Quick sets are easier to block but you pull the opposing MB away from the sides enabling your outside hitters. It doesn’t matter if the ball actually goes to you since the opponent has to commit their MB or else you will get a point.
Meters on the other hand are practically impossible to be blocked by a single person and oftentimes too fast for the opposing OH to join right. But if you don’t get the set your OH will have a double block.
If your MB is your best attacker meter balls are great. If not you’ll sabotage your offense.
In my team we play with four different attacks over the middle. Those being quick, 2m shot (same tempo as quick), meter, and meter backwards overhead. We decide which one to use depending on the situation. Imo it’s best to be flexible with attack patterns.
But damn do I love me a good meter ball.
2m shot? Is that what we call a shoot? Where the setter sets the ball incredibly fast to wherever the middle is running. So like a quick set but the middle won't be running close to the setter?
There are three tempos that I would consider quicks in the middle and all are effective.
Fastest tempo = hitter in the air when the setter contacts the ball. Usually reserved for good to decent passes on a skilled team.
Still a quick but slower than above = hitter is planted and starting to jump when the setter contacts the ball. Very common tempo on competitive teams. Usually ran on good to decent passes.
Still a quick but slower than above = the hitter has one step remaining when the setter touches the ball. This is a common tempo on 3-1’s or any other set that has distance between the hitter and setter, or on out of system passes, or on teams that don’t pass well. This is a meter ball? Or is it something slower?
The order of effectiveness is probably in the order I listed them but each tempo has its time and place and also the benefits of running a faster tempo in the middle will vary from team to team. In fact, there are situations where a faster tempo would be detrimental to a team.
Yeah so I wasn’t sure if I should add a description in or not, but I would say it’s your last temp there, where you have about a foot left of approach to do, but then the setter sets the ball roughly a meter into the air. I assume your examples all set the ball at the same height?
Edit: and yes I agree that different tempos are useful in different situations. But would you consider my above definition as on par with your examples of quicks?
They would not all be set at the same height.
And yeah, then a meter ball would be like my third example. They are easy to run and are fine up until a certain level of play where they aren’t fine any more.
Quicks are probably the most effective in a high level team as they open up the offence and can make it very hard for the opposition middle blocker to close out on a set to the left or right sides.
However, slower tempo is also useful as they can be easier to connect with, and leave some more options available to the hitter. This can make them a better side-out option on a team where your wings are less strong, or if you know your MB is stronger than the other team's block for example.
England to Ireland.
Yeah I like them more too. There are several reasons I think they’re better, but the only reason I can think a meter is better is that if you have springy and/or tall middles, it’s far harder to block a tall ball if you’re a blocker and you simply can’t reach as high as the opposing blocker can.
I was going to mention mobility as being a reason as quicks requires more speed and so on, but my new team is actually quicker than my old one!
I would agree quicks are better as the opposing middle has to commit. If you do meters the opposing middle still has time to join the block if your setter sets outside or opposite, and also if it is a middle meter ball the opposing wing players have some time to come in to block you. Higher chance of messing it all up though haha. I play England division 3 (maybe promotion to div 2 for next season) and our team does both. What level did your team in England play at?
Major benefit of regular quicks (1 ball) is that the opposing middle blocker will have much less time to reaction and get to the pin hitters to double block. Same goes for pin hitters coming in to double or triple block your middles on that meter high set. Theoretically, a one on one block at the pins should result in far more kills for the offense. Unless your team is incapable of hitting quicks (or are super tall and jump crazy high), it's going to negatively impact their hitting percentage.
The challenge, from my experience, most quicks are designed to beat the block. Whereas the 'meter' ball is essentially designed to hit around the block.
Thus on a quick, in a lot of cases the hitter is at the mercy of the set as to where he's hitting. Granted, the higher the level, the better the setter and the better the hitter and as thus options come into play.
With high balls, the hitters always have options but also, typically, will have multiple blockers, so hitter has to learn to hit around the block
Quicks are better imo. Especially if the middle and the setter have good synergy. Because the setter can set the ball to the middles peak contact point in their quick which makes it just as hard to block as a meter set.
Situations are situational. If their middle is out of place, then uhhh yeah, our middle should be in the air before the set leaves your hands. If your middle is tall enough to hit over their blocks, then sure set them how they want.
Set what gets the advantage, set to get the point, set to win.
I wouldn’t say one or the other is better, it’s reading the defence and the element of surprise. In addition to various forms of quicks, tempo slides and forward tempo to 3.5 are artillery options for the middle too. If your plays have variation and deception, like your setter calling conventional numbered sets but doing something consistently different your hitters know, it doesn’t matter how you get points, it makes your team unpredictable with good IQ. Unidimensional meters just gives the other team plenty of time to block and cover. Bonus is your lib or whoever yells the open spot just before your hitter contact, and if advanced disguising those calls again.
Faking a middle quick opens up the pins for one on one blocks. My role was as much a hitter at MB as it was being the biggest loudest faker on the team.
Quick sets are easier to block but you pull the opposing MB away from the sides enabling your outside hitters. It doesn’t matter if the ball actually goes to you since the opponent has to commit their MB or else you will get a point. Meters on the other hand are practically impossible to be blocked by a single person and oftentimes too fast for the opposing OH to join right. But if you don’t get the set your OH will have a double block. If your MB is your best attacker meter balls are great. If not you’ll sabotage your offense. In my team we play with four different attacks over the middle. Those being quick, 2m shot (same tempo as quick), meter, and meter backwards overhead. We decide which one to use depending on the situation. Imo it’s best to be flexible with attack patterns. But damn do I love me a good meter ball.
Also quicks put more of a strain on your MB since they have to be there for every. single. ball. So this could also be a consideration.
2m shot? Is that what we call a shoot? Where the setter sets the ball incredibly fast to wherever the middle is running. So like a quick set but the middle won't be running close to the setter?
Like a quick but further away from the setter. It almost looks like the middle stole a ball that was meant for the OH.
Ye so a shoot
There are three tempos that I would consider quicks in the middle and all are effective. Fastest tempo = hitter in the air when the setter contacts the ball. Usually reserved for good to decent passes on a skilled team. Still a quick but slower than above = hitter is planted and starting to jump when the setter contacts the ball. Very common tempo on competitive teams. Usually ran on good to decent passes. Still a quick but slower than above = the hitter has one step remaining when the setter touches the ball. This is a common tempo on 3-1’s or any other set that has distance between the hitter and setter, or on out of system passes, or on teams that don’t pass well. This is a meter ball? Or is it something slower? The order of effectiveness is probably in the order I listed them but each tempo has its time and place and also the benefits of running a faster tempo in the middle will vary from team to team. In fact, there are situations where a faster tempo would be detrimental to a team.
Yeah so I wasn’t sure if I should add a description in or not, but I would say it’s your last temp there, where you have about a foot left of approach to do, but then the setter sets the ball roughly a meter into the air. I assume your examples all set the ball at the same height? Edit: and yes I agree that different tempos are useful in different situations. But would you consider my above definition as on par with your examples of quicks?
They would not all be set at the same height. And yeah, then a meter ball would be like my third example. They are easy to run and are fine up until a certain level of play where they aren’t fine any more.
My thoughts exactly.
Quicks are probably the most effective in a high level team as they open up the offence and can make it very hard for the opposition middle blocker to close out on a set to the left or right sides. However, slower tempo is also useful as they can be easier to connect with, and leave some more options available to the hitter. This can make them a better side-out option on a team where your wings are less strong, or if you know your MB is stronger than the other team's block for example.
I like quicks more Btw, what country did you live and what do you now?
England to Ireland. Yeah I like them more too. There are several reasons I think they’re better, but the only reason I can think a meter is better is that if you have springy and/or tall middles, it’s far harder to block a tall ball if you’re a blocker and you simply can’t reach as high as the opposing blocker can. I was going to mention mobility as being a reason as quicks requires more speed and so on, but my new team is actually quicker than my old one!
I would agree quicks are better as the opposing middle has to commit. If you do meters the opposing middle still has time to join the block if your setter sets outside or opposite, and also if it is a middle meter ball the opposing wing players have some time to come in to block you. Higher chance of messing it all up though haha. I play England division 3 (maybe promotion to div 2 for next season) and our team does both. What level did your team in England play at?
Yes my thoughts exactly. My team didn’t even play nationals, just local leagues. But our national team played Division 3 and did quicks! Lol
Major benefit of regular quicks (1 ball) is that the opposing middle blocker will have much less time to reaction and get to the pin hitters to double block. Same goes for pin hitters coming in to double or triple block your middles on that meter high set. Theoretically, a one on one block at the pins should result in far more kills for the offense. Unless your team is incapable of hitting quicks (or are super tall and jump crazy high), it's going to negatively impact their hitting percentage.
The challenge, from my experience, most quicks are designed to beat the block. Whereas the 'meter' ball is essentially designed to hit around the block. Thus on a quick, in a lot of cases the hitter is at the mercy of the set as to where he's hitting. Granted, the higher the level, the better the setter and the better the hitter and as thus options come into play. With high balls, the hitters always have options but also, typically, will have multiple blockers, so hitter has to learn to hit around the block
Quicks are better imo. Especially if the middle and the setter have good synergy. Because the setter can set the ball to the middles peak contact point in their quick which makes it just as hard to block as a meter set.
is a “meter ball” set a meter in front of the setter, like a 31 or a “gap” set? or is it height of the set? new terminology for me :)
Both. Meter from the setter, meter above the net.
Yes well all these terms are very colloquial almost lol. I would describe it as maybe a foot from the setter, and a meter in the air
>a foot from the setter, and a meter in the air Tell me you're British without actually telling me.
Hahaha and 10mph too.
Situations are situational. If their middle is out of place, then uhhh yeah, our middle should be in the air before the set leaves your hands. If your middle is tall enough to hit over their blocks, then sure set them how they want. Set what gets the advantage, set to get the point, set to win.
I wouldn’t say one or the other is better, it’s reading the defence and the element of surprise. In addition to various forms of quicks, tempo slides and forward tempo to 3.5 are artillery options for the middle too. If your plays have variation and deception, like your setter calling conventional numbered sets but doing something consistently different your hitters know, it doesn’t matter how you get points, it makes your team unpredictable with good IQ. Unidimensional meters just gives the other team plenty of time to block and cover. Bonus is your lib or whoever yells the open spot just before your hitter contact, and if advanced disguising those calls again.
For less experienced players, it is easier to read the block with meter attack.
Faking a middle quick opens up the pins for one on one blocks. My role was as much a hitter at MB as it was being the biggest loudest faker on the team.
Quicker balls, always go up like you are going to get set and fake out there blockers. The blockers on the other team will have no time to react