The second day of the St. Paul City tournament wrapped up with Johnson and Highland Park switching spots from 2024. Last year the Scots won the singles title with Phlower Vang, and the Governors captured the doubles title with Dao Sangwang and Goldy Moua. Today both #1 seeds won titles with Johnson’s Su Meh picking up the Governors ninth city singles title since 2001 and first since 2021 when Song Yang won. And for the second day in a row, it was one school affair. Yesterday it was all Camden in Minneapolis. Today Johnson’s second singles Gaonou Vang finished second to her teammate. Four other times the same school met in the St. Paul finals; the last time came in 2019 when another all Johnson meeting went to Pa Do Moua beating Nuhchi Cha. To get to that final game today Meh, who has spent most of the year as the #1 ranked singles player, beat a personal nemesis: Como Park’s Niko Solheid. Solheid beat Meh twice this year. Gaonou Vang, meanwhile, topped Harding’s Gaozhia Vue who also recently toppled Meh.
History was made today in doubles with the Scots Alice Verbrugge and Violet Solem Valentine becoming the first to win for the school, at least going back to 2001. How rare is it for HP to be in the doubles finals? This was the second time. The first was in 2001 when Linda Duong and Lykoung Wong finished second to Harding. AV & VSV did it today in three sets, the second straight year of max sets. And they did it after falling in extra points in the first set.
Does winning the St. Paul City tournament launch a player(s) to a state title a week later? In singles the winner went on to wear the state crown 14 times including the past two players from Highland Park. City doubles champs have won state 13 times, but only twice the last seven tries.
I will have more on the doubles finals later this weekend after I digest the video.
SEMIFINAL
Su MEH 2, Niko SOLHEID 0
(reported 21-16, 21-14; recorded 22-16, 21-14)
As has been the pattern, side outs and service points pointed the way for a Su Meh win. Meh’s sideout percentage checked in at .529 while scoring 26-14 on service. Solheid had one more winner, with her best winner, the clear for eight. Meh had a little of everything from her toolbox. One tactic Meh used in this match was to approach the net aggressively to execute her plays. That is perhaps one reason Solheid’s clears worked well. Meh limited errors to only 10, less than half of Solheid’s 24. Another stat I tracked today was short serves and the points won off those serves. Meh was 10/14 including 8/9 in the second set. Solheid did not serve short.
| Category | MEH | SOLHEID |
| Side out | 9/17-.529 | 3/16-.188 |
| Longest side out string | 5 | 1 |
| 3+ Runs | 7 | 2 |
| Longest point string | 6 | 5 |
| SERVING | ||
| First serve | 2 | 1 |
| First point | 1 | 2 |
| Points won / Short serve | 10/14 | 0 |
| Service points | 26 | 14 |
| Serving % | 40/ 42-.952 | 25/ 31-.806 |
| Point generated off serve | .619 | .467 |
| POINTS | 43 | 30 |
| Points after 11 | 20 | 18 |
| Points after own errors | 5 | 7 |
| Winners after own errors | 1 | 5 |
| STROKES | 166 | 108 |
| Strokes per point | 3.860 | 3.600 |
| 5+ rallies (%) | 14 | 9 |
| 2- rallies (%) | 16 | 13 |
| WINNERS | 19 | 20 |
| Aces | 0 | 2 |
| Blocks | 1 | 1 |
| Clears | 3 | 8 |
| Drives | 2 | 2 |
| Drops | 4 | 2 |
| Soft drives | 4 | 0 |
| Smashes | 5 | 5 |
| Even Stroke Winners | 8 | 10 |
| 2nd Stroke Winners | 3 | 6 |
| Odd Stroke Winners | 11 | 10 |
| ERRORS | 10 | 24 |
| Deep | 1 | 2 |
| Net | 3 | 10 |
| Wide | 4 | 6 |
| Serve | 2 | 6 |
| Even stroke errors | 5 | 15 |
| 2nd stroke errors | 3 | 7 |
| Odd stroke errors | 5 | 9 |
| WINNER LOCATION | ||
| Left | 10 | 11 |
| Right | 9 | 9 |
| Largest Lead | 10, 8 | 1, 0 |
| W:E Ratio | 1.900 | 0.848 |
| Margin | 6.500 | |
| Set Point % | 2/5-.400 | |
| Time | 18:00 |
CHAMPIONSHIP
Su MEH 2, Gaonou VANG 0
(reported 21-9, 21-15; recorded 22-11, 21-14)
The game face was a bit different in this contest. With familiar opponents and inside jokes there was a more relaxed atmosphere. Meh still had the upper hand in side outs and service points (28-10). Even winners were dominated by Meh 31-10 with the soft drive proving fatal a dozen times. But her error totals bumped up to 15.
Vang was unable to ignite a run in the first set. But at the start of the second she scored the first point and then had the first run on service two for a 5-1 lead. Her second and final run of four pushed the lead out to 10-5. Vang still up 12-7 when the floodgates opened. A two-stroke soft drive, her fifth of the match, then led to eleven more points and that five point deficit was not a 19-12 lead, and the city title was within reach.
| Category | MEH | VANG |
| Side out | 8/15-.533 | 7/17-.412 |
| Longest side out string | 3 | 3 |
| 3+ Runs | 5 | 2 |
| Longest point string | 12 | 4 |
| SERVING | ||
| First serve | 1, 2 | |
| First point | 1 | 2 |
| Service points | 28 | 10 |
| Serving % | /43 | /25 |
| Point generated off serve | .651 | .400 |
| POINTS | 43 | 25 |
| Points after 11 | 24 | 10 |
| Points after own errors | 6 | 6 |
| Winners after own errors | 5 | 3 |
| STROKES | 160 | 85 |
| Strokes per point | 3.721 | 3.400 |
| 5+ rallies (%) | 13 | 8 |
| 2- rallies (%) | 16 | 8 |
| WINNERS | 31 | 10 |
| Aces | 1 | 1 |
| Blocks | 1 | 0 |
| Clears | 4 | 5 |
| Drives | 3 | 1 |
| Drops | 5 | 2 |
| Soft drives | 12 | 1 |
| Smashes | 5 | 0 |
| Even Stroke Winners | 13 | 5 |
| 2nd Stroke Winners | 8 | 4 |
| Odd Stroke Winners | 18 | 5 |
| ERRORS | 15 | 12 |
| Deep | 4 | 5 |
| Net | 7 | 4 |
| Wide | 2 | 2 |
| Serve | 2 | 1 |
| Even stroke errors | 5 | 10 |
| 2nd stroke errors | 1 | 6 |
| Odd stroke errors | 10 | 2 |
| WINNER LOCATION | ||
| Left | 15 | 0 |
| Right | 16 | 10 |
| Largest Lead | 12, 7 | 0, 5 |
| W:E Ratio | 2.067 | 0.833 |
| Margin | 9.000 | |
| Set Point % | 2/2-1.000 | |
| Time | 15:48 |