12-08-2012, 03:23 PM
The game will be on ESPNu. If this isn't part of your cable sports package, but you get ESPN & ESPN2, you can live-stream the match on your computer (the verification is thru your cable provider).
Women's volleyball and TV
The game will be on ESPNu. If this isn't part of your cable sports package, but you get ESPN & ESPN2, you can live-stream the match on your computer (the verification is thru your cable provider).
12-08-2012, 04:54 PM
Was at the game last night, and meant to write it up, but wasn't feeling well.
Still not 100%, but:
The Cyclones are not a bad team, but they don't have anywhere near the players the Cardinal does. I would think one, or perhaps two, of their starters would see the court for the Cardinal. They have one really springy outside hitter, Victoria Hurtt, and a solid libero in Kristen Hahn. But their middles and other hitters were not major factors.
That being said, they did a nice job for the most part. The Cyclones definitely biased themselves to take away the middles and the right side (Williams and either Ajanaku or Wopat on the slide), partially explaining why Burgess and Howard had great nights; they were often hitting against solo blocks. And Hurtt was athletic enough that she could get a shot off against most of Stanford's blockers. But it appeared that she wasn't a good enough passer to play through the back row, and was substituted out. When she was off the court, ISU's offense was extremely limited.
Stanford didn't play great - it took longer that it should to adjust to the biased blocking, and there were a overly high number of net violations; as an aside, this has been an issue all year. I don't think it's overly aggressive blocking, as most of them seem to be into the bottom of the net rather than at the top.
ISU's limited offense really showed in the runs Stanford would put together at the end of games. Game one was 17-13 until Stanford ripped off five straight points; game 2 was 17-17 and the Cardinal scored 8 of the next 10; the third was 18-16 when Hurtt went out, and was 24-16 a few minutes later.
I guess that's really the difference at this level of volleyball - to how many great players can you distribute attacks? Stanford has 5 in Wopat, Ajanaku, Burgess, Howard and Williams, and there was a nice sequence last night for Morgan Boukather, coming in for Bugg when Stanford switched from a 5-1 to a 6-2 at various points. And when they got an a run, the Cyclones didn't have an answer unless it was one of the three rotations with Hurtt at the net.
Rooting for them again tonight,
VG
Still not 100%, but:
The Cyclones are not a bad team, but they don't have anywhere near the players the Cardinal does. I would think one, or perhaps two, of their starters would see the court for the Cardinal. They have one really springy outside hitter, Victoria Hurtt, and a solid libero in Kristen Hahn. But their middles and other hitters were not major factors.
That being said, they did a nice job for the most part. The Cyclones definitely biased themselves to take away the middles and the right side (Williams and either Ajanaku or Wopat on the slide), partially explaining why Burgess and Howard had great nights; they were often hitting against solo blocks. And Hurtt was athletic enough that she could get a shot off against most of Stanford's blockers. But it appeared that she wasn't a good enough passer to play through the back row, and was substituted out. When she was off the court, ISU's offense was extremely limited.
Stanford didn't play great - it took longer that it should to adjust to the biased blocking, and there were a overly high number of net violations; as an aside, this has been an issue all year. I don't think it's overly aggressive blocking, as most of them seem to be into the bottom of the net rather than at the top.
ISU's limited offense really showed in the runs Stanford would put together at the end of games. Game one was 17-13 until Stanford ripped off five straight points; game 2 was 17-17 and the Cardinal scored 8 of the next 10; the third was 18-16 when Hurtt went out, and was 24-16 a few minutes later.
I guess that's really the difference at this level of volleyball - to how many great players can you distribute attacks? Stanford has 5 in Wopat, Ajanaku, Burgess, Howard and Williams, and there was a nice sequence last night for Morgan Boukather, coming in for Bugg when Stanford switched from a 5-1 to a 6-2 at various points. And when they got an a run, the Cyclones didn't have an answer unless it was one of the three rotations with Hurtt at the net.
Rooting for them again tonight,
VG
Was at the game last night, and meant to write it up, but wasn't feeling well.
Still not 100%, but:
The Cyclones are not a bad team, but they don't have anywhere near the players the Cardinal does. I would think one, or perhaps two, of their starters would see the court for the Cardinal. They have one really springy outside hitter, Victoria Hurtt, and a solid libero in Kristen Hahn. But their middles and other hitters were not major factors.
That being said, they did a nice job for the most part. The Cyclones definitely biased themselves to take away the middles and the right side (Williams and either Ajanaku or Wopat on the slide), partially explaining why Burgess and Howard had great nights; they were often hitting against solo blocks. And Hurtt was athletic enough that she could get a shot off against most of Stanford's blockers. But it appeared that she wasn't a good enough passer to play through the back row, and was substituted out. When she was off the court, ISU's offense was extremely limited.
Stanford didn't play great - it took longer that it should to adjust to the biased blocking, and there were a overly high number of net violations; as an aside, this has been an issue all year. I don't think it's overly aggressive blocking, as most of them seem to be into the bottom of the net rather than at the top.
ISU's limited offense really showed in the runs Stanford would put together at the end of games. Game one was 17-13 until Stanford ripped off five straight points; game 2 was 17-17 and the Cardinal scored 8 of the next 10; the third was 18-16 when Hurtt went out, and was 24-16 a few minutes later.
I guess that's really the difference at this level of volleyball - to how many great players can you distribute attacks? Stanford has 5 in Wopat, Ajanaku, Burgess, Howard and Williams, and there was a nice sequence last night for Morgan Boukather, coming in for Bugg when Stanford switched from a 5-1 to a 6-2 at various points. And when they got an a run, the Cyclones didn't have an answer unless it was one of the three rotations with Hurtt at the net.
Rooting for them again tonight,
VG
Still not 100%, but:
The Cyclones are not a bad team, but they don't have anywhere near the players the Cardinal does. I would think one, or perhaps two, of their starters would see the court for the Cardinal. They have one really springy outside hitter, Victoria Hurtt, and a solid libero in Kristen Hahn. But their middles and other hitters were not major factors.
That being said, they did a nice job for the most part. The Cyclones definitely biased themselves to take away the middles and the right side (Williams and either Ajanaku or Wopat on the slide), partially explaining why Burgess and Howard had great nights; they were often hitting against solo blocks. And Hurtt was athletic enough that she could get a shot off against most of Stanford's blockers. But it appeared that she wasn't a good enough passer to play through the back row, and was substituted out. When she was off the court, ISU's offense was extremely limited.
Stanford didn't play great - it took longer that it should to adjust to the biased blocking, and there were a overly high number of net violations; as an aside, this has been an issue all year. I don't think it's overly aggressive blocking, as most of them seem to be into the bottom of the net rather than at the top.
ISU's limited offense really showed in the runs Stanford would put together at the end of games. Game one was 17-13 until Stanford ripped off five straight points; game 2 was 17-17 and the Cardinal scored 8 of the next 10; the third was 18-16 when Hurtt went out, and was 24-16 a few minutes later.
I guess that's really the difference at this level of volleyball - to how many great players can you distribute attacks? Stanford has 5 in Wopat, Ajanaku, Burgess, Howard and Williams, and there was a nice sequence last night for Morgan Boukather, coming in for Bugg when Stanford switched from a 5-1 to a 6-2 at various points. And when they got an a run, the Cyclones didn't have an answer unless it was one of the three rotations with Hurtt at the net.
Rooting for them again tonight,
VG
12-08-2012, 11:36 PM
Argh! I finally figured out how to stream ESPNU for tonight's game. And then, an unexpected loss to an unranked foe. What a great season we had, with such a superb frosh class. I wish it would have continued for two more games.
I hope Viking Guy can explain this game to me. We sure looked disjointed after the first set.Â
I hope Viking Guy can explain this game to me. We sure looked disjointed after the first set.Â
Argh! I finally figured out how to stream ESPNU for tonight's game. And then, an unexpected loss to an unranked foe. What a great season we had, with such a superb frosh class. I wish it would have continued for two more games.
I hope Viking Guy can explain this game to me. We sure looked disjointed after the first set.Â
I hope Viking Guy can explain this game to me. We sure looked disjointed after the first set.Â
12-08-2012, 11:43 PM
Actually, if you don't HAVE TO watch something live, you can usually watch it over the Internet a little more than an hour or an hour-and-a-half after the event ends at http://espn.go.com/watchespn/index/_/typ.../20121125/ (the startDate varies, week-by-week). I watched WBB at Gonzaga and WVB vs Iowa State shortly after those games ended, even though I don't have ESPN (or even cable ... just the old set top antenna). I didn't know the outcome of either game before I watched them, and they were very exciting.
Tonight, as usual, I'm avoiding places where I might hear the final score, and I plan on watching the Stanford-Michigan WVB match at around midnight tonight on ESPN3 on replay. It's 3 1/2 hours after it started, but it's the same as live to me, and not very inconvenient.
Tonight, as usual, I'm avoiding places where I might hear the final score, and I plan on watching the Stanford-Michigan WVB match at around midnight tonight on ESPN3 on replay. It's 3 1/2 hours after it started, but it's the same as live to me, and not very inconvenient.
Actually, if you don't HAVE TO watch something live, you can usually watch it over the Internet a little more than an hour or an hour-and-a-half after the event ends at http://espn.go.com/watchespn/index/_/typ.../20121125/ (the startDate varies, week-by-week). I watched WBB at Gonzaga and WVB vs Iowa State shortly after those games ended, even though I don't have ESPN (or even cable ... just the old set top antenna). I didn't know the outcome of either game before I watched them, and they were very exciting.
Tonight, as usual, I'm avoiding places where I might hear the final score, and I plan on watching the Stanford-Michigan WVB match at around midnight tonight on ESPN3 on replay. It's 3 1/2 hours after it started, but it's the same as live to me, and not very inconvenient.
Tonight, as usual, I'm avoiding places where I might hear the final score, and I plan on watching the Stanford-Michigan WVB match at around midnight tonight on ESPN3 on replay. It's 3 1/2 hours after it started, but it's the same as live to me, and not very inconvenient.
12-08-2012, 11:46 PM
Bummer.
Our #2 seeded team didn't play well tonight and was upset by unseeded Michigan. Disappointing because at times this year we looked like we could win the National Championship and we were ranked #1 for awhile.
But alas - perhaps our youth finally caught up to us and hopefully, it is a significantly motivating defeat that propels this team next year to the start of a multi-year run. Our Freshmen are fantastic and with our returning Junior/Sophomores - we will have a great team next year too.
They performed far better than I and I think most people would have expected this year. At times they could have beaten anyone in the country. Other times, they didn't look that good. But they had a knack for coming back and pulling matches out. This one caught up with them and they didn't have any more tricks up their sleeves.
To a great team that had a potentially great year cut short - they are fun to watch and to get to know. Looking forward to next year!
Our #2 seeded team didn't play well tonight and was upset by unseeded Michigan. Disappointing because at times this year we looked like we could win the National Championship and we were ranked #1 for awhile.
But alas - perhaps our youth finally caught up to us and hopefully, it is a significantly motivating defeat that propels this team next year to the start of a multi-year run. Our Freshmen are fantastic and with our returning Junior/Sophomores - we will have a great team next year too.
They performed far better than I and I think most people would have expected this year. At times they could have beaten anyone in the country. Other times, they didn't look that good. But they had a knack for coming back and pulling matches out. This one caught up with them and they didn't have any more tricks up their sleeves.
To a great team that had a potentially great year cut short - they are fun to watch and to get to know. Looking forward to next year!
Bummer.
Our #2 seeded team didn't play well tonight and was upset by unseeded Michigan. Disappointing because at times this year we looked like we could win the National Championship and we were ranked #1 for awhile.
But alas - perhaps our youth finally caught up to us and hopefully, it is a significantly motivating defeat that propels this team next year to the start of a multi-year run. Our Freshmen are fantastic and with our returning Junior/Sophomores - we will have a great team next year too.
They performed far better than I and I think most people would have expected this year. At times they could have beaten anyone in the country. Other times, they didn't look that good. But they had a knack for coming back and pulling matches out. This one caught up with them and they didn't have any more tricks up their sleeves.
To a great team that had a potentially great year cut short - they are fun to watch and to get to know. Looking forward to next year!
Our #2 seeded team didn't play well tonight and was upset by unseeded Michigan. Disappointing because at times this year we looked like we could win the National Championship and we were ranked #1 for awhile.
But alas - perhaps our youth finally caught up to us and hopefully, it is a significantly motivating defeat that propels this team next year to the start of a multi-year run. Our Freshmen are fantastic and with our returning Junior/Sophomores - we will have a great team next year too.
They performed far better than I and I think most people would have expected this year. At times they could have beaten anyone in the country. Other times, they didn't look that good. But they had a knack for coming back and pulling matches out. This one caught up with them and they didn't have any more tricks up their sleeves.
To a great team that had a potentially great year cut short - they are fun to watch and to get to know. Looking forward to next year!
Just finished listening on KZSU .......... (so avert your eyes, Mike)
.
.
.
.
Arghhhhh ...... Can't believe the wheels fell off so completely. Our talented, top-ranked and balanced team lost to an unranked and much younger Michigan team going to their first final four. Hard to tell what happened from the call alone but it sounded like the Cardinal were scrambling and reacting as Michigan dictated the course of play. We never found our offensive rhythm in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sets against a scrappy foe playing inspired defense.Â
I would have liked our seniors to go out by taking Stanford back to our first final four since 2008 but that's not going to happen. Hard to believe it's been that long given the quality of players we've had the pleasure to watch over the last four years.Â
Hopefully Viking Guy was well enough to attend the game and can add his insight.
.
.
.
.
Arghhhhh ...... Can't believe the wheels fell off so completely. Our talented, top-ranked and balanced team lost to an unranked and much younger Michigan team going to their first final four. Hard to tell what happened from the call alone but it sounded like the Cardinal were scrambling and reacting as Michigan dictated the course of play. We never found our offensive rhythm in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sets against a scrappy foe playing inspired defense.Â
I would have liked our seniors to go out by taking Stanford back to our first final four since 2008 but that's not going to happen. Hard to believe it's been that long given the quality of players we've had the pleasure to watch over the last four years.Â
Hopefully Viking Guy was well enough to attend the game and can add his insight.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
Just finished listening on KZSU .......... (so avert your eyes, Mike)
.
.
.
.
Arghhhhh ...... Can't believe the wheels fell off so completely. Our talented, top-ranked and balanced team lost to an unranked and much younger Michigan team going to their first final four. Hard to tell what happened from the call alone but it sounded like the Cardinal were scrambling and reacting as Michigan dictated the course of play. We never found our offensive rhythm in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sets against a scrappy foe playing inspired defense.Â
I would have liked our seniors to go out by taking Stanford back to our first final four since 2008 but that's not going to happen. Hard to believe it's been that long given the quality of players we've had the pleasure to watch over the last four years.Â
Hopefully Viking Guy was well enough to attend the game and can add his insight.
.
.
.
.
Arghhhhh ...... Can't believe the wheels fell off so completely. Our talented, top-ranked and balanced team lost to an unranked and much younger Michigan team going to their first final four. Hard to tell what happened from the call alone but it sounded like the Cardinal were scrambling and reacting as Michigan dictated the course of play. We never found our offensive rhythm in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sets against a scrappy foe playing inspired defense.Â
I would have liked our seniors to go out by taking Stanford back to our first final four since 2008 but that's not going to happen. Hard to believe it's been that long given the quality of players we've had the pleasure to watch over the last four years.Â
Hopefully Viking Guy was well enough to attend the game and can add his insight.
In 1938 Neville Chamberlain declared "Peace in our time", Superman first appeared in Action Comics, Seabiscuit beat War Admiral ....... and C.a.l last won the Rose Bowl.
12-09-2012, 12:09 AM
Actually, Leftcoast, we have one of the youngest teams in the country. We start 4 freshmen (and two of them play all 6 rotations). The only senior that really plays is one of our setters (we play 2). Everyone else will be back.
Actually, Leftcoast, we have one of the youngest teams in the country. We start 4 freshmen (and two of them play all 6 rotations). The only senior that really plays is one of our setters (we play 2). Everyone else will be back.
12-09-2012, 06:50 AM
Thank you for the thought, Leftcoast, but the CARDboard is one of the first places to avoid until I've finished watching the replay -- which I just did. Boy, no matter which sport, momentum is palpable, unstoppable. We had it in the first set, but Michigan owned it thereafter.
The team had a year to be proud of and looks great for the future. We lost, but I enjoyed the match. If you're a sports fan, how fortunate it is to have teams of such quality in sport after sport. What a year Stanford is having! Well, on to WBB. Life is good.
The team had a year to be proud of and looks great for the future. We lost, but I enjoyed the match. If you're a sports fan, how fortunate it is to have teams of such quality in sport after sport. What a year Stanford is having! Well, on to WBB. Life is good.
Thank you for the thought, Leftcoast, but the CARDboard is one of the first places to avoid until I've finished watching the replay -- which I just did. Boy, no matter which sport, momentum is palpable, unstoppable. We had it in the first set, but Michigan owned it thereafter.
The team had a year to be proud of and looks great for the future. We lost, but I enjoyed the match. If you're a sports fan, how fortunate it is to have teams of such quality in sport after sport. What a year Stanford is having! Well, on to WBB. Life is good.
The team had a year to be proud of and looks great for the future. We lost, but I enjoyed the match. If you're a sports fan, how fortunate it is to have teams of such quality in sport after sport. What a year Stanford is having! Well, on to WBB. Life is good.
12-09-2012, 04:32 PM
Michigan must have figured out something in the intermission between the first and second game. In the first game, Stanford looked invincible. The blocking and spiking looked effortless. From the start of the second game, it was almost all soft touch. Michigan was too disciplined and quick for that to work.
Part of the problem was the serving. Michigan had some wicked serves. Stanford was mostly sorving lollipops. This enabled Michigan to put Stanford back on it's heals for many of the volleys.
Weak serving has been a characteristic of Stanford WVB as long as I have been following it. The last player I can remember with a wicked serve was Logan Tom. Unfortunately, she put it in the net about a third of the time. It's possible there have been some better servers that I just missed. There have been years when I didn't make it to Maples and TV didn't help. PAC-12 TV has made it possible to catch a lot more matches this year.
Although the ending was dissapointing, the team has been a real joy to watch this year. It's not just that they are great players. The team looks like they are having fun. VB should be fun.
Part of the problem was the serving. Michigan had some wicked serves. Stanford was mostly sorving lollipops. This enabled Michigan to put Stanford back on it's heals for many of the volleys.
Weak serving has been a characteristic of Stanford WVB as long as I have been following it. The last player I can remember with a wicked serve was Logan Tom. Unfortunately, she put it in the net about a third of the time. It's possible there have been some better servers that I just missed. There have been years when I didn't make it to Maples and TV didn't help. PAC-12 TV has made it possible to catch a lot more matches this year.
Although the ending was dissapointing, the team has been a real joy to watch this year. It's not just that they are great players. The team looks like they are having fun. VB should be fun.
Michigan must have figured out something in the intermission between the first and second game. In the first game, Stanford looked invincible. The blocking and spiking looked effortless. From the start of the second game, it was almost all soft touch. Michigan was too disciplined and quick for that to work.
Part of the problem was the serving. Michigan had some wicked serves. Stanford was mostly sorving lollipops. This enabled Michigan to put Stanford back on it's heals for many of the volleys.
Weak serving has been a characteristic of Stanford WVB as long as I have been following it. The last player I can remember with a wicked serve was Logan Tom. Unfortunately, she put it in the net about a third of the time. It's possible there have been some better servers that I just missed. There have been years when I didn't make it to Maples and TV didn't help. PAC-12 TV has made it possible to catch a lot more matches this year.
Although the ending was dissapointing, the team has been a real joy to watch this year. It's not just that they are great players. The team looks like they are having fun. VB should be fun.
Part of the problem was the serving. Michigan had some wicked serves. Stanford was mostly sorving lollipops. This enabled Michigan to put Stanford back on it's heals for many of the volleys.
Weak serving has been a characteristic of Stanford WVB as long as I have been following it. The last player I can remember with a wicked serve was Logan Tom. Unfortunately, she put it in the net about a third of the time. It's possible there have been some better servers that I just missed. There have been years when I didn't make it to Maples and TV didn't help. PAC-12 TV has made it possible to catch a lot more matches this year.
Although the ending was dissapointing, the team has been a real joy to watch this year. It's not just that they are great players. The team looks like they are having fun. VB should be fun.
12-09-2012, 11:24 PM
(12-09-2012, 04:32 PM)82 Card link Wrote:Although the ending was dissapointing, the team has been a real joy to watch this year. It's not just that they are great players. The team looks like they are having fun. VB should be fun.I don't know a lot about volleyball, but watching that match I noticed that the Michigan players were laughing and constantly smiling. They had nothing to lose and played with no pressure on them. The Stanford players look tight, seldom smiled, and did not look like they were having fun in this particular match. It seemed to me that they were putting too much pressure on themelves and this somehow threw their timing off.
It seems odd to me--too much of a coincidence--that Michigan has ended our season 3 of the last 4 years despite always being the underdog. Their coach must know something that consistently works against us. Maybe it is keeping his team loose.
(12-09-2012, 04:32 PM)82 Card link Wrote:Although the ending was dissapointing, the team has been a real joy to watch this year. It's not just that they are great players. The team looks like they are having fun. VB should be fun.I don't know a lot about volleyball, but watching that match I noticed that the Michigan players were laughing and constantly smiling. They had nothing to lose and played with no pressure on them. The Stanford players look tight, seldom smiled, and did not look like they were having fun in this particular match. It seemed to me that they were putting too much pressure on themelves and this somehow threw their timing off.
It seems odd to me--too much of a coincidence--that Michigan has ended our season 3 of the last 4 years despite always being the underdog. Their coach must know something that consistently works against us. Maybe it is keeping his team loose.
12-10-2012, 01:27 AM
81Alum is right about the last match. I was referring to the rest of the season. They had been in tight spots before and stayed positive. But in the regional final, it was apparent before the end of the third game that it was over. Michigan looked like Stanford the rest of the season. The same thing had happened earlier in the day to Nebraska, which also took the first game against Oregon before going limp. Not sure if it's the increased stakes in the playoffs or some kind of group approach-avoidance conflict.
81Alum is right about the last match. I was referring to the rest of the season. They had been in tight spots before and stayed positive. But in the regional final, it was apparent before the end of the third game that it was over. Michigan looked like Stanford the rest of the season. The same thing had happened earlier in the day to Nebraska, which also took the first game against Oregon before going limp. Not sure if it's the increased stakes in the playoffs or some kind of group approach-avoidance conflict.
12-10-2012, 10:56 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2012, 11:06 AM by Viking_Guy.)
Felt just well enough to go to the game Saturday night, and then wished I hadn't.
82's got it right; the big difference was the amount of pressure put on in the serving game. Michigan was sitting on the short serve all night long, and Stanford never seemed to adjust. The problem with a short serve is that, if it's not perfect, it's an easy ball to pass QUICKLY to the setter. With that quick pass, and the setter playing in system, she had all of her options available, and so Stanford's block was ineffective; the middles couldn't get out to the pins quickly enough to seal the block. After set 1, Stanford NEVER put together a serious run of points, and any time Michigan did so, Stanford at best clawed their way back into the set but never took it over. Michigan's serve receive into offense just had it too easy, converted quickly, and put the pressure back on Stanford to "hold serve."
3 of the 4 freshmen played like freshmen. Burgess was solid for the most part, but Ajanaku had one of her worst matches of the season. One of the things that doesn't show up in the box score - she was in the net 4 times in the first 3 sets, giving the Wolverines 4 free points. She also hit the slide set into the tape 3 times, never getting the ball over the net or forcing the block (each time she hit the right angle and would've had an unblocked lane, but still...) Howard had some good serving, but never got into an offensive rhythm. And Madi Bugg - well, it's sometimes tough to tell with setters whether it's the set or the hit that's off, but I did notice that the one play Stanford had that worked was the quick ball in the center to the middles. But even in system, she seemed to favor either the outside set or the slide to Wopat or Ajanaku.
One thing that I think could've helped - switching to an actual 6-2 with Boukather in for Bugg in the front row. Every long sequence of points Michigan scored seemed to happen with Bugg in the front row, and getting destroyed as the outside blocker against Michigan's left side hitters. Couple that with Ajanaku's performance, and for two out of six rotations Stanford had less than optimal offensive prospects. And it wasn't as if the substituting wasn't going on - Boukather and Cook would come in for a rotation, but then immediately leave again.
All in all, unpleasant. And not an appropriate end to a great season.
And yes, Michigan is our kryptonite right now.Â
VG
82's got it right; the big difference was the amount of pressure put on in the serving game. Michigan was sitting on the short serve all night long, and Stanford never seemed to adjust. The problem with a short serve is that, if it's not perfect, it's an easy ball to pass QUICKLY to the setter. With that quick pass, and the setter playing in system, she had all of her options available, and so Stanford's block was ineffective; the middles couldn't get out to the pins quickly enough to seal the block. After set 1, Stanford NEVER put together a serious run of points, and any time Michigan did so, Stanford at best clawed their way back into the set but never took it over. Michigan's serve receive into offense just had it too easy, converted quickly, and put the pressure back on Stanford to "hold serve."
3 of the 4 freshmen played like freshmen. Burgess was solid for the most part, but Ajanaku had one of her worst matches of the season. One of the things that doesn't show up in the box score - she was in the net 4 times in the first 3 sets, giving the Wolverines 4 free points. She also hit the slide set into the tape 3 times, never getting the ball over the net or forcing the block (each time she hit the right angle and would've had an unblocked lane, but still...) Howard had some good serving, but never got into an offensive rhythm. And Madi Bugg - well, it's sometimes tough to tell with setters whether it's the set or the hit that's off, but I did notice that the one play Stanford had that worked was the quick ball in the center to the middles. But even in system, she seemed to favor either the outside set or the slide to Wopat or Ajanaku.
One thing that I think could've helped - switching to an actual 6-2 with Boukather in for Bugg in the front row. Every long sequence of points Michigan scored seemed to happen with Bugg in the front row, and getting destroyed as the outside blocker against Michigan's left side hitters. Couple that with Ajanaku's performance, and for two out of six rotations Stanford had less than optimal offensive prospects. And it wasn't as if the substituting wasn't going on - Boukather and Cook would come in for a rotation, but then immediately leave again.
All in all, unpleasant. And not an appropriate end to a great season.
And yes, Michigan is our kryptonite right now.Â
VG
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2012, 11:06 AM by Viking_Guy.)
Felt just well enough to go to the game Saturday night, and then wished I hadn't.
82's got it right; the big difference was the amount of pressure put on in the serving game. Michigan was sitting on the short serve all night long, and Stanford never seemed to adjust. The problem with a short serve is that, if it's not perfect, it's an easy ball to pass QUICKLY to the setter. With that quick pass, and the setter playing in system, she had all of her options available, and so Stanford's block was ineffective; the middles couldn't get out to the pins quickly enough to seal the block. After set 1, Stanford NEVER put together a serious run of points, and any time Michigan did so, Stanford at best clawed their way back into the set but never took it over. Michigan's serve receive into offense just had it too easy, converted quickly, and put the pressure back on Stanford to "hold serve."
3 of the 4 freshmen played like freshmen. Burgess was solid for the most part, but Ajanaku had one of her worst matches of the season. One of the things that doesn't show up in the box score - she was in the net 4 times in the first 3 sets, giving the Wolverines 4 free points. She also hit the slide set into the tape 3 times, never getting the ball over the net or forcing the block (each time she hit the right angle and would've had an unblocked lane, but still...) Howard had some good serving, but never got into an offensive rhythm. And Madi Bugg - well, it's sometimes tough to tell with setters whether it's the set or the hit that's off, but I did notice that the one play Stanford had that worked was the quick ball in the center to the middles. But even in system, she seemed to favor either the outside set or the slide to Wopat or Ajanaku.
One thing that I think could've helped - switching to an actual 6-2 with Boukather in for Bugg in the front row. Every long sequence of points Michigan scored seemed to happen with Bugg in the front row, and getting destroyed as the outside blocker against Michigan's left side hitters. Couple that with Ajanaku's performance, and for two out of six rotations Stanford had less than optimal offensive prospects. And it wasn't as if the substituting wasn't going on - Boukather and Cook would come in for a rotation, but then immediately leave again.
All in all, unpleasant. And not an appropriate end to a great season.
And yes, Michigan is our kryptonite right now.Â
VG
82's got it right; the big difference was the amount of pressure put on in the serving game. Michigan was sitting on the short serve all night long, and Stanford never seemed to adjust. The problem with a short serve is that, if it's not perfect, it's an easy ball to pass QUICKLY to the setter. With that quick pass, and the setter playing in system, she had all of her options available, and so Stanford's block was ineffective; the middles couldn't get out to the pins quickly enough to seal the block. After set 1, Stanford NEVER put together a serious run of points, and any time Michigan did so, Stanford at best clawed their way back into the set but never took it over. Michigan's serve receive into offense just had it too easy, converted quickly, and put the pressure back on Stanford to "hold serve."
3 of the 4 freshmen played like freshmen. Burgess was solid for the most part, but Ajanaku had one of her worst matches of the season. One of the things that doesn't show up in the box score - she was in the net 4 times in the first 3 sets, giving the Wolverines 4 free points. She also hit the slide set into the tape 3 times, never getting the ball over the net or forcing the block (each time she hit the right angle and would've had an unblocked lane, but still...) Howard had some good serving, but never got into an offensive rhythm. And Madi Bugg - well, it's sometimes tough to tell with setters whether it's the set or the hit that's off, but I did notice that the one play Stanford had that worked was the quick ball in the center to the middles. But even in system, she seemed to favor either the outside set or the slide to Wopat or Ajanaku.
One thing that I think could've helped - switching to an actual 6-2 with Boukather in for Bugg in the front row. Every long sequence of points Michigan scored seemed to happen with Bugg in the front row, and getting destroyed as the outside blocker against Michigan's left side hitters. Couple that with Ajanaku's performance, and for two out of six rotations Stanford had less than optimal offensive prospects. And it wasn't as if the substituting wasn't going on - Boukather and Cook would come in for a rotation, but then immediately leave again.
All in all, unpleasant. And not an appropriate end to a great season.
And yes, Michigan is our kryptonite right now.Â
VG
12-13-2012, 08:48 PM
Michigan was up 2 sets to 1 against Texas but Texas fought back and won the next two sets to win 3 to 2. Michigan was on a pretty amazing run through the tournament so our team lost to a hot team that nearly went to the National Championship.
Michigan was up 2 sets to 1 against Texas but Texas fought back and won the next two sets to win 3 to 2. Michigan was on a pretty amazing run through the tournament so our team lost to a hot team that nearly went to the National Championship.
12-15-2012, 02:20 PM
Then Oregon beat WVBall powerhouse and No. 1 ranked Penn St (seeking their 5th NCAA Title out of the last 6 years). Congratulations to the Ducks and the Pac-12 as they play Texas in the Finals.
Then Oregon beat WVBall powerhouse and No. 1 ranked Penn St (seeking their 5th NCAA Title out of the last 6 years). Congratulations to the Ducks and the Pac-12 as they play Texas in the Finals.
12-15-2012, 07:46 PM
And it's Texas with the championship. I'm ambivalent about the whole cheering-for-two-schools-in-a-sport-where-Stanford-is-traditionally-good, but I'm going to cautiously raise a figurative glass to the 2012 Longhorn squad.
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »