|
Post by ay2013 on Jan 8, 2019 17:49:29 GMT -5
I was referring to the players you stated that are OH for clarification. Fawcett, Ross, Willoughby, & Hooker were not better than Plummer in college. This is a tough comparison because Plummer's size is a real difference-maker. However, I don't know how you can say that she is empirically better than Fawcett, Ross, Willoughby & Hooker. I don't see that being clear at all. Fawcett might've hit harder, Ross was a premier 6-rotation player with one of the best arms of her generation, and Hooker was a superior athlete to almost anyone else playing at the time. They all have great traits. To say one is CLEARLY better than the other is an argument with little to go on. I think this is coming down to qualifying what it means as "best player". Is it the most "accomplished" player all four years they played in college? The player who could impact the game most at the height of her play? I look at the argument of Hooker and Plummer. I just don't think there is a fair comparison to be made here. Plummer entered the college game a polished player on a team that needed her to be the primary point scorer from day one. She played beached, the highest level club, and international youth tournaments with the YNT/JNT years before she ever stepped in Stanford's gym. Hooker had nowhere near that preparation. However, that being said, I just think that anyone who looks back and watches Hooker by time she left college and says that she wasn't at least as good of a player as Plummer right now should be banned from volley talk.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jan 8, 2019 18:17:35 GMT -5
How is it a foregone conclusion that volleyball in the age of Hodge et al is better than now? I think a bit of it is hindsight is 20/20. The players who graduated between 2007 and 2009 (just a 3 year span) on the top teams in the country (specifically Penn State, Stanford, Nebraska, and Texas) IMMEDIATELY made impacts on the international volleyball scene and are primarily responsible for our resurgence as the world's #1 team for the following 5-7 years. These are world-class players like Larson, Hodge, Fawcett, Hooker, Akinradewo, Harmotto, Banwarth, Glass. THEN you have players who had tremendous careers (some even better than players on the first list) who weren't as impactful on the international scene, like Engle, Paolini, Barboza, Wilson, Pavan (impactful for sure just not in a USA jersey), and Houghtelling. And that's just on those 4 teams. If you expand to 2006 and 2010, the list grows (the addition of Klineman, Hildebrand, Brown, Lichtman, etc.) and if you add in other top teams, you get players like Thompson, Pressey, Spicer, Morrison, etc. The density of top talent was insane and so fun to watch. We've had special players since then, but none in such a short period of time. But who knows, maybe we'll feel differently in a few years (I think the late 2010s players will get a similar test to the late 2000s players, since we'll essentially need to reset our NT after this quad).
|
|
|
Post by scottysocc on Jan 8, 2019 20:56:52 GMT -5
Not to take anything away from Hancock - because her serve was incredible - but part of the reason why her serve was so potent was because she had so much talent around her that could keep scoring points and keep her on the back line even when she didn't get straight aces. Having so many offensive weapons also made it easier for Hancock to dump and attack with less pressure on her. It also helped her assists per set. I would still consider her one of the best of the decade but I think part of her success is attributable to her teammates too.
What I find impressive is players who take a team that isn't stacked and carry them on their backs to be a title contender. Examples of this would be Carlini and Wisconsin, Bricio and USC, Vansant and Washington.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2019 21:00:37 GMT -5
Not to take anything away from Hancock - because her serve was incredible - but part of the reason why her serve was so potent was because she had so much talent around her that could keep scoring points and keep her on the back line even when she didn't get straight aces. Having so many offensive weapons also made it easier for Hancock to dump and attack with less pressure on her. It also helped her assists per set. I would still consider her one of the best of the decade but I think part of her success is attributable to her teammates too. What I find impressive is players who take a team that isn't stacked and carry them on their backs to be a title contender. Examples of this would be Carlini and Wisconsin, Bricio and USC, Vansant and Washington. This is a bad post, mostly because everything presented as a point is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by Ballislife on Jan 8, 2019 21:01:02 GMT -5
This is a tough comparison because Plummer's size is a real difference-maker. However, I don't know how you can say that she is empirically better than Fawcett, Ross, Willoughby & Hooker. I don't see that being clear at all. Fawcett might've hit harder, Ross was a premier 6-rotation player with one of the best arms of her generation, and Hooker was a superior athlete to almost anyone else playing at the time. They all have great traits. To say one is CLEARLY better than the other is an argument with little to go on. I think this is coming down to qualifying what it means as "best player". Is it the most "accomplished" player all four years they played in college? The player who could impact the game most at the height of her play? I look at the argument of Hooker and Plummer. I just don't think there is a fair comparison to be made here. Plummer entered the college game a polished player on a team that needed her to be the primary point scorer from day one. She played beached, the highest level club, and international youth tournaments with the YNT/JNT years before she ever stepped in Stanford's gym. Hooker had nowhere near that preparation. However, that being said, I just think that anyone who looks back and watches Hooker by time she left college and says that she wasn't at least as good of a player as Plummer right now should be banned from volley talk. From overrated and shouldn’t be starting, to polished and successful from day one. It would appear opinions do change after three years
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jan 8, 2019 21:10:51 GMT -5
Not to take anything away from Hancock - because her serve was incredible - but part of the reason why her serve was so potent was because she had so much talent around her that could keep scoring points and keep her on the back line even when she didn't get straight aces . Having so many offensive weapons also made it easier for Hancock to dump and attack with less pressure on her. It also helped her assists per set. I would still consider her one of the best of the decade but I think part of her success is attributable to her teammates too. she was consistently, moreso than any server in the past decade, getting other teams out of system, giving her team more opportunities to score. The threat of her attacking on two gave all of her hitters so many more one-on-one opportunities. ^fixed it for you
|
|
|
Post by ShaneM2005 on Jan 8, 2019 22:59:30 GMT -5
I was referring to the players you stated that are OH for clarification. Fawcett, Ross, Willoughby, & Hooker were not better than Plummer in college. i think the only bigger homer than me...IS YOU. Please don’t put me in the same category as yourself. While you think my claims are inaccurate, wrong, or whatever adjective you’d like to describe them as, Plummer has racked up three first team AA awards, NFOY, 2-time PAC-12 POY, & 2-time NPOY. There sure have been A LOT of Stanford homers voting over the past three years! I’m sure you’re bitter, but that’s a resume that none of the players I listed have, including Larson. Oh, & congrats on Foecke finally getting a first team AA in her senior season!
|
|
|
Post by beachbomb on Jan 9, 2019 0:53:26 GMT -5
ok ok just a little side question... rank your top five cornhuskers... im just curious because john cook says Larson is the Goat... but I would say Pavan...
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Jan 9, 2019 1:46:41 GMT -5
I think this is coming down to qualifying what it means as "best player". Is it the most "accomplished" player all four years they played in college? The player who could impact the game most at the height of her play? I look at the argument of Hooker and Plummer. I just don't think there is a fair comparison to be made here. Plummer entered the college game a polished player on a team that needed her to be the primary point scorer from day one. She played beached, the highest level club, and international youth tournaments with the YNT/JNT years before she ever stepped in Stanford's gym. Hooker had nowhere near that preparation. However, that being said, I just think that anyone who looks back and watches Hooker by time she left college and says that she wasn't at least as good of a player as Plummer right now should be banned from volley talk. From overrated and shouldn’t be starting, to polished and successful from day one. It would appear opinions do change after three years I never said she wasn’t a polished and experienced volleyball player coming out of HS, but I’ll surely admit that I didn’t see the enormous hype coming out of high school. Being wrong on the hype is not the same as understanding that she could play the game at a more polished level than Hooker coming out of HS. Stanford also needed her to start and be productive given Hodsons departure. I’ve never said otherwise. I’m not living in revisionist history here, I can admit when I called it incorrectly, and have said so on Plummer.
|
|
|
Post by volleyboy12 on Jan 9, 2019 15:19:55 GMT -5
Food for thought - because I see a lot of listing Plummer's accolades, which include her 3x All-American status, 2 National Championships, NFOY, 2x NPOY - would Plummer have two NC if she wasn't surrounded by 3 AA in 2016 and 4 in 2018? Would she be a 3x First Teamer, NFOY, NPOY if she had a different setter?
This question can clearly apply to any player on this thread, and I'm not discrediting her talent, but if the argument for Plummer is solely based on her accolades, we need to give credit where it's due. She didn't win those things on her own.
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jan 9, 2019 15:35:10 GMT -5
Food for thought - because I see a lot of listing Plummer's accolades, which include her 3x All-American status, 2 National Championships, NFOY, 2x NPOY - would Plummer have two NC if she wasn't surrounded by 3 AA in 2016 and 4 in 2018? Would she be a 3x First Teamer, NFOY, NPOY if she had a different setter? This question can clearly apply to any player on this thread, and I'm not discrediting her talent, but if the argument for Plummer is solely based on her accolades, we need to give credit where it's due. She didn't win those things on her own. Name a NC team in the recent years that did not have at least 3 AA though. The only one I can think of is UCLA in 2011 with Kidder. Its VERY hard to do with no AA surrounding you, but plummer is a BIG reason why they HAVE won two out of 3 and have gotten a top seed 2 out of 3.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Jan 9, 2019 19:18:58 GMT -5
ok ok just a little side question... rank your top five cornhuskers... im just curious because john cook says Larson is the Goat... but I would say Pavan... in no particular order Pavan, Larson, Foecke, Cepero, & Metcalf
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Jan 9, 2019 19:33:09 GMT -5
ok ok just a little side question... rank your top five cornhuskers... im just curious because john cook says Larson is the Goat... but I would say Pavan... in no particular order Pavan, Larson, Foecke, Cepero, & Metcalf No Hunter? I don't anything about cepero, so how does she compare to hunter?
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Jan 9, 2019 19:48:37 GMT -5
in no particular order Pavan, Larson, Foecke, Cepero, & Metcalf No Hunter? I don't anything about cepero, so how does she compare to hunter? that was a tough one...we have had incredible setters. Anderson, Hunter, Johnson, Cepero, Andicott, etc. Who to pick? Cepero was NPOY.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Jan 9, 2019 23:27:53 GMT -5
in no particular order Pavan, Larson, Foecke, Cepero, & Metcalf No Hunter? I don't anything about cepero, so how does she compare to hunter? Cepero > Hunter
|
|