|
Post by Kingsley on Sept 2, 2022 10:06:45 GMT -5
You said it. 5-1 yield quicker return. And as good when everyone is back. if they can make it work, I think the 6-2 is the best choice for them. forcing outsides to be swinging against either Robinson or smrek at all times is crazy. ive thought so far that Wisconsin has the best chance of stopping Texas because they will put a ton of pressure on eggleston and skinner to perform with that right side block and a professionally trained libero waiting in the opposite direction This you? What are you seeing in practice that leads you to believe it’s the wrong decision? I think its the wrong decision based of the games ive seen them play. I think Orr has improved with each match and I think the teams highest ceiling is with or running at 5-1. 6-2s never work. I also think its the wrong decision because you run the risk of losing Orr, who still has 3 years of eligibility left.
|
|
|
Post by pull3 on Sept 2, 2022 10:09:51 GMT -5
You said it. 5-1 yield quicker return. And as good when everyone is back. if they can make it work, I think the 6-2 is the best choice for them. forcing outsides to be swinging against either Robinson or smrek at all times is crazy. ive thought so far that Wisconsin has the best chance of stopping Texas because they will put a ton of pressure on eggleston and skinner to perform with that right side block and a professionally trained libero waiting in the opposite direction I wish this was true. Baylor targetted our setters to hit.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Sept 2, 2022 10:22:52 GMT -5
if they can make it work, I think the 6-2 is the best choice for them. forcing outsides to be swinging against either Robinson or smrek at all times is crazy. ive thought so far that Wisconsin has the best chance of stopping Texas because they will put a ton of pressure on eggleston and skinner to perform with that right side block and a professionally trained libero waiting in the opposite direction This you? I think its the wrong decision based of the games ive seen them play. I think Orr has improved with each match and I think the teams highest ceiling is with or running at 5-1. 6-2s never work. I also think its the wrong decision because you run the risk of losing Orr, who still has 3 years of eligibility left. well they never have technically worked but for Wisconsin I see the argument (I also agree with Pitts decision last year) but its really hard to make it work. you have to be really committed to it and it doesn't seem like Nebraska is nor do I think they have the pieces to do it. it makes sense for Wisconsin
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Sept 2, 2022 10:36:34 GMT -5
well they never have technically worked but for Wisconsin I see the argument (I also agree with Pitts decision last year) but its really hard to make it work. you have to be really committed to it and it doesn't seem like Nebraska is nor do I think they have the pieces to do it. it makes sense for Wisconsin It probably doesn't help your chances of making it work if you tell people "we're not thinking of playing a two setter offense" on Friday, and then put one on the floor the next Thursday.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Sept 2, 2022 10:38:55 GMT -5
Yes, soft balls that didn't score. OOS balls *often* turn into high bump sets to the left pin; it gives the rest of the scrambling players time to get back into position. It also gives the defense time to set up a block in front of that left side hitter. The left side hitter is often called on to tip or otherwise hit into the block to try to 'reset' the point; like a basketball player using the backboard to pass to himself. All of that applies to Franklin as well as Loberg. Loberg was pretty good at 'resetting' the point. I'll assume Franklin is as well. Once more, Loberg's attack numbers were the equal of Franklin's last year. You don't 'look at numbers"; maybe you should start. No, Loberg's attack numbers were not Franklin's equal. Franklin is hitting 395 and getting 4.25 kills a set. Loberg has barely had match statistics like that. I'm not sure what you're looking at, but whatever it is, it's wrong. 2020, Loberg hit 254 and had 2.75 kills a set. I went back to 2018 and that's the best she's done hitting %. We don't have OOS numbers for anyone, so unless you have access to data that isn't anywhere but in the coach's stat book, not even close to correct "by the numbers."
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Sept 2, 2022 10:43:08 GMT -5
OOS balls *often* turn into high bump sets to the left pin; it gives the rest of the scrambling players time to get back into position. It also gives the defense time to set up a block in front of that left side hitter. The left side hitter is often called on to tip or otherwise hit into the block to try to 'reset' the point; like a basketball player using the backboard to pass to himself. All of that applies to Franklin as well as Loberg. Loberg was pretty good at 'resetting' the point. I'll assume Franklin is as well. Once more, Loberg's attack numbers were the equal of Franklin's last year. You don't 'look at numbers"; maybe you should start. No Loberg's attack numbers were not Franklin's equal. Franklin is hitting 395 and getting 4.25 kills a set. Loberg has barely had match statistics like that. I'm not sure what you're looking at, but whatever it is, it's wrong. 2020, Loberg hit 254 and had 2.75 kills a set. I went back to 2018 and that's the best she's done hitting %. We don't have OOS numbers for anyone, so unless you have access to data that isn't anywhere but in the coach's stat book, not even close to correct "by the numbers." According to the UW's web site, for 2021, Loberg hit .226 on 910 swings. uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2021According to the Michigan State web site, for 2021, Franklin hit .224 on 1105 swings msuspartans.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2021
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Sept 2, 2022 11:03:46 GMT -5
No Loberg's attack numbers were not Franklin's equal. Franklin is hitting 395 and getting 4.25 kills a set. Loberg has barely had match statistics like that. I'm not sure what you're looking at, but whatever it is, it's wrong. 2020, Loberg hit 254 and had 2.75 kills a set. I went back to 2018 and that's the best she's done hitting %. We don't have OOS numbers for anyone, so unless you have access to data that isn't anywhere but in the coach's stat book, not even close to correct "by the numbers." According to the UW's web site, for 2021, Loberg hit .226 on 910 swings. uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2021According to the Michigan State web site, for 2021, Franklin hit .224 on 1105 swings msuspartans.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2021everyone knew the ball was going to Franklin last year, on the other hand loberg was hardly ever the first and often no the second choice either in any rotation
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Sept 2, 2022 11:05:08 GMT -5
No Loberg's attack numbers were not Franklin's equal. Franklin is hitting 395 and getting 4.25 kills a set. Loberg has barely had match statistics like that. I'm not sure what you're looking at, but whatever it is, it's wrong. 2020, Loberg hit 254 and had 2.75 kills a set. I went back to 2018 and that's the best she's done hitting %. We don't have OOS numbers for anyone, so unless you have access to data that isn't anywhere but in the coach's stat book, not even close to correct "by the numbers." According to the UW's web site, for 2021, Loberg hit .226 on 910 swings. uwbadgers.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2021According to the Michigan State web site, for 2021, Franklin hit .224 on 1105 swings msuspartans.com/sports/womens-volleyball/stats/2021Ummm, not apples to apples. Franklin took ALL THE SWINGS for MSU; Loberg did not for UW. Take a look at Franklin playing a role more similar to Loberg's this year.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Sept 2, 2022 11:10:04 GMT -5
Ummm, not apples to apples. Franklin took ALL THE SWINGS for MSU; Loberg did not for UW. Take a look at Franklin playing a role more similar to Loberg's this year. I started this whole line of posts with "Yes, they were playing under different circumstances with different teammates around them, obviously..." Again, I think Franklin is likely a better left side hitter than Loberg was. But there was a post made with a distinct "trashing Loberg' element to it that I object to. I don't think the difference is as "big" as that post wanted to make it out to be.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Sept 2, 2022 11:32:39 GMT -5
Ummm, not apples to apples. Franklin took ALL THE SWINGS for MSU; Loberg did not for UW. Take a look at Franklin playing a role more similar to Loberg's this year. I started this whole line of posts with "Yes, they were playing under different circumstances with different teammates around them, obviously..." Again, I think Franklin is likely a better left side hitter than Loberg was. But there was a post made with a distinct "trashing Loberg' element to it that I object to. I don't think the difference is as "big" as that post wanted to make it out to be. Object to trashing Loberg, but please don't say Loberg was Franklin's equal based on the numbers and then use a qualifying statement that completely disqualifies your assertion. Or do so and expect to be challenged.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Sept 2, 2022 11:34:35 GMT -5
I watched a fair amount of MSUs games last couple of years since Franklin came in. The fact that Franklin had a hitting percentage that high is remarkable. MSU was a mess and Franklin was usually asked to clean up from almost every position on the court. Including the back row. There is a reason she was first team B1G.
That said, UW won a NC with Loberg on the LS, and a lot of that can be attributed to her steady play in the final 4 - despite being somewhat hobbled most of the year.
|
|
|
Post by stanfordvb on Sept 2, 2022 11:35:22 GMT -5
Ummm, not apples to apples. Franklin took ALL THE SWINGS for MSU; Loberg did not for UW. Take a look at Franklin playing a role more similar to Loberg's this year. I started this whole line of posts with "Yes, they were playing under different circumstances with different teammates around them, obviously..." Again, I think Franklin is likely a better left side hitter than Loberg was. But there was a post made with a distinct "trashing Loberg' element to it that I object to. I don't think the difference is as "big" as that post wanted to make it out to be. its no that she's likely a better outside hitter than loberg, she is better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2022 11:37:01 GMT -5
I didn’t say we wouldn’t be good. I said we wouldn’t be as good as last year, a NC year. In a 5-1, we’d have a hard time winning the B1G, much less an NC. We’d still be pretty good though. We actually have a chance to win the NC with a 6-2. Or we could finish 4th in the B1G. Your thought of We won't be as good as last year is a mystery to me. We've 2 superb backcourts replacing Barnes and Civita. We've got Hart back. MJ is a junior who has been living under the shadow of Hilley. She was a national ranked 20ish recruit iirc. Everyone else got another year of experience, Smrek, Robinson, Demps, and Ozol. And Ozol is healthy again. And I don't want to talk about how much Franklin is an upgrade of Loberg. In shorts, 1) Our backcourt is as good as last year 2) Hart replacing Rettke, MJ replacing Hilley are a minus 3) Franklin replacing Loberg is a big plus 4) everyone else an extra year, a plus. The sum of this year is as good as if not better than last year. IMHO. I agree with much of this except we have the POTENTIAL to be as good in the backcourt. Gülce is very talented but she is not close to Barnes right now. Shenal at midseason a slight upgrade over Civita IMO due to her athleticism. I personally believe a 5-1 with led by Hammill and Gutekin can be in the mix for a final four. But the longer we engage with the 6-2 I don't think they can revert to 5-1 four to six weeks from now and still make it that far.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Sept 2, 2022 11:52:11 GMT -5
I started this whole line of posts with "Yes, they were playing under different circumstances with different teammates around them, obviously..." Again, I think Franklin is likely a better left side hitter than Loberg was. But there was a post made with a distinct "trashing Loberg' element to it that I object to. I don't think the difference is as "big" as that post wanted to make it out to be. Object to trashing Loberg, but please don't say Loberg was Franklin's equal based on the numbers and then use a qualifying statement that completely disqualifies your assertion. Or do so and expect to be challenged. Look back at the whole 'conversation'.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Sept 2, 2022 11:55:30 GMT -5
Object to trashing Loberg, but please don't say Loberg was Franklin's equal based on the numbers and then use a qualifying statement that completely disqualifies your assertion. Or do so and expect to be challenged. Look back at the whole 'conversation'. Saw the whole conversation. Still disagree with qualifying a statement and then drawing comparisons on a false, qualified equivalency.
|
|