|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 27, 2014 22:45:27 GMT -5
Except for #2, which is specialized to the Stanford middle-dominant offense, those all make pretty good sense as goals for any team, any match. But, yes, those certainly were critical places where UW succeeded last night. And good points for other teams to TRY to replicate against SU. There's nothing really novel there for opponents to "study." Teams have been trying to serve Stanford out of system, putting 2 up on Inky/Lutz, trying to move their middles from side to side, and pass well (when isn't this part of the game plan?) all season long. The difference between this match and all of Stanford's previous games was execution, with a tip of the hat to the capabilities of UW's personnel. I said other teams might have trouble duplicating what UW did. While Ajanaku and Lutz are the best middle duo in the nation, Sybeldon and Wade aren't very far behind.
|
|
|
Post by zenyada on Nov 27, 2014 22:48:30 GMT -5
Have to tip the cap to Strickland the libero, I was one of the early skeptics about her potential to make the switch. She had a great match besting her season average in digs, and has made obvious improvement since the beginning of the season. She's settled into the role nicely, and will be fun to watch in the tourney. Her serving was "on" with a A/E ratio of 1/1 last night, compared to 1/2 over the season. Hopefully she can sustain that ratio ahead.
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Nov 27, 2014 23:04:52 GMT -5
I think UW had the best serving performance in awhile. I don't think they can replicate that again Strickland was feeling it but I am unsure she can do that again I wonder how many aces she has on the season compared to errors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 23:32:40 GMT -5
There's nothing really novel there for opponents to "study." Teams have been trying to serve Stanford out of system, putting 2 up on Inky/Lutz, trying to move their middles from side to side, and pass well (when isn't this part of the game plan?) all season long. The difference between this match and all of Stanford's previous games was execution, with a tip of the hat to the capabilities of UW's personnel. I said other teams might have trouble duplicating what UW did. While Ajanaku and Lutz are the best middle duo in the nation, Sybeldon and Wade aren't very far behind. They're behind Grant and Washington, Nelson and Thompson, and Alhassan and Antwi IMO.
|
|
|
Post by timduckforlife on Nov 27, 2014 23:39:08 GMT -5
I said other teams might have trouble duplicating what UW did. While Ajanaku and Lutz are the best middle duo in the nation, Sybeldon and Wade aren't very far behind. They're behind Grant and Washington, Nelson and Thompson, and Alhassan and Antwi IMO. don't forget that Boswell and Young are the best blocking duel in the country
|
|
|
Post by vllybll09 on Nov 27, 2014 23:41:57 GMT -5
I think UW had the best serving performance in awhile. I don't think they can replicate that again Strickland was feeling it but I am unsure she can do that again I wonder how many aces she has on the season compared to errors. She is sitting at 43 aces and 94 errors so far this season I believe and last season finished at 42/82 so she has surpassed her season high already and still has most likely 7 matches at least....I'm sure there will be a few. Btw she has had multiple matches with 3 or more aces this season and one with 6 if I recall correctly. My opinion, her serve is a huge part of this teams success and when she is on, they are happy
|
|
|
Post by timduckforlife on Nov 27, 2014 23:43:29 GMT -5
While I agree with your and Mike's assessment on the situation and VB commentary in general, it's a shame it occurred on Al Scates' watch because I think he provides an essential missing piece of successful sports commentary and the incident you both described was a significant oversight. However, I can't come down too hard on Scates because his contribution outweighs this mess up in spades. At least in the Pac-12 every other commentator speaks of nearly every payer as though she is a contender for a NPOY. The excessive praise and virtually no discussion of general areas of weakness or an in-game struggle for a player or team often doesn't reflect the reality of what is taking place and I sometimes wonder if they forget this isn't radio and that we are seeing what is occurring. These are student athletes and I agree with keeping it as positive as possible on air, if for no other reason than that their grandparents are watching. However, the praise can be painfully excessive and often inaccurate. The closest any of the others come to criticism is that one female commentator (don't recall her name) is irritated when a player serves out in close sets after the score reaches 20 or above, particularly when it's a low risk serve. Al Scates calls it like he sees it while remaining respectful. In my opinion, it borders on sexist to treat college female athletes with kid gloves while male athletes often receive stronger, more reality-based critiques. I think Scates' comparable criticism is actually more respectful towards female athletes because he knows that they're tough and can handle it. I enjoy any match more when he's on air because he teaches while he commentates. New viewers may find the sport more interesting and less confusing when he's on because they don't need to hear the chronic, best three out of five, first team to 25, must win by two loop more than once every match. I was hoping that other commentators would notice that the roof of the arena indeed does not fall in if a reality-based critique is provided and would alter their ever-glowing commentaries to provide more substance and accuracy but I haven't heard any noticeable change from the others yet. On a slightly different note, if my kid played in the Pac-12 I would send a match on DVD to every person we knew that wasn't familiar with VB because I would be certain they would think that regardless of how my kid played during the match that she was one of the best players in the conference. Even if she stunk up the court there would assuredly be comments about the uncharacteristic play and I have often heard commentators describe players who are simply not known to be significant contributors as the "glue of the team", "on the rise", "no ceiling on their potential", or two good blocks and they're suddenly "putting on a blocking clinic", etc. This was all a bit tongue and cheek but I suspect that most of you know exactly what I'm talking about - you just would have managed to write it in about 20 sentences less. Sorry for the length but after reading the very lengthy description of an important missed observation by the commentators I hoped it opened the door for a slightly less lengthy discussion on another area of VB commentary that often drives me batty. I like Al Scates for the same reasons; however, he was having an off night last night. But an off-night for him is still ok. At least, I don't have to turn the volume off. He kept confusing Scambray for Schwan, saying how Scambray has only played 10 sets so far this year, only started 3 matches, etc etc. He was definitely off. Oh, well, can't win them all. I noticed that too. Scates provides a ton of color commentary, but I think he and whoever he is partnered with tend to forget about the game on go on a reminiscent binge. I would also add that, for lack of a better word, there's a lot of dumbass commentary. And no one seems to be immune. I even remember a match that Karch was on and he was talking about a setter getting subbed out of the front row and he was mystified. He couldn't figure it out, when it was a completely obvious blocking substitution. Even after the point and the setter subbed back in he seemed oblivious to the reason she was subbed out in the 1st place. Add that there just tends to be a lot of commentators that are just there that don't really understand the game, and rely on the color commentators to provide the answers. Even more, they don't know the players of the teams they are announcing. And since commentators that know the game seem to make a lot of the same mistakes, it's a lack of pre-game scouting reports and colorful info on the players and the teams and the systems they play in. But one thing for sure, we need more people who are passionate about volleyball to be announcers and broadcasters.
|
|
|
Post by Ye Olde Dawg on Nov 27, 2014 23:52:03 GMT -5
5. Have a crowd of 8646 on Senior Night. I was going to add that, but considered it too tall of an order for all but the usual suspects... Hey. Everything else in your list was a tall order. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 28, 2014 0:05:58 GMT -5
Thankfully I can't remember which P12 Network announcer it is (not the ones from last night), but if I hear once more of an "over dig" they will be very glad they are in the studio 800 miles away from me - they might not hear my reaction in that case. I call it that too. What else are you going to call it when it happens on an attack rather than a serve?
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Nov 28, 2014 0:09:08 GMT -5
PBP Guy for this match was Kevin Barnett.
Since we're talking about sloppy commentary, I will mention this example: I happened to rewatch much of the Arizona at Stanford match from a few weeks ago today. That was covered by Al Scates and Jim Watson (?) doing PBP. During the fifth set, when Megan McGehee (#8) came into serve again, Watson called her "Rachel Rhoades" (UA's #8) and then compounded it by quoting what "Rachel Rhodes" had said "after the ASU match". He may have called her Rachel Rhoades a third time. He never corrected himself, nor did Scates correct him.
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 28, 2014 0:19:38 GMT -5
Thankfully I can't remember which P12 Network announcer it is (not the ones from last night), but if I hear once more of an "over dig" they will be very glad they are in the studio 800 miles away from me - they might not hear my reaction in that case. I call it that too. What else are you going to call it when it happens on an attack rather than a serve? If they talk about over-pass too many times then it's over-kill.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 0:54:28 GMT -5
I think the final AVCA poll will be Texas, Stanford, Wisconsin, Washington, Penn State. I don't think so. Stanford should still be #1. If UW hadn't lost those matches in the mountains, I would say otherwise, but Stanford's only loss was to Washington in Seattle. Texas's loss was in their own home gym, to Oklahoma. Nuff said, IMO. I find it hard to understand keeping Wisconsin ahead of Washington, but I won't be surprised if the coaches poll does it. Getting caught up, but still far behind, so apologize if covered elsewhere: I would be really happy to see the brackets and seeds set up in such a way that it would be possible, if each team got that far, for Stanford to play Wisconsin in one semi and Washington to play Penn State in the other one--and all would be on a neutral court.
|
|
|
Post by alwayslearning on Nov 28, 2014 1:00:59 GMT -5
I had the same thoughts watching that. I was incredulous that just as they finished congratulating themselves on spotting the phantom call, they completely ignored the fact that Vansant was going back to serve again. I think they must have been staring at their monitors watching the original play over again and totally missed looking around to see the conference and the redo call. I can understand that if they are just phoning it in from the studio, but they had the crew live there last night. Somebody needs to be keeping enough situational awareness to avoid getting lost in their own monitors. Don't they have a producer or somebody who can whisper in their ear, "Hey! The call is being overturned!" Even if it's a bare-bones staff and no one with enough understanding to tell them what's going on, you'd think one of them might wonder what the hell is happening when Vansant goes to the service line. The fact that they were not aware of what happened and never referred to it is a symptom of what is so often wrong with volleyball broadcasts, not just Pac-12 network. The announcers are just not focused on every single play from serve to serve-receive to pass to defense to score...etc. They get so busy talking to each other or telling stories or watching a replay, they begin to focus on their own conversations and their own production elements and each important play in a match becomes secondary...or in this case, not even noticed. It's a shame for the viewers. I don't think that call impacted the outcome of the match...but it had the potential to turn it around. And that broadcast crew not only missed it....I don't think they ever even realized they missed it. We all agree that it is amateur hour when it comes to volleyball broadcasts. I see it simply as a function of the resources devoted to the broadcast. The announcers are former volleyball players (or a coach like Scates) who mostly are photogenic and can at least talk and tell stories but they simply don't have the experience or broadcast savvy to stay on top of the situation. It's not like volleyball announcer is a profession that people aspire to, unlike most any other major sport that gets TV coverage.
|
|
|
Post by alwayslearning on Nov 28, 2014 1:03:05 GMT -5
I thought at the time it was a "throw" called on Scambray - I've never seen her so PO'd. Instead it apparently was an illegal set call on Strickland for contacting the ball over the net in front of the ten-foot line. The down ref, however, was in a better position to see the play, which was simply a great dig, and made the right call. The announcers had to have noticed that Vansant had the ball at the service line, but then Scates had been confusing which team was which all night, at one point effusing over all the TStreeters starting for Stanford... Scates constantly gets names wrong, misidentifies players, etc. I just listen through all this stuff to get the nuggets of wisdom that come from his mouth; there's basically no color commentator that I've heard (maybe Karch) who can instantly analyze situations like he can. Reading the recent posts, I now see that other posters have the same basic thoughts: we really like Scates for his analysis but cringe when he messes up names and misses stuff. In light of the alternatives, we'll take Scates.
|
|
|
Post by sportsfun on Nov 28, 2014 1:23:00 GMT -5
Strickland is the only UW server who employs the big topspin serve. Yet UW has three other servers in the top 10 in aces per set in the Pac 12 (conference only stats): Scambray, Wade, and Vansant are #5, 6, and 8 (Cassie is #2 behind only Bricio). Scambray, Wade, and Vansant all employ the float serve. Arguably, they are more effective than Strickland because, although Strickland's serve has the potential to change matches and can demoralize opponents (as it appeared to do last night), she makes many more errors than any other player on UW. UW has ridden Wade's serve on numerous runs this year. The point is that Stanford does not need to find someone who can pound the topspin serve if they can develop better float serves. But for whatever reason (coaching?), the service game remains a relative weak point on the team. Yes, you are right. Even without a jump-server, Stanford should be able to improve its service game. And yes, I would put that mostly on the coaching staff. I mean, you can't transform someone into a Strickland or Bricio; but with the talent they have, they should be able to get consistently better serving out of them. I think Bugg is fine. She doesn't get a ton of aces, but she puts pressure on the other team, and doesn't miss a ton. And I am completely against missing serves in critical situations--like when you're down 21-23, for example. In that case you should deliver the best serve you have that is guaranteed to go in. If you don't have that, then its time to go back to the standing float serve. A good server can put in a tough serve 95% of the time. I would make one small but possibly important correction, I think the use of the term, Stanford's coaching staff may be inaccurate. While Jay now calls location of serves I suspect that the cautious approach to serving is all Dunning. I would like to see him turn over that facet of the game to his very capable assistant coach, Denise Corlett. I think that besides recruiting and bonding with the players, her skill set and experience is under-utilized. Something has to change in regards to Stanford's serving in the future and I don't get the impression that this is Dunning's strength. It's time to let someone else on the staff take it over. Dunning is an intelligent man and I think he is realizing that his former method of serving is going to leave future teams too vulnerable as the women continue to develop some really impressive serves on other teams but I don't know that his personality is capable of letting go of the control and allowing someone else to take more risks.
|
|