Hi Breck. I hope life is treating you well. Enjoyable article - I like your polosiphising! You know I always agreed with Dante that motion is what makes a game exciting, and as you mention way back in the day, the game was much more counter-attack based and encouraged lots of movement.
question: how do you think a change like this would change how teams are constructed at the international level? Does this boost or reduce the importance of the center position? would the US be better off or does the shooting of the top european sides still make up a huge difference?
This is an interesting question, and I will say I don't have definitive answer for it. I do think that, at the international level, a lot would depend on how quickly teams adapted their tactics for the changes. You can see a similar thing occurring right now at the international level with the 2m box; some teams have quickly adapted their style to it and are playing with it in mind while others haven't seen it as that big an advantage or change and haven't really altered their tactics all that much.
Generally, I think things like center play would still be prioritized at the international level even with the changes I've suggested in this article because of how valuable the exclusion at center is and how the game is officiated to prioritize that play as well. However, I do think more time would allow for more things like matchup hunting and mobile center play that would possibly make the position more interesting and varied than the brute force wrestling match that exists now.
I mention it briefly in the article, but I think (rather strongly) that a game that includes motion doesn't detract from the need for vertical shooting and can actually compliment that style due to the opening of space and shooting lanes. In terms of technical ability in both the vertical and horizontal, I think most European professionals are superior to almost all American players. However, I also think that the USA isn't developing the same type of athlete as most European countries are and rule changes and an increase in motion in the game could expand the skills that allow players to excel at the international level.
Currently, the selection process for the USMNT favors size and vertical shooting because we are desperately attempting to emulate that style and play in the way the (mostly European) international officials call the game. In my experience in ODP, I felt that these priorities left some of our best athletes or most exciting players on the outside because they didn't fit the mold of what our current staff was selecting for.
Likewise, I think there is a larger disconnect between how the game is played at the age group level in the US and how it is played elsewhere in the world because of the high school athletic system and the priority of college as the end goal to a players water polo career. What wins at those levels isn't necessarily what currently wins at the international level. Perhaps, a game that is more varied tactically would allow for the development of a tactical system at the national team level that is more closely aligned with those at the age group level.
Those are my quick thoughts and responses to your questions, and I think there's more to discuss about a lot of them. Thanks o much for asking and I look forward to hearing any thoughts you have.
Outstanding take. Have been a proponent of longer clocks or shorter courses for a long time. International and pro at 30m just leads to very hard to watch games. Bring that down to lower levels and it’s that much worse. HS and younger being at shorter courses with more time - I think it would really help our sport development and allow for more creativity in the sport and ultimately be a better product for spectators.
great call, at lower level I find that shorter courses make the game so much more enjoyable and dynamic. In addition to time & space, there's the exhaustion factor, I don't think it matters that much in basketball but it matters in swimming.
Absolutely! What you label the "exhaustion factor" is a big reason so much of youth practices are eaten up by boring and repetitive lap swimming and conditioning. We have to have kids ping yardage just so they can hope to play the game, another factor that really inhibits the enjoyment of the sport for youth athletes.
Hi Breck! Great read. One thing to note about space in Water Polo when attempting to compare to basketball (I'm not sure about how Lacrosse resets after-goal, as one of the other shot-clock sports mentioned) is where the ball resets after-goal. Since Basketball starts the ball out of bounds under the scored basket, then starting at half tank for Polo should be reanalyzed. For the sake of this argument, and with the new 2 meter area, I would rather see the ball be "live" after scored goals with no defending player allowed inside that new 2 meter area. This would preserve goalie protection and encourage quicker movement. Beach Polo is an aggressive version of this idea. There would also now be an exciting "recovery" aspect when teams are up on fast breaks. Just a thought... maybe you mentioned this is your article and I skimmed and missed it. Anywho, awesome read. I appreciate the time spent to work on ways to better the game!
Really enjoyed your take on things and appreciate the comparisons to other sports and how it translates to water polo! Thanks Breck!
I think comparisons to other more popular sports is a great way to consider the future of our game. Thank you so much for reading!
Hi Breck. I hope life is treating you well. Enjoyable article - I like your polosiphising! You know I always agreed with Dante that motion is what makes a game exciting, and as you mention way back in the day, the game was much more counter-attack based and encouraged lots of movement.
love your writing as always
question: how do you think a change like this would change how teams are constructed at the international level? Does this boost or reduce the importance of the center position? would the US be better off or does the shooting of the top european sides still make up a huge difference?
This is an interesting question, and I will say I don't have definitive answer for it. I do think that, at the international level, a lot would depend on how quickly teams adapted their tactics for the changes. You can see a similar thing occurring right now at the international level with the 2m box; some teams have quickly adapted their style to it and are playing with it in mind while others haven't seen it as that big an advantage or change and haven't really altered their tactics all that much.
Generally, I think things like center play would still be prioritized at the international level even with the changes I've suggested in this article because of how valuable the exclusion at center is and how the game is officiated to prioritize that play as well. However, I do think more time would allow for more things like matchup hunting and mobile center play that would possibly make the position more interesting and varied than the brute force wrestling match that exists now.
I mention it briefly in the article, but I think (rather strongly) that a game that includes motion doesn't detract from the need for vertical shooting and can actually compliment that style due to the opening of space and shooting lanes. In terms of technical ability in both the vertical and horizontal, I think most European professionals are superior to almost all American players. However, I also think that the USA isn't developing the same type of athlete as most European countries are and rule changes and an increase in motion in the game could expand the skills that allow players to excel at the international level.
Currently, the selection process for the USMNT favors size and vertical shooting because we are desperately attempting to emulate that style and play in the way the (mostly European) international officials call the game. In my experience in ODP, I felt that these priorities left some of our best athletes or most exciting players on the outside because they didn't fit the mold of what our current staff was selecting for.
Likewise, I think there is a larger disconnect between how the game is played at the age group level in the US and how it is played elsewhere in the world because of the high school athletic system and the priority of college as the end goal to a players water polo career. What wins at those levels isn't necessarily what currently wins at the international level. Perhaps, a game that is more varied tactically would allow for the development of a tactical system at the national team level that is more closely aligned with those at the age group level.
Those are my quick thoughts and responses to your questions, and I think there's more to discuss about a lot of them. Thanks o much for asking and I look forward to hearing any thoughts you have.
Outstanding take. Have been a proponent of longer clocks or shorter courses for a long time. International and pro at 30m just leads to very hard to watch games. Bring that down to lower levels and it’s that much worse. HS and younger being at shorter courses with more time - I think it would really help our sport development and allow for more creativity in the sport and ultimately be a better product for spectators.
great call, at lower level I find that shorter courses make the game so much more enjoyable and dynamic. In addition to time & space, there's the exhaustion factor, I don't think it matters that much in basketball but it matters in swimming.
Absolutely! What you label the "exhaustion factor" is a big reason so much of youth practices are eaten up by boring and repetitive lap swimming and conditioning. We have to have kids ping yardage just so they can hope to play the game, another factor that really inhibits the enjoyment of the sport for youth athletes.
You're onto something Breck! (could be valuable for veterans like me too 👴🏻)
*pound
Hi Breck! Great read. One thing to note about space in Water Polo when attempting to compare to basketball (I'm not sure about how Lacrosse resets after-goal, as one of the other shot-clock sports mentioned) is where the ball resets after-goal. Since Basketball starts the ball out of bounds under the scored basket, then starting at half tank for Polo should be reanalyzed. For the sake of this argument, and with the new 2 meter area, I would rather see the ball be "live" after scored goals with no defending player allowed inside that new 2 meter area. This would preserve goalie protection and encourage quicker movement. Beach Polo is an aggressive version of this idea. There would also now be an exciting "recovery" aspect when teams are up on fast breaks. Just a thought... maybe you mentioned this is your article and I skimmed and missed it. Anywho, awesome read. I appreciate the time spent to work on ways to better the game!