|
Post by outwest on Dec 19, 2005 14:13:27 GMT -5
I know it's not nice to gloat, but I think the Cauldron has been vindicated!
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Dec 20, 2005 13:57:56 GMT -5
Yes, thanks to McLaughlin's strict use of The Cauldron, nobody had any idea what the Washington lineup would be until the Alamodome announcer introduced the starters on Saturday night. And there were some big surprises in that lineup... who would have imagined Christal Morrison at OH, Tomasevic at right side, or Mhyre at middle? not to mention the unexpected debut of Thompson running a 5-1. It's no wonder they beat Cook's Huskers who ran the same lineup every game all year - UDub's "new look" at the Championship match gave Nebraska fits!
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Dec 20, 2005 14:21:07 GMT -5
The Leaky Cauldron? That's in London.
Y'hear that Ern?
|
|
|
Post by thecolbertreport on Dec 20, 2005 15:28:52 GMT -5
I know it's not nice to gloat, but I think the Cauldron has been vindicated! I don't get it...was this under attack before? I love how everyone was big on Toshi's training, and then they bottomed out at the Olympics, he left, now all that is out the window. Now that McLaughlin has won, now all we'll hear about is the superiority of The Cauldron, as if somehow Cook's training stinks. Same thing happened with the magical "6-2 offense" that everyone fell in love with when USC won their titles. "TWO setters?! How novel! How ideal!" I think the problem is, do we really want our young people involved in a "cauldron" of any kind? Is this kind of subtle nod, approval if you will, of witchcraft something we want our young people exposed to? They are, after all, our future. I don't want mean to hit the panic button, but don't come crying to me when your daughter comes home from college with five new Wicca tattoos and a sudden hankering for eye of newt.
|
|
|
Post by LanaiBoy on Dec 20, 2005 16:23:20 GMT -5
Yes, thanks to McLaughlin's strict use of The Cauldron, nobody had any idea what the Washington lineup would be until the Alamodome announcer introduced the starters on Saturday night. And there were some big surprises in that lineup... who would have imagined Christal Morrison at OH, Tomasevic at right side, or Mhyre at middle? not to mention the unexpected debut of Thompson running a 5-1. It's no wonder they beat Cook's Huskers who ran the same lineup every game all year - UDub's "new look" at the Championship match gave Nebraska fits! Sarcasm aside, I have to agree. Certainly, at least one Washington player had a bad week of practice during a long season. I did not see any lineup changes to reflect that. Unless, the statistics, which are supposedly used to determine starting line ups, are cumulative rather than weekly. Then, I can see a stable lineup throughout the year.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 20, 2005 21:23:35 GMT -5
Cauldron schmauldron.
Pretty much any system Jimmy used would have worked as long as he got his players and staff to buy into it.
Besides, as LanaiBoy hinted at. If say Courtney Thompson or any of the Huskies' normal starters had a terrible pracdice just prior to the national championship match they'd actually be held out of the match altogether or perhaps for only a few points at the very most?
|
|
|
Post by prosem on Dec 20, 2005 21:30:12 GMT -5
An interesting post from prep volleyball from GM2 guy
The cauldron is a system used to measure players perfomrance in practice (and in matches). It measures their fundamental skills based on standards established by the coaching staff. It provides a way in which the coaches can compare each player statistically and enable them to make decisions regarding playing time in matches. While many cauldrons compare stats such as passing (% perfect), hitting%, serving etc., some coaches also include winning % in small groups games/drills and 6 v 6 games/drills in practice.
It is a system based very much on the principles that Billy Bean spoke of, in the book "Money Ball" by Michael Lewis. Additionally Anson Dorrance (you know the guy who has won more NCAA Championships than anyone else -UNC women's soccer) wrote extensively about it in his books "Training Soccer Champions" and "Vision Of A Champion". Read either of those books to really understand it.
The irony of the National Championship came down to two vastly different idealogies that came into direct conflict with each other.
In Nebraska you have a Toshi like philosophy. Cook utilizes coach centered methods of teaching skills. Skills are isolated in a very blocked format and done over and over. An example of this would be coaches hitting ball after ball at their athletes. Also as Toshi taught, Nebraska used a significant amount of up-down (tanden) passing technique. Did you see how effective it was for Pavan in the semi-final and final? NE percent perfect passing in the semi-final was 48%. The U.S. women were the second worst passing team in the Olympics using the same technique.
In Washington you have McGown philosophy. They utilze player centered drills that involve playing game situations which better simulates the actual conditions of the game. Motor learning scientists have proven from years of research that this method leads to faster transfer and therefore should be a considered a superior method for training athletes. Additionally Washington uses a very simple approach to passing create a platform and angle the ball to target (you know physics and geometry). UW's percent perfect passing in the semi final was around 60%. Every top 5 men's team in the Olympics uses this technique.
This match was an outstanding clash of two very different philosophies when it comes to training. Both teams are very well coached (based on their individual philosophies) and have outstanding athletes, though I think most people would agree that Nebraska was the more physical team.
Many people have debated the virtues of both philosophies (Toshi vs. McGown) over the last several months. Clearly John Cook subscribes to a Toshi mentality when it comes to training. McLaughlin has cited the strong influence of Carl McGown since his days at USC.
I think what is most interesting about this championship is that on paper most people would not have given Washington much of a chance over a more powerful, physical and athletic team such as Nebraska. However the superior training methods, fundamental techniques and offensive and defensive systems of UW made this a very one sided affair.
I doubt it, but maybe now people will finally start to fall off the Toshi bandwagon once and for all. Perhaps coaches will realize that McGown is the true master in the world of volleyball. The domination of a physcially smaller team over a physcially larger one is just part of the reason for this. This match came down to training, technique and systems (as it ussaully does). In this case Nebraska never had a chance.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Dec 20, 2005 21:38:42 GMT -5
WOW..."true master in the world of volleyball"?
Let's turn down the hyperbole a smidge.
|
|
|
Post by LanaiBoy on Dec 20, 2005 22:31:40 GMT -5
One game does not prove one system is better than the other. Remember, Nebraska dominated almost every team it played. It just could be that great passers and diggers are born not made. Washington just might have more natural-born passers than Nebraska, which has two--Jordan and Jen S. Washington has about four or five. All skills are part nature, part nurture I would agree, but a significant part is nature. This does not mean I undervalue practice, practice, practice and overvalue talent and innate abilities. Both play their part.
|
|
|
Post by chanandlerbong on Dec 21, 2005 7:39:35 GMT -5
Before this gets out of hand, I would just like to say that both philosophies have proven to be successful at all levels.
Washington - 2005 NCAA Champions (McGown) China - 2004 Olympic Gold Medalists (Toshi or Coach Centered)
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on Dec 21, 2005 12:04:16 GMT -5
I know it's not nice to gloat, but I think the Cauldron has been vindicated! You really can't come to this conclusion from this one match, mainly because you haven't controlled for all the other variables. Rather than their training technique, you could make the claim that Washington won because: - their recruiting was better - their coach is superior - their setter is better - their passing is better - their hitting is better - their defense is better - they were better prepared mentally . . . and on and on, as many items as you can think of. Each claim is a hypothesis that you cannot prove, because you can't control the other variables (the other claims). I happen to think that there were two major things going on here that are interesting to talk about. 1 - A fast offense with great ball control (can be smaller players) versus big, physical and (typically) less ball control. 2 - Being mentally prepared for how different it is in a National Championship match (this is very similar to what happens in the Olympics, which is _very_ different than all other competitions an athlete has been in). Regarding the first topic, in junior club volleyball we face this issue of big and physical versus ball control every year when we choose our number one team in each age group. Ideally you want a mix of both, but how often do coaches get an 'ideal' situation? So which do you choose? My experience (which includes observing other clubs, too) is that coaches can't resist going for the big and physical players. Jim McLaughlin recruits a certain type of player, one who is skilled and will fit his system. It seems to me that most college coaches will always take a raw but incredibly gifted athlete and hope they can turn them into a skilled player. But, this doesn't always work. I like McLaughlin's approach better. Regarding the second topic, in hindsight we can say that it appeared that Washington was better prepared mentally for the Championship match. They played well. Nebraska folks mention that they are disappointed because they didn't play well. It's a very, very challenging task for a coach to prepare players to play well in the biggest match of their lives. It's not something that can be done a few days before the match. There are different approaches that can be effective. I worked with Rob Heidger before the 2000 Olympics. For months before the competition, he did some straightforward mental preparation that focused on just letting himself perform like he was capable of performing. Because he did this preparation, he played well (he was named Best Blocker, which is his forte). He also walked away having had a 'good experience', even if he didn't medal, because he knew that he had performed as well as he could. I'm speculating here, because I'm not close enough to the program, but I think that Washington was well prepared because they bought into the system. They believed in their system, and in their coach, and in themselves, and they relied on this. It allowed them to just play at the level they were capable of. It sounds like a simple and straightforward thing, to perform like you're capable, but when you get into an NCAA Championship match or the Olympics, it is NOT. Look at the Brazilian men in beach volleyball at the Sydney Olympics. Before it started, I predicted they would choke, because there was tremendous pressure on them to win, and I figured they would not know how to prepare. In the press conference after the Gold medal match, the Brazilian reporters asked the silver medalists (who were actually Brazil's number two team) some very biting questions about why they didn't win. It was brutal. I guess, to summarize, all I'm saying is that this focus on one thing, "the Cauldron", is too narrow. There are many things that go into winning a championship, and this year, Washington put them all together a bit better than Nebraska did.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Dec 21, 2005 15:15:12 GMT -5
Charlie, coming thru! Very much the way I feel.
You know, it's very possible that Nebraska had their own 'cauldron'. The 'cauldron' approach is very easy to implement in a 'coach centered', or 'block training' environment.
|
|
|
Post by ESTRELLA on Dec 23, 2005 10:47:02 GMT -5
If anybody can tell us what training systems were used by the other teams in the tournament and see how they did against each other, then we at least have the basis to make some good arguments.
In the meantime the better team on that day won the NCAA Tournament. That is the only fact that we can say is true with total certainty.
|
|
|
Post by vbking on Dec 23, 2005 11:20:23 GMT -5
What a load of bs. McLaughlin wants everyone to think that he's a genius. Regardless of the results in practice, the same 7 players were going to start. If McLaughlin tells you any different, he' a liar. Thompson could have had the worst week of practice in the history of the NCAA and told McLaughlin go and screw himself, but regardless, she was going to be in the starting lineup for the final four. Don't elevate him to god-like status because he won a championship.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Dec 23, 2005 11:49:44 GMT -5
I doubt McLaughlin himself really cares if anyone considers him to be a genius.
He has a system he likes, he sticks with it, and he seems to espouse it.
Any coach that has success with whatever their preferred system is would be given similar praise from fans and media.
Did Don Shaw use "the cauldron" when he was winning national championships at Stanford?
People frequently considered him to be a genius as a coach.
Did McLaughlin use "the cauldron" while he was at Kansas State and was he a genius back then with a team that wasn't as successful as his current Washington team?
He's a very good and successful coach and his players predominantly seem to like him and believe in his system.
|
|