Post by bounce22 on Oct 10, 2022 17:17:39 GMT -5
Trying to figure out your angle because you seem to have one. Clearly, you have a connection to someone (King (or Brie) maybe?) because you seem to act like you know what goes on at practices and don't like the criticism of the setting.
You want to call out Maglio for being "neutralized in the 5th set of the Poland match"? My saying that there needs to be more sets to the middle is a general comment to what I have seen throughout the WC. Are you trying to say that Maglio lost the 5th set for Canada? Are you saying that she doesn't deserve to be set because she was "neutralized"? If anything, one would probably say that Gray was "neutralized". "Maglio, just needs more practice reps..." is a joke. King needs more reps to set the slide. Maglio runs the slide all day with her pro club...how much does King? Besides, her slide is not the issue, she did very well on her slides in other matches when she gets the set...like her first set against Turkey. Just because she doesn't land a couple attempts against Poland doesn't make her "neutralized", if that were true they neutralized all of Canada's players. Just like saying she was neutralized because the Polish middles had more points on less attempts? What were the quality of their sets? How was Canada's defense on the Polish middles (Korneluk and Witkowska)? That's like saying Boskovic gets neutralized against Italy if Egonu scores a few more points on the same amount of sets. Not only that you are cherry picking the Polish match. That doesn't justify King not setting her middles.
Here's the hitting run down for Canada's 5th set (where they lost 15-5 to Poland):
- Maglio gets the first set, slams it down
- Gray blocked on the second set
- Gray gets 3rd set (set too close to the net) blocked
- Gray gets third set in a row and blocked again (down 4-1) - pulled out for Savard for several rotations including getting aced
Questionable set selection?
- Van Ryk gets a OOS swing from a King run down, betters the ball and scores
- Howe gets a bad set and is almost blocked
Canada down 7-3
- Van Ryk gets a bad set too close to the net and has to do a soft block over the net
- Van Ryk gets a second swing and fires it out
Canada down 9-4
- Maglio gets set low in the middle (ball barely clears the height of the net) - set low, slow, predictable and coming over her shoulder (middles can't make the adjustment in the air like an OH can) - Korneluk took one step to get to it, it was so slow. Even the announcer says that "Poland can just stand Korneluk there and read the game easily".
- Gray from pipe blocked- Korneluk camped out - set selection?
- Van Ryk tip into the block - bad set too close to the net and had to tip but she betters the ball
11-5 Poland
- Howe set slow and behind Howe (reaching back) - hit into the block
- 13 - 5
- Maglio blocked - set too low and just barely passed the height of the net
Game over but it was Maglio's fault and she was "neutralized" so much that you say it twice that you "stand by Maglio being neutralized"? To what end?
Points scored for Canada in set 5 (not including points scored off a Polish error:
- Van Ryk (2 "attack" points one a tip that was too close that she gets and one a wild OOS swing that she bettered, 1 block point).
- Maglio scored on the first swing of game (and good set).
There's their points!
You take exception to the "criticism" on Volleytalk to Gray and Van Ryk (to which I have also mostly defended them) but then you break out your criticism for the middles because I suggest they need to be set more? If Van Ryk and Gray are not supposed to be criticized by volleytalkers, then why Maglio who has been very effective and consistent throughout the VNL and WC (when set!). Of course, you also say about the Germany game that "...this game was won by Gray and King connecting". Gray played well, I thought her swings were smart, world-class most of the time. Did you see Maglio's 6 points in set 5 (and she was in on practically every point, from digs, sets and the service line)?
Am I the only one saying the middles need to be set? The announcers have said it numerous times...Heynen (and Lavarini) affectively told his team to only focus on the outsides and forget everyone else because the middles aren't getting set. When everyone in the building knows that the middles aren't going to get set, there is something wrong. Is it wrong to critcize that King not use her middles more (at the very least Maglio)? It's not just a 'theory' to use the middles...but, again, you seem to suggest the problem is with them...even though Maglio has been the most efficient player for Canada (even on poor quality sets) prior to the Poland match and has been a top scorer (for middles) two years straight in the Turkish League out of all the middles When you have a player who can score, you utilize them when you can. They don't even have to score every time, but you need the other team to pay attention to them instead of completely ignore them so they don't camp out on your outsides and put a lot of pressure on them. If King wants to look better, start using the middles (set a more balanced game). Her outsides will be even more effective. But, you seem to suggest that she doesn't set the middles because she can't (they are in effect, useless, neutralized, or ineffective).
And, when Howe does poorly it is never because of the set, "Howe was again fairly useless" you say. I am hard on Howe at times because of ,in part, her serve-receive. Howe gets a lot of sets and the location is not always good. She is probably set too close to the net more than anyone. (side-note, I just believe that Mitrovic and perhaps Livingston should have been developed alongside Howe because she didn't have much of a separation over them).
You suggest that you know what is going on with practices and that for some "reason" they can't get the middle connection even in practice? Not King's fault, of course. She's had all summer to work on the connection if she realizes how important it is to Canada's offense. But, of course, when you miss the friendlies before the WC, the connection isn't going to be there. No question it wasn't there. And, if King wants to get the middle connection better, she better work at it, because it is not for lack of skill from the two starting middles. Of course, you do suggest that " Maglio needs more reps" (because, yeah, that's the problem). You also suggest, Cross doesn't show anything in practice to suggest she should get set. Sorry, I disagree. If you have watched the last few seasons from Black to last year's VNL, Canada's middles have been extremely valuable and efficient (even though you don't "care about Cross's injury - or clearly Maglio's for that matter). Anyone who has watched TC knows that Jen Cross can kill a ball, which is partially why she gets the playing time.
I didn't say the middles were a "bright spot" for Canada necessarily (this year), and clearly with injuries they have some issues. However, I said they were generally a strong position for Canada (with a healthy Cross, Maglio, and Van Buskirk) and have some decent players in the pipeline. White is a decent fill in middle, and Veltman would have been great but she was alienated from the team. And, of course, "Maglio was in the dog house"... not quite sure about that comment, what you meant, and how it relates to the middles not getting set? I'm not a huge fan of Ogum's play, but she was playing well at the start of the season, and she's hasn't been given a chance except for a couple minutes in the VNL. I think that Cross could have been sat (at least for a few rotations and Ogums or White could have gone in). Cross is generally ahead of these players (including Fitterer who you say Winzer convinced out of retirement... Fitterer tried out under Black but didn't make it and got herself into much better shape because it was a dream of hers to play for Canada, and in fact once she gets some pro experience could possibly contribute to the team). I was more speaking of some of the upcoming players in the pipeline like Heppel, Thokbuom, Smrek, etc.
Maglio like King contribute to the team in a lot of different areas and are clearly valuable to the team. But, I hope that King learns to set the middle and improves her set selection (and location) in Brazil, and "I stand by that". If she can set a more balanced attack (not just between Gray and Van Ryk) and uses her middles, Canada will be a better team. A healthy Canadian team will be a threat to upset teams, but they need better passing and King to continue to improve and get a better connection to her all her hitters (especially the middle because that is what is missing).
Bro what. How could you take my post in the manner that you did? I've been incredibly complimentary about Maglio all tournament long??? I didn't even mention anything about the 5th set, so why are we analyzing any of it??? The only thing I briefly mentioned about was when I implied that Winzer made a bad coaching decision for sidelining Maglio in the 5th by starting her in Ro2.
This post is incredibly over defensive in which I mainly agreed with all your points? What do you have against what I said that I'm missing. I'm genuinely confused.
Edit: I don't understand why you think I have something against Maglio. I mention all the time that Canada's future success will be Brie's further development in connecting with Maglio.
Edi2: I'm even more confused re-reading your reply, as you've seemed to twist my words into something completely different to create an argument for something I don't even disagree with lol.
. Yeah. C’mon Newbeach ……. Stick to trashing me 😁
