|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 18, 2020 15:54:44 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 do think that in London the US had the best team at the Olympics. But they reacted badly to the pressure of the Gold Medal match. They cruised to a 25-11 first set win. But when Brazil beat them in the second set, they panicked. It happens. Against a team like Brazil, there isn't much margin to give away efficiency.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 15:57:11 GMT -5
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? Referring to right now! Unless you've got a time machine handy?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 15:59:14 GMT -5
Was your statement only referring to the current quad? Referring to right now! Unless you've got a time machine handy? Why does the team need a top-3 player at every position on the floor for your argument?
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 18, 2020 16:02:25 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. I do think that in London the US had the best team at the Olympics. But they reacted badly to the pressure of the Gold Medal match. They cruised to a 25-11 first set win. But when Brazil beat them in the second set, they panicked. It happens. Against a team like Brazil, there isn't much margin to give away efficiency. I struggle with this "panicked" explanation (Nicole Davis used it once as well, I believe). That team had been playing together pretty consistently since 2010... it's not like they never faced adversity until the London finals (I've been watching some of the old 2010-2011 matches during quarantine). After winning the first set, sure, they choked or fell flat or whatever. But "panicked" just feels like a strange descriptor to use for Olympic athletes. Brazil (especially Jacque) played out of their mind (much better than they had the entire tournament). That happens. I still think we win that game 7-8 times out of 10.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 16:02:44 GMT -5
Referring to right now! Unless you've got a time machine handy? Why does the team need a top-3 player at every position on the floor for your argument? That's called a straw man. You reframe my question, then suggest it's ridiculous. It's not a good way of making your point. I asked which ones you think we have and at which position.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 16:07:58 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. I do think that in London the US had the best team at the Olympics. But they reacted badly to the pressure of the Gold Medal match. They cruised to a 25-11 first set win. But when Brazil beat them in the second set, they panicked. It happens. Against a team like Brazil, there isn't much margin to give away efficiency. I do not agree that the US has the best team in London. It had a highly specialized team in order to max out the use of all six subs in every set. Six players to start, a libero, a second setter and opposite to run the double sub, a second libero to serve for one of the middles at the end of sets, Scott-Arruda to give breaks to Harmotto, and Hodge if Larson struggled. Taking Thompson and Miyashiro proved to be big mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 18, 2020 16:12:01 GMT -5
The US may have had the most talented team in 2012 (they were ranked first at the time the pools were created), but only the final results actually matter. Even though the US was seeded first, Brazil was seeded second, and it's not particularly unusual or surprising in any sport when the second seed beats the top seed. This is especially true in that case because Brazil was the defending Olympic gold medalists, and the US had never won gold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 16:12:09 GMT -5
Why does the team need a top-3 player at every position on the floor for your argument? That's called a straw man. You reframe my question, then suggest it's ridiculous. It's not a good way of making your point. I asked which ones you think we have and at which position. No, I'm literally using your exact words. They're ridiculous all on their own, as is the premise on which they stand: -- You suggested that the quality of athletes/players are the problem. -- I questioned that by referencing Beijing, London, and Rio. -- You said, "U.S. athletes that, in your opinion, are top 3 in the world at; Outside, Opposite, Setter, Middle and Libero?" I'm asking why you're narrowing the parameters of your argument: why do we need top-3 talent at every position on the floor in order to be competitive?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 16:14:49 GMT -5
The US may have had the most talented team in 2012 (they were ranked first at the time the pools were created), but only the final results actually matter. Even though the US was seeded first, Brazil was seeded second, and it's not particularly unusual or surprising in any sport when the second seed beats the top seed. This is especially true in that case because Brazil was the defending Olympic gold medalists, and the US had never won gold. Brazil barely made it out of pool play, losing as many sets as they won. They also barely beat Russia in the quarterfinals, going 21-19 in the fifth.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 18, 2020 16:17:31 GMT -5
The US may have had the most talented team in 2012 (they were ranked first at the time the pools were created), but only the final results actually matter. Even though the US was seeded first, Brazil was seeded second, and it's not particularly unusual or surprising in any sport when the second seed beats the top seed. This is especially true in that case because Brazil was the defending Olympic gold medalists, and the US had never won gold. Brazil barely made it out of pool play, losing as many sets as they won. They also barely beat Russia in the quarterfinals, going 21-19 in the fifth. So what? As long as Brazil made it out of pool play, that's all that matters. And they subsequently won the whole tournament. In all sports, the team that was best before the tournament doesn't always win the tournament. Sometimes, it's even one of the last teams to make it in, like the 2007 Giants who defeated the Patriots or the 2012 LA Kings who won the Stanley Cup as an 8 seed. That's the whole reason tournaments are played in the first place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 16:22:29 GMT -5
Brazil barely made it out of pool play, losing as many sets as they won. They also barely beat Russia in the quarterfinals, going 21-19 in the fifth. So what? As long as Brazil made it out of pool play, that's all that matters. And they subsequently won the whole tournament. Right, but you seemed to be implying that they were some sort of juggernaut in that event and they weren't. Before the gold medal final, USA had beat Brazil in their last five meetings, from the opening match of the 2011 WC onward. They also went 1-1 against them in 2010.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 18, 2020 16:25:05 GMT -5
So what? As long as Brazil made it out of pool play, that's all that matters. And they subsequently won the whole tournament. Right, but you seemed to be implying that they were some sort of juggernaut in that event and they weren't. Before the gold medal final, USA had beat Brazil in their last five meetings, from the opening match of the 2011 WC onward. They also went 1-1 against them in 2010. Uh, I didn't say that (assuming by "in that event," you're talking only about the pool play because Brazil showed that they were the best team in the knockout round, which is all that matters). What I actually said is that they were the 2 seed going into the tournament, and they won, which happens all the time. I also said that they were the defending gold medalists, and the US had never won gold, so I'm not surprised Brazil handled the pressure better. And the US beating Brazil in a bunch of earlier matches that don't actually matter that much (sorry, but they don't) isn't that meaningful. I mean, if you want to attack the arguments that I actually made, fine. But don't claim that I said (or "seemed to be implying") something that I wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 18, 2020 16:31:12 GMT -5
Right, but you seemed to be implying that they were some sort of juggernaut in that event and they weren't. Before the gold medal final, USA had beat Brazil in their last five meetings, from the opening match of the 2011 WC onward. They also went 1-1 against them in 2010. Uh, I didn't say that (assuming by "in that event," you're talking only about the pool play because they pretty clearly showed that they were the best team in the knockout round, which is all that matters). What I actually said is that they were the 2 seed going into the tournament, and they won, which happens all the time. I also said that they were the defending gold medalists, and the US had never won gold, so I'm not surprised Brazil handled the pressure better. And the US beating Brazil in a bunch of meetings that don't actually matter that much (sorry, but they don't) isn't that meaningful. You're implying that the gap between the number 1 and the number 2 seed is always the same. Or that seedings are always accurate (which feels especially off base given how the FIVB rankings were/are calculated). It's a faulty premise to be relying generally on "rankings" to demonstrate that the result shouldn't be "surprising" (your Olympics history point is much stronger). The USA was the heavy favorite. Hell, our B-team beat their A-Team at the 2012 World Grand Prix. Saying they were the "number 2 seed" really "isn't that meaningful," especially when compared to recent head-to-head match-ups.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 18, 2020 16:31:29 GMT -5
Why does the team need a top-3 player at every position on the floor for your argument? That's called a straw man. You reframe my question, then suggest it's ridiculous. It's not a good way of making your point. I asked which ones you think we have and at which position. Your question is completely valid and something I wondered myself. And yes, you're right that they resorted to a straw man. You never actually claimed that top-3 player was needed at every single position. It seems you just wanted to make the point that the US may not have as much elite talent as other countries. At least that's the way I read it because it doesn't seem particularly hard to understand that's what you were saying.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 18, 2020 16:33:23 GMT -5
Uh, I didn't say that (assuming by "in that event," you're talking only about the pool play because they pretty clearly showed that they were the best team in the knockout round, which is all that matters). What I actually said is that they were the 2 seed going into the tournament, and they won, which happens all the time. I also said that they were the defending gold medalists, and the US had never won gold, so I'm not surprised Brazil handled the pressure better. And the US beating Brazil in a bunch of meetings that don't actually matter that much (sorry, but they don't) isn't that meaningful. You're implying that the gap between the number 1 and the number 2 seed is always the same. Or that seedings are always accurate (which feels especially off base given how the FIVB rankings were/are calculated). It's a faulty premise to be relying generally on "rankings" to demonstrate that the result shouldn't be "surprising" (your Olympics history point is much stronger). The USA was the heavy favorite. Hell, our B-team beat their A-Team at the 2012 World Grand Prix. Saying they were the "number 2 seed" really "isn't that meaningful." Good grief. I never said those things either (pro tip: just because you think someone might be implying something, that doesn't mean that they actually are). Again, if you want to address what I actually said, fine. But I have no time for disingenuous arguments.
|
|