|
Post by idiotic on Dec 8, 2006 13:22:41 GMT -5
There has been a lot of discussion recently on how much height actually matters in men's volleyball. So is there really that much of a difference between someone who is 6' and someone else who is 6'3"? 6'6"? How about if that 6'er jumps 40in and is extremely athletic? Last year, Drew Pickering (maybe 6') tore up the MIVA. But then again no hitter under 6'3" did much of anything in the MPSF.
So I ask the question: Is height overhyped?
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Dec 8, 2006 13:38:47 GMT -5
So I ask the question: Is height overhyped? No.
|
|
|
Post by volleydog on Dec 8, 2006 14:33:35 GMT -5
Like was said in the other thread....
If ALL things are equal - i.e. athleticism, passing skills, vertical, etc -
The player that is 6'6" will get the nod over the 6' player.
Welcome to the real world! Sorry if you don't measure up - go complain to your mom and dad.
|
|
|
Post by star035 on Dec 8, 2006 14:41:42 GMT -5
How about if that 6'er jumps 40in and is extremely athletic? So I ask the question: Is height overhyped? Even if someone has great hops, they can't use that skill on every play. A lot of instances will still arise at the net where a taller player with modest hops can at least get up for a quick hit or block, while the shorter player will be caught "flat-footed," so to speak. The smaller, more athletic player often offers more all-around skill on the court, especially when rotating to the back row. But that might not compensate for the, um, short-comings in the front row.
|
|
|
Post by cyberVBmidwest on Dec 8, 2006 14:52:35 GMT -5
Another way of saying it:
A 6'9" player with long arms can put up a 9'6" block without ever leaving the ground, no timing or athletic superiority needed.
Actually, this argument can only take place if you make certain assumptions being true for both the tall and short person. They both have (or could have with training) the same passing skills, the same attack skills and the same volleyball intelligence. Just because one person is taller/shorter than the another, doesn't mean they have the best passing, attacking or volleyball intelligence level.
Since having the same exact level of skills is rare, it provides opportunity for debate. ;D
|
|
|
Post by idiotic on Dec 8, 2006 15:03:11 GMT -5
All valid points. What I was trying to get was would you rather have a player who was shorter and more athletic or someone who wasn't as athletic but was taller? You can break it down by position if you want.
|
|
Lew8ftln
Sophomore
Tweet? Follow team updates @oshkoshmvball or myself @bigfire8
Posts: 163
|
Post by Lew8ftln on Dec 8, 2006 15:28:22 GMT -5
Let's also take into a account a biological argument. As the match wears on you exhaust your physical abilities. So at the end of a long match, that 6'4" outside will still hit a ball at 10 feet or w/e but the 6' hitter will prolly only hit the ball at 9'6" or somethin lower due to the vertical being exhausted. That was the most basic argument I heard from a commentator during a beach tournament, and that explains why you have no 6' flyers playing beach...cuz dehydration makes those players ineffective at the end of the day.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on Dec 8, 2006 15:32:39 GMT -5
Rather have shorter and more athletic, for the most part; even in the middle the blocker has to get over to cover; doen't matter how high the block iis if the bal goes by two feet to either side. That said, the Nick Scheftic (sp?) quick hit from the seven footer is the closest thing I've seen to an unstoppable shot in men's volleyball. As I stated elsewhere, most interesting match up will be the Lauri Hakala of Hawaii on the right v. the 6'9" UCLA outside with the Irish name (O'Malley?), about 8" taller. Quicker players can correct and compensate quicker at the net.
|
|
|
Post by VolleyTX on Dec 8, 2006 15:47:28 GMT -5
All things being equal.... the taller guy has the advantage. The problem with being shorter (I'm 5-8 when I stand up straight) is that no matter how high you can jump, you pretty much lose the ability to adjust to a set, block etc once your feet leave the ground. It also takes you longer to reach the same elevation as the taller guy.... so you have to be that much better at anticipation. Height is not overhyped. Unathletic height is overhyped sometimes.... especially in the women's game.
|
|
|
Post by thor on Dec 8, 2006 18:33:06 GMT -5
I think many here don't understand that the game is essentially played right above the net. Of course it is good for you if you are tall. All other things being equal the tall guy has the advantage. However, things are never really equal; there are always differences between players. Especially in college a shorter player can easily make all the difference if he can play.
This is not a game for tall people; it is a game FOR THOSE WHO CAN PLAY. Makes me sick to hear coaches tell young players they could never be good because of size. Al Scates told Alfie Reft he would never ever play college. He didn't give up and ended up two-time AA and Defensive player of the year, now in the national team. He is a libero so maybe that example is not as good but there are many hitters who have beaten the tall guys with their athleticism and skill.
Ozzie Antonetti at BYU about six years ago was the best right side with just 6 feet. Or Costas at Hawaii, 6-2 and dominated.
How about internationally? Brazil's Giba and Anderson are only 6-3. Italy's Papi is only maybe 6-2. A few years ago the current Bulgarian national team head coach Martin Stoev at 6-3 was their best player. Serbia's Grbic V. and Vujevic are 6-4. All these players belong to the best of the best.
So to all those kids reading these posts... Don't ever let anybody tell you, you can't do something because of your size. Maybe it is unrealistic to think that a 5-9 outside would be the best hitter but you never know. In my opinion anyone around 6 feet can easily be the best player in college. It won't be easy but every year there are short left sides and even right sides that make the difference.
Do you think Giba would be a way worse player if he was only 6 feet? Not by much. It is the system and the speed of a team that helps shorter players. Giba with that height is one of the best blockers also.
So maybe height is a very good thing in this sport and gives you an advantage, but all the players around 6 feet can surely reach the same level.
|
|
|
Post by wisky4 on Dec 8, 2006 19:26:01 GMT -5
Rather have shorter and more athletic, for the most part; even in the middle the blocker has to get over to cover; doesn't matter how high the block is if the Ball goes by two feet to either side. That said, the Nick Scheftic (sp?) quick hit from the seven footer is the closest thing I've seen to an unstoppable shot in men's volleyball. As I stated elsewhere, most interesting match up will be the Lauri Hakala of Hawaii on the right v. the 6'9" UCLA outside with the Irish name (O'Malley?), about 8" taller. Quicker players can correct and compensate quicker at the net. Yea the names O'Malley he was an all American outa Illinois, Oak Park River Forest High School. He played for sports performance and he was a stud, no doubt about it thats why he plays at UCLA. But in some terms i think that the two other studs Kevin Deeke(U of I) and Matt Mckee(Pepperdine) that were in that same graduating class out of Illinois are better than O'Malley at times. Ya they can pass and move better on the floor but again about that block, they both have extreme verticles and can get up but shawn can get up quicker and probably put down a kill block were as deeke and mckee can put up a directional block for the libero. But the question can be also at the division 1 level would you rather have a guy that has a better chance of putting down a kill block and is huge, or would you rather have players like the other two who can sky, pound balls, play defense, serve receive, and then just put up a directional block for a stud libero. How often will you dig a great hitter if he is given an open lane unless the blocker gets a touch? Usually that ball is going right down to the ground. So in a way what I'm trying to say is would you rather have more all around guys like Deeke and McKee who are still over 6'3 or would you want the potential kill blocker O'Malley?
|
|
Lew8ftln
Sophomore
Tweet? Follow team updates @oshkoshmvball or myself @bigfire8
Posts: 163
|
Post by Lew8ftln on Dec 8, 2006 19:38:58 GMT -5
All valid points. What I was trying to get was would you rather have a player who was shorter and more athletic or someone who wasn't as athletic but was taller? You can break it down by position if you want. I think this quote is an important one.....it should be broken down by position, when talking indoor, because I think there is an optimal height for each area of the court. Obviously a 6'7" libero has a huge range, but needs the ability to get down and has less room for error to misjudge. A 6'9" outside would be a great blocker and could do some decent damage hitting over blocks, but of course they're gonna be more combersome digging and being quick in transition (can't have the same agility as a 6 footer biomechanically). So really it's about maximizing height w/ losing the least in agility. Outside hitters prolly would be the best at around 6'5"ish, whereas ur middles are prolly best at 6'8-6'10" (to maximize agility). You can go from there on figuring the best range for each position, but there's a good range that you see most high level athletes at for height that minimizes agility trade off. And of course there are exceptions to every rule, but I think most could agree that that would be a good guide line.
|
|
|
Post by hawaiiantouch on Dec 10, 2006 22:49:37 GMT -5
I still think that Hawaii's Lauri Hakala is better than O'malley (sp. ) Hakala can jump out of the roof and is the best hitter that Hawaii has! Go Lauri! P.S.: It can be a guy's name!!! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Mac on Dec 10, 2006 23:11:20 GMT -5
I still think that Hawaii's Lauri Hakala is better than O'malley (sp. ) Hakala can jump out of the roof and is the best hitter that Hawaii has! Go Lauri! P.S.: It can be a guy's name!!! ;D Not sure if this is really saying much. Hakala is better than most. He's one in a recent list of short but great OHs who have played at UH as well. Tony Ching had a Howitzer for an arm. I'll not easily forget the first time I saw him. Costas was also a shorter OH great of course. If you're going to start comparing Hakala to O'Malley, you have to look at how Hakala played when he was a freshman, as O'Malley was last season. This is what their site says for Hakala that year. "Hakala 2005: Played in 43 games in 18 matches, making six starts...averaged almost one dig per game, while slamming down 1.86 kills per game...made only four reception errors in 256 total chances...posted three 10 kill performances at UC Irvine (Jan. 28) and USC (Feb. 17-18)...had a season-high seven digs against UC Santa Barbara April 2" O'Malley's similar frosh stats: 49 games. 119 kills. 2.43 kills per game
|
|
|
Post by setter on Dec 11, 2006 15:02:04 GMT -5
omalley played for CVC i thought?
|
|