|
Post by baldyballer on May 18, 2012 23:27:01 GMT -5
I guess it is all how you define it. I meant in the rotation where there is two middles and a setter one person has to hit outside there. To me that rotation can be so weak that it is better to put an OH there that plays middle secondary.
|
|
|
Post by itsallrelative on May 19, 2012 9:03:52 GMT -5
AA, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are wrong. Playing a middle at RS can give your offense some of the same qualities as a 3 middle offense, but that doesn't mean they are running the 3 mh offense. That's like saying that Michael Vick ran an option a few times, so the Eagles are running a triple-option offense... they don't. As has been mentioned, Ohio ran it at a very high level as recently as a few years ago, so its not ancient or outdated or anything else. The problem is this...youth teams are often taking their biggest most athletic players and putting them on the pins. To run a 2 middle offense, you need 3 good middles, but to run a 3 middle offense for a season, and practice it effectively, you should probably have 5 good middles who can block pin to pin, and hit a variety of sets. In the age of specialization, that is increasingly hard to find so its not likely you are ever going to see more than a handful of teams run this system, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work if they could do it. It doesn't work. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be disrespectful either, but it's never going to be as effective as a good 5-1. It's a avant garde system that used to have it's place in developing younger players. You cannot name a top 25 team in the last decade that ran that system successfully (perhaps we have different definitions of "success"). If it worked as well as you say, more teams would be doing it. As far as I know, the top DI programs have no shortage of slender, tall, athletic middle-type players. It's outdated. If it wasn't, you'd see it more. The only type of "3 middle" offense these days that is proven successful is using your opposite as a third middle/quick attacker. Maybe this type of system worked in the past, but considering what high-level volleyball has become, it's obsolete. Maybe you can get it to work at the high school level, but that doesn't interest me. I'm a fan of teaching the game the way it's supposed to be played, not teaching a crazy system just to get the wins you need to renew your contract. So, there is only one "way the game is supposed to be played"? and its static--non changing? Doesn't innovation come from trying different things? And I guess we need to force the kids we have into the system, rather than looking for ways to maximize their potential?
|
|
moody
Banned
Posts: 18,679
|
Post by moody on May 19, 2012 9:04:51 GMT -5
AA, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are wrong. Playing a middle at RS can give your offense some of the same qualities as a 3 middle offense, but that doesn't mean they are running the 3 mh offense. That's like saying that Michael Vick ran an option a few times, so the Eagles are running a triple-option offense... they don't. As has been mentioned, Ohio ran it at a very high level as recently as a few years ago, so its not ancient or outdated or anything else. The problem is this...youth teams are often taking their biggest most athletic players and putting them on the pins. To run a 2 middle offense, you need 3 good middles, but to run a 3 middle offense for a season, and practice it effectively, you should probably have 5 good middles who can block pin to pin, and hit a variety of sets. In the age of specialization, that is increasingly hard to find so its not likely you are ever going to see more than a handful of teams run this system, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work if they could do it. It doesn't work. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be disrespectful either, but it's never going to be as effective as a good 5-1. It's a avant garde system that used to have it's place in developing younger players. You cannot name a top 25 team in the last decade that ran that system successfully (perhaps we have different definitions of "success"). If it worked as well as you say, more teams would be doing it. As far as I know, the top DI programs have no shortage of slender, tall, athletic middle-type players. It's outdated. If it wasn't, you'd see it more. The only type of "3 middle" offense these days that is proven successful is using your opposite as a third middle/quick attacker. Maybe this type of system worked in the past, but considering what high-level volleyball has become, it's obsolete. Maybe you can get it to work at the high school level, but that doesn't interest me. I'm a fan of teaching the game the way it's supposed to be played, not teaching a crazy system just to get the wins you need to renew your contract. Ohio used a 3 middle offense under Geoff Carlson in the past decade and they were in the top 25.
|
|
|
Post by itsallrelative on May 19, 2012 9:05:18 GMT -5
I guess it is all how you define it. I meant in the rotation where there is two middles and a setter one person has to hit outside there. To me that rotation can be so weak that it is better to put an OH there that plays middle secondary. They have to hit outside--but, they don't have to hit outside sets. what about running a slide/31 combo every time, with your outlet being your OH on bic or pipe?
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 19, 2012 9:30:11 GMT -5
It doesn't work. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be disrespectful either, but it's never going to be as effective as a good 5-1. It's a avant garde system that used to have it's place in developing younger players. You cannot name a top 25 team in the last decade that ran that system successfully (perhaps we have different definitions of "success"). If it worked as well as you say, more teams would be doing it. As far as I know, the top DI programs have no shortage of slender, tall, athletic middle-type players. It's outdated. If it wasn't, you'd see it more. The only type of "3 middle" offense these days that is proven successful is using your opposite as a third middle/quick attacker. Maybe this type of system worked in the past, but considering what high-level volleyball has become, it's obsolete. Maybe you can get it to work at the high school level, but that doesn't interest me. I'm a fan of teaching the game the way it's supposed to be played, not teaching a crazy system just to get the wins you need to renew your contract. Ohio used a 3 middle offense under Geoff Carlson in the past decade and they were in the top 25. I guess AA11 missed the fact that we named his program like 6 times so far. I love how people determine what's obsolete and doesn't work anymore but don't really know what's going on. E.g. I remember once people on the red board telling me that a man-up defense was a gimmick and could never be effective past bad HS teams
|
|
|
Post by vbnerd on May 19, 2012 10:31:19 GMT -5
A) with the right personnel, there is NO system that doesn't work or isn't advantageous under some combination of players. The 5-1 with the setter following the Mh has the simplest serve receive positions and so it has become the most common, but you can run with a setter following the outside, two setters, 3 middles, 4 outsides... Whatever works for your talent.
B) systems are cyclical. If you watch HS ball, especially where the coaches aren't great, everyone does what the best team in the area does... If they are GM2, or man-up defense, or they all jump float, everyone tries to do like that alpha team. If a new coach comes in with a different "thing" that people aren't used to, that team moves up the rankings and everyone tries to copy them then. It's more subtle on the college level but the same thing happens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2012 16:49:30 GMT -5
It doesn't work. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be disrespectful either, but it's never going to be as effective as a good 5-1. It's a avant garde system that used to have it's place in developing younger players. You cannot name a top 25 team in the last decade that ran that system successfully (perhaps we have different definitions of "success"). If it worked as well as you say, more teams would be doing it. As far as I know, the top DI programs have no shortage of slender, tall, athletic middle-type players. It's outdated. If it wasn't, you'd see it more. The only type of "3 middle" offense these days that is proven successful is using your opposite as a third middle/quick attacker. Maybe this type of system worked in the past, but considering what high-level volleyball has become, it's obsolete. Maybe you can get it to work at the high school level, but that doesn't interest me. I'm a fan of teaching the game the way it's supposed to be played, not teaching a crazy system just to get the wins you need to renew your contract. Ohio used a 3 middle offense under Geoff Carlson in the past decade and they were in the top 25. Since it's so successful, which other teams run this system successfully? Like I've said, it can't be a personnel issue. Every top team has at least three tall, slender, athletic middle-type players. Why aren't more teams using this system?
|
|
|
Post by head31919 on May 19, 2012 17:47:56 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the system, but I guess I just don't really understand what the advantages are either. Like what does it get you that you can't run with a more traditional lineup?
I think there's a reason that as you move up the ladder from high school to college to international women's to international men's, you start to see a lot less variance in systems. It's kind of like in American football: go down to the college, and especially high school, and you see a lot of variance in systems. But when you get to the NFL, everybody does 90% of the same stuff, because the "goofy" stuff kind of just gets filtered out.
I think a lot of innovation comes from lower levels where coaches are more free to experiment, but the highest levels is where systems/tactics/techniques that work get proven and the ones that don't work have a very short shelf life.
|
|
|
Post by baldyballer on May 19, 2012 23:43:52 GMT -5
That's a good observation...with the rules going to rally point, keeping offenses more vanilla and consistent is the trend. The 3 middle system usually tries to create blocking confusion with different players running a variety of sets, patterns, and tempos. Which makes it harder to reach a high level of consistency. Itsallrelative, 3-1/slide is a great option for when youre passing well, but emergency pipe hits rarely wins games so I would rather be able to set a high outside ball to a capable hitter when the pass is off the net.
|
|
|
Post by itsallrelative on May 20, 2012 9:17:04 GMT -5
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with the system, but I guess I just don't really understand what the advantages are either. Like what does it get you that you can't run with a more traditional lineup? I think there's a reason that as you move up the ladder from high school to college to international women's to international men's, you start to see a lot less variance in systems. It's kind of like in American football: go down to the college, and especially high school, and you see a lot of variance in systems. But when you get to the NFL, everybody does 90% of the same stuff, because the "goofy" stuff kind of just gets filtered out. I think a lot of innovation comes from lower levels where coaches are more free to experiment, but the highest levels is where systems/tactics/techniques that work get proven and the ones that don't work have a very short shelf life. Also, as you move up the ladder, you have more players to select from....so, fitting them to the system is easier.
|
|
|
Post by baywatcher on May 20, 2012 9:19:54 GMT -5
If I win the Lotto I'll come across with the $40 or so for the Carlson video, if only to see how he scores when both OH are in the backrow. As I said in the Pac 12 thread, Cal is actually a team that fits some of the criteria set forth by baldyballer, particularly using the subs to fill in for 2nd MB in the backrow. Passing would be the Cal bugaboo, particularly if Carlson demands great passing.
|
|
|
Post by havervb on May 20, 2012 10:33:36 GMT -5
I've seen the 3MB offense run "successfully" with several division III programs. The biggest thing is that it requires players to be versatile since most of them end up playing more than one position in the front (and back) row. There are many different variations that can be used. Your middles can each play two rotations, or you can utilize the 3-2-1 method. It all depends upon personnel.
One team used to following line up to go 28-5:
1: setter 2: MB (played one rotation at each OH, MB, RS) 3: OH (played three rotations at OH) - subbed out for libero 4: MB (played two rotations in the middle and one OH) - used a DS in the back row (sometimes used as a setter to switch from a 5-1 to a 6-2). 5: Opp (two rotations as RS, one at OH) 6: MB (played 3 rotations in middle) - subbed out for libero
Depth with the required versatility was definitely required. Alternative, a lot of practice was spent on worst case scenarios where more "traditional" players were subbed in and the remaining starters had to figure out where to go to make it work.
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 20, 2012 10:38:48 GMT -5
Ohio used a 3 middle offense under Geoff Carlson in the past decade and they were in the top 25. Since it's so successful, which other teams run this system successfully? Like I've said, it can't be a personnel issue. Every top team has at least three tall, slender, athletic middle-type players. Why aren't more teams using this system? I think you should re-evaluate that term 'every'
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on May 20, 2012 10:41:31 GMT -5
That's a good observation...with the rules going to rally point, keeping offenses more vanilla and consistent is the trend. The 3 middle system usually tries to create blocking confusion with different players running a variety of sets, patterns, and tempos. Which makes it harder to reach a high level of consistency. Itsallrelative, 3-1/slide is a great option for when youre passing well, but emergency pipe hits rarely wins games so I would rather be able to set a high outside ball to a capable hitter when the pass is off the net. I would disagree with the term vanilla...look at all the crossing patterns involving the middles and bic's now (especially on the men's side of the game)...hardly simple. However, there is definitely a point when the attempted motion to make things complex is too slow / counterproductive. I would also disagree with head's synopsis of football. The complexities of the higher level defense and offense in the higher levels of football is pretty crazy.
|
|
|
Post by baldyballer on May 20, 2012 12:41:15 GMT -5
Cmon lonewolf, you've been around long enough to remember fake x's, tandems, double quicks, and the like. Current offenses are vanilla compared to back then and rightfully so, with every play counting as a point. Part of the fun back then was trying new plays and tempos. I feel secure in saying that the current rules have changed the complexity and technical aspects of the game.
|
|