|
Post by mikegarrison on Oct 25, 2014 20:30:28 GMT -5
When there are a lack of strong servers on a team how does one use practice to improve? Bring in the male VB players? Is that actually legal? If they participated in practice, would they count as additional coaches beyond the NCAA limit?
|
|
|
Post by sportsfun on Oct 25, 2014 20:32:11 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. I completely agree with you but I think what posters are commenting on is that Stanford looked kind of flat last night. However, if a team can seem a bit uninspired, with a usually stellar player like Gilbert struggling and still pull out a win in four sets and remain undefeated, they're the number one team. Every team has down nights and it could prove valuable for them because it didn't include a loss to learn the lesson. Hopefully they take the lesson and win on! Many are stating that Lowe is the best hitter in the country and calling for her to be in Rio in 2016. I'm not sure whether I agree or not but when is the last time any of you have seen a player not only put up such an other worldly 6 KPS and such a high hitting percentage but also have so much power behind her swing? What former players would you compare her to?
|
|
|
Post by sportsfun on Oct 25, 2014 20:38:11 GMT -5
When there are a lack of strong servers on a team how does one use practice to improve? Bring in the male VB players? Is that actually legal? If they participated in practice, would they count as additional coaches beyond the NCAA limit? Huh! Don't know. I was more joking than anything but you bring up a good question. I thought I had previously read about female teams doing this and I know that at least one previous Stanford team serve received against members of the men's squad. However, I don't know that it was part of practice or even during the season. I just recall a couple former players jokingly talking about having to receive the men's serves and it being scary. I didn't think to ask for clarification because it was part of a funny story.
|
|
|
Post by FTLOG on Oct 25, 2014 21:02:10 GMT -5
It's hard to see Stanford as a number one team, but then Texas vs Oklahoma happens, penn state has 3 losses, Florida state goes 5 with Pitt (good but not great).... I hate to say it but Washington is maybe playing the most consistently high level volleyball of contending teams, and even they have maybe a less impressive win/loss set ratio than Stanford, if only on paper. I would have more confidence in Stanford if they would just have a couple of matches where everyone played well together. No more of this Gilbert being aced 5x (!!!) crap. For a team that everyone defines as "a good passing team," they sure do seem to get aced a lot. Having said all this angsty stuff, though, this has to be the strongest the PAC has been in several years, so hopefully, maybe, all this meh-ish play will go away once they play non-PAC teams. Last thought: I think USC has at least a 45% chance of winning tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Oct 25, 2014 21:06:28 GMT -5
When there are a lack of strong servers on a team how does one use practice to improve? Bring in the male VB players? Is that actually legal? If they participated in practice, would they count as additional coaches beyond the NCAA limit? It is legal. Schools do it all the time. Especially in basketball. There are ncaa rules to follow.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Oct 25, 2014 21:10:18 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. Yeah, I'm also looking forward to seeing how the Card deals with Bricio's serve. Which Stanford will show up? The great passers, or the not so greats... But even when passing well, Bricio can cause havoc. I'm a big fan of Bricio, and am enjoying as she becomes the top acer in PAC-12 history. As long as the Card wins, I'm fine with Bricio getting a few aces.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Oct 25, 2014 21:21:18 GMT -5
Male practice players must be active students at the school and may not be varsity athletes... this usually means intermural-level players. I don't know whether or not Stanford WVB has male practice players, but they do have male assistant coaches. Stanford WBB, which has an all-female coaching staff, does have male practice players.
|
|
|
Post by emmettgera on Oct 25, 2014 23:20:16 GMT -5
Funny how people get so sour over volleyball lol
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Oct 26, 2014 0:03:49 GMT -5
Stanford is not a great passing team. When they pass well they are a great team.
|
|
|
Post by beaaaaast on Oct 26, 2014 0:25:15 GMT -5
Funny how people get so sour over volleyball lol You only think it's funny because they're getting sour over your irrelevant comment about the #1 team in the nation not looking like the stereotypical "high-level" volleyball school. This "team with the OH that gets a million kills always wins" mentality is obviously wrong because just look at USC. Bricio brings the most heat on a ball in the Pac-12 conference, but that means absolutely nothing if you don't have strong defenders, strong blockers, or a strong setter to back it up. Stanford and Washington are the best teams in the nation right now because they have something that all these other teams lack. Balance.
|
|
|
Post by emmettgera on Oct 26, 2014 2:34:38 GMT -5
Funny how people get so sour over volleyball lol You only think it's funny because they're getting sour over your irrelevant comment about the #1 team in the nation not looking like the stereotypical "high-level" volleyball school. This "team with the OH that gets a million kills always wins" mentality is obviously wrong because just look at USC. Bricio brings the most heat on a ball in the Pac-12 conference, but that means absolutely nothing if you don't have strong defenders, strong blockers, or a strong setter to back it up. Stanford and Washington are the best teams in the nation right now because they have something that all these other teams lack. Balance. My comment was relevant enough for you to read, ponder over AND reply to....but anyways.... I don't have a mentality that a monster, kill-machine, outside makes a team. That's not at all what I'm saying, but I'm over it. No need to try to explain to myself to a bunch of 40 year old men who get hot and bothered over forums. I will however take the time to say that I respect your opinion and completely agree. Volleyball teams need balance to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by beaaaaast on Oct 26, 2014 10:43:28 GMT -5
You only think it's funny because they're getting sour over your irrelevant comment about the #1 team in the nation not looking like the stereotypical "high-level" volleyball school. This "team with the OH that gets a million kills always wins" mentality is obviously wrong because just look at USC. Bricio brings the most heat on a ball in the Pac-12 conference, but that means absolutely nothing if you don't have strong defenders, strong blockers, or a strong setter to back it up. Stanford and Washington are the best teams in the nation right now because they have something that all these other teams lack. Balance. My comment was relevant enough for you to read, ponder over AND reply to....but anyways.... I don't have a mentality that a monster, kill-machine, outside makes a team. That's not at all what I'm saying, but I'm over it. No need to try to explain to myself to a bunch of 40 year old men who get hot and bothered over forums. I will however take the time to say that I respect your opinion and completely agree. Volleyball teams need balance to succeed. I'm actually a 15 year old girl that just loves volleyball and dreams of playing collegiately, but that's beside the point. I did see some truth in what you said in terms of Stanford's OH's. Burgess and Howard just need to be a little bit more terminal. They should start using the block for high hands and getting touches out of those or figure out something to stop them from hitting 0.077 by the time of post-season play.
|
|
|
Post by GoUCLA on Oct 26, 2014 10:52:02 GMT -5
My comment was relevant enough for you to read, ponder over AND reply to....but anyways.... I don't have a mentality that a monster, kill-machine, outside makes a team. That's not at all what I'm saying, but I'm over it. No need to try to explain to myself to a bunch of 40 year old men who get hot and bothered over forums. I will however take the time to say that I respect your opinion and completely agree. Volleyball teams need balance to succeed. I'm actually a 15 year old girl that just loves volleyball and dreams of playing collegiately, but that's beside the point. I did see some truth in what you said in terms of Stanford's OH's. Burgess and Howard just need to be a little bit more terminal. They should start using the block for high hands and getting touches out of those or figure out something to stop them from hitting 0.077 by the time of post-season play. The original poster didn't mention the OH in their post. They mentioned Inky and then everyone else being "blehhh." While I think it's fine for people to share their opinions on here, I like it when there is some objectivity added to it. I was the one who commented about the OH's.
|
|
|
Post by beaaaaast on Oct 26, 2014 11:11:00 GMT -5
I'm actually a 15 year old girl that just loves volleyball and dreams of playing collegiately, but that's beside the point. I did see some truth in what you said in terms of Stanford's OH's. Burgess and Howard just need to be a little bit more terminal. They should start using the block for high hands and getting touches out of those or figure out something to stop them from hitting 0.077 by the time of post-season play. The original poster didn't mention the OH in their post. They mentioned Inky and then everyone else being "blehhh." While I think it's fine for people to share their opinions on here, I'd just like for there to be some objectivity added to it. I was the one who commented about the OH's. I don't think anybody cares what you'd like to see on discussions, considering you don't run the website. In my reply, I meant that I do see some truth in everyone else being "blehhh" in terms of the OH's. Would you have preferred me agreeing with what you said instead of that person? Is that what you're saying? Sounds pointless to me.
|
|
|
Post by GoUCLA on Oct 26, 2014 11:24:23 GMT -5
The original poster didn't mention the OH in their post. They mentioned Inky and then everyone else being "blehhh." While I think it's fine for people to share their opinions on here, I'd just like for there to be some objectivity added to it. I was the one who commented about the OH's. I don't think anybody cares what you'd like to see on discussions, considering you don't run the website. In my reply, I meant that I do see some truth in everyone else being "blehhh" in terms of the OH's. Would you have preferred me agreeing with what you said instead of that person? Is that what you're saying? Sounds pointless to me. I think you misunderstood my post completely, something which happens a lot on here too. I was referring back to emme's original post. The only thing I directed at you was that I pointed out that you mentioned in your post that she made a comment about Stanford's OH when she didn't.
|
|