|
Post by sportsfun on Nov 28, 2014 1:28:42 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... States 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. Did you intentionally get Scates' name wrong while criticizing him for "constantly [getting] names wrong"? Either way it's kind of funny.
|
|
|
Post by alwayslearning on Nov 28, 2014 1:29:54 GMT -5
I watched my Tivo'd recording of the match this afternoon and would add a couple observations, one that I noticed while at the match last night (#1) and one that struck me while watching the replay (#2):
1) The match had kind of a weird flow. Stanford was shaky the first two sets with both Gilbert and Howard struggling on serve receive, so UW was well in control. The third set was also weird in that both teams made a lot of preventable errors. Despite a high number of errors, UW took a 12-8 lead in that set and looked ready to sweep. Brittany Howard had a very nice serving run, however, and UW's passing went to hell. Stanford prevailed but neither team played their best. For me, the best set was the final set and the best indication of the teams' true capabilities. Both teams found their groove, hitting efficiently and making few errors. This was super high level volleyball, two heavyweights trading punches. The teams were even until about the 12 point mark. At that juncture, two things happened. Tia Scambray made a series of critical plays, winning points for the UW. Second, Cassie got on a roll serving. That was all she wrote for Stanford. They seemed to deflate with some surprising service errors from Burgess and McGehee. Conclusion: when both teams were playing up to their full potential, they were very evenly matched. It didn't take much to tip that balance, though. As soon as one of the teams had problems passing the ball, the other generally pounced. Fortunately for UW, it did most of the pouncing.
2) I wanted to do a special shout-out for Bailey Tanner's play. Nobody's really mentioned her in this thread, but she made a good number of digs (10 on the night; Beals had 2) and did a very nice job setting. You don't hit .331 against Stanford without setting a bunch of hittable balls. Tanner has been inconsistent this season but had an excellent match against a great Stanford team. This bodes very well for the future. Let's remember Tanner is a (redshirt) freshman who has been setting in a big time college environment for less than three months. She brings a tangible joy to the court and, I hope, will continue to improve into an elite setter as she gets more experience under her belt.
|
|
|
Post by alwayslearning on Nov 28, 2014 1:31:42 GMT -5
States 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. Did you intentionally get Scates' name wrong while criticizing him for "constantly [getting] names wrong"? Either way it's kind of funny. Not intentional, maybe Freudian mistake. Happy to provide you with a laugh, however!
|
|
|
Post by sportsfun on Nov 28, 2014 1:37:04 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. You brought up the issue that makes me cringe the most, only barely ahead of mispronouncing the names of very well-known players.......it's NOT aNjanaku but I digress. It astounds me when a commentator makes an obvious, significant error and the other announcer won't correct him/her. We all heard and noticed it but somehow being polite or not hurting the pride of the colleague is more important than accuracy with the viewers?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 28, 2014 2:00:25 GMT -5
2) I wanted to do a special shout-out for Bailey Tanner's play. Nobody's really mentioned her in this thread, but she made a good number of digs (10 on the night; Beals had 2) and did a very nice job setting. You don't hit .331 against Stanford without setting a bunch of hittable balls. Tanner has been inconsistent this season but had an excellent match against a great Stanford team. This bodes very well for the future. Let's remember Tanner is a (redshirt) freshman who has been setting in a big time college environment for less than three months. She brings a tangible joy to the court and, I hope, will continue to improve into an elite setter as she gets more experience under her belt. Scates complimented her at one point, on making a back set, to Nelson, I believe, while running forward. Most setters would have just pushed it to the left pin. She's pulled off some very athletic sets. She's more creative and adventuresome than Beals, but also more inconsistent and prone to error, although she's still young, of course. It is through error, however, that improvement happens. The question is whether her future will be as a setter/hitter in a 6-2 or a full-time setter in a 5-1.
|
|
duggo
Sophomore
Posts: 238
|
Post by duggo on Nov 28, 2014 2:09:45 GMT -5
2) I wanted to do a special shout-out for Bailey Tanner's play. Nobody's really mentioned her in this thread, but she made a good number of digs (10 on the night; Beals had 2) and did a very nice job setting. You don't hit .331 against Stanford without setting a bunch of hittable balls. Tanner has been inconsistent this season but had an excellent match against a great Stanford team. This bodes very well for the future. Let's remember Tanner is a (redshirt) freshman who has been setting in a big time college environment for less than three months. She brings a tangible joy to the court and, I hope, will continue to improve into an elite setter as she gets more experience under her belt. Scates complimented her at one point, on making a back set, to Nelson, I believe, while running forward. Most setters would have just pushed it to the left pin. She's pulled off some very athletic sets. She's more creative and adventuresome than Beals, but also more inconsistent and prone to error, although she's still young, of course. It is through error, however, that improvement happens. The question is whether her future will be as a setter/hitter in a 6-2 or a full-time setter in a 5-1. I think she was the setter for the last two points of UW (4th set) - setting for MHs. I thought that her choice to end the match was very impressive.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 28, 2014 2:11:11 GMT -5
Scates repeatedly has mangled Scambray's name, both last night and previously, calling her "Scrambray". I suppose calling her "Schwan" could be considered an improvement.
|
|
|
Post by volleyfan24 on Nov 28, 2014 2:13:36 GMT -5
Gilbert should have been benched because she repeatedly choked, serving out... a problem of hers all season... and shanking balls left and right on serve receive. A team should NEVER have to hide their libero on serve receive, as the Cardinal tried to do last night. I had been wondering if her poor serving were mental or not: now, I am sure of it. One time at Maples, I saw Mike Sealy turn an outside hitter in set 1 into his libero for the rest of the match. Too bad that Stanford didn't have Sidney Brown ready to take over at L2 so they could have put the libero jersey on Brittany Howard and remove Gilbert, who was almost as bad as she was in her first attempt to be a libero several years ago. I rarely post. But you, jgrout, have transgressed normative bounds of decency. And I call you on it. Gilbert is a great, but not perfect, libero. She had ONE service error against Washington (cf. Burgess with 3; McGehee with 3), and while it was not her best defensive performance, the fact is that this was a mighty match between two of the best 5 teams in WVB. Most commentators say that Washington played its best match of the year. I realize you are not a Stanford grad, but surely you understand that because team/player A had outstanding performances, that does not mean a priori as you seem to posit that converse team/player B was "awful, should have been benched, etc et al ad nauseum). I am with you in that there is no way they should ever bench Gilbert she is a great libero in my opinion the best in the country this season, but these stats are flawed. Reception errors only tell some of the story she may have only one but UW was clearly serving her on purpose. Her passes on serve receive were terrible last night. They targeted her because she was shanking balls and making Madi run all over to set which played in part why they didn't successfully run the middle the way they want to. It was just one bad performance in a big game I am sure she will be back but I think Gilbert should earn AA honors this season I wouldn't take any of the other liberos in the country over her in the Top 5 with the exception of maybe Cat McCoy.
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 28, 2014 2:14:52 GMT -5
Just rewatched parts of this match on Tivo and I'm still struck by the sometimes sloppy coverage by the Pac-12 network. I won't really harp on the missed serves, there were many of those as usual. But at 23-17 UW in the fourth set there was a controversial call and watching the coverage now (and having seen it in person) I realize the network totally and completely missed what really happened. The up ref made a ruling, either a front row set by the libero that crossed the plane of the net or a lift by Scambray. I was there and it was difficult to tell what she was calling. But she awarded the point to Stanford (that would have made it 23-18) and the UW players and staff were incredulous. What you don't see in the TV coverage is what happened next. You don't see it because Pac 12 network quickly went to a replay. What happened was the down ref came across the court and conferred with the up ref. You could infer that she was telling the up ref she was wrong. The up ref then signals a do-over. But the PBP announcer and Scates are talking about the ruling and what happened, but they NEVER realized that the up-ref called a do-over and the 18th point was taken away from Stanford. The broadcast returns to live action, now Vansant is going back to serve..and the PBP guy is talking about what a 'good catch' it was by the up ref...and it never occurs to him or Scates, "wait, wha...why is UW serving." 8,646 people in the arena knew it was a do-over...many upset because Scambrays tip was down and would have been a point for UW making it 24-17. Stanford scored on the do-over, making it 23-18. But the PBP guy and Scates never acknowledged the do-over, never referred to the point being taken away from Stanford, never made mention of the fact that the down-ref came over and convinced the up ref that the call was wrong, and, apparently, never realized that UW was serving when they thought Stanford got the point. It was a mind-numbing display of extreme incompetence by the entire broadcast crew at a critical juncture in the biggest Pac-12 match of the year. And I like Scates, he offers great insight. In fact, a point earlier he mentioned that Inky had rotated out and that was trouble for Stanford this late in the match (and he was right). But it major call in the match at a critical time and the entire broadcast crew essentially missed what really happened. How can you be watching this match, and supposedly offering insight to viewers, and not realize that a call was reversed? That a point awarded to Stanford was taken away? How do you not realize that when Vansant goes back to serve? Isn't there someone that can speak into the PBP guys ear-piece and let him know that a do-over was called and it's not a point for Stanford?
Isn't there someone competent they could find to do these broadcasts? Sure, but would they be as handsome as Kevin Barnett?
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 28, 2014 2:22:59 GMT -5
Updating a totally meaningless statistic: Stanford has now lost 16 sets in conference. UW has lost 14. Oh my: is there some significance you attribute to that or are you just spouting stats that glorify UW? On Tomclen's defense, he did state that the stat was meaningless. But then why post it if it is meaningless? (which it is) Yes, this stat definitely falls into the "who cares" category.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 28, 2014 2:35:14 GMT -5
Updating a totally meaningless statistic: Stanford has now lost 16 sets in conference. UW has lost 14. Oh my: is there some significance you attribute to that or are you just spouting stats that glorify UW? I think it shows how closely matched the two teams are. When the only difference is that Stanford lost by two sets before 8,600 fans on Washington's home court, that's pretty trivial. UW fans should be happy about a victory they at least partly helped bring about, but to my mind it is still a toss-up which team would win on a neutral floor. Same with Stanford/Penn State or Washington/Wisconsin. The winner gets the glory, while the loser gets the critique. Victory brings pleasure, but defeat brings knowledge. My sense is that Dunning has secretly let out a sigh of relief - his team now knows exactly where it needs to get better, and none too soon.
|
|
|
Post by sportsfun on Nov 28, 2014 2:43:46 GMT -5
What difference does the poll make... at this point, RPI matters, not the coaches' opinions. As I said earlier in the thread, the Cardinal will still be tops in RPI and will still be the number one seed in the tournament. Stanford passed poorly and repeatedly gave up long runs on serve receive... that cost them the match. If they do it again, their season will be over. At this point, I am so unhappy with history repeating itself in crunch time I cannot judge how likely they are to fail... but my gut says Wisconsin and Washington will be in the national final because they want to win. As Don Shaw said years ago, you do not prepare for such matches: you recruit players who want to be in situations like last night and win. Rival coaches have been saying for years that Stanford is the place to go to lose well and I saw too bloody much of that last night on the court. Gilbert should have been benched because she repeatedly choked, serving out... a problem of hers all season... and shanking balls left and right on serve receive. A team should NEVER have to hide their libero on serve receive, as the Cardinal tried to do last night. I had been wondering if her poor serving were mental or not: now, I am sure of it. One time at Maples, I saw Mike Sealy turn an outside hitter in set 1 into his libero for the rest of the match. Too bad that Stanford didn't have Sidney Brown ready to take over at L2 so they could have put the libero jersey on Brittany Howard and remove Gilbert, who was almost as bad as she was in her first attempt to be a libero several years ago. Hey, jgrout, chill out! Your Cardinal team is a great team that ran into a buzz saw last night with a big home court advantage. There is no question in my mind that Stanford had the best season of any team out there and should be the #1 seed in the tournament. You are absolutely correct that the serve receive and passing killed them last night (along with a lot of offensive firepower by the Huskies). But that's the way some matches go; it's hard to stop momentum once it builds. Ask the Huskies about the mountains road trip. Gilbert had a tough night but she's had a great season, bailing the Cardinal out in the Arizona five-setter. I'm betting she bounces back and has a great tournament. I don't know that he needs to chill out because if I'm not mistaken a much larger point than last night's performance is being addressed and one that many Stanford fans are finding increasingly concerning. With the exception of the 2011 team, Stanford has had the talent to go very far in the tournament, if not win it all and yet, they have not even made it to the FF since 2008. This would not be an issue for most Div. I teams but with the shear amount of talent Stanford draws simply by being Stanford, it's becoming an increasingly concerning issue. They have consistently performed well throughout the regular season and then come crunch time they have not been able to pull through. Personally, I am only moderately concerned at this point and I won't become outright upset unless this Stanford team and the 2015 team misses the FF. It would be reasonable to expect that barring significant injury that both teams should make it to the NC. They don't have to win it because who knows what other dominant teams will produce but I wouldn't blame Stanford fans for losing some faith if they're not playing in the NC at least in 2015. The match last night is a flashback to several tournament matches where a dominant Stanford team caves, adjustments during problematic matches aren't made, and fans are left wondering what could have been had something other than the status quo game plan been tried. It would be silly to come unhinged over the only loss of the season occurring on a very strong Washington team's home court to a record breaking crowd but that is not the issue and a much larger, far more concerning one is at play. I'm still holding out hope but the lack of adjustments once again has become a concerning recipe for losing when it matters. I'm not clear on whether the OP is putting the loss on the players or the coach but with the fact that Stanford has had the personnel to go much further in the tournament with a few different teams, personally, I put a bulk of the burden on the head coach if they don't go far this season and next. Your comment that this is just the way some matches go is a motto Stanford fans have started to grow weary of hearing and it just doesn't cut it when looking at the bigger picture. I suspect you're thinking of just this one match while many others are showing frustration over the fact that they've seen this all too many times before. I still genuinely believe Stanford can have a different outcome this year and next and only time will tell if I'm foolish in that belief or not.
|
|
|
Post by sportsfun on Nov 28, 2014 2:55:10 GMT -5
Updating a totally meaningless statistic: Stanford has now lost 16 sets in conference. UW has lost 14. Oh my: is there some significance you attribute to that or are you just spouting stats that glorify UW? Well, he did qualify it by stating that it was a totally meaningless statistic and it was just that. One could provide a slightly more meaningful stat, which is that six of the sets Washington dropped cost them losses against Colorado and Utah, most probably cost them the Pac-12 championship, and cost them an unbeaten season. Whereas, only three of Stanford sets cost them their one loss on Washington's HC with a record breaking crowd, they got through the toughest pre-season unscathed, barring an utter meltdown they will win the conference title outright, and they will continue to have the highest RPI and presumably the #1 seed. I think one has to really reach to make anything positive out of Washington having three less set losses than Stanford. He's a bit of a joker and I have a feeling he was having fun with the meaningless statistic more than anything.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 28, 2014 3:04:03 GMT -5
Let's keep some perspective here. By pablo estimation, this wasn't even an upset. Stanford played a close match with one of the best teams in the country on their own home floor. Just like Washington losing a couple of weeks ago (or Penn State losing to Stanford), it wasn't a sign that the Cardinal will somehow collapse or that they aren't the same team that they were on Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by sportsfun on Nov 28, 2014 3:25:18 GMT -5
Gilbert should have been benched because she repeatedly choked, serving out... a problem of hers all season... and shanking balls left and right on serve receive. A team should NEVER have to hide their libero on serve receive, as the Cardinal tried to do last night. I had been wondering if her poor serving were mental or not: now, I am sure of it. One time at Maples, I saw Mike Sealy turn an outside hitter in set 1 into his libero for the rest of the match. Too bad that Stanford didn't have Sidney Brown ready to take over at L2 so they could have put the libero jersey on Brittany Howard and remove Gilbert, who was almost as bad as she was in her first attempt to be a libero several years ago. I rarely post. But you, jgrout, have transgressed normative bounds of decency. And I call you on it. Gilbert is a great, but not perfect, libero. She had ONE service error against Washington (cf. Burgess with 3; McGehee with 3), and while it was not her best defensive performance, the fact is that this was a mighty match between two of the best 5 teams in WVB. Most commentators say that Washington played its best match of the year. I realize you are not a Stanford grad, but surely you understand that because team/player A had outstanding performances, that does not mean a priori as you seem to posit that converse team/player B was "awful, should have been benched, etc et al ad nauseum). I interpreted his post differently but I may be very mistaken. While he was pointing out Gilbert's uncharacteristically poor performance (everybody has one and it's often in front of huge, hostile crowds), I thought he was pointing out the lack of adjustments Dunning makes during problematic matches year in and year out, with Gilbert merely being used as an example. It would be quite unfair if it was indeed an indictment of Gilbert considering how often she has risen to the occasion in very big ways. I thought he was commenting on a larger coaching issue that some Stanford fans have become concerned about. When speaking of Gilbert's errors being mental, I recall her choking horribly from the service line during approximately the last one-third of her freshman year. It wasn't the amount of missed serves but that she missed them (badly) at very crucial moments, which indicated that she psyched herself out. I have never felt worse for a player because she looked devastated. Much to her credit and character, she bounced back her sophomore season in a big way. In my opinion, Gilbert is toughest player on the team. However, Gilbert can choke like any other great player but I would put my money on her every day of the week. Being that rough on Kyle wouldn't be fair considering that without her Stanford would not have been undefeated until Washington but I interpreted the OP to be speaking more to the coaching decisions in general. I hope I'm correct.
|
|