|
Post by robtearle on Aug 31, 2022 21:29:18 GMT -5
Copy from the web coachingvb.com/should-you-run-a-6-2-offense/Leadership – For many teams the setter is the leader on the court. Leadership is something you want to be consistent. By definition, swapping your leaders in and out every three rotations works against that. This may not be a big deal if the two setters have very similar personalities or the primary leader on the court comes from another position. If I remember the bit in Point Wisconsin correctly, Ashburn and Hammill tested as very similar personality types. They were both a bit different from Hilley and Carlini. To quote from the book (regarding the DISC personality assessment system): "Carlini, for example, was close to the middle in all four categories, although slightly higher in D and C ... Hilley was high C and D was her second...Izzy and MJ are both high Ds" "D: Direct, bold, decisive, problem solver, risk taker, self-starter C: Accurate, analytical, conscientious, fact-finder, precise, high standards, systematic" www.careerfitter.com/career-tests/disc-personality-test(It sounds like little more than horoscopes to me, but that's me.)
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 31, 2022 21:38:44 GMT -5
If I remember the bit in Point Wisconsin correctly, Ashburn and Hammill tested as very similar personality types. They were both a bit different from Hilley and Carlini. To quote from the book (regarding the DISC personality assessment system): "Carlini, for example, was close to the middle in all four categories, although slightly higher in D and C ... Hilley was high C and D was her second...Izzy and MJ are both high Ds" "D: Direct, bold, decisive, problem solver, risk taker, self-starter C: Accurate, analytical, conscientious, fact-finder, precise, high standards, systematic" www.careerfitter.com/career-tests/disc-personality-test(It sounds like little more than horoscopes to me, but that's me.) Well, it's an assessment of personality traits, not a presumption that celestial events govern personality. You can question whether the assessment is accurate, but they don't ask them what star they were born under to determine if they are C or D.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 31, 2022 21:44:11 GMT -5
To quote from the book (regarding the DISC personality assessment system): "Carlini, for example, was close to the middle in all four categories, although slightly higher in D and C ... Hilley was high C and D was her second...Izzy and MJ are both high Ds" "D: Direct, bold, decisive, problem solver, risk taker, self-starter C: Accurate, analytical, conscientious, fact-finder, precise, high standards, systematic" www.careerfitter.com/career-tests/disc-personality-test(It sounds like little more than horoscopes to me, but that's me.) Well, it's an assessment of personality traits, not a presumption that celestial events govern personality. You can question whether the assessment is accurate, but they don't ask them what star they were born under to determine if they are C or D. Hey, I said "little more than", not "the same as". And I was half-joking.
|
|
|
Post by taxidea on Sept 1, 2022 2:18:00 GMT -5
If you find a replay of the Baylor match, I think you’ll see what pull3 has posted here is enlightening ____________________ Copy from the web coachingvb.com/should-you-run-a-6-2-offense/ Leadership – For many teams the setter is the leader on the court. Leadership is something you want to be consistent. By definition, swapping your leaders in and out every three rotations works against that. This may not be a big deal if the two setters have very similar personalities or the primary leader on the court comes from another position. Set Consistency – Hitters tend to do best when the sets they get are a consistent tempo and rhythm. This is the challenge of the 6-2 offense. You need to have two setters who set very similarly so hitters aren’t constantly adjusting. Also, are your setters consistent and accurate back-setting? If not, you won’t get much added benefit from the extra hitter in those three rotations. ___________________ Pretty much a bullseye from what I could see. Back-sets? Yikes!
|
|
|
Post by pull3 on Sept 1, 2022 5:13:26 GMT -5
Well its been quite a while since i played, but from my memory not only are too tight passes a disadvantage in the 6-2, if the passes arent tight enough you take out the middle quick since the slide is not in play, and thus you are back to 2 hitter options anyway. In other words, passing is more critical to use the benefits of a 6-2, but since you're using most of your subs on the setter/RS, this passing needs to come from your lefts. I think Sheff is right in that the ceiling is playing Texas for the natty if everything comes together, but the floor is likely lower than just going with a 5-1. Good point. They have been relying on their pin hitters and particularly their left sides a lot. I suspect you are right about the 5-1 having a higher floor, but a lower ceiling. That is what exactly bothering me. When Sheff plays safe, the polls have us a Final 4 team, and be competitive in the semi and/or in the final. Do we really need a higher ceiling? For what? A natty without losing a set? Perhaps representing U.S to go to the Olympics like Duke in basketball a couple decades ago? If we would be a sweet sixteen team and be struggling to reach final 4 I would not have questioned the coach's decision. Everything else is telling me this a a setter political decision. Well, I am just ranting. We all know that 6-2 is a done deal. I wish for the best. Peace out.
|
|
|
Post by slxpress on Sept 1, 2022 5:45:51 GMT -5
Good point. They have been relying on their pin hitters and particularly their left sides a lot. I suspect you are right about the 5-1 having a higher floor, but a lower ceiling. That is what exactly bothering me. When Sheff plays safe, the polls have us a Final 4 team, and be competitive in the semi and/or in the final. Do we really need a higher ceiling? For what? A natty without losing a set? Perhaps representing U.S to go to the Olympics like Duke in basketball a couple decades ago? If we would be a sweet sixteen team and be struggling to reach final 4 I would not have questioned the coach's decision. Everything else is telling me this a a setter political decision. Well, I am just ranting. We all know that 6-2 is a done deal. I wish for the best. Peace out. THAT is simply not true. Look, if you’re going to go with a 6-2, you can’t abandon it at the first sign of struggle. What Sheffield is doing shouidn’t be seen as a target for critique, IMO, as much as it should be a testament to his excellent leadership and management skills. I assumed he’d scurry back to the 5-1 at the first sign of potholes, which is NOT effective leadership. If you’re going to give the 6-2 ANY kind of chance to work, there has to be a commitment to it. There’s also the matter of the men you lead, or in this case, the women. If they’ve spent all offseason working on the 6-2, listening to Sheffield preach about its advantages, selling them on why this is the best system for the team this year to reach their maximum potential...and then he scraps it 3 matches into the season, what does that do for his credibility? I mean, he has practically an unlimited reservoir right now, but what if the 5-1 isn’t working like what he wants, and then he goes back to the 6-2? We want to think the most important quality of a leader is that they make the best decisions, when in reality the most important quality is that they act convicted with their decision, the better to get everyone on board, and then if they change direction, they’re able to convince everyone following them they’re now absolutely 100% convicted with the new direction. The idea Sheffield is married to the 6-2 no matter what is farcical. The bad thing about being in the B1G is that it’s a gauntlet. The nice thing about being in the B1G is that the team is constantly faced with true measures of where they’re at. If Wisconsin is struggling at an unacceptable level for Sheffield, and he determines the 6-2 versus the 5-1 is a significant part of the problem, I’m sorry, but the dude is making the switch. That’s all there is to it. The key thing is that at that point he can look the team in the eye - in particular the setter who loses out - and genuinely say he feels like this gives them the best chance to win, and everyone in that room will have a 100% buy in. I don’t know, man. I’m no Wisconsin fan, but what some of you are seeing as a bug, I’m seeing as a feature. I’m interested in seeing how it plays out, but from my point of view Sheffield is handling this completely correctly.
|
|
|
Post by pull3 on Sept 1, 2022 5:57:04 GMT -5
You have convinced me. We can't go back to 5-1, for now. The 6-2 decision was bad before it started. SMH.
|
|
|
Post by badgersinsix on Sept 1, 2022 7:22:42 GMT -5
What are the downsides or potential problems with using a 6-2? I think I understand the expected advantages. Thanks. Hitters have to get used to the sets of two different setters; timing, height of the set, etc etc. Another that really 'came home' to me this weekend was when there'd be a pass really tight to the net. Last year, when she was front row, Hilley would often jump at the net and 'save' them with a one-handed set back to a middle etc. But a setter can only do that when they are front row; otherwise it is a 'back row attack' and an automatic point for the other team. There were maybe three or four such balls last weekend that I remember where Izzy or MJ simply could do nothing to 'save' the pass. Likewise a setter going up to "joust" on an overpass; back row attack, automatic point to the other team. I expect there are others... Slight correction, back row setter are able to do what you first described - saving a tight pass by jumping and one hand setting it. Things that would make it illegal are: - sending the ball over the net when they contact the ball entirely above the net (illegal back row attack) - blocking an opponent’s attack when reaching above the height of the net (illegal back row block) Those two things often happen on a tight pass when an opponent goes up and a joust happens. In those situations, the back row player is at a huge disadvantage of a call going their way if the whistle is blown (pretty much the only way is for the opponent to contact the ball when it is completely on the other side of the net which rarely happens). So it’s more that it’s not worth it vs it not being legal for a back town setter to save those passes. Some setters are really good at doing that and you’ll see them still do it back row, especially in the men’s game.
|
|
|
Post by PeoriaBucky on Sept 1, 2022 11:08:11 GMT -5
You have convinced me. We can't go back to 5-1, for now. The 6-2 decision was bad before it started. SMH. Pull3, I agree with sixpress above. At this point the sample size is just too small. But you have to agree that with our roster there is at least the *potential* for the 6-2 to work very effectively. Won't know until we try. It's the non-conference so all of the teams goals are still ahead of them and achievable. But I trust coach Sheffield, he's been doing this awhile. If a 5-1 will better serve the Badgers chance to be successful I'm confident that switch will be made.
|
|
|
Post by rainbowbadger on Sept 1, 2022 11:24:36 GMT -5
Sheff proved last year that he’s not afraid to make dramatic lineup changes if the situation calls for it.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Sept 1, 2022 11:34:18 GMT -5
Honestly, if we went back to the 5-1 we ran at the end of last year, I'm not sure the badgers can be as good. Franklin is an upgrade in attack, a healthy Orzol is possibly also an upgrade. But the passing is a bit problematic, and Hammill is no Hilley, at least not yet. There is no Rettke. The most comfortable MB on the slide is still only part time.
Anyway, what we ended up with last year was not the 5-1 we started with. Sheff pushed the ceiling of the team and added a backrow attack by allowing Demps to play defense in the RS slot. That was pushing the ceiling of the team. It was not playing safe. Given the passing issues so far, I'm not sure he can do that again in a 5-1. He might want to save that sub for another passer, a la 2019 with Barnes and Dodge. I think a 5-1 like that might get us 3rd in conference, maybe 2nd at a stretch. Bramschreiber would help, but we would be leaving a lot of potential on the bench.
If you want to keep ahead of programs like Texas, Nebraska, Minnesota, etc, you have to push the ceiling.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Sept 1, 2022 11:34:19 GMT -5
Sheff proved last year that he’s not afraid to make dramatic lineup changes if the situation calls for it. Kelli Bates, libero.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Sept 1, 2022 11:41:56 GMT -5
I think the idea that there are political agendas is just poisonous. If you look at things that way, there is no personnel choice that can't be seen as reflecting a political agenda. For example, if he goes back to the 5-1, one could claim he is trying to play it safe and have those players who excelled in it last year feel safe. There is no end to such speculation.
Sheff may be wrong, but he doesn't think like that. It's going to take more than one weekend to find out if the real world ceiling of the 6-2 is lower than the floor of the 5-1.
|
|
|
Post by ndodge on Sept 1, 2022 12:42:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Sept 1, 2022 13:03:56 GMT -5
Other years, what articles they did run were be the UW football reporter, Jeff Potrykus. The articles this year are from a guy whose name I don't recognize; clearly it is a new assignment and a new "beat" for the Journal. As for Fiserv: I've said here, and I just left a comment there, that I don't think Sheffield was hinting at Fiserv, I think he was hinting at American Family Field.
|
|