|
Post by GoUCLA on Oct 25, 2014 2:41:51 GMT -5
Few notes: Lowe went right over Howard a couple of times. Howard is not short. Bruins also pretty fast in system and Lowe still got kills. Really hope she gets a good look at Grand Prix next year. Lutz is the most unusual .550 hitter I've seen. Pokes the ball into space. Stanford stronger on big points. Thought Bruins won serve return by a big margin tonight, made match close. Good Stanford could win with block but Stanford needs better serve results, w Hitch they realize by trying different servers. I noticed that about Lutz too. It's not really a tip. She's so tall that she just needs to touch and guide the ball into the open court.
|
|
|
Post by kokyu on Oct 25, 2014 3:02:14 GMT -5
Lutz usually hits a regular ball but she was mostly poking tonight, maybe the sets were too low hard to tell with high camera angle or she wasn't used to getting stuff blocked and got timid.
|
|
|
Post by volleyvolleyfan on Oct 25, 2014 4:06:26 GMT -5
The only one I can say is better than Gilbert, is MSU libero. Moster. While I love Gilbert and agree she is the best libero in the nation this was not her night. She looked very bad on serve receive and digging but every player in the nation is suspect to a questionable match Moster has had less than Stellar performances this season. The only others that are knocking on the door of elite liberos are Mosher for FSU so underrated and of course my other favorite libero in the PAC Benson. Wong-Orantes and McCoy have caught my eye too. I agree with you on libero Mosher from FSU... She has always flown under the radar until this season.. Making a huge impact this year to help the Noles get to their 20-0 record so far.. she should get Defensive Player of the Year for the ACC.....and AA honors this year IMO... Will depend on Noles winning ACC probably though
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Oct 25, 2014 4:36:57 GMT -5
I think it was clear from the start the game plan for UCLA was to serve tough and keep Stanford out of system. It wasn't a good night for Boukather cause she couldn't get set with Bugg running down a lot of balls. Howard was tipping too much but the middles carried Stanford this match they had big blocks and good kills in crucial moments. It was a little home cooking but UCLA blew it you can't make bad mistakes at the end of sets. I hate that the announcers kept saying something to the effect that the refs shouldn't make net or double contact calls at the end of sets or the match and let them play. The rules are there or a reason and the violations were clearly there. Also at the end of one set UCLA served out on a big point and they have no one to blame but themselves. UCLA is looking like a really tough team, what's scary is that Beuchler and Lawless really got going tonight and if the offense doesn't rest solely on Lowe this team is going to be very dangerous in the tournament and could knock off a top seed. The thing that is keeping UCLA from being great is their lack of blocking and a good presence in the middle. The blocking is poor for them too many times Stanford had swings with one or no blockers to the ball and their middles just didn't produce enough offense. Another good win for Stanford they better be ready for USC. They will need to play better or that could be a dogfight what I really like about this years squad is even when they are down they don't lose it completely and look fired up to compete and fight back they show resilience and belief they can win even when down better than they have in the last two seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 25, 2014 13:21:12 GMT -5
Some observations from the match and from this thread...
Karsta Lowe is incredible. Stanford was focused on stopping her, but couldn't. There were times when Stanford had a good block set, but Lowe hit over it, or hit just before block was set. Some of her kills against double blocks made the blocks seem invisible. She is a step above anyone else.
I thought Buechler was impressive as well; Lawless had her moments. I like Consani, but have to admit that UCLA played better with Moenoa running it. Nightingale has never brought a lot of offense; but by taking her out, they lost a good block. Even starting as a freshman, she had 12 blocks in the championship.
Bugg was inconsistent, and as usual went stretches completely forgetting that she has Inky. Part of Bugg's mediocre play was due to poor passing. Serve receive was horrendous, with Gilbert having a poor night. I love Gilbert, think she is great libero; might be best in nation, but I haven't seen every libero, so can't say. However, this is third time (or second and a half) this season that she was sleeping through serve receive. She is either great, or zombie; no middle ground. I hope we only see the great version of Gilbert the rest of the way.
Early on in the match, I could not believe some of the no-calls on should-have-been double contacts. I was just praying that at the very least, the refs would stay consistent, and not all of a sudden make a call at the end of a set or match. Unfortunately, it got worse. Refs made a few good calls (however inconsistent), then missed some other calls, then made a couple calls they really shouldn't have. And as another poster noted, some of the refs are clueless on what a double contact is. The amount of spin should not dictate their call--unless it is side spin, which should make the call very easy. But you can set a ball cleanly with back spin or top spin, without double contacting. Heck, you can even bump set the ball and put spin on it--which is clearly not a double contact.
I don't think anyone should be crying over the non-call on Lutz's set; it wasn't that bad. She was set, facing her target. Her sets are never beautiful, and I cringe every time. But I think the right call was a no call. If it were UCLA, or any opponent, I would not have wanted that call, especially at that point in the match.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Oct 25, 2014 14:31:33 GMT -5
It looks like most aspects of this match have been covered but I'll throw in a few observations:
1. Lowe got 26 kills in this match, but she was directly responsible for at least 4 or 5 others because the Stanford block cheated to her side and Lawless ended up with a huge seam that she exploited with vertical blasts straight to the floor.
2. UCLA's serving strategy was pivotal as they mixed things up very effectively. What hurt Stanford the most was UCLA's deep serves and some poor decision making by Gilbert and Howard playing serves that appeared to be going long.
3. I agree that Lutz's set near the end of that match was not a double contact. Moenoa had several of her sets whistled but she got away with a couple others and a dump that was an obvious throw.
4. UCLA's achilles heel was clearly their inability to slow down Stanford's middle attack and their blocking across the board is substandard versus most other Pac teams.
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Oct 25, 2014 14:48:13 GMT -5
Serving was the key. UCLA had no chance without forcing bad passing. Standards strategy was to play keep away from Lowe serving the corners and blocking the snot out of the Bruins. Boukather wasn't that bad. Look at her stats. She gains from playing next to inky who draws all the blocking. Lutz has improved her blocking and her close on the pins. Howard was also a blocking whiz but her hitting was a no show. A team that could block as well as Stanford did would have murdered the Cardinal.
|
|
|
Post by FTLOG on Oct 25, 2014 15:38:35 GMT -5
Serving was the key. UCLA had no chance without forcing bad passing. Standards strategy was to play keep away from Lowe serving the corners and blocking the snot out of the Bruins. Boukather wasn't that bad. Look at her stats. She gains from playing next to inky who draws all the blocking. Lutz has improved her blocking and her close on the pins. Howard was also a blocking whiz but her hitting was a no show. A team that could block as well as Stanford did would have murdered the Cardinal. Like Washington
|
|
|
Post by emmettgera on Oct 25, 2014 18:10:57 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks Stanford doesn't look like a number one team? They're obviously great cuz they're undefeated and what not, but aside from inky everyone else is kinda boring. Inky is world class, obviously, but the rest of the team fails to inspire me. They're just kind of blehhh
|
|
|
Post by GoUCLA on Oct 25, 2014 18:17:04 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks Stanford doesn't look like a number one team? They're obviously great cuz they're undefeated and what not, but aside from inky everyone else is kinda boring. Inky is world class, obviously, but the rest of the team fails to inspire me. They're just kind of blehhh I had this discussion with a friend last night. I don't think they're the #1 team in the country, but they have definitely proven they are so far. They could certainly use an OH that can terminate, but with their talent, they just need at least one of them to have an okay night.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 25, 2014 18:45:48 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks Stanford doesn't look like a number one team? They're obviously great cuz they're undefeated and what not, but aside from inky everyone else is kinda boring. Inky is world class, obviously, but the rest of the team fails to inspire me. They're just kind of blehhh What does a #1 team look like? I thought a #1 team was one that beats the other teams. I think you're going more for a team like USC, laden with talent and flash, yet still loses too many matches.
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Oct 25, 2014 20:06:40 GMT -5
I hope they're undefeated after the tournament. Posters will still be saying "they just don't look like a number 1 team."
|
|
|
Post by BeiBei on Oct 25, 2014 20:14:43 GMT -5
Am I the only one who thinks Stanford doesn't look like a number one team? They're obviously great cuz they're undefeated and what not, but aside from inky everyone else is kinda boring. Inky is world class, obviously, but the rest of the team fails to inspire me. They're just kind of blehhh What does a #1 team look like? I thought a #1 team was one that beats the other teams. I think you're going more for a team like USC, laden with talent and flash, yet still loses too many matches. Totally agreed! Able to win overtime games, came back from behind , won the match while not playing their best and played best when it matters most, Stanford sure looked like number 1 to me. It is unrealistic to expect to expect the number 1 team to win 3-0 everytime
|
|
|
Post by sportsfun on Oct 25, 2014 20:17:13 GMT -5
It's funny how things change so quickly. There were several posts about Boukather having an off night but most would have been pleased at the beginning of the season had she put up those numbers, nine kills .273% before anyone knew she was capable of so much more. Those numbers are now considered an off night for her. It's a nice problem for Boukather and Cardinal fans to have. Considering the near absence of a block from UCLA, Burgess back to such a low hitting percentage .077 and only seven kills was more concerning. It depends on how you look at it but Howard had a better game than many of her outings this season with .207 but it was against a near no blocking team. Most of Lutz's kills looked very different than any other match and it seemed as though the sets were off. I was encouraged to see the progress of being able to still get the ball down when the sets aren't ideal. Lutz seems to be improving in several areas quite quickly.
It will be interesting to see what Bricio's serve does to Stanford if Bricio is on because it may help indicate as to how they will hold up come tournament time against strong serving teams. When is the last season Stanford was known for being a tough serving team? When there are a lack of strong servers on a team how does one use practice to improve? Bring in the male VB players?
Speaking of serves, I felt bad for McGehee when she came in and they were able to get the ball to Lowe for a quick kill. Her sole contribution is now as a serving sub and it must be disappointing to be in and out of a game in less than 60 seconds when she had probably hoped to be in Lutz's shoes.
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Oct 25, 2014 20:26:17 GMT -5
What does a #1 team look like? I thought a #1 team was one that beats the other teams. I think you're going more for a team like USC, laden with talent and flash, yet still loses too many matches. Totally agreed! Able to win overtime games, came back from behind , won the match while not playing their best and played best when it matters most, Stanford sure looked like number 1 to me. It is unrealistic to expect to expect the number 1 team to win 3-0 everytime They have been living on the edge lately, so it wouldn't surprise me if they lost a match or two before traveling to UW. OTOH, six of their seven top players are either juniors or seniors. That's probably the reason they are pulling out the five-setters and coming back late in sets to steal them.
|
|