Brazil/USA: Final Thoughts

[sonofbarcelonabob]

Caught the rebroadcast of the quarterfinal (end of G3, all of G4 and G5). I agree with Tom Pingel's assessment - USA has nothing to be ashamed about, they gave it their all and left everything they had on that court. What an incredible match, and what an incredible emotional rollercoster for everyone involved (coaches, players, parents, fans) on both sides.

Random thoughts:

-Those who questioned why Metcalf wasn't subbed for Haneef when the latter was struggling. My take is that the USA had a set gameplan going into the Olympics, a plan that placed a higher priority on the double-sub than it did subbing out for a subpar Haneef. Toshi and the USA coaching staff stuck to their game plan, which is sound philosophy. You don't deviate from what you had planned and what the athletes are expecting, for some last minute on-the-fly decision making.

-Not only was it a battle on the court, it was a coaching battle as well. Guimares (Brazilian coach) has a ton of experience, including a Gold Medal from 1992 when he coached the men's team. Toshi is awesome - watching the interaction on both benches between games and during timeouts, Team USA was totally focused and in-sync. As far as tactical decision-making, both coaching staffs executed just about flawlessly.

-I'm not a big fan of pulling Ah Mow off when she's frontrow and sliding the other two blockers (usually Scott/Phipps) all the way over to block on the opponent's LF attack. But, it was effective tonight, I will admit that.

-Short of the USA winning and marching all the way to the gold medal, you couldn't have written a better script. As I watched G3, G4, and G5 (and this tournament overall), it became a passing of the torch. Nnamani and Haneef acquitted themselves well - the stats don't tell the whole story. Haneef's numbers weren't great, but she had alot of tough chances. She made very few errors in G3, G4, and G5. Nnamani's enthusiasm for the game is infectious - her value to the USA Women is measured not only by her on-court abilities, but also for her personality and what she can bring to the program off the court as well. Everyone I've ever talked to at USAV has the same thing to say about her - "What a great kid!" Tom, if she decides to return, is both a young gun and a cagey vet at the same time, and will be a tremendous asset to the team for the next quadrennial.

-The match itself was decided within the first 3 plays of G5 - and it wasn't so much that USA gave it up as much as Brazil took control when it most needed to. Three natural points on serve in a rally game to 15 is a huge advantage, and a big hole for the USA to have tried to dig out of. Given Brazil's experience in big-money matches, that's not surprising. And the player who fueled Brazil's final push that won the match at the start of G5 - Virna Dias, a big-money player if there ever was one.

-Gut-wrenching moments aplenty at the very end. Dani Scott fighting back tears as she knows USA cannot possibly come back from so far down. Keba sitting on the bench and Haneef coming over to console her.

-Watching USA play in G3 and G4 was magic. That's about the best I've seen this unit play. Ever. Win or lose is irrelevant. You can watch those games over and over again and point to that point in time and say that the entire team (coaching staff and players) were "in the zone". Like I said, it was magical.


Team USA has a very good nucleus to build on for the next 4 years - assuming that these Olympics hasn't soured any of the younger players who could become the core group for Beijing. Nnamani, Haneef, and Metcalf can all contribute big. I would move Metcalf over to the left fulltime so that both her and Haneef can be on the court at the same time - she's already proven she can play on the left. I like Berg, I think she can assume Ah Mow's position (assuming Ah Mow is also done). The question that has to be asked (which has nothing to do with Berg herself) is can the USA be competitive (as in gold medal contenders) with a 5'8" setter? Other teams have done so, it is not so much the height of the player as it is blocking ability against the best hitters the opposition can throw at you. Based on Toshi's strategy to pull both setters off the net and slide the other 2 frontrow blockers all the way over - I tend to think he doesn't believe the USA can compete that way. Hochevar is a great prospect, if they give her a full 4 years to develop as the setter for the program. I don't think Cepero can make it, she's just not quick enough.

What a great match to watch. Glad they showed as much of it as they did.

[itsallaboutme]

Well if that was the game plan they it's too bad they didn't tell Nancy sooner so she didn't waste 4 years trying to make this team. She's one of the main reasons they qualified for the olympics then all she gets to do is keep the bench warm. I would be pissed to work so hard for the last 4 years to make the team then only get to play a few points. If I were her I would move on and forget about 2008.

[BigTenVball]

Sorry, but when you lose to the Dom Republic, you better look at changing your game plan.
We can all sit around and bemoan how great they played in the LOSS to the Brazilians, but, we shouldn't have BEEN playing the Brazilians! We should have been 2nd in that pool, at worst 3rd.
The team dug a hole they couldn't get out of.
Whether you place the blame on the players, or the blame on the coaches for an ineffective game plan, or the coaches for choosing the wrong players, the was not a good showing for the US women.

[sIsam]

I think it goes deeper than game plan, coaching staa or playing philosophy. I'd say put the blame on the system. USA has been producing a lot of one dimensional players at the elite level in the recent years and very few who are well rounded. There are a lot of OHs out there who can hit from LS but not from RS or BR or Opps who can hit RS/BR but not LS. Hitters who can hit the he** out of the ball but can't receive or play defense worth anything. Same thing goes true for other positions as well.

A country with the talent pool and opportunities of the US should not have to rely on 35-yr old Keba Phipps as the backbone of reception. (This is not to mean she is bad btw....)

I'm not too familiar with HS/ Club system in the US but one thing I see is that players are specialized TOO early in their careers and are not gives time/ opportunities to hone secondary vb skills. Suggestion here: Ban the libero until college level, let everyone play defence/ receive out there. Limit substitutions so that you don't have one set of players playing FR and one set in the back.

Likes of Tom, Grun (Ger), Shashkova and Artamonova (RUS), Piccinini (ITA) are the kind of players who will get a team somewhere in the long run. (More examples can be given here....)

IMO, Team USA needs more players with multiple skills coming thru the ranks in order to be successful in the future.

[sonofbarcelonabob]

sisam said:

I think it goes deeper than game plan, coaching staa or playing philosophy. I'd say put the blame on the system. USA has been producing a lot of one dimensional players at the elite level in the recent years and very few who are well rounded. There are a lot of OHs out there who can hit from LS but not from RS or BR or Opps who can hit RS/BR but not LS. Hitters who can hit the he** out of the ball but can't receive or play defense worth anything. Same thing goes true for other positions as well.

A country with the talent pool and opportunities of the US should not have to rely on 35-yr old Keba Phipps as the backbone of reception. (This is not to mean she is bad btw....)

I'm not too familiar with HS/ Club system in the US but one thing I see is that players are specialized TOO early in their careers and are not gives time/ opportunities to hone secondary vb skills. Suggestion here: Ban the libero until college level, let everyone play defence/ receive out there. Limit substitutions so that you don't have one set of players playing FR and one set in the back.

Likes of Tom, Grun (Ger), Shashkova and Artamonova (RUS), Piccinini (ITA) are the kind of players who will get a team somewhere in the long run. (More examples can be given here....)

IMO, Team USA needs more players with multiple skills coming thru the ranks in order to be successful in the future.

Yup. The specialization vs. generalization debate has been a hot topic of discussion for years in the USA. But, given that the pipeline goes h.s./club to collegiate game to National Team, there doesn't appear to be much change happening anytime soon. At each level of that equation, coaches will look out for their own interests (which, of course, is winning and staying competitive). This comes at the expense of player development.

Good example of this is an athlete like Hochevar. Tremendously gifted volleyball player that is so good at alot of things, and can play multiple positions (S, OH, RS). Why wasn't she on the squad in Athens? Simple, although she was good at alot of things, in the USA coaching staff's assessment, she wasn't better than those playing in front of her at any of those positions (which, in and of itself, is a crock since she was better than Cross-Battle at OH).

As for the other people who commented on this thread -total lemmings. One bad tournament and you're ready to decry everything Yoshida and the team has done for the past 4 years. Go back and watch the tape, I don't see Metcalf herself pouting on the sidelines, I see a great team effort against Brazil - I see an entire squad of 12 players and all the coaches totally focused and united. It was a special moment in time - it's too bad you bipolar lemmings only look at wins/losses and whether or not your favorite players are or are not getting dissed in your own myopic opinion.

[Go Iowa]

Sticking to a sound philosophy is one thing, but having that philosophy being so rigid that you can't change your personnel is stupid. Haneef never got the job done at the Olympics (and either did Keba). This is to cut in on their efforts because they certainly played great roles getting the U.S. to Athens, but a coaching staff needs to know when to put the sparkplugs in. Ogonna should have seen a LOT more court time. Everytime she came in the excitement level came up. And Metcalf... did she have any errors??? She worked her butt off to make the 2000 team and was the last cut. Then she worked her butt off again to make the 2004 team and got unwarranted splinters. If I was her, I'd ditch this system and dive onto the beach.

I'm still a fan of Cepero. I have more confidence that you can teach her court quickness in 4 years over setting technique (as you would with Hochevar). Cepero is a proven blocker and who can run an offense. That said, I hope Berg also stays around. She's a fierce little volleyball diva in her own right.

[Deleted]

But every time Ogonna came in there was an immediate hole in the USA serve receive and defense. Ogonna will get better, but you're too focused on her offense.

I agree with whoever it was who said too much pressure was placed on Tom, because of the lack of offense elsewhere.

As for Toshi sticking to the game plan, he PULLED LOGAN TOM for much of the elimination match. That was risky, gutsy, etc.

[FreeBall]

SonofBarcelonaBob said:

Random thoughts:

-Those who questioned why Metcalf wasn't subbed for Haneef when the latter was struggling. My take is that the USA had a set gameplan going into the Olympics, a plan that placed a higher priority on the double-sub than it did subbing out for a subpar Haneef. Toshi and the USA coaching staff stuck to their game plan, which is sound philosophy. You don't deviate from what you had planned and what the athletes are expecting, for some last minute on-the-fly decision making.

The fact that Nnmani played so much for a struggling Tom exposes this argument as total BS. As the L1 and a primary passer, I'm sure the "set" gameplan was for Tom to play every point of every game of every match. When she struggled and was replaced by Nnamani, it just highlighted how much Metcalf got screwed in terms of playing time throughout these Olympics!

[Deleted]

As for the specialization, the bigger problem is the lack of court time allowed by the NCAA. USAV is doing all they can to develop players, with the A2 and the Training Team, etc.

I think there is progress being made.

It's just a shame that the sport really only gets one chance in the national spotlight every four years. (And then NBC does everything they can to dim that spotlight.) Who knows what a gold medal would do for the sport's popularity in the USA?

Let's hope the men can do something, as unlikely as that appears to be.

[foreignball]

SonofBarcelonaBob said:

Toshi and the USA coaching staff stuck to their game plan, which is sound philosophy. You don't deviate from what you had planned and what the athletes are expecting, for some last minute on-the-fly decision making.

Just from philosophy stand point:
Any plan takes some time before it starts paying off. Quite often this period is longer than expected so I agree it’s wise to stick up with what has been planned. Many people who don’t have enough patience change their plans twice a day and always get poor results.
On the other hand every plan is being made to serve a specific end goal e.g. to facilitate its achievement. If the time needed for our plan execution is longer than the goal’s dead line apparently it won’t bring success. Another one is that due to the dynamic reality some parameters used for planning may not be valid any more. So any plan needs to be appraised at a certain point and adjustment/updates have to be made. The biggest mastership is to figure out when, what and how.

[sonofbarcelonabob]

Tom wasn't 100% in that match. She wasn't pulled completely for Oganna, they did the frontrow/backrow sub since Tom could still pass/play defense for 3 rotations (although Oganna had a really nice dig in middle back in the 5th set, stepped right into the seam of the block and dug one perfectly). That Yoshida used that sub pattern indicates to me that it wasn't because of Tom's performance that she got yanked, but mostly because whatever injury she had limited her frontrow ability.

Since FIVB rules only allow one entry per game (with starting lineup not considered an entry), Yoshida was forced to leave one in after the sub was made - in the early games he left Tom in for ball control, in the 4th set he rode Oganna as long as he could before reinserting Tom towards the end of the set in crunch time. Since the 5th set goes so fast, he subbed Tom early, then rode Oganna till the end.

Oganna was effective coming off the bench offensively. But moving into a fulltime role would lessen that effectiveness, as opponents have more time to scout her and note her tendencies and adjust for that. Same thing happens in baseball when they bring a pitcher up from the Triple-A squad that no one has seen to the big show. He'll befuddle all the opposing hitters for a short time, until they have a chance to see his pitching arsenal - after going around the hitting rotation a few times it will determine whether that guy will be a Nolan Ryan or a chump headed back down to Triple-A ball.

Nnamani's range as a hitter has improved steadily each year. But she still has a tendency to try the sharp angle as her go-to shot. They dug her alot in the sharp angle towards the end of the match. I do like that she is fearless and takes good rips on good sets, that's what you need from your leftside attack.

[Go Iowa]

FreeBall said:

The fact that Nnmani played so much for a struggling Tom exposes this argument as total BS. As the L1 and a primary passer, I'm sure the "set" gameplan was for Tom to play every point of every game of every match. When she struggled and was replaced by Nnamani, it just highlighted how much Metcalf got screwed in terms of playing time throughout these Olympics!

Logan was actually positioned as L2, away from Ah Mow. This is why I think Ogonna should have been in there. Your L2 has to be a primary passer, but your OPP can pass for L1. L1 is perfect for Ogonna.

[vbfan]

The interesting thing is some of these players should have that all-around experience from playing overseas for 5-10 years. The real answer is for USA Volleyball to create and hire professional sports management to run a US Pro volleyball league. Don't leave the leadership up to a real estate mogul from Chicago who wants to give his daughter an opportunity to play after college to run the league. Put the teams in areas that draw big for college matches (obviously not hawaii since the travel cost would be too much) Professional sports management will spend money on the right things to get the league built rather than spending money on offices and infrastructure right away. I applaud Bill Kennedy's efforts and the money he put into the USAV. With the limitations on time that the NCAA puts on college programs a pro-league would be able to develop the all-around player that people on this board are talking about.

[sIsam]

vbfan said:

The interesting thing is some of these players should have that all-around experience from playing overseas for 5-10 years.

Well, overseas teams will not sign players that they have to teach volleyball to! This is something that needs to be learned early in my opinion and then can be honed in international leagues/ competition. If you mean your veterans, they are past their prime and with the talent pool and number of players that US has to choose from should not even be on the roster.

The real answer is for USA Volleyball to create and hire professional sports management to run a US Pro volleyball league. Don't leave the leadership up to a real estate mogul from Chicago who wants to give his daughter an opportunity to play after college to run the league. Put the teams in areas that draw big for college matches (obviously not hawaii since the travel cost would be too much) Professional sports management will spend money on the right things to get the league built rather than spending money on offices and infrastructure right away. I applaud Bill Kennedy's efforts and the money he put into the USAV. With the limitations on time that the NCAA puts on college programs a pro-league would be able to develop the all-around player that people on this board are talking about.

If they can make a go of this and stay afloat then yes this is one way to go though I just can't see it surviving... IMO the USA has a goldmine in NCAA (which is almost a semi-pro league) that they are not utilizing effectively in the next step.

[sonofbarcelonabob]

sisam said:

Well, overseas teams will not sign players that they have to teach volleyball to! This is something that needs to be learned early in my opinion and then can be honed in international leagues/ competition. If you mean your veterans, they are past their prime and with the talent pool and number of players that US has to choose from should not even be on the roster.



If they can make a go of this and stay afloat then yes this is one way to go though I just can't see it surviving... IMO the USA has a goldmine in NCAA (which is almost a semi-pro league) that they are not utilizing effectively in the next step.

It will be extremely difficult for a pro volleyball league to establish and maintain itself for more than a season or two.

NCAA has the potential to be a better developmental vehicle than it currently is. But the restrictions the NCAA governing body puts on all sports, not just volleyball, limits its effectiveness. The concept of student-athlete trumps the impetus to use the NCAA as a developmental platform for these athletes. Limited training time = slower progress. Plus, too much inbreeding since everyone in the NCAA plays cookie-cutter styles. Also, as I said earlier, in any NCAA program the emphasis is on being competitive over player development.

I like John Wooden's idea postulated way back that college freshmen NOT be allowed to play varsity for their first year, and form JV squads which play their own schedule (a less intensive one). This @$$%*!* of redshirting a student athlete for an extra year is crap. How many 5th year seniors in NCAA football will finish their degrees before getting drafted by the NFL and signing multi-year/multimillion dollar deals? That's why so many of them, when asked what they will do in retirement, inevitably say "Going back to finish my degree..."