Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2014 20:25:48 GMT -5
The other thing that can happen is that teams recruit more talent than they have space for. A 6-2 allows them to keep as many people happy as possible. Or keep them less unhappy.
I still don't think it's the optimal system IF you have a really good setter, for all the reasons being mentioned. You almost always lose more than you gain. Penn State never uses it, but that's because of Glass and Hancock.
The exception, of course, is a true 6-2, which almost nobody runs.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Dec 22, 2014 20:34:14 GMT -5
One of the most compelling reasons against running a 6-2 is that most if not all of the top tier setters just don't want to play in that system. It goes against their personality as leaders, it means leaving the floor- (which they hate)- and often the hitters "know" who the 1 setter is which can cause some morale issues. I have often wondered if Edelman would have committed to Colorado had she known that she would end up in a 6-2 system this year. Would Bugg have ended up at Stanford or Hancock at PSU if they were going to play in a 6-2? I HIGHLY doubt it. There may be some girls who are OK in a 6-2 like the setters at WA, but even there I wonder if Beals knew that she would be in a 6-2 for 4 years? Also makes me wonder if Tanner was recruited/promised to be in a Setter/RS hitter role at WA until the injury. I thought Edelman thought she was gonna be setting & hitting in a true 6-2 with Alexa Strange when she was recruited? That said, that 6-2 system was a poor choice for obvious reasons. I think a 6-2 is something you evaluate on a team-by-team basis, which is why I think it's silly that there are now teams running a 6-2 system for multiple years when the pieces change significantly.
|
|
|
Post by memorybankrupt on Dec 22, 2014 20:59:16 GMT -5
Definitely not a death sentence. I think the 6-2 was the best choice for Washington, Texas, FSU, North Carolina, and Oregon. Maybe Washington could have switched to 5-1 after they lost Beal. I think 2014 USC illustrated the problem with two setters. The 6-2 was a disaster with Crone struggling. Then with the 5-2, Young wasn't very good in her rotations. Not sure why they wouldn't have been better off with Pizzazegola in a 5-1.
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 22, 2014 22:20:34 GMT -5
I still don't think it's the optimal system IF you have a really good setter, for all the reasons being mentioned. You almost always lose more than you gain. Penn State never uses it, but that's because of Glass and Hancock. The exception, of course, is a true 6-2, which almost nobody runs. How is that an exception? No matter whether the setters hit or whether they get subbed out, one setter will always be better than the other just because no two people are exactly the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2014 22:28:05 GMT -5
It's an exception because it's a different animal. Teams would use it if they had two setters who were also effective hitters.
They'd still have to decide if they gain more than they lose, but, to me, it's not something a team does because they are not happy with their setting or offense. They do it because they want to fully utilize the talents of those two players.
Minnesota in 2004 was a good example of this, although there were other factors involved, too. Purdue wanting to use Nichol as a hitter or Florida wanting to use Murphy, are two more examples that are not the same as what is being discussued above. If you had Murphy and Nichol on the same team, seems like you'd want to use a 6-2 even if you did lose setting consistency.
|
|
|
Post by gobruins on Dec 23, 2014 9:21:38 GMT -5
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. Did USC run a 6-2 then? I may old, and my memory fading, but I seem to remember USC running a 5-1 with Toni Anderson setting when they won the championships in the early 2000's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 9:25:25 GMT -5
They ran a 6-2 in 2003. There was a great example of finding a system that allowed them to utilize their depth of talent. The pluses outweighed the minuses.
They used Anderson and Freeburg.
Didn't they use Lindquist and Anderson in 2002? Or was that just situational? I forget.
|
|
|
Post by Semp12 on Dec 23, 2014 10:52:41 GMT -5
Put two Jennifer Hamson's on a team with similar setters and two ball control OH's. That front row RS blocking/hitting would be a huge factor in winning some matches.
|
|
|
Post by SuperSpike on Dec 23, 2014 11:20:43 GMT -5
Put two Jennifer Hamson's on a team with similar setters and two ball control OH's. That front row RS blocking/hitting would be a huge factor in winning some matches. Two Hamson's would have an impact? Meh, doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by Sbilo on Dec 23, 2014 14:09:11 GMT -5
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... While I admire Plummer's setting -- which is good for a 6'5, her future is on the right side hitting and blocking. I have seen her play before (maybe couple of years back), her best asset is blocking and hitting. The fact that she led the US Girl's team (? Was it youth team) both in kills and blocks supports my argument.
|
|
|
Post by Sbilo on Dec 23, 2014 14:13:50 GMT -5
Big Daddy Don Shaw ran the best 6-2 in the history of the women's game IMO. Yes a long time ago, but it was special. Of course so were its Setter/Hitters Sharpley and Wendell. Hebert ran a heck of a 6-2 all the way to the finals too. The thing both of these 6-2's had in common? The setters also attacked at a very high level. Not what we see today. Can someone remind for me the names of the two setter/hitters that ran the Gophers team I'm talking about? They were really fun to watch. That was a really good Minnesota team who just ran into a better Stanford team led of course by Ogonna Nnamani. But IMHO both Lindsey Taatjes (?) And Kelly Bowman were better setters than hitters. And when they were not getting their kills in the National Championships, their OHs didn't helped either. But yes, 6-2 is nice when both setters can hit too ala Cuba of the 90's.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2014 14:32:59 GMT -5
It was an interesting team and goes to the overall point.
What they gained: *Taatjes and Bowman were on the court all the time. Their defense was well above-average. *Bowman was a very effective rightside hitter and Taatjes developed into a decent one -- better than that by the end of the season. *They could use their DSs (Reinhart and Peniata) for their middles and their libero (Gentil) for their OHs.
What they lost: *Bowman and Taatjes never did set the middle very well and the 6-2 didn't help. *They still went through subs like crazy. *They had a pretty decent outside attack, so that's a credit to the consistency of Bowman and Taatjes setting -- and similarity. But it probably would have been even better with just one setter.
|
|
|
Post by zenyada on Dec 23, 2014 20:58:22 GMT -5
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... While I admire Plummer's setting -- which is good for a 6'5, her future is on the right side hitting and blocking. I have seen her play before (maybe couple of years back), her best asset is blocking and hitting. The fact that she led the US Girl's team (? Was it youth team) both in kills and blocks supports my argument. I'm not sure what level Jr team she played on and I'm too lazy to look it up, but those numbers often can be misleading. Guessing she didn't pass or play back row. I've watched her MANY times over the past several years, and I can tell you that her height at setter presents problems for defenses. She rarely sets the ball too low to her middles, locates with tempo, and splits the block with quick backsets. (not to hype, certainly she's no Carlini). She of course could set a 6-2 and hit across the front. Still just an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by BeiBei on Dec 23, 2014 21:12:33 GMT -5
They ran a 6-2 in 2003. There was a great example of finding a system that allowed them to utilize their depth of talent. The pluses outweighed the minuses. They used Anderson and Freeburg. Didn't they use Lindquist and Anderson in 2002? Or was that just situational? I forget. Lindquist and Anderson ran the 6-2 from 2000-2002, their setting styles were similar since they played at the same club. Freeburd replaced Lindquist in 2003 although sometimes Anderson will run a 5-1 occasionally
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Dec 23, 2014 21:14:56 GMT -5
Put two Jennifer Hamson's on a team with similar setters and two ball control OH's. That front row RS blocking/hitting would be a huge factor in winning some matches. Two Hamson's would have an impact? Meh, doubt it. You could build a great 6-2 out of the All-Americans from the West. Vansant and Gardner on the left. Hamson and Lowe on the right. Ajanaku and Sybeldon in the middle. Foss and Bugg setting. (You would have to add one of the many very good Western liberos who were not named to the All-American lists. Or maybe convert Burgess.) McLaughlin as the coach. Give that team a season to play together and see if there would be any doubt about the 6-2 being able to win. ======================== The point here, though, is to ask if playing someone like Foss or Bugg all the way around would really make up for losing any one of those OHs off the court? I think not. The choice to use a 6-2 is made based on your hitters, not so much based on your setter(s).
|
|