|
Post by vbphilsdad on Jan 25, 2016 12:00:19 GMT -5
Thanks all for your insights
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jan 25, 2016 12:21:18 GMT -5
Not steeped in the history of volleyball, I would like to know if there are some top-notch Div 1 programs that consistently choose to run the 6-2, and recruit accordingly. It has been my observation that most teams will only resort to the 6-2 when they have one or two mediocre setters or some other personnel anomaly (aka Mizzou, which never ran the 6-2 until they recruited a home-grown "NAIA setter", as one poster put it).
I don't think you can separate this question from the issue of the substitution rules. D1 now allows 15 subs per set, and some other divisions even more. If you have enough good players, that changes the optimal way to use them. And that's another thing that I think a lot of people posting here got wrong. A 6-2 with backrow setters allows you to use four hitters, two middles, two setters, and a libero. Possibly even some DSs or serving specialists too, although then you do risk running out of subs. That means you need at least nine good players, maybe more. With a 5-1 you can get away with only seven good players. Far from a 6-2 being the answer when you don't have good enough players, I think it actually stresses your roster more. You need more good players with a 6-2 than you do with a 5-1. If you have one good setter and one iffy setter, why play your iffy setter in half your rotations? Playing a 6-2 is not a reasonable answer to "I don't have a good enough setter", because it just means you also have to use your second-best setter! If your first-best setter isn't good enough, then what do you think that second-best setter is going to be like? With hitters, you need to go four deep instead of three deep. So again, it stresses your roster harder. And the possible lack of DS subs means that at least two of your hitters also have to be as good as the DS you can't use. So I think that the 6-2 makes sense under the NCAA rules, but only if you have a deep roster with a lot of good players. If you have a more shallow roster, you are better off playing your best players as much as you can, which means a 5-1. That's especially true because it's easier to recruit top DS players than it is to recruit top hitters, setters, or middles. So if you have a weaker roster, your best players may be your DS squad, and the 5-1 gives you more chances to use them.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 25, 2016 15:27:35 GMT -5
To run a 6-2 you need six hitters and a spare (who can sub on the inside or outside), so adding two setters, a libero, and a DS/SS (or backup libero) means you need ten. Add a third setter, that makes 11. A second spare hitter makes 12.
You can run not only out of subs in a 6-2, but also out of hitters. With 12 subs, running a 6-2 meant you couldn't use a DS except as a spot sub, but with 15 subs you can play an OH/DS combo in the front and back rows. That allows you to play an OH who hits, but does not pass, but you'll be forced into a two-person serve-receive for three rotations.
Also, in a 5-1, the ideal OPP can hit and block, and is able to serve and hit out of the back row (think Sarah Pavan and Karsta Lowe) when the setter is in the front row. If she can also pass, then you can play two three-rotation OHs. In a 6-2, your OPPs can be more specialized, with one a hitter and the other a blocker, for instance, with neither hitting or serving back row.
To me a major vulnerability of the 6-2 is to an offense with a high-scoring OPP hitting front and back row, forcing the setter to defend in right-back (and the libero, usually, to bump set the dig).
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Jan 25, 2016 17:37:56 GMT -5
The succesful 6-2 in reality is a purely attack-driven system that has little to do with the setters.The only team at a high level to successfully run a 6-2 was Cuba, and they didn't have great setters, but good hitters who were decent setters. Club and college coaches nowadays are obsessed with the 6-2 but it has more to do with giving their setters playing time than it does with good volleyball.
|
|
|
Post by c4ndlelight on Jan 25, 2016 17:44:51 GMT -5
Not steeped in the history of volleyball, I would like to know if there are some top-notch Div 1 programs that consistently choose to run the 6-2, and recruit accordingly. It has been my observation that most teams will only resort to the 6-2 when they have one or two mediocre setters or some other personnel anomaly (aka Mizzou, which never ran the 6-2 until they recruited a home-grown "NAIA setter", as one poster put it).
I don't think you can separate this question from the issue of the substitution rules. D1 now allows 15 subs per set, and some other divisions even more. If you have enough good players, that changes the optimal way to use them. And that's another thing that I think a lot of people posting here got wrong. A 6-2 with backrow setters allows you to use four hitters, two middles, two setters, and a libero. Possibly even some DSs or serving specialists too, although then you do risk running out of subs. That means you need at least nine good players, maybe more. With a 5-1 you can get away with only seven good players. Far from a 6-2 being the answer when you don't have good enough players, I think it actually stresses your roster more. You need more good players with a 6-2 than you do with a 5-1. If you have one good setter and one iffy setter, why play your iffy setter in half your rotations? Playing a 6-2 is not a reasonable answer to "I don't have a good enough setter", because it just means you also have to use your second-best setter! If your first-best setter isn't good enough, then what do you think that second-best setter is going to be like? With hitters, you need to go four deep instead of three deep. So again, it stresses your roster harder. And the possible lack of DS subs means that at least two of your hitters also have to be as good as the DS you can't use. So I think that the 6-2 makes sense under the NCAA rules, but only if you have a deep roster with a lot of good players. If you have a more shallow roster, you are better off playing your best players as much as you can, which means a 5-1. That's especially true because it's easier to recruit top DS players than it is to recruit top hitters, setters, or middles. So if you have a weaker roster, your best players may be your DS squad, and the 5-1 gives you more chances to use them. You may need more hitters and more setters, but you're also asking less of each, which means they don't need to be "as good." This is particularly true if you don't have a pin hitter who can carry the load in your 2-hitter rotations (or hit from the back), or a setter who can manage defending the net. So it may stress an overall roster more, but it stresses players less. Particularly now with 15 subs where you can get away with using a DS too.
|
|
|
Post by kro2488 on Jan 25, 2016 18:21:07 GMT -5
Florida used the 6-2 when they had the personal to run it somewhat effectively. When we had Murphy, Jackel, Mann, Anderson, Bledsoe etc etc... one of the seasons we actually went back to a 5-1 with Murphy setting for the remainder of the season, the 6-2 I think, has more weaknesses than the 5-1. Especially if you aren't a strong passing team because your setter will always have more trouble with tight passes unless they are taller. The 5-1 will generally breed more consistency among the hitters and setters and you get more variety in the offense and you can have an attacking setter in the front row. Better question, how many teams have won a national championship running the 6-2? I would guess very few if none.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 25, 2016 19:47:44 GMT -5
It's been done. I think that winning a national championship has a lot more to do with talent level than the system they are running.
|
|
donk
Freshman
Posts: 70
|
Post by donk on Jan 28, 2016 9:58:03 GMT -5
It's be done. I think that winning a national championship has a lot more to do with talent level than the system they are running. Agreed, the #1 setter on most national championship teams is good enough to keep the other setters on the roster off the floor.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 28, 2016 14:32:11 GMT -5
It's be done. I think that winning a national championship has a lot more to do with talent level than the system they are running. Agreed, the #1 setter on most national championship teams is good enough to keep the other setters on the roster off the floor. Note that Jim McLaughlin ran a 6-2 with Jenna Hagglund and Jenni Nogueras as the setters. He only stopped running it because an injury left him short a hitter. Hagglund is currently one of five setters on the U.S. Women's National Volleyball Team. Hagglund was a junior, while Nogueras was a true frosh. JMac, in that case, at least, believed that being able to play two OPPs (Carlson and Perry) more than compensated for not having his best setter on the floor for three rotations.
|
|
donk
Freshman
Posts: 70
|
Post by donk on Jan 28, 2016 15:59:24 GMT -5
Agreed, the #1 setter on most national championship teams is good enough to keep the other setters on the roster off the floor. Note that Jim McLaughlin ran a 6-2 with Jenna Hagglund and Jenni Nogueras as the setters. He only stopped running it because an injury left him short a hitter. Hagglund is currently one of five setters on the U.S. Women's National Volleyball Team. Hagglund was a junior, while Nogueras was a true frosh. JMac, in that case, at least, believed that being able to play two OPPs (Carlson and Perry) more than compensated for not having his best setter on the floor for three rotations. True, I had forgotten about that. But Nogueras wasn't exactly a slouch. As I recall, even as a freshman she had the chops to be running a 5-1 in the PAC12. I was actually a little surprised that they didn't take the opportunity to have her red-shirt her first year, but they were able to get the extra year out of her the next year instead. Having the 2 of them on the same roster definitely qualifies as a Gluttony of Riches.
|
|
|
Post by vbphilsdad on Jan 29, 2016 13:27:36 GMT -5
Note that Jim McLaughlin ran a 6-2 with Jenna Hagglund and Jenni Nogueras as the setters. He only stopped running it because an injury left him short a hitter. Hagglund is currently one of five setters on the U.S. Women's National Volleyball Team. Hagglund was a junior, while Nogueras was a true frosh. JMac, in that case, at least, believed that being able to play two OPPs (Carlson and Perry) more than compensated for not having his best setter on the floor for three rotations. True, I had forgotten about that. But Nogueras wasn't exactly a slouch. As I recall, even as a freshman she had the chops to be running a 5-1 in the PAC12. I was actually a little surprised that they didn't take the opportunity to have her red-shirt her first year, but they were able to get the extra year out of her the next year instead. Having the 2 of them on the same roster definitely qualifies as a Gluttony of Riches. ...and, no doubt, discouraged any notion that she be poached by another team. Sorry, I meant: encouraged her not to leave her team for another.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Jan 29, 2016 14:46:42 GMT -5
True, I had forgotten about that. But Nogueras wasn't exactly a slouch. As I recall, even as a freshman she had the chops to be running a 5-1 in the PAC12. I was actually a little surprised that they didn't take the opportunity to have her red-shirt her first year, but they were able to get the extra year out of her the next year instead. Having the 2 of them on the same roster definitely qualifies as a Gluttony of Riches. ...and, no doubt, discouraged any notion that she be poached by another team. Sorry, I meant: encouraged her not to leave her team for another. Only one NLI-signee transferred out during JMac's tenure at UW (2002-2014) - Summer Ross, and that was to play beach, not indoor, volleyball. That is 1/15th the transfers out of a certain notable "volleyball power" over roughly the same period. So, no, there was never any concern that Jenni Nogueras would transfer out. If Evan Sanders hadn't transferred in, Nogueras might have set a 5-1 in 2010. Note that it was Karch who turned JMac onto Nogueras. Her signing an NLI with UW derailed the recruitment of Deedra Foss, who was previously committed to UW for its 2010 class, but ended up instead at Colorado State (Sanders ex-school).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2016 3:02:12 GMT -5
No. Carico was OK. Bateman was A better setter. Bateman so smooth and consistent. Carico had a better left hand, but her "hands" were not smooth. Alice Pizzasegola couldve set to Gysin Copenhagen and Kaczor and took SC to the FF. Ok maybe being a little extreme to prove a point Carico was talented but so inconsistent. Bateman was an upgrade. Who will be the new setter for USC ? it seems they only have 2 right now
|
|
|
Post by mplssetter on Feb 8, 2016 4:20:59 GMT -5
I never understood why people thought Bateman was an upgrade... No way! Carico had shady passing and wasn't a great moonball setter but she was very good. Just on the wrong team. Carico was like a box of chocolates., and that's not good with USC running a basic offense. I would put some of the blame on Mick. I remember watching some of those games and watching Mick scream and really tear into Carico. Poor girl. I don't think anybody was surprised when she transferred out. To his credit, he seems to have toned it down a notch since then.
|
|