|
Post by royhobbs on Feb 14, 2014 14:04:17 GMT -5
That is the point. Not every individual is cut out to play at the top levels of every sport. Nobody is saying that undersized athlete shouldn't play volleyball, but there is a reality that exists in junior clubs that restrict some of the growth and development of taller athletes due to the "pay-to-play" dynamic that has been created.
Of course, if an undersized athlete is an excellent player(passer), then he/she deserves the opportunity to earn access to the court. However, if the undersized athlete is on par with longer athletes who already have access to the court (front row), then there is a bottle neck that generally results in the taller athlete losing out on opportunities due to his/her ability to already be in the match in a different position.
|
|
|
Post by spikeninja on Feb 19, 2014 22:07:09 GMT -5
If a girl can't hit, or doesn't possess the ability to play another position and can only do libero, I simply don't have her on the team. I don't believe in adding players to take people's money. I select teams with a system and a position in mind. Again, at the younger age groups. I'm sorry to have to say this, spikeninja, but I'm glad you don't coach for my club. "At the younger age groups", what is the #1 skill to be learned? Passing. What is the #1 skillset of a libero? Passing. IMHO, "if a girl can't hit...and can only do libero" at that age, I absolutely DO have her on my team. I can teach everything else, but if she's a good enough passer -- in your words, if she "can only do libero" -- she's good to go. Why in the world would you turn a kid away, at a young age, that can pass? They are GOLD "at the younger age groups". I also find it very interesting that you pooh-pooh specialization at the younger ages, yet you "select teams with a...position in mind...at the younger age groups". That seems contradictory to me. And I personally do not select players for my younger teams "with a system...in mind". In fact, pretty much every season I regularly modify my "system" throughout the season as these young players learn and progress. Well you perfectly reinforced my hypothesis on development. Using your example, a kid that can really pass, at a young age, should be trained to do more than that. If she can pass, and has the ability to hit, she will get to do both (have we not seen the disappearance of good pass hitters?) If she cannot hit, I would teach her to set (ever notice how few setter play good defense?). First contact skills are the single most important part of the game. But at a young age, to not train a player in multiple positions and skill sets, I believe, is an injustice to them. I don't think "turning them away" from doing multiple skills is the answer. At the advanced levels, yes maximize the talents and specialize. Young players are unknowns. We don't know what will be their best place, and that may even change year to year as teams change year to year. My approach isn't exclusive of players, but INCLUSIVE of global skill development, at young age groups. Hence my philosophy, don't pick a kid that is your team libero at younger age groups. She will get to pass among other skills if you have a system in mind that allows her to. AND select a position in mind that does not include exclusively libero. All my players, regardless of position, train all the skills, with the exception of the 5'2" kid blocking. Or....let's keep increasing substitution limits because nobody can walk and chew gum at the same time. I started coaching when you could only enter a game 3 times and you were done. That was sideout scoring too, so a tight game could last 3-4 times around the horn. All around skill training was essential in those days. I think it is for young kids especially, even though specialization is the norm for the older kids. Lastly, I don't see the libero being used as you explained in YOUR scenario. Libero's are rarely the BEST passer and defender I see in clubs. They are the short kid on the roster who can't do anything else and helps make the roster larger(i.e. more $$$). I am attacking libero's with serve 4 out of 5 times in a scout. So while you might be approaching that position selection properly, I don't believe many people are. IMHO. Which is why I say get rid of it all together at the young groups if it isn't going to be used properly.
|
|
|
Post by FCAvb on Feb 19, 2014 23:22:28 GMT -5
I'm sorry to have to say this, spikeninja, but I'm glad you don't coach for my club. "At the younger age groups", what is the #1 skill to be learned? Passing. What is the #1 skillset of a libero? Passing. IMHO, "if a girl can't hit...and can only do libero" at that age, I absolutely DO have her on my team. I can teach everything else, but if she's a good enough passer -- in your words, if she "can only do libero" -- she's good to go. Why in the world would you turn a kid away, at a young age, that can pass? They are GOLD "at the younger age groups". I also find it very interesting that you pooh-pooh specialization at the younger ages, yet you "select teams with a...position in mind...at the younger age groups". That seems contradictory to me. And I personally do not select players for my younger teams "with a system...in mind". In fact, pretty much every season I regularly modify my "system" throughout the season as these young players learn and progress. Well you perfectly reinforced my hypothesis on development. Using your example, a kid that can really pass, at a young age, should be trained to do more than that. If she can pass, and has the ability to hit, she will get to do both (have we not seen the disappearance of good pass hitters?) If she cannot hit, I would teach her to set (ever notice how few setter play good defense?). First contact skills are the single most important part of the game. But at a young age, to not train a player in multiple positions and skill sets, I believe, is an injustice to them. I don't think "turning them away" from doing multiple skills is the answer. At the advanced levels, yes maximize the talents and specialize. Young players are unknowns. We don't know what will be their best place, and that may even change year to year as teams change year to year. My approach isn't exclusive of players, but INCLUSIVE of global skill development, at young age groups. Hence my philosophy, don't pick a kid that is your team libero at younger age groups. She will get to pass among other skills if you have a system in mind that allows her to. AND select a position in mind that does not include exclusively libero. All my players, regardless of position, train all the skills, with the exception of the 5'2" kid blocking. Or....let's keep increasing substitution limits because nobody can walk and chew gum at the same time. I started coaching when you could only enter a game 3 times and you were done. That was sideout scoring too, so a tight game could last 3-4 times around the horn. All around skill training was essential in those days. I think it is for young kids especially, even though specialization is the norm for the older kids. Lastly, I don't see the libero being used as you explained in YOUR scenario. Libero's are rarely the BEST passer and defender I see in clubs. They are the short kid on the roster who can't do anything else and helps make the roster larger(i.e. more $$$). I am attacking libero's with serve 4 out of 5 times in a scout. So while you might be approaching that position selection properly, I don't believe many people are. IMHO. Which is why I say get rid of it all together at the young groups if it isn't going to be used properly. OK, I think I see the disconnect here. To me, libero = the kid who is currently my best passer, and I don't need her doing something else (like setting &/or hitting) at the next tournament. To you, it seems like libero = "the short kid on the roster who can't do anything else and helps make the roster larger". Am I right? Also -- I never said that I only train a young libero to pass. Everyone does everything at practice, absolutely. It appears we agree on that, and on its importance especially for younger players. Positions are for gameday, not practices (except for the practice before a tournament). My "system" and its positions are fluid throughout the season. I believe I've done everything in that regard -- I've had setters become OHs, liberos become MHs, and so forth, from one tournament to the next. I've gone from a 6-3 to a 6-2 and back; from a 4-2 to a 6-2; from a 6-2 to a modified 6-2 on serve receive; etc. I've even done a 5-1 for a season's final tournament or two. Again, these are 12s and 13s teams. I am curious about one remaining thing, though. You said that you "select teams with a system and a position in mind". Surely you don't, from tryouts, select the two tall kids as your MHs, the kid with the best hands at tryouts as your S, etc. -- right?
|
|
|
Post by spikeninja on Feb 20, 2014 16:24:13 GMT -5
Well you perfectly reinforced my hypothesis on development. Using your example, a kid that can really pass, at a young age, should be trained to do more than that. If she can pass, and has the ability to hit, she will get to do both (have we not seen the disappearance of good pass hitters?) If she cannot hit, I would teach her to set (ever notice how few setter play good defense?). First contact skills are the single most important part of the game. But at a young age, to not train a player in multiple positions and skill sets, I believe, is an injustice to them. I don't think "turning them away" from doing multiple skills is the answer. At the advanced levels, yes maximize the talents and specialize. Young players are unknowns. We don't know what will be their best place, and that may even change year to year as teams change year to year. My approach isn't exclusive of players, but INCLUSIVE of global skill development, at young age groups. Hence my philosophy, don't pick a kid that is your team libero at younger age groups. She will get to pass among other skills if you have a system in mind that allows her to. AND select a position in mind that does not include exclusively libero. All my players, regardless of position, train all the skills, with the exception of the 5'2" kid blocking. Or....let's keep increasing substitution limits because nobody can walk and chew gum at the same time. I started coaching when you could only enter a game 3 times and you were done. That was sideout scoring too, so a tight game could last 3-4 times around the horn. All around skill training was essential in those days. I think it is for young kids especially, even though specialization is the norm for the older kids. Lastly, I don't see the libero being used as you explained in YOUR scenario. Libero's are rarely the BEST passer and defender I see in clubs. They are the short kid on the roster who can't do anything else and helps make the roster larger(i.e. more $$$). I am attacking libero's with serve 4 out of 5 times in a scout. So while you might be approaching that position selection properly, I don't believe many people are. IMHO. Which is why I say get rid of it all together at the young groups if it isn't going to be used properly. OK, I think I see the disconnect here. To me, libero = the kid who is currently my best passer, and I don't need her doing something else (like setting &/or hitting) at the next tournament. To you, it seems like libero = "the short kid on the roster who can't do anything else and helps make the roster larger". Am I right? Also -- I never said that I only train a young libero to pass. Everyone does everything at practice, absolutely. It appears we agree on that, and on its importance especially for younger players. Positions are for gameday, not practices (except for the practice before a tournament). My "system" and its positions are fluid throughout the season. I believe I've done everything in that regard -- I've had setters become OHs, liberos become MHs, and so forth, from one tournament to the next. I've gone from a 6-3 to a 6-2 and back; from a 4-2 to a 6-2; from a 6-2 to a modified 6-2 on serve receive; etc. I've even done a 5-1 for a season's final tournament or two. Again, these are 12s and 13s teams. I am curious about one remaining thing, though. You said that you "select teams with a system and a position in mind". Surely you don't, from tryouts, select the two tall kids as your MHs, the kid with the best hands at tryouts as your S, etc. -- right? let me restate....I would not recommend selecting young kids with a position in mind...maybe 15 or 16's, but certainly not 12's. I would select the best athlete regardless of position at that age. Perhaps I would factor in length taking into account things like shoe size for growth prediction. I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I bounced back and forth between what to do with advanced selection and young kids selection. Pick the best young athlete's you can get and teach them the skills. And you won't find anyone agree with you more about fluidity of systems. A plan without the ability to change is a plan doomed to fail. Change does not scare me at all. Bravo for being "free" in your thinking...many are too tunnel visioned. Lastly....you stated... To you, it seems like libero = "the short kid on the roster who can't do anything else and helps make the roster larger". NO, not to ME. But this is what I see A LOT of people doing and it's a mistake. The libero should be the best passer first, defender second, and both if they are really good. That is what this position was designed to do, improve team ball control. Not give the short kid a spot on the roster. The best defender might be 5'10", they certainly can cover a lot of ground with longer levers if trained with good movement quality. This position is about maximizing the talent of the best ball controller. What I call the trifecta of great liberos: Passing, Leadership, and Digging. Yes, in that order. I value passing first as most GMA influenced coaches would agree is statistically the most important skill. I think leadership is above digging because it can have a bigger impact and correlates highly to winning. So to close this discussion. I still believe we should not be using players at libero until the 17/18 age group. Mostly because of the bad decisions that are made with this position (Not YOU necessarily, from the sounds of it) and so kids don't pigeon hole themselves at a young age that I can only do one position. Too many don't think about the libero position and they just use it to fill out the roster, and then they need to get DD playing time to keep M&D happy which in turn keeps the money coming in. I see more of that than I do anything else. And this takes away reps at a young age from the kid who may end up being a MB in high school but then a 6R pass hitting OH in college. I'm just saying that opportunities and teaching is being dictated by what will make the easy buck and not what is best for the game and the development of the individuals who play it. Money is definitely the root of all evil.
|
|
|
Post by elevationvb on Feb 24, 2014 20:15:09 GMT -5
8th Grader / 14 Year Old Football Player Commits to LSU.
The kid is 6'3".Personally, I think this is ridiculous.8th Grade QB, New LSU Commit Zadock Dinkelmann Has Excellent Football GenesLSU fans found a reason to already be excited about the 2018 season this past weekend.
In a unique case of ultra-early recruiting, Les Miles and company picked up a verbal commitment from eighth-grade quarterback Zadock Dinkelmann, a 14-year-old phenom with family ties to the Heisman Trophy legacy, according to 247 Sports' Sonny Shipp.
The Somerset, Texas, standout still hasn't played a down at the varsity level, yet his skills are apparently intriguing enough to warrant a future opportunity in the SEC. Standing at 6'3", 180 lbs, Dinkelmann's physical dimensions are undoubtedly ahead of the curve for his age group.
|
|
|
Post by BoilerUp! on Feb 25, 2014 10:15:17 GMT -5
With so many scholarships for football, I am not surprised.
|
|
|
Post by royhobbs on Feb 25, 2014 16:19:47 GMT -5
It seems that there isn't really any risk for LSU, as this is non-binding for any party involved. If the kid develops into a star, LSU appears brilliant. If he flops, the story will disappear and this will be the last you will hear of Zadock Dinkelmann.
|
|
|
Post by rogero1 on Feb 26, 2014 2:03:09 GMT -5
The intent appears to be to develop volleyball players, opposed to developing MB's, OH's, and L's. By banning the libero at younger ages, undersized athletes will be forced to learn how to attack or set. By introducing the libero at the 17's level, it allows for specialization at a point that makes sense for recruiting and for the athlete's future of the sport. Physically, these athletes will not change all that much (most of them, anyway). I have been told that there was once a time when there wasn't a libero. FWIW, both Brazil and Canada do not use a libero for age groups younger than 16's.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballer4life on Feb 26, 2014 15:40:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Wolfgang on Feb 26, 2014 15:54:10 GMT -5
vollerballer4life, the life and schedule of a DI athlete is grueling, so they better like it and have passion or they will not last. Their life is not their own. ... How true. Perhaps it's a good thing that these kids' lives are not their own? I'm just wondering because I feel that many many kids, when left on their own, will waste time on the stupidest things. But I'm not absolutely certain of this. When I was younger, I did my homework first thing after school, then watched a lot of TV. This may or may not have been a bad thing, but TV helped me to learn a lot of facts (some useful, most useless) growing up. This made me very good at trivia games and such, but I never won millions of $$$ on Jeopardy, so all that knowledge for what? I also did a lot of stupid things (what they are, I will not disclose). I'm pretty sure if my friends were into drugs or alcohol, I would have joined in. As luck would have it, I had no such loser druggie or drunken friends. I wanted to form a rock band but, again, as luck would have it, none of my friends could play a musical instrument. It's as if life held me back from making an arse of myself, but this was purely luck. Modern kids may be more connected than I was and hence, are more likely to do dumb sh*t.
|
|
|
Post by toomuchvb on Feb 26, 2014 16:07:37 GMT -5
Good article. Most valuable dialogue is "What I wish my counselor would have said..." And that doesn't happen as often as it should--with each prospective student-athlete. And jumping to visiting schools, don't visit as an athlete. For schools in closer proximity to home, go to a regularly scheduled campus tour. Sure, you'll probably still see the bells and whistles of the college or university. But you'll take the tour through the eyes of a student, with other students who are strictly thinking of the possibility of that campus being their home for the next four years.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballer4life on Feb 27, 2014 10:58:20 GMT -5
vollerballer4life, the life and schedule of a DI athlete is grueling, so they better like it and have passion or they will not last. Their life is not their own. ... How true. Perhaps it's a good thing that these kids' lives are not their own? I'm just wondering because I feel that many many kids, when left on their own, will waste time on the stupidest things. But I'm not absolutely certain of this. When I was younger, I did my homework first thing after school, then watched a lot of TV. This may or may not have been a bad thing, but TV helped me to learn a lot of facts (some useful, most useless) growing up. This made me very good at trivia games and such, but I never won millions of $$$ on Jeopardy, so all that knowledge for what? I also did a lot of stupid things (what they are, I will not disclose). I'm pretty sure if my friends were into drugs or alcohol, I would have joined in. As luck would have it, I had no such loser druggie or drunken friends. I wanted to form a rock band but, again, as luck would have it, none of my friends could play a musical instrument. It's as if life held me back from making an arse of myself, but this was purely luck. Modern kids may be more connected than I was and hence, are more likely to do dumb sh*t. While I agree that a young adult is more likely to stay out of trouble if they have structure in their schedule, why can't they have a balance? The concept of "Perhaps it's a good thing that these kids' lives are not their own" kind of makes me nervous - what happens when they graduate and now they don't have someone telling them what they should be doing around the clock? I think these students NEED to be somewhat accountable for having free time and learning how to use it properly. That being said, why not Division III for the athlete that still wants to continue playing but wants more of a academics/social/athletics balance? They have more flexibility with their schedule, but still provide the goals/activities that will keep them fairly busy and avoid having too much time to waste.
|
|
|
Post by volleyballer4life on Feb 27, 2014 11:01:22 GMT -5
Good article. Most valuable dialogue is "What I wish my counselor would have said..." And that doesn't happen as often as it should--with each prospective student-athlete. And jumping to visiting schools, don't visit as an athlete. For schools in closer proximity to home, go to a regularly scheduled campus tour. Sure, you'll probably still see the bells and whistles of the college or university. But you'll take the tour through the eyes of a student, with other students who are strictly thinking of the possibility of that campus being their home for the next four years. One clarification - if the student isn't a scholarship athlete, while you can visit as a regular student, make sure you initiate contact with the coach and let them know you're an athlete before applying. I do think that carries weight in that process - while Merit Aid isn't awarded on athletic performance, they do look at it as an extra-curricular activity, and essentially being an ambassador for the next 4 years could be something that they do consider when looking at your credentials.
|
|
|
Post by spikeninja on Feb 27, 2014 17:34:56 GMT -5
The intent appears to be to develop volleyball players, opposed to developing MB's, OH's, and L's. By banning the libero at younger ages, undersized athletes will be forced to learn how to attack or set. By introducing the libero at the 17's level, it allows for specialization at a point that makes sense for recruiting and for the athlete's future of the sport. Physically, these athletes will not change all that much (most of them, anyway). I have been told that there was once a time when there wasn't a libero. FWIW, both Brazil and Canada do not use a libero for age groups younger than 16's. Wow! Guess I am not the only one. Did not know that.
|
|
|
Post by BlameTheSet on Feb 28, 2014 10:11:07 GMT -5
My wife is 4 months pregnant, should I start sending out sonograms to coaches now?
|
|