|
Post by vball20 on Aug 13, 2012 2:38:58 GMT -5
Curious to know who they are? Bown and ? Lloyd and Metcalf... I'm not sure Lloyd would make a difference. But definitely agree with Metcalf.
|
|
|
Post by sIsam on Aug 13, 2012 3:00:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure Lloyd would make a difference. But definitely agree with Metcalf. You'd not make this comment if you'd watched her in Italy this past year. She's been the best US setter by far, even better than Berg, during the season before the Olympics. She could have made a considerable difference with her block and athleticsm which lets her tolerate subpar passing.
|
|
|
Post by vbkid111 on Aug 14, 2012 12:30:54 GMT -5
Curious to know who they are? Bown and ? Lloyd and Metcalf... ...'cause Lloyd played so clutch in the biggest match of her college career? didn't show a lot of mental toughness on that stage.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 14, 2012 13:32:17 GMT -5
If you look at just successful college careers, then the top two setters would be #1 Glass and#2 Thompson.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleemarvin on Aug 14, 2012 14:24:40 GMT -5
...'cause Lloyd played so clutch in the biggest match of her college career? didn't show a lot of mental toughness on that stage. Follow Lloyd at all in her pro league, when she set her team to every title (they were eligible to compete in) in Europe last season? Mental toughness was not an issue. I'm not saying Lloyd is or isn't the answer, but basing anyone's overall career or future career on one match is sketchy to say the least.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 14, 2012 14:50:19 GMT -5
...'cause Lloyd played so clutch in the biggest match of her college career? didn't show a lot of mental toughness on that stage. Follow Lloyd at all in her pro league, when she set her team to every title (they were eligible to compete in) in Europe last season? Mental toughness was not an issue. I'm not saying Lloyd is or isn't the answer, but basing anyone's overall career or future career on one match is sketchy to say the least. Or judging a setter in match where all of her receivers crapped out on her and there was one out-of-system option and a bunch of DS's on the court.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Aug 14, 2012 17:19:20 GMT -5
It is easy to beat people while they are down, and it is far easier to criticize others than to actually do what they have tried to do. But it is a message board, and that's what we do here so:
McCutcheon and his staff have done a tremendous service for the USA womens program. While it is disappointing & quite surprising that they didn't bring home the gold medal, that game is only a part of the story of the last four years. For me the most important thing accomplished is that this staff proved that USA could develop & use 20+ players to win fairly high quality international matches. This is something I have been arguing for since VolleyTalk started, so I am particularly happy that it has happened. I hope the next staff continues to see the benefits of this way of working.
I understand the strategic benefits of allowing Turkey to make it through to the quarters, but I'm happy that USA played it straight. I think I would do the same if I was ever in that position, but I can't say for sure. It was a decision I certainly respect & even in hindsight I don't think it was a bad decision. I wouldn't want to show my team (especially as the favorite) that I was afraid of any team in the tournament enough to lose sets with an agenda.
Now, on to the gold medal game:
I think the team & staff were taken by surprise that Brazil could play defense as well as they did. I know I was! We haven't seen defense like that out of Brazil since 2008. As Edmond notes, the Brazilian players have played at this level before, but it has been quite a while since they all put it together - probably before McCutcheon moved over to women's volleyball! In my view Brazil played one pretty high level match all quad (actually I didn't see their game against Russia, so maybe two) and it happened in the gold medal match. You have to hand it to Ze Roberto & his team for their timing! I didn't think they had it in them this time around.
That being said, I think USA failed in some pretty correctable ways that were never corrected. Brazil started leaving their outside sets inside a bit & the USA block never adjusted - even when Brazil was out of system. This is not even a Berg problem - in games 2 & 3 (the decisive moments in the match) I only counted 2 or 3 times when I thought she was a contributor to the problem. Hooker, Tom, Hodge and all the middles put up one bad block after another. This should have been seen from the endline and I'm shocked that it wasn't dealt with. This alone changed the match into Brazil's favor.
Larson's reception problems in the second set prompted the replacement with Hodge. There was clearly the hope of an offensive boost, since at that moment they weren't giving up anything defensively. This seems to me to be a reasonable attempt. The same sub again early in the third was more curious to me. Davis was the one struggling with reception at that moment and Larson had just taken a great swing only to have a referee mistake give the point to Brazil. In hindsight maybe the better move might have been to minimize Davis' exposure in reception by using Larson & Tom to cover more of the court. Instead USA basically punted their reception in the hope that Hodge could bail them out, even though that had not been successful in set 2.
I think the choice to bring Thompson to London over Glass could easily be defended without using the situational sub defense. Both Glass & Thompson have their strengths & weakness' and had he chosen Glass that call could have been just as easily defended. It is hard to stomach not trying your second setter in the gold medal game though. Volleyball history is full of second setters coming into matches & turning things around and that match seemed to be begging for that type of try. I should say that Berg was not setting poorly in games 2 or 3 at all. She gave her hitters good chance after good chance and the hitters either blew them or Brazil defended them. There was not a setting problem, but changing the setter might have changed something about the match to swing it back into the USA's favor.
In the end, it is easy for those of us who were not a part of the battle to second guess those who were. I don't think we need to refrain from doing so, but we should always keep in mind that they have a lot more info than we do, and that things look a lot different from their perspective. I think everyone in USA volleyball represented the country well, and they do have my respect (for whatever that is worth!).
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Aug 14, 2012 23:31:39 GMT -5
While I think some other players should have been chosen the fact is Hugh did not see this perfect storm if you will. Brazil playing lights out and USA's young guns struggling. To me CT should have entered the match. Clearly Hugh had one role for CT. That was double sub. Granted Berg got hurt and CT filled in. But was Berg really 100% in the Gold match? I would think not, so Hugh went with her even is she was 80-85%. Factor that in with other players not playing as well as they have and it comes back to Hugh counting on the starting six playing at a high level. His subs was more about filling a role than replacing a starter. I never felt like this team was together. Thinking back to 2011 WGP match against China, the women still had those shorts that were a little too short and would always ride up. the China camera guys always focusing on there backside during time outs or between sets, and it started with Hooker tucking in here shirt to really give them something to look at, then all the starters doing it and I know they got a big laugh out of it. This group was not together like that. It's moments like that, that bring players together, or when they swept Brazil for Gold at the WGP, trust in your teammates. Again I don't feel this group had it. It felt more like an All Star team.
|
|
|
Post by sIsam on Aug 15, 2012 3:31:58 GMT -5
...'cause Lloyd played so clutch in the biggest match of her college career? didn't show a lot of mental toughness on that stage. watch her 30+ matches in Italy last year and let's talk then...
|
|
|
Post by bobk3333 on Aug 15, 2012 16:47:50 GMT -5
To me, this was a case of a mental breakdown. In many ways, Hugh develops a team of "worker bees" who are on the court to do their job. Exactly. A lot of people refuse to believe this, but psychology and the will-to-win are real and can be very, very powerful in sports. They could have had Lloyd and Glass and Bown, and McCutheon could have made all the right moves, but Brazil would have still won handily. USA had far more talent and technique, but they lost the match at a psychological level. Brazil was much more hyped and they wanted to win a lot more. The USA didn't just happen to have bad games and Brazil good games in the gold medal matches in London and Beijing. Brazil was much more into it mentally. They were capable of overcoming obstacles (like losing the first game), while the USA folded like a tent, they had a mental breakdown, at the first sign of adversity. Unless the psychological aspects are addressed and a deep will-to-win is developed, the same things will happen in 2016: the U.S. will be even more successful coming in, the talent advantage will be even greater, they will again be favored, but they will lose to a determined Brazilian team playing out of their minds in front of their home crowd. Psychology matters a lot in sports. .
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 16, 2012 0:38:28 GMT -5
After the first set, Brazil was able to exploit the chink in our armor - serve receive. It was evident also in the first set, but didn't cost us. After the first set, Brazil grabbed the momentum and never let go of it. Still, leadership should have been able to overcome that - it didn't.
|
|
|
Post by vball20 on Aug 16, 2012 1:51:19 GMT -5
Oh please, it's not the leadership who cost USA lose the match.
It's because Davis, Larson and Hodge could not pass. Hooker couldn't terminate out-of system.
Brazil was a much better team than USA in that night, simple and plain.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Aug 16, 2012 10:01:25 GMT -5
Exactly. A lot of people refuse to believe this, but psychology and the will-to-win are real and can be very, very powerful in sports. They could have had Lloyd and Glass and Bown, and McCutheon could have made all the right moves, but Brazil would have still won handily. USA had far more talent and technique, but they lost the match at a psychological level. Brazil was much more hyped and they wanted to win a lot more. The USA didn't just happen to have bad games and Brazil good games in the gold medal matches in London and Beijing. Brazil was much more into it mentally. They were capable of overcoming obstacles (like losing the first game), while the USA folded like a tent, they had a mental breakdown, at the first sign of adversity. Unless the psychological aspects are addressed and a deep will-to-win is developed, the same things will happen in 2016: the U.S. will be even more successful coming in, the talent advantage will be even greater, they will again be favored, but they will lose to a determined Brazilian team playing out of their minds in front of their home crowd. Psychology matters a lot in sports. I generally agree with your "will to win" theme. In fact, there has long been tremendous admiration of the USA womens teams for this exact trait. USA has long been seen as overcoming technical shortcomings with "heart." This group didn't seem to have it when it mattered most (lets not forget a similar situation in Japan last year foreshadowed the Olympic loss). In this case stating that the USA has a physical advantage over the USA is questionable at best, and suggesting the USA had a technique advantage is crazy talk! Only Tom & Berg could be considered to be as skilled as their Brazilian counterparts. With Brazil playing to their capabilities, USA was going to need their competitive edge to win.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Aug 17, 2012 7:45:00 GMT -5
Exactly. A lot of people refuse to believe this, but psychology and the will-to-win are real and can be very, very powerful in sports. They could have had Lloyd and Glass and Bown, and McCutheon could have made all the right moves, but Brazil would have still won handily. USA had far more talent and technique, but they lost the match at a psychological level. Brazil was much more hyped and they wanted to win a lot more. The USA didn't just happen to have bad games and Brazil good games in the gold medal matches in London and Beijing. Brazil was much more into it mentally. They were capable of overcoming obstacles (like losing the first game), while the USA folded like a tent, they had a mental breakdown, at the first sign of adversity. Unless the psychological aspects are addressed and a deep will-to-win is developed, the same things will happen in 2016: the U.S. will be even more successful coming in, the talent advantage will be even greater, they will again be favored, but they will lose to a determined Brazilian team playing out of their minds in front of their home crowd. Psychology matters a lot in sports. I generally agree with your "will to win" theme. In fact, there has long been tremendous admiration of the USA womens teams for this exact trait. USA has long been seen as overcoming technical shortcomings with "heart." This group didn't seem to have it when it mattered most (lets not forget a similar situation in Japan last year foreshadowed the Olympic loss). In this case stating that the USA has a physical advantage over the USA is questionable at best, and suggesting the USA had a technique advantage is crazy talk! Only Tom & Berg could be considered to be as skilled as their Brazilian counterparts. With Brazil playing to their capabilities, USA was going to need their competitive edge to win. JLP said as much right after the medals ceremony in Beijing. She was interviewed on China TV and she said that the Americans always surprises her with their optimism and their desire. She did also say that the down side of all this desire to win is that they often overlook the reality of how skilled the opponents are and that when and if the USA loses, the sense of doom is all the more dire because of their optimism. I had observed that both teams went to their instincts when they got in trouble. The difference is that the Brasilians went back to their street ball mentality, they improvised and called on their internalized tactical sense as well as their long ingrained skills, whereas the Americans seem that much less fluid and smooth. I think the way the sport of volleyball is exposed to the young kids has a determining influence on how we play at the highest level. Where volleyball is a daily activity in countries like Brasil and Japan, most American kids are exposed to the sport initially in a highly organized, highly hierarchical environment. You don't just go and play volleyball, you attend a class and you run drills first.
|
|
|
Post by foreignball on Aug 17, 2012 11:15:25 GMT -5
I agree with people who say the “will-to-win” is a two edge sword – it can produce the highest performance a team/athlete is capable of or it can cause a complete blowout if overdosed. I tend to think it was the 2nd i.e. they wanted it too much.
|
|