Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 1:55:03 GMT -5
Hilley hit during club season? Yes. No she didn’t.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 1:57:22 GMT -5
Which I struggle to understand: - They played the vast majority of the season with two six-rotation senior four-year-starters at outside hitter. How many other teams had that kind of experience on the left?
- They also started a two-time All-American junior middle blocker.
- Their two freshman starters arrived in the spring and had 8 months to train and acclimate to college life before playing their first match.
- One of their freshman was one of the most dominant players in the country all season, and will leave as one of the best players in collegiate history - experience be damned.
- Their opposite was in her third season in the program.
- Their libero started in the Big Ten at her previous school.
- Five of their six front row players were top-ten recruits coming out of high school. Texas is the only other school that can say that.
Just seems like a lot of excuses for a poor season, results-wise. A lot of teams would've loved to have that kind of "inexperience." You're stupid. Do you really think a coach would ever say we sucked and choked in tight matches in public? Or our outsides were far below the level we needed? Yes. Russ Rose, for example, has no problem being honest about his team’s (and athletes’) strengths and weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by northwoods on Feb 12, 2018 7:56:13 GMT -5
You're stupid. Do you really think a coach would ever say we sucked and choked in tight matches in public? Or our outsides were far below the level we needed? Yes. Russ Rose, for example, has no problem being honest about his team’s (and athletes’) strengths and weaknesses. Rose has a little Lou Holtz in him. His players all suck and his team needs a lot of work to win a match this season....... It's part of his charm.
|
|
|
Post by 402 on Feb 12, 2018 8:38:33 GMT -5
Sheffield’s team went 22-10 in 2017, so take several seats. Huh? I'm saying he probably thinks these things but wouldn't say it in public. Try pulling your undies down. The bundle seems to be causing some issues with blood to your brain. That Wisconsin anger...it’s coming out! 🤣🤣
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 12, 2018 9:10:29 GMT -5
Inexperience could have played a key role in a number of specific ways - especially in those 5 setters the badgers kept losing this year. But I don't think it's as simple as counting the number of years players were starters, or the time they had in practice. It's more about the compromises the coaches felt they had to make, the lack of familiarity at key positions during the crunch time of long matches, the inability to make adjustements, and then the mental doubts that haunted the team once those 5-set losses started piling up. I really like Hilley as a player, but early in the season she looked a little overburdened with learning all the elements of being a B1G setter in real competitive matches. She was in her head a lot - not always playing as free as she can. Sheff says she is an analyzer. You have to remember that she split time as setter and hitter in club and HS, so she just isn't as experienced coming in as some freshman. I remember watching her in person and you could almost see her trying to remember all the things she was supposed to do and remember. I felt it slowed her down a touch in some instances. For example, they were training her in preseason to change her setting technique to go off one foot, to get some more lift on outside sets. Also, her connection with Williams took a while to develop because the MB wasn't around in Spring. That meant she was afraid to go to Tionna in key moments, which made the offense one dimensional in some rotations when the chips were down. Duello has not been a starter, and when she has played, she did not always play on the right, and she had not seen any real success coming into the season. Last year her playing time even in practice was limited. For her, any experience she had was actually a negative in my view, something she had to overcome in her head. Plus, she was playing a new inexperienced setter, who seemed to forget her at times. She did OK by the end of the year despite all this, but it was a challenge, especially in the beginning of the B1G. Clark was a starter at Michigan, but not at libero, and not with this team. Her play was good, but her insertion disrupted the back row initially, with knock-on effects on Dodge's passing after she moved to DS and right back. Clark was also coming off an injury which limited her serving, and may have had an effect on her passing which got better as the season went on. She really struggled with bump setting - something it took a while for the team to adjust to. It didn't help that one of the most experienced players in the back row was hindered by a long term injury to her forearm. Sheff leaned much more heavily on Bates and Gillis for leadership than he might if there was a more experienced crew around them. The coaches apparently (according to quoted interviews) had stats that indicated that the other players were better when Gillis was on the court. So one of the results of inexperience elsewhere on the team was that they felt they had to keep her in even when she really struggled. Even after Loberg was inserted, they had Gillis play back row rather than Dodd or Amac, I'm assuming for the same reason. Gillis put in a really good shift there at the end, but to me, Loberg's inexperience was a real problem for the team, since she was the one player capable of taking Haggerty's mantle. Rettke's amazing play mitigated a lot of the problems with inexperience at other key positions, it's true. But she also often had difficulties on the block, fooled by the much more experienced setters she was facing. When that started happening, she had a hard time recovering, which again, I think is indicative of her lack of experience. She will get better in that respect. All in all, it meant that at key moments the offense became too predictable, defense (and especially the block) got weaker, and doubt crept in and the service game got more conservative. That was a real problem in these 5 setters. Later in the season, I felt knock-on effects from problems earlier in the season. You could literally be this nuanced with almost any team. Off the top of my head: Texas - freshman setter and OH, sophomore OH playing 6-rotations for first time, Chiaka back after missing last season, YBG (playing another new position) and Nwanebu switching in and out on the right side, YBG being inserted on the left late season, etc. Nebraska - freshman MB, freshman RS, 2 OHs playing 6-rotations for the first time, new Libero, etc. Minnesota - freshman RS playing 6-rotations, freshman MB, freshman/sophomore L2, etc. 2016 Stanford - do I even need to? I don't like the "inexperienced" claim for many reasons - 1) as stated 4/7 starters were upper classmen with significant starting experience, 2) you really shouldn't be claiming you were still "inexperienced" after an entire season of NCAA play, especially when you essentially never changed the starting line-up and 3) he knew he couldn't say "young" because of the 4/7 stat, so "inexperienced" feels like a cop-out to me. Plenty of teams have excelled with much higher levels of "inexperience."
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Feb 12, 2018 9:47:45 GMT -5
Inexperience could have played a key role in a number of specific ways - especially in those 5 setters the badgers kept losing this year. But I don't think it's as simple as counting the number of years players were starters, or the time they had in practice. It's more about the compromises the coaches felt they had to make, the lack of familiarity at key positions during the crunch time of long matches, the inability to make adjustements, and then the mental doubts that haunted the team once those 5-set losses started piling up. I really like Hilley as a player, but early in the season she looked a little overburdened with learning all the elements of being a B1G setter in real competitive matches. She was in her head a lot - not always playing as free as she can. Sheff says she is an analyzer. You have to remember that she split time as setter and hitter in club and HS, so she just isn't as experienced coming in as some freshman. I remember watching her in person and you could almost see her trying to remember all the things she was supposed to do and remember. I felt it slowed her down a touch in some instances. For example, they were training her in preseason to change her setting technique to go off one foot, to get some more lift on outside sets. Also, her connection with Williams took a while to develop because the MB wasn't around in Spring. That meant she was afraid to go to Tionna in key moments, which made the offense one dimensional in some rotations when the chips were down. Duello has not been a starter, and when she has played, she did not always play on the right, and she had not seen any real success coming into the season. Last year her playing time even in practice was limited. For her, any experience she had was actually a negative in my view, something she had to overcome in her head. Plus, she was playing a new inexperienced setter, who seemed to forget her at times. She did OK by the end of the year despite all this, but it was a challenge, especially in the beginning of the B1G. Clark was a starter at Michigan, but not at libero, and not with this team. Her play was good, but her insertion disrupted the back row initially, with knock-on effects on Dodge's passing after she moved to DS and right back. Clark was also coming off an injury which limited her serving, and may have had an effect on her passing which got better as the season went on. She really struggled with bump setting - something it took a while for the team to adjust to. It didn't help that one of the most experienced players in the back row was hindered by a long term injury to her forearm. Sheff leaned much more heavily on Bates and Gillis for leadership than he might if there was a more experienced crew around them. The coaches apparently (according to quoted interviews) had stats that indicated that the other players were better when Gillis was on the court. So one of the results of inexperience elsewhere on the team was that they felt they had to keep her in even when she really struggled. Even after Loberg was inserted, they had Gillis play back row rather than Dodd or Amac, I'm assuming for the same reason. Gillis put in a really good shift there at the end, but to me, Loberg's inexperience was a real problem for the team, since she was the one player capable of taking Haggerty's mantle. Rettke's amazing play mitigated a lot of the problems with inexperience at other key positions, it's true. But she also often had difficulties on the block, fooled by the much more experienced setters she was facing. When that started happening, she had a hard time recovering, which again, I think is indicative of her lack of experience. She will get better in that respect. All in all, it meant that at key moments the offense became too predictable, defense (and especially the block) got weaker, and doubt crept in and the service game got more conservative. That was a real problem in these 5 setters. Later in the season, I felt knock-on effects from problems earlier in the season. You could literally be this nuanced with almost any team. Off the top of my head: Texas - freshman setter and OH, sophomore OH playing 6-rotations for first time, Chiaka back after missing last season, YBG (playing another new position) and Nwanebu switching in and out on the right side, YBG being inserted on the left late season, etc. Nebraska - freshman MB, freshman RS, 2 OHs playing 6-rotations for the first time, new Libero, etc. Minnesota - freshman RS playing 6-rotations, freshman MB, freshman/sophomore L2, etc. 2016 Stanford - do I even need to? I don't like the "inexperienced" claim for many reasons - 1) as stated 4/7 starters were upper classmen with significant starting experience, 2) you really shouldn't be claiming you were still "inexperienced" after an entire season of NCAA play, especially when you essentially never changed the starting line-up and 3) he knew he couldn't say "young" because of the 4/7 stat, so "inexperienced" feels like a cop-out to me. Plenty of teams have excelled with much higher levels of "inexperience." I'm not saying the badgers only problem was inexperience, I'm saying it played a key role specifically in those 5 set losses - which was the point I think Sheffield was making in the article. That said, I'd argue that Texas played very inexperienced through much of last year. I watched matches several matches where it was a real problem. They looked clueless through much of the KState match in Manhattan, for example. They benefitted from being in the B1G12 in a year when many other teams really struggled for various reasons. Nebraska and Minnesota were experienced where it really matters to me, at setter. That's were the problem starts. The badgers didn't have that inexperience at the setter position offset by a monster banger at the pins and elsewhere (a la Santana). The question of who played the pins was the issue in the badgers. Throwing Loberg in would have meant even more inexperience. Moving Rettke to RS would have meant using a freshman walk-on at middle. Sheffield obviously made the calculation that the cost of inexperience was more than the benefit. I'll give you Stanford at the end, but most of 2016 they were very inconsistent, and they were and are physically huge! The badgers got better right at the end this year as well, and played Stanford very well. They just didn't quite have the guns to match up that day, as Stanford was extremely efficient.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Feb 12, 2018 9:50:25 GMT -5
Exactly. Glad we're on the same page.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 14:29:15 GMT -5
Inexperience could have played a key role in a number of specific ways - especially in those 5 setters the badgers kept losing this year. But I don't think it's as simple as counting the number of years players were starters, or the time they had in practice. It's more about the compromises the coaches felt they had to make, the lack of familiarity at key positions during the crunch time of long matches, the inability to make adjustements, and then the mental doubts that haunted the team once those 5-set losses started piling up. I really like Hilley as a player, but early in the season she looked a little overburdened with learning all the elements of being a B1G setter in real competitive matches. She was in her head a lot - not always playing as free as she can. Sheff says she is an analyzer. You have to remember that she split time as setter and hitter in club and HS, so she just isn't as experienced coming in as some freshman. I remember watching her in person and you could almost see her trying to remember all the things she was supposed to do and remember. I felt it slowed her down a touch in some instances. For example, they were training her in preseason to change her setting technique to go off one foot, to get some more lift on outside sets. Also, her connection with Williams took a while to develop because the MB wasn't around in Spring. That meant she was afraid to go to Tionna in key moments, which made the offense one dimensional in some rotations when the chips were down. Duello has not been a starter, and when she has played, she did not always play on the right, and she had not seen any real success coming into the season. Last year her playing time even in practice was limited. For her, any experience she had was actually a negative in my view, something she had to overcome in her head. Plus, she was playing a new inexperienced setter, who seemed to forget her at times. She did OK by the end of the year despite all this, but it was a challenge, especially in the beginning of the B1G. Clark was a starter at Michigan, but not at libero, and not with this team. Her play was good, but her insertion disrupted the back row initially, with knock-on effects on Dodge's passing after she moved to DS and right back. Clark was also coming off an injury which limited her serving, and may have had an effect on her passing which got better as the season went on. She really struggled with bump setting - something it took a while for the team to adjust to. It didn't help that one of the most experienced players in the back row was hindered by a long term injury to her forearm. Sheff leaned much more heavily on Bates and Gillis for leadership than he might if there was a more experienced crew around them. The coaches apparently (according to quoted interviews) had stats that indicated that the other players were better when Gillis was on the court. So one of the results of inexperience elsewhere on the team was that they felt they had to keep her in even when she really struggled. Even after Loberg was inserted, they had Gillis play back row rather than Dodd or Amac, I'm assuming for the same reason. Gillis put in a really good shift there at the end, but to me, Loberg's inexperience was a real problem for the team, since she was the one player capable of taking Haggerty's mantle. Rettke's amazing play mitigated a lot of the problems with inexperience at other key positions, it's true. But she also often had difficulties on the block, fooled by the much more experienced setters she was facing. When that started happening, she had a hard time recovering, which again, I think is indicative of her lack of experience. She will get better in that respect. All in all, it meant that at key moments the offense became too predictable, defense (and especially the block) got weaker, and doubt crept in and the service game got more conservative. That was a real problem in these 5 setters. Later in the season, I felt knock-on effects from problems earlier in the season. Finally got time to unpack this: You: | Me: | Inexperience could have played a key role in a number of specific ways - especially in those 5 setters the badgers kept losing this year.
| I don't understand this. Inexperience was a key component as to why they lost five-setters? What evidence is there of that? It seems like it's just an easy excuse vs. a real problem. | ...the lack of familiarity at key positions during the crunch time of long matches... | Both outsides were seniors! That had started for four years! How was there a lack of familiarity? Was it familiarity or just a lack of talent at those positions? Bottom line, Wisconsin's pin trio was incredibly offensively ineffective despite the huge amount of cumulative experience. | I really like Hilley as a player, but early in the season she looked a little overburdened with learning all the elements of being a B1G setter in real competitive matches.
| Isn't that why she elected to arrive in January, play an entire spring season, train with the greatest collegiate setter of all time, and train all summer...? What was she doing for those 8 months? | You have to remember that she split time as setter and hitter in club and HS, so she just isn't as experienced coming in as some freshman.
| Hilley did not hit for her club team. She hit in high school. Like Carlini. Hell, Carlini even attacked a little during her junior/senior year of club. Hilley didn't though. | Also, her connection with Williams took a while to develop because the MB wasn't around in Spring.
| There's very little evidence that this claim is true. Williams averaged more kills per set and hit at a higher efficiency (despite her obvious injuries) with Hilley than she did in her two seasons with Carlini. | Duello has not been a starter, and when she has played, she did not always play on the right, and she had not seen any real success coming into the season. Last year her playing time even in practice was limited. | It certainly wasn't limited when she was a freshman. She had a fall, two springs, and a summer under her belt coming into the season. You're not going to convince me that she was inexperienced. Three seasons in a B1G program counts as experience. And she certainly wasn't less experienced than Loberg, who was a much better player. Experience isn't everything, an idea that the Wisconsin freshman proved true all season. Talent. | Clark was a starter at Michigan, but not at libero, and not with this team. | What does that have to do with anything? She had played a season of B1G volleyball and started. That doesn't count for anything? And Clark was one of the most experienced kids on the team, especially when you consider her international libero experience for youth and junior USA teams. This is more revisionist history from Wisconsin fans. | Clark was also coming off an injury which limited her serving, and may have had an effect on her passing which got better as the season went on.
| May have? Any evidence that this is true? I don't recall Clark's reception ever being one of the problem's hindering Wisconsin this past season. | Sheff leaned much more heavily on Bates and Gillis for leadership than he might if there was a more experienced crew around them.
| W.H.A.T.
He leaned too heavily on his two SENIOR, SIX-ROTATION, FOUR-YEAR-STARTER lefts??? How is this a real sentence? Stop saying that this is an "experience" issue. It literally just doesn't make sense. | The coaches apparently (according to quoted interviews) had stats that indicated that the other players were better when Gillis was on the court.
| This isn't hard to believe. Gillis passed poorly, had to get set, and made errors. No one else was given the chance to make errors because Gillis was so bad at times. Makes sense to me.
And the coaches can say whatever they want to defend their decision, but the fact remains that Gillis was often the sole reason the team lost sets and matches. I can understand their thought process, but it still resulted in double-digit losses despite putting more top recruits on the floor than any other team in the country, sans 1. | ...but to me, Loberg's inexperience was a real problem for the team... | Sorry, I can't understand this idea either. She was the most terminal pin attacker on the team, DESPITE her inexperience. She was rarely given the chance to start or finish matches, despite her being an obvious upgrade. She put together several incredible sets this season, just to (inexplicably) end up on the bench for the next set. How can you say that it was a "real problem" when she never played consistently until the end of the season? | Rettke's amazing play mitigated a lot of the problems with inexperience at other key positions.
| Again, you had a top-ten recruit with 8 months of collegiate training (including several with a national team setter) at setter, two seniors on the left, and a libero with extensive international experience who was one of the top bro recruits coming out of HS. Please tell me which "key positions" Wisconsin was "inexperienced" in? | But she also often had difficulties on the block, fooled by the much more experienced setters she was facing. When that started happening, she had a hard time recovering, which again, I think is indicative of her lack of experience.
| Rettke averaged more blocks per set in 2017 than Nelson or Williams did in any previous seasons. They must've been fooled more than Rettke then, right? | All in all, it meant that at key moments the offense became too predictable, defense (and especially the block) got weaker, and doubt crept in and the service game got more conservative. | ...which means that inexperience or youth wasn't the problem. It meant that Hilley wasn't as good as she was hyped to be, Bates/Gillis were completely ineffective as a pair of lefts or a pair of leaders, and Duello couldn't be relied on for anything. Can't blame the passing either, since your freshman setter was able to get the ball consistently enough to her two middles for them to earn AA honors.
Pin attackers and leadership. Carlini was able to make things happen enough to win with ineffective pins. Hilley wasn't. | That was a real problem in these 5 setters. | There was a clear and obvious lack of leadership. That was the problem, IMO... in all matches, not just five-setters. Nelson and Carlini were incredible leaders. Everyone else just had to buy in. I'd be surprised if anyone other than Rettke and Hilley were captains for 2018. |
I don't want to rag on Wisconsin fans or the team, because I'm a fan, but I just don't understand the need to rewrite history into a more palatable version because it doesn't matter. It wasn't a great season, despite all the experience, and that was frustrating for fans. The team should be much, much improved in 2018 with a better lineup and better leaders.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Feb 12, 2018 14:37:25 GMT -5
You know she's got something to say when she's breaking out the table formatting for a rebuttal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 14:39:22 GMT -5
You could literally be this nuanced with almost any team. Off the top of my head: Texas - freshman setter and OH, sophomore OH playing 6-rotations for first time, Chiaka back after missing last season, YBG (playing another new position) and Nwanebu switching in and out on the right side, YBG being inserted on the left late season, etc. Nebraska - freshman MB, freshman RS, 2 OHs playing 6-rotations for the first time, new Libero, etc. Minnesota - freshman RS playing 6-rotations, freshman MB, freshman/sophomore L2, etc. 2016 Stanford - do I even need to? I don't like the "inexperienced" claim for many reasons - 1) as stated 4/7 starters were upper classmen with significant starting experience, 2) you really shouldn't be claiming you were still "inexperienced" after an entire season of NCAA play, especially when you essentially never changed the starting line-up and 3) he knew he couldn't say "young" because of the 4/7 stat, so "inexperienced" feels like a cop-out to me. Plenty of teams have excelled with much higher levels of "inexperience." Sheffield obviously made the calculation that the cost of inexperience was more than the benefit. So, with the benefit of hindsight, can you now say that that calculation was incorrect? Rettke was their best player, Hilley was good enough to get the ball to her two middles which kept the team competitive and ended up having to take over as the team leader, and Loberg finished the season with several monster matches on the left once she was allowed to start and finish matches. It seems as if Sheffield's mistake was not including more "inexperience" on the floor vs. trying to limit it because adding "inexperience" meant adding something else: Talent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 14:40:26 GMT -5
You know she's got something to say when she's breaking out the table formatting for a rebuttal.
|
|
|
Post by ndodge on Feb 12, 2018 16:25:28 GMT -5
Obviously Rettke can have better blocking numbers than her predecessors but still have problems reading the setter at times. How many of her blocks were when her, her 6'8 height, and Duello, were there waiting on an OOS set ?
|
|
|
Post by 402 on Feb 12, 2018 17:35:37 GMT -5
Inexperience could have played a key role in a number of specific ways - especially in those 5 setters the badgers kept losing this year. But I don't think it's as simple as counting the number of years players were starters, or the time they had in practice. It's more about the compromises the coaches felt they had to make, the lack of familiarity at key positions during the crunch time of long matches, the inability to make adjustements, and then the mental doubts that haunted the team once those 5-set losses started piling up. I really like Hilley as a player, but early in the season she looked a little overburdened with learning all the elements of being a B1G setter in real competitive matches. She was in her head a lot - not always playing as free as she can. Sheff says she is an analyzer. You have to remember that she split time as setter and hitter in club and HS, so she just isn't as experienced coming in as some freshman. I remember watching her in person and you could almost see her trying to remember all the things she was supposed to do and remember. I felt it slowed her down a touch in some instances. For example, they were training her in preseason to change her setting technique to go off one foot, to get some more lift on outside sets. Also, her connection with Williams took a while to develop because the MB wasn't around in Spring. That meant she was afraid to go to Tionna in key moments, which made the offense one dimensional in some rotations when the chips were down. Duello has not been a starter, and when she has played, she did not always play on the right, and she had not seen any real success coming into the season. Last year her playing time even in practice was limited. For her, any experience she had was actually a negative in my view, something she had to overcome in her head. Plus, she was playing a new inexperienced setter, who seemed to forget her at times. She did OK by the end of the year despite all this, but it was a challenge, especially in the beginning of the B1G. Clark was a starter at Michigan, but not at libero, and not with this team. Her play was good, but her insertion disrupted the back row initially, with knock-on effects on Dodge's passing after she moved to DS and right back. Clark was also coming off an injury which limited her serving, and may have had an effect on her passing which got better as the season went on. She really struggled with bump setting - something it took a while for the team to adjust to. It didn't help that one of the most experienced players in the back row was hindered by a long term injury to her forearm. Sheff leaned much more heavily on Bates and Gillis for leadership than he might if there was a more experienced crew around them. The coaches apparently (according to quoted interviews) had stats that indicated that the other players were better when Gillis was on the court. So one of the results of inexperience elsewhere on the team was that they felt they had to keep her in even when she really struggled. Even after Loberg was inserted, they had Gillis play back row rather than Dodd or Amac, I'm assuming for the same reason. Gillis put in a really good shift there at the end, but to me, Loberg's inexperience was a real problem for the team, since she was the one player capable of taking Haggerty's mantle. Rettke's amazing play mitigated a lot of the problems with inexperience at other key positions, it's true. But she also often had difficulties on the block, fooled by the much more experienced setters she was facing. When that started happening, she had a hard time recovering, which again, I think is indicative of her lack of experience. She will get better in that respect. All in all, it meant that at key moments the offense became too predictable, defense (and especially the block) got weaker, and doubt crept in and the service game got more conservative. That was a real problem in these 5 setters. Later in the season, I felt knock-on effects from problems earlier in the season. Finally got time to unpack this: You: | Me: | Inexperience could have played a key role in a number of specific ways - especially in those 5 setters the badgers kept losing this year.
| I don't understand this. Inexperience was a key component as to why they lost five-setters? What evidence is there of that? It seems like it's just an easy excuse vs. a real problem. | ...the lack of familiarity at key positions during the crunch time of long matches... | Both outsides were seniors! That had started for four years! How was there a lack of familiarity? Was it familiarity or just a lack of talent at those positions? Bottom line, Wisconsin's pin trio was incredibly offensively ineffective despite the huge amount of cumulative experience. | I really like Hilley as a player, but early in the season she looked a little overburdened with learning all the elements of being a B1G setter in real competitive matches.
| Isn't that why she elected to arrive in January, play an entire spring season, train with the greatest collegiate setter of all time, and train all summer...? What was she doing for those 8 months? | You have to remember that she split time as setter and hitter in club and HS, so she just isn't as experienced coming in as some freshman.
| Hilley did not hit for her club team. She hit in high school. Like Carlini. Hell, Carlini even attacked a little during her junior/senior year of club. Hilley didn't though. | Also, her connection with Williams took a while to develop because the MB wasn't around in Spring.
| There's very little evidence that this claim is true. Williams averaged more kills per set and hit at a higher efficiency (despite her obvious injuries) with Hilley than she did in her two seasons with Carlini. | Duello has not been a starter, and when she has played, she did not always play on the right, and she had not seen any real success coming into the season. Last year her playing time even in practice was limited. | It certainly wasn't limited when she was a freshman. She had a fall, two springs, and a summer under her belt coming into the season. You're not going to convince me that she was inexperienced. Three seasons in a B1G program counts as experience. And she certainly wasn't less experienced than Loberg, who was a much better player. Experience isn't everything, an idea that the Wisconsin freshman proved true all season. Talent. | Clark was a starter at Michigan, but not at libero, and not with this team. | What does that have to do with anything? She had played a season of B1G volleyball and started. That doesn't count for anything? And Clark was one of the most experienced kids on the team, especially when you consider her international libero experience for youth and junior USA teams. This is more revisionist history from Wisconsin fans. | Clark was also coming off an injury which limited her serving, and may have had an effect on her passing which got better as the season went on.
| May have? Any evidence that this is true? I don't recall Clark's reception ever being one of the problem's hindering Wisconsin this past season. | Sheff leaned much more heavily on Bates and Gillis for leadership than he might if there was a more experienced crew around them.
| W.H.A.T.
He leaned too heavily on his two SENIOR, SIX-ROTATION, FOUR-YEAR-STARTER lefts??? How is this a real sentence? Stop saying that this is an "experience" issue. It literally just doesn't make sense. | The coaches apparently (according to quoted interviews) had stats that indicated that the other players were better when Gillis was on the court.
| This isn't hard to believe. Gillis passed poorly, had to get set, and made errors. No one else was given the chance to make errors because Gillis was so bad at times. Makes sense to me.
And the coaches can say whatever they want to defend their decision, but the fact remains that Gillis was often the sole reason the team lost sets and matches. I can understand their thought process, but it still resulted in double-digit losses despite putting more top recruits on the floor than any other team in the country, sans 1. | ...but to me, Loberg's inexperience was a real problem for the team... | Sorry, I can't understand this idea either. She was the most terminal pin attacker on the team, DESPITE her inexperience. She was rarely given the chance to start or finish matches, despite her being an obvious upgrade. She put together several incredible sets this season, just to (inexplicably) end up on the bench for the next set. How can you say that it was a "real problem" when she never played consistently until the end of the season? | Rettke's amazing play mitigated a lot of the problems with inexperience at other key positions.
| Again, you had a top-ten recruit with 8 months of collegiate training (including several with a national team setter) at setter, two seniors on the left, and a libero with extensive international experience who was one of the top bro recruits coming out of HS. Please tell me which "key positions" Wisconsin was "inexperienced" in? | But she also often had difficulties on the block, fooled by the much more experienced setters she was facing. When that started happening, she had a hard time recovering, which again, I think is indicative of her lack of experience.
| Rettke averaged more blocks per set in 2017 than Nelson or Williams did in any previous seasons. They must've been fooled more than Rettke then, right? | All in all, it meant that at key moments the offense became too predictable, defense (and especially the block) got weaker, and doubt crept in and the service game got more conservative. | ...which means that inexperience or youth wasn't the problem. It meant that Hilley wasn't as good as she was hyped to be, Bates/Gillis were completely ineffective as a pair of lefts or a pair of leaders, and Duello couldn't be relied on for anything. Can't blame the passing either, since your freshman setter was able to get the ball consistently enough to her two middles for them to earn AA honors.
Pin attackers and leadership. Carlini was able to make things happen enough to win with ineffective pins. Hilley wasn't. | That was a real problem in these 5 setters. | There was a clear and obvious lack of leadership. That was the problem, IMO... in all matches, not just five-setters. Nelson and Carlini were incredible leaders. Everyone else just had to buy in. I'd be surprised if anyone other than Rettke and Hilley were captains for 2018. |
I don't want to rag on Wisconsin fans or the team, because I'm a fan, but I just don't understand the need to rewrite history into a more palatable version because it doesn't matter. It wasn't a great season, despite all the experience, and that was frustrating for fans. The team should be much, much improved in 2018 with a better lineup and better leaders.Based on what? Kelly Sheffield’s coaching? LOL FOR DAYS!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2018 17:35:53 GMT -5
Obviously Rettke can have better blocking numbers than her predecessors but still have problems reading the setter at times. How many of her blocks were when her, her 6'8 height, and Duello, were there waiting on an OOS set ? Great question. I don't know, and neither does badgerbreath. What would you rather have: a kid that gets beat a little more often but stuffs more balls for points, or a kid that gets beat less often but scores less points? We also don't know the stats of the positive/negative touches these blockers got either. Or how well the team transitioned touches into kills. Idk.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Feb 12, 2018 18:38:10 GMT -5
I'm not saying the badgers only problem was inexperience, I'm saying it played a key role specifically in those 5 set losses - which was the point I think Sheffield was making in the article. I would like to +1 what @shhhhhhhhh (how many Hs) said and ask two questions: 1) how many 5-setters (in a single season) do you need to play before you become "experienced" in 5-setters? More than 4? and 2) are you arguing that all of your specific call-outs of inexperience (i.e. Clark not playing at Wisconsin but playing in Big 10, freshman setter, Loberg not starting, etc.) add up to equal losing 5-setters? I know you probably don't believe that "inexperience" explains everything, but Sheff's comments make it seam like that was the root of the issues the team had in 2017. That's ridiculous - if that team had gone 32-0, they would still be, on paper, as inexperienced as this 22-10 team. That's why I think it's bologna. But you don't see Coach Elliott (at least as far as I'm aware) blaming the season on "inexperience." I think this kind of proves my point... it wasn't just "general inexperience" but "inexperienced setting" specifically. I don't really buy that either, but that's at least an more honest/accurate answer. I know Sheff would never say that, but hey, he opened this can of worms.Besides the point, I think Wisconsin played at about the same level all year... their declining ranking/non-existent seeding I think proves that point. Also, if you're going to bring up the Stanford game, Grace Loberg was the HERO for Wisconsin that match, the LEAST experienced player on the court. And yeah, Stanford had a rocky regular season, but as the season went on and they gained *~experience~* they really solidified their play. This is (again) why I think AFTER AN ENTIRE NCAA SEASON saying "inexperience" lost our games (losses which were evenly distributed throughout the season) is (again) silly.
|
|