Underachievers?

We've lost two matches all year. In both of those matches we've been fairly handicapped in that we've had to play without key players. Whether or not we would have lost those matches with our full lineup is not really the point of this post. All I'm saying is that, so far this season, by the most obvious marker - wins and losses - we've been pretty successful. But, as I read the match reports from all the different teams that we've played this year, it becomes fairly clear that there is a disconnect between our record and our performance on the court. I started thinking about this last weekend when I read this article about our match against Gentofte. When Dickens, the newly retired libero from Aarhus, basically reiterated Peter Borglund's feelings after our match on Saturday I decided I would write about it.

With few exceptions, other teams and impartial observers that I have talked with have been unimpressed with our play on the court. Other teams have expressed a general feeling that they've had the chance to beat us but haven't quite been able to get the job done. In other words, they've been close enough that the match was theirs to win or lose. I won't list all of them here, but if you look at the match reports from our side and opposing teams throughout the season you'll see a lot of discrepancies. Sometimes it's hard to reconcile those differences. History is absolutely influenced by the historian and truth in history does seem to be difficult to achieve...

I can't speak for other teams, there clearly have been matches this year where we were in danger of losing, but I have to ask: how can a team that lost 3-0 call the match close? Can we even put a number on dominance? For example, if one team wins 25-22 and another team wins 25-19 is there a real difference in those two wins? Can a team that loses 25-17, 25-18, 23-25, 25-16 claim that they had all the chances in the world? Is one team better if their record is 15-5 but they're set score is better than another team that finished the season 19-1?

This isn't to pick on Matt, as this is how he felt and that is totally valid. But look at his recollection of their most recent match against us here. The fifth paragraph is especially telling. It was their drop in intensity that allowed us to get back in the match and take over from there. You can imagine that I had a different take on things.

So, to my point. Are we underachieving? Or is this a phenomenon of too high expectations?

In order to be dominant does a team have to blow out every team they play against? I don't think so. I don't think it hurts. But I think that a win is a win. If the number one team in the league beats the last place team in the league 3-2 it is still going to count in the standings. I'm not saying it's a good thing, but I don't necessarily think it is the worst thing in the world. We all know there are teams that tend to play to their opposition's level and clearly in a perfect world this would not happen. But, this is what makes sports interesting isn't it? Are we one of those teams? Maybe. Does that mean we're not as good as we think we are? I don't know. I guess the jury is still out.

A really long, scattered post.

I've been hesitant to write anything about the current situation with our team and the Daniel. I didn't want to comment because in some ways the whole subject is so sensitive. I also, out of respect to Daniel, wanted to wait and hear what he and the club had to say before making any statement of my own. At times like these, I don't know if it is a good or bad thing to have a blog like this one. On one hand, it is nice to have a forum where I can express my feelings and an outlet for all the thoughts that swim around in my head every day, on the other hand, it might not be necessary for others to know how I feel about this.

First thing's first, anything I say about Daniel specifically assumes that the B-sample will also come back positive. Of course, there is always the chance that something got contaminated, but history has proven that this is almost never the case. No matter what I write below, I do believe that Daniel should be punished. I do, however, believe that the punishment should fit the crime and in this case I don't think it does. But I think that will be pretty clear...

Second, I want to state from the beginning that I don't consider this to be a "Doping" case. For me, the term "Doping" connotes someone trying to get a competitive advantage by taking performance enhancing substances. I can't imagine anyone making the argument that this is the case here. Yes, cocaine could hypothetically boost performance in a match, but I just don't buy that someone would choose to use it in this way. It's just not a feasible or believable scenario. No matter what you think about the case, this is the key to everything. Intentionally trying to cheat vs. making a mistake.

So, if it's not "doping", what is it? Well, and I guess this is where I might get in trouble, in my mind it isn't really anything. I think it IS a dumb mistake. And people who claim that it doesn't matter if it was intentional or unintentional - the people who believe rules are rules - are missing the point. I'll be the first to say that anyone who tries to get an advantage on someone else in sports by taking performance enhancing drugs deserves to be punished heavily. However, this is not what happened here. We're not talking about cheating here. We're talking about someone who made a mistake. And as it stands now, someone who is going to pay an incredibly high price for that mistake. There is a HUGE difference between making a mistake and intentionally seeking a chemical advantage. I think we're all paranoid right now because of the prevalence of steroids, human growth hormone and other similar drugs in the sports world. That's why I've been disappointed in the sensational "Doping" headlines that have been flashed across national newspapers and tv screens. It's not right. And it's definitely not "doping".

People have made the argument that it is necessary to protect the integrity of the sports world, that we don't want volleyball to be seen as "dirty". I agree, we don't want that. But how far are we willing to go to uphold that "clean" image? Is it really fair to end someone's career for one mistake?

But, what about the kids? Surely, we don't want to set the wrong example for them, right? True, we don't want to set the wrong example for kids. And no one should make the argument that cocaine is good for you. However, I would argue that it is just as important to show children that there are support systems in place to help them when they make mistakes. Stigmatizing someone and turning your back on them because of one stupid thing that they did is not the way to breed a safe "clean" environment for the future. Yes, sports are about fair play and hard work, but at their best, they are also about teamwork and the way that one player's positive aspects make up for another player's deficiencies. I know that this is an idealistic and perhaps optimistic way of looking at things, but I'm not sure people understand that by casting off our "problem" athletes, we set an example that is just as bad as those that choose to cheat.

Make no mistake, this case is all about societal stigma. It's a matter of what we, as a society, have decided is okay and what is not. Cocaine is attached to all sorts of negative mental images for us. Rightly so. But as far as doping goes, it should not. Is there anyone out there who believes that someone should be given a two year suspension for smoking hash? What about tobacco? What about drinking beer? What about eating French hot dogs? Team Danmark Menu anybody? Cocaine and hash sit right next to each other on the list of banned substances, does that make them equal? Does that make hash equal to HGH or steroids? It's such a pathetic system. We're regulating what our athletes can and can't do in their PRIVATE lives in the name of keeping sports "clean". And I think it's a farce. We do all these things because we want to set a "good" example and the concept just doesn't make sense.

And before people go crazy. No, I don't think that kids should do drugs. No, I don't think it's a good idea for anyone to do drugs. But you know what? I also don't think it's a good idea for people to eat fast food and smoke cigarettes. But they do. It's an ancient argument, but no one has ever satisfactorily argued the case as to why cigarettes, booze and fast food are legal and party drugs are not. What does being an athlete have to do with any of this? When did it become taboo for an athlete to drink a beer and eat a Big Mac? Why can't we teach people to make informed decisions instead of just blacklisting whatever is bad for them?

In order to make all of this more clear, let me explain my understanding of what has happened to Daniel.

1. He made a terrible choice (that clearly did not have anything to do with volleyball) and did something that was against the rules.
2. He got caught.
3. His future as a very good volleyball player has essentially been taken away from him.
4. People feel this is justified as a deterrent/warning to anyone else.

Why is this a good deterrent? The rules were there beforehand and they obviously didn't stop anyone from doing anything in this case. There are numerous current examples of athletes being caught for "doping" and obviously this didn't stop anyone from doing anything. The bottom line is that most people need to experience something for themselves before they can relate to it. People need to think about the extreme nature of the punishment before they judge Daniel. It's not just two years away from the sport. It's two years away from anything physical. No weight lifting. No beach volleyball. Nothing. It's a death sentence for a relatively young career and I can't bring myself to believe that this is justified in any way. It's not about cheating. It's about a mistake. I can't say it enough, a mistake. Yes, a dumb mistake, and a dangerous one at that, but it was not a conscious attempt to cheat. This isn't going to stop anyone from snorting cocaine in the future. If anyone thinks that, they're crazy.

I've always wondered why so called "party" drugs are included in athletic drug testing. It seems to me an unlucky circumstance that they stay in the system longer than other more "accepted" drugs like caffeine, alcohol and tobacco. All of which affect the human system in some way or another, by the way. As was brought to our attention by William on his blog, the metabolites that the body produces to ingest the drug can stay in your system for up to a month. So, why are we testing for those metabolites? Why aren't we testing for the actual drug which stays in your system for 1-3 days? It seems to me that if you want to prevent someone from getting an unfair advantage you'd want to stop them from using the drugs DURING a game - not look as far into their past as possible.

It's funny, this method of testing has actually made the sport look dirtier instead of cleaner. They looked as far as they could into his body history and found something that shouldn't be there. There is absolutely no evidence that he used it to boost his performance. Most indicators point to recreational use, possibly a mistake, possibly the product of someone else slipping something into a drink. But the end result is that the sport looks worse than it did before. For no good reason. The notion, however, that volleyball will be thought of as a "dirty" sport because of this is totally insane. I've played several different sports and I've experienced lots of negatives/positives in each. Just because someone tested positive for a drug doesn't really change my feelings about that sport. Any parent who would be afraid to let their child go to KIDSvolley because of this is daft.

I have another major problem with the system. Why was this made public? Why are we looking for bad publicity for volleyball and adding to the embarrassment of a semi-amateur athlete? I don't understand it. Daniel doesn't make a living from playing volleyball. Why is he being judged as if he does?

Okay, after all that. I'm not afraid to say that I'm possibly more angry with Daniel than almost anyone else. If for nothing else, our team needs him, and he let us down. But, he has apologized and he's taken the negative attention and the punishment like a man. He should be suspended and there should be major consequences. But, two years, essentially ending his career isn't acceptable. It's not an acceptable signal to send to our youth. One strike and you're out isn't right. And I don't know where the line is, three months, six months, maybe a year... Set up a time frame that allows for counseling or whatever else is necessary but let him come back and show that you can make an error and still be productive afterwards. If he tests positive again then he has shown contempt for the sport and for everyone who participates in it, including himself and obviously would deserve a more substantial punishment. But the first positive test does not warrant such a strong response.

The point is that we should be supporting and not blacklisting. We all have an interest in making sure our athletes are clean, but we also have an interest in helping them when they can't live up to our expectations. Athletes are only human and they don't deserve to be treated as examples.

New School/Old School!

I thought I would pass along a few things I found interesting:

I don't know if anyone out there would find this interesting, but for comparison's sake, there are some good quality videos from the boys "18 and Under" level at the most recent US national championships at a site called: www.middlehitter.com. There is a bar running across the top of the page and in the sub-menu under "Video" there is a listing for USAV Junior. Click on 2007 JO Open Championship and let the video load.

Admittedly, these are some of the best players in the country, but I think it is worth a look if there is anyone out there wondering what the difference in level is between Danish/European youth players/teams and those that come from the American system. I understand there are differences in why/how much/how youth sports are built up in the US and Europe, but it might be interesting for some out there to see what kind of level these kids are playing at. I personally think it is pretty impressive. It's also interesting to see the different styles of play. The orange team is from St. Louis (A team from the middle of the country) and they play a more typical, international style. Faster offense, more big, physical players and strong jump serves. The team in white is from the Pacific Palisades (A west coast team close to Malibu that I actually played for a long time ago when I was 16) they play a little bit more relaxed, slower tempo, smaller more ball control oriented players with a better feel for the game. In the US, the west coast has long dominated the volleyball scene, but, in recent years, the balance of power has slowly been shifting. I'm not sure, but this has to be one of the first times that a team from "back east" has won a Junior Olympic national volleyball championship.

I understand this may not interest everyone who reads this blog, but it interests me...

The other thing that I found FASCINATING was a little higher up on the video list, under the FIVB heading. 1981 Cuba vs. USA in the Canada Cup. Download the big file if you can, about 260mb but it is a complete set.

I don't really know how to feel about seeing something like this. I'm not sure if modern volleyball is even the same game anymore. It's just a whole different sport. If you don't feel like watching it on your own, I'll run you through some of the things I thought about while watching, in bullet form:

- It wasn't just Cuba that ran combinations on every play. The US did it also. Was the opposite just not that good/important back then?

-Could they run combinations on every play because they didn't know how to jump serve yet?
-But, then again, the middles were also passing at this point, so they couldn't expect perfect passing all the time right...right?
-Even if they weren't jump serving, those hook/windmill float serves look pretty nasty...

-With a really good hitter, is it better to just set high balls to the outside? The Cubans seemed pretty effective with their outsides.

-Didn't we switch to the colored ball because it was easier to see for the referees to call bad sets and for people watching on television to be able to see the ball? Well, it is easier to see the white ball than the colored ball, and since international referees pretty much don't ever call a bad set anymore, why did we switch?

-If you watch long enough, you'll see Tim Hovland standing in the US huddle during a timeout with an actual glass of water. Not plastic and not a bottle, but an actual glass of water which he then hands to the trainer to be cleaned after the time out.

-The tempo of the game is quicker. I don't mean the volleyball, I mean the time in between plays is shorter. Players run back to the service line and serve quickly. As a result, the game moves faster for the fans watching.

-Everyone plays defense. I miss this aspect of the game.

-I'd give a substantial amount of money to get one of those long sleeved, red, Cuba jerseys. Those things are nice!

-Somehow, I get the sense that these teams were more willing to experiment, and more able to make adjustments on the fly during the game. One of the outside hitters makes a dig on a shirt tip in position 2/3 area and can't get back outside to hit. So, the setter just sets the back row C to one of the middles who crushes it. I feel like in today's game the opposite is such a bigger factor, they hit so many garbage balls out of the back and front row that it effectively kill the creativity showcased by that one play. Not saying it's a bad thing, I just think it is interesting to see how much the opposite position has developed over the years.

-Is it just me, or do most of the Cubans look like Castro?

In any case, I was 1 year old when this match was played. I'm taken aback by the changes in the game during my lifetime. I'm not sure you could argue any other sport has developed as much in that time period...

And yes, that is Tom Selleck (#14) on the left side of that picture.

Ugh.

God that was a great Superbowl. Wasn't it? One transcendent play, lots of tension, an underdog coming back to win, it almost lived up to all the hype. It's just so much fun to watch sports when games are like that. Honestly, and this is a crazy thing to say considering the way he is regarded, but Bill Belichick choked. He turned into Marty Schottenheimer in the game that could have cemented him and his team as the greatest of all time. They got conservative when they had been playing wide open and aggressive all year long. And it cost them.

Besides feeling slightly obligated to write something about the Superbowl, I kind of needed some filler to beef up this match report from ASV. And normally, I try not to be too critical of the teams that we play against. In this case, I feel it's justified to say that ASV was horrible. When two teams step onto a court against one another, they enter into a kind of contract. They both pledge to do whatever they can to win the game and compete. On Sunday, ASV didn't fulfill their end of the bargain.

It's weird because, out of all the teams we've played against this year, ASV has had the most drastic fluctuation in their level of play. Earlier in the year, they looked like a team headed in the right direction. Sunday they played the worst match I've seen in recent memory. Yes, they were dealing with one starter who was out of place, but that does not excuse the absolute lack of emotion, effort or intensity that they brought into our gym. It was slightly embarrassing, and to borrow a thought from recent debate (a debate some might say is still ongoing) - I'm extremely glad that there were no television cameras anywhere near Marienlyst for this one. Airing this match on tv would set Danish volleyball back about twenty years. You could hear people in the stands having conversations from the court.

We played well, but were hardly pressed in any part of the game. All of our players played a substantial amount and as the scores indicate were equally successful in what they did. We've got a nice stretch of home (and close to home) games coming up which we can hopefully use to establish ourselves as the definite first seed heading into the playoffs. It's really important to generate some momentum for the end of the season, especially with Aalborg playing very well and Aarhus also improving. This Friday's game between the two is going to be exciting to follow. If Aarhus loses that one at home, I can't imagine them being able to get it together in time to make it to the playoffs.

Speaking of Aarhus, I watched their Saturday match on Gentofte's new webcam. I think it's an extremely exciting feature and the quality is good enough to follow the action. I might be a huge nerd, but by keeping my own score on a piece of paper I was able to enjoy the game a lot more. It's funny how much knowing the score and the context of each point makes a difference for watching a game. Anyways, thanks to Gentofte for offering the service, it would be great if there were a few more clubs that could set something up like this.

Big match for us this weekend, maybe the last time we see Middelfart this year...