Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 13:37:03 GMT -5
"Fawcett might be our hardest hitter but she's not seeing the court-geometry matters." So true. She has never had a good feel for the block set in front of her.... or the open areas of the court. Hitting the ball high and hard made her a superstar in college, but not see or fully understanding "court-geometry" has really hurt her effectiveness as a professional. I fully disagree with the last statement. She's an exceptional attacker and always has been. c4ndlelight didn't say "court-geometry;" he said "geometry matters," and I don't think you know what that means. He's talking about the angles at the point of attack. And, that isn't why Fawcett isn't successful with Team USA. Fawcett just can't excel in a system like this because she simply needs more time. Maybe she'll surprise us this weekend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 13:38:26 GMT -5
They don't have to. The speed of the set creates lots of scoring opportunities for her, even though she doesn't hit as hard as some of her teammates. It creates as many or more opportunties for a player who hits the ball hard (see Robo). It doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by VBCOACH on Jul 11, 2014 13:41:15 GMT -5
But she hits from a lot higher than our other outsides, which opens up a lot of court (particularly at this tempo). Fawcett might be our hardest hitter but she's not seeing the court-geometry matters. I get the angle, angle. I know Fawcett, despite being tall, can barely slip a book under her feet when jumping. That I believe. ALthough I know Hill is taller, I'm not convinced Hill is hitting from THAT much higher a place than Robo. If I remember stories about Fawcett from her Penn State days, she touches 10' 8" (or at least 10' 6") That would indicate a pretty decent vertical jump.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Jul 11, 2014 13:46:05 GMT -5
It creates as many or more opportunties for a player who hits the ball hard (see Robo). It doesn't. It does. Unlike you, I'll explain how. Defense isn't set, ball hits hard off block not closed, it hits floor harder than if it's sluffed off the block. All of this is presumptive on a lot of things and I believe a less powerful hitter can have more opportunities with a fast set ball than with a slowly set ball. However, relative to a hard hitter, I think there are too many variables to say, carte blanche, black and white, a slow hitter has more opportunity to get kills that a hard hitter in this system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 13:50:07 GMT -5
I get the angle, angle. I know Fawcett, despite being tall, can barely slip a book under her feet when jumping. That I believe. ALthough I know Hill is taller, I'm not convinced Hill is hitting from THAT much higher a place than Robo. If I remember stories about Fawcett from her Penn State days, she touches 10' 8" (or at least 10' 6") That would indicate a pretty decent vertical jump. When she thinks she has time, she jumps and extends very well. When she feels rushed, she has trouble getting her feet there and trouble timing a dynamic approach, and ends up late, low, and tentative. Also, she's half as good on the right as she is on the left. But again, maybe something will be different tonight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 13:51:11 GMT -5
It doesn't. It is always better to hit the ball high than hard.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Jul 11, 2014 13:56:48 GMT -5
It doesn't. It is always better to hit the ball high than hard. Of course. Wasn't the argument I was making. A ball hit at 10'6" vs 10'3" doesn't have significantly more angle or time to find open space on the court or to deflect off the block significantly better. Everyone has said over and over again that the ball will never be higher than the antenna in this system. What's more, Robo has a pretty damn good vertical. No one has told me She only reaches 9"8 versus Hill's 11". In my opinion, skill/court vision equal and vertical nearly equal, I'd take a harder hitter over a less powerful hitter 7 out of 7 days a week. Deflections faster. Hits the court faster. Not sure what your arguments are for taking a less powerful hitter over a more powerful hitter in this system, but I'd like to hear it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 14:16:22 GMT -5
It doesn't. It is always better to hit the ball high than hard. Of course. Wasn't the argument I was making. A ball hit at 10'6" vs 10'3" doesn't have significantly more angle or time to find open space on the court or to deflect off the block significantly better. Everyone has said over and over again that the ball will never be higher than the antenna in this system. What's more, Robo has a pretty damn good vertical. No one has told me She only reaches 9"8 versus Hill's 11". In my opinion, skill/court vision equal and vertical nearly equal, I'd take a harder hitter over a less powerful hitter 7 out of 7 days a week. Deflections faster. Hits the court faster. Not sure what your arguments are for taking a less powerful hitter over a more powerful hitter in this system, but I'd like to hear it. Your third sentence shows that you don't fundamentally understand what I'm trying to say because it is wildly incorrect. Also, the difference between 10'3" and 10'6" is huge. For the record, none of our outsides are contacting the ball there at the peak of their jump consistently in matches. And the ball IS set higher than the antenna. Often. Rewatch the first two matches of this Cup. Like I said earlier, I appreciate what Hill can do. She makes good, smart decisions with her opportunities both in-system and out-of-system, plays high, and takes advantage of the angles that her height and extension give her. I'm not saying that she's the next Logan Tom. I'm just saying that I appreciate what she can do in a system like this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 14:18:34 GMT -5
It does. Unlike you, I'll explain how. Defense isn't set, ball hits hard off block not closed, it hits floor harder than if it's sluffed off the block. All of this is presumptive on a lot of things and I believe a less powerful hitter can have more opportunities with a fast set ball than with a slowly set ball. However, relative to a hard hitter, I think there are too many variables to say, carte blanche, black and white, a slow hitter has more opportunity to get kills that a hard hitter in this system. Nice edit. Again, you aren't fundamentally understanding my points.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jul 11, 2014 14:30:25 GMT -5
Hill is a fantastic player. I agree with pelcj11. She may not be our best attacker and may not hit the hardest ball, but she plays smart. Her defense is SOUND. She knows when to hit "hard" but also knows where the shot needs to go. Now ill admit Ive only seen her play a couple times and Im FAR from being the volleyball expert, but besides larson, I would have hill on the court as out next best OH. Robinson is slowly getting there
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Jul 11, 2014 14:31:36 GMT -5
Of course. Wasn't the argument I was making. A ball hit at 10'6" vs 10'3" doesn't have significantly more angle or time to find open space on the court or to deflect off the block significantly better. Everyone has said over and over again that the ball will never be higher than the antenna in this system. What's more, Robo has a pretty damn good vertical. No one has told me She only reaches 9"8 versus Hill's 11". In my opinion, skill/court vision equal and vertical nearly equal, I'd take a harder hitter over a less powerful hitter 7 out of 7 days a week. Deflections faster. Hits the court faster. Not sure what your arguments are for taking a less powerful hitter over a more powerful hitter in this system, but I'd like to hear it. Your third sentence shows that you don't fundamentally understand what I'm trying to say because it is wildly incorrect. Also, the difference between 10'3" and 10'6" is huge. For the record, none of our outsides are contacting the ball there at the peak of their jump consistently in matches. And the ball IS set higher than the antenna. Often. Rewatch the first two matches of this Cup. Like I said earlier, I appreciate what Hill can do. She makes good, smart decisions with her opportunities both in-system and out-of-system, plays high, and takes advantage of the angles that her height and extension give her. I'm not saying that she's the next Logan Tom. I'm just saying that I appreciate what she can do in a system like this. What third sentence. height of contact? Regardless, I don't see three inches in contact point as that important. It's more about angle and vision. All things equal, if I were to choose between someone who hits the ball hard or someone with a lot less pace and hits the ball three inches higher, I choose harder hitter. I'm sure you'll find a way to disagree to make your argument...more interested in what others have to say.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 11, 2014 14:48:44 GMT -5
I would not that say that Fawcett is an exceptional attacker because she is simply too one-dimensional. A powerful attacker without question. But at the international level, she can't dominate as she did in college because there's too much talent and experience, and she's too predictable. She hasn't been able to adjust her mechanics to allow her to be effective in different systems/tempos, and hasn't improved enough in her other skills to make herself a more viable alternative. If we could merge Fawcett and Hill's strengths, you'd have an exceptional attacker. Right now, though, I'd have to say that in terms of Rio, it's none of the above.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 14:56:11 GMT -5
I would not that say that Fawcett is an exceptional attacker because she is simply too one-dimensional. A powerful attacker without question. But at the international level, she can't dominate as she did in college because there's too much talent and experience, and she's too predictable. She hasn't been able to adjust her mechanics to allow her to be effective in different systems/tempos, and hasn't improved enough in her other skills to make herself a more viable alternative. If we could merge Fawcett and Hill's strengths, you'd have an exceptional attacker. Right now, though, I'd have to say that in terms of Rio, it's none of the above. I'd agree. I also would argue that we've never seen Fawcett in a system with Team USA that takes advantage of her strengths (higher balls to the left, limited/no passing responsibilities), so we don't know if she could be dominate or unpredictable. I do think that she did not put herself in positions, professionally, to improve her skills early in her career when choosing where to sign her first few contracts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2014 15:01:06 GMT -5
Your third sentence shows that you don't fundamentally understand what I'm trying to say because it is wildly incorrect. Also, the difference between 10'3" and 10'6" is huge. For the record, none of our outsides are contacting the ball there at the peak of their jump consistently in matches. And the ball IS set higher than the antenna. Often. Rewatch the first two matches of this Cup. Like I said earlier, I appreciate what Hill can do. She makes good, smart decisions with her opportunities both in-system and out-of-system, plays high, and takes advantage of the angles that her height and extension give her. I'm not saying that she's the next Logan Tom. I'm just saying that I appreciate what she can do in a system like this. What third sentence. height of contact? Regardless, I don't see three inches in contact point as that important. And that's why I can't have a conversation with someone who doesn't fundamentally understand volleyball. You just don't know what you're talking about. All things aren't equal. Three inches does matter when you're playing this fast. Hitting higher is better than hitting harder. And I've said repeatedly that I'm one of Robinson's biggest fans. I want her to start. I just don't think that I need to devalue what Hill brings to the table in order to support Robo.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 11, 2014 15:21:06 GMT -5
I would not that say that Fawcett is an exceptional attacker because she is simply too one-dimensional. A powerful attacker without question. But at the international level, she can't dominate as she did in college because there's too much talent and experience, and she's too predictable. She hasn't been able to adjust her mechanics to allow her to be effective in different systems/tempos, and hasn't improved enough in her other skills to make herself a more viable alternative. If we could merge Fawcett and Hill's strengths, you'd have an exceptional attacker. Right now, though, I'd have to say that in terms of Rio, it's none of the above. I'd agree. I also would argue that we've never seen Fawcett in a system with Team USA that takes advantage of her strengths (higher balls to the left, limited/no passing responsibilities), so we don't know if she could be dominate or unpredictable. I do think that she did not put herself in positions, professionally, to improve her skills early in her career when choosing where to sign her first few contracts. She had a record-breaking match in Korea a couple years ago, but she's not even dominating in Korea now. I believe her team finished fourth this past year. I suppose that teams learned to adjust to her. She's also had a season in Russia and one in Brazil where she looked really fit. I just don't believe it's a question of the system, but rather her limited range. It's unfortunate because USA can really use someone with her power to diversify our offense. The team is clearly more comfortable with the speed, but I think the upper limits of the benefits of this fast offense is not that far away given the talent on the floor.
|
|