Let’s review Amherst’s season against opponents currently ranked top 20 in the country.
Hopkins 6-3 win (Led 2-1 after doubles)
Carnegie 8-1 win (Led 2-1 after doubles)
Bowdoin 7-2 win (Led 2-1 after doubles)
Cal Lu 5-4 win (Led 2-1 after doubles)
Pomona-Pitzer 7-2 win (Led 3-0 after doubles)
CMS 6-3 win (Led 2-1 after doubles)
Bates 5-4 win (Down 2-1 after doubles)
Williams 5-4 win (Down 2-1 after doubles)
Middlebury 9-0 win (Led 3-0 after doubles)
Middlebury 5-1 win (Led 2-1 after doubles)
Bowdoin 5-2 win (Led 2-1 after doubles)
That’s a combined 5-0 against teams who made the Final 8 and a combined 22-11 in doubles against teams ranked top 20 in the country.
Let’s review Wash U’s season against opponents currently ranked top 20 in the country.
UC Santa Cruz 5-4 loss (Down 0-3 after doubles)
Kenyon 5-4 loss (Led 2-1 after doubles)
Bowdoin 6-3 loss (Down 2-1 after doubles)
Hopkins 5-4 loss (Led 2-1 after doubles)
Case 5-3 win (Down 0-3 after doubles)
Carnegie 5-4 win (Down 0-3 after doubles)
Emory 8-1 loss (Down 2-1 after doubles)
That’s a combined 0-4 against teams who made the Final 8 and a combined 6-15 in doubles against teams ranked top 20 in the country, including 1-8 in their last 3 matches. There was absolutely no way to see this coming. Wash U’s best win to this point was the 17th ranked team in the country and they struggled in that. I’m thinking so many different things I can’t even explain how big of an upset this is. But the bottom line is this: Wash U is a great program with a phenomenal coach that always believes they are going to win when they step on the court. They played a fantastic hour of tennis against an overconfident Amherst team, whose whole team didn’t show up to play today. Granted, Wash U is ranked 15th in the country, but the Final 8 is the Final 8 and you have to come to play. Amherst didn’t do that today and they ran into the wrong bunch of guys. Parizher, Farah and Putterman have been there before, and they were able to propel their doubles teams to early leads which were big enough for them to hold onto. Amherst didn’t want it enough, and they had a bad day while playing a team that had a great doubles day. With the 9-point system, anything can happen, and we saw that in action today. I apologize to Wash U for saying they had no shot because clearly I was wrong, but this just dwarfs every other upset in NCAAs since I’ve been a part of D3. While Williams over CMS last year was a shocker, this is a team who really had no business even making it to North Carolina beating the odds-on favorite to win the national title and the defending champion. I’m still in shock and don’t know what to say, but I’ll have more time to gather my thoughts and talk about this after the season. One thing is for sure and that is Amherst has a very long time to think about how they performed today. They did a complete turnaround compared to how they’ve played the past 3 years and I can’t help but think they weren’t hungry this year after winning it all last year. Overall, a hard earned D3-leading 5th consecutive Final 4 for the Wash U Bears, and a golden opportunity to get back to the Championship for the first time since 2008.
Kenyon played a flat-out awesome match today. They beat CMS fair and square and earned their first ever Final 4. Just as I said above, this is the 9-point system being the great equalizer. I don’t want to speculate, but it’s very possible this would have ended up being 5-4, which means CMS wins in the 7-point system. Either way it doesn’t matter, but what does matter is that Burgin stepped up for the Lords just as I said he had to. He got both of his spots, and along with the shocking victory for Kenyon at 1 doubles, it was enough so Kenyon never really was in danger of losing this match. In the Final 8, Alex Lane is now a combined 0-4 over 2 years, and that really hurts CMS. For the Stags, it’s another good year and another squandered opportunity in NCAAs, and it’s still not clear what goes wrong with these guys every year. Today, Kenyon was clearly the superior team. They played and acted like it from the first ball, and all the talk about the shaky regular season helping the Stags in the postseason turned out to be irrelevant. The Stags came very close to putting it all together near the end of the season, but that clearly wasn’t the case as evidenced by today. Part of me feels bad for CMS because they really deserve that national title, but I also feel great for Kenyon, who really deserves this Final 4. The late matches today were a case of 2 teams who played poor doubles for the majority of the year being able to turn it around against favored opponents. Although we’ve seen it more this year than ever, it really is incredibly difficult to dig out of an 0-3 hole, and no matter how great Herst and CMS were, they forgot to play the first hour of their respective matches and that’s not going to get it done against quality teams this late in the season.
I would have been happy with today’s drama if both afternoon matches were blowouts. I feel spent writing this post already and I haven’t even discussed the best match of the day yet. Finally, Hopkins was not able to dig out of a 2-1 hole, and that’s because they played a team who could match their talent in singles. Emory jumped out to the doubles lead as expected and managed 3 first sets. Pottish and Kowalski held on for wins, and despite Goodwin’s shocking loss to Brown, Emory’s freshman Halpern was the more clutch player in his match at 5. Hopkins couldn’t have asked for a more picture-perfect scenario in this match. They had their senior up 3-0 in the 3rd set of what would be the deciding match against Emory’s freshman, but through the years Emory has been the tougher team and that proved to be the case today. For Hopkins, a gritty and impressive performance that their young guys will use to their advantage next year. And for Emory, they got a great win against a great team, and with Amherst out, they have a clear path to give Pottish and Goodwin their national title. I think Emory is too focused to let the Amherst loss distract them, because the really big match for the Eagles is tomorrow. Whoever comes out of the Emory-Williams semi will be the heavy favorite entering Wednesday’s final. The Eagles crushed both Kenyon and Wash U, so they have to feel good about their chances. The key for Emory tomorrow is to jump out to that 2-1 lead and let their big guns take care of business. Goodwin didn’t have a great day, but his teammates bailed him out and he has another tough match tomorrow against Sun, which his team really needs.
As expected, we had an old-fashioned NESCAC street fight, with two very complete teams playing a tight match. But this time, it was the more experienced Ephs who were able to come back from the 2-1 doubles deficit and take control of the match, winning 5 first sets, led by senior Will Petrie’s comeback in his first set. Bowdoin has nothing to hang their heads about because they played a great match, but the better team won today. I don’t think there’s a ton to break down when it comes to this match, it was just a typical tight college tennis match and Williams was more solid in the end. Bowdoin returns the core of their team next year, and I’m sure the lessons they learned today will help them in the future. Watch out for the Polar Bears next year because they are for real. They came out firing in doubles and had Williams on their heels start to finish. However the Ephs dug deep and gutted out the win to make their 2nd consecutive Final 4. Just as Emory would be a heavy favorite in the final if they won tomorrow, so would Williams, and you better believe Williams sees the opportunity ahead of them.
Looking ahead to tomorrow, I like Emory and Kenyon. Williams cannot count on winning 4 singles matches against Emory, and with the Eagles 3 doubles team being really tough, if they can steal 1 or 2, I love Emory’s chances heading into singles. That said, Williams is very tough at the top 2 doubles spots, and if they can grab that 2-1 lead, this is a winnable match for them. I like the chances for Sun, Micheli, Chow and Petrie tomorrow. They’ve all been there before and the last 3 will be playing less-experienced opponents. But I just think this is Emory’s year to win it all again. They are obviously aware of what’s at stake tomorrow and Browning will have his boys ready to go from the first ball in doubles. I’ll take Emory 5-3. I love how Kenyon played today, and despite Wash U’s outstanding win, I’m going with what I think is the better team. With both teams sweeping doubles, that will obviously be huge tomorrow. I like both teams at 3 of the singles spots, but I have to throw the doubles edge to Kenyon. I really like Wash U’s chances at 1, 3 and 6 singles as well as at 1 doubles, but I’m just not sure where that 5th point is going to come from. I think this is going to be a nailbiter just like the 3rd place match at Indoors 3 months ago, and I’ll take Kenyon 5-4 after they grab a 2-1 lead in doubles.
wonder what the deal is with pottish for tomorrow, saw him getting taken away on a stretcher after the match. hope he is good to go, other wise emory could be in some trouble. will be a great match regardless.
What a battle Emory vs. Williams today…saw the end of the last two singles matches on NCAA video.
Judging by those two matches and other 3-set singles matches by Emory, they will surely be feeling tired tomorrow. If it is hot and humid…not much time to recover. I’m guessing Kenyon will be fresher and thus have a good shot for the upset after an impressive win versus Wash U. today.
It will be a battle no doubt, Emory has had absolutely no problem at all with Kenyon in their first 2 meetings but Kenyon is certainly playing quality tennis right now. I’m still going to take Emory for the win because I don’t think Kenyon can sweep them but the way things have been going anything is absolutely possible.
Fantastic work. I look forward to your insights on the semis and finals as well as your future work.
It’s all Coach Wilky from Gustavus’ doing.
No it’s not.
I gotta say this one more time. You rock for putting the time and effort into this site it really is amazing and fun. Great work and I hope you continue this site next year!
Does anyone know why DIII counts each doubles match separately on a nine point score rather than 2 of 3 counting for one point like DI? Apart from why DIII scores that way, what do people think about it, should doubles prosets count for so much? It seems to make matches less predictable since it is easier to sustain a hot streak for a proset than for 2 out of three sets. Are upsets due to hot doubles teams a good thing, or a bit unfair to the better teams?
I personally love doubles and hate to see its marginalization everywhere but DIII, Davis Cup, and club tennis. However, the infamous 3-0 start has allowed many lesser teams to walk away victorious. When CMU beat NCW 5-4 at CMU, the winning home team lost 4 out of six singles and won no.3 doubles 9-8. While clearly a win under the rules, it is hard to believe that CMU had the better team. (NCW’s loss to Hopkins does not look so bad either at this point.)
The change was made after 2007 to make doubles more meaningful. D3 women have been using this system for some time and part of the reasoning was to make both genders the same, as they have been trying to bring both genders together for a while (m/w in Claremont in ’11, and Cary this year).
Is it fair that you get 1 point for a pro set and 1 point for a two out of three set match? No. It does make doubles more valuable, and even though momentum might have a major impact in the results of a pro set more than a full match, it does help equalize matches against some of these ridiculously talented teams. It should be noted that CMS LOST to Swarthmore after sweeping the doubles. It’s a big deficit, but has been done numerous times in recent years. Answer for those finding themselves in a hole: get better at doubles.
I think a big reason for the seven-point scoring in Division I is simply the vast amount of foreign players and the higher caliber of talent. Many of the players in Division I have undivided attention to their singles play throughout their lives, and it just wouldn’t make sense to place so much pressure on doubles all of a sudden for them. A lot of the foreigners are drawn to premiere Division I tennis to get scholarships at good universities after becoming some what of a disappointment when they cannot compete on the pro-tour. Junior and professional tennis in general places much more emphasis on success in singles, so naturally this is what the more talented players should have to focus on in Division I competition.
And yet, the 9-point system wouldn’t be worse for DI, it would just be different. It would de-emphasize the player who can only play doubles, which would probably open up spots for more versatile players. I am with the original poster…I’m a big fan of doubles and don’t like to see it marginalized. My biggest issue with the pro-set format is that slow starts are very difficult to overcome because there is no “reset.” It places a strange emphasis on quick starters, though, perhaps, having doubles partner there to help keep each other fired up is the best situation
My solution:
Keep the 9-point team matches with each doubles match counting for one point and change the doubles back to 2 out of 3 sets. The players are fit enough to handle it and there would be fewer fluky upsets plus better quality tennis when it counts at the end of each doubles match…and just as much incentive for players to work on their all-court skills.
One more thought: if time constraints/court availability or other factors are an issue then only allow the shorter pro set format if both coaches agree before the match starts.
My solution: Keep the nine-point system with pro-sets but play the doubles last, after the singles. This would give spirit and emphasis to the singles play and add considerable drama and value to the doubles. And, players would be warmed up and ready from the start, forced to avoid slow starts in doubles.
Regardless of the order, I would suggest that D 3 tennis keep the nine point system but make ALL matches two sets with a super tiebreaker to decide the match when a split occurs:keeps emphasis on doubles, adds fairness and makes the very exciting ten point breaker a possibility in every match.
I think the issue with making the singles first is that there is the chance that doubles completely becomes marginalized. Why are you even going to play doubles if its already 6-0 or 5-1 or 4-2 etc
Wow! Great ideas…
Looking over the suggestions, I like the two out of three with a superbreaker for all matches more than any of the other solutions. Singles first means that players/starters will only play doubles if the match is close, and I think that move would overly de-emphasize doubles. Straight two-out-of-three for doubles and singles is appealing, but impractical because of time and space (Imagine 9-hour dual matches on four or three indoor courts…). I’m not sure how much of an improvement 10-game pro-sets would be. Does anyone have any experience with them? 4-game sets?
I disagree with Mr. Anon and his suggestion that “singles is more worthy of a team point” based on the concept of winning more games in singles than doubles. To me, that’s not relevant. I’ll admit that the scoring system that is in place is a little odd, and the previously mentioned system where all matches were scored the same is preferable. But changing how matches are scored is preferable to basically tossing doubles aside by playing it after singles. In that case, the good players will only play doubles when they have to. They will not have the chance to develop as teams with real match pressure nearly as often. As it stands, nearly all the singles players start their matches with the team match undecided (with the exception of the #5 and #6 if there are only 4 courts). That’s preferable to having doubles ever starting with the match decided.
The one reason I like the idea of playing doubles second is that it can give more players a chance to step play who otherwise wouldn’t because coaches can empty the bench once the match is decided. For me this is not enough to convince me, but I think it’s a point in that camp’s favor.
Playing dub’s after singles gives more emphasis to tandems, not less. If a team wins 5 or 6 singles matches, yes the doubles are irrelevant, but that’s no different than the remaining singles matches being irrelevant after a team reaches 5 points in the current setup with doubles played first! But the odds are against teams winning 5 or 6 singles matches – CMS couldn’t do it, Amherst couldn’t do it. So, imagine if the whole match was riding on the outcome of the three remaining doubles matches. Don’t you think there would be more focus on doubles skills and play? Of course there would be. And, in this singles first set-up, you allow the singles players to set the table (and, yes, possibly clear it but the odds are against that).
I like this idea of doubles deciding matches, I just am not convinced it will happen as often as we’d like. I think it’s more likely that most doubles matches will be played, or at least finished, after the final result is in. The exceptions will feature doubles teams that have only played a couple of matches that really count over the course of the season.
I’d argue that it’s much different to send 3 doubles matches out with the team match already decided than to send a #5 or #6 out (in a four court match) with the team match clinched. Currently, in a six-court match, all singles matches start with the result of the match in doubt. That’s the ideal. It is a little strange, in a four-court match, to have the last matches out there be #5 and #6. It seem more appropriate that the top players would be the deciding points if a match is really close. For example, it makes more sense for the #1 to shoulder the burden of playing the last match if all the other matches have gone 4-4.
I guess that brings me, finally, to another point: there’s really no ideal format, especially if teams are not well matched. In the conferences that I’ve coached in, I’ve seen a lot of blowouts (in both directions). No format would make blowouts more interesting, and formats might not work equally well on 6- and 4-court set-ups. So I think the question is what format makes for the most interesting match if the teams are well matched.
On six courts, I might go for singles first, knowing clairvoyantly that singles would be 3-3 or 4-2 and that doubles would decide the match. My concern remains that in a blowout, the teams don’t get the practice of the stress of preparing for doubles knowing that the match is yet to be decided.
On four courts, I’m concerned that waiting for two tiers of singles before doubles starts could be excessive, and that even in a six court match, some players will wait for an hour or two if one of the matches goes much longer than the others. Perhaps the current format makes more sense in this case.
Coach, it’s been fun talking about the order of singles and doubles and the 7-pt. vs 9-pt. systems, but I doubt we will be called to speak before the rules committee anytime soon. My last remarks regarding your last post are: 1) I agree that nothing can make a blow-out more compelling. 2) I agree with all of your observations about court configurations – I hadn’t thought about any of that, being a four-season California guy exposed only to matches that always have at least six designated courts. Tennis is an outdoor sport. Shall we debate that? Just kidding.
Great post. The Wash U upset over Amherst is one of the better things that could have happened for D3 Tennis on the whole… there’s a much (much) higher level of predictability in this NCAA tourny than, say, D1 basketball. A match like this one keeps us going, guessing, and debating each year.
Solid performance from JHU and its scary to think whats to come with 4 freshmen singles starters (and two 4-star recruit freshmen on the bench).