Polish NT 2013

  • <...> However, how do you keep the momentum of a player or a team high throughout the course of an entire season or a tournament, and more importantly, how do you do it when it really matters? When you face a team or a coach that can change the balance of a game with a series of actions or a tactical change? Yes, sure, you have a series of factors, no doubt about it. If Alekno could change the course of the Olympic final, why wouldn't Bernardinho try to do the same?

    It is impossible to keep the momentum for the season and difficult for the tournament. The idea is that you bring the player to the peak towards the decisive games. When national cup winners used to qualify for the Champions League, Voronkov used this strategy to win the cup. His Lokomotiv started training slightly earlier than everyone else, they peaked in December and player three Cup finals in a row, winning two of them. The rest of the season was a relaxation as you may imagine :).


    The coach can switch the performance of his team from one mode to another, this is it. He can also prompt what to do in a particular situation. There was nothing brilliant in the Olympic final about it. Alekno saw that his team was losing (pretty obvious :)) and tried his usual switch putting Mikhaylov as an OH and bringing the second opposite to the pitch. Muserskiy has been trained as a second opp. The team added in block-defense. The same thing worked for Zenit several times with the only difference being that there they had Cheremisin instead of Muserskiy. Bernardinho responded quickly but his team was palpably out of steam after the first two sets, so Russia was able to press the equal ending of the third set to its favour. Brazil went down further in the fourth set and was outclassed due to the lack of gas in the tie-break. The big things that worked for Russia were traditionally better physical condition and improved defensive skills. They started getting chances for break-points and Muserskiy with Mikhaylov were converting them reliably. Thus, the short answer is that Alekno had an option of switching the game whilst Rezende hadn't. It worked but on the other hand, it might not have. Brazil had match-points - one poor reception or net tip and this is it.

    There's always the answer of technical skills and amount of hard work, but I think there's slightly more than just that. Certain teams can perform better with time. Russia could finally overcame their problems in big games, whereas Brazil, even with a wide variety of players and some new faces, have failed to bring the gold home for some years already. Is it only a technical explanation for the altered status quo compared to 2010? Neither Russia, nor Brazil have worked less throughout this period.

    Alekno clearly said after the final that there was "no logics in sports". Russian team that came to London was not very well conditioned and on the paper was weaker than the team that Alekno brought to Beijing in 2008. (At the same time, Russian NT in Sydney'2000 was even better: Tetyukhin used to be a very serious spiker in his 20s but the real "diamond" was Roman Yakovlev, who arguably still has the best palm in the whole volleyball history - a pleasure to watch). So the big difference between Beijing and London was a better concentration in the close set endings. Say in set three of the final, whatever Brazil failed to finish/failed to kill-block would be delivered onto Grankin's forehead and hit back hard, independently how difficult it would be for the defenders. That is, the first touch in transition play was careful and precise. Improved block-defense and reception gave chances too. At the same time, I can't say that Brazil worked equally hard during their trainings as there was a clear gap in physical condition between the two teams. Some Brazilian players were seriously overweight. In the set 5 only Murilo and Bela Hobor were in a good shape for Brazil.

    And what makes a player a winner? Technical skills and hard work? For sure, but I believe it takes a little more than that. And it is exactly this mental state (OK, let's not call it a winner mentality as you wanted to omit), or rather a psychological one. A state, slightly beyond your technical maximum, through which you have to go as a player or you will always remain underrated. If we agree there is some psychology involved, then we definitely agree there's some mental phase, growth, mentality, maturity or whatever you want to call it.

    We are not talking about tennis, the team wins not the player. I don't deny the role of psychology. Volleyball in fact is the most psychological sport, after fencing. But the beauty is that when
    equally skilled teams face each other, the "winner" and the "loser" change sides every three minutes, if you see what I mean. I know well about this "state beyond your technical maximum" but the real class is to be able to deliver a solid performance without adrenaline. I don't think that sportsmen go through these doubts as they are much more simple people and live much more straighforward lives filled with trainings and cars :). At the level of the NT, everybody more or less psychologically stable and not afraid to win.

    Also, in my opinion, stealing a set and winning two more for an overall win are two totally different things. One doesn't necessarily lead to the other.Anyways, it's a long topic and it definitely doesn't belong here.

    Yes, but please do agree that there is a massive gap between losing 0:3 and 1:3, against a good team. 1:3 means that you scored at least some break-points and possibly one day you'll grab another set or two.

  • The state of mind of Poland's professional sports in general was perfectly visible during the Universiade final in Kazan, where our players politely took the beating with smiles on their faces.

    The team that Russia decided to field at the Universiade would have beaten the first Polish NT and probably the first Russian NT too. Had the Polish team had any chances, no doubt someone like Muserskiy would have been sent to help up from the first team. Funny enough, they all are registered as students so all this idiocy was happening absolutely legally. The irony is that, for Russia, the Universiade was a major priority for 2013, not the ECh and by far not the World League.


    The whole Universiade was a meaningless in the sports sense project serving political ambitions of one particular character (Vitaliy Mutko). With the host side bringing professional sportsmen and winning 80-ish% of gold what kind of student competition is it?

  • Teams like Poland and Bulgaria probably adopt a bad coping technique for anxiety (actually, "coping" is a bad word, you shouldn't pay much attention to anxiety) and this leads to poor performance when external stressors are high. And it is very hard to interfere during timeouts. Whether/How you cope with anxiety is determined by each athlete's personality and mentality. This can be changed, however, there are some positive correlations between the mentality of individuals in some countries (especially ones not yet genetically mixed) and the way how they cope with pressure.

    Teams like Poland or Bulgaria require a serious kick in their ass, and this is what a proper coach needs to do. In brief, they (especially Bulgaria) need to value every ball as every mistake counts. They can do it and they are in the semis regularly now so there's just a small step left. Plus Zhekov back would have been good and Kaziyski obviously too :).

  • The team that Russia decided to field at the Universiade would have beaten the first Polish NT and probably the first Russian NT too.

    It doesn't freaking matter. The least I should expect from a team which represents my country is to put up a little fight and show some anger at being whopped. The exact same thing happened during the 2006 WCH. Okay, maybe without the embarassing smiles all around, be we still got beaten pretty badly because the team was already perfectly satisfied with a silver medal and they seemed to have forgotten they were yet to play the final. And that's settling for the second best. It's a general attitude problem that excels way past volleyball.

  • You are right in many aspects and, as I already said, I agree with most of them. By the way, the questions I presented were exemplary and often rhetorical, I know the answers, or rather most, very well :) I've watched the 2012 Olympics final at least four times already in the last year, so I have an idea what actually happened on a technical and a psychological level.


    It seems boring to dive even further into the matter, especially as we might repeat the same thing over and over again. What I wanted to point out here is the quote "the "winner" and the "loser" change sides every three minutes". This is exactly so, because there is always something more than just technical skills, something needed and decisive when balanced teams meet. If a team is nearly perfect, it should theoretically win 3-0, right? The comparison to the 2000 and 2008 NTs only come to support the thesis that technical skills aren't always enough to win. Yes, Yakovlev used to be amazing :)


    The statement about the simplicity of a sportsman's life is valid and true for most of them perhaps. However, they are also people and are not deprived of emotions. Not all players are emotionally stable, for it would take serious mental strength and sometimes personal growth, which you can't spread to all. To control your emotions takes a lot of practice and effort and involves being part in such situations often; you will most likely fail the first time you face it. It might seem so now for the Russian NT, but I am sure they have tried and failed numerous times before reaching to today's level.


    Both 0:3 and 1:3 give you exactly zero points in nowadays' points calculations. There's, of course, a difference, no doubt about it. Nevertheless, to me, there's a much bigger margin between 1:3 and 2:3.

  • Teams like Poland or Bulgaria require a serious kick in their ass, and this is what a proper coach needs to do. In brief, they (especially Bulgaria) need to value every ball as every mistake counts. They can do it and they are in the semis regularly now so there's just a small step left. Plus Zhekov back would have been good and Kaziyski obviously too :).


    Very true! I still think it's maybe exactly pure volleyball skills and lack of class that set these two somewhat away from titles, but it's a very complex matter. We've had Zhekov and Kaziyski before, just the results in the bronze medal games were different. And the small step left you are referring to is not always that small, you know ;) It's perhaps exactly what they need beyond their skills.


  • Very true! I still think it's maybe exactly pure volleyball skills and lack of class that set these two somewhat away from titles, but it's a very complex matter. We've had Zhekov and Kaziyski before, just the results in the bronze medal games were different. And the small step left you are referring to is not always that small, you know ;) It's perhaps exactly what they need beyond their skills.


    The sorts of things you're talking about (loss of concentration during the most important points) is dictated not only by being concentrated and professional, but also by worry. Worry makes you think about something else apart from the current play, and by trying to stop this process, you become even less focused. It can be eliminated in 2 ways - by eliminating the stressor (positive experience), or by dealing with worry. I explained the latter in my previous post. The first can be done by luck, or by dealing with worry. Of course, it is much much more complex, as there is the issue of confidence (the more technical and tactically prepared you are ---> the more confident you are ----> the less anxious you are). So teams like Bulgaria and Poland either need some new classy reinforcements to strengthen their team, or very good psychologists who will teach them not to choke (or start worrying in decisive moments). Russia had in some extent a similar issue, but they killed it after winning the World League 2011.


    The Kazyiski and Zhekov factor is nonreliable. We lost a number of semifinals, some in a very stupid way with the same team + Kazyiski and Zhekov and with Nikolov instead of Sokolov. You can add Konstantinov as well. I still remember the wet eyes of Teodor Salparov during the semifinal with Poland in Euro 2009, when he made stupid judgement after stupid judgement. This is not technical issue, he can play better than a 11-year-old schoolboy.