2016 CEV DenizBank Champions League

I am back from Krakow and finally with some time in front of the computer to write about the weekend. Before that I would like to ask you what had happened to Nelli and why he wasn't in Trentino's roster for the F4. The most logical explanation is, of course, that he was injured but that couldn't be confirmed either here or by anyone I talked to in the arena.

I enjoyed these finals more than last year's in Berlin. Apart from Zenit, all other participants had to deal with injuries and/or some form problems. This prevented us from witnessing an even better weekend, but the matches were mostly dramatic and were overall very nice to watch. Besides, this was the most intense and balanced (if you would like) Champions League final we've had in years.

Now individually. Zenit won the whole thing, just as expected, but their fans or people who had previously written (also here) how invincible they are could only point at the score to get some evidence for their thesis. True, at the end of the day it is winners who are granted a place in history and Zenit did their job by winning both games in Krakow. Unlike last year, however, I did not leave the hall certain that the Russians are the best team in Europe. And right, wrong, or biased, I might have my reasons. When you watch Alekno coach the Russian NT, you would always anticipate some clever decisions, some tactical novelty that would make you admire him as a coach. Alekno on the bench of Zenit, on the other side, seems like someone who is just there to appear at the press conference. His only job is to shout at his players when they don't have a 5-plus-point advantage. Zenit struggled in reception, relied completely on prowess in attack and on waking up Leon as soon as possible. Which happened in the end. And to me at least, Mikhaylov and Anderson were much more reliable than the Cuban this time. I can't say their block-defence system was impressive and I can't say they arrived in Poland fully prepared, for they started both their matches in Krakow in a similar fashion. For a second F4 in a row it is Kobzar who is needed to replace the star first-choice setter in the semifinal and to take Zenit to the final. Also, Gutsalyuk from Lokomotiv Novosibirsk and Gutsalyuk from Zenit Kazan are two almost totally different players. I didn't like the way Zenit won the tournament and I am sure the outcome would have been different against a healthy Trentino. Or against a Trentino side with Kaziyski in it.

Stoychev showed in the semifinal and in the final that he does his homework well. Right now, Blengini might learn a lot from the Bulgarian. Trentino, helped by the crowd for sure, were covering their defence zones pretty well against Anderson and Leon and were lucky to exercise enough pressure from the service line. The one who impressed me the most among all players was Giannelli, maybe also because I had never watched him live before that. He enjoyed a great tournament and what shines most is his composure and self-confidence. And let's not forget how young he is and how much later setters usually mature. Body language and reactions were signs he is one of the team leaders. Alongside, of course, the very much needed Tine Urnaut. Unfortunately, Djuric got tired somewhere in the middle of the final and it was when Trentino urgently needed a back-up opposite.

Resovia were indeed slightly weaker than the other F4 participants. It is surprising for several reasons. First of all, they had the largest amount of time for preparation. Not only from a tactical point of view, but also from motivational and from health (recovery) perspective. Second, it remains a mystery how they dropped the initiative against a very disappointing Lube side. Which, when the day is over, means they were, in fact, the weakest team. They had also prepared the match against Zenit well, but mistakes in the second set by Drzyzga and Kurek (some of his countless) helped the Russians to find their way back. The most positive result for them was Akhrem's shape, he played as the leader they need(ed).

Zenit are now heading to a Champions League dominance, having now won the league twice in a row and four times overall. But comparisons to other such supremacy-achieving teams don't go in favour of Zenit, I am afraid. But maybe this is just my opinion.

Regarding individual awards, I think Matt Anderson and Massimo Colaci deserved some kind of recognition for their game. I don't know if stats were in favour of Grebennikov, but we all know they usually grant accolades to all four participants at these ceremonies.

Quote from powsoff

Had Kazan and Trento swapped the setters, Trento would have won the final. The setter's work should not be exciting or impressive. I would say, he seriously screwed up with Anderson (sets 4, 5) but otherwise had a superb game in all components. If you compare Butko's performance to that of the other two of his colleagues in the final, the difference will be very clear.

I am not quite sure regarding the first part of this post and I quite disagree with the last part of it. Butko is a very calm and non-flamboyant setter and his style would fit many teams. It certainly fits Zenit and might be so for any Russian team, for that matter. Giannelli is more emotional, true, and yet this is what Trentino need with that roster. They used to have Raphael, a more composed setter, but he played alongside Kaziyski and Juantorena. Giannelli is one of Trentino's catalysts and with Butko in his place instead they would've still lost that final probably.

Butko was taken out and Kobzar was the one to bring Zenit to the final. Butko had a much more enjoyable Sunday evening. He is a very good setter, one of my favourites, but I can't say he had a better F4 than Giannelli. And even in the final I would put them on par. He was better, however, than Drzyzga and Christenson for sure.

On paper, the setter should be the most unemotional and focused player on court. There are moments, however, when the setter, even without emotional outbursts, could guide his team to the victory and those who read the game would notice. I don't agree a setter's game must be not exciting or impressive. I would actually formulate the stance as "The setter is only noticed when he makes mistakes". Which is easy to oberseve for the wide audience but not for the selected few