Regional Tournament

CK123

New member
Watterson played the match they needed to beat St. Charles. Wattersonss coach made the right adjustments and motivated his team every step of the way.
St. Charles had the momentum going into the 5th set, actually won the coin flip and chose to receive, which was a bad coaching choice. Why would you just give another team back the momentum? It sure paid off for Watterson as they took an early lead and never gave it up.

Fitzwell, I agree with you
I was sitting close to the court on the players side and I feel sad for the St. Charles players who never got any words of encouragement from their coach.

I think you may be a bit confused regarding serve/receive choices. Without knowing the specifics, teams generally sideout more than 50% of the time. For rally scoring, it's most times beneficial to be receiving.
 

Fitzwell

New member
I think you may be a bit confused regarding serve/receive choices. Without knowing the specifics, teams generally sideout more than 50% of the time. For rally scoring, it's most times beneficial to be receiving.
St Charles was a very shaky serving team so the decision is not too far out there. I have followed high school volleyball for a few years. St Charles has had some talent over the years, but they were usually club kids. Have the Grubers actually developed any players? From the few games that I have seen, I think their Libero coached the last two years and Lancia/McLane coached this year. Gruber has to be the most over-rated coach h out there. Close second to Vicki from Westerville South who still couldn't win with that talented core and then killed the program.
 

adselder09

Well-known member
Full Results
Friday, May 24:

Division 1 East #1 Regional Final
#1 Hilliard Darby def. #6 Dublin Coffman 25-19, 6-25, 25-13, 25-21

Division 1 East #2 Regional Final
#2 Mt Vernon def. #4 Dublin Jerome 25-23, 25-23, 27-25

Division 2 East Regional Final
#2 Bishop Watterson def. #1 St Charles 25-21, 25-21, 14-25, 20-25, 15-10

Saturday, May 25:

Division 1 North #1 Regional Final
#1 St Ignatius def. #5 Medina 25-7, 25-7, 25-9

Division 1 North #2 Regional Final
#2 Jackson def. #3 Hudson 25-21, 25-20, 13-25, 25-23

Division 2 North Regional Final
#1 Walsh Jesuit def. #2 Archbishop Hoban 25-19, 25-16, 15-25, 25-21

Division 1 West #1 Regional Final
#1 Lakota East def. #3 Northmont 25-19, 25-19, 25-14

Division 1 West #2 Regional Final
#2 Beavercreek def. #4 Kettering Fairmont 25-10, 25-16, 25-21

Division 2 West Regional Final
#3 Archbishop Alter def. #1 Bishop Fenwick 25-23, 29-27, 25-16

Division 1 South #1 Regional Final
#1 St Xavier def. #4 Mason 25-20, 25-22, 25-11

Division 1 South #2 Regional Final
#2 Archbishop Moeller def. #3 Elder 25-17, 19-25, 25-15, 25-18

Division 2 South Regional Final
#1 LaSalle def. #2 Badin 25-20, 18-25, 25-22, 25-18
 

RippenAces

New member
I think you may be a bit confused regarding serve/receive choices. Without knowing the specifics, teams generally sideout more than 50% of the time. For rally scoring, it's most times beneficial to be receiving.
CK123
Not confused at all.
St Charles was serving bad in sets 1 and 2 and I could see going into receive in the 5th if that continued to be the case. They started serving better in 3, which they won. They were down 5 or so points in set 4 and stormed right past Watterson, with good serves while hitting good serving locations. I would have to take Serve in the 5th and keep that Momentum from set 3 and 4.
In the 5th set, if you side them out after 1st serve you still have to make serves or you give it right back.
 
Last edited:

Falcon11

Member
St Charles was a very shaky serving team so the decision is not too far out there. I have followed high school volleyball for a few years. St Charles has had some talent over the years, but they were usually club kids. Have the Grubers actually developed any players? From the few games that I have seen, I think their Libero coached the last two years and Lancia/McLane coached this year. Gruber has to be the most over-rated coach h out there. Close second to Vicki from Westerville South who still couldn't win with that talented core and then killed the program.
Yikes :dang:

Hate to see coaches getting called out like that - most coaches are putting a ton of time in - and maybe you didn't see development at St Charles, but didn't Gruber kind of put them back on the map? They still had a great year, as well.

I don't know as much about the West. South coach, but I did find it strange how the program dried up like that. Very sad.
 

OhioBVB

New member
Yikes :dang:

Hate to see coaches getting called out like that - most coaches are putting a ton of time in - and maybe you didn't see development at St Charles, but didn't Gruber kind of put them back on the map? They still had a great year, as well.

I don't know as much about the West. South coach, but I did find it strange how the program dried up like that. Very sad.
Unfortunately, I have heard the same with regards to the St Charles program. I found it very surprising, but each person has their own opinion of the state of affairs.

To be fair with South, they had 4 very good club players on that team who all graduated 2 years ago. Hard to replace that. Likewise, some of it falls on the players to leave the program in a better spot than they found it.
 

CK123

New member
Unfortunately, I have heard the same with regards to the St Charles program. I found it very surprising, but each person has their own opinion of the state of affairs.

What have you heard about the "surprising, unfortunate state of affairs" with the St. Charles program?

I'm a bit confused about what people are inferring here. First, it sounded like "it's a shame the players have coaches that doesn't want to win and won't coach/encourage them" and questioning the choice of serve/receive, and now you're making it seem like something else.

What is going on?
 

OhioBVB

New member
What have you heard about the "surprising, unfortunate state of affairs" with the St. Charles program?

I'm a bit confused about what people are inferring here. First, it sounded like "it's a shame the players have coaches that doesn't want to win and won't coach/encourage them" and questioning the choice of serve/receive, and now you're making it seem like something else.

What is going on?
Simply stating I had heard the same with regards to St Charles program. If you sign up to coach, you should coach.
 

CK123

New member
Simply stating I had heard the same with regards to St Charles program. If you sign up to coach, you should coach.
So they aren't having/cancelling practices? Aren't teaching players the game? Not getting kids involved in the program?

What are these comments stemming from? It's pretty significant to publically call out high school coaches.

As someone else said, most of these coaches are putting in significant hours for the program. If there are lack of practice times, not showing up, and lack of younger players in the program, those are definitely major concerns and worthy of criticism (albeit may not be best on a public forum).
 
.
Top