|
Post by volleyguy on Apr 18, 2020 18:40:19 GMT -5
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. Coaching cost them that match. They couldn't adjust. Some people may argue that you can't train for that particular situation, but the rigid system went a long way in ensuring that they wouldn't
|
|
|
Post by Cmd12 on Apr 18, 2020 18:57:49 GMT -5
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. Coaching cost them that match. They couldn't adjust. Some people may argue that you can't train for that particular situation, but the rigid system went a long way in ensuring that they wouldn't I agree about the coaching part. I feel like the key was larson. I don’t think hugh should’ve substituted her out for hodge in the second at 17-12. It was clear Brazil was thumping us. It would have been smarter to let larson finish the set and try to work her way out of it. That’s a tall order to ask hodge to come in and spark offense at that level. Now if she didn’t get it together, fine start hodge the 3rd. But instead larson got subbed for nicole Davis mistakes and hodge didn’t do too much in the 3rd. We didn’t get to see what larson could’ve done the whole 3rd set and hugh waited wayyyyyy too long in the 4th to put her back in. Hard to believe that larson would only score 4 points in a match, she should’ve been given her due trust and responsibility. Completely ruined confidence in his players.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Apr 18, 2020 19:03:30 GMT -5
Brazil's left went off and we weren't able to recover. Jacque is no Zhu. She is stoppable with a good block. Brazil was able to exploit a very weak blocking setter (which we knew and were OK with given what else she brought) and a rookie M1 who disappeared under the moment. Our specialized roster didn't allow us to adjust. Bown and Glass would have roofed the %*$# out of Jaque as subs, and 2-3 stuff blocks would have completely changed that match. Libero play didn't help either.
|
|
|
Post by Cmd12 on Apr 18, 2020 19:08:06 GMT -5
Brazil's left went off and we weren't able to recover. Jacque is no Zhu. She is stoppable with a good block. Brazil was able to exploit a very weak blocking setter (which we knew and were OK with given what else she brought) and a rookie M1 who disappeared under the moment. Our specialized roster didn't allow us to adjust. Bown and Glass would have roofed the %*$# out of Jaque as subs, and 2-3 stuff blocks would have completely changed that match. Libero play didn't help either. THIS! Or a fawcett and bown block since Hooker was setting the block poorly. Love hooker but she wasn’t given much opportunity and when she did get it Brazil knew where it was going and made sure 2-3 were up on her!!
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 18, 2020 19:21:10 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. You are still going on about that, and you are still wrong. The team won the only match where Thompson was the primary setter, and the only match they lost is the one she never played in at all. And yet, with your Alisha Glass fanboy glasses on, all you can see is "Thompson was a mistake". Whatever. It is true that the double-sub tactic they had intended to use didn't work out during that Olympics, but I think that was more because of Scott-Arruda being unexpectedly unproductive in the front row than anything to do with Thompson. Would Glass have been able to set her better? Guess we'll never know, but it's not like the team went out and took gold when Glass was (deservedly) the setter in 2016.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 19:35:00 GMT -5
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. Okay. I think Larson and Hill are and I think Carlini and Ogbogu could be. MBH and Robinson are probably top-10. Plummer should be entering her third summer starting on the national team, but isn't, so we can't count her. Not in any order, my opinion of the top OHs in the world: Natalia, Mihajlovic, Zhu Ting, Larson, Hill, Robinson, Barstch, Martinez, KYK. Sylla and Plak are in the conversation, on any given day. Buijs, Pietrini, that one from Turkey, the L2 for China probably make up the next tier.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 19:42:18 GMT -5
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. I don't disagree...? But the roles were locked in on that roster. You were there to fill a very specific need. Miyashiro was there to serve for Harmotto -- that's it. Scott-Arruda was there to give Harmotto breaks since she was the team member with the least high-level experience at that point. Thompson and Haneef-Park were there to run the double-sub. Hodge was there to score when Larson couldn't put the ball away (China). None of those athletes made the roster because Hugh had legitimate plans for them to start. Richards should've gone instead of Miyashiro. She could sub in to serve, DS, or play OH if needed. Glass should've gone instead of Thompson. She wasn't as good running the double-sub, but she was a legitimate option to set the 5-1 if Berg struggled and had an incredible winning record as the starter. Metcalf should've gone instead of Haneef-Park. She was the better all-around player and could've contributed in more ways than Haneef-Park did. Bown should've gone instead of Harmotto. If you don't know why, you didn't watch the London quad. These changes would've given the staff options in the gold medal match that they did not otherwise have.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 19:46:51 GMT -5
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. You are still going on about that, and you are still wrong. The team won the only match where Thompson was the primary setter, and the only match they lost is the one she never played in at all. And yet, with your Alisha Glass fanboy glasses on, all you can see is "Thompson was a mistake". Whatever. It is true that the double-sub tactic they had intended to use didn't work out during that Olympics, but I think that was more because of Scott-Arruda being unexpectedly unproductive in the front row than anything to do with Thompson. Would Glass have been able to set her better? Guess we'll never know, but it's not like the team went out and took gold when Glass was (deservedly) the setter in 2016. Scott-Arruda is a middle. You mean Haneef-Park. And the team is lucky that they had a favorable draw for the first two matches of bracket play, particularly with needing Thompson to set against DR. The team was able to serve them off the court enough that Thompson's block didn't screw them. Also, hilarious! that you're willing to call anyone a fanboy considering you're defending two Husky athletes... c'mon.
|
|
|
Post by jwvolley on Apr 18, 2020 19:47:19 GMT -5
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. Okay. I think Larson and Hill are and I think Carlini and Ogbogu could be. MBH and Robinson are probably top-10. Plummer should be entering her third summer starting on the national team, but isn't, so we can't count her. Not in any order, my opinion of the top OHs in the world: Natalia, Mihajlovic, Zhu Ting, Larson, Hill, Robinson, Barstch, Martinez, KYK. Sylla and Plak are in the conversation, on any given day. Buijs, Pietrini, that one from Turkey, the L2 for China probably make up the next tier. What's your Tokyo roster and starters as it stands today?
|
|
|
Post by WahineFan44 on Apr 18, 2020 19:47:37 GMT -5
Question to those who follow USA more than I do.
What squad did better in the olympics? 2012 or 2016.
I know 2016 won bronze, but they were VERY close to beating Serbia, I mean it could of gone either way, and didnt we just lose foluke that match as well?
Everyone considers 2016 such a bad year or a disappointment, but its not like they ever got blown out. Would the 2016 team have beaten china if they got past Serbia?
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Apr 18, 2020 19:47:57 GMT -5
Scott-Arruda is a middle. You mean Haneef-Park. Yeah, thanks. I know we'll never agree on this 2012 backup setter question, so I'll just walk away.
|
|
|
Post by Cmd12 on Apr 18, 2020 19:49:10 GMT -5
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. I don't disagree...? But the roles were locked in on that roster. You were there to fill a very specific need. Miyashiro was there to serve for Harmotto -- that's it. Scott-Arruda was there to give Harmotto breaks since she was the team member with the least high-level experience at that point. Thompson and Haneef-Park were there to run the double-sub. Hodge was there to score when Larson couldn't put the ball away (China). None of those athletes made the roster because Hugh had legitimate plans for them to start. Richards should've gone instead of Miyashiro. She could sub in to serve, DS, or play OH if needed. Glass should've gone instead of Thompson. She wasn't as good running the double-sub, but she was a legitimate option to set the 5-1 if Berg struggled and had an incredible winning record as the starter. Metcalf should've gone instead of Haneef-Park. She was the better all-around player and could've contributed in more ways than Haneef-Park did. Bown should've gone instead of Harmotto. If you don't know why, you didn't watch the London quad. These changes would've given the staff options in the gold medal match that they did not otherwise have. Why did miyashiro go to serve for Harmotto anyway? I remember harmotto getting into some serious serving runs. against Korea in the first match, against Brazil in 4th set from 11-19 to 14-19. Just for tama to serve out at a 23-20 lol
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 18, 2020 19:52:42 GMT -5
Everyone considers 2016 such a bad year or a disappointment, but its not like they ever got blown out. Would the 2016 team have beaten china if they got past Serbia? We'll never know for sure, but Lang Ping's coaching in that tournament was masterful. Our athletes would've needed to play out of their minds to make up for the coaching difference.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 19:52:56 GMT -5
Okay. I think Larson and Hill are and I think Carlini and Ogbogu could be. MBH and Robinson are probably top-10. Plummer should be entering her third summer starting on the national team, but isn't, so we can't count her. Not in any order, my opinion of the top OHs in the world: Natalia, Mihajlovic, Zhu Ting, Larson, Hill, Robinson, Barstch, Martinez, KYK. Sylla and Plak are in the conversation, on any given day. Buijs, Pietrini, that one from Turkey, the L2 for China probably make up the next tier. What's your Tokyo roster and starters as it stands today? OH: Larson, Hill, MBHMB: Akinradewo (if in-shape), Ogbogu, Washington OPP: Drews, Thompson S: Carlini, Poulter L: Robinson, whoever else (JWO probably) Alternates: Foecke, Dixon, Courtney, Lowe, Hancock, Lake, Rettke Starters in bold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2020 20:13:39 GMT -5
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. Okay. I think Larson and Hill are and I think Carlini and Ogbogu could be. MBH and Robinson are probably top-10. Plummer should be entering her third summer starting on the national team, but isn't, so we can't count her. Not in any order, my opinion of the top OHs in the world: Natalia, Mihajlovic, Zhu Ting, Larson, Hill, Robinson, Barstch, Martinez, KYK. Sylla and Plak are in the conversation, on any given day. Buijs, Pietrini, that one from Turkey, the L2 for China probably make up the next tier. Ok this is interesting. Thanks for taking the question in the way it was intended. So you'd say Larson and Hill are top 10? I can't see them top 3. Is Carlini top 3? Is Ogbogu? Why top 3? Gold, silver, bronze. Everyone has this idea that through the NCAA we produce the best players but I don't know that we have a single player that's top 3 in their position right now.
|
|