Post by VolleyTX on Aug 19, 2016 17:16:20 GMT -5
Now that the Gold is no longer a possibility, I would like to get folks opinion: Do you think the super fast offense ultimately hurt or helped the team?
My own thoughts:
Expected benefits of the system: 1. More one on one hitting opportunities. 2. Stress the blockers 3. Higher hitting percentages.
Requirements of such a system: 1. Strong passing 2. highly skilled, accurate and consistent setting
The main reasons why I don't particularly think the system ended up being a net positive for the team are as follows:
1. Yes, the hitters got more one on one hitting opportunities, but because of the speed of the set the hitters mostly only had time to react to the set. Most of the attackers lost vision of the block and the court with the speeded up set. I was almost struck by how many times our outsides were blocked one on one.
2. The sets were inconsistent which created timing issues and prevented our top hitters to attack the ball at the top of the vertical leap. I would love to see Larson's hitting percentage with her Russian team verses her recent performances with team USA. Also, I would wager at least 1/3 of Murphy's attempts were nothing but a push into the court because the set was much to low for her. And how many other times did she take a swing right into the block.
3. Another requirement for such a system is to have a setter who can be deceptive.... or at very least not predictable. While I think Glass did better these Olympics than most of her other tournaments, I still think she has "favorite" sets and doesn't disguise them very well. By being predictable, you take away much of the advantage of the super fast set. Without taking away any risk associated with running such a fast system.
4. No plan B.
Last question: Do you think the team will stick with this fast offense?
My own thoughts:
Expected benefits of the system: 1. More one on one hitting opportunities. 2. Stress the blockers 3. Higher hitting percentages.
Requirements of such a system: 1. Strong passing 2. highly skilled, accurate and consistent setting
The main reasons why I don't particularly think the system ended up being a net positive for the team are as follows:
1. Yes, the hitters got more one on one hitting opportunities, but because of the speed of the set the hitters mostly only had time to react to the set. Most of the attackers lost vision of the block and the court with the speeded up set. I was almost struck by how many times our outsides were blocked one on one.
2. The sets were inconsistent which created timing issues and prevented our top hitters to attack the ball at the top of the vertical leap. I would love to see Larson's hitting percentage with her Russian team verses her recent performances with team USA. Also, I would wager at least 1/3 of Murphy's attempts were nothing but a push into the court because the set was much to low for her. And how many other times did she take a swing right into the block.
3. Another requirement for such a system is to have a setter who can be deceptive.... or at very least not predictable. While I think Glass did better these Olympics than most of her other tournaments, I still think she has "favorite" sets and doesn't disguise them very well. By being predictable, you take away much of the advantage of the super fast set. Without taking away any risk associated with running such a fast system.
4. No plan B.
Last question: Do you think the team will stick with this fast offense?
