|
Post by ersatzhusker on Sept 12, 2007 18:17:08 GMT -5
Many good points in thread (as usual).
On a prognostication and comparison basis: NU beat PSU at NU 3-0 (30-20, 30-21, 30-27). If:
PSU loses to Stanford 0-3 by comparable scores, then does this mean that Stanford is actually better than NU at this point having accomplished this on a neutral court?
PSU loses to Stanford 2-3 with a tight game 5, then does this mean PSU learned from playing NU and and/or Stanford is not as good as NU?
If PSU beats Stanford, does this mean there is a big gap between #1 and #2+?
Of course if Texas battles NU or even beats them tonight, then the above may be moot.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Sept 12, 2007 22:56:47 GMT -5
In my opinion only the third of your hypotheticals would be true. Stanford (and a few other teams) will be ready in December, when it's anybody's game. But if the tournament were held right I would put a 100 dollar bet on Nebraska being the winner, and then I'd go to sleep and tell someone to wake me for the awards ceremony. The 4 AVCA voters giving Stanford #1 votes right now are either liars, fools, or pushing an agenda.
|
|
|
Post by roofed! on Sept 12, 2007 23:06:23 GMT -5
I have not watched PSU yet, but given their galore of hitters, why don't they go with modified 6-2 system (like the one used by USC in 2002-2004).
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Sept 13, 2007 1:20:20 GMT -5
I have not watched PSU yet, but given their galore of hitters, why don't they go with modified 6-2 system (like the one used by USC in 2002-2004). You need to have two setters that you want to have setting half the time. If you want setter A to be setting much more than half the time... or want setter B to be setting much less than half the time... you might choose to ditch the 6-2 and go with setter A in a 5-1. One factor against playing a 5-1 is the need for a good opposite hitter. At one time, Don Shaw called it the hardest position in volleyball. With no appearance limit, more subs and the libero available to set in transition after a dig by the setter, it may not be as technically difficult as it once was. A related factor is whether you want a particular lefty to be a setter and right-side hitter in a 6-2, or a setter in a 5-1 or an opposite hitter in a 5-1. After Don Shaw won his first title at Stanford in '92 with Cary Wendell as an opposite hitter in a 5-1, he switched to a 6-2 for her final three seasons. I think she was the kind of lefty Margie Walsh (Kerri, Kelli and K.C.'s Mom) had in mind when she said that big, powerful lefties were the ones who belonged in a 6-2 (and she and Kelli and K.C. belonged at setter in a 5-1).
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Sept 13, 2007 9:45:48 GMT -5
In my opinion........The 4 AVCA voters giving Stanford #1 votes right now are either liars, fools, or pushing an agenda. Which one is it?
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Sept 13, 2007 10:03:18 GMT -5
One factor against playing a 5-1 is the need for a good opposite hitter. At one time, Don Shaw called it the hardest position in volleyball. With no appearance limit, more subs and the libero available to set in transition after a dig by the setter, it may not be as technically difficult as it once was. A related factor is whether you want a particular lefty to be a setter and right-side hitter in a 6-2, or a setter in a 5-1 or an opposite hitter in a 5-1. After Don Shaw won his first title at Stanford in '92 with Cary Wendell as an opposite hitter in a 5-1, he switched to a 6-2 for her final three seasons. I think she was the kind of lefty Margie Walsh (Kerri, Kelli and K.C.'s Mom) had in mind when she said that big, powerful lefties were the ones who belonged in a 6-2 (and she and Kelli and K.C. belonged at setter in a 5-1). Which is why Jerritt Elliott is going after Murphy hard. Can you imagine having Murphy/Engle running a 6-2 with Hooker and Faucette on the outside for the next two years? I'd have to buy plane tickets to fly out to texas just to see a real high-offense 6-2 in person.
|
|
|
Post by saywho on Sept 13, 2007 10:32:58 GMT -5
One factor against playing a 5-1 is the need for a good opposite hitter. At one time, Don Shaw called it the hardest position in volleyball. With no appearance limit, more subs and the libero available to set in transition after a dig by the setter, it may not be as technically difficult as it once was. A related factor is whether you want a particular lefty to be a setter and right-side hitter in a 6-2, or a setter in a 5-1 or an opposite hitter in a 5-1. After Don Shaw won his first title at Stanford in '92 with Cary Wendell as an opposite hitter in a 5-1, he switched to a 6-2 for her final three seasons. I think she was the kind of lefty Margie Walsh (Kerri, Kelli and K.C.'s Mom) had in mind when she said that big, powerful lefties were the ones who belonged in a 6-2 (and she and Kelli and K.C. belonged at setter in a 5-1). Which is why Jerritt Elliott is going after Murphy hard. Can you imagine having Murphy/Engle running a 6-2 with Hooker and Faucette on the outside for the next two years? I'd have to buy plane tickets to fly out to texas just to see a real high-offense 6-2 in person. Or how about Stanford with Murphy and Lichtman running a true 6-2 (both are very capable hitters and setters), Klineman and Barboza on the outside, and Foluke and Janet Okagbaa in the middle. That'd be intense too. BTW, for those of you unaware, Janet played middle last night for Stanford and led the team in points against Cincinnatti.
|
|
|
Post by dishdaball on Sept 13, 2007 11:53:14 GMT -5
Lichtman is too slow to be a setter....great all around player but not quick enough to set.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Sept 13, 2007 15:40:07 GMT -5
Lichtman is too slow to be a setter....great all around player but not quick enough to set. I've gotten the impression from several coaches that speed matters even more for a 6-2 setter, who sets in system from the back row only, than it does for a 5-1 setter. To be fair, I remember one club coach grumbling about a setter alumna of his being trapped in the back row by her college coach because he liked her speed but didn't like her footwork.
|
|
|
Post by farmwatcher on Sept 13, 2007 16:59:48 GMT -5
Lichtman was ranked by the High Performance coaches as the best setter of the 2007 class for about three years, and recruited by a number of top 10 schools as a 5-1 or 6-2 setter, so someone disagrees with dishdaball. Stanford will have a number of options next year in terms of using one or two setters.
|
|
|
Post by dishdaball on Sept 13, 2007 17:07:53 GMT -5
Lichtman was ranked by the High Performance coaches as the best setter of the 2007 class for about three years, and recruited by a number of top 10 schools as a 5-1 or 6-2 setter, so someone disagrees with dishdaball. Stanford will have a number of options next year in terms of using one or two setters. I think that's why it is an opinion..... just saying that I've seen her play this year and she doesn't have the quickness of Kehoe or even Evans. Perhaps with some work she could handle a 6-2 but not a 5-1. She has nice hands but there's a little more to it than that. With all the big guns Stanford has for next year the offense should be dynamic.... Now - back to the title....should be a great match - could go either way. Fun to know it is at a neutral site.
|
|