Crawford, Vickery Keep US Hopes for Orange Bowl Girls Title Alive; Top Seeds Bouchard and Thiem Reach Quarterfinals
©Colette Lewis 2011--
Plantation, FL--
The weather changed from hot to brisk on Thursday, and the prospects of an homegrown Orange Bowl champion also chilled, with only two American girls remaining in the 18s competition. Unseeded Samantha Crawford and wild card Sachia Vickery advanced to the quarterfinals, but both US boys in action Thursday suffered losses on the Frank Veltri Tennis Center's Har-Tru courts.
Crawford was in control throughout her 6-3, 6-0 win over compatriot Nadia Echeverria Alam, a wild card who had battled through two long three-setters Tuesday and Wednesday. As is the case with any player across the net from Crawford when her serve and forehand are on, Echeverria Alam was hard-pressed to have much of an impact on the match. Although Echeverria Alam had survived a similar power onslaught from Maci Epstein on Wednesday, she was unable to make any inroads against the 6-foot-2 right-hander.
"I thought I played really well," said Crawford, who lives and trains at the USTA Center in nearby Boca Raton. "I thought I was moving well and was being consistent setting up points, and overall just played well."
Despite her classic big American hard court game, Crawford has no objections to playing one of the country's most prestigious tournaments on clay.
"Boca has clay and hard courts, so I play a good amount on clay," said Crawford, who is originally from Atlanta. "I think it's good to play on clay."
Next up for Crawford is Eddie Herr champion and No. 2 seed Yulia Putintseva of Russia who beat her 6-2, 6-1 in the second round of the US Open juniors at the South Shore Indoor courts. Puntintseva beat unseeded Anna Danilina of Kazakhstan 7-5, 6-3.
The other American in the quarterfinals is Vickery, who overcame a miserable start to beat No. 6 seed Zuzanna Maciejewska of Poland 0-6, 6-2, 6-2.
"It was one of those days when I don't even know what happened, I was so confused," Vickery said of her poor start. "I was just telling myself to try to find a way to comeback, because I didn't even know what was going on."
The 6-foot-3 Maciejewska, a foot taller than Vickery, initially was able to keep the 16-year-old Floridian defending rather than attacking.
"She doesn't give you any rhythm," said Vickery, who trains at the Mouratoglou Academy in France. "She has a big serve and it was either a winner or a mistake, and in the first set she was hitting winners off of everything. I just kept trying to put as many balls in corner to corner, knowing I'd have a chance if I did."
Vickery has been working with five-time Grand Slam winner Martina Hingis at the Mouratoglou Academy in recent weeks, and Vickery's genuine appreciation for the opportunity is obvious in her tone of voice.
"About a month ago I was practicing with her about two weeks, back to back," said Vickery, who is hoping to get her junior ranking high enough to play all the slams in 2012. "She's just great, such an inspiration. And she still plays unbelievable after everything she's been through. She's such a great person and I can't wait to work with her some more."
Vickery will play unseeded Varvara Flink of Russia in Friday's quartefinals, after Flink upset No. 4 seed Ilka Csoregi of Romania 6-2, 4-6, 7-5.
Top seed Eugenie Bouchard of Canada was the last player to reach the quarterfinals as darkness, as well as a few sprinkles of rain, began to fall. Bouchard's 6-3, 6-2 victory over No. 13 seed Elizaveta Kulichkova of Russia earned her a quarterfinal match against No. 7 seed Donna Vekic of Croatia.
No. 3 seed Indy de Vroome of the Netherlands advanced with a tight 6-4, 7-6(5) win over No. 16 seed Taylor Townsend of the US late Thursday afternoon, and will play No. 5 seed Anett Kontaveit of Estonia in the quarterfinals.
Top seed Dominic Thiem ran his ITF junior winning streak to 15 Thursday, defeating No. 16 seed Hassan Ndayishimiye of Burundi 6-1, 6-4. He will play No. 10 seed Kimmer Coppejans of Belgium in Friday's quarterfinals.
The Podzus twins continued their breakthrough(s), as the 17-year-old Latvian qualifiers both advanced to the quarterfinals. Janis upset No. 2 seed Liam Broady of Great Britain 7-6(5), 6-4, while Martins defeated unseeded Kevin Kaczynski of Germany 3-6, 6-4, 6-3. The only other ITF junior tournaments the pair have played this year were the European Championships, but they did compete in the Amelia Island Pro Circuit Futures tournament last month, only to face each other in the first round of qualifying. Janis went on to qualify, but lost in the first round of the main draw.
Janis will play No. 7 seed and Eddie Herr finalist Patrick Ofner of Austria, who beat wild card Noah Rubin of the US 6-2, 6-1, and Martins will play No. 12 seed Yoshihito Nishioka of Japan.
One of the most intense matches of the day was unseeded Filip Peliwo's 7-6(7), 6-7(6), 6-3 win over No. 13 seed Alexios Halebian of the US.
Peliwo owned two wins over Halebian in the past 19 months, beating him in May of 2010 with a spot in the Junior Davis Cup world competition on the line, and again last fall at the Pan American Closed in Tulsa. So despite Halebian's higher ranking, he was the player with something to prove.
Played on the Stadium court, the match attracted the attention of USTA Player Development General Manager Patrick McEnroe, Director of Coaching Jose Higueras and Stanford Boster, a USTA National Coach now working with Halebian in the Boca Raton National Training Center.
There was plenty of pace in the rallies and exceptional court coverage by both players, and only the slimmest of margins separated the two 17-year-olds in the first two sets. But Peliwo took control early in the third set and held on to again defeat the 2009 Orange Bowl 16s champion.
Peliwo's opponent in the quarterfinals is No. 6 seed Julien Cagnina of Belgium.
The 16s semifinals will kick off Friday's play, with two American girls still in the running for the title.
Unseeded Kimberly Yee got off to her usual slow start but again found her form in recording a 2-6, 6-2, 6-2 win over Jessica Ho, also of the US. Yee will play No. 2 seed Katie Boulter of Great Britain, who beat No. 9 seed Josie Kuhlman of the US 6-4, 7-6(4).
The other semifinal will feature No. 13 seed Erin Routliffe of Canada against No. 14 seed Rasheeda McAdoo of the US. Routliffe beat Caroline Doyle of the US 6-3, 4-6, 6-3, while McAdoo overcame a early deficit to top unseeded American Lexi Borr 7-5, 6-2.
The boys semifinals feature two Canadians, but neither are Eddie Herr champion Tommy Mylnikov. Mylnikov lost to fellow Bollettieri Academy student Diego Pedraza of Colombia, the No. 12 seed, 7-6(5), 6-4. Pedraza will play No. 4 seed Hugo Di Feo of Canada in one semifinal, while No. 5 seed Brayden Schnur of Canada meets unseeded Hyeon Chung of Korea, who beat No. 3 seed Fedor Andreienko of Russia.
The 16s doubles finals are on Friday's schedule, with No. 5 seeds Charlotte Petrick and Erin Routliffe of Canada going against surprising finalists Hadley Berg and Mary Closs of California, who were unseeded and lost in the first round of singles qualifying and the first round of main draw singles respectively.
The boys 16s doubles title will be contested by No. 3 seed Alexander Sendegeya of Great Britain and Franz Sydow of the Netherlands against the unseeded Brazilian team of Lucas Meirelles Guitarrari and Marcelo Tebet Filho, both of whom qualified for the main draw in singles.
For the complete draws and order of play, see the tournament website at usta.com.
25 comments:
Came across a really interesting article today about the cost of Junior Development. My daughter was at the Orange Bowl and I think the figure they came up is within the ballpark. Their assumptions are real life examples that could happen to anyone. The figure is $475,000 between ages 8-18 years of age. I'm sure some families are spending less, but when you start to add up the lessons (high priced in LA) and traveling costs (across the country), I don't even want to think about it. Luckily my daughter has a good shot at landing a full scholarship. I feel grateful for Title IX, but they need to even it out for boys too! This simply isn't fair to parents. Here's the article if you care to read the details:
http://catennis.squarespace.com/most-recent/2011/12/7/junior-development-475776-price-tag.html
i don't think you quite understand how title IX works. you can't even it out for the boys, because that what, in theory, title IX is doing for the girls. in practice, it's complete garbage, but that's how it works.
Title IX is needed b/c the boys had all the scholarships, notably in football. They had to even it up for the girls. No, it isn't fair IN TENNIS to boys, who usually get the 4.5 per team. But on the reverse side, put the boys into football and basketball. Then it'll even it up. You want a scholarship and are a boy---get good at football and not tennis.
Think about it this way: you have 20 scholarships for boys in football, and none for girls. Is that fair? No, of course not.
So they even it out by having more scholarships in sports that the females play in.
It is right and it is fair. How can you say it is garbage? Get the boys into football and you'll say the opposite.
Title 9 is garbage in every sense of the word. Girls that are barely functional at tennis receive full scholarships while almost none of the top male college players get full rides. Girls dont play football; it should be taken out of the equation...its barely an amateur college sport anyways. Besides womens college basketball at a select few schools, women sports are paid for by male sports as nobody cares enough about them to generate any revenue of any sort.
to been-there, it isn't fair, because of the simple reason that football, has the most scholarships by far of any other sport. Also, in 99% of schools, it is the only sport that makes money to fund all of the other sports. So it is unfair for every boy in a sport except football. Why do you think there is almost no disparity in women's sports?? because certain women's programs can simply totally dominate recruiting because they ALWAYS have enough scholarships to get all of the good players. Unlike men's sports, where the schools actually have to divvy up the scholarships among many, sometimes more deserving players. there is a reason why most men's sports have many different good teams, unlike women's sports where all of the good athletes go to the same schools i.e. Uconn/Tennessee Women's basketball, Stanford/Florida women's tennis, NW/Maryland women's lacrosse. title IX is a joke because of the one sport that makes the money and actually pays for all of the other sports(pays for the education of the #8 women's tennis player at any school) and decides to make up for it by giving hand outs to some awful athletes. This is why if i have a daughter, she is going to play tennis, because it is almost impossible to get a full ride as a women's tennis player. No, i am not being ignorant, i have just been around tennis long enough to know what i am talking about.
And unfortunately, EXCEPT AT A FEW SELECT SCHOOLS, no one comes to men's tennis matches either.
Yes, football and bball are paying the revenue, not men's tennis and not women's tennis.
No, it isn't fair to men's tennis--I totally agree with that. But you are misguided. Take the money away from men's football and basketball and give it to the men's programs--that is what needs to be done. Not to take it away from the women who already are/were struggling.
you are misguided, as without money for men's football, there would be no money to fund your precious women's knitting. i am not saying women's sports don't deserve them, but in no way do they deserve them more than men's sports. And yes, football does deserve them more, as it is more of an investment that is always returned with a gain. Why do you think that the NCAA just passed the rules that allows schools to pay headcount sport athletes(football and basketball) 2000 a semester?????
And correcting what i wrote above, it is almost impossible to NOT GET a full ride in women's tennis (if you play any tournaments and are not atrocious)
The misogyny here is breathtaking ...
It isn't that hard for a boy to combine academic scholarships with athletic anyway. I have been around several boys who aren't winning supernationals (relatively) but can play college tennis (D2 or 3) b/c of the academic help also.
fairness is good but giving athletic money to some of these females is ridiculous.
the reason aa few schools can dominate in womens sports is becasus there are so many fewer true athletes. many are just pretenders and only there because of title 9
you don't know what you are talking about. consider that every #8 at a d1 school has a full ride-assuming it is a fully funded sport-and rarely does a boy have a full ride, unless it is in state because of the tuition and rule difference for in state kids. If you were close to college tennis or sports in general, you would be shocked how much scholarship talk there is with coaches and not knowing how to divvy up the male scholarships. Unlike the women's program which can simply give any girl a full ride no matter what.
And yes, the knitting was misogynistic, but the overall point isn't. Everything i am saying is true, you can look it up for yourself. Title IX is supposed to make it equal for women, when all it does is give them an advantage. If you think that the scholarships for football-again which pay for every sport in the entire university (along with donations to the academics that go to pay for the precious music and academic scholarships)-should count against every other men's sport, then you are delusional.
The same people who make this argument are the people who say women's tennis players should be paid as much as men in the grandslams when Men play 3/5 and women play 2/3. AND, men's tennis hold much more of a television audience than women's tennis does, just look at the ratings. Unless you are talking about Venus and Serena, or maybe Sharapova. I am fine with them being paid the same, if they played the same amount- which they dont- and if they brought as much money to the tournament thru television and ticket sales-which they don't.
Title IX is an imperfect system and surely affects boys negatively. I think a more valid point to consider is the costs some families incur in developing a tennis player with the expectation of landing a full ride (for a top 30 program). Parents and kids need to look at their options logically and quickly come to the realization that playing top 4 for a lower ranked school on a great scholarship (still a great academic fit and coach with better attention and matchplay from playing higher) is better for your development than playing 7 for a top 25 program on no money. Its fools gold and rare to think a kid can climb from 7 to top 3 to "earn" a scholarship...less attention to player plus the fact the player is typically not enjoying the tennis if they are 7. I was affected by Title IX at Florida and Georgia Tech after a top 10 national junior career, my parents still paid a good amount of money. Knowing what I know now, I would have seriously considered going for the full ride, lower ranked school, better academically, with a great coach with the opprtunity to play 1. Title IX is here to stay.
i agree, but it shouldn't have to be that way. why should awful girls tennis players get to be able to go to these huge schools with great tennis and academics while boys either have to choose or decide to pay. the reason the ncaa does anything is for money so it probably won't go anywhere.
But that isn't true. The boys still play. They just get the academics help too. Which really in the long run, might be better since they probably will not end up being pro tennis players.
I know several wonderful boys who are playing/going to play either low D1, D2, or D3. Their parents still are not having to pay very much b/c the coach comes up with the academic money to supplement it.
and why should it have to be low d1 d2 or d3? when every girl who can hold a racket can get into a major, big time d1 school?
actually the unfairness in tennis not not mostly generated by the 6 girls scholarships versus the 4. 5 the boys get. That is fairly minor.
The real unfairness is the two following points
1-title nine and mens football have killed many mens sports such as wrestling and soccer. That is unfortunate for men.
2-the women who receive scholarships at the lower spots and many nonelite schools are simply not that good. Sports talent and competion among boys is simply so much more intense. While title 9 has merits , to give athletic scholarships to nonathletes is too much.
Coach... The women get 8 not 6 full scholarships which makes it even more ridiculous.
it is 8 not 6, as said above me. and i am not saying it is only unfair for male tennis players. It is unfair for every other male sport and male athlete looking to play any sport but football.
or basketball.
Thanks ZOO TENNIS for the coverage of the Orange Bowl. Thank you and keep it up! Congrats!
Marcelo Tebet
BRAZIL
Hmm..I went to the SEC Championships and the NCAA's last Sprnig. They are top D1 women.
I saw no slouches there! Gosh, and they certainly could pick up a racquet while they were smacking winners!
** I do agree about the lower levels. But stop and think. Women your mother's age hardly even played sports. There is an evolution of learning to compete and play. Women are naturally brought up non-aggressive. But things are changing as we go along. Without Title IX, that evolution would not continue.
all i'm saying is that women say that they want equality, but what they really want is to have an advantage to make up for not having it in the past. You have to decide if you want equality, or if you want reparations for not having it before. that is what title IX is.
To Title IX is a joke....
There are ca. 2,530 football scholarships available every year, which makes for 10,000 football players on scholarships (http://www.varsityedge.com/nei/varsity.nsf/main/football+participation+numbers).
Are you telling me that all these players (10,000 of them) deserve it more than women tennis players? How many of the 119 D1A teams are actually playing decent football?
I would guess similar argument can be made for basketball (341 teams) and baseball (211 teams).
Your argument that girls do not deserve tennis scholarships because they are 'awful' is invalid.
This is silly. Healthy white upper middle class males complaining? Yeah Title 9 is not fair. But there are 1000000 other ways upper middle class white guys have had advantages forever. So one area they are penalized its a huge deal? Nonsense. So what, some girls are thrown some bones with tennis scholarships, still does not make a dent in all the other inequalities that have taken place for 200 years.
The real thing is, we all want to promote tennis, right? We all have a tennis passion, right? Isn't that what this website ZOOTENNIS.COM is for?
If you take away tennis scholarship money, tennis does not grow. All those women (whether they are good or not) will influence their kids, friends, and neighbors, usually in a positive way, to play/promote tennis.
Yes, get more for the men. But don't take away from the women.
Post a Comment