Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 11:02:50 GMT -5
i could get the numbers... but I dont think that's a fair comparison In what way… Japan digs a lot of balls Plummer is 197cm tall. Japan's NT average is 176. (yes they dig a ton of balls but still) SWP was facing elite opposites in one of the best leagues in the world. I don't think its fair to compare stats as like for likes. |
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Jun 2, 2021 11:03:20 GMT -5
All ya'll are crazy. Every OH (save maybe Larson) has played more professional volleyball (or the same) THIS SEASON than KP has in her entire career. She's still so new to this level and needs time. I don't understand why Karch needed to see MBH and Hill vs. Thailand but that's another story. SWP has had a break-out year, and she was a senior at Minn when KP was a freshman. She should be further along at this level. Their passing is a wash for me. The sample size is way too small to determine anything, especially considering no one knows what's happening in the training gym in Anaheim. I still don't believe either is going to Tokyo. I hope both get more opportunities to play in the coming weeks. Sucks this is the only tournament this year outside the Olympics. WChamps are already next year and both will be there. I have literally said we need more data. We’re basically saying the same thing. I just firmly believe KP brings something different to the table and that that needs to be investigated. Neither are going to see 6 rotations this year but who could make a bigger impact as an offensive sub? |
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Jun 2, 2021 11:04:35 GMT -5
China medaled with their 4th outside? Serbia? Really? Did Brazil? Has the USA ever? Glass and Larson played. Nnamani and Robinson.. the 3rd outside didn’t see the court much or really change the outcome. That’s the point. I have no clue what you’re saying because your grammar is all over the place but I think we agree. The point is that it doesn’t matter who USA’s 4th outside is. This debate that people keep having is more about wanting their faves to be Olympians. I use Siri and care about correcting. Just pretend English is my 3rd language. |
|
|
|
Post by Wichsen on Jun 2, 2021 11:06:25 GMT -5
but do we have data or proof that plummer can do it better than any other pin hitters? Unfortunately we cannot see that in vnl because they are playing against weaker team. Now if you bring her with least experienced that's actually a risk when you know that any of current 4oh can step up whenever they needed. We've seen that recently. We don’t have any that’s why we need to have more matches to see but again you don’t win the Olympics with you’re 4th best outside if they’re just a lesser version of your best. and you see plummer as better than the best? Lol |
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Jun 2, 2021 11:07:36 GMT -5
We don’t have any that’s why we need to have more matches to see but again you don’t win the Olympics with you’re 4th best outside if they’re just a lesser version of your best. and you see plummer as better than the best? Lol No. Omg lol. Larson and either robo and mbh will be starting. I see any opportunity for a new 4 oh unless hill steps it up |
|
|
|
Post by volleyjeep on Jun 2, 2021 11:09:38 GMT -5
China medaled with their 4th outside? Serbia? Really? Did Brazil? Has the USA ever? Glass and Larson played. Nnamani and Robinson.. the 3rd outside didn’t see the court much or really change the outcome. That’s the point. I have no clue what you’re saying because your grammar is all over the place but I think we agree. The point is that it doesn’t matter who USA’s 4th outside is. This debate that people keep having is more about wanting their faves to be Olympians. The point that she is trying to make is... Why take 4 of the same kinds of players when the 4th best is going to be a weak version of your best? If you have to make a sub you're putting in the same kind of player who's already weaker then the one she's replacing. The point is that the 4th OH should be someone who brings something different to the equation. That could be put in to change the dynamic of the game because her play is NOT the same as the other three OHs. |
|
|
|
Post by Wichsen on Jun 2, 2021 11:09:52 GMT -5
China medaled with their 4th outside? Serbia? Really? Did Brazil? Has the USA ever? Glass and Larson played. Nnamani and Robinson.. the 3rd outside didn’t see the court much or really change the outcome. That’s the point. I have no clue what you’re saying because your grammar is all over the place but I think we agree. The point is that it doesn’t matter who USA’s 4th outside is. This debate that people keep having is more about wanting their faves to be Olympians. finally! Want may fav in Olympic. Can't wait 2024 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by Wichsen on Jun 2, 2021 11:17:16 GMT -5
I have no clue what you’re saying because your grammar is all over the place but I think we agree. The point is that it doesn’t matter who USA’s 4th outside is. This debate that people keep having is more about wanting their faves to be Olympians. The point that she is trying to make is... Why take 4 of the same kinds of players when the 4th best is going to be a weak version of your best? If you have to make a sub you're putting in the same kind of player who's already weaker then the one she's replacing. The point is that the 4th OH should be someone who brings something different to the equation. That could be put in to change the dynamic of the game because her play is NOT the same as the other three OHs. lol isn't it mbh and hill is different than larson and krob? They are 4 different ohs with different style! Well, maybe krob and larson are almost the same. But mbh is more of overall player, she can even play opposite and outperform drews/thompson in that position. Kim hill is much different than the 3 because she is more of fast hitter! Not against kp or swp and i mean really we are basing it here in vnl against b/c team? Plummer is different too and she has great potential but olympic is less than 2 months. She will be more ready in 2022. |
|
|
|
Post by vbsam16 on Jun 2, 2021 11:18:05 GMT -5
If Hill doesn’t play well with the other setters than KP or SWP are in. Seems silly not to take KP for the future since Larson/MBH and Robo will likely start every match… but sometimes you need someone to put the ball down on the left when the team struggles. (I hate that I keep having to do this because I actually like Plummer but) when has she demonstrated an ability to put the ball away against good competition yet? She had a good game against DR and was horrible against Canada. Wilhite literally lit up Brazil and was better against Canada and as far as being that “OOS Hammer” for the USA she couldn’t do that against a weaker Canada team when she had plenty of OOS chances.... I definitely feel like this discussion should be tabled for like two weeks when we will hopefully have a few more matches to base opinions off of. I definitely see what Reach is saying and I agree to an extent that if you are going to bring an outside to the olympics that likely won't play 6 rotations, why not bring someone who can come in and immediately be an offensive threat? Whether that's Plummer or SWP is still up for discussion (sorry Hill). We've seen them each twice with the national team and SWP has looked better, but that's still only two matches. Hopefully they each get a chance to play more in the next couple weeks so we can have more data to base claims on. |
|
|
|
Post by gibbyb1 on Jun 2, 2021 11:26:55 GMT -5
(I hate that I keep having to do this because I actually like Plummer but) when has she demonstrated an ability to put the ball away against good competition yet? She had a good game against DR and was horrible against Canada. Wilhite literally lit up Brazil and was better against Canada and as far as being that “OOS Hammer” for the USA she couldn’t do that against a weaker Canada team when she had plenty of OOS chances.... I definitely feel like this discussion should be tabled for like two weeks when we will hopefully have a few more matches to base opinions off of. I definitely see what Reach is saying and I agree to an extent that if you are going to bring an outside to the olympics that likely won't play 6 rotations, why not bring someone who can come in and immediately be an offensive threat? Whether that's Plummer or SWP is still up for discussion (sorry Hill). We've seen them each twice with the national team and SWP has looked better, but that's still only two matches. Hopefully they each get a chance to play more in the next couple weeks so we can have more data to base claims on. This was the argument I similarly made about Fawcett last Olympics. It’s really nice to have a sub who could come off bench and bomb balls and change the match. Larson and Robo are essentially the same player, bring a pin who can go off offensively if you have one. |
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Jun 2, 2021 11:27:22 GMT -5
Both Poulter's and Hancock's set to her so far have been to low. She needs just a slightly higher ball to be lethal. Both her and MBH. High and fast is hard. Carlini does it well. Poulter has done it well at times. Y'all. Carlini has taken middle to bottom level teams and brought them to champion's league, and in one case won it. Come on now. |
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Jun 2, 2021 11:30:42 GMT -5
High and fast is hard. Carlini does it well. Poulter has done it well at times. Y'all. Carlini has taken middle to bottom level teams and brought them to champion's league, and in one case won it. Come on now. Enter Haak and Egonu and Karakurt argument |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2021 11:33:47 GMT -5
High and fast is hard. Carlini does it well. Poulter has done it well at times. Y'all. Carlini has taken middle to bottom level teams and brought them to champion's league, and in one case won it. Come on now. remember that time you said Hilley was vastly better than Lilley? I don’t trust you to be a fair evaluator of Wisconsin setters.... |
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Jun 2, 2021 11:38:17 GMT -5
Y'all. Carlini has taken middle to bottom level teams and brought them to champion's league, and in one case won it. Come on now. remember that time you said Hilley was vastly better than Lilley? I don’t trust you to be a fair evaluator of Wisconsin setters.... This really seems to be a common way to refute a statement...bring up something else entirely unrelated to the statement as proof of disqualifying the statement. I never said Hilley was vastly better than Lilley. Now I question your ability to read and recall. Nothing like exaggeration for effect. |
|
|
|
Post by Reach on Jun 2, 2021 11:39:49 GMT -5
Y'all. Carlini has taken middle to bottom level teams and brought them to champion's league, and in one case won it. Come on now. remember that time you said Hilley was vastly better than Lilley? I don’t trust you to be a fair evaluator of Wisconsin setters.... At one point in their careers, she was. |
|
