PDA

View Full Version : How good is Matt Seeberger??


HunterST
02-13-2010, 01:03 PM
Matt Seeberger is probably the most successful division III player of all time. His record was 102-6 overall. He won 3 National DIII singles titles and 3 doubles.

After seeing that, I figured he could potentially get an ATP rank in the top 1000 or so, but then I saw that he has been playing open events and although he has won some, there are guys that have beaten him.

This seems to kind of disprove the "Divisions don't matter in tennis" theory everyone postulates. If someone had that kind of success in D1 they would definitely be legit pros.

10isDad
02-13-2010, 04:09 PM
Seeberger is a still a very good player. He was good enough that he would have been a decent D-I player - probably not somebody who would have been in contention at year's end, but definitely good.

Saw him play an open event last year. He's a great mover, hits an extremely solid ball and is always looking to attack. The interesting this was he played with HUGE racquet (Gamma Big Bubba).

I've never seen this "divisions don't matter" that you're spouting. I've read (and totally agree) with people who have written there are D-II and D-III players and teams who can beat many D-I teams. That's not saying a top D-II or D-III player can beat one of the very best D-I players. That's saying there is plenty of talent in D-II or D-III; players that definitely good enough to play in D-I. Conversely, there are D-I players/teams that are significantly worse than many D-II/D-III players/teams.

ci2ca
02-14-2010, 09:26 AM
I thought matt seeberger played with the babolat pure drive.

Rob_C
02-14-2010, 11:48 AM
Matt Seeberger is probably the most successful division III player of all time. His record was 102-6 overall. He won 3 National DIII singles titles and 3 doubles.

After seeing that, I figured he could potentially get an ATP rank in the top 1000 or so, but then I saw that he has been playing open events and although he has won some, there are guys that have beaten him.

This seems to kind of disprove the "Divisions don't matter in tennis" theory everyone postulates. If someone had that kind of success in D1 they would definitely be legit pros.

Pros get beaten alot in local tourneys. Zach Fleishman lost to Adrian Bohane a couple of yrs ago, I think in Santa Barbara, Lester Cook, who's currently ranked in the 200s lost in the semis of Palm Springs last December. The guy he lost to has pts, but isnt ranked in the top 1000.

Actually, the whole time Cook has been pro, he's lost in SoCal Open tourneys a few times.

10isDad
02-14-2010, 04:38 PM
I thought matt seeberger played with the babolat pure drive.

In the local tournament he played with a Big Bubba. Even when he played college ball, his racquet was the oversize Pure Drive.

I've attached a picture from the tournament...

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k155/10isdad/Seeberger.jpg

TennisTaxi
02-15-2010, 02:05 PM
So, is it better to be a big fish in D3 or a little fish in D1?

10isDad
02-15-2010, 02:28 PM
So, is it better to be a big fish in D3 or a little fish in D1?

You think Seeberger would have been a little fish? I've seen him play. He's damn good. Good enough to win it all? Probably not. Good enough to have been a top 50-100 player in D-I? Heck yes.

He's one of the most aggressive college players I've seen. He moves extremely well. His transition game is extremely good, he's got decent volleys. His groundies are deep and penetrating. His serve could definitely be better. He had some problems keeping the ball in play (likely because of the huge yet light racquet).

blaby
02-15-2010, 03:10 PM
interseting, i used to take lessons from the guy
hes really nice and was using a leaded up pure drive
real good player

TennisTaxi
02-15-2010, 07:06 PM
You think Seeberger would have been a little fish? I've seen him play. He's damn good. Good enough to win it all? Probably not. Good enough to have been a top 50-100 player in D-I? Heck yes.

He's one of the most aggressive college players I've seen. He moves extremely well. His transition game is extremely good, he's got decent volleys. His groundies are deep and penetrating. His serve could definitely be better. He had some problems keeping the ball in play (likely because of the huge yet light racquet).

My comment wasn't against this young man, I don't even know him, I was really just wondering if some players would rather win big at the D3 level or be an average player in D1. My son is in the process of deciding which way to go and I was just curious what others may think. I know it is a personal decision but was just wondering?

10isDad
02-16-2010, 04:24 AM
^^^Sorry - I misunderstood. It is a good question and one that my son is also going through. The thing we've tried to instill is in college, it's not about being the big fish. It's all about the team. He wants to go to a school where he might make a difference.

Interestingly, at this same tournament I had several conversations with Seeberger's former coach, the legendary Bob Hansen. He pointed out several guys who were his 11 through 15 guys in their first year that ended up making the top 6 by junior or senior year. Some of these same guys would end up being the clinching victory in a national title or regional title.

That's a tough decision that Hansen said many of his kids have had to make: go to a school where they may play initially in the top 6 but would never contend for a national championship but might make a big difference for that team in their regional competition? Or go to UC Santa Cruz and be in the bottom of the line-up BUT, be a part of a team that is nearly always in contention for a national championship?

He pointed out half a dozen guys in pictures on his office wall who did just that - guys who played in the bottom in their first years, but eventually made it into the top 6.

He said he had a guy who came in with a tennisrecruiting.net ranking of around 500. Freshman year, that player played at 12 (they have enough courts at UCSC that they can play a full 2nd squad match). The next year something like #8, junior year he was #5 or 6 and ended up clinching the national team title. His senior year, he played #1 and I believe won the backdraw of the D-III singles.

TennisTaxi
02-16-2010, 09:30 AM
^^^Sorry - I misunderstood. It is a good question and one that my son is also going through. The thing we've tried to instill is in college, it's not about being the big fish. It's all about the team. He wants to go to a school where he might make a difference.

Interestingly, at this same tournament I had several conversations with Seeberger's former coach, the legendary Bob Hansen. He pointed out several guys who were his 11 through 15 guys in their first year that ended up making the top 6 by junior or senior year. Some of these same guys would end up being the clinching victory in a national title or regional title.

That's a tough decision that Hansen said many of his kids have had to make: go to a school where they may play initially in the top 6 but would never contend for a national championship but might make a big difference for that team in their regional competition? Or go to UC Santa Cruz and be in the bottom of the line-up BUT, be a part of a team that is nearly always in contention for a national championship?

He pointed out half a dozen guys in pictures on his office wall who did just that - guys who played in the bottom in their first years, but eventually made it into the top 6.

He said he had a guy who came in with a tennisrecruiting.net ranking of around 500. Freshman year, that player played at 12 (they have enough courts at UCSC that they can play a full 2nd squad match). The next year something like #8, junior year he was #5 or 6 and ended up clinching the national team title. His senior year, he played #1 and I believe won the backdraw of the D-III singles.

Very interesting...UCSC is one of his D3 choices:)

10istar
02-16-2010, 12:08 PM
ucsc is definitely the way to go. bob hansen is the man, your son won't regret it.

as for the seeberger, he has the mind of a determined owl on a night hunt. his mental game is one of the biggest reasons he is where he is, and that would take him just as far in d2, or d1. just an fyi, he chose d3 over top d1 schools.

alb1
02-17-2010, 10:05 AM
My comment wasn't against this young man, I don't even know him, I was really just wondering if some players would rather win big at the D3 level or be an average player in D1. My son is in the process of deciding which way to go and I was just curious what others may think. I know it is a personal decision but was just wondering?

Winning big at the D3 level like Seeberger did is quite an accomplishment. I am a fan of D3 tennis having played it many years ago and having the opportunity to watch matches currently here in Atlanta. There's really no guarantee that you can be a big fish in D3. Going to one of the top schools that is loaded with 4 star recruits gives you a shot at playing in the team championships. Play 1 or 2 singles at one of the top 10 schools or 1 singles for a top 20 team and you may get you into the 32 player championship singles draw. Play 1 singles for a school that's not ranked in the top 20 and your chances are diminished of making the field for the singles tourney. There are 4 star recruits that miss it each year.

As far as your son -
Look at the school - academics/major? will I like it if I can't play tennis for some reason? how is student housing and campus/offcampus life? Look at the coach-personality, tennis knowledge, satisfied or looking to move to better position. Look at the school- facilities and budget committment to tennis. Look at the team- will I be content if I am not in the top 6? Do I fit in with the members of the current team? socially, culturally, etc. Choose the best fit regardless of the division.

andfor
02-17-2010, 04:46 PM
This was was a great DIII player in his day. http://www.wlu.edu/x3565.xml. Prior to Seebarger was one of the most successful DIII players of all time. There may have been others but who's keeping track? He could have played D1 at many schools but likely chose W & L for academics. He's now a physician. Top 1000 on the tour? I'm not going to disrespect the guy with a guess.

35ft6
12-30-2010, 04:04 PM
My comment wasn't against this young man, I don't even know him, I was really just wondering if some players would rather win big at the D3 level or be an average player in D1.If you're not going pro and it's not critical that you be playing the best players you possibly can as much as possible, even in practice, than why not go to a school based on academics and where you can be a stand out player.

firstserve
12-31-2010, 01:18 PM
Valid point 35fts. If one's goal is not to be a professional there is no point pushing one's self to play division 1 tennis. There is plenty of competition in D3. Just out of curiosity does anybody have predictions for top 10 d3 teams for this upcoming year?

10isDad
12-31-2010, 04:09 PM
^^^For next year (spring 2012), Johns Hopkins had a great recruiting year. For a DIII team to get verbal commitments from 6 four-stars is huge.

tennisnoob3
12-31-2010, 04:59 PM
^^^For next year (spring 2012), Johns Hopkins had a great recruiting year. For a DIII team to get verbal commitments from 6 four-stars is huge.

6 recruits? thats a massive amount, no? isn't that like a whole roster?

10isDad
12-31-2010, 06:09 PM
6 recruits? thats a massive amount, no? isn't that like a whole roster?

Lots of D3 teams have more 12 or more players on their roster. And they got verbal commitments from 6 four-star players. They also got a 3-star and a 2 star, so at least 8 possible new players next year.

BTW, they have 14 guys currently on their roster, only 3 of whom are seniors. And, in speaking w/ one of their players, they are also supposed to have a couple guys coming in January of this year.

tennisnoob3
12-31-2010, 06:21 PM
Lots of D3 teams have more 12 or more players on their roster. And they got verbal commitments from 6 four-star players. They also got a 3-star and a 2 star, so at least 8 possible new players next year.

BTW, they have 14 guys currently on their roster, only 3 of whom are seniors. And, in speaking w/ one of their players, they are also supposed to have a couple guys coming in January of this year.

how many play on a college roster?

10isDad
12-31-2010, 07:11 PM
Depends. I know teams like UC Santa Cruz and Whitman sometimes play split squad matches. Whitman has played duals with half the team at home and half away. UCSC has enough courts they can play lots of exhibition matches.

Check the rosters of some of the D3 schools. Most have lots of players. UC Santa Cruz has 16 on their roster. Middlebury has 17 and Amherst has 24 on their "preliminary" roster.