|
Post by SportyBucky on Aug 3, 2022 20:29:36 GMT -5
Pitt is doing well running it. I've been a pretty vocal proponent of them switching to a 5-1, both publicly and privately yes they've done well running it, and if you have the arms for it it's a good system. but when's the last time a team running a 6-2 won the championship? especially for a team that wants to be as middle heavy as Wisconsin, I just don't think it's going to be as successful as I'd like to see Totally lose the slide and OH see more double blocks,well-formed blocks.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2022 20:43:21 GMT -5
I've been a pretty vocal proponent of them switching to a 5-1, both publicly and privately yes they've done well running it, and if you have the arms for it it's a good system. but when's the last time a team running a 6-2 won the championship? especially for a team that wants to be as middle heavy as Wisconsin, I just don't think it's going to be as successful as I'd like to see Totally lose the slide and OH see more double blocks,well-formed blocks. So in the typical 5-1 set with Hilley last year there were usually 3 occasionally 4 options for attack correct? Doesn't he 6-2 give them more potential attackers on any given play? I would think that is tempting for that aspect alone. Plus you don't know where the set is coming from right? I'm not real solid on the 6-2 rotation and how it cycles through.
|
|
|
Post by hornshouse23 on Aug 3, 2022 20:52:46 GMT -5
Whatever gets Queen Demps on the court is fine by me.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 3, 2022 21:56:22 GMT -5
Totally lose the slide and OH see more double blocks,well-formed blocks. So in the typical 5-1 set with Hilley last year there were usually 3 occasionally 4 options for attack correct? Doesn't he 6-2 give them more potential attackers on any given play? I would think that is tempting for that aspect alone. Plus you don't know where the set is coming from right? I'm not real solid on the 6-2 rotation and how it cycles through. That's the argument for it. There also has to be at least one good passing outside hitter to make the subs and ball control work out. They can hit out of the back on three rotations making 4 attack options. Franklin is very comfortable doing that. Orzol has done it for her national team. You do give up Hart on the pure slide in the rotations where there would be 2 in the front row in the 5-1 (although you can run crossing and combo plays which the badgers have done very well), Demps in the BR where she has been better than in the front, and 6-2 Hammill on the block. It's a lot of subs, though no more than the badgers typically use. You also lose the close connection that develops with the consistency of a single setter running the offense. People always say you don't see many championship teams run it, but that may be because so few teams run it period; you have to have two decent setters, an OH that passes pretty darn well, and the arms to make it pay off. That just doesn't happen that often.
|
|
|
Post by mnbadger on Aug 3, 2022 21:57:52 GMT -5
Totally lose the slide and OH see more double blocks,well-formed blocks. So in the typical 5-1 set with Hilley last year there were usually 3 occasionally 4 options for attack correct? Doesn't he 6-2 give them more potential attackers on any given play? I would think that is tempting for that aspect alone. Plus you don't know where the set is coming from right? I'm not real solid on the 6-2 rotation and how it cycles through. In the 6-2, the setters play opposite one another. What you see more often in the college game is a setter (S1) subbing out for a hitter (R2) when S1 is about to rotate to the front row. Usually, at the same time, a hitter (R1) that's about to rotate to the back row out for an incoming setter (S2). It keeps a setter in the back row and preserves three front row hitting options. The only exception at the college level that I saw for position play was in 2004, Minnesota ran a 6-2 where both Bowman and Taatjes were the setters and stayed in the entire match, setting when back row and hitting when in front. You'll infrequently see it implemented on a delayed double-sub, when the hitter might have a great serve in combination with a monstrous block up at net, thus there would be half a rotation when there's no setter on the floor. Washington used that kind of sub pattern when Nogueras and Beals were the setters, but Munoz played 3.5 rotations to serve. For Wisconsin, the hitting options could be as many as 4 on a perfect pass: 3 in the front row, and an OH on the pipe or whatever back row patterns they spin up. It will depend on how subs are used and what wins us the most points. Depending on which OHs see the floor, there is the potential to run both OHs as 6-rotation left sides. If Franklin is good enough in passing and floor defense and if Orzol is healed up enough, there's capacity for the 4 option offense, which would be wild. If a hitter (likely Demps) can keep her serve potency with Smrek and one of our 40 middles, WI could also see the delayed double-sub. All that said, I don't particularly like the idea of a 6-2 for WI. For it to flow really well, particularly in system, the hitters need chemistry with both setters and the setters need to be able to put up really similar balls and locations. The eye test from spring matches seemed like Ashburn and Hammill set different balls. Release points alone felt pretty different. It's also a recipe for almost guaranteed burns on tight-to-the-net passes; the setter is always back row. I'm skeptical of this being viable, but have an open mind to it. Just not enough data as a fan.
|
|
|
Post by mnbadger on Aug 3, 2022 22:02:38 GMT -5
I've been a pretty vocal proponent of them switching to a 5-1, both publicly and privately yes they've done well running it, and if you have the arms for it it's a good system. but when's the last time a team running a 6-2 won the championship? especially for a team that wants to be as middle heavy as Wisconsin, I just don't think it's going to be as successful as I'd like to see Totally lose the slide and OH see more double blocks,well-formed blocks. I don't think we would totally lose the slide. We saw rotations last year when Smrek was the Opp sharing front row with Rettke or Robinson. They'd run the middle on the slide with Smrek on the 1, while the block had to respect Smrek. The opposing hypothetical is that the middle and OH could overload the block in front of the setter, leaving a one-on-one behind the setter. All that said, I still don't care for the idea.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 3, 2022 22:03:37 GMT -5
So in the typical 5-1 set with Hilley last year there were usually 3 occasionally 4 options for attack correct? Doesn't he 6-2 give them more potential attackers on any given play? I would think that is tempting for that aspect alone. Plus you don't know where the set is coming from right? I'm not real solid on the 6-2 rotation and how it cycles through. ... For it to flow really well, particularly in system, the hitters need chemistry with both setters and the setters need to be able to put up really similar balls and locations. The eye test from spring matches seemed like Ashburn and Hammill set different balls. Release points alone felt pretty different. It's also a recipe for almost guaranteed burns on tight-to-the-net passes; the setter is always back row. I'm skeptical of this being viable, but have an open mind to it. Just not enough data as a fan. Yeah, this is the other reason you don't see it often and it's the fundamental problem with the 6-2. I just don't know either if Ashburn and Hammill are that comparable. They will obviously try it and see.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 3, 2022 22:11:27 GMT -5
Speaking for rob here, there is also the option of the 5-2 where Hammill sets when in front row, and Ashburn in back row. It has the same fundamental problem as the 6-2 re connections between setters and hitters.
The main UW specific arguments for a 5-2, as I understand it, is that the Smrek/Demps sub can still happen, allowing Demps to hit out of the BR. Hammill may be a better blocker than Demps as well.
Of course, the 5-1 works really well for the badgers, or at least it did with Rettke and Hilley.
|
|
|
Post by mnbadger on Aug 3, 2022 22:19:41 GMT -5
Speaking for rob here, there is also the option of the 5-2 where Hammill sets when in front row, and Ashburn in back row. It has the same fundamental problem as the 6-2 re connections between setters and hitters. The main UW specific arguments for a 5-2, as I understand it, is that the Smrek/Demps sub can still happen, allowing Demps to hit out of the BR. Hammill may be a better blocker than Demps as well. Of course, the 5-1 works really well for the badgers, or at least it did with Rettke and Hilley. There is that option. To justify it in my head, Ashburn would have to be the better location setter by a couple notches and Hammill would have to be a better blocker than Ashburn and, ostensibly, Demps. I have my doubts on both. I also have my doubts that Hammill is actually 6'2". Maybe it's because she's around a bunch of sequoias all the time, but I side-eye that roster height hard.
|
|
|
Post by vbjustice on Aug 3, 2022 22:25:06 GMT -5
not a fan of two setter offenses pick one and roll with it Pitt is doing well running it. because one can hit, it works
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Aug 3, 2022 22:45:50 GMT -5
Pitt is doing well running it. because one can hit, it works They’re also committed to it. They recruit to it. They practice it. And if things go sideways, they don’t switch their philosophy to a 5-1. From what I’ve seen - and it’s admittedly limited - that schools/fans talk about the 6-2 for one of 3 reasons: 1) they have two setters they really like and they hate choosing between them, relegating the backup to a lot of bench time. 2) Their best setter is shorter and a liability in the front court, so they like the idea of employing the taller setter during those front court rotations 3) they’re like Pitt and they’ve decided that running the 6-2 makes them distinctive and helps give them a competitive advantage Wisconsin and Sheffield feel like they’re firmly in category 1. There’s nothing wrong with that. The problem is when the 6-2 isn’t running as well as Sheffield wants it to. Which is going to happen. It happens with the 5-1 as well. The difference is he just won a national championship with the 5-1. There’s a level of confidence in running that system he’s not going to suddenly inherit with the 6-2, no matter how enamored he’s becomes with it. If you don’t go all in, when stormy seas are afoot you turn to the tried and true. We all do. I have no doubt Wisconsin is going to employ some 6-2 as a change of pace. But if they’re in Lincoln and it’s heading to the 5th set, unless it’s the 6-2 that has carried them there, it’s going to be the 5-1 he trots out. That’s just the way it works. In the meantime, talking about the 6-2 makes the competition less of a zero sum game for the two setters, which may help the team and those players in terms of their development. Sheffield is one of the best coaches out there, so I guarantee this isn’t some kind of whim. He’s being very deliberate about his narrative. But you can be very deliberate about a narrative of running some 6-2 and still not end up employing it as the main offensive system.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Aug 4, 2022 5:30:13 GMT -5
So in the typical 5-1 set with Hilley last year there were usually 3 occasionally 4 options for attack correct? Doesn't he 6-2 give them more potential attackers on any given play? I would think that is tempting for that aspect alone. Plus you don't know where the set is coming from right? I'm not real solid on the 6-2 rotation and how it cycles through. In the 6-2, the setters play opposite one another. What you see more often in the college game is a setter (S1) subbing out for a hitter (R2) when S1 is about to rotate to the front row. Usually, at the same time, a hitter (R1) that's about to rotate to the back row out for an incoming setter (S2). It keeps a setter in the back row and preserves three front row hitting options. The only exception at the college level that I saw for position play was in 2004, Minnesota ran a 6-2 where both Bowman and Taatjes were the setters and stayed in the entire match, setting when back row and hitting when in front. You'll infrequently see it implemented on a delayed double-sub, when the hitter might have a great serve in combination with a monstrous block up at net, thus there would be half a rotation when there's no setter on the floor. Washington used that kind of sub pattern when Nogueras and Beals were the setters, but Munoz played 3.5 rotations to serve. For Wisconsin, the hitting options could be as many as 4 on a perfect pass: 3 in the front row, and an OH on the pipe or whatever back row patterns they spin up. It will depend on how subs are used and what wins us the most points. Depending on which OHs see the floor, there is the potential to run both OHs as 6-rotation left sides. If Franklin is good enough in passing and floor defense and if Orzol is healed up enough, there's capacity for the 4 option offense, which would be wild. If a hitter (likely Demps) can keep her serve potency with Smrek and one of our 40 middles, WI could also see the delayed double-sub. All that said, I don't particularly like the idea of a 6-2 for WI. For it to flow really well, particularly in system, the hitters need chemistry with both setters and the setters need to be able to put up really similar balls and locations. The eye test from spring matches seemed like Ashburn and Hammill set different balls. Release points alone felt pretty different. It's also a recipe for almost guaranteed burns on tight-to-the-net passes; the setter is always back row. I'm skeptical of this being viable, but have an open mind to it. Just not enough data as a fan. For the record, Wisconsin ran a “pure” 6-2 in 2011. Both Janelle Gabrielsen and Courtney Thomas played 6 rotations, setting in back and hitting in front. Those were the wilderness years, sure, but I did love that particular offense because it made incredible use of the raw talent we had in our setter/hitters.
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Aug 4, 2022 5:30:56 GMT -5
My reason for not running 6-2 would actually be the lack of room for a DS in the sub rotation. With Bamschrieber eligible, and assuming good health and expectations met, you're going to have two elite defensive players, and only one can be the LEE-bero. Technically, you can still sub a DS for an OH in a 6-2, but that's 6 subs per rotation, which is more dangerous in a 6-2 since you want to keep subbing your setters and Opposites late in the set.
(as a side note - if I understood Pitt's sub pattern right last year, they actually left their taller setter (Fairbanks) in to play RS in the front row when they subbed the other setter Akeo in, so they would have saved two subs per rotation (leaving room for a serving sub). But that is unique)
If we do have two OH's (presumably Franklin and Orzol) playing 6 rotations, presumably they are both able to hit some backrow (especially Franklin) which makes Demps' contribution less important. In that case, I'd actually rather run in an elite DS for your Opposite instead of doing the 6-2 setter switch - while reserving the right to do a 6-2 style double switch if the setter is getting taken advantage of in her blocking duties.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Aug 4, 2022 5:36:29 GMT -5
My reason for not running 6-2 would actually be the lack of room for a DS in the sub rotation. With Bamschrieber eligible, and assuming good health and expectations met, you're going to have two elite defensive players, and only one can be the LEE-bero. Technically, you can still sub a DS for an OH in a 6-2, but that's 6 subs per rotation, which is more dangerous in a 6-2 since you want to keep subbing your setters and Opposites late in the set. I agree it seems like a waste of a good DS, though Sheff has alluded to Bramschreiber maybe not being eligible right away.
|
|
|
Post by tedheise on Aug 4, 2022 7:16:52 GMT -5
So in the typical 5-1 set with Hilley last year there were usually 3 occasionally 4 options for attack correct? Doesn't he 6-2 give them more potential attackers on any given play? I would think that is tempting for that aspect alone. Plus you don't know where the set is coming from right? I'm not real solid on the 6-2 rotation and how it cycles through. In the 6-2, the setters play opposite one another. What you see more often in the college game is a setter (S1) subbing out for a hitter (R2) when S1 is about to rotate to the front row. Usually, at the same time, a hitter (R1) that's about to rotate to the back row out for an incoming setter (S2). It keeps a setter in the back row and preserves three front row hitting options. The only exception at the college level that I saw for position play was in 2004, Minnesota ran a 6-2 where both Bowman and Taatjes were the setters and stayed in the entire match, setting when back row and hitting when in front. You'll infrequently see it implemented on a delayed double-sub, when the hitter might have a great serve in combination with a monstrous block up at net, thus there would be half a rotation when there's no setter on the floor. Washington used that kind of sub pattern when Nogueras and Beals were the setters, but Munoz played 3.5 rotations to serve. For Wisconsin, the hitting options could be as many as 4 on a perfect pass: 3 in the front row, and an OH on the pipe or whatever back row patterns they spin up. It will depend on how subs are used and what wins us the most points. Depending on which OHs see the floor, there is the potential to run both OHs as 6-rotation left sides. If Franklin is good enough in passing and floor defense and if Orzol is healed up enough, there's capacity for the 4 option offense, which would be wild. If a hitter (likely Demps) can keep her serve potency with Smrek and one of our 40 middles, WI could also see the delayed double-sub. All that said, I don't particularly like the idea of a 6-2 for WI. For it to flow really well, particularly in system, the hitters need chemistry with both setters and the setters need to be able to put up really similar balls and locations. The eye test from spring matches seemed like Ashburn and Hammill set different balls. Release points alone felt pretty different. It's also a recipe for almost guaranteed burns on tight-to-the-net passes; the setter is always back row. I'm skeptical of this being viable, but have an open mind to it. Just not enough data as a fan. I’m really enjoying the discussion of how two-setter systems work, and learning a lot. Thanks! That said, it’s not at all clear to me what a half rotation would be. Any hints for me? And if it’s information that’s pretty available, a simple STFW is fine too. 😊
|
|