|
Post by Murina on Oct 12, 2006 23:04:07 GMT -5
Still disagree. It's not the JO's or NCAA's responsibility to provide international players for the USA. Restricting subs will mean fewer kids get to play and the quality of play will also suffer. So where do you want young potential national team players to learn to play volleyball? Besides, this thread is talking about how to create a good national team. You can best develop high level players starting young, and continuing uninterupted. If you want to increase participation in volleyball that is a separate issue. I argue that you are increasing participation by worse volleyball athletes... It is absolutely the JO's responsibility. JO's is USAV's development system. You can certainly argue that NCAA and high schools have no responsibility. I also disagree that the quality of play will suffer. The quality of play isn't very good as it is - that is part of the problem. With all these subs, you're taking the potential national team players off the court half of the time in favor of kids who are not potential national team players. I don't know why anyone thinks that lots of subs is making the level of play in the USA higher...
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Oct 12, 2006 23:17:27 GMT -5
I think that if keystonekid has only seen the USA national team train, I understand why he would have this opinion. USA doesn't have the receivers to play quick combination volleyball, so they rely on great blocking and low risk attacking. This has worked at times, but on the whole, I can't remember a team to do much winning long term like this.
Even Karpols teams, who are generally held out as the epitome of boring volleyball, played quick combinations with their middles and rights. Karpols teams set as fast a slide as any team ever has. They were able to do this because, year in year out, Karpols teams received near the level of Korea, China and Brazil.
The USA national team has really cornered the market on boring volleyball, because they have to.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2006 23:17:45 GMT -5
Two points:
1) Where do you do it? If you have an organization that is in charge of developing young talent you leave it to them. Maybe this means a "super JO" program. But you don't limit participation in JOs (and HS/college) by changing the sub rule sport-wide. I repeat, it is not the responsibility of JO, high schools or the NCAA to produce International VB-players.
2) Given my first point, the quality will absolutely suffer if subs are limited.
I don't disagree that we are not producing all-around players. I just think changing the sub rules does more harm than good. Is the sport for the 12 players who play on Team USA or for kids everywhere?
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Oct 12, 2006 23:35:12 GMT -5
Two points: 1) Where do you do it? If you have an organization that is in charge of developing young talent you leave it to them. Maybe this means a "super JO" program. But you don't limit participation in JOs (and HS/college) by changing the sub rule sport-wide. I repeat, it is not the responsibility of JO, high schools or the NCAA to produce International VB-players. It is the USAV's job to develop players for the national team. JO's is their vehicle to do so. In the past I've proposed that "open" divisions play with the 6 sub rules. Most of the potential national team players are in those divisons anyway. The goal of "open" is to crown a national champion and develop the best possible players. "Club" division, high schools and NCAA can play with lots of subs because the goal of those institutions is participation. I don't see how 2 follows from 1... I don't see why it can't be for both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2006 23:44:04 GMT -5
2 follows from 1 because the vast majority of VB players in this country do not have the time and/or inclination to become all-around players. So you end up with specialists. That's just the way it is.
Is the quality going tom be better with kids who can't play the backrow, playing the backrow? Nope.
I totally disagree that changing the sub rules is the magic wand which will make USA players into better all-around players. It will make _some_ of them that -- the ones who would benefit from the "super JOs". The others will become less skilled at a greater variety of skills, including the ones they are performing well now.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Oct 13, 2006 0:37:27 GMT -5
2 follows from 1 because the vast majority of VB players in this country do not have the time and/or inclination to become all-around players. So you end up with specialists. That's just the way it is. They don't? They have the same amount of time as kids in most other countries...(at least until about 16 years old). Inclination? If they had to be good in the back row in order to play in the front row I bet their inclination would change. And, more importantly, the inclinations of their coaches would change - kids inclinations are direct reflections of their coach's inclinations. I think this already exists. Coaches have to play these ds's that they have on their teams, and it often comes at the expence of a better athlete who plays front row so her back row time becomes expendable to the goal of letting the little people participate. All of these ds's are not making their teams ball handling any better than their counterparts around the world - and in most cases the USA's teams are probably worse than their foreign counterparts. These ds's are NOT making their team's ball handling any better than it could be with the front row players doing the work, at least not the "open" level front row players. Well, if you look around the world, the ball handling skills of mid to high level players is much higher than it is in the USA... The good athletes have to do it their whole careers, in the USA they don't... That's what this thread is talking about - some of the players. Call it "super JO's" or "open." I guess I think the pool of players that I think will improve is bigger than you do...? Incidently, it isn't just the short players that will go away from high level volleyball if the sub rules were changed. The giant clods who don't do much besides be tall will also be relegated to the "participation" ranks. The good athletes, regardless of size, will rise to the top levels and the level of play will get higher. I think there is a place for participation - I really do. I think it is called high school, non-open level JO's, and college (even though it pains me that it hurts the national team, and - in my opinion - lowers the top level of the game). The USA doesn't currently have a vehicle to create great wing players... It's just a fact. The USAV should be addressing this if they want to produce national teams that are competitive more than once every 2 Olympic cycles. It's going to take creating a large pool of good athletes who play the whole game from a young age.
|
|
|
Post by brybry on Oct 13, 2006 1:29:38 GMT -5
I totally agree w/ Murina. I think by matching the international rules, a lot our young athletic hitters would improve their ballhandling skills possibly to the point where we'd be more competitive in future Olympics. I think we'd see more tall players that can pass the ball. I also think we might see some short players that hit the ball (like Pressey). US Volleyball seems to be forcing these players into limited roles. Since volleyball overseas is so immensely popular, I wonder why their programs do not aim for higher "participation" by changing the sub rule like we did (not that I would want that to happen). Conversely, couldn't US club volleyball just match international sub rules and and still strive for higher participation ($$$) by increasing the number of teams they have?
|
|
vbsamurai
Troll
Incessant blabberer
Posts: 251
|
Post by vbsamurai on Oct 13, 2006 3:18:12 GMT -5
hahaha every1's on edge w/this 'all around'/passing quandary so it seems let me elucidate and sim plify this for every1 b4 ye have an aneurism 1st let me clarify the biggest difference & perhaps the primary culprit of why the u.s athletes in general are not as good an 'all around'/passer as those in other coun tries this has to do w/what the colleges want from their student athletes colleges want them to be a student 1st then an athlete 2nd (hence stu dent athlete simple isn't it) this in turn allow the participants to spend less time in practice w/c then limits on what specific vb skills they want or need to focus on what happens then is that they become more specialized & less of an 'all around' athlete remember now that this is only in the school setting(practice time) so in order for an athlete to really become a good/ great 'all around'/passer the athlete has to create time for herself to practice & hone her vb skills outside of the school practice ses sions(i'm sure that the coaches emphasize this too) it is up to the athletes them selves to spend xtra time in honing their all around skills and/or ball controll skills if the athlete is satisfied w/the practice time only in school then more often than not she becomes a 1dimentional athlete eith er as a hitter or as passer since offense is more imp ortant in the college game most athletes become hitters rather than a pas ser or an all around jock it is why good and great all around athletes (no matter what sport) are 'gym rats' or simply just obsessed w/playing the sport they love w/c in this case volleyball this 'obsession' is really what separates elite athletes from the rest they are not satisfied w/just being great @1 skill they want to be great @all the skills
that's why the misty mays keri walshes & logan toms are few & far between they are what they are because they spend a lot of xtra time outside of the mandatory practice sessions (of course there are always xceptions) the 2nd biggest diffe rence between u.s athletes & foreigners is the pro league foreigners have a very high standards to meet in order for them to become successful in the pro league such standards basically forces them to train much harder and for longer periods of time a younger age than the u.s athletes they're basically 1sport athletes compared to the u.s athletes @ that age this means that by the time they're 15/16yrs of age they're already playing in 1 of the many semi pro leagues or even in the top pro leagues in their country or even the world the copious amt of time they spend training @ an early age would allow them to become great 'all around' and ball control athletes moreover the inherent pressure that the pro leagues demand on would be pro athletes is in itself an xcellent aspect in creating a great all around athlete(when they overcome it) having a pro league is different than just relying on the natl team here in the u.s yes the u.s team pays their athletes but it's nothing com pared to the pro league's sala ries outside of the u.s it's why most u.s athletes play outside of the country and spend less time w/the natl team to practice for interntl competitions the only vehicle to improve the pool of good to great 'all around' athletes is to increase the salaries of these u.s athletes(~20-25% of the avg salaries in the pro leagues) to keep them in the u.s and spend more time practicing w/the natl team it's very simple really i would summarize but i need to go #2
btw murina are ye an american in italy or an italian in italy haha
and if ye have beach vb pix of leila barros email me i don't spend a lot of time online so i have no time looking for her site or her fansites i'm also very otiose we already know that much love babe i love every1 too
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Oct 13, 2006 15:33:27 GMT -5
I completely disagree with the contention that JOs is the method of developing national team players. Like college & high school, JOs is a supplemental program for developing players at that level.
The high performance/JNT/YJNT system is the method of developing national team players. As that system continues to grow and pull in the top athletes, I think you will see the big athletes develop the all-around skills at earlier ages. I think it's happening already and we will see this progression come to fruition over the next 10 years.
I don't have numbers, but as a casual observer, it has grown quite a bit over the past decade.
That's one reason why McGinnis is so good now and the likely future national team setter. She not only is a great college setter, but she has an understanding of the international game after training with international coaches against international teams for the last 7+ years.
The idea that limiting subs in JOs will help develop national team players is misguided. The likely result of limiting subs would be to actually legislate the big players out of the game entirely. So, those 5 future NT players who can't help a team besides the fact they can block at the age of 14 will be such liabilities that they can't even make it onto a better club program since the shorter player who is coordinated earlier will take her spot because she isn't the huge backrow liability.
|
|
|
Post by bigtenfred on Oct 13, 2006 15:37:28 GMT -5
Sam T. has been training with the national team since may and she was the backup setter. McGinnis has a way to go.
|
|
|
Post by Murina on Oct 13, 2006 16:01:18 GMT -5
I completely disagree with the contention that JOs is the method of developing national team players. Like college & high school, JOs is a supplemental program for developing players at that level. The high performance/JNT/YJNT system is the method of developing national team players. As that system continues to grow and pull in the top athletes, I think you will see the big athletes develop the all-around skills at earlier ages. I think it's happening already and we will see this progression come to fruition over the next 10 years. I don't have numbers, but as a casual observer, it has grown quite a bit over the past decade. That's one reason why McGinnis is so good now and the likely future national team setter. She not only is a great college setter, but she has an understanding of the international game after training with international coaches against international teams for the last 7+ years. The idea that limiting subs in JOs will help develop national team players is misguided. The likely result of limiting subs would be to actually legislate the big players out of the game entirely. So, those 5 future NT players who can't help a team besides the fact they can block at the age of 14 will be such liabilities that they can't even make it onto a better club program since the shorter player who is coordinated earlier will take her spot because she isn't the huge backrow liability. Some people just don't get it... This is not an opinion thing - USAV was created in order to field an Olympic team. It's second mission is to create players for that team. It does so by creating as many athletes as possible to choose from. That is where participation comes in. It's vehicle to create national team players is the JOV program. This is not debatable, it just is... YNT, JNT and similar programs are supplements to the JOV program, a further narrowing of the top of the pyramid if you will. There is an inherent problem in relying on the YNT, JNT programs to develop wing players. Those programs only exist for a month or two a year. The rest of the year, those kids are playing on their JOV, high school and college teams. The role of the wing players is different when lots of subs are available. USA can develop strong setters and middles under the current system because the jobs are similar all the way down the pyramid.
|
|
|
Post by beachman on Oct 13, 2006 16:26:40 GMT -5
I'd like to pull up some of the previous National Teamer threads that I remember (vaguely) reading in the past 3 or 4 years.....I guessing that not one in ten of those who were "can't miss" prospects will be playing in the next Olympic Games, for the USA(of course)!
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Oct 14, 2006 10:42:23 GMT -5
Some people just don't get it... This is not an opinion thing - USAV was created in order to field an Olympic team. It's second mission is to create players for that team. It does so by creating as many athletes as possible to choose from. That is where participation comes in. It's vehicle to create national team players is the JOV program. This is not debatable, it just is... YNT, JNT and similar programs are supplements to the JOV program, a further narrowing of the top of the pyramid if you will. There is an inherent problem in relying on the YNT, JNT programs to develop wing players. Those programs only exist for a month or two a year. The rest of the year, those kids are playing on their JOV, high school and college teams. The role of the wing players is different when lots of subs are available. USA can develop strong setters and middles under the current system because the jobs are similar all the way down the pyramid. It *is* an opinion thing. You think JOs is not working the way you want it to to create olympic athletes. I think it is doing precisely what we want it to do to create olympic athletes. It popularizes volleyball so that great athletes want to play. Then, we get those 3-4 specific olympic-caliber athletes into high performance to get them the training and experience to steer them towards international volleyball. I agree with both of your points that it is not perfect and with your assessment of our weaknesses, but I think as high performance continues to grow, it will continue to improve and we'll likely see better results in terms of developing players. My second point is that you cannot legislate USAV to force club coaches to play players into certain positions. The law of unintended consequence will eventually apply, as I pointed out with the idea of limiting substitutions. I appreciate that you want to see it improve. I think it works well and is improving. I also think you'll be very hard-pressed to come up with a system that works better in our capitalistic society. That is the difference of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Oct 14, 2006 11:27:44 GMT -5
I totally agree with Murina.
I don't see how changing the sub rules at the "Open" level affects participation. Murina is not talking about eliminating the opportunities ... those opportunities will still be available at the club level.
For anyone to say it is not the Junior Olympics job to develop National Team athletes .. they just don't understand the mission of the USAV and that the Junior Olympic program is that development program.
Club level - get kids involved and interested Open level - the best kids that have shown their stuff at the Club level get the opportunity to play against the best ... and develop all-around games. YNT/JNT - the kids are chosen from those that have proven themselves at the Open level get a chance to compete for USA against other countries. National/Olympic teams - chosen from those YNT/JNT kids that have been developed
I don't understand the reluctance to this idea .. I just don't.
|
|
|
Post by StuffU on Oct 14, 2006 11:32:25 GMT -5
I completely disagree with the contention that JOs is the method of developing national team players. Like college & high school, JOs is a supplemental program for developing players at that level. The problem with this statement is that the Junior OLYMPICS is USAV. It IS the mission of the Junior Olympic program to develop players for the next level. College and High School are not supplemental programs of USAV .. therefore, Murina is not suggesting that the changes have to happen in the NCAA or high school level. But the reluctance to change a JO system that is failing in many areas is why USA will not be a continuous power internationally ~ even though we have the pool of players to be just that.
|
|