|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 25, 2005 23:25:41 GMT -5
Purdue jumped out 7-1 in game 1 and tossed it away to lose it 27 -30. Purdue tried a few different things that ended up not working: 1) Merlau in the back row, and 2) Dildine in the front
Iowa is a tough team to try someone new in the back row, because they serve pretty well, and they served Merlau off the court. Then they hit over Dildine, and Brit never had an attack. Meanwhile, Merlau couldn't hit anything.
Then came game 2. Purdue went back to a more familiar lineup, with Miller back in the front. She started game 2 with a solo block, and Purdue poured it on from there, winning the next three 21, 18, 22.
Mader had 17 kills for Purdue. Merlau righted her ship a little, getting 16 kills, but with 9 errors. However, I would guess that she had 15 kills and maybe 3 errors in games 2 - 4. Jacques and Lynch were busy.
Smales had 14 kills for the Iowegians, but hit 000 for the match.
A few things I saw in the box: Purdue outblocks Iowa 13 - 5, and outdigs them 90 - 70. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if 80 of those digs came in games 2 - 4. Dildine, Mastandrea, and Dargan were covering superbly. Shondell calls it probably their best defensive match of the year. It's possible.
Now that basketball has started, they went back to the old configuration in Carver Hawkeye. What a terrible place to watch volleyball. It just sucks all the energy out of everything.
|
|
|
Post by BigTenVball on Nov 26, 2005 10:30:59 GMT -5
Iowa played well in game 1, and didn't do very poorly in games 3 and 4. Game 2 was not good. One thing that I really did like about Iowa's performance, was that they were still fighting hard at the end of games. Hiza and Fister were still doing a lot of barking at their team near the end, which is a good sign. Purdue I think got a wake up call after game 1. Shondell was not very happy with the troops. The other thing Purdue did very nicely, was mix in tips at effective times. I love when teams know WHEN and HOW to tip effectively. I still feel that this is an underused attack, if done well. And Purdue did last night. Still, overall, pretty happy with Iowa at this point. They are still 2 players or so away from competing. But the kids on the court right now are showing a lot of heart and fight. Good to see that out of the Black and Gold finally.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 26, 2005 11:31:03 GMT -5
Purdue I think got a wake up call after game 1. Shondell was not very happy with the troops. This is a good cliche, but it isn't really that true. I think Shondell was more disappointed that the experiment didn't work. As I noted, they tried something different in game 1, and it just didn't work. As I said, Iowa is a tough team to try a new back row player against, and that is what put Iowa right back in game 1, when they went after Merlau. OTOH, Merlau doesn't quite know when or how to tip. She tries it, but she gets in a rut and tips everything. Unfortunately, she isn't very good at it, either, so it is not her good hit. I was getting so mad at her last night. She's better than the middles at Iowa, she doesn't need to be cute. Mader, OTOH, uses her tip exceptionally well. She does it at the perfect times, and she disguises it well. I'm shocked at your impressions of games 2 - 4. Granted Iowa never made any big runs in game 2, but they did also for much of the match trade sideouts. Purdue had the early big run to go up 4, they traded for a long time, and then Purdue went on the run at 26 - 20. Contrast that with game 4, for example. Outside of the run Iowa had when Patton was serving, they were blown off the court! Similarly, game three they got absolutely trounced, sitting at 24 - 13 at one point. This is when they were playing well IYO? In game 2, they were alright, they only didn't get that run off their serve. They get one of those, and it is a much closer match. OTOH, Purdue played exceptionally well at the beginning of game 2 (with a little Miller inspiration), to pull into their lead. Contrast that with the beginning of game 1 where Purdue got their lead off Iowa errors.
|
|
|
Post by norwis on Nov 26, 2005 12:28:50 GMT -5
Where you both watching the same game?
|
|
|
Post by BigTenVball on Nov 26, 2005 14:10:18 GMT -5
Sorry, gotta disagree. Yes, some of the scores were not very close, but, if you looked at the game last night, and how Iowa played, they were playing much more aggressively and with increased intensity than over the past years. Were they scoring a lot of points? Not really. But was Purdue just blasting away and using Iowa for target practice? No, they were not. I am not sure of the statistics, and not sure if they keep them, but I did notice that Purdue was not getting every thing as FBSO. (first ball side out) Many of their points were coming on their 2nd and 3rd swings of the rally. As an Iowa fan, you have to be happy with that. Additionally, even though Iowa only took one game off them, and some of the scores were not close, sorry, Iowa did not look like a JV team playing a Varsity team. Iowa did compete last night, and has and is looking much more competative now.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Nov 26, 2005 14:27:58 GMT -5
JV vs Varsity? No.
100 vs 15? Absolutely. Especially in games 3 and 4.
FBSO? Not usually, but I credit (and continue to credit) Iowa's serving. They served well, and did so as well in West Lafayette. That helped a lot.
OTOH, even given that Purdue wasn't getting good attacks on the serve receive, Iowa was generating nothing on their end. Yeah, Purdue has good floor defense, but a lot of those 90 digs was that there wasn't a strong attack coming their way. A lot easier to cover.
This is why I said I liked what Iowa was doing better in the second game. Yes, that was when Purdue was better at siding out, but at the same time, Iowa was siding out very well, too. The difference in game 2 was that Purdue handled the Iowa serving much better, and therefore they kept Iowa from those runs. Meanwhile, games 3 and 4 Iowa had no punch at all outside of Patton's serving run in game 4. They didn't side out, and they weren't scoring. If that is your idea of being competitive, then Iowa has been sad indeed.
|
|