The Pacific 10 Alliance!
- Thread starter db379
- Start date
Fedace
Banned
Playing right now. Up doubles point already. Coach didn't want to jeopardize the undefeated season. We have a perfect season to think about . Klahn and Thacher could use this as Warm-up, i suppose. Beside they only play doubles tonight in the tournament. Klahn singles against Monfils isn't til tomorrow.
Coaches list their starting singles lineup in these kinds of matches. Then, when everyone looks good in doubles and no one got injured, they pull the top couple of guys and modify the lineup just before singles play starts.
That's what happened today. Klahn and Thacher are resting in singles. Everyone else moves up two spots. Walker Kehrer comes in at #5 and Jamin Ball at #6.
That's what happened today. Klahn and Thacher are resting in singles. Everyone else moves up two spots. Walker Kehrer comes in at #5 and Jamin Ball at #6.
Fedace
Banned
Right, i know. We will see how Kandath does at #4 spot.
On serve is not exactly "in trouble."
Fedace
Banned
Yea but your compadraes are blowing away their counterparts 6-0,,, this doesn't look good. but Jamin ball doing well though..
Fedace
Banned
Hillarious. I didn't know it was possible to hit the ball that Soft with Pure drive plus racket. Hirschman is literally just pushing the ball about 75 % of the time. He hits like USTA 3.5 player...
http://www.streamingtennis.com/Cardinal/livescoreboard3.html#
http://www.streamingtennis.com/Cardinal/livescoreboard3.html#
Fedace
Banned
I told you Jamin is good. He should play #6 instead of Kandath, most likely.
yep, agree 100%.
Fedace
Banned
You should watch this match at #3 spot with Hirschman. I can see why guys get so Mad playing against him. He is a Ultimate Pusher at its best. He hits like USTA 3.5-4.0 guy and Lobs like Ultimate pusher with radar lock on the baseline. The other guy is getting so mad,,,he can't play his normal tennis......LOL
Fedace
Banned
No, Utah is division 1 just like Stanford. not sure what their ranking is though ??
10isplayer
Semi-Pro
you do realize that ball lost a set at 6 as well right?
Automator
Semi-Pro
They aren't ranked.
You should watch this match at #3 spot with Hirschman. I can see why guys get so Mad playing against him. He is a Ultimate Pusher at its best. He hits like USTA 3.5-4.0 guy and Lobs like Ultimate pusher with radar lock on the baseline. The other guy is getting so mad,,,he can't play his normal tennis......LOL
That would make the guys below him at #'s 4, 5 and 6, 3.0's and 2.5's.
Great stuff Feddie. Keep em' coming.
Yes, Ball lost a tough 2nd set in the T-B, but he still won his match (so did Matt btw). The difference is that Matt has been playing for one full season already and he just can't make things work for him out there. He struggles every match, and he must have a losing record at 5/6 so far. . Jamin played his first match yesterday, and he showed some nice things, fought well, broke back in the second, lost the set but won the extended T-B in the 3rd playing solid. It's not just the result, but the way he won and his attitude. I think he's talented and he just needs a few more of these matches to become better and win this type of match more easily. Matt has had his chance and he has not took off yet... Trust me I wish both of them best of luck, and it really pains me to see Matt struggling the way he does, but you cannot keep a player who struggles indefinitely! Everyone must bring their point for the team. To be fair Matt seems a pretty good doubles player, I think he won all his doubles so far this year.
J.Ball is a fighter ,but he doesn't have the big game... his shots don't really do any damage.. he structures the points well and is comfortable coming up to the net to finish off a point but he just doesn't have the fire power.. maybe a couple of years in college could beef him up and he'll be ok..
Kandath was an outstanding Jr. because of his consistency off both wings but his topspins sort off sits up too high and at times they aren't that heavy ball that the pros hit.. he moves well for a 2hboth side player but might be a bit too stiff..
Kandath was an outstanding Jr. because of his consistency off both wings but his topspins sort off sits up too high and at times they aren't that heavy ball that the pros hit.. he moves well for a 2hboth side player but might be a bit too stiff..
Congrats to them. BTW, the name is spelled Thacher. Unusual, I realize.
Let's assume that the Utah #4 is slightly better than the Utah #5, who is slightly better than the Utah #6.
Let's further assume that Whitlinger has Walker Kehrer ahead of Jamin Ball for a reason, based on his observations in practice.
Kandath beats the Utah #4 about as easily as Ball beats the Utah #6. Walker Kehrer beats the Utah #5 more easily than either Kandath or Ball beat their opponents.
Therefore, no Stanford fan mentions that Kehrer should move up one spot, ahead of Kandath. Instead, everyone talks about how Jamin Ball should leap over both Kehrer and Kandath in the lineup.
What peculiar "Standford" logic am I missing here?
Let's further assume that Whitlinger has Walker Kehrer ahead of Jamin Ball for a reason, based on his observations in practice.
Kandath beats the Utah #4 about as easily as Ball beats the Utah #6. Walker Kehrer beats the Utah #5 more easily than either Kandath or Ball beat their opponents.
Therefore, no Stanford fan mentions that Kehrer should move up one spot, ahead of Kandath. Instead, everyone talks about how Jamin Ball should leap over both Kehrer and Kandath in the lineup.
What peculiar "Standford" logic am I missing here?
here's one for you Stan(d)ford fans ,"why has Whit stopped recruiting those big power players ?? UCLA got Clay and D.K. and this year and it's Ball and Ho for Stanford .. next year.. UCLA got Marcos and D.M. .. Stanford needs some fire-power for college tennis--- No? or has the game turned into a grinder's game all over the boards ?? what happened to 'big serve and blast off ''tennis (like Clay's).. no one can win like that any more or what?
That's exactly why, so that you guys from Virginia can follow the thread more easily.
We talked at length about that in another thread in this TW talk section. Do a search, but basically it comes down to 2 things:
1) are you good enough to make it in a top Div 1 tenis team.
2) do you have the grades to be admitted to Stanford.
A lot of strong players cannot get into Stanford because of their grades... therefore, they go to other schools.
10isplayer
Semi-Pro
Or they look at stanford's player development over the last couple years (sans bradley klahn) and go somewhere else
tennisnoob3
Professional
thats quite a stretch for a top ten player in the country. athletes are not held to the same academic standard as students anywhere. i've heard if the kid is within 2 standard deviations of their mean for sat and gpa they'll usually take them. although i could see how most top players dont do well in school.
fwiw, ucla, and especially Berkeley, are not worlds apart in difficulty for admissions compared to stanford.
check this out.
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=5350075&postcount=186
Berkeley has similar requirements to Stanford for admissions, and maybe that's why they've never been a top tennis school...
UCLA is not even close in terms of difficulty to get into. And they do get all the hottest tennis recruits...go figure.
If you don't believe me, check out the admissions facts for 2009. UCLA admits 3 times more applicants:
2009 admissions:
UCLA
* Percent of Applicants Admitted: 23%
* Test Scores -- 25th / 75th Percentile
o SAT Critical Reading: 560 / 680
o SAT Math: 590 / 720
o SAT Writing: 580 / 700
Stanford
# Percent of Applicants Admitted: 8%
# Test Scores -- 25th / 75th Percentile
* SAT Critical Reading: 660 / 760
* SAT Math: 680 / 780
* SAT Writing: 670 / 760
Don't bother going forward with this argument with db, because:
1) he pretends like he knows the ins and outs of stanford athletics admissions - when really he has no clue what goes on between the coach and those guys
db, would you like to prove otherwise? clark and I have previously mentioned a top 10 player (#9 frank carleton) that was not able to join his brother at duke due to a lack of academic merit (his sister also previously was a top player for the blue devils, so quite a family lineage they decided to cut off)...can you name a top 10 player in recent years that was denied consideration by stanford when that was his top choice of tennis program? just one name, please? (you may well know of one, i'm interested)
2) he doesn't believe stanford has any peer institutions when it comes to academics or the athletics-academics combo - despite neutral parties that tend to think otherwise, for example:
"In 2005, 2006, and 2007, Duke ranked first among Division I schools in the National Collegiate Scouting Association Power Rankings—a combination of the institution's Director's Cup standing, its athletic graduation rate, and its academic rank in U.S. News & World Report."
3) he fires back with often very interesting rankings that he finds in some obscure corner of the internet that list the likes of Minnesota, Maryland-College Park, and Indiana as much better universities than Harvard, Yale, Caltech, etc...so good luck getting him to admit that UCLA and Cal are anywhere near Stanford...i'm sure he has a ranking up his sleeves that claims that these universities do not, in fact, exist
Last edited:
sounds more like it, but the truth is uncomfortable sometimes
tennisnoob3
Professional
:lol:
first of all, my admittedly stronger argument was Berkley.
not even close? you dont understand that we're comparing a PUBLIC and a PRIVATE school, or the fact that past 700, the difference between a 720 and a 760 may be one question. 75% scores are 2100 and 2300 respectively, comparing a public to a private school, thats pretty close. UCLA admits 3x as many applicants because they can, they're a larger school and must do so, thus the larger variance in scores as well.
i should have clarified, but "world apart" is more like comparing baylor to stanford.
Last edited:
NO NO NO!
you don't get it! stanford has no equals! no peers! no challengers!
i find myself wondering if it's hard to get along with people in the real world with that kind of attitude, but that's just me
tennisnoob3
Professional
NO NO NO!
you don't get it! stanford has no equals! no peers! no challengers!
i find myself wondering if it's hard to get along with people in the real world with that kind of attitude, but that's just me
its hard to find a peer if you mean private university, duke comes to mind because of basketball and lax, but their football program is such a joke. usc may also be worth a mention, but they have very shady practices for football and basketball. stanford really has top programs in all sports, rivaling that of large public schools, but ivy equivalent academics. the ivies are good, not great at sports, but they probably wont put a tip in admissions for athletes like duke or stanford will.
edit: looking through ncaa rankings, they have a bunch of top 10 in every men's program that they have and are on almost every list for top ranked programs. the only exception i could find where they aren't on the list is wrestling
Last edited:
You guys keep arguing about this.. Every college has a minimum entrance standard ..those minimum are really low I'm comparison to what the normal non-athlete has to have to get in.. An athlete needs something like a 2.5 GPA to get in whereas a non-athlete would never make it into Stanford if they are not 4.0 or better or minority. Most colleges have quotas ... Athletes are placed on a special exemption for everything ...
well, this is a great over-simplification...certainly the minimums are much different for Univ. of Maryland basketball and Stanford tennis, for example...I doubt 2.5 goes over well when it's presented by Stanford tennis
db is right to note that academics are a factor in recruiting...where he's probably wrong, but at the very least unsubstantiated to this point, is in claiming that Stanford is in a world of their own
thus why i'm waiting for my example to show that they are even on par with one school I can think of in terms of tennis student-athlete selectivity...
tennisnoob3
Professional
thats an NCAA minimum, not a school minimum. if anything, theres been massive fraud over the past few years about basketball players and their transcripts/scores being forged or paying people to take the sat for them. pretty sure no school with a high academic rep would take a kid with 2.5 because they wouldnt be eligible for their sport.
yes I'm over generalizing .. most Ivy schools and MIT won't even consider a player unless they have at least a 3.5 and 2000 SAT score ... I'm sure Stanford is the same..
I know Ryan T. and DLin are excellent students straight 'A' s ect.. I think Kandath is also .
still no one is answering my question ... why the shift in players ?
I know Ryan T. and DLin are excellent students straight 'A' s ect.. I think Kandath is also .
still no one is answering my question ... why the shift in players ?
like i've said before, i'm sure most stanford athletes are excellent students as well...that was my experience at my school as well
i actually was sitting nearby thacher and his family watching a match when he was on his recruiting visit to duke - he and his parents were asking some difficult questions of a friend-of-the-program / chemistry professor regarding possible limitations on his academic courseload that would come along with being on the duke tennis team...i was impressed, and i guess stanford did a better job of answering those questions (or maybe the weather was warmer and the ladies were out in some nicer apparel when he went to palo alto
)and i forgot it was that question of yours that brought this firestorm back up, haha
"why has Whit stopped recruiting those big power players ?? UCLA got Clay and D.K. and this year and it's Ball and Ho for Stanford .. . .. Stanford needs some fire-power for college tennis--- No? or has the game turned into a grinder's game all over the boards ?? what happened to 'big serve and blast off ''tennis (like Clay's).. no one can win like that any more or what?
Mikej,
You keep on arguing about the same old things over and over again. Your Stanford hatred is above everything anyone can imagine. I gave you all the evidence in the other thread I referred to in my previous post. I bet you've never bothered reading it. I do not have insider's info as already explained to you! But you can find all the info you need in this other thread, or you can google it. Alternatively, you can go get a brain or go get a life, or both!
You keep on arguing about the same old things over and over again. Your Stanford hatred is above everything anyone can imagine. I gave you all the evidence in the other thread I referred to in my previous post. I bet you've never bothered reading it. I do not have insider's info as already explained to you! But you can find all the info you need in this other thread, or you can google it. Alternatively, you can go get a brain or go get a life, or both!
was my hatred more apparent in my last few posts when I defended Stanford tennis regarding having a higher standard than the proposed 2.5 cutoff or when i said I was impressed with thacher's academic seriousness??? you read what you want to hear, big guy...i guess you like setting me up as your opponent
i've read everything from that other thread...it's a nice mix of your own generalities and a beautifully written article about stanford athletics admissions that you love reposting...what i'm looking for is a concrete example to show that 1) stanford tennis is even on par with a school like duke in its student-athlete selectivity (which i don't tend to doubt, but let's see the proof) and furthermore 2) that stanford is in a whole other stratosphere and has no peers in this arena, as you like to claim
but i can see how one concrete tennis example would be too much to ask for if this is not the case...stick with generalities and pretending that my "Stanford hatred is above everything anyone can imagine" when I'm currently saying mostly-positive things about them...it's what you're good at
Sorry, but I cannot make you change your mind if you haven't had first hand experience of these schools. I did a few months project at UCLA during my studies, and I saw the difference with Stanford. Sure UCLA is a good school, better than most, but there's a clear difference in academics and competitiveness in the classroom between the two schools. It's like comparing Nadal and Monfils. Two of the world's best players, but still they are not in the same league. Sorry, if that doesn't make sense to you, but that's the best I can explain it.
OK, let me ask you something too: show us that 1) duke tennis is even on par with a top academic school in its student-athlete selectivity.
Similar threads
