|
Post by ballervolley on May 7, 2016 23:45:41 GMT -5
Could be. Chemistry goes a long way. But they were pretty damned good 4 years ago -- except for the last 3 games in one match. you can have all the chemistry in the world but if you ain't got the talent it ain't happenin'. gotta start at the top and blame the coaches for them losing the last olympics because that's where it started from.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 0:33:57 GMT -5
Could be. Chemistry goes a long way. But they were pretty damned good 4 years ago -- except for the last 3 games in one match. you can have all the chemistry in the world but if you ain't got the talent it ain't happenin'. gotta start at the top and blame the coaches for them losing the last olympics because that's where it started from. Likewise, if you have all the talent and no chemistry it ain't happenin'.
|
|
|
Post by ballervolley on May 8, 2016 3:34:23 GMT -5
you can have all the chemistry in the world but if you ain't got the talent it ain't happenin'. gotta start at the top and blame the coaches for them losing the last olympics because that's where it started from. Likewise, if you have all the talent and no chemistry it ain't happenin'. keep telling yourself that
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 9:43:01 GMT -5
It's a fact. A team sport is not the same as an individual sport.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 9:43:25 GMT -5
Likewise, if you have all the talent and no chemistry it ain't happenin'. keep telling yourself that Clearly you've never been on a team with top talent and poor chemistry.
|
|
|
Post by kro2488 on May 8, 2016 9:50:08 GMT -5
keep telling yourself that Clearly you've never been on a team with top talent and poor chemistry. This is more important in the womens game than with the men. Men can hate each others guts but still play together because all we care about is how the team as whole performs, women need to feel close and connected with their team-mates. If they start back biting each other and being little witches then you have major issues, it's a completely different dynamic than with a bunch of dudes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 11:00:17 GMT -5
Clearly you've never been on a team with top talent and poor chemistry. This is more important in the womens game than with the men. Men can hate each others guts but still play together because all we care about is how the team as whole performs, women need to feel close and connected with their team-mates. If they start back biting each other and being little witches then you have major issues, it's a completely different dynamic than with a bunch of dudes. I think there's less difference than common wisdom leads us to believe. But for people in close proximity for an extended period--chemistry is important...working all day with people you dislike is a chore and you can't wait to punch the clock. Work with people you like--and you happily put in overtime and can't believe people call it work.
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on May 8, 2016 11:21:12 GMT -5
Clearly you've never been on a team with top talent and poor chemistry. This is more important in the womens game than with the men. Men can hate each others guts but still play together because all we care about is how the team as whole performs, women need to feel close and connected with their team-mates. If they start back biting each other and being little witches then you have major issues, it's a completely different dynamic than with a bunch of dudes. Having been in a national championship match, being the overwhelming favorite, and losing because your team hated each other and the other team clearly had better chemistry, I can very unfortunately refute this claim.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 11:57:20 GMT -5
Clearly you've never been on a team with top talent and poor chemistry. This is more important in the womens game than with the men. Men can hate each others guts but still play together because all we care about is how the team as whole performs, women need to feel close and connected with their team-mates. If they start back biting each other and being little witches then you have major issues, it's a completely different dynamic than with a bunch of dudes. I do think there is some truth to this, but I don't agree with it completely. Why? Myself. I've been on teams with a bunch of guys that hated each other (or at least didn't care for one another) and showing up for games felt like a chore that we were obligated to do, not the fun it should have been.
|
|
|
Post by ballervolley on May 8, 2016 15:06:49 GMT -5
keep telling yourself that Clearly you've never been on a team with top talent and poor chemistry. Maybe in the ncaa yeah because that's what everyone's used to but not Olympic level vball . And everyone keeps thinking the London team hated each other, where's the proof and if it is, They still got silver -see what I mean!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 15:08:31 GMT -5
Clearly you've never been on a team with top talent and poor chemistry. Maybe in the ncaa yeah because that's what everyone's used to but not Olympic level vball . And everyone keeps thinking the London team hated each other, where's the proof and if it is, They still got silver -see what I mean! Chemistry matters at all levels. And I do not recall anyone saying the 2012 squad hated each other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 15:40:12 GMT -5
Maybe in the ncaa yeah because that's what everyone's used to but not Olympic level vball . And everyone keeps thinking the London team hated each other, where's the proof and if it is, They still got silver -see what I mean! Chemistry matters at all levels. Except when hitters are more efficient off one setter vs. another? What is your argument?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 15:43:06 GMT -5
Chemistry matters at all levels. Except when hitters are more efficient off one setter vs. another? What is your argument? I've never said chemistry or analytics was the only thing that mattered. My claim about setting (in another thread) was that attack results favor Kreklow as the setter. That was the only point I was making with that statement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 15:49:56 GMT -5
Except when hitters are more efficient off one setter vs. another? What is your argument? I've never said chemistry or analytics was the only thing that mattered. My claim about setting (in another thread) was that attack results favor Kreklow as the setter. That was the only point I was making with that statement. And in another thread, you posed that statistics (from practices) were the reason that Kreklow was making rosters over Thompson, and that if hitters are more efficient off her, she should be... in spite of the things that Thompson brings to the table. Stats > intangibles. Yet, the theme of your posts about Hooker seem to pose the opposite idea: chemistry is the most important thing, and her efficiency as an attacker shouldn't matter if she negatively impacts chemistry (never proven or corroborated). Intangibles > stats. So, what is it? Where do you actually stand? Why are you talking out both sides of your mouth?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 8, 2016 16:03:46 GMT -5
I've never said chemistry or analytics was the only thing that mattered. My claim about setting (in another thread) was that attack results favor Kreklow as the setter. That was the only point I was making with that statement. And in another thread, you posed that statistics (from practices) were the reason that Kreklow was making rosters over Thompson, and that if hitters are more efficient off her, she should be... in spite of the things that Thompson brings to the table. Stats > intangibles. Yet, the theme of your posts about Hooker seem to pose the opposite idea: chemistry is the most important thing, and her efficiency as an attacker shouldn't matter if she negatively impacts chemistry (never proven or corroborated). Intangibles > stats. So, what is it? Where do you actually stand? Why are you talking out both sides of your mouth? Firstly, another poster said that I implied practice statistics were the reason Molly is being chosen over Court. I never made that claim. I twice stated that it will be a tough decision. What I have claimed is that setting statistics favor Molly to Court, which includes competition and practice. I never said Molly is playing over Court only because of practice statistics. Those are, however, factored into the decision. I have never said either chemistry or analytics are most important. I think both are significant and should be factored into all team decisions.
|
|