Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 22:49:50 GMT -5
Blair Brown wouldn't have been a "3rd MB" in this set up because she line up next to another MB. The idea is to space the 3 MB apart with either an OH or S in between. That's a very old, outdated, developmental offense that is rarely used anymore at the elementary levels and certainly not at the highest levels. A "three middle offense" these days refers to using your opposite(s) as a quick/slide hitter instead of a high-ball pin attacker, a la Erin Waller at Stanford, Sha'Dare McNeal at Texas (kinda), Kyndra Abron at Michigan State, Correy Johnson at Cal, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 17, 2012 22:52:48 GMT -5
Don't recall ever seeing this at the women's collegiate level. I reference you to Baywatcher's post. Geoff was pretty successful with it. Other DI schools have run some version of it for a season, or part of one due to personnel (e.g. your 5 best offensive players include more than 2 good middles. |
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on May 17, 2012 23:30:15 GMT -5
If I read the rotation right you have one rotation with both OH in the back row. As stated, your middles in the front then had better be able to hit that SMS. Not a skill alot of middles have developed. (I still cringe thinking of Stanford with Okagbaa, Stephanie Browne and Lichtman setting in the front row v. Florida at UOP a few years ago. Not a pretty sight and what you're looking at with 3 MB.)
|
|
|
|
Post by mplssetter on May 18, 2012 0:08:46 GMT -5
I remember seeing this done at Central College (D3) back around 98 or 99. They had 3 very good and very versatile MB's. Anyway, I can't help but wonder if something like this could work next season for MN? It's not likely, I know.... But, Dixon is versatle enough to play any front row position. Sr Bre Haugen looked pretty good in the spring matches and has played some OH and Opp as well. SR transfer MB Knutsen from Santa Clara would be the third MB. Never seen her play but she was an all WCC player. Throw in Wittman and Harms and that could be an interesting line up. It's not like we have a locked in OH2 that needs to be on the floor, yet. Who knows though, maybe freshmen Hauer or Santana will prove that they need to be on the floor.
|
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on May 18, 2012 2:18:29 GMT -5
Harms would have to pass unless a MB could or Minny went with a two person reception.
To me a team like Cal, that uses a true MB at OPP in Johnson, might give this a try. Also has another OPP/MB coming from the Serbian states and a good sub/starter at MB in Schoenweis. Or maybe Hawaii, start two MB and put Hartong in the MB triangle, where she would get playing time at every front row position.
|
|
|
|
Post by itsallrelative on May 18, 2012 9:12:00 GMT -5
Don't recall ever seeing this at the women's collegiate level. I reference you to Baywatcher's post. Geoff was pretty successful with it. Other DI schools have run some version of it for a season, or part of one due to personnel (e.g. your 5 best offensive players include more than 2 good middles. Didn't Texas do it in the mid-2000s? I remember Geoff running it at Ohio---he recruited a ton of very quick, very slender, quick-twitch type middles to make it work. The Ohio State roster seems to be going more in this direction (in regards to body type). I believe he's in his fourth year, so we're just now starting to see complete recruiting classes. I wonder if he ran it because it found a way to better utilize the type of athletes he could get at Ohio (ie Moneyball's obsession with undervalued high OBP players), or if he recruited that type of athlete to fit the system..... |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 18, 2012 9:12:06 GMT -5
Blair Brown wouldn't have been a "3rd MB" in this set up because she line up next to another MB. The idea is to space the 3 MB apart with either an OH or S in between. That's a very old, outdated, developmental offense that is rarely used anymore at the elementary levels and certainly not at the highest levels. A "three middle offense" these days refers to using your opposite(s) as a quick/slide hitter instead of a high-ball pin attacker, a la Erin Waller at Stanford, Sha'Dare McNeal at Texas (kinda), Kyndra Abron at Michigan State, Correy Johnson at Cal, etc. AA, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are wrong. Playing a middle at RS can give your offense some of the same qualities as a 3 middle offense, but that doesn't mean they are running the 3 mh offense. That's like saying that Michael Vick ran an option a few times, so the Eagles are running a triple-option offense... they don't. As has been mentioned, Ohio ran it at a very high level as recently as a few years ago, so its not ancient or outdated or anything else. The problem is this...youth teams are often taking their biggest most athletic players and putting them on the pins. To run a 2 middle offense, you need 3 good middles, but to run a 3 middle offense for a season, and practice it effectively, you should probably have 5 good middles who can block pin to pin, and hit a variety of sets. In the age of specialization, that is increasingly hard to find so its not likely you are ever going to see more than a handful of teams run this system, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work if they could do it. |
|
|
|
Post by baldyballer on May 18, 2012 9:55:39 GMT -5
I was contemplating using the 3 middle system next fall but vbnerd is correct in saying you need more than 3 Middles that are skilled in multiple positions to be effective. I have exactly 3 that would be perfect, but without a viable sub it's too risky. This offense requires a lot of extra training too. The athletes have to learn the different rotations and a different way of doing things which can sometimes be challenging (especially for a young setter) Its also hard to stay away from a 2 man serve receive unless you have a big girl that can pass. And there is one rotation with two outsides together with the setter- so you need an outside middle who can terminate.
So let's review- you need:
4-5 Middles who can virtually do everything
At least 1 dominate OH who can play middle
A experienced setter
And smart players that can learn a whole new system.....
I would think if I had all that a regular 2 middle system would be just fine!
|
|
|
|
Post by itsallrelative on May 18, 2012 11:14:35 GMT -5
The problem is this...youth teams are often taking their biggest most athletic players and putting them on the pins. This is a trend, for sure.....is this something we will see reversed in the future? IE when college coaches start begging for athletic middles, won't we see more kids who want to stay there? |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on May 18, 2012 11:45:05 GMT -5
This is a trend, for sure.....is this something we will see reversed in the future? IE when college coaches start begging for athletic middles, won't we see more kids who want to stay there? We'll see more kids wanting to stay there when they get to play all the way around. Not only do they not get to play back row, but they get the least action (by # of sets) when they are in the front row, esp. as teams get lower and lower level. |
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on May 18, 2012 12:07:15 GMT -5
I was contemplating using the 3 middle system next fall but vbnerd is correct in saying you need more than 3 Middles that are skilled in multiple positions to be effective. I have exactly 3 that would be perfect, but without a viable sub it's too risky. This offense requires a lot of extra training too. The athletes have to learn the different rotations and a different way of doing things which can sometimes be challenging (especially for a young setter) Its also hard to stay away from a 2 man serve receive unless you have a big girl that can pass. And there is one rotation with two outsides together with the setter- so you need an outside middle who can terminate. So let's review- you need: 4-5 Middles who can virtually do everything At least 1 dominate OH who can play middle A experienced setter And smart players that can learn a whole new system..... I would think if I had all that a regular 2 middle system would be just fine! Since the MB are evenly spaced in a triangle there is no rotation without a MB in the front row, so you need no OH to play middle. One MB will stay in the front all the way through , while the other two have to do some other things. So you could get away with 2-3 MB who did everything. I've seen enough mediocre club and high school teams that have 3 decent MB and no real Opposite that it certainly seems a practical alternative. Your team may seem confused, but frankly, they would be that way anyway and a nice way to confound the opposition, draw out of order and our of front line calls that are wrong from the ref, and look like you're an innovative and fearless coach, always a good idea.l Plus give you something to talk about at the convention. |
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 18, 2012 12:08:23 GMT -5
I was contemplating using the 3 middle system next fall but vbnerd is correct in saying you need more than 3 Middles that are skilled in multiple positions to be effective. I have exactly 3 that would be perfect, but without a viable sub it's too risky. This offense requires a lot of extra training too. The athletes have to learn the different rotations and a different way of doing things which can sometimes be challenging (especially for a young setter) Its also hard to stay away from a 2 man serve receive unless you have a big girl that can pass. And there is one rotation with two outsides together with the setter- so you need an outside middle who can terminate. So let's review- you need: 4-5 Middles who can virtually do everything At least 1 dominate OH who can play middle A experienced setter And smart players that can learn a whole new system..... I would think if I had all that a regular 2 middle system would be just fine! You DS the 3 middles so they don't have to pass. And you have 6 rotations, each can play middle for 2 or you can have one play middle 3 times and another play middle for 1. What makes you think you need an OH who can play MH? I'd settle for an OH who can pass really well and hit from the back row. I think most teams would be better off playing a MH as their RS and switching to create advantageous matchups, and maybe running the types of plays that AA was talking about, but the 3MH is certainly something to look at and I think it helps to have your kids know that there are different ways to do things. |
|
|
|
Post by jorgepatella on May 18, 2012 12:31:29 GMT -5
That's a very old, outdated, developmental offense that is rarely used anymore at the elementary levels and certainly not at the highest levels. A "three middle offense" these days refers to using your opposite(s) as a quick/slide hitter instead of a high-ball pin attacker, a la Erin Waller at Stanford, Sha'Dare McNeal at Texas (kinda), Kyndra Abron at Michigan State, Correy Johnson at Cal, etc. AA, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are wrong. Playing a middle at RS can give your offense some of the same qualities as a 3 middle offense, but that doesn't mean they are running the 3 mh offense. That's like saying that Michael Vick ran an option a few times, so the Eagles are running a triple-option offense... they don't. As has been mentioned, Ohio ran it at a very high level as recently as a few years ago, so its not ancient or outdated or anything else. The problem is this...youth teams are often taking their biggest most athletic players and putting them on the pins. To run a 2 middle offense, you need 3 good middles, but to run a 3 middle offense for a season, and practice it effectively, you should probably have 5 good middles who can block pin to pin, and hit a variety of sets. In the age of specialization, that is increasingly hard to find so its not likely you are ever going to see more than a handful of teams run this system, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work if they could do it. vbnerd is right. There is nothing "ancient" about the 3-middle offense and the way it has been described is exactly what most mean when using that term. It has only been designed in the last 6-7 years or so. Here is a link to Carlston's book on it: www.championshipproductions.com/cgi-bin/champ/p/Volleyball/Three-Middle-Hitter-Double-Quick-Offensive-System_VD-02441.htmlOn a slightly different note and speaking of developmental ages, on two separate occasions, I had a 15's team that had 3 excellent left-sides, none of which was a true RS but who all had to be on the court for 6 rotations if we were to be at our best. We devised a 3 OH offense from the 3 middle concept, spacing them each two rotations from each other. Finished 5th at Nationals the 1st time and medaled the other time. Only did it though because it happened to fit our personnel. About 3 years ago, SPRI 18-1s decided to go with a 1-middle offense because they found that only one of their middles trying out was ranked in their top 10-12 athletes. I think it was the year UNC's Emily Mcgee was a HS senior. |
|
|
|
Post by clubparent on May 18, 2012 22:14:50 GMT -5
Thanks for the info. I have a much better understanding of this offense now. Not sure my DD's team can pull this off but it sounds like it will confuse the hell out of the other high school teams! LOL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2012 23:23:26 GMT -5
That's a very old, outdated, developmental offense that is rarely used anymore at the elementary levels and certainly not at the highest levels. A "three middle offense" these days refers to using your opposite(s) as a quick/slide hitter instead of a high-ball pin attacker, a la Erin Waller at Stanford, Sha'Dare McNeal at Texas (kinda), Kyndra Abron at Michigan State, Correy Johnson at Cal, etc. AA, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are wrong. Playing a middle at RS can give your offense some of the same qualities as a 3 middle offense, but that doesn't mean they are running the 3 mh offense. That's like saying that Michael Vick ran an option a few times, so the Eagles are running a triple-option offense... they don't. As has been mentioned, Ohio ran it at a very high level as recently as a few years ago, so its not ancient or outdated or anything else. The problem is this...youth teams are often taking their biggest most athletic players and putting them on the pins. To run a 2 middle offense, you need 3 good middles, but to run a 3 middle offense for a season, and practice it effectively, you should probably have 5 good middles who can block pin to pin, and hit a variety of sets. In the age of specialization, that is increasingly hard to find so its not likely you are ever going to see more than a handful of teams run this system, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work if they could do it. It doesn't work. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be disrespectful either, but it's never going to be as effective as a good 5-1. It's a avant garde system that used to have it's place in developing younger players. You cannot name a top 25 team in the last decade that ran that system successfully (perhaps we have different definitions of "success"). If it worked as well as you say, more teams would be doing it. As far as I know, the top DI programs have no shortage of slender, tall, athletic middle-type players. It's outdated. If it wasn't, you'd see it more. The only type of "3 middle" offense these days that is proven successful is using your opposite as a third middle/quick attacker. Maybe this type of system worked in the past, but considering what high-level volleyball has become, it's obsolete. Maybe you can get it to work at the high school level, but that doesn't interest me. I'm a fan of teaching the game the way it's supposed to be played, not teaching a crazy system just to get the wins you need to renew your contract. |
|
