Yes, I know that this covers slightly more than two weeks. I thought that writing a specific column for two tennis matches would be a bit wasteful, so I decided to affix them to this column. The first couple of weeks involved solid results for the ladies: they took care of business against mid-major opponents and won a theoretically even match to stay perfect in January. As for the men, I know this is supposed to be a year zero, but this is ugly. I don’t think Purdue has looked this bad in men’s tennis since the 1970’s.

Women’s Results:

1/15: FINAL—Purdue 4, Memphis 3

#1 Doubles	1
Soares/Woog (MEM)	2
Milic/Norman (PUR)	6

#2 Doubles	1
Teixido Garcia/Tumthong (MEM)	2
Fodor/Gallardo Guevara (PUR)	6

#3 Doubles	1
Grosmann/Meyer (MEM)	4
Gibbs/Larranaga (PUR)	5

*DID NOT FINISH

#1 Singles	1	2	3
Aran Teixido Garcia (MEM)	2	6	4
Liz Norman (PUR)	6	4	6

#2 Singles	1	2	3
Camila Soares (MEM)	2	3
Carmen Gallardo Guevara (PUR)	6	6

#3 Singles	1	2	3
Monique Woog (MEM)	6	6
Csilla Fodor (PUR)	3	3

#4 Singles	1	2	3
Emily Meyer (MEM)	6	7
Tara Katarina Milic (PUR)	2	5

#5 Singles	1	2	3
Dolavee Tumthong (MEM)	1	4
Kennedy Gibbs (PUR)	6	6

#6 Singles	1	2	3
Micah Pierce (MEM)	6	6	6
Juana Larranaga (PUR)	7	4	4

It was a close match, but Purdue did what needed to be done to start the season with a win. In what would turn out to be a critical point, Purdue rolled Memphis in doubles play. The top pairings took care of business pretty quickly to procure the doubles point for the Boilermakers. Given that Memphis was replacing almost half of their starting lineup from last season and Purdue had multiple players who were playing lower in the lineup card than they usually did last year, I would have predicted that the Boilermakers would roll in singles play. Instead, it was a pretty even fight where both sides took two straight set matches, leaving the match at 3-2 in Purdue’s favor with only #1 and #6 singles still playing. It would be Liz Norman who would clinch the match with a win at #1 singles in her first team match as a Boilermaker to start Purdue’s season on solid footing. Some improvements will still be necessary in singles, but this could be a nice win in Purdue’s pocket.

FINAL—Purdue 4, Chicago State 0

#1 Doubles	1
Li/Pukhaeva (CSU)	2
Milic/Norman (PUR)	5

*DID NOT FINISH

#2 Doubles	1
Fuller/Taibi (CSU)	2
Gibbs/Larranaga (PUR)	6

#3 Doubles	1
NO TEAM (CSU)
Fodor/Galindo (PUR)

*PURDUE WINS BY DEFAULT

#1 Singles	1	2	3
Cali Fuller (CSU)	2	0
Liz Norman (PUR)	6	1

*DID NOT FINISH

#2 Singles	1	2	3
Kristina Pukhaeva (CSU)	0	0
Csilla Fodor (PUR)	6	6

#3 Singles	1	2	3
Katarina Dukic (CSU)	2	0
Tara Katarina Milic (PUR)	6	4

*DID NOT FINISH

#4 Singles	1	2	3
Ethel Li (CSU)	1	2
Kennedy Gibbs (PUR)	6	6

#5 Singles	1	2	3
Amina Taibi (CSU)	1	0
Antonia Pareja (PUR)	6	3

*DID NOT FINISH

#6 Singles	1	2	3
NO PLAYER (CSU)
Ashlie Wilson (PUR)

*PURDUE WINS BY DEFAULT

It was not really expected that Purdue would have any trouble in this match beforehand. When it became clear that Chicago State wouldn’t have enough healthy players to place a full team of six on the lineup card, that only shrunk any chance Chicago State had. The Boilermakers were dominant in the two doubles matches that did get played, and even after resting multiple starters, Purdue was still rolling Chicago State in singles play. This won’t really help with an NCAA resume, but it’s nice that the freshmen got some playing time.

1/21: FINAL—Purdue 6, Cincinnati 1

#1 Doubles	1
McLay/Pendergast (CIN)	4
Milic/Norman (PUR)	6

#2 Doubles	1
Niehaus/Santilli (CIN)	3
Fodor/Gallardo Guevara (PUR)	4

*DID NOT FINISH

#3 Doubles	1
Bruno/Flanagan (CIN)	1
Gibbs/Larranaga (PUR)	6

#1 Singles	1	2	3
Elizabeth Pendergast (CIN)	4	1
Liz Norman (PUR)	6	6

#2 Singles	1	2	3
Cassie McLay (CIN)	6	7	5
Carmen Gallardo Guevara (PUR)	7	6	10

#3 Singles	1	2	3
Maria Santilli (CIN)	1	2
Csilla Fodor (PUR)	6	6

#4 Singles	1	2	3
Kelli Niehaus (CIN)	6	7
Tara Katarina Milic (PUR)	2	5

#5 Singles	1	2	3
Callie Flanagan (CIN)	5	2
Kennedy Gibbs (PUR)	7	6

#6 Singles	1	2	3
Katie Ferguson (CIN)	3	6	7
Juana Larranaga (PUR)	6	4	10

This was a pretty straightforward, stress-free win, although there are still a few issues to fix. Doubles play was somewhat even at first, but the Boilermakers got the serve break when they needed it, and took the doubles point. For whatever reason, Purdue struggled a bit at the beginning of singles play, because most of the singles matches were either tied or in Cincinnati’s favor about halfway through the first sets. However, the Boilermakers pulled it together and finished by winning five first sets. The two teams split the second sets evenly, and that was enough for Purdue to clinch the overall win. They then pushed through with some grit in the third sets to push the score to 6-1 in the end. Despite some rough moments, this team looked good overall on the court.

1/22: FINAL—Purdue 4, Ball State 3

#1 Doubles	1
Braun/Desai (BALL)	4
Milic/Norman (PUR)	6

#2 Doubles	1
Kaplan/Mullville (BALL)	3
Fodor/Gallardo Guevara (PUR)	5

*DID NOT FINISH

#3 Doubles	1
Peeler/Polishchuk (BALL)	1
Gibbs/Larranaga (PUR)	6

#1 Singles	1	2	3
Emma Peeler (BALL)	1	1
Liz Norman (PUR)	6	6

#2 Singles	1	2	3
Mariya Polishchuk (BALL)	7	5	6
Carmen Gallardo Guevara (PUR)	5	7	3

#3 Singles	1	2	3
Amy Kaplan (BALL)	3	6
Csilla Fodor (PUR)	6	7

#4 Singles	1	2	3
Jessica Braun (BALL)	2	5
Tara Katarina Milic (PUR)	6	7

#5 Singles	1	2	3
Annika Planinsek (BALL)	5	6	6
Kennedy Gibbs (PUR)	7	1	4

#6 Singles	1	2	3
Elena Malykh (BALL)	2	7	6
Juana Larranaga (PUR)	6	5	2

It would be tempting to panic after reading the base scores and see that Purdue struggled to put away Ball State at home, but there’s more to this story. All three of Ball State’s points were scored after Purdue had clinched the overall match, so if one of the coaches had decided to call it a day once Purdue had scored that all-important fourth point, it would be a 4-0 final and we would have something totally different to talk about. Regardless, Purdue was dominant in doubles play again, leading in all three matches by the time two of them had finished. Singles play started fine, with Purdue winning five of the six first sets. They won four of the six second sets to officially clinch the match, although many of them were quite close. It was the third sets that were problematic for Purdue, as Ball State won all three of them. Clearly, the singles play still has some improvements ahead, but Purdue is undefeated at the end of January, so the first step toward a successful season is complete.

Men’s Results:

1/16: FINAL—Dayton 5, Purdue 2

#1 Doubles	1
Bruce/DeMarco (DAY)	3
Dudek/Labrador (PUR)	6

#2 Doubles	1
Mavrodiev/Perkowski (DAY)	6
Morgan/Wozniak (PUR)	4

#3 Doubles	1
DeCurtins/Hiryur (DAY)	6
Ali-Khan/Cossu (PUR)	4

#1 Singles	1	2	3
Connor Bruce (DAY)	6	6
Daniel Labrador (PUR)	3	3

#2 Singles	1	2	3
Ronit Hiryur (DAY)	4	6
Michal Wozniak (PUR)	6	7

#3 Singles	1	2	3
Eric Perkowski (DAY)	6	3	7
Milledge Cossu (PUR)	1	6	5

#4 Singles	1	2	3
Erik Eliasson (DAY)	6	5	2
Mujtaba Ali-Khan (PUR)	3	7	6

#5 Singles	1	2	3
Georgi Mavrodiev (DAY)	6	4	7
Tomasz Dudek (PUR)	3	6	5

#6 Singles	1	2	3
Sai Dore (DAY)	6	6
Julen Morgan (PUR)	1	4

Well, the Young era at Purdue most definitely started with a thud. Yes, Purdue was without Sebastian Welch for the match. Yes, Purdue’s "net luck" was pretty bad throughout the match. No, neither one of these excuse the fact that Purdue lost to Dayton at home. The doubles point may have been the key hinge of the match, as it was fairly close throughout. Purdue’s #1 pairing took charge in the middle of their match to finish first, and it was hoped that this would energize the Boilermakers enough for one of the other two doubles pairings to pull away. Instead, Dayton’s other pairings both got key serve breaks late, and Purdue couldn’t respond. Maybe that loss hurt Purdue’s confidence, because they flat out stunk in the first set. Missed shots, flat footedness, double faults, it was all there. To Purdue’s credit, they fought back in the second sets and took a point to prevent a sweep, but they fell a bit short in the three set matches. Coach Young certainly has the experience to build a team, but this will be a tall hill to climb.

1/20: FINAL—Cleveland State 5, Purdue 2

#1 Doubles	1
Mindry/Teichmann (CSU)	6
Dudek/Labrador (PUR)	4

#2 Doubles	1
Mareschal-Hay/Zimcosky (CSU)	0
Morgan/Wozniak (PUR)	6

#3 Doubles	1
Abboud/Gedlitschka (CSU)	4
Ali-Khan/Cossu (PUR)	6

#1 Singles	1	2	3
Maxime Mareschal-Hay (CSU)	7	7
Daniel Labrador (PUR)	5	5

#2 Singles	1	2	3
Kade Mindry (CSU)	6	6
Michal Wozniak (PUR)	4	3

#3 Singles	1	2	3
Carl Gedlitschka (CSU)	5	3
Milledge Cossu (PUR)	7	6

#4 Singles	1	2	3
Raul Teichmann (CSU)	3	6	7
Mujtaba Ali-Khan (PUR)	6	3	5

#5 Singles	1	2	3
Cole Chappell (CSU)	6	6
Tomasz Dudek (PUR)	4	2

#6 Singles	1	2	3
Juande Dios Abboud (CSU)	6	6	6
Hassan Baroudi (PUR)	7	3	3

I really don’t know what to say about this. On the one hand, this was a closer match that Purdue had a real shot at winning up to the very end. On the other hand, that is not a sentence that I should have to use when the Boilermakers are facing Cleveland State at home. The Boilermakers came out strong in doubles play, dominating at #2 doubles and taking care of business at #3 doubles to earn the doubles point. Given that they won the doubles point, any competent Big Ten team should have had this win practically in the bag, but that is not where Purdue is now. They actually started fine by winning half of the six first sets, but then they faltered in the second sets, losing five of them. With two singles matches still to play, Cleveland State held a 3-2 overall lead, so Purdue needed to win both remaining third sets to pull out a victory. The #4 singles match had been a back-and-forth battle the whole way, but Mujtaba Ali-Khan fell just a bit short in the end, and Cleveland State clinched the match.

1/27: FINAL—Western Michigan 4, Purdue 3

#1 Doubles	1
Honnappa/Loshe (WMU)	6
Labrador/Welch (PUR)	1

#2 Doubles	1
Kuszynski/Schlueter (WMU)	4
Dudek/Wozniak (PUR)	2

*DID NOT FINISH

#3 Doubles	1
George/Pierce (WMU)	6
Ali-Khan/Cossu (PUR)	1

#1 Singles	1	2	3
Anton Arzhankin (WMU)	6	6	6
Daniel Labrador (PUR)	4	7	10

#2 Singles	1	2	3
Benjamin George (WMU)	4	6	3
Michal Wozniak (PUR)	6	4	6

#3 Singles	1	2	3
Peter Kuszynski (WMU)	6	6
Milledge Cossu (PUR)	2	3

#4 Singles	1	2	3
Brogan Pierce (WMU)	6	4	3
Mujtaba Ali-Khan (PUR)	2	6	6

#5 Singles	1	2	3
Fynn Loshe (WMU)	7	6
Tomasz Dudek (PUR)	5	4

#6 Singles	1	2	3
Arjun Honnappa (WMU)	6	6
Hassan Baroudi (PUR)	4	1

We’re at the point where I’m not at all surprised that Purdue lost to Western Michigan at home. For about the past ten years, the Broncos have been consistently at or near the top of the Mid-American Conference and one of the best mid-majors in the area, but their dominance of Purdue over that stretch is just depressing. Unlike the past two matches, Purdue was entirely noncompetitive in doubles play, and the Broncos took the doubles point without any issue. Sebastian Welch tried to play in doubles, but it didn’t seem to make a difference, and Coach Young decided to hold him back in singles to make sure that the injury didn’t get worse. Western Michigan kept their momentum from doubles play going into the early part of singles and took five first sets. They only got four of the six second sets, but it was enough to clinch the overall match. Like the Dayton match, Purdue still showed fight even after victory was unattainable, and they took all three third sets to make the match look closer than it actually was.

1/28: FINAL—Purdue 5, IUPUI 2

#1 Doubles	1
Jochim/Morehart (IUPUI)	4
Dudek/Labrador (PUR)	5

*DID NOT FINISH

#2 Doubles	1
Ciszewski/Kozerski (IUPUI)	3
Morgan/Wozniak (PUR)	6

#3 Doubles	1
Thurin/Viste (IUPUI)	2
Ali-Khan/Cossu (PUR)	6

#1 Singles	1	2	3
Alex Jochim (IUPUI)	4	6	10
Daniel Labrador (PUR)	6	2	3

#2 Singles	1	2	3
Tom Ciszewski (IUPUI)	3	1
Michal Wozniak (PUR)	6	6

#3 Singles	1	2	3
Kamil Kozerski (IUPUI)	4	4
Milledge Cossu (PUR)	6	6

#4 Singles	1	2	3
Colton Morehart (IUPUI)	4	1
Mujtaba Ali-Khan (PUR)	6	6

#5 Singles	1	2	3
Noah Viste (IUPUI)	6	6
Tomasz Dudek (PUR)	2	2

#6 Singles	1	2	3
Nate Day (IUPUI)	3	6
Hassan Baroudi (PUR)	6	7

Coach Young finally gets his first win as the head coach of the Boilermakers. Yes, it was just IUPUI, but it is still good to notch a win and temporarily stop the bleeding. Purdue took charge in doubles early, notching wins at the #3 and #2 spots to clinch the point. While things took a bit longer to develop, Purdue also had a strong finish in first sets, winning five of six. The second sets were a bit rockier, and the Jaguars won the lone third set of this team match, but Purdue had done enough in the meantime to clinch the total win.

Extra Attention:

It was a bit difficult to determine which sport deserved the extra attention, but after some rumination, I decided to shine this spotlight on the swimming and diving teams. They traveled to Evanston for a Big Ten dual against the host Wildcats, Hawkeyes, and Golden Gophers over the past weekend, and put together a few strong results. Purdue got first and second at women’s and men’s 3 meter diving, with Jenna Sonnenberg and Daryn Wright leading the ladies and Samuel Bennett and Jordan Rzepka pacing the gentlemen. Sophia McAfee also got fourth place at Women’s 3 meter Diving, less than one point away from giving Purdue the entire podium. At the Men’s 200 Yard Freestyle, Brady Samuels took the win, while Keelan Hart and Nick Sherman got first and second at the Men’s 100 Yard Freestyle. Samuels added to his win collection at the Men’s 100 Yard Butterfly, while Purdue’s A relay team won at the Men’s 200 Yard Freestyle Relay and the Men’s 400 Yard Freestyle Relay. As well, other second place finishes include Purdue’s A relay team at the Men’s 200 Yard Medley Relay and the Men’s 800 Yard Freestyle Relay, Kate Beavon at the Women’s 1000 Yard Freestyle, Idris Muhammad at the Men’s 50 Yard Freestyle, and Nick Sherman at the Men’s 200 Yard IM.

Upcoming Action:

Men’s Tennis:

2/3: vs DePaul

2/4: vs Dartmouth

2/11: @Drake

The first couple of weeks were supposed to be one of the easiest stretches of the season, so things probably aren’t getting better soon. The good news is that based on what I’ve been hearing, Sebastian Welch is probably going to be ready by then. I certainly hope that is true, because Purdue desperately needs a player who can compete at the top of the lineup. DePaul should be beatable, but given how Purdue has played, they can’t be taken for granted. Going into the season, I thought that the Dartmouth match was going to be very even, and the Drake match would be difficult, but maybe winnable. As of now, I have lower expectations about both of those matches.

Women’s Tennis:

2/3: vs DePaul

2/5: vs Tulsa

2/11: ag Virginia Commonwealth?

It’s been a nice start for the Boilermakers, but things will get a bit trickier in the next couple of weeks. The DePaul match should be pretty straightforward, and I would place Tulsa in the same camp as Memphis, in that they were a strong team last year that lost quite a bit of production over the past offseason. Tulsa looks a bit more competitive, though. After that, the Boilermakers might face their first match away from Schwartz in Urbandale, Iowa. Purdue was supposed to play Iowa State also, but since they upset Miami (FL) on the 28th, they will be occupied at the ITA Indoor Championship. Purdue may or may not face off against VCU, and if they do compete, it looks like Virginia Commonwealth’s offseason losses have left them a shadow of last year’s iteration, so Purdue should be favored.