Is the 6-2 an unofficial death sentence for teams?

[volleyfan24]

I will say the best 6-2 we saw all season was at Washington. We won't know what could have been but historically and recently the National Champions of the sport have run a 5-1 offense when is the last time if ever a team has won te NC while running a 6-2 offense. I personally hate the 6-2 and why run it when looking at results it doesn't pay off. Of the Four Final Four squads this season only one that ran the 6-2 was Texas. I get that coaches with undersized setters are forced into running this system but I don't really like it.

Do you guys think we will see a 6-2 get the NC anytime soon?

[mikegarrison]

USC in what, 2003? Something like that, IIRC. I guess we'll never know how much of a difference it made, but obviously in the tournament we didn't see the same Washington team that beat Stanford, so we don't know whether they would have gone farther with Beals or not.

The thing is, the change in the sub rules now favors the 6-2, if you have the hitters to make use of it. It's not really about having smaller setters, it's about having four hitters (two of which can pass well enough that you don't miss having a DS). The hitters have to be able to adapt to multiple setters and have blocking that adds more benefit than whatever you lose between your best setter and your second best setter.

But really, based on the same evidence you are saying no 6-2 can win a title, you might as well just say that nobody but Penn State can win a title.

[oldman]

Dec 22, 2014 14:57:40 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

well just say that nobody but Penn State can win a title.

Sad but true.

[chisovnik]

yes

[n00b]

Dec 22, 2014 14:57:40 GMT -5 mikegarrison said:

The thing is, the change in the sub rules now favors the 6-2

This isn't necessarily true. It just allows for a 6-2. It isn't just Penn State. 3 out of 4 Final Four teams were in a 5-1 (and 6 of the Elite 8).

[zenyada]

At the highest level of play, setters for middles has to be the prevailing trend in the interim, the OH's are getting taller, and there aren't enough 6'2" setters around that can block the left effectively. Case in point, Megan Courtney over Bugg all night. (although this may have been mitigated by a more effective back row defense which I felt would be a factor).

The most recent evolution of height was the 6'3" + junior girls who no longer wanted to be "stuck" at middle, but play all around and hit outside (Brittany Howard types). IMO, the next tall girl junior trend will be choosing the setter position. Until then, look for more 6-2s.

I predict Kathryn Plummer (Stoklos type hands) will choose a school based on who wants her to set, opening the door for 6'5" type setters in the women's game and a return to the 5-1.

[geddyleeridesagain]

Dec 22, 2014 15:22:27 GMT -5 zenyada said:

At the highest level of play, setters for middles has to be the prevailing trend in the interim, the OH's are getting taller, and there aren't enough 6'2" setters around that can block the left effectively. Case in point, Megan Courtney over Bugg all night. (although this may have been mitigated by a more effective back row defense which I felt would be a factor).

The most recent evolution of height was the 6'3" + junior girls who no longer wanted to be "stuck" at middle, but play all around and hit outside (Brittany Howard types). IMO, the next tall girl junior trend will be choosing the setter position. Until then, look for more 6-2s.

I predict Kathryn Plummer (Stoklos type hands) will choose a school based on who wants her to set, opening the door for 6'5" type setters in the women's game and a return to the 5-1.

Plummer isn't going to set a 5-1 in college.

[Deleted]

A 6-2 is rarely a team's first choice. It's usually something they end up using in an attempt to cover up weaknesses. It's the rare team that can make up for sub-par setting by adding a 2nd setter and another hitter.

[Deleted]

Dec 22, 2014 15:22:27 GMT -5 zenyada said:

At the highest level of play, setters for middles has to be the prevailing trend in the interim, the OH's are getting taller, and there aren't enough 6'2" setters around that can block the left effectively. Case in point, Megan Courtney over Bugg all night. (although this may have been mitigated by a more effective back row defense which I felt would be a factor).

The most recent evolution of height was the 6'3" + junior girls who no longer wanted to be "stuck" at middle, but play all around and hit outside (Brittany Howard types). IMO, the next tall girl junior trend will be choosing the setter position. Until then, look for more 6-2s.

I predict Kathryn Plummer (Stoklos type hands) will choose a school based on who wants her to set, opening the door for 6'5" type setters in the women's game and a return to the 5-1.

Volleyball is played above the net and just off the floor. You're stealing from Peter to pay Paul. Whatever happened to Nebraska's 6'5" setter? Oh, right.

[Mocha]

Some key points in the final came from Hancock's dumps, not an option in a 6-2.

[trojansc]

Interesting that since USC ran the 6-2 in '03, nobody has won the title running it.

USC in a 5-1 system made the Final Four in 2007, 2010, and 2011, and hasn't made it in back to back years with a 6-2 system (well, then a 5-2 system for the latter part of the season).

I agree with what Ruffda said.

[zenyada]

Dec 22, 2014 15:25:56 GMT -5 geddyleeridesagain said:

Dec 22, 2014 15:22:27 GMT -5 zenyada said:

At the highest level of play, setters for middles has to be the prevailing trend in the interim, the OH's are getting taller, and there aren't enough 6'2" setters around that can block the left effectively. Case in point, Megan Courtney over Bugg all night. (although this may have been mitigated by a more effective back row defense which I felt would be a factor).

The most recent evolution of height was the 6'3" + junior girls who no longer wanted to be "stuck" at middle, but play all around and hit outside (Brittany Howard types). IMO, the next tall girl junior trend will be choosing the setter position. Until then, look for more 6-2s.

I predict Kathryn Plummer (Stoklos type hands) will choose a school based on who wants her to set, opening the door for 6'5" type setters in the women's game and a return to the 5-1.

Plummer isn't going to set a 5-1 in college.

imo, a better setter than hitter.  Just one opinion. Remember you heard it here first. 
Nebraska's 6'5 setter was a different athlete.  How many times over the past week did you hear Karch marvel over Lutz' ball control?  It's coming...

[vbnerd]

It's hard to find one great setter, let alone two. I think Chris Poole at Florida State and before that at Arkansas ran the setter for MH 6-2, and Sheffield did it at Dayton for a year, which at least lets the MH only have to bond with one of the two setters, but it makes the sub limit a death sentence because if you run out of subs you now have a setter blocking in place of a MH. With 15 subs you can do it, but I think the temptation is to plan on using only 12 because you don't want to get close to that cliff.

Also, with the sub rules, you pretty much need 1 player to go all the way around and you'll survive most the time. At Penn State that one player was the best player on the team - Hancock - which clearly helps. They had Fuller, Pierce and Pierce for Whitney, Franti and serving for Courtney. At Texas the 6 rotation player was Amy Neal who did fine, but she was there to pass, not because she was the best player. When they had Allison going all the way around they had DS's for Webster, the RS and often for Eckerman - which I point out to show that the decision is not always 1 setter vs 2 setters but sometimes 1 passing sub vs 2 passing subs that determines whether you run a 5-1 or 6-2.

To win with a 6-2 I think you need a pin hitter who can pass half of the court and score freely in the front row and you need two similar setters, RS's who can impact the game in 3 rotations (hitting and blocking), as well as the same elite MH and Libero you'd need in the 5-1. It's not that easy.

[austex2010]

Dec 22, 2014 15:26:06 GMT -5 @ruffda said:

A 6-2 is rarely a team's first choice. It's usually something they end up using in an attempt to cover up weaknesses. It's the rare team that can make up for sub-par setting by adding a 2nd setter and another hitter.

Except for Elliott, he is #obsessed with it.....I'm over it lol

[zenyada]

Dec 22, 2014 16:03:47 GMT -5 vbnerd said:

It's hard to find one great setter, let alone two. I think Chris Poole at Florida State and before that at Arkansas ran the setter for MH 6-2, and Sheffield did it at Dayton for a year, which at least lets the MH only have to bond with one of the two setters, but it makes the sub limit a death sentence because if you run out of subs you now have a setter blocking in place of a MH. With 15 subs you can do it, but I think the temptation is to plan on using only 12 because you don't want to get close to that cliff.

Also, with the sub rules, you pretty much need 1 player to go all the way around and you'll survive most the time. At Penn State that one player was the best player on the team - Hancock - which clearly helps. They had Fuller, Pierce and Pierce for Whitney, Franti and serving for Courtney. At Texas the 6 rotation player was Amy Neal who did fine, but she was there to pass, not because she was the best player. When they had Allison going all the way around they had DS's for Webster, the RS and often for Eckerman - which I point out to show that the decision is not always 1 setter vs 2 setters but sometimes 1 passing sub vs 2 passing subs that determines whether you run a 5-1 or 6-2.

To win with a 6-2 I think you need a pin hitter who can pass half of the court and score freely in the front row and you need two similar setters, RS's who can impact the game in 3 rotations (hitting and blocking), as well as the same elite MH and Libero you'd need in the 5-1. It's not that easy.

Great insight.  Where does the advantage of having 3 hitters across the front compensate for the shortcomings of the 6-2?