[ColoradoTree]

A terrific weekend from the men's team at the ITA Indoor Nationals (beating #12 Baylor and #4 Georgia before falling 4-3 to #1 Wake Forest) means they are now the #2 team in the country as of today's most recent rankings. 

By contrast, the women's team's struggles without Melissa Lord at the top of the lineup continued, losing 4-2 to Texas.  Now, Texas is a top 10 team, and we played them in Austin, so there's no shame in the result, but when we're supposed to be the #1 team in the country, we shouldn't get rolled by Texas.  Interestingly, Lampl and Arbuthnott were flipped, with Lampl playing Anna Turati very close (losing 7-5, 7-5).  But Emma Higuchi got stomped, which is something I am very much not used to seeing. The cost of the team looking unimpressive while losing?  This team, which was ranked #1 just a couple of weeks ago, and #6 last week, is now #36 in the country.  (Much of this is that we are now into the first algorithm-based rankings of the year--the committee wouldn't have us that low--and when you don't play an impressive schedule and you lose badly to the only two good teams you do face, the computer tends to think you're not very good.)

A note of caution.  The women's team is better than this.  There was always going to be a drop in the rankings.  That was inevitable, due to the weakness of our schedule compared to everyone else's, and we'll have chances to improve our ranking going forward.  But it means that unless Lord comes back healthy soon, we might not improve our ranking enough to host the first couple of rounds of the NCAA tournament, meaning we'd be facing a national seed on the road just to make it to the team tournament. 

[ColoradoTree]

A terrific weekend from the men's team at the ITA Indoor Nationals (beating #12 Baylor and #4 Georgia before falling 4-3 to #1 Wake Forest) means they are now the #2 team in the country as of today's most recent rankings. 

By contrast, the women's team's struggles without Melissa Lord at the top of the lineup continued, losing 4-2 to Texas.  Now, Texas is a top 10 team, and we played them in Austin, so there's no shame in the result, but when we're supposed to be the #1 team in the country, we shouldn't get rolled by Texas.  Interestingly, Lampl and Arbuthnott were flipped, with Lampl playing Anna Turati very close (losing 7-5, 7-5).  But Emma Higuchi got stomped, which is something I am very much not used to seeing. The cost of the team looking unimpressive while losing?  This team, which was ranked #1 just a couple of weeks ago, and #6 last week, is now #36 in the country.  (Much of this is that we are now into the first algorithm-based rankings of the year--the committee wouldn't have us that low--and when you don't play an impressive schedule and you lose badly to the only two good teams you do face, the computer tends to think you're not very good.)

A note of caution.  The women's team is better than this.  There was always going to be a drop in the rankings.  That was inevitable, due to the weakness of our schedule compared to everyone else's, and we'll have chances to improve our ranking going forward.  But it means that unless Lord comes back healthy soon, we might not improve our ranking enough to host the first couple of rounds of the NCAA tournament, meaning we'd be facing a national seed on the road just to make it to the team tournament. 

[BobK]

Thanks for the report and the info on the possible seedlings. 

Starting this weekend we play Florida, Pepperdine, ucla and usc all at home.  We hope with Lord

[BobK]

Thanks for the report and the info on the possible seedlings. 

Starting this weekend we play Florida, Pepperdine, ucla and usc all at home.  We hope with Lord

[2006alum]

It's crazy how much of a difference the absence of one player can make in collegiate tennis, given its pairing system. I'm kind of surprised they don't do something more like women's golf, where the strategies are in part about the pairings. Is it the case that tennis players are more clearly better or worse than in golf, so it wouldn't be plausible to do this? Or just norms against it? Or something about actually playing against another player as opposed to hitting shots side by side against the course?

I'm not very familiar with either our current women's team or collegiate tennis more generally, but from ColoradoTree's super helpful and thorough explanations of our recent matches, it almost sounds like we'd be better off forfeiting at the 1 and playing our usual 2-5 lineup than shifting everybody up one spot? Is that right? It just seems silly because it turns what could be hard-fought contests for 6 of the 7 points into near blowouts all down the lineup, and that's merely a function of who gets positioned where.

[2006alum]

It's crazy how much of a difference the absence of one player can make in collegiate tennis, given its pairing system. I'm kind of surprised they don't do something more like women's golf, where the strategies are in part about the pairings. Is it the case that tennis players are more clearly better or worse than in golf, so it wouldn't be plausible to do this? Or just norms against it? Or something about actually playing against another player as opposed to hitting shots side by side against the course?

I'm not very familiar with either our current women's team or collegiate tennis more generally, but from ColoradoTree's super helpful and thorough explanations of our recent matches, it almost sounds like we'd be better off forfeiting at the 1 and playing our usual 2-5 lineup than shifting everybody up one spot? Is that right? It just seems silly because it turns what could be hard-fought contests for 6 of the 7 points into near blowouts all down the lineup, and that's merely a function of who gets positioned where.

[oldalum]

it almost sounds like we'd be better off forfeiting at the 1 and playing our usual 2-5 lineup than shifting everybody up one spot? Is that right?

That's right but not allowed to do that. Can't put our #7 player in at #1 singles either. The problem with the gamesmanship is that both teams could do it, not just us. Not sure if it is a rule or a custom, anyone know? Not sure why golf and tennis are different in this respect.

Our problem when Lord gets back in the lineup is that she's missed practice time and matches, so won't be at the level she would have been if not injured. No way around that, but Lele may have some discretion on where in the lineup she plays.

[oldalum]

it almost sounds like we'd be better off forfeiting at the 1 and playing our usual 2-5 lineup than shifting everybody up one spot? Is that right?

That's right but not allowed to do that. Can't put our #7 player in at #1 singles either. The problem with the gamesmanship is that both teams could do it, not just us. Not sure if it is a rule or a custom, anyone know? Not sure why golf and tennis are different in this respect.

Our problem when Lord gets back in the lineup is that she's missed practice time and matches, so won't be at the level she would have been if not injured. No way around that, but Lele may have some discretion on where in the lineup she plays.

[oldalum]

This team, which was ranked #1 just a couple of weeks ago, and #6 last week, is now #36 in the country.

Pepperdine is #2 and UCLA #9; both participated in the National Team Indoors tournament and we didn't so they were able to gain good rankings points.

Florida (who we host this Saturday) does not even appear to be ranked in the top 50! (went 1-2 at the National Team Indoors, beating only unranked Wisconsin, and lost two other matches as well)

[oldalum]

This team, which was ranked #1 just a couple of weeks ago, and #6 last week, is now #36 in the country.

Pepperdine is #2 and UCLA #9; both participated in the National Team Indoors tournament and we didn't so they were able to gain good rankings points.

Florida (who we host this Saturday) does not even appear to be ranked in the top 50! (went 1-2 at the National Team Indoors, beating only unranked Wisconsin, and lost two other matches as well)

[ColoradoTree]

It's crazy how much of a difference the absence of one player can make in collegiate tennis, given its pairing system. I'm kind of surprised they don't do something more like women's golf, where the strategies are in part about the pairings. Is it the case that tennis players are more clearly better or worse than in golf, so it wouldn't be plausible to do this? Or just norms against it? Or something about actually playing against another player as opposed to hitting shots side by side against the course?

I'm not very familiar with either our current women's team or collegiate tennis more generally, but from ColoradoTree's super helpful and thorough explanations of our recent matches, it almost sounds like we'd be better off forfeiting at the 1 and playing our usual 2-5 lineup than shifting everybody up one spot? Is that right? It just seems silly because it turns what could be hard-fought contests for 6 of the 7 points into near blowouts all down the lineup, and that's merely a function of who gets positioned where.

Right, the women's team would very much be better off if they could simply forfeit #1 singles and play in their normal singles positions otherwise.  The problem is that both norms and rules by the governing body state you can't do that.  If you only bring five players to a match, it's the #6 singles slot that gets forfeited, not whichever one the missing/sick/injured player normally occupies.  Both norms and rules dictate that you rank the players you have in order from best to worst and place them in the lineup accordingly.  If you put your worst player at #1 to get an advantage on the lower courts, that's called stacking, and you can get sanctioned for it.  (The rule merely formalizes a deeply-rooted norm, however.)

There are some exceptions (if players are at a similar level, you can swap them in the order, and that's fine; you get some latitude when players come back from an extended illness or injury).  But an injury to your #1 singles player is pretty devastating.

You can reasonably criticize the system, though. Certain players match up well or poorly against others, just like in other sports.  Perhaps Emma Higuchi is our 5th best singles player, but the #5 player from, say, Florida is just a matchup problem for her (Higuchi struggles more against bigger players, while she can play smaller players right off the court).  Higuchi might well beat the #3, #4, or #6 players, but she's stuck in that matchup.  Them's the breaks, though.

[ColoradoTree]

It's crazy how much of a difference the absence of one player can make in collegiate tennis, given its pairing system. I'm kind of surprised they don't do something more like women's golf, where the strategies are in part about the pairings. Is it the case that tennis players are more clearly better or worse than in golf, so it wouldn't be plausible to do this? Or just norms against it? Or something about actually playing against another player as opposed to hitting shots side by side against the course?

I'm not very familiar with either our current women's team or collegiate tennis more generally, but from ColoradoTree's super helpful and thorough explanations of our recent matches, it almost sounds like we'd be better off forfeiting at the 1 and playing our usual 2-5 lineup than shifting everybody up one spot? Is that right? It just seems silly because it turns what could be hard-fought contests for 6 of the 7 points into near blowouts all down the lineup, and that's merely a function of who gets positioned where.

Right, the women's team would very much be better off if they could simply forfeit #1 singles and play in their normal singles positions otherwise.  The problem is that both norms and rules by the governing body state you can't do that.  If you only bring five players to a match, it's the #6 singles slot that gets forfeited, not whichever one the missing/sick/injured player normally occupies.  Both norms and rules dictate that you rank the players you have in order from best to worst and place them in the lineup accordingly.  If you put your worst player at #1 to get an advantage on the lower courts, that's called stacking, and you can get sanctioned for it.  (The rule merely formalizes a deeply-rooted norm, however.)

There are some exceptions (if players are at a similar level, you can swap them in the order, and that's fine; you get some latitude when players come back from an extended illness or injury).  But an injury to your #1 singles player is pretty devastating.

You can reasonably criticize the system, though. Certain players match up well or poorly against others, just like in other sports.  Perhaps Emma Higuchi is our 5th best singles player, but the #5 player from, say, Florida is just a matchup problem for her (Higuchi struggles more against bigger players, while she can play smaller players right off the court).  Higuchi might well beat the #3, #4, or #6 players, but she's stuck in that matchup.  Them's the breaks, though.