During WAVL this weekend, I was impressed to learn from one of the Uni Blues coaches that they use the 12-sub-rule even at the highest level of the Victorian State League. Good on ‘em!
In a year where my club can’t field a League Mens team, I can find some ironic delight in seeing everyone else’s League team stacked with 4 or 5 players on the bench. Man, people really don’t want to play for us! It’s 6-sub rule, so these guys on the bench aren’t going to see much game time. Unless they get a run in reserves. But most of these reserves teams have about 4 or 5 guys on the bench too. so someone’s missing out. Maybe i’m blowing this out of proportion, since we do have the elegant solution of having the remaining league mens teams take turns playing two games each week which means plenty of game time.
6-Sub-Rule is great if you’re one of the six people who start on the court. Not so great if you’re not. Why on earth do we still use 6-sub-rule at league level in SA? It could be an argument by the purists for professionalism. Who knows. It’s certainly not worth turning up to one of these awful SOC meetings where this issue comes up from time to time to find out why we persist with it.
Perhaps the idea is if you’re on the bench and unlikely to get much game time, you could be encouraged to move to another club and get a run. bit like a salary cap that trades money for game time, which is the only real currency in amateur sport. Clearly it isn’t working out like that in SA. Why not change it to 12-sub-rule and let these guys get on the court for a bit. After all, let them come away with some playing memories before state league inevitably dies in the arse.
Maybe they should think about using it at AVL level too. Why not? Would it appear unprofessional? well what does appearances matter when no one’s watching anyway! it’s that expensive to play now, that maybe they should just charge players for the rallies they end up playing in an itemised invoice at the end of each round.
Just think; “Getting on to serve at 24-14 and putting the ball into the net: $500. Standing in the back corner while your team sides out to win the game: $500. The opportunity to play at the highest level you can: PRICELESS!!!!”
May 25, 2009 at 2:09 pm |
Absolutely correct Huy. I brought this up at SOC last week but the “Not at the Olympics” argument won again”.
If you look at it logically the 12 sub rule gives more players access to the court. If we used the 12 sub rule we would not have the farce of players playing in league and then trotting over to play in league reserve because they were not “allowed” on the court in the league match but still have to get their justifiable volleyball fix.
Why stuff our competition just because you can’t get your comp right.
Use the 12 sub rule and they can get on the court in the league match. If they still can’t get on the courts – THEN DON’T PICK THEM.
If players in the Olympics had to pay $60 a match ($120 / match in Melb state league I believe) then I bet the Olympics would have 12 sub rule in London. You pay, you should get to play. To be brutal, some bencheis are paying for the volleyball of the decision makers and that is hardly fair.
Volleyball Victoria despite its many critics and volleyball in victoria is way ahead, and congratulations on them for looking after their players.
Placing a 15 week state league season WITH 5 WEEKS OFF DURING THE 15 rounds and the Olympics in the same thought process is a bit of a joke which centers on delusions of grandure.
We do not use all the Olympic rules anyway and nor should we.
In the men’s AVL last year EVERY COACH (Including Russ) supported the introduction of the 12 sub rule but it was knocked back by the AVF.
Why, who knows, too much work for the scorers, the 2nd ref or the minority who think that that a player cannot possibly play in world volleyball if they have used the 12 sub rule.
Basketball, Football have the subs thing right. Netball and volleyball in SA do not.
June 10, 2009 at 6:34 pm |
Eldo,
for a state league, I’m inclined to agree with you.
But I would like to hear your thoughts on Juniors and school. Too often I see players in U15s etc being used as defensive specialists, or specialist blocking subs, or double sub to ensure constant back row setter.
My thoughts are that this is creating overt specialisation of athletes. I had one player join a uni side who had never dug a ball in his life, because he was a front court only player. Especially at young ages, where heights and athleticism are still developing, surely we’d want our juniors to be exposed to the full game, not just the one thing they can do well. This applies to AJVC, AVSC, and the U16 and U15 tourneys.
June 11, 2009 at 2:12 am
Specialisation of athletes exists whether you sub players on or off or keep them all on the court. I’m inclined to believe that if a coach won’t put a player on for 3 rotations on the FC or BC, they’re hardly going to put that player on for 6 rotations under the 12 sub rule. In a perfect world you would just take 3 players off halfway through each set and leave the subs on, but it doesn’t always work.
I have always coached junior league that way, so technically i could still get all my junior players equal court time under 6 sub rule and develop them equally. One of the (unwritten) rules eldo had when he took me for my level 1s is that every kid should get on at least 60% of the time. If there’s a chance to “create history” (an expression i’ve heard verbatim from a lot of head coaches!), then you do what it takes to win. 12 sub rule subbing will only get you to 50%. I think with junior league teams and AVSC div teams, the court time should be equal and the players trained having a chance to develop
I think you make a good point about it changing the game – constant backrow setter, specialist blocking subs etc. It becomes less about the best 6 players with good craft skills taking on their best six on the other side, but that’s not a bad game either. it’s become part of a necessity in tournaments. Expensive travel cost of tournaments => more game time => you have to use your full bench. I don’t think this is too bad at a national junior or avsc honours standard. it’s a different level of play with different expectations than equitable junior league/avsc div 1. And besides, at best of 5 sets, the player that plays 50% of the time subbing only on or off can play nearly as much as the div 1 / junior league player who’s on the whole time (i’ve done the maths on this one!)
Where U15s falls is the grey area. Vic, ACT and QLD have rep teams so maybe the expectations are like nat juniors. SA hasn’t entered ever as far as i know (although if we did, the group that eldo takes each year would probably make up most of the team anyway, with a couple of brighton kids that go with hawks). So for the SA teams that go, it’s probably more “developmental” than the rep teams that go over. I do find the level of specialisation at U15s disturbing. I coached against teams that employed 5-1 systems with specialist passers, and teams that played with the player in position 2 setting – in essence they could have rotated on at the serve – they were both competitive!
a uni-age player who has played for years but never dug a ball would have been poorly coached whether they played their whole career under 6 sub rule or 12 sub rule. if anything, they would have dropped out (or “weeded” out) because they never get on playing 6 sub rule. maybe getting people unsuited to quit volleyball earlier is good development? who knows.
12 sub rule is not a perfect system. and it can be used or abused. as winston churchill said of democracy “it … is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”
June 5, 2009 at 5:15 am |
VVL is going with the 6-Sub rule in 2011 i think…
June 5, 2009 at 5:52 am |
well, we should be grateful that we get some moments of enlightened thinking amidst all this idiocy.
June 11, 2009 at 8:53 am |
12 Sub at League is about specialistation.
In under 17 state, Under 19 state and juniors it is certainly about equity.
When states started to take a larger role in the under 15’s in order to increase their profitibility (Yes I do believe that and I think it is horrible) we had state coaches doing “state” things with kids. This does involve unwarranted specilaisation with players. This certainly does hold back young kids. These coaches, now they have a state top on, think they are coaching league.
I think Heathfield has won more titles than any one state and yet we have never used a libero and we have never used less than 3 setters. This year everybody set in my girls team.
This event should
1. Be replicated right around the country.
2, Should be for school, club and regional teams.
If states want to make money – run a raffle.
I think the introduction of multiple state teams to this event is “try hard”. It has introduced a very unsavory unprofessional type of coaching. The good thing is that these coaches never seem to win.
Look at Phil Borgeau and his teams and you have the essence of what the Under 15’s should be about.
IT IS NOT A NATIONAL TITLE.