|
Post by jasonr on Sept 2, 2014 23:52:10 GMT -5
I hate to come in the middle of this, but, IMO, the difference between Stanford and Nebraska is not talent (because both sides have talents galore), it's which side has more "elite" talent. I would say Stanford has two elite talents in Inky and Bugg, while Nebraska has none (Kadie is very close though). To me, that's the difference. I'm pretty much in line with this. I'm not sure I'd call Bugg elite (I'm a big fan though, she's great, but I reserve elite status for likely opportunity to make national team A roster), but she is much better than Pollmiller (not another dig on Pollmiller, but Bugg is just clearly better). Inky is elite. Kadie can be elite, but she hasn't played like it the first two matches. So yes, that seems to be the difference. The overall talent between the two teams isn't significant, what is significant is that Stanford's best players all have an extra year playing together (Stanford's #1 class was '12 and Nebraska's #1 class was '13), and in this particular match Stanford's cohesiveness and experience was evident. In purely game-play terms, the difference was that Stanford served, passed, and set far better. It's tough to beat any team that nips you in those three categories.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 8:00:37 GMT -5
Wait. You're arguing that stats through two matches indicate which team has better talent? Stats that INCLUDE the match you are arguing about? Hmmm. It takes some doing to lose an argument to pelcj11. Keep it up. First off, Pelc isn't making ANY argument. Secondly, had you read, I offered several examples or reasons as to why I believe they had better talent. I also CLEARLY stated the two matches is of course a small sampling but it is in fact data, which he did in fact ask for. If you read (you didn't) those statistics are in no way the basis of my argument. Lastly wouldn't the fact that those stats INCLUDE the match they played against each other be a good thing to include? It would appear to be fairly relevant. It's circular reasoning.
|
|
roger
Sophomore
Posts: 211
|
Post by roger on Sept 3, 2014 9:26:48 GMT -5
Dorothy please watch your blood pressure. State College needs you calm and data bound
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Sept 3, 2014 10:16:15 GMT -5
I hate to come in the middle of this, but, IMO, the difference between Stanford and Nebraska is not talent (because both sides have talents galore), it's which side has more "elite" talent. I would say Stanford has two elite talents in Inky and Bugg, while Nebraska has none (Kadie is very close though). To me, that's the difference. I'm pretty much in line with this. I'm not sure I'd call Bugg elite (I'm a big fan though, she's great, but I reserve elite status for likely opportunity to make national team A roster), but she is much better than Pollmiller (not another dig on Pollmiller, but Bugg is just clearly better). Inky is elite. Kadie can be elite, but she hasn't played like it the first two matches. So yes, that seems to be the difference. The overall talent between the two teams isn't significant, what is significant is that Stanford's best players all have an extra year playing together (Stanford's #1 class was '12 and Nebraska's #1 class was '13), and in this particular match Stanford's cohesiveness and experience was evident. In purely game-play terms, the difference was that Stanford served, passed, and set far better. It's tough to beat any team that nips you in those three categories. I've said repeatedly both have talent. You saying Stanford has 2 players with elite talent and Nebraska having none, is you literally saying Stanford has more talent. Stanford was more cohesive, and their passing was far better, nobody suggested anything different.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Sept 3, 2014 10:27:03 GMT -5
I hate to come in the middle of this, but, IMO, the difference between Stanford and Nebraska is not talent (because both sides have talents galore), it's which side has more "elite" talent. I would say Stanford has two elite talents in Inky and Bugg, while Nebraska has none (Kadie is very close though). To me, that's the difference. So you are saying the difference isn't talent, but then say that the difference is Stanford has elite talent and Nebraska doesn't? That is literally what you just posted. If both teams have good overall talent but Stanford has two players whose talent separates them from their opponent, isn't that saying Stanford has more talent? Because it seems like that's what it says. As for your observation that both have talent galore, I said that as well, and I also said that talent isn't the only difference. Nothing more can be added to the discussion, so I say we move along to the next one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 11:55:09 GMT -5
I hate to come in the middle of this, but, IMO, the difference between Stanford and Nebraska is not talent (because both sides have talents galore), it's which side has more "elite" talent. I would say Stanford has two elite talents in Inky and Bugg, while Nebraska has none (Kadie is very close though). To me, that's the difference. So you are saying the difference isn't talent, but then say that the difference is Stanford has elite talent and Nebraska doesn't? That is literally what you just posted. If both teams have good overall talent but Stanford has two players whose talent separates them from their opponent, isn't that saying Stanford has more talent? Because it seems like that's what it says. As for your observation that both have talent galore, I said that as well, and I also said that talent isn't the only difference. Nothing more can be added to the discussion, so I say we move along to the next one. Because your argument sucks? Okay deal.
|
|
|
Post by bkedane on Sept 3, 2014 12:26:34 GMT -5
I think that's insane. Sorry. Burgess isn't the competitor, athlete, or leader that Robinson was. Where do you get the information about what level of "competitor" or "leader" either these players is? I see how one could get an idea about the athleticism of players by watching matches. But I'm skeptical that watching matches provides much information about leadership or about a personality trait like competitiveness - these seem to be things one would only learn about in day to day interaction or from testimony of coaches or team members. I guess pelcj11 isn't willing to share his secret for how he learns about how much of a leader or competitor various players are. Fair enough, no one has to give away all of their secrets on a message board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 3, 2014 12:43:09 GMT -5
Where do you get the information about what level of "competitor" or "leader" either these players is? I see how one could get an idea about the athleticism of players by watching matches. But I'm skeptical that watching matches provides much information about leadership or about a personality trait like competitiveness - these seem to be things one would only learn about in day to day interaction or from testimony of coaches or team members. I guess pelcj11 isn't willing to share his secret for how he learns about how much of a leader or competitor various players are. Fair enough, no one has to give away all of their secrets on a message board. You answered your own question in your last sentence of your original reply, didn't you?
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Sept 3, 2014 13:03:15 GMT -5
With both teams having talented players maybe it is experience (players) and coaching. For me I am not a Cook fan, even if I am a NE fan. I think Cook has made some choices that are not always the best for the team. Example, running a 6-2 with Sydney, and Lauren when a 5-1 with just Sydney would have been a better option. Statements made by him that would be better left unsaid. I wonder how this team would be under Russ Rose?
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Sept 3, 2014 13:06:36 GMT -5
I hate to come in the middle of this, but, IMO, the difference between Stanford and Nebraska is not talent (because both sides have talents galore), it's which side has more "elite" talent. I would say Stanford has two elite talents in Inky and Bugg, while Nebraska has none (Kadie is very close though). To me, that's the difference. So you are saying the difference isn't talent, but then say that the difference is Stanford has elite talent and Nebraska doesn't? That is literally what you just posted. If both teams have good overall talent but Stanford has two players whose talent separates them from their opponent, isn't that saying Stanford has more talent? Because it seems like that's what it says. As for your observation that both have talent galore, I said that as well, and I also said that talent isn't the only difference. Nothing more can be added to the discussion, so I say we move along to the next one. No, not neccesarily. In totality, both teams' rosters can have equal talents in comparison. But if one team has one or two elite talent (e.g,. Kobe/Shaq), the rest of the roster can have lesser talents (Lakers' role players). In the end, both still come out even in comparison for talent. In this case, Stanford just has more elite talent (and experience) than Nebraska, but not neccesarily overall talents.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 3, 2014 13:18:00 GMT -5
So you are saying the difference isn't talent, but then say that the difference is Stanford has elite talent and Nebraska doesn't? That is literally what you just posted. If both teams have good overall talent but Stanford has two players whose talent separates them from their opponent, isn't that saying Stanford has more talent? Because it seems like that's what it says. As for your observation that both have talent galore, I said that as well, and I also said that talent isn't the only difference. Nothing more can be added to the discussion, so I say we move along to the next one. No, not neccesarily. In totality, both teams' rosters can have equal talents in comparison. But if one team has one or two elite talent (e.g,. Kobe/Shaq), the rest of the roster can have lesser talents (Lakers' role players). In the end, both still come out even in comparison for talent. In this case, Stanford just has more elite talent (and experience) than Nebraska, but not neccesarily overall talents. But did Nebraska lose on Sunday because they had less talent? I'm open to the possibility that, in some hypothetical Bizarro-world where Nebraska showed up to play, those two could have duked it out and Stanford would come out on top because of some assumed talent gap (though it certainly would not have been by an 8 points/set margin [in a match that didn't even feel that close]). But Nebraska did NOT lose this match because they have less talent. They lost because their "elite" players who should be able to match Stanford's talent played terribly, they didn't play nearly as cohesively as their opponents (esp. on the defensive side), and showed no fight. And to not recognize those as the primary reasons for the result is weak sauce (especially in light of the dozen or so teams with less talent who will play Stanford and fight harder), and also kind of depressing for the Nebraska team if that's where those close to the program think their ceiling is.
|
|
|
Post by dorothymantooth on Sept 3, 2014 13:20:48 GMT -5
With both teams having talented players maybe it is experience (players) and coaching. For me I am not a Cook fan, even if I am a NE fan. I think Cook has made some choices that are not always the best for the team. Example, running a 6-2 with Sydney, and Lauren when a 5-1 with just Sydney would have been a better option. Statements made by him that would be better left unsaid. I wonder how this team would be under Russ Rose? I wonder how Dunning and Cook would have done coaching PSU's players the last 7 years. All great coaches, they all have their strengths and weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Sept 3, 2014 13:22:14 GMT -5
With both teams having talented players maybe it is experience (players) and coaching. For me I am not a Cook fan, even if I am a NE fan. I think Cook has made some choices that are not always the best for the team. Example, running a 6-2 with Sydney, and Lauren when a 5-1 with just Sydney would have been a better option. Statements made by him that would be better left unsaid. I wonder how this team would be under Russ Rose? I agree with you on Anderson. Not a good decision. I ruined the chemistry of that team. I have bored the hell out of everyone with my opinion about moving Amber to the left. Nothing gets sisters motivated than competing at the same position, especially twins. For a team to be a success you need two dominating outsides as anchors. This is our only hope this year of success and it would get Kadie out of her funk Notice how much better she did with Robinson as a fellow competitor. I love the way Ostrander has worked tirelessly to earn a spot. Work constantly with her on blocking on the right side and I would bet you all money she would terminate better than Amber at right side.
|
|
|
Post by nothingbutcorn on Sept 3, 2014 13:37:02 GMT -5
Dorothy - I think Dunning, and Cook are very similar. That said I think Rose gets more out of his players.
|
|
|
Post by jsn112 on Sept 3, 2014 13:53:55 GMT -5
No, not neccesarily. In totality, both teams' rosters can have equal talents in comparison. But if one team has one or two elite talent (e.g,. Kobe/Shaq), the rest of the roster can have lesser talents (Lakers' role players). In the end, both still come out even in comparison for talent. In this case, Stanford just has more elite talent (and experience) than Nebraska, but not neccesarily overall talents. But did Nebraska lose on Sunday because they had less talent? I'm open to the possibility that, in some hypothetical Bizarro-world where Nebraska showed up to play, those two could have duked it out and Stanford would come out on top because of some assumed talent gap (though it certainly would not have been by an 8 points/set margin [in a match that didn't even feel that close]). But Nebraska did NOT lose this match because they have less talent. They lost because their "elite" players who should be able to match Stanford's talent played terribly, they didn't play nearly as cohesively as their opponents (esp. on the defensive side), and showed no fight. And to not recognize those as the primary reasons for the result is weak sauce (especially in light of the dozen or so teams with less talent who will play Stanford and fight harder), and also kind of depressing for the Nebraska team if that's where those close to the program think their ceiling is. I am not saying I have a solution, just an observation. To me, it just starts with Inky and Bugg. And I agree with you that Kadie didn't show up for the fight. But I would bet that had Nebraska had an automatic scorer like Inky, the score at least wouldn't have been lopsided.
|
|