|
Post by volleyballjim on Dec 22, 2017 13:25:58 GMT -5
guest2: And feel free to go after my "data" as I REALLY do want to understand this thing that is often called "the model" . . . Along the lines of the NetLive of: "We need a model that works"...Seems like Sun's is working...
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 22, 2017 16:23:12 GMT -5
guest2: Well, you have a better grip on the data, so I acquiesce there. Now for 7 events, that metric has to be tempered with "substance". Many events didn't even have a grandstand (sponsors LIKE that). No event during those early years even came CLOSE to Manhattan 2017. The villages? Hardly existed. Now that is pretty low level critique, but WSOBV was pretty much a FIVB thing, not a derived "tour", so I accept your last paragraph on KW's proposal. Comparing businesses and growth is probably unfair in this "new age" of beach volleyball. Not being profitable since 1998 is kinna key. If you never made money, what "growth" was occurring in those years? If those players you mention are "indistinguishable", you haven't sat in the stands and watched "the same old" teams move up and the others move on to the contenders bracket...it IS distinguishable, IMHO....BUT I get it, its all really good play and you are COMPLETELY correct there (I wish there were MORE exhibitions! A gal from SF organized the Ty's to come to Santa Cruz a couple of months ago and it was FABULOUS. Fun watching an exhibition match with some of our locals". THAT, IMO, is how you get the players in front of the fans! Don't wait till May-Aug, put them all over the beach maps and FACEBOOK those matches to death! I will have to confess to more "enthusiasm" than "fact" as being here in Nor. Cal., a couple of events a year does not a analyst make, so keep up your good work on this forum & glad to see your posts. I always enjoy yours as well. Also agree on the exhibitions etc. Those kinds of things drove a lot of the sports growth in the past and could again. As far as player level, I don't mean indistinguishable to people who follow the sport, but instead from a new fan perspective. For example a potential fan walking down the Belmar boardwalk is going to stop for a big Dave Palm hit almost as frequently as for a Tim Bomgren, Dave McKenzie, or Reid Priddy one. Someone who wouldn't be drawn in by a Mike Dipierro isn't going to say, oh wow look at what that Billy Allen guy can do. On the women's side with the exception of the occasional gimmick (Lundquists, Raquel, Gabby Reece) the lower ranked players are almost playing a different sport. I think this idea of growth, attendance, enthusiasm for the same events is a very fair way to look at things so I will concede that point. I would say Sun's willingness to schedule opposite FIVB is also a big plus. To me the most worrying thing from a growth standpoint, even more than the number of events, is the sponsors. The tour looks pretty steady at this size now and the biggest sponsors are still companies I haven't heard of. No Toyota, Sunkist, Nike, etc. I think the non-profitability thing is a little bit of a red herring given the deal Leonard supposedly had on the table. If someone was willing to put that much into it, then there must have been something viable there. (Thats a deal I am not super conversant on so could be wrong there as well) Also the WSOBV does get some support from the FIVB but, at a distance at least, but Leonard has also done a great job drawing huge enthusiastic crowds that arent just there for the finals.
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Dec 23, 2017 15:18:23 GMT -5
People need to stop saying we do not have enough talent in the field to support 2 tours.
Right now, our sport needs options and press, both of which KWJ brings to the table..
............. I dont care if all the tours fail trying to make the sport popular.. eventually, if it gets enough eye balls watching, we will get a tour that will have the money to supoort the talent... Well stated
|
|
|
Post by bigfan on Dec 23, 2017 15:22:31 GMT -5
If Kerri is banking on women's players not currently on the AVP, then she had better be prepare to wait several years before she can field an attractive product Cant she draw players from the numerous collegiate sand teams to fill out her draws? She would have to figure out a way to house them and feed them......................but the potential for her tour is real.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 23, 2017 16:22:25 GMT -5
If Kerri is banking on women's players not currently on the AVP, then she had better be prepare to wait several years before she can field an attractive product Cant she draw players from the numerous collegiate sand teams to fill out her draws? She would have to figure out a way to house them and feed them......................but the potential for her tour is real. A couple things. 1) Its one thing for a few college players to play on a pro tour for no money except expenses, but I doubt the NCAA is going to let a pro tour build its whole business model on college players playing. 2) The level of college play is not high in a pro context. Lot of potential but also a lot of sloppy play etc.
|
|
|
Post by beavis on Dec 28, 2017 7:18:51 GMT -5
Just when I am starting to like Guest2's logic, he casually claims that "with the exception of the occasional gimmick (Lundquists, Raquel, Gabby Reece), the lower ranked players are almost playing a different sport." First of all, get the names right. Calling the Lindquists (not Lundquists), with 57 top 10 finishes in 103 AVP events, a "gimmick" has to be one of the most condescending things I have ever heard. Especially when they keep beating your "best player in the world" Sarah Pavan. Gabby Reece - amazing college career, probably the most dominant player on the short-lived Bud Light 4's Tour, but not very well-suited to 2's - still has 7 top 10 finishes in 17 tournaments. And who on earth is "Raquel?"
As far as whether the 7 event tour is a "success" by almost any measure, I would say that it has been. The number of events has no bearing on whether the tour is financially improving, and only Donald Sun would know the answer to that question. Again, the very slow growth in the number of events is probably irritating as hell to the average fan who does not see any tour stops near their home base (as opposed to the old days of 25 tournaments per year), but perhaps, at long last, someone has finally discovered that this new formula is the only way to make the AVP financially viable, perhaps even over the long haul. Guess we will have to wait and see.
What I do know is that the excitement at AVP events seems much higher now than it was when Donald Sun first took over the tour. And while there might not be the big name sponsors that Guest2 seems to want, both the number and variety of sponsors, especially over the past two years, appears to be on a definite upswing. Anyone longing for the days that Miller Lite threw millions at the AVP might be disappointed, but maybe the better financial recipe for long-term success is to not be so reliant on a few huge sponsors? If you are in a position where the departure of one of many smaller sponsors is only a bump in the road, versus the death knell created when a huge title sponsor pulls out, I'll take the former. Maybe that, too, is something that the current AVP owners have finally figured out.
Lastly, it seems that guys like Jim at least go to several tournaments a year, and are thus in a decent position to comment on whether the tour stops seem to be improving or declining. I only say that because it often appears that the most critical people on these boards are also the ones who rarely actually attend the tournaments in person. I fully realize that not everyone is in a position to do so, but it gets a bit hard to take the constant questioning and criticism of the current state of the AVP, and the quality of the players giving their all, from folks who are never even there. Just saying.
|
|
|
Post by earlkoppelman on Dec 28, 2017 9:35:04 GMT -5
People need to stop saying we do not have enough talent in the field to support 2 tours. The sport is only know by less than 1% of this country, so nobody outside of a select few would even know the difference... You will get plenty of talent at any event you throw, what we need is marketing of the sport, which, IMO, AVP has done a piss poor job of. I was at MBO this year, and there were people walking down Manhattan beach blvd asking the store attendant what was going on at the beach, and they were not sure.. I had to tell them.. Right now, beach volleyball is in a rapid state of growth, and it needs to get peoples attention... the AVP is being supported by the current fans (i think half of which read this message board) and the players who want to get in.. Right now, our sport needs options and press, both of which KWJ brings to the table.. and we are correct to say there are not enough sponsors to support 1 tour, let alone 2,... but that is the problem... we need more exposure, and more sponsors.. I dont care if all the tours fail trying to make the sport popular.. eventually, if it gets enough eye balls watching, we will get a tour that will have the money to supoort the talent... great points.Kerri is only1 who gets INK!! Ink=SPONSERS! Need some cooperation.Or at least TRY talking.One only hope.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 28, 2017 9:43:07 GMT -5
Just when I am starting to like Guest2's logic, he casually claims that "with the exception of the occasional gimmick (Lundquists, Raquel, Gabby Reece), the lower ranked players are almost playing a different sport." First of all, get the names right. Calling the Lindquists (not Lundquists), with 57 top 10 finishes in 103 AVP events, a "gimmick" has to be one of the most condescending things I have ever heard. Especially when they keep beating your "best player in the world" Sarah Pavan. Gabby Reece - amazing college career, probably the most dominant player on the short-lived Bud Light 4's Tour, but not very well-suited to 2's - still has 7 top 10 finishes in 17 tournaments. And who on earth is "Raquel?" As far as whether the 7 event tour is a "success" by almost any measure, I would say that it has been. The number of events has no bearing on whether the tour is financially improving, and only Donald Sun would know the answer to that question. Again, the very slow growth in the number of events is probably irritating as hell to the average fan who does not see any tour stops near their home base (as opposed to the old days of 25 tournaments per year), but perhaps, at long last, someone has finally discovered that this new formula is the only way to make the AVP financially viable, perhaps even over the long haul. Guess we will have to wait and see. What I do know is that the excitement at AVP events seems much higher now than it was when Donald Sun first took over the tour. And while there might not be the big name sponsors that Guest2 seems to want, both the number and variety of sponsors, especially over the past two years, appears to be on a definite upswing. Anyone longing for the days that Miller Lite threw millions at the AVP might be disappointed, but maybe the better financial recipe for long-term success is to not be so reliant on a few huge sponsors? If you are in a position where the departure of one of many smaller sponsors is only a bump in the road, versus the death knell created when a huge title sponsor pulls out, I'll take the former. Maybe that, too, is something that the current AVP owners have finally figured out. Lastly, it seems that guys like Jim at least go to several tournaments a year, and are thus in a decent position to comment on whether the tour stops seem to be improving or declining. I only say that because it often appears that the most critical people on these boards are also the ones who rarely actually attend the tournaments in person. I fully realize that not everyone is in a position to do so, but it gets a bit hard to take the constant questioning and criticism of the current state of the AVP, and the quality of the players giving their all, from folks who are never even there. Just saying. "The number of events has no bearing on whether the tour is financially improving" You don't know who Raquel Ferreira is and I am the one condescending? The Lundquists were interesting because of a gimmick (not blocking). They had zero chance to win, their offense was bleh and with other partners they suddenly were ordinary middle to low level players. Thats the definition of a gimmick. You really go off the rails defending Gabby Reece as a doubles player. You know why she had decent finishes? Because she was playing with elite players who played with her for non-volleyball reasons. Gabby got attention because she was hot. No one came to see her play volleyball, they came to see her. Thats also a gimmick. "The number of events has no bearing on whether the tour is financially improving" You know why so few people on these boards attend events? Because there are barely any. If you happen to have a commitment the one time a year that the AVP comes within 800 miles of where you live then you are just out of luck. As to the health of the tour, certainly how hard people are cheering at the events is relevant. But there are much better indicators. The three elements most indicative of the health of the pro beach tour are sponsors, prize money, and events. How can you argue with someone who suggests that the reason the AVP doesn't have well known, big money sponsors is because smaller sponsors who pay less are better? Despite your preference for small sponsors and minimal revenue, bigger sponsors and more money are better. Thats why the NFL, NBA etc. don't turn down Nike in favor of Klenkin Sunscreen. You throw up a straw man with Miller Lite, while ignoring the fact that companies like Toyota, Cuervo, Crocs, etc. have all sponsored the AVP in relatively recent incarnations. Despite your incredibly compelling "maybe he is turning down big sponsors because money is bad" argument, Donald himself was talking up the value of big sponsors like Gatorade relatively recently. But five years after the AVP reached its current size, who is the AVP's biggest sponsor? Finally the players don't give their all. Many treat the AVP as a stopover at mom's house when they come home from college. A chance to get some laundry done and pick up some pocket change. Or did you miss Phil/Nick not trying to win last year at the biggest event of the year. Or April/Kerri blowing off an event in their own back yard. Finally, "The number of events has no bearing on whether the tour is financially improving"
|
|
|
Post by donnyw on Dec 28, 2017 13:34:50 GMT -5
GUEST 2 makes a lot of great points!
Also, Could we Please stop calling 7 AVP events, half of which are in CA a tour? I am thankful for 7 events though. Maybe it will climb to 8 in 2019...Donald Sun is probably buying his time through the 2020 season and then will attempt to sell the Brand.
Every time I see this thread come up called Walsh’s Tour..I laugh...When the news comes out (soon according to Kerri)..It’s going to be more like Leonard’s Tour with Al Hannesman working for him and marketing the hell out of Kerri!! I’ve heard there’s one more major stake holder in this venture, but can’t get clarification on who that might be. Obviously someone with some 🤑🤑...
|
|
|
Post by beavis on Dec 29, 2017 6:58:14 GMT -5
Man, do I ever love debating Guest2! I have sincerely missed the back and forth, and while everyone I have ever had discussions with on these boards seems to be very respectful whether we agree or disagree, I have simply never encountered anyone so judgmentally negative, so I can’t resist the temptation to counter opinions with facts.
Definition of “gimmick” – a trick, a contrivance, a ploy intended to attract attention.
Here is exactly, word for word, what Guest2 stated when recently calling 4 seemingly accomplished players “gimmicks.” “With the exception of the occasional gimmick (Lundquists, Raquel, Gabby Reece), the lower ranked players are almost playing a different sport,” and the Lundquists were interesting because of a gimmick (not blocking). They had zero chance to win, their offense was bleh, and with other partners they suddenly middle to low level players.” Putting aside his constantly naming them “Lundquist” instead of “Lindquist,” he apparently either has no idea what their actual record is, or does not want to check because it would so clearly show that they were anything but “gimmicks.” 105 tournaments entered by the 5’6” sisters together. 58 top 10 finishes. 11 times in either third or fifth place. Out of the 9 tournaments Tracy played with other partners, she had 3 seconds, 3 thirds and a fifth. That makes 7 out 9 top fives with partners other than her sister.
Was it a small thing that they stayed together for 15 years instead of running to the various blockers who often came calling? Actually, it made for one of the best stories out on tour, because how many sisters would give up possibly much more successful careers in order to stay together? Just another one of their “gimmicks,” right? Maybe, however, when you are both 5’6”, not blocking is the best option, and not simply a “gimmick.” To Guest2, their amazing ability to sideout against traditional block/dig teams made their offense “bleh.” To hundreds of us who watched many, many of their matches in person each year, however, it was simply awesome. To Guest2, Tracy getting 7 out of 9 top five finishes with other players renders her a “middle to low level player.” To any rational, non-dismissive person, however, maybe it shows how incredibly well-rounded she was, and demonstrates that she perhaps could have won given the right “big.” No, you’re right – calling their careers a “gimmick” is not at all offensive, exceedingly mean, unnecessarily condescending or totally judgmental. Instead, to Guest2, it is entirely appropriate.
With respect to Miss Ferreira, you’re right again. You simply stated “Raquel” in your post. I am an idiot for not knowing which of the 8 players named “Raquel” listed in Dr Ono’s BVB Database that you were calling a “gimmick?” But you are right again. Looking at her record of 39 top 10 finishes out of 59 total tournaments played, along with 9 NVL wins, clearly makes her a “gimmick.” Just like a successful indoor and Bud Light 4’s tour record makes Gabby Reece nothing more than a “gimmick.” I guess I would only ask one question – how would any of you like it if, at the job you love and have tried hard to achieve success in for years, someone summarized all of your efforts as simply a “gimmick?” Perhaps you might want to think about your dismissive statements before calling players nothing more than “gimmicks.”
Again, exact quote time. “The players don’t give their all. Many treat the AVP as a stopover at mom’s house when they come home from college. A chance to get some laundry done and pick up some pocket change.”
This idiotically incorrect generalization about all AVP players is based on “Phil/Nick not trying last year at the biggest event of the year” and “April/Kerri blowing off an event in their own back yard.” Yeah, I was at both of those events, Guest2 – were you? In fact, when is the last time you were at an AVP Quali in person, and watched the young players leaving every bit of effort in their bodies and minds out on the Court in an attempt to simply make a main draw? Maybe you could try actually going to an event before spouting off your baseless accusations about how the players don’t give their all. Oh, that’s right – you might actually learn something about the players you so easily and harshly criticize – that they actually do try, and that they, like all of us, would be incredibly offended, and probably turn your lights out, if you actually had the chutzpah to go up to one of them and tell them how they are not giving it their all, or how everything they are striving for is simply a “gimmick.”
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 29, 2017 8:54:50 GMT -5
Man, do I ever love debating Guest2! I have sincerely missed the back and forth, and while everyone I have ever had discussions with on these boards seems to be very respectful whether we agree or disagree, I have simply never encountered anyone so judgmentally negative, so I can’t resist the temptation to counter opinions with facts. Definition of “gimmick” – a trick, a contrivance, a ploy intended to attract attention. Here is exactly, word for word, what Guest2 stated when recently calling 4 seemingly accomplished players “gimmicks.” “With the exception of the occasional gimmick (Lundquists, Raquel, Gabby Reece), the lower ranked players are almost playing a different sport,” and the Lundquists were interesting because of a gimmick (not blocking). They had zero chance to win, their offense was bleh, and with other partners they suddenly middle to low level players.” Putting aside his constantly naming them “Lundquist” instead of “Lindquist,” he apparently either has no idea what their actual record is, or does not want to check because it would so clearly show that they were anything but “gimmicks.” 105 tournaments entered by the 5’6” sisters together. 58 top 10 finishes. 11 times in either third or fifth place. Out of the 9 tournaments Tracy played with other partners, she had 3 seconds, 3 thirds and a fifth. That makes 7 out 9 top fives with partners other than her sister. Was it a small thing that they stayed together for 15 years instead of running to the various blockers who often came calling? Actually, it made for one of the best stories out on tour, because how many sisters would give up possibly much more successful careers in order to stay together? Just another one of their “gimmicks,” right? Maybe, however, when you are both 5’6”, not blocking is the best option, and not simply a “gimmick.” To Guest2, their amazing ability to sideout against traditional block/dig teams made their offense “bleh.” To hundreds of us who watched many, many of their matches in person each year, however, it was simply awesome. To Guest2, Tracy getting 7 out of 9 top five finishes with other players renders her a “middle to low level player.” To any rational, non-dismissive person, however, maybe it shows how incredibly well-rounded she was, and demonstrates that she perhaps could have won given the right “big.” No, you’re right – calling their careers a “gimmick” is not at all offensive, exceedingly mean, unnecessarily condescending or totally judgmental. Instead, to Guest2, it is entirely appropriate. With respect to Miss Ferreira, you’re right again. You simply stated “Raquel” in your post. I am an idiot for not knowing which of the 8 players named “Raquel” listed in Dr Ono’s BVB Database that you were calling a “gimmick?” But you are right again. Looking at her record of 39 top 10 finishes out of 59 total tournaments played, along with 9 NVL wins, clearly makes her a “gimmick.” Just like a successful indoor and Bud Light 4’s tour record makes Gabby Reece nothing more than a “gimmick.” I guess I would only ask one question – how would any of you like it if, at the job you love and have tried hard to achieve success in for years, someone summarized all of your efforts as simply a “gimmick?” Perhaps you might want to think about your dismissive statements before calling players nothing more than “gimmicks.” Again, exact quote time. “The players don’t give their all. Many treat the AVP as a stopover at mom’s house when they come home from college. A chance to get some laundry done and pick up some pocket change.” This idiotically incorrect generalization about all AVP players is based on “Phil/Nick not trying last year at the biggest event of the year” and “April/Kerri blowing off an event in their own back yard.” Yeah, I was at both of those events, Guest2 – were you? In fact, when is the last time you were at an AVP Quali in person, and watched the young players leaving every bit of effort in their bodies and minds out on the Court in an attempt to simply make a main draw? Maybe you could try actually going to an event before spouting off your baseless accusations about how the players don’t give their all. Oh, that’s right – you might actually learn something about the players you so easily and harshly criticize – that they actually do try, and that they, like all of us, would be incredibly offended, and probably turn your lights out, if you actually had the chutzpah to go up to one of them and tell them how they are not giving it their all, or how everything they are striving for is simply a “gimmick.” All the Raquels listed except one are FIVB players. Maybe my favorite part of your posts is how you intentionally misunderstand things so you can throw pep rallies in Donald Sun's front yard. For example citing minor league tour results to support your contention that Tracy was not a mid level player, a fact so clear its axiomatic. Throughout her AVP career, she was 2.5 times as likely to finish last as in the top 5. Thats a mid to low level player. But on that subject, the reasons people watched them, and Gabby and Raquel, were because there was some draw other than competition. Michelle and Suzanne are another good example there or the Partains. For Katie and Tracy it was because they were playing a style that no one else used. It was akin to Nick/Phil split blocking, i.e. a curiosity or a gimmick. Also why is it a virtue that they continued playing together when they could have done better (according to you) with better partners? What is your obsession with someone being at an event before they can comment on anything? You realize you assert, at least by implication, that since I didn't attend an event, I can't comment on Kerri/April also not being at that event? How would my being there have affected my understanding that they didn't show up? Were they there in disguise? Did they play as Fopma/Snyder and only the people present understood that? This is maybe my favorite Beavis-ism I wrote, "“The players don’t give their all. Many treat the AVP as a stopover at mom’s house when they come home from college. A chance to get some laundry done and pick up some pocket change.” You took this as an, "idiotically incorrect generalization about all AVP players" Pray tell, what do you see as the meaning of the word "many" in the passage I wrote? I'm also not sure how you came to the conclusion that my statement was baseless, since I stated a basis for it, but here is another example for you: (I also wasn't at these events so you may want to skip this part) In recent years several top players, including the aforementioned Mr. Dalhausser, have made plans to tournaments early (usually from tourneys like Seattle) to get to FIVB events they think more important. Hyden/Doherty forfeited out of Seattle last year and Phil was prepared to do the same. Casey/Jake did it the year before. To me giving your all means 100% effort, playing through minor injuries, competing against adversity, etc. But maybe you define it differently. Certainly we can all agree that "giving your all" and "leaving before you are eliminated from the event because you have somewhere better to be" are mutually exclusive? Including my previous example of Nick/Phil split blocking, thats 6 of the top 10 players on the men's side not "giving their all." And one of the remaining four players is Sean Rosenthal, a noted grinder he. But hey, its not every single AVP player so maybe I need to go to a bunch of events and see how hard people are playing in the second round of the qualifiers
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Dec 29, 2017 13:46:00 GMT -5
Hey, I got to 3 events a year and let me tell you: You'd probably learn more getting live feeds (like what will occur in '18) and watching many matches on YouTube. Your skills at analysis, and associated data available (it is) will put you light years ahead of a "casual fan". Best to glean what someone is "saying" rather than tear apart the observation. VOLLEYTALK does NOT have a great reputation "in the trenches" of the professional beach community, IMO, because of poor analytics. People with opinions like our "current political administration" which is "policy" more than fact. Let someone talk about the Lindquist sisters as a "gimmick" or whatever. Their "NON-Blocking", though they DO block once in a while, IS, in fact, a gimmick, if you will (would obviously depend on your definition of a gimmick). They'll chop you to death and I always wonder why so few other teams don't pick part of their repertoire and throw it in right around 19-18 and walk with some easy "Stein-O" type points. Regardless, I LOVE reading critique on these players (love 'em or hate 'em) as you learn by every post IF it is well intended and fact based. The "I hate (TBE)" is just a bunch of BS as if you were in front of the player, you'd HARDLY treat them the way you write about them and I say that with "hope" of that being true. We're a small sport, we kind of root for everybody. I know of MANY players who have done some "jerk stuff" at times (kicking balls, yelling at the crowd, etc.), BUT, as all of us players of the game know, when you cross those lines into a game, behaviors change... Anyway, LOVE to read YOUR OPINION of a player, the game, the AVP, but remember, many of these are antecdotal stories some with fact based, but geeezzz, lets keep it real and realize, as H.L. Mencken would write back to everyone who wrote him, good or bad: You MAY be right!
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 29, 2017 14:21:11 GMT -5
Hey, I got to 3 events a year and let me tell you: You'd probably learn more getting live feeds (like what will occur in '18) and watching many matches on YouTube. Your skills at analysis, and associated data available (it is) will put you light years ahead of a "casual fan". Best to glean what someone is "saying" rather than tear apart the observation. VOLLEYTALK does NOT have a great reputation "in the trenches" of the professional beach community, IMO, because of poor analytics. People with opinions like our "current political administration" which is "policy" more than fact. Let someone talk about the Lindquist sisters as a "gimmick" or whatever. Their "NON-Blocking", though they DO block once in a while, IS, in fact, a gimmick, if you will (would obviously depend on your definition of a gimmick). They'll chop you to death and I always wonder why so few other teams don't pick part of their repertoire and throw it in right around 19-18 and walk with some easy "Stein-O" type points. Regardless, I LOVE reading critique on these players (love 'em or hate 'em) as you learn by every post IF it is well intended and fact based. The "I hate (TBE)" is just a bunch of BS as if you were in front of the player, you'd HARDLY treat them the way you write about them and I say that with "hope" of that being true. We're a small sport, we kind of root for everybody. I know of MANY players who have done some "jerk stuff" at times (kicking balls, yelling at the crowd, etc.), BUT, as all of us players of the game know, when you cross those lines into a game, behaviors change... Anyway, LOVE to read YOUR OPINION of a player, the game, the AVP, but remember, many of these are antecdotal stories some with fact based, but geeezzz, lets keep it real and realize, as H.L. Mencken would write back to everyone who wrote him, good or bad: You MAY be right! Mencken was a borderline Nazi, but I think your point is well taken I'd also love to see some teams take your suggestion and adopt the Lindquist strategy on certain key points. Most teams lack the courage to do that, although I think the fact that teams like Fontana/Hanley did it comparatively rarely showed that there was a ceiling to how effective it could be (since both Linda and Barb were exceptional ball control players). I think other teams hesitancy also is one reason the sisters had so much success with it, because they were the only ones who used it. Similar to the way some teams in the NBA have much greater success in the regular season when opposition is not fully prepared for them, whereas in the playoffs when the other team is preparing for a two week series, those same teams get beaten fairly easily. I think Adrian's skyball works for a very similar reason. Just a note that I wasn't attacking any of the players I named (except Gabby) just stating that the reasons fans were more interested in them than their peers in ability were not related to their level of play. I would also suggest that volleyball analytics, at least as regards beach generally and AVP specifically, aren't particularly useful because there aren't enough games to allow for the sample sizes needed, and the range in competition is too great. For example April played Sarah Pavan one last year if memory serves. It brings to mind a great Rob Heidger quote about how he "had never won a second round match before" because his seed that year always put him against Karch/Kent in the second round. He played them every event, whereas other lower ranked teams didnt play them all year, which obviously would skew stats to a great degree. With only 7 events and most teams missing 1-3 of those at least, it becomes even harder to make the numbers mean anything
|
|
|
Post by volleyballjim on Dec 29, 2017 14:52:07 GMT -5
guest: Didn't mean to infer anything on player attacks from you, just that many "get into that" and it makes the forum look bad. If one thinks a player had a meltdown, no problemo, thats their opinion (again OPINION). Just when people say negative stuff (Even the question to Travis M about Geena Urango being a "party girl"...Really? She answered it astutely, but if thats the type of stuff you're interested, head on down to Sharkey's and find out! LOL . . . LOVE this forum and learn SO much . . Tx all, esp GettyLeeRidesagain!
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Dec 29, 2017 15:49:42 GMT -5
guest: Didn't mean to infer anything on player attacks from you, just that many "get into that" and it makes the forum look bad. If one thinks a player had a meltdown, no problemo, thats their opinion (again OPINION). Just when people say negative stuff (Even the question to Travis M about Geena Urango being a "party girl"...Really? She answered it astutely, but if thats the type of stuff you're interested, head on down to Sharkey's and find out! LOL . . . LOVE this forum and learn SO much . . Tx all, esp GettyLeeRidesagain! The forum look bad to who? The Geena question was mine and I think it was a fair one. Geena has had that reputation in the past, so why not ask about it? Even if there is no truth to it, the fact that it exists (the reputation I mean) has an effect on her as a player. Its also maybe the most interesting thing about her career, other than possibly her lack of interest in playing FIVB or how she supports herself playing seven events a year. The personal stuff, the rivalries, etc. are what make sports interesting to most people and its not a coincidence that the golden age of our sport had several rivalries with real animosity, and players and media that were much freer with sharing information, whereas now, when most people couldn't care less, the players are either all friends or are pretending to be, and other than workout details, there is much less information available. If you asked me for the most intense rivalries in BVB, other than EY-Kerri/Misty, the top 10 would probably all be old school ones. The current media-coached, everything is great, approach, where no one ever says anything interesting in interviews (for example everything Kerri and April say publicly about each other, or Phil and Sean's comments on the breakup) doesn't make the sport more fun or interesting, it makes it much duller. Is there anyone who would rather hear Tri/April etc. babble on about mindfulness over hearing almost any player speak bluntly about their last partner breakup? The Sandcast is actually a great example because you have two very knowledgeable guys, both of whom seem smart and relatively interesting. They have great guests, but often they intentionally dodge the topics that most fans are most interested in.
|
|