|
|
Post by savannahbadger on Aug 21, 2022 17:44:41 GMT -5
In that situation, a non hitter is in the front row for three rotations Wouldn’t Hammill be able to be an attacker in the front row when she is in? |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 21, 2022 17:48:37 GMT -5
The premise to my 5-2 argument has always been "if you are going to run a two setter offense, then...". If the answer to your "whether you want to run a 5-1 or 6-2" comes back as "6-2", THEN I say why not a 5-2 instead? But it seems odd to start from the presumption of a two-setter offense. That decision sequence just seems an accident of the history of the discussion, not how you'd think about maximizing team efficiency. The only reason to commit to having two setters a priori is if one prioritizes making them both happy by giving them equal court time. I don't think that rationale is at the heart of the argument for a 6-2, nor should be a priority for a coach in the B1G. From my perspective, the 5-2 is more an elaboration of a 5-1 than a version of the 6-2. The reason to run a 6-2 is to have three hitters in the front row in all 6 rotations, and likely a BR hitter because the OHs have to pass given limits to subs. The setters occupy the back row in opposite positions of the rotation and get subbed when rotating to the front row for an attacker. If I understand your version of a 5-2, you are just playing Hammill in the front row, and Ashburn in the back row (the 2), both in the setter position of the rotation. In that situation, a non hitter is in the front row for three rotations, giving 2+3 = 5 front row hitters per 6 rotations. The 5-2 is more similar to the 5-1 in that respect - so the question should be why run the 5-2 instead of the 5-1. There are situations where a 5-2 makes sense over a 5-1. For example, if Hammill were a significantly better blocker, and Ashburn were a substantially better setter and defender it might pay off for them to trade off despite reduced connection with the hitters that repetition with a single setter creates. However, reports so far aren't clear that Ashburn and Hammill are much different in any of these respects. Maybe Izzy has the advantage in D, but do we really know? We just haven't seen Hammill play much because she is rarely used as a serving sub. Is Hammill better as a blocker? It makes sense, but it's not that clear yet. Are any of these differences large enough to offset the loss in connection with the hitters that comes from having two setters? So, to summarize, I think the first choice is whether to run a 6 hitter offence or a 5 hitter offense. The badgers definitely have to personnel to run a 6 hitter offense, which would necessitate two setters. However, they may decide that keeping Demps in the backrow offsets losing a front hitter for three rotations because Demps is so good there. Or they may decide that they want to save subs for DSs to shore up ball handling (in which case Ashburn makes more sense as setter in a 5-1, because she is definitely serving one way or the other and it will save subs). If they decide to run a 5 hitter offense, then they will have to decide whether to go with a 5-1 or a 5-2 based on Ashburn and Hammill's strengths/weaknesses, and what else they want to use the subs for. We're saying very much the same thing; I don't know why you're not seeing that. The discussion of a two setter offense has been around for months, and was "re-ignited" by Sheffield at the Big Ten Media day event. A 5-2 is indeed a very odd option, and has to fulfill an odd set of circumstances. For most teams, it makes no sense at all. One team for which I thought it made sense was last year's Minnesota team, but those circumstances are entirely different than this year's Badgers. Last year the Gophers setter Shaffmaster was struggling to effectively set their middles. The back up setter, McMenimen was thought to be a better setter - better hands and touch, etc - but was simply too short to play front row defense in the Big Ten. So 6-2 was not an option for that reason, and because it would require Samedy to either come off the floor for the back row half of her rotations, or change to the left side. But a 5-2 would have allowed the much taller Shaffmaster to defend at the net while getting McMenimen on the floor half the time, and allow Samedy to stay at 6-rotation opposite. They stayed with their 5-1 with Shaffmaster full time. Once more, I am NOT "starting from the presumption of a two-setter offense". I am saying IF they decide on a two-setter offense, then a 5-2 can make as much sense as a 6-2, particularly - as many have said - if they want to preserve Demps' role as a back row attacker. It is that role as a back row option that makes you "3+2=5" point not quite correct. In the 5-2 with Izzy across the back and MJ across the front with Demps as part of the back, each would have three attack options; Izzy would have the normal three attackers across the front, while MJ would have two front row attackers plus Demps back row attack options (as well as being able to setter dump on the second touch). Three (and even a fourth) attack options at all times in the 5-2. The two circumstances that lead me to 5-2 (IF a two setter offense is being considered!) are the Demps back row option as described, plus Izzy's serve. Somehow, some way, Izzy will be in the lineup to serve. If it is as the 5-1 setter, that's great (MJ might disagree :-). But that means a shorter right-side defender when she's front row. If they are OK with that, great. But if MJ is the 5-1 setter, then Izzy will be a serving sub, as she has been the past couple seasons. One of the other arguments against a 6-2 is that it costs you in the overall substitution count, four subs per six position rotation. That limits your other substitution options. In Wisconsin's case, the substitutions to run a two setter offense are "free" because you're going to spend the subs getting Izzy in to serve, one way or the other. If they choose a 5-1, I'm fine with that. If they choose a 6-2, I'm fine with that, though they seem quite interested in maintaining a back row attack option, be it Demps or Franklin. As I said, it seems dangerous to me to try to back row attack while the setter is also back row, because there's just not a lot of defense at that point. So does 6-2 preclude back row attack. IF however they choose a two setter offense, and IF they also want a back row attack option, a 5-2 can offer that. |
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 21, 2022 17:53:58 GMT -5
In that situation, a non hitter is in the front row for three rotations Wouldn’t Hammill be able to be an attacker in the front row when she is in? Yes. (I don't know if you watched the Nebraska scrimmage last night, but they had setter Kennedi Orr do more than just 'setter dump'. A couple times when libero Rodriguez or DS Haymes took the second ball, they bumped not to the left pin like you might expect, but to the right pin, where Orr turned into a full swing right side hitter. It's a wrinkle that I'm sure caught the attention of many B1G coaches.) |
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Aug 21, 2022 18:51:21 GMT -5
Wouldn’t Hammill be able to be an attacker in the front row when she is in? Yes. (I don't know if you watched the Nebraska scrimmage last night, but they had setter Kennedi Orr do more than just 'setter dump'. A couple times when libero Rodriguez or DS Haymes took the second ball, they bumped not to the left pin like you might expect, but to the right pin, where Orr turned into a full swing right side hitter. It's a wrinkle that I'm sure caught the attention of many B1G coaches.) Thailand actually did this in the VNL against the US this summer! I'd be very surprised if the UW coaching staff was unaware of that strategy, but you have to have confidence in your setter's hitting (and the willingness to let them get reps in practice, which may not be feasible with only two rostered setters) before you install that. Also, obviously it only applies on a first contact by your front row setter. Of course, you could still have MJ or even Izzy run the route even if you're never going to set her. |
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 21, 2022 19:02:13 GMT -5
Yes. (I don't know if you watched the Nebraska scrimmage last night, but they had setter Kennedi Orr do more than just 'setter dump'. A couple times when libero Rodriguez or DS Haymes took the second ball, they bumped not to the left pin like you might expect, but to the right pin, where Orr turned into a full swing right side hitter. It's a wrinkle that I'm sure caught the attention of many B1G coaches.) Thailand actually did this in the VNL against the US this summer! I'd be very surprised if the UW coaching staff was unaware of that strategy, but you have to have confidence in your setter's hitting (and the willingness to let them get reps in practice, which may not be feasible with only two rostered setters) before you install that. Also, obviously it only applies on a first contact by your front row setter. Of course, you could still have MJ or even Izzy run the route even if you're never going to set her. We used to argue that Hilley should do this, since she was primarily a hitter in high school, and a very good one at that. That has when the spectre of a 6-2 first came up, with Hilley setting in the BR and hitting out of the front when Ashburn was setting from BR. She would take a swing now and then, and they set her a few times in Spring matches, but they never ran her on a route in a regular season match that I remember. Reps are a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Aug 21, 2022 19:15:49 GMT -5
The more I think about a 5-2 for UW the more I don't like it. Unlike a 6-2 where you're getting a strategic advantage, you only get a personnel advantage with a 5-2. It only works if one setter is distinctly better at running the offense, but is a blocking liability while the other setter is good enough to run the offense and is significantly better blocking. Texas last year, with the 5-8 Gabriel setting and with a much taller back-up in Torres, would have been another good candidate for this.
UW this year is not a 5-2 candidate - the setters have not significantly separated themselves in those phases of the game and so it is a system with little gain for the drawback of having two primary setters.
A side note - if Franklin plays 6 rotations as is likely, she both saves a sub and makes the need for a dedicated back-row hitter much less important - you can just play her at L2 and now she's hitting back-row in rotations 5 and 6 anyway.
|
|
