|
|
Post by keeweekid on Nov 17, 2019 11:00:28 GMT -5
With the USA women all done in Chetumal, here is the points update. Looking at it in a few different ways. 1st- Looking at Top 12 point finishes (as all teams have now met the 12 tournament requirement) A-Team: 8760 (they will be the #1 USA team) KWJ/Brooke: 6960 Slaes: 6640 Stockmen: 6240 Slaes actually gained on KWJ/Brooke by 80 points in Chetumal even though they both finished tied for 5th. The reason? KWJ/Brooke's lowest point finish in their Top 12 was 480 points. By finishing 5th and receiving 480 points, this did nothing to help them for their Top 12 point finishes. The only way they can help themselves with points from here on out is a 1st/2nd in a 3* or a 4th or higher in a 4*. Slaes's 3 lowest point totals in their Top 12 was 400 points. So, by getting 480 points in this tournament, they were able to replace one of those 400 point finishes with the 480 they received in Chetumal. Thus, if they finish 5th in a 4* twice more, it will help them as it will replace the other two 400 point finishes they currently have counting against their Top 12. I think it is safe to say that Slaes will replace the other two 400 point finishes with 480 point finishes at some point. Assuming this were to happen, the points would look like this for Top 12. Also, let's assume Stocksen will eventually replace their 3 lowest point totals with 480 point finishes as well. KWJ/Brooke: 6960 Slaes: 6800 Stocksen: 6520 Therefore, 160 points will eventually separate KWJ/Brooke & Slaes. It will really come down to who can start making semifinals in the 4* tournaments. Both had a good chance this tournament, both failed. KWJ/Brooke have to be leaving Mexico thinking they left points on the table as they had that match against Australia. Brooke....  ? Wondering what her confidence is like as surely she realizes that she is the difference between the her/KWJ getting 5ths vs her/KWJ playing for medals as if she could just provide some consistency in siding out against the upper echelon teams. I don't really see much changing in 2020...but if they start to get some "slaes playoff draws" then they may not have to play some of the upper echelon teams before the Final 4. Slaes: again had the favorable bracket draw as seeds 1, 2 & 3 were all in the upper 1/2 of the bracket with KWJ/Brooke and yet again, Slaes does not take advantage. Slaes, the Volleygods are trying to hand you an Olympic birth and you are not taking advantage. I think time is just about up on Stocksen. Realistically, I think they have all but been eliminated unless they put up a couple Top 3 finishes in 4*'s. Problem is, they couldn't even Country Qualify for Chetumal as they lost to Day/Flint. Eventually, you would think that the luck of the bracket draw will run out for Slaes, shift to KWJ/Brooke whom will more likely take advantage of it and start to separate but....bracket gods do love them some Slaes. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Nov 17, 2019 11:36:29 GMT -5
Kelly Larsen should pack it in and start building a partnership with Sara Hughes. An extreme outside shot at a non-medal finish in the Olympics or a chance to spend a year with the 2nd best US defender, and surely after another subpar Sponcil effort we can put that debate to rest right?
|
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 18, 2019 14:24:52 GMT -5
Sara Hughes. the 2nd best US defender, and surely after another subpar Sponcil effort we can put that debate to rest right? Total package at this time, agree. Mentally Sarah kills Sara. Physically, advantage Sponcil. Easier to improve in the shot choice/emotional control area so the next two years will be really interesting to watch. |
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 18, 2019 14:30:13 GMT -5
Kelly Larsen should pack it in and start building a partnership with Sara Hughes. An extreme outside shot at a non-medal finish in the Olympics or a chance to spend a year with the 2nd best US defender, and surely after another subpar Sponcil effort we can put that debate to rest right? Agree. Not sure why Downtheline keeps saying the partnerships are locked. I've never seen that in writing or discussed anywhere. Larsen and Hughes could enter the one remaining 5*, eight remaining 4*, and one remaining 3* for 10 tournaments. Pick up a couple of 2* very early in the year to get to the required 12. Then everything depends on beating either Slaes or KWJ/BS in the Country quota for most of those 10 tournaments (except for the tournaments A-Team does not enter). Odds are stacked against, but I would bet on Larsen/Hughes ending up better for Larsen than if she sticks with Stockman. |
|
|
|
Post by donnyb on Nov 18, 2019 16:58:54 GMT -5
Sara Hughes. the 2nd best US defender, and surely after another subpar Sponcil effort we can put that debate to rest right? Total package at this time, agree. Mentally Sarah kills Sara. Physically, advantage Sponcil. Easier to improve in the shot choice/emotional control area so the next two years will be really interesting to watch. You think sponcil is more physical than Sara? I’m not sure but I thought Sara was pretty freaky athletic? Just crazy high as well? Sara seems to read the defense a touch better and lays out more for a ball |
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 18, 2019 17:05:10 GMT -5
^ by physical I meant the total package of explosiveness, quick reactions, and fine motor control. Sponcil is faster than Hughes. Sponcil has world's better hands. Pure hitting, Sponcil also has more velocity... that would be expected from a decent college OH and elite level setter. Sponcil's serve is much more effective.
As far as laying out, Sponcil is known for that... the only question is whether it is always necessary, or always the most effective way to get the ball up and playable.
Give Sponcil Hughes' mind, and you've got the absolute complete defender. The question is, what kind of coach or coaches can get Sponcil to play a controlled, intelligent game?
My argument a little over two months ago is that Sponcil really needs a mature player as partner for a couple of years to learn how to play the game smartly. Claes is not and cannot do that for her. Sponcil can become one of the two or three top defenders in the world for the next ten years if only she couldd mature her strategic shot selection and emotional control.
|
|
|
|
Post by floridaLOG on Nov 18, 2019 19:11:26 GMT -5
I honestly hate this process. Just imagining Kerri with either sara(h) makes me wonder about having two US teams on the podium again. Not saying it would be for sure and I love cheering on Brooke, but I think with their speed and ability to terminate, along with Kerris fire, I would love watching them go at it with Klineman and April.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wahinevball1234 on Nov 19, 2019 0:04:55 GMT -5
Interesting to note that Slaes is in the country quota for the next tournament at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by acrossthepond on Nov 19, 2019 4:06:17 GMT -5
I honestly hate this process. Just imagining Kerri with either sara(h) makes me wonder about having two US teams on the podium again. Not saying it would be for sure and I love cheering on Brooke, but I think with their speed and ability to terminate, along with Kerris fire, I would love watching them go at it with Klineman and April. Nobody prevented them from partnering up. |
|
|
|
Post by acrossthepond on Nov 19, 2019 4:11:29 GMT -5
Kelly Larsen should pack it in and start building a partnership with Sara Hughes. An extreme outside shot at a non-medal finish in the Olympics or a chance to spend a year with the 2nd best US defender, and surely after another subpar Sponcil effort we can put that debate to rest right? Agree. Not sure why Downtheline keeps saying the partnerships are locked. I've never seen that in writing or discussed anywhere. Larsen and Hughes could enter the one remaining 5*, eight remaining 4*, and one remaining 3* for 10 tournaments. Pick up a couple of 2* very early in the year to get to the required 12. Then everything depends on beating either Slaes or KWJ/BS in the Country quota for most of those 10 tournaments (except for the tournaments A-Team does not enter). Odds are stacked against, but I would bet on Larsen/Hughes ending up better for Larsen than if she sticks with Stockman. They would have to win or at least make the final-4 for every single tournament you mentioned. That is totally unrealistic. |
|
|
|
Post by floridaLOG on Nov 19, 2019 11:35:12 GMT -5
I honestly hate this process. Just imagining Kerri with either sara(h) makes me wonder about having two US teams on the podium again. Not saying it would be for sure and I love cheering on Brooke, but I think with their speed and ability to terminate, along with Kerris fire, I would love watching them go at it with Klineman and April. Nobody prevented them from partnering up. This is a fair point. I would like to think what held them back was worries about kerris health (along with AVP and not being able to pay.) considering Hughes’ situation. She could have played avp with brandie and FIVB with Walsh. As of now she just has Brandie for AVP. Knowing how fierce Kerri is, I have a hard time believing it the rules were different, she would have switched to Hughes once summer was originally injured. She may have remained loyal to Brooke, but If the idea is Gold she would have been more inclined. I think you should be able to be an individual and own half your teams Olympic points to take to another partnership. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Nov 19, 2019 11:56:20 GMT -5
Agree. Not sure why Downtheline keeps saying the partnerships are locked. I've never seen that in writing or discussed anywhere. Larsen and Hughes could enter the one remaining 5*, eight remaining 4*, and one remaining 3* for 10 tournaments. Pick up a couple of 2* very early in the year to get to the required 12. Then everything depends on beating either Slaes or KWJ/BS in the Country quota for most of those 10 tournaments (except for the tournaments A-Team does not enter). Odds are stacked against, but I would bet on Larsen/Hughes ending up better for Larsen than if she sticks with Stockman. They would have to win or at least make the final-4 for every single tournament you mentioned. That is totally unrealistic. Qualifying is, but having a better, more competitive team, making more money, growing as player, etc. is very realistic. I cant stand when these no hope teams focus on nothing but the Olympics. Stocsen isnt medaling anyway. They would need half a dozen plane crashes just to get in the mix. |
|
|
|
Post by dunninla3 on Nov 19, 2019 14:01:13 GMT -5
Agree. Not sure why Downtheline keeps saying the partnerships are locked. I've never seen that in writing or discussed anywhere. Larsen and Hughes could enter the one remaining 5*, eight remaining 4*, and one remaining 3* for 10 tournaments. Pick up a couple of 2* very early in the year to get to the required 12. Then everything depends on beating either Slaes or KWJ/BS in the Country quota for most of those 10 tournaments (except for the tournaments A-Team does not enter). Odds are stacked against, but I would bet on Larsen/Hughes ending up better for Larsen than if she sticks with Stockman. They would have to win or at least make the final-4 for every single tournament you mentioned. That is totally unrealistic. Well, doing the math on that, I agree it is unrealistic, but not totally so. Here is the current top 8: KWJ/BS: 2520 = Team 5040 (270, 270, 280, 300 Norceca, 320, 320, 360, 400) Slaes: 2440 - Team 4880 (240, 240, 240, 300, 300, 360, 360, 400) If Larsen/Hughes were to average a 3th place finish, which is 320, their top 8 would be 2560. The only way they could accomplish that would be if there are a lot of not full fields leading up to the Olympics. But I agree with you that I would not back that horse. That doesn't mean that Larsen shouldn't make the change, as Guest2 has said, for other reasons like money and the possibility for the next cycle. I personally think Hughes/Larsen is a stronger team than Hughes/Wilkerson when playing AVP, based on Larsen's play over the past year. |
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Nov 19, 2019 14:07:38 GMT -5
They would have to win or at least make the final-4 for every single tournament you mentioned. That is totally unrealistic. Well, doing the math on that, I agree it is unrealistic, but not totally so. Here is the current top 8: KWJ/BS: 2520 = Team 5040 (270, 270, 280, 300 Norceca, 320, 320, 360, 400) Slaes: 2440 - Team 4880 (240, 240, 240, 300, 300, 360, 360, 400) If Larsen/Hughes were to average a 3th place finish, which is 320, their top 8 would be 2560. The only way they could accomplish that would be if there are a lot of not full fields leading up to the Olympics. But I agree with you that I would not back that horse. That doesn't mean that Larsen shouldn't make the change, as Guest2 has said, for other reasons like money and the possibility for the next cycle. One other thing of note, and I agree with dunninla 's analysis here, is that Kerri has had regular, consistent major shoulder injuries for the last decade or so. She had a major one in 2015 that led her to take a good amount of time off - and play those remarkable lefty events - she had the one that happened in Olstzyn in the semis in 2017, which took almost a year to come back from. She had another more minor one in 2018 if I recall. She has also played as more events this year than she has in a decade (other than 2014 when she played the same number) If Slaes can keep the race close enough to force Kerri to play every event, then at some point age, math and a shoulder constructed of paper may catch up to her |
|
|
|
Post by haze on Nov 19, 2019 15:37:05 GMT -5
Hughes is way overrated on these boards imho. Really good player. Not a really great dangerous player at all. She makes it really hard for teams to beat her, but she just isn't physical enough to beat the top ranked teams.
|
|
? Wondering what her confidence is like as surely she realizes that she is the difference between the her/KWJ getting 5ths vs her/KWJ playing for medals as if she could just provide some consistency in siding out against the upper echelon teams. I don't really see much changing in 2020...but if they start to get some "slaes playoff draws" then they may not have to play some of the upper echelon teams before the Final 4.
