|
Post by doctordubya on Aug 31, 2004 8:05:11 GMT -5
And I do remember one of the shorter Italian's hitting over a block or two. The really good OHs (Papi was probably the Italian guy you saw) do hit over blocks, but it isn't simply due to them jumping high. As SOBB points out, what the best OHs do well is to alter the timing of their armswings in different situations. Giba is the best I've seen at doing this - when he has a seam or a 1v1 situation, he utilises a fast, almost snap swing to get the ball down. Not much emphasis on spin, just a flat trajectory into the floor. When there's a block in front of him, Giba uses a more roundarm swing and puts more topspin on the ball. The block goes up and pikes fractionally early, so when the ball reaches the blockers they are reaching forward and the block is not as high. The higher trajectory of the spike means it either goes over the block or hits high hands.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Aug 31, 2004 17:47:04 GMT -5
The really good OHs (Papi was probably the Italian guy you saw) do hit over blocks, but it isn't simply due to them jumping high. As SOBB points out, what the best OHs do well is to alter the timing of their armswings in different situations. Giba is the best I've seen at doing this - when he has a seam or a 1v1 situation, he utilises a fast, almost snap swing to get the ball down. Not much emphasis on spin, just a flat trajectory into the floor. When there's a block in front of him, Giba uses a more roundarm swing and puts more topspin on the ball. The block goes up and pikes fractionally early, so when the ball reaches the blockers they are reaching forward and the block is not as high. The higher trajectory of the spike means it either goes over the block or hits high hands. That's a fundemental problem with how hitting is trained in the USA. Go early to any collegiate match in the MPSF/MIVA/EIVA and watch the warmups, particularly the hitting lines. It becomes a penis-measuring contest as setters deliberately set balls tight, and hitters take turns doing the "bounce contest" by seeing who can drive it the straightest down and get the highest bounce. All done for the "oohs" and "aahs" of all the dumb bimbo volleyball groupies sitting in the stands. Granted, the purpose of a pre-match warm-up is exactly that- to get warmed-up and ready to play. But one of the mantras I've always taken into volleyball is a holdover from some of the training I got in the military. The famous quote "You fight like you train" applies here. Why would I practice blasting a tight "two" set with an extremely overinflated warmup ball straight into the floor when I know I could never possibly hit that shot in a match situation against even the crappiest of blocks? In all the years of following men's volleyball and watching countless warmups, I've always found it's the foreign guys (that everyone always complained about) who had the best practice/warmup habits. They would approach their pre-match warmups with focus, knowing exactly what they were warming up for. They would start slow and hit the first couple sets half-speed, always extending to maximum reach and snapping the ball deep into the opponent's court. Then they would gradually dial up the heat on their swings. In shared warmups they would of course hit line, but in the team hitting warmup they would hit sideline-to-sideline, practicing every shot they expected to use in a match. And they always hit for precision, nothing into the center of the court. Big contrast to the typical US collegiate hitters. No wonder we don't produce any world-class hitters in this country.
|
|
|
Post by uhvb on Aug 31, 2004 18:09:52 GMT -5
Here here SOBB. Men's collegiate hitting lines are a joke. I say go ahead and hit the ball straight down, but contact the ball at or above the top of the antennae. I remember watching Karch warm up quite a while back. He was hammering balls. Then he taped one. I thought he was going to have a fit. He nearly takes the ref stand down with a right hook. That is intensity. That is wanting to get it done right, not just getting it done. I wish Karch would have taken a few months to train with this team. He might have taught them a thing or two. I think he was right that physically he wouldn't have made a significant enough difference but his leadership would have been huge. I can see Karch now, slapping Lloy up the back of his head for yanking the ref stand.
|
|
|
Post by vballguy2001 on Aug 31, 2004 18:57:09 GMT -5
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.[/quote]
SOBB i don't think the main purpose for the coach is to inspire his athletes. If the players cannot be inspired or excited to play in the olympics then that is the players fault not the coaches. Hello it is the olympics!
Their job is to point out areas of improvement and give them correct feedback. Not giving his team heart. That is something you can't coach. They either have it or don't have it. Now I can't say they were doing this because I wasn't in their gym. But I do know McGown, Hugh, and Dunphy and know they have no problem doing this. Whether or not the team listens (ie. Ball setting the middle) is completely out of their control.
|
|
|
Post by vballguy2001 on Aug 31, 2004 19:00:41 GMT -5
Here here SOBB. Men's collegiate hitting lines are a joke. I say go ahead and hit the ball straight down, but contact the ball at or above the top of the antennae. I remember watching Karch warm up quite a while back. He was hammering balls. Then he taped one. I thought he was going to have a fit. He nearly takes the ref stand down with a right hook. That is intensity. That is wanting to get it done right, not just getting it done. I wish Karch would have taken a few months to train with this team. He might have taught them a thing or two. I think he was right that physically he wouldn't have made a significant enough difference but his leadership would have been huge. I can see Karch now, slapping Lloy up the back of his head for yanking the ref stand. I have to agree with that. How many times did Salmon try to hit the ball straight down into the block ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Aug 31, 2004 19:20:47 GMT -5
SOBB i don't think the main purpose for the coach is to inspire his athletes. If the players cannot be inspired or excited to play in the olympics then that is the players fault not the coaches. Hello it is the olympics! Their job is to point out areas of improvement and give them correct feedback. Not giving his team heart. That is something you can't coach. They either have it or don't have it. Now I can't say they were doing this because I wasn't in their gym. But I do know McGown, Hugh, and Dunphy and know they have no problem doing this. Whether or not the team listens (ie. Ball setting the middle) is completely out of their control. True. As professional athletes, they shouldn't have to look to the coach to inspire them. But not only does Beal fail to inspire, he has the innate ability to suck the enthusiasm out of the players as well. Now that's some serious negative motivational ability there. LOL.
|
|
|
Post by uhvb on Aug 31, 2004 19:39:49 GMT -5
Beal has never been a firecracker, but he shouldn't have to be. He get's the best out of the athletes he has. Look at the lineup we put on the floor the last 2 weeks. The US team played well above their abilities. We finished 4th. Ahead of Cuba, ahead of Serbia Montenegro, Beal does his job despite the players he has.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Aug 31, 2004 20:57:47 GMT -5
Beal has never been a firecracker, but he shouldn't have to be. He get's the best out of the athletes he has. Look at the lineup we put on the floor the last 2 weeks. The US team played well above their abilities. We finished 4th. Ahead of Cuba, ahead of Serbia Montenegro, Beal does his job despite the players he has. Cuba is no longer a world power, since most of their national team defected a few years ago. BTW, Cuba wasn't even in the Olympic tournament, the USA was the qualifier out of the NORCECA zone tournament. No other NORCECA teams made the Olympics, either by finishing high enough in the World Cup or in the wild-card tournaments. USA's 4th place finish, while notable, was also affected in large part by Brazil's loss to the USA in pool-play, which set up the USA/Greece and SCG/RUS quarterfinal matchups. As far as Beal getting the best out of his athletes, I disagree. Having watched most of those guys since they were freshmen in college, I can honestly say that guys like Millar and Priddy have looked better. As far as player development, I cannot believe that in roughly 7-8 years and 2 Olympics of having someone like Hoff in the program, Beal couldn't do more to improve his read-blocking ability. Same thing with Ball's setting, or Sullivan's defensive positioning. Why does Sullivan dive after so many balls, get there late, and totally miss the play? Simple, he is continually out of position behind the block. Luckily I managed to tape whatever portions of Team USA's matches I could manage. I've been rewinding, slow-motioning, and freeze-framing alot of stuff. I find myself constantly yelling at the TV. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by uhvb on Aug 31, 2004 23:14:17 GMT -5
SOBB: I appreciate your points. True, I should not have included Cuba with Serbia-Montegegro, Brazil, Russia, the US, and Italy. I realized my error, thought nobody would notice, thank goodness you keep us on our toes. LOL As for the performance of Millar and Priddy and others on the team, what are you basing your comparison on? They performed better when? Against UCSD? Against Ball State? I think that is all we can really compare their performance to. Let's compare the team to something we can qualify and quantify. How are we compared to the Fred Sturm era, or how about the Bill Neville era. I have respect for both but we didn't look so hot during those times. Everybody loved Neville and his wit. The players liked him, but we sucked. It took hold overs from '88 to pull out the bronze in Barcelona (remember those bald heads in support of Bob Samuelson? Oh it wasn't his fault our victory over Japan was taken away. Yeah right). Keep breaking down tape for us and tell us what you find.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Sept 1, 2004 0:28:34 GMT -5
SOBB: I appreciate your points. True, I should not have included Cuba with Serbia-Montegegro, Brazil, Russia, the US, and Italy. I realized my error, thought nobody would notice, thank goodness you keep us on our toes. LOL As for the performance of Millar and Priddy and others on the team, what are you basing your comparison on? They performed better when? Against UCSD? Against Ball State? I think that is all we can really compare their performance to. Let's compare the team to something we can qualify and quantify. How are we compared to the Fred Sturm era, or how about the Bill Neville era. I have respect for both but we didn't look so hot during those times. Everybody loved Neville and his wit. The players liked him, but we sucked. It took hold overs from '88 to pull out the bronze in Barcelona (remember those bald heads in support of Bob Samuelson? Oh it wasn't his fault our victory over Japan was taken away. Yeah right). Keep breaking down tape for us and tell us what you find. Well, as far as comparing the Beal II era (1997 to present) to the Sturm era (1991 to 1997) to the Neville era (1989 to 1991), I would offer the following input: -We'll never know the full extent of what Neville could have done. He was head coach in a period of transition, and at the height of the big-dollar Italian contracts. The team during that time was comprised of unknowns and rookies. And yes, they did suck. However, some of those guys also got the shaft in 1992 (most notably, Uvaldo Acosta and Dan Hanan), in favor of returning veterans and newbies who had been with the team less than a year before Barcelona (no one will ever convince me that Nick Becker was a better swinghitter than Acosta). As an aside, Neville was the guy who first took a liking to Samuelson and kept him around, for whatever that's worth (good or bad). Neville left not because of the team, but because of political and internal bickering with the USVBA executive staff, who were unwilling to meet some of the demands Neville had in terms of offering up comparable money contracts to what some of the '88 Gold Medalists were being offered overseas (not the big dollar guys like Karch/Timmons, but the other guys like Partie/Stork/Ctvrtklik/etc.) in the hope of keeping some sort on continuity in the program between veteran Gold Medalists and incoming talent. -Sturm was an analytical guy who obsessed over the X's and O's of the game. He had no idea how to handle the personalities and egos of returning veterans and spoiled-brat collegiate allstars. It must not have been easy dealing with all the pressure coming down from above (USVBA/USAV honchos) either. Remember, Beal was given a made-up position called "Special Assistant to the President" of USVBA for most of Sturm's tenure as coach. Sturm the coach was nothing like Sturm the beach player, who was fiery, emotional, driven. Someone must have taken away his gonads when he became coach. A great guy who loved the sport - got beaten down by the pressure of being head coach. -I think I've detailed enough on this forum my disdain for Beal. I won't go into anymore here. I will say that I've seen no improvement in the weaknesses of some athletes in their time with the National Team. As stated previously, Hoff's blocking or Sullivan's defense/passing or Ball's setting haven't gotten better while they have played under Beal. As far as evaluating people like Millar and Priddy, I don't try to compare their college careers with their international careers. Obviously, the level of play internationally is so much higher than college. What I do base my assessments on is what they are doing now vs. what we know they are capable of doing. Both are tremendously gifted athletes who are capable of doing alot of things. But they were made to fit into the system of play for Team USA instead of modifying the system to take advantage of their capabilities. Some examples: -Millar is a guy who can hit a variety of sets. All he ever hits are front-ones. Hoff hits 31s, but I've never seen Ball set that to Millar. Why? I have no clue. How about a back one? We never see that either. Millar plays MB adjacent to Ball, which means he blocks with Ball 2 out of 3 times in the front row. We've detailed what a crummy blocker Ball is in RF, why not alter the system and allow Millar to block in the RF position, where he can line up against the best outside hitters of the opponents everytime. Ball can handle the first tempo in the middle, it's an easier set to block anyway, and if he's lucky, he may even get outside to help. In transition, Millar can hit a red or a 5 or even a back one. The '88 Gold Medal team used to do that all the time with Buck/Partie, and even Timmons. Flip-flop the blocking scheme to maximize the matchups. Heck, you'd see people like Stork and Partie hitting on the left because that's where they ended up blocking and sometimes hitting in dig-transition. -Millar is also an adequate passer. All he would need is some additional reps in practice each day. He's at least as good as some of the OHs like Gardner and Salmon. Millar also used to hit extensively out of the backrow. We never see that anymore. Keep him in and keep Sullivan on the bench. Gardini, the great Italian MB from the 90's, was regularly in the Italian receive against jumpservers, and passed nails. Millar has the talent to do that, why not use him that way. And why not set him more backrow sets, it would diversify the offense even more. -Priddy is phenomenally quick and athletic. Once again a guy who can hit a variety of sets in a variety of tempos. All he ever hits is leftside, rightside in one rotation (R1 receive), and occasionally on a low-pipe combo behind the middle blocker. If you were around in '84 or '88, the swinghitter concept with the OH position adjacent to the setter (Berzins in '84 and Ctvrtklik in '88) used to hit alot more stuff than simple leftside sets. Tandems, X'plays, 31-X plays, and many others. Priddy can do all of those things. Why don't we see that? Two reasons - the passing sucks, and even when they get a good pass in-system, they had an incumbent setter (Ball) who lacked the ability to run an intricate offense. Just a few examples of why I believe the contrary to what others have posted here - that Beal, in fact, did NOT get the most out of his players. He made them fit into the system, instead of coming up with a system that would have highlighted the abilities of alot of these players.
|
|
|
Post by cardfan15 on Sept 1, 2004 0:33:26 GMT -5
I think both our guys and girls underachieved in this Olympics. The US men got lucky with Brazil playing their JV squad, and with Greece quiting when they heard an errant wistle. In no way do I believe the USA truly earned their spot in the Bronze medal match. We got our tails smacked by Brazil and then by Russia. I think Beal needs to go, and there is no doubt in my mind he will. I couldn´t imagine him being around in 2008. That just wouldn´t be healthy for the program. I think USA volleyball (as far as the national team) needs to be completely overhauled. There is no way we will get back to the gold medal podium unless we create some excitement for volleyball in the US and begin to get better players. In no way did our players compare with the best in the world. In my honest opinion, the pressure rests on USA volleyball. It is up to them to push the sport, be creative, and build volleyball in the US. Look at all the resources we have in the US from college volleyball to club to financial resources (and don't say that USAV doesn't have money, I think they could do better with what they have). I would love to see the Dominican's budget. If that happens, we could have a dynasty on both sides. I mean what do you expect from our men´s team? They didn't play in World League and their "warm up" to the Olympics was like 5 matches vs. Russia (which did a lot of good) and a few others vs. other teams. I think it is pretty simple. You get what you put into it. USA volleyball isn't putting anything special into it, and for that we haven't gotten a medal since 92.
|
|
|
Post by sonofbarcelonabob on Sept 1, 2004 0:46:17 GMT -5
I think both our guys and girls underachieved in this Olympics. The US men got lucky with Brazil playing their JV squad, and with Greece quiting when they heard an errant wistle. In no way do I believe the USA truly earned their spot in the Bronze medal match. We got our tails smacked by Brazil and then by Russia. I think Beal needs to go, and there is no doubt in my mind he will. I couldn´t imagine him being around in 2008. That just wouldn´t be healthy for the program. I think USA volleyball (as far as the national team) needs to be completely overhauled. There is no way we will get back to the gold medal podium unless we create some excitement for volleyball in the US and begin to get better players. In no way did our players compare with the best in the world. In my honest opinion, the pressure rests on USA volleyball. It is up to them to push the sport, be creative, and build volleyball in the US. Look at all the resources we have in the US from college volleyball to club to financial resources (and don't say that USAV doesn't have money, I think they could do better with what they have). I would love to see the Dominican's budget. If that happens, we could have a dynasty on both sides. I mean what do you expect from our men´s team? They didn't play in World League and their "warm up" to the Olympics was like 5 matches vs. Russia (which did a lot of good) and a few others vs. other teams. I think it is pretty simple. You get what you put into it. USA volleyball isn't putting anything special into it, and for that we haven't gotten a medal since 92. The ROI (return on investment) for World League participation isn't worth USAV spending the money. The FIVB has some strict demands for entering your team into World League. If you go to the USAV website, there's some meeting minutes from the executive council. Beal pitched World League and it was shot down. A good decision, in my opinion. That's money better spent with youth and developmental programs. The National Team isn't the only thing USAV has on its plate.
|
|
|
Post by BigTenVball on Sept 1, 2004 8:25:47 GMT -5
"It becomes a penis-measuring contest"
Uhm. I hope I can get through the day without having that phrase pop-up at work.
|
|
|
Post by doctordubya on Sept 1, 2004 11:06:59 GMT -5
Just a few examples of why I believe the contrary to what others have posted here - that Beal, in fact, did NOT get the most out of his players. He made them fit into the system, instead of coming up with a system that would have highlighted the abilities of alot of these players. All true, and yet whenever Beal is mentioned, he is talked about as the coach who brought home a gold medal by creating a revolutionary new system designed to match the skills of his players. This profile doesn't really match up with the coach who since '97 has had his team play the most vanilla version of a system that the rest of the world uses, even though it is blatantly obvious that he hasn't had the personnel to compete with the best teams in the same system.
|
|
|
Post by VBbeast on Sept 1, 2004 14:21:51 GMT -5
Putting aside personal bias for a minute one has to appreciate that Beal is a good volleyball coach. Perhaps not the most innovative at this point in time, but clearly he knows the game. 4th place in the olympics is a good result for us given the players we had on the court. Granted that came abou largely because of the Brazil "gift" in pool play, but either way we ended up probably where our talent level should have ended up.
Having said all that I think there needs to be a change in the coaching staff as well. Not because I don't think Beal and Co. have the knowledge of the game. I think it might be said they are a little too caught up in playing the system being used by most of the rest of the world when that system doesn't really suite the personel we are putting on the floor. Part B to that is I'm not convinced the players are buying into the system Beal is trying to use. It feels like we are in a state of stagnation with our national program, and I think its time for a changing of the guard so to speak.
|
|