|
First installment of an "as-necessary" series I'd like to call, "The Sheriff Talks Watervolleyball." As I am by no means or declaration the repository of all information watervolleyball, I welcome suggestions or critiques.
The Pro Form alignment has recently gained prominence around the Association, particularly among the Grizzly set. In threes, instead of playing two players on the server's side, the player on the net shades towards the middle and the other two position themselves in an alignment more similar to twos. While there is no question that the game must necessarily evolve, it is still important to review new developments with a critical eye.
The alignment has two advantages:
1. The formation allows the net person more angle to finish a spike.
2. In a three on four game, the threes player on the net in Pro Form alignment can either help on a hitter normally uncovered or attempt to defend both opposing players at the net. It also allows for sets to the middle and in between both opposing blockers.
However, despite prevalent use (sometimes too prevalent), the alignment is not without weaknesses:
1. Playing in the middle opens up the short area of the court on both sides of the pro forming net player. This can confuse assignments. It's more simple to play on the server's side and the player on the four covers short on his or her side. In Pro Form, the net player is presumable responsible for covering short on both sides. If this were an easy task, the predominant twos alignment would have one person at the net and one person behind.
2. Pro Forming when serving can cause problems. The most significant is that the receiving team has the opportunity to dictate match ups. That is, if the receiving team chooses not to Pro Form against a team that is, the receiving team can often get a free spike with a good set on one. That's because the player in the traditional alignment is playing on the wall, leaving the line open against the Pro Forming player. To me, it's more important to match up when serving than to try to Pro Form because the receiving team gets to dictate the match up.
3. Pro Form can take the setter on the spiker's left out of play. If the player on the four (right side) is an inconsistent setter, that makes the player normally directly behind the net player crucial. Pro Forming with a player lacking a good left hand destroys whatever angle the setter would have had in a traditional alignment.
4. Forcing the player behind the net player to play closer to the four leaves a greater susceptibility to deep balls, as that person may now have to cover short hits on the now-exposed left side.
5. Pro Forming when serving leaves the area directly in front of the server open, necessitating the server to come off the wall hard unless the Pro Former can adequately cover both short sides of the pool. Doing so, as mentioned earlier, is a difficult task for all but a select few players.
In summary, the Pro Form alignment has several significant advantages, but also has more than a couple significant disadvantages. In light of that fact, it seems the Pro From works better as an option deployed in select circumstances that can maximize its effectiveness, while minimizing its weaknesses. The Pro Form, then, seems not a be-all-end-all strategy like the wishbone or the spread offense, but rather a play to be used to take advantage of an opponent weakness, like a play-action fake when the defense stacks the box.
Next time: "The Theory of Relativity--Merits and Demerits of the Flexbone"
Until then, stay safe boys and girls.
_________________
Respect my authoritay! There's a new Sheriff in town...
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
