|
|
Post by nyline on Dec 20, 2018 16:15:24 GMT -5
Keeping our big girls in the back row so we have the back row attack threat cost us the last two years. We were up 20-16 and ready to go up 2-0 on Stanford! Serve receive went Kaput! While I’m pointing out stubbornness i’ll also point to Micha’s sprained ankle year. Rose brought her back in the match with the bad wheel all while having his previous year national champ setter watch Micha fail time after time, set after set. Remember that? Micha was maybe 50% her normal self after the injury and Carpenter had to watch. I love Russ but just because we won 7 with AMAZING recruits and just flat out overpowered teams... doesn’t mean he’s NEVER wrong. Some of you just worship the king. I’ll call him out for his mistakes. He needs someone on his bench doing just that! These are interesting observations. First, I agree with your point that Stanford won set 2 because we had trouble with serve receive in that set. I think we lost other sets for different reasons. However, I do not believe Coach leaves players on the floor because he is stubborn. Instead, I posit that we did not have anyone who was better at serve receive and passing than Taylor. As evidence for this proposition, I point out that Coach never hesitated to remove Taylor for Cathey in the attack when Taylor's offense struggled. But she had to receive because she was the best we had. Relative to other six rotation players, Taylor was really excellent at receive/pass. In fact, neutral observers pointed that our during the season, and even spoke glowingly of Taylor's passing skills while broadcasting a non Penn State match. Honestly, if Coach thought Sciorra, Blossom, Krause, Hoffman, or even Hill (who was not even dressed) had the potential to do better, he would have put them in. Sometimes, the only choice is to encourage your best players to play better. I recall well Micha's rolled ankle. Carpenter did come in, and was entirely ineffective. I remember being frustrated that she was not ready to step up, and in my mind did fault the staff for not making sure Carp was prepared (Carp did not play setter very much if at all during the season). But because Carp was not better, Micha had to return. It was the only choice. Elliotberton said this better than I could have. In my case (and in my opinion, so of course, I'm biased) it's not a question of "worshiping the king" or "reflexively" responding to critics of Coach Rose by saying "Coach Rose is the living Volleyball God." It's that situations are complex, and to me, the assertion that Coach Rose "stubbornly" refused to substitute in for Taylor Leath was oversimplifying the situation. There are substitution limitations -- that may have been a consideration for Coach Rose. Coach Rose may, as nitpoz pointed out, have concluded that having a back-row attack available was more important than having an extra DS in the back row. Nitpoz doesn't think that was a good decision -- if in fact that was the determinative factor for Coach Rose. There's also the "connectedness" factor -- swapping in a new player can disrupt the dynamics. Maybe that was a factor, maybe it wasn't. Or maybe, as elliotberton suggested, Coach Rose didn't think anyone subbed in would do a better, or even as good of a job, as Taylor Leath. To that point, the fact that Taylor Leath got aced doesn't mean she shouldn't have been in there. None of our players have ever been perfect throughout a season, and Taylor - like any other player -- made her share of mistakes (though I would argue that her "share" was a lower total than the share would have been for other players.) The person subbed in might have made more. Addressing nitpoz's opening question -- how could we do a review of the Stanford match without focusing on Stanford's aces in the second set? Well, because there are lots of things to write about, and we are constrained by time, and we might actually not agree with the overarching point -- Coach Rose's alleged "stubbornness." Plus, as a general rule, we don't pin defeat on specific players or plays -- though we did, to be fair, note Jenna Gray's back-to-back aces as being a turning point in set 2. We don't pretend to address everything in our articles -- there is always room for other voices and other points of view. I encourage anyone who wants to express an opinion or cover a topic to send me an article they think should be published -- or, simply post your thoughts on this forum. If they aren't libelous, mean-spirited, profane, violative of copyright, plagiarized, or otherwise objectionable (and my disagreeing with their conclusions doesn't make them objectionable) then they'll be there for everyone to see. I do reserve the right to edit or reject articles for reasons of style, tone, or even content. Posts on the forum aren't reviewed with the same riguor. Two more points -- Coach Rose has stated publicly on numerous occasions that he may be slower to call timeout than some coaches because he wants players to figure things out on their own -- not to be looking over their shoulders for someone to bail them out. My underinformed guess is that this helps players when they are in tough rallies and tough rotations, because they are used to having to overcome adversity. Also, Coach Rose has admitted making in-match mistakes. He has said he made a mistake in, I believe, the 1998 finals, leaving in a star player too long. I'm sure he would admit to other mistakes as well. He might even agree with nitpoz. But if he didn't, it wouldn't be because he is stubborn. It would be because, as a coach, he disagreed. I certainly don't want to stiffle contrary (or contrarian) voices. I'm happy nitpoz posted and hope nitpoz continues to post. But neither will I refrain from disagreeing with arguments that I believe over-simplify or otherwise do not address the complexities of a situation. I didn't think nitpoz's post addressed the complexities of the situation. Obviously, both nitpoz and gnu2vball disagreed with my opinion. Others can weigh in, or not, as they deem appropriate. |
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Dec 20, 2018 19:33:11 GMT -5
I am still trying to figure out this game. There are seemingly endless subtleties. A little while ago, I actually tried to "do the math" on a substitution pattern which did not involve at least one 6 rotation player (in addition to a setter), but quit after several tries (because I am bad at math). It seems to me that nearly every team has at least one attacker who stays on the Court. That allows for insertion of serving or other subs. Of course teams that use a 6/2 need a 6 rotation attacker (or two!) even more to conserve substitutions. (By the way, with the limited number of subs at the International level, the US version of the 6/2 is not employed until the setter goes through the full rotation. The double sub does not happen until later in each set).
However, the 6 rotation attacker does not always have to receive serve (eg: Parker usually stayed on the Court but stood behind the receivers this season). It seems like there is quite a bit of variation in serve receive strategy. I observe a number of teams who use 2 receivers, or set it up so that the third receiver does not really have to move very much in the receipt game. It is also physically possible for a front row player to receive and then move forward to the net to attack and block.
So the issue Nitpoz brought up may be more about whether Taylor should have had to cover as much area as she was apparently assigned rather than whether she should have stayed on the court at all. It must be tempting for a coach to make strategic receipt adjustments on a point by point basis (eg: This is their best server. Hide our weakest receiver!) But in the end, I suspect that frequent adjustments would cause more confusion than anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by tillie on Dec 21, 2018 10:15:23 GMT -5
Don't you love it.!
He agrees he made a mistake in 1998.
I am confident that is from him an indication of his sense of humor!
|
|
|
|
Post by nitpoz on Dec 21, 2018 23:05:16 GMT -5
Really great thoughts and comments. You guys looked at every angle. Perhaps I am oversimplifying things putting the loss primarily on our serve receive failures. I’m a dad of an awesome college libero... so I’m used to seeing her pass 3 balls all the time and know the impact staying in system has. So when our bigger girls struggle it just stands out so much to me.
Please don’t take offense at my knock on the article. It’s my sore spot. I just STILL think we should have beaten Stanford and we would have if we passed their serves better. It’s one thing to point out 2 aces but I expected us to pass both those... neither of them should have been aces. (Up 20-16 just cannot let that happen)
I will admit the substitute limitations I do not grasp that entirely. But before we give that as the excuse for leaf staying in the back row, let’s confirm that number was the cause for the “non adjustment” by Russ (perhaps that’s a kinder word to use than stubborn).
Do you really think the last two years when our serve receive failed us that we didn’t have a DS ready to step up? Shouldn’t Russ have a plan for when our 6 rotation players falter... especially late in the set when we should STILL have availability to sub.
Really appreciate the dialogue on here! I’m glad you’re not afraid to call out the king of volleyball if you disagree with a move or non move. I dig Nittany volleyball. Just want to see them back at #1
|
|
|
|
Post by Millennium on Dec 22, 2018 5:04:17 GMT -5
Really great thoughts and comments. You guys looked at every angle. Perhaps I am oversimplifying things putting the loss primarily on our serve receive failures. I’m a dad of an awesome college libero... so I’m used to seeing her pass 3 balls all the time and know the impact staying in system has. So when our bigger girls struggle it just stands out so much to me. Please don’t take offense at my knock on the article. It’s my sore spot. I just STILL think we should have beaten Stanford and we would have if we passed their serves better. It’s one thing to point out 2 aces but I expected us to pass both those... neither of them should have been aces. (Up 20-16 just cannot let that happen) I will admit the substitute limitations I do not grasp that entirely. But before we give that as the excuse for leaf staying in the back row, let’s confirm that number was the cause for the “non adjustment” by Russ (perhaps that’s a kinder word to use than stubborn). Do you really think the last two years when our serve receive failed us that we didn’t have a DS ready to step up? Shouldn’t Russ have a plan for when our 6 rotation players falter... especially late in the set when we should STILL have availability to sub. Really appreciate the dialogue on here! I’m glad you’re not afraid to call out the king of volleyball if you disagree with a move or non move. I dig Nittany volleyball. Just want to see them back at #1
I agree. I've been thinking the same things for the past 2 weeks. Ugh.
|
|
|
|
Post by stillkicking on Dec 22, 2018 7:46:52 GMT -5
I am not an expert by any means, but I do see your point of view, And hope to learn more as we progress to our next championship.
|
|
|
|
Post by seeyajohn on Dec 22, 2018 8:05:03 GMT -5
For the record, substitution count was not an issue at 20-16. At that point PSU had only used 6 of its 15 substitution opportunities.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Dec 22, 2018 10:19:04 GMT -5
For the record, substitution count was not an issue at 20-16. At that point PSU had only used 6 of its 15 substitution opportunities. Yes, but if it had gone 41-39, it could have been tight 😎 |
|
|
|
Post by pointps on Dec 22, 2018 10:58:23 GMT -5
I applaud everyone’s efforts in this analysis. Helps me learn more, too. This team had a very difficult ask for it to defeat Stanford, but we had great hope knowing that Coach always comes up with a fabulous game plan to defeat every team in the tournament. It was upsetting, of course, but frankly, I’m still trying to figure out the loss to Nebraska in the 2017 semifinal. That team was ranked #1. But didn’t they struggle with serve-receive, too? And maybe lacked a lights out terminator. Beating Plummer this year was impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by tillie on Dec 22, 2018 22:13:51 GMT -5
I agree with nyline that the it is over simplification to sort out the passing of serve as to the reason for failing to beat Stanford. It is wonderful that all passes are 3's but the reality is that a three pass guarantees NOTHING and the pass although it aids greatly if well directed is only 1 /3 of the attack system since setters have some influence and then the hitter has some but the opponent need only to read the attack well and then potentially block the ball.
You do recall that Stanford is a rather strong blocking team.
As for preparation having been to meetings with the team prior to play you would be staggered at the prep that has gone into each and every competition.
I would say that Russ might just not have an answer for some things but probably never UNPREPARED
|
|
|
|
Post by elliotberton on Dec 23, 2018 10:22:23 GMT -5
I will admit the substitute limitations I do not grasp that entirely. But before we give that as the excuse for leaf staying in the back row, let’s confirm that number was the cause for the “non adjustment” by Russ (perhaps that’s a kinder word to use than stubborn). Do you really think the last two years when our serve receive failed us that we didn’t have a DS ready to step up? Shouldn’t Russ have a plan for when our 6 rotation players falter... especially late in the set when we should STILL have availability to sub. Really appreciate the dialogue on here! I’m glad you’re not afraid to call out the king of volleyball if you disagree with a move or non move. I dig Nittany volleyball. Just want to see them back at #1 I don't think sub limits were the reason that Taylor stayed in serve receive in this and all other matches. My view is that she was the best player available on our roster to act in this role. Too I think we need to recognize that while Coach has a preferred system, he has been willing to make changes based on available personnel or in planning for a particular opponent. (Last season's modified 6/2 may have been the most obvious). The staff sees who can do what best in practice, and then those best suited for particular roles are put in place to succeed (or sometimes not succeed). If we presume that the staff wants to win every match then we can intuit that Coach would not hesitate to sub out a struggling player if there is/was someone else who could do better (eg: Gorrell retained starting role even when Gray was ready to return). So the answer to your question is "yes" I really don't think we had another player (DS or otherwise) ready to perform better than Taylor in serve receive. |
|
|
|
Post by cross5 on Dec 27, 2018 18:29:29 GMT -5
Parker was named Freshman of the Year by volleyballmag today. Impressive.
|
|
|
|
Post by nyline on Dec 27, 2018 21:39:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by stillkicking on Dec 28, 2018 6:28:25 GMT -5
Congratulations to Jonni, Serena and Kaitlyn. May you continue your excellent work.
|
|
|
|
Post by tillie on Dec 28, 2018 12:36:27 GMT -5
nitpoz:
The ankle you refer to called for a change in setters. But unfortunately Carp was not prepared and had been a regular "no show " when it came to working in place of Micha.
As you must know having a back row attack threat impacts the blocking movements of the opposition and is therefore a strong incentive against a strong blocking team.
|
|
