|
|
Post by CAI BIN MUST GO on Apr 12, 2021 23:57:53 GMT -5
I get it, but isn't it strange to have someone who was named as one of the two best OHs at the most recent major competition playing as libero?
Is JWO really that bad? How did USA historically select liberos? I know the last one at the olympics couldn't have been converted from an OH because she's way too short
Banwarth was our 2016 libero, and she was a libero from the NCAA like JWO. Traditionally, that's how the libero is picked, but I think our liberos are having a ton of trouble finding quality professional contracts and play in Europe. The jobs don't pay enough and it also seems hard for a ton of NCAA liberos to translate their passing to the international ball, which is why we have to convert OHs who are good enough at passing. I don't have a clear answer though. Fair enough, that makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by basil on Apr 13, 2021 0:02:07 GMT -5
C4ndle literally just posted this. Where did I say anything about Krob? Posters complain in match threads when Larson isn’t subbed out because she isn’t hitting like 4 kills/set at .300 or something. Larson is on the floor for much more than her offense - it’s been that way for 12 years on the National Team. That was my point. The main point is that yeah Larson can contribute in all areas of the game, but Krob can do the same. They both bring strong passing, defense, serving, etc. Personally, I think we start Larson because of her experience and because she's captain. Krob can have her moment next Olympics in Paris. But there's no question that both players are bringing something similar to the team. |
|
|
|
Post by ltdks01 on Apr 13, 2021 6:26:49 GMT -5
I mean we have a player who is very similar in skills to her that’s in her prime. I think Larson is still great and would fit so perfectly on a team like Serbia but for the USA purposes what is she bringing in terms of volleyball skills that we don’t already have with the other OH? C4ndle literally just posted this. Where did I say anything about Krob? Posters complain in match threads when Larson isn’t subbed out because she isn’t hitting like 4 kills/set at .300 or something. Larson is on the floor for much more than her offense - it’s been that way for 12 years on the National Team. That was my point. is Larson just more consistent with her level of play? Whereas Krob may have have some higher highs but also some lower lows? |
|
|
|
Post by stanfordnebraskafan on Apr 13, 2021 7:18:08 GMT -5
C4ndle literally just posted this. Where did I say anything about Krob? Posters complain in match threads when Larson isn’t subbed out because she isn’t hitting like 4 kills/set at .300 or something. Larson is on the floor for much more than her offense - it’s been that way for 12 years on the National Team. That was my point. is Larson just more consistent with her level of play? Whereas Krob may have have some higher highs but also some lower lows? I think Larson is a big leader on the team/good teammate/good presence on the court. Even when she isn't lights out, she is helping her other teammates and making them better |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 7:33:48 GMT -5
is Larson just more consistent with her level of play? Whereas Krob may have have some higher highs but also some lower lows? I think Larson is a big leader on the team/good teammate/good presence on the court. Even when she isn't lights out, she is helping her other teammates and making them better so she’s basically Courtney Thompson 2.0? |
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Apr 13, 2021 8:00:21 GMT -5
I think Larson is a big leader on the team/good teammate/good presence on the court. Even when she isn't lights out, she is helping her other teammates and making them better so she’s basically Courtney Thompson 2.0? No because Larson is a positive benefit on the court |
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Apr 13, 2021 8:13:43 GMT -5
I’m kind of fed up with Robinson. She basically said that she would rather play her favorite position than give the team the best chance at gold. USA best lineup has her at lib imo. Larson and either hill / MBH should be the OHs, we don’t need krobs offense and I wish karch would bring down the hammer on her as he did with multiple other players in his time as head coach. He should tell her that she will go where she’s needed or she won’t be on the team. Selfish of her to demand she only plays OH I get it, but isn't it strange to have someone who was named as one of the two best OHs at the most recent major competition playing as libero? Is JWO really that bad? How did USA historically select liberos? I know the last one at the olympics couldn't have been converted from an OH because she's way too short
The problem is that we have 4 world class outsides but no world class Libero. Two of our outsides would make better liberos than the two in the running. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 8:14:07 GMT -5
so she’s basically Courtney Thompson 2.0? No because Larson is a positive benefit on the court I would definitely agree with that if we did not have Robinson. I don’t see anything Larson currently brings over Krob or Hill. People keep saying she brings so much but the only thing I have read is being a “good teammate” she was hitting some pretty hard balls in AU though so |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 13, 2021 8:27:56 GMT -5
No because Larson is a positive benefit on the court I would definitely agree with that if we did not have Robinson. I don’t see anything Larson currently brings over Krob or Hill. People keep saying she brings so much but the only thing I have read is being a “good teammate” she was hitting some pretty hard balls in AU though so Being a "positive benefit" has nothing to do with KRob. Larson is a better second setter, and blocker than KRob. She also has a better track record of terminating against top teams than KRob. I'm not sure why we're so set on constantly comparing the two. The poor available evidence from 2019 suggests that they are our two starters right now. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 8:39:09 GMT -5
I would definitely agree with that if we did not have Robinson. I don’t see anything Larson currently brings over Krob or Hill. People keep saying she brings so much but the only thing I have read is being a “good teammate” she was hitting some pretty hard balls in AU though so Being a "positive benefit" has nothing to do with KRob. Larson is a better second setter, and blocker than KRob. She also has a better track record of terminating against top teams than KRob. I'm not sure why we're so set on constantly comparing the two. The poor available evidence from 2019 suggests that they are our two starters right now. you think they should be our 2 starting outsides? Yikes. Take off the Larson love goggles. Larson is a fantastic player. In her prime was one of the very best in the world. I think we are trying to hold on to her too long when there are better options and the comparison lies in the fact that they are both better passers than terminators and that’s more of their role for the team |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 13, 2021 8:43:29 GMT -5
Being a "positive benefit" has nothing to do with KRob. Larson is a better second setter, and blocker than KRob. She also has a better track record of terminating against top teams than KRob. I'm not sure why we're so set on constantly comparing the two. The poor available evidence from 2019 suggests that they are our two starters right now. you think they should be our 2 starting outsides? Yikes. Take off the Larson love goggles. Larson is a fantastic player. In her prime was one of the very best in the world. I think we are trying to hold on to her too long when there are better options. Work on your reading competition before attempting to come for me. Where did I say they should be our starting outsides? Larson and KRob were our starting outsides against the top competition in the last major FIVB competition in 2019. |
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Apr 13, 2021 8:45:19 GMT -5
No because Larson is a positive benefit on the court I would definitely agree with that if we did not have Robinson. I don’t see anything Larson currently brings over Krob or Hill. People keep saying she brings so much but the only thing I have read is being a “good teammate” she was hitting some pretty hard balls in AU though so Yes they bring similar skills but they also bring some differences. Robinson is a little more flashy and up and down, Larson is very consistent and it’s not likely ur gonna get a bad game out of her. I like having Larson because it’s important to have the option to put someone out there who won’t be phased by anything. She’s already done this twice, she’s played alongside the best in the world for 10 years. Nothing is gonna catch her off guard or be too much for her to handle. |
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Apr 13, 2021 8:47:15 GMT -5
No because Larson is a positive benefit on the court I would definitely agree with that if we did not have Robinson. I don’t see anything Larson currently brings over Krob or Hill. People keep saying she brings so much but the only thing I have read is being a “good teammate” she was hitting some pretty hard balls in AU though so Larson is getting the same treatment now that Tom did in London. Tom showed up to London while others that had “passed” her didn’t. Larson does too many little things that don’t show up in the stats. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 17:31:20 GMT -5
I'm hopping in here because this subject is now being debated across a few threads.
Larson is the captain. She is also one of the craftiest hitters we have. She has the most experience at the highest levels and is the least likely to crack under the pressure of playing at the OG. As stated before, she does so much that just doesn't show up on the stats sheet.
Bartsch-Hackley probably has the highest offensive ceiling out of the four but when she struggles, she really struggles (2018 WCH). She is the worst passer out of the four. She really hasn't been lights out for the NT when in a major tournament yet. She is dominant during the WGP/VNL but against weaker competition. The same could be said for Robinson.
Robinson does everything decently well, like Larson and is probably the best passer we have on the team. She also has a really good competitive energy that will keep the team fired up. Larson too.
Hill is an enigma. We have yet to see her play like she does with her club because she hasn't established a good connection with any setter since Glass on the NT. She is also probably the worst blocker out of the 4 (I'm too lazy to look up the stats), but still not too shabby at it, not like our right sides but that is a whole other conversation. Her serve is a useful weapon and she has looked her best when hitting out of the back row.
At the end of 2019 here is what everyone's role was.
Robinson started the most. Larson was next but also split time with MBH, coming in for her if she struggled.
Hill, due to her taking a break was relegated to a serving sub. She really didn't look great IMO.
I think we can all agree that it really doesn't matter who is starting as long as the team is in system as much as possible. That is how Karch likes it. Even the players say that they thrive on being in system and struggle OOS (high ball offense).
What I would like to see is that if any one of them is struggling (passing or terminating) that the leash be short and allow for any one of the others on the bench to come in and make an impact.
Level of competition aside, when the team is in system, they are borderline unstoppable if whoever is setting is putting up hittable balls.
What this team really struggled at in 2019 was defense and setting up good transition opportunities. First ball side out is not really an issue.
That being said I think we will continue to see both Robinson and Larson start.
I too am on the LibeRobo train. I think a passing unit of Hill, Robinson and Larson feeding either Carlini/Poulter the ball could be a medal winning combination.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2021 17:39:56 GMT -5
I don't see a spot for MBH, in the starting 2 anyways.
Her passing could rule Drews ineffective.
|
|
