[ColoradoTree]

All the news about vaccines, the road football win over UW, and the viral video of Daejon Davis getting a ball to stick in the rack from across the court has certainly buoyed our collective Cardinal spirits, but you and I all know that we've been waiting on one thing to start feeling like normal again: Stanford Women's Tennis. 

It's (almost) back, folks! Today is the ITA Kick-Off Weekend Draft, and Stanford (due to their #6 ranking when play was suspended this past spring) is one of the host sites. It's a slimmed down ITA Kick-Off Weekend this year, with just 7 campus sites instead of 15, meaning Indoor Nationals will have just 8 teams (7 qualifiers plus the host school) instead of the usual 16. The Kick-Off Weekend matches will take place starting January 22, with Indoor Nationals taking place at the University of Washington from February 7-10.

(Rough luck for the Stanford men, who would've been a host site with their #8 ranking when play suspended, but who will now be the first time to pick where they land when the men's draft starts in a few hours.)

The women's draft starts in just a few minutes, so here's how things look so far:

Host schools: #1 UNC, #2 UCLA, #4 Texas, #5 Ohio State, #6 Stanford, #7 N.C. State, and #9 Georgia Tech 

(Note: the seeding doesn't match up perfectly with the final rankings from last year, and there haven't been any new rankings, so the ITA must have made some tweaks to account for roster changes. For example, UCLA was #3 when play suspended, but they're listed here as #2. Duke was 10 and UVA 11, but here, those rankings are switched.)

There are some notable opt-outs: #2 Florida State and #8 Georgia would've been hosts; Princeton, Oklahoma State, and Vanderbilt are Top 20 teams. But even with those opt-outs, this promises to be the most competitive Kick-Off Weekend in history. It won't be like the past couple of years, where the #2 team in Stanford's region was ranked 30-40 spots below us. Right now, the expected last team is #36 USC, so every host will have dangerous teams that could keep them from advancing to Indoor Nationals. (Useful for those schools that are participating, as it will guarantee a couple of top-level matches in a season with a schedule that is still very much up in the air.)


And... here we go!

---

Curious to see how much geography factors into teams' selections, particularly since these players won't have been vaccinated by the time these matches take place. Will UVA or Duke choose to fly out west when they could just drive to Chapel Hill, Raleigh, or Atlanta? Pepperdine will presumably stay out west. We'll see soon enough!

---

#12 Pepperdine stays in California, choosing to drive up to Stanford rather than to UCLA, which makes sense. UCLA just beat us twice in the spring, 4-0 and 4-1. They're certainly the favorite in the Pac-12 this season. 

Meanwhile, no team has yet chosen to go to UNC or UCLA, while Georgia Tech's region is already filled, with #11 Duke, #16 Michigan, and #19 South Carolina preferring that loaded field to being a 2 seed with a stronger 1. That'll be a fun one. And N.C. State's region just has one spot left, as #17 Wake Forest and #18 Central Florida decided to take their chances there. #10 UVA decided to go to Ohio State as the first pick off the board, but no one has joined them there yet. And #20 Arizona State just decided to be the #2 seed in Austin, followed quickly by #21 LSU being the #3 seed. (That not only made a lot of sense geographically for the Tigers, but they also got to pick a first-round opponent in ASU where they liked their chances.)

---

#22 Old Dominion makes the sensible geographic choice and takes the 2 seed in Chapel Hill, giving UCLA the distinction of the host site that everyone avoided first (though, due to the glut of high-ranked teams in the southeast and the special covid-related factors this year in presumably wishing to minimize travel, isn't at all surprising). With that, there will be a little break before picking continues with #23 Texas A&M....

[ColoradoTree]

All the news about vaccines, the road football win over UW, and the viral video of Daejon Davis getting a ball to stick in the rack from across the court has certainly buoyed our collective Cardinal spirits, but you and I all know that we've been waiting on one thing to start feeling like normal again: Stanford Women's Tennis. 

It's (almost) back, folks! Today is the ITA Kick-Off Weekend Draft, and Stanford (due to their #6 ranking when play was suspended this past spring) is one of the host sites. It's a slimmed down ITA Kick-Off Weekend this year, with just 7 campus sites instead of 15, meaning Indoor Nationals will have just 8 teams (7 qualifiers plus the host school) instead of the usual 16. The Kick-Off Weekend matches will take place starting January 22, with Indoor Nationals taking place at the University of Washington from February 7-10.

(Rough luck for the Stanford men, who would've been a host site with their #8 ranking when play suspended, but who will now be the first time to pick where they land when the men's draft starts in a few hours.)

The women's draft starts in just a few minutes, so here's how things look so far:

Host schools: #1 UNC, #2 UCLA, #4 Texas, #5 Ohio State, #6 Stanford, #7 N.C. State, and #9 Georgia Tech 

(Note: the seeding doesn't match up perfectly with the final rankings from last year, and there haven't been any new rankings, so the ITA must have made some tweaks to account for roster changes. For example, UCLA was #3 when play suspended, but they're listed here as #2. Duke was 10 and UVA 11, but here, those rankings are switched.)

There are some notable opt-outs: #2 Florida State and #8 Georgia would've been hosts; Princeton, Oklahoma State, and Vanderbilt are Top 20 teams. But even with those opt-outs, this promises to be the most competitive Kick-Off Weekend in history. It won't be like the past couple of years, where the #2 team in Stanford's region was ranked 30-40 spots below us. Right now, the expected last team is #36 USC, so every host will have dangerous teams that could keep them from advancing to Indoor Nationals. (Useful for those schools that are participating, as it will guarantee a couple of top-level matches in a season with a schedule that is still very much up in the air.)


And... here we go!

---

Curious to see how much geography factors into teams' selections, particularly since these players won't have been vaccinated by the time these matches take place. Will UVA or Duke choose to fly out west when they could just drive to Chapel Hill, Raleigh, or Atlanta? Pepperdine will presumably stay out west. We'll see soon enough!

---

#12 Pepperdine stays in California, choosing to drive up to Stanford rather than to UCLA, which makes sense. UCLA just beat us twice in the spring, 4-0 and 4-1. They're certainly the favorite in the Pac-12 this season. 

Meanwhile, no team has yet chosen to go to UNC or UCLA, while Georgia Tech's region is already filled, with #11 Duke, #16 Michigan, and #19 South Carolina preferring that loaded field to being a 2 seed with a stronger 1. That'll be a fun one. And N.C. State's region just has one spot left, as #17 Wake Forest and #18 Central Florida decided to take their chances there. #10 UVA decided to go to Ohio State as the first pick off the board, but no one has joined them there yet. And #20 Arizona State just decided to be the #2 seed in Austin, followed quickly by #21 LSU being the #3 seed. (That not only made a lot of sense geographically for the Tigers, but they also got to pick a first-round opponent in ASU where they liked their chances.)

---

#22 Old Dominion makes the sensible geographic choice and takes the 2 seed in Chapel Hill, giving UCLA the distinction of the host site that everyone avoided first (though, due to the glut of high-ranked teams in the southeast and the special covid-related factors this year in presumably wishing to minimize travel, isn't at all surprising). With that, there will be a little break before picking continues with #23 Texas A&M....

[ColoradoTree]

Back to the draft!

* #23 A&M takes the 2 seed at UCLA
* #25 Ole Miss takes the 3 seed at UNC
* #26 Baylor takes the 4 seed at Texas to stay in state
* #27 Tennessee takes the 3 seed at Ohio State

Then #29 Washington took the 4 seed at Ohio State. But UW is supposed to be the host institution and automatic qualifier? I assume ITA Indoor Nationals have been moved so they have to qualify instead? Confusing!

* #30 Washington State takes the 3 seed at UCLA, leaving Stanford as the only site with just two teams so far. 
* #31 Kansas takes the 4 seed at UCLA, filling up that region. 

Only 4 spots left: the 4 in Chapel Hill, the 3 and 4 at Stanford, and the 4 at N.C. State. Next 4 teams are Northwestern, Notre Dame, Denver, and USC.

---

Northwestern opts to be the 4 in Raleigh, and Notre Dame picks the 4 in Chapel Hill, leaving just the 3 and 4 seeds at Stanford left to pick! Teams will now decide between playing at Stanford or passing on the tournament altogether.

---

Denver is the 3 at Stanford, and USC takes the 4 rather than pass. Disappointing not to get a good non-conference match, but such is life. Can't imagine USC is too thrilled, either, potentially playing Stanford and Pepperdine--two teams they would've played in the regular season anyway.

---

Apparently Indoor Nationals are now in Stillwater, Oklahoma at Oklahoma State, making them the automatic qualifier.

Look, all seven of these regions are harder than usual, and there's no question that the Atlanta region is the toughest and Stanford has the weakest 3/4 seeds. But if seeds hold in the first round, I'm not sure there's a tougher match to get to Indoor Nationals than Stanford has against Pepperdine. (Georgia Tech-Duke and Ohio State-UVA are the other two "regional finals" that I'm most looking forward to seeing play out.) 

In the Pac-12:

Los Angeles:

(1) #2 UCLA vs. (4) #31 Kansas 
(2) #23 Texas A&M vs. (3) #30 Washington State

Stanford:

(1) #6 Stanford vs. (4) #36 USC
(2) #12 Pepperdine vs. (3) #35 Denver

Austin:

(1) #4 Texas vs. (4) #26 Baylor
(2) #20 Arizona State vs. (3) #21 LSU

Columbus:

(1) #5 Ohio State vs. (4) #29 Washington
(2) #10 UVA vs. (3) #27 Tennessee

---

And the other three regionals, for completeness:

Chapel Hill:

(1) #1 UNC vs. (4) #34 Notre Dame
(2) #22 Old Dominion vs. (3) #25 Ole Miss

Raleigh:

(1) #7 N.C. State vs. (4) #32 Northwestern
(2) #17 Wake Forest vs. (3) #18 Central Florida

Atlanta:

(1) #9 Georgia Tech vs. (4) #19 South Carolina
(2) #11 Duke vs. (3) #16 Michigan

[ColoradoTree]

Back to the draft!

* #23 A&M takes the 2 seed at UCLA
* #25 Ole Miss takes the 3 seed at UNC
* #26 Baylor takes the 4 seed at Texas to stay in state
* #27 Tennessee takes the 3 seed at Ohio State

Then #29 Washington took the 4 seed at Ohio State. But UW is supposed to be the host institution and automatic qualifier? I assume ITA Indoor Nationals have been moved so they have to qualify instead? Confusing!

* #30 Washington State takes the 3 seed at UCLA, leaving Stanford as the only site with just two teams so far. 
* #31 Kansas takes the 4 seed at UCLA, filling up that region. 

Only 4 spots left: the 4 in Chapel Hill, the 3 and 4 at Stanford, and the 4 at N.C. State. Next 4 teams are Northwestern, Notre Dame, Denver, and USC.

---

Northwestern opts to be the 4 in Raleigh, and Notre Dame picks the 4 in Chapel Hill, leaving just the 3 and 4 seeds at Stanford left to pick! Teams will now decide between playing at Stanford or passing on the tournament altogether.

---

Denver is the 3 at Stanford, and USC takes the 4 rather than pass. Disappointing not to get a good non-conference match, but such is life. Can't imagine USC is too thrilled, either, potentially playing Stanford and Pepperdine--two teams they would've played in the regular season anyway.

---

Apparently Indoor Nationals are now in Stillwater, Oklahoma at Oklahoma State, making them the automatic qualifier.

Look, all seven of these regions are harder than usual, and there's no question that the Atlanta region is the toughest and Stanford has the weakest 3/4 seeds. But if seeds hold in the first round, I'm not sure there's a tougher match to get to Indoor Nationals than Stanford has against Pepperdine. (Georgia Tech-Duke and Ohio State-UVA are the other two "regional finals" that I'm most looking forward to seeing play out.) 

In the Pac-12:

Los Angeles:

(1) #2 UCLA vs. (4) #31 Kansas 
(2) #23 Texas A&M vs. (3) #30 Washington State

Stanford:

(1) #6 Stanford vs. (4) #36 USC
(2) #12 Pepperdine vs. (3) #35 Denver

Austin:

(1) #4 Texas vs. (4) #26 Baylor
(2) #20 Arizona State vs. (3) #21 LSU

Columbus:

(1) #5 Ohio State vs. (4) #29 Washington
(2) #10 UVA vs. (3) #27 Tennessee

---

And the other three regionals, for completeness:

Chapel Hill:

(1) #1 UNC vs. (4) #34 Notre Dame
(2) #22 Old Dominion vs. (3) #25 Ole Miss

Raleigh:

(1) #7 N.C. State vs. (4) #32 Northwestern
(2) #17 Wake Forest vs. (3) #18 Central Florida

Atlanta:

(1) #9 Georgia Tech vs. (4) #19 South Carolina
(2) #11 Duke vs. (3) #16 Michigan

[BostonCard]

Thanks for resurrecting the tennis thread.  Can you give us casual fans a summary of where we were when things got cancelled and where we looked to be headed this coming year?  My recollection was that we were reloading in 2020, though UNC(?) was such a deep team that they would have to be considered the favorites.  Am I remembering things right?

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks for resurrecting the tennis thread.  Can you give us casual fans a summary of where we were when things got cancelled and where we looked to be headed this coming year?  My recollection was that we were reloading in 2020, though UNC(?) was such a deep team that they would have to be considered the favorites.  Am I remembering things right?

BC

[BobK]

https://gostanford.com/sports/womens-tennis/roster

To help in this discussion

[BobK]

https://gostanford.com/sports/womens-tennis/roster

To help in this discussion

[oldalum]

Is Ana Geller here or going to be able to arrive for start of practice?

[oldalum]

Is Ana Geller here or going to be able to arrive for start of practice?

[ColoradoTree]

As a reminder, the cancellation of the rest of the 2020 season meant that everyone got an extra year of eligibility if they wanted it, meaning that we don't need to say goodbye to Emily Arbuthnott and Emma Higuchi after all! This year's roster will thus have ten scholarship players on it rather than the usual 8, something that can continue for another few years:

Fifth years (2): Emily Arbuthnott, Emma Higuchi
Seniors (2): Michaela Gordon, Janice Shin
Juniors (2): Niluka Madurawe, Sara Choy
Sophomores (2): Angelica Blake, Nicole Mossmer
Freshmen (2): India Houghton, Ana Geller

Houghton and Geller mark what's one of the best 2-player classes in the country. (UVA is the other. UVA was #4 and Stanford was #7 in the 2020 class rankings, which take into account quality and quantity. Texas was #1 (3 recruits, 2 of which are at our recruits' level, 1 a bit below), Georgia Tech #2 (4 recruits, just 1 at our level, 2 a bit below, 1 well below), Cal #3 (3 recruits, 1 in our range, 1 a bit below, 1 well below), UNC #5 (3 recruits, 2 in our range, 1 well below), Michigan #6 (3 recruits, 1 in our range, 1 a bit below, 1 well below), and USC #8 (3 recruits, 2 in our range, 1 well below). 

I don't know how you leave either one of them out of the singles lineup, frankly, but who do you leave off? With so few matches over the summer and fall, we don't have a ton of data points to see who's improved her game and who has stagnated. 

It's nice to have options, though, considering how stacked the rest of the top teams' rosters are going to be. For example, UNC had 3 seniors last year on what was probably the best roster in the sport, all top 10-caliber players: Sara Daavettila, Alexa Graham, and Makenna Jones. All three are coming back, they still have another top 10-type player in junior Cameron Morra, several other good players, and they add one of the top incoming freshmen in Fiona Crawley. 

Pepperdine gets Ashley Lahey (who was having an otherworldly season last year) and Jessica Failla back for another year, they get a couple of outstanding transfers (Lexi Ryngler from Texas, who will be a sophomore, and Shiori Fukuda from Ohio State, who is a grad transfer with two years of eligibility left), a promising freshman in Nikki Redelijk, and they still have a few other good players. This is an outstanding team, and they'll be better than #12. 

UCLA's Jada Hurt returns for a sixth year (she was a redshirt senior last year), they lose no one else, and they add incoming transfer Vivian Wolff (Jr.) from Georgia (the preseason #37 player in the country last year). A small recruiting class for them (just one player, Vanessa Ong), but a blue chip. They're lined up for a great 2021 class, too, with three blue chips (not the top handful of players, though, whereas our 2021 class is lights out). 

Texas lost Bianca Turati, but her twin sister Anna decided to stay another year. Texas also lost an outgoing transfer, a blue chip freshman from last year, Lexi Ryngler (to Pepperdine), but they add the top incoming recruiting class in the country, so they'll be just fine.

[ColoradoTree]

As a reminder, the cancellation of the rest of the 2020 season meant that everyone got an extra year of eligibility if they wanted it, meaning that we don't need to say goodbye to Emily Arbuthnott and Emma Higuchi after all! This year's roster will thus have ten scholarship players on it rather than the usual 8, something that can continue for another few years:

Fifth years (2): Emily Arbuthnott, Emma Higuchi
Seniors (2): Michaela Gordon, Janice Shin
Juniors (2): Niluka Madurawe, Sara Choy
Sophomores (2): Angelica Blake, Nicole Mossmer
Freshmen (2): India Houghton, Ana Geller

Houghton and Geller mark what's one of the best 2-player classes in the country. (UVA is the other. UVA was #4 and Stanford was #7 in the 2020 class rankings, which take into account quality and quantity. Texas was #1 (3 recruits, 2 of which are at our recruits' level, 1 a bit below), Georgia Tech #2 (4 recruits, just 1 at our level, 2 a bit below, 1 well below), Cal #3 (3 recruits, 1 in our range, 1 a bit below, 1 well below), UNC #5 (3 recruits, 2 in our range, 1 well below), Michigan #6 (3 recruits, 1 in our range, 1 a bit below, 1 well below), and USC #8 (3 recruits, 2 in our range, 1 well below). 

I don't know how you leave either one of them out of the singles lineup, frankly, but who do you leave off? With so few matches over the summer and fall, we don't have a ton of data points to see who's improved her game and who has stagnated. 

It's nice to have options, though, considering how stacked the rest of the top teams' rosters are going to be. For example, UNC had 3 seniors last year on what was probably the best roster in the sport, all top 10-caliber players: Sara Daavettila, Alexa Graham, and Makenna Jones. All three are coming back, they still have another top 10-type player in junior Cameron Morra, several other good players, and they add one of the top incoming freshmen in Fiona Crawley. 

Pepperdine gets Ashley Lahey (who was having an otherworldly season last year) and Jessica Failla back for another year, they get a couple of outstanding transfers (Lexi Ryngler from Texas, who will be a sophomore, and Shiori Fukuda from Ohio State, who is a grad transfer with two years of eligibility left), a promising freshman in Nikki Redelijk, and they still have a few other good players. This is an outstanding team, and they'll be better than #12. 

UCLA's Jada Hurt returns for a sixth year (she was a redshirt senior last year), they lose no one else, and they add incoming transfer Vivian Wolff (Jr.) from Georgia (the preseason #37 player in the country last year). A small recruiting class for them (just one player, Vanessa Ong), but a blue chip. They're lined up for a great 2021 class, too, with three blue chips (not the top handful of players, though, whereas our 2021 class is lights out). 

Texas lost Bianca Turati, but her twin sister Anna decided to stay another year. Texas also lost an outgoing transfer, a blue chip freshman from last year, Lexi Ryngler (to Pepperdine), but they add the top incoming recruiting class in the country, so they'll be just fine.

[oldalum]

With our plethora of talent, I wonder if we will take the opportunity to develop some dedicated doubles teams who only or mostly play doubles. Would give them the chance to practice doubles a lot instead of splitting practice between singles and doubles (I suspect that doubles usually gets slighted relative to singles, which makes sense given the relative value of doubles vs. singles matches)

[oldalum]

With our plethora of talent, I wonder if we will take the opportunity to develop some dedicated doubles teams who only or mostly play doubles. Would give them the chance to practice doubles a lot instead of splitting practice between singles and doubles (I suspect that doubles usually gets slighted relative to singles, which makes sense given the relative value of doubles vs. singles matches)

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks for resurrecting the tennis thread.  Can you give us casual fans a summary of where we were when things got cancelled and where we looked to be headed this coming year?  My recollection was that we were reloading in 2020, though UNC(?) was such a deep team that they would have to be considered the favorites.  Am I remembering things right?

BC

That's about right. It sure looked like we would surrender the Pac-12 title to UCLA and that UNC was just too good. That UNC team was primed to break through because it had three seniors in the top 4, so they'd really built toward last year. Well, now they've got this year, too. 

And when we say reloading, it's only in the sense of "I don't think we're quite on the same level as the favorites for the NCAA title, but we're still probably a top 5 team." But UNC certainly felt a cut above the rest last year, and I don't know why this year would be different. 

As for UCLA, they beat us 4-0 at National Indoors last year and 4-1 at our place before the season was called. They crushed us at doubles in both matches because it's such a point of emphasis for them, and they usually take the doubles point from us even in years where we've got a bigger edge in singles. But here's how we lined up last year (class years as of last year):

1. Michaela Gordon (Jr.) vs. Elysia Bolton (So.) (split the first two sets in the first match, hadn't started the third yet; Gordon led 4-1 in the third in the second match)
2. Emily Arbuthnott (Sr.) vs. Abigail Forbes (Fr.) (Forbes won 6-2, 6-0 in the first match and 6-1, 7-6 in the second)
3. Angelica Blake (Fr.) vs. Jada Hart (R-Sr.) (Hart won the first match 6-2, 6-1, but Blake took the second 6-0, 6-4)
4. Janice Shin (Jr.) vs. Abi Altick (Jr.) (Altick led the first match 6-4, 3-2, and she won the second 6-3, 6-1)
5. Sara Choy (So.) vs. Annette Goulak (Jr.) (both matches were close--in the first, Choy lost a tiebreaker in the first set but was up a break in the second, and in the second, Goulak won 7-6, 6-4)
6. Emma Higuchi (Sr.) vs. Sasha Vagramov (Fr.) (Vagramov won the first 6-3, 6-3, but in the second match, Higuchi led 2-1 in the third set when it was called). 

I think it's likely that this top 3 is the top 3 we see this year, though if I had my druthers, we'd see Arbuthnott shift down to the #3 line. But if this top half stays the same, we have one match that's basically a toss-up (#1), one where we have little chance of winning (#2), and one where I like our chances given the respective age and likelihood of year-over-year improvement (#3).  

For the back half of the lineup, it's hard to predict what ours looks like, but Lele is choosing between Higuchi, Shin, Choy, Madurawe, Houghton, and Geller for three spots. As much as Higuchi has done for this team (we should build a statue to her outside the #6 court), Houghton and Geller are elite recruits in a way that the rest of the players on that list aren't, and I think we're best served by our most talented players playing. For me, that means Houghton and Geller in some order at 4 and 5, with Shin playing 6. Shin's form dipped last year, and I think she could be an overwhelming force at 6 while she hit her ceiling last year playing 4. This means disappointment for our juniors, who are left out of the mix, as well as Higuchi, but perhaps 5 and 6 become rotating spots in order to give a number of players match experience to guard against injury. 

But anyway, back to UCLA. UCLA's back half will mostly be the same, with perhaps incoming transfer Vivian Wolff at 4. That's tough, but with the addition of Houghton and Geller, I like our back half of the lineup a lot better than I did last year. We're still not at UNC's level, but I'd be surprised by lopsided scorelines against UCLA. In other words, I like the promise of this team more than the promise of last year's team. If you recall, last year we bemoaned the fact that we had a 1, a couple of 3s, and a bunch of 5s on our team. But now I think we have more top-half-of-the-lineup-caliber players than we have spots in the top half of the lineup, which is a good problem to have.

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks for resurrecting the tennis thread.  Can you give us casual fans a summary of where we were when things got cancelled and where we looked to be headed this coming year?  My recollection was that we were reloading in 2020, though UNC(?) was such a deep team that they would have to be considered the favorites.  Am I remembering things right?

BC

That's about right. It sure looked like we would surrender the Pac-12 title to UCLA and that UNC was just too good. That UNC team was primed to break through because it had three seniors in the top 4, so they'd really built toward last year. Well, now they've got this year, too. 

And when we say reloading, it's only in the sense of "I don't think we're quite on the same level as the favorites for the NCAA title, but we're still probably a top 5 team." But UNC certainly felt a cut above the rest last year, and I don't know why this year would be different. 

As for UCLA, they beat us 4-0 at National Indoors last year and 4-1 at our place before the season was called. They crushed us at doubles in both matches because it's such a point of emphasis for them, and they usually take the doubles point from us even in years where we've got a bigger edge in singles. But here's how we lined up last year (class years as of last year):

1. Michaela Gordon (Jr.) vs. Elysia Bolton (So.) (split the first two sets in the first match, hadn't started the third yet; Gordon led 4-1 in the third in the second match)
2. Emily Arbuthnott (Sr.) vs. Abigail Forbes (Fr.) (Forbes won 6-2, 6-0 in the first match and 6-1, 7-6 in the second)
3. Angelica Blake (Fr.) vs. Jada Hart (R-Sr.) (Hart won the first match 6-2, 6-1, but Blake took the second 6-0, 6-4)
4. Janice Shin (Jr.) vs. Abi Altick (Jr.) (Altick led the first match 6-4, 3-2, and she won the second 6-3, 6-1)
5. Sara Choy (So.) vs. Annette Goulak (Jr.) (both matches were close--in the first, Choy lost a tiebreaker in the first set but was up a break in the second, and in the second, Goulak won 7-6, 6-4)
6. Emma Higuchi (Sr.) vs. Sasha Vagramov (Fr.) (Vagramov won the first 6-3, 6-3, but in the second match, Higuchi led 2-1 in the third set when it was called). 

I think it's likely that this top 3 is the top 3 we see this year, though if I had my druthers, we'd see Arbuthnott shift down to the #3 line. But if this top half stays the same, we have one match that's basically a toss-up (#1), one where we have little chance of winning (#2), and one where I like our chances given the respective age and likelihood of year-over-year improvement (#3).  

For the back half of the lineup, it's hard to predict what ours looks like, but Lele is choosing between Higuchi, Shin, Choy, Madurawe, Houghton, and Geller for three spots. As much as Higuchi has done for this team (we should build a statue to her outside the #6 court), Houghton and Geller are elite recruits in a way that the rest of the players on that list aren't, and I think we're best served by our most talented players playing. For me, that means Houghton and Geller in some order at 4 and 5, with Shin playing 6. Shin's form dipped last year, and I think she could be an overwhelming force at 6 while she hit her ceiling last year playing 4. This means disappointment for our juniors, who are left out of the mix, as well as Higuchi, but perhaps 5 and 6 become rotating spots in order to give a number of players match experience to guard against injury. 

But anyway, back to UCLA. UCLA's back half will mostly be the same, with perhaps incoming transfer Vivian Wolff at 4. That's tough, but with the addition of Houghton and Geller, I like our back half of the lineup a lot better than I did last year. We're still not at UNC's level, but I'd be surprised by lopsided scorelines against UCLA. In other words, I like the promise of this team more than the promise of last year's team. If you recall, last year we bemoaned the fact that we had a 1, a couple of 3s, and a bunch of 5s on our team. But now I think we have more top-half-of-the-lineup-caliber players than we have spots in the top half of the lineup, which is a good problem to have.

[ColoradoTree]

With our plethora of talent, I wonder if we will take the opportunity to develop some dedicated doubles teams who only or mostly play doubles. Would give them the chance to practice doubles a lot instead of splitting practice between singles and doubles (I suspect that doubles usually gets slighted relative to singles, which makes sense given the relative value of doubles vs. singles matches)

With ten scholarship players and six singles spots, this is intriguing. You wouldn't want to completely get rid of singles practice for the doubles folks, because you still want players ready to step in if there are injuries, but a greater emphasis on doubles shotmaking seems well worth the time investment. 

OTOH, I think we've been well-served by our top singles players playing some doubles, and I want, say, Gordon and Blake having as many opportunities to play as they can get. 

But something needs to change. I recognize that it's just one point out of seven, and our M.O. against other top teams is to drop doubles and charge back in singles, but why not make doubles elite? It's still very good--we take the doubles point most of the time, after all--but there's no reason why we have to go into a match against UCLA knowing we'll need to win four out of six singles matches. 

Maybe something where one of our top few singles players is paired with someone out of the singles lineup who spends a greater percentage of their time specifically on doubles shotmaking? So, that could be something like Gordon-Madurawe, Arbuthnott-Higuchi, and Blake-Choy. The specific pairings are chemistry-dependent, of course, but maybe that's a way to give a boost to our doubles play.

[ColoradoTree]

With our plethora of talent, I wonder if we will take the opportunity to develop some dedicated doubles teams who only or mostly play doubles. Would give them the chance to practice doubles a lot instead of splitting practice between singles and doubles (I suspect that doubles usually gets slighted relative to singles, which makes sense given the relative value of doubles vs. singles matches)

With ten scholarship players and six singles spots, this is intriguing. You wouldn't want to completely get rid of singles practice for the doubles folks, because you still want players ready to step in if there are injuries, but a greater emphasis on doubles shotmaking seems well worth the time investment. 

OTOH, I think we've been well-served by our top singles players playing some doubles, and I want, say, Gordon and Blake having as many opportunities to play as they can get. 

But something needs to change. I recognize that it's just one point out of seven, and our M.O. against other top teams is to drop doubles and charge back in singles, but why not make doubles elite? It's still very good--we take the doubles point most of the time, after all--but there's no reason why we have to go into a match against UCLA knowing we'll need to win four out of six singles matches. 

Maybe something where one of our top few singles players is paired with someone out of the singles lineup who spends a greater percentage of their time specifically on doubles shotmaking? So, that could be something like Gordon-Madurawe, Arbuthnott-Higuchi, and Blake-Choy. The specific pairings are chemistry-dependent, of course, but maybe that's a way to give a boost to our doubles play.

[ColoradoTree]

When I say above that the top 3 will stay the same but if I had my druthers I'd shift Arbuthnott down to 3, those are my conservative druthers. Depending on how they looked, I might try for bolder druthers for a lineup like this:

1. Gordon
2. Blake
3. Geller
4. Arbuthnott
5. Houghton
6. Choy

Arbuthnott disappointing at 2 and Blake thriving at 3 as a true freshman makes it likely that Blake will be an obvious choice over her for the 2 spot this year. And while I've been bullish on Houghton, Geller being international makes it tougher to get a handle on her. But she's got a higher UTR than Houghton, a higher ITF juniors ranking, and better results against other top players, so maybe she does so well in the early going that you just can't deny her that spot. 

Shin's level of play was obviously down last year, and it didn't seem to get better when she moved down a line, so perhaps there were unique stressors that affected her play and that, if resolved, will mean she's right back where she was when she was dominating at 5 as a sophomore. And really, you could slot Shin at 6 and she'd likely crush it. And so would Madurawe. Higuchi would do there what Higuchi does. But I gave the nod to Choy because I really liked what I saw out of her last year. It'll be something of a revolving door as it needs to be to get folks dual match experience, but I don't think our best lineup means having both Arbuthnott and Shin in our top 4. 

I know, I know, we have ten scholarship players, including two fifth years, and I'm putting two true freshmen in the singles lineup. And Houghton or Geller might not be better than Arbuthnott right now. But if not, I think they will be relatively quickly, and top-level matches is what's going to drive that improvement. I think the world of Arbuthnott, her toughness, her academics, and what she's contributed to this team. But I think we found her ceiling last year. And we may have found Shin's as well. Geller and Houghton are "Top 5 recruit" type players, while Arbuthnott, Shin, Choy, and Madurawe are more like Top 10-20 type recruits. Which is great! But I think the ceiling is higher for Geller and Houghton, and I'm interested to see how high it can be. 

Imagine, then, what our Spring 2022 lineup could look like, with that monster class coming in next year:

1. Blake (Jr.)
2. Geller (So.)
3. Houghton (So.)
4. Connie Ma (Fr.)
5. Choy (Sr.)
6. Alexandra Yepifanova (Fr.)

With Madurawe (Sr.), Mossmer (Jr.), and Valencia Xu (Fr.) on the bench. And that's only if Gordon or Shin don't come back for their 5th years! 

That is absolutely a championship-caliber lineup. We might not be there yet this year (though we're still a top 5 team), but the 2022 season looks bright.

[ColoradoTree]

When I say above that the top 3 will stay the same but if I had my druthers I'd shift Arbuthnott down to 3, those are my conservative druthers. Depending on how they looked, I might try for bolder druthers for a lineup like this:

1. Gordon
2. Blake
3. Geller
4. Arbuthnott
5. Houghton
6. Choy

Arbuthnott disappointing at 2 and Blake thriving at 3 as a true freshman makes it likely that Blake will be an obvious choice over her for the 2 spot this year. And while I've been bullish on Houghton, Geller being international makes it tougher to get a handle on her. But she's got a higher UTR than Houghton, a higher ITF juniors ranking, and better results against other top players, so maybe she does so well in the early going that you just can't deny her that spot. 

Shin's level of play was obviously down last year, and it didn't seem to get better when she moved down a line, so perhaps there were unique stressors that affected her play and that, if resolved, will mean she's right back where she was when she was dominating at 5 as a sophomore. And really, you could slot Shin at 6 and she'd likely crush it. And so would Madurawe. Higuchi would do there what Higuchi does. But I gave the nod to Choy because I really liked what I saw out of her last year. It'll be something of a revolving door as it needs to be to get folks dual match experience, but I don't think our best lineup means having both Arbuthnott and Shin in our top 4. 

I know, I know, we have ten scholarship players, including two fifth years, and I'm putting two true freshmen in the singles lineup. And Houghton or Geller might not be better than Arbuthnott right now. But if not, I think they will be relatively quickly, and top-level matches is what's going to drive that improvement. I think the world of Arbuthnott, her toughness, her academics, and what she's contributed to this team. But I think we found her ceiling last year. And we may have found Shin's as well. Geller and Houghton are "Top 5 recruit" type players, while Arbuthnott, Shin, Choy, and Madurawe are more like Top 10-20 type recruits. Which is great! But I think the ceiling is higher for Geller and Houghton, and I'm interested to see how high it can be. 

Imagine, then, what our Spring 2022 lineup could look like, with that monster class coming in next year:

1. Blake (Jr.)
2. Geller (So.)
3. Houghton (So.)
4. Connie Ma (Fr.)
5. Choy (Sr.)
6. Alexandra Yepifanova (Fr.)

With Madurawe (Sr.), Mossmer (Jr.), and Valencia Xu (Fr.) on the bench. And that's only if Gordon or Shin don't come back for their 5th years! 

That is absolutely a championship-caliber lineup. We might not be there yet this year (though we're still a top 5 team), but the 2022 season looks bright.

[ColoradoTree]

This isn't straight from the horse's mouth, but a tennis podcaster is saying ITA sources are telling him that Stanford's men's and women's tennis teams are out of Kick-Off Weekend. 

https://twitter.com/College10sRanks/stat...5486663680

Assuming this is true (and while we haven't heard from Stanford or the ITA yet, these guys have gotten plenty of ITA scoops over the years as the pool of folks interested in calling the ITA to ask about college tennis is vanishingly small), it's a big blow to both teams' hopes to get a top 8 ranking and the NCAA hosting duties that come with it. The men's team was the 2 seed in Raleigh, NC, so this clearly isn't just limited to events on campus, but a school-wide policy. (How that factors into basketball and football continuing to play, I don't know. Could just be a "sports that have been safely operating can continue to operate, but we're not going to introduce new athletes to campus when regular students can't even show up.)

Usually by now, we'd have a schedule for the spring season, but this isn't a usual year. I think it's reasonable to wonder what, if any, spring season there is for tennis in 2021. Unfortunately, I could imagine a shortened season in which the NCAA holds championships but where many of the schools with stricter covid policies or that are in states and counties with stricter limitations (like Stanford) don't play. Or we see something similar to football--perhaps a conference schedule with non-conference matchups being limited to in-state options (so, maybe a double helping of Cal, UCLA, USC, and then matchups with Pepperdine, USD, SDSU, St. Mary's, Loyola, etc.)?  Not great, but man, I'd take it, that's for sure. And if there's a season elsewhere but not here, I wonder what happens to the special year of eligibility that the NCAA granted from last year. Do Arbuthnott and Higuchi get to come back next year, too, if the reason for not participating is due to school/state policies rather than a NCAA decision?

I'm as covid-cautious as they come, but tennis really does stand out in its ability to be safe to play during a respiratory pandemic. Players are very far apart from one another! You could have sanitizer on changeovers. Players changing over on opposite sides of the court rather than the same side. Move the benches for the players/coaches so they're a bit farther from the chair umpire. Given what we know about transmission, one would think schools would let tennis happen, even if they're more cautious about other sports.

[ColoradoTree]

This isn't straight from the horse's mouth, but a tennis podcaster is saying ITA sources are telling him that Stanford's men's and women's tennis teams are out of Kick-Off Weekend. 

https://twitter.com/College10sRanks/stat...5486663680

Assuming this is true (and while we haven't heard from Stanford or the ITA yet, these guys have gotten plenty of ITA scoops over the years as the pool of folks interested in calling the ITA to ask about college tennis is vanishingly small), it's a big blow to both teams' hopes to get a top 8 ranking and the NCAA hosting duties that come with it. The men's team was the 2 seed in Raleigh, NC, so this clearly isn't just limited to events on campus, but a school-wide policy. (How that factors into basketball and football continuing to play, I don't know. Could just be a "sports that have been safely operating can continue to operate, but we're not going to introduce new athletes to campus when regular students can't even show up.)

Usually by now, we'd have a schedule for the spring season, but this isn't a usual year. I think it's reasonable to wonder what, if any, spring season there is for tennis in 2021. Unfortunately, I could imagine a shortened season in which the NCAA holds championships but where many of the schools with stricter covid policies or that are in states and counties with stricter limitations (like Stanford) don't play. Or we see something similar to football--perhaps a conference schedule with non-conference matchups being limited to in-state options (so, maybe a double helping of Cal, UCLA, USC, and then matchups with Pepperdine, USD, SDSU, St. Mary's, Loyola, etc.)?  Not great, but man, I'd take it, that's for sure. And if there's a season elsewhere but not here, I wonder what happens to the special year of eligibility that the NCAA granted from last year. Do Arbuthnott and Higuchi get to come back next year, too, if the reason for not participating is due to school/state policies rather than a NCAA decision?

I'm as covid-cautious as they come, but tennis really does stand out in its ability to be safe to play during a respiratory pandemic. Players are very far apart from one another! You could have sanitizer on changeovers. Players changing over on opposite sides of the court rather than the same side. Move the benches for the players/coaches so they're a bit farther from the chair umpire. Given what we know about transmission, one would think schools would let tennis happen, even if they're more cautious about other sports.

[ColoradoTree]

If there is some sort of abbreviated, regional season for a lot of teams around the country, then I think the ITA has to do away with computerized rankings for the year and go with a coaches' poll of sorts. If the goal is getting the best teams, then you're going to have to resort to an eye test more than head-to-head matchups or strength of schedule, because some great teams just won't have the schedules they would normally have, through no fault of the team itself.

[ColoradoTree]

If there is some sort of abbreviated, regional season for a lot of teams around the country, then I think the ITA has to do away with computerized rankings for the year and go with a coaches' poll of sorts. If the goal is getting the best teams, then you're going to have to resort to an eye test more than head-to-head matchups or strength of schedule, because some great teams just won't have the schedules they would normally have, through no fault of the team itself.

[BostonCard]

COTree, I agree with you that tennis (and golf) are probably the safest sports in terms of risk of transmission during the activity itself because they are intrinsically physically distanced and outdoors.  However, I think this discounts the risk attendant to all the non-competition related activities that are part of these contests.  One of the strongest correlations to infection risk is distance from home.  Obviously, there is nothing intrinsic to physically being 1000 miles versus 100 miles versus 10 miles from home.  However, if you are 100 miles from home, you probably are not eating your meals at home; if you are 1000 miles from home, you are probably not sleeping at home.  This was a good piece from the Economist:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...re-working

We found two ways that lockdowns suppress R. First, reducing trips to work helps, as do fewer outings to restaurants, bars and shops, though the effect of those leisure settings may vary a lot. (Usage of parks or public transport had no impact, perhaps because visitors are outside or wearing masks.) Second, lockdowns deter people from travelling to other local authorities. This is probably the most important factor in decreasing R overall.

Thus, participating in a tennis tournament that takes athletes out of Santa Clara county or brings outside athletes into Santa Clara county, is probably a bad idea.

BC

[BostonCard]

COTree, I agree with you that tennis (and golf) are probably the safest sports in terms of risk of transmission during the activity itself because they are intrinsically physically distanced and outdoors.  However, I think this discounts the risk attendant to all the non-competition related activities that are part of these contests.  One of the strongest correlations to infection risk is distance from home.  Obviously, there is nothing intrinsic to physically being 1000 miles versus 100 miles versus 10 miles from home.  However, if you are 100 miles from home, you probably are not eating your meals at home; if you are 1000 miles from home, you are probably not sleeping at home.  This was a good piece from the Economist:

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail...re-working

We found two ways that lockdowns suppress R. First, reducing trips to work helps, as do fewer outings to restaurants, bars and shops, though the effect of those leisure settings may vary a lot. (Usage of parks or public transport had no impact, perhaps because visitors are outside or wearing masks.) Second, lockdowns deter people from travelling to other local authorities. This is probably the most important factor in decreasing R overall.

Thus, participating in a tennis tournament that takes athletes out of Santa Clara county or brings outside athletes into Santa Clara county, is probably a bad idea.

BC

[BobK]

https://gostanford.com/news/2020/12/18/w...e-way.aspx

Stanford signs 2 top recruits.

[BobK]

https://gostanford.com/news/2020/12/18/w...e-way.aspx

Stanford signs 2 top recruits.

[ColoradoTree]

https://gostanford.com/news/2020/12/18/w...e-way.aspx

Stanford signs 2 top recruits.

Ma and Yepifanova were the 2 higher-ranked of our 3 verbal commits, but the third--Valencia Xu--is still a consensus top 5 recruit in the country, so I'm eager to see how that shakes out for her.

[ColoradoTree]

https://gostanford.com/news/2020/12/18/w...e-way.aspx

Stanford signs 2 top recruits.

Ma and Yepifanova were the 2 higher-ranked of our 3 verbal commits, but the third--Valencia Xu--is still a consensus top 5 recruit in the country, so I'm eager to see how that shakes out for her.