9-1?

[Keystonekid]

Who out there predicted our men and women would be 9-1 after pool play?

[OverAndUnder]

Not I.
I will confess to having not much faith in our women's side coming in. I expected it to be 6-4 before the women's demoralizing loss to Cuba. Remarkably, it was only after that match that I felt our women had a shot at a medal, because I didn't see them letting a match like that happen again in the prelims and therefore they wouldn't end up facing Brazil.

[Keystonekid]

Nobody is less impressed with our womens 4-1 start than whoever is providing color commentary. He repeatedly spoke about how poor our women have played in Beijing. Maybe so, but 4-1 is pretty good in the Olympics.

[Deleted]

Way to spoil it, keystone.

[Phaedrus]

Its Barnett. But he is making the same points a lot of people have been making about how we train passers and servers in college. He mentioned the merry go round of subs, the Libero serving instead of the front row player etc.

[Keystonekid]

did I spoil something? Is it on tv later? Even so, my post thread had a question mark after 9-1. Sorry if I let something out before people knew.

[Keystonekid]

Yeah I get him criticizing our passing, but it is pretty hard to say they have had a bad tournament when they are 4-1 and in the quarters with a match they can and probably should win.

[Phaedrus]

Well, they certainly made it exciting. With all the moves that JLP made to keep the momentum going or to not keep the momentum going, I keep thinking that Tom Hogan - the guy with the scraggly beard that keeps close to JLP's side- has the unenviable task of keeping track of all the subs and Libero movements so that JLP can do her magic. I'd have a headache from all that.

[Deleted]

Aug 18, 2008 13:24:18 GMT -5 Keystonekid said:

did I spoil something? Is it on tv later? Even so, my post thread had a question mark after 9-1. Sorry if I let something out before people knew.

Just kidding.

I think Barnett and Sunderland are a little uptight about the double subs Lang Ping makes.

[Keystonekid]

When Barnett and Sunderland are on postage stamps they can say whatever they want. 4-1 is the end result of her coaching and preparation blunders.

[vballguy2001]

If you would have told me that the Men's team would be 5-0 at the end of pool play I would have said....sure I can see that.

Now if you would have told me that the women would be 4-1 with passing average to poor, and relying for the most part on their outsides and blocking I would have said you were high............My experience is it is hard to be good internationally when you don't pass well, and when you HAVE to block balls to score.

I hope both teams medal....but I think it will be a hard road for the gals more then the guys....

[OverAndUnder]

Sunderland and Barnett have done a pretty good job, but as guys they can't help but have a slight bias toward the practices of the men's game. Men have the muscle mass and speed to a degree which allows a good 6'2" setter to block or at least slow down an average 6'8" OH. Plus poor blockers get weeded out early, no matter how great their hands are. There is too much power in the top level of the men's game to waste a roster spot on someone with no physical presence at the net. Over time it's easier to convert a skilled OH to a setter or just wait for someone better than to repeatedly expose your defense to the blasts from a leftside cannon hitting over a puny block. With women this isn't as true - you can't afford to keep waiting around for a female who has the same kind of speed and power at multiple skills. Thus the double sub gives you more options with specialized players.

What we've seen is that the women's team can win with the modified 6-2. I do not think we have the horses to run a true 5-1, and directly subbing one setter for another is a bad idea for several strategic reasons.

The subs are necessary because we don't have enough defense to cover angles AND the deep middle (really position 1) behind our setters when they're front row. Also, we don't have two terminal OHs to get out of all the rotations where our setter is up. Because of passing issues we rarely get to run all three hitters, but it seems Jenny has decided to embrace the mod 6-2 because it gives us three blockers after we have to free-ball a shank pass. Right now our blocking and our attacks behind the setter are the biggest factor in our W-L record.

[Murina]

Aug 18, 2008 13:26:41 GMT -5 Keystonekid said:

Yeah I get him criticizing our passing, but it is pretty hard to say they have had a bad tournament when they are 4-1 and in the quarters with a match they can and probably should win.

No. USA is about a 2.5:1 dog in this one (according to Bwin.com). In their last three meetings Italy is 9-1 in sets v. the USA. USA has the advantage at one of the two MB positions. The other position battles are either clearly for Italy or a draw.

USA can win, but an impartial observer wouldn't expect them to.

[Keystonekid]

Well! I stand corrected. My point is at 4-1 that can't be that awful.

[baywatcher]

Under the old rules we would be playing Russia, which looked bad in earlier losses. We are assured by others on this post that Russia will come on in the tournament, and I suppose beating China can be construed as such, but if they do it will be over the obvious animosity of the team toward the imported coach. Italy's passing and defense should defeat the USA, whereas under the old system USA could have beaten Russia and gotten a chance at a bronze. Thus this year will be labeled a failure, although I'm not sure it was. I guess anytime you lose to Cuba it's a bit of a downer.