Matching scores, different endings
The last two sets in Bari carried identical scores: 26-24 and 26-24. Conegliano had lost the opener to Scandicci 23-25 and answered 25-18 before winning both extended sets to take the Supercup. Finding the two-point margin became the final’s immediate test. Scandicci reached 24-24 in each of those sets. Each time, Conegliano took the next two points. Those short closing sequences give the 3-1 result its particular shape.[1]
Scandicci led 13-11 in the third before Conegliano drew level. The teams later reached 23-23 and 24-24. Gabi supplied an attacking point, then a Van Ryk error ended the set. In the fourth, Conegliano’s 22-19 advantage disappeared. Scandicci returned to 22-22, then 23-23 and 24-24; Haak scored the next point and Conegliano completed another 26-24 finish. An opponent’s error formed part of one closing sequence, while Haak’s attack opened the final two-point passage in the other. The matching scores contained different routes to points.[1]
From reception to the last contact
Scandicci held the reception advantage in the match totals: positive reception was 70 percent against 53 percent, and perfect reception 39 percent against 29 percent. That gives the first contact real value. Yet Conegliano led attack success, 51 percent to 43 percent. Different teams led at the two ends of the reception-to-attack chain. My reading of this final is that the opportunity created by the first contact still has to be converted at the last one. A good ball to the setter leaves an attacking task to complete.[1]
Conegliano also led blocks 12-7, while Scandicci served more aces. Those totals distribute the match across several contacts. Scandicci had advantages in serving and reception; Conegliano answered in attack and at the net. Closing a set involves both completing an attack and confronting the opponent’s finishing options with the block. Assigning the entire attacking gap to the quality of setting would require following the connected contacts within individual rallies, beyond these match totals. Haak’s finishing and the matchups against the opposing block may also account for the attacking gap; the match totals leave both possibilities open.[1]
The work behind the points
Haak scored 28 and received the MVP award, with Van Ryk contributing 27 on the other side. Aleksić supplied 17 for Scandicci, including five blocks. Zhu Ting scored 17 and Fahr 14 for Conegliano. The contributions came from several positions, even with Haak carrying a prominent share of the scoring. Van Ryk’s total also reflects the opposition’s sustained response. Reaching 24-24 in both closing sets gave Scandicci a concrete foothold in the final long after winning the opening set.[1]
Conegliano leave with the trophy; Scandicci have those two passages from 24-24 to examine. Keeping the reception advantage productive means considering the chosen attacking option and the opposing block within the same rally. The third set’s Gabi point and opponent error, and the fourth set’s passage through Haak, offer two different starting points for that work. In Bari, the margin became concrete in consecutive points after deuce rather than in an uninterrupted stretch of control.[1]