TennisForum.com  

TennisForum.com (http://www.tennisforum.com/index.php)
-   College tennis (http://www.tennisforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1019)
-   -   Order of Strength Discussion (http://www.tennisforum.com/showthread.php?t=428123)

2nd_serve Jan 31st, 2011 03:31 PM

Order of Strength Discussion
 
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 03:49 PM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
stacking is rife this season :devil:

Tennisace Feb 1st, 2011 12:28 AM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
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 12:36 AM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
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 02:40 AM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennisace (Post 19092561)
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 03:00 AM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
Ellah was playing #1 for Duke last year :lol:

Tennisace Feb 1st, 2011 03:35 AM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fantic (Post 19092734)
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 03:43 AM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
yeah, who knew Lindsay would score a home run at the most decisive moment. :lol:

Tennisace Feb 1st, 2011 03:45 AM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
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 12:46 PM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
that's what I was talking about on the other thread :lol:

gouci Feb 1st, 2011 07:48 PM

Pepperdine
 
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 12:49 AM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
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 12:50 AM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
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 04:57 AM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tennisace (Post 19092816)
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 03:02 PM

Re: Order of Strength Discussion
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by fantic (Post 19091335)
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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.