I think the men will win their regional but the match against Arizona will be a close one (I'm going to call it 4-2). Home court advantage will not be enough to get by Ole Miss in the Sweet 16, but we'll give them a run for their money.

The women will lose 4-1 to SMU.



[This message has been edited by Harry Dunne (edited 5/8/2009 11:12a).]

Men beat Arizona 4-3; lose to Ole Miss 0-4
Women lose to SMU 2-4

match vs arizona will not be that close. 4-0 ATM.

geez rocket you sure are doing a great job of setting the ags up to look bad if we have any kind of trouble whatsoever with arizona.

Ladies drop the doubles point to SMU, 0-1

Not lookin' good in singles...

Ags now down 0-2 to SMU

2-1 SMU

Ags take S4

Fighting for survival in S1, S2, S5

Ags lose 1-4. An all too predictable finish.

Were proably the 5th best womens team in texas...but hey Coach K is a nice guy..so thats it.

Does anyone know why 2 or 3 of our girls were out today?

Elze was having trouble with her arm. I heard that Stephanie had some kinda bug.

If those two play, I think we had a legitimate chance at beating SMU. Morgan and Janelle were both up in third sets. Lauren had to bump up a line and just totally overpowered the girl she played. Sheri all but had the second set of the 5 line wrapped up before losing it. Ashley gave a great effort, but that's a tough spot to put a freshman in with limited experience.

If Elze had played, we would've likely taken the doubles point, Sheri would've dominated the girl on 6 (who really wasn't very good, and was having trouble with the heat), Lauren would've had no problems taking care of the girl at 5, and with the way Morgan and Janelle were playing, I'd bet they would've won their matches too.

Tough way to go down, with a late scratch of your #1 singles player.

Camden...it is an error to always assume you know whom you are addressing.

Second, I think you are being a little paranoid their. As predicted you won with ease. As one of the lower seeded #1s the Ncaa could of sent Pepperdine or Wake Forrest to the College Station regional. Instead they sent Arizona whose best win of the season was over a Stanford team missing two of their starters.

Don't get me wrong, ATM has as good of 1-3 as anyone in the country. Your doubles are solid. I see nothing wrong with awarding the final site host a more than reasonable group of opponents. Good for business.

All of this in now water under the bridge. On to the round of 16.






















































[This message has been edited by rushlimbaugh (edited 5/9/2009 10:40p).]

Rush, having trouble with your enter key?

quote:

---

If those two play, I think we had a legitimate chance at beating SMU.

---

Not a chance. SMU beat much better teams than us this year. We'll finish 40 or worse for the first time since they have been keeping the top-75 and thats right about where we ought to be ranked.

How do you figure not a chance? If we had played the match out, it would've been a 4-3 loss. That with everyone having to move up a spot, missing your #1, and ranked, singles player, and having 2 players in doubles that don't usually play?

Sheri and Elze would've destroyed the #3 doubles team from SMU, and that would've given them the doubles point, which alone would've been enough to win the match. Heck, even Lauren and Sheri would've won #3, if only one of those girls was able to play doubles.

Apparently, you weren't at the match. SMU did not look that good yesterday. Don't make such definitive statements about matches you didn't see.

SMU coach told me they played like crap, so apparently it was not a good day for them.

Still, they were the better team yesterday, we would get them eventually, but not when it counted

quote:

---

We'll finish 40 or worse for the first time since they have been keeping the top-75 and thats right about where we ought to be ranked.

---

Having great facilities and a world-class university doesn't help recruiting and player development when the coach is widely known to be third-rate. "Building Champions" doesn't apply to womens tennis.

Wow!!! That is a bunch of space. It was a long day yesterday. Lots of sun and maybe I just got carried away.

quote:

---

Sheri and Elze would've destroyed the #3 doubles team from SMU

---

The #3 doubles team from SMU has been ranked as high as #38 in the country before. They broke the SMU record for singles wins in a season this year and have only lost once all year, 8-6 to LSU. Its not a stack, they just have 3 great doubles teams. Meanwhile our doubles teams are sloppy and poorly coached. I wasn't at this match but I've been at enough matches this year to know that.

SMU beat Baylor in dubs today and THAT match would have finished 4-3 with #3 singles going to 3 sets. We haven't had anything but a laugher against Baylor in a while.

If you're going to be a know-it-all, it helps to know what the hell you are talking about.

I do know what the hell I'm talking about, because I SAW THE MATCH.

Futhermore, I just lost all respect for your tennis knowledge.

SMU's #3 doubles team was never ranked this season, at least not according to collegetennisonline.com, or according to the SMU website. But maybe you have another, more reliable source? Doesn't give a whole lot of creedence to your wins record when you only lose once, and still aren't ranked.


Furthermore, are you forgetting that Elze and Sheri only lost 3 times all year, and against very good teams? Sheri scored basically 4 points on her own, as the SMU strategy was clearly to pick on Ashley, and it worked like a charm.

I never claimed it to be a stack. I think that based on watching them play, yesterday, they were not as good as Sheri and Elze have been this year.

Clearly either SMU had an off night, or our girls were playing better than they've played most of the season. Maybe they are the better team than us 9 times out of 10, but yesterday, if Elze plays, we probably win that match. SMU was just not playing very well, sorry. If you're such a tennis expert, you should know that looking at a score line does not even come close to telling the whole story of a match. Matches aren't played on paper. Maybe our girls happened to match up against their weaknesses better than other teams they've played, who knows.

Obviously I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't know for sure what would've gone down if Elze and/or Stephanie had been playing, but I do know what I saw, and based on that, if both of those girls play, I think we had a better than 50/50 chance of pulling off the upset.

The mental aspect of the game can make all the difference. If the two Aggie girls had played, SMU might have picked up their level of play and the result could have been the same. Who knows? All that we do know is the Ags lost 4-1 and their season is over and there is a chance the women drop out o fthe top 40. Disappointing year.

First you're sure they would have destroyed them and now you don't have a crystal ball - which one is it?

They were 38 last year, when forced to play high because of injuries to their team. You can't get a ranking playing 3 doubles, because you don't play against ranked teams. Again, if you're going to talk like you know, try actually KNOWING how it works.

So basically, not having a ranking despite only losing once only means that they played 3 doubles...and that the two teams ahead of them are excellent. SMU didn't have their #1 and #2 players until a month into the season...not coincidentally they upset #14 Arkansas the match they got them back. Since you're so fond of collegetennisonline why don't you go see how many times SMU lost the doubles point PERIOD and how many doubles matches total they lost since that point.

I'm just as sorry to say it as you are to hear it (even though you clearly don't believe it, God bless your maroon-bleeding heart): The A&M womens tennis team was VERY mediocre this year. They are clearly not one of the top 32 teams in the country this year. If they played SMU 10 times on a neutral court, SMU would win 9 of those matches. You don't THINK that SMU was better because you don't want to believe it but look at it objectively for a second and you'll realize that its true.

P.s. - the only 2 matches they lost prior to Baylor were LSU and Mizzou, and this was without their 1 and 2. With those players they kill Mizzou and probably beat LSU as well. If they hadn't had the 2 players out early and if they hadn't played such a mostly cupcake schedule they would be top-15 right now, Again, they easily handled #14 Arkansas and
they almost beat Baylor today on their home court. What's the last time we even got close to Baylor?

Just to recap the tale of the tape:

Budget: A&M by a tsunami landslide

Facility: ditto

Fans: ditto

Academics: not by such a landslide but A&M wins again

BBS: Does any other school even have a tennis forum? BTW since soccer got their own board this is absolutely the tennis forum, even though some dopey hockey or MMA post shows up every now and again.

Coach: SMU - I'll take the young girl that took them from nothing to top-25 in 3 years over the has-been who quit trying 5 years ago.

Players: SMU - a bunch of eastern euro ringers. their #6 was the SEC freshman of the year before she transferred. Their #3 doubles team was ranked #38 last year. Great, we have American kids. We win the moral victory woo hoo!

Who recruits the players? the coaches, and who hires the coaches? $ Bill.

Now if we could only get the guy to read Texags other sports forum we'd be in business.

Just a note-One of Sheri and Elze's 3 losses this year was against a ranked doubles team from t.u.

And as evidence of the struggles that SMU was having, one of the two girls that was playing doubles had to call an injury timeout in her singles match because of heat issues. She looked about ready to pass out.

Anyways, clearly we're never going to agree, because you're deadset on how the match went on paper, and I'm deadset on what I saw, so let's just let it go.

It really doesn't matter how SMU did the rest of the season. It sounds like the are by far the superior team and as you said would beat us 9 out of 10 times if they played us. BUT, based on my obsevations as somebody else who was at the match on that day, the Aggies would most likely have beaten them had Elze played based on how the rest of our players were playing and on how their players were playing that day.

For instance, our 2nd doubles line skunked SMUs who happen to be ranked 71 while we were unranked with our normal team and were even using a sub who only played doubles once all spring and with a different partner then the one she had yesterday. Many of SMUs other players did not look that sharp, including the girls who played line 3 doubles, and had we not been forced to move everybody up one line and had Elze playing on the 3 line it appeared that we could have beaten them fairly easily.

When looking at rankings, statistics, teams beaten, etc. SMU is clearly the better team this season and there is no doubt we struggled this year. However, had we had our number 1 tennis player on Saturday, we could easily have upset them based on that days performances.

Glad someone else on this board isn't as dense as Harry Dunne. I don't know how a guy can be so confident that a team that was on it's way to a 4-3 loss without it's best player would lose even with her.

Just doesn't make sense to me.

Clearly he's either got a kid playing for SMU, a former player of his playing for SMU, and/or a kid/former player who the Ags wouldn't recruit.

Not sure why you have to personally attack HD. SMU may have been playing down to the competition - kind of like our football team seems to do a couple of times every year. SMU quite easily could have raised their level of play across the board if our number one was playing. Do I know that for a fact - of course not but then you don't know for a fact that they wouldn't have. SMU won 4-1. It's in the books. There's no asterisk by it for would of ,could of or should of. SMU is ranked as a border line top twenty team and this years Aggie team is a borderline top 40 team. That's the sad reality. Everything else is just speculation. Let's move on and beat the hell out of Ole Miss.

[This message has been edited by SA68AG (edited 5/11/2009 11:52a).]

He's resorting to personal attacks because that's what people do when they're clearly wrong and have nothing constructive to say.

He calls me dense and questions my knowledge of college tennis yet he has no idea how doubles rankings work. He calls me an SMU homer yet bases his opinion on watching them play one match while I have seen both teams play several times over the last two years. P.s. - I have an Ag tag buddy, catch a clue.

First, yes - I am an Aggie and proud of it. Secondly, I am a former player but was not talented enough to be recruited by SMU or by A&M, though I would have gladly gone to either. I played for a small school and then ended up at Texas A&M and my pride in all things Aggie is pretty high up there, especially Aggie tennis - I have followed both teams for nearly 15 years and am a huge fan of college tennis in general.

It sounds like by your accusations that maybe YOU are the one with some association to the A&M team. So if your daughter is on the team or you are Mrs. Kleinecke, I am sorry to have offended you. That said, I stand by everything I said. The bottom line is that on paper or in person, anyone that thinks that A&M had a shot against SMU is a blinder-wearing A&M homer. I love the Aggies but I'm realistic. Look at the OP, I called the score a week ago!

We're never going to resolve this because we can't line the teams up 10 times to prove it, but like SA said, SMU is a 20ish team and we are a 40ish team and that happened for a reason. My whole point is that Kleinecke either needs to get on the ball or we need to trade him in for someone that is motivated to work hard to do the things that need to be done to make the program top-25. If it can be done at SMU, it can be done with a blindfold on at A&M.

quote:

---

And as evidence of the struggles that SMU was having, one of the two girls that was playing doubles had to call an injury timeout in her singles match because of heat issues. She looked about ready to pass out.

---

EXACTLY! And while you are coming up with all kinds of excuses for us, you're forgetting that maybe they weren't putting their #1 team on the board either. The thing about being a blind homer is that you come up with all kinds of mitigating factors for your own team but don't consider that the other side might be in the same boat.

Sure, on our best day with our best team, we could have given them a scare, but that's it. All I'm saying is that with their top 2 players playing their first college matches ever they beat the #14 team in the country at its own place. Our best win of the season was against #33 Auburn, at home. Against teams in ranked 31 or better we went 0-11.

So yeah, you can keep arguing, but 0-11 is pretty definite.

Not trying to make a personal attack. But how can you say that anybody who believed A&M stood a chance was using Maroon blinders (or whatever the exact term was). Upsets happen all the time in sports and everybody who follows sports can list numerous examples of this happening, including ones that would have been much bigger than our women's tennis team defeating SMUs. There are days when the lesser team plays at a higher level and the better team plays at a lower level.

Saturday was one of those days, and the 4-1 score is definitely misleading as to how well the teams performed. While SMU played better than what we fielded, it was only slightly better and we fielded our team minus our top player. I'm not saying we would definitely have 100% won had she played but there was a high possibility based on that days performances.

I know this is a lot of ifs, would have, could have, etcs and that the final outcome is what it is. But it is not fair to say that this team stood no chance on that specific day, especially if you were not there to witness the level of play that was going on at that time. The truth is we stood a solid chance that day and could have greatly benefited from our number 1 player being healthy; even if it would not have mattered the other 364 days of the year.

I didn't realize we were 0-11 against top 31 teams. Talk about an ugly stat - wow.