The Seton Hall women’s tennis team lost on the road in New Brunswick, N.J. over the weekend, falling to the Rutgers Scarlet Knights by a score of 6-1. The loss is the Pirates most lopsided defeat of the spring, as the Pirates drop to 1-3 on the season.
The Scarlet Knights had the game under the control from the very beginning, winning both doubles events which began the contest by scores of 6-2 and 6-4. From there, Rutgers put themselves in a comfortable position to win, prevailing in the first three singles matches in straight sets.
[caption id="attachment_21624" align="aligncenter" width="838"] Photo via SHU Athletics[/caption]
Needing a win to maintain the uncertainty of the outcome, Seton Hall sophomore Melody Taal proved to be the lone bright spot for the Pirates, as she was the lone winner for the Hall on the day. Taal got ahead of Rutgers’ Mingxiu Du in the first set, winning 6-2. In the second set, Du put in a good fight to force a third set, but Taal hung on for the win, 7-5.
The win gave the Pirates the slightest of chances to come back, with the team needing to win five unanswered singles games. Pirates’ senior Katie Kim almost kept hope for that alive in the next game, as Kim got ahead of Rutgers Isabelle Da Silva with a 6-4 first set win. Kim, however, lost the second set 3-6, and came up short in a down-to-the-wire third set, 8-10.
Luize Strike followed up Kim by once again almost forcing the win in what would have been no more than a consolation. The senior Strike won the first set handily, 6-2, but similarly to Kim dropped the second and lost a hard-fought third set in the tiebreak, 8-10.
The Pirates will search for answers in the coming week and hope to get back in winning ways when they take on NJIT in Newark, N.J. on Feb. 16.
James Justice can be reached at james.justice@student.shu.edu or on Twitter @JamesJusticeIII.
Anthony Talarico can be reached at anthony.talarico@student.shu.edu or on Twitter @ant_tal.
![](https://snworksceo.imgix.net/sen/66f2883d-12d5-40b0-ac46-3a9dcf7206ed.sized-1000x1000.jpg?w=1000)
Comments