2 min read ·
Worthington Cup: A Guide to the Ohio Tennis Event
Identify the Worthington Cup tennis event, check its 2010 singles, doubles and team winners, and understand what the archived scores reveal.
In tennis, the Worthington Cup name appears in records of a boys’ high-school tournament in central Ohio. A contemporary preview identifies Thomas Worthington and Worthington Kilbourne as the hosts of the 2010 event. This is historical tournament coverage, not a current entry guide or schedule. (ThisWeek preview)
The name also has a separate football meaning: the English Football League confirms that its 1998/99 League Cup was called the Worthington Cup. Football results under that name belong to a different competition. (EFL history)
Who won the 2010 tennis tournament?
The tournament was completed on April 24, 2010. Ohio Tennis Zone’s next-day report names Upper Arlington as the overall event winner, Kevin Metka of Worthington Kilbourne as singles champion, and Upper Arlington’s Stu Little and Billy Weldon as doubles champions. The report credits Thomas Worthington coach Tyler Stephen for the results information. (Ohio Tennis Zone’s April 25 report)
The archived results sheet records these finals:
| Competition | Winner | Runner-up | Recorded final score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Singles | Metka, Worthington Kilbourne | Benalcazar, Upper Arlington | 10–6 |
| Doubles | Little–Weldon, Upper Arlington | McClarren–Searfoss, listed as HD | 10–2 |
Source: Ohio Tennis Zone’s 2010 Worthington Cup results sheet. Player names and the HD abbreviation follow the sheet.
The team winner and singles winner were not the same school. Upper Arlington won the event overall, while Metka took the singles title for Worthington Kilbourne. A reference to a “Worthington Cup winner” therefore needs a category: team, singles or doubles.
How to read the archived results
The sheet separates singles and doubles into main-draw rounds and backdraw matches. Each main draw lists four opening matches—eight singles entrants and eight doubles pairs—followed by two second-round matches and a championship match. Backdraw results appear separately; they are not additional championship rounds. (Archived draw and scores)
The sheet does not state the full scoring rules or explain how team points were calculated. Preserve scores such as 10–6 as printed rather than converting them into conventional set scores, and use the accompanying report—not the singles final alone—to identify the overall winning school.
These records supply published match outcomes, not serve statistics. They contain no ace totals, serve speeds, first-serve percentages, break-point opportunities or point-by-point sequences. A 10–2 doubles final is a wider recorded margin than a 10–6 singles final, but that alone cannot identify the stronger server or establish superior performance under pressure.
For comparisons, keep the event year and singles/doubles category attached to each result, and flag the scoring rules as unspecified in this sheet.