[Sakibomb25]

Not the freshmen’s fault…

…
Though I do wish we would be more conservative with our serving when it's so late in the game (I'm looking at you Kurt... in both the second and fifth games).

Hambly has been clear about this over the years. He coaches the players to not worry about service errors. And it’s not clear to me that they can “take a little off their serves.“  But I defer on this to the many here who know the game better than me.

I agree with every single word you said except for that graf.

No and I get it. Our service pressure was what got us back into the match. It was just unfortunate that we had those service errors at unfortunate times... but again, you gotta take the good with the bad.

I am encouraged though by our performance. Our defense picked up a lot of balls and kept rallies alive. I was surprised though that Etzler *only* came up with 11 digs in a five-set match. Looking at Texas, Halter *only* had 10 digs. I thought the liberos played well and thought their digs should have been more.

[Sakibomb25]

Not the freshmen’s fault…

…
Though I do wish we would be more conservative with our serving when it's so late in the game (I'm looking at you Kurt... in both the second and fifth games).

Hambly has been clear about this over the years. He coaches the players to not worry about service errors. And it’s not clear to me that they can “take a little off their serves.“  But I defer on this to the many here who know the game better than me.

I agree with every single word you said except for that graf.

No and I get it. Our service pressure was what got us back into the match. It was just unfortunate that we had those service errors at unfortunate times... but again, you gotta take the good with the bad.

I am encouraged though by our performance. Our defense picked up a lot of balls and kept rallies alive. I was surprised though that Etzler *only* came up with 11 digs in a five-set match. Looking at Texas, Halter *only* had 10 digs. I thought the liberos played well and thought their digs should have been more.

[Card10Fan]

We played our best today in sets 3 and 4 with Parks at setter but  not great late in the fifth set. Does Hambly stick with Parks going forward or go back to Yu? Yu might be better at the position at the moment but IMO Park has a higher ceiling. Also no Blyashov this match, instead went with Kurt who had a fine overall game. Lots to follow as the season progresses. We certainly have a very high ceiling if we continue to improve and can be as good as any team in the country (other than maybe Nebraska) if we continue to progress. Already major improvements since the Nebraska game. Excited to continue to follow. Hopefully this loss isn't too defeating to our young team. Instead, need to keep the confidence high.

Yes, agreed on the service errors. Serving tough does not need to equate to errors. We can be a great service teams and still have way less errors. I hope better serving is a focus.

[Card10Fan]

We played our best today in sets 3 and 4 with Parks at setter but  not great late in the fifth set. Does Hambly stick with Parks going forward or go back to Yu? Yu might be better at the position at the moment but IMO Park has a higher ceiling. Also no Blyashov this match, instead went with Kurt who had a fine overall game. Lots to follow as the season progresses. We certainly have a very high ceiling if we continue to improve and can be as good as any team in the country (other than maybe Nebraska) if we continue to progress. Already major improvements since the Nebraska game. Excited to continue to follow. Hopefully this loss isn't too defeating to our young team. Instead, need to keep the confidence high.

Yes, agreed on the service errors. Serving tough does not need to equate to errors. We can be a great service teams and still have way less errors. I hope better serving is a focus.

[TonyLima]

The very definition of a “quality loss.”  Number one team in the country, playing on their home court, took them to a nail-biting fifth set. With all those frosh and the many justifiable complaints here. brobdingnagian upside. I am now considerably more optimistic about this season.

---

…
Yes, agreed on the service errors. Serving tough does not need to equate to errors. We can be a great service teams and still have way less errors. I hope better serving is a focus.

Disagree, but I know nothing about volleyball. My very low-level experience in tennis says that it’s not as easy as you may think to take “just a little” off a serve.

[TonyLima]

The very definition of a “quality loss.”  Number one team in the country, playing on their home court, took them to a nail-biting fifth set. With all those frosh and the many justifiable complaints here. brobdingnagian upside. I am now considerably more optimistic about this season.

---

…
Yes, agreed on the service errors. Serving tough does not need to equate to errors. We can be a great service teams and still have way less errors. I hope better serving is a focus.

Disagree, but I know nothing about volleyball. My very low-level experience in tennis says that it’s not as easy as you may think to take “just a little” off a serve.

[BobK]

Stanford ranked # 5 now

[BobK]

Stanford ranked # 5 now

[Card10Fan]

1757295902[/url]']
The very definition of a “quality loss.”  Number one team in the country, playing on their home court, took them to a nail-biting fifth set. With all those frosh and the many justifiable complaints here. brobdingnagian upside. I am now considerably more optimistic about this season.

---

1757277365[/url]']
…
Yes, agreed on the service errors. Serving tough does not need to equate to errors. We can be a great service teams and still have way less errors. I hope better serving is a focus.

Disagree, but I know nothing about volleyball. My very low-level experience in tennis says that it’s not as easy as you may think to take “just a little” off a serve.

Texas is not the number 1 team in the country. We were swept by #1 Nebraska. Did you even watch the game? At least three service errors were because our player stepped over the service line. That has nothing to do with taking a little of the serve. I never said it was easy but 23 service errors is 23 points to the other team. Not good enough.

[Card10Fan]

1757295902[/url]']
The very definition of a “quality loss.”  Number one team in the country, playing on their home court, took them to a nail-biting fifth set. With all those frosh and the many justifiable complaints here. brobdingnagian upside. I am now considerably more optimistic about this season.

---

1757277365[/url]']
…
Yes, agreed on the service errors. Serving tough does not need to equate to errors. We can be a great service teams and still have way less errors. I hope better serving is a focus.

Disagree, but I know nothing about volleyball. My very low-level experience in tennis says that it’s not as easy as you may think to take “just a little” off a serve.

Texas is not the number 1 team in the country. We were swept by #1 Nebraska. Did you even watch the game? At least three service errors were because our player stepped over the service line. That has nothing to do with taking a little of the serve. I never said it was easy but 23 service errors is 23 points to the other team. Not good enough.

[BostonCard]

I wish I had it, (it’s not in the box score) but I think we had a marginally higher side out percentage than Texas.

On the season, ignoring side outs on balls in play, our net serving (aces - errors) is better than our opponents.

We have 28 aces to 66 errors (-38 points net on serve), versus our opponents (9 aces versus 51 errors, -42 points net).  Moreover, for every ace, we get probably get several serves that leave the opponent out of system, and since the side out percentage is much higher for attacks in system than OOS, the effect of having nearly 3x the aces as the opposition is magnified.

Yeah, it’s frustrating to see service errors, especially unforced ones like foot faults, but if you aren’t getting some service errors, you aren’t serving aggressively enough.  And in collegiate women’s volleyball, you have to serve aggressively because attacks are so strong that serving it so that the opposition gets an in system attack might as well be a service error.

BC

[BostonCard]

I wish I had it, (it’s not in the box score) but I think we had a marginally higher side out percentage than Texas.

On the season, ignoring side outs on balls in play, our net serving (aces - errors) is better than our opponents.

We have 28 aces to 66 errors (-38 points net on serve), versus our opponents (9 aces versus 51 errors, -42 points net).  Moreover, for every ace, we get probably get several serves that leave the opponent out of system, and since the side out percentage is much higher for attacks in system than OOS, the effect of having nearly 3x the aces as the opposition is magnified.

Yeah, it’s frustrating to see service errors, especially unforced ones like foot faults, but if you aren’t getting some service errors, you aren’t serving aggressively enough.  And in collegiate women’s volleyball, you have to serve aggressively because attacks are so strong that serving it so that the opposition gets an in system attack might as well be a service error.

BC

[Jamesy]

I wish I had it, (it’s not in the box score) but I think we had a marginally higher side out percentage than Texas.

On the season, ignoring side outs on balls in play, our net serving (aces - errors) is better than our opponents.

We have 28 aces to 66 errors (-38 points net on serve), versus our opponents (9 aces versus 51 errors, -42 points net).  Moreover, for every ace, we get probably get several serves that leave the opponent out of system, and since the side out percentage is much higher for attacks in system than OOS, the effect of having nearly 3x the aces as the opposition is magnified.

Yeah, it’s frustrating to see service errors, especially unforced ones like foot faults, but if you aren’t getting some service errors, you aren’t serving aggressively enough.  And in collegiate women’s volleyball, you have to serve aggressively because attacks are so strong that serving it so that the opposition gets an in system attack might as well be a service error.

BC

I am frustrated by but have grown to accept the service errors for the upside that you mention. The foot faults are inexcusable. I can't remember three foot faults in the past ten years of watching Stanford vb let alone three in one match.

[Jamesy]

I wish I had it, (it’s not in the box score) but I think we had a marginally higher side out percentage than Texas.

On the season, ignoring side outs on balls in play, our net serving (aces - errors) is better than our opponents.

We have 28 aces to 66 errors (-38 points net on serve), versus our opponents (9 aces versus 51 errors, -42 points net).  Moreover, for every ace, we get probably get several serves that leave the opponent out of system, and since the side out percentage is much higher for attacks in system than OOS, the effect of having nearly 3x the aces as the opposition is magnified.

Yeah, it’s frustrating to see service errors, especially unforced ones like foot faults, but if you aren’t getting some service errors, you aren’t serving aggressively enough.  And in collegiate women’s volleyball, you have to serve aggressively because attacks are so strong that serving it so that the opposition gets an in system attack might as well be a service error.

BC

I am frustrated by but have grown to accept the service errors for the upside that you mention. The foot faults are inexcusable. I can't remember three foot faults in the past ten years of watching Stanford vb let alone three in one match.

[BostonCard]

Top 10 breakdown:
BigTen: 1 (Nebraska), 6 (Wisconsin)
SEC: 2 (Texas), 3 (Kentucky), 8 (Texas A&M)
ACC: 4 (Louisville), 5 (Stanford), 7 (Pitt), 10 (SMU)
Big12: 9 (ASU)

As noted, a five set loss on the road to the #2 team in the country is the definition of a good loss.  Clearly we are a bit below the top teams (but not that much lower than #2 Texas).  We play #23 Missouri tomorrow, then have Utah State and Davis at home. Wins in the matches won’t mean much, though a solid win against Missouri will be helpful.  A loss, though, will call into question whether we are really a top-10 team.

BC

[BostonCard]

Top 10 breakdown:
BigTen: 1 (Nebraska), 6 (Wisconsin)
SEC: 2 (Texas), 3 (Kentucky), 8 (Texas A&M)
ACC: 4 (Louisville), 5 (Stanford), 7 (Pitt), 10 (SMU)
Big12: 9 (ASU)

As noted, a five set loss on the road to the #2 team in the country is the definition of a good loss.  Clearly we are a bit below the top teams (but not that much lower than #2 Texas).  We play #23 Missouri tomorrow, then have Utah State and Davis at home. Wins in the matches won’t mean much, though a solid win against Missouri will be helpful.  A loss, though, will call into question whether we are really a top-10 team.

BC

[TonyLima]

Top 10 breakdown:
BigTen: 1 (Nebraska), 6 (Wisconsin)
SEC: 2 (Texas), 3 (Kentucky), 8 (Texas A&M)
ACC: 4 (Louisville), 5 (Stanford), 7 (Pitt), 10 (SMU)
Big12: 9 (ASU)

As noted, a five set loss on the road to the #2 team in the country is the definition of a good loss.  Clearly we are a bit below the top teams (but not that much lower than #2 Texas).  We play #23 Missouri tomorrow, then have Utah State and Davis at home. Wins in the matches won’t mean much, though a solid win against Missouri will be helpful.  A loss, though, will call into question whether we are really a top-10 team.

BC

Another definition of a good loss: you lose and move up in the rankings. IIRC last week we were 6. But that might be a different poll.

---

I wish I had it, (it’s not in the box score) but I think we had a marginally higher side out percentage than Texas.

On the season, ignoring side outs on balls in play, our net serving (aces - errors) is better than our opponents.

We have 28 aces to 66 errors (-38 points net on serve), versus our opponents (9 aces versus 51 errors, -42 points net).  Moreover, for every ace, we get probably get several serves that leave the opponent out of system, and since the side out percentage is much higher for attacks in system than OOS, the effect of having nearly 3x the aces as the opposition is magnified.

Yeah, it’s frustrating to see service errors, especially unforced ones like foot faults, but if you aren’t getting some service errors, you aren’t serving aggressively enough.  And in collegiate women’s volleyball, you have to serve aggressively because attacks are so strong that serving it so that the opposition gets an in system attack might as well be a service error.

BC

I am frustrated by but have grown to accept the service errors for the upside that you mention. The foot faults are inexcusable. I can't remember three foot faults in the past ten years of watching Stanford vb let alone three in one match.

Easy to agree about the foot faults. One is bad. Three is terrible.

[TonyLima]

Top 10 breakdown:
BigTen: 1 (Nebraska), 6 (Wisconsin)
SEC: 2 (Texas), 3 (Kentucky), 8 (Texas A&M)
ACC: 4 (Louisville), 5 (Stanford), 7 (Pitt), 10 (SMU)
Big12: 9 (ASU)

As noted, a five set loss on the road to the #2 team in the country is the definition of a good loss.  Clearly we are a bit below the top teams (but not that much lower than #2 Texas).  We play #23 Missouri tomorrow, then have Utah State and Davis at home. Wins in the matches won’t mean much, though a solid win against Missouri will be helpful.  A loss, though, will call into question whether we are really a top-10 team.

BC

Another definition of a good loss: you lose and move up in the rankings. IIRC last week we were 6. But that might be a different poll.

---

I wish I had it, (it’s not in the box score) but I think we had a marginally higher side out percentage than Texas.

On the season, ignoring side outs on balls in play, our net serving (aces - errors) is better than our opponents.

We have 28 aces to 66 errors (-38 points net on serve), versus our opponents (9 aces versus 51 errors, -42 points net).  Moreover, for every ace, we get probably get several serves that leave the opponent out of system, and since the side out percentage is much higher for attacks in system than OOS, the effect of having nearly 3x the aces as the opposition is magnified.

Yeah, it’s frustrating to see service errors, especially unforced ones like foot faults, but if you aren’t getting some service errors, you aren’t serving aggressively enough.  And in collegiate women’s volleyball, you have to serve aggressively because attacks are so strong that serving it so that the opposition gets an in system attack might as well be a service error.

BC

I am frustrated by but have grown to accept the service errors for the upside that you mention. The foot faults are inexcusable. I can't remember three foot faults in the past ten years of watching Stanford vb let alone three in one match.

Easy to agree about the foot faults. One is bad. Three is terrible.

[johnbar]

Another definition of a good loss: you lose and move up in the rankings. IIRC last week we were 6. But that might be a different poll.

---

It's the same poll.  There is only one poll in volleyball that people pay attention to, the coaches poll from AVCA.  Stanford was #6 in the preseason pool, stayed there week 1, and now moved up one spot for week 2.

Serving foot faults are pretty rare in college VB; three in one match is extraordinary.

[johnbar]

Another definition of a good loss: you lose and move up in the rankings. IIRC last week we were 6. But that might be a different poll.

---

It's the same poll.  There is only one poll in volleyball that people pay attention to, the coaches poll from AVCA.  Stanford was #6 in the preseason pool, stayed there week 1, and now moved up one spot for week 2.

Serving foot faults are pretty rare in college VB; three in one match is extraordinary.

[TonyLima]

Another definition of a good loss: you lose and move up in the rankings. IIRC last week we were 6. But that might be a different poll.

---

It's the same poll.  There is only one poll in volleyball that people pay attention to, the coaches poll from AVCA.  Stanford was #6 in the preseason pool, stayed there week 1, and now moved up one spot for week 2.

Serving foot faults are pretty rare in college VB; three in one match is extraordinary.

TYVM.  I learned something today.

[TonyLima]

Another definition of a good loss: you lose and move up in the rankings. IIRC last week we were 6. But that might be a different poll.

---

It's the same poll.  There is only one poll in volleyball that people pay attention to, the coaches poll from AVCA.  Stanford was #6 in the preseason pool, stayed there week 1, and now moved up one spot for week 2.

Serving foot faults are pretty rare in college VB; three in one match is extraordinary.

TYVM.  I learned something today.

[Spiny_Norman]

A road win over a top 5 team would have been a strong point for Stanford at the end of the season if the Cardinal is in the hunt for a #1 seed and hosting a regional. I spoke with Coach Hambly at the coach's road show in LA and it was his opinion that the team would have been a #1 seed last season had it defeated Louisville on the road. But it's a loooong way to go between now and late November. 

It was great to see so many positives. In-game adjustments were strong. It speaks well to the team's potential for development over the course of the season (especially vs. rivals Pitt and Louisville). Let's remember how young this team is. There are only 3 upperclassmen! 

I was disappointed that Stanford's big hitters could not get good swings in the latter half of set 5 or were blocked. Texas's stars > Stanford's stars in crunch time. 

Btw, keep an eye out for Louisville vs. Texas on Weds.

[Spiny_Norman]

A road win over a top 5 team would have been a strong point for Stanford at the end of the season if the Cardinal is in the hunt for a #1 seed and hosting a regional. I spoke with Coach Hambly at the coach's road show in LA and it was his opinion that the team would have been a #1 seed last season had it defeated Louisville on the road. But it's a loooong way to go between now and late November. 

It was great to see so many positives. In-game adjustments were strong. It speaks well to the team's potential for development over the course of the season (especially vs. rivals Pitt and Louisville). Let's remember how young this team is. There are only 3 upperclassmen! 

I was disappointed that Stanford's big hitters could not get good swings in the latter half of set 5 or were blocked. Texas's stars > Stanford's stars in crunch time. 

Btw, keep an eye out for Louisville vs. Texas on Weds.

[Card10Fan]

Close first set but we eek it out 25-23. So far Parks is setting, no Kurt instead going with Blyashov. Sayer player of the game thus far.

[Card10Fan]

Close first set but we eek it out 25-23. So far Parks is setting, no Kurt instead going with Blyashov. Sayer player of the game thus far.

[cardfan77]

While getting the younger Harvey would have been nice, Sayer is showing she is more than capable. She’s a fun player to watch and I’m excited to see her development and progress.

[cardfan77]

While getting the younger Harvey would have been nice, Sayer is showing she is more than capable. She’s a fun player to watch and I’m excited to see her development and progress.

[johnbar]

While getting the younger Harvey would have been nice, Sayer is showing she is more than capable. She’s a fun player to watch and I’m excited to see her development and progress.

Yep, Sayer served an ace to close out the second set, 33-31.

[johnbar]

While getting the younger Harvey would have been nice, Sayer is showing she is more than capable. She’s a fun player to watch and I’m excited to see her development and progress.

Yep, Sayer served an ace to close out the second set, 33-31.

[BostonCard]

Stanford wins 3-1; solid road win.

BC

[BostonCard]

Stanford wins 3-1; solid road win.

BC

[Spiny_Norman]

This was like a round of 16 NCAA match (but on the road). A good win. 

Now finally the road warriors get to go home after 6 away matches.

[Spiny_Norman]

This was like a round of 16 NCAA match (but on the road). A good win. 

Now finally the road warriors get to go home after 6 away matches.

[BACardinal]

full match replay 

https://youtu.be/kH7Q7OwzbSw?si=hH-WDx3SRVAsCwrQ

[BACardinal]

full match replay 

https://youtu.be/kH7Q7OwzbSw?si=hH-WDx3SRVAsCwrQ

[ca245]

The Stanford site shows no streaming and even no Live Stats for the Utah State game on Friday. Can this be real?

[ca245]

The Stanford site shows no streaming and even no Live Stats for the Utah State game on Friday. Can this be real?

[Papa John]

The Stanford site shows no streaming and even no Live Stats for the Utah State game on Friday. Can this be real?

My ESPN i-phone app shows it airing on ACC Extra, which streams on the ESPN app so maybe also elsewhere?

[Papa John]

The Stanford site shows no streaming and even no Live Stats for the Utah State game on Friday. Can this be real?

My ESPN i-phone app shows it airing on ACC Extra, which streams on the ESPN app so maybe also elsewhere?