Kids playing alongside adults in volleyball

A while back, Mark from At Home on the Court, wrote a post on the subject of youth and adult volleyball players competing on the same team together. He referenced a quote from Nikolai Karpol, the former Russian women’s coach. Karpol was strongly in favor of age integration as a way to help younger players develop.

In the US there tends to be very little crossover between youth and adult players. The kids play Juniors and school volleyball. The next stop tends to be college volleyball. It’s only after that that we see them competing on adult teams in adult competitions.

There’s an NCAA restriction on outside competition which keeps college players from playing in adult tournaments. There’s nothing stopping the Juniors kids from doing so, though. I actually had an 18s team once play in an adult tournament which took place before the Juniors season started. It was an eye-opening experience for them. They couldn’t believe a bunch of “old ladies” could beat them despite clearly being physically inferior. 🙂

Playing against adult teams is certainly a learning experience. It doesn’t go quite as far as what Mark and Karpol were talking about, though. They meant having youth and adult players together on the same team. I actually saw a mixture of that when I coached in England. Some teams playing in the National League and in the South West Regional league had squads totally comprised of Juniors aged players. At the same time, however, there were adult teams that included Juniors players.

Stepping up the levels of play, in Germany I saw a high school aged player in the SC Potsdam squad when I was on my 10-day visiting coach stint there. The team that won the Swedish Elitserie on the women’s side the last two seasons (Engelholm) featured a player who was only 15/16.

Certainly, we see teenagers in professional teams in other sports. Soccer is an obvious example. I am a supporter of the New England Revolution. Diego Fagundez started playing in their first team when he was 15. England’s Wayne Rooney famously got his start with Everton in the Premier League – one of the best leagues in the world – when he was only 15 or 16.

Granted, soccer is a sport where physical maturity is less an issue than in other sports. In more physical sports (think football), particularly on the men’s side when physical development is generally completed later, it’s tougher to encourage youth/adult integration. On the women’s side, though, physical maturation happens earlier – most often while a girl is still in the Juniors age group. From that perspective, there’s nothing to stop a kid from playing with adults.

Consider this. One of the best players in the history of volleyball, Karch Kiraly, is well known to have spent years playing with his father in beach doubles events in Southern California – adult events. Seemed to work out pretty well for him!

So the question is, why don’t we do more age mixing?

I asked one Volleyball Coaching Wizard with international coaching experience their thoughts. While they did definitely see the value, the concern expressed what whether from a child development perspective you want young players exposed to the more mature actions and conversations of older teammates – be they older youth or actual adults. I understand that view, but I’m not sure it’s that big an issue.

I’d like to hear what others think on the subject, though.

In places like the US where youth players rarely play with adults – and often not even with older youth – does it make sense for us to try to encourage more integration?

In places where there is a lot more age integration, should there be a move for less?

If so, why? If not, why not?

 

Help! My team is too quiet

Communication is an important part of playing volleyball, as it is with any team sport (and beyond as Mark Lebedew recently wrote). I’ve written before on the subject of getting players to talk (here and here). I’ve also had debates with fellow coaches on the subject. A reader recently emailed on the subject, looking for some help.

I coach senior girls high school volleyball. Each year, I have the quietest team in the league. They don’t talk a lot on the court, nor do they go to the center of the court and high five or whatever between points. I get them to do this at practices; I have a yelling drill; We have team activities outside of volleyball – I just can’t seem to build team spirit. I am a positive, loud, cheerful person, so it’s not quietness on my part that is causing this. What am I doing wrong…or more to the point…what can I do right?

This coach wants to address what I would view as general communication and interaction in her team. I know coaches who argue that a team should be able to play together without actually talking. The case for that is the players should all know their responsibilities. Thus, there isn’t any need for talking.

That’s all fine in theory, but have you ever actually seen a team that plays together with no talking? Even teams full of highly experienced players who played together a lot talk. It’s the low level, inexperienced teams that are usually the ones playing in silence. That should tell us something about the value of communication.

Gender differences in communication

Now, to be fair, the coaches who pushed back at me about talking are from the men’s side of the game where their does tend to be less noise in-rally. If you’ve ever been to an event where both genders are playing, you likely noticed the difference.

That was certainly the case when I coached at BUCS Final 8s during my time in England. The format there featured two rounds of men’s play followed by two rounds of women’s play. The gym was MUCH noisier when the women were on-court.

I think there’s a very specific reason for this. Female players connect with each other via communication. I don’t mean sharing information. Both genders do that. I mean they are unified by communication and interaction. If a female team stops talking you know there’s a problem somewhere. For more on that subject, I strongly recommend Kathy DeBoer’s book on gender differences.

So if you have a team that is quiet, as described above, how can you look to address the issue?

Shared purpose

It is way easier to get a group of players to do something if they can link that to a common objective. This objective has to be one they all buy in to, though. It can’t be something put on them from outside. For example, it’s all well and good to say your goal is to win your league, but if that’s not where the players are at with their own thinking then you using it as the driver won’t work. You need to figure out what they want out of it and work from there.

Gym culture

It’s much easier to get players to interact with each other if they feel relaxed. That means they aren’t caught up in their own concerns and fears about their individual performance and such. The players need to know it’s OK to make mistakes – encouraged even. See Climbing Mistake Mountain and the posts linked from there for a deeper discussion on this idea.

This is not something easily changed. You have to get probably well-entrenched attitudes turned around, and that takes time. It more specifically takes a consistent approach from the coach. You have to show every day, every practice, every game, every match that mistakes are simply part of the process of improving. If you are inconsistent and sometimes penalize errors, or get upset about them, or allow others to do so, then you won’t make any progress.

Encourage celebration

A lot of times getting teams to interact more and communicate at a higher level starts with getting them to celebrate good plays. It’s pretty easy to be happy when someone makes a good play. From that perspective, cheering tends to be easy to encourage. Players may not always be comfortable getting excited about their own plays, but if everyone else is cheering then it’s a lot easier.

So how do you get them celebrating?

You can start with simple things like having team cheers for aces and blocks. The players generally like to come up with something fun for that. You can extend that to other types of plays as well, depending on your level. These things may seem silly, but they can be a step in the right direction.

Coming together between points

If you can get the team doing things like ace and block cheers together, you’re on your way toward being able to get them to come together after each play. It’s something that may need to be coached in practice. As the emailer mentioned, though, that doesn’t necessarily mean it transfers to match-time.

One way to address this is to have a designated player or two who bring the team together. The floor captain or some other leader on the court is the best candidate. Chances are they won’t have to do it for long as a habit will develop. Even after that, though, there may be times when a reminder is required.

What if someone resists?

Interaction with one’s fellow players should be considered part of the role of every player on the court. If someone isn’t going into the huddle between points then they aren’t fulfilling their role. Same if the designated huddle-caller isn’t bringing the team together. What do you normally do if a player isn’t fulfilling their role? My guess is you take them out and put on someone who you feel will do a better job of it. This really shouldn’t be seen any differently. Losing playing time can be a big motivator.

In-Rally Communication

Most people probably think of calling the ball and calling for the ball as the talking that gets done in rallies. For sure, those are two major sources of player communication in-rally. There’s a lot of other stuff, though.

Base!
Cover!
Watch the dump!
Deep line!
Outside, outside!
Tip, tip!

I think you get the idea.

This sort of communication is a level beyond calling the ball when passing or calling for the ball as an attacker. These calls are about reading the play, anticipating, and preparing for what comes next. As such, they need to be incorporated into training players to recognize what’s happening. If you want players to be talking in this way then you have to incorporate that talk into the technical/tactical work from the beginning.

Reinforcing the requirement to talk

I mentioned potentially using playing time consequences as a way to encourage players to connect with each other between plays. Certainly that sort of thing could be applied to in-play talking as well. It depends on the player and situation, though.

As to what you can do in practice to make sure players talk as required, there are a couple of ways you can go. In the case of drills where there’s a count objective you can not count good reps when there isn’t the desired talking, or you can make it a negative if you want to be more forceful.Alternatively, in game play you can give points or bonus points if the players communicate as desired. Or you can blow the whistle to end a rally (and thus cost the team a point) if the players don’t communicate as you wish. It’s been my experience this gets them focused rather quickly!

I haven’t use it myself, but there’s a game called “ruckus” some coaches use to encourage more player communication. I’m not entirely sure of the rules. I think basically any type of communication earns a point. Don’t hold me to that, though.

Dealing with individuals

While encouraging the team toward being more interactive, you have to be conscious of individual personalities. Some players will quite readily be engaged, but others will be more shy. Trying to force the latter to be more talkative has a good chance of backfiring. You’re probably going to have to take things slowly, and gradually develop their comfort. This will require some patience on your part.

A personal example

At the start of the 2013-14 season my Exeter women’s team was about half returning players and half new players. Most didn’t speak English as their first language (it was about 10 different nationalities). All were fluent, but that isn’t the same as comfortable, especially in a new environment. Our training was pretty quiet to begin. By the end of the year, though, people regularly poked their heads into the gym to see what all the noise was about.

How did we get there?

First, they were totally committed to reaching Final 8s (played in Edinburgh that season). As such, it was easy for me to frame things in the context of how they contributed to reaching that goal. The prior year’s team lacked the same mindset, so using Final 8s as a motivator wouldn’t have worked.

Gym culture was a huge part as well. The process was slow, but eventually we got everyone bought in to the idea that mistakes were OK (though lack of effort and focus was not!). That helped build overall confidence and allowed some of the stronger personalities to bubble up positively (with encouragement) to take charge of bringing the team together between rallies.

Getting the players more focused on reading the play (not just ball-watching) definitely was a big factor. If you’re not anticipating what’s coming, you really don’t have a lot to talk about during a rally.

To the point about personalities above, we definitely had our challenges. Some of the players were just naturally quiet. It was a source of frustration for some of those who were more vocal. That’s something I had to manage. Over time, though, we got them at least a bit out of their shell and contributing their voices.

One other idea

The emailer talked about being loud and cheerful on the sidelines. One thing which could help a team “get it” in terms of communication is if the coach actually stopped and was a bit more quiet. This is especially true if the coach has a strong presence. I’m not suggesting that cheering as a coach is bad. I’m just suggesting that in some cases the players might be encouraged to fill the void that less cheering from the coach leaves. Once the team is in the habit of making their own noise, the coach can then resume being vocal without the risk of the players going quiet again.

The contrast to this is a team that is quiet when the coach is quiet. In that case the coach may need to be more vocal for a while to encourage the players in that direction. Volleyball Coaching Wizard interviewee Peggy Martin told me about doing exactly that sort of thing at times in her career, though she is normally a quiet coach on the bench. It’s a question of getting a read on the team and helping in whatever way suits the situation.

Your thoughts?

Did I leave anything out? What do you do to encourage more communication and interaction? Leave a comment below and share with the world! 🙂

Working on out-of-system play

A coaching friend of mine in England asked me for some ideas on how to work on out-of-system play. What that really comes down to is the first ball element. How do you start the play or rally? He was working with a group of U15 boys, though the concept applies across all ages and genders.

Let’s start by defining what we mean by out-of-system. Broadly speaking, that usually means there are few, if any, attacking options available. Certainly, the quick attack is out. You might only have one hitter you can get the ball to for a real swing – often the OH in 4. For some, out-of-system more narrowly defines a play where the setter can’t take the second ball.

This is something you need to define for yourself – or at least have in mind when planning a game or drill. In the latter case you can just make it so that someone other than the setter takes the second ball. That’s easy enough to do. You can have no setter on the court or make it a rule that someone else takes the second ball.

In the former case you have two options. One is to make the setter play the first ball. The other is to make sure there isn’t a quick attack option available. This can be done by not having any MBs (so just two pin hitters at the net). You can also make sure the first ball won’t be passed/dug well very often, by doing a virus type of thing where the coach throws in a ball that must be played as the 2nd contact (see Increasing player initiation), or by simply putting in a rule that the sets must be high to the pins and/or back row.

An example of the “can’t set quick” approach is the High Ball to Receive game. In that case the first set must be a high ball to the OH, with the rally playing out from there.

Once you have sorted out the first part the out-of-system training equation – how to force them to not be in-system – you can then turn the focus on whatever specific area you feel is most in need of work. In a lot of cases that would be attacking against a big, well-formed block. It’s pretty easy to set that up by adding an extra blocker. You can alternatively have the defensive team working on triple blocking, narrow the attacking zone, or things like that.

Questions for John, Russ, and Terry?

In about a week and a half I’m going to be attending the Fort Worth clinic being run by The Art of Coaching Volleyball. I’ve been invited by the organizers to interview the three lead clinicians, John Dunning (Stanford), Russ Rose (Penn State), and Terry Liskevych (recently retired from Oregon State). I’ll sit down with each of them for something like 45 minutes and we’ll record some stuff for them to use on their website and stuff down the road.

I’d like to get your thoughts on interesting questions to throw at the guys.

Here’s the qualification, though. I want to step back from the technical and tactical stuff they normally focus on in their clinics. I’m not going to ask them about drills or games and playing systems. There’s plenty of that material out there.

Instead I’m going more in the Volleyball Coaching Wizards direction. By that I mean I want to focus on the underlying sets of philosophies and coaching developmental considerations which serve to motivate the technical and tactical stuff.

So, with that in mind, what questions should I put on my list?

Increasing player initiation in games and drills

When a ball need to be entered into a game or drill, how is that being done? I’ll ask that again by way of an example.

Let’s say you’re running the game Baseball, which features a lot of free balls initiated to one side. Do you, as coach, send those free balls to the receiving side? Or instead do you toss a ball to the opposing side and have them send the free ball over to the receivers?

If you’re doing it, I’m guessing you’re thinking about control. You control the tempo and you control where the free balls go. Sound about right?

Certainly there are advantages to that.

There are also disadvantages, however. One of them is probably that the free balls always come from the same area – usually off the court somewhere. Not all that realistic.

The other is that is you’re the one doing the free balling you take the opportunity for learning and development away from the players who could be doing it instead. The free ballers can be learning where they should be trying to target the ball and otherwise how they can make things challenging for the other team.

You get two benefits this way. The players become better at sending free balls over if they have to do it and the receiving team gets more realistic balls coming at them.

Plus, you can still control the tempo of the game. You still need to feed the ball in, after all. It’s just to a different side. And of course you can put the free ballers in any kind of situation you like.

Where can you make a shift?
Think about other games and drills where the ball needs to be initiated from the sideline. I can think of a few. Bingo-Bango-Bongo comes immediately to mind as it is like Baseball in terms of the free balls.

There’s also 22 v 22. That’s a wash drill which features a second ball initiated to the winners the first rally. I personally have usually done that by way of a standing ball “attacked” at them. Depending on what you want to do, though, it would be easy enough to toss an attackable ball to the losing side for them to hit over. More realistic than a standing ball from the coach, right?

Give it some thought. Shifting the initiation like that adds a developmental layer.

Giving players more responsibility

Here’s something to think about.

There’s a lot of talk about the level of privilege among modern athletes. Anyone who came up as a player 20 years ago must think current players are seriously spoiled. As one of the Volleyball Coaching Wizards I interviewed said, the older players were happy just to get a new pair of shoes each year.

Obviously, the degree to which players nowadays are spoiled or not, pampered to or not, depends a great deal on the level of play and the resources of the organization for which they compete (or the amount their parents are willing the spend). The team I coached at Svedala, for example, got the basics. The club did not provide the players nearly the gear and support in the form of trainers, etc. as most college players in the US get these days. This is despite being a professional team.

But I’m not here to talk about that stuff. I want to instead discuss the degree to which players are invested in their teams and the programs that surround them.

I recently thought about the structure of university level volleyball in the U.K. That is an entirely club-based system. By that I mean teams are not varsity in the way those of us in the U.S. think about it with the school running this. Instead, they are clubs which are run by the students involved. They are much like club sports at colleges and universities in the States. Yes, there are varying degrees of involvement and oversight from school to school. Overall, though, the club membership is responsible for the direction the program takes and much of the day-to-day administration.

The result of all this is that club members are – to my mind – more invested in how the program does. This is both in terms of performance on-court and what they do outside the gym (club growth, community service, etc.). This leads me to wonder ….

Would athletes in other structures be more invested if they were more involved in the off-court parts of their programs?

I’m thinking primarily here of school programs (college/university or even high school), but the same idea could potentially be addressed in a more professional club context. We sometimes talk about the need to have players feel like they are part of the process of determining how they train and/or play. This would simply take that same idea and apply it to the more administrative side of things.

Obviously, there are things which will have to be done by the coaching staff for one reason or another. For example, NCAA rules prohibit student-athletes from recruiting. There are plenty of things they can help out with, though. Making travel arrangements. Doing scheduling. Setting up community service activities. The list goes on.

As an added bonus, if we players help out with that kind of stuff we can have less administrative staff. That means lower costs. 😉

Also, the admin experience wouldn’t hurt in terms of the athletes developing useful job market skills.

Just something to think about. Feel free to tear the idea to shreds in the comment section below. 🙂

What is true competitiveness?

Mark at the At Home on the Court blog penned the Is Kobe really competitive? post. In it he presents us with a question. Is an overarching desire to win sufficient to be considered truly competitive? That may sound a bit strange, so let me explain.

It comes down to a player’s commitment to winning. Will they do anything required to win? And by anything required I mean perhaps sacrificing their own personal desires for the greater good. We would probably call these types of people real team players, but do we consider them real competitors?

To quote Mark;

“…I would argue that I have actually met very, very few people who are actually competitive, people who would really do anything to win.  If you are prepared to do anything to win, you will work with others and you won’t take credit. “

We talked about this sort of idea in the MSU Volleyball office one day. It wasn’t so much in terms of competitiveness, but more broadly in the context of pursuit of team goals.

For a team to reach its objectives everyone needs to be on board with them. Everyone also needs to prioritize those objectives. Necessarily, prioritizing the team ahead of the self means you probably have to make sacrifices along the way.

Now, when we talk about sacrifices in this context we often speak of players not getting the playing time they want or having to play a different position or role in the team than they’d prefer. Let me provide you with a different example.

During the 2013-14 season the University of Exeter women I coached were on a mission. They wanted to reach Final 8s, played in Edinburgh that year. Everyone was totally committed and we ended up reaching that objective (and more).

A few weeks after the season the team came together to do a few training sessions ahead of playing in a regional tournament together. After one of them I was walking and talking with the team’s captain. One of the players on the team was someone who commonly expressed strong opinions that could rub people the wrong way at times. The captain told me during that walk that she had a reminder this particular “quirk” that evening. She said it was something she forgot about during the season because the focus was on the team and its objectives.

In other words, the captain had sacrificed her own desires to disagree, argue, or otherwise be made upset or feeling in conflict with this other player. Being a cohesive team was more important to her than any interpersonal issue. In fact, it was so much of a higher priority that the lack of response at potential conflict points, or simply avoiding them, had become unconscious.

Was my captain a special player? To be sure! She was captain for a reason. That’s not to say, though, that other players in the team weren’t making similar types of sacrifices to help maintain team harmony. I’m sure all of them were on some level or another.

The point is that group of players put the team’s mission ahead of any personal agenda of their own. This is what we look for, is it not? When expressed in terms of the objective of winning, then to Mark’s point, this is the ultimate expression of competitiveness.

Book Review: Gender and Competition by Kathy DeBoer

I’ve had Gender and Competition  by Kathy DeBoer on my list of coaching books to read for a while now. As a male volleyball coach who has mainly worked with female athletes (though having coached a few male teams along the way), I have long been interested in the differences in how you need to approach coaching the two genders. Kathy’s book has come up many times in the discussions I’ve had with other coaches on the subject. That includes multiple Volleyball Coaching Wizards interviews I’ve conducted.

Bottom line? Read this book!

You’ll find it a pretty quick read. It comprises just four chapters that add up to a little over 150 pages. Kathy’s writing style strongly favors story telling. The book is full of anecdotes from her coaching and athletics administration career. Basically, it’s teaching by way of example.

There’s one key phrase that I’ve heard attributed to Kathy on the basis of this book. It goes something along the lines of, “Men battle to bond and women bond to battle.” While I don’t recall seeing that exact phrase in the book, certainly it is what is expressed when looking at the differences in how the genders approach competition. It’s something that comes out very early in the text.

The first three chapters look to describe the difference in communication style and general approach to life, competition, and cooperation between men and women. It also looks at the challenges they pose. This isn’t true just for cross-gender interactions, but even for same gender ones, as Kathy demonstrates in some examples of her interactions with her own female athletes. The forth chapter focuses on advice for how to deal with the differences from both perspectives.

I can tell you that a lot of what Kathy talks about in terms of how men and women approach competition and the differences in how the two genders view leadership ring very true to me. I’ve seen them in my own coaching and have heard similar views from fellow coaches.

I can’t recommend Gender and Competition more strongly. It doesn’t matter whether you’re a male or female coach. It doesn’t matter whether you coach male or female players. You will gain insights that will help you do a better job working with your athletes – as well as colleagues, supervisors, and everyone else in your life.

 

Looking back on the 2015-16 season

The professional leagues in Europe have finished their seasons. The NCAA has crowned a set of men’s champions, and its first one in sand. Around the world national teams have come together to get going on their Summer’s work. I suppose it’s time for me to look back on the last year from my own coaching perspective.

At about this time last year I was in an uncertain situation. My PhD funding at the University of Exeter was quickly running out and my path forward was unclear. I applied for many college coaching jobs in the States, but got just one phone interview. I also put in for a handful of jobs with clubs in Europe. It was to the point I was very seriously beginning to look at jobs in the financial world. That’s where I worked before shifting to Exeter in 2012.

As you probably know, I ended up being hired to coach the Svedala club in Sweden. You can read my coaching log for my time there here. I’d heard good things from people I knew who coached and/or played there, so I was looking forward to it. Needless to say, things didn’t end up quite the way I was expecting. I have since moved on to an assistant coaching role at Midwestern State University (MSU).

As you can imagine, I’m not nearly as stressed out now as I was this time last year! 🙂

Unhappiness in Sweden

I wrote shortly after leaving Sweden about how without realizing it I was somewhat unhappy in my time there. Or at least I was less happy. My feelings about the experience are certainly mixed.

I had an exchange with a coaching friend a while back about how I should feel about being let go by Svedala. In particular I wondered whether I should hope they did well or poorly following my departure. He said I was well within my rights to hope they totally went in the tank. That would clearly show the club was wrong to get rid of me. 😉

I actually couldn’t go quite that far, though. I sincerely liked the players – even if my feelings about the club were somewhat less positive. There’s no way I would wish poor results on them. As I reported, they finished 4th in the playoffs after ending the regular season 3rd in the standings.

Could I have done it better?

I won’t lie. There’s a part of me that feels like I could have at least gotten them into the finals. And if we made it to the final, I feel like Svedala had a better chance of beating the team who won than others did. Who knows, though? Maybe they would have finished 4th regardless of who coached. I can take at least some credit for signing three players who were selected to the all-star team. The squad lacked depth and breadth beyond those three, however. The club lost a couple of domestic players after the prior year, and couldn’t replace them.

I’m definitely curious as to what changed after I left. I haven’t heard a single word since my last match in Sweden from the manager. He took over after my departure. I’ve been in touch with a couple of players since, but stayed away from questions about the team. It wouldn’t have been right. The only squad difference was that one of the players who quit because of a new job during the first half of the season came back part-time. That was actually something I’d already arranged with her, though.

One thing that did annoyed me was that the Svedala manager’s name was submitted for Coach of the Year. He’s probably the one who put himself in. Regardless, it was one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever seen. Needless to say, he didn’t get it.

So what do I feel like I could have done better?

Honestly, I think the biggest thing was being more engaged as a kind of broad thing. At times it was a struggle for me to motivate myself to get in and provide the feedback I should have provided in training along the way. I just wasn’t as invested as I needed to be. That probably most played out in being more quiet than I should have been – in practices and during matches.

I’ve said before that I quickly realized at Svedala that the situation wasn’t the sort of longer-term developmental project I really wanted. I decided fairly early on that I was probably going to be one-and-done. That certainly influenced my investment level, which I should have recognized and fought to avoid happening.

This is a lesson that I plan on taking with me moving forward.

And on the positive side?

Beyond that, I certainly had the opportunity to continue developing my practice planning skills. In particular, I had to do a lot of creative work in terms of trying to find ways to challenge players of different capabilities at levels appropriate to each in a situation where I had a varying number of players – usually fewer than one would like.

Of course I also got more experience working in a different culture. You could say two cultures when you factor in that we played against Danish teams and in Denmark several times. That expanded upon my coaching at Exeter.

In terms of what I’m proud of, very high up is being able to develop the confidence level of our two Swedish pin hitters. It was one of my top coaching priorities at the start of the year. Both of them were in need of a major boost at the start of the year. I’m not saying it was an immediate improvement. Nor will I suggest there weren’t bumps in the road along the way. By mid-season they were both much improved, though.

I think I’d also have to say I’m proud of being able to maximize what we had in the squad. Obviously, we didn’t always get the results we could have gotten. We developed a way of playing that suited well the players we had, though. I was complimented on the team’s style of play a number of times, including by one of the most respected coaches in the country. Clearly we were doing something right!

The bottom line is that it was a worthwhile experience, even if the way it ended rankled.

And moving forward?

There are already things I’ve taken from the Svedala experience with me in to working at MSU. Mainly that has been in the area of developing practice plans through the Spring season. As we get into pre-season in August, though, there will be other areas. Squad integration, team management, scouting, and the like will come to the fore.

Of course, should I find myself in a coaching job hunt again, the Svedala experience will play a big role. I definitely learned some things that should help me find a good fit. One could say that’s already the case in my MSU job. More broadly, my time coaching at that level will combine with the exposure I’ve had to German professional volleyball the last couple years to give me a better understanding of things should I pursue projects related to European volleyball.

The bottom line is every experience has value in some fashion – if you let it.

nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher nike tn pas cher air max pas cher air max pas cher stone island outlet stone island outlet stone island outlet stone island outlet stone island outlet stone island outlet barbour paris barbour paris barbour paris barbour paris barbour paris piumini peuterey outlet piumini peuterey outlet piumini peuterey outlet piumini peuterey outlet piumini peuterey outlet canada goose pas cher canada goose pas cher canada goose pas cher canada goose pas cher canada goose pas cher canada goose pas cher woolrich outlet online woolrich outlet online woolrich outlet online woolrich outlet online woolrich outlet online woolrich outlet online Fjllraven Kanken backpack Fjllraven Kanken backpack Fjllraven Kanken backpack Fjllraven Kanken backpack Fjllraven Kanken backpack Fjllraven Kanken backpack woolrich outlet online piumini woolrich outlet moncler outlet online moncler outlet piumini moncler outlet moncler outlet online peuterey outlet online peuterey outlet cheap oil paintings pop canvas art