|
Post by lepetitfromage on Jul 15, 2014 22:27:26 GMT -5
You seem to have missed the entire point due to your defensiveness about being disagreed with on a point you made about passing. Hooker's ONLY advantage over Murphy is how high she jumps, I would take Murphy over Hooker in every other skill, mental or attitudinal trait that is important in volleyball. This is irrelevant. I was just pointing out that EVEN IF YOU COULD LEARN HOW TO BE A TOP-TIER INTERNATIONAL PASSER IN TWO YEARS, Murphy couldn't afford to TRAIN FULL TIME ONLY IN PASSING. Like, if it was that easy, sign me up for the next Olympics please. STOP
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 22:37:30 GMT -5
This is irrelevant. I was just pointing out that EVEN IF YOU COULD LEARN HOW TO BE A TOP-TIER INTERNATIONAL PASSER IN TWO YEARS, Murphy couldn't afford to TRAIN FULL TIME ONLY IN PASSING. Like, if it was that easy, sign me up for the next Olympics please. STOP Yes?
|
|
|
Post by vbshrink on Jul 15, 2014 22:48:56 GMT -5
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. I just want to add that just because he played "backups," doesn't mean these players are horrible, losing players by any means. Fawcett holds the world record for the most points in a single match. Hildebrand was named as one of the best OHs in the Brazilian Superliga this past season. There is a chance that one of the 3 MBs you mentioned will be starting and also a chance 2 of them will go to Rio. The depth of the USA bench is crazy. Also, NONE of us are in the USA gym. He might be seeing exactly what he wants from Fawcett and co. There is definitely a possibility that Karch thought he could win with any of the lineups he presented. ALSO, the only sure bet starters (IMO) are Larson and Foluke, so how exactly can you call all of these other players backups when we don't really know who the other 4 starters will be? I have no idea what Karch's mindset was going into these matches, but I doubt it was, "well, let's play these players even though I know they'll never start and that they'll probably lose." Since that is something that I never argued, or thought for half a second, I'm not going to disagree. Let me quote myself here: "He's experimenting with the line-up (appropriately) and evaluating players (appropriately) -- not going for the jugular."
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 15, 2014 23:26:30 GMT -5
The USA and Brazil are in two totally different situations. The USA has to determine a line-up in the absence of Hooker, Tom, and Hodge (and now, temprarily, Larson). Brazil has 9 Olympians to choose from. The USA, with the current roster, absolutely needs to have good competition in order to make the decisions that have to be made in order to try to defeat Brazil on their home court in 2016. As the host country, Brazil will undoubtedly be the top seed regardless, so its main concern is not the seedings going into the Olympics, but ensuring that they peak at the right time. It's fundamental for any coach to think about how hard to go in any particular practice and for a particular tournament or match, and it's ridiculous to think that Ze Roberto thought that it was important for his squad to go all out for these matches when all it would do is help the USA figure out its issues. Brazil will have a huge home court advantage, but also enormous pressure to win before the home crowd. The long range view is whether the USA will end up in the other pool (as the #2 seed, if the current rankings hold up) or whether they will square off in pool play. As an experienced coach, he is already contemplating these possibilities, and you can be certain that it is not his intent to help the USA team figure out its situation.
|
|
|
Post by Garand on Jul 16, 2014 1:58:59 GMT -5
Okay, Volleyguy, that's the first argument I've seen that makes some sense to me as to why Brazil may not have brought their "A" game. But if you're right, then Brazil was here to see what we could put on the court while they held back so as not to tip their hand? But why would they bother holding back? Don't we already know them pretty thoroughly by now?
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 16, 2014 2:46:24 GMT -5
Okay, Volleyguy, that's the first argument I've seen that makes some sense to me as to why Brazil may not have brought their "A" game. But if you're right, then Brazil was here to see what we could put on the court while they held back so as not to tip their hand? But why would they bother holding back? Don't we already know them pretty thoroughly by now? Our coaching staff knows Brazil well, but this group of players (collectively) doesn't have much experience against them, so what advantage is there to Brazil to show their hand and help them along? The obvious question is why would Brazil agree to these matches at all, but it's clearly better to have some familiarity with the opponent than none at all. It's not really a question of Brazil purposely losing, but rather the idea that the purpose is not necessarily to win, but to observe. In other words, the immediate sense of urgency is much greater for us than for Brazil. But Brazil needs to schedule some matches, and a trip to LA and Hawaii is not at all bad, and less difficult or expensive than a trip to Europe or Asia. What is most interesting to me is the idea that so many people have the sense that athletes have to go full out all of the time. I think that's an attitude that is prevalent in the US, but not necessarily everywhere else. Conserving energy, pacing oneself and picking the right spots to give it all is a common philosophy elsewhere, and it's not viewed as a character test, but a rational decision. This is evident in practice regimens in Europe, with Asian countries (Japan in particular) being more akin to the sentiment here. Correction: At the London Olympics, Great Britain was granted the #1 seed in Pool A, and the USA and Brazil, as #1 and #2 in world rankings, were in Pool B. Japan as #3 in world rankings, was in Pool A. So if the USA maintains it current ranking, it would be in Pool B.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 17, 2014 14:43:53 GMT -5
The idea that the only explanation for the sweep was that Brazil rolled over while Kiraly had his team frothing for revenge is exceedingly...STUPID. Not to mention INSULTING to all of the players and coaches involved.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jul 17, 2014 15:06:56 GMT -5
Okay, Volleyguy, that's the first argument I've seen that makes some sense to me as to why Brazil may not have brought their "A" game. But if you're right, then Brazil was here to see what we could put on the court while they held back so as not to tip their hand? But why would they bother holding back? Don't we already know them pretty thoroughly by now? Our coaching staff knows Brazil well, but this group of players (collectively) doesn't have much experience against them, so what advantage is there to Brazil to show their hand and help them along? The obvious question is why would Brazil agree to these matches at all, but it's clearly better to have some familiarity with the opponent than none at all. It's not really a question of Brazil purposely losing, but rather the idea that the purpose is not necessarily to win, but to observe. In other words, the immediate sense of urgency is much greater for us than for Brazil. But Brazil needs to schedule some matches, and a trip to LA and Hawaii is not at all bad, and less difficult or expensive than a trip to Europe or Asia. What is most interesting to me is the idea that so many people have the sense that athletes have to go full out all of the time. I think that's an attitude that is prevalent in the US, but not necessarily everywhere else. Conserving energy, pacing oneself and picking the right spots to give it all is a common philosophy elsewhere, and it's not viewed as a character test, but a rational decision. This is evident in practice regimens in Europe, with Asian countries (Japan in particular) being more akin to the sentiment here. Correction: At the London Olympics, Great Britain was granted the #1 seed in Pool A, and the USA and Brazil, as #1 and #2 in world rankings, were in Pool B. Japan as #3 in world rankings, was in Pool A. So if the USA maintains it current ranking, it would be in Pool B. I hate the automatic #1 seed for the host country. Hosting should get you ZERO privileges. Completely F*d up the seedings. China was two points away (and pretty much choked) from Pool B sweeping the semi-finals. thankfully Brazil hosts this year.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 15:07:10 GMT -5
The idea that the only explanation for the sweep was that Brazil rolled over while Kiraly had his team frothing for revenge is exceedingly...STUPID. Not to mention INSULTING to all of the players and coaches involved. And if anyone knows "STUPID," it's you.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 17, 2014 16:40:08 GMT -5
The idea that the only explanation for the sweep was that Brazil rolled over while Kiraly had his team frothing for revenge is exceedingly...STUPID. Not to mention INSULTING to all of the players and coaches involved. And if anyone knows "STUPID," it's you. Now what in the world makes you think I was referring to you? I stand by every word in my statement. If you agree or disagree with it, by all means say so...
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 17, 2014 17:57:18 GMT -5
First of all, no one said that it was the only explanation. Also, no one said that Team USA or the coaches were frothing for revenge. I can see that if someone actually said that, it might be viewed as stupid and insulting. Oh wait a minute, you said that!
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 17, 2014 18:44:59 GMT -5
Also, no one said that Team USA or the coaches were frothing for revenge. I can see that if someone actually said that, it might be viewed as stupid and insulting. vbshrink: "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." Responding to this among other posts: pelcj11: "Karch spent months building up this rivalry and getting the team to feed into the emotions of losing the Olympic final."
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 17, 2014 18:48:06 GMT -5
And if anyone knows "STUPID," it's you. Now what in the world makes you think I was referring to you? I stand by every word in my statement. If you agree or disagree with it, by all means say so...
|
|
|
Post by ncaavballguru on Jul 17, 2014 20:18:31 GMT -5
This is irrelevant. I was just pointing out that EVEN IF YOU COULD LEARN HOW TO BE A TOP-TIER INTERNATIONAL PASSER IN TWO YEARS, Murphy couldn't afford to TRAIN FULL TIME ONLY IN PASSING. Like, if it was that easy, sign me up for the next Olympics please. STOP COLLABORATE, AND LISTEN.
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Aug 1, 2014 17:46:39 GMT -5
This offense is never gonna work long-term. It's a gimmick. Hate to say it, but this is all Karch's ego. This offense requires a perfect set every time and it's just not gonna happen. Just got around to reading the comments on this match. So far, "all Karch's ego" is the dumbest.
|
|