|
Post by jgrout on Sept 3, 2014 20:52:55 GMT -5
During the Kelly Murphy era, Stanford would have run a true 6-2 with both Murphy and Cassidy Lichtman as hitter-setters. The trouble is that there was no Kelly Murphy era at Stanford: she went to Florida, tearing a giant hole in the Cardinal's plans for 2009, 2010 and 2011. Lichtman came off the bench mostly as a back-row sub in 2007 and played a variety of roles... six-rotation hitter-setter, four rotation outside and two-rotation setter, six rotation setter... in 2008, 2009 and 2010.
|
|
|
Post by usvballfan on Sept 3, 2014 22:02:16 GMT -5
Kelly Murphy is just a gamer. All-around volleyball player. Now the era is Kelly Murphy = Olympian!
|
|
|
Post by pogoball on Sept 3, 2014 22:35:09 GMT -5
NCAA sub rules favor specialization. OK. But no coach is going to NOT use their setters to hit if they are better hitters than the bench options. For instance, if Florida had two Kelly Murphys. Well, no good coach anyhow. You're missing an important point. A setter can be one of the best hitters on the team, but if she is clearly the best setter, the team is better off with a 5-1. See Alisha Glass & Penn State.
|
|
|
Post by jgrout on Sept 3, 2014 23:55:26 GMT -5
For a left-hander, I would argue that the decision between being a hitter-setter and a pure setter is more about which advantage is greater... the ability of a lefty setter with good hands and good footwork in the front row to exploit all the favorable angles it gives her or the ability of the same lefty to rake from her natural (right) side of the court. Stanford lefty Cary Wendell was a hitter-setter in a true 6-2 with Lisa Sharpley in 1994 and 1995 because she was a very strong hitter in the front row and her setting in the front row was not so good as her hitting.
Sharpley, a right-hander, fits pogoball's argument better. Though Wendell and Sharpley were both first-team All-American hitter-setters and one-two in kills on Stanford in 1995, when Wendell graduated and Kerri Walsh came in, Sharpley gave up hitting and set full-time in 1996 and 1997. When I saw her hit at an alumni match one year, my jaw dropped... I had had no idea that she could hit at all! When I asked her a few years ago why they never set her in transition in 1996 and 1997, she pointed out that those teams had many other offensive options in transition. Part of Walsh's legend at Stanford is that she set Kristin Folkl (in transition, of course) even better than Sharpley did in transition.
|
|
|
Post by 642fiddi on Sept 4, 2014 12:17:21 GMT -5
To continue this thread.Why arent there more tall setters being developed at the club level? Volleyball when played at the highest level is played be extrodinarily tall people and yet when you look at college rosters a majority of the setters are in the 5-9 range.
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Sept 4, 2014 12:44:32 GMT -5
To continue this thread.Why arent there more tall setters being developed at the club level? Volleyball when played at the highest level is played be extrodinarily tall people and yet when you look at college rosters a majority of the setters are in the 5-9 range. Umm... Jordan Poulter S/OPP 6'1" Kathryn Plummer S/OPP 6'5" Kylie Pickrell S/OPP 6'0" Bailey Tanner (6'2" in club, 6'1" at UW) also trained as a setter/hitter in club. With more college teams going to the 6-2, you're only going to see more S/OPPs in club. There are probably, however, ten setters 5'9" or shorter for every one 5'10" or taller. Each inch over the average, there are fewer girls, and even fewer with athletic ability.
|
|
|
Post by rogero1 on Sept 5, 2014 2:51:11 GMT -5
To continue this thread.Why arent there more tall setters being developed at the club level? Volleyball when played at the highest level is played be extrodinarily tall people and yet when you look at college rosters a majority of the setters are in the 5-9 range. Because most clubs place their tallest in the middle, hardest swingers on the outside, quickest short players as liberos, leaving the most athletic to set.
|
|