The CardBoard
WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 (/thread-7697.html)


WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - Viking_Guy - 09-05-2014

Whew.

Stanford rode out rough games from both Burgess and Howard, and used a career night from Morgan Boukather, solid nights from Madi Bugg and Inky Ajanaku, and contributions from McGehee, Lutz, and some good serving from the bench, to beat the Nittany Lions 3-2.

Or maybe more held on until Penn State self-destructed.  Can't really decide right now.

Yes, the Cardinal won.  But the two sets that PSU took both were much more one-sided, and they looked the better team.  But key errors late, especially in game 5, when they committed 5 attack errors over the course of 9 points to break a 6-6 tie and send Stanford to a nearly impossible to surmount 13-8 lead.  I was happy, because Inky Ajanaku was in the front row, and I thought we could at least manage a side out twice before she hit the bench.

To be fair, Burgess picked up her game from the third set on, but in the first two sets, she was all over the place, passing, hitting and serving.  Her serve was so off that Coach Dunning sent in a server for her for most of the remainder of the match, starting midway through the second game.

McGehee started, but Lutz started to come in for her late in set 1.  Initially, she looked a bit lost, slow to close the block to Penn State's awesome right side attack, and committing a service error to end the set.  But she settled down a bit, although she and Bugg are definitely not on the same page offensively - I don't recall a solid contact hit for Lutz on the evening.  But while it's hard to prove, I think that Penn State definitely knew she was there; unless they had a solid in-system quick hitter, their swings got a lot more tentative.  Except for their freshman Ali Frantti, who seems to have no conscience (although I think Stanford should've dropped their defense much deeper on her - I didn't see her have a solid off-speed attempt all game).

The key series all seemed to occur around Penn State attack errors.  Beyond those in set 5 mentioned above, set 2 really turned on 3 attack errors by the Lions which helped take the score from 12-all to 18-13 Stanford, a lead that held up.  In set 3, it was an attack error at 23-22 Stanford that took the Cardinal into a 2 point lead at the key point in the game.  The big culprit was Simone Lee, who had 8 errors in 33 attempts in hitting .091.

A few more quick reactions:

(1) As always, the big tone-setter was who gained an advantage from their serve.  Stanford doesn't serve as tough as the Lions, which leads to fewer errors but allowed Penn State an easier time of starting off in system on serve receive.  But that advantage came at a price, as their biggest serving weapon, setter Micha Hancock, had 6 serving errors, some of the absolutely crucial variety in killing Penn State momentum.  Including an absolutely horrific miss down 13-9 in game 5; several of her misses were just long, but that error, which gave Stanford 5 match points, was long by a good 5-8 feet.

(2)  Yay Megan Boukather!  I remember listening to a game where she came in for an injured Rachel Williams, and thinking she would be a great addition.  But she sat a lot while banged up over the last two years.  Tonight, she was really the difference.

(3) Inky is Inky.  I do think that Madi should target her more often if she can, especially on the middle ball rather than the slide.  I think part of Burgess' difficulty tonight is she was often the default out-of-system hitter, and ended up facing a lot of tough blocks.  OTOH, she also had trouble terminating in sets 1 and 2, even with good sets and a good seam to hit.

Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - 81alum - 09-05-2014

That was a close one, and I rather imagine that if we play that poorly against them later in the year we will lose.  Announcers said Penn State started 3 frosh.  Those kids will be more confident and better yet later in the year. 

Inky did not seem like her old self early in the game, but got a little more back to form later in the game.  There is something so graceful and thrilling about her spikes.  The announcers kept complaining that Stanford was not using her effectively enough.  Not sure I could follow their critique, but I did think something was not quite right.

The important thing is that we did play well enough to win, and hopefully our team will learn some valuable lessons that will help them later in the season.

OK, both the announcers and Viking Guy commented on "in system" vs. not in system.  Not being a volleyball aficionado, I don't know the term--what does it mean?

Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - Viking_Guy - 09-05-2014

All that being said, Penn State was missing the #1 recruit from last year, and they are exceptionally young.  They have a really high ceiling, and Stanford didn't ever take the game by the throat.  Barring injury, Penn State is going to be VERY scary by the end of the season.

Also, Stanford really needs more from Brittany Howard.  She's such a great athlete, and has a wonderful swing, but only rarely seems to be completely integrated into the offense.  That said, she had several key point contributions tonight.

One other thought:  Kyle Gilbert had a so-so match at libero.  Some amazing digs, but some bad passes off fairly easy balls to dig.  A little too inconsistent, and some of those bad passes put Bugg into a corner with only one hitter available, making Penn State's defensive job much easier.

All in all, a good but not pretty win.  Hoping for better passing against the Illini on Sunday, and for an in-person viewpoint from BobK or any others who were in attendance.

Settling in for a long Pac-12 Net weekend,

VG


Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - Viking_Guy - 09-05-2014

81A--

I think their criticism was a similar reaction to mine - when you are in-system and have Ajanaku available, SET HER.  Madi was often going outside and high to Burgess when she had Inky lined up in the middle.  Not only away from our most dominant offensive force, but not quickly enough to prevent the Lions from closing the block up.

That was the difference - when Penn State was in-system, their outside offense was FAST.  Inky was having trouble closing the block, let alone McGehee or Lutz.  And once Stanford started cheating outside, they went middle.  Natural, as their pin hitters are their best offense.

Inky is Stanford's best offense.  Make them stop her first, then spread the ball around should be Stanford's default paradigm.  I was saying in one of the matches last week, Madi at the end of the game seemed determined that Jordan was going to score the final point - Stanford was well ahead, but for something like 4 or 5 points in a row, every set went to Burgess wide, no matter how in-system they were.  While part of it may be at any point the quality of the pass, Madi also just seems to go Burgess' way a lot even if other options are available.

VG


Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - Viking_Guy - 09-05-2014

Most dramatic stat line of the night:

Game 5
Stanford, 7 kills and 0 errors on 17 attempts.  .472 hitting percentage.
Penn State, 9 kills, 5 ERRORS on 24 attempts. .167 hitting percentage.

That looks like a young team in a tight match to me.

VG


Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - oldalum - 09-05-2014

I am a volleyball neophyte but went and cheered. My reaction when it was over is that I couldn't say why we had won, other than playing better in the clutch. It seemed like in general their setter played better than ours, their libero played better than ours, their hitters in general hit better than ours, and their servers served better than ours. I guess the errors made the difference.

Some inexpert observations:

Penn State's libero was terrific at digging our serves and spikes. Unfortunately I think she had more of an impact on the match than ours did.

When Penn State's setter set their outside hitters just right, which was often, they usually got a kill. It seemed like the Bugg had more trouble putting the ball right where our hitters wanted/expected it and our spikes were not as sharp as a result. I don't know whether that was the passing, lack of experience with these hitters, or what. I too thought the outside sets were high and allowed Penn State to set up its block.

Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - Jskass - 09-05-2014

Stats at the end showed that overall PSU had more kills and points overall because as said above their wins were by more points than our wins. Having enjoyed the match in person, I would say that one of the big differences seemed to be that we could not block #7 at all, she seemed to be hitting nearly 1.000 until the fifth set...and according to their website, she is a SR, not a FR.

I thought Stanford's coaches made excellent adjustments, such as the service switch for Burgess, as Sidney Brown (FR) has a killer serve. I agree that they should go to Inky more often, as she was very effective as usual!

Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - 76lsjumb - 09-05-2014

Wow...this is a tough crowd.  ;D 

We just beat the #1 team in the country in five games.  Last time we played them, they beat us in five games... and went on to win the national championship the following weekend.  They're very good.  We're very good...and tonight we were just enough better when it counted.  From the observations so far, though, if I hadn't been there to see it myself, I'd be pretty sure we lost again...  ???

Nevertheless... I can't really dispute most of those observations.  It seemed to me like we were playing tight much of the time; often we seemed to be hitting just to keep the ball in play, rather than to terminate and win the point.  The timing on the Inky slide seemed to be way off for some reason, the cause of which did not seem to be due to Penn State.  That being said, we did have a situation -- in Game 2, I believe -- when we really needed a point late, it was pretty clear to everyone in Maples that the set was going to go to Inky in the middle, it did go to Inky in the middle, and she put it down.  With authority.  Against the #1 team.  That bodes well for the rest of the season.  Bugg's setting against Nebraska last week was much better than tonight, and they've made that slide work well enough over the past two seasons, so I'm confident they'll get it going again.

Tonight showed that, when we play our best, we can beat these guys, and when we don't, they can handle us pretty easily.  That's about the best lesson you can get from one of these early season top-5 match ups -- we don't have to be scared of them when we [almost certainly] meet them again in a little under 3 months, but we also know that we can easily lose if we don't bring our best.  And, if you can learn that lesson while also getting a win that will make you the #1 team in the country [assuming we take care of business against Illinois -- who got taken out in 3 by UCLA], that's a decent night's work.


Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - oldalum - 09-06-2014

yes, that was a terrific win over the (former) #1 team. I think the point of the critical analysis is that we have a lot of upside, and it was great we could beat them with somewhat less than our "A" game. Seems like our experience and maturity in the clutch were the difference.




Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - Viking_Guy - 09-06-2014

Glenn--

FYI, out of system refers to what happens when the first pass is not delivered to the setter in a controlled way, and limits the setter's options.  Instead of running an offense, she has to take what she can get.  Often times, that means a not great set, a high set outside or a set to the hitter nearest her, all of which offer the defense an easier opportunity.  With a good pass, a setter has lots of offensive options - set the middle, either side, a backrow attacker, at a variety of paces.  Makes defense exponentially more difficult.

That was what I was talking about when Penn State could use their quick set to the right side - it got there so fast that Stanford's middle blockers couldn't get out there to cover, unless they cheated that way.

Jskass-- Frantti was #5, and ended up hitting a bit over .400.  In fact, she's hit over .400 in every match they've played this year, which is outstanding for an outside hitter and astonishing for a freshman outside hitter.  And she was terminating points on out-of-system sets with regularity.  Nia Grant, #7, is their top middle hitter, and she hit well, .316, but middles have the innate advantage that they don't often get out-of-system sets.  She only got 19 sets to Frantti's 42.

76lsjumb, yep, we're a tough crowd.  No question.  But Penn State has set the standard for the last decade, and I want to measure our team against that standard.  The Nittany Lions had a slightly better hitting percentage, more digs, more service aces (to only a few more errors), and slightly fewer blocks.  And at times Stanford looked overmatched, especially in sets 1 and 4.

That being said, I did watch UCLA take apart Illinois.  Both of the teams in the first match were far and away better than those two.  So I am sanguine about the Cardinal's chances about almost everyone in the country.  Will have to reserve judgment about SC and UW.  Interestingly, this year we only play the Huskies once, in Seattle at Thanksgiving, while we only play WSU once, at home early in the year.  I didn't realize even volleyball has lost the chance at a full round-robin with the Pac-12.

VG

Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - Griffins78 - 09-06-2014

It was a stressful, thrilling, exhausting match to watch. Over the years we have had many, which makes watching our Women's Volleyball team so fun.

We started out tight but where we struggled was in the rotation with Inky out. McGehee was just not getting to the block in time. We sorely miss Carly. There were several times that Hancock dumped it over because our MB wasn't paying attention. Without the MB blocking effectively it left the court more open to PSU hitters and made defending and digging much harder. In contrast, PSU's MBs played well and is why our outside hitters were almost always hitting against a double block. When we got it through - their block left narrow windows that their back line could cover well.

Their setter, Micha Hancock is first-team all-american - the best in the country and she showed it with a number of spectacular plays as well as setting fast and accurately. But, she made several errors that cost them the match. Many errors in serving and several timely errors quick hitting the ball out or into the net. They were momentum swings.

I credit the match to Dunning. He made several substitutions throughout the match that proved to be crucial. He kept switching in Lutz for McGehee - neither were effective - until finally Lutz made her presence felt with several blocks (with no elevation). And substituting in Brown to serve for Burgess.

Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - BobK - 09-07-2014

i came here to read VB and end end thinking wow this is about the  Football loss.  We beat # 1 and let me add Penn State did not have brobdingnagian recruit Washington in the middle, but geesh we are if beating Illinois soon the NUMBER ONE. 

Seems to me but I guess I should watch closer that often it's Howard and Inky in the front together so hard to set Howard too much.   

Great to see Logan Tom and Hayley Spelman and the 5 recruits. 

brobdingnagian win and it'll do wonders for our confidence. 

Re: WVB: #1 Penn State 2 #2 Stanford 3 - BobK - 09-07-2014

Good story on the game

http://volleyballmag.com/articles/43452-stanford-bests-penn-state