UTR Analysis of the Women’s Elite 8 and Singles Individual Tournament

Hello fans, as I did last year, I’d like to get an article out to you with some analysis of the NCAA Team Tournament (Elite 8) as well as the NCAA Singles Tournament. I’m going to be using the UTR (Universal Tennis Rating) system. UTR is increasing in popularity as a tool, and is proving to be very accurate. I won’t be going into the doubles portions because the UTR system is meant for singles competition. For more information on UTR, go to universaltennis.com

Competitive Zone, Competitive Threshold, and Upsets
Competitive Zone – A match where the UTR difference between the two players is less than 1.0.
Competitive Threshold – A match where the losing player wins more than 50% of the minimum number of games needed to win the match. (i.e., for our purposes, the Competitive Threshold is reached when the losing player has won 7 games during the course of the match).
Upset – A match where the losing player’s UTR is more than 1.0 above the winning player’s UTR.

Elite 8 Team Championships
OK, first, the Team Championships (Elite 8). UTR has a feature called Power6 Rating, which is the sum of the UTRs of the top 6 players on any given team. That number can give you an idea of how strong the team is overall, although the distribution of those numbers is also important (e.g., if a team has four players with a UTR of 10.00 and the other two players have a UTR of 2.00, the total is relatively low but this team will win matches because of those 4 players with the high UTRs). Here are the numbers, match by match. (Note that all UTRs have a Reliability of 100% unless otherwise indicated.)

Key
Italics: in the Competitive Zone
Underline: Competitive Threshold reached
Bold: Upset

Quarterfinal
#1 Emory (Power6: 54.89) def #10 WashU (Power6: 48.75) 5-0
1. Harding(9.73) def Ho(9.55) 6-1, 6-3
2. Satterfield(9.18) def Silverberg(8.04) 6-1, 6-3
3. Rosen(9.45) v Deering(8.50) 6-3, 3-0
4. Gordon(9.41) v Coran(7.64) 6-2, 3-2
5. Su(8.76) v Griffith(7.49) 6-0, 3-3
6. Lopez(8.36) v Chionis(7.53) 6-6

Quarterfinal
#2 Williams (Power6: 53.45) def #9 UChicago (Power6: 48.17) 5-0
1. Raventos(9.90) v Iranpour(8.52) 6-0, 5-4
2. Gancayco(9.08) v Kim(8.65) 3-6, 1-5
3. Cancio(9.28) v Tang(8.22) 7-5, 1-0
4. Atkinson(8.68) v Chen(7.91) 4-6, 0-0
5. Bush(8.50) def Bynoe(8.13) 6-1, 6-3
6. McDonnell(8.01, 60%) def Lee(6.74, 60%) 6-2, 6-1

Quarterfinal
#5 Middlebury (Power6: 53.42) def #7 Amherst (Power6: 51.24) 5-2
(Midd led 2-1 after doubles)
1. Gerger(9.65) def Ip(8.62) 7-5, 6-3
2. Fields(9.26) v Ghosh(8.47) 6-3, 3-6, 4-4
3. Bondy(9.01) v Calla(8.99) 2-6, 6-3, 0-2
4. Puccinelli(9.13) def Monteagudo(8.38) 6-2, 2-6, 6-2
5. Paradies(8.62) def Chen(9.00) 7-6, 6-4
6. Orozco(7.75, 60%) lost to Wagman(7.78) 6-4, 6-2

Quarterfinal
#6 Bowdoin (Power6: 51.49) def #4 CMS (Power6: 51.48) 5-1
(Bowdoin led 3-0 after doubles)
1. Likhanskaia(9.16) def Ward(8.58) 6-3, 6-4
2. Cheng(9.10) v Kuosman(9.07) 7-6, 6-7, 0-0
3. Silitch(8.96) v Brown(8.82) 7-6, 3-6, 0-1
4. Trinka(8.32) lost to Scott(8.51) 6-4, 6-0
5. Stalder(8.34) def Cruz(8.34) 7-5, 2-6, 6-3
6. Shadowens(7.61) v Smith(8.16) 4-6, 6-3, 3-3

Semifinal
#1 Emory (Power6: 55.39) def #5 Middlebury (Power6: 51.85) 5-1
(Emory led 3-0 after doubles)
1. Harding(9.73) lost to Gerger(9.65) 6-3, 6-2
2. Satterfield(9.18) def Fields(9.26) 6-1, 6-1
3. Rosen(9.45) v Puccinelli(9.13) 6-4, 1-0
4. Castro(8.86) v Paradies(8.62) 6-4, 4-2

5. Gordon(9.41) def Orozco(7.75, 60%) 6-0, 6-0
6. Su(8.76) v Shackelford(7.44) 6-1, 3-5

Semifinal
#2 Williams (Power6: 55.01) def #6 Bowdoin (Power6: 51.49) 5-0
1. Raventos(9.90) v Likhanskaia(9.16) 7-6, 5-2
2. Gancayco(9.08) def Cheng(9.10) 6-4, 6-3
3. Shin(9.57) v Silitch(8.96) 7-6, 1-0
4. Cancio(9.28) v Trinka(8.32) 6-3, 4-6, 3-2
5. Atkinson(8.68) def Stalder(8.34) 7-6, 6-4
6. Bush(8.50) v Shadowens(7.61) 6-2, 5-7, 3-1

Championship
#1 Emory (Power6: 55.39) def #2 Williams (Power6: 55.01) 5-4
(Williams led 2-1 after doubles)
1. Harding(9.73) lost to Raventos(9.90) 6-1, 6-2
2. Satterfield(9.18) def Gancayco(9.08) 6-2, 6-3
3. Rosen(9.45) lost to Shin(9.57) 6-1, 6-0
4. Castro(8.86) def Cancio(9.28) 6-3, 6-1
5. Gordon(9.41) def Atkinson(8.68) 7-5, 6-0
6. Su(8.76) def Bush(8.50) 6-2, 6-2

Notes from the Team Tournament:
Competitive Zone matches: 17/24 in Quarters; 10/12 in Semis; 6/6 in Championship match.
Competitive Threshold reached: 10/24 in Quarters; 5/12 in Semis; 0/6 in Championship match.
Upsets: ZERO upsets

NCAA Singles Championship Tournament

32 Raventos(9.90) def Casey(8.10) 6-3, 6-1
32 Donnelly(9.29) def Humphreys(8.29) 6-0, 7-6
32 Liles(8.90) def Kuosman(9.07) 6-3, 1-6, 6-3

32 Fields(9.26) def Woods(8.24) 6-2, 6-0
32 Harding(9.73) def Garrison(8.81) 6-4, 6-7, 6-3
32 Louks(8.94) def Hawley(7.78) 6-2, 6-2
32 Kohrs(9.29) def Aboubakare(7.74) 6-3, 6-1
32 Casper(9.37) def Torres(8.44) 6-2, 3-6, 6-2
32 Zhao(9.25) def Satterfield(9.18) 7-6, 6-3
32 Ho(9.55) def Tzeng(9.14) 4-6, 6-2, 6-4
32 Rao(8.90) def Etchegaray(9.01) 6-0, 6-0

32 Gerger(9.65) def Kitchell(8.48) 6-1, 7-5
32 Brogan(8.12) def Vega(7.90) 3-6, 6-1, 6-2
32 Likhanskaia(9.16) def Iranpour(8.52) 6-3, 6-1
32 Ward(8.58) def Kanagasegar(8.22) 6-3, 6-4

32 Eudice(10.78!!!) def Tsu(8.06) 6-1, 6-3

16 Raventos(9.90) def Donnelly(9.29) 6-0, 6-3
16 Fields(9.26) def Liles(8.90) 6-4, 7-5
16 Harding(9.73) def Louks(8.94) 6-4, 6-3
16 Casper(9.37) def Kohrs(9.29) 4-6, 6-3, 6-4
16 Ho(9.55) def Zhao(9.25) 6-4, 6-0
16 Gerger(9.65) def Rao(8.90) 3-6, 6-2, 6-2

16 Likhanskaia(9.16) def Brogan(8.12) 7-5, 6-2
16 Chong(10.78) def Ward(8.58) 6-1, 6-4

Quarters Raventos(9.90) def Fields(9.26) 7-5, 6-1
Quarters Casper(9.37) def Harding(9.73) 6-2, 6-7, 6-0
Quarters Gerger(9.65) def Ho(9.55) 6-1, 6-3

Quarters Eudice(10.78) def Likhanskaia(9.16) 6-1, 6-0

Semis Raventos(9.90) def Casper(9.37) 6-3, 6-2
Semis Eudice(10.78) def Gerger(9.65) 7-6, 6-2

Final Eudice(10.78) def Raventos(9.90) 6-2, 7-5

Notes from the NCAA Singles Championship Tournament:
Competitive Zone matches: 16/24 in first 2 rounds; 5/7 in Quarters/Semis/Finals
Competitive Threshold reached: 12/24 in first 2 rounds; 3/7 in Quarters/Semis/Finals
Upsets: ZERO upsets

Well, that’s it for now. I hope you enjoyed this in depth look at the NCAA Women’s Championships!!

2 thoughts on “UTR Analysis of the Women’s Elite 8 and Singles Individual Tournament

  1. Name

    We got a little bit of ASW’s thoughts already, but what did you think? Since we’re doing a UTR analysis, what do you think of the fact that none of the matches in the team final were “competitive”?

    1. D3NE Womens

      Well I think these are 2 separate questions. One is the question of stacking. It’s really hard to prove whether a team is outright stacking or they just have a very strong #3 player and a very weak #2 player, for example. I think both Emory and Williams have their strong spots in the lineup.
      The second question is why weren’t the matches in the championship final more competitive? I don’t know if there is any particular reason. According to the UTRs, all the matches had potential to be close/competitive. Just coincidence perhaps.

Leave a Comment