From: oski@d31mf0.Stanford.EDU (L. Ravi Narasimhan)
Subject: Comments on Canada vs. U.S.
Originator: oski@leland.Stanford.EDU
Organization: Department of Chemistry, Stanford University
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 06:49:28 GMT


Another squeaker.  Canada played a great match.  They are much improved
from the 1991 squad that toured the Eastern U.S. last year in an
exhibition series.  Former Calgary All-stud Randy Gingera seemed to be
having an excellent match as did Gino Brousseau who got most of the
sets.  Gingera singlehandedly mutilated a Stanford team with Fortune and
Hanan in 1989.  I heard he had a leg injury (he did not play in the 1991
exhibition tour in April) but he seems to be his high flying self.

The rest in game 4 did Fortune good.  Looks like he's going to have a
bullseye on him for the rest of the tournament.  Hope he can get it
done.  If he can't, then, for the future, I think the U.S. had better
accelerate Becker's progress (assuming they have him tabbed as a
passer/hitter) and perhaps get Hilliard to pass.  At this moment, I'm
sure they wish they had brought Uvaldo Acosta along.  I always thought
his 5'11" height was a liability but he has nailed passes every time I
have watched him play.  I believe that the U.S. must be able to run the
X play in order to be successful.  I shudder to think what the Cubans,
the Dutch, or the Italians would do if Timmons keeps getting so many
sets without any viable fakery to keep the block honest.  Have to keep
more of the blockers down and reading.  The passing absolutely must
improve to the point where middle and right side combinations become
viable options more often.  Also, Stork has to be able (or willing) to
use his dump shot more often.

Samuelson played well, I thought.  His jump serve was quite impressive.
I don't understand Sato's apparent float jumper.  Canada seemed to have
little trouble with it.  Defense was better, hitter coverage seemed to
be improving and the block was better than against Japan.  It seemed
that the middle back player was not so deep as against Japan.  Maybe
Fred is getting a newsfeed over there! :-]

The TV coverage is marginal.  Sunderland and Marlowe are doing a good
job by giving the opposition due credit.  The editing drives me
berserk.  Can't figure out who the primary passers are for the
opposition because no lineups are ever mentioned.  No introductory
material on the other squad's strengths and weaknesses.  Blocking
schemes are hard to understand.  Some comments on the various methods
would be helpful.  The camera is so far back and at such an angle that
it is impossible to see jersey numbers.  And, I wish NBC would stop
sentimentalizing every event with syrupy, mawkish blither.  Ivie is
hurt.  It is a great loss to the team when he doesn't play.  But do they
have to dwell on it as much as they do?  This is even more obvious in
other marquee events like swimming and gymnastics where they are trying
to induce ultra sentimental dreck from the competitors.  Brava to the
woman on the record setting 4x100 freestyle relay team who answered,
"How do you think I feel?" after being asked the ultimate stupid
question.  Likewise to Zmeskal and Miller who kept their gamefaces on
when being interviewed by reporters who want to know all the details of
their inner turmoil.

The shaved heads were, I thought, a nice touch.  Onwards to the next
match.

Note: These are my opinions.  They are, most likely, utterly wrong and
completely out of left field.  But, hey, you get what you pay for.


					--- Ravi Narasimhan


				
Newsgroups: rec.sport.volleyball