Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 14:28:48 GMT -5
Just a couple of quibbles: 1) I do NOT think Karch is not paying attention to the future NT players. I just don't think he needs to have them on THESE teams. Development takes place in other arenas. My little quibble: Hugh developed athletes by putting them on rosters. In his first few seasons, he had rookies like Larson, Glass, Akinradewo, Hodge, Hooker, Barboza, Pressey, and Crimes on rosters for big events. He gave Fawcett a whole summer on the left (2009). By the end of 2010, he had most of his core group in place, but it still regularly included six rookies, four of whom were regular starters. Several positions were still competitive through the end of the quad. By 2011, vets like Tamas, Hildebrand, and Nnamani weren't making rosters anymore but were still in the gym to provide valuable guidance to the many young athletes Hugh was spending time to develop. He didn't bring Tom back until the last WGP roster before the finals in 2010. Berg didn't come back until the very end of 2010 at the World Championships, and she didn't even start until the last couple matches. Despite Hodge being #3 behind Tom and Larson, she was still developing well enough to be the MVP of the 2012 WGP before London. PLUS, we were attending more stuff under Hugh too: tours in Brazil, exhibition matches in China, Montreux, Pan Ams... lots of opportunities to put rookie athletes on rosters. I just don't see anything from Karch like the developmental program from Hugh, and that's frustrating as a fan.
|
|
|
Post by jna on May 13, 2018 14:49:47 GMT -5
Just a couple of quibbles: 1) I do NOT think Karch is not paying attention to the future NT players. I just don't think he needs to have them on THESE teams. Development takes place in other arenas. My little quibble: Hugh developed athletes by putting them on rosters. In his first few seasons, he had rookies like Larson, Glass, Akinradewo, Hodge, Hooker, Barboza, Pressey, and Crimes on rosters for big events. He gave Fawcett a whole summer on the left (2009). By the end of 2010, he had most of his core group in place, but it still regularly included six rookies, four of whom were regular starters. Several positions were still competitive through the end of the quad. By 2011, vets like Tamas, Hildebrand, and Nnamani weren't making rosters anymore but were still in the gym to provide valuable guidance to the many young athletes Hugh was spending time to develop. He didn't bring Tom back until the last WGP roster before the finals in 2010. Berg didn't come back until the very end of 2010 at the World Championships, and she didn't even start until the last couple matches. Despite Hodge being #3 behind Tom and Larson, she was still developing well enough to be the MVP of the 2012 WGP before London. PLUS, we were attending more stuff under Hugh too: tours in Brazil, exhibition matches in China, Montreux, Pan Ams... lots of opportunities to put rookie athletes on rosters. I just don't see anything from Karch like the developmental program from Hugh, and that's frustrating as a fan. I just would like to make it clear that Hugh McCutcheon didn't developed many players either. He could've done it, but he didn't. To tell the truth he only reaped what Toshiaki Yoshida and Lang Ping had sown - except for a few players such as Glass, Harmotto, Larson and Hodge.
|
|
|
Post by Reach on May 13, 2018 15:16:35 GMT -5
My little quibble: Hugh developed athletes by putting them on rosters. In his first few seasons, he had rookies like Larson, Glass, Akinradewo, Hodge, Hooker, Barboza, Pressey, and Crimes on rosters for big events. He gave Fawcett a whole summer on the left (2009). By the end of 2010, he had most of his core group in place, but it still regularly included six rookies, four of whom were regular starters. Several positions were still competitive through the end of the quad. By 2011, vets like Tamas, Hildebrand, and Nnamani weren't making rosters anymore but were still in the gym to provide valuable guidance to the many young athletes Hugh was spending time to develop. He didn't bring Tom back until the last WGP roster before the finals in 2010. Berg didn't come back until the very end of 2010 at the World Championships, and she didn't even start until the last couple matches. Despite Hodge being #3 behind Tom and Larson, she was still developing well enough to be the MVP of the 2012 WGP before London. PLUS, we were attending more stuff under Hugh too: tours in Brazil, exhibition matches in China, Montreux, Pan Ams... lots of opportunities to put rookie athletes on rosters. I just don't see anything from Karch like the developmental program from Hugh, and that's frustrating as a fan. I just would like to make it clear that Hugh McCutcheon didn't developed many players either. He could've done it, but he didn't. To tell the truth he only reaped what Toshiaki Yoshida and Lang Ping had sown - except for a few players such as Glass, Harmotto, Larson and Hodge. Those last 4 players were as obvious as today’s best: Carlini, Inky, Plummer, Lanier. All should be on the team training now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 15:23:54 GMT -5
Just a couple of quibbles: 1) I do NOT think Karch is not paying attention to the future NT players. I just don't think he needs to have them on THESE teams. Development takes place in other arenas. My little quibble: Hugh developed athletes by putting them on rosters. In his first few seasons, he had rookies like Larson, Glass, Akinradewo, Hodge, Hooker, Barboza, Pressey, and Crimes on rosters for big events. He gave Fawcett a whole summer on the left (2009). By the end of 2010, he had most of his core group in place, but it still regularly included six rookies, four of whom were regular starters. Several positions were still competitive through the end of the quad. By 2011, vets like Tamas, Hildebrand, and Nnamani weren't making rosters anymore but were still in the gym to provide valuable guidance to the many young athletes Hugh was spending time to develop. He didn't bring Tom back until the last WGP roster before the finals in 2010. Berg didn't come back until the very end of 2010 at the World Championships, and she didn't even start until the last couple matches. Despite Hodge being #3 behind Tom and Larson, she was still developing well enough to be the MVP of the 2012 WGP before London. PLUS, we were attending more stuff under Hugh too: tours in Brazil, exhibition matches in China, Montreux, Pan Ams... lots of opportunities to put rookie athletes on rosters. I just don't see anything from Karch like the developmental program from Hugh, and that's frustrating as a fan. they spend 4 years in college doing what? is that not enough for them to develop? and how about all those years in high school?/ is that still not enough?... Honey National Team is not summer camp for players development..... Larson,Foluke etc went straight to the team because they were already the best in the country.....all these college players that you love so much are simply not among the best in the country right now that`s why they are not part of the team....if they were....they would be there...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 16:12:07 GMT -5
My little quibble: Hugh developed athletes by putting them on rosters. In his first few seasons, he had rookies like Larson, Glass, Akinradewo, Hodge, Hooker, Barboza, Pressey, and Crimes on rosters for big events. He gave Fawcett a whole summer on the left (2009). By the end of 2010, he had most of his core group in place, but it still regularly included six rookies, four of whom were regular starters. Several positions were still competitive through the end of the quad. By 2011, vets like Tamas, Hildebrand, and Nnamani weren't making rosters anymore but were still in the gym to provide valuable guidance to the many young athletes Hugh was spending time to develop. He didn't bring Tom back until the last WGP roster before the finals in 2010. Berg didn't come back until the very end of 2010 at the World Championships, and she didn't even start until the last couple matches. Despite Hodge being #3 behind Tom and Larson, she was still developing well enough to be the MVP of the 2012 WGP before London. PLUS, we were attending more stuff under Hugh too: tours in Brazil, exhibition matches in China, Montreux, Pan Ams... lots of opportunities to put rookie athletes on rosters. I just don't see anything from Karch like the developmental program from Hugh, and that's frustrating as a fan. I just would like to make it clear that Hugh McCutcheon didn't developed many players either. He could've done it, but he didn't. To tell the truth he only reaped what Toshiaki Yoshida and Lang Ping had sown - except for a few players such as Glass, Harmotto, Larson and Hodge. Wrong. He developed the hell out of Glass, Hodge, Larson, Akinradewo, and Hooker, and nearly all of those athletes were or went on to be one of the best players in the world at their position, if not THE best. Fawcett was training for his entire quad too, and making rosters. Adams, Gibbemeyer, Lloyd, and Banwarth trained in Hugh's gym for two years (Gibby even made rosters in 2012 too) before going on to play for Karch. Harmotto became an Olympian after training for the entire quad and never making a single big-time roster until right before London. Berg became one of the best setters in the world under Hugh. Larson was a top 5 OH by 2012. Hooker was, arguably, the best player in the world then. He made Miyashiro into an Olympian ffs. Courtney Thompson...? Those are just the big names. Can't forget about Pressey, Hildebrand, Barboza, Spicer, Burdine, Paolini, Crimes, Klineman, or Hagglund either. The best thing about Hugh was the value that he saw in the veteran players from Lang Ping's tenure. Bown, DSA, K. Glass, Berg, Haneef-Park, Davis, Metcalf, Tom, Tamas, Sykora, and Nnamani all played big roles in Hugh's gym throughout the quad. Karch cut nearly every single one of those veteran players in his first year.
|
|
|
Post by jna on May 13, 2018 16:29:10 GMT -5
I just would like to make it clear that Hugh McCutcheon didn't developed many players either. He could've done it, but he didn't. To tell the truth he only reaped what Toshiaki Yoshida and Lang Ping had sown - except for a few players such as Glass, Harmotto, Larson and Hodge. Wrong. He developed the hell out of Glass, Hodge, Larson, Akinradewo, and Hooker, and nearly all of those athletes were or went on to be one of the best players in the world at their position, if not THE best. Fawcett was training for his entire quad too, and making rosters. Adams, Gibbemeyer, Lloyd, and Banwarth trained in Hugh's gym for two years (Gibby even made rosters in 2012 too) before going on to play for Karch. Harmotto became an Olympian after training for the entire quad and never making a single big-time roster until right before London. Berg became one of the best setters in the world under Hugh. Larson was a top 5 OH by 2012. Hooker was, arguably, the best player in the world then. He made Miyashiro into an Olympian ffs. Courtney Thompson...? Those are just the big names. Can't forget about Pressey, Hildebrand, Barboza, Spicer, Burdine, Paolini, Crimes, Klineman, or Hagglund either. The best thing about Hugh was the value that he saw in the veteran players from Lang Ping's tenure. Bown, DSA, K. Glass, Berg, Haneef-Park, Davis, Metcalf, Tom, Tamas, Sykora, and Nnamani all played big roles in Hugh's gym throughout the quad. Karch cut nearly every single one of those veteran players in his first year. Most of those players yout mentioned started to play on the national team under the coaching of no less a person than Lang Ping. Barboza, for instance, started to play on the NT when she was still in high school when Yoshida was still the head coach. qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/lang-ping-coached-us-1-e1471849777654.jpg?quality=80&strip=all&w=2318goldsea.com/803/19jenny2.jpg
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on May 13, 2018 18:36:06 GMT -5
I didn't see anything too different offensively but: 1. I honestly only watched a few of the matches. 2. I wasn't there for any training. Also, I gave you my opinion and not Karch's. Maybe he has a different idea about how he wants to develop the offense. I know you think Karch sucks, and that's fine, you're more than entitled to that opinion, but please keep in mind that I post publicly under my own name and at a certain point, saying, "Joe: just admit your former boss who you respect a great deal is a terrible coach," is going to make me not want to be part of the conversation. Joe, I respect you a lot and I appreciate that you decided to post here to give fans some insight and occasionally answer questions. You've always been gracious and forthright, and I know that this very passionate fanbase that gets very little attention is very thankful. However, I don't feel sorry that you get tough questions sometimes, and exaggerating that I asked you to admit that Karch is terrible is just silly. I didn't ask you to admit anything. I asked you to further rationalize points that you implied were considerations of the current staff in their decision process, despite evidence to the contrary (I really wish you had replied to my previous post to you instead of this one actually). You choosing to be a KellyAnne Conway-type surrogate for USAV and spin things to make the current staff look good was a decision that you made. I know posting publicly under your own name isn't easy (I know, I've done it before), and I understand if you feel like the questions you get put you in too awkward of a position. I don't intend to do that. My questions were in reply to some of the insight you offered about the staff. Fair enough. My intention is definitely not to make the current staff look good, because ultimately they will be judged (as our 4 years were) by the medal count, and mostly by 3 matches: Olympics Quarters, Semis, and Finals. I also know they don't want me speaking for them, because they are independent thinkers who also probably don't agree with me on every volleyball detail. For example, I outlined what my long-term plan would be for offensive development, but that's just based on what I would do. I have no evidence the current staff is thinking this way, and in fact, it would be pretty silly for them to publicly announce their long-term strategy to the world. I like debating the volleyball details (backrow attack utilization, offensive tempo, float vs spin serving, libero in z5 vs z6, etc) and every now and there's a few common misconceptions (we actually set middle more than any other team in the Olympics, we didn't lose the Serbia match because of offense or defense, etc) that I think are worth clearing up just because it improves the volleyball dialogue. I remember before I had any NT involvement when I was just coaching club and wanted to know more about what the Olympic teams were doing and being frustrated that I couldn't learn more information. So I hope there's some coaches who were where I was 10 years ago who can read some of the debates and see the thought process and make up their own minds to agree or not. But in when it starts to address individual players or speculate on what the current staff is thinking, I have to decline. I'm sure that's frustrating, but I really DON'T want to assume some role as spokesman when I'm nowhere near informed enough about the current day-to-day.
|
|
|
Post by usvballfan on May 13, 2018 18:50:46 GMT -5
This cracks me up! All this complaining about the team that is ranked #2 in the WORLD!
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on May 13, 2018 19:13:26 GMT -5
This cracks me up! All this complaining about the team that is ranked #2 in the WORLD! Nobody cares about ranking. We only care about being in the best position to win gold in Tokyo and then doing exactly that. Even if the team was ranked #1, the same criticisms would exist because the sense would be the ranking is fool's gold. The analogy would be those grand slam tourneys in women's tennis where Serena had been injured and dropped in the rankings, and some other players were ranked ahead of her. Everyone knew she was the true favorite to win the title despite not being ranked #1, #2, etc. Right now, the USNT is one of those other players who happens to be ranked high but most would argue isn't a favorite to win the title.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on May 13, 2018 19:20:48 GMT -5
This cracks me up! All this complaining about the team that is ranked #2 in the WORLD! Nobody cares about ranking. We only care about being in the best position to win gold in Tokyo and then doing exactly that. Even if the team was ranked #1, the same criticisms would exist because the sense would be the ranking is fool's gold. The analogy would be those grand slam tourneys in women's tennis where Serena had been injured and dropped in the rankings, and some other players were ranked ahead of her. Everyone knew she was the true favorite to win the title despite not being ranked #1, #2, etc. Right now, the USNT is one of those other players who happens to be ranked high but most would argue isn't a favorite to win the title. It's a funny thing. I bet some here would still complain about the coach even if we won gold (or not give him any credit for it), so stuck in the ways are certain people here. Speaking of the gold drought, it is...food for thought. How many years have the NT program existed? Older I bet than some people on here, yet for all those years...no, decades, how many Olympic Gold medals have we won? A bit fat zero. That suggest to me it is heck more to do than just a particular coach...
|
|
|
Post by Hawk Attack on May 13, 2018 20:00:35 GMT -5
This cracks me up! All this complaining about the team that is ranked #2 in the WORLD! I don’t think it’s quite fair to be dismissive of the “complaining” about the state of our National Team. I think for the most part the criticism has been fair and open-ended to discussion. And come on... using ranking as a justification for complacency? We all know rankings don’t mean sh*t, it’s the results that matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2018 20:17:58 GMT -5
This cracks me up! All this complaining about the team that is ranked #2 in the WORLD! We aren't the second-best team in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Reach on May 13, 2018 20:26:59 GMT -5
This cracks me up! All this complaining about the team that is ranked #2 in the WORLD! We aren't the second-best team in the world. Probably not but let’s see what happens this summer.
|
|
|
Post by huskerjen on May 13, 2018 22:07:47 GMT -5
Nobody cares about ranking. We only care about being in the best position to win gold in Tokyo and then doing exactly that. Even if the team was ranked #1, the same criticisms would exist because the sense would be the ranking is fool's gold. The analogy would be those grand slam tourneys in women's tennis where Serena had been injured and dropped in the rankings, and some other players were ranked ahead of her. Everyone knew she was the true favorite to win the title despite not being ranked #1, #2, etc. Right now, the USNT is one of those other players who happens to be ranked high but most would argue isn't a favorite to win the title. It's a funny thing. I bet some here would still complain about the coach even if we won gold (or not give him any credit for it), so stuck in the ways are certain people here. Speaking of the gold drought, it is...food for thought. How many years have the NT program existed? Older I bet than some people on here, yet for all those years...no, decades, how many Olympic Gold medals have we won? A bit fat zero. That suggest to me it is heck more to do than just a particular coach... For me, Karch just happens to be the coach right now. My criticism would be the same regardless of the coach's name. The fact we don't have young players emerging, yet probably have the deepest talent pool is exactly why some of us are upset about the trajectory of the program. It's especially frustrating that we do not seem to be developing that next generation, whether to help in Tokyo or take over for the 2024 quad. I love Larson, Foluke, and the other vets, but we still have two years to Tokyo and they're already showing their age. The fact that they're clear favorites to be starting in Japan goes to show how little our program has done to develop the next generation. The US should never be in a position where 35 year olds are still carrying the team.
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on May 13, 2018 22:15:33 GMT -5
It's a funny thing. I bet some here would still complain about the coach even if we won gold (or not give him any credit for it), so stuck in the ways are certain people here. Speaking of the gold drought, it is...food for thought. How many years have the NT program existed? Older I bet than some people on here, yet for all those years...no, decades, how many Olympic Gold medals have we won? A bit fat zero. That suggest to me it is heck more to do than just a particular coach... For me, Karch just happens to be the coach right now. My criticism would be the same regardless of the coach's name. The fact we don't have young players emerging, yet probably have the deepest talent pool is exactly why some of us are upset about the trajectory of the program. It's especially frustrating that we do not seem to be developing that next generation, whether to help in Tokyo or take over for the 2024 quad. I love Larson, Foluke, and the other vets, but we still have two years to Tokyo and they're already showing their age. The fact that they're clear favorites to be starting in Japan goes to show how little our program has done to develop the next generation. The US should never be in a position where 35 year olds are still carrying the team. You can criticize Karch as much as you like, but I think it's more than just the coach's issue. A more systemic or structural problem is involved here...
|
|