|
Post by baywatcher on Oct 2, 2007 11:21:11 GMT -5
Saw Richards and other American Collegians play for USA at Montreux in 2005; US had Scott, Hanneef, Drury and Ah Mow Santos from the "regular" Amrican team, the rest were collegians, including Kehoe and Kamanao. The only collegian to distinguish herself was Melissa Elmer, top blocker at the tournament. Interesting to contrast Richards hitting, which I had seen at Stanford, against effect at international level, and it was apparent that what worked at Stanford wasn't going to work here. She also shanked her first serve recieve, probably nerves, and hence got served a lot; held up well under the subsequent pressure. American team embarrassed itself, coming in last, not srprising given the roster, and hasn't been back to what is a neat tournament.
|
|
|
Post by dishdaball on Oct 2, 2007 11:26:50 GMT -5
Saw Richards and other American Collegians play for USA at Montreux in 2005; US had Scott, Hanneef, Drury and Ah Mow Santos from the "regular" Amrican team, the rest were collegians, including Kehoe and Kamanao. The only collegian to distinguish herself was Melissa Elmer, top blocker at the tournament. Interesting to contrast Richards hitting, which I had seen at Stanford, against effect at international level, and it was apparent that what worked at Stanford wasn't going to work here. She also shanked her first serve recieve, probably nerves, and hence got served a lot; held up well under the subsequent pressure. American team embarrassed itself, coming in last, not srprising given the roster, and hasn't been back to what is a neat tournament. Did Kamanao or Kehoe even play?
|
|
|
Post by brybry2 on Oct 2, 2007 11:35:15 GMT -5
I always found Richards to be a really quick hitter when the sets were right. She could be pretty powerful on the international level if healthy. I disagree w/ some of the other posters saying Richards cannot be an international caliber OH. She passing skills and quickness could make her a strong utility player. Maybe only to hit play sets or in system. Some posters have a narrow view of the role of each player on a team. Think of players like Suhong Zhou, or Sasa, or Plotnikova and think about their ability to contribute to a team. But w/ that being said, it seems like Richard's knee problems could only become worse as an international OH. Also, I guess she may not fit in with Team USA as she doesn't hit moon ball sets very well. But to simply dismiss her as a potential international caliber OH is an insult to her abilities.
|
|
|
Post by PukaPants on Oct 2, 2007 11:59:00 GMT -5
I always found Richards to be a really quick hitter when the sets were right. She could be pretty powerful on the international level if healthy. When the sets were right? First rule for an international caliber OH - hit every set as if they are right!!!
|
|
|
Post by 5100 on Oct 2, 2007 13:58:33 GMT -5
Saw Richards and other American Collegians play for USA at Montreux in 2005; US had Scott, Hanneef, Drury and Ah Mow Santos from the "regular" Amrican team, the rest were collegians, including Kehoe and Kamanao. The only collegian to distinguish herself was Melissa Elmer, top blocker at the tournament. Interesting to contrast Richards hitting, which I had seen at Stanford, against effect at international level, and it was apparent that what worked at Stanford wasn't going to work here. She also shanked her first serve recieve, probably nerves, and hence got served a lot; held up well under the subsequent pressure. American team embarrassed itself, coming in last, not srprising given the roster, and hasn't been back to what is a neat tournament. Did Kamanao or Kehoe even play? Yes. Kamana'o spelled briefly as a setter in the tournament, as did Kehoe. Kehoe was even used as a passer/DS in a game or two. I can't recall which years Kristin Richards, Marci Hampton, Sarah Drury, Nicole Davis, Melissa Elmer, Christina Houghtelling and Candace Lee played in the Montreux/Grand Prix tournaments, but I've seen them all play. I thought Elmer was good, Hampton had potential and Houghtelling started ok, but had a tendency to just fade in the background, I often forgot she was there. Very impressive were Drury and Davis. I had high expectations regarding Lee, but I thought Drury and Davis, though not perfect, were better. The one player I wasn't impressed with was Richards. She wasn't much of a factor as an attacker, and her backrow play - which I expected to be her strength - was very inconsistent. She was shanking passes and had trouble defending. I don't think she is going to measure up to the international level as an OH. Libero is a possibility, but she needs a lot of work. She is not going to beat out Davis and friends at this point.
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Oct 2, 2007 17:13:48 GMT -5
Let's just get this out of they way since some of us are delusional about this particular aspect of college volleyball: SUCCESS AT A COLLEGE LEVEL DOES NOT GUARANTEE SUCCESS ON AN INTERNATIONAL LEVEL. Thank you! Open Question: Does lack of success at the college level guarantee lack of success on an international level? That is, if you can't dominate in the NCAA, should you even entertain secret night time fantasies of trying out for the NT? Who are the weakest college players ever to transition to overseas pro leagues or the NT for more than one shot?
|
|
|
Post by pumpkin on Oct 2, 2007 17:20:25 GMT -5
allot of people said the same thing about Kim Glass and she was the best attacker and passer that the USA had.
|
|
|
Post by johnbar on Oct 2, 2007 18:24:14 GMT -5
There was mention of surgery on her knees(s) after she finished her NCAA eligibility. Don't know if that happened. I saw Kristin at one of the Stanford Invitational matches in September. She was showing off her knee surgery scars. Sounded like they were both in good shape now. She mentioned that she would be joining the national team, but I didn't think to ask which position.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Oct 2, 2007 22:52:19 GMT -5
Let's just get this out of they way since some of us are delusional about this particular aspect of college volleyball: SUCCESS AT A COLLEGE LEVEL DOES NOT GUARANTEE SUCCESS ON AN INTERNATIONAL LEVEL. Thank you! Open Question: Does lack of success at the college level guarantee lack of success on an international level? That is, if you can't dominate in the NCAA, should you even entertain secret night time fantasies of trying out for the NT? This is exactly what I was about to post on. I believe OverAndUnder has a point here. American's ideas of what an "international player" looks like is defined by the players who have been chosen for their own team. Maybe they don't realize that China won an Olympic Gold with a 6' outside hitter and a 5'11" opposite. Both were primarily receivers who developed into good attackers. Italy just won the European Championships with a barely 6' outside hitter and a 5'10" opposite (ok, Aguero doesn't count). I wonder if Antonella Del Core or Zhou Suehong would get much of a chance at the national team if they were Americans. I doubt it very much.
|
|
|
Post by Phaedrus on Oct 3, 2007 5:23:59 GMT -5
This is exactly what I was about to post on. I believe OverAndUnder has a point here. American's ideas of what an "international player" looks like is defined by the players who have been chosen for their own team. Maybe they don't realize that China won an Olympic Gold with a 6' outside hitter and a 5'11" opposite. Both were primarily receivers who developed into good attackers. Italy just won the European Championships with a barely 6' outside hitter and a 5'10" opposite (ok, Aguero doesn't count). I wonder if Antonella Del Core or Zhou Suehong would get much of a chance at the national team if they were Americans. I doubt it very much. Murina and OverandUnder brings up interesting points. When you think of Cuba, you think of a prototypical player which fit into their game. Same with China, Russia, Italy, Brasil etc. What is the picture of the American game? What is the prototypical "American" player? It seems far fetched that given our vast talent pool, we can't out "big" the big teams nor can we out "quick" the quick teams. People will point to the athletes we lose to baskeball, outdoors VB, and the likes and say this is why the best American athletes aren't playing for the indoors NT. I think it is a factor but not THE factor. Selinger actually had it easy, the limited pool of talent that he had in 1980 and 1984 were pretty much just dedicated athletes who were really good but were by no means great. He was able to train them and sell them his concept of the game because that was what he HAD to do to win. I think extrapolating American college talent directly to the international game is silly. The true nature of the athlete does not come out until they have undergone trial by fire in a pro league. I spoke to a player who had played overseas and in the USPV, her point of view is that the American collegians have a very narrow view of what the game is like, their college experience puts them into a mindset that all is controlled and the players are all robots executing the coach's orders. The international game is less rigid because the opponents are better and the games are faster so the best laid plans are often not used because they are out of system most of the time while the range of the improvisation in the international game is greater than the American college game. That kind of a game dictates that a certain type of player will be successful in the international game and that could certainly not be predicted by American collegiate success.
|
|