Penn State vs Iowa Recap: Mind-Blowing or Boring?
- Thread starter NittanyLion84
- Start date
learning how to open up isn't that easy when facing a solid and focused based defense such as Brands demonstrated. For some 'opening up' would mean a bad shot which good wrestlers can capitalize on. Not everyone has Nolf's style and even then he didn't score much on Hidlay if the Natty finals. For those that were wrestling someone near their level - meaning they had between 40-60% odds of winning, our guys have to figure it out... I'm not down on them at all!
The dual to me was a lot of tough wrestling. I enjoyed the heck out of it!
I also love the ankle-picking, cradling, throwing stuff too.
I also love the ankle-picking, cradling, throwing stuff too.
Not an Iowa fan, but the "ankle ride" Kirk hung on to was absolutely a stall. There was no attempt to improve position or even try to break Cassiopi down. Anytime Cassiopi tried to move Kerk grabbed the far ankle, while riding the same hip and ankle. The definition of stalling.
It's not just PSU guys that do it. Stalling from the top, in the NCAA's, is basically a thing of the past and it shouldn't be.
It's not just PSU guys that do it. Stalling from the top, in the NCAA's, is basically a thing of the past and it shouldn't be.
Disagree. The match is on youtube.
Kerk goes far ankle (without breaking him down) once after the takedown in the first and once in the second, toward the beginning of the period. Then he buries his head in Cass's tricep and works the ankle, but that results in Cass spending a large chuck of the period on his belly.
I realize that stalling is often in the eye of the beholder, but if attempting to break a guy down is all you need to do to avoid top stalling, seems like Kerk passes.
Not sure. We haven't had a chance to discuss his mindset in the second period just yet.
And I'm no expert, but I thought that memo clarifying what is and isn't top stalling specified that attempting to break an opponent down was essentially all a wrestler needed to do to avoid a stalling warning/call.
Update: Found it. See the "offensive wrestler" paragraph at the bottom of the first and onto the second page.
Hidlay did not wrestle a Nelson Brands kind of match there. He made some nice attacks. Nolf did not wrestle a great match.
And Nolf was not the aggressive Nolf in the 3rd period. That's for sure. He looked more like Starocci than Nolf.
If that was the memo, then send another one. That creates boring, actionless wrestling that nobody wants to see.
Rewatching the match, at th 45:37ish mark Kirk gets the ankle and buries his head in the arm pit. From there he makes no attempt to break Cass down. He controls a wrist. Never comes off his knees. Never drives forward. Even dangled his right arm over the side of Cass. It stayed that way until the 46:06ish mark when the ref called a stalemate. That should have been a stall.
Which is exactly why a tournament is a better way of determining a team title as opposed to a dual, where one match can change the outcome.
I notice you make no mention of Cass with his head buried in the mat for half of that time. It may create boring wrestling but no one here wrote the rules.
Maybe, idk there’s something more fun about a dual vs. changing mats, worrying about seeding, etc. Tournament finals are definitely amazing though.
If you don’t want guys to ride getting rid of the riding time point isn’t enough, you have to get rid of the escape point too. If Cassiopi didn’t get an escape point Kerk would take him down the entire match. As it is he went out to win the match and decided not to even give Cassiopi a chance.
Also, Cassiopi could have worked harder on bottom and got out.
Also, Cassiopi could have worked harder on bottom and got out.
Stall on bottom or top? Shouldnt Cass have done something when his arm was dangled? Sounds like a double stall.
Not sure about the stall ride, just glad ref stopped Dean from making Warnerov cry again , poor Jacob was ready to break again. Warnerov must not like tough wrestling
??? Cass was on his belly for 2-3 minutes of that match.
I don't know what to tell you, but that memo outlines how the rules are enforced.
And if your point was that Kerk probably could have been called for stalling for a 20-30 second stretch during a match in which he accrued 2+ minutes of RT, I guess I wouldn't really disagree.
Iowa clearly had a plan. Slow everything and keep it close. Problem was Penn State was able to win too many of those matches. But, geez, 2 takedowns in 10 matches is really embarrassing.
Not going to win with only 2 takedowns. The objective is to win, not lose close. At least it should be.
Can we all just agree that it was a smart tactic by Iowa wrestlers to slow down the pace and keep it close going into the third? It is a hell of lot easier to win from one point down in the third than it is 5 or 6 when you are the less dynamic wrestler. TnT would never admit it, but that was the plan. If it wasn't the plan, they are not as smart as I think they are.
Iowa came in with a good game plan. They executed it well. We prevailed. Let's move on to tOSU. WE ARE!
Iowa came in with a good game plan. They executed it well. We prevailed. Let's move on to tOSU. WE ARE!
Last edited:
You are correct. Cass was stalling, but the impetus to score is on the offensive wrestler.
Huh? The impetus to score is on BOTH wrestlers. Maybe I misunderstood what you said but it does not work in only one direction, or at least it shouldn't.
Not that it matters to have a wrestling discussion, but which is it? 🙂😂🤪🤔
Last edited:
He is a Mizzou fan. I can't quote his post over on GIA where he says it because of Mr. Ban Hammer, but here is the link:
https://iowa.forums.rivals.com/thre...eup-and-how-will-they-do.397352/post-10492873
I'm an MU fan. I like the Hawks, but don't necessarily cheer for them over PSU. I will always cheer for them over tOSU though!
Wrong, you evidently did not read the link ss7 posted.
