|
Post by pineapple on Dec 5, 2005 18:13:42 GMT -5
azaimng.
|
|
|
Post by roy on Dec 5, 2005 18:27:04 GMT -5
If it were any other top seed, I would say yes, the rest of the bracket would lock the #4 seed into the Final Four. But being Arizona, this could be a difficult call. My instinct is telling me that Arizona has learned from the past few years and finally got down their consistency to knock off Ohio and Santa Clara/Pepperdine. But this team has been up and down for the past several years and lost once to Santa Clara this year. I am not sure how this team is going to stack up in their region.
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Dec 5, 2005 19:51:51 GMT -5
If it were any other top seed, I would say yes, the rest of the bracket would lock the #4 seed into the Final Four. But being Arizona, this could be a difficult call. My instinct is telling me that Arizona has learned from the past few years and finally got down their consistency to knock off Ohio and Santa Clara/Pepperdine. But this team has been up and down for the past several years and lost once to Santa Clara this year. I am not sure how this team is going to stack up in their region. All depends on their players. The majority of their offense is run through Glass and Abernathy. Kim Glass seems to be a bit more consistent this season. Jen Abernathy is lights out one match and struggles the next. Their setting? Arizona definitely has more talent than any other team in their regional.
|
|
|
Post by azjerry on Dec 8, 2005 0:26:13 GMT -5
So what's up with the setting at AZ? The coach slams her in the papers and yells at her on the sidelines. He's constantly telling people he's looking for someone who can really set. Ohio needs to know she has trouble setting the middles - {and you can see the disappointment (anger???) in Ladd's face, and hear her Dad in the stands] and avoids them at all costs. She likes to set Baumer - and she'd looking more like the star than Glass these days. Maybe it's not the "Glass show" anymore!! Arizona may have a great deal of talent, but they have a coach who doesn't know what to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by holidayhusker on Dec 8, 2005 0:34:45 GMT -5
Good Lord.....that gave me a headache!
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Dec 8, 2005 4:30:52 GMT -5
I'm thinking Arizona likes being in the Regionals against Ohio. A rematch with Santa Clara is likely. I do like Baum. Always have. The ONE match I saw the new setter play, oy...she has a lot to learn. No parent should be so involved in the stands. That's my philosophy. Glass will be Glass. I like Rubio, probably the only one in this forum who does. But I've never been to his clinics.
|
|
|
Post by ugopher on Dec 8, 2005 14:05:45 GMT -5
Go OHIO U!
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 14:06:46 GMT -5
All depends on their players. The majority of their offense is run through Glass and Abernathy. Kim Glass seems to be a bit more consistent this season. Jen Abernathy is lights out one match and struggles the next. Their setting? Have you looked at Kim Glass' attacked percentages against tough opponents (ie, not WSU, OSU, ASU, etc) over their past 10 or so matches? She predominantly hits at under 0.200 including hitting at 0.103 in the first round against Utah State. She's getting a lot of kills (and points), however, she seems to be making 50+ attacks in most matches and something like 97 attacks in one recent match (against USC?). Talent or athletiscism? I'd probably concede the latter - I'm not so sure about the prior. From reading the threads here over the course of the season it sounded like their serve receive and defense has gone in the tank at times and their setting hasn't been overly consistent. If they can't avoid having breakdowns in those areas this weekend they could definitely find themselves watching the Final Four rather than playing in it.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 8, 2005 14:09:57 GMT -5
How tall is Arizona? I wonder if Ohio might struggle moreso against bigger teams (aka Purdue). Ohio St is not has big as the other teams in the Big Ten, making them a better matchup for the Bobcats.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 14:33:22 GMT -5
That's an interesting point Mr. Dub.
I seem to recall Arizona being a fairly tall team.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Dec 8, 2005 15:17:49 GMT -5
Anyone know who's ref'ng the PaloAlto Region (Stanford region just doesn't sound right any more)?
Depending on how tight they call the setting and if accounts of the replacement Arizona setter's bouts of doubling the ball are accurate, this could definitely impact the outcome. (I haven't seen Az play since their original setter got hurt so can't really say based on personal opinion.)
I really hate playing a match where the opponent's setter is doubling/lifting the ball all over the place but running a very effective offense or doubling/lifting sets into hittable balls on bad passes while my teams setter is setting cleanly and perhaps less likely to make such risky sets in order to do so. It's the up ref's duty to call to the level of the better setter and to not let the other team's setter off the hook because of their inability to cleanly pull off the sets her coach wants to see her attempt.
Call the match to the level of the better setter from the beginning and then keep it consistent after that.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 8, 2005 15:27:27 GMT -5
That's an interesting point Mr. Dub. I should note, I don't know if it is legit. I am just thinking about cases I know or can imagine - Purdue (big), Tennessee (not as big as Purdue, but not small), Ohio St (not as big as tOSU, I don't think), and the MAC (probably not real big). Just an idear...
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 15:27:53 GMT -5
I agree with you for the most part, however, I don't think the referee ought to make calls based on the ability of either setter (or any player in particular).
I think they ought to make calls for infractions that they see. If a double contact, lift, or any other fault happens and they see it they ought to call it.
Especially in the NCAA tournaent. These are supposed to be the best 16 of the best D1 teams and none of them deserves any freebies from referees because they don't have a setter that can play the ball consistantly without lifting or double contacting.
Frankly, I wish referees would be consistant on calls they make regardless of the player making the contact. A non-setter attempting to set the ball doesn't deserve to be called more strictly than a setter doing the same play.
One of the most annoying things to me about referees is that they allow hitters and setters to have long contacts on lobs attacks (ie, throws) to anywhere on the opponent's side of the court yet they call a lift on some digs and attempts at hitter covereage that entail far less contact tie with the ball than the the lob attacks.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Dec 8, 2005 15:50:05 GMT -5
I agree with you for the most part, however, I don't think the referee ought to make calls based on the ability of either setter (or any player in particular). I think they ought to make calls for infractions that they see. If a double contact, lift, or any other fault happens and they see it they ought to call it. Yeah, you're probably right regarding the ref setting the level at which they will call illegal contacts to the highest level of the 2 teams' setters when it comes to NCAA teams. But some ref's have a very low level for calling illegal contacts and then I wish they would use the better of the 2 teams setter as their lowest level to allow. [The level my teams play at, it would be a very boring game if they called every illegal contact by anyone setting the ball. ] I do think there is a lot to be said for letting the teams play, let setters try to make those difficult sets to improve without KNOWING they'll be called, and most of all to be consistent. A fine line? yes, but really don't like watching every third rally stopped by a whistle while the ball is still in play. Now, the other side.... to not blow your frick'n whistle just because you notice now that the ball is spinning long after you saw the contact made by the setter. Spin doesn't mean illegal. Watch the contact made on the ball and know how setters set, don't make the call based on ugly, sound, spin, or crowd reaction. Dusty Divorac??? style vs Jeff Stork style of setting can result in very different spins on legal sets. Jeff Stork can set perfectly legal balls all day with quite a bit of spin because of the hard hand style he uses. DustyD's soft hand style results in a more spin-free floating set.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 8, 2005 16:32:42 GMT -5
Totally agree regarding your comment of spin on the ball after a set attempt.\\ (An aside: Jeff Stork made one of the most amazing one handed sets with his fist to Timmons in a match that I have ever seen. A pass / dig was launched toward the net and likely headed over the net when Stork pops his fist up to deflect it to Timmons who was already in the air for a quick set. Then Timmons just crushes the ball.) I don't disagree with sometimes allowing teams to play and letter setters (or any player) have a reasonable chance to improve their ability to make good plays. However, not at this point in the NCAA tournament. Most teams have had roughly 30 matches and hundreds of practice sessions this year to get that learning done as much as they're going to get until next season. I don't have (much) of a problem with referees decided on what level they're going to call a match as long as they do it consistently for both teams and maintain roughly the same level throughout the entire match. I just don't think it ought to be based on the ability of the highest or lowest level player(s) on the court. Especially not when for matches that are in the tournament trying to decide the national champion. I guess that's just in my little old dream world though...
|
|