Ignatius L Hoops
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2015
- Messages
- 10,540
- Reaction score
- 3,361
- Points
- 113
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Gopher Volleyball 2019
- Thread starter Ski U Mah Gopher
- Start date
CutDownTheNet
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 2,547
- Reaction score
- 730
- Points
- 113
The same game can look quite different depending on what lens you view it through. Your psychological angle is quite telling. Sometimes I do wonder whether the Gophers losing (or nearly losing) - especially to a team that we know is inferior to them at a skills level - is more psychological than physical, or a skills difference.
In order to see the psychological view, you have to watch the actual game or replay. That gives one an impression of whether the players are taking each point seriously, or whether they seem “out of it” or whatever. In contrast to my statistical view in which I deliberately blinded myself to whatever game details I knew just to get an unbiased look at what the numbers say.
I really liked your allegorical references to “went on some walkabouts” and “dozing and waking.” They vividly describe what seems to happen to the Gophers in matches like the one at Illinois.
Now let me note and partially quote the excellent article by Nolan O’Hara in the Thursday MN Daily, which lets us hear some comments by Regan Pittman. This article pre-dates the Illinois game.
Titled “Pittman’s defensive prowess key to U’s success” in the print version, the online version https://www.mndaily.com/article/2019/10/s-regan-pittman-anchors-the-gophers-at-the-net is titled “Regan Pittman anchors the Gophers at the net”
Despite leading the team in blocks last season, Pittman still worked to improve in the offseason.
... against No. 10 Oregon and No. 1 Stanford ... Pittman was named Big Ten Defensive Player of the Week ... recording 7 blocks against each.
... A year removed from leading the team in blocks and blocks per set, it appeared Pittman was simply building on a trend she started her first two seasons. She has a different perspective.
“As a team, we really worked on it in the spring and it’s something that has not always been the best part of my game,” Pittman said.
“I worked on it a ton this spring ...” she said.
... Her 1.26 blocks per set ranks fifth in the Big Ten and 44th nationally. ...
Pittman says she can see the strides her game has taken since last season.
“Yes, absolutely. I can see more, I’m able to block more, I have a lot more solo blocks,” she said.
... She has 103 kills [before Illinois] this season, third on the team behind outside hitter Alexis Hart and opposite hitter Stephanie Samedy. Her .397 hit percentage ranks second on the team and sixth in the Big Ten.
[Note: If you want to read the Daily’s article on the Illinois game, then] also see “Gophers win in McGraw’s return against Illinois” https://www.mndaily.com/article/2019/10/s-gophers-win-in-mcgraws-return-against-illinois
[Talking about set 2] Rollins had two kills late to get Minnesota to 22 and 23, before middle blocker Regan Pittman gave the Gophers their first set point with a kill. Minnesota led 24-17 at that point. Illinois then rattled off eight in a row to take a 25-24 lead. [Eventually, two blocks in a row won the set for the Gophers.]
... “Heck of a road win for us, we’ll have a plan in place for Sunday and we’ll go from there,” McCutcheon said.
Last edited:
Cutdownthenet: In order to see the psychological view, you have to watch the actual game or replay. That gives one an impression of whether the players are taking each point seriously, or whether they seem “out of it” or whatever. In contrast to my statistical view in which I deliberately blinded myself to whatever game details I knew just to get an unbiased look at what the numbers say.
It occurred to me that while coaches & fans are stewing & fretting during close matches, Gophers players themselves seem kinda 'unworried.' In the depths of a performance lapse, they're still smiling and encouraging teammates, like this is after all only a game; then they eventually start playing again, or if they don't, well, this, too, will pass. Gophers fans, many long-suffering, desperately want a BIG-TIME winner; so things get tense for viewers. Maybe the young women athletes understand it at a more sensible level than those of us in the stands? Or maybe what I'm writing only makes sense to me?
It occurred to me that while coaches & fans are stewing & fretting during close matches, Gophers players themselves seem kinda 'unworried.' In the depths of a performance lapse, they're still smiling and encouraging teammates, like this is after all only a game; then they eventually start playing again, or if they don't, well, this, too, will pass. Gophers fans, many long-suffering, desperately want a BIG-TIME winner; so things get tense for viewers. Maybe the young women athletes understand it at a more sensible level than those of us in the stands? Or maybe what I'm writing only makes sense to me?
Ignatius L Hoops
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2015
- Messages
- 10,540
- Reaction score
- 3,361
- Points
- 113
This.
I was going to add before I got distracted:
1. Players appearing to enjoy playing a non-contact, team sport that resets the offense and defense after every point doesn’t bother me. I think you’re reading too much into some smiles and encouragement. The after point huddles bug Pat Ruesse too; so you’re not alone.
2. As to Gopher fans being upset about smiling costing the team big time wins-I’m a Gopher fan and that’s not even on my list of concerns. Of course I’m pretty much over the match by the time I get to the exit. It's the player carrying the bumps, bruises and floor burns as reminders.
3. As to psychology and disinterest I tend to see more technical reasons. (On Sunday, Dana Rettke may go off for 30 kills like she did last year in Minnesota’s 3-1 victory in Madison. If she does, It will have more to do with Rettke being a damn fine player than the Gopher’s interest level.) On the other hand, McCutcheon does talk a lot of psychology so you have that going for your argument.
Last edited:
i’m sure bailey is a great kid and i can see that she works really hard. this is not a knock on her personally. but she’s such a liability in the front row blocking (she’s short and i know there isn’t anything she can do about that), her back row d is average, and only 1 out of every 3-4 sets actually results in a swing from our hitters that could result in a kill. there is no flow or rhythm when she’s setting. the hitters have to dink or roll most of their chances over the net because the set is not good. she literally forgot how to set at one point during the rutgers match. setting about 3 off the court and having one go right through her hands. i do not see how we can beat good teams with her setting. we gotta hope miller gets back soon or try something else.
Agree regarding McNeniman. She tries hard, but she just isn't good enough. About one out of every three sets is in the right spot for a legitimate attack. But this team's problems go way deeper than simply the setting. Rollins, Hart (and even McGraw at times) are simply dreadful passers of the ball. No consistency whatsoever. How they've been able to go 11-2 to this point of the season with this level of play is a genuine mystery.
Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
Goldy Gopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 4,015
- Reaction score
- 311
- Points
- 83
Gophers badly need to get Miller back soon. McMenimen gets dominated at the net and the sets today have been very inconsistent. A lot more bad than good from her the last couple games when the competition level has gotten a little tougher.
The team is incredibly mediocre across the board. They mail it in for long stretches of virtually every match (sometimes 10-15 points, sometimes entire sets). They got away with it against Illinois and Rutgers, but Wisconsin is thoroughly embarrassing them today.
Sent from my SM-J337V using Tapatalk
let'sbeclear
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2016
- Messages
- 420
- Reaction score
- 230
- Points
- 43
Some people on this forum were speculating that she wasn't getting to play libero at the U of M. But she wasn't the libero today against the Gophers. Do people know if she has been a libero at all for Wisconsin, or has she been strictly a defensive specialist, as she was for the Gophers?
No. Tiffany Clark has been their libero for all of the last three seasons, including this season. Not sure what Barnes' deal was, but at this point it's all water under the bridge. If I had to venture a very uneducated guess, I'd say she had her nose out of joint in regards to her role.
In any case, several of these players deserve an extended stay on the bench (and a lot of them, as it turns out, are what we originally thought were proven performers). But I highly doubt McCutcheon will sit them or change his approach. There have been rumors that he's extremely stubborn about how he wants the team to play, so I'm guessing adjustments are going to be few and far between. In other words, the approach will simply be to "play better", although I'm not sure what that means with this squad.
let'sbeclear
Active member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2016
- Messages
- 420
- Reaction score
- 230
- Points
- 43
Agreed. I can't recall seeing a Gophers volleyball match where they received serve like they did today. The percentage of points when the Gophers made a decent pass in receiving serve must have been absurdly low. "Out-of-system" was the norm today, not the exception. Sometimes the score doesn't reflect the difference between the two teams. Today it did. In fact, the 25-20 score in the third set may give a false impression the Gophers were in that set. They weren't. There's no place to go but up from this debacle.
I feel the Gophers have been overachieving since the Wilhite, Tapps, SSS, Lohman team. IMO, the level of recruits has fallen off the last 4 years.
For instance, why was no setter recruited as SSS's replacement (Miller is fine, but she's a senior transfer)? And this year the roster was down to 13 before the Croatian player and Aiyabe apparently were brought in late, but they never play. Aside from Samedy, the Gophers are a bit overrated; they can beat most teams, but I can't see them having a chance against top 10 teams without Miller (will she come back?). A program with 2 Final Fours and a BIG title in its recent profile ought to be getting ever taller, faster, and quicker.
For instance, why was no setter recruited as SSS's replacement (Miller is fine, but she's a senior transfer)? And this year the roster was down to 13 before the Croatian player and Aiyabe apparently were brought in late, but they never play. Aside from Samedy, the Gophers are a bit overrated; they can beat most teams, but I can't see them having a chance against top 10 teams without Miller (will she come back?). A program with 2 Final Fours and a BIG title in its recent profile ought to be getting ever taller, faster, and quicker.
sara nielsen was recruited as the next setter. but she transferred to kansas. martin transfered to florida state. mclean to south carolina. all starters at their new schools and could barely get playing time here. kids who are used to being studs don’t stick around if they’re not getting a chance to play for a year or two.
Ewert86PC
Metrodome Era Survivor
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 7,074
- Reaction score
- 2,285
- Points
- 113
If the players don't have the belief that they will see more playing time here, then transferring seems logical. What kind of message does that send to future recruits?
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
It didn't seem to me that any of these players were of a national championship caliber. They were good enough to play, of course, but at what level?
Ewert86PC
Metrodome Era Survivor
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 7,074
- Reaction score
- 2,285
- Points
- 113
Well, Martin went to Florida State and they kicked our butts 3-0. Barnes went to Wisconsin and they kicked our butts 3-0.
I hope we don't play Kansas or South Carolina because that could determine if we have a trend going....
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Ignatius L Hoops
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2015
- Messages
- 10,540
- Reaction score
- 3,361
- Points
- 113
Your point is well-taken. I'm no expert, just an interested fan. Still, I'll repeat my general impression, which is: For a program with Nat'l Championship aspirations, I don't feel the Gophers have recruited well the past four years (except for Samedy). They've had good results with good players, but to get even better results, they need spectacular talent, not just really good talent. Martin, Barnes, Nielsen, etc., are good but not spectacular. Correct me if needed.
Ignatius L Hoops
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2015
- Messages
- 10,540
- Reaction score
- 3,361
- Points
- 113
https://extra.ncaa.org/solutions/rpi/Stats Library/Nitty Gritty_101319.pdf
NCAA RPI through 13 October matches:
1. Baylor
2. Stanford
3. Wisconsin
4. Nebraska
5. Texas
6. Washington
7. Pitt
8. Kentucky
9. Hawaii
10. Creighton
12. Minnesota
17. Penn State
23. Purdue
24. Illinois
NCAA RPI through 13 October matches:
1. Baylor
2. Stanford
3. Wisconsin
4. Nebraska
5. Texas
6. Washington
7. Pitt
8. Kentucky
9. Hawaii
10. Creighton
12. Minnesota
17. Penn State
23. Purdue
24. Illinois
Ewert86PC
Metrodome Era Survivor
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2010
- Messages
- 7,074
- Reaction score
- 2,285
- Points
- 113
Well, Barnes and Martin seem to have fit right in at their new schools. Each provided a boost in play to their teams.
I think recruiting at UMN overall has suffered because of the polarizing effects caused by the school's handling of off court/off field issues in the media. I think it causes many potential recruits to lower their preference for UMN. No one wants to go to a school where you could get caught up in that kind of situation and doubly so if you are likely to get your personal business dragged out in to the media. The entire athletic department suffers when one program has problems.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
UpAndUnder43
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2017
- Messages
- 13,973
- Reaction score
- 12,037
- Points
- 113
tickets sold
Last edited:
beavergopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2010
- Messages
- 5,671
- Reaction score
- 790
- Points
- 113
Barnes was the only big loss. She was our best server and that has been a weakness of Hugh's teams. She was also our best back row passer. Flip her and perhaps we win against the Badgers.
Sara N was a placeholder at setter and he got a fantastic one year replacement for SSS in Miller. The setter coming next year is a superstar who committed very early, so that is why no other setters have been recruited. When Miller gets back we should be fine. The recruiting has not been a problem. The problem has been the style of serving that allows us to win against lesser teams, but does not put enough stress/pressure on the elite teams.
Sara N was a placeholder at setter and he got a fantastic one year replacement for SSS in Miller. The setter coming next year is a superstar who committed very early, so that is why no other setters have been recruited. When Miller gets back we should be fine. The recruiting has not been a problem. The problem has been the style of serving that allows us to win against lesser teams, but does not put enough stress/pressure on the elite teams.
Ignatius L Hoops
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2015
- Messages
- 10,540
- Reaction score
- 3,361
- Points
- 113
https://gophersports.com/news/2019/...t-home-against-northwestern-and-illinois.aspx
Hugh previews Northwestern and Illinois and talks about Wisconsin.
Hugh previews Northwestern and Illinois and talks about Wisconsin.
CutDownTheNet
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 2,547
- Reaction score
- 730
- Points
- 113
All of the above points are at least partially valid (including the valid point just made, that our weak serving doesn't put much pressure on the stronger teams), and yet (as pointed out earlier) it is too soon to despair for the rest of the season, and there are things that might be done to at least partially fix the current dilemma that is largely caused by health issues plus (to a certain extent) good talent that bailed. I also think that, at least until Kylie Miller returns, Hugh needs to experiment with more radical strategies and tactics. He has been trying some things (his so-called Mix-and-Match effort), and they have been partially successful - that is, sufficient to beat an Illinois, but not sufficient to beat a Wisconsin. But I argue (below) that he needs to be more radical in his experiments.
For those that think that Lauren Barnes was perhaps a so-so talent (and thus perhaps not such a great loss), I assert that she gets the lion's share of credit for Wisconsin winning set one last weekend. See below. And in the process of executing set one, Wisconsin found the formula to be able to beat Minnesota in the remaining two sets. So the three major Badger players who (with definite contributions by others) contributed the most to beating the Gophers were Dana Rettke, Sydney Hilley and Lauren Barnes.
After taking in all the comments above in this thread, I took the time to watch set one of the Wisconsin match on YouTube. [I didn't have time for, and perhaps could not have suffered through, the last two sets.] It's instructive to walk through set one in a bit of detail.
The Gophers went out to an early lead and looked good out of the gate, but nor for very long. They initially led 6-2. This was partly based on their good blocking (which was good throughout the match, out-blocking the Badgers 11-4), plus some good hitting, plus wild swings by Wisconsin. Re the latter, Wisconsin was initially hitting long or wide a lot, through about the first 2/3 of set one. That kept Minnesota in the game.
What really killed the Gophers in the first set, though, was a host of errors on their part. They quite literally errored themselves into losing the first set. During that set the delta error count was 8 Minnesota errors to zero Wisconsin errors (where I'm counting only bonehead errors, not hitting errors or failed block attempts). Minnesota had one under-the-net off-sides violation. Minnesota had four service errors. Minnesota had three service-receive errors - otherwise known as three Wisconsin service aces. A total of 8 errors for Minnesota in that set, resulting in 8 Wisconsin points. While Wisconsin was error-free in that department. Eight errors! That's horrendous. And I'm not even counting the ninth error of a bobbled service dig that went all the way over the net, and the Badgers returned a good hit, but ultimately the point went to the Gophers, so I'll discount that receive error.
For the three Badger aces (two of which were by Lauren Barnes), partly our service-receive is bad (like why, when it's obvious that the back row player can't get to it, doesn't a front row player make a dive for it); but partly we maybe just have to give credit to great serves by Wisconsin. But on the four service errors in one set - that's junior-high caliber serving. And why are the assistant coaches always giving them instructions (behind the clipboard) on where/how to serve it? Given their demonstrated average serving skills as a team, if I were giving them serving instructions, I think my advice would be "just hit the ball over the net with some power and maybe some spin, and land the darn thing inbounds!"
In spite of all those errors, Minnesota was largely keeping up, being mostly a few points behind in score, thanks to its blocks and bad Badger hits. But then at one point, Wisconsin went on an 8-0 run. Much of that run was while Lauren Barnes was serving. This includes the fact that she got two of the three Wisconsin aces during the set (and in that run, I believe). The commentator pointed out that one of the biggest reasons that the Badger coach recruited her (away from Minnesota) was that she had 48 service aces last year. That rang true, since I recall her getting a lot of aces.
In any event, even after that 8-point run, the Gophers managed to almost catch up, with the score being 16-18 at one point and a bit later, 18-20. Let's focus on the latter point in time, and do the following thought experiment. Suppose (in some alternate reality) we were at that point in the score, except that the Gophers had *not* committed their ridiculously high 8 bonehead errors (under the net plus 4 service errors plus 3 Wisconsin aces - all or most of which had been committed by that time). Then at that point the score would have been 18-12 in favor of Minnesota, not 20-18 in favor of Wisconsin. Now ask yourself, could the Gophers have beat the Badgers in that set from a score of 18-12? Well, I'd say YES with a probability of about 90% or more. The Gophers would have needed only 7 points to the Badgers needing 13 points. They could have given up almost 2 points for every point they scored and still won the set. Without those 8 errors, they could have won it handily unless they had played out the set really horribly. So I claim they lost set one on errors, mostly. Plus the fact that, finding themselves losing at the tail end of the set, there was probably a big confidence loss for the Gophers and a big confidence boost to the Badgers.
In actual fact, they found themselves down 2 points at 18-20. At that point the Badgers realized they could win the set by just playing evenly and trading points. But they did better than that (perhaps after a timeout pep talk). They proceeded to get rid of the bad hits that had plagued them all set, and their hits went down for the rest of the set. In fact, they ran off 5 straight kills, and beat the Gophers 18-25. So the summary of set one could be: Gophers committed 8 bonehead errors to none by the Badgers; Gophers gave up an 8-point run; and later gave up a 5-point run (thus losing the set).
In the process, the Badgers discovered a guaranteed way to get points: smash the ball to wherever Bailey McMenimen was blocking. OK then, Badgers, that's our strategy for the rest of the match (one can imagine their coach telling them). As pointed out earlier, in the whole match there were instances of bad serves, weak serves, bad digs, bad passing and weak hits, but one crucial deficiency was the fact that McMenimen loses two inches of height over Kylie Miller. This reduced setter height (due to Miller being out) is a recipe for losing to Wisconsin, even if the rest of our play had been up to par, and even if we hadn't made those 8 bonehead errors in set one.
These days, to be a highly competitive college volleyball squad (at least when competing against another competitive squad), you more-or-less need a six-foot setter. If you're going to settle for a 5'11" setter, then she had better be very, very good to make up for it - and I'm talking SSS good. If/when Kylie gets well and plays again, I suppose it remains to be seen whether Kylie is SSS good, but I'm guessing that she is, or at least she's quite close to SSS good - and importantly, she has the same 5'11" height as SSS. Kylie can dump better than Bailey, but more importantly, she can block better when in the front row. Taking advantage of that server-height weakness (plus the 8 Gopher errors in set one) were keys to Wisconsin's success - although Wisconsin is a good team, so let's not take anything away from Rettke and Hilley and Barnes et al.
Until such time as Miller can return to the lineup, at least against competitive teams such as Nebraska and Wisconsin, Hugh needs to try more radical Mix-and-Match experiments. Throw some radical ideas at the wall, and see what sticks. I'm not claiming that any of the following ideas have any guarantee of working, but I'm saying let's just try some or all of the following:
(a) Go setterless. We tried this already a bit, and Regan Pittman proved she could set adequately. Perhaps Taylor Morgan can set too. (For about 2/3 of the time) imagine a 6'5" setter in Regan Pittman plus Taylor Morgan (who has about the same vertical as Regan) as a setter. Imagine the quality dumps. Then the other 1/3 or so of the time the pass goes to someone else, perhaps to set Pittman or Morgan, as the case may be.
(b) Quick-a-minute turn 6-foot Airi Miyabi into a setter. Maybe we're lucky, and in Japanese volleyball training they put more emphasis on teaching all players all positions, so that turning her into a setter would not be a long-term project.
(c) Give Claire Sheehan a shot at setter. Her hitting doesn't seem to have developed yet to a Hart caliber, but being a hitter, she understands where hitters want the ball, so let her set for a while as she hones her hitting craft. At 6'1" she's got the height needed for a setter.
(d) What the heck, let 6'5" Shea Rubright try setting for a while. She did get a bit of playing time in the first set described above, and granted she's perhaps not mature enough to steal many Middle-Blocker minutes from Pittman or Morgan, but while she's developing (and Miller is out), let her try setting.
(e) Of course, we could give some setting minutes to Tamara Dolonga, whose position is setter, but she's only 5'8" and so an inch shorter than McMenimen - so doesn't solve the needing-a-taller-setter problem. Nevertheless, give her some setting minutes so that she has a chance to get collegiate experience at the position - perhaps putting her in during less competitive matches or when we're way ahead in a given set.
If Hugh doesn't try some of these more radical options, then the next loss to a power team is perhaps largely on him.
A couple more things. First, in the whole Wisconsin match, the Badgers tallied 8 aces to 1 ace by the Gophers. Let's guess that Lauren Barnes had, say, one more ace besides her two aces in the first set (just as a hypothetical, not sure where to look it up). That's plus-3 aces for the Badgers and minus-3 aces for the Gophers (as compared to, if she had remained a Gopher). That's a six-point swing, just on aces, for losing Barnes to Wisconsin. Plus, during that first set that I watched, Barnes had a number of really great digs that kept the ball in play for Wisconsin to eventually take the point. So I claim that Barnes was a huge loss, especially when transferring to an already-tough Big-Ten competitor.
Finally, look at the blocking stats for the match against Wisconsin. Minnesota won that statistical category, 11 to 4. Now partly that's because the Gopher blocking was about as good as it traditionally is. Not the 16 blocks we had against Illinois, but 11 blocks is still pretty good. But why is Wisconsin blocking so low, at only 4 blocks in the whole match. After all, they have Rettke. What gives? Well again, partly due to the fact that our hitters are good, and had some success at hitting through the block. But I'd say that (in this particular match anyway) the primary reason that Badger blocks were so low, was that the Gophers did not put up many hits that were worth blocking. Or that even could be blocked. Because as a team we were discombobulated so much of the time that we hit soft hits that would have went over any block that might have been presented. The Badgers simply didn't need to do much blocking. The Gophers were on their heels thanks to good serves by Barnes and others, and got too-few power hitting attempts (and the ones they did, well they were pretty successful at hitting through the Badger block). Thus only 4 blocks for the Badgers. They didn't need hardly any blocks.
Last edited:
The preceding comments by various persons are very interesting (and also informative if a person, like me, knows a limited amount about VB). Despite the recent troubles, I felt the Gophers were really playing well before Miller and McGraw went out. Maybe they'll return to that form once Miller returns, if indeed she does (btw it's very off-putting that 2 starters disappear from the Gophers without a single statement from the coaches or trainers or AD as to why, or even that, they're not playing or when they'll return). If Miller returns and regains her form, maybe the Gophers will get it together a bit more.
Someone wrote that teams nowadays need at 6-foot setter. Even more important to winning big-time seems to be 6'6" or 6'7" strikers like Plummer and Rettke, who are real deciders.
Someone wrote that teams nowadays need at 6-foot setter. Even more important to winning big-time seems to be 6'6" or 6'7" strikers like Plummer and Rettke, who are real deciders.
MplsGopher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2017
- Messages
- 36,668
- Reaction score
- 10,148
- Points
- 113
It's not that difficult to set a hitable ball in front of you ... if the passing is good. Where good setters make their way is by setting hitable balls on non-good passes.
That's where the above experiments are going to fail, on average. We need Miller back, at full strength, end of story.
That's where the above experiments are going to fail, on average. We need Miller back, at full strength, end of story.
CutDownTheNet
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2018
- Messages
- 2,547
- Reaction score
- 730
- Points
- 113
Very good point. The bad passing is the other big elephant in the room. It’s been mentioned already, but deserves re-emphasis. Without better passing, perhaps my list of experiments are only useful rarely, i.e., tactically. That’s how Hugh has used (for instance) (a) thus far.
If we’re lucky, Miller will return full-strength Friday against NW and end of story. If not, the story goes on.
In case of the latter, here’s another potential experiment:
(f) Improved passing plus two setters (McMenimen plus Dolonga) swapping out and playing back row only.
This keeps height in the front row and at least eliminates the opponent strategy of “hit right at the setter when she’s in the front row.”
Of course, the gotcha part is the improved passing. We pretty much need that in any event, though. So (f) is more like an experiment plus a long-term goal.
Last edited: