High school block and defense

This is the time of year when many coaches are problem-solving with there teams. Here’s one of them via a recent email.

Hi, I coach a varsity high school team. We are not very good at blocking. I am wondering if there are drill to work specific timing, and/or what defense would you suggests for weak blockers?

There are a couple of elements involved here. Let me try to address each.

Not good at blocking

Saying you’re not very good at blocking is a little too broad. That could mean we’re a short team, or it could mean we have technical problems. The request for a drill to work on timing tends to suggest the latter is what this coach is worried about. Since I can’t really help a coach with a short team, I’ll talk training ideas.

Unfortunately, timing isn’t a mechanical issue. You can’t break it down into positioning or movement patterns. It’s basically a decision based on judgement of the hitter’s attack. As such, there isn’t a drill to fix it. Players have to develop timing by blocking against hitters, and any drill or game where that happens will do.

The real issue is feedback, which is where coaching comes in. You have to first make the blocker understand they are not jumping on time, and then work with them on reading the cues to improve that timing. For the former, video is a very good tool. Set up your camera (a tablet will do) and either record them or use one of the video delay apps.

Recognition of block mistiming might be enough to fixed the problem, but if it isn’t you have to train your blockers how to judge the timing. That means knowing the hitter’s hitting power, seeing how far they are off the net, and reading the play to know if the hitter is likely to attack aggressively or use a shot.

Defense behind a poor block

The point of back row defense is to have players where the ball is most likely going. It’s a probability game, plain and simple. Yes, there are read based adjustments, but those are based on starting points and general areas of responsibility. This basic idea does not change based on block quality.

What does change, however, is placement of defenders. The block takes away a certain part of the court – or at least it’s meant to do that. The defense then is positioned around it in the areas attacks are likely to go. If your block is ineffective, though, you need to shift your defenders.

So that leaves us with a question: At your level of play, if there were no block, where would the hitters most likely hit the ball?

Answer that question and you have the answer to how to arrange your defense.

Kill percentage off perfect pass

The following question came in from a reader:

What percent of kills should we expect on a perfect pass? Serve receive or free balls?

The answer to this is reliant very much on level of play. High school girls probably do not score at the same rate as college men, for example. Unfortunately, the mailer didn’t tell me what level they are at.

I honestly don’t have a specific answer in any case. I reached out to Mark Lebedew from At Home on the Court to see what he had to say, and he told me in the men’s PlusLiga in Poland (the top professional division) it’s a 62% kills rate, with a 47% hitting efficiency. This struck me as low, but that just goes to show that personal impressions aren’t always (or even often?) right. 🙂

Mark went on to say the PlusLiga sideout rate off perfect passes is 72%.

My analysis from the 2017 Midwestern State suggested our perfect pass kill rate was below 40%, which was definitely sub-optimal.

I’m curious to hear what folks with good figures say about kill % and sideout rates at their level. If you have any data, please share via a comment below.

Coaching Log – September 5, 2016

This is an entry in my volleyball coaching log for 2016-17.

Preseason has ended. School’s started. Now the real fun begins!

Monday

We started by getting the players to think about their own personal objectives and values. This will feed into the goal setting they do in conjunction with their upcoming individual meetings.

Practice began with a 4 v 4 cooperative downball, then jumping attack, drill. That was followed by target serving, after which we split the primary passers and the setters and MBs. The former did serving and passing with a specific focus on seam management. The latter focused on transition patterns for the middles.

We went on from there into a couple of 6 v 6 games. The first continued work on transition play. One team was given a pair of free balls to initiate a controlled attack to the other side (diggable balls). That was followed by a serve by the attack-receiving team. We kept track of how many off the attack-receive points were won by that team. If they then won the serve rally they would get that rally point, plus the other points. Otherwise, they got zero. That means they could earn between 0 and 3 points. After the serve rally the sequence was repeated for the other side, then both teams rotated. We played to 15.

The other 6 v 6 game was a standard one, but with a bonus. We gave them 3 points for winning a rally lasting at least 4 trips of the ball across the net. Unfortunately, only one rally went long enough for a bonus. It was a really good one, though.

Tuesday

We started with narrow court cooperative 2 v 2. There were four players on each side which swapped in and out each time the ball crossed the net. The first objective was 8 consecutive balls back and forth with good 3-touch execution, finishing with a down ball. They then moved up to doing 6 reps with a jump-and-swing.

From there we progressed to competitive 4 v 4 play – still narrow court.

Next was 5 v 5 v 5. One team of 5 served both sides. They got a point for aces and 1-passes, but lost points on missed serves. The other teams set up with 3 back row players and two front row. Initially, that was MB + RS vs. MB + OH, but we did a second round with just pin hitters. The two teams on-court earned points from rally wins, and the winning team received the next serve. The teams rotated through and cumulative points were kept.

From there we shifted to 6 v 6, using a version of bingo. Each team had two ways to score bingo points, which we changed halfway through the game. We kept two scores – one for bingo points, the other for normal rally points. The latter defined game length. The most combined points won.

The next game was 6 v Sixes. That’s where one side is fixed and receives every serve. The other side rotates players through on each new serve, based on the server’s position. That was played for time before mixing up the players on the fixed side.

Lastly we played dig-or-die. That’s game where points are scored in normally fashion, but if a team fails to at least touch a defensive or hitter coverage ball, they lose all their points. Rallies start by alternating down balls over the net. A front row/back row switch is made about halfway through.

Wednesday

We started practice by going through our pregame warm-up routine. We’ve done this a couple times now, but just wanted to make sure things go as smoothly as possible come Friday’s first official matches. Of course, the pregame warm-up is rather long, which means it ate into practice time. We played 6 v 6 almost the whole rest of the session, though.

In a continuation from what started on Tuesday, we shuffled around variations of what might be the weekend starters. I kept hitting stats to look both at individual hitter performance and to take a collective view with respect to setters.

Thursday

We traveled to Topeka, KS for our first road trip of the season. After a quick meal upon arrival in town, we had an hour long court session at hosts Washburn University. Unfortunately, one of our players got an ankle injury during the session. That’s the first of the year, so far.

Friday

Our first match of the day was against Pittsurg State from the MIAA. They were second from bottom last year, so not the strongest of opposition. We got off to a slow start, losing 25-18. We made a personnel adjustment at outside hitter going into the second set, and proceeded to win the next three sets rather easily: 14, 13, and 15. After a very weak start, our offense came on very strongly, with a hitting efficiency in the last two sets about .400.

The day’s second match was against hosts Washburn, who finished 4th in the MIAA last season and ended the year #18 ranked. This year they start #16 in the polls. In other words, a tough match. The first set reminded me of the Exeter women against Northumbria in the 2014 BUCS semifinals. We just got totally blitzed, 25-6.

The players recovered well, though. They were more aggressive and confident, in particular in serve. We didn’t get any aces, but we went from serving 1.2 in the first set to serving just shy of 2.0 in the latter two. It totally changed the complexion of the match. Washburn still won in three, but the last two sets were 25-19 and 25-23. We could have actually won the third. We went from hitting -.217 to .297 to .361 while taking them from .625 to .314 to .135. The loss of the third was probably because we had a few too many service errors (7).

Saturday

It was an early start, with our first match at 9:30 against Emporia State. They finished #8 in the MIAA last season. We felt we could win this one based on what we saw the day before. Our start was poor, however. We didn’t pass well at all in the first two sets (both below 1.8), so of course we didn’t hit well either. In the second set we were only 24% in sideout. The result was a pair of losses, 25-17 and 25-13.

We swapped setters for the third to give our freshman a chance. Things turned around from there. We won the next two sets fairly easily, 25-16 and 25-19. Unfortunately, we struggled a bit in the 5th, and lost 15-10.

The final match was against Missouri Western, who finished 5th in the MIAA last season. They are a solid team (received votes in the Coaches Poll), though not quite at Washburn’s level. We returned to the prior starting setter to begin, but once more suffered from a poor first set. After that, we put the freshman back in. We didn’t serve nearly aggressively enough in either set. As a result, they sided-out easily. It was 93% in the second set! We lost the first two 15 and 14.

Serving was much better in the third set. Our defense and block performed much better as a result. We still lost the third, 25-23, though, because of a few too many attack errors.

Observations

First let me talk about the competitive level. Obviously, we will not really focus on stuff like RPI this year as we rebuild the MSU team. Still, four matches against teams in a strong conference (4 teams currently ranked, and one just outside the Top 25) can’t help but provide an RPI boost. That’s unlikely to impact us at all in terms of this year’s post-season. A year-over-year rise in the overall rankings is the sort of thing external evaluators like to see.

Now to talk about the offense. One of the major observations on Friday was the massive difference in performance between when we spread the attack and when we did not. In both matches the vast majority of balls in the first set went to the outside. Not surprisingly, they struggled to be effective. Once we shared the ball around better, the OHs were much more successful.

Our biggest offensive issue was in the middle. At times it went well, but too often the connects were just off. Some of it was hitters not going fast enough. Some of it was inaccurate sets. Slides, in particular, were just not on at all. This will need work.

We also needed to get the right side more involved on Saturday.

Passing wasn’t bad overall for the tournament, but especially on Saturday we had too many 2-passes an not enough 3s. Defense was solid when we got teams out of system, though we need to do better digging harder balls outside our body line.

Bottom line is we got exactly what you hope to get out of your first tournament – to try a few things, see how the team performs in different situations, and get a clearer view of your developmental needs. Importantly, I think the team saw what sort of things they need to do to be successful. Now we just have to reinforce that.

On player communication

In his post Calling For The Ball – What If?, Mark Lebedew makes a counterpoint argument to a post of mine. I wanted to continue that discussion.

Calling the ball challenge

The post in question is Getting young players to communicate and move. In it I talk a bit about some ways to encourage players – especially new players – to talk to each other. In his article, Mark makes the very valid point that another level of training needs to come in as soon as multiple players are on the court. Namely, there must be a shift from the technical aspect to the organizational one.

In other words, we have to coach the players on their areas of responsibility. Mark’s argument is basically if player’s already know which ball is theirs, they don’t really need to talk to each other about it. Are we doing a good enough job of coaching that from the early stages of player and team development?

Serve receive is where this is probably most often considered, though it applies to the transition phases as well. It’s a question of seam management. Who gets the short ball? Who gets the deep ball? Which player takes second ball if the setter digs the first?

Pushing back

I’m going to push back at Mark in a couple of areas.

First, he’s got a quote from a colleague about a group of 14-year-old girls trying to come to a unified decision and how long it takes. I get the idea that’s trying to be put forth, but it’s a poorly constructed argument. Complexity, and thus time, increases exponentially as the number involved increases. It is not reasonable to compare a group decision, which likely is under relatively little time pressure, to a 2-person decision made when time is very much a factor.

The other thing I will push back against is Mark’s end note comment, “A team should be structured in such a way that all areas and phases of the game are covered and that players have specific roles in each situation that provide the BEST outcome for the team.”

I don’t know if technically volleyball has an infinite number of potential scenarios, but it’s for sure a very large number. We cannot possibly have a plan for every one of them. Yes, for standard situations we certainly can, and should. It’s when things veer away from standard that the need for what I will call “responsibility communication” (calling “Mine””) comes in to play. This mainly comes into play when players are not fully aware of the position or situation of their teammate(s).

It’s not just about responsibility

I’ve written about this before, so I won’t go into it too deeply here. I’ll just say that communication between players isn’t just about defining responsibility. In fact, I’d venture to say it’s not even mostly about that – largely speaking to Mark’s point about players knowing which balls are theirs and which aren’t.

Teaching Volleyball Log – Fall 2016 Initial Entry

Part of my duties as Assistant Coach at Midwestern State University is teaching volleyball via an activity class offered through the Exercise Physiology department. I should note the head coach also teaches an Ex-Phys class each semester. You see this type of set up in the lower NCAA divisions. It’s how some athletic departments fund full-time coaching positions.

I teach two 1 hour and 20 minute sessions per week. The schedule is set to avoid conflicts with practice and/or team travel.

First day teaching volleyball

Today I started my first class. Whether I was going to do so was an open question for a while. I only have eight registered students. Technically, that’s below the normal cut-off. Apparently, however, the Provost decided to run the low-enrollment activity courses regardless.

Get this. I have a Grad Assistant!

Definitely didn’t expect that. She’s got some volleyball experience, so she can mix in with the students as needed.

I have seven females students and one (short) male student. The latter has apparently played some beach volleyball, but clearly hasn’t had much in the way of training. The women, though, all indicated at least high school experience.

After taking care of the admin stuff (syllabus, expectations, etc.) I spent the rest of the class just going through skill activities to see where they’re at. Not surprisingly, ball-control is an issue. At least they mostly have the right mechanical sense, though.

Moving forward

Now that I have a sense for their current level, I can better think about how to progress the on-court side of things.I told them that at times I would set up the video we use in team practice so they could see themselves in action.

I also need to work on off-court volleyball knowledge – history, current events, etc.

At some point I’m going to have to develop a plan for the midterm, which isn’t going to be a written test. It’ll be more game oriented – including knowledge games.

Future log entries

I’m not sure how frequently I’ll update this teaching log. I was originally expecting to be working with real beginners, which would have made for an interesting change from my normal coaching. That won’t really be the case here, except perhaps for the one male student. Still, I can see the value in reporting on the types of games and drills I use. Maybe I’ll do weekly updates as with my coaching log. We shall see.

Coaching Log – August 29, 2016

This is an entry in my volleyball coaching log for 2016-17.

Monday

The day started with weight training.

Our theme for the day was block/defense. Specifically, we wanted the players reading, reacting, and going for the ball.

The morning session started with cooperative cross-court hitting. That progressed to backrow 4s played Speedball fashion. We then had them do some target serving for the first time, after which the passers did a sever & pass session while the MBs and setters worked on their connection. Next was some hitters vs. blockers. We finished with two games. One was an out-of-system game where we had two pin blockers in 2 and 4 on each side, plus back row players in 1 and 5. Sets had to go to the pins, so there was always a firm double block. We finished up with 6 v 6 having each side serve 3 balls before rotating. A team got a bonus point for a first ball sideout.

As has been typical, we did a lot of game play in the second session. We did, however, have one servers vs passers game where we focused the camera on the passers for instant feedback.

The day ended with a team discussion about season goals. They came up with a group of outcome goals (where we ended the season), as well as several process goals (things we will do along the way to get there).

Tuesday

We started the morning session off with a serving warm-up and then some zonal target work. After that, they played a competitive version of the cross-court hitting drill. We did some servers vs. passers games, and also a Neville Pepper like game where the fixed team tried to score via back row attacks. It probably wasn’t the best way we could have done that, all things considered.

We did a pair of 6 v 6 games to finish. The first used a combination of normal rally scoring and points for passes. Teams earned points for winning rallies, as usual. They also earned points for serve reception passes – 2 for a 3 pass, 1 for a 2 pass. He’s the catch. If they were aced, their accumulated pass points went back to zero. The game was played to 25. The final game featured bonus points for digs (or free/down ball passes) to target.

Between sessions we had Picture Day. Yay!

Our afternoon session was a somewhat shortened one. We had the players play Brazilian 2-Ball tennis (something my Svedala team did regularly), then had a Servers vs. Passers game. That was followed by an out-of-system game. We finished up playing an old-school sideout scoring game to 15 to put a bit of onus on siding out.

The day ended with a Fall Sports Kick-off event which combined volleyball with the two soccer teams.

Wednesday

The day started with weight training. We had no morning training as the team did some youth work in the community. In the afternoon we scrimmaged at a local junior college. Not surprisingly, the results were mixed given it was our first external competition and we used a variety of line-ups. The teams split the four sets played, though we held the edge in points.

On the plus side, our serve reception was solid. It wasn’t the 2.3 the team targeted as their goal, but it was a respectable 2.15. And it was consistent. I think only one of our primary passers was below 2.0, and even then just barely. To be fair, the other team didn’t serve all that aggressively, though they were solid in terms of targeting.

In the mixed category was our offense. The sets to the MBs were a bit erratic in height and tempo, though we still high for a high efficiency. Over all we were at about 40% kills, which is good, but were were also at about 20% errors, which is not so great. Some of that was poor decision-making, but some of it was just being aggressive. We’ll take that as this stage. Actually, the fourth set really pulled the hitting numbers up. In Set 1 we hit about .125. It was a little over .200 in Set 2, then dipped back down to about .165 in the third. In the last set we were just shy of .400. Overall, one of our OHs hit .400 for the match, which is great. We also ran an effective back row attack.

In the could be better category was our defense. Mainly, that was about block placement and reading/anticipation. Things, especially in terms of the block, got better as the match progressed. We need to get much better in picking up the cues from the other side of the net and adjusting, though.

Thursday

We started the morning session with a discussion of the Wednesday match. We wanted to see how the players felt they did, not just in terms of their play, but also in terms of the off-court attitude and energy. Of course we also talked about taking what we learned and moving forward.

The session itself had reading and anticipation of the main themes. We used Brazilian 2-ball once more as a first warm-up activity. After that, it was some target serving. Then we split into two groups. I took the setters and middles to work on slide and 1-ball connections, which were an issue in the scrimmage. The rest did serving & passing games. They then played back court 2 v 2 (half court – 8 simultaneous games). After that it was 6 v 6. First, we played a game where one side was only allowed 2 contacts (3 if it was a really scramble) to increase the speed at which balls came back at the 3-touch side and to encourage more anticipation. We finished with a straight 15-point game.

The afternoon session started with work on our pre-match warm-up routine. We did part of it before Wednesday’s scrimmage, but wanted to smooth out the rough spots in especially the full court portion (NCAA women do a 4-4-5-5-1 protocol). After that it was all game play. We repeated the 2-contact game from the morning with a change in it’s structure. I like the effect it seemed to have on getting the team to read better and anticipate more. We’ll probably keep doing it.

We also did a kind of controlled entry initiation game. The idea was to replace coaches on boxes hitting at players to start transition play with live hitters to make things more game-like. It’s something we need to iron out a little bit, but it could be be useful to work on transition play. We ended with a normal game to 25.

Friday

The day started with weight training once more.

The first session was a little slow in the early phases. We had them do some short-court games to start, then shifted to doing a bit of technical work on blocking. The main focus there was wing blocker positioning. Competitive cross-court hitting was next to bring in game play, and that progressed into some offense vs. defense. We finished with a regular game, but with the players getting whistled for not getting to defensive base, leaving too early, and/or failing to cover their hitters.

The final session of pre-season was all about competition. We put the players into two teams and played a series of games (though the three middles shuffled around, as we’ve had them do the whole time).

Saturday

No training. The players had to attend mandatory Life Skills sessions during the evening.

Sunday

Off day.

Observations

I think overall we’ve been pretty pleased with how things have gone up to now. There was a little bit of an internal conflict flare up midweek related to playing time and fitness tests, but it seems to have been smoothed out. The group ended the week full of energy and positivity. Obviously, we’re a long way from where we want to be. There are a lot of rough patches in our play that need to be sanded down, which is to be expected in what is still a pretty young team. We can see the glimpses of what we’re capable of, though, and some of it is really exciting.

Substitution strategy when winning big

During their 2016 Olympic semifinal, the USA men got out to a huge lead over Italy in the third set. I wrote about the idea of coaches on the losing end of blowouts like that subbing out players to give them a break. Italy did exactly that. The likes of Zaytsev and Jauntorena were pulled out midway through the set.

This sort of strategy is something you see in high level professional volleyball. You also see it at the international level.

Interestingly, though, you don’t see it very much (if at all) in American volleyball. I’m talking about college volleyball and about the national teams.

Maybe that reflects an American mentality to always keep fighting. Maybe it’s just a certain lack of sophistication.

I’ve already written about the reasons for following this kind of substitution pattern. Here I want to focus on the other side. By that I mean the dominating team. I’m not talking about when you are clearly the much better team. I’m talking about when you’re in a match with a roughly equal competitor.

Countering the substitutions

If you watched the Italy – USA match, you saw Zaytsev rip off a string of service points at the end of Set 4. Did sitting out the latter part of Set 3 contribute to that? Perhaps. We’ll never know for sure.

The question I have is whether it would have been good for the Americans to sub out players like Anderson. You’re up 10+ points and cruising. Is it a good idea to give your top players a breather? You know your opponent is probably going to play better in the next set. Would sitting someone a few minutes improve their level of play in the future, or will it slow them down?

I don’t know the answer to that question.

My feeling is that coaches leaving players in in that sort of situation are making the conservative call. They don’t want to risk losing the set or allowing the other team to develop momentum for the next one. Clearly, the amount of drop-off there is between starter and sub is a factor.

Still, often the conservative call isn’t the right one.

I’d love to hear some thoughts on the subject.

Coaching Log – August 22, 2016

This is an entry in my volleyball coaching log for 2016-17.

This probably won’t be the most detailed of weekly entries. Normally, I’d be filling in my thoughts and observations as the week went along, but all my spare time last week was taken up watching Olympic volleyball!

Our general schedule on training days was to have one session in the morning that finished at 11:00, with a second in the afternoon finishing no later than 5:00. Start and stop times varied from day to day based on what we were doing and how long we planned to run the sessions.

NCAA Division II rules permit no more than 6 hours of activity per day, with at least three hours break between physical sessions. Additionally, you are allowed only 5 hours of physical activity.

Sunday

This was basically a meeting day. We met with the team for about 2 hours to start the process of defining the program and team identity. It was a process we coaches guided via the questions we asked. Beyond that, however, it was the players doing the thinking and talking. The players were broken up into groups of three, then brought back together to share what they talked about.

We went from the meeting to dinner at the house of a local player. Then it was back to campus for the players’ Compliance meeting. After that, they picked up their practice gear.

Monday

The day started with a fitness test – the first part of a 3-part test. This part was the suicide test. Players had to run 5 total suicides with a minute’s break between the two. The objective was to run the first in under 23 seconds, the second in under 24, and the final three in under 25. A player was considered to have passed if their total time was no more than one second over the total allowed time.

Our morning session focused on game play. We did a series of small-sided games to give the players a chance to start the process of working together. It was also a chance for use to do some initial evaluations.

In the afternoon session we started to work on skills – in particular serving and passing.

After the afternoon session we spent about 30 minutes continuing Sunday’s work on team culture.

Tuesday

This day the players did the second of their fitness test parts. This one was a three element jump-rope exercise. The requirement was to do 155 rope skips in a minute. They also had to do 55 cross jumps. Those are ones where you cross your arms over in front of you (left hand on right side, right hand on left side). The final element was 30 double-unders where the player spun the rope under their feet twice on one jump.

Our strength coach introduced the players to a set of pre-hab exercises to be done once or twice a week. The different positions were provided with their own plans.

We had the setters and liberos/DS’s come in early for the morning session to work on individual skills. I ran the setters. My main focus was to take a look at their mechanics and start the process of making corrections where necessary. Later in the day we put the setters together with the OHs to work on the tempo of the outside sets.

The rest of the day was spent working more on individual skills in the morning, and more team stuff in the afternoon. Competitive opportunities were incorporated throughout, however. They came either through competitive drills like servers vs. passers, or via actual games.

Wednesday

This day started with the last part of the fitness test, which was the timed mile run. The objective was 7 minutes. The players were allowed to run it either outside (2 laps around the building) or inside (11 laps around the coliseum stands).

One of the things we identified as a developmental need in the team was being more intentional on first ball contact. To help with that we played a 2-touch game with four players a side. It seemed to have a real impact.

This day we also spent time with the setters and MBs working together on middle sets. There was more serving and passing, of course, to include taking passing stats throughout. As in prior days, lots of competitive opportunities.

In the evening we had a team dinner hosted by a local friend of the program. She had the players watch the following video, with a bit of a discussion afterwards.

Thursday

Not surprisingly, there were some heavy legs and tired bodies for the morning session. Focus was a bit of a struggle for at least a handful of players during the first half of the practice when the tempo was a bit slower. That mostly picked up as things got more game oriented and up-tempo, though.

We continued working on serving and passing, naturally. Our defensive focus increased this day as well. That included blocking, which we’d started working in prior days.

We also worked on hitters attacking the block. This was mainly done via a game where we used extra antennae to create outside attacking zones. Points could only be scored through them.

We gave the players an extra hour between sessions this day, then spent nearly the whole afternoon session in 6 v 6 play.

Again, we spent about 30 minutes continuing our cultural work. That basically wrapped up what we wanted to do in terms of the broader themes.

Friday

The day started with the first weight training session of the year.

The MBs and setters got to do some work together again in the morning session, while the rest worked on serving and passing. This time the focus was mainly on transition attacking.

Another thing we worked on collectively was running faster back row attacks. Importantly, we also worked on running back row attacks only in-system and forcing the ball to the pins when out-of-system.

We continued to collect passing stats off serve reception. On this particular day, however, we encouraged more aggressive serving by allowing players to re-serve if they missed their first attempt. This looked to have a very meaningful negative impact on the passing numbers. Obviously, from a serving perspective that’s exactly the point.

Saturday & Sunday

Days off.

Observations

The first week with a team is always a mixed bag. Some things are better than expected. Some are worse. We were pretty happy with the general level the players were at in terms of their play. That reflects, I’m sure, the fact that many of them were in the area over the Summer, getting some playing time in together. They did a lot of small-sided game type stuff, as far as we were aware.

Of course when you play mainly 3 v 3 and 4 v 4 then the nuances and higher precision of 6 v 6 play won’t be there. Not surprisingly, that’s what we saw.

There are plenty of things we need to work on and sharpen up. We’re in the process of looking at our priorities and seeing where we want to focus our primary efforts. One of the things we’re really pleased with, though, is how competitive the group is. They love to play and they love to compete!

A rant on rants

I watched more volleyball in the 2016 Olympics than has ever been the case before. I had to use some alternative methods to do so, but it was well worth the effort. There were a lot of good matches – both men’s and women’s.

I joked on Facebook and Twitter a bit about commentators who just don’t know the sport. #volleyballdrinkinggame.

What I didn’t talk about in those social media posts is some of the rants being offered up by commentators. Specifically, I refer to Paul Sunderland and Kevin Barnett on NBC.

Set points

The first is Sunderland’s persistent rants about the set point system. Basically, that’s where teams get 3 points for a 3-0 or 3-1 win, 2 points for a 3-2 win, 1 point for a 3-2 loss, and 0 otherwise. Sunderland has moaned about this system at major tournaments for years. His primary argument is that while they are fine for long seasons, they aren’t for short-duration events.

Even if you agree with that, here’s the rub. Set points in the Olympics was not the first decider of pool position. That was match win/loss record. Set points was the first tiebreaker. Sunderland seamed not to realize that.

Double Sub

The other rant that’s cropped up was both Sunderland and Barnett going off on the double sub. That’s when a front row setter is replaced by an OPP, with the back row OPP being swapped out for a setter. You can only do it once a match because of FIVB substitution rules. As a result, it tends to be done in the latter stages of sets.

The guys both said they really don’t like the double sub. Fine.

Here’s my problem with that, though. In the Brazil v Argentina men’s quarterfinal it was Berardinho vs. Velasco. Both are coaching legends. Both were lauded by Sunderland and Barnett for being among the best ever.

If those coaches are that good, don’t you think they’ve analyzed their team’s performance? Don’t you think they’ve identified some benefit to making the switch?

The coaches are playing the percentages and those percentages tell them they are better – perhaps only slightly, but still better – when they do that switch than when they don’t.

Is it always going to work? Of course not!

Does it always work having your starters in? Nope.

You can’t say a decision was a bad decision simply because of the outcome. You can make the right choice and still have things work against you.

This is probably a good case of confirmation bias.