|
|
Post by nakedcrayon on Sept 22, 2014 12:16:54 GMT -5
In looking over some recent box scores and looking back upon the last few years of OOS setting, if a middle has good hands why not have middle set the second ball over that of the libero. What are the major advantages to having left back take the second ball that having the middle doesn't provide?
|
|
|
|
Post by joetrinsey on Sept 22, 2014 12:43:35 GMT -5
The middle is often flying out to a pin late to close a block, it's hard to land (especially if you're late on the block), turn and then track the ball and set. And, on average, liberos tend to be better setters than middles.
Of course, this isn't a firm rule. Brazil, for example, has one of their middles (Thaisa) handle the second ball quite a bit and she's excellent at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bayarea on Sept 22, 2014 12:44:09 GMT -5
Stanford seems to be using their middles for setting when Bugg digs and the ball is up by the net. If you have middles that tall with good hands, they could dump it over on two, and also possibly set more accurately since they are already up by the net, rather than in the backcourt. There's also no chance of the libero hand setting in front of the 10 foot line and getting called for back row attack, I guess. Historically, I haven't seen too many middles with great hands who wouldn't get called for a double 50% of the time. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues, or is just a short experiment.
|
|
|
|
Post by memorybankrupt on Sept 22, 2014 12:47:18 GMT -5
In looking over some recent box scores and looking back upon the last few years of OOS setting, if a middle has good hands why not have middle set the second ball over that of the libero. What are the major advantages to having left back take the second ball that having the middle doesn't provide? I think the pros of the middle setting would be having the set come from inside the 10 ft line meaning the hitter will have a better chance of keeping the ball in front of her (allowing her to see the opposing side better before she swings), instead of having the set come from probably 20 feet off the net. I think the con of the middle setting would be that both MB need to have good hands to be able to put up consistent similar sets. Also the dig probably has to be inside the 10 ft line or the MB won't be able to reach the ball. The MB may be coming off the block and won't have a lot of time to recover. Having to pinpoint the dig may lead to an overpass(dig). |
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Sept 22, 2014 12:52:16 GMT -5
I definitely think that, if the middle can set, it's a much better option in terms of actually creating kill chances.* The libero setting from left back can create some uncomfortable attack angles for an outside - there aren't too many girls that can reliably get a good crack on a ball coming from almost directly behind them. And the opposite is in a more forgiving angle to attack a set from Zone 5, but the right is where NCAA teams stash their awkward attackers who can't handle it very well. And passing the ball up to the front row, hoping the libero can catch up to it and control bump set it, is dicey. Much easier to attack a high ball from the MB in the center of the court. Problem is, no one trusts their middles to set the ball cleanly.
*This is probably not as true for men's teams (or PSU/Texas-like talent on the women's side) who have pin hitters that can crush no matter what.
|
|
|
|
Post by memorybankrupt on Sept 22, 2014 12:53:01 GMT -5
Stanford seems to be using their middles for setting when Bugg digs and the ball is up by the net. If you have middles that tall with good hands, they could dump it over on two, and also possibly set more accurately since they are already up by the net, rather than in the backcourt. There's also no chance of the libero hand setting in front of the 10 foot line and getting called for back row attack, I guess. Historically, I haven't seen too many middles with great hands who wouldn't get called for a double 50% of the time. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues, or is just a short experiment. MB setting isn't a new trend. Maybe just for Stanford. USC had their MB setting back around 2002. I think Mick had the NT set up that way too. I'm sure he's not the first to implement either. It's interesting that we hardly see the OPP set. It makes sense going away from that since you have options at both pins. |
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Sept 22, 2014 13:05:53 GMT -5
And, on average, liberos tend to be better setters than middles. . thats it in a nut shell |
|
|
|
Post by nakedcrayon on Sept 22, 2014 15:01:19 GMT -5
The key to me is that a middle IF WITH GOOD HANDS would also be able to hold the middle on opposing side longer creating a less firm block opening up a larger possible seam for OOS hitting.
We do a drill each year in club that we play a match from a downfall to the setter and from point zero to eight the right front takes it, from 9-16 the middle takes it, and then the rest of the points are taken by the libero. It gives good feedback as too who can control overhead passing the best and makes them aware of changing conditions of the score and match. I find that the team that wins this drill usually has the better hand middle rather than libero, but just an observation without enough data long term to make a viable conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by hammer on Sept 22, 2014 15:19:09 GMT -5
I had a dream the other day about setter digs ... Kerri Walsh was setting ones to Inky Ajanaku.
|
|
|
|
Post by oshkoshdadmjs on Sept 22, 2014 15:35:58 GMT -5
Stanford seems to be using their middles for setting when Bugg digs and the ball is up by the net. If you have middles that tall with good hands, they could dump it over on two, and also possibly set more accurately since they are already up by the net, rather than in the backcourt. There's also no chance of the libero hand setting in front of the 10 foot line and getting called for back row attack, I guess. Historically, I haven't seen too many middles with great hands who wouldn't get called for a double 50% of the time. It will be interesting to see if this trend continues, or is just a short experiment. MB setting isn't a new trend. Maybe just for Stanford. USC had their MB setting back around 2002. I think Mick had the NT set up that way too. I'm sure he's not the first to implement either. It's interesting that we hardly see the OPP set. It makes sense going away from that since you have options at both pins. If anything the libero setting is the new trend. If my memory serves me correctly, the USMNT used their middles to set setter digs as recent as 2008 with Hugh coaching (could have been 2004). Someone with a better memory can correct me if I'm wrong. I personally prefer the libero taking the ball just because I want my middles focused on coming down from the block and transitioning to offense immediately. I wouldn't really want the middles to have to decide between transitioning off the net vs. setting the second ball, especially with high school ages (boys or girls). I would rather just teach my outsides to take a wider angle and play it out rather than putting more responsibility on the middles. |
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Sept 22, 2014 15:36:40 GMT -5
Stanford had been quietly struggling with Gilbert as a back-up setter. This season, they finally changed systems and use the front row MB as the backup setter. We'll have to see if that's a one-year adjustment (Gilbert is a senior) or something more permanent.
During Chuck Erbe's best days at Michigan State, his opposite was an extremely talented setter, which made it almost impossible to effectively block their transition offense (I remember one of Illinois' coaches muttering about trying to block back 1's set by an opposite in transition). Kerri Walsh had the hands, but this gal had the setting experience and decision-making skills too (something Robyn Lewis picked up a lot of during her 2000 redshirt season, and it showed out on the court in Stanford's NCAA championship season in 2001).
|
|
|
|
Post by stull90210 on Sept 22, 2014 16:23:30 GMT -5
If i remember correctly, Pepperdine (in 2011, at least) had both of their middles setting over their libero (stevi robinson at the time). I'm sure its not because robinson can't set, but because of the reasons everyone posted on here. So having two middles that can set is essential but it does make the hitting easier. Not sure if pepperdine still does this as i don't usually follow them.
I also know that last year for UCLA, mariana aquino often took second ball when she was in the back row for serving and the front row. however, the other middle nightingale never set
|
|
jiml
Sophomore
Go Badgers
Posts: 234
|
Post by jiml on Sept 22, 2014 16:44:08 GMT -5
Wisconsin's backup setter to Lauren Carlini is OPP Courtney Thomas, who was the starting setter for two years prior to Lauren's arrival. Courtney almost always has the second highest number of assists in our matches, unsurprisingly. My Minnesota friends were lamenting after their road loss at WI in 2013 that having the primary setter dig the first contact wasn't cutting down on quick sets to the middles at all. Actually, for most of 2013, Courtney had better chemistry with our middles than Lauren did.
If WI brings in Erin Juley to serve, we have 3 starting setters on the court at once; this is a luxury not all teams are blessed with.
Christa Johnson, who was an assistant at WI prior to her amazing improvement of Iowa State as head coach there, really impressed me with her coaching of setting. In particular, under her guidance, our middles could be seen doing backsets to OPP, which really helps cut down on the double blocking of the OH's the rest of the time. I'm not sure why more teams don't practice this; it's a trainable skill, most players can do it, the fans love it, and it gives the opponent fits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 23, 2014 10:00:58 GMT -5
I have wondered why the non-libero back row player doesn't take the second ball, especially since she can use her hands in front of the 10'. I suppose one could argue that it would be a different person each three rotations and that could lead to confusion and/or inconsistency (it seems like that is something practice can mature). And if she is a formidable setter the middle could still be an option. Perhaps, as many previous posters have suggested, they aren't as skilled setting as liberos. Additionally, since (almost all) teams play a LB libero, setting OOS from the middle of the court would seem to open more of the offense, as was alluded to by nakedcrayon.
|
|
|
|
Post by volleytology on Sept 23, 2014 10:29:38 GMT -5
The problem (middle setting second ball) is on any hard driven ball that the setter digs, the middle who has just completed an explosive blocking move (right or left), must come down, identify that the setter dug the ball, locate the dug ball, then accurately set the ball to a pin. Coaches over time found that method to be way too difficult and unnecessary for the middle to have that responsibility. Many middles have never set a ball in their lives upon entering college. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the libero setting either. Wisconsin has an ideal situation with Carlini-Thomas and all coaches would love to have that. Personally, I still train the RS player to set the second ball as I find it's least problematic in the course of most situations.
|
|
