|
Post by guest2 on Aug 21, 2015 11:30:15 GMT -5
This argument seems to default in part on the premise that new school players would struggle in the old school game (ball control, focus etc.) but there are intricacies of the new school game that I think would actually enhance the effectiveness of new school players in the old school game that are never raised. To be effective in the short court, depending on the player, you need to be able to hit an extreme short cut shot and deep over the line shot. You must also be able to hit high deep angle and work the blockers including hit high hard at their hands as well as hit hard line. In other words, less room to work with has refined the accuracy by which today's players must have to hit and shoot to very specific spots so offensive attack control has become necessary to be effective. On a much larger court, there would be much more court for a defender to cover - new school players would have a field day hitting to these opened up offensive scoring areas (and have the offensive attack control to do so)....just a thought... Its an interesting argument. Similar to the advantage the defenders who came up in the no blocking over era had over the guys like Brian Lewis who never played those rules. One of the reasons MD, KK, and Sinjin could pop almost anything up. Also reading more important because less time to react.
|
|
|
Post by wonderwarthog79 on Aug 26, 2015 12:11:29 GMT -5
Hard to compare players with different strengths, especially from different eras, but what the hell. Karch's success with different partners, all-around game, and potential if he hadn't chosen to play indoors during his most productive years gives him a major edge. I remember a Santa Cruz tourney in which blocking over was first allowed. Karch just crushed everybody, playing with...Sinjin. I'll mention one old-timer who was the essence of the old-school game--Menges. I have never seen a player control a match psychologically as well as Menges. In the trench warfare days, siding out and making subtle adjustments on defense were the keys. Nobody did these things as well as Menges, and he could play for days on end. I'll grant that the modern players are bigger, stronger, probably faster and more athletic, but I wonder how they would handle a 96-team format in matches that went on forever.
|
|
|
Post by ciscokeed on Aug 26, 2015 17:05:34 GMT -5
So glad you mentioned Menges. He and Greg Lee dominated during the period between Von Hagen Lang and the Karch Sinjin era. Greg Lee was a 6'5" player who was the starting point guard for at least 2 NCAA championships under Coach Wooden. Jim Mengrs was also a great athlete- a Safety in football but blew his shoulder out making a tackle playing for SMCC. Had to change his game from a hammer to a shot maker- yet remained the favorite during his peak years. Ang again both Menges and Lee were athletic enough to translate their games to the modern era.
|
|
|
Post by JB Southpaw on Aug 27, 2015 8:19:48 GMT -5
I wonder how much the ball of each era would have an effect.
I haven't played with the FIVB sphere, but the Wilson AVP seems to be harder to pass than the old Spalding. The old 18 panel had some nice seams that you could really get some top-spin with.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 27, 2015 8:51:31 GMT -5
I wonder how much the ball of each era would have an effect. I haven't played with the FIVB sphere, but the Wilson AVP seems to be harder to pass than the old Spalding. The old 16 panel had some nice seams that you could really get some top-spin with. I think it would definitely have an effect. I saw April Ross bounce one that looked like a 1991 Randy Stoklos hit. The current ball and the old AVP 18 panel seem to behave very, very differently. What did they play with pre-AVP? Was it just an indoor ball?
|
|
|
Post by ardatak on Aug 27, 2015 16:18:44 GMT -5
Ask yourself this. If you could play one game with anyone in their prime, who would you play with to maximize your chances of winning? Depends on who you are and the era. If you are a defender in 1988? Stoklos. Blocker in rally? Emmanuel. If you don't know who the other player is? Karch. One thing that I think works against Karch. When was he the best player? 92 and 93 for sure. But what other years was it definitely him? Probably 95 because Kent was out, but 94, 96 and 97 was Kent, or maybe Jose in 1997 Phil can point to a longer run. Stoklos the same. 86-91 was Randy. Phil from late 2007-2008 all the way to last year. thats seven years where the best player was Phil. OK, so that is a somewhat valid point which I suppose begs the question, who is the most well rounded. But an even easier way to answer the question would be to ask this: If he could partner up with his own Clone, who would form the most dominant team? The idea of 2 Phils setting each other seems insanely one sided. Plus they'd make decent defenders. I'd take 2 Phils against 2 Karches any day.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 27, 2015 16:53:15 GMT -5
Depends on who you are and the era. If you are a defender in 1988? Stoklos. Blocker in rally? Emmanuel. If you don't know who the other player is? Karch. One thing that I think works against Karch. When was he the best player? 92 and 93 for sure. But what other years was it definitely him? Probably 95 because Kent was out, but 94, 96 and 97 was Kent, or maybe Jose in 1997 Phil can point to a longer run. Stoklos the same. 86-91 was Randy. Phil from late 2007-2008 all the way to last year. thats seven years where the best player was Phil. OK, so that is a somewhat valid point which I suppose begs the question, who is the most well rounded. But an even easier way to answer the question would be to ask this: If he could partner up with his own Clone, who would form the most dominant team? The idea of 2 Phils setting each other seems insanely one sided. Plus they'd make decent defenders. I'd take 2 Phils against 2 Karches any day. The answer there is two Kents or two Regos. You need to be able to block and play defense and to play the left and right side. Karch was horrendous on the right. Could not play it at all. Two Phils would be hell serving and blocking but on defense? Not so much. Tough to score on though
|
|
|
Post by ardatak on Aug 27, 2015 17:09:08 GMT -5
OK, so that is a somewhat valid point which I suppose begs the question, who is the most well rounded. But an even easier way to answer the question would be to ask this: If he could partner up with his own Clone, who would form the most dominant team? The idea of 2 Phils setting each other seems insanely one sided. Plus they'd make decent defenders. I'd take 2 Phils against 2 Karches any day. The answer there is two Kents or two Regos. You need to be able to block and play defense and to play the left and right side. Karch was horrendous on the right. Could not play it at all. Two Phils would be hell serving and blocking but on defense? Not so much. Tough to score on though I'd think with that side out percentage, tough serves, and handful of blocks they'd beat anyone. Plus, Phil played right for a time with Sean so we know he could do it.
|
|
|
Post by haze on Aug 27, 2015 17:53:26 GMT -5
I cringe right now at the sight of Phil playing defense. He's not fluid defenisvely at all and I haven't seen anything where he could somehow make it work. Ain't no disrespect at all to Phil's dominance game as he's arguably the best player to ever control the net but a defensive player he isn't.
|
|
|
Post by gr8hands on Aug 28, 2015 7:03:41 GMT -5
Responding to the ones person comment about playing one game with any one at there prime how could you not pick Phil? With his abilitys to score points On another knot could you imagine Phil at his prime and karch at his prime playing together??!! Would be the best team ever to step on the court in my opinion who's playing right side?
|
|
|
Post by tinman2 on Aug 28, 2015 21:15:18 GMT -5
Could you imagine Phil and Sinjin?
|
|
|
Post by stevieofmb on Aug 29, 2015 0:27:03 GMT -5
Could you imagine Phil and Sinjin? Stoklos was the Phil of his time.
|
|
|
Post by donnyb on Aug 30, 2015 20:42:36 GMT -5
I actually think Phil could play defense. Not great but good. He's one of the better big mans to pull and dig a ball. He pretty fast also. He just obviasly never has had to.
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Aug 31, 2015 8:44:36 GMT -5
I actually think Phil could play defense. Not great but good. He's one of the better big mans to pull and dig a ball. He pretty fast also. He just obviasly never has had to. With Phils long reach, and phil at the net, chasing down shots would not mean he has to be super quick. He can kind of just fall over and dig 10 feet in any direction. Most of the guys at that level can dig a relatively hard hit ball at them as well. I don't think he'd win pretty, but aces and blocks would add up. Also in terms of the ball, I think some of the older guys would need some time adjusting to new AVP ball that does move quite a bit on float serves.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Aug 31, 2015 9:20:03 GMT -5
I actually think Phil could play defense. Not great but good. He's one of the better big mans to pull and dig a ball. He pretty fast also. He just obviasly never has had to. With Phils long reach, and phil at the net, chasing down shots would not mean he has to be super quick. He can kind of just fall over and dig 10 feet in any direction. Most of the guys at that level can dig a relatively hard hit ball at them as well. I don't think he'd win pretty, but aces and blocks would add up. Also in terms of the ball, I think some of the older guys would need some time adjusting to new AVP ball that does move quite a bit on float serves. Evandro has had some success this year playing defense and he isnt exactly Tim Walmer back there.
|
|