The site dug up by Gardai at CashelardA former leading Garda has slammed an operation which dug up a site using a JCB as part of the search for the body of Mary Boyle.A leading geophysical company, Scantech, believed they had identified an area, which may have contained a body at Cashelard on the outskirts of Ballyshannon.The company was due to hand its full report to Gardai last week. But officers moved into the site last Wednesday and dug up a quarter acre site using a JCB.After digging for a day, the search was completed with found nothing.However, retired Garda Sgt Alan Bailey, who worked with the Serious Crime Unit, said a much more thorough search should have been carried out.In fact, he said an archeological-type dig using scraping tools should have checked every inch of soil. “I have never heard of a JCB being used in a search for a shallow graver. In fact it would just be about the last thing you would use,” he said.Gardai told Donegal Daily they are not making any comment on the latest dig for the six year old who went missing 36 years ago. FORMER GARDA SLAMS DIG OPERATION IN SEARCH FOR MISSING MARY BOYLE was last modified: April 21st, 2013 by StephenShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window) Tags:CashelarddigGardaiMARY BOYLE
The future plans for three Donegal Community Hospitals have been cast in doubt once more due to a lack of commitment from the Department of Health.Funding security for St Joseph’s Stranorlar, Ramelton and Lifford Community Hospitals may not come until 2021, according to the latest revelations in the Dáil.Donegal Deputy Pat the Cope said he was shocked and bewildered by a response he received from the Minister for Health this week. “Following recent assurances given by Government, HSE and the Department I certainly felt I would have received a positive answer regarding these three community hospitals but the reply I was given lacked any funding commitment and postponed any real commitment until early 2021,” said Pat the Cope.The downgrading of three Community Hospitals has been subject to much debate since January 2016.Pat the Cope questioned the Minister over the issue again this week, but he was told that: “These projects will be progressed when funding becomes available and the timelines confirmed on receipt of funding. In the short term the HSE will invest minor capital in both units 2019 & 2020 in order to deal with HIQA compliance issues.”Deputy Gallagher commented: “Unfortunately, there is absolutely no commitment to invest major investment which is urgently required for all three Community Hospitals , the current Capital Plan runs from 2016 to 2021, so therefore by extension if only minor funding will be available from 2019 until 2020, and the reality whereby the current Capital Plan expires in mid-2021 there is little or no actual prospect of funding being provided for these three community hospitals.” “The other realities which we all know, is that the current capital plan of the HSE and Department of Health is grossly underfunded due to overspends on other capital projects elsewhere in the state.”The Fianna Fáil TD slammed recent assurances on the hospitals as a “public gimmick”.He said: “I firmly believe we are no further advanced now than what we were when the original decision was taken in 2016 to downgrade these hospitals, in the absence of a funding commitment and an actual plan for the upgrade of all three community hospitals, then there is no guarantee for future of the long stay accommodation units and services in these hospitals.”Donegal Community Hospitals cast in doubt was last modified: June 20th, 2019 by Rachel McLaughlinShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
The news media are all showcasing the detailed color-rendered X-ray tomographs of Cambrian worm embryos from China. Scientists were able to determine that these embryos, alleged to be 500 million years old, are very similar to those of modern, living priapulid worms. Despite their assumed age, some of the embryos were remarkably well preserved, displaying rows of teeth and other features in the sub-millimeter range. It’s really a report about an exciting new non-invasive imaging technology that is able to uncover exquisite detail in biological structures smaller than a grain of sand. Some news reporters, however, used the announcement to promote evolutionary stories:[email protected] said it has the “potential to help reconstruct the earliest steps in metazoan [animal] evolution.”MSNBC news calls it a “3-D vision of life’s dawn” and says the discoveries “could roll back the evolutionary history of arthropods like insects and spiders.” Actually, these fossil worms have nothing to do with arthropods except in evolutionary models, where they are assumed to precede a “split on the evolutionary tree that separated the unsegmented nematode worms and their segmented cousins from the gigantic arthropod phylum, which includes crustaceans, insects and spiders.” Science Daily said that the discovery “suggests that arthropod evolutionary history must be pushed further back in time than previously thought.”Ker Than at LiveScience echoed that thought and quoted one of the researchers claiming, “these fossils are the most precious of all because they contain information about the evolutionary changes that have occurred in embryos over the past 500 million years.”National Geographic, bless its heart, did not discuss the discoveries in the context of evolution, but stated without question that they are 500 million years old.What did the original paper in Nature say? Donoghue et al.1 spent most of the time discussing their revolutionary imaging technique, called SXRTM, and the details of the embryos they studied. They only made two brief references to evolution, both of which were tentative and actually problematical for evolutionary theory. First, they said that structures previously thought to be an outer layer of blastomeres looked more like modern arthropod yolk pyramids, “with the implication that arthropod evolutionary history is thereby pushed back in time.” In other words, if an innovation appears much earlier in the record than previously believed, its ancestry must be even earlier. No evidence for such a hypothetical ancestor was presented. The only other mention of evolution stressed the superiority of SXRTM over light-microscope imaging. This paragraph is too ambiguous about evolution to provide any support for the theory:It is clear from this study that scanning electron microscopy and light-microscopy of thin sections are insufficient to reveal fossil embryo structure. Analyses of internal and external structure in concert by means of SXRTM have allowed us to clarify the nature of diagenetic infills, to decide between opposing interpretations of cleavage modes, and to resolve the anatomy of the later-stage embryos of Pseudooides and Markuelia, helping to constrain their affinity and evolutionary significance. Perhaps more importantly, it has revealed aspects of the anatomy of these organisms that would never have otherwise been resolved.That’s it. The paper did not even mention that these embryos were Cambrian, or make any judgments about how old they were (except in the references). Only in their quotations to the press did the researchers speculate more openly about where these embryos fit in the evolutionary scheme of things.1Donoghue et al., “Synchrotron X-ray tomographic microscopy of fossil embryos,” Nature 442, 680-683 (10 August 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature04890; Received 21 February 2006; Accepted 10 May 2006.What they should have done is lamented the downfall of four props for evolution:Age: The presence of exquisitely-preserved soft embryos casts doubt on the claim they are 500 million years old. Preservation The discovery of delicate embryo fossils destroys the excuse that Precambrian ancestors of complex life that burst on the scene in the Cambrian (04/23/2006) were not preserved because they were soft-bodied. Abrupt Appearance: It shows that more advanced arthropod-style embryonic features were already present in these worms at the first appearance of complex multicellular organisms in the record. Stasis: The embryos resemble modern counterparts, indicating that there has been little (if any) evolution during the mythical 500 million years. In short, this is not a paper about evolution, it is a set of evidences challenging evolution! The deceitful practices of evolutionary reporters about hard evidence are like two things. (A) They are like junk-science health-pill claims, wherein manufacturers are not allowed to make health claims on the bottle, but in their ads, make wildly-unsupported promises about what the pills will cure. (B) They are like artisans who pick up the shells creationists lob into the Darwin Party Castle, then melt them down and recast them into idols of Charlie. Hopefully, enough smart people out there can see what is going on. Congratulations to the SXRTM team, anyway. We hope this great new imaging technique will continue to provide more evidence against evolution for another 500 million seconds.(Visited 9 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0
“In under three years, Johannesburg opened a state-of-the-art BRT system that uses the cleanest buses on the continent,” said Manfred Breithaupt, a senior transport adviser and the project director of Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Technische Zusammenarbeit, in Germany. “We are humbled and honoured that the Rea Vaya BRT system received international recognition so soon after its launch by an eminent international institution like the ITDP,” said Rehana Moosajee, the member of Johannesburg’s mayoral committee for transport. The City of Johannesburg’s Bus Rapid Transit system, Rea Vaya, has earned international recognition from the US-based Institute for Transport and Development Policy (ITDP). Source: City of Johannesburg An exceptional honourable mention went to Johannesburg for creating Rea Vaya. Others honoured were Cali, in Colombia for transforming its citywide BRT service with Masivo Integrado de Occidente; Curitiba, in Brazil for constructing a new BRT line and city park on a former federal highway; and Guadalajara, in Mexico for completing a full BRT system in less than two years at an affordable cost. 29 January 2010 “It is a tribute to the determination of the executive mayor and the political leadership of our city for remaining committed to responding to the long-standing call by communities for improvements in public transport and the transformation of historic ownership trends in the public transport arena. Rea Vaya is also one of the mayoral legacy projects that aim to leave a legacy beyond the 2010 Fifa World Cup™.” “The City of Johannesburg completed an extraordinary project with the implementation of the first phase of its bus rapid transit system, Rea Vaya,” said Penalosa. “This is an incredibly important precedent and [Johannesburg] should be proud to be a leader in sustainable transport both in Africa and the world.” “Johannesburg’s accomplishment against enormous challenges and the upgrading of the corridor in Soweto with lighting and sidewalks makes it an exceptional honourable mention.” Sustainable transport awards The Sustainable Transport Award is given each year by the ITDP to a city that uses transport innovations to enhance mobility for residents. Honourable mentions were received by four cities that were recognised for creating new BRT systems that reduce carbon emissions and create the most beneficial environment for pedestrians and cyclists. India’s first full BRT system, Janmarg in Ahmedabad, was the overall winner. The awards ceremony was held in Washington DC on 12 January, and was hosted by Enrique Penalosa, ITDP board president and a former mayor of Bogota, Colombia. The ITDP was established in 1985 and has become an international leader in the promotion of environmentally sustainable transportation policies and projects. Its selection committee consists of leading international institutions working in the field of sustainable transport. Johannesburg has launched the first BRT system in Africa, and completed the first mass transit investments in the city since the end of apartheid. Rea Vaya is the first public transit system to link the previously disadvantaged Soweto to the central business district. Rea Vaya won a first place honourable mention at this year’s Sustainable Transport Awards, organised by the institute, for the successful implementation of its first phase. All the nominees were cities in developing nations, a first in the six-year history of the awards.
Related Posts Looking for a perfect holiday gift for that special someone? Well, you might be in an ever-shrinking minority – the rest of us will just be swapping virtual presents on Facebook.On Monday, Facebook added Apple’s iTunes store to its virtual gifting catalog. Facebook’s foray into holiday e-commerce is so aggressive that it’s actually placed the “Gifts” button next to some of the social site’s primest real estate. Navigate to any friend’s Facebook page and you’ll find the option right in the box where you’re probably used to sharing links or text.To send iTunes credit as a gift, you’ll be prompted to select a gift card loaded with $10, $15, $25 or $50 worth of Apple’s virtual media. Before entering your payment info, you can then select an e-card to pair with the loot, and enter a hand-typed message if you want to get really personal with this year’s e-gifting. If you’re at a loss, the iTunes gifting interface also includes suggestions from the iTunes store’s most popular selections in any category. Apple’s one-stop media shop is well-stocked, so lazy holiday shoppers should be spoiled for choice. As of September, the iTunes Store boasted more than 26 million songs, 190,000 TV episodes, 45,000 movies and 700,000 apps. The Apple Facebook Gifts partnership is the newest high-profile addition to Facebook’s virtual gifting empire, which already promotes Starbucks and popular discount design shop Fab.com. According to Facebook, mentions of holiday shopping-adjacent words are up 160% from last month – and considering that was before Black Friday and Cyber Monday, we can only imagine that Facebook chatter about e-gifting is at a fever pitch. Facebook is Becoming Less Personal and More Pro… Tags:#Apple#e-commerce#Facebook#iTunes The Dos and Don’ts of Brand Awareness Videos Guide to Performing Bulk Email Verification taylor hatmaker A Comprehensive Guide to a Content Audit
When your dream client signed on for a presentation, they weren’t expecting that their commitment would include all 4,201 slides in your deck. They were hoping that you would address their needs, share your ideas, and engage them in a dialogue.If you have to present everything and the kitchen sink, you are really making the decision to present nothing.Your slide deck needs to create the value your dream client needs and expects. It needs to provide enough value that it gains you the right to ask for the next commitment you need. It needs to open a conversation about how you can move your dream client’s business forward.Here is how you can eliminate most of the slides in your deck and accomplish these goals.Eliminate Who We AreThere are times when you need to share your company’s background with your dream client. But those occasions are more rare than you might believe, and there are other methods to provide that information, should your dream client need it.The slides that show your company’s major milestones from the beginning of time to the present don’t add anything to your value proposition. The organizational chart that starts with your C-level executives doesn’t add any value either (although there may be a good reason to show them the members of the team that will work directly on their account). And unless the list of your locations is part of what’s being considered, it’s not going to do much to rev anybody up.If you want to provide this information, it’s best provided as a supplemental handouts. If it isn’t necessary, cut it.Eliminate Most of Your OfferingsSlide decks tend to get cluttered because one dream client asked a question, a slide gets built and added to the deck, and that slide lives in the deck for all eternity—even though it’s irrelevant to most of your dream clients.The slide deck that you use to present to your dream client doesn’t have to include all of your service offerings, all of your processes and methodologies, or all of the details around your offerings or methodologies.Here is the rule: Cut the slides that don’t add anything to the value proposition you are presenting now.Anything That Doesn’t FitHave you ever seen a report embedded in a PowerPoint slide? It’s a thing of beauty, isn’t it?There is content that just doesn’t belong in a slide. It doesn’t fit on a slide. It wasn’t designed for a slide. There really isn’t an effective way to use the information on a slide.If it wasn’t made for a slide, it isn’t a slide. Cut it. It’s a handout.Eleven SlidesCut your slide deck to exactly eleven slides. Start by defining the value proposition of your sales call and your solution. If you had to choose only eleven slides to tell the story you need to tell, which eleven slides would you choose?To cut slides, you have to ruthlessly determine what is essential to making your presentation valuable to your client, as well as what is essential to you being able to ask for and gain the commitment you need. The more slides you need to create this value, the less likely you have honed in on what is vitally important.With so few slides (plenty!) you eliminate the opportunity to monologue and you ensure dialogue.What To Do If You Need More SlidesI know. You’re frightened. What if you need slides that aren’t in your deck? No problem.One way to ensure you have the slides that you need when you need them is to build a menu of supplemental material and bury your slides after your closing. If you need a few slides to support a point you are making, you have them available and can get to them quickly. But if you don’t need them, they don’t distract you—or your dream client—from your main points.Go ahead and chop away.QuestionsHow much of your presentation is truly necessary to achieving the outcome of your presentation?Look at each slide. Does it create value for your dream client? Could you make your meaning without that slide?Which slides in your deck should really be written handouts? What information might be presented in some other way?
The Blues Dinner recognised NSWTA best Affiliates, Regions, Administrators, Players, Juniors, Volunteers, Referees, Coaches and Selectors. Gary Brickell was awarded the prestigious Rod Wise Medal for Volunteer of the Year for his tireless efforts as a referee and administrator of the Wollongong Touch Association of which he has been involved for over twenty-five years. The Canterbury club had much to celebrate with members Gary Sonda (Men’s Player of the Year), Peter Forrester (Coach of the Year), and the Winchester sisters (Joint Female Players of the Year) claiming awards on the night.NSWTA also inducted four individuals to their Hall of Fame – Gabrielle Rose, Katrina Toohey, Gary Mournehis, and Judy Malcolm. A full list of winners is below: Affiliate of the Year State winner:Wallsend TASix regional winners:SunsAlbion Park TA RebelsEast’s TA MetsLower Blue Mountains TA ScorpionsRyde Eastwood TA HornetsWallsend TA EaglesGlen Innes TA Administrator of the Year John Ryan (Easts TA) and Elijah Van Der Kwast (UNSW TA)Region of the Year Mets Rod Wise Medal- Volunteer of the Year Gary Brickell (Wollongong TA) Coach of the Year Peter Forrester (Canterbury TA) Selector of the Year Bob Monkley (Yass TA)Male Player of the Year Gary Sonda (Canterbury TA) Female Player of the Year Clare Winchester and Louise Winchester (Canterbury TA) Junior Male Player of the Year Ben Moylan (Penrith TA) Junior Female Player of the Year Nicky Albury (Wests TA) and Amy Regal (Wollongong TA) For further information, go to the new NSWTA website – www.nswtouch.com.au
This interview is the fourth in a seven part series taken during the 2010 Masters Trans Tasman Test Series held in Townsville from Friday, 11 to Sunday, 13 June. In this interview we speak with Garry Sonda.To view the video please follow the link http://www.austouch.com.au/index.php?id=865 or locate ‘MyTouch TV’ on the Touch Football Australia homepage www.austouch.com.au
2013Russell Wilson36.739.02.73.91.2 42016Aaron Rodgers28.871.8 RANKSEASONPLAYERPRESSURE %QBR 2011Tim Tebow37.1%188.8.131.52.0 2011Joe Flacco22.8184.108.40.206.3 12016Jameis Winston34.9%80.7 2011Mike Vick220.127.116.11.71.3 62009Peyton Manning15.761.2 2011Ben Roethlisberger25.418.104.22.168.2 82015Tyrod Taylor31.757.9 SECONDS 2013Aaron Rodgers25.019.42.54.01.5 52015Ryan Fitzpatrick22.571.5 Rodgers’s performance through the regular season and two postseason games this year has been exceptional. His 71.8 QBR when pressured this season is the fourth-highest since 2009, and he’s shown no signs of slowing down. On Sunday, Rodgers was pressured on 18 of 51 dropbacks, and while he was sacked three times and gave up an interception, he went 7 for 14 for 149 yards, including the 36 that brought the Packers into field goal position. His unadjusted QBR actually went up on these plays, from 79.4 on plays where he wasn’t pressured to 89.7 on plays where he was.We only have QB pressure data going back to 2009, so that table isn’t exactly a complete survey of the situation. But six of the best eight individual seasons of QBs performing under pressure have come in the last two years.A few possible explanations for that: First, random noise is always a possibility. Second, something in the collection or interpretation of the pressure numbers may have changed over the years. (I asked around at Stats & Info about this, and the folks there said nothing changed under the hood, but they did note that the stat doesn’t differentiate between duress that comes at the beginning of a play, before a QB escapes to relative safety, and duress that comes just as a QB throws.)One more caveat: Different shops have different ways of defining “pressure,” so numbers can shift slightly from site to site, but the unifying thread among all the methods is that the QB has to be affected by the rush. So some plays that simply require the QB to step up in the pocket to avoid the rush may be left out of the overall tally. That would seemingly underrepresent mainstays of passing-leader charts such as Drew Brees or Tom Brady, who excel at beating the blitz by throwing the ball before pressure can arrive.So if the Geriatric All-Pro wing isn’t cracking the pass rush, it should be obvious who is — the guys who can move. Here’s a table showing QBs since 2011 who created the most time outside the pocket. I took the average time to throw and subtracted time in the pocket, leaving us with those magical few seconds when a player such as Rodgers or Russell Wilson or Colin Kaepernick is rolling around the edge looking for a target: 2011Aaron Rodgers22.214.171.124.01.4 2012Colin Kaepernick126.96.36.199.11.6 32013Josh McCown27.673.8 Source: ESPN Stats & Information Group 2012Russell Wilson31.9188.8.131.52.6 2012Aaron Rodgers23.4184.108.40.206.6 102013Ryan Fitzpatrick23.952.5 22015Jay Cutler30.975.0 Source: ESPN Stats & Info Group QBs under pressure, regular season and playoffs 2011-16 92014Carson Palmer27.452.8 2011Kevin Kolb220.127.116.11.91.5 2012Ben Roethlisberger24.744.92.54.01.5 2015Aaron Rodgers32.434.72.54.01.5 SEASONPLAYERPRESSURE %QBRIN POCKETBEFORE PASSSCRAMBLING 2015Russell Wilson18.104.22.168.01.5 2012Robert Griffin III25.522.214.171.124.5 2012Nick Foles126.96.36.199.01.5 2013Colin Kaepernick188.8.131.52.01.3 72016Dak Prescott29.958.4 2016Aaron Rodgers29.471.82.64.01.4 A certain number of things that happen during a football game come down to skill, and a certain number to luck, and it’s important to be able to tell one from the other. Aaron Rodgers dropping deep in the pocket on a free play and rifling a 34-yard touchdown pass to a wide-open Richard Rodgers, under-throwing him but threading it precisely between linebacker Sean Lee’s outstretched arm and his earhole against the Cowboys last weekend? That takes some baseline NFL skills, but mostly it’s a bad pass getting a lucky break. But Aaron Rodgers slipping the pocket, rolling left, pausing, waiting for his receivers to come back across the field, and hitting Jared Cook for a 36-yard catch that was inbounds by a toenail and set up the game-winning field goal? Now that’s a little bit of luck and a whole lot of skill.Aaron Rodgers is unusually good when pressure comes his way. One of the bedrock principles of defense in the NFL is that pressuring the quarterback works. It worked on Tom Brady and the 18-0 Patriots in 2008, and God knows it worked on Cam Newton and the Panthers in Super Bowl 50. Get to the quarterback, the thinking goes, and you’re in good shape, failing a stroke of luck or the spectacular. But these days there’s a group of quarterbacks, Rodgers included, who are defying that conventional wisdom.Since 2009, the league average QBR1I’m using the “raw” version of QBR for this post, since Total QBR isn’t calculated at the split-level. The raw version is just the Total QBR number before it’s adjusted for strength of opponent. on plays with QB pressure is just 18.5, according to ESPN Stats & Information — just barely better than the worst quarterbacking season of the century, Jimmy Clausen’s catastrophe in 2010, which came in at 14.5 QBR. This season, QB performance has seen a modest bump to 29.3 — better, but still not very good. The notable difference, however, is now there are a few quarterbacks who are finding ways to thrive.Here’s a chart showing the quarterbacks since 2009 who performed best on plays flagged as QB pressures: 2014Colin Kaepernick31.524.42.44.01.6 2014Russell Wilson184.108.40.206.01.5 2016Tyrod Taylor35.5220.127.116.11.3 2013Terrelle Pryor18.104.22.168.41.8 There are two types of quarterbacks who consistently create significant amounts of time between when they break the pocket and when they throw the ball: the bootleg and read-option acolytes and the guys who are (and must be) good at running for their lives. Along with a slightly younger version of Ben Roethlisberger and an always-battered Russell Wilson, Rodgers is one of the few QBs on that list who combine out-of-pocket moves with excellence at the more traditional in-pocket throws.But Rodgers has always been able to buy time once the pocket breaks down, and it’s only recently that he’s turned those moments of brilliance into sustained performance.Since the start of the 2014 season, Rodgers has thrown for 28 touchdowns and just five interceptions while under pressure. The league average over that span is 3.2 touchdowns per season to 3.2 interceptions. For the season, Rodgers’s QBR when he was pressured was 71.8, which would have put him ninth in the league on all plays, not just pressured ones.So the big question then: What did Rodgers change?Rodgers’s pressure numbers look very similar to his old ones on depth of pass, time to pass, and many other stats. The only difference by the numbers is that he appears to be completing more of the same passes he’s been throwing for years.A critical part of this improvement seems to be that Rodgers is even more comfortable getting out on the edge early in his progressions. Here’s a play against the Vikings in Week 7 of 2011, Rodgers’s first MVP season:He looks a like a traditional quarterback, going through his progressions until the pocket finally folds, and he busts out and finds an open man.And now here he is this season:In part out of necessity, Rodgers no longer bounces around the pocket, or slides around blockers while keeping his feet set. These days, he often makes one or two reads and books it to the outside, where he essentially sets up a secondary pocket. It’s almost a bizarro version of the simplified offense many young mobile QBs run, in which they make one read and then bolt if their man isn’t open.Who knows if Rodgers will keep this up. Maybe this is unsustainable. Maybe the magic outside the pocket really is just fortuitous but still random chance converging in one season. But Rodgers has had enough success this season that if he keeps on doing what he’s doing, it’ll be hard to argue it’s just luck, no matter how unlikely it might seem.Check out our latest NFL playoff predictions.
Big-time players step up in big-time games. It’s an adage that can be traced to every imaginable competitive sport.For the Ohio State men’s tennis team, ranked No. 3 in the nation by the Intercollegiate Tennis Association, senior Justin Kronauge and sophomore Chase Buchanan delivered at critical moments Sunday in OSU’s 5-2 victory over No. 9 Kentucky.Kronauge, ranked 43rd in the country, won his No. 2 singles match 6-4, 6-3 to put OSU up 4-1, thereby clinching the victory for the Buckeyes. Buchanan, down 5-2 in the first set in his match against No. 8 Eric Quigley, rallied for a 7-5 first set victory and dominated the second set 6-2 to win at No. 1 singles.“I just stepped my game up,” Buchanan said. “I was nervous at the beginning because my shots weren’t falling. I had to buckle down because it’s not good [for the team] if I go down.”OSU’s win improved its record to 9-1 and extended its home-match winning streak to 96. Two crucial points defined the match for the Buckeyes.At subsequent moments in their respective first sets, Buchanan went up 6-5 and Kronauge won 6-4, sending the crowd into a frenzy and putting the Wildcats on their heels.“Justin’s probably my best friend, so we know each other really well,” Buchanan said. “Seeing him get pumped up is great, it helps the team to see the top two guys playing well.”Coach Ty Tucker knows he doesn’t have to worry about his top two players playing to their highest capabilities.“They’re good players. They spend 20 hours a week together,” Tucker said. “They like to mix it up and compete. You don’t have to worry about [Buchanan and Kronauge] coming to fight.”The Buckeyes got off to a slow start, losing two of the three doubles matches to fall behind 1-0. The No. 2 doubles team of freshman Dino Marcan and junior Balazs Novak rallied from a 5-2 deficit to win 8-6 for OSU’s only doubles win.“[Kentucky’s] No. 1 doubles team is capable of winning the national title,” Tucker said. “Doubles isn’t our strong suit, but hats off to them [for winning the point].”Kentucky arrived in Columbus a confident bunch. The Wildcats had achieved their highest ranking in seven years and were coming off one of their biggest wins in school history, as they scored a 4-3 victory over then-No. 2 (and current No. 1) Virginia on Feb. 6, snapping the Cavaliers’ 63-match win streak.However, there would be no Cinderella story Sunday as the Buckeyes flexed their muscles in the singles match after dropping the doubles point.Junior Matt Allare evened the score at one by handily defeating Graeme Dyce 6-3, 6-4. Marcan, down 2-1 in both sets, won his No. 3 singles match against Brad Cox 6-4, 6-2.Shortly after Buchanan and Kronauge won their matches, Novak captured his ninth singles win of the year by defeating Anthony Rossi 6-2, 6-4 for the Buckeyes’ fifth point.