SBsD wrote:

---

I think I know the basics, but I'm looking for a bit more. What are the normal criteria for choosing between the two rotations (based on team makeup and especially the skills of the available setters)? I'm aware of the "consistency" factor in using a single setter in a 5-1, along with the slight offensive handicap of fewer hitters.

Absolutely no "handicap" in fewer hitters assoicated with the 5-1. The 5-1 setter when on the front row better be an offensive threat (tips, dumps, attacks) as well as be able to dish the offense. If the 5-1 setter offers no offense from those three rotations while on the front row, then the opponents have a 3-2 advantage (their blockers to your hitters)so setters need to attack and be able to set the slide and get their middle on their backside to make the opponent's MH move and make a choice of who to block the strongside or sliding MH. A good backrow attacker also helps...

Also, from the setters point of view, what are the differences between the skills needed for a setter in a 5-1 as compared to those for a pair of setters in a 6-2 rotation? Is a 5-1 setter generally a better pure setter or would she likely have superior all around skills?

The 5-1 setter has to have the ability to block the opponent's OH; double the opponent's MH when requried; and dig the opponent's RH....so elbows above the net. You can't run the 5-1 with a short setter unless your libero can dig bullets down the line (aka KIVA).

My 15 year old may be heading into a 5-1 rotation next season and I'm curious about what to expect. If a 5-1 rotation is used, will one girl get nearly all the setting time at the expense of the other setters? How do most coaches of middle-age (14 to 16 year) teams handle this?

If the team is going to run the 5-1, the primary setter will indeed get the lion's share of practice reps. The time has to be spent as the setter is now working the timing/height/preference of five hitters. The back-up setter is usually another position player like an OH that can fill in if Setter 1 goes down but if you're a "setter only" in a 5-1, and not the primary, I'd be looking for another team.

If there are any good articles out there, please feel free to point me toward them instead of spending a lot of time typing. On the other hand, if I've clearly got my head up my rear, don't hesitate to say so. Either way, thanks for any help.

relativeyoungster wrote:

---

You double the middle with your RS blocker?

For me, the big thing was how alike are the setter's release. and the speed of your offense...the quicker the offense, the more the need for consistantcy....

just my $.02....

...15s you do a lot of weird things when you're overmatched in the middle...I've thrown triples up against one team that had two killers middles and little else on the OH. Won each time we played them but if we had lost, it was going to be someone other than those two stud middles...

SBsD wrote:

---

Thank you for all the helpful responses. What I'm hearing is that the 5-1 setter needs excellent all-around skills and will also need a great deal of focus and leadership ability to run the team offense. The required all-around skills, including blocking and attacking, preclude using a shorter "pure" setter since substitutions are no longer used for the front row part of the rotation.

Sounds like a massive set of expectations for this position. On average, at what age do club travel teams transition from the 6-2 to the 5-1 rotation? Is it common on teams as young as 14? How about 15? I don't get to see a lot of older girls play, so are most top flight 17 and 18 teams using a 5-1 or still a 6-2?

Not an aged-based initiative but rather a skilled based plan so no automatics that you go to a 5-1 at a specific age. Of the teams we played in 17Open this year, I do not remember any running a 6-2.

One last thought: It was mentioned that the 5-1 setter will get the bulk of practice reps and, of course, virtually all the game time. When a team relies on a single player this heavily, I assume that they pretty much collapse if that player goes down for any reason. Nearly all teams have a special player that's important to their success, but this reliance on an irreplaceable setter seems almost extreme. If I were a coach, I'd be pretty nervous about everything hinging on one player.

That's why all those junior coaches get the BIG BUCKs to stay awake at night worrying and making back-up plans. Seriously though, the same can be applied to any "key" player regardless of position. Until cloning is an acceptable practice, each player brings different skills, brains and passion for the game..it's not plug-and-play. Regardless of position, when a player goes down for any reason, the sub will never had the exact same skills, etc, even if they're twins. The difference or effect of the impact (total collapse versus minor inconvenience) will be the difference between the player lost and the player subbed in and what the coach has done in regard manage the risk including balancing practice time for the back-up setter versus the need for the starting setter to run the reps, know the players, run the offense...but there's no such thing as an irreplaceable setter.

JumpOnIt69 wrote:

---

VBREPORTER wrote:

---

but if you're a "setter only" in a 5-1, and not the primary, I'd be looking for another team.

In all seriousness, at what point is this smart for a setter to do and when is it "diva" behavior? At what age is it "really" important to be the "one" setter? (This is for a girl who wants to play college ball and who has received some interest already)

..."diva" behavior was never a consideration in the post. The purpose of JRVB is to teach, develop and train young athletes in the great sport of volleyball regardless if their interest is recreational and short-term, to ultra-competitive and long-term.

A key in that development is competition during play, learning from both your mistakes and successes. Nothing, and I mean nothing, can replace that element in a players development...and again, age is not a factor.

It never ceases to amaze me that parents would rather spend money and have their player sit on the ench of a great team versus play on a good team. I cut a girl from a very successful team the previous year during tryouts instead offering her a place on a very good -2 team where she would be surrounded by players of the about the same level, have excellent coaching but more importantly play versus riding the bench on the -1 team.

Got a call from her frantic mom after try-outs, in tears, and begging me to reconsider. Said that her DD would be a social outcast at school, would be freindless on the -2 team and, if placed on the -1 team, would be more than happy, content and never say a word if she never played. I declined and they left the club. Parents are sometimes just nutz and while this was the more extreme case, there were several other during my coaching career that had the same theme.

Get your player on a team that gets her on the court because it ain't about social; it ain't about parents wanting to hang together; and it ain't about being on the best team if your only view of the game is from the bench.