|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 29, 2022 11:11:28 GMT -5
Just based on what I’ve seen, it makes perfect sense why Sheffield opted for the 6-2 to start. If anything, Ashburn looks a little more comfortable, but not by a lot. The data from this last match against a good blocking team supports that, and maybe makes an even stronger case. But would she be a liability on the block relative to the bigger Hammill? Is the difference in setting big enough to offset any such liability were it there? In addition, neither setter is that comfortable using the middles yet. I don’t remember seeing too many slide sets. I can’t tell which I would use, and I’m not sure either of them is good enough to run a 5-1 well yet. It’s better in that scenario to keep as many hitting options on the floor while your setters develop - ie learn to read the block, develop deception and use the middle. The downside to huge 6-2 as a device for setter development is that they don’t block and can’t attack. I have a feeling they may ultimately shift to a 5-1. But I would like to see how the 6-2 develops. We are still early in the season. The passing is the problem. It might make sense to use a DS to stabilize it, since the BR attack threat isn’t being used much yet. But both Boyer and Shanel are out. well the reason you didn’t see many slides is bc in a 6-2 it’s much harder to run a slide bc you have a right side always in the front row I understand that. Badgers have run slides in that configuration before though. The RS comes into the middle from deep in SR. They've been doing it since 2017. Missing Hart who is very good on the slide doesn't help. This Fall they've been keeping Smrek on the right pin. She's got to learn how to hit better out there, and they have to go to middle more. Passing is key.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 29, 2022 11:12:42 GMT -5
Just based on what I’ve seen, it makes perfect sense why Sheffield opted for the 6-2 to start. If anything, Ashburn looks a little more comfortable, but not by a lot. The data from this last match against a good blocking team supports that, and maybe makes an even stronger case. But would she be a liability on the block relative to the bigger Hammill? Is the difference in setting big enough to offset any such liability were it there? In addition, neither setter is that comfortable using the middles yet. I don’t remember seeing too many slide sets. I can’t tell which I would use, and I’m not sure either of them is good enough to run a 5-1 well yet. It’s better in that scenario to keep as many hitting options on the floor while your setters develop - ie learn to read the block, develop deception and use the middle. The downside to huge 6-2 as a device for setter development is that they don’t block and can’t attack. I have a feeling they may ultimately shift to a 5-1. But I would like to see how the 6-2 develops. We are still early in the season. The passing is the problem. It might make sense to use a DS to stabilize it, since the BR attack threat isn’t being used much yet. But both Boyer and Shanel are out. Of course both of them are good enough to run a 5-1. There's nothing that changes for a setter other than blocking and setting a few more hitters. Passing would be less of a problem if we used a DS rather than Franklin in the backrow. I did notice, through the feed that was less than ideal, that GG's passing seemed to improve a bit from match 1 to 2. I'd like to see stats to understand if that was really the case or my perception. My impression, based on casual viewing of Mich State last year, is that occasionally Franklin would sub out of the back row, to get a break if nothing else. That is, sometimes 6 rotation, sometimes come out to rest. Had Bramschreiber or Boyer been available, we might have seen that over a long five-set match. Maybe we should have seen that with AnnaMac on Saturday. We did see Gregorski come in to serve in Franklin's spot a couple times, but as a serving sub, not a DS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 29, 2022 11:17:21 GMT -5
Just based on what I’ve seen, it makes perfect sense why Sheffield opted for the 6-2 to start. If anything, Ashburn looks a little more comfortable, but not by a lot. The data from this last match against a good blocking team supports that, and maybe makes an even stronger case. But would she be a liability on the block relative to the bigger Hammill? Is the difference in setting big enough to offset any such liability were it there? In addition, neither setter is that comfortable using the middles yet. I don’t remember seeing too many slide sets. I can’t tell which I would use, and I’m not sure either of them is good enough to run a 5-1 well yet. It’s better in that scenario to keep as many hitting options on the floor while your setters develop - ie learn to read the block, develop deception and use the middle. The downside to huge 6-2 as a device for setter development is that they don’t block and can’t attack. I have a feeling they may ultimately shift to a 5-1. But I would like to see how the 6-2 develops. We are still early in the season. The passing is the problem. It might make sense to use a DS to stabilize it, since the BR attack threat isn’t being used much yet. But both Boyer and Shanel are out. So Franklin goes 3 rotations then? Last year in the 5-1 it seemed like a vast majority of the time we had at least two of the three back rows being high level defenders at all points in the match. Civita, Barnes, Demps, Orzol for an OH has a good passing percentage, and Boyer. In comparison this year we always have a setter in back row = defensive downgrade, Gülce has still got a ways to go, and Orzol or (Franklin who is better than Loberg but still lacking compared to a DS). Hopefully over time we gel enough in the back row to make the advantages of a 6-2 worth keeping it for the season.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 29, 2022 11:27:45 GMT -5
Just based on what I’ve seen, it makes perfect sense why Sheffield opted for the 6-2 to start. If anything, Ashburn looks a little more comfortable, but not by a lot. The data from this last match against a good blocking team supports that, and maybe makes an even stronger case. But would she be a liability on the block relative to the bigger Hammill? Is the difference in setting big enough to offset any such liability were it there? In addition, neither setter is that comfortable using the middles yet. I don’t remember seeing too many slide sets. I can’t tell which I would use, and I’m not sure either of them is good enough to run a 5-1 well yet. It’s better in that scenario to keep as many hitting options on the floor while your setters develop - ie learn to read the block, develop deception and use the middle. The downside to huge 6-2 as a device for setter development is that they don’t block and can’t attack. I have a feeling they may ultimately shift to a 5-1. But I would like to see how the 6-2 develops. We are still early in the season. The passing is the problem. It might make sense to use a DS to stabilize it, since the BR attack threat isn’t being used much yet. But both Boyer and Shanel are out. So Franklin goes 3 rotations then? Last year in the 5-1 it seemed like a vast majority of the time we had at least two of the three back rows being high level defenders at all points in the match. Civita, Barnes, Demps, Orzol for an OH has a good passing percentage, and Boyer. In comparison this year we always have a setter in back row = defensive downgrade, Gülce has still got a ways to go, and Orzol or (Franklin who is better than Loberg but still lacking compared to a DS). Hopefully over time we gel enough in the back row to make the advantages of a 6-2 worth keeping it for the season. If Bramschreiber were available, yes, we might very well see her subbing in for Franklin. Of course, that would put you at six subs per six position rotation with the 6-2 subbing. And that might precipitate moving away from the 6-2 (though Sheffield doesn't shy away from that, you still have to have a "plan B" ready when the sub count gets high late in sets.) But Bramschreiber isn't available. And Boyer may or may not be. It's a work in progress...
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 29, 2022 11:28:20 GMT -5
Just based on what I’ve seen, it makes perfect sense why Sheffield opted for the 6-2 to start. If anything, Ashburn looks a little more comfortable, but not by a lot. The data from this last match against a good blocking team supports that, and maybe makes an even stronger case. But would she be a liability on the block relative to the bigger Hammill? Is the difference in setting big enough to offset any such liability were it there? In addition, neither setter is that comfortable using the middles yet. I don’t remember seeing too many slide sets. I can’t tell which I would use, and I’m not sure either of them is good enough to run a 5-1 well yet. It’s better in that scenario to keep as many hitting options on the floor while your setters develop - ie learn to read the block, develop deception and use the middle. The downside to huge 6-2 as a device for setter development is that they don’t block and can’t attack. I have a feeling they may ultimately shift to a 5-1. But I would like to see how the 6-2 develops. We are still early in the season. The passing is the problem. It might make sense to use a DS to stabilize it, since the BR attack threat isn’t being used much yet. But both Boyer and Shanel are out. Of course both of them are good enough to run a 5-1. There's nothing that changes for a setter other than blocking and setting a few more hitters. Passing would be less of a problem if we used a DS rather than Franklin in the backrow. I did notice, through the feed that was less than ideal, that GG's passing seemed to improve a bit from match 1 to 2. I'd like to see stats to understand if that was really the case or my perception. Fair enough. Let me put it differently. Could they run a 5-1 as effectively as a 6-2? There is less burden on a setter in a 6-2 I would think. More options, less complexity in routes. A setter in a 5-1 has three rotations where there are only two front row hitters. They have to set the slide well (it would help to have an accomplished slide hitter, but she is being limited right now, and historically she has a pretty small hitting window). They have to mix up the routes on the slide, and mix in quick attacks in front of the setter. They need to keep the middle blocker honest. Maybe there is a back row option, or maybe they sacrifice that for passing to make sure the middle option can get used. Then the pressure is on the setter to make sure they get out of those rotations. The lefts have been doing great, but that's with three hitters in the front row. The blocking is no small matter. Badgers have really taken advantage of small blocks on the pin in key matches over the last several years. If I go by what I'm seeing in the 1st sets of the two matches so far, the 6-2 can be pretty effective, even with poor passing. After Hart goes off and Robinson comes into the middle and Demps goes right, things get a lot more scrambled. Not sure what that's about. They were fine in that configuration last year when they had to use it. I'm still not sure how you pick among Hammill and Ashburn. That said, the passing has to get better to make full use of the options the 6-2 possesses.
|
|
|
Post by SportyBucky on Aug 29, 2022 12:10:42 GMT -5
Of course both of them are good enough to run a 5-1. There's nothing that changes for a setter other than blocking and setting a few more hitters. Passing would be less of a problem if we used a DS rather than Franklin in the backrow. I did notice, through the feed that was less than ideal, that GG's passing seemed to improve a bit from match 1 to 2. I'd like to see stats to understand if that was really the case or my perception. Fair enough. Let me put it differently. Could they run a 5-1 as effectively as a 6-2? There is less burden on a setter in a 6-2 I would think. More options, less complexity in routes. A setter in a 5-1 has three rotations where there are only two front row hitters. They have to set the slide well (it would help to have an accomplished slide hitter, but she is being limited right now, and historically she has a pretty small hitting window). They have to mix up the routes on the slide, and mix in quick attacks in front of the setter. They need to keep the middle blocker honest. Maybe there is a back row option, or maybe they sacrifice that for passing to make sure the middle option can get used. Then the pressure is on the setter to make sure they get out of those rotations. The lefts have been doing great, but that's with three hitters in the front row. The blocking is no small matter. Badgers have really taken advantage of small blocks on the pin in key matches over the last several years. If I go by what I'm seeing in the 1st sets of the two matches so far, the 6-2 can be pretty effective, even with poor passing. After Hart goes off and Robinson comes into the middle and Demps goes right, things get a lot more scrambled. Not sure what that's about. They were fine in that configuration last year when they had to use it. I'm still not sure how you pick among Hammill and Ashburn. That said, the passing has to get better to make full use of the options the 6-2 possesses. These and every setter at this level has undoubtedly set a 5-1 a lot more often than they have a 6-2. There are complexities in any offense, but the only different here is rather than setting back to a RS, you're working on timing on the slide with it's varied locations. Again, they've done that for 10 years. I think the challenge with Demps on the right is she's not comfortable in that position. She hasn't been particularly effective front row, particularly with blocking. Passing has to get better for any system. I think the benefit of a 6-2 with less than optimal passing is you have OH in the back row and always have the RS and OH as outlets.
|
|
|
Post by vbdiva2 on Aug 29, 2022 12:29:04 GMT -5
I am not saying Smrek is not good.. or a terrible athlete.
For me, "cement feet" has nothing to do with vertical jump, etc. -- for me, having cement feet means you're not dynamic enough (having the foot speed to adjust on the fly) to adjust to bad set or a ball a libero sets off the net - Anna cannot do this, and it affects her RS play.
She is a Middle -- She's 6'9/6'10 baby Jesus christ! And she can be a very, very dominant Middle Hitter.
|
|
|
Post by pull3 on Aug 29, 2022 13:13:45 GMT -5
I am not saying Smrek is not good.. or a terrible athlete. For me, "cement feet" has nothing to do with vertical jump, etc. -- for me, having cement feet means you're not dynamic enough (having the foot speed to adjust on the fly) to adjust to bad set or a ball a libero sets off the net - Anna cannot do this, and it affects her RS play. She is a Middle -- She's 6'9/6'10 baby Jesus christ! And she can be a very, very dominant Middle Hitter. THIS. Remember how Anna saved our asses in the tourney? She is a freaking middle!
|
|
|
Post by savannahbadger on Aug 29, 2022 13:21:09 GMT -5
I think the challenge with Demps on the right is she's not comfortable in that position. She hasn't been particularly effective front row, particularly with blocking. Passing has to get better for any system. I think the benefit of a 6-2 with less than optimal passing is you have OH in the back row and always have the RS and OH as outlets. Does it make sense to sub Demps into the back row on occasion for Franklin, once Hart is able to stay in for more than one set?
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 29, 2022 13:21:11 GMT -5
I am not saying Smrek is not good.. or a terrible athlete. For me, "cement feet" has nothing to do with vertical jump, etc. -- for me, having cement feet means you're not dynamic enough (having the foot speed to adjust on the fly) to adjust to bad set or a ball a libero sets off the net - Anna cannot do this, and it affects her RS play. She is a Middle -- She's 6'9/6'10 baby Jesus christ! And she can be a very, very dominant Middle Hitter. THIS. Remember how Anna saved our asses in the tourney? She is a freaking middle! She didn't play middle. I think the last time she lined up at middle was Maryland. Offensively, they would have her criss-cross with Devyn or Dana so that she ended up hitting quick sets in the middle. But she also hit at the right pin. And defensively she was a right-side opp. She didn't play middle.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 29, 2022 13:27:58 GMT -5
I think the challenge with Demps on the right is she's not comfortable in that position. She hasn't been particularly effective front row, particularly with blocking. Passing has to get better for any system. I think the benefit of a 6-2 with less than optimal passing is you have OH in the back row and always have the RS and OH as outlets. Does it make sense to sub Demps into the back row on occasion for Franklin, once Hart is able to stay in for more than one set? Depends on what you're looking for. If it is better passing, then sub Bramschreiber of Boyer or AnnaMac. If it's a backrow attack (or as a serving sub, the way they subbed in Gregorski a couple times), then sure.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 29, 2022 13:28:23 GMT -5
THIS. Remember how Anna saved our asses in the tourney? She is a freaking middle! She didn't play middle. I think the last time she lined up at middle was Maryland. Offensively, they would have her criss-cross with Devyn or Dana so that she ended up hitting quick sets in the middle. But she also hit at the right pin. And defensively she was a right-side opp. She didn't play middle. Yeah there is a reason Robinson ended up as middle. They tried Smrek there. She just wasn’t as accomplished as Devyn at this stage. She may end up there eventually. She only looks like she is middle when she is on those crossing plays, or when Hilley and her had to switch blocking assignments out of necessity.
|
|
|
Post by pull3 on Aug 29, 2022 13:30:43 GMT -5
THIS. Remember how Anna saved our asses in the tourney? She is a freaking middle! She didn't play middle. I think the last time she lined up at middle was Maryland. Offensively, they would have her with Devyn or Dana so that she ended up hitting quick sets in the middle. But she also hit at the right pin. And defensively she was a right-side opp. She didn't play middle. Whatever...obviously everyone knows that I suck on volleyball terms now. I want to see this "criss-cross" thing with Anna again, whether she is middle or RS. I saw none last week.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 29, 2022 13:32:21 GMT -5
I think the challenge with Demps on the right is she's not comfortable in that position. She hasn't been particularly effective front row, particularly with blocking. Passing has to get better for any system. I think the benefit of a 6-2 with less than optimal passing is you have OH in the back row and always have the RS and OH as outlets. Does it make sense to sub Demps into the back row on occasion for Franklin, once Hart is able to stay in for more than one set? I don’t think Demps is a better passer than Franklin. She’s been used as a defender mostly not in SR. I’m not sure Demps is an upgrade on Franklin attacking out of the BR. Franklin is pretty comfortable there. Neither of them have Rettke pulling blockers anymore.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 29, 2022 13:34:34 GMT -5
She didn't play middle. I think the last time she lined up at middle was Maryland. Offensively, they would have her criss-cross with Devyn or Dana so that she ended up hitting quick sets in the middle. But she also hit at the right pin. And defensively she was a right-side opp. She didn't play middle. Yeah there is a reason Robinson ended up as middle. They tried Smrek there. She just wasn’t as accomplished as Devyn at this stage. She may end up there eventually. She only looks like she is middle when she is on those crossing plays, or when Hilley and her had to switch blocking assignments out of necessity. I forget the exact context, but it had to have been after Hart got hurt, someone was asking Sheffield about who would be playing middle and pointed out that whichever player had played middle is high school. And he was only slightly less blunt than saying 'the Big Ten ain't high school". He talked from there about attack angles and blocking angles and such. But the takeaway for me was "the Big Ten ain't high school". :-)
|
|