|
Post by JB Southpaw on Aug 22, 2018 14:51:56 GMT -5
If Taylor didn't mis-hit the ball that would have given them the title I am pretty sure we would read in this forum posts claiming Phil wasn't really motivated, when his celebrations clearly showed that he really cared about this win. I made that point after Phil/Nick won. Phil/Nick turned it on in game 2 but in Game 1 were their typical selves Watch the 8-0 run that won Game 1 for Taylor/Jake. Look at the errors, the bad passes and sets, Phil being out of position multiple times because he wasn't anticipating etc. That team was not ready to play in Game 1 and it showed (or did you miss Nick hitting a cut shot under the net on a good set or any of their other sloppy errors) The small sample size you and Jim seem obsesses with claiming is Phil celebrating once after winning a match that was more difficult than it should have been. Otherwise, for most of the last two years, in his final year with Rosie, and in his final two with Todd, Phil gives 100% about as often as he doesn't and this year its been less than that. Unless of course you think one of the young guns who has overtaken Phil is 64 year old Jake Gibb? Well, I don't have an effort meter, so I'll let you use yours. The team of Phil and Nick has always been about adjustments. They also realize the can give up a good amount of points and lose a set and they just don't panic. Todd played the same way, and Karch and Kent before them.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 22, 2018 15:09:31 GMT -5
I made that point after Phil/Nick won. Phil/Nick turned it on in game 2 but in Game 1 were their typical selves Watch the 8-0 run that won Game 1 for Taylor/Jake. Look at the errors, the bad passes and sets, Phil being out of position multiple times because he wasn't anticipating etc. That team was not ready to play in Game 1 and it showed (or did you miss Nick hitting a cut shot under the net on a good set or any of their other sloppy errors) The small sample size you and Jim seem obsesses with claiming is Phil celebrating once after winning a match that was more difficult than it should have been. Otherwise, for most of the last two years, in his final year with Rosie, and in his final two with Todd, Phil gives 100% about as often as he doesn't and this year its been less than that. Unless of course you think one of the young guns who has overtaken Phil is 64 year old Jake Gibb? Well, I don't have an effort meter, so I'll let you use yours. The team of Phil and Nick has always been about adjustments. They also realize the can give up a good amount of points and lose a set and they just don't panic. Todd played the same way, and Karch and Kent before them. I can't think of a team in the 25+ years I have been following volleyball more diametrically opposite Nick/Phil than Karch and Kent. First of all Karch and Kent were exceptional, like Sinjin and Randy before them, for always coming to play and for their consistency of performance. They went months without ever being seriously challenged in a game, much less a tournament. When they did lose, those losses were almost always close matches. Other than a few post-injury events, I can't ever recall them getting really blown out. I'm sure it happened, but the worst loss I ever remember them taking was 15-9. Nick/Phil get blown out constantly. Karch/Kent very rarely lost to non-elite teams. I can remember it happening three times (the Cardenas/Hanneman miracle, Tanner/Welch and a team that had Scott Friedrichsen on it) Losing to teams not in their league is another Nick/Phil habit. Also Karch/Kent didnt make a lot of adjustments. Their strategy was actually fairly limited for a team that good. It was basically serve the blocker and tire him out. Otherwise they won with incredible sideout consistency and taking advantage of most of their opponents mistakes. Also Nick is not close to the level of player Kent or Karch was. Both were top in the world for a while and during their second run - neither was ever worse than 4th (unless they were injured). Nick has never been a top 10 player.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 22, 2018 15:29:44 GMT -5
Hansen/Hov was the loss I couldnt remember. All time great upset
|
|
|
Post by swift on Aug 24, 2018 8:37:35 GMT -5
I'm not buying the whole "Phil is not motivated" story. Of course it's possible that he's not as hungry anymore after all these years and wins but that's not why they don't win internationally anymore. Phil acted exactly the same when he was winning all the tournaments with Todd. He never seemed to care. Also you don't need to be motivated to block opponents, if you know what I mean!? A block is not a hustle-play. He's simply not as successful at the net anymore because players on the FIVB (on average) have become taller and better and have adjusted to playing against big blockers. And he's most likely not jumping quite as high anymore as he used to, due to his age. However he could still win a lot of tournaments but not with a partner like Nick. Imo Nick is the number one reason why Phil is not winning more tournaments.
I mean do you really believe that travels around the world to play tournaments (being away from his family) and then doesn't give a s%&t? That would make 0 sense. In that case he could just stay in the US and only play AVP tournaments every now and then.
|
|
|
Post by butteryhands on Aug 24, 2018 9:04:17 GMT -5
I know the old timers (which includes me) won't often agree with this fact but Phil and Nick trying to win consistently on the international stage is a much tougher task than Karch and Kent being dominant domestically in the 90's. The number of world class teams now is significantly higher than it was back then. Phil and Nick when healthy are still dominant on the AVP. Despite the money not being there anymore I would argue that today's AVP has more parity than back in its' heyday. Not to mention that rally scoring leads to closer matches and more upsets.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 24, 2018 10:04:27 GMT -5
I know the old timers (which includes me) won't often agree with this fact but Phil and Nick trying to win consistently on the international stage is a much tougher task than Karch and Kent being dominant domestically in the 90's. The number of world class teams now is significantly higher than it was back then. Phil and Nick when healthy are still dominant on the AVP. Despite the money not being there anymore I would argue that today's AVP has more parity than back in its' heyday. Not to mention that rally scoring leads to closer matches and more upsets. What are you calling "World Class?" In some ways sure, its harder to win now - mostly the garbage scoring - but in others its much easier. First, you can win a lot of events without going through the best teams. From the start of last year to FTL this year, Phil and Nick were the top team, winning 5 times (I counted Long Beach). In how many of their wins did they have to go through a top 4 seeded team? In their five wins they played a top 4 seed.................. 1 time. 1 time. One time in 5 wins. In a normal event for KK/KS, they played the 4 seed, the 2 seed, then one of the top 4 seeds in the final. That happened about 50 percent of the time and when it didnt, it was usually because the 3 seed beat the 2 seed so they played the 3 seed in the winner's bracket final. In 1994, in the first 11 events, KK/KS played a top 4 seed at least (doing it from memory since they dont have match results on BVB)..........14 times. Second KK/KS played the best possible opposition. As the no. 1 seed they were subject to other teams constantly changing to try to take them down. Of the best 5 players other than KK/KS 4 of them were on two teams. (Stoklos/Johnson, Dodd/Whitmarsh and Loiola) That isn't the case at all now because of the BS country thing. Lets say Kantor wants to take down Phil/Nick. He takes a look at a list of the 20 best players in the world and says, "who is available for me" He has maybe one option on that list. Brouwer also has one. Who does Mol go to if Sorum can't hack it? Maybe the Brazilians have 3 or 4 options. In 1994 Randy Stoklos had 18 options on that hypothetical list (everyone but Dodd). That naturally led to much better and more complete teams. How many would Smedins have won by now if he had a top blocker for example. Most of it is because of things they cannot change but Nick/Phil are not close to the team that KK/KS or Sinjin/Randy or even AJ/Loiola or Steffes/Loiola were, because of the country thing. All those teams were top 5 players in the world playing together and three of them were the best player playing with the second best. At their peak, Nick and Phil were the best player playing with the 23rd best or somewhere thereabouts. Its unlikely a modern team will compare to those old teams as long as the country system is in place because we will probably never get the best match of the best players again. The last team that could reasonably lay claim to being the best and second best player in the world was probably Loiola/Rego or maybe Emmanuel/Ricardo in 2003-2004.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 24, 2018 10:05:49 GMT -5
I know the old timers (which includes me) won't often agree with this fact but Phil and Nick trying to win consistently on the international stage is a much tougher task than Karch and Kent being dominant domestically in the 90's. The number of world class teams now is significantly higher than it was back then. Phil and Nick when healthy are still dominant on the AVP. Despite the money not being there anymore I would argue that today's AVP has more parity than back in its' heyday. Not to mention that rally scoring leads to closer matches and more upsets. More parity sure, but a much lower level of play. In 1994 the AVP had the top 20 players in the world. This year they have maybe 2 of the top 20 and 1 of the top 10
|
|
|
Post by ciscokeed on Aug 24, 2018 10:57:07 GMT -5
I don’t think there is more parity now... you had to go through athletes like Ricci Luyties, Brian Lewis, Mark Eller,Pat Powers, Steve Salmons, Steve Timmons, Craig Buck, Jeff Nygard, Cleary, Walmer, Rick Arce and a host of others who were not consistently winning tournaments but we’re fabulous players...getting to the semis was brutally tough- you might have one round that was easy- and then it was a challenge all weekend...
|
|
|
Post by fingrbustr on Aug 24, 2018 15:13:12 GMT -5
Does Phil in his prime with Rogers beat kiraly and steffes? easily I don't think Kiraly or Steffes couldn't figure out how to score on Phil, but once Phil gets the ball neither are stopping him. Only way Phil would lose is if he imploded.
|
|
|
Post by fingrbustr on Aug 24, 2018 15:17:52 GMT -5
Phil in his prime was an absolute beast. We will prolly not see a player like him in our lifetime. maybe we're seeing one right now with Mol!? Lately he has been just as dominant at the net as Phil used to be, Mol also has great hands (his sets are smooth as butter!), he's got a good jump serve and his side out game is strong too. He's also super dynamic for his size. I think he has to get a bit more consistent and work on his court vision and passing but I'm pretty sure he'll get there... remember he's only 21 or 22. What you have to consider is, that when Phil hit the scene players were not used to play against a blocker/hitter like him. Nowadays there are a lot of tall players on the FIVB tour so hitters have become more used to playing against a big block and there are more guys that play literally on the same level as Phil. You can clearly see that Phil is not getting as many blocks anymore as he used to and he even gets blocked himself every now and then. Phil was a one of a kind player 10 years ago but he's not anymore. This being said, these new young players have to prove themselves first of course. Salient points on today's era/comp vs. when Phil hit the scene 10+ yrs ago. Many competent bigs now. Agreed as well that Mol is something else. Let's not forget he is only 21yo. His polish & poise is impeccable.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 24, 2018 15:39:34 GMT -5
I don't think Kiraly or Steffes couldn't figure out how to score on Phil, but once Phil gets the ball neither are stopping him. Only way Phil would lose is if he imploded. Phil must have imploded pretty often because he and Todd only won just over 1/3 of their FIVB events (the equivalent to KK/KS' AVP) They won more than half their FIVB events twice - and once was 4 of 7. Karch/Kent, also playing against the best competition in the world, won just under 3/4s of theirs. (which is a better percentage than May/Walsh on FIVBs as a reference for just how dominant they were) In a 10 match series, the rules would be key. Old School, Phil/Todd have no chance. The sideout game of Kiraly/Steffes would just grind them down - as it did every team they faced. Phil is prone to making mistakes and then making up for them with his blocking, which would be much less effective with a bigger court to hit into. Kiraly/Steffes win 7-9 of 10. Phil is also mobile enough he would have done fine on a big court, but not mobile enough that it wouldn't have affected him. And short or big court the worst player in this match is Todd. Put a player like a prime Sinjin or AJ with Phil and its a different story, maybe 6 of 10 for KK/KS Short court Phil could be a lot more dominant at the net. The scoring would hurt KK/KS who relied on frustrating teams by playing a great sideout game and waiting for mistakes to exploit. They would still be able to score a lot on Todd and their transition game would be much better than Phil/Todd. I'd say 5/5 or 6/4 Kiraly/Steffes again because of Todd mostly.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 24, 2018 15:49:31 GMT -5
maybe we're seeing one right now with Mol!? Lately he has been just as dominant at the net as Phil used to be, Mol also has great hands (his sets are smooth as butter!), he's got a good jump serve and his side out game is strong too. He's also super dynamic for his size. I think he has to get a bit more consistent and work on his court vision and passing but I'm pretty sure he'll get there... remember he's only 21 or 22. What you have to consider is, that when Phil hit the scene players were not used to play against a blocker/hitter like him. Nowadays there are a lot of tall players on the FIVB tour so hitters have become more used to playing against a big block and there are more guys that play literally on the same level as Phil. You can clearly see that Phil is not getting as many blocks anymore as he used to and he even gets blocked himself every now and then. Phil was a one of a kind player 10 years ago but he's not anymore. This being said, these new young players have to prove themselves first of course. Salient points on today's era/comp vs. when Phil hit the scene 10+ yrs ago. Many competent bigs now. Agreed as well that Mol is something else. Let's not forget he is only 21yo. His polish & poise is impeccable. There were plenty of competent bigs then too. Brazil's blockers were better as were the US'. Schuil was good. Overall more big guys now but not by a lot and a lot of them now are poor blockers despite their size.
|
|
|
Post by tafit on Aug 24, 2018 17:23:43 GMT -5
I don't think Kiraly or Steffes couldn't figure out how to score on Phil, but once Phil gets the ball neither are stopping him. Only way Phil would lose is if he imploded. Short court Phil could be a lot more dominant at the net. The scoring would hurt KK/KS who relied on frustrating teams by playing a great sideout game and waiting for mistakes to exploit. They would still be able to score a lot on Todd and their transition game would be much better than Phil/Todd. I'd say 5/5 or 6/4 Kiraly/Steffes again because of Todd mostly. Why would the scoring make such a difference? In both cases you simply have to make two breaks more than your opponents (one is enough with the new system if your opponents begin serving). Only difference I see is that with the old scoring system you needed more stamina and that luck was a slightly smaller factor (both for the same reason: the sets lasted longer)
|
|
|
Post by dunninla on Aug 25, 2018 14:19:34 GMT -5
However he [Phil] could still win a lot of tournaments but not with a partner like Nick. Imo Nick is the number one reason why Phil is not winning more tournaments. With all the shakeup on the women's side this year, clearly in anticipation of "who can I win gold with in 2020", wouldn't it make sense for Phil to make one last push by switching to Taylor Crabb? IMO Phil/Nick have a lesser chance of a gold in Tokyo than Phil/Taylor.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 25, 2018 16:36:18 GMT -5
Short court Phil could be a lot more dominant at the net. The scoring would hurt KK/KS who relied on frustrating teams by playing a great sideout game and waiting for mistakes to exploit. They would still be able to score a lot on Todd and their transition game would be much better than Phil/Todd. I'd say 5/5 or 6/4 Kiraly/Steffes again because of Todd mostly. Why would the scoring make such a difference? In both cases you simply have to make two breaks more than your opponents (one is enough with the new system if your opponents begin serving). Only difference I see is that with the old scoring system you needed more stamina and that luck was a slightly smaller factor (both for the same reason: the sets lasted longer) The scoring is a big deal because it rewards consistency and mental strength over a long period of time. Nick/Phil are a team prone to errors, and they are used to being able to simply wait for the next game if they get down significantly or if they have a bad run. For example in Old School scoring the MBO would have been over when Nick/Phil gave up 7 straight to Jake/Taylor without a sideout. But Nick/Phil are new school players so they just packed it in and waited for the second game and used the remaining points to steady out a little. Consider that for a second as you examine the claim that KK/KS could not compete with a team that has the no. 27 player in the world on it. Do you think Karch/Kent ever gave up 7 straight without a sideout? Hint: No. Phil and Nick are egregious offenders in the lack of focus category. Call that motivation or concentration or whatever but even in their best years, they played some stinkers. Losing 21-10 to Pedro last year for example. Another example is that last year, which was an incredible year for them, only one of their losses was a three setter and they weren't competitive in the third. Also blocking full time in Old School was no joke. That run to the net somehow felt a whole lot longer than the short court. Very often in long matches even well-conditioned blockers like Randy or Jose would start wearing down towards the end of matches and less conditioned players like Powers or Whitty would visibly sag. Jump serving and getting to the net was not near the piece of cake it is now. Finally in Old School you couldn't hide a guy the way you can in short court. Nick often receives 90% of the serves to him in about 30-35% of the court because teams don't want to mess with Phil, Jake talked about this on the Sandcast. The serves he gets are relatively easy because teams are very focused on not serving Phil plus the smaller court means Nick is taking 1 step maximum to pass almost every ball. With the big court Nick would have to move more and Phil couldn't poach to the extent he can now. That means more bump setting by Phil which is never a good thing. Which players would be better or worse under different rules is one of my favorite VB questions. I think Ricci Luyties on a short court would have been unreal and I would love to see Billy Allen or John Mayer with a bigger court (Doherty too for different reasons)
|
|