|
|
Post by ironhammer on Aug 21, 2016 21:09:19 GMT -5
Looking at the other side a little bit, comparing Serbia's performance in the US match and the final against China, I thought Boskovic and Mihajlovic didn't played as well in the final against China as they did against the US. They made too many errors in the final. By contrast, they were on fire against the US. I wonder why. Where they simply psyched out in the final? Mentally buckling under the pressure? They gave it their all against the US and had nothing left against China? Or Lang Ping was a better tactician than Karch and could better adapt strategies to counter Serbia? That's not really true. Serbia was quite error-laden against the USA - they gave us about 50 points on their own mistakes. Boskovic hit .100 points higher against China than she did against the USA in the semis. Mihajlovic hit about the same (.208 vs .214). I suppose you are right. Although simply watching the two matches without tabulating the statistics, it certainly felt they committed more errors in the China march. Maybe its because the Chinese simply were better against Serbia in block, serving and reception than US? So the errors became more costly (and noticeable) for Serbia when they went against China than US? About Boskovic, correct me if I'm wrong, but she has one of the fastest (if not the fastest) serve among women in volleyball? She serves like as if she is a man. That certainly created a lot of reception problems for the US and China. Although in China's case, China seem to get a better handle on her than the US after the first set. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 21, 2016 21:20:36 GMT -5
That's not really true. Serbia was quite error-laden against the USA - they gave us about 50 points on their own mistakes. Boskovic hit .100 points higher against China than she did against the USA in the semis. Mihajlovic hit about the same (.208 vs .214). I suppose you are right. Although simply watching the two matches without tabulating the statistics, it certainly felt they committed more errors in the China march. Maybe its because the Chinese simply were better against Serbia in block, serving and reception than US? So the errors became more costly (and noticeable) for Serbia when they went against China than US? US had 9 more blocks against Serbia than China did. Those two had 19 hitting errors against the US and 12 against China (they did have 9 servings errors against China but only 6 against the US). They weren't making more errors. Serbia as a team actually hit better against China than against the US. China was more successful against Serbia than the US because (1) they hit about .100 points higher and (b) missed 14 fewer serves. Actually, now that I think about it, the USA missing all those serves and doing poorly offensively probably artificially deflated Serbia's hitting percentage - trading high-conversion FBSO opportunities for tough transition swings. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Aug 21, 2016 21:27:51 GMT -5
I suppose you are right. Although simply watching the two matches without tabulating the statistics, it certainly felt they committed more errors in the China march. Maybe its because the Chinese simply were better against Serbia in block, serving and reception than US? So the errors became more costly (and noticeable) for Serbia when they went against China than US? US had 9 more blocks against Serbia than China did. Those two had 19 hitting errors against the US and 12 against China (they did have 9 servings errors against China but only 6 against the US). They weren't making more errors. Serbia as a team actually hit better against China than against the US. China was more successful against Serbia than the US because (1) they hit about .100 points higher and (b) missed 14 fewer serves. Actually, now that I think about it, the USA missing all those serves and doing poorly offensively probably artificially deflated Serbia's hitting percentage - trading high-conversion FBSO opportunities for tough transition swings. So it came down to serves. Why did US not do well in that area? Just an off-day for the US? Or do they have fundamental serving problems? Are we talking about individual player issue or a more systematic issue with the team over serving? |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 21, 2016 21:34:32 GMT -5
USA is not a weak serving team. The service game carried the team the entire quad. So it wouldn't be fundamental.
It would come down to (a) not being able to perform in primetime or (b) teams eventually adjusting after 4 years of "flean"
Personnel also accounts for it, Akinradewo is one of the top servers; Dietzen may be the worst server on team USA. Hill getting benched doesn't help.
But even at full strength, the Olympics wasn't a good serving tournament for us, so I'd lean towards (a) or (b). Both raise interesting questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Aug 21, 2016 21:42:26 GMT -5
USA is not a weak serving team. The service game carried the team the entire quad. So it wouldn't be fundamental. It would come down to (a) not being able to perform in primetime or (b) teams eventually adjusting after 4 years of "flean" Personnel also accounts for it, Akinradewo is one of the top servers; Dietzen may be the worst server on team USA. Hill getting benched doesn't help. But even at full strength, the Olympics wasn't a good serving tournament for us, so I'd lean towards (a) or (b). Both raise interesting questions. I suspect as much, I thought the US served great during the WGP. Its odd they didn't serve so well in the Olympics. If we are talking about (a), we are talking about the mental game. I would have thought US would be ready mentally for the Olympics. But I guess not. And to be fair, this doesn't just afflict US, it afflicts all teams. The pressure to perform in the Olympics can be overwhelming. Is it the expectation they were the "favorites" after Brazil fell to China that got them? I don't know, while I can certainly appreciate the stress they were under, other teams also faced this stress and some can overcome it. I mean, China were arguably under more pressure because of their dreadful performance in pool play, yet they turned around their game in the knock-out stage. So, I don't know. Maybe their mental preparation just didn't cut it? Or prepared wrongly? |
|
|
|
Post by thechief on Aug 22, 2016 8:31:53 GMT -5
Apologize for the delay but it has been a busy few days. Here are my thoughts on this match
1) I almost posted on here but decided against it in fear of "jinxing" them but once Brazil lost, I felt this would be a trap game for the USA. Even if you are the strongest team mentally, Brazil losing changed the entire vibe of the tournament and I felt like Serbia, after dismantling Russia, was on a high. I actually felt like if we won the semifinal, the final would likely be easier. I guess we'll never know.
2) I have been consistently critical of Karch and most of you know that but I absolutely hate his policy of jump float serving. IMO, this was a team that already had major questions marks, and that policy only made us more vulnerable.
3) Also, why are people so surprised that people are being very critical of Karch? I'm not taking sides in any fight between he and Destinee, but I feel like overall Karch made some big decisions that hurt us in the end. The serving policy (mentioned above), the "team chemistry over talent" policy, and whether you want to admit it or not, Karch certainly picked his favorites. There is no way I would've ever selected Courtney Thompson over Nicole Fawcett. Ever. And I would've kept Hildebrand around a lot longer to challenge Robinson. Karch may be one of the most decorated volleyball players but it's clear that some of the coaching decisions he made hurt us in the end. This is why the whole "let's have doctors be the President since they are so smart!" argument doesn't work.
4) Lastly, while the loss is disappointing, I saw it coming. The USA has hung it's hat for the last two years on winning the World Championships but one tournament does not define, just as some of you are saying right now about the Olympics. Plus, at the WC's all of the teams were not at full strength, which is important to note. Bottom line, Team USA was a good team, but not a great teams. Teams like Serbia and China were not necessarily as successful than us in the last four years, but they made bigger gains on a player development level and had a higher ceiling than we did, IMO. What's unfortunate is that we are stuck with Karch for another four years (from what I've understood) and if he had made different decisions as a coach, we could've been a great team, not just a good team.
Looking forward to seeing what the next four years bring.
|
|
|
|
Post by ciscokeed on Aug 22, 2016 8:56:14 GMT -5
Both our men's and women's teams were a couple of plays away from playing for gold. Both played tight down the stretch in those particular sets- and lost the serve/pass battle at the end of the match. Stuff happens.... People always look to blame someone but if you told me that both our teams would be in the semis of the Olympics with leads in the 5th I would have been thrilled...
|
|
|
|
Post by kro2488 on Aug 22, 2016 10:29:58 GMT -5
USA is not a weak serving team. The service game carried the team the entire quad. So it wouldn't be fundamental. It would come down to (a) not being able to perform in primetime or (b) teams eventually adjusting after 4 years of "flean" Personnel also accounts for it, Akinradewo is one of the top servers; Dietzen may be the worst server on team USA. Hill getting benched doesn't help. But even at full strength, the Olympics wasn't a good serving tournament for us, so I'd lean towards (a) or (b). Both raise interesting questions. They had talked about the difference in size of the practice gym vs the venue. Also, apparently more air from outside gets into the Olympic venue for volleyball due to more places where outside air gets in, thus more drafts were occuring. I believe this might account for both the men's and women's teams sub par serving to an extent. For those of you harping on only serving float serves they actually tend to get teams out of system more often, when you can get them in the court. Top spin serves have a trajectory that you can follow and adjust to even if they are very powerful, an experienced passer can just pass the ball off the net a few feet if they have to, and international setters are better at setting middles off the net generally. Good float serves definitely cause more offensive chaos from what I have seen. |
|
|
|
Post by missourifan on Aug 22, 2016 11:01:15 GMT -5
I couldn't believe I witness that meltdown. Very disappointing to watch. Missed serves in the 5th was crazy. So who's on the team for 2020? I think only 2 or 3 should be ask back. Who do you keep? Who are the other replacements? Just wondering. Hard to say but I think we need better rightside hitters. At this point I think we are replaying Thompson, Larson, Foulke, Christa, and I think we lose a couple others. Dixon would of been great to have this go around. |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Aug 22, 2016 11:24:10 GMT -5
USA is not a weak serving team. The service game carried the team the entire quad. So it wouldn't be fundamental. It would come down to (a) not being able to perform in primetime or (b) teams eventually adjusting after 4 years of "flean" Personnel also accounts for it, Akinradewo is one of the top servers; Dietzen may be the worst server on team USA. Hill getting benched doesn't help. But even at full strength, the Olympics wasn't a good serving tournament for us, so I'd lean towards (a) or (b). Both raise interesting questions. They had talked about the difference in size of the practice gym vs the venue. Also, apparently more air from outside gets into the Olympic venue for volleyball due to more places where outside air gets in, thus more drafts were occuring. I believe this might account for both the men's and women's teams sub par serving to an extent. For those of you harping on only serving float serves they actually tend to get teams out of system more often, when you can get them in the court. Top spin serves have a trajectory that you can follow and adjust to even if they are very powerful, an experienced passer can just pass the ball off the net a few feet if they have to, and international setters are better at setting middles off the net generally. Good float serves definitely cause more offensive chaos from what I have seen. I have been a big fan of USA serving over this quad, so not sure what you're responding to. But teams adjust, and diminishing returns are real. |
|
|
|
Post by thechief on Aug 22, 2016 11:27:51 GMT -5
Both our men's and women's teams were a couple of plays away from playing for gold. Both played tight down the stretch in those particular sets- and lost the serve/pass battle at the end of the match. Stuff happens.... People always look to blame someone but if you told me that both our teams would be in the semis of the Olympics with leads in the 5th I would have been thrilled... I could be totally wrong but I feel like most people on this board had higher hopes for Team USA Women than the semis. Especially after how much success our last quad had, even with the loss to Brazil, that was still an elite group who just happened to have one bad day on the worst time. The same cannot be said for this group. This group had multiple bumps in the road and I think if our 2012 women's team played our 2008 team, they wouldn't even win a set. The men, on the other hand, totally overachieved and I'm happy for them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 11:56:06 GMT -5
It's always dangerous to draw conclusions about an entire match based on the overall stats for that match. At least to draw them too broadly. For instance, I'd be willing to bet that Serbia's stats were much better in the 3 games they won. Both Boskovic and Mihajlovic were extremely streaky in that match, especially from the service line, but also hitting. It'd be interesting to see if those trends corresponded to their team's success. Seems obvious it would, but ...
Anyhow, all I'm saying is hitting .214 or whatever for a match is only going to tell you so much about a hitter's impact.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 22, 2016 11:58:49 GMT -5
Actually, now that I think about it, the USA missing all those serves and doing poorly offensively probably artificially deflated Serbia's hitting percentage - trading high-conversion FBSO opportunities for tough transition swings. Excellent point. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Aug 22, 2016 12:02:58 GMT -5
It's always dangerous to draw conclusions about an entire match based on the overall stats for that match. At least to draw them too broadly. For instance, I'd be willing to bet that Serbia's stats were much better in the 3 games they won. Both Boskovic and Mihajlovic were extremely streaky in that match, especially from the service line, but also hitting. It'd be interesting to see if those trends corresponded to their team's success. Seems obvious it would, but ... Anyhow, all I'm saying is hitting .214 or whatever for a match is only going to tell you so much about a hitter's impact. Quite true, that is why I seldom quote stats for final matches. Not always indicative of the actual team performance. But one stat that I am interested in, just how powerful are Boskovic's serves? |
|
