by no means makes it okay.

Lindsay Burdette at No. 2 for Stanford last year was another example in my opinion of "sacrificial lamb."

And Lindsay fully satisfied the 'expectation' by taking out Mathews and Will to help the team win the title :bowdown: Now THAT's a winner, everyone :lol: De facto MVP of the tourney! :lol:

Kinda similar to Hickey and Byron, I guess.

Amalgamate
Feb 1st, 2011, 04:00 AM
Ellah was playing #1 for Duke last year :lol:

Tennisace
Feb 1st, 2011, 04:35 AM
And Lindsay fully satisfied the 'expectation' by taking out Mathews and Will to help the team win the title :bowdown: Now THAT's a winner, everyone :lol: De facto MVP of the tourney! :lol:

Kinda similar to Hickey and Byron, I guess.

Yes, but she was 14-11 at No. 2 in duals, while her sister at No. 3 was 16-2 and at No. 4 was 8-0. If that's not a little weird than I don't know what is.

fantic
Feb 1st, 2011, 04:43 AM
yeah, who knew Lindsay would score a home run at the most decisive moment. :lol:

Tennisace
Feb 1st, 2011, 04:45 AM
The problem really though is that the rules say that you are suppose to order your players in "order of strength" but this quote from the Cal coach with regard to line-ups sums the lack of enforcement on this rule and the overall sentiment coaches have:

"It's so early in the season. I think that's something probably over the next month or month and a half we'll be looking at," she said. "I think we'll just have to see who's most effective where."

fantic
Feb 1st, 2011, 01:46 PM
that's what I was talking about on the other thread :lol:

gouci
Feb 1st, 2011, 08:48 PM
Doubles
1. Issara/Zalameda (PEPP) def. Coupez/Maja Sujica (USD) 8-3
2. Colffer/Moore (PEPP) vs. Claus/Escalona (USD) 5-7, Susp.
3. Bhargava/Oates (PEPP) def. Depenau/Hoffpauir (USD) 8-5
Pepperdine Wins Doubles Point

Singles
1. Stephanie Hoffpauir (USD) def. Marie Zalameda (PEPP) 6-0, 6-4
2. Anamika Bhargava (PEPP) def. Laura Claus (USD) 3-6, 6-4, 6-2
3. Khunpak Issara (PEPP) def. Josymar Escalona (USD) 4-6, 6-1, 6-2
4. Arianna Colffer (PEPP) def. Juliette Coupez (USD) 6-2, 6-2
5. Anna Depenau (USD) def. Andrea Oates (PEPP) 6-3, 3-6, 6-2
6. Marite Raygada (USD) def. Megan Moore (PEPP) 6-3, 6-1


Pepperdine playing Marie Zalameda at #1 pays off as #43 Pepperdine def. #67 San Diego 4-3.

Is 1 fall 3 set win against Ali Walters enough to justify Zalameda at #1? Zalameda has not won a set playing #1 singles but Pepperdine has gone 4 for 4 at #2 & #3 singles in the ITA Indoors.

Is Ali Walters injured or has bad grades?

How many matches will Ale Granillo be ineligible for?

fantic
Feb 2nd, 2011, 01:49 AM
4. Arianna Colffer (PEPP) def. Juliette Coupez (USD) 6-2, 6-2
5. Anna Depenau (USD) def. Andrea Oates (PEPP) 6-3, 3-6, 6-2
6. Marite Raygada (USD) def. Megan Moore (PEPP) 6-3, 6-1

:eek:

fantic
Feb 2nd, 2011, 01:50 AM
Actually I'm suspicious of BOTH teams, Coupez has no biz in playing a mere #4 :lol:
But that result, ouch. You guys know that it's a match between former #1s :haha:

johnnytennis
Feb 2nd, 2011, 05:57 AM
The problem really though is that the rules say that you are suppose to order your players in "order of strength" but this quote from the Cal coach with regard to line-ups sums the lack of enforcement on this rule and the overall sentiment coaches have:

"It's so early in the season. I think that's something probably over the next month or month and a half we'll be looking at," she said. "I think we'll just have to see who's most effective where."

There are reasons coaches sometimes drops a player down in the lineup. The most obvious is the player having a slight injury or just coming back from an injury after being out of the lineup for a while. If thats the case, I dont see any problem with it.

Embittered
Feb 6th, 2011, 04:02 PM
stacking is rife this season :devil:
Some unglamorous examples, involving, it pains me to say, British players.

Liz Ullathorne isn't setting the world on fire as Texas Tech's number 1. And yesterday Houston were (you can read that as "was", if you like) surprisingly competitive against Rice, in part because Dionne Sanders at number 1 pushed the rest of the team down.

fantic
Feb 6th, 2011, 05:16 PM
Some unglamorous examples, involving, it pains me to say, British players.

Liz Ullathorne isn't setting the world on fire as Texas Tech's number 1. And yesterday Houston were (you can read that as "was", if you like) surprisingly competitive against Rice, in part because Dionne Sanders at number 1 pushed the rest of the team down.

dunno much about both teams, but MacFarlane is #15 ranked, and Hanle beat Natasha Marks twice (including this Riviera), so. :)

2nd_serve
Feb 8th, 2011, 12:09 AM
I watched the Stanford match against UCLA the other day. And when I look at the players who played 2-4 for Stanford, it is beyond my ability as a tennis observer to put them in order of strength. There are aspects of all Ahn, Gibbs, and Burdette's games for one argue that she is the strongest player of the bunch. (For that matter, there are days when that is also true for Tan.)

Part of the thrill of sports, is that we do not know the outcome ahead of time. That we can not always tell who is the stronger.

Anyway, for right now, I wondered if Burdette was played at #4 because she is coming back from an injury, and is her spot "frozen"? Or, if she gets 5% better, would it be fair or unfair by the rules that she be moved to #3 or #2?

beachman49
Feb 8th, 2011, 01:22 AM
It is not as surprising to see a former # 1 go downward due to injury, burn out or whatever as it is to see a non-freshman suddenly jump 3 and 4 spots over other returning teammates. To me that reaks of a stack to push the ladder down.

I went and read the ITA rules on their web site. Three rules seem pretty clear. The first is no jumping two spots over other teammates from one match to another no matter what reason. After six matches no adjusting your line up based on challenge matches so some reason or logic must be present such as the player above is losing while the player below is winning. Third was that line up changes must be justified and that you cannot simply switch players to gain a better match up. There has been a lot of that posted on tennis forum already and it is illegal. You cannot make a switch just for match up if the girl above is consistently winning in her position decent players.

2nd_serve
Feb 8th, 2011, 02:01 AM
I don't think it says that.
Here is a link to Friend at Court (http://www.itatennis.com/Assets/ita_assets/pdf/Legislation/2010+Friend+At+Court.pdf) 2010, (about page 244) and a relevant cut and paste is below.


2. Only physically able players shall be listed in the line-up. Coaches shall
list players in the line-up only if they are able to play.
3. Players must play in order of ability. The line-up shall always be based
on order of ability. “Matching up” is prohibited. In singles, players must
compete in order of ability with the best player on the team playing at
the No. 1 position, the second best at No. 2, and so on through all
positions. In case of injury or sickness, all players must move up. This
rule shall also apply to doubles play with the strongest doubles team at
No. 1, etc.
a. A player who has established a winning record at a team position
in six team matches and whose results show that he clearly is
stronger than the players below him may not be moved down. The
line-up must stay in order of ability.
b. If a top-six player (or team) clearly is stronger than the player
immediately above him, then the player must be moved up a
position.
c. Players of equal ability and equal record may alternate between
two adjacent positions so long as the alternating is not done for
the purpose of “matching up.”
d. A player shall not be moved down in the line-up because of:
i. An injury that has lasted and forced the player out of the
lineup for less than three weeks;
INTERCOLLEGIATE TENNIS ASSOCIATION (ITA) REGULATIONS 263
264 INTERCOLLEGIATE TENNIS ASSOCIATION (ITA) REGULATIONS
ii. Disciplinary measures; or
iii. Challenge matches after six team matches have been played
after January 1st of a school year.
4. Line-up changes in back-to-back dual matches. In back-to-back dual
meet matches (two consecutive dual meet matches played regardless of
time between matches), the team line-up (as played) may be changed. A
player may move up or down one position in this situation. The line-up
must still stay in order of ability.
5. Line-up changes once a match has begun .....

fantic
Feb 8th, 2011, 03:00 AM
I watched the Stanford match against UCLA the other day. And when I look at the players who played 2-4 for Stanford, it is beyond my ability as a tennis observer to put them in order of strength. There are aspects of all Ahn, Gibbs, and Burdette's games for one argue that she is the strongest player of the bunch. (For that matter, there are days when that is also true for Tan.)

Part of the thrill of sports, is that we do not know the outcome ahead of time. That we can not always tell who is the stronger.

Anyway, for right now, I wondered if Burdette was played at #4 because she is coming back from an injury, and is her spot "frozen"? Or, if she gets 5% better, would it be fair or unfair by the rules that she be moved to #3 or #2?

I agree with this. There's really not much difference between those 3 (and on some days, also Tan, as you say. Tan crushed Poorta last season. It was a total blow-out). And THAT makes Stanford so invincible. Really, Amalgamate worrying about 5,6 position is maddening to other teams :lol: Tan at #5? :crazy:

Yes Tan lost to Montez, but Montez is THAT good, she's one of the most solid players in that position. Tan also almost beat former Riviera champion McKenna at UNLV invite. And even Li lost 46, 46 to Johansson, former #3 for UCLA!!
Let's also not forget that Li defeated Hitimana to help Stanford win the championship.

As far as I know this is one of the best NCAA teams EVER. (yes, I watched only from the Liu era, but)

beachman49
Feb 8th, 2011, 06:42 AM
I don't think it says that.
Here is a link to Friend at Court (http://www.itatennis.com/Assets/ita_assets/pdf/Legislation/2010+Friend+At+Court.pdf) 2010, (about page 244) and a relevant cut and paste is below.


2. Only physically able players shall be listed in the line-up. Coaches shall
list players in the line-up only if they are able to play.
3. Players must play in order of ability. The line-up shall always be based
on order of ability. “Matching up” is prohibited. In singles, players must
compete in order of ability with the best player on the team playing at
the No. 1 position, the second best at No. 2, and so on through all
positions. In case of injury or sickness, all players must move up. This
rule shall also apply to doubles play with the strongest doubles team at
No. 1, etc.
a. A player who has established a winning record at a team position
in six team matches and whose results show that he clearly is
stronger than the players below him may not be moved down. The
line-up must stay in order of ability.
b. If a top-six player (or team) clearly is stronger than the player
immediately above him, then the player must be moved up a
position.
c. Players of equal ability and equal record may alternate between
two adjacent positions so long as the alternating is not done for
the purpose of “matching up.”
d. A player shall not be moved down in the line-up because of:
i. An injury that has lasted and forced the player out of the
lineup for less than three weeks;
INTERCOLLEGIATE TENNIS ASSOCIATION (ITA) REGULATIONS 263
264 INTERCOLLEGIATE TENNIS ASSOCIATION (ITA) REGULATIONS
ii. Disciplinary measures; or
iii. Challenge matches after six team matches have been played
after January 1st of a school year.
4. Line-up changes in back-to-back dual matches. In back-to-back dual
meet matches (two consecutive dual meet matches played regardless of
time between matches), the team line-up (as played) may be changed. A
player may move up or down one position in this situation. The line-up
must still stay in order of ability.
5. Line-up changes once a match has begun .....

I do believe it does say that.

3. Players must play in order of ability. The line-up shall always be based on order of ability. “Matching up” is prohibited. In singles, players must compete in order of ability with the best player on the team playing at
the No. 1 position, the second best at No. 2, and so on through all positions. In case of injury or sickness, all players must move up. This rule shall also apply to doubles play with the strongest doubles team at No. 1, etc.
a. A player who has established a winning record at a team position in six team matches and whose results show that he clearly is stronger than the players below him may not be moved down. The line-up must stay in order of ability. No unjustified changes to change the ladder.
b. If a top-six player (or team) clearly is stronger than the player immediately above him, then the player must be moved up a position. So if someone’s # 2 continues to lose every match while # 3 is 15-4 then a move should occur.
c. Players of equal ability and equal record may alternate between two adjacent positions so long as the alternating is not done for the purpose of “matching up.” Cal Poly alternated their top two girls every match last year which was legal. They were both very good. I also watched a team visit LB and make a one match change at # 1 last year for a better match up and it worked. The next match their coach flipped them back to the same order they played the entire season. Illegal under this rule.
d. A player shall not be moved down in the line-up because of:
i. An injury that has lasted and forced the player out of the lineup for less than three weeks;
INTERCOLLEGIATE TENNIS ASSOCIATION (ITA) REGULATIONS 263 264 INTERCOLLEGIATE TENNIS ASSOCIATION (ITA) REGULATIONS
ii. Disciplinary measures; or
iii. Challenge matches after six team matches have been played after January 1st of a school year. A coach cannot use a challenge match as an excuse for making changes that are not reflected in dual match results after the first six matches.
4. Line-up changes in back-to-back dual matches. In back-to-back dual meet matches (two consecutive dual meet matches played regardless of time between matches), the team line-up (as played) may be changed. A player may move up or down one position in this situation. The line-up must still stay in order of ability. No multi spot jumps at any time during the year as has been identified on tennisforum several times this season already.

As I read these rules I do believe they say exactly what I previously posted.

tennisbuddy12
Feb 8th, 2011, 04:26 PM
c. Players of equal ability and equal record may alternate between two adjacent positions so long as the alternating is not done for the purpose of “matching up.” Cal Poly alternated their top two girls every match last year which was legal. They were both very good. I also watched a team visit LB and make a one match change at # 1 last year for a better match up and it worked. The next match their coach flipped them back to the same order they played the entire season. Illegal under this rule.


The LB coach is beginning to be known for reporting violations, even on teams that LB doesn't play, where it is none of their business. LB overall, is very shady.

Tennisace
Feb 8th, 2011, 05:28 PM
The LB coach is beginning to be known for reporting violations, even on teams that LB doesn't play, where it is none of their business. LB overall, is very shady.

There are third-party protests though...which encourage this. And let's face it, a lot of times coaches don't have the courage to call out other teams. I on the other hand applaud a coaches' decision to point out when rules are being broken. And even though LB doesn't play that team...you have to remember how the rankings work...you have to beat teams that beat other top teams.

beachman49
Feb 8th, 2011, 05:46 PM
tennisbuddy12, who cheated and got caught? What are you talking about? If you weren't cheating than why would it matter to you? Who cheated and got caught tennisbuddy? So it is the witnesses fault that that school got caught cheating rather than the fact they actually cheated. Sounds like NCAA football violations.

gouci
Feb 8th, 2011, 05:56 PM
The LB coach is beginning to be known for reporting violations, even on teams that LB doesn't play, where it is none of their business. LB overall, is very shady.
BINGO! :happy::happy::happy:

tennisbuddy12
Feb 8th, 2011, 06:00 PM
tennisbuddy12, who cheated and got caught? What are you talking about? If you weren't cheating than why would it matter to you? Who cheated and got caught tennisbuddy? So it is the witnesses fault that that school got caught cheating rather than the fact they actually cheated. Sounds like NCAA football violations.

Okay, 1 I'm a guy. 2, I don't play college tennis and 3. Why would I tell you??

LB did a 3rd party protest on a school not knowing what went down (injuries specifically, I know, you shouldn't alter a lineup, even if injuries are involved). The school violated the rule, but not on purpose like some schools do. The main and only reason really I have have a problem with LB is their reasoning. That's all I will say. LB did it as a personal attack on this team.

beachman49
Feb 8th, 2011, 06:21 PM
BINGO! :happy::happy::happy:

tennisbuddy, a rule is a rule. I applaud that you said the rule was broken no matter the excuses. It does seems a very simple rule and tennisforum readers have already pointed out several violations this year. It is sad in America that cheaters complain about being caught.

gouci does thou protest to much.

RobertCB
Feb 8th, 2011, 08:04 PM
This board is as crazy as the political world where someone cheats, they get reported, and the spin machine makes the one who reported the violation the villain. And just to be factual here, at a minimum, LBSU, Cal Poly, and UCSB brought UCI's unethical action to the conference during the tournament so I guess 1/3 of the Big West is "shady" and not the (ch)eaters. And as to reporting 3rd party teams, I do not know the details but it appears the NCAA is soliciting reporting to help clean up this practice and not to make the reporting team "shady". Gouci has it down that if you keep repeating the bull people will start to buy it. Oh, I better stop typing here since I am a LBSU fan and the censorship hammer may come down hard on me :(.

2nd_serve
Feb 8th, 2011, 08:24 PM
This board is as crazy as the political world where someone cheats, they get reported, and the spin machine makes the one who reported the violation the villain. And just to be factual here, LBSU, Cal Poly, and UCSB brought UCI's unethical action to the conference during the tournament so I guess 1/3 of the Big West is "shady" and not the (ch)eaters or any other. And as to reporting 3rd party teams, I do not know the details but it appears the NCAA is soliciting reporting to help clean up this practice. Gouci has it down that if you keep repeating the bull people will start to buy it. Oh, I better stop typing here since I am a LBSU fan and the censorship hammer may come down hard on me :(.

There are times, in tennis and politics, where someone makes a false accusation of cheating, for their own agenda. Just because someone calls another a cheater, does not make it so. And yes, in essence that person who knowingly and purposefully calls another a cheater when it is false, does not look good. (I am saying that generally, not implying that it applies to a particular case.)

Visibility, maybe transparency and chance for pubic inspection of what happened, will not assure a just result, but will bend the process in that direction. That's a reason that I am thankful for TennisAce opening up a thread on violations.

Finally, I think it is good if Long Beach State is filing protests when a third team breaks the order of strength rules. For me, technology should file an automatic protest when a player is jumped over teammates in back to back matches, rather than relying on someone brave and with civic concern needing to report it.

RobertCB
Feb 8th, 2011, 09:37 PM
...For me, technology should file an automatic protest when a player is jumped over teammates in back to back matches, rather than relying on someone brave and with civic concern needing to report it.

An automatic review would be great but I do not think there would be enough available resources to review all of the potential conflicts. And putting your end of the sentence sarcasm aside, the NCAA will probably continue to ask its body to self police and report "potential" violations with the understanding that the reporting party may not be privy to all of the material facts; and therefore, not stigmatize the reporting as filing a "false accusation of cheating".

2nd_serve
Feb 8th, 2011, 10:29 PM
An automatic review would be great but I do not think there would be enough available resources to review all of the potential conflicts. And putting your end of the sentence sarcasm aside, the NCAA will probably continue to ask its body to self police and report "potential" violations with the understanding that the reporting party may not be privy to all of the material facts; and therefore, not stigmatize the reporting as filing a "false accusation of cheating".


I am suggesting the automatic review only for the back to back matches where a player is moved more than one position. A computer guy could write that code in an easy afternoon. And by being an automatic review it would be without a moral overlay, or a gaming agenda.

RobertCB
Feb 8th, 2011, 11:30 PM
Okay I get it, I am not hip to all the rule details, the mere act in its self is a violation so no follow-up is needed. I just assumed that the computer would spit out all the irregularities, now there would be no need for coaches to self police, and then a NCAA staff member would be required to investigate each occurrence to see if there was a legitimate reason for the change. Bad assumption on my part :worship:.

tennisbuddy12
Feb 9th, 2011, 12:58 AM
I am not saying it's wrong that LB reported. They should have, but they didn't report it to be fair for other teams. The team they reported have personal issues between them. Did UCI cheat? Who knows and that is a different situation. I am not going to disclose what I know due to me being a confidant. I believe that any team reported, should have each violation sought into detail. I see why the injury excuse isn't used because it can be abused. Again, when I said LB was being "shady," it had nothing to do with them reporting it, but WHY they reported that specific team. LB has a personal vendetta against different teams and THAT is why they reported this specific violation.

beachman49
Feb 9th, 2011, 01:28 AM
Taking you at your word that there is some issue between the coaches can I suggest you might want to temper 'numerous' vendetta number down to two schools? Does that constitute numerous? I personally hope more schools turn each other in and the rampant cheating will be greatly reduced. Tennisace idea for a computer program seems too logical. Great idea Mr. tennisace.

RobertCB
Feb 9th, 2011, 02:35 AM
tennisbuddy12, I would argue that the personal vendetta is the other way around and you are like a NBA referee that just catches the tail end of the play; however, I do acknowledge that our frame of reference maybe a little different. Now can we get back to posting about UCI :bounce:.

tennisbuddy12
Feb 9th, 2011, 03:03 AM
tennisbuddy12, I would argue that the personal vendetta is the other way around and you are like a NBA referee that just catches the tail end of the play; however, I do acknowledge that our frame of reference maybe a little different. Now can we get back to posting about UCI :bounce:.

Believe what you want. Obviously, you are on the in with LB and that's fine. The great thing about this board is that we can have and share our own opinions, but I don't like bashing other teams and if that's what (you think lol) I've been doing, that is totally not what I was hoping.

fantic
Feb 13th, 2011, 03:23 AM
UF; Oyen at #3

She wasn't that spectacular at Riviera(although I DO like her play, and her drop shot is just :yeah:)
Moreover she lost to Janowicz at the Regional.
No way she's #3 according to strength.

UFGatorFan
Feb 13th, 2011, 08:55 PM
UF; Oyen at #3

She wasn't that spectacular at Riviera(although I DO like her play, and her drop shot is just :yeah:)
Moreover she lost to Janowicz at the Regional.
No way she's #3 according to strength.

Different day, different results. Today she gets a win over Plotkin in straights, while Mather had to go to 3 sets, and Janowicz and Cercone lost. I truly believe 3-6 is interchangeable. It's about matchups. I don't think Oyen at #3 is far fetched. It doesn't scream a violation of order of strength.

fantic
Feb 14th, 2011, 01:36 AM
Well I thought Nze is more well known than Plotkin :lol:
And Janowicz and Cercone lost at 5 & 6?? :help:

fantic
Feb 14th, 2011, 03:46 AM
to be fair, I'll confess on MY part;

I think USC doubles #1 and #2 should be switched.

Pulido/Ramos is losing now. Regional semi was just matchup,
they both knew each other well so it contributed to the outcome,
methink.

I mean, a team that leads Cako/Hein 7-1 simply canNOT be #2,
moreover that team actually WON the UNLV invite.

So Christian/Sanchez should be #1, and Pulido/Ramos #2, and I think
that's better for the team to have a chance of win, too.

What if Pulido/Ramos lose #1 and Lao/Kinstler at #3 also loses? :help:

spartyfan
Feb 14th, 2011, 11:16 PM
Interesting switch since it is hard to see how it was justified to begin with. It is even harder to justify it afterwards.
But it's working..

#43 Pepperdine 4, #67 U. of San Diego 3
Doubles
1. Issara/Zalameda (PEPP) def. Coupez/Maja Sujica (USD) 8-3
2. Colffer/Moore (PEPP) vs. Claus/Escalona (USD) 5-7, Susp.
3. Bhargava/Oates (PEPP) def. Depenau/Hoffpauir (USD) 8-5
Pepperdine Wins Doubles Point
Singles
1. Stephanie Hoffpauir (USD) def. Marie Zalameda (PEPP) 6-0, 6-4
2. Anamika Bhargava (PEPP) def. Laura Claus (USD) 3-6, 6-4, 6-2
3. Khunpak Issara (PEPP) def. Josymar Escalona (USD) 4-6, 6-1, 6-2
4. Arianna Colffer (PEPP) def. Juliette Coupez (USD) 6-2, 6-2
5. Anna Depenau (USD) def. Andrea Oates (PEPP) 6-3, 3-6, 6-2
6. Marite Raygada (USD) def. Megan Moore (PEPP) 6-3, 6-1
Match Notes
San Diego 1-2; National ranking #67
Pepperdine 2-1; National ranking #43
Order of finish: Doubles (1,3); Singles (4,6,1,3,5,2)


Despite both losingin similar scores, Escalona and Claus are switched

#67 San Diego 4, #15 Washington 3
Doubles
(1) Denise Dy/Venise Chan (UW) def. Juliette Coupez/Stephanie Hoffpauir (USD) 8-3
(2) Josymar Escalona/Laura Claus (USD) def. Andjela Nemcevic/Samantha Smith (UW) 8-4
(3) Maja Sujica/Anna Depenau (USD) def. Aleksandra Krsljanin/Adriana Pavlovic (UW) 8-1
Order of finish: 3, 1, 2*
USD wins doubles point.
Singles
(1) #55 Venise Chan (UW) def. Stephanie Hoffpauir (USD) 6-1, 6-4
(2) #6 Denise Dy (UW) def. Josymar Escalona (USD) 6-4, 6-4
(3) Laura Claus (USD) def. Samantha Smith (UW) 6-3, 5-7, 7-6 (5)
(4) Andjela Nemcevic (UW) def. Juliette Coupez (USD) 4-6, 6-4, 7-5
(5) Anna Depenau (USD) def. Aleksandra Krsljanin (UW) 6-3, 6-0
(6) Marite Raygada (USD) def. Adriana Pavlovic (UW) 6-1, 7-6 (4)
Order of finish: 5, 1, 2, 6, 4, 3*


#49 San Diego 4, #58 Arizona 3
Doubles
(1) Landsman/Marks (UA) def. Hoffpauir/Coupez (USD) 8-5
(2) Escalona/Claus (USD) def. #68 Stubbe/Smyth (UA) 8-4
(3) Sujica/Depenau (USD) def. McRann/Huh (UA) 8-3
USD wins doubles point.
Order of finish: 1, 2, 3
Singles
(1) Stephanie Hoffpauir (USD) def. Natasha Marks (UA) 1-6, 6-2, 6-0
(2) Sarah Landsman (UA) def. Josymar Escalona (USD) 6-1, 6-3
(3) Lacey Smyth (UA) def. Laura Claus (USD) 6-4, 6-3
(4) Kim Stubbe (UA) def. Juliette Coupez (USD) 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
(5) Anna Depenau (USD) def. Susan McRann (UA) 7-5, 6-1
(6) Maja Sujica (USD) def. Jane Huh (UA) 6-0, 6-2
Order of finish: 2, 6, 3, 5, 1*, 4


#49 San Diego 5, #27 South Florida 2
Doubles
(1) Hoffpauir/Coupez (USD) def. #25 Bejlkova/Alonso (USF) 8-7 (4)
(2) Escalona/Claus (USD) def. Vasenina/Bonte (USF) 8-4
(3) Depenau/Sujica (USD) def. Rehberger/Parker (USF) 8-6
San Diego wins doubles point.
Order of finish: 2, 3*, 1
Singles
(1) Stephanie Hoffpauir (USD) def. #24 Irene Rehberger (USF) 6-2, 3-6, 6-4
(2) Ecaterina Vasenina (USF) def. Josymar Escalona (USD) 6-4, 6-1
(3) Laura Claus (USD) def. Loreto Alonso (USF) 6-4, 6-4
(4) Janette Bejlkova (USF) def. Juliette Coupez (USD) 3-6, 6-1, 6-1
(5) Anna Depenau (USD) def. Alessandra Bonte (USF) 6-4, 2-6, 6-4
(6) Marite Raygada (USD) def. Kate Parker (USF) 6-3, 6-4
Order of finish: 2, 4, 3, 6, 1*, 5

If that is legal than those are some impressive wins and USD should be climbing the Top 30 quickly?

fantic
Feb 15th, 2011, 12:38 AM
frankly I wasn't that impressed with Escalona. Think she should play #4 or lower.

fantic
Mar 21st, 2011, 07:31 AM
I highlighted Duke and UCLA doubles, but UF is also experimenting with
Will /Cercone from March, 4 matches in a row. Is this kind of switching linueps
allowed even in March? What if they do like this through the conference title matches?
Are they allowed then to send the 'original ranked' doubles into the doubles championship
at Stanford?

fantic
Apr 10th, 2011, 06:46 AM
Those Fahoum related posts should've been posted here :help:

Anyway, Nadine seems to have been put to an 'ordeal' like Wozniacki at GM :lol:

(of course, by me :lol: )

Is she the 'rightful' #1, the best player in the team, even though she's

ranked WAY BELOW Reka?

Today she proved her mettle, beating Bek in 3 sets (double bagel), but it's still

only one match, against not-so-powerful and struggling Josipa (she had SO many 3 setters

this season :lol: )

Anyway Nadine joins the 'august' list of winners who beat Josipa this season;

Chan, Urbina, De Bruycker, Sanchez, Will, Muresan, Eichkorn.

Let's see if she can maintain the 'momentum' during the ACC tourney and at Stanford NCAA :devil:

P.S. By the way, Duke is still maintaining the Nze/Fahoum split in doubles. Wonder if they WILL
play NCAA doubles, which I don't think they should, since they're not playing together for
a long~~ time :lol:

fantic
Apr 10th, 2011, 07:25 AM
CAL.

Cossou at #6 :devil:

( :secret:

FYI She was one of the best #2s in the NATION)

She seemed okay when playing Andrews (USC) :shrug:

(Dunno why she wasn't playing all season either :confused: )

Goransson, who is either #3 or 4, is struggling right now.

Cossou definitely should play above her :devil:

fantic
Apr 10th, 2011, 04:19 PM
Stanford 2~4 lineup;

In this case I agree to Tennisace's notion to put their lineup according to rank.

RANK

GIBBS 12
AHN 17
BURDETTE 22

LINEUP

BURDETTE #2
AHN #3
GIBBS #4

Gibbs is simply too dominant.

Moreover Ahn is struggling right now, losing the first set against Pulido who's form is
like crap this season :lol: (you could argue she only won because Pulido got reinjured
at the close of the 1st set. Val retired in the 3rd.) ,
also losing a set against Bhargava of PEP,
allowing Samantha Smith of UW to take 5 games in the 2nd,
def. Melissa McQueen of Fresno State 4-6, 7-6 (6), 1-0 (3)

But like Duke, Stanford won't take chances, I guess :devil:

fantic
Apr 10th, 2011, 04:41 PM
Hell, you could even argue that Gibbs should play #1 right now.

Because Barte is struggling too.

Lost to Juricova (granted, it's a retirement :lol:)
Lost to Sanchez 3,3 (While Gibbs forced a 3 setter at UNLV invite)
Lost to Dy 67, 67,
def McCall Jones 7-6, 3-6, 6-1
def. Liz Fournier of WSU 75, 60
def. Pavlina Smatova of UO 63, 75
def. Zoe De Bruycker 76, 62
U against Claudine Paulson of Arkansas 75,65
(:secret: Claudine is #4 of Arkansas)
def. Marta Lesniak of SMU 64,76(2)

Not exactly the result worthy of #4 in the nation..

2nd_serve
Apr 10th, 2011, 04:54 PM
Fantic,
I think your being very enthusiastic for the topic by bringing up order of strength on Stanford. Gibbs is great, but its not going to happen during this year that she plays #1. As to Burdette/Ahn/Gibbs, I observe that when they are changed in order of the line-up, it does not involve a strategic decision to take a loss at a lower position, in order to have a better chance to get more wins, but might involve the motivation that it is important for every player on the team to play competitive matches during the season, so she is match tough when the NCAA's begin.

Amalgamate
Apr 10th, 2011, 04:59 PM
Hell, you could even argue that Gibbs should play #1 right now.

Because Barte is struggling too.

Lost to Juricova (granted, it's a retirement :lol:)
Lost to Sanchez 3,3 (While Gibbs forced a 3 setter at UNLV invite)
Lost to Dy 67, 67,
def McCall Jones 7-6, 3-6, 6-1
def. Liz Fournier of WSU 75, 60
def. Pavlina Smatova or UO 63, 75
def. Zoe De Bruycker 76, 62
U against Paulson of Arkansas 57,56
def. Marta Lesniak of SMU 64,76(2)

Not exactly the result worthy of #4 in the nation..

What? :o Barte only lost once to someone ranked lower than her (Dy). And Dy is ranked #5.

fantic
Apr 10th, 2011, 05:12 PM
Fantic,
I think your being very enthusiastic for the topic by bringing up order of strength on Stanford. Gibbs is great, but its not going to happen during this year that she plays #1. As to Burdette/Ahn/Gibbs, I observe that when they are changed in order of the line-up, it does not involve a strategic decision to take a loss at a lower position, in order to have a better chance to get more wins, but might involve the motivation that it is important for every player on the team to play competitive matches during the season, so she is match tough when the NCAA's begin.

Well, this topic IS fun, so dabbling in it is a harmless experiment I think. :angel: And you KNOW that I'm not bringing this only against Stanford, hell I even brought the issue against USC. One just have to ask uncomfortable questions sometimes :angel: (maybe I have a talent for a reporter :eek: :lol: )

And you know, Gibbs IS currently the 2ND BEST RANKED PLAYER IN THE TEAM, no matter what ;) AND, her results are quite impressive too :angel: As I said, Gibbs forced a 3 setter against Sanchez while Barte...

fantic
Apr 10th, 2011, 05:13 PM
What? :o Barte only lost once to someone ranked lower than her (Dy). And Dy is ranked #5.

Oh come on, I just illustrated the detailed match results. Please erase 'Barte' just for a moment( I KNOW you would have no objection had it been Will of UF :devil: ) and just look at the results. Do you honestly think those are the dominant results for the #4 in the nation?

Amal I know you have an affection for Stanford, but let's try to be a tad more objective for this minute :lol:

2nd_serve
Apr 10th, 2011, 05:22 PM
Well, this topic IS fun, so dabbling in it is a harmless experiment I think. :angel: And you KNOW that I'm not bringing this only against Stanford, hell I even brought the issue against USC. One just have to ask uncomfortable questions sometimes :angel: (maybe I have a talent for a reporter :eek: :lol: )


+1 Google, like FB

2nd_serve
Apr 10th, 2011, 05:24 PM
As for the matches that Barte did not dominate against lower player, I take that as a sign that she can still totally win even when she doesn't have her stuff that day. After all, she did win all those matches, and Amal, is right, the only loss she had was to #5 Dy, and that was two tiebreakers.

fantic
Apr 10th, 2011, 05:31 PM
I highlighted Duke and UCLA doubles, but UF is also experimenting with
Will /Cercone from March, 4 matches in a row. Is this kind of switching linueps
allowed even in March? What if they do like this through the conference title matches?
Are they allowed then to send the 'original ranked' doubles into the doubles championship
at Stanford?

bump. :)

fantic
Apr 10th, 2011, 05:36 PM
As for the matches that Barte did not dominate against lower player, I take that as a sign that she can still totally win even when she doesn't have her stuff that day. After all, she did win all those matches, and Amal, is right, the only loss she had was to #5 Dy, and that was two tiebreakers.

Fair enough. I just 'observed' from a different point of view :angel: She struggles too often against MUCH lower ranked players. I mean, struggling against #4 player of Arkansas? No offense to Paulson, but it is what it is :angel:

fantic
Apr 10th, 2011, 06:04 PM
UCLA.

So, is Dolehide (5) better than Johansson (6) right now?

I think not.

I think it's even arguable that Pantic and

Seguso are better than Dolehide right now..

fantic
Apr 11th, 2011, 05:09 PM
there is a certain 'trend' this year, that being transfers playing #1

Fahoum of Duke, Jones of UCLA, Novakova of Baylor, O'Neill of GT

OF those Fahoum and Jones are pretty similar in that;

1. good doubles players(Fahoum at Old Dominion and Jones at BYU
were pretty good, scoring some upsets at Riviera and NCAA as such)
2. and both playing #2 doubles
3. losing singles
4. Former #3s, now still at #3s, playing comfortably swiping opponents,
Reka Z and Andrea Remynse.

fantic
Apr 11th, 2011, 05:18 PM
you could of course argue that Nina Secerbegovic, who was one of the best #2 in the nation last season, deserves the #1 spot(she upset Schnack at the NCAA, which I more or less predicted at that time).

Look at the match results at ITA website. Nina scoring like 15 matches winning streak, quite comfortably winning.

She only lost 3 times, one to Barte, one to Sanchez in 3 sets, one to Tomljanovic, admittedly a weird loss (2,3) :lol:

2nd_serve
Apr 11th, 2011, 06:40 PM
Since we are just talking loosely, I'll bring up Cal's lineup at #3 and #4. By results, Shuttling, hasn't done things to move herself up in the lineup, especially playing over the #4 player, who is after all ranked in the 40's.

mboyle
Apr 11th, 2011, 07:00 PM
I'm so tired of this issue.

Amalgamate
Apr 11th, 2011, 07:08 PM
I'm so tired of this issue.

http://i771.photobucket.com/albums/xx356/EdieRose/Gif%20me/tumblr_l1x586mUrl1qaosct.gif

tennisbuddy12
Apr 11th, 2011, 07:16 PM
http://i771.photobucket.com/albums/xx356/EdieRose/Gif%20me/tumblr_l1x586mUrl1qaosct.gif

love me some glee gifs! saw some today actually hahaha

its_a_racquet
Apr 11th, 2011, 10:56 PM
I'm so tired of this issue.

One of the top five posts so far in 2011. If any coaches read this stuff they must just laugh themselves to sleep at night......

beachman49
Apr 12th, 2011, 12:09 AM
One of the top five posts so far in 2011. If any coaches read this stuff they must just laugh themselves to sleep at night......

Since the rule does not permit teams to free willy their line ups, it is called CHEATING. Just play your line up in order and stop the match up game. Unless you then let the other team change their line up after the fact.

It is a very pertinent issue and I hope it grows and that more and more coaches read this and think twice about it.

its_a_racquet
Apr 12th, 2011, 01:41 AM
Since the rule does not permit teams to free willy their line ups, it is called CHEATING. Just play your line up in order and stop the match up game. Unless you then let the other team change their line up after the fact.

It is a very pertinent issue and I hope it grows and that more and more coaches read this and think twice about it.

Free Willy - wasn't that a movie? Anyway that line of thinking is very dramatic and assumes that most coaches don't already 'get' the rule. I know there are exceptions out there but the level of analysis here is over-zealous.....the horse died a couple weeks ago.......

2nd_serve
Apr 12th, 2011, 02:35 AM
For me, the order of strength is fun to talk about, even though I believe most of the time the post show something that is not so clear to confidently call cheating, but that there is something there to talk about. And this forum is about talking about women's college tennis.

its_a_racquet
Apr 12th, 2011, 02:58 AM
For me, the order of strength is fun to talk about, even though I believe most of the time the post show something that is not so clear to confidently call cheating, but that there is something there to talk about. And this forum is about talking about women's college tennis.

I was just expanding on the comment about being "tired" of this topic. Having said that, I agree it is about women's tennis......not saying to stop...just not to get so hung up about it.......it really is close to meaningless in terms of changing anything.......just like getting hung up on the acuracy of mid-season rankings and then some here calling 'foul' if a team doesn't position their lineup accordingly....ha ha...rich stuff :-)

fantic
Apr 12th, 2011, 03:10 AM
How can I not mention these especially when Duke def. UNC 4-3 ?

1.DeBruycker def. Fahoum 2,3
3. Zsilinszka def. Featherston 36, 62, 63

Doubles Fahoum/Nze split up to 'maximize' their winning chance, so;

1. Featherstone/McHale def. Kahan/Nze 8-3
2. Fahoum/Mar def. Stone/Durisic 8-5

Duke wins doubles pt.

As I said before, it will be REALLY interesting to see if Nze/Fahoum WILL
play for the Doubles championship..

mboyle
Apr 12th, 2011, 03:48 AM
How can I not mention these especially when Duke def. UNC 4-3 ?

1.DeBruycker def. Fahoum 2,3
3. Zsilinszka def. Featherston 36, 62, 63

Doubles Fahoum/Nze split up to 'maximize' their winning chance, so;

1. Featherstone/McHale def. Kahan/Nze 8-3
2. Fahoum/Mar def. Stone/Durisic 8-5

Duke wins doubles pt.

As I said before, it will be REALLY interesting to see if Nze/Fahoum WILL
play for the Doubles championship..

Fantic, with all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about here, okay? You aren't there at every home match like I am. There's no way Fahoum/Nze play together better than Fahoum/Mar and Nze/Kahan. Nadine and Hanna just really complement each other because Hanna is really good at hitting passing shots and lobs while Nadine has great poach volleys. Ellah needs to be with Rachel because Rachel is mentally tough and keeps the team together in tough situations. Nze/Fahoum won 50% of matches at number one. Guess what? Nze/Kahan has won 50% of matches at 1. Are you really going to argue that Nze/Fahoum is a better team than Nze/Kahan? What are you going to use to support it? Rankings of course don't matter because not all teams played in the fall, so that would be a biased measurement. This isn't stacking. You of course are obsessed with finding grand conspiracies where none exist and I'm sure you will ignore everything I'm saying and just state that Duke is stacking everything, so I freakin don't know why I try anymore, but, for the last time: Nze/Fahoum didn't work well together. They have the same strengths and the same weaknesses. Kahan complements Ellah's weakness particularly well. Hanna just has great chemistry with Nadine that you can only see if you are at the match, and they seem to have this intuitive sense about what the other one is going to do that Ellah and Nadine never displayed.

fantic
Apr 12th, 2011, 05:47 AM
All right, so Nze/Fahoum will not play NCAA doubles since they're not very good by your acct,

even though they're ranked #12 so eligible for the tournament. ;)

Anyway they're not even playing together now, so. :angel:

(But they weren't bad at Riviera... :scratch: )

But I stand by about singles 1 & 3, since it's pretty blatant ;)

Amalgamate
Apr 12th, 2011, 05:56 AM
All right, so Nze/Fahoum will not play NCAA doubles since they're not very good by your acct,

even though they're ranked #12 so eligible for the tournament. ;)

Anyway they're not even playing together now, so. :angel:

(But they weren't bad at Riviera... :scratch: )

:facepalm:

fantic
Apr 12th, 2011, 06:01 AM
:facepalm:

What? As mboyle said they're not even that good,

AND they're not even playing together now, so

it makes sense that they'll not play the

doubles championship, no? It won't be fair to

other lower ranked doubles teams who slugged all

dual season. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Don't have anything constructive to

say, eh?

Amalgamate
Apr 12th, 2011, 06:05 AM
What? As mboyle said they're not even that good,

AND they're not even playing together now, so

it makes sense that they'll not play the

doubles championship, no? It won't be fair to

other lower ranked doubles teams who slugged all

dual season. I don't think you can have it both ways.

Don't have anything constructive to

say, eh?

No. I don't.

fantic
Apr 12th, 2011, 06:08 AM
No. I don't.

Good to hear :wavey:

fantic
Apr 12th, 2011, 06:37 AM
I dunno why there's such hysteric responses.

It's just a fanboard discussion, and I do think I provided valid reasons

for it, like the players' results.

Just think about it. One is a nationally known player for years, AND also a high
ranked player(13). She's playing #3.

Of course it's perfectly reasonable to raise doubts when FAR lower ranked player(and
not even nationally well known) plays #1 AND is losing a lot, AND that #3 is easily
swatting the opponents.

About doubles. There must be a reason why the original team competed at the Riviera, no?
How about the reason being it's the best team? Moreover, one of the player was already a good
one, proving her worth at the NCAA. And now she plays #2 doubles.

The original Nze/Fahoum was pretty good. Just look at the Riviera results. They only lost to the
current #1 Bek/Wong 8-9, and if I remember correctly they were actually leading.
And they later lose to their arch rival UNC's Featherston/McHale..and then to the
NU team.

So, forget the #1, concentrate on winning 2 and 3. So, the best doubles player in the team, Fahoum,
moves to #2.
The new #1 Nze/Kahan is now ranked 71. (during the Team Indoors Nze/Gorny was the #1. That team lost
all 3 matches)
They lose to Andersson/Juricova 1-8 (I don't think Nze/Fahoum will lose like that score)
lose to the #28 UVA team 5-8
and again to UNC & CU team, and GT team..now 4 match losing streak, lost 5 matches in 6 tries.
But it's ok, since Fahoum going down to 2 immeasurably helps that position, and with the strong
#3, can secure the doubles pt ;)

I think this is a probable scenario. And it's fun speculating :lol:

Come on, one can't even raise a doubt or speculate? Is just everything all right? No stacking,
no cheating, a 'perfect world', is that it, eh? :lol:

fantic
Apr 12th, 2011, 06:59 AM
There's another doubles 'incident'

UCLA vs USC

Remynse is a top doubles player, with Schnack they were REALLY good.
So naturally Dolehide/Remynse competed at the Riviera (I remember R dominating at the last moment
to secure the win against the Kentucky team).

And at the USC match, it was like this;
#1 Dolehide/Seguso
#3 Remynse/Montez

blatant :lol:

Seguso usually played #3 doubles, her volleys are not that good, her volleys are pretty high :lol:
So OF COURSE this new #1 get bageled by the best team in the nation, Christian/Sanchez. :devil:

But it's ALL about winning 2 and 3, right? :lol:
Thank God Kinstler/Lao won that #3 match :o

Amalgamate
Apr 12th, 2011, 07:03 AM
There's another doubles 'incident'

UCLA vs USC

Remynse is a top doubles player, with Schnack they were REALLY good.
So naturally Dolehide/Remynse competed at the Riviera (I remember R dominating at the last moment
to secure the win against the Kentucky team).
And at the USC match, it was like this;
#1 Dolehide/Seguso
#3 Remynse/Montez

blatant :lol:

Seguso usually played #3 doubles, her volleys are not that good, her volleys are pretty high :lol:
So OF COURSE this new #1 get bageled by the best team in the nation, Christian/Sanchez.
But it's ALL about winning 2 and 3, right? :lol:
Thank God Kinstler/Lao won that #3 match :o

You know that for doubles, in terms of order of strength, the #1 TEAM has to be stronger than the #2 TEAM which has to be stronger than the #3 TEAM. It doesn't matter if Remynse is the best doubles player of all time, if you pair her up with Montez and Dolehide/Seguso win in practice, then the latter team should play above Remynse. You don't have to put your absolute strongest team at #1 (e.g. putting your best two doubles players there) you are allowed to spread the wealth as long as the teams are in order of strength.

fantic
Apr 12th, 2011, 07:11 AM
yea, the thing is...they only tried that 3 or 4 times :sobbing:

after the loss to Kinstler/Lao Remynse came back to #1 playing with Dolehide :lol:

Seguso/Dolehide was first #3 and then jumped to #1 :lol: obviously aiming at USC I think :lol: Of course the USC match was the last experiment :sobbing:
I..don't think Seguso/Dolehide was better than Jones/Hickey, the #2 :sobbing:

fantic
Apr 12th, 2011, 03:42 PM
About UF doubles..

as Amal said, it's all aimed at beating Stanford..

Will/Oyen actually beat Barte/Burdette and won the Intercollegiate..
then why disband the team?

Because still, they have no confidence in that team...
after all, it's Barte we're talking about, unquestionably the most dominant player in the doubles scene in recent years (already achieved legend status)..

So, my guess is that they're aiming at winning 2&3..and Cercone DOES have good hands, so if they can win at 1, all the better.

fantic
Apr 12th, 2011, 03:52 PM
actually I kinda enjoyed Seguso playing at #1 :lol: (she's actually
one of my favorite players in the league :angel: )

Anyway.

Dunno if it's a kinda trend, but some teams don't furnish the BEST doubles team at #1 anymore...they tend to disband it, to quote Amal, to 'spread the wealth'.
UF, SMC, UCLA, UW, Duke, UNC..
It's of course to win the doubles pt, naturally. Sacrifice #1 to win at 2 & 3.

So the REAL action, goes on in those positions as well..
same as singles. Therefore, those teams have 2 versions...#1 in dual,
#1 in national competition. So home fans won't be able to witness the absolute best doubles teams in their match. And that's why I was so mad at UCLA's #1 that day :lol: I was REALLY looking forward to the #1 showdown between KK/Sanchez vs Dolehide/Remynse :sobbing:

Maybe it's not a bad thing after all. Fans can see different versions, it enhances the 'uncertainty factor', so why not enjoy it :lol: Coaches may actually have to work harder to achieve that perfect 'balance' to win the doubles pt, so :angel:

And maybe that's the beauty of college tennis :kiss:

2nd_serve
Apr 12th, 2011, 05:12 PM
Doubles strength.
If we imagined that there were no doubles specialist, and as players the order of strength was agreed as #1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6, do we read the rules that the coach would be required to play the doubles format as #1 and #2, #3 and #4, #5 and #6? Does my post question make sense? I don't think the rules would require that.

Amalgamate
Apr 12th, 2011, 06:57 PM
Doubles strength.
If we imagined that there were no doubles specialist, and as players the order of strength was agreed as #1,#2,#3,#4,#5,#6, do we read the rules that the coach would be required to play the doubles format as #1 and #2, #3 and #4, #5 and #6? Does my post question make sense? I don't think the rules would require that.

No. Let's say the the #6 player is significantly weaker (in singles) than the rest of the top 6. Perhaps then, #2 and #3 play #1 doubles, #4 and #5 play #2 doubles, and #1 and #6 play #3 doubles. Perhaps because of #6's weakness, the two other teams are more solid than the #1 and #6. Does that make sense?

2nd_serve
Apr 12th, 2011, 07:42 PM
Yes, it does make sense. And I think it also means: that there is more legitimate freedom in how a coach makes her doubles lineup, as compared to how she sets the singles lineup.

Amalgamate
Apr 12th, 2011, 07:48 PM
Yes, it does make sense. And I think it also means: that there is more legitimate freedom in how a coach makes her doubles lineup, as compared to how she sets the singles lineup.

Agreed. I think that's why some of us are frustrated with fantic's obsession over doubles line up's.

2nd_serve
Apr 12th, 2011, 08:17 PM
Agreed. I think that's why some of us are frustrated with fantic's obsession over doubles line up's.

Well his heart is with USC, and he thinks USC has got the doubles teams, so he has cause for his infatuation. haha

fantic
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:17 AM
no :lol:
I was always interested in doubles, even when USC was weak last season :kiss:
This kind of disbanding the #1 team seems to be prominent this season, so I 'took note' of it, that's all :angel:

fantic
Apr 13th, 2011, 03:18 PM
No. Let's say the the #6 player is significantly weaker (in singles) than the rest of the top 6. Perhaps then, #2 and #3 play #1 doubles, #4 and #5 play #2 doubles, and #1 and #6 play #3 doubles. Perhaps because of #6's weakness, the two other teams are more solid than the #1 and #6. Does that make sense?

All theoretically nice and true, but in reality..:rolls:
If you don't think some teams 'laid more emphasis' at winning 2 & 3, you're quite.. naive... :angel:

And I don't think Seguso is significantly weaker in singles, mind you (well 'perhaps' in doubles :lol: ).
I wonder if you guys actually saw Seguso play :lol:

Amalgamate
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:23 PM
All theoretically nice and true, but in reality..:rolls:
If you don't think some teams 'laid more emphasis' at winning 2 & 3, you're quite.. naive... :angel:

And I don't think Seguso is significantly weaker in singles, mind you (well 'perhaps' in doubles :lol: ).
I wonder if you guys actually saw Seguso play :lol:

:rolleyes: This is ridiculous and frankly, kind of offensive. You are the one with a clearly very superficial understanding of how college lineups work. I'm the one playing high ranked Division 1 tennis -- I am not the naive one. And have I seen Seguso play? I've had sleepovers with Carling.

fantic
Apr 13th, 2011, 04:46 PM
so my comments are ridiculous and offensive and your comments are not? :rolleyes:

so you had sleepovers with Car. Have you watched Car play at UCLA? you really think Car is significantly weaker #6 or 7?

Amalgamate
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:01 PM
so my comments are ridiculous and offensive and your comments are not? :rolleyes:

so you had sleepovers with Car. Have you watched Car play at UCLA? you really think Car is significantly weaker #6 or 7?

The example of a significantly weaker #6 was not at all referring to Carling playing #6 at UCLA, just a generalization to provide an example.

fantic
Apr 13th, 2011, 05:37 PM
good. When I painstakingly cull all pertinent results and try to provide a cogent analysis, and in return gets being carelessly 'labeled' as 'hung up', it really hurts me, you know :angel:

maybe this thread should be closed, since some 'seems' to ridicule these 'detective' works :p
maybe the subject matter is too 'controversial' :lol: All is good and well, it's a perfect world after all :angel:

johnnytennis
Apr 14th, 2011, 04:27 AM
good. When I painstakingly cull all pertinent results and try to provide a cogent analysis, and in return gets being carelessly 'labeled' as 'hung up', it really hurts me, you know :angel:

maybe this thread should be closed, since some 'seems' to ridicule these 'detective' works :p
maybe the subject matter is too 'controversial' :lol: All is good and well, it's a perfect world after all :angel:

Fantic... time to move on to a new topic. You've beaten this one to death!

fantic
Apr 14th, 2011, 04:59 AM
Fantic... time to move on to a new topic. You've beaten this one to death!

yeah, that post means I'm moving on :lol: Won't post related posts here, either (will post at my blog). We'll see how it unfolds :devil:

form
May 14th, 2011, 05:38 AM
NCAA's (this was mentioned a week ago elsewhere as a questionable move)

Just heard from a booster who made the trip to Palo Alto

# 1 Stanford's attempt to jump Mallory Burdette from # 2 directly to # 4 must have been protested by some team (Florida?) and the posted Stanford line for the NCAA's has her back at # 2.

First, the move from # 2 to # 4 without any other line up change is strictly illegal.

Second, when you are 7-3 in your last ten dual matches at # 2 and all your loses came 4-6, 4-6 or one of those turkey shoot third set super tie breakers... you really have no legit argument to defend even a one place move.

Sounds like the Stanford coach must be looking to adjust her match up with Florida or someone later in the draw? Cause they obviously will advance without such shennanigans.

Even # 1 looks for ways to gain a line up advantage. Tisk tisk.

UFGatorFan
May 14th, 2011, 11:03 PM
Stanford obviously did it for a reason and didn't mind paying the $300 fine if it got overturned. I don't know who protested, but I wonder why a player who has been at 2 most of the season is dropped that low. Sure smells fishy. And it's not like they had to do it anyhow, cause Ahn and Gibbs are unbeaten at 3 and 4 this season