|
Post by badgerbadgerbadger on Aug 5, 2024 20:39:21 GMT -5
A 6-2 would leave Wisconsin even more perilously thin at the pins, basically will have one freshman backup for both L and R pins. A 5-1 would at least leave a capable backup on the R side (whoever of Smrek or Robinson that switches to middle for the year). Sheff says a lot of things in preseason, just all other coaches, but generally, when was the last time someone brought in a top-rated setter into a team with no returning setter to set in a 6-2 or sit? I'm not seeing what you're seeing. IF you run a 6-2 again, you have the same four middles and opposites that you had last year. And IF one were to be injured (like Smrek was for a couple weeks last year), then you could switch to a 5-1 (like they did last year), and have the three remaining cover the middle and opposite needs. (None of which particularly affects the left side, unless CC or Dev or somebody is switching to the left side.) We did not switch to a 5-1 when only Smrek was out last year; we only switched from 6-2 to 5-1 when both a setter (MJ) AND an opposite (Dev) were out. In fact, Sheff had TTA play out of position over on the right in order to keep the same formation, instead of just going to a 5-1 with Dev as the opposite. Which makes sense, probably easier to plug someone in than to completely change formation. If the answer to a single injury is to completely change formation, then perhaps that formation shouldn't be played in the first play since there isn't enough depth.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 5, 2024 20:49:08 GMT -5
I'm not seeing what you're seeing. IF you run a 6-2 again, you have the same four middles and opposites that you had last year. And IF one were to be injured (like Smrek was for a couple weeks last year), then you could switch to a 5-1 (like they did last year), and have the three remaining cover the middle and opposite needs. (None of which particularly affects the left side, unless CC or Dev or somebody is switching to the left side.) We did not switch to a 5-1 when only Smrek was out last year; we only switched from 6-2 to 5-1 when both a setter (MJ) AND an opposite (Dev) were out. In fact, Sheff had TTA play out of position over on the right in order to keep the same formation, instead of just going to a 5-1 with Dev as the opposite. Which makes sense, probably easier to plug someone in than to completely change formation. If the answer to a single injury is to completely change formation, then perhaps that formation shouldn't be played in the first play since there isn't enough depth. The point remains: you could run 6-2 unless and until a middle/right gets hurt, and THEN switch to a 5-1. Do I think they should? I have no idea. But it is a completely reasonable way to deploy your 'weapons'. It simply would not leave them "perilously thin".
|
|
|
Post by badgerguru on Aug 5, 2024 20:49:31 GMT -5
Please I’m begging for a 5-1, no more 6-2 😭 Couldn’t the player who is ultimately benched this upcoming season take a redshirt? Depending if one was already taken by said athlete, but I believe none of them have. Also this is not likely imo either as they probably want to move on after this season
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 5, 2024 21:01:47 GMT -5
Please I’m begging for a 5-1, no more 6-2 😭 Couldn’t the player who is ultimately benched this upcoming season take a redshirt? Depending if one was already taken by said athlete, but I believe none of them have. Also this is not likely imo either as they probably want to move on after this season CC could, as could Devyn, but it would mean 2025 would be a sixth year in college for whichever (allowed because of COVID, etc.) Smrek and Booth could more conventionally - no COVID year involved - but they're the two most "needed" on the court. (Ad a reminder that a "redshirt" is an absolute thing; step on the court even for a single point, and the redshirt year is gone.)
|
|
|
Post by netninja on Aug 5, 2024 21:02:26 GMT -5
Our new jerseys look fire!
|
|
|
Post by badgerbadgerbadger on Aug 5, 2024 21:02:56 GMT -5
We did not switch to a 5-1 when only Smrek was out last year; we only switched from 6-2 to 5-1 when both a setter (MJ) AND an opposite (Dev) were out. In fact, Sheff had TTA play out of position over on the right in order to keep the same formation, instead of just going to a 5-1 with Dev as the opposite. Which makes sense, probably easier to plug someone in than to completely change formation. If the answer to a single injury is to completely change formation, then perhaps that formation shouldn't be played in the first play since there isn't enough depth. The point remains: you could run 6-2 unless and until a middle/right gets hurt, and THEN switch to a 5-1. Do I think they should? I have no idea. But it is a completely reasonable way to deploy your 'weapons'. It simply would not leave them "perilously thin". Yes, it would. One backup to two different positions unless you want to completely change formation, (and let's not even forget the convos of who will have to sit in that change) is the definition of "perilously thin". We could potentially get creative if R-side injury happen by having Charlie or another setter set then stay in to hit ala Pitt with Fairbanks. But again, if you have to search for these sorts of solutions, then you're "perilously thin" because the easiest solution is alway plug and play.
|
|
|
Post by robtearle on Aug 5, 2024 21:05:03 GMT -5
The point remains: you could run 6-2 unless and until a middle/right gets hurt, and THEN switch to a 5-1. Do I think they should? I have no idea. But it is a completely reasonable way to deploy your 'weapons'. It simply would not leave them "perilously thin". Yes, it would. One backup to two different positions unless you want to completely change formation, (and let's not even forget the convos of who will have to sit in that change) is the definition of "perilously thin". We could potentially get creative if R-side injury happen by having Charlie or another setter set then stay in to hit ala Pitt with Fairbanks. But again, if you have to search for these sorts of solutions, then you're "perilously thin" because the easiest solution is alway plug and play. How many other teams in the country would LOVE to be as "perilously thin" as UW is at middle and opposite? smh...
|
|
|
Post by badgerbadgerbadger on Aug 5, 2024 21:07:08 GMT -5
Yes, it would. One backup to two different positions unless you want to completely change formation, (and let's not even forget the convos of who will have to sit in that change) is the definition of "perilously thin". We could potentially get creative if R-side injury happen by having Charlie or another setter set then stay in to hit ala Pitt with Fairbanks. But again, if you have to search for these sorts of solutions, then you're "perilously thin" because the easiest solution is alway plug and play. How many other teams in the country would LOVE to be as "perilously thin" as UW is at middle and opposite? smh... If UW plays a 6-2, they'd have exactly one (naturally L) pin backing up both sides. How many teams in the country have only one total pin backup to their starters? Because certainly not any elite teams, which is what the comparison should be made to, considering the amount of resources and visibility the program gets compared to other teams in the country. But even if you want to compare to the majority of other teams in the country, I'd still wager "very little" as the answer.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 5, 2024 21:41:44 GMT -5
How many other teams in the country would LOVE to be as "perilously thin" as UW is at middle and opposite? smh... If UW plays a 6-2, they'd have exactly one (naturally L) pin backing up both sides. How many teams in the country have only one total pin backup to their starters? Because certainly not any elite teams, which is what the comparison should be made to, considering the amount of resources and visibility the program gets compared to other teams in the country. But even if you want to compare to the majority of other teams in the country, I'd still wager "very little" as the answer. But. they can switch to a 5-1 if a RS or a middle is hurt. Just because they didn't do that automatically last year when Smrek was hurt, doesn't mean they won't this year with a different bunch of setters. We even have a new middle this year that everyone is forgetting that would allow us to stay in a 6-2 if CC moves out to the RS. No matter what formation UW uses, it's the left side where they are thin. The BTN guy even tried to sucker Devyn into suggesting that she could play left side, and she begged off by saying she could play either RS or MB. Anyway, being noncommittal when they have barely been in the gym with the new setters is standard for Sheff. It doesn't mean anything. I would be gobsmacked if they went with a 6-2. Anderson or Van Wie would have to be really amazing for the benefits to outweigh the costs.
|
|
|
Post by badgerbreath on Aug 5, 2024 21:48:32 GMT -5
Sheffield said today he wouldn't be surprised to see them stick with a 6-2 this year and also wouldn't be surprised to see them switch to a 5-1. Interesting. Personally, until I see them commit to the 5-1, I still tend to think Wisconsin is gonna stay in a 6-2 for the final year of this large group of players. He hasn't even worked with two of the setters in the gym yet, and hasn't seen how the team plays with them. Of course he's going to say that. Andersen or Van Wie would have to really step up to go to 6-2. Maybe one of them does, but I think the 5-1 is still much more likely.
|
|
|
Post by 25or624 on Aug 5, 2024 21:55:32 GMT -5
If UW plays a 6-2, they'd have exactly one (naturally L) pin backing up both sides. How many teams in the country have only one total pin backup to their starters? Because certainly not any elite teams, which is what the comparison should be made to, considering the amount of resources and visibility the program gets compared to other teams in the country. But even if you want to compare to the majority of other teams in the country, I'd still wager "very little" as the answer. But. they can switch to a 5-1 if a RS or a middle is hurt. Just because they didn't do that automatically last year when Smrek was hurt, doesn't mean they won't this year with a different bunch of setters. We even have a new middle this year that everyone is forgetting that would allow us to stay in a 6-2 if CC moves out to the RS .... Anyway, being noncommittal when they have barely been in the gym with the new setters is standard for Sheff. It doesn't mean anything. I would be gobsmacked if they went with a 6-2. Anderson or Van Wie would have to be really amazing for the benefits to outweigh the costs.That's exactly what I was thinking, especially the Anderson or Van Wie piece. IIRC, Sheff was saying relatively early in the Izzy / MJ joint tenure that he thought the 6-2 would be the best use of the available talent. He seems to be a long way from that. I'm guessing Charlie gets the keys.
Meanwhile, I'm eager to see a picture of the Fall 2024 roster; lot's of new faces and, apparently, new uniforms.
GO BADGERS
|
|
|
Post by savannahbadger on Aug 5, 2024 23:33:34 GMT -5
I really liked the old 2021 uniforms, but I can get behind these new ones.
|
|
honeybadger88
Sophomore
Smrek bowled me out for a duck.
Posts: 107
|
Post by honeybadger88 on Aug 6, 2024 4:53:30 GMT -5
I do love the new uniforms, can't wait to see how they look like on the rest of the players.
Hopefully we do go for a 5-1 system this year but I wouldn't be surprised nor against retaining the 6-2.
|
|
|
Post by tablealgebra on Aug 6, 2024 6:07:27 GMT -5
If UW plays a 6-2, they'd have exactly one (naturally L) pin backing up both sides. How many teams in the country have only one total pin backup to their starters? Because certainly not any elite teams, which is what the comparison should be made to, considering the amount of resources and visibility the program gets compared to other teams in the country. But even if you want to compare to the majority of other teams in the country, I'd still wager "very little" as the answer. But. they can switch to a 5-1 if a RS or a middle is hurt. Just because they didn't do that automatically last year when Smrek was hurt, doesn't mean they won't this year with a different bunch of setters. We even have a new middle this year that everyone is forgetting that would allow us to stay in a 6-2 if CC moves out to the RS. No matter what formation UW uses, it's the left side where they are thin. The BTN guy even tried to sucker Devyn into suggesting that she could play left side, and she begged off by saying she could play either RS or MB. Anyway, being noncommittal when they have barely been in the gym with the new setters is standard for Sheff. It doesn't mean anything. I would be gobsmacked if they went with a 6-2. Anderson or Van Wie would have to be really amazing for the benefits to outweigh the costs. I would however NOT be surprised if we keep an occasional double sub in the works - we will naturally have an extra right side sitting on the bench and Anderson was very respectable in the spring matches. It would all come down to wanting a bigger block though - Charlie seems to be a dynamic offensive player in the front row and has decent hops, but she is only 5'11". What is 100% true is that ain't nobody redshirting from our group of MB/RS's. We will need that extra player at some point, and besides these girls have been in college for a long time, they are probably ready to move on to the next thing in their lives. With two pro leagues in the US that next thing is much easier to visualize for those girls who are looking to play at the next level.
|
|
|
Post by 25or624 on Aug 6, 2024 10:40:55 GMT -5
New WSJ article this AM with some musings from Sheff: Sheffield gets his first opportunity to work with the freshmen this week ... He’ll now get the chance to work with No. 1 setter recruit Charlie Fuerbringer, who players raved about. “I am really impressed with what I've seen with her this summer getting in the gym and just working on our connection,” Robinson said. “She's just really talented ...”
The Badgers had run a 6-2 system that allowed both setters ... to serve, and allowed Sheffield to deploy “more arms than probably … " he stopped himself from comparing it to anyone ... The front-line talent is impressive ... But Sheffield hasn’t outlawed running a 5-1, either.
The pros for Fuerbringer are, “she's as talented as anybody I've ever seen at her age,” Sheffield said while he called her a “competitor with a very even demeanor.” But she has her first practice with Sheffield on Tuesday ... The reality is that Anderson coming from Montana and Fuerbringer from high school means neither have “played opponents in environments like this on a week to week basis.”
Passing, generally, hadn’t been an issue for the Badgers. They ranked fourth in the Big Ten receiving 94.2% of serves last season ... but that also is what ended the last two seasons ... “We've given up too many free points at the match that has ended our season the last couple of years,” he said. “And so those can kind of stand out and ... we've got to get better.”
Returning to the back line are Gulce Guctekin, a libero her freshman season and reserve last season, and Saige Damrow, who sat most of last season with an injury, ... But as opposed to fortifying the serve-receive, Sheffield had a different solution.
“I almost think more important than us just being a steady or passing team in that area, we've got to be a better serving team to put that same amount of pressure on our opponents, because our serving has actually been worse in my mind than our passing has been in those matches,” he said.
|
|