Pavan Article: Lincoln Journal Star

[lilred]

yellowc said:

Maybe she's not happy playing with Elmer and Saleaumua. What's with the gap she was talking about?
I think this lost against Washington was another low point. Next year is her last chance to win a title.

That's not the problem whatsover. In fact I feel like her and Elmer are very good friends, they are so much alike. Stoic on the court. In fact during senior night when Elmer was introduced that's when the flood gates opened for Pavan. I seriously think of all the girls she was crying the hardest!

I was also thinking that next year might be the last. But I tell you what, if Stalls can develop even further I am not so sure. We will have a very viable L1 threat with Jordan Larson (she'd be a junior) and if Holloway is as good as Cook says (she'd be a sophomore) That's four pretty powerful weapons right there. It can be done with that many, look at Stanford 04. But now we are getting WAY ahead of ourselves.

[Deleted]

Stalls is on the -- what -- 12-year plan?

Seems like what she really needs is to be healthy and then we'll see what she can do. Or are her injuries chronic?

[lilred]

ruffda said:

Stalls is on the -- what -- 12-year plan?

Seems like what she really needs is to be healthy and then we'll see what she can do. Or are her injuries chronic?

6 year plan. Her injuries should have been cleaned up supposedly. She says she was playing at 90% this year. Still a bit of soreness, due to the surgery. She had said on the John Cook Volleyball Show that this year was her first year that she didn't play in constant pain for the last 3 years.

[LanaiBoy]

On the face of it, the question seems reasonable. Why not set Pavan more when the game was on the line? She was Nebraska's leading hitter and hitting an amazing percentage for an outside (+400%). But isn't Pavan a right side hitter? A setter has to have half-way decent passes to set the middles or right side. With poor passes a setter is more than likely forced to feed the left side hitters or sometimes a back row attacker. Wasn't that THE problem for Nebraska, poor passing? A perennial question is why doesn't a team set the middle more. The answer is almost always "poor passing."

[gobigred]

Does anyone think that the last couple points of the Texas game (where Texas got their last two points on 2 Pavan hitting errors) has anything to do with Pavan not getting set in the crunch time of game 3 against UW? I don't think so, because she is our go-to player, and was a having a great game hitting, but I just thought I'd throw that out there since it came to mind.

[simplycurious]

Ok, a couple of points that I failed to make earlier (ah, the dangers of attempting to multi-task at work)...

Yes, Sarah hit the ball into "the bottom of the net" (as Marlowe loved to say) to get the Huskies to match point. However, if you go away from a "hot hitter", they cool off. Plus, if that happens and then you do go back to them - that late in the game when Washington had pressed ahead and reclaimed the momentum - then there is a better chance of an error being made by "trying to do too much". This is what I believed happened. I strongly feel that if they had stuck with Sarah when she was on earlier, it would've been a different story later in the match when Washington made their run.

Second...

lilred said:

I totally concur. All year long we got to hear about our balanced attack, but if it came down to it Pavan was still the go to girl. She hit well over .400. Just set that damn ball high and let her go after it. Of all the criticisms this is the only one I have. You have to think she was thinking the same thing. Yes she shanked the last ball but at least it wasn't like Kim Glass where it would have been the last of her career.

...Sarah didn't shank the last ball - Elmer tipped it into Morrison's block. Yes, Sarah hit a standing down ball into the net to go to match point, but as I said above...she had cooled off because they went away from her and the momentum of the match had completely changed at that point. Her error was no more indicative then Elmer's on match point. At that time in the match (the last few plays) Washington had broken Nebraska's spirit! They'd made a couple of runs earlier and Nebraska had held them off. However, once Washington regained the lead at 23-22, they slowly pulled away and the "pressure" began to "break the Huskers down".

Third...

lanaiboy said:

On the face of it, the question seems reasonable. Why not set Pavan more when the game was on the line? She was Nebraska's leading hitter and hitting an amazing percentage for an outside (+400%). But isn't Pavan a right side hitter? A setter has to have half-way decent passes to set the middles or right side. With poor passes a setter is more than likely forced to feed the left side hitters or sometimes a back row attacker. Wasn't that THE problem for Nebraska, poor passing?

To a point, I agree. However, when Sarah rotates to the front run, she's initially on the left-side....so you set her! Refer to the earlier discussions where people were saying that Heather Cox commented, "I see they've finally moved Pavan out of serve-receive" -- they hadn't, she'd rotated to the front row (which is why she was in left-front and appeared to be "removed" from S/R). So you can set her there and "re-establish" her (since as I mentioned earlier, the Husker's back row attack wasn't effective all night). Also, they've run a few plays where Sarah comes around and hits in front of the setter - they could've done that. Finally, while I agree that their passing was poor all night, lilred pointed out that it doesn't take much to throw up a high ball for a 6'5" hitter and let her "go get it"...so I still feel they could've gotten Sarah the ball.

However, I'll follow the "devil's advocate" side of lanaiboy's argument and ask: why didn't they get Saleaumua more involved? She hit .545 with 12 kills on 22 swings with NO ERRORS!! You have to believe that she would've made some good plays down the stretch. Instead, the setters failed to realize who was "on" and who to set -- the coaches failed to communicate that this was going on and "tell the setters who to set" (as Rob Patrick from Tennessee does - something that appalled Heather Cox....that a coach would tell his setter who to set EVERY time they ran a play, which he also called) -- the hitters that wanted (or should've wanted) the ball didn't communicate that to the setters (something they were doing earlier - particularly Sarah, especially at the beginning of game three). So, the responsibility solely lies on the team because there were enough people to say, "Hey - this is what is happening and here is a way we can be successful!"

Ok, I'm sure I missed some more things (again, the dangers of multi-tasking at work), but that should address a few things for now. I'll finish by saying that Washington played poised and executed nearly flawlessly, so congratulations to the Huskies! My only disappointment was with the overall quality of the match. I, like most, wanted to see a battle of epic proportions - a five gamer that shadowed the last great National Championship match between Long Beach and Penn State in 1998 - but alas, it wasn't meant to be.

BTW, Mia Hamm made her penalty shot! However, it wasn't that shot which won the Gold Medal for the Women's National Team at the World Cup in 1999...it was Chastain's. So your "big name player" doesn't have to be the one that wins the match (or game) for you...they just should be allowed to help you get to the point where someone can win it for your team!

[lilred]

lanaiboy said:

On the face of it, the question seems reasonable. Why not set Pavan more when the game was on the line? She was Nebraska's leading hitter and hitting an amazing percentage for an outside (+400%). But isn't Pavan a right side hitter? A setter has to have half-way decent passes to set the middles or right side. With poor passes a setter is more than likely forced to feed the left side hitters or sometimes a back row attacker. Wasn't that THE problem for Nebraska, poor passing? A perennial question is why doesn't a team set the middle more. The answer is almost always "poor passing."

I never thought of it that way, cause I am not a technician when it comes to the sport, but it certainly makes sense. Most sets by the setter to the RS would be back sets I guess so they would need a better pass. Thanks for the insight. As you said and numerous people have said, its cliche but true, it all starts with the serve receive and passing. We had neither that night.

[simplycurious]

lilred - see my post above which addresses this point.

[LanaiBoy]

simplecurious said:

On the face of it, the question seems reasonable. Why not set Pavan more when the game was on the line? She was Nebraska's leading hitter and hitting an amazing percentage for an outside (+400%). But isn't Pavan a right side hitter? A setter has to have half-way decent passes to set the middles or right side. With poor passes a setter is more than likely forced to feed the left side hitters or sometimes a back row attacker. Wasn't that THE problem for Nebraska, poor passing?
To a point, I agree. However, when Sarah rotates to the front run, she's initially on the left-side....so you set her! Refer to the earlier discussions where people were saying that Heather Cox commented, "I see they've finally moved Pavan out of serve-receive" -- they hadn't, she'd rotated to the front row (which is why she was in left-front and appeared to be "removed" from S/R). So you can set her there and "re-establish" her (since as I mentioned earlier, the Husker's back row attack wasn't effective all night). Also, they've run a few plays where Sarah comes around and hits in front of the setter - they could've done that. Finally, while I agree that their passing was poor all night, lilred pointed out that it doesn't take much to throw up a high ball for a 6'5" hitter and let her "go get it"...so I still feel they could've gotten Sarah the ball.

However, I'll follow the "devil's advocate" side of lanaiboy's argument and ask: why didn't they get Saleaumua more involved? She hit .545 with 12 kills on 22 swings with NO ERRORS!! You have to believe that she would've made some good plays down the stretch. Instead, the setters failed to realize who was "on" and who to set -- the coaches failed to communicate that this was going on and "tell the setters who to set" (as Rob Patrick from Tennessee does - something that appalled Heather Cox....that a coach would tell his setter who to set EVERY time they ran a play, which he also called) -- the hitters that wanted (or should've wanted) the ball didn't communicate that to the setters (something they were doing earlier - particularly Sarah, especially at the beginning of game three). So, the responsibility solely lies on the team because there were enough people to say, "Hey - this is what is happening and here is a way we can be successful!"

Another cliche is for setters to go to the player with the hot hand. I would agree that Nebraska did not do that. However, as Simple Curious pointed out there are work-arounds. Right side hitters can hit from the left side and the middle. However, they are planned plays with the right side hitters staying home when they rotate to the left or middle. However, bad passes are NOT planned. Coaches usually go with the system which they have practiced elements a thousand times. To go to a play infrequently used goes against the grain of most coaches. In this situation maybe Cook should have but it could have backfired too. Volleyball is a fast and instinctual game; get players thinking too much on the court can lead to breakdowns. By the way, I disagree with you about the setter just tossing the ball high for Pavan to hit. The ball may wind up beyond the antenna, far left of Pavan or far right. Back setting a bad pass is very risky and far beyond the skills of the Nebraska setters, who are not of All-American caliber. But again I repeat, I do agree Nebraska did not do enough to go to the two players with the hot hands, Jen S. and Pavan.

[Deleted]

I don't enough has been said about Busboom and Griffin not being able to recognize things in certain situations including hot hitters, struggling, etc.

[simplycurious]

lanaiboy said:

Another cliche is for setters to go to the player with the hot hand. I would agree that Nebraska did not do that. However, as Simple Curious pointed out there are work-arounds. Right side hitters can hit from the left side and the middle. However, they are planned plays with the right side hitters staying home when they rotate to the left or middle. However, bad passes are NOT planned. Coaches usually go with the system which they have practiced elements a thousand times. To go to a play infrequently used goes against the grain of most coaches. In this situation maybe Cook should have but it could have backfired too. Volleyball is a fast and instinctual game; get players thinking too much on the court can lead to breakdowns. By the way, I disagree with you about the setter just tossing the ball high for Pavan to hit. The ball may wind up beyond the antenna, far left of Pavan or far right. Back setting a bad pass is very risky and far beyond the skills of the Nebraska setters, who are not of All-American caliber. But again I repeat, I do agree Nebraska did not do enough to go to the two players with the hot hands, Jen S. and Pavan.

Actually, the things I suggested wouldn't require them to do things they normally didn't do.

If you watched enough Husker VB this season (and it was hard not too, they were on TV all the time), then you know that they often set Pavan on the left-side when she first rotates to left-front. What this does is help a setter to not 'forget' about the right-side player once she gets behind her. Many setters, regardless of their level of experience (or the quality of the hitter behind them), let this happen because that player is "outta sight, outta mind". So, you set Pavan when she first gets up front (and is in front of you so you see her) and she crushes the ball for a point. Result? She stays hot, you re-establish her (to the other team) as a weapon/option and feel good about yourself (as the setter), plus your team is fired up! Now, it's more likely that you'll go to her again (and rather soon) since her last play is still fresh in your memory. That, is basically what I'm saying here.

Also, when I said "throw the ball up for Pavan to go get" I didn't mean to the right-side. I'm well aware of the 'dangers' of setting bad passes behind you as a setter. However, you could argue that if you're setting at that level and can't "set against the flow" (which this is an element of), then you might not need to be out there setting (particularly in a National Championship match). Anyway, what I meant was throw it up in the middle and have her come get it. She often came in front of the setter to hit balls, so this too wouldn't have been that 'unusual' for them to run.

So, those are my thoughts, based on your post.

[lilred]

simplycurious said:

lilred - see my post above which addresses this point.

I was wondering how I would have missed your post. Then I noticed the times we posted our responses. Almost at the same time or close to. With that being said, your post was very insightful too. I also remembered that Pavan plays one rotation on the left and definately agree about the part in regards to the "backset". Like you said you would think that a setter at this level could do that anyway, even though its obviously a bit trickier. Do you know this is the longest drought that NU has gone through without putting a setter on one of the AA teams? (2003,2004,2005) The last time this has happpened was 1991,1992,1993. We also missed 1999. So between 1994-2002 we had a setter receive an AA certificate except for 1999.

[maninyellowhat]

SimplyCurious -

How many times has your team been to the NCAA's?