|
|
Post by Gorf on Aug 17, 2004 0:43:43 GMT -5
Hmmm, a libero more important than a middle blocker. I wonder how many kills per game a libero has. I wonder how many blocks per game a libero averages. IMO all positions are important in volleyball. You take the MB out of the front line and see how many fewer points are scored and also how much harder it is for the rest of the team to play defense. How many digs per game does a middle make when they're being replaced by the libero in the back row? How many mistimed or poorly closed blocks did the middle make that cause the job of the defense behind them to be more difficult? How many extra chances does that big middle gain for getting additional kills because of the liberos keeping balls in play? As we're prone to saying in sports Paula Gentil "makes her teammates better" and has done so in both of the season's shes play with the Gophers. If there truly are fewer elite level middles than there are elite level liberos then you'd think that coaches would be out there trying to do whatever they can to get those elite level liberos onto their teams since they would have better odds of signing one of them to a scholarship than they would the elite level middle. If a teams passing and defense are weak(er) then those big middles don't get to be involved as much on offense so the liberos like Nicole Davis, Chrissie Zartman, and Paula Gentil that receive serve AND play defense at a high level make a huge impact on their teams. You're right, all positions are important, but I think that liberos are under appreciated in general. Another common saying in sports is "Offense wins games. Defense wins championships." |
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Aug 17, 2004 1:00:00 GMT -5
Florida's liberos are on scholarship(Engel and Taylor Williams). Mandes was originally a walk on, but then earned a scholarship for her las 3 seasons.
|
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Aug 17, 2004 1:12:28 GMT -5
Ok, we're not dissing on Gentil. We've already established her and one or two others as the premier liberos in the game today.
I would give her a scholarship more than likely to play for me, too... but she's an exception. There are going to be a few exceptional liberos out there... but not enough to go about scholarshipping all liberos!
Instead, I'd spend MY scholarships on taller front-row players.
Besides, I can train my Middle Blocker to get out of the way in serve receive rotations in the backrow. I can train that same MB to play defense, too. I will never be able to train an extra 5-7" on a player to let them hit over the tape.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2004 7:31:31 GMT -5
I may not know much about much (except that I know more than the Idahoser), but what I do know is that INVARIABLY ball control is the "X" factor in VB. When you get to the point where teams are relatively evenly matched, the team that passes and defends better is almost always going to win.
OF COURSE, you can't just remove the middle blocker. Nor can you do without a setter. But that was never the argument. The argument was that the SMART programs are spending as much time trying to find that great libero as they are trying to find the great MH, OH or setter.
The biggest mistake a team can make is to load up on offense (i.e., 6'2" + hitters) and all but ignore the fact they need to pass and defend. For years, the Gophers--as an example--had great hitters and Lindsey Berg. They'd be able to play with teams like Penn State, Wisconsin and UNI, but around about game 4 or 5, when the hitters would start tiring or the opponent's defense would pick it up a notch or two, momentum would swing away from the Gophers.
What changed? A re-dedication to defense by the whole program (led by the coaching staff and Lisa Reinhart IMHO) and the arrival of Paula Gentil. Yes, Gentil is an EXCEPTIONAL libero, but that doesn't change the basic point: defense and ball control makes the difference.
(As a side-note, this is also what took Wisconsin to another level in years past. Sure, Livingston was a big part of it, but those teams dug and passed like no one's business. They don't do it any more and they've slipped.)
|
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 17, 2004 14:54:58 GMT -5
The biggest mistake a team can make is to load up on offense (i.e., 6'2" + hitters) and all but ignore the fact they need to pass and defend. For years, the Gophers--as an example--had great hitters and Lindsey Berg. They'd be able to play with teams like Penn State, Wisconsin and UNI, but around about game 4 or 5, when the hitters would start tiring or the opponent's defense would pick it up a notch or two, momentum would swing away from the Gophers. What changed? A re-dedication to defense by the whole program (led by the coaching staff and Lisa Reinhart IMHO) and the arrival of Paula Gentil. Yes, Gentil is an EXCEPTIONAL libero, but that doesn't change the basic point: defense and ball control makes the difference. Again (and IB was hammering this point repeatedly) - if you can get someone like Gentil or Zartman, by all means offer that scholarship. You can probably count the number of liberos (who aren't recruited as hitters or setters) of this caliber on two hands. However - the basic fact is there are lots of available back-row players a notch (which is still very good) under the level of the elite liberos. Most of these players are very much willing to play as walk-ons for top teams. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2004 15:10:16 GMT -5
Again (and IB was hammering this point repeatedly) - if you can get someone like Gentil or Zartman, by all means offer that scholarship. You can probably count the number of liberos (who aren't recruited as hitters or setters) of this caliber on two hands. However - the basic fact is there are lots of available back-row players a notch (which is still very good) under the level of the elite liberos. Most of these players are very much willing to play as walk-ons for top teams. And, AGAIN, because I am specifically objecting to IB's point: the top programs are making a HUGE mistake if they are counting on their liberos to walk on. I understand IB's point. I understand your point. But I still say: 1) the programs need to do a better job of finding that "special" ball control player, even if they are a level below AAs like Gentil, and (shouldabeens) Davis and Zartman. 2) this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe the special liberos aren't out there--or are interchangeable--the players who could BE special liberos, or elite liberos, won't be dedicating themselves to that role and -- bingo! -- all of the sudden you don't have them. If you continually emphasize that it's the 6'2" banger you want in your program (which was ALSO IB's point), then how the heck are you going to find that libero who can make a difference? You put it entirely in the hands of Lady Luck. Another example: what does Nebraska STILL need? Maybe it'll be Saleamua, but the fact is they won't win it all unless they find someone to pass and defend. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Aug 17, 2004 15:19:22 GMT -5
The libero is a relatively new position.
It would seem to be a nice way to tell club players not to bother trying to focus on being a libero (if you any desire to get a scholarship to play at the D1 level) if the majority of coaches maintain the old status quo of not even considering giving scholarships to anyone under 6'0".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2004 15:21:55 GMT -5
>-(Gorf)-<[} link=board=general&thread=1092634338&start=21#1 date=1092773962]The libero is a relatively new position. It would seem to be a nice way to tell club players not to bother trying to focus on being a libero (if you any desire to get a scholarship to play at the D1 level) if the majority of coaches maintain the old status quo of not even considering giving scholarships to anyone under 6'0". Just to be clear: a 6'2" libero is OK with me. And, besides, the original response is misleading. Sure, you want the 6'2"+ banger. But they are almost as rare as the elite libero. If you have a choice of one or the other, then you truly have a tough choice--and you need to really think about what your program needs. The better question is why do programs "spend" scholarships on the 6'0" and under OHs (or whatever) and not on that top-notch defensive player? I'd throw IB's original post right back at him: those types of OHs (or whatever) are as plentiful as are the above-average potential liberos. Why is it that Supply and Demand does not enter into the equation here? Anyhow. I was originally just picking an argument with IB. All I really want to say is that the value of a good libero is under-appreciated. |
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Aug 17, 2004 15:52:37 GMT -5
Just to be clear: a 6'2" libero is OK with me. Yeah, but that will be a rare commodity! Not until the front-row fills up with 6-5 plus players (which it will eventually). According to RichKern.com's 2004 recruiting class: Height (count) 6-1 and up (221) 6-0 (168) 5-11 (151) 5-10 (153) 5-9 and less (254) I found this to be actually a nice bell-curve... but what throws in a wrench is this: 2004 recruits by position (summarized) Position (count) Backrow (142) MB/OH/RS (716) S (144) 70% of the players are playing front-row. 14% are dedicated to backrow. This means that a lot of players are playing all-around! 20% of the players above are "gargantuan's." Yet, only 14% of this year's recruits are defensive players? You're definitely in the minority, (R)uffda.  Versatility. A 6-0 OH is also expected to pass in most of today's systems (not international as much though). You're just pulling those figures out of a kazoo, aren't you? Dang... I need BiK back! Gorf, call off your attack Gopher! I don't think the value of a good libero IS under-appreciated I just think that a bigger difference in a game can be made by an amazing all-around front-row player who can punish an opposing libero. Basically, as I see it, your argument is that all things being equal, the team with a scholarship libero will win, right? Uhem. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Aug 17, 2004 16:46:45 GMT -5
According to RichKern.com's 2004 recruiting class: Height (count) 6-1 and up (221) 6-0 (168) 5-11 (151) 5-10 (153) 5-9 and less (254) I found this to be actually a nice bell-curve... but what throws in a wrench is this: 2004 recruits by position (summarized) Position (count) Backrow (142) MB/OH/RS (716) S (144) 70% of the players are playing front-row. 14% are dedicated to backrow. This means that a lot of players are playing all-around! 20% of the players above are "gargantuan's." Yet, only 14% of this year's recruits are defensive players? You're definitely in the minority, (R)uffda. ermmm... You're infering a lot that isn't really implied in the statistics IB. You say the liberos are walk-ons, walk-ons aren't as likely to be listed in Rich Kern's statistics. It may be that 70% of the recruits are listed as front row players for 2004. That necessarily imply, however, that all of those 70% are going to see significant playing time, especially in their freshman seasons. It also doesn't imply that they will play back row at all. Certainly some will play back row, however, the libero can be used replace two of those front row players in the back row. As for calling off (R)uffda!, I have no control over him. I believe his bite is worse than his bark though - so be careful not to get him angry. FWIW: I've heard that he's no longer contagiously rabid so you won't need all those nasty shots if he bites you. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2004 17:17:07 GMT -5
I don't think the value of a good libero IS under-appreciated I just think that a bigger difference in a game can be made by an amazing all-around front-row player who can punish an opposing libero. The amazing all-around front-row player is as rare as the Gentils, Zartmans and Davises. And you weren't talking about an all-around player. My argument is that the amazing libero is as valuable (or more valuable) than the amazing front row player. OF COURSE, the all-around player would be the most sought-after. No. My argument is that the program with the better passing and defense will win. And a libero can make all that difference, whether she is scholarship or not. My argument is that too many programs focus too much on offense and not enough on defense. So they sign the average to above-average OH rather than the above-average libero. That's a mistake, IMHO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2004 17:23:07 GMT -5
I have another hypothetical, sort of off-topic, but not really.
If you have the choice between:
a) a 6'3" OH who you think will hit .350 and put up a decent block, but will not be a help on serve receive and will need a DS for the backrow, or
b) a 5'10" OH who you think will hit .260, but will be a primary passer and play the backrow
whom do you recruit?
|
|
|
|
Post by GatorVball on Aug 17, 2004 17:38:33 GMT -5
I have another hypothetical, sort of off-topic, but not really. If you have the choice between: a) a 6'3" OH who you think will hit .350 and put up a decent block, but will not be a help on serve receive and will need a DS for the backrow, or b) a 5'10" OH who you think will hit .260, but will be a primary passer and play the backrow whom do you recruit? It depends on what you already have. If you have some great passers already, go with the option a. If you have some hitters, but no real good passers, go with option b. If I had to pick just one to start a team, then I'd go with the passer who can play back row. She's more well rounded than other, even if her offense is weaker, cause you can't hit if your team can't pass. |
|
|
|
Post by IdahoBoy on Aug 17, 2004 17:39:50 GMT -5
I have another hypothetical, sort of off-topic, but not really. If you have the choice between: a) a 6'3" OH who you think will hit .350 and put up a decent block, but will not be a help on serve receive and will need a DS for the backrow, or b) a 5'10" OH who you think will hit .260, but will be a primary passer and play the backrow whom do you recruit? The 6-3 player. There are 11 other positions to fill to pass. You don't win a national championship hitting .260. Annnnnnd... I could teach her to pass. I couldn't teach the 5-10 player to grow. |
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 17, 2004 17:42:47 GMT -5
And, AGAIN, because I am specifically objecting to IB's point: the top programs are making a HUGE mistake if they are counting on their liberos to walk on. I understand IB's point. I understand your point. But I still say: 1) the programs need to do a better job of finding that "special" ball control player, even if they are a level below AAs like Gentil, and (shouldabeens) Davis and Zartman. 2) this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you believe the special liberos aren't out there--or are interchangeable--the players who could BE special liberos, or elite liberos, won't be dedicating themselves to that role and -- bingo! -- all of the sudden you don't have them. Depends on the program. If it's an expensive private school, you might have a problem getting that walk-on libero. I think this might have been Stanford's problem, besides the fact that they've eschewed walk-ons for years. If you're a public school with in-state (or otherwise less expensive) tuition, it might be an easier sell. Just to be clear: a 6'2" libero is OK with me. And, besides, the original response is misleading. Sure, you want the 6'2"+ banger. But they are almost as rare as the elite libero. If you have a choice of one or the other, then you truly have a tough choice--and you need to really think about what your program needs. The tallest libero I've seen is 6'1" Courtney Schultz at Stanford. I actually ran into her mother once (which one is yours?), and commented that she was the tallest back-row only player I've ever seen. She said her daughter was just filling a need on the team. I think Mia Jerkov (6'3") would make an excellent libero, although it might be a "waste" to not have her play in the front row. She's played as a DS a few times when she had ankle injuries where she was advised to limit her jumping. Which gets me to the point. Some of the best back-row players are the 6' or taller OHs or setters of all heights. Volleyball is one game where one is advised to be either a setter or an all-around player. Club programs will be placing their players at the positions where they can make the most impact, and that hasn't traditionally been as a back-row only player. Perhaps the libero position is too new, and hasn't seeped into the traditional thinking. |
|
