|
Post by nativevolley on Jul 14, 2014 21:48:13 GMT -5
Why are you all comparing passing to the 80's, and Men's passing to top that off? I think the serving game has evolved tremendously. But I don't know nothing about volleyball... >_> This is to the individuals that are arguing about Kelly's passing ability at the International level.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 21:52:46 GMT -5
Thaisa has never hit a bic in her life. She has hit a Bic; I've seent it... You saw an out-of-system pipe swing, not a bic.
|
|
|
Post by nativevolley on Jul 14, 2014 21:57:10 GMT -5
So what is a bic?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 22:03:19 GMT -5
Pretty poor argument for why a Brazilian team starting 6 Olympic gold medalists (9 gold medals total) STILL lost. I was responding to the idea that Karch had fanned the revenge frenzy and was treating this competition as a blood feud. If you are out for blood, Karch's lineups make no sense. Something we saw from him that we saw very little of in the last quad was that he was ready to make adjustments when things weren't going well. Fortunately, things went very well in the first two matches, and, while less so in Hawaii, there weren't a ton of USA errors or poor play warranting a change (except in the last match). Karch wanted to win badly. If Klineman would've sucked in the second match, you can bet your ass that we would've seen Murphy. I mean, how many articles did USAV tweet links to that included interviews of the staff and players building up the rivalry, referencing the loss in London, reminding readers of the fact that Brazil will be hosting in 2016, talking about the number of Olympians they brought v. the number of Olympians we brought, etc. USAV knew exactly what they were doing. You don't get fans excited by saying, "these are only friendly matches." Brazil had absolutely no business losing four matches in a row to this USA team. We aren't that good yet.
|
|
|
Post by vbshrink on Jul 14, 2014 22:04:58 GMT -5
A bic is a low (second tempo) set to a back row player -- usually but not always in the middle -- that is run in serve receive almost exclusively (though it could be done in transition off a free ball). Thaisa is not an option in serve receive attack, what with being off the court and all. A pipe set is higher and more commonly used in transition.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 22:05:23 GMT -5
In-system back row quick set in the middle of the court usually (not always) run right behind the front row quick attacker. Team USA does it in serve-receive with the back row opposite. Thaisa ain't the first option when she's in the front row, let alone the back row.
|
|
|
Post by vbshrink on Jul 14, 2014 22:08:20 GMT -5
I was responding to the idea that Karch had fanned the revenge frenzy and was treating this competition as a blood feud. If you are out for blood, Karch's lineups make no sense. Something we saw from him that we saw very little of in the last quad was that he was ready to make adjustments when things weren't going well. Fortunately, things went very well in the first two matches, and, while less so in Hawaii, there weren't a ton of USA errors or poor play warranting a change (except in the last match). Karch wanted to win badly. If Klineman would've sucked in the second match, you can bet your ass that we would've seen Murphy. I mean, how many articles did USAV tweet links to that included interviews of the staff and players building up the rivalry, referencing the loss in London, reminding readers of the fact that Brazil will be hosting in 2016, talking about the number of Olympians they brought v. the number of Olympians we brought, etc. USAV knew exactly what they were doing. You don't get fans excited by saying, "these are only friendly matches." Brazil had absolutely no business losing four matches in a row to this USA team. We aren't that good yet. I think you're mistaking hype to try to sell tickets to fans with actual fiery passion to win. Sorry, but if your goal is to cruise to four straight victories, you don't play with the lineup and continually start back-ups. Even if I granted your idea that the 4th game line-up was an aberration after clinching the series, that doesn't explain the lineup variability in the first three matches.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 22:08:29 GMT -5
A bic is a low (second tempo) set to a back row player -- usually but not always in the middle -- that is run in serve receive almost exclusively (though it could be done in transition off a free ball). Thaisa is not an option in serve receive attack, what with being off the court and all. A pipe set is higher and more commonly used in transition. Brazil runs it faster than second tempo. So do we with Murphy and we used to with Hooker. The attacker is leaving the ground as the ball is leaving the setter's hands. In transition, USA runs what they call "30s" to the outside attacker in left back (rare).
|
|
|
Post by ncaavballguru on Jul 14, 2014 22:10:43 GMT -5
Women don't run bics. Women don't hit quicks. They hit a reasonable facsimile of what those sets are supposed to be. Taylor Sander runs a bic. Reid Priddy runs a bic. Giba ran bics when he played. Women don't run bics.
|
|
|
Post by vbshrink on Jul 14, 2014 22:11:34 GMT -5
I may be using the term "second tempo" incorrectly -- to me it's basically one notch slower than a traditional "1 ball" where the setter delivers the ball into the hitter's arm swing. But we are talking about the same set.
ETA - apparently ncaavballguru and I have the same basic notion of what a second tempo is. At least that's how I understand his comment.
|
|
|
Post by ncaavballguru on Jul 14, 2014 22:20:38 GMT -5
Second-tempo used to be called a playset. Back in the days when everybody used to run front-row combos (X-play, Tandem, etc.), the playset was the set that was set right over the top of the quick attack. Usually anywhere from 3 to 5 feet above the net at it's peak.
My previous post has nothing to do with second tempo sets. It is more of a slam on the fact that women don't jump early enough or swing fast enough to really hit a quick attack or a bic the way it's supposed to be hit. Mostly because they don't jump high enough or stay in the air long enough, even at the elite international level. A 24-to-28 inch vertical isn't really dynamic enough to hit a bic the way it's supposed to be hit. See Taylor Sander or Reid Priddy if you want to see how a bic is supposed to be run.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 22:20:58 GMT -5
Something we saw from him that we saw very little of in the last quad was that he was ready to make adjustments when things weren't going well. Fortunately, things went very well in the first two matches, and, while less so in Hawaii, there weren't a ton of USA errors or poor play warranting a change (except in the last match). Karch wanted to win badly. If Klineman would've sucked in the second match, you can bet your ass that we would've seen Murphy. I mean, how many articles did USAV tweet links to that included interviews of the staff and players building up the rivalry, referencing the loss in London, reminding readers of the fact that Brazil will be hosting in 2016, talking about the number of Olympians they brought v. the number of Olympians we brought, etc. USAV knew exactly what they were doing. You don't get fans excited by saying, "these are only friendly matches." Brazil had absolutely no business losing four matches in a row to this USA team. We aren't that good yet. I think you're mistaking hype to try to sell tickets to fans with actually fiery passion to win. Sorry, but if your goal is to cruise to four straight victories, you don't play with the lineup and continually start back-ups. Even if I granted your idea that the 4th game line-up was an aberration after clinching the series, that doesn't explain the lineup variability in the first three matches. Back-ups? Our roster was the very best roster we could've had. Everyone who played in this series has a legitimate opportunity to start for Team USA this year and is battling to do so. We started Glass in 3/4 matches and played in every set in the fourth, Larson would've started in 3/4, Akinradewo 2/4, Murphy 2/4 and finished the fourth, Davis 2/4, Robinson 3/4... Who weren't we starting that we should have been? Again, there is no reason Brazil should've lost these matches, unless you're telling me that we are just that much better than Brazil now (with our rookie L1) than we were a year ago. A team starting five Olympians (six when they started Natalia) had no business losing to a bunch of "back-ups," as you call them.
|
|
|
Post by vbshrink on Jul 14, 2014 22:29:46 GMT -5
I think you're mistaking hype to try to sell tickets to fans with actually fiery passion to win. Sorry, but if your goal is to cruise to four straight victories, you don't play with the lineup and continually start back-ups. Even if I granted your idea that the 4th game line-up was an aberration after clinching the series, that doesn't explain the lineup variability in the first three matches. Back-ups? Our roster was the very best roster we could've had. Everyone who played in this series has a legitimate opportunity to start for Team USA this year and is battling to do so. We started Glass in 3/4 matches and played in every set in the fourth, Larson would've started in 3/4, Akinradewo 2/4, Murphy 2/4 and finished the fourth, Davis 2/4, Robinson 3/4... Who weren't we starting that we should have been? Again, there is no reason Brazil should've lost these matches, unless you're telling me that we are just that much better than Brazil now (with our rookie L1) than we were a year ago. A team starting five Olympians (six when they started Natalia) had no business losing to a bunch of "back-ups," as you call them. Dude - are you reading your own posts? Akinradewo 2/4; Larson 3/4 (which, of course, you don't actually know), Murphy 2/4. Are you telling me that Karch doesn't know that those are his best options at those positions? If we are soooo desperate to win at all costs, explain to me why those are not all uniformly 4/4? Fawcett, Hildebrand, Adams-Dixon-Gibbemeyer (2 of the 3 anyway) are all backups. He's experimenting with the line-up (appropriately) and evaluating players (appropriately) -- not going for the jugular. Brazil's lineup is actually much more consistent across matches. Now, as for the second part -- what was with Brazil? I agree with you there. I don't believe that that was the best they are capable of. But I'm not sure it isn't the best that they are capable of RIGHT NOW. They are clearly looking for someone to replace Sheila, and their best OH alternative besides Fe Garay hasn't really emerged yet. Monique? Gabi? Natalia? I think they are sorting through that, and not playing their best. They definitely have more experienced talent than we do. I don't think it's accurate or fair, though, to say that they "weren't trying." That doesn't pass the eyeball test.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2014 22:30:13 GMT -5
Second-tempo used to be called a playset. Back in the days when everybody used to run front-row combos (X-play, Tandem, etc.), the playset was the set that was set right over the top of the quick attack. Usually anywhere from 3 to 5 feet above the net at it's peak. My previous post has nothing to do with second tempo sets. It is more of a slam on the fact that women don't jump early enough or swing fast enough to really hit a quick attack or a bic the way it's supposed to be hit. Mostly because they don't jump high enough or stay in the air long enough, even at the elite international level. A 24-to-28 inch vertical isn't really dynamic enough to hit a bic the way it's supposed to be hit. See Taylor Sander or Reid Priddy if you want to see how a bic is supposed to be run. No one gives a f*ck about men's volleyball. We are talking about defining these sets with respect to elite women's volleyball. They hit quicks. They hit bics. Are they the exact same set that the men run? No, BECAUSE THEY AREN'T MEN. Just because women can't hit the 3-meter line out of the backrow like Sander can doesn't require a "slam" from you. Two completely different games that you endlessly try to compare. And, Destinee's 40+ inch vertical is pretty sufficient to hit the bic in the women's game, regardless of what you think.
|
|
|
Post by ncaavballguru on Jul 14, 2014 22:36:37 GMT -5
Second-tempo used to be called a playset. Back in the days when everybody used to run front-row combos (X-play, Tandem, etc.), the playset was the set that was set right over the top of the quick attack. Usually anywhere from 3 to 5 feet above the net at it's peak. My previous post has nothing to do with second tempo sets. It is more of a slam on the fact that women don't jump early enough or swing fast enough to really hit a quick attack or a bic the way it's supposed to be hit. Mostly because they don't jump high enough or stay in the air long enough, even at the elite international level. A 24-to-28 inch vertical isn't really dynamic enough to hit a bic the way it's supposed to be hit. See Taylor Sander or Reid Priddy if you want to see how a bic is supposed to be run. No one gives a f*ck about men's volleyball. We are talking about defining these sets with respect to elite women's volleyball. They hit quicks. They hit bics. Are they the exact same set that the men run? No, BECAUSE THEY AREN'T MEN. Just because women can't hit the 3-meter line out of the backrow like Sander can doesn't require a "slam" from you. Two completely different games that you endlessly try to compare. And, Destinee's 40+ inch vertical is pretty sufficient to hit the bic in the women's game, regardless of what you think. Destinee Hooker does not have a 40-inch vertical.
You are such a fanboy. You secretly want to put on spandex and jump on the court on the opposite side of the net just to get hit in the face by a "30" from Robinson.
I know you think you're cool referring to it as a "30" all the time. It's just a plain old "A" set to the rest of us real volleyballers. But hey, if you wanna act in-the-know or whatever, feel free to do so.
|
|