FanPost

Purdue Tennis Plus: Big Ten Tournament Edition

I know that this structure is a bit different than the one I normally use here, but circumstances with work prevented me from posting on my typical timetable. Barring a sudden rule change that forces Purdue into this NCAA Tournament, this is the end of Purdue tennis for the school year. The end of the season provided a cap for how this season has gone: glimpses of promise, but a failure to execute when necessary.

Men’s Results:

4/23: FINAL—#28 Northwestern 4, Purdue 0

#1 Doubles

1

Bennett/Brancatelli (PUR)

6

Forman/Nordby (NU)

1

#2 Doubles

1

Galus/Wozniak (PUR)

1

Berdusco/Bratholm (NU)

6

#3 Doubles

1

Suzanne/Welch (PUR)

2

Pickens/Spear (NU)

6

#1 Singles

1

2

3

Athell Bennett (PUR)

2

2

#39 Steven Forman (NU)

6

6

#2 Singles

1

2

3

Gabriele Brancatelli (PUR)

6

2

#121 Simen Bratholm (NU)

0

5

*DID NOT FINISH

#3 Singles

1

2

3

Sebastian Welch (PUR)

1

1

#124 Trice Pickens (NU)

6

6

#4 Singles

1

2

3

Rohan Sachdev (PUR)

4

1

Presley Thieneman (NU)

6

6

#5 Singles

1

2

3

Piotr Galus (PUR)

6

4

Felix Nordby (NU)

1

2

*DID NOT FINISH

#6 Singles

1

2

3

Michal Wozniak (PUR)

6

1

Brian Berdusco (NU)

4

4

*DID NOT FINISH

This was not a particularly surprising result. While they have taken a couple of unexpected losses this season, Northwestern was clearly the third best team in the conference, and they were playing at home. In doubles, I was surprised that the duo of Athell Bennett and Gabriele Brancatelli, which had typically been playing at #2 doubles, moved up to #1 doubles and dominated. Meanwhile, Piotr Galus and Michal Wozniak, who had been a relatively competent #1 doubles pairing for most of the season, moved down to #2 doubles and got rocked. There could be some mind games on the part of the coaches. Since Northwestern got a win at #3 doubles, they got the point and that led to singles play. Surprisingly, Purdue actually split the first sets of singles play with the Wildcats, but the momentum didn’t last. Northwestern won the second sets easily where they had won the first sets while mostly turning things around where they had lost the first set, and that pushed them to four team points for the match.

4/24: FINAL—#52 Illinois 4, Purdue 1

#1 Doubles

1

Bennett/Galus (PUR)

6

#60 Heck/Horve (ILL)

1

#2 Doubles

1

Brancatelli/Dudek (PUR)

4

#71 Brown/Guzauskas (ILL)

6

#3 Doubles

1

Welch/Wozniak (PUR)

1

#79 Montsi/Stuart (ILL)

6

#1 Singles

1

2

3

Athell Bennett (PUR)

3

2

#65 Hunter Heck (ILL)

6

6

#2 Singles

1

2

3

Gabriele Brancatelli (PUR)

6

1

Siphosothando Montsi (ILL)

7

2

*DID NOT FINISH

#3 Singles

1

2

3

Sebastian Welch (PUR)

0

0

#61 Olivier Stuart (ILL)

6

6

#4 Singles

1

2

3

Rohan Sachdev (PUR)

6

7

Alex Brown (ILL)

1

5

#5 Singles

1

2

3

Piotr Galus (PUR)

3

3

Nic Meister (ILL)

6

6

#6 Singles

1

2

3

Michal Wozniak (PUR)

6

2

Gabrielius Guzauskas (ILL)

2

5

*DID NOT FINISH

Believe it or not, Purdue had a slight shot to win against Illinois in Champaign for the first time in over thirty years. Unfortunately, they just could not take a few key points, and that prevented them from any upset opportunity. Doubles play was unexpectedly close, especially against three ranked doubles pairings. Coach Gajdzik attempted some new pairings in this match, and some of these might be seen more next season. Ultimately, Illinois was just a bit deeper in doubles, and they won that point. Thanks to a victory in a seven-point tiebreaker, the Fighting Illini won four of the six first sets, and they won three of the four second sets that finished to clinch the match. Rohan Sachdev put up the lone team point for the Boilermakers in a major upset over Alex Brown. Brown was on the All-Big Ten First Team from 2018-2020, made the NCAA Singles Tournament in 2019, and was an ITA Singles All-American in the limited 2020 season. He’s been a bit cold this season, but this is still a huge upset that gives me more confidence in Sachdev’s future.

Women’s Results:

4/23: FINAL—#45 Wisconsin 4, Purdue 3

#1 Doubles

1

#70 Cai/Mukhortova (WIS)

7

Fodor/Gasparin (PUR)

5

#2 Doubles

1

Johnson/Markham (WIS)

6

Galindo/Milic (PUR)

7

#3 Doubles

1

Larrain/Stoica (WIS)

4

Gallardo Guevara/Shimizu (PUR)

6

#1 Singles

1

2

3

#88 Ava Markham (WIS)

1

2

#71 Csilla Fodor (PUR)

6

6

#2 Singles

1

2

3

Alina Mukhortova (WIS)

7

6

Carmen Gallardo Guevara (PUR)

6

3

#3 Singles

1

2

3

Xinyu Cai (WIS)

7

6

Tara Milic (PUR)

5

1

#4 Singles

1

2

3

Antonela Stoica (WIS)

6

4

6

Rut Galindo (PUR)

2

6

4

#5 Singles

1

2

3

Taylor Cataldi (WIS)

4

4

Juana Larranaga (PUR)

6

6

#6 Singles

1

2

3

Charmaine Seah (WIS)

7

6

Seira Shimizu (PUR)

5

3

Despite a stunning point in doubles play, Purdue could not take advantage of their situation and fell short of an upset to start their last regular season weekend. Doubles play has been an issue for the Boilermakers all season, highlighted by losing the point to Rutgers about a week prior. However, thanks in part to Wisconsin using some lesser-used pairings, Purdue was able to claw out the doubles point at the very end. With this point in hand, all Purdue needed to do was split the singles points to take a solid win and hopefully provide some momentum for the end of the season. Unfortunately, the momentum swung back in Wisconsin’s favor in the first sets, four of which were decided by two games or fewer. Of those close sets, three of them went to Wisconsin, including all three that required a seventh game. Things were much more defined in the second set, and once all of the second sets were done, the match was tied at three team points each. It all came down to #4 singles, where Rut Galindo faced a tall task against a player more used to playing in the top half of the singles lineup. She gave it a good effort but fell just a bit short.

4/24: FINAL—#60 Minnesota 4, Purdue 1

#1 Doubles

1

Duong/Ercetin (MINN)

3

Fodor/Gasparin (PUR)

4

*DID NOT FINISH

#2 Doubles

1

Hanford/Said (MINN)

6

Galindo/Milic (PUR)

1

#3 Doubles

1

Lu/Rizzolo (MINN)

6

Gallardo Guevara/Shimizu (PUR)

3

#1 Singles

1

2

3

Rachel Hanford (MINN)

6

3

6

#71 Csilla Fodor (PUR)

4

6

4

#2 Singles

1

2

3

Emilee Duong (MINN)

4

5

Carmen Gallardo Guevara (PUR)

6

7

#3 Singles

1

2

3

Ekin Ercetin (MINN)

6

6

Tara Milic (PUR)

4

1

#4 Singles

1

2

3

Maria Rizzolo (MINN)

2

7

5

Rut Galindo (PUR)

6

6

4

*DID NOT FINISH

#5 Singles

1

2

3

Vasia Karvouni (MINN)

2

6

2

Juana Larranaga (PUR)

6

1

5

*DID NOT FINISH

#6 Singles

1

2

3

Dalila Said (MINN)

7

6

Seira Shimizu (PUR)

6

4

It was another disappointing loss to finish off the regular season for Purdue’s women’s tennis team. After giving Wisconsin a major struggle the previous day, I was confident that Purdue would be able to lock down one more win before the Big Ten Tournament, but that just did not happen. Minnesota clearly outplayed Purdue in doubles play, but based on Purdue’s season history, I was not too concerned. Wisconsin has been better than Minnesota in singles play this season, so I was confident that Purdue had a shot of winning four singles points. The two teams split the first sets evenly, which was less than ideal, but still not horrible for the Boilermakers’ outlook. However, Minnesota won four of the second sets, giving themselves a 3-1 edge going into the last sets. A little over a year after losing to Ena Babic at the very last minute in a close Purdue win, Rachel Hanford clinched the victory for the Gophers by upsetting Csilla Fodor at #1 singles, and the match ended directly afterward. To be frank, it is just disappointing how many times Purdue had opportunities to take care of business and failed to do so over the course of this season.

Tournament Structure:

This is the Men’s Tennis Tournament bracket:

And this is the Women's Tennis Tournaent Bracket:

Both of these brackets are courtesy of the Big Ten conference.

I wondered if the tournament structure from last year’s Big Ten Women’s Tennis Tournament would stick, and evidently it will. Everybody gets a shot at the tournament title, I suppose. Meanwhile, the Big Ten Men’s Tennis Tournament has the same structure that the women’s tournament had until recently, since there are only ten schools that support men’s tennis at this point.

Women’s Tournament Results:

4/27: FINAL—[11] Purdue 4, [14] Rutgers 3

#1 Doubles

1

Fisher/Prinyarux (RUT)

6

Galindo/Gasparin (PUR)

2

#2 Doubles

1

Lopez/Zahare (RUT)

6

Gallardo Guevara/Shimizu (PUR)

7

#3 Doubles

1

Kaplan/Kim (RUT)

7

Larranaga/Milic (PUR)

6

#1 Singles

1

2

3

Tess Fisher (RUT)

7

6

Carmen Gallardo Guevara (PUR)

6

3

#2 Singles

1

2

3

Jackie Lopez (RUT)

2

0

Tara Milic (PUR)

6

6

#3 Singles

1

2

3

Sydney Kaplan (RUT)

1

0

Rut Galindo (PUR)

6

6

#4 Singles

1

2

3

Minchae Kim (RUT)

6

6

1

Juana Larranaga (PUR)

1

7

6

#5 Singles

1

2

3

Daira Cardenas (RUT)

7

6

6

Seira Shimizu (PUR)

5

7

7

#6 Singles

1

2

3

Alina Prinyarux (RUT)

6

6

Nathalia Wolf Gasparin (PUR)

1

2

This was far more stressful than I was hoping, but it was a win that showed grit and resilience on Purdue’s part. Also, it keeps Purdue’s undefeated streak over Rutgers in women’s tennis alive, which is more than certain other teams in the state can say. It should be noted that Purdue was without Csilla Fodor, so everyone would have to play above where they normally play. Rutgers got a couple of early singles points to put themselves in position to take the match, but Purdue would not go away. I can count at least two different times where Rutgers was one point away from clinching the match, but Purdue fought it off and won that game to eliminate the threat. As the match neared its conclusion, Purdue had tied the match at three team points apiece, and it all came down to #5 singles. The third set went back and forth, but Rutgers had another opportunity to clinch the match as Seira Shimizu fell behind 5-6 in the set. Undeterred by the pressure, she roared back to take the next game and then win the tiebreaker to clinch the match for the Boilermakers in a huge last showing. One nitpick that I will make is that this match demonstrates a weakness of Purdue’s system: all it takes is an injury or two to drop the team’s potential considerably. Against a team like Rutgers, you can get away with that, but most of the conference is better than Rutgers. I hope Purdue has a good athletic training squad, because they are certainly a team that could be crippled by one long-term injury.

4/28: FINAL—[6] Nebraska 4, [11] Purdue 0

#1 Doubles

1

Galindo/Gasparin (PUR)

1

Makoric/Novak (NEB)

6

#2 Doubles

1

Gallardo Guevara/Shimizu (PUR)

3

Adrover Gallego/C Kuckelman (NEB)

6

#3 Doubles

1

Larranaga/Milic (PUR)

3

Alicea/E Kuckelman (NEB)

3

*DID NOT FINISH

#1 Singles

1

2

3

Carmen Gallardo Guevara (PUR)

2

3

#122 Kristina Novak (NEB)

6

6

#2 Singles

1

2

3

Tara Milic (PUR)

3

5

Isabel Adrover Gallego (NEB)

6

5

*DID NOT FINISH

#3 Singles

1

2

3

Rut Galindo (PUR)

6

1

Maja Makoric (NEB)

3

4

*GALINDO RETIRES

#4 Singles

1

2

3

Juana Larranaga (PUR)

7

1

Samantha Alicea (NEB)

6

0

*DID NOT FINISH

#5 Singles

1

2

3

Seira Shimizu (PUR)

5

2

Chloe Kuckelman (NEB)

7

6

#6 Singles

1

2

3

Nathalia Wolf Gasparin (PUR)

3

1

Ellie Kuckelman (NEB)

6

4

*DID NOT FINISH

Based on the results of the First Round, this is not surprising in the least. Csilla Fodor was unavailable for this match as well and considering that Purdue lost to Nebraska fairly easily with Csilla Fodor in West Lafayette earlier in the season, this was very bad for Purdue’s chances. The Boilermakers lost fairly quickly in doubles pairings, and singles didn’t go much better. Nebraska won four of the first sets to put them in good position, and then the combination of two straight-set victories and a retirement clinched the match for the Cornhuskers.

Men’s Tournament Results:

4/28: FINAL—[9] Michigan State 4, [8] Purdue 3

#1 Doubles

1

Lair/Winkler (MSU)

4

Bennett/Galus (PUR)

6

#2 Doubles

1

Crocker/Williams (MSU)

3

Cossu/Wozniak (PUR)

6

#3 Doubles

1

Gates/Sheldon (MSU)

6

Morgan/Welch (PUR)

2

#1 Singles

1

2

3

Jack Winkler (MSU)

2

5

Athell Bennett (PUR)

6

7

#2 Singles

1

2

3

Max Sheldon (MSU)

3

6

7

Sebastian Welch (PUR)

6

3

6

#3 Singles

1

2

3

Luke Baylis (MSU)

3

6

6

Tomasz Dudek (PUR)

6

1

2

#4 Singles

1

2

3

Graydon Lair (MSU)

5

2

Rohan Sachdev (PUR)

7

6

#5 Singles

1

2

3

Carson Gates (MSU)

6

4

7

Piotr Galus (PUR)

3

6

5

#6 Singles

1

2

3

Anthony Pero (MSU)

6

6

Michal Wozniak (PUR)

4

4

This is just disappointing. Purdue was better than Michigan State for 90% of the match, but they completely collapsed down the stretch. As they had done in the first matchup, Purdue won relatively easily in doubles play to take a point that I thought would be crucial in this match. To be honest, this match did not mean that much, since this just decides who gets curb stomped by Ohio State in the quarterfinals. However, this is just another instance of Purdue collapsing down the stretch, and this cannot continue next season if Purdue wants to keep the improvement going. Purdue won the doubles point, which I thought would be critical, and they also won four of the six first sets and split the second sets, giving them a 3-1 lead. All they needed to do was win one of the three third sets to win the match, but that just didn’t happen. Purdue had their chances but were outplayed in the end.

Power Rankings:

Men’s Tennis

{1} Michigan (22-3, 8-1) (up 1)

Last two weeks:

Michigan State (6-1), [10]Indiana (4-2), [6]Illinois (4-0), [1]Ohio State (4-2)

NCAA potential: Guaranteed

{2} Ohio State (24-3, 7-0) (down 1)

Last two weeks:

[9]Michigan State (4-0), [4]Northwestern (4-0), [2]Michigan (2-4)

NCAA potential: Almost Guaranteed

{3} Northwestern (19-10, 6-3) (no change)

Last two weeks:

@#14 Harvard (1-4), Purdue (4-0), Indiana (4-0), [5]Nebraska (4-0), [1]Ohio State (0-4)

NCAA potential: Solid

{4} Illinois (14-14, 5-4) (up 1)

Last two weeks:

Eastern Illinois (4-0), Indiana (4-3), Purdue (4-1), [3]Wisconsin (4-1), [2]Michigan (0-4)

NCAA potential: Possible

{5} Wisconsin (12-10, 6-2) (down 1)

Last two weeks:

Penn State (4-0), [6]Illinois (1-4)

NCAA potential: Unlikely

{6} Nebraska (9-15, 5-3) (no change)

Last two weeks:

Penn State (4-1), [4]Northwestern (0-4)

NCAA potential: Not Happening

{7} Penn State (13-14, 3-6) (no change)

Last two weeks:

@#73 Nebraska (1-4), @#63 Wisconsin (0-4), [10]Indiana (3-4)

NCAA potential: Not Happening

{8} Purdue (9-15, 2-7) (no change)

Last two weeks:

@#28 Northwestern (0-4), @#52 Illinois (1-4), [9]Michigan State (3-4)

NCAA potential: Not Happening

{9} Michigan State (15-14, 1-8) (no change)

Last two weeks:

@#8 Michigan (1-6), [8]Purdue (4-3), [1]Ohio State (0-4)

NCAA potential: Not Happening

{10} Indiana (6-18, 0-9) (no change)

Last two weeks:

@#52 Illinois (3-4), @#28 Northwestern (0-4), [7]Penn State (4-3), [2]Michigan (2-4)

NCAA potential: Not Happening

Women’s Tennis

{1} Michigan (19-5, 10-1) (up 1)

Last two weeks:

#47 Illinois (4-1), #39 Northwestern (4-1), [7]Maryland (4-1), [3]Northwestern (4-3), [1]Ohio State (4-0)

NCAA potential: Guaranteed

{2} Ohio State (20-5, 11-0) (down 1)

Last two weeks:

#70 Maryland (5-2), Rutgers (4-0), [8]Minnesota (4-0), [4]Wisconsin (4-0), [2]Michigan (0-4)

NCAA potential: Almost Guaranteed

{3} Wisconsin (17-9, 8-3) (no change)

Last two weeks:

@Purdue (4-3), @Indiana (7-0), [5]Illinois (4-1), [1]Ohio State (0-4)

NCAA potential: Solid

{4} Northwestern (14-9, 8-3) (no change)

Last two weeks:

@Michigan State (4-0), @#23 Michigan (1-4), [6]Nebraska (4-3), [2]Michigan (3-4)

NCAA potential: Solid

{5} Illinois (16-9, 8-3) (no change)

Last two weeks:

@#23 Michigan (1-4), @Michigan State (4-1), [12]Iowa (4-3), [4]Wisconsin (1-4)

NCAA potential: Possible

{6} Nebraska (15-10, 7-4) (no change)

Last two weeks:

Iowa (4-0), [11]Purdue (4-0), [3]Northwestern (3-4)

NCAA potential: Possible

{7} Maryland (18-7, 6-5) (up 1)

Last two weeks:

@#10 Ohio State (2-5), @#71 Penn State (4-1), [10]Indiana (4-0), [2]Michigan (1-4)

NCAA potential: Unlikely

{8} Minnesota (18-10, 5-6) (up 1)

Last two weeks:

@Indiana (4-0), @Purdue (4-1), [9]Penn State (4-3), [1]Ohio State (0-4)

NCAA potential: Unlikely

{9} Penn State (11-13, 5-6) (down 2)

Last two weeks:

Rutgers (4-1), #70 Maryland (1-4), [8]Minnesota (3-4)

NCAA potential: Not Happening

{10} Purdue (12-13, 3-8) (no change)

Last two weeks:

#45 Wisconsin (3-4), #60 Minnesota (1-4), [14]Rutgers (4-3), [6]Nebraska (0-4)

NCAA potential: Not Happening

{11} Indiana (10-15, 3-8) (no change)

Last two weeks:

#60 Minnesota (0-4), #45 Wisconsin (0-7), [7]Maryland (0-4)

NCAA potential: Not Happening

{12} Iowa (7-17, 2-9) (no change)

Last two weeks:

@#53 Nebraska (0-4), [13]Michigan State (4-3), [5]Illinois (3-4)

NCAA potential: Not Happening

{13} Michigan State (9-14, 1-10) (no change)

Last two weeks:

#39 Northwestern (0-4), #47 Illinois (1-4), [12]Iowa (3-4)

NCAA potential: Not Happening

{14} Rutgers (5-18, 0-11) (no change)

Last two weeks:

@#71 Penn State (1-4), @#10 Ohio State (0-4), [11]Purdue (3-4)

NCAA potential: Not Happening

Postmortem:

Both teams showed flashes of promise for the future, but neither team put it all together on a consistent basis. The men’s tennis team had more Big Ten wins than last season, and while they also had just over half the opportunities for Big Ten wins, there were also a couple of missed opportunities, and they finished in the bottom third of the conference yet again. The last loss to Michigan State was particularly frustrating. This is a young squad, so I think Coach Gajdzik deserves another year to work with the new core. However, I don’t want to see another season in the bottom third of the Big Ten without a major rash of injuries. Meanwhile, the women’s tennis team went backward slightly from last year, and while losing Ena Babic and Zala Dovnik certainly hurt, I think the new class of entrants showed potential to make an NCAA run in a year or two as long as they get a bit of help. Still, there were not really a lot of good wins, and there were also some baffling losses as well. Coach Glitz’s recruiting may be her undoing: she has brought in a lot of top-25 classes since 2016 but has no postseason results to show for it. Considering the quality of players within the Purdue program, that would seem to indicate a coaching weakness. Most of the key players from this season return in 2023, so we will see if another year of seasoning can push them to the point where they can finish what they start.

Items in the FanPosts are entirely at the discretion of those that post them. They do not represent the views of Hammer & Rails, SBNation, or Purdue University in any way.