Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Semi-Final Match Analysis By Jim Stone & Shelton Collier.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Semi-Final Match Analysis By Jim Stone & Shelton Collier."— Presentation transcript:

1 Semi-Final Match Analysis By Jim Stone & Shelton Collier

2 Stanford Box Score Analysis By Jim Stone ATTACKS Barboza (1) – 16% (2) 10% (3) 62% (4) 35% (5) 42% Akinradewo (1) 0% (2) 40% (3) 30% (4) 71% (5) 75% Okogbaa10 attempts –30%

3 Stanford Box Score Analysis By Jim Stone PASS (1)2.26 (2)2.14 (3)2.29 (4)2.50 (5)2.20

4 Stanford Box Score Analysis By Jim Stone FOR THE MATCH: Okogbaa Hit –30% Block – 2 Assist Score – 2.0 Pts.

5 Penn State Box Score Analysis By Shelton Collier Penn State Hitting Efficiency for the season.403 Game 1 and 2 Combined Penn State Hits.400 Game 3 and 4 combined Penn State Hits.200 (season low.103 game 3) Game 3 and 4 Nebraska hits.349 (hit.277 for the season)

6 Penn State Box Score Analysis By Shelton Collier Game 5 Penn State 9 – 1 – (passed 2.5) Nebraska 9 – 4 – (passed 1.7) Key Points in Game 5: Penn State3 point run Point 10:Nebraska attack error Point 11:Nebraska attack error Point 12:Nebraska Aced

7 Penn State Box Score Analysis By Shelton Collier OVERALL: Penn State Sideout Efficiency65% Nebraska Sideout Efficiency60% Ace to Error Ratio: Both teams 3 Aces / 8 Errors

8 Penn State Box Score Analysis By Shelton Collier First Ball Sideout Efficiency Penn State Perfect Pass (47).430 “2” pass (17).060 Nebraska Perfect Pass (20).350 “2” pass (47).230

9 Penn State Box Score Analysis By Shelton Collier Passing Penn State perfect pass (47).430 “2” pass (17).060 Nebraska Perfect Pass (20).350 “2” pass (47).230

10 Penn State Box Score Analysis By Shelton Collier Passing Penn StateNebraska Game 1 Game2 Game 3 Game 4 Game 5

11 How did Nebraska almost Pull it Off!?  Right Side Attack: Mostly to Outside Hitters vs. predominantly Hodge  Made Passers Bend and Served Everyone (no target)  Pipe to Right Back  Center Back Defense vs. Fawcett (32 Digs)  Very few tips / Off speed Lots of high hands Larson/Mueller

12 Stanford Game Plan Strategy  Barboza and Klineman Must hit high/hard off block No short tips over block No passive roll shots  Must have high efficiency attack in the middle (Akinradewo/Okagbaa) Last year’s championship match / 5 games Akinradewo 18 – 1 – Girard 10 – 2 –  Thursday vs. Texas Akinradewo – Okagbaa1 – 4 – Okagbaa first / only kill not until game 4  Great defense, “Nebraska blue collar” work ethic will get Nebraska crowd invested in cheering for/pushing Stanford

13 Stanford Game Plan Strategy  SERVE, HARD, FLAT WITH PACE The high “lollipup” short serve has not been effective all year. Low short serve that drops off; much more effective. Trying to serve Hodge as a primary tactic has not been effective all year. (2.3 vs Nebraska) Nebraska attempted to serve Fawcett. Fawcett passed only 1.8 vs Nebraska. Holehouse and Hodge try to help her taking seams or cutting in front of her. Holehouse 2.4

14 Stanford Game Plan Strategy Key factor last year vs. Penn State in Championship match: Stanford 9 aces / 11 errors: aggressive serving Learn from Nebraska: After down 0-2, Cook says in interview: “we must serve tougher to win” Game 3 Penn State passes 1.9 Stanford: start the match with tougher serving.

15 Conclusion Semi-Final Match Analysis By Jim Stone & Shelton Collier


Download ppt "Semi-Final Match Analysis By Jim Stone & Shelton Collier."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google