Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2021 20:28:22 GMT -5
Why Wisconsin lost: Eggleston. Fields. Butler. O'Neal. You have players like that and you could beat any team. You could also lose. But if you win, it can't be said to be a surprise. Not with that level of talent. In the past, Texas also had weaknesses that very good teams could exploit. Give Elliot credit: The backrow defense has improved. The passing has improved. The setting has improved. If Texas played in the Big10, would it be conference champ? I of course have no way of knowing for sure. But if they did come out on top, I wouldn't be surprised. What other Big10 team has four players as good as the ones I named? Wisconsin lost to Texas for the same reason they lost to Stanford in 2019 - they couldn't compete OOS. That comes down to the lefts. Eggleston and Fields are better than any pair of OHs in the B1G. Unless you see OHs like that in your gym/conference it is hard to prepare for them. Haggerty and Loberg could not produce at that level OOS. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Apr 25, 2021 20:51:03 GMT -5
Why Wisconsin lost: Eggleston. Fields. Butler. O'Neal. You have players like that and you could beat any team. You could also lose. But if you win, it can't be said to be a surprise. Not with that level of talent. In the past, Texas also had weaknesses that very good teams could exploit. Give Elliot credit: The backrow defense has improved. The passing has improved. The setting has improved. If Texas played in the Big10, would it be conference champ? I of course have no way of knowing for sure. But if they did come out on top, I wouldn't be surprised. What other Big10 team has four players as good as the ones I named? Wisconsin lost to Texas for the same reason they lost to Stanford in 2019 - they couldn't compete OOS. That comes down to the lefts. Eggleston and Fields are better than any pair of OHs in the B1G. Unless you see OHs like that in your gym/conference it is hard to prepare for them. Haggerty and Loberg could not produce at that level OOS. Plus Texas outpassed them. By a lot. Worse OOS plus worse passing is not a recipe for success. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2021 21:07:01 GMT -5
Wisconsin lost to Texas for the same reason they lost to Stanford in 2019 - they couldn't compete OOS. That comes down to the lefts. Eggleston and Fields are better than any pair of OHs in the B1G. Unless you see OHs like that in your gym/conference it is hard to prepare for them. Haggerty and Loberg could not produce at that level OOS. Plus Texas outpassed them. By a lot. Worse OOS plus worse passing is not a recipe for success. They have won matches this year when they were outpassed. They won the serve pass game against Stanford in 2019. Plummer didn't care. Sheffield knows this. He has been talking about improving OOS all year but he can't make Loberg and Haggerty more athletic. Wisconsin looked good in the B1G because there are no elite OH duos in the B1G. |
|
|
|
Post by mervynpumpkinhead on Apr 25, 2021 21:11:53 GMT -5
Plus Texas outpassed them. By a lot. Worse OOS plus worse passing is not a recipe for success. They have won matches this year when they were outpassed. They won the serve pass game against Stanford in 2019. Plummer didn't care. Sheffield knows this. He has been talking about improving OOS all year but he can't make Loberg and Haggerty more athletic. Wisconsin looked good in the B1G because there are no elite OH duos in the B1G. Or they looked good because they're good. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Apr 25, 2021 21:14:42 GMT -5
Well, you also look really good when your opponents have a combined win rate of 40%.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2021 21:15:08 GMT -5
They have won matches this year when they were outpassed. They won the serve pass game against Stanford in 2019. Plummer didn't care. Sheffield knows this. He has been talking about improving OOS all year but he can't make Loberg and Haggerty more athletic. Wisconsin looked good in the B1G because there are no elite OH duos in the B1G. Or they looked good because they're good. Sure. Just not one of the two best teams in the country. In this conversation we're discussing why they lost to Texas. |
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Apr 25, 2021 21:16:39 GMT -5
Plus Texas outpassed them. By a lot. Worse OOS plus worse passing is not a recipe for success. . Plummer didn't care. She sure didn’t |
|
|
|
Post by mervynpumpkinhead on Apr 25, 2021 22:00:12 GMT -5
Or they looked good because they're good. Sure. Just not one of the two best teams in the country. In this conversation we're discussing why they lost to Texas. Yes but you made it sound like the only reason they looked good is because of the apparent lack of an elite hitting duo in the Big Ten. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2021 22:11:18 GMT -5
Sure. Just not one of the two best teams in the country. In this conversation we're discussing why they lost to Texas. Yes but you made it sound like the only reason they looked good is because of the apparent lack of an elite hitting duo in the Big Ten. As I said, the conversation is about why Wisconsin lost to Texas. A lack of OOS terminators isn't as much of an issue if your opponent doesn't have them either - which is why I mentioned Wisconsin's success in the B1G. But it becomes a real problem if you are facing a team like Texas that has 2. |
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Apr 25, 2021 23:27:48 GMT -5
Somehow, who knows how, Wisconsin managed, only last year, with the same non-elite pair of outsides, to outlast everyone to get to the championship match, something neither Texas or Kentucky did. Wisconsin followed in the footsteps of Nebraska, who made it to the championship match the previous year, despite having only one great OH (none of the other pin hitters hit over .210). Meanwhile, Texas had great outsides in 2018, but didn't make to the championship match then, either. A team is the sum of its parts. It's too reductionist to say that Texas was somehow destined to win. Wisconsin's passing was uncharacteristically bad. Maybe it was Texas' serving. Maybe it was nerves. Maybe it was something else Who knows? But pass and defend as well as Wisconsin usually does and the outcome could easily have been different.
|
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Apr 25, 2021 23:38:42 GMT -5
Somehow, who knows how, Wisconsin managed, only last year, with the same non-elite pair of outsides, to outlast everyone to get to the championship match, something neither Texas or Kentucky did. Wisconsin followed in the footsteps of Nebraska, who made it to the championship match the previous year, despite having only one great OH (none of the other pin hitters hit over .210). Meanwhile, Texas had great outsides in 2018, but didn't make to the championship match then, either. A team is the sum of its parts. It's too reductionist to say that Texas was somehow destined to win. Wisconsin's passing was uncharacteristically bad. Maybe it was Texas' serving. Maybe it was nerves. Maybe it was something else Who knows? But pass and defend as well as Wisconsin usually does and the outcome could easily have been different. Well said. People are acting like it’s normal for molly haggerty to hit .000 in a match. regardless of who it is she’s better than that and anyone who has kept up with college volleyball since her freshman year knows that not even Texas would typically hold haggerty to that number. Stanford had a bogger block and better defense in 2019 than Texas in 2021 and haggerty still was successful against them in the finals. Not trying to make this about Stanford just using it as an example lol. And Not trying to take away credit from Texas as they played a great match. But clearly haggerty was not at her best. Partially having to do with what Texas was doing to stop her, and partially because her game was clearly just off that day. |
|
|
|
Post by BuckysHeat on Apr 26, 2021 14:51:20 GMT -5
Sorry man, even if I had seen this in time I had nothing to spout off about before during or after. I picked Texas in 4, they had been playing too well while Wisconsin was playing like they hadn't faced anybody this year. Was not shocked they lost in 3 and honestly, I was happy because if they were going to lose anyway, might as well do it in 3 so I could go to bed. |
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Apr 26, 2021 19:00:15 GMT -5
Sorry man, even if I had seen this in time I had nothing to spout off about before during or after. I picked Texas in 4, they had been playing too well while Wisconsin was playing like they hadn't faced anybody this year. Was not shocked they lost in 3 and honestly, I was happy because if they were going to lose anyway, might as well do it in 3 so I could go to bed. I never trash talk (truly).And I thought Texas would sweep. Not enough matches and a shaky Florida victory sealed the deal. I thought all season TX was the best team, until they got beat by KY. Still a victory for a Muncie IN native either way! |
|
