Towards the end of last year's thread I put up lists of men and women currently at Div 1 schools and at the end of each list I put those who have finished their eligibility and those who have disappeared from their college rosters prior to completion of their 4 Years. Any coming on the tour will come from these lists. I think Farris, Tiffany William, Lloyd G, and Dylan Gee (only completed one year) are the ones with the stated aim of the tour, but I guess we might well see others dipping their toes into the water.
Other than Gosea, are there any other US College players due to finish their studies this year and have a go on tour?
I don't know for sure, but given their current ITA rankings, I assume Ben Lott and (to a lesser extent) Jordan Angus (although he not on the ITA rankings atm, he was at 113 at the end of last season) might give it a go. You've also got Luke Johnson and Tommy Bennett graduating in the summer who have been ATP ranked before.
Knowing a player's Universal Tennis Rating (UTR) might help better demonstrate the level of play gap between U.S. College Tennis and top players. The following is a listing of the top 20 rated British players in college, as of December 18, 2015:
Name
UTR
Division
College
Conference
CAMERON NORRIE
ALEX SENDEGEYA
JORDAN ANGUS
SAMM BUTLER
RYAN PENISTON
ANDREW WATSON
SEBASTIAN REY
JULIAN CASH
MAX ANDREWS
TOMMY BENNETT
THOMAS COLAUTTI
BEN LOTT
JACK FINDEL-HAWKINS
JAI CORBETT
CALLUM POLAND-SMITH
JOSEF DODRIDGE
SIMON PRITCHARD
TOBY MITCHELL
LUKE JOHNSON
JAMIE MALIK
14.72
14.13
14.05
13.87
13.87
13.72
13.67
13.67
13.51
13.48
13.42
13.42
13.41
13.36
13.35
13.28
13.26
13.21
13.17
12.93
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NJCAA
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
NCAA - I
Texas Christian University
Texas Tech University
University of San Diego
Southern Methodist University
University of Memphis
University of Memphis
Tulane University
Oklahoma State University
University of Miami (Florida)
Rice University
Princeton University
Drake University
University of North Florida
Virginia Tech
ASA College
University of Wisconsin
Kennesaw State University
Boise State University
Clemson University
Rice University
Big 12 Conference
Big 12 Conference
West Coast Conference
American Athletic Conference
American Athletic Conference
American Athletic Conference
American Athletic Conference
Big 12 Conference
Atlantic Coast Conference
Conference USA
Ivy League
Missouri Valley Conference
Atlantic Sun Conference
Atlantic Coast Conference
Region 15
Big Ten Conference
Atlantic Sun Conference
Mountain West Conference
Atlantic Coast Conference
Conference USA
Here are the top 20 rated British players, according to Universal Tennis as of December 18, 2015:
A comment on the relative strengths of the different conferences in ladies college tennis and the strength of the best players bit historical as I did it in october but not much has changed although Eliz Maloney will have improved!
Looking at the most recent rankings, the top 100 is dominated by four conferences the PAC 12, ACC, SEC and Big 12
In terms of base lining the level of the top 20 players ie the best players you would be tested against at the national championship finals their mean junior combined rank is 370.55 (ie Eliz Maloney (10/8/2000) is playing at the average standard these girls played at at their peak as a junior) range 9-1621
What do good American players think of college tennis? There are 9 foreign players in the top 20. 5 players had junior ranks under 100, only 1 is an American (and only just 99!)
Who would you get to hit with day in day out, one college Stanford has 3 players in the top 20, (4 in 100), Florida 2(5), Virginia 3 (3), Cal 2(5), Miami 2(4), vandy 2(5), UNC 1(2), USC1(4), Texas AM 1(3), Georgia (6). Really these would be the places you would want to be if you had serious aspirations of pursuing a professional singles career after college.
There are 2 Ivy League players in the top 100 ranked 67 and 98, average junior rank 1,534. One from Dartmouth the other at Harvard. So the drop off in talent level outside the top 4 conferences is very steep. So the rest of the division 1 colleges are pretty irrelevant if you want to go pro and have a decent core group to train with of the same sex.
There is one real standout player presently ranked 1 with junior CH of 9 she is Canadian and at Stanford so probably opted to put a Stanford degree in the bank although only 19 if she wants to play pro should quit and go now, McEnroe (J) did just that. There are two other girls who ranked at a similar level to Emily at their peak in world juniors (27) both overseas and from the eastern block
-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Friday 18th of December 2015 06:45:51 PM
-- Edited by Oakland2002 on Friday 14th of April 2017 10:06:40 PM
For the UK players their junior rank on starting is probably the best predictor, although Lloyd Glasspool definitely thrived at college, does anyone know more of his background as a junior.
Interesting stuff, thanks, particularly for most of us here following GB seniors.
With the women I see Naomi Broady edges ahead of Heather Watson, no doubt reflective of some of the rather surprising losses to lower ranked players Heather has had in what ( we were just discussing elsewhere ) has been an inconsistent season for her, mixing very good with not good.
Interesting too Natalie Beazant's high position. Surprised me, but I don't follow college tennis. Does anyone know her post college plans? Also I see that young Ali Collins has slipped into the top 20.
Re our men a lot looks intuitively about right. Though I don't understand Sean Thornley's high position? He has over recent years been a doubles specialist, playing hardly any singles and retired during last year. So curious as to what data produced that ranking? And Simon Dickson ??
I believe men & women ( and boys & girls ) all share the same scale so is that indicative that the GB numbet 1 Johanna Konta and college player Jamie Malik, both on 12.93, would be predicted to play out a pretty competitive match being rated equally? Actually on that note, what data is used to find benchmarks to have males and females on the same scale given so little male vs female competition?
-- Edited by indiana on Friday 18th of December 2015 11:17:32 PM
Indie that's right if Jamie were a girl he would be perfectly matched with Jo, the flaw being his ranking is a product of playing men and hers women. What you need is the Universal Tennis intersex constant which adjusts for the difference in power and agility between the sexes.
Re our men a lot looks intuitively about right. Though I don't understand Sean Thornley's high position? He has over recent years been a doubles specialist, playing hardly any singles and retired during last year. So curious as to what data produced that ranking? And Simon Dickson ??
-- Edited by indiana on Friday 18th of December 2015 11:17:32 PM
According to the site, their ranking is not 100% accurate - i.e. it probably means they had one or two good results when they played this year and that's throwing them off slightly.
Yes, looking at the rankings for the GB players - about whom I have some sense - rather than just seeing them for university players - about whom generally I have little or no sense - suggested some potential areas of weakness. There were a few positive oddities, such as Mr Thornley's position. But also, it felt as if the rankings didn't fully take into account something - big match potential? consistency? I'm not sure what it is. But Aljaz Bedene felt way too low: there's a reason why he's ranked higher than Mr Edmund and Mr Evans, though both of the latter have huge potential upside. James Ward also felt too low: there's a reason why he's on the Davis Cup team, and I just don't believe a ranking system that says that he's only slightly better than Tom Farquharson (that's nothing against Mr Farquharson, but their results aren't comparable). The women's looked more reasonable, but as noted above, the placement of Ms Watson and Ms Broady felt a little off.
As with all ranking systems, in other words, interesting, potentially helpful, but not necessarily perfect. I just hope that when it's being used to determine funding decisions, people don't take it as 100% accurate.
Actually, Spectator, re Heather and Naomi as I said in a system looking at who you win and lost to and how closely I can understand how Naomi might have edged Heather as she has.
Re such as big match potential, when and where you win that is perhaps what a number cruncher of the rating of who you win and lose to can fall short while I still find it very interesting in what it is and am going to take time to delve a bit more to understand it all better. The rankings by their nature reward success in tournaments, especially big ones, irrespective of who you win and lose to. Rating systems like this essentially are just about all about who you are winning and losing to, they are different beasts and for now I have more time for it than I sense one or two others ( but then sporting stats and tables of all sorts interest me, especially when clearly some substance as here - I'll get to "100%" though! ). Re the seniors it is at least very interesting to see the divergences from the rankings and wonder as to why, eg. players maybe a bit over / underranked due to tournament choice, but also higher rankings vs ratings showing temperament to win big matches when there are big points available.
One thing I don't like is this "100 reliability" thing where Universal Tennis have what they set as minimum data. It implies some gospel when what it is a figure based on the criteria they have set up and on a minimum data figure they have decided.
Others with the same intentions would end up with at least slight variations in ordering due to methodology and weighting differences. These figures 100% follow their own criteria, which are not clearly not 100% inarguable, so for instance Player A with a 100% reliable rating being ahead of Player B with a 100% reliable rating simply does not 100% reliably clarify that Player A is better than Player B. Deliberately or otherwise such an absolute % figure could misguide. Yes, point out players where the figure is based on comparatively less data, indeed what proportion or percentage of the normal minimum data but they just shouldn't call the others "100% reliable". They're not.
I do though think that such ratings work much better for the main target group here, potential college entrants, than ordering seniors. The seniors ratings are of interest, but with them much more relatively important is when and what they win, ie. being occasion players ( as Spectator said, "big match potential" ), than the comparative position of who they beat in doing so. The official senior rankings on the other hand bring that out much more. But then the senior Universal ratings look to me more just a byproduct extension of the target younger player Universal ratings, almost just for interest.
-- Edited by indiana on Saturday 19th of December 2015 07:16:37 PM