Offensive Scoring in Elite Women's Beach Volleyball: An Analysis of Zone Usage in the Olympic Games

Action sequence studies have been used to identify tactical patterns and develop sport-specific training programs in a variety of sports.  In beach volleyball the practice is relatively new but is becoming one of the most reliable sources of information concerning the training and competitive demands of the sport.

The aim of this research was to identify the areas of the court used by the offense to score in women's beach volleyball.  The dynamics of the game, its players and other situational factors preclude drawing conclusions applicable across all levels of play.  However, it is expected that knowledge of offensive zone usage can be useful to develop physical training, strategic, and tactical plans for beach volleyball teams competing at the elite level studied.  The data may provide similar guidance for collegiate and junior national levels of development as well.

Methods and Protocol

We compiled data by observing video of a total of 51 matches (94.444%), comprising 123 (94.615%) sets in the 2012 Summer Olympic Women's Beach Volleyball Tournament.  Each team was observed playing at least 2 matches and 4 sets.  A total of 2,601 kills were observed of which 2,370 (91.118%) were recorded by zone in the court according to Figure 1.

Figure 1:  Zone Identification.

Zone 1	Zone 6	Zone 5
Zone 2	Zone 3	Zone 4

A kill was assigned a zone when the ball (1) landed untouched in the specified zone of the court; (2) rebounded off the block and landed in a specified zone of the court; and (3) rebounded off a defensive player in a specified zone in the court and landed out of bounds.  Each kill in a zone was viewed at least twice to ensure accurate zone assignment.  Multiple angles (when available), slow motion replay and frame-by-frame analysis were used to enhance the accuracy of the zones assigned to each kill.

A total of 8.881% (n=231) of observed kills were excluded from zone assignment.  Excluded kills were of four types:  (a) kills in an indeterminant zone (n=72), (b) kills that rebounded off a block and landed outside of the court or hit an antennae (n=142), (c) kills for which a blocking error resulted in a kill being awarded to the opposing team, and (d) kills for which a ball handling error by a non-blocking defensive player resulted in a kill being awarded to the offensive team (n=17) ((c) and (d)).

Participants

Players whose performances were analyzed were 48 female beach volleyball players, comprising 24 beach volleyball doubles teams.  All players were members of their respective national teams representing 17 different countries.  The average player age on the first day of the Olympic tournament was 27.187 years old.  Players averaged 178.979cm/70.479 inches in height and 68.520kg/151.062lbs in weight.[1]

Results

Overall, players used each zone to score offensively according to the percentage distribution shown in Figure 2.  The data includes all observed kills, except excluded kills, whether accomplished on the first ball received by a team in service reception or by either team in transition.  Players scored in Zone 1 = 20.843%, in Zone 2 = 18.691%, in Zone 3 = 6.329%, in Zone 4 = 15.991%, in Zone 5 = 25.021% and in Zone 6 = 13.122%. 

Figure 2:  Zone usage for all offensive kills in Serve Receive and Transition

20.84%	13.12%	25.02%
18.69%	6.33%	15.99%

Zone 1 - 20.843% (n=494)
Zone 2 - 18.691% (n=443)
Zone 3 - 6.329% (n=150)
Zone 4 - 15.991% (n=379)
Zone 5 - 25.021% (n=595)
Zone 6 - 13.122% (n=311)
 
To determine whether zones were used to score differently in serve receive[2] and in transition[3], we further analyzed all kills according to the phase of play in which the kills were earned.  Zone usage by kill in serve receive and in transition is shown in Figures 3 and 4 respectively.

In the serve receive offense, players scored in Zone 1 = 21.506%, in Zone 2 = 19.124%, in Zone 3 = 5.602%, in Zone 4 = 16.806%, in Zone 5 = 24.919% and in Zone 6 = 12.041%.

In the transition offense, players scored in Zone 1 = 19.683%, in Zone 2 = 17.870%, in Zone 3 = 7.711%, in Zone 4 = 14.443%, in Zone 5 = 25.214% and in Zone 6 = 15.177%.

Figure 3:  Zone usage for all assigned kills in the serve receive offense.

21.51%	12.04%	24.92%
19.12%	5.60%	16.81%

Zone 1 - 21.506% (n=334)
Zone 2 - 19.124% (n=297)
Zone 3 - 5.602% (n=87)
Zone 4 - 16.806 (n=261)
Zone 5 - 24.919 (n=387)
Zone 6 - 12.041 (n=187)

Figure 4:  Zone usage for all assigned kills in the transition offense.

19.68%	15.18%	25.21%
17.87%	7.71%	14.44%

Zone 1 - 19.683% (n=160)
Zone 2 - 17.870% (n= 146)
Zone 3 - 7.711% (n=63)
Zone 4 - 14.443% (n=118)
Zone 5 - 25.214% (n=206)
Zone 6 - 15.177% (n=124)

Lastly, we analyzed the data to determine whether significant differences existed in the collective use of adjacent zones of the court to score offensively.  In particular, we sought to determine whether the front zones or back zones were used more often to score and whether the left-side, right-side or middle vertical zones were used significantly differently from each other in offensive scoring. 

As indicated in Figure 5, players used the backcourt zones to score at a rate 58.987% and used the frontcourt zones at a rate of 41.012% overall.  The backcourt scoring predominance held in both serve receive and transition offenses.  Backcourt scoring in serve receive = 58.467% (n=908) and in transition = 59.975% (n=490) while front court scoring in serve receive = 41.532% (n=645) and in transition = 41.532% (n=327). 

Figure 5:  Zone usage by horizontal grouped zones.

58.99%

41.01%

Zones 1, 5 and 6 (backcourt) - 58.987% (n=1398)
Zones 2, 3 and 4 (frontcourt) - 41.012% (n=972)

As indicated in Figure 6, players utilized the middle of the court significantly less to score than either the left or right side overall. Left-side zones were used to score at a rate of 41.012%; right-side zones were used to score at a rate of 39.535%; and the middle zones were used to score at a rate of only 19.451%.  The relative frequency of zone usage remained constant in both serve receive and transition.  However, there was a slight increase (+3.437) in the use of the middle zones (Zones 3-6) with a corresponding decrease (-2.081) in the use of the right-side zones (Zones 2-1) in transition when compared to the overall offense.

Left-side scoring in serve receive = 41.725% (n=648) and in transition = 39.657% (n=324); middle zone scoring in serve receive = 17.643% (n=274) and in transition = 22.888% (n=187); and right-side scoring in serve receive = 40.631% (n=631) and in transition = 37.454% (n=306).

Figure 6:  Zone usage by vertical grouped zones.

39.54%

19.45%

41.02%

Zones 4-5 - 41.012% (n=972)
Zones 3-6 - 19.451% (n=461)
Zones 2-1 - 39.535% (n=937)

Discussion

Offensive Scoring by Zone

The data indicate some significant differences among zone usage in women's beach volleyball.  Players scored most frequently in Zone 5, at a rate of 25.021% (n=593) and scored least frequently in Zone 3, at a rate of only 6.329% (n=150).  Percent distributions remained constant for both the serve receive and transition phases of the offense.

The data indicate that Zone 3 is not used to a significant degree to score offensively in women's beach volleyball.

Zones 1 and 2 ranked 2nd and 3rd respectively in overall percentage distribution with just a 2% difference between them.  Although the right-side zones are ranked relatively high in overall usage, it does not appear that women predominantly used the right side of the court to score offensively overall.  Comparing the left and right sides of the court, the data indicate a slight scoring preference for the left-side of the court (Zones 4-5), but the statistical difference is negligible and the preference can be seen as a product of Zone 5's predominance over all others.

Completing the statistical rankings, Zones 4 and 6 were the fourth and fifth most used zones to score overall with just a 2.869% difference in their overall usage.  Their relative positions remained the same in serve receive but switched for transition scoring.

Figure 7: Serve Receive and Transition Kills by Zone.



Offensive Scoring - Frontcourt v. Backcourt

The data indicate that offensive scoring in elite women's beach volleyball is predominantly accomplished in the back three zones of the court.[4]  Backcourt kills exceeded frontcourt kills by nearly 18% overall.  These findings suggest possible strategic and training considerations for beach volleyball athletes and coaches.  Further research is recommended for collegiate and junior national levels of development where differences in the size, strength and experience of athletes may suggest alternative strategic and training needs. 

Zone Usage in Serve Receive and Transition

There was remarkable consistency among the zones used to score by players in serve receive and in transition.  In both phases of the game, players used Zone 5 to score most often and least often used Zone 3.  Zones 1 and 2 also saw no change in terms of their relative frequency of use in the serve receive and transition phases.  We identified only one change in relative frequency of use in serve receive and transition.  By percentage, teams used Zone 4 more often than Zone 6 to score in serve receive but used Zone 6 more often than Zone 4 to score in transition.  In fact, not only was Zone 6 used slightly more frequently in transition (15.177%) than serve receive (12.041%), it also experienced a greater percentage change than any other zone when making this comparison (+3.136%).

Figure 8:  Comparison of Serve Receive Kills v. Transition Kills by Zone.

 
 
Interesting, we found no evidence to confirm a prediction one might make about transition offenses in beach volleyball.  We might have predicted different zone usages for scoring in transition compared to serve receive based on an assumption that teams in transition are "in system" less frequently than are teams in serve receive.  But the data do not confirm such a result.  Whether the zone usage consistency between serve receive and transition is a product of our question (zone scoring versus zone attempts) or of other factors (e.g., relative quality of service reception and digs, transition setting, opponent blocking tendencies) should be the subject of further research.

Offensive Scoring - First Ball v. Transition

The results of this study indicate that women's beach volleyball is an offensive "first-ball-sideout" game rather than one in which scoring most often occurs in transition.  Kills in serve receive exceeded kills scored in transition by nearly 2:1.  Among 2,370 recorded kills, 65.527% (n=1,553) were scored on the first offensive play by the receiving team following the serve and 34.472% (n=817) were scored in transition - by either team.  Offensive kills in serve receive exceeded kills in transition in 49 out of 51 or 96.078% of all matches observed suggesting the amount of training that should be dedicated to this aspect of the game.

Figure 9:  Kills in Serve Receive and Transition as Percentage of Total Kills.



The relative frequency of scoring in serve receive and concomitantly fewer transition points also has implications for the physical work load demands of beach volleyball.  Fewer rallies translates into shorter plays, more "down-time" and smaller workloads.  Physical training programs should reflect these realities of the game and coaches should analyze action sequences to determine the training needs of their players.  For less than elite levels of development the data indicate performance standards for success at elite levels of play.     

Conclusion

The present study provides researchers, coaches and athletes information concerning the offensive use of various zones of the court in elite women's beach volleyball.  Information obtained from the study of action sequences in beach volleyball is valuable for designing optimal training programs and practices.  Action sequence analysis also assists in the identification of tactical patterns and the development of counter-strategies in competition.  While data compiled for this study is drawn from the Olympic level of women's beach volleyball, the results of this study have implications beyond elite levels of play.  The present research will undoubtedly be improved upon and expanded by future studies designed to improve our understanding of the nature, tactics, skills, physical demands and strategies of the evolving game of beach volleyball.    

NOTES:

[1]  For purposes of this study, we define serve receive as the offensive phase in which the receiving team executes its offense on the first ball received from the serving team.

[2]  For purposes of this study, we define transition to mean any phase of play after the first attack of the first ball received by a team in serve receive.

[3]  Age, height and weight data for each player was retrieved from http://www.london2012.com/beach-volleyball/athletes/event=beach-volleyball-women/index.html.

[4]  While we are aware of Chinchilla-Mira's research on gender differences in zone usages, we are unable to compare results as that study reports zone use by percentage of total offensive plays, including service and attack errors, without reporting the actual number of offensive plays or kills by zone.  Chinchilla Mira, J. J., Pérez Turpin, J. A., Martínez Carbonell, J. A., & Jove Tossi, M. (2012). Offensive zones in beach volleyball: differences by gender.  Journal Human Sport & Exercise, 7:3, 727-732.

The Impact of Serving Methods and Tactics in Disrupting Reception in Professional Beach Volleyball

Introduction

As the sport of beach volleyball continues to evolve players and coaches increasingly are turning to data analytics to measure the change.  Analytics provide the most reliable evidence of how the game is played and where it tends to be going.  For more than a decade sports scientists have analyzed data to identify the most often used and effectively employed serving techniques, tactical considerations according to time in the game, and serving speeds and locations most closely associated with inducing suboptimal reception.  Here we review the most recent research on serving techniques and tactics and their impact on the quality of reception in beach volleyball.

Research published in the Montenegrin Journal of Sports Science and Medicine analyzed whether the manner of executing the serve and the zone to which the serve is directed impacts the quality of reception in men’s professional beach volleyball.[1]

Methods

Analysis was made of 5,161 receptions by 91 players from 23 countries competing throughout 84 matches (179 sets) contested among the top 30 ranked teams on the FIVB World Tour.  Serves were analyzed for their targeted location by dividing the reception court into 10 zones as shown in Figure1.

Zone 1	Zone 2	Zone 3	Zone 4	Zone 5
Zone 6	Zone 7	Zone 8	Zone 9	Zone10

    Figure 1:  Serve Reception Zones.

                                


     NET

Serving Types by Frequency of Use

The data indicate that the jump spin serve was used most often (42.7%) followed by the jump floater (37.7%) and a standing serve (19.5%).  This is in accord with previous research finding that the most common serve in men’s beach volleyball is the jump spin serve (45.0%), followed by jump float serve (37.8%) and a standing float serve (17.2%).[2]  By comparison, in women’s beach volleyball the jump spin serve is less prevalent while the jump and standing float serves each are utilized in approximately one-third of all attempts.[3]

Serving Effectiveness by Type

In terms of effectiveness, the jump spin serve induced the highest percentage of reception errors (8.9%) and receptions that did not permit an attack (2.5%).  The standing serve induced the lowest percentage of reception errors (1.5%) and receptions that did not permit an attack (1.0%).

Receiving teams maintained maximum attack options most often while receiving standing serves (64.8%) and least often while receiving jump spin serves (42.1%).  Jump float serves occupied a middle ground by effectively eliminating at least one attack option at a rate of approximately 40% as shown in Table 1.  Support for the effectiveness of the jump spin serve in men’s beach volleyball is consistent with data produced from earlier research.[4]

Table 1:  Serve Type and Quality of Reception.

Attack Options	Standing Serve		Jump Spin Serve		Jump Float Serve		Total Serves
	#	%	#	%	#	%	#	%
Reception Error	15	1.5%	195	8.9%	36	1.9%	246	4.8%
None	10	1.0%	56	2.5%	28	1.4%	94	1.8%
Limited	328	32.7%	1013	46.4%	721	37.9%	2062	40.3%
Maximum	650	64.8%	920	42.1%	1144	59.3%	2714	53.0%

Serving Effectiveness by Location of Serve

If serving effectiveness is measured by efficacy of reception the data indicate that making passers move is an essential component of effective serving even in elite beach volleyball.[5]  As shown in Figures 2-4, serves to Zones 2 and 4 (where the passers were positioned) had the highest percentage of receptions that permitted maximum attack options for the offense.  Serves requiring passers to move laterally such as to Zones 1, 3, and 5 were more effective in creating passes that reduced the number of attack options for the offense.

The serving benefit derived from moving the passers appears to hold for both deep and short zone serves.  Moreover, if passer movement is associated with less effective reception among elite performers there is reason to expect the same effect among collegiate and junior players with less experience and training.  The results thus suggest an important tactical training priority for beach volleyball coaches and players.

Interesting, despite the lower efficacy in reception associated with requiring passers to move, the data show that serves to the zones in which serve receive passers were positioned were the most common.  Whether this phenomenon reflects a tactical choice driven by other considerations or a result unintended by the athletes remains an open question for further study.

   Standing Serve                                                               Jump Spin Serve

5.5% Zone 1 54.5%	34.2% Zone 2 71.4%	15.5% Zone 3 62.7%	24.5% Zone 4 69.4%	4.9% Zone 5 45.1%
1.2% Zone 6 57.1%	3.8% Zone 7 59.5%	4.9% Zone 8 59.3%	2.9% Zone 9 70.4%	2.5% Zone10 70.4%

5.5% Zone 1 29.8%	38.6% Zone 2 51.2%	13.6% Zone 3 27.5%	32.5% Zone 4 51.8%	4.8% Zone 5 28.2%
0.5% Zone 6 16.1%	0.9% Zone 7 33.3%	2.0% Zone 8 47.4%	1.0% Zone 9 45.0%	0.7% Zone10 28.6%

       

                                Net                                                                                    Net

    Jump Float Serve 

6.7%  Zone 1 52.1%	30.7% Zone 2 62.8%	16.1% Zone 3 50.4%	27.7% Zone 4 70.1%	6.5% Zone 5 51.0%
1.8% Zone 6 44.7%	3.2% Zone 7 55.4%	2.9% Zone 8 55.0%	2.2% Zone 9 59.5%	2.2% Zone10 54.3%

                                                                          

                         KEY

% of Serves to Zone

            Zone

% Passes Allowing Maximum Attack Options

            Position of Serve Receive Passers

                       

            Front Court Zones – 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

            Back Court Zones – 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

                               

Figures 2, 3 and 4:  Frequency and Location of Serves by Type and Effectiveness.

Conclusion

Evolution of the game drives the need periodically to analyze the way it is being played through data analysis and action sequencing.  Two decades ago serving tactics began an evolution following changes to the size of the court and system of scoring.  Today, new forces are acting on the game.  Domestic and international differences in ball size, weight, and composition, the size of blockers and attackers, and developing dynamics in both offenses and defenses are changing the game and necessitating that players and coaches continue to devise the most effective means of training and executing the serve.

---

[1] Palao, J.M., Lopez-Martinez, A., Valades, D., Hernandez, E. (2019).  Manner of execution and efficacy of reception in men’s beach volleyball.  Monten. J. Sports Sci. Med. 8(2), 21-26.

[2] Busca, B., Moras, G., Pena, J. & Rodriguez-Jimenez, S. (2012).  The influence of serve characteristics on performance in men’s and women’s high-standard beach volleyball.  Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(3), 269-276.  See also Lopez-Martinez, A.B., & Palao, J.M. (2009).  Effect of serve execution on serve efficacy in men’s and women’s beach volleyball.  International Journal of Applied Sports Sciences, 21(1), 1-16 (jump serve used most often at 57.1% followed by standing serves at 42.9%); Koch, C., Tilp, M (2019).  Beach volleyball techniques and tactics: A comparison of male and female playing characteristics.  Kinesiology 41(1), 52-59 (finding that men utilize jump serve at a rate of 47%).

[3] Busca, B., Moras, G., Pena, J. & Rodriguez-Jimenez, S. (2012).  The influence of serve characteristics on performance in men’s and women’s high-standard beach volleyball.  Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(3), 269-276.

[4] Busca, B., Moras, G., Pena, J. & Rodriguez-Jimenez, S. (2012).  The influence of serve characteristics on performance in men’s and women’s high-standard beach volleyball.  Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(3), 269-276.

[5] Efficacy for this analysis is measured by the receiving team’s ability to maintain maximum offensive options in serve receive and not necessarily by point scoring – a result that is usually two contacts attenuated from reception.  It is worth noting, however, that attack efficacy was highest and error rate lowest when reception maintained maximum attack options.