Gopher Volleyball 2019

Donate To GopherHole

We just lost a set to Rutgers. Season is over... Pack it up...
 

Well, that was a mess...when do Miller and McGraw get back? Good lord...[emoji47][emoji51]

Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
 

At first, it was the new normal, McMenimen for Miller, Kilkelly for CC, Sheehan subbing in for Hart in the back row and the blocker setter switch. Then, half way through the second set Miyabe subbed in for Samedy and finished the set. Nevertheless, Minnesota took the first two sets 17, 20.

The third set was the really strange one. Samedy returned but at some point Hart went to the bench and Sheehan took all the rotations. They tried to get Claire a kill but she couldn't put one down. Plus, with Rutgers blocking Morgan the Gophers flailed the set away to the Scarlet Knights.

Hugh gave the team what appeared to be, shall we say, a motivational rather than technical assessment of their third set play. Order was restored with a Gopher runaway in the fourth set.

Pittman had another excellent night hitting .583 with 14 kills and no errors. Note: CC was on the bench in street clothes.
 

Miller was not on the bench. Third set was a stinker.
 


let'sbeclear said:
CutDownTheNet said:
As a team, the Gophers have been (in recent history) a pretty good blocking team. Yet it seems to me that quite often our defensive blocking efforts are turned against us as an offensive weapon by the opposing team. For an example, let me lay off the current team for a sec (they'll get their lecture momentarily), and pick on our recent great Gopher team of about 3 years ago, back when we had the twins and SSS and as additional front-row blockers, Sarah Wilhite and Molly Lohman and Taylor Morgan (and Regan too, but she was wisely red-shirted and didn't play much). That was arguably a killer blocking team. Yet by my (very informal) statistical count, that team (when averaged across the entire season) probably lost more points on attempted blocks than they won on successful blocks that went down (plus a few that stayed in play). What's wrong with that scenario? Well, I can tell you. Smart opponents consistently took advantage of our blocking skills as an offensive weapon for themselves. They consistenty aimed at the outer edges of our excellently placed blocks, and the ball hit the blockers' hands and careened out of bounds - about equally many (if not more) times than the blocker hit it down for a kill.
QUOTE]

I'm even more of a volleyball novice than Hrothgar claims to be, so take this comment with several grains of salt. But doesn't the effectiveness of the block go well beyond how many attempted kills are blocked down for points versus how many points are lost on attempted blocks? That is, doesn't the mere presence of blockers at the net limit the options of the opposing hitters? Don't they force the opponent to hit to certain areas of the court -- presumably, where your diggers are placed -- or maybe to hit dink shots? That limiting of options might not show up in the statistics, but isn't it just as important, if not more important, than the number of blocks that actually win points versus the number that directly lead to opponents' points? Wouldn't the more relevant comparison be between how often the opponent's kill would win the point (or how quickly the point would be lost) if no blockers were present vs. with blockers present? I do realize I am ignoring your post's later suggestions regarding angles of the blockers' hands, etc., which is way over my head -- so to speak, and I know you aren't suggesting no blockers at all , but it seems to me that blockers do so much more than just directly win points by putting the ball down. (Clearly, this comment is coming from a volleyball novice.)
Click to expand...

Per the comment by let’sbeclear let’s be little more clear about the purpose and nature of blocking, and possible results. Indeed, one of the primary purposes is alter the opponent’s attack into a weaker option like an angle more likely to go out of bounds or a tip that had a higher probability of being picked up by your diggers. Plus, you simply can’t refrain from attempting to block - giving their outside hitters a free hit is like volleyball suicide. Think of it this way: our own Alexis Hart is one of the fastest/strongest/(not to mention highest elevating, especially for her height) hitter in the NCAA. If our opponents simply always refrain from trying to block our “Hart attack” isn’t it a foregone conclusion that the Gophers would win virtually all sets (except perhaps the 3rd set against Rutgers)? Similarly, when our opponents OH sets up for a strong hit, we are put in a situation where we have to make our best attempt at a block (no matter how out-of-system we are). A strong free hit could come so fast that the diggers have virtually no chance to return it. Even if the receiver is in perfect position, they might not even be able to move their hands fast enough for the dig/pass. How many times have we seen a “Hart attack” hit the opponent in the face?

So not only is opponent kill rate with/without a block a relevant comparison , it’s actually the primary issue.

Per that posted AVCA video, one of the things the block attempt does is (hopefully) stop the strongest attack route and allow the libero and defensive specialist to focus on the weaker hit route (typically more cross-court). So you have to block-attempt both to eliminate free hits, and to try to get a weaker attack, and to at least get a tip or a touch on the ball to slow it down and hopefully keep it in play for 3 subsequent hits by our team, or (the best possible outcome) a block to the floor on the opponent’s side for a point. Perhaps the latter outcome doesn’t happen all that often (if, say, you kept statistics on that, which nobody does).

There are other potential block outcomes (and this list is probably not exhaustive). The blockers could hit it back, but not forcefully or not finding the floor and so the opponent gets another free play. That’s a slightly positive result since it averts the immediate threat and let’s you live for another volley. Or (rarely) you might block it but the ball dribbled down your side of the net. Or you might get a tip contact but it goes far behind the service line and is not playable. Or is tipped shanked into the stands. Or is blocked but with weak contact and diverted to our floor for an opponent point. Or my (un)favorite result, that the opponent hits it off the outside of the pin-side hand of a near-antenna block attempt, and it careens out of bounds (on either side of the net, doesn’t matter).

In my post I was focusing on the ratio of the last result to the block-down-for-a-kill result, and (although not noting it very clearly) ignoring all the other result possibilities, and taking the extreme importance of doing block attempts as a given. So with those (now stated) assumptions, my beef is that for typical Gopher blocking (either by the 2019 team or the 2016 team) and for those block attempts that do result in an immediate point-score by either team, I suspect that quite often less than 50% of those immediate points were Gopher points from slams to the floor, and more than 50% were points that we gave the opponent directly because of the (quite necessary) block attempt. Thus my complaint is that, in general, we need to get better at our block technique. My secondary point is that when we play top-16 teams (like in the NCAAs) then these opponents do have better blocking technique, so their blocking is more effective than we’re used to; plus they have better hitters so our blocking is less effective than we’re used to; so we have a hard time winning in spite of our very good hitters and defensive players. My third point was that (when playing these better teams) their better-than-usual (and smarter-than-usual) hitters are adept at actually taking advantage of hitting at the outside-of-the-hands of near-antenna block attempts and thus taking-a-point-for-themselves by means of my (un)favorite result. Again, better blocking technique is needed, especially against top-16 teams. Without better blocking technique, we could win-out in the B1G (or perhaps lose only to Nebraska), but continue to fail (seemingly prematurely) in the NCAAs.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

CutDownTheNet said:
let'sbeclear said:
Per the comment by let’sbeclear let’s be little more clear about the purpose and nature of blocking, and possible results. Indeed, one of the primary purposes is alter the opponent’s attack into a weaker option like an angle more likely to go out of bounds or a tip that had a higher probability of being picked up by your diggers. Plus, you simply can’t refrain from attempting to block - giving their outside hitters a free hit is like volleyball suicide. Think of it this way: our own Alexis Hart is one of the fastest/strongest/(not to mention highest elevating, especially for her height) hitter in the NCAA. If our opponents simply always refrain from trying to block our “Hart attack” isn’t it a foregone conclusion that the Gophers would win virtually all sets (except perhaps the 3rd set against Rutgers)? Similarly, when our opponents OH sets up for a strong hit, we are put in a situation where we have to make our best attempt at a block (no matter how out-of-system we are). A strong free hit could come so fast that the diggers have virtually no chance to return it. Even if the receiver is in perfect position, they might not even be able to move their hands fast enough for the dig/pass. How many times have we seen a “Hart attack” hit the opponent in the face?

So not only is opponent kill rate with/without a block a relevant comparison , it’s actually the primary issue.

Per that posted AVCA video, one of the things the block attempt does is (hopefully) stop the strongest attack route and allow the libero and defensive specialist to focus on the weaker hit route (typically more cross-court). So you have to block-attempt both to eliminate free hits, and to try to get a weaker attack, and to at least get a tip or a touch on the ball to slow it down and hopefully keep it in play for 3 subsequent hits by our team, or (the best possible outcome) a block to the floor on the opponent’s side for a point. Perhaps the latter outcome doesn’t happen all that often (if, say, you kept statistics on that, which nobody does).

There are other potential block outcomes (and this list is probably not exhaustive). The blockers could hit it back, but not forcefully or not finding the floor and so the opponent gets another free play. That’s a slightly positive result since it averts the immediate threat and let’s you live for another volley. Or (rarely) you might block it but the ball dribbled down your side of the net. Or you might get a tip contact but it goes far behind the service line and is not playable. Or is tipped shanked into the stands. Or is blocked but with weak contact and diverted to our floor for an opponent point. Or my (un)favorite result, that the opponent hits it off the outside of the pin-side hand of a near-antenna block attempt, and it careens out of bounds (on either side of the net, doesn’t matter).

In my post I was focusing on the ratio of the last result to the block-down-for-a-kill result, and (although not noting it very clearly) ignoring all the other result possibilities, and taking the extreme importance of doing block attempts as a given. So with those (now stated) assumptions, my beef is that for typical Gopher blocking (either by the 2019 team or the 2016 team) and for those block attempts that do result in an immediate point-score by either team, I suspect that quite often less than 50% of those immediate points were Gopher points from slams to the floor, and more than 50% were points that we gave the opponent directly because of the (quite necessary) block attempt. Thus my complaint is that, in general, we need to get better at our block technique. My secondary point is that when we play top-16 teams (like in the NCAAs) then these opponents do have better blocking technique, so their blocking is more effective than we’re used to; plus they have better hitters so our blocking is less effective than we’re used to; so we have a hard time winning in spite of our very good hitters and defensive players. My third point was that (when playing these better teams) their better-than-usual (and smarter-than-usual) hitters are adept at actually taking advantage of hitting at the outside-of-the-hands of near-antenna block attempts and thus taking-a-point-for-themselves by means of my (un)favorite result. Again, better blocking technique is needed, especially against top-16 teams. Without better blocking technique, we could win-out in the B1G (or perhaps lose only to Nebraska), but continue to fail (seemingly prematurely) in the NCAAs.
Click to expand...

Your explanation sounds fine to me, a lay reader. My own homespun reaction is that VB has become more like tennis and basketball. In tennis, it matters less and less these days how skilled a server you are if you're not both 1) skilled at serving and also 2) very tall. In basketball, it seems even back-court players are nowadays both 1) extremely agile and good ball handlers and 2) very tall. It looks like in VB now blocking demands that blockers be able 1) to elevate enormously and with timing and 2) be very tall. It appears to me that in the NCAAs the past few years the Gophers have lost because they are skilled enough at the net but not tall enough. Stanford, Texas, and Oregon beat them in the NCAAs because they were both skilled and taller. MN needs to be about 2-3 inches taller per player.
Click to expand...
 

the bright spot in all of this insanity has been regan pittman...IMO. the versatility she has shown is something that i never thought i'd see from her when she came in as a freshman. setting, playing decent back row d when serving, blocking on the outside in certain rotations, all while putting up huge offensive numbers. she's really grown and matured as a player. 30 kills, .612 hitting %, 4 assists, 8 digs, 9 blocks and a service ace the last two matches when most everything else has been a bit of a cluster.
 

Last edited:



Ignatius L Hoops said:
https://www.ncaa.com/rankings/volleyball-women/d1/ncaa-womens-volleyball-rpi

The first NCAA RPI rankings (thru matches of October 6)

1. Baylor
2. Texas
3. Stanford
4. Washington
5. Pittsburgh
6. Wisconsin
7. Nebraska
8. Kentucky
9. Rice
10. Missouri

Other B1G teams:

11. Minnesota
19. Penn State
22. Illinois
29. Purdue
36. Michigan
39. Indiana
Click to expand...

Who has Nebraska played that is that strong. Stanford and Wisconsin, or course. Otherwise I thought their early schedule looked pretty weak (I obviously could look it up and find the opposite to be true).
 

Hrothgar said:
Who has Nebraska played that is that strong. Stanford and Wisconsin, or course. Otherwise I thought their early schedule looked pretty weak (I obviously could look it up and find the opposite to be true).
Click to expand...

Well, I'm a little too lazy to look up the details too, but I think perhaps you're onto something with your point. I think that, since Nebraska and Wisconsin played each other early (as in, before now) they mutually boosted each other's RPI via each giving themselves a higher Strength of Schedule. We don't play Nebraska til later in the season, so if we're fortunate enough to have a healthy team then, then we have a good chance of beating them, and thus giving ourselves a double-boost in RPI (one via stronger SoS and also the (potential) win). Wisconsin is this weekend, however, and the potential of lingering injuries makes Wisconsin a bit scary for us at the moment. If we can buckle-down and beat Wisconsin (and later beat Nebraska) then we get a double-bump in RPI and leapfrog them both in RPI standings.

But I'm less concerned about RPI (which is rather meaningless, as more of a measure of {how and who} your opponents play than a measure of how you play, and more concerned about the Gophs getting healthy by NCAA-time.
 
Last edited:

"The Gophs getting healthy by NCAA time" is what seems most worrisome. If concussion really is the problem, that's serious stuff. The most pleasing thing of all would be beating teams like WI, Nebr, & PSU even without the 2 injured players. Not likely, but a chance for Hugh to find a way, I guess.
 

junc1929 said:
the bright spot in all of this insanity has been regan pittman...IMO. the versatility she has shown is something that i never thought i'd see from her when she came in as a freshman. setting, playing decent back row d when serving, blocking on the outside in certain rotations, all while putting up huge offensive numbers. she's really grown and matured as a player. 30 kills, .612 hitting %, 4 assists, 8 digs, 9 blocks and a service ace the last two matches when most everything else has been a bit of a cluster.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a *BIG* second on that thought. We expected her to learn from watching the play of the twins and others, but one can legitimately argue that Regs has upped her play way beyond what anybody could reasonably expect of a middle blocker (who are expected to be role players, not totally fearless team leaders - which is how she looks lately). Not sure if our expectations were just too low or if she's just working so hard on improving her game that she was destined to get this good sooner or later. Either way, we'll take it, and it's really fun to watch.

I earlier argued (half-jokingly, which was really 2/3 jokingly in hindsight) that she should win all 3 weekly B1G player of the week awards. Well OK, the joke was that 4 assists is not the Setter of the Week, and 8 digs plus 9 blocks is not the Defensive Player of the Week. But with regard to Player of the Week (for last week), she got ripped off by the B1G actually. She certainly deserved PoW. She had 2 more kills and a lot higher hitting % than Samedy when she won it the week before (not to take anything away from Stephanie's accomplishment, but just sayin). Instead, the Big Ten refrained from awarding a separate Player of the Week for last week. I guess they were sufficiently impressed by the setting of Badger Sydney Hilley that they awarded her both Setter of the Week and Player of the Week - joint honors.

OK, well such is life. But (in case the Gophers don't have enough border-rivalry motivation already), I hope that the fact that the Badgers stole Pittman's PoW award out from under her makes the whole VB squad want to just tromp on the CheeseHeads this weekend.
 



Neb. has played Ill., Wisc., Stanford, Creighton #18 and San Diego #25.
 

CutDownTheNet said:
Yeah, a *BIG* second on that thought. We expected her to learn from watching the play of the twins and others, but one can legitimately argue that Regs has upped her play way beyond what anybody could reasonably expect of a middle blocker (who are expected to be role players, not totally fearless team leaders - which is how she looks lately). Not sure if our expectations were just too low or if she's just working so hard on improving her game that she was destined to get this good sooner or later. Either way, we'll take it, and it's really fun to watch.

I earlier argued (half-jokingly, which was really 2/3 jokingly in hindsight) that she should win all 3 weekly B1G player of the week awards. Well OK, the joke was that 4 assists is not the Setter of the Week, and 8 digs plus 9 blocks is not the Defensive Player of the Week. But with regard to Player of the Week (for last week), she got ripped off by the B1G actually. She certainly deserved PoW. She had 2 more kills and a lot higher hitting % than Samedy when she won it the week before (not to take anything away from Stephanie's accomplishment, but just sayin). Instead, the Big Ten refrained from awarding a separate Player of the Week for last week. I guess they were sufficiently impressed by the setting of Badger Sydney Hilley that they awarded her both Setter of the Week and Player of the Week - joint honors.

OK, well such is life. But (in case the Gophers don't have enough border-rivalry motivation already), I hope that the fact that the Badgers stole Pittman's PoW award out from under her makes the whole VB squad want to just tromp on the CheeseHeads this weekend.
Click to expand...

My impression has been that these weekly awards often depend on what teams you played (and presumably beat). If so, last week Wisconsin beat Penn State and Nebraska, and the Gophers beat Iowa and Rutgers.
 

let'sbeclear said:
My impression has been that these weekly awards often depend on what teams you played (and presumably beat). If so, last week Wisconsin beat Penn State and Nebraska, and the Gophers beat Iowa and Rutgers.
Click to expand...

Good point. All the more reason for the Gophers to work hard and beat the Badgers.
 

Have we heard what the injuries are to Kylie and CC? I noticed CC on the bench the other day, but didn’t catch sight of Kylie.
 

https://gophersports.com/news/2019/10/7/volleyball-gopher-spotlight-adanna-rollins.aspx

Spotlight on Adanna Rollins:

Now in her second season with the Gophers, Rollins is embracing a new role within the team.

"I feel like I have more of a leadership role just because I can help the freshman out because I went through the same things they went through so it feels more comfortable," Rollins said.
Having already experienced a college volleyball season made the transition into her second year easier. She also had the help of the upperclassmen, who Rollins says helped her grow as a person.

Various opportunities over the offseason furthered Rollins' growth, including the Gopher volleyball team's trip to Japan in March. They played against the All-Japan Team that competed at the World University Games. Rollins says that the Japanese players had great skills and a different style of play, which allowed the Gophers to improve their play as well.
Click to expand...
 

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

Regardless of what happens the rest of this match with Illinois, that second set collapse was one of the most pathetic displays of focus and execution I have seen in recent memory. Horrendous. This team seems to relish getting in it's own way. [emoji2959]

Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
 

MRJ said:
Regardless of what happens the rest of this match with Illinois, that second set collapse was one of the most pathetic displays of focus and execution I have seen in recent memory. Horrendous. This team seems to relish getting in it's own way. [emoji2959]

Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Was following along on play-by-play on VB web site. Scary. MN had set point at 24-17. It went all the way to 29-27. Took 2 timeouts by Hugh.

Making things worse to follow along with, the web page had the scores wrong (reversed) on the play-by-play, although correct at top of page.
 

CutDownTheNet said:
Was following along on play-by-play on VB web site. Scary. MN had set point at 24-17. It went all the way to 29-27. Took 2 timeouts by Hugh.

Making things worse to follow along with, the web page had the scores wrong (reversed) on the play-by-play, although correct at top of page.
Click to expand...
And then they followed with a hideous third set in which Illinois made them look totally silly. This group really lacks in all phases for long stretches.

Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
 

MRJ said:
And then they followed with a hideous third set in which Illinois made them look totally silly. This group really lacks in all phases for long stretches.

Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Escaped by the skin of our teeth in set 4. Good thing since set 5 might not have gone that well.
 

16 Blocks with the last for the match. What a grinder. McMenimen had her toughest night. Good win at Huff.
 

CutDownTheNet said:
Escaped by the skin of our teeth in set 4. Good thing since set 5 might not have gone that well.
Click to expand...
It's frustrating because they have stretches were they are very good and then stretches where they completely check out mentally, often in the same match. Got the win tonight, but at some point all these peaks and valleys are going to catch to them.

Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
 

The Illini slowed Pittman's recent roll; she had 7 kills and 4 hitting errors in 18 attempts (.167) plus Regan had two in the net calls. Hart did some heavy lifting (the Gophers seemed to need hitting more than passing) with a team high 44 attacks. Alexis posted 14 kills with 5 errors. Samedy was solid with 10 kills and 1 error in 39 attacks.

It was good to have CC back on the court with 15 digs, 37 receptions and 4 reception errors. McGraw also had 6 assists.
 

It seems that when the Gophers get ahead they stop being aggressive and start pushing the ball over the net. Waiting for the opponent to make mistakes? (They closed sets 2 & 4 with blocks, not kills.)
 

Looking at total stats across the 4-set Illinois match (say, by someone that didn’t watch the actual match or later-posted video), at first it’s tricky to figure out how the Gophers won, 3 sets to 1.

The Illini outscored us by 9 points (77 to 68) on 19 more attacks (175 to 156). Hitting % was nearly the same (Illinois .189 to Minnesota .212). They out-dug us by 8 (75 to 67). They out-service-aced us 9 to 2. Equivalently, we out-reception-errored them 9 to 2. And Illinois had 11 more assists (56 to 45).

So the inquiring mind wants to know, “how the heck did Illinois not beat the Gophers in this match?”

Well, the long answer is that the Gophers let them score a big chunk of their points while they let them catch up in set 2 (which MN still won, barely) and in set 3 (where the Gophers laid down like a carpet).

But the short (and statistical) answer is, “blocking.”

Illinois had 11 more attack errors than Minnesota (28 to 17). This largely corresponds to the block differential of 9, with the Gophers having 16 blocks to Illinois 7 blocks. So nearly all of the positive differential in attack errors (by Illinois) is accounted for by the positive differential in total blocks (e.g., points off successful blocks to the opponent’s court) by Minnesota. There were other less-major factors, such as Illinois had 4 more service errors (8 to 4). And that’s more or less offset by Minnesota having 6 block errors to Illinois 2 block errors.

But the biggest pro-Minnesota factor was its efficient blocking. The Gophers quite literally blocked themselves to that win over Illinois. As Hrothgar notes, “they closed sets 2 & 4 with blocks, not kills.” The rest of their play was a bit stinky - at least in comparison to the high standard they have set for themselves in previous matches.
 
Last edited:

Sorry to admit it, but as a native of Illinois I'm old enough to remember vividly the 1950s when Huff Gym was the Illini home basketball arena (also the site of the IL High School State Basketball Tournament). It was small, cramped, and stuffy, the place where legions of hs and college bb teams (either visitors or the Illini themselves) laid an egg. I have that same creepy feeling when I watch volleyball in Huff. Last night the Gophers laid an egg --- and still won! Given my bad memories of Huff, I'll take a win there in any fair form. The Gophers did everything to lose, but they didn't let it happen.
 

CutDownTheNet said:
Looking at total stats across the 4-set Illinois match (say, by someone that didn’t watch the actual match or later-posted video), at first it’s tricky to figure out how the Gophers won, 3 sets to 1.

The Illini outscored us by 9 points (77 to 68) on 19 more attacks (175 to 156). Hitting % was nearly the same (Illinois .189 to Minnesota .212). They out-dug us by 8 (75 to 67). They out-service-aced us 9 to 2. Equivalently, we out-reception-errored them 9 to 2. And Illinois had 11 more assists (56 to 45).

So the inquiring mind wants to know, “how the heck did Illinois not beat the Gophers in this match?”

Well, the long answer is that the Gophers let them score a big chunk of their points while they let them catch up in set 2 (which MN still won, barely) and in set 3 (where the Gophers laid down like a carpet).

But the short (and statistical) answer is, “blocking.”

Illinois had 11 more attack errors than Minnesota (28 to 17). This largely corresponds to the block differential of 9, with the Gophers having 16 blocks to Illinois 7 blocks. So nearly all of the positive differential in attack errors (by Illinois) is accounted for by the positive differential in total blocks (e.g., points off successful blocks to the opponent’s court) by Minnesota. There were other less-major factors, such as Illinois had 4 more service errors (8 to 4). And that’s more or less offset by Minnesota having 6 block errors to Illinois 2 block errors.

But the biggest pro-Minnesota factor was its efficient blocking. The Gophers quite literally blocked themselves to that win over Illinois. As Hrothgar notes, “they closed sets 2 & 4 with blocks, not kills.” The rest of their play was a bit stinky - at least in comparison to the high standard they have set for themselves in previous matches.
Click to expand...

I love your analysis above. It fits, but I also see the match from a psychological angle of dozing & waking. MN didn't participate in set 1 because they didn't need to; IL presented it to them on a platter w/ wild hitting errors (remember, this is the same IL team that had Nebraska 2-1 in sets and then disappeared from the match). Set 2 was the same until 24-17; then IL woke up a bit & MN decided to fall asleep. (Luckily, an IL error & the MN block won the set for MN.) In set 3, IL played but not great; they didn't need to be great, just good enough,because MN fell totally sleep. Set 4 was up for grabs. It wasn't just MN that went on some walkabouts, but IL, too, for long stretches. That's all from me; I'll back off at this point.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom