|
Post by ajm on May 2, 2021 19:11:40 GMT -5
I would also say losing to the Sams in pool play put them in the situation of having to play three matches the next day and they simply ran out of gas after that. And going back to the second event, losing to the Polish qualifiers in pool play put them in a bracket with Russia 1 and Norway. T2 looked like a better team than Cribb but their inability to beat inferior teams really dug themselves in a hole they couldn’t get out of. To be fair, that was a BRUTAL draw they had for the elimination brackets in Hub 2. Yes but my point was if they had beaten that 30th seeded qualifier to win their pool they would likely have had a much more favorable draw for the elimination rounds.
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on May 2, 2021 20:14:54 GMT -5
To be fair, that was a BRUTAL draw they had for the elimination brackets in Hub 2. Yes but my point was if they had beaten that 30th seeded qualifier to win their pool they would likely have had a much more favorable draw for the elimination rounds. T2 have brought a little life to the US men's team, but we lose sight of the fact that their match record against non-Q teams is below .500. In 3 of their last 5 events they have at least one embarrassing loss. Too often they don't show up.
|
|
|
Post by tamz on May 3, 2021 9:40:17 GMT -5
If there was a tie in OR: If they tie on rankings points? The tiebreakers are 1. The total number of Olympic qualification tournaments a team participated in, and 2. The best finishes as a team in the Olympic qualification tournaments. volleyballmag.com/fivb-cancun-050321/
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on May 3, 2021 10:24:37 GMT -5
If there was a tie in OR: If they tie on rankings points? The tiebreakers are 1. The total number of Olympic qualification tournaments a team participated in, and 2. The best finishes as a team in the Olympic qualification tournaments. volleyballmag.com/fivb-cancun-050321/That's kind of lame. More tournaments means more opportunities that they should have had more points. I think T2's loss to the Russians sort of sealed their fate. To expect they'd have a realistic chance of reaching semifinals in both of the last two tournaments is maybe... 5%? I think we shall find out after Sochi. If they don’t make it to the quarterfinals in Sochi, then that’s it, there’s no chance in Ostrava even IF both Cribb and Dalcena do not improve on their points. They’ll also likely be in CQ (awaiting entry points update tomorrow) Well USAV should just cancel the CQ and automatically give it to T2, they are trying to go to the Olympics and everyone should be bending the rules to ensure they have a great shot!
|
|
|
Post by tamz on May 3, 2021 10:38:30 GMT -5
I think we shall find out after Sochi. If they don’t make it to the quarterfinals in Sochi, then that’s it, there’s no chance in Ostrava even IF both Cribb and Dalcena do not improve on their points. They’ll also likely be in CQ (awaiting entry points update tomorrow) Well USAV should just cancel the CQ and automatically give it to T2, they are trying to go to the Olympics and everyone should be bending the rules to ensure they have a great shot! T2 are straight into the MD for Sochi and Ostrava, per the entry points list updated today.
|
|
|
Post by stephenasinjin on May 3, 2021 14:06:59 GMT -5
T2 needs to take either 1st/5th, 2nd/4th, or 3rd/3rd (or better) to overtake Cribb or Dalcena at 7040 points assuming that they don’t improve on their total (5ths or better improve their total).
|
|
|
Post by gr8ful on May 3, 2021 16:15:15 GMT -5
This qualification process sucks...it sucked when it started...it sucked 8 years ago...it sucks now...in fact, I would say the Olympic Beach volleyball qualification sucks more than the CoronaVirus....there I said it...it should be an in country play in tournament...top two teams represent, third place serves as a substitute...with that said if "Cribb" and "Dalcena" end up being the two mens teams going do you think that would be our strongest representation?
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on May 4, 2021 12:46:58 GMT -5
This qualification process sucks...it sucked when it started...it sucked 8 years ago...it sucks now...in fact, I would say the Olympic Beach volleyball qualification sucks more than the CoronaVirus....there I said it...it should be an in country play in tournament...top two teams represent, third place serves as a substitute...with that said if "Cribb" and "Dalcena" end up being the two mens teams going do you think that would be our strongest representation? For Dalcena based on the most recent results.. yes. For Cribb, other than Cancun.. they've also proved they have better results. One tournament at home does nothing to solve the issue if someone gets hurt, has a one-off bad result, or just about 10 other reasons why 1 event is an awful way to determine who goes to the Olympics.
|
|
|
Post by tafit on May 4, 2021 13:01:57 GMT -5
This qualification process sucks...it sucked when it started...it sucked 8 years ago...it sucks now...in fact, I would say the Olympic Beach volleyball qualification sucks more than the CoronaVirus....there I said it...it should be an in country play in tournament...top two teams represent, third place serves as a substitute...with that said if "Cribb" and "Dalcena" end up being the two mens teams going do you think that would be our strongest representation? For Dalcena based on the most recent results.. yes. For Cribb, other than Cancun.. they've also proved they have better results. One tournament at home does nothing to solve the issue if someone gets hurt, has a one-off bad result, or just about 10 other reasons why 1 event is an awful way to determine who goes to the Olympics. Imagine a play in tournament in Norway and the Vikings having a very bad & unfortunate day....
|
|
|
Post by tamz on May 4, 2021 13:08:38 GMT -5
For Dalcena based on the most recent results.. yes. For Cribb, other than Cancun.. they've also proved they have better results. One tournament at home does nothing to solve the issue if someone gets hurt, has a one-off bad result, or just about 10 other reasons why 1 event is an awful way to determine who goes to the Olympics. Imagine a play in tournament in Norway and the Vikings having a very bad & unfortunate day.... That’s not possible. They haven’t had a bad day in a very long time lol
|
|
|
Post by KAP on May 4, 2021 13:26:29 GMT -5
This qualification process sucks...it sucked when it started...it sucked 8 years ago...it sucks now...in fact, I would say the Olympic Beach volleyball qualification sucks more than the CoronaVirus....there I said it...it should be an in country play in tournament...top two teams represent, third place serves as a substitute...with that said if "Cribb" and "Dalcena" end up being the two mens teams going do you think that would be our strongest representation? For Dalcena based on the most recent results.. yes. For Cribb, other than Cancun.. they've also proved they have better results. One tournament at home does nothing to solve the issue if someone gets hurt, has a one-off bad result, or just about 10 other reasons why 1 event is an awful way to determine who goes to the Olympics. Yes, one tournament isn't always going to produce the best teams. But a 22 month qualification period, extended to 34 because of COVID, isn't the best system, either. And I think USAV has handled it well for the most part, but the issue is that the FIVB is the gatekeeper. They hold up the Olympic carrot, and the only way to get there is if you play their game. Most team sports have their professional seasons, and international play takes place in the offseason, but not for beach. All the biggest international tournaments are right in the middle of our domestic season, and if a team is serious about making a run at the Olympics, they really don't have a choice. I would want the FIVB to do some sort of qualification series late in the summer before the Olympics, like mid September-early November. Do every other weekend for five tournaments after the FIVB and domestic tours end for the year, and have the five winners be in automatically. Then do a points system where the top 4 or 5 finishes count in choosing the next 10 teams in. That leaves room for a team to miss one or have one bad finish and still get in, or if they missed the first four with an injury, they could still win the last one and be in. And for all the teams who don't make, they would have the whole offseason to prepare for the continental qualifier and last-chance tournament (if they put that back in). That condenses the process gives the athletes who are in 8 months to prepare.
|
|
|
Post by gr8ful on May 5, 2021 13:12:29 GMT -5
For Dalcena based on the most recent results.. yes. For Cribb, other than Cancun.. they've also proved they have better results. One tournament at home does nothing to solve the issue if someone gets hurt, has a one-off bad result, or just about 10 other reasons why 1 event is an awful way to determine who goes to the Olympics. Yes, one tournament isn't always going to produce the best teams. But a 22 month qualification period, extended to 34 because of COVID, isn't the best system, either. And I think USAV has handled it well for the most part, but the issue is that the FIVB is the gatekeeper. They hold up the Olympic carrot, and the only way to get there is if you play their game. Most team sports have their professional seasons, and international play takes place in the offseason, but not for beach. All the biggest international tournaments are right in the middle of our domestic season, and if a team is serious about making a run at the Olympics, they really don't have a choice. I would want the FIVB to do some sort of qualification series late in the summer before the Olympics, like mid September-early November. Do every other weekend for five tournaments after the FIVB and domestic tours end for the year, and have the five winners be in automatically. Then do a points system where the top 4 or 5 finishes count in choosing the next 10 teams in. That leaves room for a team to miss one or have one bad finish and still get in, or if they missed the first four with an injury, they could still win the last one and be in. And for all the teams who don't make, they would have the whole offseason to prepare for the continental qualifier and last-chance tournament (if they put that back in). That condenses the process gives the athletes who are in 8 months to prepare. Imagine being a top sprinter and false starting and missing your bid to the olympics, or having an off day in the pool and not posting a good enough time to swim that event even though you are the best in the world...%*$# happens... I ask this question and would love to hear honest feedback answers...RIGHT NOW as it stands Phil and Nick, Jake and Crabb - are they the best two teams to represent the US? Honestly, I don't know...is Kerri and Sweat one of the top 2 women's teams we could send? I'm sure there has to be other sports in the Olympics - I just not sure which ones, in which there is no in country play in for the spot...fine, one tournament might be too much pressure for the players, far greater pressure playing the qualifier than playing in the Olympics - I get that....so make it three tournaments...US teams on US soil, top two teams represent, third team is alternate...
|
|
|
Post by guest2 on May 5, 2021 13:30:27 GMT -5
Yes, one tournament isn't always going to produce the best teams. But a 22 month qualification period, extended to 34 because of COVID, isn't the best system, either. And I think USAV has handled it well for the most part, but the issue is that the FIVB is the gatekeeper. They hold up the Olympic carrot, and the only way to get there is if you play their game. Most team sports have their professional seasons, and international play takes place in the offseason, but not for beach. All the biggest international tournaments are right in the middle of our domestic season, and if a team is serious about making a run at the Olympics, they really don't have a choice. I would want the FIVB to do some sort of qualification series late in the summer before the Olympics, like mid September-early November. Do every other weekend for five tournaments after the FIVB and domestic tours end for the year, and have the five winners be in automatically. Then do a points system where the top 4 or 5 finishes count in choosing the next 10 teams in. That leaves room for a team to miss one or have one bad finish and still get in, or if they missed the first four with an injury, they could still win the last one and be in. And for all the teams who don't make, they would have the whole offseason to prepare for the continental qualifier and last-chance tournament (if they put that back in). That condenses the process gives the athletes who are in 8 months to prepare. Imagine being a top sprinter and false starting and missing your bid to the olympics, or having an off day in the pool and not posting a good enough time to swim that event even though you are the best in the world...%*$# happens... I ask this question and would love to hear honest feedback answers...RIGHT NOW as it stands Phil and Nick, Jake and Crabb - are they the best two teams to represent the US? Honestly, I don't know...is Kerri and Sweat one of the top 2 women's teams we could send? I'm sure there has to be other sports in the Olympics - I just not sure which ones, in which there is no in country play in for the spot...fine, one tournament might be too much pressure for the players, far greater pressure playing the qualifier than playing in the Olympics - I get that....so make it three tournaments...US teams on US soil, top two teams represent, third team is alternate... This 1000 times. The qualifying process not only results in subpar teams going to the Olympics it makes the regular events dull. The best possible US 2 right now is Kerri/Sponcil so either team that qualifies will be subpar. The KW/BS team was largely dictated by weird injuries and interpersonal stuff that happened three years ago. Why is that a good idea? A very good player was excluded from the process because her partner got hurt and retired over a year ago. Why is that a good idea? Imagine how boring and stupid it would be if the NBA locked teams into the same rosters for two full years? One of the most interesting things about BVB is partner switching, but now teams are locked in long after their partnerships have gone stale. Why are Stockman/Kolinske still together for example? Joannouk? Evandro/Bruno? Ludwig/Kozuch? Sude/Borger? Brandie/Heather? Half these teams are basically holding onto crummy partnerships for the chance to win one game and finish 13th at one of the worst BVB tournaments of the year. Once the Q period ends teams immediately break up to create better teams and those teams refresh interest in the game, why cant that happen all the time when teams play poorly? Jake/Taylor just had a miserable run in Cancun, is anyone speculating about whether Tri Bourne gets a call? Wouldn't the game be more interesting if they were?
|
|
|
Post by ajm on May 5, 2021 22:01:31 GMT -5
Probably stating the obvious but the current qualification process is optimized to support the strongest possible FIVB tour. Any system that allows late-quad partner switches would only encourage the top athletes to skip international events in favor of domestic events until it really matters.
When the Olympics come around, the vast majority of viewers are not going to know or even care that Phil/Nick are not the best possible American team. As long as the FIVB controls the Olympic qualification process, it’s hard to see this changing.
|
|
|
Post by acrossthepond on May 6, 2021 2:09:31 GMT -5
Even though the Olympic qualification process has its weaknesses (especially in this 3 year Covid-period - but who saw this coming?) I don't get the sentiment of needing to strengthening the national tours. Who wants to see Mol/Sorum against the 16th ranked team of Norway? Who wants to see Bourne/Crabb playing against Ratledge & partner?
Also the NBA comparison doesn't really fit. You can rather compare Beach Volleyball to Tennis from a tour structure.
|
|