PDA

View Full Version : Was just watching some ncaa tennis


bribeiro
05-31-2006, 01:17 PM
Div 1 I think, and the players can't keep the ball in play for long, rallies usually last 5 or 6 shots, before someone makes a mistake, I expected better. I'm not saying I could play better, but they're not as good as I thought they were.

yonex90
05-31-2006, 02:32 PM
I think you are talking about the NCAA final with UGA against Pepperdine. That John Isner, nearly 7 foot is a great serve and volly player. He's ranked 1 or two in the nation and is a junior. I thought the play was quite good. UGA is ranked 1 and was undefeated until this title game. Pepperdine has some great foreign players and the guy who won the last match has already won a national title before.

Chopin
05-31-2006, 02:36 PM
You'd be surprised how hard they're hitting though in person. They're not pushing the ball around.

Othello
05-31-2006, 02:40 PM
That's because they are pounding the heck out of the ball and forcing errors.
You should watch some of those matches live and you will see what I mean. It look so much slower on tv than in person (especially at the camera angle they had) making it seem that they could have made a shot or gotten to a shot when in reality they couldn't.

Those guys don't play. My uni made it to the semis. They are VERY good.

edberg505
05-31-2006, 02:52 PM
I think you are talking about the NCAA final with UGA against Pepperdine. That John Isner, nearly 7 foot is a great serve and volly player. He's ranked 1 or two in the nation and is a junior. I thought the play was quite good. UGA is ranked 1 and was undefeated until this title game. Pepperdine has some great foreign players and the guy who won the last match has already won a national title before.


Andre played for the College of Santa Fe in New Mexico. I've played doubles against him. He's a pretty damn good player. My friend played him in singles and got smoked like a cheap cigar.

darkhorse
05-31-2006, 02:56 PM
I thought the quality in the men's match was actually pretty good, though the players seem pretty one-dimensional at times.

The women's match, however, was a different story.

siber222000
05-31-2006, 03:02 PM
Andre played for the College of Santa Fe in New Mexico. I've played doubles against him. He's a pretty damn good player. My friend played him in singles and got smoked like a cheap cigar.
hahah

bribeiro
05-31-2006, 04:08 PM
Yeah, not too many winners, lots of unforced errors, I guess I'm just spoiled by watching Federer everyday lol.

str33t
05-31-2006, 04:11 PM
i was watching that too. they are pretty good tho.

mistapooh
05-31-2006, 04:19 PM
I remember a long rally or two though. Don't you just love the angle of the camera? It makes it look more personal and you can see the trajectory of the ball better and the speed. Anyone kept up with the rackets too? I saw a POG for sure and a LM Prestige, but forgot from whom... .

str33t
05-31-2006, 04:21 PM
I remember a long rally or two though. Don't you just love the angle of the camera? It makes it look more personal and you can see the trajectory of the ball better and the speed. Anyone kept up with the rackets too? I saw a POG for sure and a LM Prestige, but forgot from whom... .
i saw a couple ncodes and a technifibre.

35ft6
05-31-2006, 04:45 PM
I heard the men's singles final was hella sloppy. Ben K said so himself. Like guy above said, we're only used to seeing the very best on TV, and there's quite a bit of difference between Federer versus Safin and two top college players.

couch
05-31-2006, 05:59 PM
That's funny because I think I saw that Isner kid played in the National Clay Courts in Louisville a few years ago. He is kinda easy to remember because he's so tall. Good player, only got to see him play doubles though.

yonex90
05-31-2006, 08:13 PM
John Isner the best player out there plays a POG. I went to UGA and was a little heartbroken that they lost. I doubt they would if there second best player wasn't injured. Pepperdine really got emotional and you could tell the win meant a lot. I wish some of the pros cared that much about the games.

There were also wilson 6.1, volkl, another POG, liquidmetal prestige, I think a radical I couldn't tell. Mostly mids, the 6.1 was a midplus as was the volkl.
No Babolat pure drives are anything like that.

These guys do hit really well. I saw more hits into the net from Marat Safin today than any of these guys. John is phenomenal. He is one of the most standout players since John Roddick played at UGA

GO DAWGS:cool:

mr_spaz104
05-31-2006, 08:49 PM
was he using a mid or an os? i thought it was a tt PoG, cause it had the gold or yellow marks on the side of it (or are there paintjobs even on the college level?)

that guy was so tall that you couldn't tell if it was a mid or an os...heh

thanks in advanced

mistapooh
05-31-2006, 08:53 PM
I'm sure I saw a POG OS, and I did see something at 2 and 10 on a pog, is that the gold thing you are talking about?

mr_spaz104
05-31-2006, 08:54 PM
yeah. i thought it was a PoG at first, cause i found myself looking at their racquets as well. no pure drives but no yonexes either. >_<

thanks for the quick response

AngeloDS
05-31-2006, 09:09 PM
Television doesn't do justice for the players. Go out to the local university and watch a match. You'll be suprised how hard they're truly hitting, the spin on the ball and how fast their serves are. I couldn't even hang with any of them.

tetsuo10
05-31-2006, 09:19 PM
There were absolutely pure drives, men and women. Also, one of the Stanford mens players uses a POG OS.

Mutant Hippo
05-31-2006, 10:21 PM
paul goldstein was a 4 year all american at stanford, and won the national championship 4 years in a row, he became 64 in the world on the pro tour, the pros are a different brand of tennis. i saw pepperdine play at st marys for the west final, and it was some awesome tennis, all the players had every shot to pick from.

!Tym
05-31-2006, 10:53 PM
The basic stroke formations are there, and not much separates the pro tour and top flight college tennis in my opinion. Usually, just that little something extra is missing that makes the difference, and it's usually one of three things.

1) Consistent/mentally tough, but no weapons. 2) Weapons but not consistent enough with them, can be broken down under repeated scrutiny and/or poor mental toughness. 3) Not quite athletic enough.

My feeling is that many of the top collegiate players/talents are capable of making it on the pro tour if they're willing to put in the hours and work. However, they probably won't make it past the 150-250 in the world stage, which is a solid, middle of the road, challenger level player. If they have a little extra and with continued hard work, they probably can top out at the 50-150 in the world range which is to me toes the line between challenger level and main tour level. Meaning it's not totally out of the question to occasionally pull off a victory against a top 50 caliber player or have a decent showing at a random, minor, main tour event here or there; also not totally out of the question to occasionally lose to challenger level players 150-250 in world either. Goes both ways, with occasional respites of what seems to be "momentum," but can never quite catch a big enough or long enough wave to "break into" the ever illusive, mile-stone...the top 50, which to those who truly belong there comes easily, almost to the point that they take it for granted.

If a top collegiate player doesn't have the funds to really pursue the tour, is lazy and not terribly motivated or hungry, doesn't love tennis THAT much, or is too practical a thinker and realistic about his chances of TRULY making it, i.e. no secret illusions of grandeur they keep to themselves lest some meany from those viscious Tennis Warehouse boards laughs at them, then they'll probably top off at 250-750 in the world.

It's very rare for a college player to make it past the 50-150 stage in my opinion. I think those who do make it to this level represent the "special" ones who had a little extra from the college ranks, the top of the class ********...which if you really think about it is rather deflating in the big scheme of things since this level whilst sufficient to be a key role player off the bench and even starter in team sports, means nothing in relative terms to tennis where this level of "rank" player is nothing more than a blimp on the map and otherwise faceless, nameless, and thankless. A.k.a. A "jobber" to the stars as they say in the pro wrestling ranks, you know the Brooklyn Brawlers and Barry Horrowitz's of the world. They're just there to fill in the draw for the REAL players. I.e. Koko B. Ware and The Red Rooster may not have ever been superstars or even stars per say like top fivers such as Ricky the Dragon Steamboat and Yokozuna or even top tenners such as Ravishing Rick Rude and Brutus the Barber Beefcake and Jake the Snake Roberts and The Million Dollar Man, or even top twentiers like Hercules and Tito Santanna and Dino Bravo, but hey they sure as day were at least equivalent to top fiftiers. They at least had a name man, the Red Rooster at least had his dignity man. Sad, just sad.

RiosTheGenius
05-31-2006, 10:53 PM
that final was pretty fun to watch

35ft6
06-01-2006, 03:50 AM
1) Consistent/mentally tough, but no weapons. 2) Weapons but not consistent enough with them, can be broken down under repeated scrutiny and/or poor mental toughness. 3) Not quite athletic enough. It's fun to watch the top college players get smoked in the US Open qualies. I like watching mismatches almost as much as a super competitive match. The most impressive one, I thought, was Bobby Reynolds, who's forehand was one of the heavier ones I saw in the entire qualies, although not nearly as good as Verdasco's, who you could tell was destined to be in the main draw very soon. Guys like Matias Boeker and Alex Kim, they looked like journeymen out there. Matias was smooth but didn't have the power of a, say, Robin Soderling, another tall lanky guy with suspect movement. I've seen a lot of others, don't remember all their names, and mostly it seems to be that they don't have any weapons AND they're not consistent enough for the ATP level. The guys who are firmly entrenched in the top 150 can just hit a higher quality of shot on a consistent basis. And then when the main tournament starts, you see that the seeded players take it to a whole 'nother level. Those guys just don't miss. You give them a look at anything and they murder the ball.

BreakPoint
06-01-2006, 12:17 PM
I was there live for the semis sitting right behind the baseline. Pepperdine vs. Texas and Georgia vs. Baylor. These guys are all very good and hit the ball very well with both power and incredible touch. I would say they should be all rated 6.0.

Dan007
06-01-2006, 12:51 PM
There were absolutely pure drives, men and women. Also, one of the Stanford mens players uses a POG OS.

That Isner guy seemed to be using a POG.

Kaptain Karl
06-01-2006, 01:37 PM
!Tym - Interesting thoughts. I remember many of "those in the know" thinking Mac was NUTS to leave the amateurs for the Pro ranks when he did. And Tanner and Gottfreid were never expected to do much.

My point is, you just don't know who will "catch fire" and really make a move.

- KK

BreakPoint
06-01-2006, 02:32 PM
That Isner guy seemed to be using a POG.

He actually uses the old discontinued Triple Threat Graphite Midplus. I saw him play up close.

couch
06-01-2006, 04:23 PM
Does/did Colin Purcell play for UGA this year? He is from Louisville and originally went to Miami, FL and I think transferred to UGA. The funny thing about that is that I think his mom is a pediatrician at the office my kids go to and I didn't even make the connection until I saw his picture in her office.

couch
06-01-2006, 04:26 PM
Just looked up the Georgia tennis team and Colin is one of their senior captains and that is the same Isner kid that played at the national clay courts. Kinda cool.

goober
06-01-2006, 08:29 PM
. A.k.a. A "jobber" to the stars as they say in the pro wrestling ranks, you know the Brooklyn Brawlers and Barry Horrowitz's of the world. They're just there to fill in the draw for the REAL players. I.e. Koko B. Ware and The Red Rooster may not have ever been superstars or even stars per say like top fivers such as Ricky the Dragon Steamboat and Yokozuna or even top tenners such as Ravishing Rick Rude and Brutus the Barber Beefcake and Jake the Snake Roberts and The Million Dollar Man, or even top twentiers like Hercules and Tito Santanna and Dino Bravo, but hey they sure as day were at least equivalent to top fiftiers. They at least had a name man, the Red Rooster at least had his dignity man. Sad, just sad.

This is the most bizarre comparison yet. Pro wrestlers from the 80s and 90s?

vhx123
06-02-2006, 02:24 AM
benjamin kohloeffel. enough said. i've seen him play in person and he's the real deal

Kaptain Karl
06-02-2006, 04:17 AM
This is the most bizarre comparison yet. Pro wrestlers from the 80s and 90s?I, too, was wondering *where* that post of !Tym's came from....

- KK

35ft6
06-02-2006, 06:35 AM
benjamin kohloeffel. enough said. i've seen him play in person and he's the real deal A guy I hit with knows the UCLA team very well, said Ben K isn't interested in a pro career.

yonex90
06-02-2006, 12:09 PM
I keep hearing that college players can't turn pro. Did James Blake not graduate from Harvard with his brother. I'm pretty sure he did. Granted most pro players don't go to college. Sampras dropped out of HS when he was in his second year. But still its possible that John Isner being ranked #1 or 2 consistantly could turn pro and do well.

There were Babolats but not with the topped ranked players for either male team. I don't know enough about POG to say which one Isner uses. Its looks tiney next to his 6'9'' frame.

vhx123
06-02-2006, 12:37 PM
A guy I hit with knows the UCLA team very well, said Ben K isn't interested in a pro career.
thats whut he's been telling the papers too apparently. i want to see him give it a try. if he beefs up his serve. he could be a real force

35ft6
06-02-2006, 03:16 PM
I keep hearing that college players can't turn pro.There's no rule prohibiting college players from going pro. But pro's can't play in college, or so they say. Maybe what they meant by "can't turn pro" is that a guy who plays in college most likely isn't good enough to be a top 100 pro.

travlerajm
06-02-2006, 04:31 PM
Stanford has always been a tennis pro factory: J. Mac, P. Mac, D. Wheaton, A. O'Brien, J. Stark, J. Palmer, P. Goldstein, J. Salzenstein, S. Humphries, B. Bryan, M. Bryan, J. Thomas.

There were a lot more if you go back further, too.

AndrewD
06-02-2006, 05:49 PM
thats whut he's been telling the papers too apparently. i want to see him give it a try. if he beefs up his serve. he could be a real force

He's already played the pro circuit - albeit the lower levels- starting when he was about 18 (strangely, he can still play as an amateur) and done quite well in the Futures. His reasoning is that he's getting too old to turn pro (he'll be almost 26 at graduation), not that he isn't good enough.

127mph
06-02-2006, 05:53 PM
it seemed to me that on the mens side, the two players would just try to out serve eachother and dont do anything in the rallies.

yonex90
06-02-2006, 06:30 PM
I misspoke in my earlier message about college players turning pro. I hear a lot that college players are not good enough to turn pro. I think the top seeds like Isner and the guy from UCLA that they've been talking about may be good enough.

Also, I think it would be great if espn would show college games. They show freakin lacrose. I would love to be able to follow UGA and other teams.

zorg
06-02-2006, 06:58 PM
Personally I was very impressed. I thought some of the playes were very good quality. Some of the players had really nice 1 handed backhands. I think that they can hit the ball as hard as pros. All they need to work on is fitness, speed, and control (keeping the ball in for longer periods). Otherwise, most would be pros.