Sherwood Cup ---beautiful LA area ---Who will Win ?
- Thread starter Fedace
- Start date
socaltennnis
Rookie
I needed to double check, but you're right. Farah beat Klahn 3 out of 4 times last season.
Fedace
Banned
Loss to Jaremere Jenkins was a fluke. If they play 10 times, Klahn would win 8 out of 10. Heck even Clayton can crush Jenkins...
Klahn's record last season at #1 was better than the year before at #2! He's won nearly 84% of all his singles matches last season at #1! This must be one of the highest winning percentages in college tennis. This shows that Klahn has improved a lot over the years (and still is), and that he is definitely a consistent player who can play and win against top guys all season!
He lost to Domijan at the beginning of the season, but that clearly means nothing, since he proved he could beat the very best in two small sets at Sherwood, and win both singles and doubles titles.
As a comparison, what's the record of your 2 top UVA and 2 top Tenn guys?
Last edited:
Are you sure about that? Do you have scores and date/place of these matches?
I know that Klahn beat Farah 6-2, 7-5 in his Freshman year (2009) in the semis at Ojai. Farah then beat him last year in the finals of the same tournament. Klahn also beat Farah last year in the semis of the Sherwood cup.
I'm not sure about their dual matches results... Anyone?
Automator
Semi-Pro
Last Season:
Klahn beat Farah 4-6,7-5,6-2 in the semis of the Sherwood Cup - 1/16/2010
Farah beat Klahn 7-6,6-7,7-5 in a dual match on 2/27/2010.
Farah beat Klahn 7-6,1-6,7-6 in a dual match on 4/2/2010.
Farah beat Klahn 6-2, 7-6 (5) in the final of the Pac-10 Individual Championships on 4/25/2010.
And need I mention the well known fact that Farah was injured in the early part of the season?
BTW, looking at the ITA results database, it looks like Klahn was 17-5 last year in dual matches. UVA's Shabaz was 17-6 in dual matches.
There were two big tournaments in the fall of 2010. The ITA All-American was won by Alex Domijan (#2 at UVa) and the ITA Indoors was won by Rhyne Williams (#1 at Tennessee).
Michael Shabaz (UVa #1) was unable to play the ITA Indoors because he was competing in an ATP Challenger event that week. If he had lost early, he could have headed off to New York for the ITA Indoor. But he made the final, becoming the second still-in-college player in decades to reach a Challenger final (Georgia's legendary Al Parker did it previously in 1987). Among other players, Shabaz beat Ryan Harrison of the USA, Kei Nishikori of Japan (who made the round of 32 at the Australian Open this week), and Chris Guccione of Australia. He had to win 7 matches in a row to do this, because he came through the qualifying rounds.
Rhyne Williams moving up to #1 means that J.P. Smith, who has been #1 at Tennessee since he showed up, can now play #2 as a senior. He made the NCAA semis or final (I forget which) as a freshman, losing to the eventual champion, Somdev Devvarman of Virginia. Good luck to Ryan Thacher at #2 if Stanford plays Tennessee this year.
Last year, Rhyne Williams was only #3 for Tennessee and Alex Domijan was in high school and Michael Shabaz was good but not about to reach a Challenger final. The improvement of these three players over the last year means that their records last spring, while certainly good (as Automator documented), are not the best indication of their current strength.
Tennys Sandgren of Tennessee also seems to have made a big leap forward from freshman year to sophomore year. He looks like the #3 from Tennessee right now, meaning that senior Boris Conkic, a good #2 last year, might be at #4 this year. Good luck to whomever Stanford puts at #4 if they play Tennessee or Virginia.
We could also note the big leaps made by Steve Johnson and Daniel Nguyen at USC after their arrival there.
So, other schools have multiple players making a big leap forward, beyond the normal year to year improvement you would expect. In the last 5 years, I have seen ONE player at Stanford make a really big leap while playing there: Bradley Klahn. I guess that is why you guys spend all your time talking about him. There is not much else to talk about. It is sad to see so much American talent go to Stanford and make so little progress over four years time. It is not good for American tennis to waste so much talent.
Automator
Semi-Pro
Shabaz was the third college player to make a Challenger final. Subsequent research found that Jesse Whitten did it while at Kentucky.
Smith made the NCAA final as a freshman.
Anyway, the sample size is too small right now for these type of arguments. After the Indoor Championships, we should have sufficient data to see where players stack up.
Thanks for the data! So, Klahn has a better winning record than Shabaz at #1.
Also, you mention that Farah was injured last year. It's good to know sure, but how did this influence his results? I must have been a minor injury anyway, otherwise he wouldn't have played any match, and he probably wouldn't have competed if he wasn't close to 100%. Players are anyway more often injured than not at this level, but these are minor injuries. The ones who are really injured don't play!
Last Season:
Klahn beat Farah 4-6,7-5,6-2 in the semis of the Sherwood Cup - 1/16/2010
Farah beat Klahn 7-6,6-7,7-5 in a dual match on 2/27/2010.
Farah beat Klahn 7-6,1-6,7-6 in a dual match on 4/2/2010.
Farah beat Klahn 6-2, 7-6 (5) in the final of the Pac-10 Individual Championships on 4/25/2010.
lol at downtheline's claim of klahn winning most of the matches last year...either he has a very selective memory or just realizes that non-fabricated Stanford results tend not to be impressive nowadays
That's a long explanation to try to justify your point that UVa and Tenn are better than anybody else.... Well, they were better too, on paper, last year and the year before, and they didn't win the NCAA. Go figure.
We spend our time talking about Brad because he's worth talking about. You seem to be involved in our discussions more often than not, btw.
Is it a waste of talent? Don't know. Certainly Klahn has not wasted his time at Stanford. On the other hand, surely Whit is not Dick. Under Dick, Stanford won what 10, 15 NCAA titles? This guy was able to keep the team #1 for nearly 2 decades! That was special.
Last Season:
Klahn beat Farah 4-6,7-5,6-2 in the semis of the Sherwood Cup - 1/16/2010
Farah beat Klahn 7-6,6-7,7-5 in a dual match on 2/27/2010.
Farah beat Klahn 7-6,1-6,7-6 in a dual match on 4/2/2010.
Farah beat Klahn 6-2, 7-6 (5) in the final of the Pac-10 Individual Championships on 4/25/2010.
lol at downtheline's claim of klahn winning most of the matches last year...either he has a very selective memory or just realizes that non-fabricated Stanford results tend not to be impressive nowadays
Farah was a top player last year, and also in his senior year while Brad was only sophomore. Farah is now a pro who had some very good results so far in challengers. Look at the scoreline here... all tough matches. Brad is better today than he was last year, so I think that's very impressive!
Excellent point, and I think the top recruits (the ones aspiring to go on to a career on tour) are well aware of this lack of development at Stanford nowadays. They're getting out-recruited by both USC and UCLA on the west coast oftentimes it seems nowadays, something that never would have happened a decade ago. Not to mention schools like UVA that are out-recruiting the hell out of them...
One thing you have forgotten... at Stanford, students are recruited for their academic talent first, and then for their sport achievements. So, many top players wouldn't be able to be accepted at Stanford, unfortunately.... but that's how it is. Stanford produces top students before producing top athletes. And they actually happen to produce both successfully. I guess many a top player went to your school because they got rejected at Stanford.
I went to Duke, not some middling university, don't make me laugh. It worked pretty well for me, and I'm aware of many excellent jobs landed by Duke tennis players in recent years.
http://www.usnews.com/education/wor.../2010/09/21/worlds-best-universities-top-400-
#13, #14 - not that these rankings are worth that much, but a nice broad picture that we're peer institutions
Last edited:
Automator
Semi-Pro
Farah played at #2 for a decent number of USC's matches, and was held out of some others. From April on, he played at the top of the lineup and won his final 9 dual match contests in straight sets. He finished the season ranked #1 for a reason. In early March he did not play in a match against Duke (a match USC lost) and played #2 against Wake Forest, losing to Steve Forman. He only played doubles in a match against UC-Santa Barbara that USC won, 4-3.
What's this ranking? World's best universities? IT looks good to have Duke just next to Stanford, but do you even know how they make these rankings? There are tons of rankings out there based all kind of criteria, and if you're not careful you can end up with Northeastern Univ. at the top of the ranking and Berkeley last...
FYI, "none of the data used in the Best Colleges and Best Graduate Schools rankings are used to compute any of the World's Best Universities rankings."
Not that USNews Best colleges is the reference but they use more quantitative data than in your ranking.
Here is acceptance rates (2006) of several universities:
HARVARD UNIVERSITY 10.4%
YALE UNIVERSITY 11.4%
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 12.7%
STANFORD UNIVERSITY 13.0%
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY 13.2%
MIT 15.9%
BROWN UNIVERSITY 16.4%
UNIVERSITY OF PENN 21.2%
DUKE 21.4%
GEORGETOWN 21.9%
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY 22.2%
And if you're really set on international rankings, here are a few:
Stanford#4; Duke#24
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/world-university-rankings/2010-2011/top-200.html
Stanford#3; Duke#35
http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp
One you may like, Stanford#1; Duke#11
http://www.4icu.org/top200/
Stanford#3; Duke#35
http://www.webometrics.info/top12000.asp
Get a life, dude. Sorry, I'm not that interested in researching the methodologies behind rankings or scouring the internet for all of them - I just ran a quick search for the name I'm most familiar with - US News & WR - to show that your claim that Stanford has actual student-athletes while my school is a bunch of fools is a garbage statement. Anyway, this is a tennis forum so I won't continue going down this road and filling this forum with stuff no one else wants to read. I trust my point that Stanford and Duke are peer institutions was an obvious one to most people in the world anyway. Cheers.
PS-I looked at your last link for laughs. It delivered
Michigan, Minnesota, and UW-Madison in the top 10 - and Yale at 29 - well behind the likes of Maryland, Florida, Texas and Texas A&M, and NC State to name a few. Nice rebuttal rankings - those are great. THEN I looked at your second to last - continuing up the line - MSU, Indiana, and Purdue in the top 10 (is this another one created by the Big 10 commissioner???) - with Cambridge, Oxford, and Caltech well behind...and my favorite - Harvard at 36. Yes, you showed me that you found some superior rankings! Congratulations!
Last edited:
Fedace
Banned
Get a life, dude. Sorry, I'm not that interested in researching the methodologies behind rankings or scouring the internet for all of them - I just ran a quick search for the name I'm most familiar with - US News & WR - to show that your claim that Stanford has actual student-athletes while my school is a bunch of fools is a garbage statement. Anyway, this is a tennis forum so I won't continue going down this road and filling this forum with stuff no one else wants to read. I trust my point that Stanford and Duke are peer institutions was an obvious one to most people in the world anyway. Cheers.
PS-I looked at your last link for laughs. It delivered
You response shows you haven't understood my previous point: rankings can be tweaked in many ways, and the one you chose to show us made Duke look like a top school, which it is not! A good school yes, not a top one.
Showing rankings without knowing what they mean is like saying Karlovic is the best player of the ATP because he has the most aces per match... One can surely rank Karlovic #1 in something, right?
In any case, I gave you a choice of randomly found rankings to show the spread of rankings one can find if not paying attention to what they really mean.... Something you clearly haven't grasped yet.
bottom line is both are great schools, but let's face it.....Stanford is as hard or harder to get into as Hardvard or any IVY. Stanford can not recruit kids without the grades period/end of story....that goes for all sports. As for the past, now you have title 9, the kids are all great players and none, if any will every make any money playing pro ball, so development is over rated.....name me 15 guys that went to college recently(since title 9) and will retire with a bunch of cash and fame? Development is simple, if a kid can compete, be good/solid people moving into real life and get a great degree, they win, the coach has just about everything to do with that. Great American pro tennis has come and gone with all of the international studs....coaching is over rated, these pros change coaches like they change underware
Harvard...sorry for typo
Fedace
Banned
Yea apparently, Denis was getting over powered out there and really couldn't play his game or wasn't allowed to play his game. What are the prospects of this big kid from UCLA ? does he have a pro future ? Obviously has enough power but not sure he has the movement ?
How about Duke? Can they recruit kids without the grades? Do any Stanford fanboys have any concrete examples of tennis players getting into Duke who could not go to Stanford?
A couple of years ago, Duke received a verbal commitment from a good blue chip player, Tripper Carleton, the younger brother of current Duke senior Reid Carleton. The Duke admissions department would not admit him. So he switched his commitment to Wake Forest, where he is now the #1 player, and Wake Forest is not weak academically.
Five years ago, Virginia received a verbal commitment from Jason Jung, a highly rated blue chip prospect. He wanted to start in January. But the Virginia admissions department demands that January admits (1) have some special extenuating circumstances that indicate that they should enroll in January, like they were home schooled and are ahead of schedule academically anyway, and (2) meet a slightly higher standard than other students in terms of academic qualifications. Appeals from athletic coaches make no difference. This hurts us in several sports, but so be it. Houston Barrick, a mid-to-low blue chip, was home schooled and ahead of schedule academically and got a January admit. When Jason Jung heard that, he asked for the same deal and could not get it and got ticked off and went to Michigan, where he played #1 for at least his last three years if not all four.
Unless you know the inside stories from other schools as well as your own, you cannot assume that Stanford is having a harder time recruiting than other good schools. Sometimes very selective schools have more flexible admissions for athletes than slightly less selective schools. I have heard plenty of stories over the years from Ivy League schools about athletes admitted when better students from their same high school were rejected, yet they maintain a facade that would have you believe the opposite is true.
you must be the next "fedace" because you're making me laugh..please tell me that all those Stanford football and basketball players are straight 'A' students from their high school..
not even close to a fedace....do like the Cardinal, but have a great deal of respect for any "student" baller at any fantastic institution....funny thing is, rarely do you here about great student ballers. i am not saying other great schools don't have tough admit guidelines, just that Stanford is about the toughest. I will restate......very few college ballers in the recent past and the future will make a living playing pro ball, so when it comes to coaching, what matters is how he/she is able to develop good/productive young people....do i really sound like fedace? if i do, sorry!
+1, solid examples are nice, especially when they're true (ie not coming from stanford fans, claiming that klahn won most of his matches vs farah in a given year when he in fact won 25%)
like i've said though, i understand, it's tough sticking to the facts in an era when they generally aren't impressive...i'm sure fedace, db, and downtheline wouldn't have had to make stuff up constantly or pretend they work for the stanford admissions office and give academic excuses if this were still the dick gould era
Last edited:
you seem like a pretty reasonable guy, nice to have you on the board to balance out the others from your school - and re: the point youre making - true enough, very few productive pros come out of college tennis, though this point may be lost on some of the top recruits which is what really matters...i can see boland at uva having an easier time convincing a top recruit (domijan, frank) that he can continue high-pace development there than the current stanford coach
Last edited:
perhaps UVA(so deep)....still a long shot
Mikej, you're a funny one. Because you cannot admit that Stanford is stronger both in academics and in athletics than Duke, you have to resort to
making stuff up and attack anything Stanford...
For your information, I never pretended to work for the Stanford admissions, and I am the one who actually asked for proof of Klahn's results against Farah for last season (see below)! And the results I gave here are actual facts, and Klahn % win last season is also a fact, not made up. So please stop accusing me of making stuff up. If there's one person on these boards making stuff up, it's you!
MAtchplay seems a perfectly reasonable poster, unlike some people here always ready to bash anything Stanford, probably by jealousy.
FYI, here is proof that the Stanford tennis team has great athletes as well as strong academic performers. As said before these guys have to deliver on court and the classroom too. (I cannot give you the high school grades, I don't have them and it's probably private anyway).
June 8, 2010
STANFORD, Calif.- The second round of ITA award winners has both Stanford tennis programs well-represented once again.
One month after the ITA distributed its regional awards, the organization announced its national award recipients, highlighted by All-America honors.
In order to be selected as an ITA All-American, a singles player must be a top-16 seed in NCAA Singles Championships, reach the round of 16 in NCAA Singles Championships or finish in the top 20 of the final ITA Rankings.
On the men's side, Bradley Klahn and Ryan Thacher met all of the criteria listed above.
=========================================
Both teams were also honored with several selections to their respective 2010 Pac-10 All-Academic teams, as announced today by Commissioner Larry Scott.
To be eligible for selection to the Pac-10 All-Academic team, a student-athlete must have a minimum 3.0 overall grade-point average and be either a starter or significant contributor. Freshmen are not eligible for consideration.
The men's team was represented with five honorees, including a league-best four on the First Team.
Alex Clayton (3.60 - Psychology), Greg Hirshman (4.00 - Economics/Math), Ryan Thacher (3.81 - Undeclared) and Richard Wire (3.65 - International Relations) all earned spots on the First Team.
please don't take things so literally broski, I'm aware you never said "I work for Stanford admissions" - just you act like you know an awful lot about Stanford's criteria for accepting athletes - and the relative criteria of other schools you have never attended for that matter
re: the Klahn results - i'm aware that was downtheline's misstep - just lumping you loose-with-your generalizations guys together in my post ... please see clarkc's post above for an example of actual academic circumstances that make for a valid argument as opposed to non-supported blabbering
if you're going to claim stanford's circumstances are so different from other great universities, there's kind of a burden of proof there...
Last edited:
Very interesting article from the SF Gate.... It's only a small excerpt below, but the article is quite long and full of insight into Stanford admissions for athletes. It may silence some of the UVa and Duke fans...
HIGHER STANDARDS / Stanford teams finding it's hard to win if athletes can't get in
June 03, 2007|By Tom FitzGerald, Chronicle Staff Writer
....
"They can't keep raising the bar," said Dave Tipton, a former All-America defensive tackle at Stanford who served as an assistant coach there for 18 years under five head coaches. He said the admissions standards for football players are "markedly" higher than they were 10 years ago. "Hopefully it will go back to where it was, which was tough but at least doable. Some of these kids are getting admitted to the Ivy League but not at Stanford."
....the rest at: http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-06-03/sports/17250736_1_stanford-alumni-mark-marquess-head-coaches
HIGHER STANDARDS / Stanford teams finding it's hard to win if athletes can't get in
June 03, 2007|By Tom FitzGerald, Chronicle Staff Writer
....
"They can't keep raising the bar," said Dave Tipton, a former All-America defensive tackle at Stanford who served as an assistant coach there for 18 years under five head coaches. He said the admissions standards for football players are "markedly" higher than they were 10 years ago. "Hopefully it will go back to where it was, which was tough but at least doable. Some of these kids are getting admitted to the Ivy League but not at Stanford."
....the rest at: http://articles.sfgate.com/2007-06-03/sports/17250736_1_stanford-alumni-mark-marquess-head-coaches
You tell me...
please don't take things so literally broski, I'm aware you never said "I work for Stanford admissions" - just you act like you know an awful lot about Stanford's criteria for accepting athletes - and the relative criteria of other schools you have never attended for that matter
re: the Klahn results - i'm aware that was downtheline's misstep - just lumping you loose-with-your generalizations guys together in my post ... please see clarkc's post above for an example of actual academic circumstances that make for a valid argument as opposed to non-supported blabbering
Good to see you admitted your mistake when faced with the facts.
we have all-americans and all-academics as well
:carleton -
ITA National Doubles Team of the Year (2010)
All-America (2010 Doubles)
cunha -
ITA All-America (2010 Singles and Doubles)
holland -
ACC All-Academic Team (2010)
ACC Academic Honor Roll (2010)
marchese -
ACC All-Academic Team (2010)
ACC Academic Honor Roll (2010)
pinsky -
ACC All-Academic Team (2009, 2010)
ACC Academic Honor Roll (2008, 2009, 2010)
ITA Scholar Athlete (2008, 2009, 2010)
wietoska -
ACC Academic Honor Roll (2009)
As a more personal anecdote, one of the guys I lived with in college (Kiril Dimitrov) was a math and econ double major while playing at the top of the lineup for Duke. He was 4x ACC All-Academic. Also ESPN the Magazine Academic first team in 08-09. Very proud to have known the guy.
In summary, we have our impressive student-athletes as well. Your situation is not unique. But keep trying
we have all-americans and all-academics as well
carleton -
ITA National Doubles Team of the Year (2010)
All-America (2010 Doubles)
cunha -
ITA All-America (2010 Singles and Doubles)
holland -
ACC All-Academic Team (2010)
ACC Academic Honor Roll (2010)
marchese -
ACC All-Academic Team (2010)
ACC Academic Honor Roll (2010)
pinsky -
ACC All-Academic Team (2009, 2010)
ACC Academic Honor Roll (2008, 2009, 2010)
ITA Scholar Athlete (2008, 2009, 2010)
wietoska -
ACC Academic Honor Roll (2009)
As a more personal anecdote, one of the guys I lived with in college (Kiril Dimitrov) was a math and econ double major while playing at the top of the lineup for Duke. He was 4x ACC All-Academic. Also ESPN the Magazine Academic first team in 08-09. Very proud to have known the guy.
In summary, we have our impressive student-athletes as well. Your situation is not unique. But keep trying
That's great, I'm truly happy for you and for Duke. It shows that Duke too has some good students and athletes. But it doesn't change the fact that it's probably harder to get into Stanford when you're an athlete.
I honestly don't know which is harder - which is why I'm not here claiming such. Both schools have small student bodies and can't water down the academic environment too, too much with their athletes. If we had a pool of players that had tried to play for both schools and had differential admissions results I guess we could make a judgment.
What I do know:
-Duke couldn't get Reid's brother in (as clarkc mentioned) despite being one of the top recruits in the country AND the fact that his brother was already proving himself as a student-athlete for the school. I assume he was no failing student since he's doing well at Wake now, but I'll never know his exact GPA / SATs / etc.
-The student-athletes I knew at Duke were accomplished and intelligent people (for the sake of honesty - many football players excluded - which is ironic since that's our worst athletic program on the field too).
As matchplay has previously pointed out, there's a lot of reason for mutual respect of our student-athletes on this forum - Stanford, Duke, and UVA are all excellent institutions.
I may rag on the Stanford on-court results a lot (I have my reasons - which I know you don't believe, so I'll not go there again) but I don't claim Stanford is full of a bunch of mediocre minds.
Check this out, it gives pretty good insight on admissions for athletes at Stanford and a few other top universities.
Jakes On A Plane
Semi-Pro
Is there a set criteria to be a Stanford tennis fan? Like:
1) must take offense to every argument made by someone who happens to disagree with you
2) be able go off on tantrums that have nothing to do with the current thread or discussion i.e. academics during a discussion of the top college players
3) must love hypocrisy
Stanford needs to upgrade recruitment for both players and fans in their tennis program. Sorry in advance to any normal Stanford tennis out there, but you have terrible representation on this board.
Jake, you're very late in this discussion.... you missed a few things. and your nasty posts are laughable. So please leave us alone.
To answer your question though, anyone who appreciates top athletes who are also top students can be a Stanford fan.
Jakes On A Plane
Semi-Pro
Jake, you're very late in this discussion.... you missed a few things. and your nasty posts are laughable. So please leave us alone.
To answer your question though, anyone who appreciates top athletes who are also top students can be a Stanford fan.
Ah, see I forgot to put that in the criteria, because all I had seen so far was what I listed. So you guys are obviously good at disguise too, which means you lost in the NCAA round of 16 the past two years on purpose just to confuse everybody. I GOT IT NOW, you guys really are better than everybody!!!!! My non-Stanford education forced me to take a little longer to figure that one out.
A bunch of 13 year olds on this board?....I know I just got onto it but really folks.
All of these kids must be pretty good in the classroom, certainly on the court....none of them are playing at a run of the mill state school.
I have heard this coach is this and that coach is that....
Again, a college coach should....? (Comments please) I stated my thoughts already. I do think most of these coaches will tell a kid what they want to hear....the reality is (again)...few will play pro ball for long and make any $, so if they can spend 4 yeras with a guy that gets the big picture of life and can provide the skills for life these kids will need, that makes sense to me.
Similar threads
