ITA Indoors

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Shouldn’t have played - different form of stacking


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Interesting theory - sending out someone in the correct position, knowing they're not fit and may have to retire - is a form of stacking since it prevents everyone from having to shift as would be the case if the player didn't play. Again, interesting, but I don't think it would every qualify as actual stacking per the rules.
 
Interesting theory - sending out someone in the correct position, knowing they're not fit and may have to retire - is a form of stacking since it prevents everyone from having to shift as would be the case if the player didn't play. Again, interesting, but I don't think it would every qualify as actual stacking per the rules.
Sounds like he's coming off the flu.... played well in doubles from what i could tell. Unless it's an obvious physical injury where a guy can't move at all I don't know what argument you can have against it.
 

bluetrain4

G.O.A.T.
Sounds like he's coming off the flu.... played well in doubles from what i could tell. Unless it's an obvious physical injury where a guy can't move at all I don't know what argument you can have against it.
Agreed. I have absolutely no problem with it. I was just intrigued that by the post I was replying to - had never even thought to see such a situation as stacking.
 

rod99

Professional
Sounds like he's coming off the flu.... played well in doubles from what i could tell. Unless it's an obvious physical injury where a guy can't move at all I don't know what argument you can have against it.
my argument is that he's not their best player even when he's 100% healthy, but he's still playing #1.
 

CHtennis

Rookie
In general it is a bad way to stack, it gives up a court when every court is valuable. Cuckierman definitely would have had a shot and would likely be favored versus Blumberg (at least according to his #1 ranking). Also down the line it does not change all that much as they already won a match at Indoors without Holt, so they have the guys to play. My guess is that Holt fought to play and then he got too rundown and could not play at a high enough level. As a coach I would not give up a point like that unless I very much felt that I had no chance in that match or it would really help in the other matches (if it was not against the rules I mean, which it seems like it would fall under stacking). I doubt this was an actual stack so much as letting a young man convince you he could play when he was not right yet.
 
my argument is that he's not their best player even when he's 100% healthy, but he's still playing #1.
ITA ranking is not the be all and end all. Many teams over the years have put a lower ITA ranked player at #1 over another higher ranked one. Wake did it for years by putting Petros at 2
 

rod99

Professional
ITA ranking is not the be all and end all. Many teams over the years have put a lower ITA ranked player at #1 over another higher ranked one. Wake did it for years by putting Petros at 2
i'm not basing it on the ITA ratings. i'm basing it on the fact that cukierman is simply a better player. wake did the same thing the last couple years, as petros was a better player than gojo (though the difference is not as large as holt/cukierman).
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
i'm not basing it on the ITA ratings. i'm basing it on the fact that cukierman is simply a better player. wake did the same thing the last couple years, as petros was a better player than gojo (though the difference is not as large as holt/cukierman).
Now do you believe in power of Pac -12 ??? We have the toughest teams in the country. That is why Stanford will win it all in May. Go CARD, we can do this.
 

mikej

Hall of Fame
Now do you believe in power of Pac -12 ??? We have the toughest teams in the country. That is why Stanford will win it all in May. Go CARD, we can do this.
No, Alabama being good at football doesn’t make everyone in the SEC like Arkansas a juggernaut, and similarly USC’s recent success doesn’t reflect on their little brothers on the west coast at all
 
i'm not basing it on the ITA ratings. i'm basing it on the fact that cukierman is simply a better player. wake did the same thing the last couple years, as petros was a better player than gojo (though the difference is not as large as holt/cukierman).
Petros and Gojo were essentially the same. They both made the NCAA finals, and they both won nearly all of their matches. One of them had to play one and the other two.
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
No, Alabama being good at football doesn’t make everyone in the SEC like Arkansas a juggernaut, and similarly USC’s recent success doesn’t reflect on their little brothers on the west coast at all
disagree. when Stanford wins it all, it will show you that what I say is true
 

mikej

Hall of Fame
disagree. when Stanford wins it all, it will show you that what I say is true
So then every year you claim the same thing and Stanford doesn’t win disproves your theory, right? Or what you say is true no matter the summary of the season: Stanford wins / Stanford loses / you scare the Stanford women’s team members
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
So then every year you claim the same thing and Stanford doesn’t win disproves your theory, right? Or what you say is true no matter the summary of the season: Stanford wins / Stanford loses / you scare the Stanford women’s team members
No, they will win this year, so what I say is true. my predictions are guaranteed. and women's team already told me they love me for cheering them on and supporting them.....LOL :-D :love:
 

Saul Goode

Semi-Pro
In general it is a bad way to stack, it gives up a court when every court is valuable. Cuckierman definitely would have had a shot and would likely be favored versus Blumberg (at least according to his #1 ranking). Also down the line it does not change all that much as they already won a match at Indoors without Holt, so they have the guys to play. My guess is that Holt fought to play and then he got too rundown and could not play at a high enough level. As a coach I would not give up a point like that unless I very much felt that I had no chance in that match or it would really help in the other matches (if it was not against the rules I mean, which it seems like it would fall under stacking). I doubt this was an actual stack so much as letting a young man convince you he could play when he was not right yet.
Whatever the case, Holt was clearly in no shape to take on Blumberg. The retirement after the bagel was no shock to anyone there and seemed like he was just out there to take one for the team.
 
Ok so what grade would you give each team in the ITA indoors?

USC - A+
UNC - A, looked good all week despite getting blasted in the final
3rd-4th: Michigan - A, about as good of a week as they could have hoped for
3rd-4th: Ohio State - B-, not great compared to their usual indoor standards
5th-6th: Texas - B, not a good loss to Michigan but got two other decent wins
5th-6th: Florida - B+, got blasted by UNC but rebounded with a good performance vs Wake
7th-8th: Wake Forest - C+, the win over Baylor will probably gain strength going forward. The match vs OSU was not a bad showing but the blowout loss to Florida drops them.
7th-8th: Stanford - C, Slipped by NC State. Gave Texas a decent match
9th-10th: TCU - A-, lost to the eventual champ in a competitive match and then responded with two convincing wins.
9th-10th: Columbia - A-, Had two very nice wins after their opening loss
11th-12th: Texas A&M - B-, Close loss to Michigan and then beat UCLA. Convincing loss to TCU dropped them though
11th-12th: Baylor - D, Win over Wisconsin doesn't mean much and the loss to Columbia is not a good one for Baylor.
13th-14th: UCLA - C-, Two rather one-sided losses to the Texas schools. Saved a little bit by beating the Wolfpack easily.
13th-14th: South Carolina - B-, Pretty good effort vs UNC. But a loss to Columbia and not an overly impressive win over Wisconsin drops them.
15th-16th: NC State - C, started off ok with a close loss to Stanford (but Stanford looked worse after that). But two blowout losses to end it.
15th-16th: Wisconsin- C, Clearly out of their league here as they likely aren't a tournament team let alone top 16. Scared SC a but in last match.
 

fireForehand

New User
Whatever the case, Holt was clearly in no shape to take on Blumberg. The retirement after the bagel was no shock to anyone there and seemed like he was just out there to take one for the team.
This is the rub college tennis, for a sport that cannot not be more objective it’s a shame.

USC number “two” and UNC’s number one were the best players of the tournament, even though they would not have finished, they got scammed of playing each other


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
so the Holt argument.
it is absolutely not a given that Cukierman is a better player than Holt and therefore he should be playing #1 for USC. You can really argue either way. Last season Brandon went 16-3 playing #1, while Cukierman went 15-6 at #2. Holt beat Ondrej Styler fairly convincingly 4 and 2 last September while Cukierman barely got by him this past weekend. Either one could play either position - and it would be really hard to call it stacking. (that being said Cukierman was absolutely in a beast mode today against Sigouin)
Now there's not-full-100%-Holt situation. Had UNC won, and with the score 4:3, everyone would be saying USC made a mistake to have him play since they were basically giving up a point. It was really a coin flip: play him with understanding that his court is a loss but everyone else plays at the usual spot, or don't play him, everyone moves up, but you have a healthy player at #6. Now today USC's Ryder Jackson was not available for play so really they had no choice but to play Brandon.
And boy did they play! It is entirely possible that they would have won 6:1 if all matches were played to completion. They recovered from 2:5 in #1 doubles tiebreak to take it 7:5. As mentioned Cukierman was outstanding. Bulis started with break down but I had no doubt he is delivering a point. Stefan handled Cernoch with unusual ease. Riley found himself down 3:5, but broke back when Rinky served for the set, and won in TB. Second set was even when the match was called. Bradley at #6, after losing first set 6:0 in like 15 minutes, recovered very nicely, took the second set, and battled and fought to keep the match going. The coaches did outstanding job keeping the players focused, and loose. Younger Smith was hilarious cheering on the team. as they say: Fun is winning, winning is fun!
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
Ok so what grade would you give each team in the ITA indoors?

USC - A+
UNC - A, looked good all week despite getting blasted in the final
3rd-4th: Michigan - A, about as good of a week as they could have hoped for
3rd-4th: Ohio State - B-, not great compared to their usual indoor standards
5th-6th: Texas - B, not a good loss to Michigan but got two other decent wins
5th-6th: Florida - B+, got blasted by UNC but rebounded with a good performance vs Wake
7th-8th: Wake Forest - C+, the win over Baylor will probably gain strength going forward. The match vs OSU was not a bad showing but the blowout loss to Florida drops them.
7th-8th: Stanford - C, Slipped by NC State. Gave Texas a decent match
9th-10th: TCU - A-, lost to the eventual champ in a competitive match and then responded with two convincing wins.
9th-10th: Columbia - A-, Had two very nice wins after their opening loss
11th-12th: Texas A&M - B-, Close loss to Michigan and then beat UCLA. Convincing loss to TCU dropped them though
11th-12th: Baylor - D, Win over Wisconsin doesn't mean much and the loss to Columbia is not a good one for Baylor.
13th-14th: UCLA - C-, Two rather one-sided losses to the Texas schools. Saved a little bit by beating the Wolfpack easily.
13th-14th: South Carolina - B-, Pretty good effort vs UNC. But a loss to Columbia and not an overly impressive win over Wisconsin drops them.
15th-16th: NC State - C, started off ok with a close loss to Stanford (but Stanford looked worse after that). But two blowout losses to end it.
15th-16th: Wisconsin- C, Clearly out of their league here as they likely aren't a tournament team let alone top 16. Scared SC a but in last match.
I agree with some of what you have in here, a few adds/changes:
Michigan A+: Who even had them going this far? BIG is all OSU, Illinois, and Michigan has been lingering behind...No longer, their match with OSU in the spring is going to be a good one. Will be interesting to see if this is a one time thing or if it carries the rest of the season
Wake B+: this is a weaker Wake team, and I didn't expect them to get by a revived Baylor team or fight OSU so tough. I think they can be proud
OSU B+: they have had big wins at home that got everyone jacked about them, but its still a team with only 2 vets and 3 freshman playing in the lineup...it showed this weekend
Florida C: on paper this is the best team in the country...I have no idea why they fell so badly to UNC, and just don't seem to fight despite the backdraw win

USC will get a lot of hype now, but they are lucky to have pulled this off, they had a lot of momentum today and UNC gave too much in the previous two matches, they just looked flat.
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
USC will get a lot of hype now, but they are lucky to have pulled this off, they had a lot of momentum today and UNC gave too much in the previous two matches, they just looked flat.
well, if you can win 4 matches, without your arguably best player, on the surface that you are not really that accustomed to - you deserve all the hype you can get. And you are a bit better than lucky...... :)
 

jcgatennismom

Professional
Of course Cukierman is one of the best college tennis players. He is a 24 year old junior! He did not lose any eligibility because he had to serve in the Israeli army 3 years. However, here are some quotes from a Jan 2018 article https://www.tennis-tourtalk.com/28145/daniel-cukierman-to-make-his-way-back-up-the-rankings, "The 22-year-old...spent the past three years in the Israeli Army, something every Israeli male is required to do. He said he was able to play a limited tournament schedule and train. He was released from his duties last March, but the government did not allow him to play tournaments for eight months after he left the Army.“I was in a special program for athletes in the Army, so it wasn’t that bad,” said Cukierman... “I had gotten up to No. 525 in the world rankings, but lost all of my points with the layoff.” So while he was in the Army, he played enough to reach 525 but still could enter USC as 22 yo freshman? The only time he didnt play was the 8 month period after leaving army.

Per that article, he left the army in March 2017. If he served 3 years, he was in army from March 2014 to March 2017. During his "service," he played 19 Futures from March 2014 in 5 countries to end of 2014, 11 Futures and 1 Challenger in 2015 in3 countries, 28 Futures and 2 Challengers in 2016 in 3 countries, played Davis cup end of Dec 2016 to Jan 2017. He was paid to be in the army but his service was professional tennis. Call that a limited schedule?

If a player takes a gap year and plays a competitive match during the 2nd 6 months, per NCAA the player loses a year of eligibility. Cukierman played over 60 professional tourneys when he was supposedly in the army with his expenses probably paid by his country and yet he got to start as a freshman. Check ATp ITF sites-many of the early tourneys he was just in Qualis but still he was playing tennis most of the time, not playing soldier.
 
Last edited:

fireForehand

New User
Of course Cukierman is one of the best college tennis players. He is a 24 year old junior! He did not lose any eligibility because he had to serve in the Israeli army 3 years. However, here are some quotes from a Jan 2018 article https://www.tennis-tourtalk.com/28145/daniel-cukierman-to-make-his-way-back-up-the-rankings, "The 22-year-old...spent the past three years in the Israeli Army, something every Israeli male is required to do. He said he was able to play a limited tournament schedule and train. He was released from his duties last March, but the government did not allow him to play tournaments for eight months after he left the Army.“I was in a special program for athletes in the Army, so it wasn’t that bad,” said Cukierman... “I had gotten up to No. 525 in the world rankings, but lost all of my points with the layoff.” So while he was in the Army, he played enough to reach 525 but still could enter USC as 22 yo freshman? The only time he didnt play was the 8 month period after leaving army.

Per that article, he left the army in March 2017. If he served 3 years, he was in army from March 2014 to March 2017. During his "service," he played 19 Futures from March 2014 in 5 countries to end of 2014, 11 Futures and 1 Challenger in 2015 in3 countries, 28 Futures and 2 Challengers in 2016 in 3 countries, played Davis cup end of Dec 2016 to Jan 2017. He was paid to be in the army but his service was professional tennis. Call that a limited schedule?

If a player takes a gap year and play a competitive match during the 2nd 6 months, per NCAA the players loses a year of eligibility. Cukierman played over 60 professional tourneys when he was supposedly in the army with his expenses probably paid by his country and yet he got to start as a freshman. Check ATp ITF sites-many of the early tourneys he was just in Qualis but still he was playing tennis most of the time, not playing soldier.
It’s unreal - look at wakes ~28 year old senior.

Out of control


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Nacho

Hall of Fame
well, if you can win 4 matches, without your arguably best player, on the surface that you are not really that accustomed to - you deserve all the hype you can get. And you are a bit better than lucky...... :)
I get it, USC fans will think they are amazing. I like them, but I just wouldn't read too much into this win. I don't think they go the rest of the season blowing out everyone or dominating. I am sure fans of the team will be hyped, but Michigan choked that match away, TCU had a shot at them, they were fortunate Michigan was there and not Texas, USC was in the weaker side draw overall, and not sure I view Holt as their number 1 guy whether sick or not. They should have been in the finals (they were my pick from that side), and they played inspired today to win it, but it almost didn't happen for them.
 

jcgatennismom

Professional
@fireForehand Now there are some legit older players. I know of a US player who started Kgarten at 6 and repeated 8th grade as a homeschooler but went to college after 4 years of HS-he turned 20 fall of his freshmen year. I dont have a problem with the military exemption if a player is really training to defend his country but playing Futures in the army shouldnt get a free pass
 

jmnk

Hall of Fame
I get it, USC fans will think they are amazing. I like them, but I just wouldn't read too much into this win. I don't think they go the rest of the season blowing out everyone or dominating. I am sure fans of the team will be hyped, but Michigan choked that match away, TCU had a shot at them, they were fortunate Michigan was there and not Texas, USC was in the weaker side draw overall, and not sure I view Holt as their number 1 guy whether sick or not. They should have been in the finals (they were my pick from that side), and they played inspired today to win it, but it almost didn't happen for them.
All I remember from this post is: but, fortunate, should have, and almost :)

All good, just joking. That's why they play matches. As of today though USC is the team to beat.
 

jhick

Hall of Fame
disagree. when Stanford wins it all, it will show you that what I say is true
Delusional much? The tree hasn't been feared in many years by top teams at least.

Stanford women are a different story. Maybe you should put your chips in that pot and stop with the nonsense about the men's team which is an afterthought each and every year.
 

mikej

Hall of Fame
It’s unreal - look at wakes ~28 year old senior.

Out of control


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you referring to Botzer (a junior who turns 26 in a few days) or someone else?

But yes college tennis is losing control of recruiting - guys roughly a decade older than their competition, one-semester student-athletes...

None of these problems need be hard to solve if the NCAA and ITA are interested in preserving some balance / fair play:
1) complete four semesters of coursework, minimum, before turning pro, or any wins you were a part of get wiped
2) the day you turn 24, you’re done with NCAA tennis

Poof, no more one-semester players and no more guys who want to come to America to compete against 18-22 year olds after pretending to be in foreign militaries while advancing their pro tennis careers
 
Last edited:

JLyon

Hall of Fame
I remember FR year Fall 1997, my doubles Partner was a 38 y.o. So., granted this was JUCO, but was quite interesting. The Cukierman stuff is interesting, but in the end USC played by the rules and NCAA allowed it to happen for better or worse/
 

Nostradamus

Bionic Poster
Still funny they boycotted ncaa’s singles their senior year also never forget Gojo’s hook during team NCAAs that went viral


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Gojo has no shot at the pros anyway. might as well just concentrate 100 % in his academics and get a good degree at Wake forest. and join the working class.
 
I think it’s possible the Stanford-NCSt match had the worst two teams in the tournament, NCSt didn’t win another point all weekend after that 3-4 loss, and good chance Stanford will replicate that
Wisconsin by far had the worst team at Indoors. I understand the host has to play but can we please find a more competitive host.
 
Way to battle back, Gators

Bring on the SEC season and stay healthy
Happy we won but I think we got a bit lucky, or good strategy to lay down the day before. I really thought we would be a national title type team this year but not hopeful after the weekend. We've never been great indoors so who knows, I think we got lucky to get Wake after that match they had with OSU.
If we don't win SEC's this year I'll be very disappointed.
 
i'm not basing it on the ITA ratings. i'm basing it on the fact that cukierman is simply a better player. wake did the same thing the last couple years, as petros was a better player than gojo (though the difference is not as large as holt/cukierman).
Wait, ur saying Wake stacked a guy with a higher UTR and higher ATP ranking and better wins at 1? Your definition of stack is interesting.
 
Top