|
Post by guest2 on Mar 27, 2020 17:31:16 GMT -5
Its as fictional as reality television. The events are constantly manipulated through rule changes, seeding, CQs, etc. Just like every other professional sport, BVB is an entertainment property. And all those changes are made to produce with the goal of producing a better entertainment product - which the FIVB happens to be absolutely terrible at. Lets look at two scenarios: (Both assume Corona is done by July - probably a pipe dream) 1) Qualification starts today, previous results don't count at all. This stinks for the players who already have a ton of excellent results or who have qualified. Its massively better for fans and for making sure the best players have a chance to form the best teams to qualify. Also much better for ensuring the players actually show up at events that are schedule between now and the Olympics 2) The current system stays in place Much worse for fans, the same boring teams we have seen for two years are the same teams that continue going forward, despite having little or no chance to actually succeed at the Olympics. Many players who have already qualified start skipping events they dont like (many players have spoken about wanting to do this) or not playing to conserve entry points, take precautions against injuries etc. Several excellent players (Sara Hughes, F'n Larissa, Andre, Kira are locked out of the process while inferior players - Brooke, Rebecca, Kozuch etc. are in or close to it) In both systems, the top players still get in. (Alix/April/Duda/Kerri/Ludwig/Aussies/Ana/Evandro/Mol etc) But in one system, we spend the next year watching high stakes matches between the top teams in the world in the best possible combinations. In the other we spend the year watching Tri/Trevor battle Adrian/Rossi to see who is the 14th best team to secure automatic qualification while almost everybody else is already qualified. I don’t know why for the life of me you think the US Players would change partners when 2 teams go and the teams 2-4 are jammed together so close in talent and points. Swap around to be in the same spot? You’re going to form a new partnership with weeks of practice and drop your partner of 2 years for what? Because maybe you’ll play better together? Don’t see it. Because in the mix of the 7 best US players who havent qualified there is one who is much better than all the rest There is also one who is much worse than all the rest. Because of weird timing and personal stuff, they are playing together. If qualifying was reset, do you really think Kerri sticks with Brooke? Why would she? Kerri/Sponcil, Kerri/Stockman and Kerri/Hughes are better teams than Kerri/Brooke right now and Kerri/Flint would be with a few weeks of practice. Also Hughes is better than Sponcil, Sweat, Stockman and Flint, but they all have better partners than she does. Nothing in BVB is more overrated than time together. With two mature players, its very rare to see a team get significantly better after the first few months for any reason other than recovery or one player getting better.
|
|
|
Post by itssteve on Mar 27, 2020 18:06:41 GMT -5
“Also Hughes is better than Sponcil, Sweat, Stockman and Flint, but they all have better partners than she does.
Nothing in BVB is more overrated than time together. With two mature players, its very rare to see a team get significantly better after the first few months for any reason other than recovery or one player getting better.”
I don’t see why some people think Sara is the second coming of misty but she is not. At one point whenever she was is college beating up on college kids I also thought it was some impressive volleyball. Whenever she goes up against the best in the world she just not a stand out player. She might be a top 20 player in the world but she is not in the top 10 player.
Secondly it’s clear you think Brooke is just a bad at volleyball . Sara and Sarah are young and still have a great upside if they can fix there huge mental and volleyball wholes in there game. But for the past 6+ years Brooke has had better seasons every season then Betsy or Emily. Do you think Brooke games has fallen off since she started playing with Kerri or something?
|
|
|
Post by newbeach on Mar 27, 2020 18:28:45 GMT -5
Sorry, I was not clear with what I wrote. I will only say that I know that some of Sara's partner's have had issues with her as well. There were some people who wanted to slam Claes after her split with Hughes. Somehow it was all because Kelly was lazy, spent all her time with her boyfriend etc. But, the majority of that "news" came from a couple of VT'ers (one in particular). Again, when Summer and Sara split, we hear it was Summer because she bailed on Hughes. Both parties had issues. Not all partnerships are meant to be, but some people want to paint Sara as the poor innocent victim of crappy partners. It just isn't so. I can say without hesitation Claes last partner was not shy in calling her lazy as she waited for her hour after hour to show up in the gym and was never on time and always wanted to quit early. I watched and heard that first hand. There is a point where playing with certain players isn't worth it. There are always two sides to the story despite what you "watched and heard". As another poster stated, at what point "is it her fault"? I think that is a good place to leave it. People can ask themselves that question.
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Mar 27, 2020 19:26:03 GMT -5
“Also Hughes is better than Sponcil, Sweat, Stockman and Flint, but they all have better partners than she does. Nothing in BVB is more overrated than time together. With two mature players, its very rare to see a team get significantly better after the first few months for any reason other than recovery or one player getting better.” I don’t see why some people think Sara is the second coming of misty but she is not. At one point whenever she was is college beating up on college kids I also thought it was some impressive volleyball. Whenever she goes up against the best in the world she just not a stand out player. She might be a top 20 player in the world but she is not in the top 10 player. Secondly it’s clear you think Brooke is just a bad at volleyball . Sara and Sarah are young and still have a great upside if they can fix there huge mental and volleyball wholes in there game. But for the past 6+ years Brooke has had better seasons every season then Betsy or Emily. Do you think Brooke games has fallen off since she started playing with Kerri or something? I don’t think 2018-2019 Brooke is peak Brooke. She had a pretty good stretch in 2014-2015 with Lauren where they were clearly the #2 US team behind Kerri/April. Then she injured her shoulder and only qualified for Rio because of the points they earned the year before. Then in 2017 she and Summer were among several top US teams, winning an AVP and several top 5 finishes on the FIVB. But again her shoulder gave out in early 2018. I don’t think her shoulder is back to what it was in 2014 or 2017 and it shows in her side out game.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Mar 27, 2020 20:58:27 GMT -5
“Also Hughes is better than Sponcil, Sweat, Stockman and Flint, but they all have better partners than she does. Nothing in BVB is more overrated than time together. With two mature players, its very rare to see a team get significantly better after the first few months for any reason other than recovery or one player getting better.” I don’t see why some people think Sara is the second coming of misty but she is not. At one point whenever she was is college beating up on college kids I also thought it was some impressive volleyball. Whenever she goes up against the best in the world she just not a stand out player. She might be a top 20 player in the world but she is not in the top 10 player. Secondly it’s clear you think Brooke is just a bad at volleyball . Sara and Sarah are young and still have a great upside if they can fix there huge mental and volleyball wholes in there game. But for the past 6+ years Brooke has had better seasons every season then Betsy or Emily. Do you think Brooke games has fallen off since she started playing with Kerri or something? No I think Brooke was always a weak player and has been extremely lucky with partners. Also Stockman has gotten much better the last several years. In 2017 the only thing you needed to do to beat her was serve her and wait while she hit the ball out. Now she is steady, plays good sideout volleyball and decent defense. She is better than Brooke at almost every skill Betsi has been the opposite of Brooke and has always been shut out of the good partners. Summer and Kerri are both much better than Emily Day and Larsen really took off after they broke up. (I think Brooke v Betsi is arguable though) I dont think Sara is the second coming and that "second coming of Misty" stuff was stupid even when she was in college - which I believe an astute poster pointed out then - and there are many defenders in the world better than she is. Duda, April, Larissa, Ludwig are on a level above her and its not close. Others like MHP are better but around the same tier. But Sara has proven much more than the other US teams. She has won an FIVB, none of them have and she beat Dudatha and the Ateam to do it. The contrast is starker when looking at the AVP. In 2018, the last healthy season she played with Summer, she won half her AVPs and beat April, Duda, and Clancy in those 4 events. The only team they lost to on the AVP was the Ateam. They were 16-0 in non-Ateam matches. 16-0. In contrast Hughes, Flint and Stockman all lost to at least 5 different teams on the AVP this year
|
|
|
Post by beavis on Mar 28, 2020 3:24:28 GMT -5
With Vienna, Hamburg and Gstaad all straight out cancelled, and even if Cancun, Itapema and Ostrava actually get rescheduled (and Moscow and Rome stay on the calendar for early June), that makes one 5 star and four 4 star events played during 2020. I don't see how they could possibly start the Olympic qualification process over from scratch given the dearth of available tournaments (and points opportunities).
Also, I must disagree with Guest2's assertion that nothing in beach volleyball is more overrated than time together, and that teams rarely improve with time together. The A-team has improved dramatically over the past few years, and I'm not sure that you could ever argue that time spent together did not help make Kerri/Misty, Rogers/Dahlhausser, Sinjin/Randy, et al. significantly better through the years, thus enabling them to sustain their incredibly high level of play against better and better teams. No way would they have stayed on top for so long if they had not been constantly upping their game.
|
|
mike1
Sophomore
Posts: 168
|
Post by mike1 on Mar 28, 2020 5:16:53 GMT -5
With Vienna, Hamburg and Gstaad all straight out cancelled, and even if Cancun, Itapema and Ostrava actually get rescheduled (and Moscow and Rome stay on the calendar for early June), that makes one 5 star and four 4 star events played during 2020. I don't see how they could possibly start the Olympic qualification process over from scratch given the dearth of available tournaments (and points opportunities). Also, I must disagree with Guest2's assertion that nothing in beach volleyball is more overrated than time together, and that teams rarely improve with time together. The A-team has improved dramatically over the past few years, and I'm not sure that you could ever argue that time spent together did not help make Kerri/Misty, Rogers/Dahlhausser, Sinjin/Randy, et al. significantly better through the years, thus enabling them to sustain their incredibly high level of play against better and better teams. No way would they have stayed on top for so long if they had not been constantly upping their game. Agree! I would rather see the best teams than the best individual players who aren't in sync as a team. Regarding guest2's comment of: "The Olympics and BVB generally are spectator sports designed to entertain. Why does there need to be an element of earning the bids over time if thats not necessary to determine the best teams." We know that individual beach volleyball tournaments differ widely in their results. If the best team always won, there would not have been so many different winners & so many different teams placing in the top 4. Especially look at all of the different winners on the women's side. A total of 5 tournaments (as beavis laid out above) would result in an insufficient sample size. Lesser teams who happened to get hot for 2 tournaments would qualify. Some of the true best teams would wind up in a different pool, or worse, not qualify. The other point is that the rule existed that Olympic qualification points would be earned for the 2019-2020 tournaments. How could you tell teams, "Just kidding! Through no fault of your own, we are stripping all of your points & making you start over. Good luck repeating your success over the last year in the next 5 tournaments."
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Mar 28, 2020 8:36:31 GMT -5
With Vienna, Hamburg and Gstaad all straight out cancelled, and even if Cancun, Itapema and Ostrava actually get rescheduled (and Moscow and Rome stay on the calendar for early June), that makes one 5 star and four 4 star events played during 2020. I don't see how they could possibly start the Olympic qualification process over from scratch given the dearth of available tournaments (and points opportunities). Also, I must disagree with Guest2's assertion that nothing in beach volleyball is more overrated than time together, and that teams rarely improve with time together. The A-team has improved dramatically over the past few years, and I'm not sure that you could ever argue that time spent together did not help make Kerri/Misty, Rogers/Dahlhausser, Sinjin/Randy, et al. significantly better through the years, thus enabling them to sustain their incredibly high level of play against better and better teams. No way would they have stayed on top for so long if they had not been constantly upping their game. None of those were close to mature teams and most of the improvement of all 3 is down to the individual improvement of the young/inexperienced bigs. Stoklos was 21 when he teamed with Sinjin and Smith/Stoklos won 6 of their first 9, a better clip than they managed over most of their career. The other two teams you mentioned experienced big jumps in performance largely because the inexperienced big (Phil/Alix) improved. They didnt improve their teamwork to some massive degree, Alix and Phil got used to playing at much higher levels than they had previously been used to.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Mar 28, 2020 8:39:51 GMT -5
With Vienna, Hamburg and Gstaad all straight out cancelled, and even if Cancun, Itapema and Ostrava actually get rescheduled (and Moscow and Rome stay on the calendar for early June), that makes one 5 star and four 4 star events played during 2020. I don't see how they could possibly start the Olympic qualification process over from scratch given the dearth of available tournaments (and points opportunities). Also, I must disagree with Guest2's assertion that nothing in beach volleyball is more overrated than time together, and that teams rarely improve with time together. The A-team has improved dramatically over the past few years, and I'm not sure that you could ever argue that time spent together did not help make Kerri/Misty, Rogers/Dahlhausser, Sinjin/Randy, et al. significantly better through the years, thus enabling them to sustain their incredibly high level of play against better and better teams. No way would they have stayed on top for so long if they had not been constantly upping their game. Agree! I would rather see the best teams than the best individual players who aren't in sync as a team. Regarding guest2's comment of: "The Olympics and BVB generally are spectator sports designed to entertain. Why does there need to be an element of earning the bids over time if thats not necessary to determine the best teams." We know that individual beach volleyball tournaments differ widely in their results. If the best team always won, there would not have been so many different winners & so many different teams placing in the top 4. Especially look at all of the different winners on the women's side. A total of 5 tournaments (as beavis laid out above) would result in an insufficient sample size. Lesser teams who happened to get hot for 2 tournaments would qualify. Some of the true best teams would wind up in a different pool, or worse, not qualify. The other point is that the rule existed that Olympic qualification points would be earned for the 2019-2020 tournaments. How could you tell teams, "Just kidding! Through no fault of your own, we are stripping all of your points & making you start over. Good luck repeating your success over the last year in the next 5 tournaments." First I am not sure who these top teams are that have bad results for 5 tournament stretches (or at least results so bad that they would not be in the top 16 + regional qualifiers) But if a team cant show its merits in 5 events, then they dont deserve to qualify. The only concern would be injuries but this system would be better in that respect also since the injuries that kept Kira and Summer out for example, will be fine - presumably - by the time the event actually rolls around
|
|
|
Post by ajm on Mar 28, 2020 10:28:39 GMT -5
Two players who absolutely despised each other won Manhattan Beach last year in their first event together. That should tell you everything you need to know about how important chemistry and time together is.
If ever there was an opportunity for USAV to step in and create its own qualifying series to determine which teams give us the best chance to medal in the Olympics, this quad with a year delay would seem to be it.
|
|
|
Post by woodandsand on Mar 28, 2020 10:55:04 GMT -5
Two players who absolutely despised each other won Manhattan Beach last year in their first event together. That should tell you everything you need to know about how important chemistry and time together is. If ever there was an opportunity for USAV to step in and create its own qualifying series to determine which teams give us the best chance to medal in the Olympics, this quad with a year delay would seem to be it. I would say Men's and Women's chemistry importance is on different levels
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Mar 28, 2020 11:14:37 GMT -5
Two players who absolutely despised each other won Manhattan Beach last year in their first event together. That should tell you everything you need to know about how important chemistry and time together is. If ever there was an opportunity for USAV to step in and create its own qualifying series to determine which teams give us the best chance to medal in the Olympics, this quad with a year delay would seem to be it. I would say Men's and Women's chemistry importance is on different levels Ey and Rachel won together. Larissa and Juliana won a ton together Jackie Silva won with two dozen partners Reno and McPeak - after the initial breakup and bad feelings, they reunited and won April and Kerri Larissa and Talita
|
|
|
Post by itssteve on Mar 28, 2020 12:50:58 GMT -5
Guest2 Your ability to pull up stats to back up your opinions is remarkable. A good BVB player is made up of so many different factors that it’s almost impossible to prove what the most important ones are. If there would be case for Kerri playing with a different player in the Olympic if that was even a option would be brooke has been a solid consistent player on the FIVB for years now but the Olympic is not about consistent play and results it more about a shot at gold. Emily and betsy just are not at the level. Sara and Sarah are very inconsistent on the world tour. They can both podium finish or not even make it out of a qualifier at any given tournament. Thats why they will not qualify but for the Olympic but if you put them in the Games they would have a good shot at either not breaking pool or medaling. Brooke and Kerri most likely made the second best team in the US consistently but if I wouldn’t put them as the best team for the US to roll the dice with. I would go the the team that would either crash and burn or play lights out.
That being said if we could make two teams I would put Kerri and April back together. Then Alix with one of the Sara’s and just have them be either great or terrible.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on Mar 28, 2020 13:14:28 GMT -5
Guest2 Your ability to pull up stats to back up your opinions is remarkable. A good BVB player is made up of so many different factors that it’s almost impossible to prove what the most important ones are. If there would be case for Kerri playing with a different player in the Olympic if that was even a option would be brooke has been a solid consistent player on the FIVB for years now but the Olympic is not about consistent play and results it more about a shot at gold. Emily and betsy just are not at the level. Sara and Sarah are very inconsistent on the world tour. They can both podium finish or not even make it out of a qualifier at any given tournament. Thats why they will not qualify but for the Olympic but if you put them in the Games they would have a good shot at either not breaking pool or medaling. Brooke and Kerri most likely made the second best team in the US consistently but if I wouldn’t put them as the best team for the US to roll the dice with. I would go the the team that would either crash and burn or play lights out. That being said if we could make two teams I would put Kerri and April back together. Then Alix with one of the Sara’s and just have them be either great or terrible. Kerri/April would be dominating now Agree with almost everything here, except I would say the reason Hughes isnt in a qualifying position for the Olympics is Summer's injury. Before that they were probably the odds on favorite to get in - minutely over Walsh/Sweat.
|
|
|
Post by newbeach on Mar 28, 2020 14:19:36 GMT -5
Guest2 Your ability to pull up stats to back up your opinions is remarkable. A good BVB player is made up of so many different factors that it’s almost impossible to prove what the most important ones are. If there would be case for Kerri playing with a different player in the Olympic if that was even a option would be brooke has been a solid consistent player on the FIVB for years now but the Olympic is not about consistent play and results it more about a shot at gold. Emily and betsy just are not at the level. Sara and Sarah are very inconsistent on the world tour. They can both podium finish or not even make it out of a qualifier at any given tournament. Thats why they will not qualify but for the Olympic but if you put them in the Games they would have a good shot at either not breaking pool or medaling. Brooke and Kerri most likely made the second best team in the US consistently but if I wouldn’t put them as the best team for the US to roll the dice with. I would go the the team that would either crash and burn or play lights out. That being said if we could make two teams I would put Kerri and April back together. Then Alix with one of the Sara’s and just have them be either great or terrible. Aside from possible personality differences, I would rather see April and Alix stay together and then Kerri with one of the Sara(h)'s for teams. April and Alix are a seasoned team (with lots of time together) and Kerri with one of the S's could be a good team (experience with youth). My choice would be Sponcil with Kerri if I had a choice for an Olympic team. Knowing Sponcil, she would dial it up even more with a partner like Kerri and a chance at Olympics with one of the greats.
|
|