Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 16:34:57 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 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. I am literally challenging the arguments that you actually made... You said, "it's not particularly unusual or surprising in any sport when the second seed beats the top seed," and I said that it was in this instance. I then listed reasons why it was surprising in this case (Brazil having lost the previous five meetings, Brazil struggling throughout that particular tournament, Team USA putting together one of the most dominant Olympic performances in the history of the Games up until the final, etc.). Please try to follow along. Posting these summaries is annoying.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 18, 2020 16:35:29 GMT -5
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. Again, if you want to address what I actually said, fine. But I have no time for disingenuous arguments. I know you never said those things, hence the word "implying." Your argument requires those assumptions, when you say this: 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.
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 18, 2020 16:37:12 GMT -5
Good grief. I never said those things either. Again, if you want to address what I actually said, fine. But I have no time for disingenuous arguments. I know you never said those things, hence the word "implying." Your argument requires those assumptions, when you say this: 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. Right, and as I said, just because you think someone may be implying something, that doesn't mean that they actually are, and it's disingenuous to suggest that they are. As for the second part, yeah, I stand by that quote. Do you really not understand that sometimes the "best" team doesn't win?
|
|
|
Post by bbg95 on Apr 18, 2020 16:39:27 GMT -5
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. I am literally challenging the arguments that you actually made... You said, "it's not particularly unusual or surprising in any sport when the second seed beats the top seed," and I said that it was in this instance. I then listed reasons why it was surprising in this case (Brazil having lost the previous five meetings, Brazil struggling throughout that particular tournament, Team USA putting together one of the most dominant Olympic performances in the history of the Games up until the final, etc.). Please try to follow along. Posting these summaries is annoying. You aren't. As bwf2 has pointed out, you are resorting to straw men (the fact that you either can't actually tell what a straw man argument is or are pretending not to know that you're using them is tiresome). The "best" team doesn't always win. This should not be a news flash.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 18, 2020 16:46:19 GMT -5
I know you never said those things, hence the word "implying." Your argument requires those assumptions, when you say this: Right, and as I said, just because you think someone may be implying something, that doesn't mean that they actually are, and it's disingenuous to suggest that they are. As for the second part, yeah, I stand by that quote. Do you really not understand that sometimes the "best" team doesn't win? You obviously don't understand what an assumption is in the context of argumentation, so I'll move on. Of course I understand that sometimes the "best" team doesn't win, but now you're changing your argument. When the gap between the number 1 and number 2 team is larger, when the number 2 team wins, the win is more surprising.Think 2008 NCAA Finals. You CANNOT tell me that Stanford beating Penn State would have been "not particularly unusual or surprising."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 16:49:57 GMT -5
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. If you need to narrow the parameters of your argument that much in order to make a point, there's a problem with your argument. The fact that USA has been competitive at all despite not having a Zhu or a Boskovic or an Egonu shows that having a couple top-3 athletes clearly isn't worth having an entire roster of top-10 or top-15 athletes. Larson, MBH, Robinson, and Hill are certainly top-10 athletes at their position, as is Akinradewo when in-shape. Carlini, Thompson, Ogbogu, and Washington are some of the top young talent in the world right now. Please stop suggesting that Team USA needs more elite talent than anyone else in order to be successful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 16:53:56 GMT -5
I am literally challenging the arguments that you actually made... You said, "it's not particularly unusual or surprising in any sport when the second seed beats the top seed," and I said that it was in this instance. I then listed reasons why it was surprising in this case (Brazil having lost the previous five meetings, Brazil struggling throughout that particular tournament, Team USA putting together one of the most dominant Olympic performances in the history of the Games up until the final, etc.). Please try to follow along. Posting these summaries is annoying. You aren't. I literally posted it for you! Argument by argument, statement by statement. Tell me how I'm being disingenuous. Stop talking in generalities and focus on the actual argument that we are having: You: "It's not particularly unusual or surprising in any sport when the second seed beats the top seed." Me: In this case, yes it was. I posted my reasons as to why. Are you planning on responding to that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 17:49:30 GMT -5
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? I guess you misunderstood my question. I never said we needed them at every position. I didn't say we needed them at all. I simply asked if you thought we had any top 3 players at their respective positions and, if so, which ones. I'm still curious how you'd answer the question.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 18, 2020 17:59:56 GMT -5
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. You can of course argue why they were successful or other factors that made them successful, people do that all the time regarding coaches. It doesn’t change the fact they’ve had good success during his tenure, and his resume as NT coach is what it is and it stacks up more than favorably with almost any period of time in women’s volleyball in the US. AGAIN, I’m not arguing he’s terrific, just that while he’s been head coach they’ve done pretty darn well.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 18, 2020 18:02:30 GMT -5
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. I don’t think panicked is far off base. In talking to many players on that team, when the switch got flipped, they didn’t trust each other or their training like they needed to. I personally think blowing them out and game one may have hurt them.
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 18, 2020 18:05:43 GMT -5
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. They smoked every team in the world leading up to London and especially Brazil. The US team was the best in the world going to and at London until the floor fell in.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 18, 2020 18:08:36 GMT -5
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. I don’t think panicked is far off base. In talking to many players on that team, when the switch got flipped, they didn’t trust each other or their training like they needed to. I personally think blowing them out and game one may have hurt them. Trust each other in their training is a USA WNT mantra. I suggest that the training is part of the problem.
|
|
libro
Sophomore
Posts: 120
|
Post by libro on Apr 18, 2020 18:18:50 GMT -5
I see this thread is still going strong. In response to 2012 Brazil, that was surprising to me. Getting beaten by a couple teams in pool play, 0-3 to Korea, it’s surprising the US was able to be beaten that... handily
|
|
libro
Sophomore
Posts: 120
|
Post by libro on Apr 18, 2020 18:21:07 GMT -5
I see this thread is still going strong. In response to 2012 Brazil, that was surprising to me. Getting beaten by a couple teams in pool play, 0-3 to Korea, it’s surprising the US was able to be beaten that... handily Although it helps to have a talented libero (Fabi) and her play the best match of her Olympics. Good liberos impact all man you can see it so easily in that battle between Davis and Fabi. Not much of a battle (SHOCKINGLY lol)
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Apr 18, 2020 18:30:50 GMT -5
I don’t think panicked is far off base. In talking to many players on that team, when the switch got flipped, they didn’t trust each other or their training like they needed to. I personally think blowing them out and game one may have hurt them. Trust each other in their training is a USA WNT mantra. I suggest that the training is part of the problem. As I said, they were trouncing the better teams in the world, and went through the London games like a knife through better. What was wrong with that training? Their training and prep didn’t cost them gold, they had a perfect storm of self doubt and a Brazil team when they catch fire will ride the emotion and play out of their tree.
|
|