|
|
Post by bomber on Apr 4, 2007 18:25:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by snickers on Apr 4, 2007 18:40:24 GMT -5
But not even close to the talent of the 2000 team.
And the press release has MN's end-of-season ranking wrong. They were ranked #6 in the final poll, not 9th.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiscvball on Apr 4, 2007 22:08:44 GMT -5
To be honest, I was expecting a bit tougher of a schedule. I thought a return trip to UCLA (to payback for the trip they made 2 years ago) would be in order. Hopefully they will be able to host a regional... they haven't fared too well in recent years playing good teams on the road in tourney play (Stanford, Washington, Texas) getting swept every time.
It's true that this is a very experienced team, but I don't think the talent level is that far off of the 2000 squad. They don't have a dominant player like Livingston (which is the biggest reason the Badgers don't get mentioned with NU, Stanford, PSU, etc...), but they have several very good components that can make a great team.
They have an experienced and proven setter, a solid (sometimes spectacular) libero, a great blocking middle in Reineke who can provide some offense, and two very good offensive weapons in Jeffers and Dolgner. IF Dysktra, DuPont/Salow/Wack can provide adequate offense to replace Carlini/Bladow - and I think all of them can - especially Dykstra over Bladow, then the Badgers will be better than last year. They just need to make sure they stay healthy. The trip to Europe this summer should also help with the team bonding and chemistry heading into the fall.
|
|
|
|
Post by bucky415 on Apr 4, 2007 23:52:45 GMT -5
I was hoping they would have two non-conference tournaments at home and would play a perennial top ten team in the non-conference, but I guess that is how it goes. I think the tournament at BYU will be a good test for them against three NCAA teams, and LMU will pose a threat. I think the opening weekend will give them a chance to work out some kinks. UWM will be good, but they will also have two new middles, which usually isn't a formula for instant success. It is also too bad that there are no home matches for over a month after that, so I guess I will need to take a road trip. I wish Illinois wasn't on a wednesday. Also, just once, I wish the weekend match where they only play once that weekend at home would be on a saturday rather than a friday. Oh well.
As for the comparison with the 2000 team, I think the two biggest differences, between the 2000 squad and a healthy group of 2007 Badgers (please let that be the case!) would be the lack of a truly dominant hitter like Livingston in this edition and the fact that the 2000 team was an outstanding back row team. That team could really play some defense. This group has the potential to be very good in the back row, but they need more consistency. On the good side, I think this team, if healthy, could be a better blocking team. Reineke is a better blocker than Livingston was (the numbers back this up), so that is a good place to start. Also, I think this team has more overall firepower if healthy. Kohnen and Byrd were very good all around, but neither was a big time offensive threat that year. Byrd became one the next year, to her credit. Dykstra has a lot in common with Rodriguez; a lot of size and considerable upside. I think Dolgner is very comparable to Maastricht offensively (and she might be better next year). Simpson is a returning All-American, while Fitzgerald wasn't even the clear starter coming into the 2000 season (how is that for some depth at the position?), although she was great that year. Finally, I think this group can serve tougher (yay for the let serve). Thus, I don't think the talent level of the 2007 edition is really all that far off that of the 2000 team, provided they are healthy, which I think it the big question at this point. It would great to have someone like Livingston, but those type of players don't come around too often, except maybe at Stanford. BASTA!
|
|
|
|
Post by ohiovalley on Apr 5, 2007 6:18:10 GMT -5
Waite barely touched on the Big Ten opponents except to say several teams are returning most of their players. Who will be the toughest opponents for Wisconsin in the league this year? Does Illinois make the big jump that their Sports Information Director is implying? How does Minnesota rebound after losing key players?
|
|
|
|
Post by Badger Alum on Apr 5, 2007 8:15:40 GMT -5
I was not all that happy with the Badgers schedule this year. They usually have 2 home pre-season tournaments - one that is a softball weekend and the other one that is tough. I agree wtih wiscvball that I was hoping for a UCLA type of opponent at the Field House. I wonder why they are only doing one tournament at home this year?
Also, they don't play at home the entire month of September. When was the last time that happened.
I also want to make comment on comparison the 2007 version of the Badgers to the 2000 version. Overall, I agree the talent is similar. Doglner is probably already better than Maastrict simply because Maastrict was more one dimensional (jump really high and hammer angle). Doglner can do that too, but she also has a great tip and a nice line shot. The biggest difference between the two teams is the setter. By the end of the year, Fitzgerald was amazing. Very fast offense. Perfect set placement. Wonderful blocker. Great on defense. Simpson is an All American, but she will really have to elevate her game to be on par with Lizzy's last season. The other difference is that women's volleyball in general has greatly improved over the last 7 years. Teams are much more athletic. I think a lot of 2007 teams could beat their counterparts circa 2000.
|
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Apr 5, 2007 9:24:50 GMT -5
In the last ten years, name the "really solid well-rounded teams" that made the Final without also having at least one clear AA (or POY candidate) marquee player. Then check to see which of those teams (if in fact you named more than one) won the national title. It has long been my opinion that rally scoring makes the superstar player more important than in side-out, because you can't count as much on defense or luck to keep you in a game. To run the full postseason gauntlet all the way to the Final Four, you need a player who can step up and terminate every rally. Substitute another good-yet-not-stellar OH for Nnamani in 2004 (like Morrison, Saleaumua, Martin, Topic), and Stanford doesn't survive the Regional. Of course, USC totally screws all this up because they had two years stacked with a team of solid well-rounded superstars.  |
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Apr 5, 2007 9:29:52 GMT -5
In the last ten years, name the "really solid well-rounded teams" that made the Final without also having at least one clear AA (or POY candidate) marquee player. Then check to see which of those teams (if in fact you named more than one) won the national title. It has long been my opinion that rally scoring makes the superstar player more important than in side-out, because you can't count as much on defense or luck to keep you in a game. To run the full postseason gauntlet all the way to the Final Four, you need a player who can step up and terminate every rally. Substitute another good-yet-not-stellar OH for Nnamani in 2004 (like Morrison, Saleaumua, Martin, Topic), and Stanford doesn't survive the Regional. Of course, USC totally screws all this up because they had two years stacked with a team of solid well-rounded superstars. Actually, you're a moron. It's the opposite -- superstar players were MORE important in the first two decades of college volleyball, because overall the teams weren't very good, so whoever had a superstar could count on crushing everyone else on the opponent's side: Williams, Cross, the Odens, Scott, May, even up to Cacciamani. These days, the club system has developed specialists beyond where they would have been twenty years ago, and the talent is spread around so much that the superstar player is a given and will be cancelled by the other team's superstar. What matters is how strong and balanced the rest of the team is. |
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Apr 5, 2007 9:31:35 GMT -5
In the last ten years, name the "really solid well-rounded teams" that made the Final without also having at least one clear AA (or POY candidate) marquee player. Then check to see which of those teams (if in fact you named more than one) won the national title. It has long been my opinion that rally scoring makes the superstar player more important than in side-out, because you can't count as much on defense or luck to keep you in a game. To run the full postseason gauntlet all the way to the Final Four, you need a player who can step up and terminate every rally. Substitute another good-yet-not-stellar OH for Nnamani in 2004 (like Morrison, Saleaumua, Martin, Topic), and Stanford doesn't survive the Regional. Of course, USC totally screws all this up because they had two years stacked with a team of solid well-rounded superstars. Actually, you're a moron. It's the opposite -- superstar players were MORE important in the first two decades of college volleyball, because overall the teams weren't very good, so whoever had a superstar could count on crushing everyone else on the opponent's side: Williams, Cross, the Odens, Scott, May, even up to Cacciamani. These days, the club system has developed specialists beyond where they would have been twenty years ago, and the talent is spread around so much that the superstar player is a given and will be cancelled by the other team's superstar. What matters is how strong and balanced the rest of the team is. Clearly we will have to agree to disagree on this matter, because there's not enough room in this brain for both of us to be right. |
|
|
|
Post by bomber on Apr 5, 2007 9:48:36 GMT -5
In the last ten years, name the "really solid well-rounded teams" that made the Final without also having at least one clear AA (or POY candidate) marquee player. Then check to see which of those teams (if in fact you named more than one) won the national title. It has long been my opinion that rally scoring makes the superstar player more important than in side-out, because you can't count as much on defense or luck to keep you in a game. To run the full postseason gauntlet all the way to the Final Four, you need a player who can step up and terminate every rally. Substitute another good-yet-not-stellar OH for Nnamani in 2004 (like Morrison, Saleaumua, Martin, Topic), and Stanford doesn't survive the Regional. Of course, USC totally screws all this up because they had two years stacked with a team of solid well-rounded superstars. Dogner has the potential to be that superstar terminator. She was the first frosh for the Badgers to make the First team All Big Ten team last year, and an honorable mention AA as a frosh as well. Even a moderate improvement from her first year play would mark her as one of the better outsides in the country this next season. Add senior AA Simpson to the mix as the setter, two time All Big ten senior middle Reineke and national record holder Wack as a senior libero and you have a team that's not exactly bereft of talent. Those three girls will finish their careers as four year starters, and have played in some huge winning matches with national significance (Hawaii in 2004, PSU in 2006). If they ever had a chance to go deep in the NCAA's, this would be the year. |
|
|
|
Post by ohiovalley on Apr 5, 2007 10:01:22 GMT -5
Do the current medical issues concern any of the Badger fans? DuPont and Jeffers are deaing with back injuries from what I understand. Will they be healthy next fall?
|
|
|
|
Post by wiscvball on Apr 5, 2007 10:24:11 GMT -5
Do the current medical issues concern any of the Badger fans? DuPont and Jeffers are deaing with back injuries from what I understand. Will they be healthy next fall? I don't think that DuPont's injury is very serious. I think she had a very small operation on her back to relieve some pressure/pain... if she's ready to go by the Europe trip (which is the rumor), then it can't be that serious. Jeffers is the one that I'm a bit more concerned about. I know they are resting her so that she can be healthy by the time fall rolls around. The Badgers did this last year as well and Jeffers took a while to regain her form and get back to 100%. She ended the year very strong in the second half of the big ten season and in the tournament. However, she had several below par matches in the first half. Similarly (though not due to injury), Dolgner started really slowly last year (was only hitting .199 in pre-conference) but then turned it on in the Big ten and hit about .260. Had she hit .260 for the season she would have been on one of the first three all-american teams. I'm guessing that she'll start much stronger this year than she did last year and hopefully that can offset any ramp-up time that Jeffers needs. |
|
|
|
Post by AntennaMagnet on Apr 5, 2007 10:55:39 GMT -5
Your point about peaking in the latter half of the season intrigues me....one would expect players to be at their best in the latter half of the season, but I have seen just the opposite happen. Stanford seems to be a good example of a team that builds momentum as they progress through the season, and maybe this is a mark of well coached teams. If so, what are the factors that help players achieve higher performance levels at the end of the season ?
|
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Apr 5, 2007 11:57:22 GMT -5
Very disappointing non conference schedule.
|
|
|
|
Post by bomber on Apr 5, 2007 12:00:00 GMT -5
Very disappointing non conference schedule. Bik, thank you for that sagacious and "objective" (yeah, sure) comment. I'll put it in the "consider the source" category. |
|
