Probably given Washington 7 or 8 free balls halfwayvthru 1st set
Wish Francis would take full swings
Wish Francis would take full swings
WVB vs Washington St (WIN 3-1)
11-11-2021, 08:53 PM
Given everything, I expected us to be up ranked in the most recent poll, but we are actually ranked 20th.
UW took the first set.
BC
UW took the first set.
BC
Given everything, I expected us to be up ranked in the most recent poll, but we are actually ranked 20th.
UW took the first set.
BC
UW took the first set.
BC
11-11-2021, 09:09 PM
I just have to keep reminding myself that everything should get better once the pandemic is over.
OK, OK...Hambly hasn't done much without the super group he inherited, but this tough two year patch has all happened during COVID. Once COVID is no longer adding complexity to the already complex lives of Stanford student-athletes all will be fine.
Right??
OK, OK...Hambly hasn't done much without the super group he inherited, but this tough two year patch has all happened during COVID. Once COVID is no longer adding complexity to the already complex lives of Stanford student-athletes all will be fine.
Right??
I just have to keep reminding myself that everything should get better once the pandemic is over.
OK, OK...Hambly hasn't done much without the super group he inherited, but this tough two year patch has all happened during COVID. Once COVID is no longer adding complexity to the already complex lives of Stanford student-athletes all will be fine.
Right??
OK, OK...Hambly hasn't done much without the super group he inherited, but this tough two year patch has all happened during COVID. Once COVID is no longer adding complexity to the already complex lives of Stanford student-athletes all will be fine.
Right??
11-11-2021, 09:49 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-11-2021, 10:13 PM by BostonCard.)
We took the third, so it won’t be a sweep. Here’s hoping for a reverse sweep.
BC
Not meant to be, as Washington ends the game on something like a 9-3 run. We managed to tie it at 16, and then it all fell apart.
BC
BC
Not meant to be, as Washington ends the game on something like a 9-3 run. We managed to tie it at 16, and then it all fell apart.
BC
(This post was last modified: 11-11-2021, 10:13 PM by BostonCard.)
We took the third, so it won’t be a sweep. Here’s hoping for a reverse sweep.
BC
Not meant to be, as Washington ends the game on something like a 9-3 run. We managed to tie it at 16, and then it all fell apart.
BC
BC
Not meant to be, as Washington ends the game on something like a 9-3 run. We managed to tie it at 16, and then it all fell apart.
BC
11-11-2021, 10:16 PM
(11-11-2021, 09:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We took the third, so it won’t be a sweep. Here’s hoping for a reverse sweep.I keep hoping to see a spark from this team, but probably not this year.
BC
Not meant to be, as Washington ends the game on something like a 9-3 run. We managed to tie it at 16, and then it all fell apart.
BC
(11-11-2021, 09:49 PM)BostonCard Wrote: We took the third, so it won’t be a sweep. Here’s hoping for a reverse sweep.I keep hoping to see a spark from this team, but probably not this year.
BC
Not meant to be, as Washington ends the game on something like a 9-3 run. We managed to tie it at 16, and then it all fell apart.
BC
11-12-2021, 12:08 AM
I guess the PAC-12 doesn't think it is worth having two announcers at a Thursday night match of two top-20 WVB teams, but you'd think they could have someone back at the fancy offices in SF, or even at home, whispering in the ear of the announcer to help him understand things he misses.
Maybe it could even be the camera operator who has the side view of the full court.
I'm relatively new to VB, but even I know the hand signals of the officials. Tonight's announcer was all over the place, miscalling why a team lost a point numerous times. It seems he favored a "double touch" when he didn't have a clue. Maybe the network could require him to rewatch the game with someone who knows the signals so he can see how often he looked dumb because he'd make the wrong call (to me, a neutral statement, "team X won the point", is better than a wrong one). He also indicated a challenge was forthcoming at least twice when I didn't see the coach make a move.
It's been a disappointing season so far. It isn't over and the team could do well in the post season, but they just don't seem to find a way to win. I'm sure part of that is due to all the changes in the line-up and positions due to injuries, leaving the team stuck in early-season form. I keep hoping they can stabilize and get close to what seems to be their capability for the post-season.
Maybe it could even be the camera operator who has the side view of the full court.
I'm relatively new to VB, but even I know the hand signals of the officials. Tonight's announcer was all over the place, miscalling why a team lost a point numerous times. It seems he favored a "double touch" when he didn't have a clue. Maybe the network could require him to rewatch the game with someone who knows the signals so he can see how often he looked dumb because he'd make the wrong call (to me, a neutral statement, "team X won the point", is better than a wrong one). He also indicated a challenge was forthcoming at least twice when I didn't see the coach make a move.
It's been a disappointing season so far. It isn't over and the team could do well in the post season, but they just don't seem to find a way to win. I'm sure part of that is due to all the changes in the line-up and positions due to injuries, leaving the team stuck in early-season form. I keep hoping they can stabilize and get close to what seems to be their capability for the post-season.
I guess the PAC-12 doesn't think it is worth having two announcers at a Thursday night match of two top-20 WVB teams, but you'd think they could have someone back at the fancy offices in SF, or even at home, whispering in the ear of the announcer to help him understand things he misses.
Maybe it could even be the camera operator who has the side view of the full court.
I'm relatively new to VB, but even I know the hand signals of the officials. Tonight's announcer was all over the place, miscalling why a team lost a point numerous times. It seems he favored a "double touch" when he didn't have a clue. Maybe the network could require him to rewatch the game with someone who knows the signals so he can see how often he looked dumb because he'd make the wrong call (to me, a neutral statement, "team X won the point", is better than a wrong one). He also indicated a challenge was forthcoming at least twice when I didn't see the coach make a move.
It's been a disappointing season so far. It isn't over and the team could do well in the post season, but they just don't seem to find a way to win. I'm sure part of that is due to all the changes in the line-up and positions due to injuries, leaving the team stuck in early-season form. I keep hoping they can stabilize and get close to what seems to be their capability for the post-season.
Maybe it could even be the camera operator who has the side view of the full court.
I'm relatively new to VB, but even I know the hand signals of the officials. Tonight's announcer was all over the place, miscalling why a team lost a point numerous times. It seems he favored a "double touch" when he didn't have a clue. Maybe the network could require him to rewatch the game with someone who knows the signals so he can see how often he looked dumb because he'd make the wrong call (to me, a neutral statement, "team X won the point", is better than a wrong one). He also indicated a challenge was forthcoming at least twice when I didn't see the coach make a move.
It's been a disappointing season so far. It isn't over and the team could do well in the post season, but they just don't seem to find a way to win. I'm sure part of that is due to all the changes in the line-up and positions due to injuries, leaving the team stuck in early-season form. I keep hoping they can stabilize and get close to what seems to be their capability for the post-season.
11-12-2021, 06:41 AM
I'm wondering if others are joining me as skeptics of whether Kevin Hambly is the right coach for Stanford volleyball. His performance with Plummer-less teams is not elite. Certainly losing some stars last season plus COVID was a challenge. Hopefully he'll show us more to close out this season and into next.
I'm wondering if others are joining me as skeptics of whether Kevin Hambly is the right coach for Stanford volleyball. His performance with Plummer-less teams is not elite. Certainly losing some stars last season plus COVID was a challenge. Hopefully he'll show us more to close out this season and into next.
Softball Fan
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-12-2021, 07:18 AM
(11-12-2021, 06:41 AM)FarmBoy Wrote: I'm wondering if others are joining me as skeptics of whether Kevin Hambly is the right coach for Stanford volleyball. His performance with Plummer-less teams is not elite. Certainly losing some stars last season plus COVID was a challenge. Hopefully he'll show us more to close out this season and into next.
Count me as having become one of those skeptics. Injuries and Covid have not been out of line as to what other teams experienced this season.
I've been watching Penn State and Nebraska, two teams Stanford beat early in the season. They have gotten much better; playing as cohesive units and greatly reducing unforced mistakes. In contrast IMO Stanford has remained the same and maybe even regressed in some areas.
(11-12-2021, 06:41 AM)FarmBoy Wrote: I'm wondering if others are joining me as skeptics of whether Kevin Hambly is the right coach for Stanford volleyball. His performance with Plummer-less teams is not elite. Certainly losing some stars last season plus COVID was a challenge. Hopefully he'll show us more to close out this season and into next.
Count me as having become one of those skeptics. Injuries and Covid have not been out of line as to what other teams experienced this season.
I've been watching Penn State and Nebraska, two teams Stanford beat early in the season. They have gotten much better; playing as cohesive units and greatly reducing unforced mistakes. In contrast IMO Stanford has remained the same and maybe even regressed in some areas.
11-12-2021, 08:11 AM
Injuries have hurt baldly. I’m a National championship x2 fan. I’m not a what have you done lately guy
Last night 10 could play 6 out.
The plummer class was great no question but the coaching and leadership was also great.
Last night 10 could play 6 out.
The plummer class was great no question but the coaching and leadership was also great.
11-12-2021, 10:42 AM
Spin the clock back to 2001.... A Stanford team that had done well nationally was floundering -- out of the top 25 at the end of the season for three years straight, immediately following one of the most embarrassing losses in history.
What has the coach done for us recently?
Time to change coaches?
Well, I'm glad we didn't change coaches. She's now the coach with the most wins in her sport. Even more than that, a true Hall of Fame PERSON. And, oh yeah, she's done something for us recently.
I'd rather have coaches with integrity that earn the respect of their team and their fans than to have a few extra wins from a Bo Schembechler or a Jim Harbaugh, or, well, a few more I could name that tend to have a lot of wins.
What has the coach done for us recently?
Time to change coaches?
Well, I'm glad we didn't change coaches. She's now the coach with the most wins in her sport. Even more than that, a true Hall of Fame PERSON. And, oh yeah, she's done something for us recently.
I'd rather have coaches with integrity that earn the respect of their team and their fans than to have a few extra wins from a Bo Schembechler or a Jim Harbaugh, or, well, a few more I could name that tend to have a lot of wins.
Spin the clock back to 2001.... A Stanford team that had done well nationally was floundering -- out of the top 25 at the end of the season for three years straight, immediately following one of the most embarrassing losses in history.
What has the coach done for us recently?
Time to change coaches?
Well, I'm glad we didn't change coaches. She's now the coach with the most wins in her sport. Even more than that, a true Hall of Fame PERSON. And, oh yeah, she's done something for us recently.
I'd rather have coaches with integrity that earn the respect of their team and their fans than to have a few extra wins from a Bo Schembechler or a Jim Harbaugh, or, well, a few more I could name that tend to have a lot of wins.
What has the coach done for us recently?
Time to change coaches?
Well, I'm glad we didn't change coaches. She's now the coach with the most wins in her sport. Even more than that, a true Hall of Fame PERSON. And, oh yeah, she's done something for us recently.
I'd rather have coaches with integrity that earn the respect of their team and their fans than to have a few extra wins from a Bo Schembechler or a Jim Harbaugh, or, well, a few more I could name that tend to have a lot of wins.
11-12-2021, 11:02 AM
A first look at the Stanford/Washington box score makes it hard to know how Stanford lost. Stanford out hit Washington .331 to .288. Stanford out dug Washington 54 to 53 and the teams were tied with 11 blocks each. So what happened?
Washington did a much better job serving. Washington had 4 service aces and only 3 service errors, while Stanford had only one ace and had 10 services errors. Washington serving netted one point, while our serving lost nine. I guess that might have been fine if our serving constantly forced Washington out of system. I don't have any statistics, but I just didn't see Washington forced out of system.
Also Stanford was frequently close or tied in the first half of each set, but Washington often won the final points. Even the set Stanford won, holding on at the end was difficult. Why is a mystery to me.
Washington did a much better job serving. Washington had 4 service aces and only 3 service errors, while Stanford had only one ace and had 10 services errors. Washington serving netted one point, while our serving lost nine. I guess that might have been fine if our serving constantly forced Washington out of system. I don't have any statistics, but I just didn't see Washington forced out of system.
Also Stanford was frequently close or tied in the first half of each set, but Washington often won the final points. Even the set Stanford won, holding on at the end was difficult. Why is a mystery to me.
A first look at the Stanford/Washington box score makes it hard to know how Stanford lost. Stanford out hit Washington .331 to .288. Stanford out dug Washington 54 to 53 and the teams were tied with 11 blocks each. So what happened?
Washington did a much better job serving. Washington had 4 service aces and only 3 service errors, while Stanford had only one ace and had 10 services errors. Washington serving netted one point, while our serving lost nine. I guess that might have been fine if our serving constantly forced Washington out of system. I don't have any statistics, but I just didn't see Washington forced out of system.
Also Stanford was frequently close or tied in the first half of each set, but Washington often won the final points. Even the set Stanford won, holding on at the end was difficult. Why is a mystery to me.
Washington did a much better job serving. Washington had 4 service aces and only 3 service errors, while Stanford had only one ace and had 10 services errors. Washington serving netted one point, while our serving lost nine. I guess that might have been fine if our serving constantly forced Washington out of system. I don't have any statistics, but I just didn't see Washington forced out of system.
Also Stanford was frequently close or tied in the first half of each set, but Washington often won the final points. Even the set Stanford won, holding on at the end was difficult. Why is a mystery to me.
Softball Fan
Unregistered
Unregistered
11-12-2021, 02:06 PM
The prep rankings of Stanford's players collectively are much higher than any other team in the PAC-12. It's not even close.
Yes, prep rankings are not perfect. There will always be the under-performer or over-performer who proves the rule. Collectively prep rankings for an entire team are a pretty darn good evaluator of college potential for that team.
I want to be optimistic. But my eyes tell me this team is not performing to a level it should be at. Every team has injuries during the season. One example: When Oregon played us at Maples they didn't have one of their key starters, Borup. Not having Borup is like Stanford not having Kipp or Baird. Yet Oregon swept us on our home court.
Stanford has lost 5 of its last 6 matches. Stanford will likely end up with a losing conference record with the best talent in the conference. I'm going to make a conclusion about that.
I take it you are very happy with what Shaw is doing at Stanford. I also absolutely want a coach with integrity and a coach who earns respect. Everyone does. I feel it's quite possible for a coach to have integrity and the ability to coach players to reach their potential. It's not an either/or situation.
Yes, prep rankings are not perfect. There will always be the under-performer or over-performer who proves the rule. Collectively prep rankings for an entire team are a pretty darn good evaluator of college potential for that team.
I want to be optimistic. But my eyes tell me this team is not performing to a level it should be at. Every team has injuries during the season. One example: When Oregon played us at Maples they didn't have one of their key starters, Borup. Not having Borup is like Stanford not having Kipp or Baird. Yet Oregon swept us on our home court.
Stanford has lost 5 of its last 6 matches. Stanford will likely end up with a losing conference record with the best talent in the conference. I'm going to make a conclusion about that.
(11-12-2021, 10:42 AM)M T Wrote: I'd rather have coaches with integrity that earn the respect of their team and their fans than to have a few extra wins from a Bo Schembechler or a Jim Harbaugh, or, well, a few more I could name that tend to have a lot of wins.
I take it you are very happy with what Shaw is doing at Stanford. I also absolutely want a coach with integrity and a coach who earns respect. Everyone does. I feel it's quite possible for a coach to have integrity and the ability to coach players to reach their potential. It's not an either/or situation.
The prep rankings of Stanford's players collectively are much higher than any other team in the PAC-12. It's not even close.
Yes, prep rankings are not perfect. There will always be the under-performer or over-performer who proves the rule. Collectively prep rankings for an entire team are a pretty darn good evaluator of college potential for that team.
I want to be optimistic. But my eyes tell me this team is not performing to a level it should be at. Every team has injuries during the season. One example: When Oregon played us at Maples they didn't have one of their key starters, Borup. Not having Borup is like Stanford not having Kipp or Baird. Yet Oregon swept us on our home court.
Stanford has lost 5 of its last 6 matches. Stanford will likely end up with a losing conference record with the best talent in the conference. I'm going to make a conclusion about that.
I take it you are very happy with what Shaw is doing at Stanford. I also absolutely want a coach with integrity and a coach who earns respect. Everyone does. I feel it's quite possible for a coach to have integrity and the ability to coach players to reach their potential. It's not an either/or situation.
Yes, prep rankings are not perfect. There will always be the under-performer or over-performer who proves the rule. Collectively prep rankings for an entire team are a pretty darn good evaluator of college potential for that team.
I want to be optimistic. But my eyes tell me this team is not performing to a level it should be at. Every team has injuries during the season. One example: When Oregon played us at Maples they didn't have one of their key starters, Borup. Not having Borup is like Stanford not having Kipp or Baird. Yet Oregon swept us on our home court.
Stanford has lost 5 of its last 6 matches. Stanford will likely end up with a losing conference record with the best talent in the conference. I'm going to make a conclusion about that.
(11-12-2021, 10:42 AM)M T Wrote: I'd rather have coaches with integrity that earn the respect of their team and their fans than to have a few extra wins from a Bo Schembechler or a Jim Harbaugh, or, well, a few more I could name that tend to have a lot of wins.
I take it you are very happy with what Shaw is doing at Stanford. I also absolutely want a coach with integrity and a coach who earns respect. Everyone does. I feel it's quite possible for a coach to have integrity and the ability to coach players to reach their potential. It's not an either/or situation.
11-12-2021, 04:46 PM
(11-12-2021, 02:06 PM)paloalto Wrote: I take it you are very happy with what Shaw is doing at Stanford. I also absolutely want a coach with integrity and a coach who earns respect. Everyone does. I feel it's quite possible for a coach to have integrity and the ability to coach players to reach their potential. It's not an either/or situation.
I take it some on the Cardboard would have been looking for a new WBB coach for Stanford in 2001.
(11-12-2021, 02:06 PM)paloalto Wrote: I take it you are very happy with what Shaw is doing at Stanford. I also absolutely want a coach with integrity and a coach who earns respect. Everyone does. I feel it's quite possible for a coach to have integrity and the ability to coach players to reach their potential. It's not an either/or situation.
I take it some on the Cardboard would have been looking for a new WBB coach for Stanford in 2001.
11-13-2021, 05:06 AM
I see some comments that seem to imply that being concerned about Hambly is akin to wanting to replace Tara after 2001. DO you actually think this is a fair analogy? I assume you're referring to the 2001-2002 season.
Tara took over as coach after the team had seasons of 5-23 and 9-19. Hamby took over as coach after a team went 23-7 and 27-7 plus a national championship.
Tara built her team from a middle of the road Pac10 team to a national champion in 5 years. Hambly inherited an amazing squad and did very well keeping them together for 3 great seasons to his credit, but the squads primarily led by his players have declined.
In the 2001-2002 season, Tara's team went 32-3 but lost in the sweet 16 after her stop player was injured. Hambly went 2-8 last year and is currently 13-10 with very highly ranked players.
I just don't see how you can draw any connection between those two situations.
We all know Stanford isn't for everyone and that success can be fleeting. And that coaches can be great for one situation a program faces but not for another situation at the same program. For example, I think the idea that Shaw benefited greatly from the culture that Harbaugh created has basis in reality. He was able to build on what Harbaugh built in ways Harbaugh wasn't, but he hasn't been able to "top up" the culture as Harbaugh players left and those they mentored left. So Shaw was the perfect many to take what Harbaugh built and get the most out of it for a few years, but he may not have rebuilding skills.
Hambly may be the same. He may have been good at maintaining a solid program at Illinois that he inherited and have just the right skills to maximize the extraordinary talent and culture he inherited at Stanford, but he may not have what it takes to keep Stanford on the elite level.
Tara took over as coach after the team had seasons of 5-23 and 9-19. Hamby took over as coach after a team went 23-7 and 27-7 plus a national championship.
Tara built her team from a middle of the road Pac10 team to a national champion in 5 years. Hambly inherited an amazing squad and did very well keeping them together for 3 great seasons to his credit, but the squads primarily led by his players have declined.
In the 2001-2002 season, Tara's team went 32-3 but lost in the sweet 16 after her stop player was injured. Hambly went 2-8 last year and is currently 13-10 with very highly ranked players.
I just don't see how you can draw any connection between those two situations.
We all know Stanford isn't for everyone and that success can be fleeting. And that coaches can be great for one situation a program faces but not for another situation at the same program. For example, I think the idea that Shaw benefited greatly from the culture that Harbaugh created has basis in reality. He was able to build on what Harbaugh built in ways Harbaugh wasn't, but he hasn't been able to "top up" the culture as Harbaugh players left and those they mentored left. So Shaw was the perfect many to take what Harbaugh built and get the most out of it for a few years, but he may not have rebuilding skills.
Hambly may be the same. He may have been good at maintaining a solid program at Illinois that he inherited and have just the right skills to maximize the extraordinary talent and culture he inherited at Stanford, but he may not have what it takes to keep Stanford on the elite level.
I see some comments that seem to imply that being concerned about Hambly is akin to wanting to replace Tara after 2001. DO you actually think this is a fair analogy? I assume you're referring to the 2001-2002 season.
Tara took over as coach after the team had seasons of 5-23 and 9-19. Hamby took over as coach after a team went 23-7 and 27-7 plus a national championship.
Tara built her team from a middle of the road Pac10 team to a national champion in 5 years. Hambly inherited an amazing squad and did very well keeping them together for 3 great seasons to his credit, but the squads primarily led by his players have declined.
In the 2001-2002 season, Tara's team went 32-3 but lost in the sweet 16 after her stop player was injured. Hambly went 2-8 last year and is currently 13-10 with very highly ranked players.
I just don't see how you can draw any connection between those two situations.
We all know Stanford isn't for everyone and that success can be fleeting. And that coaches can be great for one situation a program faces but not for another situation at the same program. For example, I think the idea that Shaw benefited greatly from the culture that Harbaugh created has basis in reality. He was able to build on what Harbaugh built in ways Harbaugh wasn't, but he hasn't been able to "top up" the culture as Harbaugh players left and those they mentored left. So Shaw was the perfect many to take what Harbaugh built and get the most out of it for a few years, but he may not have rebuilding skills.
Hambly may be the same. He may have been good at maintaining a solid program at Illinois that he inherited and have just the right skills to maximize the extraordinary talent and culture he inherited at Stanford, but he may not have what it takes to keep Stanford on the elite level.
Tara took over as coach after the team had seasons of 5-23 and 9-19. Hamby took over as coach after a team went 23-7 and 27-7 plus a national championship.
Tara built her team from a middle of the road Pac10 team to a national champion in 5 years. Hambly inherited an amazing squad and did very well keeping them together for 3 great seasons to his credit, but the squads primarily led by his players have declined.
In the 2001-2002 season, Tara's team went 32-3 but lost in the sweet 16 after her stop player was injured. Hambly went 2-8 last year and is currently 13-10 with very highly ranked players.
I just don't see how you can draw any connection between those two situations.
We all know Stanford isn't for everyone and that success can be fleeting. And that coaches can be great for one situation a program faces but not for another situation at the same program. For example, I think the idea that Shaw benefited greatly from the culture that Harbaugh created has basis in reality. He was able to build on what Harbaugh built in ways Harbaugh wasn't, but he hasn't been able to "top up" the culture as Harbaugh players left and those they mentored left. So Shaw was the perfect many to take what Harbaugh built and get the most out of it for a few years, but he may not have rebuilding skills.
Hambly may be the same. He may have been good at maintaining a solid program at Illinois that he inherited and have just the right skills to maximize the extraordinary talent and culture he inherited at Stanford, but he may not have what it takes to keep Stanford on the elite level.
11-13-2021, 10:07 AM
(11-13-2021, 05:06 AM)FarmBoy Wrote: I see some comments that seem to imply that being concerned about Hambly is akin to wanting to replace Tara after 2001. .... I assume you're referring to the 2001-2002 season.
Instead of assuming, why don't you read the thread? #12 in particular. That was a whole 4 posts in front of yours.
(and 2001 is 2001)
(11-13-2021, 05:06 AM)FarmBoy Wrote: I see some comments that seem to imply that being concerned about Hambly is akin to wanting to replace Tara after 2001. .... I assume you're referring to the 2001-2002 season.
Instead of assuming, why don't you read the thread? #12 in particular. That was a whole 4 posts in front of yours.
(and 2001 is 2001)
11-13-2021, 10:11 AM
Seems to me that reaching any conclusion about Hambly is premature. One drawback to having a bolus of 5 (and 6 the final year) superstars in one year is that younger players do not get playing time to develop. One would expect a couple years of rebuilding after the star class leaves. The first was the Covid year which was almost worthless developing players because of very limited-time and inadequate-numbers practices, and fewer games. Remember there is only one player on the current team that had practiced and played a full season before this year. We also have zero depth, so missing just one starter has a significant effect that is enough for us to lose close matches that we might otherwise have won. There also may have been an effect of the superstar class on recruiting. Yes we are clearly underperforming expectations for this year, which is not even over yet. Next year will be more telling.
Seems to me that reaching any conclusion about Hambly is premature. One drawback to having a bolus of 5 (and 6 the final year) superstars in one year is that younger players do not get playing time to develop. One would expect a couple years of rebuilding after the star class leaves. The first was the Covid year which was almost worthless developing players because of very limited-time and inadequate-numbers practices, and fewer games. Remember there is only one player on the current team that had practiced and played a full season before this year. We also have zero depth, so missing just one starter has a significant effect that is enough for us to lose close matches that we might otherwise have won. There also may have been an effect of the superstar class on recruiting. Yes we are clearly underperforming expectations for this year, which is not even over yet. Next year will be more telling.
11-13-2021, 10:30 AM
While I agree with your post mostly but zero depth with 16 players? Or zero depth after all the injuries and down to 10 on Thursday?
11-13-2021, 10:39 AM
(11-13-2021, 10:11 AM)oldalum Wrote: Seems to me that reaching any conclusion about Hambly is premature. One drawback to having a bolus of 5 (and 6 the final year) superstars in one year is that younger players do not get playing time to develop. One would expect a couple years of rebuilding after the star class leaves. The first was the Covid year which was almost worthless developing players because of very limited-time and inadequate-numbers practices, and fewer games. Remember there is only one player on the current team that had practiced and played a full season before this year. We also have zero depth, so missing just one starter has a significant effect that is enough for us to lose close matches that we might otherwise have won. There also may have been an effect of the superstar class on recruiting. Yes we are clearly underperforming expectations for this year, which is not even over yet. Next year will be more telling.Agree it is too early to draw any conclusions.
Last year was a nonentity -- not only did we lose the regular season, but with the regular season move to spring, we lost the spring off-season for working with the players returning next year.
This year there were losses linkable to injuries and illnesses without depth to compensate. So it was one step forward and one (or two steps) backward: Yay, Sami is playing and we are about to sweep UCLA; wait, Elena is out with a concussion and we lost? Yay, we went 3-1 against Utah, Colorado, WSU, and UW (latter an expected loss) and are building momentum; wait, 3 starters are out and we lose 3 in a row including 2 against teams we should beat or sweep?
Next year will be more telling whether Hambly, having proven he can drive a Ferrari, knows how to build one. Things I especially will be looking for:
(1) Will serve receive improve?
(2) Will service errors go down?
(3) How will Elia Rubin be used?
(4) More diversified attack, especially use of MBs?
(3) Who will replace Holly Campbell: A. Smith? L. Smith? Move S. Francis to MB?
(11-13-2021, 10:11 AM)oldalum Wrote: Seems to me that reaching any conclusion about Hambly is premature. One drawback to having a bolus of 5 (and 6 the final year) superstars in one year is that younger players do not get playing time to develop. One would expect a couple years of rebuilding after the star class leaves. The first was the Covid year which was almost worthless developing players because of very limited-time and inadequate-numbers practices, and fewer games. Remember there is only one player on the current team that had practiced and played a full season before this year. We also have zero depth, so missing just one starter has a significant effect that is enough for us to lose close matches that we might otherwise have won. There also may have been an effect of the superstar class on recruiting. Yes we are clearly underperforming expectations for this year, which is not even over yet. Next year will be more telling.Agree it is too early to draw any conclusions.
Last year was a nonentity -- not only did we lose the regular season, but with the regular season move to spring, we lost the spring off-season for working with the players returning next year.
This year there were losses linkable to injuries and illnesses without depth to compensate. So it was one step forward and one (or two steps) backward: Yay, Sami is playing and we are about to sweep UCLA; wait, Elena is out with a concussion and we lost? Yay, we went 3-1 against Utah, Colorado, WSU, and UW (latter an expected loss) and are building momentum; wait, 3 starters are out and we lose 3 in a row including 2 against teams we should beat or sweep?
Next year will be more telling whether Hambly, having proven he can drive a Ferrari, knows how to build one. Things I especially will be looking for:
(1) Will serve receive improve?
(2) Will service errors go down?
(3) How will Elia Rubin be used?
(4) More diversified attack, especially use of MBs?
(3) Who will replace Holly Campbell: A. Smith? L. Smith? Move S. Francis to MB?
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »