|
Post by jojonito on Sept 7, 2024 3:39:41 GMT -5
There was an interesting adjustment to the rotations in sets 4 and 5. I think Katie switched her M1 and M2. Where Taylor had been in the M1 position for the first three sets (and for the previous matches against Tennessee and Louisville), she was moved to the M2 spot for the last two sets against Kentucky. Maggie played in the M1 spot for the last two sets. I'm not sure of the motivation for the change. But, it put Izzy in the front row with Taylor for two of the three rotations where Taylor played. Looking at it another way, Taylor was the middle for two of the three rotations where Izzy was in the front row. I don't know if the change was the reason or not. But Taylor went on a rampage for the last two sets! I noticed that also, and believe you are correct about the result. Probably a blocking strategy. Not only did Taylor start scoring on gaps in front of the setter, but the blocking suddenly got better too. I wonder if it was also putting Taylor in the middle when Falduto was passing. The PSU passes were fabulous in the 4th and 5th set allowing Izzy to do a lot of quicks out of the middle.
Edit: You guys are both better observers than I am. I don't tend to pick up rotation changes. Thanks for the info!!
I remember a story about the PSU vs Texas Championship match in 2009. From what I remember, Destinee Hooker was going off on PSU in the first 2 sets. RR changed the rotation so the PSU had better blockers on her and turned the match around. TX never adjusted and so PSU won.
|
|
|
Post by jojonito on Sept 7, 2024 4:49:13 GMT -5
I wonder if not setting Caroline and Markley (5 attempts for Caroline and 3 for Markley) is the sign of Izzy being a young setter. Sometimes what young setters will do is to just set only players who are getting kills. I think that setters need to try to get hitters into the game and to not just not set them is they are starting out slow. Another reason to set others is that otherwise the blockers will just go to Jess or Camryn and ignore the other hitter and so always having two blockers on your best hitters.
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Sept 7, 2024 5:52:43 GMT -5
I wonder if not setting Caroline and Markley (5 attempts for Caroline and 3 for Markley) is the sign of Izzy being a young setter. Sometimes what young setters will do is to just set only players who are getting kills. I think that setters need to try to get hitters into the game and to not just not set them is they are starting out slow. Another reason to set others is that otherwise the blockers will just go to Jess or Camryn and ignore the other hitter and so always having two blockers on your best hitters. I think it's more a sign that Hannah and the middles were on fire. And that, for a combination of reasons, the RSs weren't getting it done.
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Sept 7, 2024 6:59:44 GMT -5
I wonder if not setting Caroline and Markley (5 attempts for Caroline and 3 for Markley) is the sign of Izzy being a young setter. Sometimes what young setters will do is to just set only players who are getting kills. I think that setters need to try to get hitters into the game and to not just not set them is they are starting out slow. Another reason to set others is that otherwise the blockers will just go to Jess or Camryn and ignore the other hitter and so always having two blockers on your best hitters. I think it's more a sign that Hannah and the middles were on fire. And that, for a combination of reasons, the RSs weren't getting it done. Obviously I don't know but in general a setter will do what has been working and stay away from what is not. When Markley came in, Izzy set her almost immediately and the result was not positive and so she kept away from those sets thereafter. (I don't recall the other two sets). I am also wondering if Ms. Jurevicius' ankle may have been a factor. But you are correct - KY was all over Jess and Cam.
|
|
|
Post by 96psu on Sept 7, 2024 7:22:05 GMT -5
I think it's more a sign that Hannah and the middles were on fire. And that, for a combination of reasons, the RSs weren't getting it done. Obviously I don't know but in general a setter will do what has been working and stay away from what is not. When Markley came in, Izzy set her almost immediately and the result was not positive and so she kept away from those sets thereafter. (I don't recall the other two sets). I am also wondering if Ms. Jurevicius' ankle may have been a factor. But you are correct - KY was all over Jess and Cam. That’s not correct. When Markley came in midway through the 3rd set she was set by Grimes out of system, and it was a bad set behind the 10’ line that Markley just kept in play. One of the other two attempts was on an overpass. Izzy only set her once and it was later in the match. I think all 5 of CJs attempts were off if Izzy but I can’t say if they were in system or not until I rewatch the match. There are several reasons why we were left side centric last night. One, Izzy was clearly less comfortable than in previous matches, which is going to happen to a freshman, and when you get uncomfortable you set what’s in front of you. Two, the effort to go to CJ early in the match didn’t work (three errors in 5 attempts) and Izzy logically abandoned it for what was working. Three, Hannah was having a career night and setters are trained to go to the player with the hot hand. Four, as the match went on, we were able to establish the middles as an offensive weapon which is PSU volleyball. Five, by the time Markley was comfortably established in the match, everything else was clicking and Izzy didn’t need to go there. Six, maybe the game plan, which I’m not privy to, said UK was more vulnerable on the left and middle. Having an offensive threat on the right side is important to opening the other options, but the setter set the right side in system a maximum of 6 times in 5 sets. That’s either game planning or bad decision making, but we won with what she did, so maybe let’s not criticize a kid in her 4th college game with 3 ranked wins too much. Either way, it’s hard to put that on CJ and Markley, they can only work with that they are given.
|
|
|
Post by goteampsuvb on Sept 7, 2024 7:42:06 GMT -5
That match was remarkable. This team will learn far more from this match than the Louisville match. The coaching and player adjustments on the fly were inspiring. Not only do they have the talent, they have the closeness to cover each other's back.
Memo to the rest of the schedule: Be afraid, be very afraid.
|
|
|
Post by psuphdstudent on Sept 7, 2024 8:42:17 GMT -5
Happy to see the ladies get through. For some reason from the first set, I had felt like if we weren't swept, PSU would pull off the win.
This was a necessary test for the ladies especially for the passing lineup. Prior to this game I don't recall us being aced or struggling with passing all that much. And with the B1G having some strong serving teams (they might not look strong rn but once they get in form they will be), they needed to get that exposure early.
I also love the problem solving and collective effort from the team. When Jess wasn't having the best offensive numbers, Cam, and, later in the game, Taylor stepped up. And even when some players aren't contributing to the points, they're finding ways to positively contribute (e.g. positive block touches, crucial ups, recycles on hits).
I know the Louisville game is the better win on paper but I'm prouder of the ladies for this win. Because Kentucky outplayed them for a good portion of the game and were determined at home and they didn't play close to what we know their best is and still pulled out the big fat W.
And honestly, I'm relieved they didn't just steamroll another ranked team otherwise, I'd be on edge that they're peaking too early and would be waiting for the momentum to fall. This clearly shows there's still loads of room for improvement and that is so exciting.
PSU for top 3 next week! Wooooo! (Ok well beat less angry Louisville first) I honestly will be livid if PSU doesn't get any #1 vote because out of the three unbeaten top teams (Pitt, Stanford, PSU), PSU has the best win and most proven resume.
P.S. I know we shouldn't look at the RPI this early cause it's a hot mess but We Are #1 in the RPI now MWAHAHAHA.
|
|
|
Post by pinkpanther on Sept 7, 2024 8:47:38 GMT -5
Great effort to come back after looking really, really lackluster in the first two sets.
This has been one thing I have been wondering about for years now -- why does PSU have these off nights / off sets? In years past against a variety of opponents, they would dominate set 1, look like they were a completely different team and collapse in set 2, dominate 3, fall apart again in 4, and then often, they would put up an effort but end up losing in 5. That always seemed to me more mental than physical / coaching. I don't want to out anyone, but at a banquet one player said to our table that a particular Big Ten team was "in their heads". You can probably guess which team. Since that comment, I always wondered how much of these collapses were confidence related.
It takes a lot of confidence and toughness to pull off a reverse sweep in a tough road gym, so last night was definitely positive in that respect, but I can't help wondering what was going on in sets 1 and 2? Why did they follow up such a dominant performance against Louisville by looking like they didn't want to be there at Kentucky?
|
|
|
Post by goteampsuvb on Sept 7, 2024 8:48:05 GMT -5
CJ is no longer a secret. She has a howitzer arm and teams know it. Opposites are generally doubled and triple blocked anyway, and they got lucky on some inside angles. She just had an off night. No biggie.
|
|
|
Post by nittlion on Sept 7, 2024 8:52:09 GMT -5
Obviously I don't know but in general a setter will do what has been working and stay away from what is not. When Markley came in, Izzy set her almost immediately and the result was not positive and so she kept away from those sets thereafter. (I don't recall the other two sets). I am also wondering if Ms. Jurevicius' ankle may have been a factor. But you are correct - KY was all over Jess and Cam. That’s not correct. When Markley came in midway through the 3rd set she was set by Grimes out of system, and it was a bad set behind the 10’ line that Markley just kept in play. One of the other two attempts was on an overpass. Izzy only set her once and it was later in the match. I think all 5 of CJs attempts were off if Izzy but I can’t say if they were in system or not until I rewatch the match. There are several reasons why we were left side centric last night. One, Izzy was clearly less comfortable than in previous matches, which is going to happen to a freshman, and when you get uncomfortable you set what’s in front of you. Two, the effort to go to CJ early in the match didn’t work (three errors in 5 attempts) and Izzy logically abandoned it for what was working. Three, Hannah was having a career night and setters are trained to go to the player with the hot hand. Four, as the match went on, we were able to establish the middles as an offensive weapon which is PSU volleyball. Five, by the time Markley was comfortably established in the match, everything else was clicking and Izzy didn’t need to go there. Six, maybe the game plan, which I’m not privy to, said UK was more vulnerable on the left and middle. Having an offensive threat on the right side is important to opening the other options, but the setter set the right side in system a maximum of 6 times in 5 sets. That’s either game planning or bad decision making, but we won with what she did, so maybe let’s not criticize a kid in her 4th college game with 3 ranked wins too much. Either way, it’s hard to put that on CJ and Markley, they can only work with that they are given. I also think Izzy started getting more attempts with her dumps throughout the game rather than setting a RS player which helped start pulling the block away from the MBs and OHs. I would like to see Izzy be aggressive when she is dumping though (like the one they said was an illegal play but definitely wasn’t). I would say for the most part she disguises it pretty well but often times they are either placed right to the opposing setter’s area or not aggressive enough to actually hit the ground before the setter or libero picks it up. She has had a few impressive dumps so far that she puts in hard to reach spots when the pass was a little more in system, so hoping to see that better placement in scramble plays as well.
|
|
|
Post by 96psu on Sept 7, 2024 8:55:08 GMT -5
Last season I often thought we were slow to make in game adjustments. I began to think the same last night. In hindsight, the changes were subtle, and maybe a half set late, but very effective.
I challenge everyone to rewatch this one and look at things that don’t show up on the stat sheet. Kudos to a fellow poster for picking up on the M1/M2 change. I too think that had a big impact.
The change in opposites happened down 11-15 in the 3rd and it was highly effective. I’ll go out and say the staff wasn’t looking for more offense with that change but actually a better block. If you want stats to validate it you have to look at the efficiency of UKs left sides in the first 2.5 sets vs the last 2.5. Effective blocking isn’t just about scoring points with a stuff block, but that is what shows up on our stat sheet. CJ was getting tooled and not getting good touches, and UKs outsides were unstoppable.
After the change, their efficiency dropped dramatically, and they started running their offense through their RS, back row, and middles. I can only remember Markley getting tooled once and the bigger block forced them to tip, and hit cross, and our defense was able to pick up those tips and other types of attacks as they played away from her where as they had been challenging CJ.
It also makes more sense out of why Izzy didn’t set Markley more. The change was defensive in nature and we stuck with what was working offensively, and Cam and the middles delivered, while UKs efficiency by set went .200, .231, .244, then .200, -.105
This is an excellent example of an in game adjustment that our depth allows us to make and a reason to be very excited about the potential this season holds.
|
|
|
Post by psuphdstudent on Sept 7, 2024 9:08:21 GMT -5
CJ is no longer a secret. She has a howitzer arm and teams know it. Opposites are generally doubled and triple blocked anyway, and they got lucky on some inside angles. She just had an off night. No biggie. Agreed! Not worried at all. CJ will bounce back and will leave craters on the floor. But I also think the best of Miss Jurevicius this season is still to come. The tempo that Izzy is setting is much faster than it was at Nebraska (and is faster than what it was during the exhibitions). Once CJ starts to hit to .300+ every game ohhh it's over for y'all.
|
|
|
Post by pointps on Sept 7, 2024 10:13:41 GMT -5
I have a much simpler reason for the reverse sweep. After Set 2, I gave up the Kentucky Bourbon I was drinking, poured it down the drain, and switched to Yuengling. Worked like magic.
|
|
|
Post by 96psu on Sept 7, 2024 10:35:43 GMT -5
I have a much simpler reason for the reverse sweep. After Set 2, I gave up the Kentucky Bourbon I was drinking, poured it down the drain, and switched to Yuengling. Worked like magic. That’s hilarious
|
|
|
Post by ethankasales on Sept 7, 2024 11:32:04 GMT -5
|
|