We've lost two matches all year. In both of those matches we've been fairly handicapped in that we've had to play without key players. Whether or not we would have lost those matches with our full lineup is not really the point of this post. All I'm saying is that, so far this season, by the most obvious marker - wins and losses - we've been pretty successful. But, as I read the match reports from all the different teams that we've played this year, it becomes fairly clear that there is a disconnect between our record and our performance on the court. I started thinking about this last weekend when I read this article about our match against Gentofte. When Dickens, the newly retired libero from Aarhus, basically reiterated Peter Borglund's feelings after our match on Saturday I decided I would write about it.
With few exceptions, other teams and impartial observers that I have talked with have been unimpressed with our play on the court. Other teams have expressed a general feeling that they've had the chance to beat us but haven't quite been able to get the job done. In other words, they've been close enough that the match was theirs to win or lose. I won't list all of them here, but if you look at the match reports from our side and opposing teams throughout the season you'll see a lot of discrepancies. Sometimes it's hard to reconcile those differences. History is absolutely influenced by the historian and truth in history does seem to be difficult to achieve...
I can't speak for other teams, there clearly have been matches this year where we were in danger of losing, but I have to ask: how can a team that lost 3-0 call the match close? Can we even put a number on dominance? For example, if one team wins 25-22 and another team wins 25-19 is there a real difference in those two wins? Can a team that loses 25-17, 25-18, 23-25, 25-16 claim that they had all the chances in the world? Is one team better if their record is 15-5 but they're set score is better than another team that finished the season 19-1?
This isn't to pick on Matt, as this is how he felt and that is totally valid. But look at his recollection of their most recent match against us here. The fifth paragraph is especially telling. It was their drop in intensity that allowed us to get back in the match and take over from there. You can imagine that I had a different take on things.
So, to my point. Are we underachieving? Or is this a phenomenon of too high expectations?
In order to be dominant does a team have to blow out every team they play against? I don't think so. I don't think it hurts. But I think that a win is a win. If the number one team in the league beats the last place team in the league 3-2 it is still going to count in the standings. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I don't necessarily think it is the worst thing in the world. We all know there are teams that tend to play to their opposition's level and clearly in a perfect world this would not happen. But, this is what makes sports interesting isn't it? Are we one of those teams? Maybe. Does that mean we're not as good as we think we are? I don't know. I guess the jury is still out.
With few exceptions, other teams and impartial observers that I have talked with have been unimpressed with our play on the court. Other teams have expressed a general feeling that they've had the chance to beat us but haven't quite been able to get the job done. In other words, they've been close enough that the match was theirs to win or lose. I won't list all of them here, but if you look at the match reports from our side and opposing teams throughout the season you'll see a lot of discrepancies. Sometimes it's hard to reconcile those differences. History is absolutely influenced by the historian and truth in history does seem to be difficult to achieve...
I can't speak for other teams, there clearly have been matches this year where we were in danger of losing, but I have to ask: how can a team that lost 3-0 call the match close? Can we even put a number on dominance? For example, if one team wins 25-22 and another team wins 25-19 is there a real difference in those two wins? Can a team that loses 25-17, 25-18, 23-25, 25-16 claim that they had all the chances in the world? Is one team better if their record is 15-5 but they're set score is better than another team that finished the season 19-1?
This isn't to pick on Matt, as this is how he felt and that is totally valid. But look at his recollection of their most recent match against us here. The fifth paragraph is especially telling. It was their drop in intensity that allowed us to get back in the match and take over from there. You can imagine that I had a different take on things.
So, to my point. Are we underachieving? Or is this a phenomenon of too high expectations?
In order to be dominant does a team have to blow out every team they play against? I don't think so. I don't think it hurts. But I think that a win is a win. If the number one team in the league beats the last place team in the league 3-2 it is still going to count in the standings. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I don't necessarily think it is the worst thing in the world. We all know there are teams that tend to play to their opposition's level and clearly in a perfect world this would not happen. But, this is what makes sports interesting isn't it? Are we one of those teams? Maybe. Does that mean we're not as good as we think we are? I don't know. I guess the jury is still out.
8 comments:
"History is absolutely influenced by the historian and truth in history does seem to be difficult to achieve..."
I love that statement. Truth well said. If a team is looked as dominant in the sport it should be taken into consideration why they are viewed that way. Its not just wins and losses, its also who they played and how they played.
Did you hear Tyson and Shan got engaged?! So excited for them :-)
I think there are two issues here:
One is that your team was considered huge favorites before this season. I'm sure some people even thought you could go through the season unbeaten. With those expectations, it's hard not to underachieve.
We played two fairly close matches with you, one where we were even close to going into a 5th set. I know that you were playing people out of position, but we felt we could have done a little better there. I'm sure you felt you could have done a lot better.
The other issue is a psychological one. I think in match reports, people have a tendency to explain the events as a result of their own performance. Maybe it's just more comfortable thinking that you always have an important influence on the result of any match. In truth, I guess volleyball is a complex game, and your own performance can never be isolated from your opponent's.
I wrote a little bit about it in a a few years ago:
http://kaspersvolleyball.blogspot.com/2004/11/jne-der-ser.html
I think Kasper is on to something when he talks about the fact that people looks from there own perspective.
But there is always and will always be a more critical view on the number one.
The fact that you could have done better is hypothetic, because you go into a discussion on "what if...". Who says that the winning team couldn't step up if needed.
But you shouldn't put to much into it. We all have our own agenda - and in most cases it will be how can we win next time". And in that light a we lost to a team that is better in everthing even on a bad day isn't motivating to most players ;-)
Mikkel Hauge
Håber det er ok at skrive på dansk :-)
Jeg tror alle hold når de taber søger forklaringer på den tabte kamp hos sig selv og leger med tankerne om "hva nu hvis" og "kunne vi bare have gjort det ene eller andet" mere end de tænker "hold da op de andre spillede godt. Du skriver jo også selv at i var uden nogle nøglespillere i de to kampe i har tabt og søger dermed en forklaring hos jer selv mere end om det var Middelfart der var gode.
jeg tror problemet med at være nr. 1 (det må dog siges at være et positivt problem) og regnet som det klart bedste hold i turneringen er at man bliver målt efter en anden eller højere standart - se f.eks fodbold lige nu høster Arsenal stor anerkendelse ikke bare fordi de er nr 1 i den engelske liga men også fordi de spiller seværdigt fodbold med et ungt hold og stort set ikke ikke tabt nogen kampe i denne sæson - hvorimod Chelsea for et par sæsoner siden også vandt stort set alle deres kampe men var meget udskældt for kedelig fodbold - så på en eller måde skal tophold altså mere end "bare" vinde deres kampe.
For at gøre en lang historie kort, mener jeg ikke i har underpræsteret når man er på 13-2 og har vundet kampe hvor det måske ikke lige har været det bedste spil man har vist eller den stærkeste opstilling vidner det for mig om klasse.
Endvidere er det jo nok også mere et tema i den pågældende sæson, der er jo ingen der tænker over hvordan vi i HIK spillede, da vi for snart mange år siden vandt DM, (selvom jeg selvsagt mener vi spillede ret godt)
/Thomas P
Marienlyst manglede ikke nogle nøglespillere i den anden kamp mod middelfart.
De var ganske vist uden Daniel, men det var der en anden grund til.. Bare lige for at have de på det rene.
Jeg er helt enig med dig, det er ligemeget om man vinder 3-0, 3-1 ja eller 3-2, det giver 2point ligemeget hvad..
Except for Jakob Skovsgaard from the second team playing middle... And that was the fourth match we've played against each other.
Jeg vil endda tilføje at jeg har været med(skyldig) i begge Marienlysts nederlag til Middelfart.
I anden kamp i denne sæson hvor holdene mødtes, var der en del skadede kant/diagonalspillere og derfor spillede dels Daniel diagonal og dels spillede jeg diagonal.
Der manglede vist nogle nøglespilere!
Jeg må dog sige at jeg var meget imponeret over Middelfarts spil i den kamp.
I den fjerde kamp i denne sæson hvor holdene mødtes, manglede alle centerspillere undtagen Mads-Mikkel. Derfor spillede jeg center (iøvrigt en position jeg ikke har spillet fast i flere år).
Der manglede vist også nogle nøglespillere i den kamp!
Al respekt for Middelfarts spil, for det har været godt i de to kampe, men Marienlyst manglede altså en del nøglespillere i begge kampe. Om udfaldet så havde været anderledes hvis de ikke havde manglet, skal jeg ikke gøre mig klog på
Mvh
Jacob
It's always the same story, winners take points and losers start wondering what would had happened if; would have been if they had done something different etc etc.
Good teams knows how to prepare matches and how to handle the difficult moments which can happen during them.
Good players leave the courta after everymatch without regrets, without thinking what they could had done better: they had already done it in the right way becasue they had been prepared to take the right decisions in the right moments.
I am still of the opinion that the points' system must be changed: winning 3-0 and 3-1 must give 3 points, winning 3-2 must give 2. It would give more importance to clear victories, but in the same way it would give more hopes to "bad" teams to fight for 1 points which they can reach winning only 2 sets, making every match more extited.
Diego
Post a Comment