10-19-2012, 09:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-19-2012, 09:07 PM by Viking_Guy.)
Hmm.
Earlier today I posted about two very different 3-2 games in soccer by the Stanford men and women last night, and said I would take another 3-2 win of any variety when women's volleyball traveled to their first tough Pac-12 game against an elite in-conference foe, #5 Washington, who was undefeated until losing in Eugene to the Ducks last weekend.
Well, that was about the weirdest 3-2 Stanford victory I've ever seen. Schizophrenic, in fact.
In sets 1 and 3, Stanford lost by the worst set score I've ever seen them suffer - 25-10 in each set. Hitting a negative percentage (more errors than kills) in both games. Getting outblocked badly for a team that was one of the best blocking teams in the country. Being completely unable to deal with the Huskies' serving, especially that of Kylin Munoz, who served out the last 6 points of game 1.
Game 2 was the key to the match - Stanford jumped out early, gave up another big run on Munoz's serve, then rode out a nip-and-tuck game including 2 set points that would've probably effectively ended the match, and finally stringing together 3 straight points to win 28-26.
Because Game 3 was game 1 redux - or worse. Stanford fell behind 9-1 and was down by as many as 13 points, 18-5. When you hoped that they would rally a bit to provide momentum in game 4, they gave up 4 straight points again to fall 25-10. Ajanaku was getting stuffed on the slide by Amanda Gil, Krista Vansant was killing everything or taking off the block's hands and out of bounds, and every time Munoz stepped back, you prepared yourself for a 3-5 point run.
Which made game 4 really strange. The big difference? All match long, Stanford's freshmen had been playing poorly - Ajanaju getting stuffed, Burgess shanking serve receives, Howard serving out of bounds multiple times, even Wopat making crucial service errors. In game 4, all of a sudden things seems to come into focus - Burgess still was having a tough match hitting, but her passes started to find Bugg. Bugg started setting Howard far enough off the net to give her angles and choices against the block. And Stanford's block finally starting to wake up.
With the score tied 6-6, 3 kills in 4 points by Howard hitting from the left side made it 9-7. Then Bugg spread the ball around, ending with a slide to Ajanaku which she followed up with a stuff block, and Stanford led 15-10. And then the Cardinal promptly gave up another service run to allow the Huskies to tie it 16-16. UW would get up by as many as 2 points, 22-20, and had a match point at 24-23 - and missed the serve long. Stanford promptly answered with a Howard kill from the left, then Ajanaku solo-blocked a back row attack straight down and they headed for game 5.
So after that, you either expected a UW blowout or a tight set. Instead, Burgess, who had ended game 4, served four straight points to start, with a kill by Howard and another Ajanaku block. A few more kills from seemingly everyone on the court, and then Munoz stepped back to serve - and promptly missed. Stanford led 10-5 before giving up a couple of quick points, but following a Cardinal timeout, Ajanaku went and hit from the left side, totally flummoxing the Husky block and giving Stanford an 11-7 lead. A couple of Husky misses and an "on 2" deep push shot by Madi Bugg on the set gave Stanford a match point, and Burgess, who had been serving the entire run, put in a nice short one, Stanford got a chance in-system and Ajanaku hammered the backslide down the line and off the Husky D out. Set and match, Cardinal.
I don't know what to think. Here's Stanford's set by set percentages: -.175, .227, -.034, .231, .400. Schizoid. The Cardinal only had one hitter in double-digit kills: Carly Wopat, who was really the only consistent hitter in the first 3 sets, and finished with 15 kills, ending up at .382 for the match. But Howard recovered from an awful start to hit really well over the last two games. Burgess had a tough hitting night, but served out both game 4 and 5, and started off game 5 really well from the line. Bugg put her hitters in bad spots against the block early, but adapted and started to really spread the ball well late in the match. Nice contribution from Boukather as well, the second leading Stanford hitter on the night. And on a night when the block was really off, it appeared that they adjusted to a soft-block strategy, not trying to stuff the ball but simply to take the sting off of the hits, later in the match.
As far as the Huskies: Gil had a bad match, hitting -.111. While she was a big part of the Husky block that was really effective, she didn't seem to have much affect in the attack, which rode on Krista Vansant and Kaleigh Nelson - not a lot of middle attack from UW. They're also not really fast - Stanford, for all of their inconsistency, when they played in system often got the attack off before the Huskies got there, especially when Bugg adjusted and stopped lofting the sets so much.
All in all, a great, if puzzling win. And if they can win in Seattle, Stanford can probably win anywhere. Of course, if they play like they did in sets 1 and 3, they could probably lose anywhere, too.
Ahh, freshmen.
VG
Earlier today I posted about two very different 3-2 games in soccer by the Stanford men and women last night, and said I would take another 3-2 win of any variety when women's volleyball traveled to their first tough Pac-12 game against an elite in-conference foe, #5 Washington, who was undefeated until losing in Eugene to the Ducks last weekend.
Well, that was about the weirdest 3-2 Stanford victory I've ever seen. Schizophrenic, in fact.
In sets 1 and 3, Stanford lost by the worst set score I've ever seen them suffer - 25-10 in each set. Hitting a negative percentage (more errors than kills) in both games. Getting outblocked badly for a team that was one of the best blocking teams in the country. Being completely unable to deal with the Huskies' serving, especially that of Kylin Munoz, who served out the last 6 points of game 1.
Game 2 was the key to the match - Stanford jumped out early, gave up another big run on Munoz's serve, then rode out a nip-and-tuck game including 2 set points that would've probably effectively ended the match, and finally stringing together 3 straight points to win 28-26.
Because Game 3 was game 1 redux - or worse. Stanford fell behind 9-1 and was down by as many as 13 points, 18-5. When you hoped that they would rally a bit to provide momentum in game 4, they gave up 4 straight points again to fall 25-10. Ajanaku was getting stuffed on the slide by Amanda Gil, Krista Vansant was killing everything or taking off the block's hands and out of bounds, and every time Munoz stepped back, you prepared yourself for a 3-5 point run.
Which made game 4 really strange. The big difference? All match long, Stanford's freshmen had been playing poorly - Ajanaju getting stuffed, Burgess shanking serve receives, Howard serving out of bounds multiple times, even Wopat making crucial service errors. In game 4, all of a sudden things seems to come into focus - Burgess still was having a tough match hitting, but her passes started to find Bugg. Bugg started setting Howard far enough off the net to give her angles and choices against the block. And Stanford's block finally starting to wake up.
With the score tied 6-6, 3 kills in 4 points by Howard hitting from the left side made it 9-7. Then Bugg spread the ball around, ending with a slide to Ajanaku which she followed up with a stuff block, and Stanford led 15-10. And then the Cardinal promptly gave up another service run to allow the Huskies to tie it 16-16. UW would get up by as many as 2 points, 22-20, and had a match point at 24-23 - and missed the serve long. Stanford promptly answered with a Howard kill from the left, then Ajanaku solo-blocked a back row attack straight down and they headed for game 5.
So after that, you either expected a UW blowout or a tight set. Instead, Burgess, who had ended game 4, served four straight points to start, with a kill by Howard and another Ajanaku block. A few more kills from seemingly everyone on the court, and then Munoz stepped back to serve - and promptly missed. Stanford led 10-5 before giving up a couple of quick points, but following a Cardinal timeout, Ajanaku went and hit from the left side, totally flummoxing the Husky block and giving Stanford an 11-7 lead. A couple of Husky misses and an "on 2" deep push shot by Madi Bugg on the set gave Stanford a match point, and Burgess, who had been serving the entire run, put in a nice short one, Stanford got a chance in-system and Ajanaku hammered the backslide down the line and off the Husky D out. Set and match, Cardinal.
I don't know what to think. Here's Stanford's set by set percentages: -.175, .227, -.034, .231, .400. Schizoid. The Cardinal only had one hitter in double-digit kills: Carly Wopat, who was really the only consistent hitter in the first 3 sets, and finished with 15 kills, ending up at .382 for the match. But Howard recovered from an awful start to hit really well over the last two games. Burgess had a tough hitting night, but served out both game 4 and 5, and started off game 5 really well from the line. Bugg put her hitters in bad spots against the block early, but adapted and started to really spread the ball well late in the match. Nice contribution from Boukather as well, the second leading Stanford hitter on the night. And on a night when the block was really off, it appeared that they adjusted to a soft-block strategy, not trying to stuff the ball but simply to take the sting off of the hits, later in the match.
As far as the Huskies: Gil had a bad match, hitting -.111. While she was a big part of the Husky block that was really effective, she didn't seem to have much affect in the attack, which rode on Krista Vansant and Kaleigh Nelson - not a lot of middle attack from UW. They're also not really fast - Stanford, for all of their inconsistency, when they played in system often got the attack off before the Huskies got there, especially when Bugg adjusted and stopped lofting the sets so much.
All in all, a great, if puzzling win. And if they can win in Seattle, Stanford can probably win anywhere. Of course, if they play like they did in sets 1 and 3, they could probably lose anywhere, too.
Ahh, freshmen.
VG
