Reply to Metro vs Paramount (vs other top clubs)

Forum Index » Volleyball

Reply to "Metro vs Paramount (vs other top clubs)"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]
If you look at these rankings for a while, you’ll see that this team (#211) lost players to teams ranked higher than them, took players from teams ranked lower than them, and performed better the next year (#96). This is a great achievement.

You’re saying they lost non-stars to teams ranked higher than them and took stars from teams ranked lower than them, which led to their improvement.

Then I ask you: why did the higher-ranked teams take non-stars from this team instead of taking stars from the lower-ranked teams?

Isn't what they did "doing more with less"?[/quote]
Seems like a reasonable point, at least initially.  Yes, Paramount lost 2 players to teams that ranked higher then them. I wouldn't agree with the characterization that they were "non-stars" at all. Both players they lost were starters.  The answer to your question is that the top two teams didn't take non-stars from Paramount, they took two starters or "stars".

2 very good players leave, the team is obviously going to be worse. 2 other starters left as well to move to clubs lower in the rankings.  Now there's a problem - 4 starters gone.  Yet they get better the next year. I can understand why you would argue that it must be "doing more with less".

But if the coaching is so good, why didn't any of the 13-2s move up to the 1s? Why didn't any of the backups on the 13-1s take on starting roles? Why did 2 of the new starters come from teams ranked 2000+? And why did the other 2 get starting positions even though they came from a team ranked 100+ places below that didn't earn a bid last year?

The answer to these questions is the crux of this discussion.  If a club is good a developing players, it doesn't preclude them from adding good players to their roster. But they don't need to rely on it as their primary improvement avenue because they have a strong set of developed players waiting to take a starting role.

But if a team has high turnover and struggles to keep its players, especially the starters, it has 3 ways to replace them:
1) Promote the backups into starting roles.
2) Promote players from their 2s team into the 1s team, either as starters or backups.  
3) Add players from outside the club.

With Paramount 14-1s, #1 & #2 didn't happen. #2 didn't happen in the entire club. Not once. They had those players for 9 months in a Paramount gym that is marketed as significantly better than virtually every other club and claims they win because of training.  How is it possible that in 9 months training more than 60 players on 2s teams, not a single one of them was good enough to make a 1s team? Especially when 60%+ of the 1s teams are leaving each year?

Instead, here's what happened with the 14-1s team:
9 new players come in from other clubs.  At the first big tournament of the season, 3 of those new players were starting and the 4th was sharing time with another player. Less than 1 month later, the 4th was starting too. For the rest of the season it was the 3 starters from Paramount last year playing with 4 players who came in from other clubs.

No 2024 backup player had a consistent starting role in 2025.  
No 2024 13-2 player moved up to take an open spot on 14-1s.
The new players came in and immediately displaced returning Paramount players.

So I'll pass it back to you. Explain how 4 players from lower ranked teams immediately become starters despite being trained outside of Paramount's "superior" training gym. Then explain why 5 more players are added from teams ranked below the 13-2s and not a single player is moved up from that team to the 13-1s.

Explain why the same thing happened with the 15-2s.  And with the 7 new players into the 13-1, 8 into the 13-2, 9 into the 14-2s, 8 into the 16-2 and the 11! new players into the 18-1s.

Without those explanations, the facts point us towards believing they aren't "doing more with less", i.e. they aren't developing good players on their lower teams into great players or taking OK players from other teams and turning them into superstars. The clubs that are really doing more with less the ones that Paramount is recruiting from.
[/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