Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 21:00:46 GMT -5
We literally just saw Murphy, Lowe, Lloyd, Robinson, Hancock, Larson, Hill, MBH, Akinradewo, Dixon, Adams, Courtney, Gibbemeyer, Wilhite, everyone prove that they did NOT have the ability to compete with the world's top teams at the World Championships despite ALL the "gel" and "experience with USAs system." These roster selections (and the principles that guided them) led to the worst finish at a major event in a decade.
Y'all are asking the wrong questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Mar 6, 2019 21:04:27 GMT -5
That was just 3 question marks, which turned into that emoji. No beef, just unsure who’s getting the 3rd spot. The emoji was an unhappy face...which could have easily meant you aren't happy with Dixon. And I clarified that. 3 question marks turns into that emoji. I didn’t choose that emoji and didn’t realize it showed up like that until now. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 6, 2019 21:08:47 GMT -5
The emoji was an unhappy face...which could have easily meant you aren't happy with Dixon. And I clarified that. 3 question marks turns into that emoji. I didn’t choose that emoji and didn’t realize it showed up like that until now. Ok, back to topic. Plummer...everyone wants her, but knowing Karch, I'm not sure we'll be seeing her in Tokyo. But post-Tokyo, probably. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Mar 6, 2019 21:16:14 GMT -5
We literally just saw Murphy, Lowe, Lloyd, Robinson, Hancock, Larson, Hill, MBH, Akinradewo, Dixon, Adams, Courtney, Gibbemeyer, Wilhite, everyone prove that they did NOT have the ability to compete with the world's top teams at the World Championships despite ALL the "gel" and "experience with USAs system." These roster selections (and the principles that guided them) led to the worst finish at a major event in a decade. Y'all are asking the wrong questions. 1) The question isn't necessarily if those players are good enough, but rather if those are the best players we have. Maybe our talent level is legitimately #5 in the world right now. If that's true, I don't think the answer is to gamble overhauling the roster 15 months before the Olympics. The 5th-best team in the world could still scratch and claw their way to a medal. 2) "Prove that they did NOT have the ability to compete with the world's top teams" is hyperbole. They lost a 5th set on back-to-back days to teams that finished in the top 4. Winning either would have advanced them to the semifinals. They didn't win and there are no moral victories, but that's different than saying the team was unable to compete. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 6, 2019 21:18:57 GMT -5
We literally just saw Murphy, Lowe, Lloyd, Robinson, Hancock, Larson, Hill, MBH, Akinradewo, Dixon, Adams, Courtney, Gibbemeyer, Wilhite, everyone prove that they did NOT have the ability to compete with the world's top teams at the World Championships despite ALL the "gel" and "experience with USAs system." These roster selections (and the principles that guided them) led to the worst finish at a major event in a decade. Y'all are asking the wrong questions. 1) The question isn't necessarily if those players are good enough, but rather if those are the best players we have. Maybe our talent level is legitimately #5 in the world right now. If that's true, I don't think the answer is to gamble overhauling the roster 15 months before the Olympics. The 5th-best team in the world could still scratch and claw their way to a medal. 2) "Prove that they did NOT have the ability to compete with the world's top teams" is hyperbole. They lost a 5th set on back-to-back days to teams that finished in the top 4. Winning either would have advanced them to the semifinals. They didn't win and there are no moral victories, but that's different than saying the team was unable to compete. Agreed. I'm glad shhhhhhhhh ain't in charge of the NT program, for all we know, he would be sending an all-college team to the Olympics...which will likely get trounced by everyone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2019 22:20:51 GMT -5
We literally just saw Murphy, Lowe, Lloyd, Robinson, Hancock, Larson, Hill, MBH, Akinradewo, Dixon, Adams, Courtney, Gibbemeyer, Wilhite, everyone prove that they did NOT have the ability to compete with the world's top teams at the World Championships despite ALL the "gel" and "experience with USAs system." These roster selections (and the principles that guided them) led to the worst finish at a major event in a decade. Y'all are asking the wrong questions. 1) The question isn't necessarily if those players are good enough, but rather if those are the best players we have. Maybe our talent level is legitimately #5 in the world right now. If that's true, I don't think the answer is to gamble overhauling the roster 15 months before the Olympics. The 5th-best team in the world could still scratch and claw their way to a medal. 2) "Prove that they did NOT have the ability to compete with the world's top teams" is hyperbole. They lost a 5th set on back-to-back days to teams that finished in the top 4. Winning either would have advanced them to the semifinals. They didn't win and there are no moral victories, but that's different than saying the team was unable to compete. 1) We're talking about different things. You're talking about medals. I'm not. 2) It isn't hyperbole. They lost four matches in a row and played very poor volleyball in the first round, going five with Thailand and Russia, playing close sets with Azerbaijan, and dropping a set to Korea. They showed a clear inability to maintain a high level of play across a stretch of matches, despite all the "time to gel" and "experience" that college kids are lacking. Can't use those two ideas as reasons to exclude talent when those two ideas were not strengths of the WCH team. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 6, 2019 22:22:06 GMT -5
1) The question isn't necessarily if those players are good enough, but rather if those are the best players we have. Maybe our talent level is legitimately #5 in the world right now. If that's true, I don't think the answer is to gamble overhauling the roster 15 months before the Olympics. The 5th-best team in the world could still scratch and claw their way to a medal. 2) "Prove that they did NOT have the ability to compete with the world's top teams" is hyperbole. They lost a 5th set on back-to-back days to teams that finished in the top 4. Winning either would have advanced them to the semifinals. They didn't win and there are no moral victories, but that's different than saying the team was unable to compete. 1) We're talking about different things. You're talking about medals. I'm not. 2) It isn't hyperbole. They lost four matches in a row and played very poor volleyball in the first round, going five with Thailand and Russia, playing close sets with Azerbaijan, and dropping a set to Korea. They showed a clear inability to maintain a high level of play across a stretch of matches.And your selection would be better eh? Don't make me laugh. |
|
|
|
Post by vup on Mar 6, 2019 22:41:05 GMT -5
We literally just saw Murphy, Lowe, Lloyd, Robinson, Hancock, Larson, Hill, MBH, Akinradewo, Dixon, Adams, Courtney, Gibbemeyer, Wilhite, everyone prove that they did NOT have the ability to compete with the world's top teams at the World Championships despite ALL the "gel" and "experience with USAs system." These roster selections (and the principles that guided them) led to the worst finish at a major event in a decade. Y'all are asking the wrong questions. 1) The question isn't necessarily if those players are good enough, but rather if those are the best players we have. Maybe our talent level is legitimately #5 in the world right now. If that's true, I don't think the answer is to gamble overhauling the roster 15 months before the Olympics. The 5th-best team in the world could still scratch and claw their way to a medal. 2) "Prove that they did NOT have the ability to compete with the world's top teams" is hyperbole. They lost a 5th set on back-to-back days to teams that finished in the top 4. Winning either would have advanced them to the semifinals. They didn't win and there are no moral victories, but that's different than saying the team was unable to compete. Nah, our talent level isn't #5. We're top 3 easily, and we're deeper than any other nation in the world (including all active players). |
|
|
|
Post by vup on Mar 6, 2019 22:47:38 GMT -5
It's not that Wilhite, Gibby, and Lloyd (picking on them by salience) aren't good enough to be in the gym, but it's unjust, in my opinion, that they are the Olympians over, for example, Nicole Fawcett, who is not an Olympian. It just doesn't sit well. Karch is stealing our players' deserved legacy.
|
|
|
|
Post by vup on Mar 6, 2019 22:56:18 GMT -5
It's not that Wilhite, Gibby, and Lloyd (picking on them by salience) aren't good enough to be in the gym, but it's unjust, in my opinion, that they are the Olympians over, for example, Nicole Fawcett, who is not an Olympian. It just doesn't sit well. Karch is stealing our players' deserved legacy. Let's not speak that to existence quite yet. (Although I think there's a fair shot that could happen)You see my point though. I'm just sayin' man lol |
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Mar 6, 2019 22:57:07 GMT -5
Maybe rio could’ve looked a lot different if Karch didn’t kick the 2 best players on the team off after London.
|
|
|
|
Post by vup on Mar 6, 2019 23:12:50 GMT -5
Maybe rio could’ve looked a lot different if Karch didn’t kick the 2 best players on the team off after London. This is the vicious circle of discussing the national team. It all comes back to that. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Mar 6, 2019 23:27:54 GMT -5
I don't think elite players still in college 1) will necessarily translate to playing at an elite level internationally especially right away If you can play, you can play. Plummer can play. Well, I completely agree with the bolded, which my second point that you didn't quote touched on, when I alluded to that right now, the NCAA --> NT pipeline doesn't really allow for players to play on the NT until after they graduate college. That's another discussion (or maybe not) but until there becomes a practical way for NCAA players to contribute to the senior NT, which IMO is a very significant systematic change, I didn't include NCAA players in my "wish list." I think Plummer is a tremendous talent and should be in the NT gym training at OPP. But I also reject the idea that it is a guarantee she is going to dominate at the international level like she does at the collegiate level and reject the idea we won't win Gold in Tokyo without her (especially in Karch's system). We've had incredible terminators who had Plummer-esque numbers (Lowe, Fawcett, Hodge) who have struggled at times at the next level. Hell, I thought Lowe was the future at the opposite position before her break (still haven't forgiven her for that). You know I'm with you when I want to see recent grads get more legitimate opportunities against top tier competition, but I think it's hyperbole to say Plummer is the key to winning Gold, at this point in time, when we haven't seen her play at the next level. If she could play this summer and we could see her play against the Serbias, Chinas, Netherlands, etc. of the world, maybe that would change my mind, but that goes back to my first paragraph - right now, it just isn't feasible or likely. |
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Mar 6, 2019 23:28:31 GMT -5
The best thing that happened to the national team last year was the finish at the world championships. If karch doesn’t make adjustments this year then will know that he’s completely inept.
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Mar 6, 2019 23:36:58 GMT -5
Ideal: S: Poulter, Carlini The problem with this (and I say that begrudgingly because it isn't a problem) is I don't think Karch will see either of them as a double sub setter. I also don't think Karch sees Hancock as a starting setter, but I bet he could see Lloyd as a double sub setter. So regardless of whether Carlini/Poulter is the best setting combination (it probably is)... it won't happen. I agree. You would think after London, when Berg went down and we almost had to use Thompson in the semis and finals, that we would have learned our lesson about going all-in on the double sub. But I guess Karch's response to that was taking 3 setters LOL. Personally, if we can find an opposite who can attack reliably out of the back row, Poulter and Carlini are damn good blockers, so I'd like to see less of the double sub. I personally really liked in 2015 (?) when we would sub Hodge into the front row for Robo... let's do that with someone like Lee sometimes instead of using the double sub every set like clockwork. |
|
