MATH & SCIENCE 7, TWIN CITY ACADEMY 0
There was only one game in town today and the newest addition to the badminton community was hosting Math & Science in an EMAC match. The Dragons were breathing flames in a convincing sweep. Of the 14 sets, twelve were decided by ten or more points. The margins at singles was 14.13, doubles was even steeper at 15.67. The best TCA did today came at second singles where Tracy was able to reach a dozen points twice.
For those that do not know where TCA is located—-it is a two blocks north of Harding on Birmingham.
With TCA charted there are only two schools left to see: Burnsville (technically I have seen them at the Edina Invitational) and Hiawatha Collegiate.
SINGLES
1. Emily, B, M&S def Natalie 21-4, 21-2
2. Sohasra, M&S def Tracy 21-12, 21-12
3. Vivian, M&S def Belinda 21-9, 21-10
4. Grishma, M&S def Yisha 21-4, 21-2
DOUBLES
1. Adri / Pranu, M&S def Ava / Brea 21-5, 21-6
2. Sathvika / Sanjana, M&S def Ruth / Lindsay 21-7, 21-9
3. Mihira / Sophia, M&S def Anna / Rosanna 21-3, 21-2
BY THE NUMBERS
SINGLES
Matches: Math & Science 4-0 1.000
Games: Math & Science 8-0 1.000
points: Math & Science 168-55 .753
Set 1 points: Math & Science 84-29 .743
Set 2 points: Math & Science 84-26 .764
decided by 10+: Math & Science 6-0 1.000
decided by 3-: none
margin: Math & Science 14.125
DOUBLES
Matches: Math & Science 3-0 1.000
Games: Math & Science 6-0 1.000
points: Math & Science 126-32 .797
Set 1 points: Math & Science 63-15 .808
Set 2 points: Math & Science 63-17 .788
decided by 10+: Math & Science 6-0 1.000
decided by 3-: none
margin: Math & Science 15.667
FIRST SINGLES
EMILY B 2, NATALIE 0 (21-4, 21-2)
Emily B mowed down Natalie in two sets holding the Tiger to only six points in the entire match. Five of Emily’s services were part of runs. She was not stopped on any service either. Natalie was able to squeeze one point off service in the first set. Emily pounced on the third stroke winners with the favorite being the smash. The return by Natalie hung juicily in the air while Emily situated herself close by the net ready to spring into action. She ended up with a sweet 16 smash winners. Emily also came up aces on aces with eight. Emily parlayed her serve into points 86% of the time.
There was one category that Natalie won—the five or more stroke rallies 3-2. The two stroke rallies went to Emily 14-1.
Both players never missed a serve (a first) and even more amazing, had the exact score I had charted—no extra or fewer points.
| Category | EMILY B | NATALIE |
| Side out | 5/6-.833 | 0/7-.000 |
| Longest side out string | 2 | 0 |
| 3+ Runs | 5 | 0 |
| Longest point string | 13 | 2 |
| SERVING | ||
| First serve | 2 | 1 |
| First point | 1, 2 | |
| Service points | 36 | 1 |
| Serving % | 41/41-1.000 | 7/7-1.000 |
| Point generated off serve | .857 | .250 |
| POINTS | 21, 21-42 | 4, 2-6 |
| Points after 11 | 20 | 1 |
| Points after own errors | 4 | 2 |
| Winners after own errors | 3 | 1 |
| STROKES | 114 | 27 |
| Strokes per point | 2.714 | 4.50 |
| 5+ rallies (%) | 2 | 3 |
| 2- rallies (%) | 14 | 1 |
| WINNERS | 15, 18-33 | 1, 1-2 |
| Aces | 8 | 0 |
| Blocks | 0 | 1 |
| Clears | 3 | 1 |
| Drives | 2 | 0 |
| Drops | 4 | 0 |
| Soft drives | 0 | 0 |
| Smashes | 16 | 0 |
| Even Stroke Winners | 4 | 2 |
| 2nd Stroke Winners | 0 | 1 |
| Odd Stroke Winners | 29 | 1 |
| ERRORS | 3, 1-4 | 6, 3-9 |
| Deep | 0 | 0 |
| Fan | 0 | 0 |
| Net | 3 | 7 |
| Wide | 1 | 2 |
| Serve | 0 | 0 |
| Even stroke errors | 1 | 7 |
| 2nd stroke errors | 0 | 5 |
| Odd stroke errors | 3 | 2 |
| WINNER LOCATION | ||
| Left | 15 | 1 |
| Right | 18 | 1 |
| Largest Lead | 15, 19 | 0, 0 |
| W:E Ratio | 8.250 | 0.222 |
| Margin | 18.00 | |
| Set Point % | 2/2-1.000 | |
| Time | 9:03 |