Reception

    Usually the reception is done by the two OHs and by the Libero. But some NTs and clubs make an exception.


    -CHINA = Opp. (Zhou Suhong) + one of the spikers (Yang Hao) + one MB (Yan Liu)
    -RUSSIA = Opp. (Sokolova/Safronova or Fateeva) + one of the spikers (Godina/Safronova or Fateeva)
    -FRANCE = Opp. (Rybaczewski) + both MBs (Ravva and Lozancic)
    -AZERBAIJAN = Both MBs (Parkhomenko and Korkmaz) + one OH (Mammadova)
    -GERMANY = Opp. (Grun) and one OH (Dumler)
    -NETHERLANDS and ITALY = OHs, but in some rotations also Opp. (Flier and Aguero)


    -PERUGIA = OHs (Del Core and Francia) + one MB (Walewska)


    Maybe there are others too?


    Why some teams don't use conventional reception??? Just because some players are good in attack and not in reception, or because of tactic to attack better, or a mix of the two, probably?


    define conventional :wink2:
    i must say it is up to the coach to formulate their own tactics and formation of the teams defense and offense


    for china, it has been a long CHINESE convention for an opposite to receive, zhao su hung as you have said,


    probably the noticeable exception is Qiu ai-hua in 98 worlc championship---she was not a good receiver but a offensive player


    for russia, it depends: in 2000, sokolova played MB and received, in 2004, sokolova played hitter and received and 2006 she played opposite and received. and 2007, sokolova played libero for one match
    so it is really depends on needs


    and cuba is more ceptional than other teams, every one shares reception responsibilities


    but judging matches in grand prix and euro champ---okay, it is personal opinion 8) --- it seems two receiving hitters cannot receive well and attack well


    hope this bit of opinion helps :)


    Thanks colossus for the explanations! :D
    I would define conventional reception as two OHs and libero, but just because many teams nowadays use this pattern. But as you have said it is not a winning pattern, because two receiving hitters can't do both well. And even good attackers, if for all rotations are pressured in reception, they won't attack well. I agree!
    In your opinion, which pattern is the best to use? In my opinion, if an Opp. and a MB could help in reception is good, because in this way they will free the OHs from reception responsabilities in some rotations, enabling them to attack better.