|
Post by TuesdayGone on Aug 22, 2019 12:56:42 GMT -5
Just how close were the 2 teams last year? Wisconsin and Illinois played 972 points last year. Wisconsin Won 487 and Illinois won 485. Dividing by 50 points per set, that would be more than 19 sets. Or otherwise some extraordinarily high scoring matches. Can that possibly be right? My handwriting sucks Wisconsin and Illinois played 3 times and had a total of 572 points. Wisconsin scored 287 and Illinois 285
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 22, 2019 13:27:29 GMT -5
That is how Stanford has played consistently for at least the last two years. They don't over extend themselves and crush teams. They are happy to trade points until 18 or 20 and then step up and score when it matters. It happens over and over so it is not a fluke. Kinda disturbing, actually. I'm very curious what happens next year, when the kids have learned to play that way, but you no longer have the big four that can actually pull it off. I thought Minnesota outplayed Stanford at Stanford last year....but the final few points of each set Stanford won. Great match though I suppose it's not, strictly speaking, impossible to be "outplayed" in a match you won 3-1 and also won in essentially every statistical category -- but damn, it seems like a pretty hard sell.
|
|
|
Post by TuesdayGone on Aug 22, 2019 13:33:19 GMT -5
I thought Minnesota outplayed Stanford at Stanford last year....but the final few points of each set Stanford won. Great match though I suppose it's not, strictly speaking, impossible to be "outplayed" in a match you won 3-1 and also won in essentially every statistical category -- but damn, it seems like a pretty hard sell. Not a hard sell at all: Set 1: Minnesota up 23-20 Set 2: Minnesota up 23-20 Set 4: Minnesota up 22-18
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Aug 22, 2019 13:44:34 GMT -5
I suppose it's not, strictly speaking, impossible to be "outplayed" in a match you won 3-1 and also won in essentially every statistical category -- but damn, it seems like a pretty hard sell. Not a hard sell at all: Set 1: Minnesota up 23-20 Set 2: Minnesota up 23-20 Set 4: Minnesota up 22-18 It's volleyball. It's not like soccer where you can outplay someone and lose to them because scoring is so infrequent. There is normally over 40 points played per set. If your are playing better you will win
|
|
|
Post by sunger4222 on Aug 22, 2019 15:08:10 GMT -5
Last season SC should have taken the match in Palo Alto, but they tightened up towards the end of sets 1 and 2, and Stanford played like the champs they were. That is how Stanford has played consistently for at least the last two years. They don't over extend themselves and crush teams. They are happy to trade points until 18 or 20 and then step up and score when it matters. It happens over and over so it is not a fluke. Kinda disturbing, actually. I'm very curious what happens next year, when the kids have learned to play that way, but you no longer have the big four that can actually pull it off. The Trees are the big girls on the block this season, and the way they've recruited lately, are odds on to continue. Some good games early in the season which should give us a glimpse of mind set and skill. I am really looking forward to SC/Texas. No injuries, at least for now, so tighten the ankle guards and hit it!
|
|
|
Post by sunger4222 on Aug 22, 2019 15:09:20 GMT -5
That is how Stanford has played consistently for at least the last two years. They don't over extend themselves and crush teams. They are happy to trade points until 18 or 20 and then step up and score when it matters. It happens over and over so it is not a fluke. Kinda disturbing, actually. I'm very curious what happens next year, when the kids have learned to play that way, but you no longer have the big four that can actually pull it off. I thought Minnesota outplayed Stanford at Stanford last year....but the final few points of each set Stanford won. Great match though Stanford seems to have an extra gear, and absolutely no fear.
|
|
|
Post by Disc808 on Aug 22, 2019 16:31:17 GMT -5
Stanford seems to have an extra gear, and absolutely no fear. That is a dangerous mindset to think that you are so much better than your opponents that you can get away with coasting and then shift to your extra gear at the end. That will probably still work this year. Very dangerous for next year. Stanford 2020 & Beyond will truly be a test on Hambly's coaching. No more big four, and we will see how well he can choose the lineup and develop the post-Dunning players.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 22, 2019 16:49:06 GMT -5
I suppose it's not, strictly speaking, impossible to be "outplayed" in a match you won 3-1 and also won in essentially every statistical category -- but damn, it seems like a pretty hard sell. Not a hard sell at all: Set 1: Minnesota up 23-20 Set 2: Minnesota up 23-20 Set 4: Minnesota up 22-18 It's really hard to win five straight points against a team who is "outplaying" you. Stanford did that in sets 1, 2, and 4. (Minnesota did get a couple of four-point runs in the match.) I am well aware that the team that wins isn't always the one that played the best, particularly if one team only wins close sets and the other team wins blowout sets. But that doesn't seem to have described this match. If anything, it looks like the team who was outplayed for the match nevertheless put themselves almost in position to sneak out a match win, if they had had just a few more breaks go their way. It does seem to have been a match with a lot of extended runs from both teams.
|
|
|
Post by Victory At Hand on Aug 22, 2019 18:08:02 GMT -5
Not a hard sell at all: Set 1: Minnesota up 23-20 Set 2: Minnesota up 23-20 Set 4: Minnesota up 22-18 They were "outplayed" in the same way that a champion at 1500m is consistently "outrun" for 1400m in every single race, then somehow miraculously gets "lucky" and wins in the end. Every single time. Hard to say that Minnesota "outplayed" Stanford, when they lost the match. What I'm seeing with the scores is that they had many chances to win the match with leads in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th sets but couldn't closed it out. From the look of things Stanford outplayed them.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 22, 2019 18:53:33 GMT -5
They were "outplayed" in the same way that a champion at 1500m is consistently "outrun" for 1400m in every single race, then somehow miraculously gets "lucky" and wins in the end. Every single time. Hard to say that Minnesota "outplayed" Stanford, when they lost the match. What I'm seeing with the scores is that they had many chances to win the match with leads in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th sets but couldn't closed it out. From the look of things Stanford outplayed them. . Is it hard to say? Nebraska outplayed Stanford in the national championship match but lost
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 22, 2019 19:18:19 GMT -5
. Is it hard to say? Nebraska outplayed Stanford in the national championship match but lost That is pretty demonstrably not true. How did the stats compare?
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Aug 22, 2019 19:48:43 GMT -5
How did the stats compare? 3-2 HAHAHAAHA. gray was a better setter in that game. Fitz certainly did better than sweet. Hentz outplayed Maloney. Only 1 Mb from Nebraska outplayed Stanford middles who both outplayed Schwartzenbach. Stanford served better and scored more points in the end. You don't lose a match that you play better than the other team did.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Aug 22, 2019 20:02:27 GMT -5
You don't lose a match that you play better than the other team did. This is not *always* true. But it's mostly true.
|
|
|
Post by dodger on Aug 22, 2019 20:39:12 GMT -5
True that mike garrison: it is really very easy to win match and lose stats for a single match,
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Aug 22, 2019 21:31:45 GMT -5
HAHAHAAHA. gray was a better setter in that game. Fitz certainly did better than sweet. Hentz outplayed Maloney. Only 1 Mb from Nebraska outplayed Stanford middles who both outplayed Schwartzenbach. Stanford served better and scored more points in the end. You don't lose a match that you play better than the other team did. I noticed you left out that Foecke outplayed your national player of the year and the fact that Nebraska had better basic stats across the board, must’ve slipped your mind
|
|