Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 7:34:04 GMT -5
That was a great interview. I like Poulter's viewpoint on the youth clubs and NCAA becoming more like the International game. Reducing substitutions and forcing younger players to develop more of an all around game early on. That would fundamentally be huge for Team USA moving forward. Will it ever happen though?
|
|
|
|
Post by chatchu-off moksri on Mar 30, 2021 11:17:24 GMT -5
South Korea will participate. The assistant coach will be in charge of training until Lavarini returns and finishes his quarantine. Korea will have the difficult task of finding players that can replace the former twins starting roles. The task got even tougher with Kang So Hwi, a potential replacement, getting an ankle injury in a playoff match. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 12:11:40 GMT -5
Reducing substitutions and forcing younger players to develop more of an all around game early on. That would fundamentally be huge for Team USA moving forward. Will it ever happen though? No. They’ve gone the other direction and increased it even more at some point in the past decade or so. The NCAA has around 5,000 D1 volleyball players; they aren’t going to change a rule that would cut the opportunities to play for half of these athletes all to boost the skills of the top 3-5 seniors each year who will actually continue their careers and eventually contribute to team USA in some manner. I loathe the NCAA rule as I think the nonstop subs completely ruin the flow of the game (and other leagues have shown us that each sub doesn’t need to take nearly a full minute of administrative processing time, but that’s another argument) but I don’t think they’ll go backward on the playing opportunities anytime soon. But while I’m here and going off topic... what is it with NCAA commentators and thinking we don’t want the substitutions to be announced? They often extend the replay to be shown a couple extra times while waiting for the substitution to read the terms and conditions of her entry before she signs the playing contract and serves in the military for a required six year period, but during that whole time they won’t tell us who is being subbed in or out. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 14:38:16 GMT -5
Reducing substitutions and forcing younger players to develop more of an all around game early on. That would fundamentally be huge for Team USA moving forward. Will it ever happen though? No. They’ve gone the other direction and increased it even more at some point in the past decade or so. The NCAA has around 5,000 D1 volleyball players; they aren’t going to change a rule that would cut the opportunities to play for half of these athletes all to boost the skills of the top 3-5 seniors each year who will actually continue their careers and eventually contribute to team USA in some manner. I loathe the NCAA rule as I think the nonstop subs completely ruin the flow of the game (and other leagues have shown us that each sub doesn’t need to take nearly a full minute of administrative processing time, but that’s another argument) but I don’t think they’ll go backward on the playing opportunities anytime soon. But while I’m here and going off topic... what is it with NCAA commentators and thinking we don’t want the substitutions to be announced? They often extend the replay to be shown a couple extra times while waiting for the substitution to read the terms and conditions of her entry before she signs the playing contract and serves in the military for a required six year period, but during that whole time they won’t tell us who is being subbed in or out. I will always advocate for the International rules because it forces all positions to do MORE except for liberos who don't serve like they do in the NCAA. International commentators do a better job of announcing subs and, in some cases, put up a graphic showing the substitution. That is easier to pull off with fewer subs and is often visually represented by a graphic at the bottom of the screen. Replays are usually limited to one per rally and only if it is a good/scrappy play. I just liked that Poulter thought that fewer substitutions would be better for the NCAA so that, now with AU probably around, maybe permanently, MORE NCAA athletes will be able to better transition into pro volleyball and not look completely struggling at certain disciplines. For example: serving if you are middle, attacking out of the back row if you are an opposite, playing all 6 rotations as an OH. I loathe the idea of having 4 or more "defensive specialists" on a roster. That is why you often see the 4th middle on a pro team suited up as a libero and the team's back up libero in a regular jersey. They come in to serve for middles or across the back row for an OH who struggles to pass but it can only happen once per set and you cannot reenter the match once you exit during a set. AU will be a jarring transition for many NCAA athletes unless the rules are changed. It might not happen in the near future, but if enough players start filtering into AU and then overseas, I could see those conversations starting to happen. If enough athletes call for change to the system down at the club level, that might motivate the NCAA to edit their rules. I don't really have a dog in this fight but the discrepancy between these two rules systems is the MAIN reason why Team USA has probably the strongest pool of good players but very few of them become truly great at their respective positions. I think this is why Team USAW still hasn't won an Olympic gold medal. Coaching plays a pivotal role but sometimes the straw is too brittle to be stung into gold. Other federations develop their athletes' all around game earlier and better than we do. It's a shame really. I get that the NCAA is more established than AU is but this could start to shake things up down the line. AU is going to have a ripple effect on the global volleyball community if it continues to grow and thrive. Next season will be key since it probably won't take place in a bubble and will probably have more NCAA talent in the ranks. We will be able to better assess the gaps in level of play at that time. |
|
|
|
Post by alohavball on Mar 30, 2021 17:21:10 GMT -5
Polish players Smarzek and Wolosz rumored to skip VNL this summer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 19:08:17 GMT -5
Polish players Smarzek and Wolosz rumored to skip VNL this summer. That makes sense. Poland will likely avoid relegation and they aren't in the Olympics. The team has other talent that can get the job done. I don't see them making the finals with out all of their best players though. That being said, that probably isn't their goal this year. |
|
|
|
Post by basil on Mar 30, 2021 19:11:25 GMT -5
I would take Smarzek and rest Stysiak tbh. She has been an absolute workhorse for Scandicci...give her body some time to rest. But she’s still young. I just hope Canada can have a solid VNL showing and not be relegated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 19:24:49 GMT -5
I would take Smarzek and rest Stysiak tbh. She has been an absolute workhorse for Scandicci...give her body some time to rest. But she’s still young. I just hope Canada can have a solid VNL showing and not be relegated. Yeah, so far I am not a fan of the VNL's core/challenger team model. It offers ZERO incentives/paths for challenger teams to become core teams. Also fun fact, we have yet to see a Challenge Cup winning team avoid relegation in their first appearance in the VNL, in both the men's and women's tournament. Both CHCup winners in 2018 were relegated in 2019. I fear that Canada will not avoid this fate on the women's side. It will all depend on which teams show up and with how much firepower. I think Slovenia on the men's side will do well and break the cycle this year. I think if a core team performs poorly/doesn't take the tournament seriously, there should be a penalty. For example, each year we should see the lowest ranked core team after the main phase get demoted to a challenger team for the next edition. Then, promote the highest ranked challenger team to a core team. I also think we should relegate more than just the lowest challenger team. Maybe the lowest two or three. I would do that if there were more of them, say 6 challenger teams instead of 4. 12 core teams is a lot. Also, CAVB (Africa) should have been given a chance to be a core team back during the inaugural tournament. That's not "growing the game" if we exclude an entire Confederation. Based on the current trends, we are going to keep relegating non CEV teams while likely only promoting the same from the Challenge Cup where CEV get's 2 slots out of 6 participants in both genders! Obviously, Europe is more competitive and this will make the tournament more competitive as the quad progresses. I think the solution would be to reset the totals in the first year of an Olympic quad. Each Confederation (NORCECA, CSV, CAVB, AVC and CEV) get at least one slot say in 2025. Then, apply the model I laid out above. It would make the tournament have even more of an impact IMO. Just some thoughts. Ya'll know how I be 🤷🏻♂️😏 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 20:08:51 GMT -5
For example lets say at the start of the LA quad in 2025, the FIVB edited the starting core/challenger teams participating based on this formula:
Based on current World Rankings:
CEV: 7 = 5 Core (SRB,ITA,TUR,RUS,NED) + 2 Challenger (POL,GER)
AVC: 3 = 2 Core (CHN,JPN) + 1 Challenger (KOR)
NOR: 3 = 2 Core (USA,DOM) + 1 Challenger (PUR)
CSV: 2 = 1 Core (BRA) + 1 Challenger (ARG)
CAVB: 1 = 1 Core (KEN)
New rules: (Simplified but in greater detail in previous post)
Relegation: 3 Lowest ranked Challenger Teams.
Promotion: Top 3 Challenge Cup teams.
Edit the Challenge Cup to include more teams with CEV (Belgium,Bulgaria) and AVC (Thailand,Kazakhstan) getting two slots. NOR (Canada), CSV (Colombia) and CAVB (Cameroon) getting one slot each + a host (probably a CEV team - Azerbaijan, Croatia, or Czech Republic?).
That includes another 8 teams instead of 6(current model) and covers the top 24 teams around the globe with everyone getting representation across both the VNL and the CHCup. Shuffling three teams per year makes it possible for teams who have an off season to regroup and get back in the VNL quicker. It also punishes core teams for ignoring the tournament, as they should be.
We need to get CAVB more involved annually and not just see them get trampled during the World Cup.
It's time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 20:11:30 GMT -5
I probably should have created a separate thread but I figured this one was the closest to the correct place for this idea. 🤷🏻♂️
Ya'll love me.
|
|
|
|
Post by reformate on Mar 30, 2021 20:24:21 GMT -5
CAVB has not held any Challenger Cup qualification tournament since the beginning of VNL. In as much as we want them to get better results, maybe they do not have the finances to host and fly their representative to several countries? The WGP format was more manageable for them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2021 20:41:25 GMT -5
CAVB has not held any Challenger Cup qualification tournament since the beginning of VNL. In as much as we want them to get better results, maybe they do not have the finances to host and fly their representative to several countries? The WGP format was more manageable for them. I honestly like the WGP format better. I just think it should have been held in one place for costs to be kept low. Also, if CAVB cannot afford to travel, then they should be considered to host. Bring the game to them. I look forward to the day they are more involved and more competitive. |
|
|
|
Post by reformate on Mar 30, 2021 22:17:24 GMT -5
With Italy now hosting the entire thing, the concept of 'core teams' does not make sense now.
In the next editions of the VNL when travel could possibly be less restricted, perhaps they should limit the core teams to 6 teams to reach as wide of an audience as possible (i.e., with Italy as the sole host, only the European and African audience are comfortable following the league due to the time zone) while minimizing the costs and strain on the athletes due to travel.
Two Asian hosts, two European hosts, one North American host, and one South American host will suffice.
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 30, 2021 23:36:32 GMT -5
No. They’ve gone the other direction and increased it even more at some point in the past decade or so. The NCAA has around 5,000 D1 volleyball players; they aren’t going to change a rule that would cut the opportunities to play for half of these athletes all to boost the skills of the top 3-5 seniors each year who will actually continue their careers and eventually contribute to team USA in some manner. I loathe the NCAA rule as I think the nonstop subs completely ruin the flow of the game (and other leagues have shown us that each sub doesn’t need to take nearly a full minute of administrative processing time, but that’s another argument) but I don’t think they’ll go backward on the playing opportunities anytime soon. But while I’m here and going off topic... what is it with NCAA commentators and thinking we don’t want the substitutions to be announced? They often extend the replay to be shown a couple extra times while waiting for the substitution to read the terms and conditions of her entry before she signs the playing contract and serves in the military for a required six year period, but during that whole time they won’t tell us who is being subbed in or out. I will always advocate for the International rules because it forces all positions to do MORE except for liberos who don't serve like they do in the NCAA. International commentators do a better job of announcing subs and, in some cases, put up a graphic showing the substitution. That is easier to pull off with fewer subs and is often visually represented by a graphic at the bottom of the screen. Replays are usually limited to one per rally and only if it is a good/scrappy play. I just liked that Poulter thought that fewer substitutions would be better for the NCAA so that, now with AU probably around, maybe permanently, MORE NCAA athletes will be able to better transition into pro volleyball and not look completely struggling at certain disciplines. For example: serving if you are middle, attacking out of the back row if you are an opposite, playing all 6 rotations as an OH. I loathe the idea of having 4 or more "defensive specialists" on a roster. That is why you often see the 4th middle on a pro team suited up as a libero and the team's back up libero in a regular jersey. They come in to serve for middles or across the back row for an OH who struggles to pass but it can only happen once per set and you cannot reenter the match once you exit during a set. I'm not saying the international rules are perfect by any means, but from the standpoint of better developing NCAA players for the pro/international level game, the NCAA should just adopt the FIVB international rules wholesale. This has the benefit of enhancing both the level of play of NCAA players and enlarging the pool of potential international/pro players, both will likely help the NT performance down the road. So I can't see adopting international rules as a bad thing for the NCAA. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Mar 30, 2021 23:55:59 GMT -5
I would take Smarzek and rest Stysiak tbh. She has been an absolute workhorse for Scandicci...give her body some time to rest. But she’s still young. I just hope Canada can have a solid VNL showing and not be relegated. Yeah, so far I am not a fan of the VNL's core/challenger team model. It offers ZERO incentives/paths for challenger teams to become core teams. Also fun fact, we have yet to see a Challenge Cup winning team avoid relegation in their first appearance in the VNL, in both the men's and women's tournament. Both CHCup winners in 2018 were relegated in 2019. I fear that Canada will not avoid this fate on the women's side. It will all depend on which teams show up and with how much firepower. I think Slovenia on the men's side will do well and break the cycle this year. I think if a core team performs poorly/doesn't take the tournament seriously, there should be a penalty. For example, each year we should see the lowest ranked core team after the main phase get demoted to a challenger team for the next edition. Then, promote the highest ranked challenger team to a core team. I also think we should relegate more than just the lowest challenger team. Maybe the lowest two or three. I would do that if there were more of them, say 6 challenger teams instead of 4. 12 core teams is a lot. Also, CAVB (Africa) should have been given a chance to be a core team back during the inaugural tournament. That's not "growing the game" if we exclude an entire Confederation. Based on the current trends, we are going to keep relegating non CEV teams while likely only promoting the same from the Challenge Cup where CEV get's 2 slots out of 6 participants in both genders! Obviously, Europe is more competitive and this will make the tournament more competitive as the quad progresses. I think the solution would be to reset the totals in the first year of an Olympic quad. Each Confederation (NORCECA, CSV, CAVB, AVC and CEV) get at least one slot say in 2025. Then, apply the model I laid out above. It would make the tournament have even more of an impact IMO. Just some thoughts. Ya'll know how I be 🤷🏻♂️😏 This reminds of the relegation system found in European soccer leagues. Unlike North American major leagues, which are essentially a "closed shop", European leagues operate with a relegation system. Take the English Premier League for example, the top level of professional soccer in England. The three lowest teams of the Premier league are relegated to the EFL Championship and the top two teams from the Championship are promoted to the Premier league, with one other spot being decided by play-offs. The total number of teams of the Premier League have remain stable at around 20.
The problem though is that the newly promoted teams to the Premier League often are relegated back to the Championship after just one season. They didn't have the resources to hire top-flight players to compete with the top Premier League clubs. There was a "hierarchy" developing, the top teams, like Manchester United, Arsenal, Manchester City and Chelsea have comfortably remain in the top and have no fear of relegation given their deep wallets. Then you got a group of mid-tier teams like Southampton, Newcastle, Everton and Tottenham Hotspur, they aren't in serious danger of relegation but neither are they in contention of winning the the top trophies in most seasons. Finally you got the bottom-tier teams which struggle merely to stay in the Premier League. Because dropping back to the EFL means a big loss in revenues and financial stability.
Not sure if that model is suitable for the VNL, as the bottom teams would be really hard-pressed not to be relegated. The nationality requirement would also mean they simply can't hire a good player from another NT either even if they have the money. Although I agree it would certainly make the top teams take the VNL more seriously and not send their B teams to the tournament.
|
|
