|
Post by head31919 on May 20, 2012 14:20:38 GMT -5
Cmon lonewolf, you've been around long enough to remember fake x's, tandems, double quicks, and the like. Current offenses are vanilla compared to back then and rightfully so, with every play counting as a point. Part of the fun back then was trying new plays and tempos. I feel secure in saying that the current rules have changed the complexity and technical aspects of the game. This line of logic doesn't really make any sense. Rallies won and lost are still worth the same as they always were. You can't win a sideout game without also being ahead in rally score.
|
|
|
Post by head31919 on May 20, 2012 14:45:20 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the system, but I guess I just don't really understand what the advantages are either. Like what does it get you that you can't run with a more traditional lineup? I think there's a reason that as you move up the ladder from high school to college to international women's to international men's, you start to see a lot less variance in systems. It's kind of like in American football: go down to the college, and especially high school, and you see a lot of variance in systems. But when you get to the NFL, everybody does 90% of the same stuff, because the "goofy" stuff kind of just gets filtered out. I think a lot of innovation comes from lower levels where coaches are more free to experiment, but the highest levels is where systems/tactics/techniques that work get proven and the ones that don't work have a very short shelf life. Also, as you move up the ladder, you have more players to select from....so, fitting them to the system is easier. While I do agree with the first part of the statement, I think it is more of a deal where, at the lower levels, you often have players who are just not capable of doing certain things, so your system choices become more limited. For example, there's only so much tempo that you can run with 16 year olds. Pretty much what you said, just from the other perspective. With that said, I do also think that there's a lot of goofy stuff that goes on at lower levels that coaches get away with, because: (a) Opposing players are inexperienced at poor at reading at reacting. (b) Scouting doesn't really exist. (c) There are much bigger disparities in ability between individual players on the court. A prime example of this is the setter attack. The 2nd-ball dump is by far the highest % play at U-12, even good U-12. In high school, it still can be really effective. At college, less so, but you will still see some setters who attack a lot. By the time you get to the international level, setter attack becomes much less common. It can still be effective, but not "abused" like it can be at the younger levels.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 20, 2012 16:16:36 GMT -5
Cmon lonewolf, you've been around long enough to remember fake x's, tandems, double quicks, and the like. Current offenses are vanilla compared to back then and rightfully so, with every play counting as a point. Part of the fun back then was trying new plays and tempos. I feel secure in saying that the current rules have changed the complexity and technical aspects of the game. Because teams don't run double quicks or tandems anymore? There's a difference between not having plays who's complexity outweighs their function (especially with the speed of the game) and not having complex plays.
|
|
|
Post by baldyballer on May 20, 2012 20:49:40 GMT -5
Running quicks and tandems had a specific function, and their complexity added to the complexity of the game. You could try things if you were just going to lose a sideout and not a point. Our game now is so predictable that the more athletic team has a even more distinct advantage.
|
|
|
Post by head31919 on May 20, 2012 23:35:40 GMT -5
Tandem plays are way more common now than they ever were before. They are just called Bics now...
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 21, 2012 0:04:44 GMT -5
Tandem plays are way more common now than they ever were before. They are just called Bics now... Agreed, and if you watch the men play you'll even see tandem X plays with the middle and bic crossing. Double quicks and crossing patterns in SR, or with a slide+RS attack are common in the women's game (e.g. RUS likes doing a front 1 with an inside out approach crossing with a slide in SR when the setter is coming from RB)
|
|
|
Post by fogballer on May 21, 2012 0:12:23 GMT -5
The reason nobody runs combos anymore has nothing to do with rule changes. It has everything to do with improvements in the blocking phase of the game and how it is taught. In the 80's attacking far outpaced blocking systems, and blockers were shorter overall.
Today, with taller athletes who are better at reading the set as soon as it leaves the setter's hands, the only thing combination plays do is bring more blockers in to the point of attack.
The one exception is the bic, because it is a combo run out of the backrow. Pin blockers are forced to hold their position long enough to ensure the set isn't going to the opponent's wing attackers. That split second hold is just enough for the backrow attacker to run the combo into the gap created when the opposing middle jumps with the first-tempo attack, since the speed of the ball coming out of the setter's hands on a bic looks close enough to a ball being set first-tempo.
Doesn't always work though. One thing about running the bic is that the bic hitter has very little room to move the ball around due to the speed of the set and the timing of the attack. Most bics are hit low to the tape, so if the blockers make the correct read, the bic usually gets stuffed pretty hard.
|
|
|
Post by baldyballer on May 21, 2012 1:00:27 GMT -5
My comments are geared more toward the women's game and towards running fake x plays with tandems and double quicks before the bic. In my day there was a few back row studs (Steve Timmons comes to mind) but there was alot more motion, patterns and attempts to fake out in the 80s. I still think blocking was good relative to that era's hitters. I know we would say "hell lets try it....it's only for a side out- not a point!"
|
|
|
Post by head31919 on May 21, 2012 1:16:59 GMT -5
That's because, no offense, you (and many others) misunderstood the value of losing the side-out.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on May 21, 2012 3:22:29 GMT -5
That's because, no offense, you (and many others) misunderstood the value of losing the side-out. There's only one difference between a side-out and a point. Under rally scoring the game will end in 50 rallies or less (ignoring the win-by-2 rule). Under side-out scoring the game is theoretically open-ended in terms of how many rallies can be played.
|
|
PTW winner
Junior
Enter your message here...
Posts: 465
|
Post by PTW winner on May 21, 2012 8:45:57 GMT -5
Fogballer is dead on with why xplays and the such are not run as much. Putting 2 hitters in the same zone is blocked much better now. Teams bunch block more now and clog the middle.
Three big reasons the triangle offense is not run at the highest level: 1. You need a rightside who can hit from out of system. Most middles are weak at it. 2. Serve receive is complicated and sometimes limited to 2 passers. 3. Teaching multiple players to play right front defense creates inconsistency.
This system is great if you are in system but the game is not played or won that way, at least not on a consistent basis.
KISS and work on out executing the other team if you want to win consistently.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 21, 2012 8:57:04 GMT -5
KISS and work on out executing the other team if you want to win consistently. As Bill Neville would say, there are 2 ways to win. Do the same thing as your opponent but better, or do something else. And it's hard to do the same thing but better as someone if you don't have access to the same types of players as your opponent (e.g the Japanese running a faster offense with more 1/0 tempo sets to beat the bigger blockers as they didn't have the hitters to go over them.)
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 21, 2012 9:01:00 GMT -5
My comments are geared more toward the women's game and towards running fake x plays with tandems and double quicks before the bic. And my comment on the russian play was about the women's game also. You can go to the FIVB technical videos and see examples of overloads, fakeouts and isolations with tandems and crossings. They're not as elaborate or as often in transition due to the presence of bunch blocking, better blocking, the speed of transition, and the growing strength of the bic and especially the red in the women's game
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 21, 2012 9:03:04 GMT -5
That's because, no offense, you (and many others) misunderstood the value of losing the side-out. There's only one difference between a side-out and a point. Under rally scoring the game will end in 50 rallies or less (ignoring the win-by-2 rule). Under side-out scoring the game is theoretically open-ended in terms of how many rallies can be played. Agreed, side-out scoring gave a false sense of safety as the loss of rally did not show up as a point on the board.
|
|
|
Post by pancake83 on May 21, 2012 9:47:20 GMT -5
I agree with both vbkid and max13 on the first page - there are a couple of variations of running a triple middle, but you need to have the personnel (or lack thereof) to run it. I've seen it run at the Div. 1 collegiate level on both accounts, with three stronger middles, and a great pin, with another good pin hitter, and the bench wasn't that great, but it got their best attackers in the game. Tough to scout, ran with some success.
I've seen it the opposite way as well, with a Conf. POY middle ran opposite the setter that played good enough defense, but was an option out of the back row, so the setter had an outlet and option each rotation when she was front row, and there were just fill in players at the other middle spots. Ro. 5 & Ro. 6, the setter set and blocked out of the middle, and ran her offense pin to pin. The team adjusted their blocking scheme (pinching in, I believe) to make it work. They won the conference title of a mid major with this offense, with only one true middle.
It all depends on your personnel.
|
|