|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 3, 2014 16:38:57 GMT -5
I don't back changes in the club world to make us better internationally. That's not what club is about. Given that club volleyball is ultimately regulated by the international volleyball federation, what ultimate purpose do you expect?
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 3, 2014 16:44:39 GMT -5
and that's why they won the Silver Medal last Olympics? ? Stop the nonsense please. The US is developing great volleyball players and teams internationally. You people are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. We're not playing catch-up post-college? If you're happy with silver, fine...
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on Jul 3, 2014 17:11:51 GMT -5
and that's why they won the Silver Medal last Olympics? ? Stop the nonsense please. The US is developing great volleyball players and teams internationally. You people are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. We're not playing catch-up post-college? If you're happy with silver, fine... yes because you lose on match you should retool the entire feeder system. Please stop being dumb.
|
|
|
Post by ja on Jul 3, 2014 17:23:09 GMT -5
and that's why they won the Silver Medal last Olympics? ? Stop the nonsense please. The US is developing great volleyball players and teams internationally. You people are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Unfortunately problem does exist! In club system most clubs looking for numbers, not solely development! Volleyball club system is business and as all businesses created to make money! I can compare European sport school system with American system. In Europe system designed to produce elite athlete at the end and coaches always had been rewarded to produce such an athlete. In USA how many club coaches had been rewarded in any way for developing members of JNT or WNT? Did you ever see Club coach name next to athlete name? College affiliation - yes! Club affiliation up to College. In Europe Coach working with team for 6-8 years, starting from very early age to graduation! In USA we are moving kids from one coach to another coach. This system does not create any loyalty to coach or club. At the same time coaches do not have time to develop players, they need to produce result right away. Try to imagine how you can plan development if you know that you will have this player for next 7-8 years? Instead you have this girl only for 7-8 month. In Europe they are building Bentley and Rolls-Royces while we are building Fords and Chevy, Cadillac at best! Now we do have High Performance program with chance to bring our best players together and train them, but this is only for one week per year. This is absolutely not enough to learn and play at International level! China, Russia, Cuba, Brazil bringing most talented players together to live and train at sport academies! Most our girls will practice 3-4 times per week, including fitness. In China, etc. they will practice for 3-4 hours every day plus couple hours of fitness. Do the math!
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 3, 2014 20:45:34 GMT -5
We're not playing catch-up post-college? If you're happy with silver, fine... yes because you lose on match you should retool the entire feeder system. Please stop being dumb. Where did I say we should retool the entire feeder system? U.S. college players do have much less practice and competition time than international players of the same age. That's just a fact. What I came around to recommending is that we concentrate and expand resources even further for the very best players in each age group. Winning gold should take care of expanding the feeder system.
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on Jul 3, 2014 21:54:37 GMT -5
I don't back changes in the club world to make us better internationally. That's not what club is about. That's a very valid point. I'd be curious to know what the soccer officials in some of those countries would say about that. When Belgium makes the entire country run the same system, odds are that hurts some kids. At the same time, the administrators of our national team also run our club system.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jul 3, 2014 22:21:55 GMT -5
This reminds me of swimming.
In America, swimming competitions at the club, high school, and collegiate levels are considerably different from those at international levels. The biggest difference -- and those with swimming expertise correct me if I'm wrong -- is the structure of the pool.
In America, competitions are held in 25 yard increments; that is, the pool length is 25 yards. The swimmer dives in (for freestyle and butterfly) or pushes off (for breast stroke and back stroke), performs the stroke, and 25 yards later, she's at the wall, where she turns and swims back. Because of this shorter length, this puts a premium, strategy-wise, on the ability of the swimmer to execute turns. Strokes are important, of course, but the turns are crucial.
In international competitions, the pool length is 50 meters (roughly 54 yards), more than double the pool length in American competitions. This puts a premium on the strokes and less on the turns.
Because of this disparity, you find many top American collegiate swimmers failing to succeed at the international level because the game is different. Ryan Lochte of Cal took a long time to adjust to the international length. They're not used to relying on their strokes as much as they did on their turns. This analogy breaks down because American swimmers have been, by and large, very successful in international competitions -- but it's been a different group of swimmers who put in considerable training time to adapt to the international lengths.
Despite this disparity, there has been no effort to change the American pool lengths for American competitions -- I think, mostly because of the success of American swimmers.
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Jul 3, 2014 22:49:56 GMT -5
I do agree however that things can be better: 1. Adopt FIVB sub rules; create more all-around players 2. No libero until 15 and under 3. Do not have a tryout for Youth and Junior National teams, instead invite the best of the best from all corners of the US after doing year long evals at junior events 4. Do not allow college coaches to be involved in the selection of A2 teams; way to much politics in those selections 5. Make the club season Jan to June for all ages under 17 and have a separate championship for 18's in late April. I do like how many more opportunities there are for USA related events overseas and at home now, along with the numerous pro opportunities for Anerican players. Without doing anything else, those professional experiences have greatly enhanced our National teams competitive levels. I think you make a lot of good points. Probably the biggest struggle for the USA National Team right now is the combination of an expanding FIVB calendar and the lack of a domestic professional league. The professional seasons are very draining, both mentally and physically on the USA players. And then immediately after that, they are often asked to turn right around and get in the NT gym. It's difficult to keep players at top shape (mentally and physically) for the full year. But obviously, USA isn't the only country that deals with that, so the coaching staff just needs to be creative to find solutions (ex: develop more depth, so the load is more evenly distributed), but the lack of a domestic professional league just makes it a bit harder. Painting with a very broad brush, many of the foreign developmental systems place a very strong emphasis on identifying "potential" early and relentlessly pushing those players forward. I think this leads to them developing more quickly, but also has a downside in breaking some athletes down. The American developmental system tends to peak athletes a little later. It's a complicated matter and tough to say which is "better." In talking to foreign coaches, there's some things they are envious of about the American system, but there's some things that we could be doing better as well. I think the easiest change to improve volleyball in this country is to adopt FIVB sub rules. I think not only does it develop players better (play the all-around game), but I think it makes the game more fun.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Jul 4, 2014 12:24:17 GMT -5
This reminds me of swimming. In America, swimming competitions at the club, high school, and collegiate levels are considerably different from those at international levels. The biggest difference -- and those with swimming expertise correct me if I'm wrong -- is the structure of the pool. In America, competitions are held in 25 yard increments; that is, the pool length is 25 yards. The swimmer dives in (for freestyle and butterfly) or pushes off (for breast stroke and back stroke), performs the stroke, and 25 yards later, she's at the wall, where she turns and swims back. Because of this shorter length, this puts a premium, strategy-wise, on the ability of the swimmer to execute turns. Strokes are important, of course, but the turns are crucial. In international competitions, the pool length is 50 meters (roughly 54 yards), more than double the pool length in American competitions. This puts a premium on the strokes and less on the turns. Because of this disparity, you find many top American collegiate swimmers failing to succeed at the international level because the game is different. Ryan Lochte of Cal took a long time to adjust to the international length. They're not used to relying on their strokes as much as they did on their turns. This analogy breaks down because American swimmers have been, by and large, very successful in international competitions -- but it's been a different group of swimmers who put in considerable training time to adapt to the international lengths. Despite this disparity, there has been no effort to change the American pool lengths for American competitions -- I think, mostly because of the success of American swimmers. What the hell? Every American swimmer trains in a fifty meter pool. Every American competition is held in a fifty meter pool. Ryan Lochte didn't go to Cal, he went to Florida (both schools have big beautiful fifty meter pools, BTW - just like every other university with a swimming program). There are some short-course (25 meter) events held in the Winter months, but they're really just a way for swimmers in cold weather locations to stay in shape.
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Jul 4, 2014 12:58:39 GMT -5
Not true.
Events may be in a 50 meter pool, but they don't use the 50 meters. They shorten it to 25 yards. Sometimes, they use the width (side to side) of the pool for the 25 yards. Other times, they block off the 50 m pool with some sort of "stand" so as to fabricate the 25 yards. (See, e.g., Stanford's pool). So, if the event is a 100 yard event, the swimmers have to swim 25 yards, turn at the wall and swim another 25 yards, turn again at the wall and swim another 25 yards, and turn at the wall and swim home.
You're right about Lochte and Florida. I thought he went to Cal. He still had some difficulties adjusting to the 50 m lengths.
|
|
|
Post by geddyleeridesagain on Jul 4, 2014 13:27:15 GMT -5
Not true. Events may be in a 50 meter pool, but they don't use the 50 meters. They shorten it to 25 yards. Sometimes, they use the width (side to side) of the pool for the 25 yards. Other times, they block off the 50 m pool with some sort of "stand" so as to fabricate the 25 yards. (See, e.g., Stanford's pool). So, if the event is a 100 yard event, the swimmers have to swim 25 yards, turn at the wall and swim another 25 yards, turn again at the wall and swim another 25 yards, and turn at the wall and swim home. You're right about Lochte and Florida. I thought he went to Cal. He still had some difficulties adjusting to the 50 m lengths. Lochte qualified for his first Olympics when he was 19, so I don't think he really had much trouble adjusting (even if that was an issue to begin with, which is dubious). And the USA has had any number of swimmers in the 14-17 year old age group qualify - and medal - in the Olympics. Either they all magically made an adjustment from short course to long course, or they were all training and competing in a 50 meter pool. You want to see a bunch of waterbugs churning laps in a 50 meter pool? Go over to the Haines swim center in Santa Clara. Again, every major USA swimming event is conducted as a long course event.
|
|
|
Post by silversurfer on Jul 4, 2014 15:54:14 GMT -5
I don't back changes in the club world to make us better internationally. That's not what club is about. Given that club volleyball is ultimately regulated by the international volleyball federation, what ultimate purpose do you expect? To play in college.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 4, 2014 16:23:34 GMT -5
Given that club volleyball is ultimately regulated by the international volleyball federation, what ultimate purpose do you expect? To play in college. Club is a significant cash cow for USA Volleyball that funds a great deal of the international program. The NCAA members with volleyball programs are already the main beneficiary of the growth in club volleyball. Although greater coordination would probably benefit everyone involved, it just isn't reasonable and makes no sense to expect club/USAV to subvert its interests entirely to the NCAA.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jul 4, 2014 17:04:38 GMT -5
The clubs, NCAA, and AVCA all have separate interests it seems to me.
While the AVCA might make money off of the clubs, ultimately the "business" of the clubs is to funnel players to the NCAA. Without that, the price would be halved, or more. Conflating "club/USAV" as a single interest makes little sense.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jul 4, 2014 18:08:07 GMT -5
The clubs, NCAA, and AVCA all have separate interests it seems to me. While the AVCA might make money off of the clubs, ultimately the "business" of the clubs is to funnel players to the NCAA. Without that, the price would be halved, or more. Conflating "club/USAV" as a single interest makes little sense. I'm using club to describe the system regulated by USAV, so it makes perfect sense. Individual clubs, and their owners, may have their own interests, but they are subject to the overall policies imposed on them by USAV.
|
|