Farah, Falconi Named College Players of the Year; Wimbledon, Roehampton Update; Is Martina Hingis the Last of the Teen Phenoms?
The Intercollegiate Tennis Association announced its ITA/Campbell Players of the Year today, with senior Robert Farah of USC and sophomore Irina Falconi of Georgia Tech receiving the 2010 honors. Both finished atop the final ITA/Campbell rankings. Doubles teams of the year are Caitlin Whoriskey and Natalie Pluskota of Tennessee and Henrique Cunha and Reid Carleton of Duke, who also finished No. 1 in the rankings. They will be honored at the ITF Hall of Fame Induction ceremony in Newport, RI on July 10th. The ITA website has more on the singles winners, including reactions from Falconi and Farah.
On the grass of Southwest London today, US Open girls champion Heather Watson, who received a wild card into the women's draw, was beaten by qualifier Romina Oprandi of Italy 6-4, 1-6, 6-3. With Watson's and Anne Keothavong's losses today, following those of four other British women yesterday, there is no woman from Great Britain into the second round. U.S. players went 3-4 on Tuesday, with Vania King and John Isner all even with their opponents when darkness forced suspension of play.
For complete results, see wimbledon.org.
At the ITF Grade 1 in Roehampton, the British juniors actually outnumber the Americans as the tournament moves to the quarterfinals. Qualifier James Marsalek and unseeded Oliver Golding have advanced in the boys singles draw, as has unseeded Tara Moore in the girls draw. The only U.S. boys remaining in either singles or doubles is No. 16 seed Raymond Sarmiento, who defeated unseeded Mathias Bourgue of France 6-4, 6-0 today. Mitchell Frank, seeded 11th, lost to No. 7 seed Mate Zsiga of Hungary 6-4, 6-4 and Denis Kudla, seeded fifth, retired against Justin Eleveld of the Netherlands trailing 6-1, 0-1. Kudla and Sarmiento's opponents were given a walkover in doubles, so I assume a Kudla injury was the reason.
The lone U.S. girl remaining in singles is unseeded Krista Hardebeck, who defeated unseeded Russian Ksenia Kirillova 7-6(6), 6-1 in Tuesday's third round. Top seed Irina Khromacheva of Russia was upset by No. 15 seed Chantal Skamlova of Slovakia 7-6(4), 6-3. Interesting that Khromacheva and French girls champion Elina Svitolina of Ukraine, who won the Grade 2 tournament in Halle last week, have exactly the same number of points, 975, which tops the girls world rankings. Svitolina claims the No. 1 ranking however, by virtue of having more Grade A points, which is the tiebreaker.
Grace Min and Lauren Herring advanced to the quarterfinals in doubles. For complete draws, see the LTA website.
Tom Perotta, writing for the Wall Street Journal, investigates the impact the WTA age restrictions have had on the age of women's Grand Slam champions. While I don't agree with his contention that women's tennis suffers when there is a dearth of teen superstars, the article does make a persuasive case that we will be seeing fewer and fewer of them in the coming years.
For those of you who are not aware of what the ATP age restrictions are, and I was one of them, I've clipped this from the ATP Rules:
17 comments:
Letting the boys play unlimited ATP tournaments at 16 and not the girls is discrimination. The girls WTA is not unlimited until 18. If someone would bring a law suit against WTA they would have to change the rules. Do we have a tennis playing attorney out their that would love to take on the challenge!!! ZOO TENNIS please do a follow up on this please!!!!!
I disagree with the age restrictions. Girls mature earlier and some can compete in the pros by age 14-15, let them. Young women also change their live direction once they reach their 20s. By 23-24, many are ready to leave tennis and do other things, date, start families. It is ridiculous to limit them until age 18 as many will leave tennis within 5 years.
girls already got title IX, this is fine, calm down tennisgirls
Girls "got" Title IX so all is fair? Like it was a great present? Lucky us!
Um no. Girls were given Title IX to equate out the inequities of boys sports versus girls. Boys have the scholarships, they just are in bigger sports like football.
Title IX just made it more even. The age restrictions should not be different for boys versus girls. If anything, girls are far more mature than boys at that age.
Agree with been-there. When guys complain about Title IX it makes me laugh. When men make higher salaries for the same work as they have for centuries or when when old white guys only hire other white guys for top positions, these guys are silent. But mention Title IX or equal pay for tennis Grand slams and all of a sudden they want to protest things that are unfair.
MENS football makes all the money which pays for all of your precious womens sports. It is a FACT.
Title IX is a joke and part of our superficial politically correct society.
@kimbo - You need to check your facts, while football is the bread winner at some of the larger universities (ie ohio state, michigan, texas, etc.) it actually loses money for many of the smaller universities (missouri state, toledo, buffalo, etc.). While I'm a big supporter of title IX, its unfortunate that programs like men's tennis, swimming, are programs that get the axe when universities must comply with it.
Mr. Kimbo,
Actually men's football pays for men's tennis too, not just women's tennis.
Hey, and remember, it was a woman who did give birth to you, buddy!
I think the WTA discriminates against men!
They don't let men play no matter how old they are, yet women can play at 18! not fair.
On a more serious note, I am not sure why anyone thinks the WTA restrictions have to be the same as the ATP. They are separate entities. The NBA requires men to be 19 to be drafted. Should they be sued too because the ATP allows players to play when they are 14? or the NFL who requires 3 years out of high school?
kimbo....the fact that upper class white guys may have some problems getting tennis scholarships under Title IX, when they have every other advantage known to man is far down on the list of unfair things we need to worry about.
The unfairness of Title IX is tiny in comparison to the overall advantages white men have over women and minorities.
Mr. Kimbo, I will give you an example. My husband and I graduated from high school together. I was valedictorian, he was about a 3.3 student. I was captain of the tennis team, french club secretary, blah blah blah. He played a little football, but that was it, not much on his resume. We both went to the same university, and I got a far higher GPA, was more involved in activities, played sports, and so forth. He did not. He is a great guy, just not an "A" type personality. We also had the same degree, a B.A. in business.
Well, we graduated, and started applying for jobs. We both sent an application to a conservative insurance company. Well, lo and behold, despite my far higher credentials (there was no interview yet), they did not reply to me. They replied to the white male, my husband, and he ended up working there.
I have never seen a clearer example of 'wanting the white male' than that. Again, he is a super guy, but they wouldn't know that by his resume. He fit the right criteria though: WM.
i thought it was a tennis site
Puzzled: if you can't figure out the linkage, you need to go to beginningzootennis.com to start your elementary zootennis education.
Or call Billie Jean King. She'll be glad to tell you.
huh who is billie jean king? what is her phone number?
To Been-There: I have to say that your story about you and your husband was one of the best examples I've ever seen of proven gender discrimination.
However, I am willing to bet that this happened more than 20 years ago because I work in the recruiting business and don't see much, if any, gender bias involving the hiring at the professional and executive level these days.
title IX is absurd. i have seen womens tennis college players on full rides that are barely functional tennis players while the best boys in the country cant always get full rides. its ridiculous that title IX states there must be equal numbers of scholarships. until there is a collegiate women's sport that generates 1/100 the revenue and attention that mens college football/basketball does, they should be eliminated from the scholarship equation.
I'm extremely proud of my sister, who played #1 at ASU for all 4 years, and I'm a loving uncle to her two daughters; I'm sorry but you have to take Football out of the equation, and leave Basketball in, because there is no women's equivalent.
It's a typical American overreaction to "make things right" by leaving Football in the equation. Times change and things evolve; I'm not sure but I think these rules haven't been adjusted very much since their inception roughly 40 years ago.
Post a Comment