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.