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

Hello fans, it’s been a little quiet on the women’s side but the NCAA Championships were an exciting time so I want to get an article out to you with some analysis of the Team Tournament (Elite 8) as well as the Individual 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
A match is said is to be in the Competitive Zone when the difference between the UTRs of the two players is less than 1.0.
A match is considered to have reached the Competitive Threshold when 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).
An Upset occurs when 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 Williams (Power6: 55.81) def #14 DePauw (Power6: 43.85) 5-0 (Williams led 3-0 after doubles)
1. Raventos(W) 9.70 def Marshall(D) 7.95; 6-2, 6-0
2. Shin(W) 9.95 v MacPhail(D) 8.29; 6-1, 4-3
3. Curran(W) 9.22 v Mahr(D) 7.25; 6-2, 3-4
4. Gancayco(W) 8.94 v Wittwer(D) 6.67; 6-3, 2-3
5. Cancio(W) 9.30 v Pickrel(D) 6.67; 6-1, 2-3
6. Atkinson(W) 8.70 def Huerth(D) 7.02; 6-1, 6-0

Quarterfinal
#7 Amherst (50.39) def #13 MIT (47.66) 5-1 (Amherst led 2-1 after doubles)
1. Ip(A) 9.20 v Kohrs(M) 8.82; 7-5, 3-3
2. Ghosh(A) 9.35 def Das(M) 7.40; 6-1, 7-5
3. Calla(A) 8.41 v Tam(M) 7.74; 6-1, 5-3
4. Monteagudo(A) 8.82 def Tzeng(M) 7.97; 6-4, 6-3
5. Adamo(A) 7.56 def Liu(M) 8.42(70%); 6-4, 6-2
6. Carpenter(A) 7.05 v Kong(M) 7.31; 4-6, 1-4

Quarterfinal
#3 CMS (51.60) def #5 CMU (48.31) 5-1 (CMS led 3-0 after doubles)
1. Ward(CMS) 8.77 v Pavia(CMU) 9.00; 6-2, 4-6, 3-5
2. Kousman(CMS) 8.87 def Pratt(CMU) 7.35; 6-1, 7-6
3. Kukino(CMS) 8.83 def Torres(CMU) 8.19; 6-1, 4-6, 6-4
4. Tsu(CMU) 8.38 def Brown(CMS) 8.68; 6-2, 7-6
5. Scott(CMS) 8.48 v Sidell(CMU) 7.35; 3-6, 6-2, 5-6
6. Smith(CMS) 7.97 v Raschke(CMU) 8.04; 6-2, 2-6, 5-4

Quarterfinal
#2 Emory (55.13) def #6 Middlebury (50.73) 5-1 (Emory led 2-1 after doubles)
1. Satterfield(E) 8.91 v Gerger(M) 10.15; 4-6, 3-4
2. Rosen(E) 8.98 v Fields(M) 9.33; 4-6, 1-4
3. Goodman(E) 9.03 v Bondy(M) 8.52; 6-3, 5-4
4. Su(E) 8.98 def Orozco(M) 8.04; 6-4, 6-3
5. Harding(E) 9.00 def Marchese(M) 7.36; 6-1, 6-3
6. Gordon(E) 10.23(40%) def Paradies(M) 7.33; 6-1, 6-1

Semifinal
#1 Williams (55.81) def #7 Amherst (50.39) 5-1 (Williams led 2-1 after doubles)
1. Raventos(W) 9.70 def Ip(A) 9.20; 6-2, 6-2
2. Shin(W) 9.95 v Ghosh(A) 9.35; 6-0, 5-6
3. Curran(W) 9.22 v Calla(A) 8.41; 4-6, 2-4
4. Gancayco(W) 8.94 v Monteagudo(A) 8.82; 7-6, 3-5
5. Cancio(W) 9.30 def Adamo(A) 7.56; 6-3, 6-3
6. Atkinson(W) 8.70 def Carpenter(A) 7.05; 6-2, 7-5

Semifinal
#2 Emory (55.13) def #3 CMS (51.60) 5-1 (Emory led 2-1 after doubles)
1. Satterfield(E) 8.91 v Ward(C) 8.77; 6-0, 5-4
2. Rosen(E) 8.98 def Kousman(C) 8.87; 6-3, 6-1
3. Goodman(E) 9.03 v Kukino(C) 8.83; 3-6, 4-4
4. Su(E) 8.98 v Brown(C) 8.68; 5-7, 1-4
5. Harding(E) 9.00 def Scott(C) 8.48; 7-6, 6-3
6. Gordon(E) 10.23(40%) def Smith(C) 7.97; 6-3, 6-0

3rd Place
#7 Amherst (50.39) def #3 CMS (51.60) 5-1 (Amherst led 2-1 after doubles)
1. Ip(A) 9.20 v Ward(C) 8.77; 7-6, 1-3
2. Ghosh(A) 9.35 def Kousman(C) 8.87; 6-3, 6-1
3. Calla(A) 8.41 def Kukino(C) 8.83; 6-0, 7-5
4. Monteagudo(A) 8.82 def Brown(C) 8.68; 6-3, 6-2
5. Adamo(A) 7.56 v Scott(C) 8.48; 5-7, 4-3
6. Carpenter(A) 7.05 v Smith(C) 7.97; 3-6, 2-5

Championship
#1 Williams (55.81) def #2 Emory (55.13) 5-4 (Williams led 2-1 after doubles)
1. Raventos(W) 9.70 def Satterfield(E) 8.91; 6-3, 6-2
2. Shin(W) 9.95 def Rosen(E) 8.98; 4-6, 6-2, 6-3
3. Curran(W) 9.22 def Goodman(E) 9.03; 6-1, 6-2
4. Su(E) 8.98 def Gancayco(W) 8.94; 7-6, 6-4
5. Harding(E) 9.00 def Cancio(W) 9.30; 6-4, 6-4
6. Gordon(E) 10.23(40%) def Atkinson(W) 8.70; 6-4, 3-6, 6-0

Notes from the Team Tournament:
Competitive Zone matches: 13/24 in Quarters; 9/12 in Semis; 11/12 in 3rd/Champ matches
Competitive Threshold reached: 11/24 in Quarters; 4/12 in Semis; 6/12 in 3rd/Champ matches
Upsets: ZERO upsets

Individual Singles Tournament
And here are the results from the Singles Championship Tournament:

32 EUDICE(11.04) def Matsuda(7.70) 6-2, 6-3
32 Donnelly(8.78) def Kanagasegar(8.06) 6-1, 6-1
32 Iranpour(9.57) def Liles(9.15) 6-2, 6-1
32 Riddle(8.08) def Ip(9.20) 6-1, 5-7, 6-4
32 Pavia(9.00) def Fields(9.33) 6-3, 7-6
32 Garrison(8.75) def Hawkins(8.00) 4-6, 6-1, 6-0
32 Satterfield(8.91) def Ward(8.77) 6-2, 6-2
32 Shin(9.95) def Woods(7.95) 7-6, 6-0
32 Likhanskaia(9.66) def Humphreys(8.73) 6-2, 6-1
32 Meighan(8.79) def Etchegaray(8.43) 6-3, 6-2
32 Kousman(8.87) def Harris(7.72) 6-1, 7-5
32 Ghosh(9.35) def Ho(9.35) 2-6, 6-2, 6-4
32 Raventos(9.70) def Li Kam Wa(8.07) 6-2, 6-2
32 Vega(8.76) def Marshall(7.95) 6-3, 6-3
32 Tang(8.02) def Johnson(8.59) 6-2, 6-4
32 Gerger(10.15) def Goodhue(8.37) 6-1, 6-4

16 EUDICE(11.04) def Donnelly(8.78) 6-0, 6-0
16 Iranpour(9.57) def Riddle(8.08) 6-4, 6-0
16 Garrison(8.87) def Pavia(9.00) 6-1, 1-6, 6-4
16 Satterfield(8.91) def Shin(9.95) 7-5, 6-1
16 Likhanskaia(9.66) def Meighan(8.79) 6-3, 6-2
16 Ghosh(9.35) def Kousman(8.87) 6-4, 6-2
16 Raventos(9.70) def Vega(8.76) 6-3, 6-2
16 Gerger(10.15) def Tang(8.02) 1-6, 6-3, 6-1

Quarter EUDICE(11.04) def Iranpour(9.57) 6-2, 6-2
Quarter Satterfield(8.91) def Garrison(8.75) 6-4, 6-1
Quarter Likhanskaia(9.66) def Ghosh(9.35) 6-4, 6-2
Quarter Raventos(9.70) def Gerger(10.15) 6-1, 6-2

Semi EUDICE(11.04) def Satterfield(8.91) 6-4, 6-2
Semi Likhanskaia(9.66) def Raventos(9.70) 6-3, 1-6, 7-5

Final EUDICE(11.04) def Likhanskaia(9.66) 6-4, 4-6, 7-5

Notes from the Individual Singles Tournament:
Competitive Zone matches: 14/24 in first 2 rounds; 4/7 in Quarters/Semis/Finals
Competitive Threshold reached: 6/24 in first 2 rounds; 2/7 in Quarters/Semis/Finals
Upsets: 2

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