[ColoradoTree]

Hey all, the ITA preseason team rankings just dropped, and Stanford kicks off the year as the #4 team in the country, behind #1 UNC, #2 Texas A&M, and #3 Georgia. This is reasonable, because though I'd put us at likely #2 behind UNC, there's no question that the lineup at UNC is dominant and they're the big dog nationally, while we're part of a strong next tier that could pull it off depending on the day. Because that's who we are--absolutely good enough to win a national championship but not the clear favorite for it. 

The season gets started in just over a week as Stanford travels to San Diego for a pair of matches, one at USD and the other a neutral site match against #2 A&M. We don't usually have marquee matches like that right away, so that's an exciting change of pace!

Schedule Analysis:

On paper, the final Pac-12 women's tennis season has Stanford in front by a decent amount. At least by rankings, Stanford is the class of the group, but there's a very solid next tier of #16 UCLA, #18 Cal, #22 USC, #24 UW, and #25 ASU comprising a bunch of dangerous teams who can beat you on a given day even if they're unlikely to challenge for a national title. We get UCLA and USC at home and ASU, UW, and Cal on the road. 

In the non-conference, we have three matches of note: a neutral site matchup against #2 Texas A&M, a late February match at home against #7 Texas, and an early Friday home match against #8 Pepperdine. 

And assuming we handle CU and the Maryland/UNLV winner at Kick-Off Weekend at the end of this month, we'll have National Indoors from February 9-12 where we will add a few more good matches--and hopefully a few good wins--to the total. The schedule lines up well enough for us to have a decent chance at one of those top 8 Super Regional spots come the end of the year.

Roster Analysis:

We add two highly-touted freshmen to the roster in Katherine Hui and Eleana Yu--the #1 class in the country--and we otherwise return our top 5 singles players from last season's NCAA semifinal team, effectively losing only Sara Choy from the roster. So, we can use the way our lineup ended last year as a starting point for this year:

1. #49 Alexandra Yepifanova (Jr.)
2. #11 Connie Ma (Jr.)
3. #48 Angelica Blake (Gr.)
4. #64 Alexis Blokhina (So.)
5. #50 Valencia Xu (Jr.)

You can then add two of the top 5 ranked newcomers in #2 Hui and #4 Yu, and you also have our senior class of Ana Geller (who formerly played as high as #3 singles for us as a freshman before struggling with injuries and poor form) and India Houghton, another Blue Chip sophomore in Emma Sun, and the rare incoming grad transfer in Chidimma Okpara, who graduated from Dartmouth and played #1 singles there in both of her last two seasons. 

I remain of the view that when both are at their best, Ma is a better player than Yepifanova, but of course, it comes down to both being at their best. But in any event, those two are your top two, and Blake is your #3. Then it becomes a bit less clear, but I still think Blokhina is your #4. Then it's really 3 players--Xu, Yu, and Hui--for your 5 and 6 spots. Sun is plainly not on the level of the other players, Geller has never really found the form that made her a pretty dangerous player her freshman year, and Houghton has never lived up to her recruiting hype. Okpara is something of an unknown in terms of how her experience in the Dartmouth lineup translates to a much higher level here, but based on her fall results, I don't expect her to play very much.

For what it's worth, Stanford played a hidden dual/exhibition match against Hawaii back in November, and those results are shown on the Stanford statistics page. Blake didn't play, but otherwise the lineup was 1 - Ma, 2 - Yepifanova, 3 - Blokhina, 4 - Xu, 5 - Hui, and 6 - Yu. So, I'd assume that with Blake at 3, the tentative internal pecking order for that last group is Xu > Hui > Yu. 

Excited for the season!

[ColoradoTree]

Hey all, the ITA preseason team rankings just dropped, and Stanford kicks off the year as the #4 team in the country, behind #1 UNC, #2 Texas A&M, and #3 Georgia. This is reasonable, because though I'd put us at likely #2 behind UNC, there's no question that the lineup at UNC is dominant and they're the big dog nationally, while we're part of a strong next tier that could pull it off depending on the day. Because that's who we are--absolutely good enough to win a national championship but not the clear favorite for it. 

The season gets started in just over a week as Stanford travels to San Diego for a pair of matches, one at USD and the other a neutral site match against #2 A&M. We don't usually have marquee matches like that right away, so that's an exciting change of pace!

Schedule Analysis:

On paper, the final Pac-12 women's tennis season has Stanford in front by a decent amount. At least by rankings, Stanford is the class of the group, but there's a very solid next tier of #16 UCLA, #18 Cal, #22 USC, #24 UW, and #25 ASU comprising a bunch of dangerous teams who can beat you on a given day even if they're unlikely to challenge for a national title. We get UCLA and USC at home and ASU, UW, and Cal on the road. 

In the non-conference, we have three matches of note: a neutral site matchup against #2 Texas A&M, a late February match at home against #7 Texas, and an early Friday home match against #8 Pepperdine. 

And assuming we handle CU and the Maryland/UNLV winner at Kick-Off Weekend at the end of this month, we'll have National Indoors from February 9-12 where we will add a few more good matches--and hopefully a few good wins--to the total. The schedule lines up well enough for us to have a decent chance at one of those top 8 Super Regional spots come the end of the year.

Roster Analysis:

We add two highly-touted freshmen to the roster in Katherine Hui and Eleana Yu--the #1 class in the country--and we otherwise return our top 5 singles players from last season's NCAA semifinal team, effectively losing only Sara Choy from the roster. So, we can use the way our lineup ended last year as a starting point for this year:

1. #49 Alexandra Yepifanova (Jr.)
2. #11 Connie Ma (Jr.)
3. #48 Angelica Blake (Gr.)
4. #64 Alexis Blokhina (So.)
5. #50 Valencia Xu (Jr.)

You can then add two of the top 5 ranked newcomers in #2 Hui and #4 Yu, and you also have our senior class of Ana Geller (who formerly played as high as #3 singles for us as a freshman before struggling with injuries and poor form) and India Houghton, another Blue Chip sophomore in Emma Sun, and the rare incoming grad transfer in Chidimma Okpara, who graduated from Dartmouth and played #1 singles there in both of her last two seasons. 

I remain of the view that when both are at their best, Ma is a better player than Yepifanova, but of course, it comes down to both being at their best. But in any event, those two are your top two, and Blake is your #3. Then it becomes a bit less clear, but I still think Blokhina is your #4. Then it's really 3 players--Xu, Yu, and Hui--for your 5 and 6 spots. Sun is plainly not on the level of the other players, Geller has never really found the form that made her a pretty dangerous player her freshman year, and Houghton has never lived up to her recruiting hype. Okpara is something of an unknown in terms of how her experience in the Dartmouth lineup translates to a much higher level here, but based on her fall results, I don't expect her to play very much.

For what it's worth, Stanford played a hidden dual/exhibition match against Hawaii back in November, and those results are shown on the Stanford statistics page. Blake didn't play, but otherwise the lineup was 1 - Ma, 2 - Yepifanova, 3 - Blokhina, 4 - Xu, 5 - Hui, and 6 - Yu. So, I'd assume that with Blake at 3, the tentative internal pecking order for that last group is Xu > Hui > Yu. 

Excited for the season!

[TheFarm07]

Thanks ColoradoTree for your ongoing detailed analyses!

If we are to challenge for a natty, what will be critical to making that title run? Is it improved doubles play, to get the important first point? Is it more wins for Ma and Yepifanova at the top of the lineup against the other elite players in the country? Or is it just sweeping the lower half of the singles matches with our depth? Or a combination of everything?

[TheFarm07]

Thanks ColoradoTree for your ongoing detailed analyses!

If we are to challenge for a natty, what will be critical to making that title run? Is it improved doubles play, to get the important first point? Is it more wins for Ma and Yepifanova at the top of the lineup against the other elite players in the country? Or is it just sweeping the lower half of the singles matches with our depth? Or a combination of everything?

[BobK]

Thanks Colorado Tree. I was posting for you to come back. For the other two I thought walk ons as no ranking in the top 100.
New poll Stanford ranked #4

[BobK]

Thanks Colorado Tree. I was posting for you to come back. For the other two I thought walk ons as no ranking in the top 100.
New poll Stanford ranked #4

[Lorcan]

In alumni news, Carol Zhao defeated Valeria Savinykh to advance to the second round of qualifying at the Australian Open - we'll see if she can keep going. 

In unrelated Pac-12 news, Stacy Fung, formerly of Washington, bowed out 6-1 6-4 to Riera of Argentina.

[Lorcan]

In alumni news, Carol Zhao defeated Valeria Savinykh to advance to the second round of qualifying at the Australian Open - we'll see if she can keep going. 

In unrelated Pac-12 news, Stacy Fung, formerly of Washington, bowed out 6-1 6-4 to Riera of Argentina.

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks ColoradoTree for your ongoing detailed analyses!

If we are to challenge for a natty, what will be critical to making that title run? Is it improved doubles play, to get the important first point? Is it more wins for Ma and Yepifanova at the top of the lineup against the other elite players in the country? Or is it just sweeping the lower half of the singles matches with our depth? Or a combination of everything?

I'm sorry to give a boring, "it depends" response, but, well, it depends. There's no one single recipe when it comes to winning the really difficult matches against the other top teams, so we'll have to be able to adapt and adjust and do different things on any given day. 

I took a spin through the closer matches from last season (any match where we won or lost by a 4-2, 5-3, or 4-3 score) plus the NCAA second round, Super Regional, and Quarterfinal wins in an effort to answer the question of "what went right for us in close matches and what didn't go right." So, out of the 11 matches that fit that bill, here's how we did:

Doubles

We went 6-5 in these matches, so certainly some room for improvement. But within the doubles lineup, we can see where the improvement mainly needs to come from. On Court 1, Blake/Blokhina went 9-2, so hard to do much better than that. But the other matchups weren't always consistent, and the performance wasn't consistent, either. Yepifanova was at 2 in all of these matches, and Ma was at 3, but their partners (Choy and Xu) swapped partway through. But in any event, we went 4-7 on Court 2 and 7-4 on Court 3, so while we can do better on both of those courts, it's really doing better on Court 2 that should swing some overall matches.

Singles

Ma: 6-3 (1 game away from a win in 1 DNF)
Yepifanova: 7-2 (1 game away from a win in 1 DNF)
Blake: 9-2 (both losses were on Court 1)
Blokhina: 5-4
Xu: 5-5 (1 game away from a win in 1 DNF)
Choy: 6-2 (1 game away from a win in 1 DNF)

So, looking at that, it's really the back courts, especially 4 and 5, that need to pick up their game and get us better results. We're doing just fine on 6, Blake was on lockdown on Court 3, and Ma and Yepifanova really did as well as can be expected at the top two courts (though certainly you'd like to see more from them). It's the lack of consistency from Blokhina and Xu that will hopefully improve this year.

Even looking at the 4-0 NCAA seminal loss to NC State, there are signs of what would help. We lost the doubles point behind 6-3 and 6-2 losses at the 1 and 3 courts, but we got a 6-3 win on Court 2. In singles, Yepifanova got absolutely crushed by Shnaider at #1, but Choy lost a competitive match (6-3, 7-6) on Court 6, and Ma lost another really tight match on 2 (7-5, 7-5). Blake and Xu were both starting third sets, and Blokhina was one game away from a win on 4. It's the little things sometimes, and sometimes 4-0 doesn't really tell the story of how close a match was. Not hard to imagine, say, Choy winning that second set tiebreaker instead of losing it, and then Ma taking a little bit of momentum from it to take her second set rather than losing it narrowly, and then Blokhina closes out her match, and all of a sudden, we're down 2-1 with the four remaining matches all in third sets.

One last thing: we won several matches by 4-1 or 6-1 scorelines that I would have expected would be sweeps, so I also looked at the nine matches where we won but dropped a match on the way to winning. In those matches, Ma was the sole loser 3 times, Blokhina twice, and then one each for Choy, Xu, Sun, or Yepifanova. So, if you put that against the close matches up above, it does tell a bit more of a story about Ma's performance that needs to improve. So, we need better from Ma, Blokhina, and Xu in singles--and from Yepifanova and her partner in doubles--if we want to make a legitimate run at the title.

[ColoradoTree]

Thanks ColoradoTree for your ongoing detailed analyses!

If we are to challenge for a natty, what will be critical to making that title run? Is it improved doubles play, to get the important first point? Is it more wins for Ma and Yepifanova at the top of the lineup against the other elite players in the country? Or is it just sweeping the lower half of the singles matches with our depth? Or a combination of everything?

I'm sorry to give a boring, "it depends" response, but, well, it depends. There's no one single recipe when it comes to winning the really difficult matches against the other top teams, so we'll have to be able to adapt and adjust and do different things on any given day. 

I took a spin through the closer matches from last season (any match where we won or lost by a 4-2, 5-3, or 4-3 score) plus the NCAA second round, Super Regional, and Quarterfinal wins in an effort to answer the question of "what went right for us in close matches and what didn't go right." So, out of the 11 matches that fit that bill, here's how we did:

Doubles

We went 6-5 in these matches, so certainly some room for improvement. But within the doubles lineup, we can see where the improvement mainly needs to come from. On Court 1, Blake/Blokhina went 9-2, so hard to do much better than that. But the other matchups weren't always consistent, and the performance wasn't consistent, either. Yepifanova was at 2 in all of these matches, and Ma was at 3, but their partners (Choy and Xu) swapped partway through. But in any event, we went 4-7 on Court 2 and 7-4 on Court 3, so while we can do better on both of those courts, it's really doing better on Court 2 that should swing some overall matches.

Singles

Ma: 6-3 (1 game away from a win in 1 DNF)
Yepifanova: 7-2 (1 game away from a win in 1 DNF)
Blake: 9-2 (both losses were on Court 1)
Blokhina: 5-4
Xu: 5-5 (1 game away from a win in 1 DNF)
Choy: 6-2 (1 game away from a win in 1 DNF)

So, looking at that, it's really the back courts, especially 4 and 5, that need to pick up their game and get us better results. We're doing just fine on 6, Blake was on lockdown on Court 3, and Ma and Yepifanova really did as well as can be expected at the top two courts (though certainly you'd like to see more from them). It's the lack of consistency from Blokhina and Xu that will hopefully improve this year.

Even looking at the 4-0 NCAA seminal loss to NC State, there are signs of what would help. We lost the doubles point behind 6-3 and 6-2 losses at the 1 and 3 courts, but we got a 6-3 win on Court 2. In singles, Yepifanova got absolutely crushed by Shnaider at #1, but Choy lost a competitive match (6-3, 7-6) on Court 6, and Ma lost another really tight match on 2 (7-5, 7-5). Blake and Xu were both starting third sets, and Blokhina was one game away from a win on 4. It's the little things sometimes, and sometimes 4-0 doesn't really tell the story of how close a match was. Not hard to imagine, say, Choy winning that second set tiebreaker instead of losing it, and then Ma taking a little bit of momentum from it to take her second set rather than losing it narrowly, and then Blokhina closes out her match, and all of a sudden, we're down 2-1 with the four remaining matches all in third sets.

One last thing: we won several matches by 4-1 or 6-1 scorelines that I would have expected would be sweeps, so I also looked at the nine matches where we won but dropped a match on the way to winning. In those matches, Ma was the sole loser 3 times, Blokhina twice, and then one each for Choy, Xu, Sun, or Yepifanova. So, if you put that against the close matches up above, it does tell a bit more of a story about Ma's performance that needs to improve. So, we need better from Ma, Blokhina, and Xu in singles--and from Yepifanova and her partner in doubles--if we want to make a legitimate run at the title.

[TheFarm07]

Thanks! No worries on the "it depends" general answer, as sometimes it does really depends.

Appreciate your effort in providing more details as well.

You mentioned Courts #4 and 5 could use an improvement; to integrate your previous reply, perhaps the additions of Hui, Yu and maybe Okpara (if she can crack the lineup) this year, can turn those .500 or near .500 records to something better?

[TheFarm07]

Thanks! No worries on the "it depends" general answer, as sometimes it does really depends.

Appreciate your effort in providing more details as well.

You mentioned Courts #4 and 5 could use an improvement; to integrate your previous reply, perhaps the additions of Hui, Yu and maybe Okpara (if she can crack the lineup) this year, can turn those .500 or near .500 records to something better?

[Lorcan]

Stanford takes the doubles point by winning #2 and #3, but Blake and Blokhina were down 5-2 on court #1 when the point was clinched. 

There's seven people playing on the streams and no live scores, so I'm not sure what order everyone is playing in as the courts don't seem to line up to a logical order as Connie Ma is playing on 5, with Houghton playing on court 4. We'll have to see when someone posts something on twitter for the actual lineup.

[Lorcan]

Stanford takes the doubles point by winning #2 and #3, but Blake and Blokhina were down 5-2 on court #1 when the point was clinched. 

There's seven people playing on the streams and no live scores, so I'm not sure what order everyone is playing in as the courts don't seem to line up to a logical order as Connie Ma is playing on 5, with Houghton playing on court 4. We'll have to see when someone posts something on twitter for the actual lineup.

[Spiny_Norman]

I am seeing match scores on the live stream.

If they are accurate, the current status is:

Blake leads 5-3
Yepifanova leads 6-4
Hui trails 4-5
Ma leads 6-1
Blokhina leads 6-1, 0-1
Xu leads 4-3

I think that Houghton may be playing a non-scoring match. No score listed on that stream.

[Spiny_Norman]

I am seeing match scores on the live stream.

If they are accurate, the current status is:

Blake leads 5-3
Yepifanova leads 6-4
Hui trails 4-5
Ma leads 6-1
Blokhina leads 6-1, 0-1
Xu leads 4-3

I think that Houghton may be playing a non-scoring match. No score listed on that stream.

[Softball Fan]

Ma up 4-1 in second set.  Blokhina down 2-3 in second set.  Opponent is Unversity of San Diego.  Weather is sunny with no wind; nice day for tennis.

[Softball Fan]

Ma up 4-1 in second set.  Blokhina down 2-3 in second set.  Opponent is Unversity of San Diego.  Weather is sunny with no wind; nice day for tennis.

[Lorcan]

Ma wins 6-1 6-2, 2-0 Stanford.

---

Stanford 3, USD 0

1: Blake 5-7 2-2
2: Yepifanova 6-4 6-4 
3: Ma 6-1 6-2
4: Blokhina 6-1 4-5 
5: Hui 6-7 2-1
6: Xu 6-4 3-2

So, work left to do. We need one more court, and some dicey matches going on. Hopefully, Xu will pull through.

[Lorcan]

Ma wins 6-1 6-2, 2-0 Stanford.

---

Stanford 3, USD 0

1: Blake 5-7 2-2
2: Yepifanova 6-4 6-4 
3: Ma 6-1 6-2
4: Blokhina 6-1 4-5 
5: Hui 6-7 2-1
6: Xu 6-4 3-2

So, work left to do. We need one more court, and some dicey matches going on. Hopefully, Xu will pull through.

[magnus]

For those that were also caught in the suspense,  Stanford swept.  (Though the matches were played out so it ended up being 5-2)

From Twitter/X, looks like Blake played 1.

#48 Blake 5-7, 6-3
#11 Ma 6-1, 6-2
#49 Yepifanova 6-4, 6-4
#64 Blokhina 6-1, 7-5
Hui 6-7, 6-2
#50 Xu 6-4, 4-6

[magnus]

For those that were also caught in the suspense,  Stanford swept.  (Though the matches were played out so it ended up being 5-2)

From Twitter/X, looks like Blake played 1.

#48 Blake 5-7, 6-3
#11 Ma 6-1, 6-2
#49 Yepifanova 6-4, 6-4
#64 Blokhina 6-1, 7-5
Hui 6-7, 6-2
#50 Xu 6-4, 4-6

[BobK]

It’s very early but just now Stanford beat # 2 Texas A&M. 4-3

[BobK]

It’s very early but just now Stanford beat # 2 Texas A&M. 4-3

[Spiny_Norman]

Stanford with a very big 4-3 victory today over #2 Texas A&M.

Stanford won at 2 and 3 doubles to go up 1-0.

Blokhina and Hui won at 4 and 5. Blake got rolled at 1 by the #1 ranked singles player in the country. Stanford led 3-1. Ma, Yepifanova and Xu had each lost the first set in their match but won the 2nd set. Ma fell 6-2 in the 3rd. Yepifanova was up a break at 4-2, but lost in a tie-breaker 7-6. It was all up to Xu. She took control and kept it, winning 6-1!

[Spiny_Norman]

Stanford with a very big 4-3 victory today over #2 Texas A&M.

Stanford won at 2 and 3 doubles to go up 1-0.

Blokhina and Hui won at 4 and 5. Blake got rolled at 1 by the #1 ranked singles player in the country. Stanford led 3-1. Ma, Yepifanova and Xu had each lost the first set in their match but won the 2nd set. Ma fell 6-2 in the 3rd. Yepifanova was up a break at 4-2, but lost in a tie-breaker 7-6. It was all up to Xu. She took control and kept it, winning 6-1!

[TheFarm07]

Nice! Hoping to hear ColoradoTree's thoughts, including on how/why Blake leapfrogged both Ma and Yepifanova to the top spot.

[TheFarm07]

Nice! Hoping to hear ColoradoTree's thoughts, including on how/why Blake leapfrogged both Ma and Yepifanova to the top spot.

[M T]

It’s very early but just now Stanford beat # 2 Texas A&M. 4-3

Great!

[M T]

It’s very early but just now Stanford beat # 2 Texas A&M. 4-3

Great!

[BobK]

Stanford is now ranked # 2

[BobK]

Stanford is now ranked # 2

[ColoradoTree]

OK folks, quick recap on the weekend, which saw Stanford win a surprisingly close 5-2 match over a good San Diego team and an unsurprisingly close 4-3 squeaker over then-#2 Texas A&M, which saw us climb to the #2 spot in the country. In no particular order:

1. It really does depend, doesn't it? Against San Diego in singles, we quickly clinched the match behind straight-sets wins from Ma, Yepifanova, and Blokhina on Courts 2, 3, and 4. But then, with the match decided, we saw three matches go to 10-point match tiebreakers to decide those matches, and while Blake won hers on Court 1, Hui and Xu dropped theirs on Courts 5 and 6, respectively, so it was our top 4 courts booking wins. (FWIW, I've always hated giving someone credit for a win or a loss based on a 10-point tiebreaker. Either play the match out fully or abandon it when the match is clinched, but don't do this. I take these kinds of results with a brobdingnagian grain of salt, but more to the point, Hui and Xu didn't play well enough to beat overmatched opponents in straight sets.) 

2. Meanwhile, against A&M, our top 3 courts fell short (and Blake in particular didn't play in a way that warranted the spot) while we only got the win because the back courts pulled out the win for us, with Xu bringing it home with a dominant 6-1 third set. 

3. Better doubles play. We won the doubles point in both matches, and it was the difference in coming away with a win against A&M. But there, too, it was a different story from last year, but basically the same story in both matches. Against both USD and A&M, Blake/Blokhina struggled on Court 1 and it was Ma/Yepifanova on 2 and Xu/Hui on 3 that took care of business to get us the all-important doubles point. More consistent doubles play from Courts 2 and 3 was one of those things we really wanted to see coming into the season, and we got it in both of these matches. Not worried about Blake/Blokhina--they're good, and they'll figure it out. 

4. Wait, Blake on 1? I mean, you can make a case on paper for it, and maybe that's good enough to convince coaches you weren't stacking your lineup to try and eke out a win. And maybe Blake has been playing better in practice than Ma or Yepifanova. But I don't think she is better. Really curious to see how that plays out the rest of the season. And it's not like doing this really makes you that much more likely to win at the 2 and 3 lines, because Blake was dominant at 3 last year. So, stacking isn't a good explanation for it. I have no inside information here, so it could be a way of recognizing Blake's career, and if that's the case, we should expect to see a gradual return to our normal lineup over the next couple of matches, given the one-line rule (you're only supposed to move healthy players one singles line per dual match). But if it really is because Lele thinks Blake has earned it due to her current form, then we'll see her there for a while, though her result against A&M will make it harder to keep her there. 

5. What a match against the Aggies! We win a tight doubles point (exchanging lopsided results on 1 and 3 but then Ma/Yepifanova eking out a 7-5 win for the point), and then after Blake gets run off the court to tie the match up at 1-1, we get to a 3-1 lead behind straight-set wins from Blokhina and Hui, leaving three matches on court, with all three going to third sets and us just needing one to take the match. We don't get it from Court 2, with Connie Ma losing rather handily in the third. We don't get it from Yepifanova on 3, who was up a break in the third but couldn't close it out and lost it in a tiebreaker, allowing A&M to tie up the match at 3-3. But then Xu took control on Court 6. 

6. Lineup questions: so, it ends up being Hui and not Yu who cracks the lineup, and she vaults Valencia Xu, pushing Xu down to Court 6. Xu should be dominant there, but as we saw against USD, perhaps that's not the case. Could be a motivation question or something physical, but here's hoping she embraces the role and mops up down there to make the case to be moved higher. But in any event, with two matches under our belt, we've seen the same lineup, and it doesn't involve Yu, Houghton, or Geller. 

7. Lineup experimentation: the mid-week match against UC Davis gives us a good opportunity to try and do some lineup experimentation, to perhaps give someone with some soreness a rest or to shuffle our lineup to something closer to what Lele thinks is our true top 6 in order. And frankly, we shouldn't really be tested by either CU or the Maryland/UNLV winner at ITA Kickoff Weekend at the end of the month, so those are more early-season opportunities to spread around. But National Indoors is right after that, so we'll want to have our top 6 locked into place by then. 

8. I've talked a lot over the years about strength of schedule, and that win over A&M is going to help buoy our ranking all season long. We have several very good, dangerous teams on our schedule (like UCLA, USC, UW, and ASU), but not very many elite teams, and it's those elite wins that count the most in the rankings formula. Hard to overstate just how big this win was. 

9. Yes, the top 3 courts lost against A&M, but both Ma and Yepifanova were in third sets, and Yepifanova's was a coin flip of a match. So, we can't yet draw too many conclusions about what needs to go better for us to have a NCAA run in us. 

10. If USD had been a conference match, it probably would've been abandoned with us clinching at 4-0, and a 4-0 win always looks and feels a little better than 5-2. (Another reason why you can't put too much stock in scorelines, as they don't always indicate the closeness of the match.) 

11. With USD also knocking off A&M--and by a 5-2 scoreline!--our win over USD is likely going to look even better as the season goes on. Expect the Toreros to climb the rankings, as they join them this week as the #22 team.

[ColoradoTree]

OK folks, quick recap on the weekend, which saw Stanford win a surprisingly close 5-2 match over a good San Diego team and an unsurprisingly close 4-3 squeaker over then-#2 Texas A&M, which saw us climb to the #2 spot in the country. In no particular order:

1. It really does depend, doesn't it? Against San Diego in singles, we quickly clinched the match behind straight-sets wins from Ma, Yepifanova, and Blokhina on Courts 2, 3, and 4. But then, with the match decided, we saw three matches go to 10-point match tiebreakers to decide those matches, and while Blake won hers on Court 1, Hui and Xu dropped theirs on Courts 5 and 6, respectively, so it was our top 4 courts booking wins. (FWIW, I've always hated giving someone credit for a win or a loss based on a 10-point tiebreaker. Either play the match out fully or abandon it when the match is clinched, but don't do this. I take these kinds of results with a brobdingnagian grain of salt, but more to the point, Hui and Xu didn't play well enough to beat overmatched opponents in straight sets.) 

2. Meanwhile, against A&M, our top 3 courts fell short (and Blake in particular didn't play in a way that warranted the spot) while we only got the win because the back courts pulled out the win for us, with Xu bringing it home with a dominant 6-1 third set. 

3. Better doubles play. We won the doubles point in both matches, and it was the difference in coming away with a win against A&M. But there, too, it was a different story from last year, but basically the same story in both matches. Against both USD and A&M, Blake/Blokhina struggled on Court 1 and it was Ma/Yepifanova on 2 and Xu/Hui on 3 that took care of business to get us the all-important doubles point. More consistent doubles play from Courts 2 and 3 was one of those things we really wanted to see coming into the season, and we got it in both of these matches. Not worried about Blake/Blokhina--they're good, and they'll figure it out. 

4. Wait, Blake on 1? I mean, you can make a case on paper for it, and maybe that's good enough to convince coaches you weren't stacking your lineup to try and eke out a win. And maybe Blake has been playing better in practice than Ma or Yepifanova. But I don't think she is better. Really curious to see how that plays out the rest of the season. And it's not like doing this really makes you that much more likely to win at the 2 and 3 lines, because Blake was dominant at 3 last year. So, stacking isn't a good explanation for it. I have no inside information here, so it could be a way of recognizing Blake's career, and if that's the case, we should expect to see a gradual return to our normal lineup over the next couple of matches, given the one-line rule (you're only supposed to move healthy players one singles line per dual match). But if it really is because Lele thinks Blake has earned it due to her current form, then we'll see her there for a while, though her result against A&M will make it harder to keep her there. 

5. What a match against the Aggies! We win a tight doubles point (exchanging lopsided results on 1 and 3 but then Ma/Yepifanova eking out a 7-5 win for the point), and then after Blake gets run off the court to tie the match up at 1-1, we get to a 3-1 lead behind straight-set wins from Blokhina and Hui, leaving three matches on court, with all three going to third sets and us just needing one to take the match. We don't get it from Court 2, with Connie Ma losing rather handily in the third. We don't get it from Yepifanova on 3, who was up a break in the third but couldn't close it out and lost it in a tiebreaker, allowing A&M to tie up the match at 3-3. But then Xu took control on Court 6. 

6. Lineup questions: so, it ends up being Hui and not Yu who cracks the lineup, and she vaults Valencia Xu, pushing Xu down to Court 6. Xu should be dominant there, but as we saw against USD, perhaps that's not the case. Could be a motivation question or something physical, but here's hoping she embraces the role and mops up down there to make the case to be moved higher. But in any event, with two matches under our belt, we've seen the same lineup, and it doesn't involve Yu, Houghton, or Geller. 

7. Lineup experimentation: the mid-week match against UC Davis gives us a good opportunity to try and do some lineup experimentation, to perhaps give someone with some soreness a rest or to shuffle our lineup to something closer to what Lele thinks is our true top 6 in order. And frankly, we shouldn't really be tested by either CU or the Maryland/UNLV winner at ITA Kickoff Weekend at the end of the month, so those are more early-season opportunities to spread around. But National Indoors is right after that, so we'll want to have our top 6 locked into place by then. 

8. I've talked a lot over the years about strength of schedule, and that win over A&M is going to help buoy our ranking all season long. We have several very good, dangerous teams on our schedule (like UCLA, USC, UW, and ASU), but not very many elite teams, and it's those elite wins that count the most in the rankings formula. Hard to overstate just how big this win was. 

9. Yes, the top 3 courts lost against A&M, but both Ma and Yepifanova were in third sets, and Yepifanova's was a coin flip of a match. So, we can't yet draw too many conclusions about what needs to go better for us to have a NCAA run in us. 

10. If USD had been a conference match, it probably would've been abandoned with us clinching at 4-0, and a 4-0 win always looks and feels a little better than 5-2. (Another reason why you can't put too much stock in scorelines, as they don't always indicate the closeness of the match.) 

11. With USD also knocking off A&M--and by a 5-2 scoreline!--our win over USD is likely going to look even better as the season goes on. Expect the Toreros to climb the rankings, as they join them this week as the #22 team.

[ColoradoTree]

Going through the San Diego-A&M match from this weekend makes for an interesting comparison. 

* In doubles, USD won handily on Courts 2 and 3, while A&M's top team was leading when the match was clinched. 
* USD then quickly got to a 3-0 lead with easy wins from Mack over Khirin on Court 2 and Goldsmith over Mireles on Court 4. 
* BruuSyversen then clinched it in a lopsided three-setter (6-0 in the third) over Pittman on Court 6. 
* They played things out, and De Las Heras beat Khirin in 3 sets on Court 1 for USD's fifth point, while A&M got three-set wins from Perez at 3 and Smetannikov at 5 to get on the board. 
* Of note, A&M didn't play Mary Stoiana, ranked #1 in the country, in singles against USD, so everyone else slid up a line. Perhaps it was because she was sore in doubles and they didn't want to push it. But if it was an intentional omission because they wanted to give someone else a chance at the bottom of the lineup, it was an all-time backfire. Because Stoiana was healthy enough to play the following day against Stanford, when she smoked Blake 6-0, 6-3. USD isn't going to challenge for a national title, but they're a dangerous team, and they're too good to be fiddling around with your lineup. 
* A couple of quirky examples of how tennis can change depending on the day: (1) Blake beat USD's De Las Heras (albeit narrowly), who in turn beat #31 Khirin of A&M, who beat Ma in three sets. (2) Ma crushed #89 Mack of USD, who crushed #26 Kupres of A&M, who beat Yepifanova in a third-set tiebreaker. 

Anyway, A&M is probably fuming about how their season opener went, and they'll come back with a vengeance. That's a great, deep team. 

Meanwhile, Stanford has a home match today against UC Davis at 3:00pm. The Aggies are 0-2 after dropping road matches to ASU (where they lost a close doubles point but got crushed in singles, only being competitive on Court 5 with Olive Maunupau forcing a third set) and GCU (where doubles was again competitive but singles wasn't), both by 7-0 scores. This one really shouldn't be competitive, so perhaps we'll see some lineup adjustments.

[ColoradoTree]

Going through the San Diego-A&M match from this weekend makes for an interesting comparison. 

* In doubles, USD won handily on Courts 2 and 3, while A&M's top team was leading when the match was clinched. 
* USD then quickly got to a 3-0 lead with easy wins from Mack over Khirin on Court 2 and Goldsmith over Mireles on Court 4. 
* BruuSyversen then clinched it in a lopsided three-setter (6-0 in the third) over Pittman on Court 6. 
* They played things out, and De Las Heras beat Khirin in 3 sets on Court 1 for USD's fifth point, while A&M got three-set wins from Perez at 3 and Smetannikov at 5 to get on the board. 
* Of note, A&M didn't play Mary Stoiana, ranked #1 in the country, in singles against USD, so everyone else slid up a line. Perhaps it was because she was sore in doubles and they didn't want to push it. But if it was an intentional omission because they wanted to give someone else a chance at the bottom of the lineup, it was an all-time backfire. Because Stoiana was healthy enough to play the following day against Stanford, when she smoked Blake 6-0, 6-3. USD isn't going to challenge for a national title, but they're a dangerous team, and they're too good to be fiddling around with your lineup. 
* A couple of quirky examples of how tennis can change depending on the day: (1) Blake beat USD's De Las Heras (albeit narrowly), who in turn beat #31 Khirin of A&M, who beat Ma in three sets. (2) Ma crushed #89 Mack of USD, who crushed #26 Kupres of A&M, who beat Yepifanova in a third-set tiebreaker. 

Anyway, A&M is probably fuming about how their season opener went, and they'll come back with a vengeance. That's a great, deep team. 

Meanwhile, Stanford has a home match today against UC Davis at 3:00pm. The Aggies are 0-2 after dropping road matches to ASU (where they lost a close doubles point but got crushed in singles, only being competitive on Court 5 with Olive Maunupau forcing a third set) and GCU (where doubles was again competitive but singles wasn't), both by 7-0 scores. This one really shouldn't be competitive, so perhaps we'll see some lineup adjustments.

[Softball Fan]

UC Davis match has started.  The Stanford livestream is surprisingly good.  Video of each match with ways for viewer to manipulate video and also live score tabulation.

[Softball Fan]

UC Davis match has started.  The Stanford livestream is surprisingly good.  Video of each match with ways for viewer to manipulate video and also live score tabulation.

[ColoradoTree]

And unsurprisingly, we saw some lineup adjustments on the way to a 7-0 win. 

* The senior class cracked the lineup, with Houghton rolling easily at the #6 spot in singles and teaming up with Geller for a win on Court 3 of doubles. 
* Blake and Hui took the day off, and Yepifanova vaulted Ma to play 1, keeping Ma at 2, sliding Blokhina up to 3 and Xu to 4, Eleana Yu made her dual season debut at 5, and Houghton played 6. 
* So based on that, we can determine that after our top 3 in whatever order, the pecking order is basically Blokhina > Hui > Xu > Yu > Houghton, and presumably Geller after that, followed by Okpara and Sun. 
* With Blake and Hui out, Ma/Yepifanova slid up to the #1 doubles line, and Blokhina partnered with Xu on Court 2, leaving room for the senior duo on Court 3.
* Not much to say when Stanford dominates a team they're expected to dominate. But it can be hard to keep your foot on the gas against an overmatched opponent, and for the most part, we didn't do that. Ma, Yu, and Houghton only lost one game apiece, and Xu lost just two, while Yepifanova had a solid, but competitive, win, dropping six games in her two sets.
* But a win that dominant also makes it stand out where we struggled, and that leads us to Blokhina, who actually lost her second set (and by a lopsided 6-2 scoreline, too) before coming back and dominating the third set match tiebreaker, 10-3. Hard to know what was going on there without watching the match, but while it's not a great sign that she was pushed to a third by a lesser player, anytime you struggle and manage to come away with a win has some benefits. 
* Not sure what the thinking behind Yepifanova vaulting Ma is, but if you think Ma is better against Texas A&M, why change your mind against UC Davis? Maybe it's just a reminder that nobody's lineup position is sacred, or it could be a reaction to how Ma fell to pieces in her third set against A&M, while Yepifanova fought hard in hers. As I've said many times, I think Ma is the superior player, but it's not a brobdingnagian margin, and she's much more prone to mental lapses--sometimes she just droops and you can tell she's already beaten--than Yepifanova does. Long term, we're a better team if Ma is tough mentally and playing higher than Yepifanova. But sometimes that seems to be a big if.

[ColoradoTree]

And unsurprisingly, we saw some lineup adjustments on the way to a 7-0 win. 

* The senior class cracked the lineup, with Houghton rolling easily at the #6 spot in singles and teaming up with Geller for a win on Court 3 of doubles. 
* Blake and Hui took the day off, and Yepifanova vaulted Ma to play 1, keeping Ma at 2, sliding Blokhina up to 3 and Xu to 4, Eleana Yu made her dual season debut at 5, and Houghton played 6. 
* So based on that, we can determine that after our top 3 in whatever order, the pecking order is basically Blokhina > Hui > Xu > Yu > Houghton, and presumably Geller after that, followed by Okpara and Sun. 
* With Blake and Hui out, Ma/Yepifanova slid up to the #1 doubles line, and Blokhina partnered with Xu on Court 2, leaving room for the senior duo on Court 3.
* Not much to say when Stanford dominates a team they're expected to dominate. But it can be hard to keep your foot on the gas against an overmatched opponent, and for the most part, we didn't do that. Ma, Yu, and Houghton only lost one game apiece, and Xu lost just two, while Yepifanova had a solid, but competitive, win, dropping six games in her two sets.
* But a win that dominant also makes it stand out where we struggled, and that leads us to Blokhina, who actually lost her second set (and by a lopsided 6-2 scoreline, too) before coming back and dominating the third set match tiebreaker, 10-3. Hard to know what was going on there without watching the match, but while it's not a great sign that she was pushed to a third by a lesser player, anytime you struggle and manage to come away with a win has some benefits. 
* Not sure what the thinking behind Yepifanova vaulting Ma is, but if you think Ma is better against Texas A&M, why change your mind against UC Davis? Maybe it's just a reminder that nobody's lineup position is sacred, or it could be a reaction to how Ma fell to pieces in her third set against A&M, while Yepifanova fought hard in hers. As I've said many times, I think Ma is the superior player, but it's not a brobdingnagian margin, and she's much more prone to mental lapses--sometimes she just droops and you can tell she's already beaten--than Yepifanova does. Long term, we're a better team if Ma is tough mentally and playing higher than Yepifanova. But sometimes that seems to be a big if.