TennisForum.com - Reply to Topic
Thread: Order of Strength Discussion Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TennisForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
May 14th, 2011 11:03 PM
UFGatorFan
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

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
May 14th, 2011 05:38 AM
form
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

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.
Apr 14th, 2011 04:59 AM
fantic
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnnytennis View Post
Fantic... time to move on to a new topic. You've beaten this one to death!
yeah, that post means I'm moving on Won't post related posts here, either (will post at my blog). We'll see how it unfolds
Apr 14th, 2011 04:27 AM
johnnytennis
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by fantic View Post
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

maybe this thread should be closed, since some 'seems' to ridicule these 'detective' works
maybe the subject matter is too 'controversial' All is good and well, it's a perfect world after all
Fantic... time to move on to a new topic. You've beaten this one to death!
Apr 13th, 2011 05:37 PM
fantic
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

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

maybe this thread should be closed, since some 'seems' to ridicule these 'detective' works
maybe the subject matter is too 'controversial' All is good and well, it's a perfect world after all
Apr 13th, 2011 05:01 PM
Amalgamate
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by fantic View Post
so my comments are ridiculous and offensive and your comments are not?

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.
Apr 13th, 2011 04:46 PM
fantic
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

so my comments are ridiculous and offensive and your comments are not?

so you had sleepovers with Car. Have you watched Car play at UCLA? you really think Car is significantly weaker #6 or 7?
Apr 13th, 2011 04:23 PM
Amalgamate
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by fantic View Post
All theoretically nice and true, but in reality..
If you don't think some teams 'laid more emphasis' at winning 2 & 3, you're quite.. naive...

And I don't think Seguso is significantly weaker in singles, mind you (well 'perhaps' in doubles ).
I wonder if you guys actually saw Seguso play
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.
Apr 13th, 2011 03:18 PM
fantic
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amalgamate View Post
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..
If you don't think some teams 'laid more emphasis' at winning 2 & 3, you're quite.. naive...

And I don't think Seguso is significantly weaker in singles, mind you (well 'perhaps' in doubles ).
I wonder if you guys actually saw Seguso play
Apr 13th, 2011 05:17 AM
fantic
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

no
I was always interested in doubles, even when USC was weak last season
This kind of disbanding the #1 team seems to be prominent this season, so I 'took note' of it, that's all
Apr 12th, 2011 08:17 PM
2nd_serve
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amalgamate View Post
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
Apr 12th, 2011 07:48 PM
Amalgamate
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd_serve View Post
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.
Apr 12th, 2011 07:42 PM
2nd_serve
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

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.
Apr 12th, 2011 06:57 PM
Amalgamate
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd_serve View Post
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?
Apr 12th, 2011 05:12 PM
2nd_serve
Re: Order of Strength Discussion

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.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome