Friday, August 8, 2008

Doubles Finals Set for Saturday at Kalamazoo


©Colette Lewis 2008--
Kalamazoo MI--

With the last two semifinalists in singles in each division decided on Friday, the focus turned to doubles, and competitive matches were the watchword in both 16s and 18s.

Bradley Klahn and Steve Johnson, the No. 2 seeds in the 18s, took the only straight-set match, downing 2007 Kalamazoo 16s doubles champions Daniel Nguyen and JT Sundling 7-5, 6-1, to set up a meeting with No. 8 seeds Ryan Harrison and Chase Buchanan for not only the Kalamazoo title, but a main draw wild card into the U.S. Open.

Buchanan and Harrison were down a break in the third set to No. 5 seeds Ryan Thacher and Rhyne Williams when Buchanan was broken serving at 3-3, but immediately got it back by breaking Thacher in the next game and again at 5-6 to seal the victory. Buchanan looked especially sharp during the final five games, returning well and putting the pressure on Thacher and Williams on nearly every point, and earning some measure of revenge against Thacher, who had defeated him in singles earlier in the day.

Jack Sock was not so fortunate, as he lost twice to Denis Kudla Saturday, first in singles and later with partner Spencer Simon, when, as the No. 9 seeds, they fell to Kudla and partner Junior Ore, the No. 6 seeds, 6-2, 2-6, 6-2.


The top seeded team of Evan King and Raymond Sarmiento, who are likely to represent the U.S. next month in the ITF Junior Davis Cup competition in Mexico, had a scare against No. 4 seeds Sekou Bangoura Jr. and Nathan Pasha, before pulling out a 6-7(5), 6-4, 6-4 win.

The turning point of the match came with Sarmiento serving at 3-4, 30-40 in the second set. Had Pasha and Bangoura won that point, they would be serving for the match, but Pasha missed a return wide. King and Sarmiento went on to win that game, as well as the next two, and were able to squeeze out a break in the third to earn a berth in Saturday afternoon's final.

For complete draws, visit ustaboys.com.

20 comments:

ramon said...

Trojans and Cardinals are well represented in dubs !!!

tennisjunky said...

I find it interesting that while there are other very good 92s, van overbeek, jack sock, rayound Saramento has been picked for ever USTA international team event for the past 4 years, while the other two have never been asked. Who does Saramento know? he obviously has abig fan in the USTA....
Still going with my picks of King and Krajicek.

brent said...

This doubles finals set for saturday is going to be great.
And sorry for all the harry bashing in all of my previoius posts. I'll try not to bring him up as often. But I love his fierceness on the court. Hes got something special.

David said...

tennisjunky, Evan King and Jordan Cox were just on the qualifying team. I would think that Kudla has a good chance to be on the team in September.

Speaking of team competitions, the U.S. teams swept the 14-and-under championships, which is the first time that's ever happened. Congratulations to them.

tennisjunky said...

David

Hope you are correct about Kudla....From colette's comment on Saramento/King playing dubs assumed Saremento had already been picked and just was surprised becasue he is always included and others are never included. WOuld be a good choice for King to go as well. ALso, saw Cox and Kulda made the finals...Did anyone pick that? I had gone with King...

Brent... wouldn't worry about the Harry bashing. It was disappointing to watch his rd 32 match/loss for all of us who like his "fierceness". I can't imagine how he felt, but it also shows that a debut on the big stage is very tough.

david said...

With King and Sarmiento winning doubles, that certainly increases the chances of both of them being selected. They clearly have great chemistry, and that doubles point is important. Even if you think that Cox, Kudla, or Van Overbeek is better than Sarmiento in singles, is the difference enough to break up your #1 doubles team?

With Cox performing so well, they may just decide to keep the qualifying team intact. If Cox wins tomorrow, that's virtually assured. If Kudla wins, on the other hand, they will have a hard time justifying passing him over.

We should have a strong team regardless. It'll be tough to win without Harrison, but placing doesn't seem out of the question at all. I suspect that we'll outgunned at the #1 position against some teams, but our #2 singles player and our doubles team should do well.

nofavortismplease said...

Sarmiento is clearly the lesser of all the players mentioned. King,Kudla,Van Overbeek and Cox all deserve to go ahead of Sarmiento. He is not even a doubles specialist. He barely won the doubles with King against Kudla and Ore and Ore is a level below those guys. Why would you not put Kudla and King together in doubles? Maybe its the only way the coach can justify taking Sarmiento since he is also his personal coach. If Sarmiento goes the U.S.T.A. will lose all credibility as the favortism will be too obvious. Why would Harrison go. Why did his name get mentioned? He hasn't played 16's in 2 years and justifiably so.

glad i was there said...

Brent, You were correct. The doubles finals were incredible. Both matches. Ore and Kudla were up a break in the third at 4-2 before falling 6-4 in the third and Buchanan and Harrison were down a break in the third at 4-3 and won 7-5 in the third. The level of tennis was very high. If Buchanan and Harrison play that way at the Open they could win a match or two with the right draw. It was very impressive.

Brent said...

To the person who posted under my name, please choose your own handle and take credit for your own comments and opinions instead of posting under my name. I wasn't bashing Harry Fowler. Just thought it was a poor showing to drop out down 6-3, 3-0 instead of sticking in there and fighting. I am sure he has better days ahead but even if he would have lost, he's going to have to learn to fight. I am sure he will learn that lesson and has a very bright future.

david said...

To "nofavortismplease":

I know Harrison isn't going to play, which is exactly what I said. The point was, without all of our top eligible players, it will be difficult to win the competition. I don't understand your confusion.

I think you're selling Sarmiento short. He's a very good singles player in his own right. He beat Evan King earlier this year along with Bangoura, Kevin King, and Tikhomirov. He took a set off of Jenkins in March and a set off of Tomic at the Orange Bowl, which was Tomic's toughest match of the tournament.

As for doubles, you're underestimating the importance of chemistry. Did you read Colette's story? King and Sarmiento have a lot of experience playing together, and it shows. Even if Kudla is a better doubles player, it's unlikely that a Kudla/King combo would be better than a Sarmiento/King combo because they aren't nearly as familiar with each other. Given that, it would not be indefensible to select Sarmiento over Kudla. Of course, they could choose both. If Kudla wins tomorrow, they may take all three, giving them arguably their best two players in singles (Kudla and King) and their best doubles tandem (King and Sarmiento).

Accusations of favortism are thrown around a little too loosely around here.

floridafan said...

To nofavortism and tennisjunky:

Give me a break. Sarmiento has some talent as a junior player. You don't know what you are talking about when you compare Van Overbeek and Sock to him. Not even in the same league. It's all about talent, the mind and future results. Look at the bigger picture and you might see things differently.

usta girl said...

florida fan you are mistaken, talent can only get you so far.. but its ultimately hard work that gets you through the door.

tennisjunky said...

To Floridafan said...

I never said that Van OverBeek and/or Sock are better, or have more talent/potential, than Saramento. I don’t have a crystal ball and besides way too early tell who will pop through. All I said that it smacks of USTA favoritism (perhaps of the 92 coach) when you have a group of very good 92s and one player, in this case Saramento, gets picked for every single international event, bar none, and the other two very good players, such as Sock and VanOverbeek, have never been picked to represent the US for any international event. My approach would be to give as much opportunity to as many top players as possible this opportunity . That is my only point here.

As for Brent--"poor showing" in the backdraw. Give Fowler a break, really. I give him credit for showing up at all after that humiliating loss and can’t believe you are still talking about this. Many top players left (domijan, van overbeek etc.). I am curious. Have you personally ever competed in anything and know firsthand what the pressure is at the top, especially for a 16 year old? Or do you just bash others from he sidelines without putting anything in perspective or understanding of the ups and downs of this game?

Colette,

Does anyone else besides myself pick Krajeck? I picked King for the 16s. Did anyone pick Cox?

rmm said...

To set the record straight on one thing: Van Overbeek pulled a muscle in his side during the second set with Cox. He defaulted due to a real injury--you could see him favoring it in the tiebreaker.

Brent said...

tennisjunky....

Thanks for the frank comments. I made one comment about the Fowler match - so I'm not the one 'not letting it go'. And, because you asked, I did play a good chunk of junior tennis, a decent player - first team all-state, but never qualified for nationals. I only have a small idea of the talent and sacrifice it takes to qualify for Kzoo, let alone get to a #1 seed. Having said that, I can also say that through hundreds of matches, no matter how frustrated I got, I never just cashed in my chips and quit. Disappointing, but just one day at the office too. I do understand that these are 16 year old kids, and Lord knows that I made a bunch of questionable decisions at that age.

Ryan Schnitzer said...

and brent obviously whatever you did as a player didnt get you very far (hence why your stuck here commenting about other players)..so you should honestly just keep your mouth shut unless you have something nice to say. or post under your real name and not use a pseudonym.

tennisjunky said...

to brent

Thanks. As junior I did compete at the highest level as well as satellites, challengers and the pressure can be unbelievable, especially at a young age. I have been there, when I just could not find the court not matter what I tried, and believe me it was not at all about a quetsion of giving up, or "cashing in my chips and quit" as you put it. At some point you decide you just got to play for yourself win or lose, not your parents, sponsors, coaches etc. and not worry about letting anyone down but yourself but it can be a process to get there. The pressure of this level is very different than anything you exeprienced and I am not saying that sarcastically.

McLovin said...

Jeez, give Brent a break. This is a blog, every comment doesn't have to make nice. These kids are young competitors in a tough sport. They can take some criticism here and there, it comes with the territory. Brent has an interest in junior tennis and he has a right to voice his opinion. If it goes too far Collette can censure.

tennisjunky said...

collete

suggest you move this blog to the next level and have anyone who wants to post, post with their real names. Have you considered that?

Colette Lewis said...

I wouldn't require real names, but many blogs insist that commenters register. I have no plans to do that now, but I would not rule it out in the future. I still get anonymous comments that I don't publish, silly or mean-spirited comments that I don't publish and unsubstantiated rumors that I don't publish. If the volume increases making the moderating too time consuming, I may implement registration.