|
|
Post by AAVolley on Aug 30, 2004 15:09:08 GMT -5
Barcelona Bob or anyone else knowledgable of the international game... You all discuss the Mcgowan/Dunphy/Beal coaching method which I am very familiar with having played for a student of one of the above in college. I am not at all familiar with international coaching methods so could you expand specifically what a changing of the guard would bring to the table? What is so different about the international coaching method, and so dated about the above method? Thanks,
AA
|
|
|
|
Post by hwy101 on Aug 30, 2004 15:44:05 GMT -5
The 3 amigos of men's coaching in the U.S. have been spouting the same schpeel for 20+ years now. Meanwhile the men's international game has jumped light-years ahead of them. That is what I call in-breeding and is not a very healthy situation for the future of men's volleyball. Change should start from the junior ranks as well. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Aug 30, 2004 15:54:30 GMT -5
Barcelona Bob or anyone else knowledgable of the international game... You all discuss the Mcgowan/Dunphy/Beal coaching method which I am very familiar with having played for a student of one of the above in college. I am not at all familiar with international coaching methods so could you expand specifically what a changing of the guard would bring to the table? What is so different about the international coaching method, and so dated about the above method? Thanks, AA Just a few examples I can think of off the top of my head: -One of Marv's major speaking points at just about every clinic/chalktalk/etc. is something he calls "Spontaneous Combustion". Basically, the ability of the 6 players on your side of the court to react to the unpredictable situations which occur in a game. Kinda goes along with his "better the ball" mantra he also says at every speaking engagement. There's what he says, and there's what you see on the court. Neither the USA men nor any Pepperdine team within the last 5 years has diplayed any level of ability in this area. These teams chock full of big, slow, lumbering doofuses (Millar and Priddy are exceptions) couldn't keep a rally going against 6 old farts in a rec league game. Out of system = gonna lose the rally, for the USA men. -Rotational Matchups and Scouting - another point that Beal/McGown/Dunphy all preach. Go to any MPSF match and you'll see opposing coaches with the night off sitting up in the stands on the endlines, furiously scribbling away in their notebooks. Hitting charts, rotations and lineups, match notes, points-per-rotation, ad infinum. All that data for squat. USA started in R6 receive or R1 serve about 90% of the time if you look at the match statistics in Athens. So much for changing the complexion of the game by dialing your lineup. -Since the advent of rally scoring, Beal has repeatedly said that the premium is no longer on ball control and scoring points in transition. That you can no longer rely on your serve-receive to wear down your opponent like the '84 and '88 teams did. That's bogus. The two teams who made the Gold Medal match are still the two best ball-control and serve receive teams in the world. -Finally, in the quest for "bigger is better", the USA braintrust continues to go after big, goofy, non-athletic players to stock the National Team with. The trickle-down effect is that most college coaches go for the big, goofy, non-athletic players for scholarship. Nobody is looking at anyone under 6'5" for any position other than libero anymore. Hello....dumbasses...Sartoretti from ITA named best scorer and best spiker of the Olympics - he's 6'3". Samuele Papi from ITA plays OH and he's 6'2". Giba the MVP of the tournament for BRA is 6'4" tops. I'll bet if any of those three guys showed up at the USOTC as a unknown athlete, they wouldn't get a second look for the USA coaching staff. "So sorry, it looks like you have some game, but you're way too short for our requirements on the National Team". |
|
|
|
Post by Mac on Aug 30, 2004 16:38:04 GMT -5
Most of that makes sense. The Brazilians aren't that tall. But that redheaded middle was like 6'9", and the Italian middle was over 7'. The OHs that are in the 6'3" range can hit over the block, so they apparently have some major ups. I don't think you can just be 6'3" and be a good hitter. I think you also have to have the ups to go with that smaller package. Also, you have to be an incredibly good passer to succeed in the international game. The Brazilians and the Italians were getting to insanely tough hits and keeping them off the floor.
One of the things I noticed with Brazil and Italy was a lot of quick setting/hitting to the outside hitters. The kinds of hitting usually reserved for the middles. Did anyone else notice this?
|
|
|
|
Post by sistahsledge on Aug 30, 2004 16:49:24 GMT -5
Most of that makes sense. The Brazilians aren't that tall. But that redheaded middle was like 6'9", and the Italian middle was over 7'. The OHs that are in the 6'3" range can hit over the block, so they apparently have some major ups. I don't think you can just be 6'3" and be a good hitter. I think you also have to have the ups to go with that smaller package. Also, you have to be an incredibly good passer to succeed in the international game. The Brazilians and the Italians were getting to insanely tough hits and keeping them off the floor. One of the things I noticed with Brazil and Italy was a lot of quick setting/hitting to the outside hitters. The kinds of hitting usually reserved for the middles. Did anyone else notice this? I think your stats are just a bit off. Gustavo isn't quite 6'9" (maybe 6'7") and there's no 7' Italian. Nobody is hitting over any blocks, unless the block is late or on the way down. The best hitters are smart--going around or off the block, with heat. Everyone else's OH's are definitely passing and playing defense better than USA's. |
|
|
|
Post by Mac on Aug 30, 2004 17:25:56 GMT -5
Well... thanks for the correction. I am not a walking encyclopedia of international player's stats. I do remember one of the teams having a 7 footer. Was it Russia? And I do remember one of the shorter Italian's hitting over a block or two. With abreviated coverage it was all a blur.
Anyway, my hope was to get a comment on the quick hitting/settting outsides.
|
|
|
|
Post by sistahsledge on Aug 30, 2004 17:46:35 GMT -5
Anyway, my hope was to get a comment on the quick hitting/settting outsides. The fast set to the outside has been a trademark of the Brazilian offense for a long time. It's a thing of beauty when they have it humming because it gets their hitters against one or no blocker resulting in a spectacular kill. Of course, it depends on pinpoint passing and precise timing between setter and hitter. Some other teams try to run it also, including USA, but nobody does it better that Brazil. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Aug 30, 2004 18:03:37 GMT -5
The key to successful hitting at the international level is having good vision and knowing how to exploit the weaknesses in the block. Both the Italians and the Brazilians are better than anybody else at doing this. It also helps to have the ability to speed up/slow down your armswing as appropriate to exploit those blocks. It also helps to have the cojones to blast the low seam when it's available, something Sartoretti does time and again on that fast D set that Vermiglio shoots him over and over again.
After watching the semifinals and the Gold/Bronze matches, it's apparent to me that the predicatability of the USA offense is why the USA's OHs and OPP don't see the same kinda seams in the block that the Italians and Brazilians see. Without ever having established the MB from the get-go, or varying from the 4-1-5 or 4-1-D offense, the USA was exposed to the brunt of a well-formed and well-timed RUS block in the Bronze medal match.
|
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Aug 30, 2004 21:26:54 GMT -5
Most of that makes sense. The Brazilians aren't that tall. But that redheaded middle was like 6'9", and the Italian middle was over 7'. The OHs that are in the 6'3" range can hit over the block, so they apparently have some major ups. I don't think you can just be 6'3" and be a good hitter. I think you also have to have the ups to go with that smaller package. Also, you have to be an incredibly good passer to succeed in the international game. The Brazilians and the Italians were getting to insanely tough hits and keeping them off the floor. One of the things I noticed with Brazil and Italy was a lot of quick setting/hitting to the outside hitters. The kinds of hitting usually reserved for the middles. Did anyone else notice this? For comparison, Brazil's starting MBs were #4 Heller at 199cm and #13 Gustavo at 203cm. USA's starting MBs were Millar at 204cm and Hoff at 198cm. I personally like the metric system the FIVB uses since it's usually more accurate. Most of Team USA's roster heights are off anyway, I've seen these same athletes listed at heights that are 2-3 inches off from their collegiate days. At least the FIVB stats compare favorably to what you can see in the team photo - Gardner is by far the tallest guy on the roster, yet on the USA Men's National Team roster, he's supposedly the same height as Stanley and Eatherton. |
|
|
|
Post by sistahsledge on Aug 30, 2004 21:36:58 GMT -5
. Without ever having established the MB from the get-go, or varying from the 4-1-5 or 4-1-D offense, the USA was exposed to the brunt of a well-formed and well-timed RUS block in the Bronze medal match. Brazil's high-flying OH trio gets all the glory but Gustavo and Heller were so solid in the middle in the gold medal match and the setter did a great job of mixing it up. Hopefully, Suxho will bring that kind of savvy to the team. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Aug 30, 2004 23:21:35 GMT -5
Brazil's high-flying OH trio gets all the glory but Gustavo and Heller were so solid in the middle in the gold medal match and the setter did a great job of mixing it up. Hopefully, Suxho will bring that kind of savvy to the team. Suxho's quicker than Ball, and on a good pass, more deceptive and with a better release. He doesn't lack confidence, either, although his locations can be erratic off bad passing. I like the Hildebrand kid from LBSU, I think he's got potential, hopefully he will continue to develop in the coming years. Needs to get stronger and develop a better serve. Right now, big edge to Suxho on athleticism. |
|
|
|
Post by vballguy2001 on Aug 31, 2004 0:18:07 GMT -5
I don't always agree with the things SOBB says but I have to concur with him on the state of coaching for USA men's volleyball. We need some fresh blood in the system. It has always seemed to me that a good coaching staff is one that combines different approaches. We had 4 bodies in various coaching roles at the olympics (Beal, McGown, Dumphy, and Hugh) all of them are bringing the same damn thing to the table. I'm sure it makes for a very conflict free enviornment when everyone is saying yes to the same things and no to the same things, but just forget about inovation and change. As to the future of the team... Face it with the big serving going on the bottom line is you need minimum 2 people on your team that can terminate consistently out of system from the outside. We periodically have 1 right now. Stanley can be one of those people, but we need another stick on left side to take some pressure off him. You guys have no idea what your talking about when it comes to the coaches. These guys are students of the game. They go to Europe annually and learn and study what the top teams in the world are doing. The problem isn't the coaching because they are doing the same thing as everyone else in the world. The problem is plain execution, and that comes with experience. I sat there and watched the gold medal game and the setters were crisp and the passing was amazing. The two things that killed the usa in the olympics is what everyone else did perfectly. Pure execution. |
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Aug 31, 2004 0:48:40 GMT -5
You guys have no idea what your talking about when it comes to the coaches. These guys are students of the game. They go to Europe annually and learn and study what the top teams in the world are doing. The problem isn't the coaching because they are doing the same thing as everyone else in the world. The problem is plain execution, and that comes with experience. I sat there and watched the gold medal game and the setters were crisp and the passing was amazing. The two things that killed the usa in the olympics is what everyone else did perfectly. Pure execution. How much more experience should the USA have had? USA - 5/7 starters with Olympic experience Brazil - 5/7 starters with Olympic experience Italy - 4/7 starters with Olympic experience Looks about the same to me. Overall, Team USA had 11/12 guys on the roster who have played professionally overseas. As far as systems go, just about everybody in the world uses the same basic system. You are correct, though, it is a failure to execute. But not only on the part of the players, but also the coaches. Beal no longer is in touch with what the key elements of the game are, and no longer knows how to train athletes up to world-class levels in those key areas. How much longer to we have to watch USA MBs lob jump lollipops at the opponents, when the top teams have MBs like Fei/Mastrangelo/Heller/Gustavo/Kazakov who can all rip the snot out of a jumper? Can't be to save energy, none of those MBs mentioned looked tired at the end of the Gold or Bronze medal matches. Those guys only play 3.5 out of six rotations anyway. Biggest reason for Beal to go? Players don't like him. Plain truth. They play for the USA despite him, not for him. When's the last time the USA Men looked like they were inspired out on the court? We saw glimpses of it in the USA/Greece quarterfinal, but such sightings are rare. |
|
|
|
Post by uhvb on Aug 31, 2004 3:24:38 GMT -5
The "problem" with USA volleyball is not the coaches or the system they use. It stems from the grassroots level. The countries that have been successful have a huge pool of volleyball athletes to choose from. If anyone has every experienced the leagues in Brazil you'll know what I mean.
I think USA volleyball is trying to do the right things to develop the pool in which our national team pulls from but we still aren't even close to the world powers.
Unfortunately volleyball is not looked at as a major sport in this country, a lot of that has to do with American football. Americans just don't get it that volleyball is one of the most popular sports in the rest of the world. The top 3 sports in the world, participation wise, are probably soccer, volleyball, and basketball. Just focusing on the men's game, we weren't represented in soccer, we are falling behind in basketball and of course volleyball is what started this topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by uhvb on Aug 31, 2004 3:29:41 GMT -5
Oops... pushed send one paragraph too soon.
I hate to bring this up but the grassroots development of volleyball (and other olympic sports) will continue to suffer due to the cuts caused by Title IX.
|
|
