|
Post by brybry on Sept 11, 2006 19:24:10 GMT -5
BryBry, I think SC 's passing is much better than you give them credit for. Gysin has really stabilized their passing. I agree their middles have to pick up the pace. My real concern is the lack of depth on the bench. A problem that won't be solved til next year's recruits come in. I was actually praising SC's passing and serving from what I've seen so far. Gysin, Seilhammer, and Copenhagen have all been quite solid so far. Some of the other teams seem to have at least one person to pick on. Hmm. Not to start a big tangent, but which players would you guys target when serving against the top teams? PSU: definitely Hodge Texas: Engle Washington: Miyashiro Nebraska: maybe Pavan (altho she's a strong passer, but not sure if she's the type that likes to pass then hit) Stanford: maybe Richards Pepperdine: just get the ball over
|
|
|
Post by Ye Olde Dawg on Sept 11, 2006 19:59:03 GMT -5
Hmm. Not to start a big tangent, but which players would you guys target when serving against the top teams? PSU: definitely Hodge Texas: Engle Washington: Miyashiro Nebraska: maybe Pavan (altho she's a strong passer, but not sure if she's the type that likes to pass then hit) It may be a tangent, but its too tempting. I have no opinion about most teams, but: -- Washington: based on what I saw, Collymore. She has a vulnerability on serve receive, and Gonzaga found it. It was a moment of fan pain. Of course Miyashiro has been aced a few times too. -- Nebraska: Certainly Pavan. It worked for Washington last year; IIRC it's a hard float serve that drops around her ankles.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Sept 11, 2006 20:02:33 GMT -5
-- Nebraska: Certainly Pavan. It worked for Washington last year; IIRC it's a hard float serve that drops around her ankles. "IIRC" -- I have to always think about this one. I know it means "If I remember correctly," but it doesn't come to me immediately. Always a lag.
|
|
|
Post by StanfordFan on Sept 11, 2006 20:20:23 GMT -5
I don't know what's going on with Stanford's passing. Last year, Richards was gold. Fishburn is alright, but better than Schultz was. Still, I see her shanking a few. Barboza's supposed to be a great passer, but from what I've seen so far, so so. It makes me angry that Stanford's not doing better at this point with the personnel they have, especially when other teams like UCLA, USC, and Cal sound like they're on fire. But I've got my fingers crossed. BryBry, I think SC 's passing is much better than you give them credit for. Gysin has really stabilized their passing. I agree their middles have to pick up the pace. My real concern is the lack of depth on the bench. A problem that won't be solved til next year's recruits come in. I was actually praising SC's passing and serving from what I've seen so far. Gysin, Seilhammer, and Copenhagen have all been quite solid so far. Some of the other teams seem to have at least one person to pick on. Hmm. Not to start a big tangent, but which players would you guys target when serving against the top teams? PSU: definitely Hodge Texas: Engle Washington: Miyashiro Nebraska: maybe Pavan (altho she's a strong passer, but not sure if she's the type that likes to pass then hit) Stanford: maybe Richards Pepperdine: just get the ball over
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2006 20:50:38 GMT -5
It makes me angry that Stanford's not doing better at this point with the personnel they have, especially when other teams like UCLA, USC, and Cal sound like they're on fire. But I've got my fingers crossed. Easy, easy there StanFan; don't want to expend all the energy in foreplay. Stanford has and will peak again at the right time. Just be patient. ;D
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Sept 11, 2006 21:39:09 GMT -5
Somebody broke the AVCA's website and my money is on Gorf. How 'bout them Utes, p-dub? One of these days, I've got to update my anti-Ruffda correction factor to make sure it includes Utah I'm curious also. How can Utah be ranked so much higher than Florida, whom they lost to?
|
|
|
Post by prosem on Sept 11, 2006 21:53:31 GMT -5
It makes me angry that Stanford's not doing better at this point with the personnel they have, especially when other teams like UCLA, USC, and Cal sound like they're on fire. But I've got my fingers crossed.
It will be quite a season. All the top ten teams fighting each other. I wouldnt worry about Stanford. They know what it takes to win.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Sept 12, 2006 1:38:42 GMT -5
Stanford and Washington coaches both have a knack for getting their teams prepared well to make runs come tournament time. This process of involves some shaky matches during the season and some cupcake preseason schedules for UW to somewhat shorten length the season's intensity period knowing full well they'll get their intense battles and reps come Oct/Nov during the Pac10 schedule.
A bad match early on does nothing but give teams false hope that maybe they may not be as formidable this seasons. Then rolls Dec and if healthy, the wizards crank up the fine-tuned machines and watch them mow down everybody.
In other words, I too wouldn't worry about Stanford stumbles during pre-conf.
|
|
|
Post by StanfordFan on Sept 12, 2006 11:09:53 GMT -5
Ok fine. But still, Grrrrrrr.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 12, 2006 11:13:27 GMT -5
One of these days, I've got to update my anti-Ruffda correction factor to make sure it includes Utah I'm curious also. How can Utah be ranked so much higher than Florida, whom they lost to? It's not possible to create a ranking where every team is ahead of all the teams they beat.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Sept 12, 2006 11:14:19 GMT -5
So Tejas loses two, and moves up two spots? Missouri loses and moves down two. Hmmmm.
|
|
|
Post by 2c on Sept 12, 2006 11:30:20 GMT -5
So Tejas loses two, and moves up two spots? Missouri loses and moves down two. Hmmmm. Assume by Tejas you mean UT-Austin. The Cal-Poly loss was taken into account in last week's poll when Texas moved up spots from preseason poll after their strong showing in the AVCA tourney. And it was in the manner that the 2 lost last week, UT having nearly beat PSU 3 games, then 4 games and then 5 games versus Mizzou's blowout to PSU and non-challenging loss to SCU.
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Sept 12, 2006 11:47:19 GMT -5
Instead of trying to look for why Cal-Poly was moved up, you should instead look to see why the teams that were ranked ahead of them were moved down.
Remember, the AVCA poll does not do much to reward, it is a system of penalizing losses. Some losses are penalized more than others.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Sept 12, 2006 12:11:11 GMT -5
So Tejas loses two, and moves up two spots? Missouri loses and moves down two. Hmmmm. 2c is right about Texas' 9/2 loss to Cal Poly already being "penalized" in the 9/4 poll. They opened the season with wins over Wisconsin (9), Washington (3), Pepperdine (18), and a strong bench-clearing sweep against unranked Long Island. The loss to unranked Cal Poly is the only reason Texas didn't jump into the top 5 after the first week. But the second week, Cal Poly posted two respectable losses against quality programs (Minn. and Neb.) and posted a win against a then ranked opponent (Louisville). So in addition to the 9/4 poll teams ahead of them falling, they also got a delayed perception boost because those same voters are moving Cal Poly up. Missouri's drop has more to do with an elevation of the teams who were originally below them, and the timing of their two losses last weekend -- even "quality losses" against top opponents will hurt if they are close enough together to suggest a downward trend.
|
|