02-12-2024, 03:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-12-2024, 03:45 PM by ColoradoTree.)
As for our matches, here are some takeaways:
* I continue to be confused by Blake at 1. She handled herself well against Florida, got absolutely crushed for our lone loss to Ohio State, and then she was holding her own against the #17 player in the country. But just nowhere near consistent enough to justify the top spot, though sometimes she shows flashes. And sometimes obviously more than flashes. But sometimes she absolutely looks the part and sometimes she gets run off the court.
* In all three matches, our usual script was flipped, as it was mostly the top of the lineup delivering big wins for us. Ma was 3-0 on Court 2 and what's more, she controlled each of those matches. Yepifanova was 3-0 on Court 3. And while Blake fell flat against Ohio State, she dominated against Florida and was outpunching her weight against Oklahoma State when the match was abandoned.
* Doubles wasn't the problem, as we won the doubles point twice.
* It was our back three courts that didn't deliver. On 4, Blokhina won a close match against Ohio State, but it shouldn't have been that close. And she lost to Oklahoma State and was losing to Florida when the match was abandoned. She wasn't good enough, and she wasn't playing to her usual level. On 5, Hui didn't book a win, splitting sets against Florida, nearly doing the same against Ohio State (she was down 6-3 in the second-set tiebreaker when the match was abandoned), and she lost a lopsided three-setter to Oklahoma State--while she did well to shake off a first-set bagel by winning the second 6-2, she wasn't competitive in the third. And for Xu at 6, I'd be looking over my shoulder if I were her. About to be forced into a third set against Florida and not very competitive against Oklahoma State. She was halfway to booking a win over Ohio State, up 3-0 in the third, but given her issues with finishing matches, there's no guarantee that ends up in our favor. Her spot in the lineup isn't exactly ironclad, so don't be surprised if we see Yu get some matches at 6. Might not be permanent, but perhaps Xu could use a temporary demotion to kick her game into gear.
* No shame at all in losing to Oklahoma State. That's an outstanding team, it's still early, and we're playing indoors, which is not our natural habitat. And I love what our top three courts showed in that match. Gutsy performances from each. And plenty of time for Blokhina to right the ship, Hui to better adjust to college tennis, and for Xu to either step up her game or get replaced by Yu.
I mean, my very first thought when I saw Blake at 1 in the first match of the year was "wait, are we stacking? Lele would never stack, would she?" But we've also seen plenty of flashes from Blake where she shows she belongs in that role. While she got wiped off the court by Texas A&M's Stoiana and Ohio State's Cantos Siemers (the #1 and #14 players, respectively), she's also beaten the #58 and #67 players, and she had a narrow lead over the #17 player in the third set yesterday. But she also was losing to her counterparts from Colorado and Maryland when both of those matches were abandoned, so the "she's not our #1" moments have outweighed the others.
And no idea as to Yepifanova's summer. I'm sure she stayed in plenty good shape and was ready for the fall. She would probably be doing just fine on Court 2, and that's where I think she belongs on this team.
But, uh, yeah. I don't think most objective observers of this team would agree that Blake is the best player on it. But she's also done enough to make it very difficult for another team to prove that we shouldn't be playing her at #1. And Lele probably has some internal challenge matches to point to in order to justify playing her there. I trust Lele above all else, so I am 100% sure that Lele believes that Blake has earned this opportunity at the #1 line. She's not doing this to try and sandbag opponents, because like I've said before, Blake was nearly automatic last year at #3, so it's not like playing Yepifanova there makes us more likely to pick up wins there.
(And sorry to TheFarm07 for not responding on a similar point earlier!)
Yeah, individual player rankings often don't totally align with where that player plays for their team, and it's hugely dependent on fall tournaments where you can get matches against other top-ranked teams, and some players tend to play better when a team result is on the line versus just playing for themselves. And sometimes players get hot and rattle off some wins but then come back to earth in dual season play.
But absolutely, the whole is not necessarily the sum of its parts, as much as it would make analyzing and predicting matches easier. It's part of why I like to look at preseason rankings and last season's rankings when I'm breaking down a team. A player might be ranked, say, #75 like Yepifanova, but she was the preseason #21 and finished last year ranked #28. She is way, way better than the #75 player in the country. But her results so far this season don't justify it, and college tennis rankings care about your resume in the end. All of those UNC players aren't going to be ranked at season's end, because they'll get displaced by folks who are regularly in their own teams' lineups and racking up wins. But some of those UNC players are in the rankings now because they had a good fall season, and the number of wins counted in the rankings is lower now than it will be by the end of the spring. End-of-season rankings tend to make a little more sense, but even then, it helps to have a sense of what that player has shown in the past. Maybe they've been hurt, maybe they've missed time due to playing some pro events--but their ranking doesn't necessarily equal their quality.
* I continue to be confused by Blake at 1. She handled herself well against Florida, got absolutely crushed for our lone loss to Ohio State, and then she was holding her own against the #17 player in the country. But just nowhere near consistent enough to justify the top spot, though sometimes she shows flashes. And sometimes obviously more than flashes. But sometimes she absolutely looks the part and sometimes she gets run off the court.
* In all three matches, our usual script was flipped, as it was mostly the top of the lineup delivering big wins for us. Ma was 3-0 on Court 2 and what's more, she controlled each of those matches. Yepifanova was 3-0 on Court 3. And while Blake fell flat against Ohio State, she dominated against Florida and was outpunching her weight against Oklahoma State when the match was abandoned.
* Doubles wasn't the problem, as we won the doubles point twice.
* It was our back three courts that didn't deliver. On 4, Blokhina won a close match against Ohio State, but it shouldn't have been that close. And she lost to Oklahoma State and was losing to Florida when the match was abandoned. She wasn't good enough, and she wasn't playing to her usual level. On 5, Hui didn't book a win, splitting sets against Florida, nearly doing the same against Ohio State (she was down 6-3 in the second-set tiebreaker when the match was abandoned), and she lost a lopsided three-setter to Oklahoma State--while she did well to shake off a first-set bagel by winning the second 6-2, she wasn't competitive in the third. And for Xu at 6, I'd be looking over my shoulder if I were her. About to be forced into a third set against Florida and not very competitive against Oklahoma State. She was halfway to booking a win over Ohio State, up 3-0 in the third, but given her issues with finishing matches, there's no guarantee that ends up in our favor. Her spot in the lineup isn't exactly ironclad, so don't be surprised if we see Yu get some matches at 6. Might not be permanent, but perhaps Xu could use a temporary demotion to kick her game into gear.
* No shame at all in losing to Oklahoma State. That's an outstanding team, it's still early, and we're playing indoors, which is not our natural habitat. And I love what our top three courts showed in that match. Gutsy performances from each. And plenty of time for Blokhina to right the ship, Hui to better adjust to college tennis, and for Xu to either step up her game or get replaced by Yu.
(02-10-2024, 04:20 PM)Sakibomb25 Wrote: Question for ColoradoTree (among many since other posters want your take on numerous things!): if Blake continues to struggle at the No. 1 spot and Ma and Yepifanova continue to thrive at the No. 2 and 3 spots… at what point do opponents accuse Stanford of fixing the line-up? It is kind of surprising based on previous results, but then again, I am not at practice so I don’t know how Blake is performing relative to Ma and Yepifanova.
Also, it looked like Yepifanova did an internship at Apple (from her IG account). Do you think that factored in at all in her ‘lack of improvement’?
I mean, my very first thought when I saw Blake at 1 in the first match of the year was "wait, are we stacking? Lele would never stack, would she?" But we've also seen plenty of flashes from Blake where she shows she belongs in that role. While she got wiped off the court by Texas A&M's Stoiana and Ohio State's Cantos Siemers (the #1 and #14 players, respectively), she's also beaten the #58 and #67 players, and she had a narrow lead over the #17 player in the third set yesterday. But she also was losing to her counterparts from Colorado and Maryland when both of those matches were abandoned, so the "she's not our #1" moments have outweighed the others.
And no idea as to Yepifanova's summer. I'm sure she stayed in plenty good shape and was ready for the fall. She would probably be doing just fine on Court 2, and that's where I think she belongs on this team.
But, uh, yeah. I don't think most objective observers of this team would agree that Blake is the best player on it. But she's also done enough to make it very difficult for another team to prove that we shouldn't be playing her at #1. And Lele probably has some internal challenge matches to point to in order to justify playing her there. I trust Lele above all else, so I am 100% sure that Lele believes that Blake has earned this opportunity at the #1 line. She's not doing this to try and sandbag opponents, because like I've said before, Blake was nearly automatic last year at #3, so it's not like playing Yepifanova there makes us more likely to pick up wins there.
(And sorry to TheFarm07 for not responding on a similar point earlier!)
(02-09-2024, 01:43 PM)GK3 Wrote:(02-09-2024, 01:13 PM)TheFarm07 Wrote: ColoradoTree, thanks as always for the recaps and analyses. Your updates are one of the things I look forward to the most when checking this forum.
I apologize if you covered this before, but if I remembered correctly, Ma and Yepifanova may have been ahead of Blake in the lineup order heading into this season? If so, are you surprised that it seems like Blake is in the top singles slot so far this season?
Question for Colorado
Based on the rankings posted for the top ten teams, we have only one player ranked above #50, other teams have more but are ranked below us. I suppose it must have to do with how good are players at 4,5 and 6 are, but the entire process seems out of whack.
Yeah, individual player rankings often don't totally align with where that player plays for their team, and it's hugely dependent on fall tournaments where you can get matches against other top-ranked teams, and some players tend to play better when a team result is on the line versus just playing for themselves. And sometimes players get hot and rattle off some wins but then come back to earth in dual season play.
But absolutely, the whole is not necessarily the sum of its parts, as much as it would make analyzing and predicting matches easier. It's part of why I like to look at preseason rankings and last season's rankings when I'm breaking down a team. A player might be ranked, say, #75 like Yepifanova, but she was the preseason #21 and finished last year ranked #28. She is way, way better than the #75 player in the country. But her results so far this season don't justify it, and college tennis rankings care about your resume in the end. All of those UNC players aren't going to be ranked at season's end, because they'll get displaced by folks who are regularly in their own teams' lineups and racking up wins. But some of those UNC players are in the rankings now because they had a good fall season, and the number of wins counted in the rankings is lower now than it will be by the end of the spring. End-of-season rankings tend to make a little more sense, but even then, it helps to have a sense of what that player has shown in the past. Maybe they've been hurt, maybe they've missed time due to playing some pro events--but their ranking doesn't necessarily equal their quality.