|
Post by horns1 on Oct 25, 2019 14:32:05 GMT -5
Come on folks; it was one match.
Texas had every psychological advantage there was, and I'm sure they used all of them for motivation. But, motivation can only take you so far. Texas did two things that not many posters on here expected -- serve extremely well (low errors, high effectiveness) and receive serve extremely well. Hats off to the coaches and players for executing in an important match what they have been focusing on in practice.
Texas has been potent on offense all season, and hits with low errors. That wasn't gonna change, even against a good Baylor defensive team.
Texas' block has been steadily improving; and, Butler sure makes a difference at the net. It took a huge step forward on Wednesday.
Texas added some new wrinkles offensively, and really focused on setting their middles early and often. When was the last time all 3 pin hitters had less than 10 kills each, and Texas still won?
Texas scouting report and gameplan were great. Everyone should have known that Pressley would get her 6 kills per set; but, taking every other Baylor player out of the offense was a surprise. Stafford being ineffective was a surprise. Milana hitting against Jhenna Gabriel should have been advantage for Baylor, but seemed like Lockin preferred setting Pressley with the pipe instead of trusting Milana (when Molly Phillips wasn't subbing on the right side).
All that said, Texas has to show that kind of performance again (and again) at a consistent level in order to be annointed the "favorite" in the tournament.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Oct 25, 2019 14:32:06 GMT -5
You forget the passing woes that have plagued them up until this match. You forget the setting issues that have caused people to doubt Jenna. The emphasis in practice on defense is the reason I don't find that assessment premature. Besides, I have watched a half dozen Stanford matches, and at least four Wisconsin matches this year. My opinion is that if Texas can pass, nobody in the country can deal with their blocking or Middles. but that's the point...Texas hasn't been able to pass and I guarantee Logan didn't suddenly fix all those issues that plagued her and the team that caused Jerrit to pull her out. It's doesn't work that way. In any case, whether WI or Stanford or anyone else are better than Texas is likely in the eye of the beholder. I, however, don't discount WI and Stanford beating this same Texas team 3 out of the last 3 times they've played. In fact, I emphasize that. Each team has improved. Texas looked good against a team that played awfully. It's all good though. Your opinion is nearly as valid as mine.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Oct 25, 2019 14:39:34 GMT -5
just a hunch... but Texas losing to Rice was the best thing that could have happened to them this year. They knew they were Final 4 material when they took Stanford to 5 sets, but clearly got a little complacent going into the Rice game.
Since their loss to Rice, they've lost a total of 1 set over eight matches. The train is gaining momentum at a good time.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 25, 2019 15:03:22 GMT -5
^ if they're going to devote twice as much time in practice to passing than they have before, at least THEY believe they can get their SR better. If that happens, everybody better duck. The rest of this season will tell whether they are successful, but the effort and time could pay off in spades. This was one match, halfway through the season, where passing seemed to hold up. The mere fact that Texas was consistent for the entire match is in itself a bit surprising, and may have had more to do with Baylor serving and playing poorly. It's been the case for over a decade that if Texas could pass, few teams could match up with them physically (or even talent-wise to some degree). I'm not ready to proclaim their passing problems solved on the basis of one really good match, and neither should anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Oct 25, 2019 15:06:33 GMT -5
^ I think were going to find out whether devoting more time in practice to passing will result in better SR. to some degree reflexes are not teachable, so there is a limit to what can be done with, for example, Plummer, Lanier, Eggleston. It will be interesting to see how this pans out.
My expectation is the increased time devoted to passing reps will, at a minimum, increase confidence in SR, and that alone could make a big difference.
|
|
|
Post by vbstan123 on Oct 25, 2019 15:16:07 GMT -5
Just rewatched the entire match on Youtube. As to Baylor's Libero, not sure where that criticism comes from. Again, average but not terrible. She passed like three fireballs behind the 10 foot line, not to mention her total lack of control in the backcourt. If she can't pass the easiest balls to a position where Locklin is unable to get her hands on than I consider her below average, and I understand if it happens once but it happened on multiple occasions.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 25, 2019 15:16:47 GMT -5
^ I think were going to find out whether devoting more time in practice to passing will result in better SR. to some degree reflexes are not teachable, so there is a limit to what can be done with, for example, Plummer, Lanier, Eggleston. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. In this instance and limited time-frame of any [alleged] extra practice, whatever improvement or consistency in passing occurred was more likely due to better focus than a true improvement in skills (and poor execution by Baylor). To paraphrase, history is prologue, and Texas' passing has been infamously bad for a long time.
|
|
|
Post by oldunc on Oct 25, 2019 17:21:13 GMT -5
just a hunch... but Texas losing to Rice was the best thing that could have happened to them this year. They knew they were Final 4 material when they took Stanford to 5 sets, but clearly got a little complacent going into the Rice game. Since their loss to Rice, they've lost a total of 1 set over eight matches. The train is gaining momentum at a good time. I'm not so sure that the takeaway from the Stanford match is so straightforward. Certainly the match reflected no glory on Stanford, who were non competitive in the first set, but that's been a theme all year long. The next three sets were pretty much a walkover for Stanford other than a freak 13 point Texas run in the fourth set (71 pts to 41).; hard to draw any real conclusion from that
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Oct 25, 2019 17:28:22 GMT -5
just a hunch... but Texas losing to Rice was the best thing that could have happened to them this year. They knew they were Final 4 material when they took Stanford to 5 sets, but clearly got a little complacent going into the Rice game. Since their loss to Rice, they've lost a total of 1 set over eight matches. The train is gaining momentum at a good time. I'm not so sure that the takeaway from the Stanford match is so straightforward. Certainly the match reflected no glory on Stanford, who were non competitive in the first set, but that's been a theme all year long. The next three sets were pretty much a walkover for Stanford other than a freak 13 point Texas run in the fourth set (71 pts to 41).; hard to draw any real conclusion from that Texas 25 18 11 25 12 Stanford 17 25 25 21 15 not sure anything can be concluded from that box score than the fact that it was a close match between Texas and the defending National Champion. Up and down, back and forth, like all close matches.
|
|
|
Post by horns1 on Oct 25, 2019 17:43:20 GMT -5
^ I think were going to find out whether devoting more time in practice to passing will result in better SR. to some degree reflexes are not teachable, so there is a limit to what can be done with, for example, Plummer, Lanier, Eggleston. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. In this instance and limited time-frame of any [alleged] extra practice, whatever improvement or consistency in passing occurred was more likely due to better focus than a true improvement in skills (and poor execution by Baylor). To paraphrase, history is prologue, and Texas' passing has been infamously bad for a long time.
Or, so folks on here want to believe. You don't produce the All-Americans at middle blocker just about every season over the last decade-plus if your passing is "infamously bad". Has it been great? No. Nobody's has give or take a couple of seasons here and there.
For all those "great" passing teams/programs you can list, I'm sure Texas has beaten just about every single one of them a time or two over the last 15 years.
|
|
|
Post by oldunc on Oct 25, 2019 17:49:43 GMT -5
I'm not so sure that the takeaway from the Stanford match is so straightforward. Certainly the match reflected no glory on Stanford, who were non competitive in the first set, but that's been a theme all year long. The next three sets were pretty much a walkover for Stanford other than a freak 13 point Texas run in the fourth set (71 pts to 41).; hard to draw any real conclusion from that Texas 25 18 11 25 12 Stanford 17 25 25 21 15 not sure anything can be concluded from that box score than the fact that it was a close match between Texas and the defending National Champion. Up and down, back and forth, like all close matches. Well, you could conclude that if you want to. On the other hand, if you run 13 points in a set and only win it by 4, you might conclude that whatever you're doing isn't something to be depended on.
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Oct 25, 2019 18:55:54 GMT -5
^ right. just like you can't watch a guy flip a coin tails 5 times in a row, and depend on it. But it happens all the time, and it does so in volleyball matches too. Runs occur on both sides, all the time, for no particular reason.
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Oct 25, 2019 19:06:25 GMT -5
5.55 kps, .372 attack percentage. Ugh i know, i never got the hype Wow, with impressive numbers like that she probably played in several Olympics? Lmao this is idiotic
|
|
|
Post by Riviera Minestrone on Oct 25, 2019 19:09:59 GMT -5
Wow, with impressive numbers like that she probably played in several Olympics? Lmao this is idiotic Consider the source (I'm sure you have....LOL/LMFAO).
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Oct 25, 2019 19:36:53 GMT -5
In this instance and limited time-frame of any [alleged] extra practice, whatever improvement or consistency in passing occurred was more likely due to better focus than a true improvement in skills (and poor execution by Baylor). To paraphrase, history is prologue, and Texas' passing has been infamously bad for a long time.
Or, so folks on here want to believe. You don't produce the All-Americans at middle blocker just about every season over the last decade-plus if your passing is "infamously bad". Has it been great? No. Nobody's has give or take a couple of seasons here and there.
For all those "great" passing teams/programs you can list, I'm sure Texas has beaten just about every single one of them a time or two over the last 15 years.
You're right. Great passing by Texas in a match is like Jupiter orbiting the Sun--it only comes around once a decade or so.
|
|