|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 12, 2021 0:34:32 GMT -5
UW 4sa/3se +1
SU 1sa/10se -9
UW +10 in the serving game.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 12, 2021 0:42:50 GMT -5
OK, so UW 98 points v. 86 for Stanford. Where did the extra 12 points come from?
Direct serving points (aces-errors):
UW +10
So that's almost the entire margin of difference right there.
Where else?
Direct blocking points (blocks-errors):
Stanford +3
Kills minus attack errors (adjusted for blocks):
UW +3
BHE:
Stanford +1 (UW had a BHE)
"Bad Set":
UW +3 (Stanford had three "bad sets")
=====
It does make it clear that the extra points scored by the UW almost entirely came directly off the service line. This is pretty much the same story the UW has had in several matches now, where their propensity for low-error but still effective serving has been a deciding factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by doublecontact on Nov 12, 2021 0:42:58 GMT -5
UW .288%, 11bl, 53d, 4aces, 3se
Drechsel 20k .333, 15d
Hoffman 17k .382, 11d, 2bl
Grote 15k .444, 6bl *wow
EMP 55as, 6bl
Stanford .331%, 11bl, 54d, 1ace, 10se
Baird 26k .543 *career high
Kipp 16k .282
Vicini 7k .700, 4bl Ma girl Grote 👌 |
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 12, 2021 0:43:47 GMT -5
UW 3 service errors vs. Stanford 10 service errors Aggressive serving didn't work. That's not the lesson to take away. The real lesson is that "high error serving" and "aggressive serving" are not the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 12, 2021 0:47:11 GMT -5
UW 3 service errors vs. Stanford 10 service errors Aggressive serving didn't work. Despite being outhit .331 to .288, UW won the S/O battle 65.5% to 57.7%. |
|
|
|
Post by Cruz'n on Nov 12, 2021 0:48:45 GMT -5
If Francis finds her swing and hits over .300, Stanford wins a close match. If Francis hits under .300, Stanford loses. If Francis hits the way she has been lately, the Card gets swept in ugly fashion. Possibly, but I’m more worried about which Baird we are going to see We saw a good Baird. Needed Francis too for a W. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2021 0:50:25 GMT -5
Why does no one ever post scores in Stanford threads?  |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 12, 2021 0:59:26 GMT -5
Aggressive serving didn't work. That's not the lesson to take away. The real lesson is that "high error serving" and "aggressive serving" are not the same thing. Any time you have to "up" your serving game... |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 12, 2021 0:59:57 GMT -5
Go huskies!!!!!!! Watching the match now with a glass of wine.
|
|
|
|
Post by waynevb1 on Nov 12, 2021 1:11:30 GMT -5
So Stanford lost a set 25-20 in which they had 17 kills and only 1 error on 35 swings.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 12, 2021 1:19:04 GMT -5
So Stanford lost a set 25-20 in which they had 17 kills and only 1 error on 35 swings. Yes, well, the Huskies did even better. 20 kills and 2 errors in the same 35 swings. |
|
|
|
Post by ay2013 on Nov 12, 2021 1:21:55 GMT -5
Why were there so many freaking hands/bodies in the net!
|
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Nov 12, 2021 1:26:00 GMT -5
I hope Baird can get her serve under control in the off season That's not going to happen. Every once in awhile she'll get more than three in a row in, but she is one of the most inconsistent servers in the history of Stanford Women's Volleyball. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Nov 12, 2021 1:28:55 GMT -5
The announcer was calling doubles and line faults "nets" - but, yeah, there were a lot of nets.
|
|
|
|
Post by pbmu on Nov 12, 2021 1:38:16 GMT -5
|
|
