(07-24-2021, 08:37 PM)BobK Wrote: Regan Smith of Canada incoming Stanford with the silver
maybe Taylor Ruck??
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Stanford at the Tokyo Olympics
07-24-2021, 09:09 PM
(07-24-2021, 08:53 PM)82lsju Wrote:(07-24-2021, 08:37 PM)BobK Wrote: Regan Smith of Canada incoming Stanford with the silver
maybe Taylor Ruck??
Yes, it was Taylor Ruck. She swam a leg in the prelims so she won a silver when Canada placed second in the finals. First Stanford medalist this summer by 0.03 seconds.
(07-24-2021, 08:53 PM)82lsju Wrote:(07-24-2021, 08:37 PM)BobK Wrote: Regan Smith of Canada incoming Stanford with the silver
maybe Taylor Ruck??
Yes, it was Taylor Ruck. She swam a leg in the prelims so she won a silver when Canada placed second in the finals. First Stanford medalist this summer by 0.03 seconds.
07-25-2021, 03:20 AM
Rusk (Canada, Stanford)) and Smith (incoming Stanford frosh), advance to semi finals in 100 m backstroke. Smith set the Olympic record and held it for a few minutes until the Australian WR holder broke it in the next heat.
gostanford has a nice listing of Stanford results almost as they happen here, click on "event schedule"
https://admin.gostanford.com/feature/Tokyo2020
https://admin.gostanford.com/feature/Tokyo2020
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
gostanford has a nice listing of Stanford results almost as they happen here, click on "event schedule"
https://admin.gostanford.com/feature/Tokyo2020
https://admin.gostanford.com/feature/Tokyo2020
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
07-25-2021, 06:43 PM
Torri Huske finished 4th in the women's 100m butterfly, 0.01 seconds from a bronze.....
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
07-25-2021, 07:28 PM
Katie Ledecky with a silver in the women's 400m freestyle
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
07-25-2021, 09:51 PM
[tweet]https://twitter.com/usawp/status/1419516709795287041?s=21[/tweet]
BC
BC
[tweet]https://twitter.com/usawp/status/1419516709795287041?s=21[/tweet]
BC
BC
07-26-2021, 04:55 AM
All but one of the Stanford rowers have been eliminated from medal contention. Austin Hack and the US men's eight will likely advance from Wednesday's repechage race (four out of five crews will advance) to the A final, which will count for medals.
Alie Rusher (USA W4x) and Grace Luczak (USA W4-), racing in separate crews, will race in the B final of their respective events for a placing between 7th and 12th place. Steph Grauer (CAN W4-) will likewise race in the B final for the same places. Veronica Toro Arana (PUR W1x) will race in the C/D semifinal to determine if she will race in the C final (places 13-18th) or D final (places 19-24th).
Alie Rusher (USA W4x) and Grace Luczak (USA W4-), racing in separate crews, will race in the B final of their respective events for a placing between 7th and 12th place. Steph Grauer (CAN W4-) will likewise race in the B final for the same places. Veronica Toro Arana (PUR W1x) will race in the C/D semifinal to determine if she will race in the C final (places 13-18th) or D final (places 19-24th).
All but one of the Stanford rowers have been eliminated from medal contention. Austin Hack and the US men's eight will likely advance from Wednesday's repechage race (four out of five crews will advance) to the A final, which will count for medals.
Alie Rusher (USA W4x) and Grace Luczak (USA W4-), racing in separate crews, will race in the B final of their respective events for a placing between 7th and 12th place. Steph Grauer (CAN W4-) will likewise race in the B final for the same places. Veronica Toro Arana (PUR W1x) will race in the C/D semifinal to determine if she will race in the C final (places 13-18th) or D final (places 19-24th).
Alie Rusher (USA W4x) and Grace Luczak (USA W4-), racing in separate crews, will race in the B final of their respective events for a placing between 7th and 12th place. Steph Grauer (CAN W4-) will likewise race in the B final for the same places. Veronica Toro Arana (PUR W1x) will race in the C/D semifinal to determine if she will race in the C final (places 13-18th) or D final (places 19-24th).
Quote:For Alie Rusher ’18, Olympic competition runs in her blood. Both of her parents rowed in the Olympics, with her father taking home bronze medals in 1988 and 1992, and her mother taking silver in 1992. Rusher will continue her parents’ legacy when she represents the United States as a member of the national women’s rowing team during this year’s Olympic Games
https://stanforddaily.com/2021/07/23/ali...ic-legacy/
US finishes 5th in men's gymnastics, medals go to
- Russia
- Japan
- China
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
Quote:For Alie Rusher ’18, Olympic competition runs in her blood. Both of her parents rowed in the Olympics, with her father taking home bronze medals in 1988 and 1992, and her mother taking silver in 1992. Rusher will continue her parents’ legacy when she represents the United States as a member of the national women’s rowing team during this year’s Olympic Games
https://stanforddaily.com/2021/07/23/ali...ic-legacy/
US finishes 5th in men's gymnastics, medals go to
- Russia
- Japan
- China
Eric
"the older we get the better we were"
07-27-2021, 10:51 AM
The USWNT draws Australia 0-0 and they're through in second place. It was an organized, defensive match where the US did not look eager to attack--and apparently, that was by design. Obviously Vlatko wants goals, but he apparently told the team to focus on their defensive responsibilities and not concede a goal, and they obviously took that to heart.
Not looking to score isn't really this team's M.O., but Vlatko seems pleased they were able to execute a game plan.
O'Hara had a lovely cross for a Morgan header that looked good, but her elbow was just offside, so it was disallowed. Our defense played well, at least, and Tierna Davidson is making Vlatko's decisions on who to start at center back very difficult.
But something isn't right in the midfield. And that's gotta get fixed if we're going to advance.
We probably would've been better off losing this match, to be honest, in terms of advancement. Great Britain (Australia's knockout round opponent) looks fine, but Netherlands (ours) is cranking on all cylinders. Granted, they've got weaker opponents in China and Zambia in their group, but they're scoring goals in bunches. On the other hand, backing into the knockout round with a loss doesn't exactly instill confidence in the players. I would've liked a more concerted offensive effort today, precisely because the cost of losing was minimal, but as we're about to play an offensive machine, perhaps a game of learning to stay home and defend better was just what the doctor ordered.
The two best teams in the tournament coming in, a rematch of the last World Cup final, and it happens in a quarterfinal. That's what happens when you sleepwalk through a match against a top 5 team in Sweden, though.
Not looking to score isn't really this team's M.O., but Vlatko seems pleased they were able to execute a game plan.
O'Hara had a lovely cross for a Morgan header that looked good, but her elbow was just offside, so it was disallowed. Our defense played well, at least, and Tierna Davidson is making Vlatko's decisions on who to start at center back very difficult.
But something isn't right in the midfield. And that's gotta get fixed if we're going to advance.
We probably would've been better off losing this match, to be honest, in terms of advancement. Great Britain (Australia's knockout round opponent) looks fine, but Netherlands (ours) is cranking on all cylinders. Granted, they've got weaker opponents in China and Zambia in their group, but they're scoring goals in bunches. On the other hand, backing into the knockout round with a loss doesn't exactly instill confidence in the players. I would've liked a more concerted offensive effort today, precisely because the cost of losing was minimal, but as we're about to play an offensive machine, perhaps a game of learning to stay home and defend better was just what the doctor ordered.
The two best teams in the tournament coming in, a rematch of the last World Cup final, and it happens in a quarterfinal. That's what happens when you sleepwalk through a match against a top 5 team in Sweden, though.
The USWNT draws Australia 0-0 and they're through in second place. It was an organized, defensive match where the US did not look eager to attack--and apparently, that was by design. Obviously Vlatko wants goals, but he apparently told the team to focus on their defensive responsibilities and not concede a goal, and they obviously took that to heart.
Not looking to score isn't really this team's M.O., but Vlatko seems pleased they were able to execute a game plan.
O'Hara had a lovely cross for a Morgan header that looked good, but her elbow was just offside, so it was disallowed. Our defense played well, at least, and Tierna Davidson is making Vlatko's decisions on who to start at center back very difficult.
But something isn't right in the midfield. And that's gotta get fixed if we're going to advance.
We probably would've been better off losing this match, to be honest, in terms of advancement. Great Britain (Australia's knockout round opponent) looks fine, but Netherlands (ours) is cranking on all cylinders. Granted, they've got weaker opponents in China and Zambia in their group, but they're scoring goals in bunches. On the other hand, backing into the knockout round with a loss doesn't exactly instill confidence in the players. I would've liked a more concerted offensive effort today, precisely because the cost of losing was minimal, but as we're about to play an offensive machine, perhaps a game of learning to stay home and defend better was just what the doctor ordered.
The two best teams in the tournament coming in, a rematch of the last World Cup final, and it happens in a quarterfinal. That's what happens when you sleepwalk through a match against a top 5 team in Sweden, though.
Not looking to score isn't really this team's M.O., but Vlatko seems pleased they were able to execute a game plan.
O'Hara had a lovely cross for a Morgan header that looked good, but her elbow was just offside, so it was disallowed. Our defense played well, at least, and Tierna Davidson is making Vlatko's decisions on who to start at center back very difficult.
But something isn't right in the midfield. And that's gotta get fixed if we're going to advance.
We probably would've been better off losing this match, to be honest, in terms of advancement. Great Britain (Australia's knockout round opponent) looks fine, but Netherlands (ours) is cranking on all cylinders. Granted, they've got weaker opponents in China and Zambia in their group, but they're scoring goals in bunches. On the other hand, backing into the knockout round with a loss doesn't exactly instill confidence in the players. I would've liked a more concerted offensive effort today, precisely because the cost of losing was minimal, but as we're about to play an offensive machine, perhaps a game of learning to stay home and defend better was just what the doctor ordered.
The two best teams in the tournament coming in, a rematch of the last World Cup final, and it happens in a quarterfinal. That's what happens when you sleepwalk through a match against a top 5 team in Sweden, though.
Softball Fan
Unregistered
Unregistered
07-27-2021, 11:50 AM
Although the coach may have been happy with the result, I didn''t think the women's soccer team looked good against Australia. They seemed lethargic and uninspired. In my uneducated opinion it is risky to focus primarily on just not letting the other team score. If the opponent scores a goal late in the second half, you are probably going to end up losing. I don't like how pool play is set up where you win one match and that's good enough to stay in contention for gold.
I suppose things will become more clear in the knockout rounds when everything is on the line.
I suppose things will become more clear in the knockout rounds when everything is on the line.
Although the coach may have been happy with the result, I didn''t think the women's soccer team looked good against Australia. They seemed lethargic and uninspired. In my uneducated opinion it is risky to focus primarily on just not letting the other team score. If the opponent scores a goal late in the second half, you are probably going to end up losing. I don't like how pool play is set up where you win one match and that's good enough to stay in contention for gold.
I suppose things will become more clear in the knockout rounds when everything is on the line.
I suppose things will become more clear in the knockout rounds when everything is on the line.
07-27-2021, 12:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2021, 12:20 PM by ColoradoTree.)
One good thing about the quarterfinals of the Olympic tournament is that there are no flukes here. The eight teams here are the eight-highest-ranked teams in the tournament:
#6 Great Britain* vs. #9 Australia
#5 Sweden vs. #11 Japan
#1 United States vs. #3 Netherlands
#7 Brazil vs. #8 Canada
*ranking is for England, since the four home nations compete separately except for the Olympics, but all but 3 of the players on the Team GB roster play for England anyway--two are from Scotland and one from Wales. #2 Germany and #4 France didn't qualify because UEFA doesn't have a separate Olympic qualifying tournament for the women--they use performance at the most recent Women's World Cup instead, which is an absolutely trash way of going about it. France was undefeated in that tournament when we played them, but because of the vagaries of ping pong balls assigning teams to groups, we played them in the quarterfinals instead of the semis (when we beat England) or the final (when we beat the Netherlands). Meanwhile, England is here because they got to play #13 Norway instead of #1 USA in the quarters. When 5 of the top 10 teams in the world are from Europe, 12 of the top 20, and 19 of the top 30, that's just an unacceptable situation. Let teams earn their places on the field against each other, not just because one team ran into the eventual winners one round before another did. At least the men's European Olympic qualifiers were at a European-only age group championship. The women deserve the same consideration.
They did look uncomfortable with the tactics, that's for sure. A USWNT that isn't trying like hell to score every time they have the ball just isn't the USWNT we're used to seeing. Almost seemed like they were chafing under the tactical approach? We're an aggressive team. That's our calling card. Without that, who are we?
Something in the middle is required, of course. We looked dreadful on defense against Sweden, and we didn't need to be great on defense against New Zealand, so as long as things look more complete moving forward, I'll reserve judgment on Vlatko basically treating the Australia match as a 90-minute training exercise in staying home and defending well. There's no better test than the Netherlands, and no one has looked better on offense than they have, so we'll see how complete of a team we are in a few days' time.
It was an extremely conservative approach, and we'll see soon enough whether it was misguided, but it means we leave the group stage without any major injuries and we got some players some rest, too. (And even those who played obviously didn't have to exert the same amount of energy as they would had the tactics been different.) I mean, this team is very old, and this schedule is very compressed. So, while taking our foot off the gas seems anathema, maybe it's the smartest choice given how group play unfolded. I'd like to be going into the Netherlands match with more confidence, but at least we're going in healthy and reasonably rested.
#6 Great Britain* vs. #9 Australia
#5 Sweden vs. #11 Japan
#1 United States vs. #3 Netherlands
#7 Brazil vs. #8 Canada
*ranking is for England, since the four home nations compete separately except for the Olympics, but all but 3 of the players on the Team GB roster play for England anyway--two are from Scotland and one from Wales. #2 Germany and #4 France didn't qualify because UEFA doesn't have a separate Olympic qualifying tournament for the women--they use performance at the most recent Women's World Cup instead, which is an absolutely trash way of going about it. France was undefeated in that tournament when we played them, but because of the vagaries of ping pong balls assigning teams to groups, we played them in the quarterfinals instead of the semis (when we beat England) or the final (when we beat the Netherlands). Meanwhile, England is here because they got to play #13 Norway instead of #1 USA in the quarters. When 5 of the top 10 teams in the world are from Europe, 12 of the top 20, and 19 of the top 30, that's just an unacceptable situation. Let teams earn their places on the field against each other, not just because one team ran into the eventual winners one round before another did. At least the men's European Olympic qualifiers were at a European-only age group championship. The women deserve the same consideration.
(07-27-2021, 11:50 AM)paloalto Wrote: Although the coach may have been happy with the result, I didn''t think the women's soccer team looked good against Australia. They seemed lethargic and uninspired. In my uneducated opinion it is risky to focus primarily on just not letting the other team score. If the opponent scores a goal late in the second half, you are probably going to end up losing. I don't like how pool play is set up where you win one match and that's good enough to stay in contention for gold.
I suppose things will become more clear in the knockout rounds when everything is on the line.
They did look uncomfortable with the tactics, that's for sure. A USWNT that isn't trying like hell to score every time they have the ball just isn't the USWNT we're used to seeing. Almost seemed like they were chafing under the tactical approach? We're an aggressive team. That's our calling card. Without that, who are we?
Something in the middle is required, of course. We looked dreadful on defense against Sweden, and we didn't need to be great on defense against New Zealand, so as long as things look more complete moving forward, I'll reserve judgment on Vlatko basically treating the Australia match as a 90-minute training exercise in staying home and defending well. There's no better test than the Netherlands, and no one has looked better on offense than they have, so we'll see how complete of a team we are in a few days' time.
It was an extremely conservative approach, and we'll see soon enough whether it was misguided, but it means we leave the group stage without any major injuries and we got some players some rest, too. (And even those who played obviously didn't have to exert the same amount of energy as they would had the tactics been different.) I mean, this team is very old, and this schedule is very compressed. So, while taking our foot off the gas seems anathema, maybe it's the smartest choice given how group play unfolded. I'd like to be going into the Netherlands match with more confidence, but at least we're going in healthy and reasonably rested.
(This post was last modified: 07-27-2021, 12:20 PM by ColoradoTree.)
One good thing about the quarterfinals of the Olympic tournament is that there are no flukes here. The eight teams here are the eight-highest-ranked teams in the tournament:
#6 Great Britain* vs. #9 Australia
#5 Sweden vs. #11 Japan
#1 United States vs. #3 Netherlands
#7 Brazil vs. #8 Canada
*ranking is for England, since the four home nations compete separately except for the Olympics, but all but 3 of the players on the Team GB roster play for England anyway--two are from Scotland and one from Wales. #2 Germany and #4 France didn't qualify because UEFA doesn't have a separate Olympic qualifying tournament for the women--they use performance at the most recent Women's World Cup instead, which is an absolutely trash way of going about it. France was undefeated in that tournament when we played them, but because of the vagaries of ping pong balls assigning teams to groups, we played them in the quarterfinals instead of the semis (when we beat England) or the final (when we beat the Netherlands). Meanwhile, England is here because they got to play #13 Norway instead of #1 USA in the quarters. When 5 of the top 10 teams in the world are from Europe, 12 of the top 20, and 19 of the top 30, that's just an unacceptable situation. Let teams earn their places on the field against each other, not just because one team ran into the eventual winners one round before another did. At least the men's European Olympic qualifiers were at a European-only age group championship. The women deserve the same consideration.
They did look uncomfortable with the tactics, that's for sure. A USWNT that isn't trying like hell to score every time they have the ball just isn't the USWNT we're used to seeing. Almost seemed like they were chafing under the tactical approach? We're an aggressive team. That's our calling card. Without that, who are we?
Something in the middle is required, of course. We looked dreadful on defense against Sweden, and we didn't need to be great on defense against New Zealand, so as long as things look more complete moving forward, I'll reserve judgment on Vlatko basically treating the Australia match as a 90-minute training exercise in staying home and defending well. There's no better test than the Netherlands, and no one has looked better on offense than they have, so we'll see how complete of a team we are in a few days' time.
It was an extremely conservative approach, and we'll see soon enough whether it was misguided, but it means we leave the group stage without any major injuries and we got some players some rest, too. (And even those who played obviously didn't have to exert the same amount of energy as they would had the tactics been different.) I mean, this team is very old, and this schedule is very compressed. So, while taking our foot off the gas seems anathema, maybe it's the smartest choice given how group play unfolded. I'd like to be going into the Netherlands match with more confidence, but at least we're going in healthy and reasonably rested.
#6 Great Britain* vs. #9 Australia
#5 Sweden vs. #11 Japan
#1 United States vs. #3 Netherlands
#7 Brazil vs. #8 Canada
*ranking is for England, since the four home nations compete separately except for the Olympics, but all but 3 of the players on the Team GB roster play for England anyway--two are from Scotland and one from Wales. #2 Germany and #4 France didn't qualify because UEFA doesn't have a separate Olympic qualifying tournament for the women--they use performance at the most recent Women's World Cup instead, which is an absolutely trash way of going about it. France was undefeated in that tournament when we played them, but because of the vagaries of ping pong balls assigning teams to groups, we played them in the quarterfinals instead of the semis (when we beat England) or the final (when we beat the Netherlands). Meanwhile, England is here because they got to play #13 Norway instead of #1 USA in the quarters. When 5 of the top 10 teams in the world are from Europe, 12 of the top 20, and 19 of the top 30, that's just an unacceptable situation. Let teams earn their places on the field against each other, not just because one team ran into the eventual winners one round before another did. At least the men's European Olympic qualifiers were at a European-only age group championship. The women deserve the same consideration.
(07-27-2021, 11:50 AM)paloalto Wrote: Although the coach may have been happy with the result, I didn''t think the women's soccer team looked good against Australia. They seemed lethargic and uninspired. In my uneducated opinion it is risky to focus primarily on just not letting the other team score. If the opponent scores a goal late in the second half, you are probably going to end up losing. I don't like how pool play is set up where you win one match and that's good enough to stay in contention for gold.
I suppose things will become more clear in the knockout rounds when everything is on the line.
They did look uncomfortable with the tactics, that's for sure. A USWNT that isn't trying like hell to score every time they have the ball just isn't the USWNT we're used to seeing. Almost seemed like they were chafing under the tactical approach? We're an aggressive team. That's our calling card. Without that, who are we?
Something in the middle is required, of course. We looked dreadful on defense against Sweden, and we didn't need to be great on defense against New Zealand, so as long as things look more complete moving forward, I'll reserve judgment on Vlatko basically treating the Australia match as a 90-minute training exercise in staying home and defending well. There's no better test than the Netherlands, and no one has looked better on offense than they have, so we'll see how complete of a team we are in a few days' time.
It was an extremely conservative approach, and we'll see soon enough whether it was misguided, but it means we leave the group stage without any major injuries and we got some players some rest, too. (And even those who played obviously didn't have to exert the same amount of energy as they would had the tactics been different.) I mean, this team is very old, and this schedule is very compressed. So, while taking our foot off the gas seems anathema, maybe it's the smartest choice given how group play unfolded. I'd like to be going into the Netherlands match with more confidence, but at least we're going in healthy and reasonably rested.
07-27-2021, 10:49 PM
KZ Okpala has started both of Nigeria's basketball games (unfortunately both losses), and had 6 rebounds and 5 steals tonight against Germany.
07-27-2021, 11:15 PM
Softball lost to Japan in the gold medal game 2-0 and takes the silver.
BC
BC
Softball lost to Japan in the gold medal game 2-0 and takes the silver.
BC
BC
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »