|
Post by alwayslearning on Oct 30, 2014 14:07:09 GMT -5
"In a sport where you often see girls laughing or smiling, while losing, you'll never see that from Cassie or from anyone on her team."
I've observed this as well. The Huskies will celebrate points and show joy on the court but they are a pretty serious team and, as Redbeard points out, if they are losing or running into a tough stretch, those faces are all business. I've wondered if they take their cue from JMac or Strickland or this is just the Husky culture -- at least for as long as I've been watching, they seem more serious than other teams in their overall demeanor.
It provides an interesting contrast with most other teams, including Stanford. You see a lot of smiles from Stanford players throughout the match and they seem to joke around with one another more often. In one sense, I admire the apparent looseness of the Cardinal and overall sense of fun. On the other, I admire the tenacity and fight shown by the Huskies. The sense of determination and purpose does not seem to translate into tightness -- the Huskies continue to amaze me with their Houdini-like ability to escape in close matches and weather opponents' runs. Come November, these contrasting styles (Stanford and UW) will be one more facet of what should be a fascinating match.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 30, 2014 14:18:28 GMT -5
I just love watching her play. She's not perfect, and never will be, but she is improving, match by match. In a sport where you often see girls laughing or smiling, while losing, you'll never see that from Cassie or from anyone on her team. She'll leave blood on the court, rather than fail willingly. Yes, there is still a lot of room for improvement, for Cassie and UW. But, while they've been pushed to a fifth set five times, they've only lost three sets in their last seven matches, and only one set in their last five matches. Yes, nothing says UW can't be beat - any team can. UCLA is going to be a big challenge - Lowe wore down against UW, but Sealy is now giving her rest breaks. When was the last time UW beat both L.A. schools in L.A. two years running? I suspect never... It's pretty rare for any school get a duo win @ LA schools two years in a row (I would guess Stanford is the only team who has done it, assuming they have) as it takes a combination of 1-your team being incredibly good and/or 2-Both LA schools not being as good. THOSE scenarios don't happen very often, regardless of whether or not the match is even played. UW did it in 2004, 2008, and 2013...in 2005 UW *COULD* have done it again as UW was the superior team in the year, but damn that Nellie Spicer...they could have done it again in 2009, but for some reason USC was in that Galen center magic where they seemingly won all the close matches.....so now it's 2014. If history is any indication, it's UCLA's time to keep UW from accomplishing the back to back LA sweep. And for a bit of irony it will be because of a freshmen, so if UCLA does win, expect a big match from Buechler.
|
|
|
Post by Stanlifornia on Oct 30, 2014 14:52:54 GMT -5
"In a sport where you often see girls laughing or smiling, while losing, you'll never see that from Cassie or from anyone on her team." I've observed this as well. The Huskies will celebrate points and show joy on the court but they are a pretty serious team and, as Redbeard points out, if they are losing or running into a tough stretch, those faces are all business. I've wondered if they take their cue from JMac or Strickland or this is just the Husky culture -- at least for as long as I've been watching, they seem more serious than other teams in their overall demeanor. It provides an interesting contrast with most other teams, including Stanford. You see a lot of smiles from Stanford players throughout the match and they seem to joke around with one another more often. In one sense, I admire the apparent looseness of the Cardinal and overall sense of fun. On the other, I admire the tenacity and fight shown by the Huskies. The sense of determination and purpose does not seem to translate into tightness -- the Huskies continue to amaze me with their Houdini-like ability to escape in close matches and weather opponents' runs. Come November, these contrasting styles (Stanford and UW) will be one more facet of what should be a fascinating match. Washington does lean toward a very business-like workman demeanor on the court, which I like as a contrast to most other hopped-up-on-sugar teams. I'm not sure Stanford is a prime antithesis to Washington if you're examining court personality. Howard, Gilbert, Bugg, and Lutz in particular can all look quite steely and hyper-focused on the court. I'm legitimately struggling to think of the last time I can imagine Gilbert smiling on the court. I think a better contrast to Washington's style would be a team like Illinois. Gosh, it's like they all find out they've won the lottery while getting proposed to at Disneyland. Every. Point. I think it's just a matter of teams functioning better a certain way. Do you all collectively respond better to a very stoic and focused environment, or one that's a little more happy-go-lucky, free and loose?
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Oct 30, 2014 15:40:00 GMT -5
"In a sport where you often see girls laughing or smiling, while losing, you'll never see that from Cassie or from anyone on her team." I've observed this as well. The Huskies will celebrate points and show joy on the court but they are a pretty serious team and, as Redbeard points out, if they are losing or running into a tough stretch, those faces are all business. I've wondered if they take their cue from JMac or Strickland or this is just the Husky culture -- at least for as long as I've been watching, they seem more serious than other teams in their overall demeanor. It provides an interesting contrast with most other teams, including Stanford. You see a lot of smiles from Stanford players throughout the match and they seem to joke around with one another more often. In one sense, I admire the apparent looseness of the Cardinal and overall sense of fun. On the other, I admire the tenacity and fight shown by the Huskies. The sense of determination and purpose does not seem to translate into tightness -- the Huskies continue to amaze me with their Houdini-like ability to escape in close matches and weather opponents' runs. Come November, these contrasting styles (Stanford and UW) will be one more facet of what should be a fascinating match. Washington does lean toward a very business-like workman demeanor on the court, which I like as a contrast to most other hopped-up-on-sugar teams. I'm not sure Stanford is a prime antithesis to Washington if you're examining court personality. Howard, Gilbert, Bugg, and Lutz in particular can all look quite steely and hyper-focused on the court. I'm legitimately struggling to think of the last time I can imagine Gilbert smiling on the court. I think a better contrast to Washington's style would be a team like Illinois. Gosh, it's like they all find out they've won the lottery while getting proposed to at Disneyland. Every. Point. I think it's just a matter of teams functioning better a certain way. Do you all collectively respond better to a very stoic and focused environment, or one that's a little more happy-go-lucky, free and loose? I'd never say yes to a proposal at Disneyland....gross.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Oct 30, 2014 15:43:43 GMT -5
"In a sport where you often see girls laughing or smiling, while losing, you'll never see that from Cassie or from anyone on her team." I've observed this as well. The Huskies will celebrate points and show joy on the court but they are a pretty serious team and, as Redbeard points out, if they are losing or running into a tough stretch, those faces are all business. I've wondered if they take their cue from JMac or Strickland or this is just the Husky culture -- at least for as long as I've been watching, they seem more serious than other teams in their overall demeanor. It provides an interesting contrast with most other teams, including Stanford. You see a lot of smiles from Stanford players throughout the match and they seem to joke around with one another more often. In one sense, I admire the apparent looseness of the Cardinal and overall sense of fun. On the other, I admire the tenacity and fight shown by the Huskies. The sense of determination and purpose does not seem to translate into tightness -- the Huskies continue to amaze me with their Houdini-like ability to escape in close matches and weather opponents' runs. Come November, these contrasting styles (Stanford and UW) will be one more facet of what should be a fascinating match. Washington does lean toward a very business-like workman demeanor on the court, which I like as a contrast to most other hopped-up-on-sugar teams. I'm not sure Stanford is a prime antithesis to Washington if you're examining court personality. Howard, Gilbert, Bugg, and Lutz in particular can all look quite steely and hyper-focused on the court. I'm legitimately struggling to think of the last time I can imagine Gilbert smiling on the court. I think a better contrast to Washington's style would be a team like Illinois. Gosh, it's like they all find out they've won the lottery while getting proposed to at Disneyland. Every. Point. I think it's just a matter of teams functioning better a certain way. Do you all collectively respond better to a very stoic and focused environment, or one that's a little more happy-go-lucky, free and loose? I definitely think there's a glaring contrast in styles. Stanford has this "super best friends" vibe going on, and I don't think you'd see Vansant and Strickland holding hands mid-court after a shanked pass. I can also see several UW players pulling a Fawcett ("Set me the f'ing ball") - who on Stanford would do that? And how would Bugg react?
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Oct 30, 2014 15:44:05 GMT -5
I've observed this as well. The Huskies will celebrate points and show joy on the court but they are a pretty serious team and, as Redbeard points out, if they are losing or running into a tough stretch, those faces are all business. I've wondered if they take their cue from JMac or Strickland or this is just the Husky culture -- at least for as long as I've been watching, they seem more serious than other teams in their overall demeanor. I think it's def. a JMac culture. And by and large it has certainly served UW well since he's been here.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 30, 2014 17:09:01 GMT -5
On the other hand, being too serious can lead to being tight. Could help explain some of UW's problems with slow starts.
I think UW and Stanford probably share more in common than not. Burgess would be the Strickland analog for them. I do think that McLaughlin is on the perfectionist end of the scale, while Dunning is more on the "don't sweat the small stuff" end. Some of that has come from UW historically not having the talent to match Stanford's, but having to rely on the execution of their system to even things up.
I do think the dancing thing that Stanford does after home matches is just a little weird.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 30, 2014 17:14:42 GMT -5
I do think the dancing thing that Stanford does after home matches is just a little weird. Why? Looks fun to me.
|
|
|
Post by courtside on Oct 30, 2014 17:17:19 GMT -5
Their dance fits right it with the crazy band and the dancing tree!
|
|
|
Post by Stanlifornia on Oct 30, 2014 17:53:17 GMT -5
Washington does lean toward a very business-like workman demeanor on the court, which I like as a contrast to most other hopped-up-on-sugar teams. I'm not sure Stanford is a prime antithesis to Washington if you're examining court personality. Howard, Gilbert, Bugg, and Lutz in particular can all look quite steely and hyper-focused on the court. I'm legitimately struggling to think of the last time I can imagine Gilbert smiling on the court. I think a better contrast to Washington's style would be a team like Illinois. Gosh, it's like they all find out they've won the lottery while getting proposed to at Disneyland. Every. Point. I think it's just a matter of teams functioning better a certain way. Do you all collectively respond better to a very stoic and focused environment, or one that's a little more happy-go-lucky, free and loose? I'd never say yes to a proposal at Disneyland....gross. Fwiw, I definitely wouldn't either. Or rather, wouldn't propose to anybody at Disneyland. I kinda like the dancing with the band thing Stanford does. Looks silly, definitely goofy, and hey it shows that those girls don't take themselves too seriously.
|
|
|
Post by junior1 on Oct 30, 2014 18:05:22 GMT -5
Gold Medal Squared teaches that the most valuable players are the outsides, setters, opposite, middles, then the libero. Up until this season, with that thinking, Cassie was considered the 2nd best player on Washington. However, the problems she seemed to have were terminating against big blocks with tight sets, having the craft/size to terminate out of the back row and having good timing blocking the big bangers who can go over her block. It wasn't a surprise that Jimmy Mac wanted to lessen her front row play, while still getting the most out of Cass. Cassie is a winner, pure and simple. In international play, she'd probably flourish more as having only 6 subs, teams need more players who are 6 rotation players. In the current NCAA world, partial players have become the norm & perhaps on Washington, the libero gets to play more than most other roles. Only the two outside hitters are on the court more. So, does this change the GM2 theory, as the libero now gets more PT than 6-2 setters, opposites and middles? I'd bet the thought is that with time Cassie could be an amazing libero, but in personality, as many people have noted she is aggressive and powerful & the libero role is not in keeping with her personality. Still if in the next few years, Washington wins a title, her willingness to do what is best for the team will show that she is a selfless individual too, who is an awesome team player. Her goals, tho, are strong. I bet she intends to be as great as she can be, whether in the future on the beach, as a libero for the National team, or perhaps as an outside once again at the international level. In any case, you should bet on this gal. She is great people!
|
|
|
Post by courtside on Oct 30, 2014 19:47:34 GMT -5
I seriously doubt she will be a libero on the national team. Just not a fan. She rubs me the wrong way.
|
|
|
Post by tomclen on Oct 30, 2014 20:36:14 GMT -5
I seriously doubt she will be a libero on the national team. Just not a fan. She rubs me the wrong way. From HuskyNewsGazette.com and a story about Strickland:
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Oct 30, 2014 20:53:08 GMT -5
Gold Medal Squared teaches that the most valuable players are the outsides, setters, opposite, middles, then the libero. Up until this season, with that thinking, Cassie was considered the 2nd best player on Washington. However, the problems she seemed to have were terminating against big blocks with tight sets, having the craft/size to terminate out of the back row and having good timing blocking the big bangers who can go over her block. It wasn't a surprise that Jimmy Mac wanted to lessen her front row play, while still getting the most out of Cass. Cassie is a winner, pure and simple. In international play, she'd probably flourish more as having only 6 subs, teams need more players who are 6 rotation players. In the current NCAA world, partial players have become the norm & perhaps on Washington, the libero gets to play more than most other roles. Only the two outside hitters are on the court more. So, does this change the GM2 theory, as the libero now gets more PT than 6-2 setters, opposites and middles? I'd bet the thought is that with time Cassie could be an amazing libero, but in personality, as many people have noted she is aggressive and powerful & the libero role is not in keeping with her personality. Still if in the next few years, Washington wins a title, her willingness to do what is best for the team will show that she is a selfless individual too, who is an awesome team player. Her goals, tho, are strong. I bet she intends to be as great as she can be, whether in the future on the beach, as a libero for the National team, or perhaps as an outside once again at the international level. In any case, you should bet on this gal. She is great people! I've never read or heard anything from GM2 about the order of prominence you cite. The emphasis on playing the libero at middle-middle (the center of the action) and on swing blocking would seem to say otherwise. Jim McLaughlin's history of developing excellent liberos points to the importance of the position in his approach to the game. Remember that UW's national championship was won against the last major volleyball program to play without a libero. Note: Last season McLaughlin switched from playing his libero from middle-middle to left-back, poking a hole in the idea of a GM2 orthodoxy. This season Strickland is playing left-back when Vansant is in the backrow and middle-back when Scambray is in the backrow - in other words, these assignments are not based on some supposed "theory", but simply on whatever has been shown to make the team better. Ironically, the 6-2 might require all-around OHs more than playing a 5-1, which can liberally make use of DS's and serving specialists. The last DS or serving specialist to get significant playing time for UW was Kelly Holford, in 2011, prior to switching to the 6-2 midway in the conference schedule.
|
|
|
Post by courtside on Oct 30, 2014 21:09:51 GMT -5
I seriously doubt she will be a libero on the national team. Just not a fan. She rubs me the wrong way. From HuskyNewsGazette.com and a story about Strickland: Really?? Last I checked freedom of speech was still in tack. Bullies like you need to chill out!
|
|