|
Post by ericleo on Apr 18, 2020 12:06:31 GMT -5
Who said they don’t enjoy watching the VNL? Who called it a laughing stock? You can enjoy the VNL as a competition, but also understand it shouldn’t be used as a measuring stick for meaningful success. What is the measuring stick? The major three FIVB tournaments: Olympics, World Championships and World Cup (only when every team puts on its strongest lineup, so 2019 WC is an exception). To evaluate a player, also look at the performance at pro leagues, especially: the Italian Serie A1, the Turkish league, European Champions League For non-US players, ECH is another measuring stick, because it's high level and high quality of competition. All those mentioned above are much better measuring sticks than VNL.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 18, 2020 12:08:55 GMT -5
Who said they don’t enjoy watching the VNL? Who called it a laughing stock? You can enjoy the VNL as a competition, but also understand it shouldn’t be used as a measuring stick for meaningful success. What is the measuring stick? Honestly, I think the Olympics is the only event that really matters. The other events (World Championships, VNL, etc.) are useful for getting playing time together against real competition and for getting an idea of where you're at relative to the rest of the world. But you can win all of those events, and it won't matter if you don't perform in the Olympics. For example, the US women's ice hockey team won seven of eight world championships between 2008 and 2017. By that measure they were the best team in the world. But Canada continued to own them in the Olympics, and that's the only thing anyone cared about. Even the US players themselves knew that, which is why it was so liberating when they finally took down Canada in South Korea in 2018. Similarly, no one is going to care about any struggles the volleyball team had in these other events if they medal at the Olympics and especially if they win gold.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 18, 2020 12:09:46 GMT -5
Who said they don’t enjoy watching the VNL? Who called it a laughing stock? You can enjoy the VNL as a competition, but also understand it shouldn’t be used as a measuring stick for meaningful success. What is the measuring stick? I would start with the 2018 World Championships. We placed 5th.
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Apr 18, 2020 12:20:29 GMT -5
What is the measuring stick? I would start with the 2018 World Championships. We placed 5th. With a setter and opposite who had no business being there and no longer are. And we didn't make the semis because of two 5 setters. Lost a 4th set to China 25-23. A loss is a loss no matter what and I understand that but it seems like some people paint a picture of disaster and I don't see it. The team has seen quite a few changes in the past year and they've done what's been asked of them.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 18, 2020 12:26:29 GMT -5
What is the measuring stick? Honestly, I think the Olympics is the only event that really matters. The other events (World Championships, VNL, etc.) are useful for getting playing time together against real competition and for getting an idea of where you're at relative to the rest of the world. But you can win all of those events, and it won't matter if you don't perform in the Olympics. For example, the US women's ice hockey team won seven of eight world championships between 2008 and 2017. By that measure they were the best team in the world. But Canada continued to own them in the Olympics, and that's the only thing anyone cared about. Even the US players themselves knew that, which is why it was so liberating when they finally took down Canada in South Korea in 2018. Similarly, no one is going to care about any struggles the volleyball team had in these other events if they medal at the Olympics and especially if they win gold. World Championships tend to be undervalued in the US, not so around the world
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 18, 2020 12:27:27 GMT -5
Honestly, I think the Olympics is the only event that really matters. The other events (World Championships, VNL, etc.) are useful for getting playing time together against real competition and for getting an idea of where you're at relative to the rest of the world. But you can win all of those events, and it won't matter if you don't perform in the Olympics. For example, the US women's ice hockey team won seven of eight world championships between 2008 and 2017. By that measure they were the best team in the world. But Canada continued to own them in the Olympics, and that's the only thing anyone cared about. Even the US players themselves knew that, which is why it was so liberating when they finally took down Canada in South Korea in 2018. Similarly, no one is going to care about any struggles the volleyball team had in these other events if they medal at the Olympics and especially if they win gold. World Championships tend to be undervalued in the US, not so around the world This may be true (I'll take your word for it), but the perception inside the US is what I'm talking about. US sports fans don't even care about the world championships when it comes to basketball, but any result other than gold in the Olympics is a catastrophe. Obviously, the expectations are lower for women's volleyball, since they've yet to win gold at the Olympics, which is why I think any medal would be viewed as a success. Edit: The fact that US fans don't care about the World Championships is even less reason to care that they finished fifth (I also don't put any stock in winning the VNL and wouldn't really care if they had won the World Championships either). One could make the case that a fifth-place finish there is a bad omen for the Olympics, the way that a fifth-place finish in the World Championships preceded the disastrous bronze medal for the men's basketball team at the 2004 Olympics. But if that team had won gold in Athens, no one would have cared about what happened in a relatively meaningless tournament.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 18, 2020 12:36:10 GMT -5
I would start with the 2018 World Championships. We placed 5th. With a setter and opposite who had no business being there and no longer are. And we didn't make the semis because of two 5 setters. Lost a 4th set to China 25-23. A loss is a loss no matter what and I understand that but it seems like some people paint a picture of disaster and I don't see it. The team has seen quite a few changes in the past year and they've done what's been asked of them. I'm confused what you're arguing. Even if we place a few asterisks next to the 2018 WCH (which you can do at literally every tournament), it's still the best measuring stick we have. Much better than the VNL or the 2019 World Cup. And btw, only looking at the 3rd round conveniently leaves out China sweeping us 3-0 and Italy beating us 3-1 in the second round. Murphy and Lloyd had no business being there because Karch kept them around too long and refused to reevaluate his system for years. I would say that given Karch dismissed (or whatever eek) Murphy, Lloyd and Gibby the next season AND we saw substantial changes to the offense AND a fresh new wave of talent, even Karch would admit (maybe not but actions speak louder than words) that the 2018 WCH was a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by jay on Apr 18, 2020 12:36:41 GMT -5
I don't understand all this talk about how close we were to winning. So who can remember who came in fourth in the 100-m dash at the last Olympics. My guess is there wasn't 12 inches separating the first through the 4th. Your success is measured by winning and not by how close you came. Karch should be granted his due for his first quad but certainly his second quad has shown that his coaching has put the USNT in decline. That's working under the assumption that the US still produces the largest pool of top quality players in the world.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 18, 2020 12:45:38 GMT -5
I don't understand all this talk about how close we were to winning. So who can remember who came in fourth in the 100-m dash at the last Olympics. My guess is there wasn't 12 inches separating the first through the 4th. Your success is measured by winning and not by how close you came. Karch should be granted his due for his first quad but certainly his second quad has shown that his coaching has put the USNT in decline. That's working under the assumption that the US still produces the largest pool of top quality players in the world. You really can't say that until we see what happens in the Olympics. The only people who care about other tournaments are volleyball die-hards. Also, why would we assume that the US produces the best players in the world when they have literally never won Olympic gold? Maybe the pool of US talent is deeper than anywhere else, but you only have six players on the court at a time, so that may not matter as much as the elite talent. This is why it's such a disaster whenever the men's basketball team doesn't win Olympic gold. The US clearly has both the most depth and the best top-tier talent. The same is true of Canada in men's ice hockey (2018 doesn't count because the NHL declined to let their players--of which nearly half are Canadian--participate).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 13:53:45 GMT -5
I don't understand all this talk about how close we were to winning. So who can remember who came in fourth in the 100-m dash at the last Olympics. My guess is there wasn't 12 inches separating the first through the 4th. Your success is measured by winning and not by how close you came. Karch should be granted his due for his first quad but certainly his second quad has shown that his coaching has put the USNT in decline. That's working under the assumption that the US still produces the largest pool of top quality players in the world.This goes back to my earlier point but, in terms of Olympic success, it doesn't matter if your top 500 players are better than anyone else's top 500 players. What matters is are your top 10 players the best. Ours, quite obviously, aren't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 15:41:09 GMT -5
I don't understand all this talk about how close we were to winning. So who can remember who came in fourth in the 100-m dash at the last Olympics. My guess is there wasn't 12 inches separating the first through the 4th. Your success is measured by winning and not by how close you came. Karch should be granted his due for his first quad but certainly his second quad has shown that his coaching has put the USNT in decline. That's working under the assumption that the US still produces the largest pool of top quality players in the world.This goes back to my earlier point but, in terms of Olympic success, it doesn't matter if your top 500 players are better than anyone else's top 500 players. What matters is are your top 10 players the best. Ours, quite obviously, aren't. I think the idea is that the next 10 or the next 20 best athletes help the top 10 be better because the gym is more competitive. And, are you really suggesting that the quality of athlete/player has been Team USA's issue at the Olympics? It certainly wasn't in Beijing, where they exceeded expectations markedly. It wasn't in London where the team put together one of the most dominant runs to the final in the history of the Games, losing two sets in their first seven matches. It also wasn't in Rio with Larson, Hill, Adams, Akinradewo, and Glass all among the best in the world at their respective positions. Your statement appears to suggest the athletes are the problem and not the system.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 15:52:39 GMT -5
This goes back to my earlier point but, in terms of Olympic success, it doesn't matter if your top 500 players are better than anyone else's top 500 players. What matters is are your top 10 players the best. Ours, quite obviously, aren't. I think the idea is that the next 10 or the next 20 best athletes help the top 10 be better because the gym is more competitive. And, are you really suggesting that the quality of athlete/player has been Team USA's issue at the Olympics? It certainly wasn't in Beijing, where they exceeded expectations markedly. It wasn't in London where the team put together one of the most dominant runs to the final in the history of the Games, losing two sets in their first seven matches. It also wasn't in Rio with Larson, Hill, Adams, Akinradewo, and Glass all among the best in the world at their respective positions. Your statement appears to suggest the athletes are the problem and not the system. U.S. athletes that, in your opinion, are top 3 in the world at; Outside, Opposite, Setter, Middle and Libero? Genuinely curious how many you think we have that are at the very top of the pyramid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 15:53:01 GMT -5
You’re going to give Karch credit for Silver in London...? Correction, he was not the head coach. I’m neither a Karch fan or basher, but for those of you who are bashers, his resume as coach is pretty good and that is in fact how coaches are measured. Wait what? No, his record was good using athletes that Hugh developed in the London quad. Karch was the beneficiary of an exceptionally talented generation of talent that Hugh ensured were given opportunities to realize their potential.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 18, 2020 15:53:25 GMT -5
This goes back to my earlier point but, in terms of Olympic success, it doesn't matter if your top 500 players are better than anyone else's top 500 players. What matters is are your top 10 players the best. Ours, quite obviously, aren't. I think the idea is that the next 10 or the next 20 best athletes help the top 10 be better because the gym is more competitive. And, are you really suggesting that the quality of athlete/player has been Team USA's issue at the Olympics? It certainly wasn't in Beijing, where they exceeded expectations markedly. It wasn't in London where the team put together one of the most dominant runs to the final in the history of the Games, losing two sets in their first seven matches. It also wasn't in Rio with Larson, Hill, Adams, Akinradewo, and Glass all among the best in the world at their respective positions. Your statement appears to suggest the athletes are the problem and not the system. I think London was the only event where we just flat out had better players than everyone, the final was a nightmare, and sadly that can happen. Rio we were good enough to win and maybe if foluke didn’t get injured (or held out, it still seems fishy to me) they would have. The bottom line is if you have the ponies (we have) you are going to Be in the mix to win (we have). Getting over the hump is about the right performance at the right time. What has always baffled me about Karch as a coach is I’ve never seen him light a fire or show his competitiveness which in some key matches I think would have served them. If you remember him as a competitor, it’s what set him apart. He definitely seems to be coaching from a chosen “mindset” approach and maybe less his own nature. Some of those timeouts could use a little fire instead of some scripted buzz words or “we need one good pass” Just my observation. I do know the majority of players like and respect him as a coach.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 15:54:32 GMT -5
I think the idea is that the next 10 or the next 20 best athletes help the top 10 be better because the gym is more competitive. And, are you really suggesting that the quality of athlete/player has been Team USA's issue at the Olympics? It certainly wasn't in Beijing, where they exceeded expectations markedly. It wasn't in London where the team put together one of the most dominant runs to the final in the history of the Games, losing two sets in their first seven matches. It also wasn't in Rio with Larson, Hill, Adams, Akinradewo, and Glass all among the best in the world at their respective positions. Your statement appears to suggest the athletes are the problem and not the system. U.S. athletes that, in your opinion, are top 3 in the world at; Outside, Opposite, Setter, Middle and Libero? Genuinely curious how many you think we have that are at the very top of the pyramid. Was your statement only referring to the current quad?
|
|