Reply to Volleyball club- recap and thoughts

Forum Index » Volleyball

Reply to "Volleyball club- recap and thoughts"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Thank you for that balanced overview of Paramount. There are clearly things that go well and things that don't go that well. It looks like you do well if you get on the court, but you are out of luck if you are there just to warm the bench. Unfortunately, you can't figure out your role until you accept the offer and see the other players on the roster. From talking to Paramount parents at various tournaments, my understanding was that [b]they put on the court the weaker players during the pool play[/b], then get the best players on the court during the brackets. That's how they give everyone a shot at being on the court. But it might be just the team we played against - other coaches might have a different strategy. [/quote]

The PP poster made the right distinction is using the word [b]favorite[/b] instead of [b]best[/b] or [b]weakest[/b]. All coaches in all clubs have their favorite players but in most clubs the roster sizes and club policies put a boundary around how much favoritism they can show.  Paramount and Metro Travel teams don't have those boundaries.  They usually take 14-15 players and have no playing time commitments other than "earn it".

Every player can have a bad day or a good day. Our experience was that favorites were allowed to have a lot more bad days than the non-favorites and they were allowed to fail for longer. Conversely, a non-favorite having a good day very rarely resulted in them getting the starting spot in a later set or an important match.  At tournaments, the favorites start sets and stay in until the coach feels like the lead is comfortable enough to play the other players. The tougher the match or the more important the match is to getting out of pool play, the more likely it is that the favorites stay in. If the favorites are struggling they tend to stay in longer because a comfortable lead never develops. Last year the same players that started the first set of the season started the last set of the season. We had more than a few tournaments where multiple players never saw the court.

This became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The favorites get more reps together, which allowed them to have better chemistry and better team performance.  Our DD was one of those favorites so its was good for us. She got a ton of reps and had a great experience. The non-favorites only got reps in blowout matches or an occasional start in easy pool play matches. As a result, they were never ready for the competitive matches where the pressure is high, with most of that pressure coming from your own coaching staff and team parents.  This approach plays out in practices as well.

[quote=Anonymous]If you're playing for either Metro or Paramount (the two best clubs in the CHRVA Region that are in a separate category from any of the other clubs), there are always going to be players who don't get on the court in meaningful matches. These two clubs play at the highest level against the best competition in the country, so if your child isn't as strong as the other players on the team, you're going to be on the bench (besides in the lopsided matches). That is true for either of these clubs (both clubs tend to take large roster sizes of 14-15).[/quote]

We played a lot of very good teams who didn't take this approach. Roster sizes ranged from 10-15 and everyone played. We lost to some of those teams, and beat others. Outside of our schedule, we watched gold bracket matches at nationals where the coaches were clearly comfortable playing everyone.[/quote]
You make it sound as if there is no correlation between "favorite" and "better" player. Our coach was subbing our DD as soon as it was her turn to serve because the player going in was more consistent. We didn't look at it as favoritism because we were keenly aware that she couldn't serve well enough. We practiced the serve at home for several weeks until she became one of the most consistent on the team. As soon as the coach noticed that she is dependable, he gave her more opportunities to serve during games. She started with no serves for a couple of months and ended serving more than the other player. Was that favoritism or she earned her spot on the court? [/quote]

I don’t think you meant to, but you proved the point the previous poster made.  Your DD started the matches.  Your DD was the favorite, not the other player that was subbing for her.

Your DD goes home and works hard, gets better and takes over the serving role for the other player.  From your point of view she earned her chance to serve. And that’s great that she did. But in reality you proved the self-fulfilling prophecy the PP discussed.

Since you said your DD ended up serving more than the backup, but “didn’t serve for months” that means the backup must not have served much or at all the entire rest of the season. That’s exactly the point the PP was making about their team.

I’m sure lots of people will argue it’s all about performance.  If you want to play, get better.  But can you honestly say that if serving backup was equal in consistency to your DD, then the backup would have played?

And if the backup was such a good server at the start of the season, then after your DD beat her out by becoming “one of the most consistent on the team,” why didn’t the backup serve for someone else after that?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics