My guess is that most Pitt fans watching the match couldn't help but notice that Louisville served (as Fisher described in the post-game interview) "short" much of the time. In particular, Louper. I couldn't believe that Louisville won a very high % of her serves, when they had very little pace and I don't think they typically passed the 10' line. The majority of the serves seemed to be directed at Klicka who handed them easily...so I kept going nuts as to why Pitt, on so many occasions, couldn't get an easy set and a kill by one of the pins.
I was glad to hear when Fisher referenced this in his interview --- he said they just weren't really prepared for it. Many of the sets on Louper's serves went to our MBs, but while Kelley was great all night, not so much for Jones, at least on offense. The low serves also caused Klicka (or whoever the receiver was) to get very low and inhibited their ability to maximize timing/coordination with hitters with a higher set. Also, I think the short serves to the middle of the floor gave Louisville's blockers a better sense of where the set and kill attempt would come from. I noticed that Pitt adjusted a bit at the end, by setting wide instead of to a middle.
My guess is that the number of Louisville short serves was no accident --- rather, the result of a lot of film work and a shot at a different strategy to change things up on Pitt.
