<...> 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.