Introduction
An athlete's left-handedness has a distinctly
negative impact on an opponents' perceptual judgments. This perceptual challenge leads lefties to a
distinct advantage in interactive sports.[1] In
particular, left-handers' movements are more difficult to anticipate
than
those of their right-handed counterparts and the condition appears
across a variety of sports including, soccer, volleyball, and tennis.[2]
Why are Lefties Harder to Read?
In
the search for why, the emerging consensus is that athletes are
under-exposed to left-handers and thus possess a greater lack of
perceptual familiarity with their sport-specific movements. Since the
skill of anticipation depends heavily on accurately assessing
the kinematic cues of opponents, less exposure to those cues equates to
less
opportunities to learn and a resulting disadvantage in reading
performance.[3] In other words, skilled
perceptual judgment is attuned to more frequently encountered actions.
Indeed, this principle has lead one research group to observe, "[i]n
volleyball players, the repetitive confrontation primarily with
right-handed opponents in practice and competition is likely to explain
better performance against right-handers.[4]
So
this takes us to left-handedness in volleyball. If lefties do have an
advantage, how far does it extend into the sport and can the advantage
be neutralized? These issues and others have important implications for
coaching professionals teaching tactical decisions, designing practice
environments, and recruiting athletes to their programs.
Original Research - Anticipation of Shot Direction
As previously reported in an earlier post (Reading Revisited: The Challenge of Reading Left-Handers in Volleyball) (available here),
researchers in 2012 sought to determine whether left-handed opponents
were more difficult to read when attacking a volleyball by asking groups
of skilled and novice players to predict the shot directions of left-
and right-handed attacks in a video-based anticipation test.
Participants in both groups were better at predicting the directional
outcome of right-handed compared to left-handed attacks, with skilled
players outperforming novices overall.[5]
If
the left-handers' shot direction proved more difficult to predict than
that of the right-handed players, would the handedness effect also extend
to reading the lefties' choice of attack type? Recent findings provide
evidence that it does.
Recent Research - Anticipation of Shot Selection
A study published in Human Movement Science
examined whether opponents shown video of an attack sequence could
predict the type of attack ("smash" or "lob") planned by left- and
right-handers with equivalent accuracy.[6]
Methods and Procedure
A
total of 48 skilled volleyball players and novices participated by
watching videos of left- and right-handed attacks on a computer screen.
The videos were filmed from the perspective of a defensive player in
either zones 1 or 5 of a volleyball court. Each sequence included a
reception/pass and a set to an attacker. Attackers performed either
hard or soft shots - "smashes" or lobs." Videos lasted three seconds
each and were temporally occluded to stop at the moment the attacker
contacted the ball.
Further, to test whether prediction
accuracy varied according to time in the sequence,each attack was
occluded at six different time points relative to the moment of
hand-to-ball contact: (a) 600 ms prior to contact, (b) 480 ms prior to
contact, (c) 360 ms prior to contact, (d) 240 ms prior to contact, (e)
120 ms prior to contact and (f) at contact with the ball. After the end
of each video participants indicated whether they thought the attacker
would perform a "smash" or a "lob." There was not time limit for making
the decision.
Findings
Consistent
with previous findings, skilled players outperformed novices in
correctly anticipating the type of attack but left-handed attacks were
harder to predict than right-handed attacks. "A main effect for
attackers' hand provided support for the notion that right-handed
actions are easier to anticipate than left-handed actions. Thus, an
opponent's handedness seem to not only affect visual anticipation of
outcome direction, but also the prediction of the type of an action
(here, smash vs. lob in volleyball attacks)."[7]
Lefties, it seems are far more difficult to predict whether hitting or
shooting the ball and regardless of the direction of their attack.
The
question still remains as to why. If it's simply the case that
volleyball players train and compete against righties more than lefties
and so are better attuned to the right-hander's movements why did both
the experienced and inexperienced players underperform in predicting left-handed attacks? Certainly the novices were not relying on their years of experience in the game against right-handers.[8] The
authors themselves acknowledge that the finding "appears unexpected"
given the lack of competitive experience for the novices and posit that
the novices' recreational exposure to volleyball likely over-exposed
them to right-handed actions and that imbalanced experience provoked the
handedness effect in the study.
Clearly,
its a question awaiting further study and one that is essential to our
understanding of how best to train our volleyball athletes to neutralize
the "lefty advantage."
Training Implications
Armed
with knowledge that left-handers are more difficult to read what can we
coaches do to improve our athletes' performances? Regardless of the
need for more study it seems enticing to think that exposing our athletes more often to lefties in practice will increase opportunities to learn from their presence. It's a practice fairly common in professional tennis with at least some anecdotal evidence to support it,[9] but no reported data supporting either short- or long-term improvement resulting from the practice. It is also worth noting that tennis professionals seem to seek out lefty training opponents more to practice standard tactical adjustments against them and less to refine visual perceptual acumen.
On the experimental side, there is some evidence to support the notion that increased visual exposure to left-handed movements can reduce the effect of the left-hander's advantage. In research published in the Journal of Sports Sciences, for example, a
video-based perceptual training program was shown to improve the performance of
participants predicting the directional outcome of left-handed penalty shots in handball.[10]
It thus seems plausible that a coaching manipulation of the training
environment to increase the prevalence of left-handed opponents in
volleyball is a potentially fruitful avenue of performance enhancement.
NOTES
[1]
We address here an only "advantage" resulting specifically from being
less predictable and not from the tactical preferences of opponents.
See Loffing, F., Hagemann, N., & Strauss, B. (2010). Automated
processes in tennis: Do left-handed players benefit from the tactical
preferences of their opponents? Journal of Sports Sciences, 28,
435-443. See also, Sampras, P., (1998). Don't let southpaws scare you:
After losing some tough matches to left-handers, I've learned how to
handle them. Tennis, 34, 142-45 (discussing tactical advantages for left-handed tennis players resulting from tennis scoring system).
[2] McMorris, T., & Colenso, S. (1996). Anticipation of professional
soccer goalkeepers when facing right- and left-footed penalty kicks. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 931–934. Loffing, F., Schorer, J., Hagemann, N., Baker, J., (2012). On the
advantage of being left-handed in volleyball: further evidence of the
specificity of skilled visual perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 446-453. Hagemann N (2009) The advantage of being left-handed in interactive sports. Atten Percept Psycho 71: 1641–1648 (tennis stroke).
[3] Urgesi, C.,
Savonitto, M. M., Fabbro, F., & Aglioti, S. M. (2012). Long- and short-term
plastic modeling of action prediction abilities in volleyball. Psychological
Research, 76, 542-560.
[4]
Loffing, F., Hagemann, N., Schorer, J., & Baker, J. (2015).
Skilled players' and novices' difficulty anticipating left- vs.
right-handed opponents' action intentions varies across different points
in time. Human Movement Science, 40, 410-21, 417.
[5] Loffing, F., Schorer, J., Hagemann, N., Baker, J., (2012). On the
advantage of being left-handed in volleyball: further evidence of the
specificity of skilled visual perception. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 446-453.
[6] Loffing, F., Hagemann, N., Schorer, J., & Baker, J. (2015). Skilled
players' and novices' difficulty anticipating left- vs. right-handed
opponents' action intentions varies across different points in time. Human Movement Science, 40, 410-21, 417.
[7] Loffing, F., Hagemann, N., Schorer, J., & Baker, J. (2015). Skilled
players' and novices' difficulty anticipating left- vs. right-handed
opponents' action intentions varies across different points in time. Human Movement Science, 40, 410-21, 417.
[8]
The novice participant group was comprised of 18 males and 8 females
with a collective mean age of 24.77 years and "no experience in
competitive volleyball or beach volleyball." The authors acknowledge
that the handedness-dependent performance differences in novices
"appears unexpected."
[9] Sampras, P., (1998). Don't let southpaws scare you: After losing some
tough matches to left-handers, I've learned how to handle them. Tennis,
34, 142-45 (discussing tactical advantages for left-handed tennis
players resulting from tennis scoring system and noting common practice
to train against left-handers in advance of matches). See also Crouse,
K. (2011). Left-Handers Have Edge in Slice and Singularity. N.Y. Times
(June 26, 2011), available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/sports/tennis/2011-wimbledon-left-handers-have-benefit-of-slice-and-singularity.html?_r=0
(noting practice of training against left-handers in advance of matches
to be played against lefty opponents).
[10] Loffing, F., Schorer, J., Hagemann, N., Baker, J., (2012). Human
handedness in interactive situations: Negative perceptual frequency
effects can be reversed! Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 446-453.
Sunday, November 29, 2015
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
Research Suggests Age Group and Player Role Effects on Physical Demands of Beach Volleyball Players
From the Journal of Sports Science and Medicine comes new research aimed at analyzing the physical and temporal characteristics of U19, U21 and senior beach volleyball players in light of players' roles as blockers and defenders and considering the quality of opposition.
Temporal variables included duration of set, total rest time, total work time, duration of rallies and rest time between rallies. Physical variables included the number of jumps and number of attacks by role.
Interested readers may access the full text of the article here.
Temporal variables included duration of set, total rest time, total work time, duration of rallies and rest time between rallies. Physical variables included the number of jumps and number of attacks by role.
Interested readers may access the full text of the article here.
Monday, November 4, 2013
The Impact of Deception and Disguise on the Skill of Anticipation in Beach Volleyball
The skill of anticipation is an
important component of expertise in sports.
The delay occasioned by our perceptual system while processing
information means athletes in fast-moving sports need to make advance[1]
predictive judgments in order to prepare and execute appropriate motor responses to their opponent's tactics.[2]
The
dynamics of beach volleyball and the conditions in which it is played make early reads
and motoric preparation essential if an athlete is to have success. The speed at which the ball is
attacked,[3] the size of the area to be defended,[4] and conditions that impair
players' vision[5], slow their foot-speed[6], and heavily tax their energy
systems,[7] combine to place a premium on the ability to predict behavior from the earliest onset of movement. Anticipation under
pressure is one of the premier skills distinguishing elite from novice beach
volleyball athletes.
Perceptual Motor Skills
One of the ways skilled athletes are
able to make correct predictions is through advance cue utilization -- a
process of using information from an opponent’s bodily movements to anticipate
what she is likely to do.[8] An attacking hand behind the head, a slowed
approach, an un-raised elbow, even a blocker's stance, can have meaning to an experienced opponent and betray the intent of the
athlete whose conduct is on display.
As it turns out, skilled athletes
regularly outperform novices in anticipating developing actions because
skilled athletes are better at utilizing information gleaned from their
opponents.[9] And it's not that elite
performers have superior vision or even advanced reaction times that explain
their predictive abilities.[10] Rather,
experts make better predictions because they’re able to draw more meaning from
the body kinematics of other players in the game.[11].
So if experts are better at reading
the cues of others players does that advantage extend to discriminating opponent's deceptive
intentions?
Despite the ubiquity of deception in
sports, and its primacy as a tactic in beach volleyball, the impact of
deception on the anticipatory skills of advanced athletes has only recently
garnered scientific attention.
Deception in Sports
Athletes regularly use deceptive movement for competitive advantage.
Tactical deception takes two basic forms – attempts made by players to
hide information (disguise) and attempts made by players to offer false information
(deception).[12] The former is used to delay an opponent’s decision by
hiding cues of the actor’s intent. The
latter is aimed at providing deliberately false cues to induce an erroneous
response.
The Art of Deception in Beach Volleyball
If deception is prevalent in sports
it is everywhere on the beach. Blockers lean one way and dive another;
defenders feign covering the cross-court and run to the line; and attackers
deliberately approach one direction and then hit the other way. Even an early position in serve receive can
be a ploy to induce a desired serve location. Beach
volleyball players regularly use their bodies as instruments of deception by
feigning their intent through deliberately false cues.[13]
It might be predicted that the experienced athletes’ superiority in utilizing advance cues extends to their ability to detect deception in an opponent. In this view, elite players would be less susceptible to deception and respond better to it than novices. On the other hand, experts could be more susceptible than novices because novices draw less meaning from kinematics and so may suffer less when they are disguised or feigned.
With important implications for technical and tactical training, the impact of deception on anticipation in beach volleyball is a topic worthy of considerable attention and will further be explored in subsequent parts.
Part II will summarize the research in this area and apply it to common tactics in beach volleyball. Part III will examine the role of motor and perceptual skill in the underlying process of detecting deception from the cues of opponents. It is expected that greater knowledge of how anticipatory judgments are made in the sport will assist coaches to teach tactics for competitive advantage.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Beach Volleyball Training Linked to Beneficial Physiological Changes in Indoor Volleyball Players
As the number of colleges announcing new sand volleyball programs continues to grow so does the need to staff sand volleyball rosters. With new programs relying heavily on their indoor rosters, and even many existing programs building teams with combined indoor and sand players, the presence of indoor volleyball athletes in sand volleyball programs is significant.
While the benefits of playing sand volleyball, in terms of cognitive and skill development, are much talked about, new research suggests that sand volleyball training also leads to favorable physical adaptations in participating indoor players. The findings may be persuasive for players and coaches considering the benefits of the sand volleyball season.
To investigate the effects of beach volleyball training and competition on the physiological adaptations of indoor players, researchers at Aristotle University in Greece conducted tests on male indoor volleyball players before they began and after they completed 12 weeks of beach volleyball training and competition.
Training was not manipulated for the study but followed the athletes' or their coaches' own training routine. Training routines consisted of weekend tournaments plus 2.0-2.5 hour sessions of beach-specific drills, exercises and scrimmages, 4-6 times per week. Test variables included heart rate (HR), running economy (RE)[1] and VO2max[2]. Height, body mass and body fat percentage were also recorded before training.
The results of the study were published in the Journal of Physical Education and Sport.[3]
Following 12 weeks of training and competition, post tests revealed a significant reduction in HR, improvement of RE, increase in VO2max and a significant reduction in both body mass and fat among the players. According to the authors, this is the first study of its kind and could be read as an extension of previous research concluding that the energy cost of performing in sand is greater than on firm surfaces.
While sports science will continue to build on these first-of-a-kind results, college volleyball coaches and athletes may find them relevant in determining the benefits to indoor players of competing in the sand volleyball season.
NOTES:
[1] Running economy is defined as "the energy demand for a given velocity of submaximal running."
[2] VO2max is defined as the maximum volume of oxygen that can be used in 60 seconds during maximum exercise.
[3] Dimitrios, B., Efstratios, V., Kosmas, C., Panagiotis, S., Dimosthenis, P., Papaevangelou, E. (2013), The effect of beach volleyball training on running economy and VO2max of indoor volleyball players. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 13(1), 33-38.
While the benefits of playing sand volleyball, in terms of cognitive and skill development, are much talked about, new research suggests that sand volleyball training also leads to favorable physical adaptations in participating indoor players. The findings may be persuasive for players and coaches considering the benefits of the sand volleyball season.
To investigate the effects of beach volleyball training and competition on the physiological adaptations of indoor players, researchers at Aristotle University in Greece conducted tests on male indoor volleyball players before they began and after they completed 12 weeks of beach volleyball training and competition.
Training was not manipulated for the study but followed the athletes' or their coaches' own training routine. Training routines consisted of weekend tournaments plus 2.0-2.5 hour sessions of beach-specific drills, exercises and scrimmages, 4-6 times per week. Test variables included heart rate (HR), running economy (RE)[1] and VO2max[2]. Height, body mass and body fat percentage were also recorded before training.
The results of the study were published in the Journal of Physical Education and Sport.[3]
Following 12 weeks of training and competition, post tests revealed a significant reduction in HR, improvement of RE, increase in VO2max and a significant reduction in both body mass and fat among the players. According to the authors, this is the first study of its kind and could be read as an extension of previous research concluding that the energy cost of performing in sand is greater than on firm surfaces.
While sports science will continue to build on these first-of-a-kind results, college volleyball coaches and athletes may find them relevant in determining the benefits to indoor players of competing in the sand volleyball season.
NOTES:
[1] Running economy is defined as "the energy demand for a given velocity of submaximal running."
[2] VO2max is defined as the maximum volume of oxygen that can be used in 60 seconds during maximum exercise.
[3] Dimitrios, B., Efstratios, V., Kosmas, C., Panagiotis, S., Dimosthenis, P., Papaevangelou, E. (2013), The effect of beach volleyball training on running economy and VO2max of indoor volleyball players. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 13(1), 33-38.
Friday, May 10, 2013
An Analysis of Offensive Scoring in the 2013 AVCA Collegiate Sand Volleyball Championships
Collegiate beach volleyball is on the rise. In 2009, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) approved beach volleyball as an emerging sport for women, creating both participation and scholarship opportunities for collegiate beach athletes. During the first season of competition in 2012, 15 Division I schools sponsored "sand volleyball" programs. That number doubled by 2013 with the addition of 14 additional schools from Division I and one school from Division II. By 2014, the number of sponsoring schools is expected to exceed 40 - a threshold that will allow sand volleyball to reach championship status with the NCAA. Collegiate sand volleyball is on pace to reach championship status faster than any other collegiate sport in history.
Purpose
The aim of this study was to identify the areas of the court used to score offensively in collegiate beach or "sand" volleyball. This is the first study of its kind of which we are aware and we fully acknowledge that the data collected and summarized here represents merely an initial foray into action sequence analysis of the college women's beach volleyball game. The information presented represents a collegiate parallel to our study of offensive scoring in women's beach volleyball at the Olympic level. Read alone or in conjunction with our previous findings the data suggest training, tactical and strategic considerations for players and coaches in the sport.
Methods and Protocol
Data were compiled by observing a total of 26 matches in the 2013 AVCA Collegiate Sand Volleyball Championships. Matches were observed in both the team championship and pairs championship segments of the event. A total of 1,062 kills were observed of which 994 (93.596%) were recorded by zone in the court according to Figure 1.
FIGURE 1 (Zone identification)
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 from a slightly elevated position approximately three feet above the ground level of the court and from a location approximately 35 feet from the center of the court.
A total of 6.403% (n=68) of observed kills were excluded from zone assignment. Excluded kills were of four types: (a) kills in an indeterminant zone (n=20), (b) kills that rebounded off a block and landed outside of the court or hit an antennae (n=34), (c) kills for which a blocking error resulted in a kill being awarded to the opposing team (n=4), 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=10).
Athletes
Athletes whose performances were analyzed were female collegiate sand volleyball players, comprising beach volleyball doubles teams. All players were members of their respective collegiate sand volleyball programs representing 14 different institutions.[1] Results include performances from at least one doubles team from each institution participating in the tournament and are drawn from matches in both the team and pairs championship segments of the event.
Results
Overall, each zone was used to score offensively according to the percentage distribution shown in Figure 2. This 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 = 26.156%, in Zone 2 = 11.468%, in Zone 3 = 7.243%, in Zone 4 = 14.285%, in Zone 5 = 24.547% and in Zone 6 = 16.297%.
FIGURE 2: (Overall zone usage for all offensive kills)
Zone 1 - 26.156% (n=260)
Zone 2 - 11.468% (n=114)
Zone 3 - 7.243% (n=72)
Zone 4 - 14.285% (n=142)
Zone 5 - 24.547% (n=244)
Zone 6 - 16.297% (n=162)
To determine whether zones were used to score differently in serve receive[2] and in transition[3], we analyzed all zone 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.
In the serve receive offense, players scored in Zone 1 = 28.178 in Zone 2 = 12.027%, in Zone 3 = 6.872%, in Zone 4 = 13.402%, in Zone 5 = 22.336% and in Zone 6 = 17.182%. In the transition offense, players scored in Zone 1 = 23.300%, in Zone 2 = 10.679%, in Zone 3 = 7.766%, in Zone 4 = 15.533%, in Zone 5 = 27.669% and in Zone 6 = 15.048%.
FIGURE 3: (Zone usage for all assigned kills in the serve receive offense)
Zone 1 - 28.178% (n=164)
Zone 2 - 12.027% (n=70)
Zone 3 - 6.872% (n=40)
Zone 4 - 13.402% (n=78)
Zone 5 - 22.336% (n=130)
Zone 6 - 17.182% (n=100)
FIGURE 4: (Zone usage for all assigned kills in the transition offense)
Zone 1 - 23.300% (n=96)
Zone 2 - 10.679% (n=44)
Zone 3 - 7.766% (n=32)
Zone 4 - 15.533% (n=64)
Zone 5 - 27.669% (n=114)
Zone 6 - 15.408% (n=62)
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 67.002% and used the frontcourt zones at a rate of 32.997% overall. The backcourt scoring predominance held in both serve receive and transition offenses. Backcourt scoring in serve receive = 67.697% (n=394) and in transition = 66.019% (n=272) while front court scoring in serve receive = 32.302% (n=188) and in transition = 33.980% (n=140).
FIGURE 5: (Overall zone usage by horizontal grouped zones)
Zones 1, 5 and 6 (backcourt) - 67.002% (n=999)
Zones 2, 3 and 4 (frontcourt) - 32.997% (n=328)
As indicated in Figure 6, players utilized the middle of the court to score significantly less often than either the left or right side overall. Left-side zones were used to score at a rate of 38.832%, right-side zones were used to score at a rate of 37.625%, and the middle zones were used to score at a rate of only 23.541% overall. In serve receive, there was 4.468% increase in the right side of the court over the left side. In transition, the data are reversed. The left-side of the court was used 9.223% more often to score than the right side. Player use of the middle zones to score offensively remained relatively constant in the overall offense and in both serve receive and transition.
Left-side scoring in serve receive = 35.738% (n=208) and in transition = 43.203% (n=178); middle zone scoring in serve receive = 24.054% (n=140) and in transition = 22.815% (n=94); and right-side scoring in serve receive = 40.206% (n=234) and in transition = 33.980% (n=140).
FIGURE 6: (Overall zone usage by vertical grouped zones)
Zones 4-5 - 38.832% (n=386)
Zones 3-6 - 23.541% (n=234)
Zones 2-1 - 37.625% (n=374)
Discussion
Offensive Scoring by Zone
The results indicate some significant differences among zone usage in women's collegiate sand volleyball. Players scored most frequently in Zones 1 and 5, at rates of 26.156% (n=260) and 24.457% (n=244), respectively. Zones 6 and 4 ranked 3rd and 4th respectively in overall percentage distribution with just a 2% difference between them. The fifth most used zone to score overall was zone 2. Players scored least frequently in Zone 3, at a rate of only 7.243% (n=72). The data indicate that Zone 3 is not used to a significant degree to score offensively in women's collegiate sand volleyball.
There was no significant difference in the overall use of the left and right sides of the court to score offensively but results do indicate that the middle zones (zones 3 and 6) were used less frequently than either the left or right side. Players scored in the middle zones of the court approximately 15% less often than either the left or right side. Zone 3 was the used least among front row zones and zone 6 was used least among back row zones.
Offensive Scoring - Frontcourt v. Backcourt
The statistical data indicate that offensive scoring in women's collegiate sand volleyball is predominantly accomplished in the back three zones of the court. This is consistent with our earlier findings in a study of beach volleyball at the Olympic level in which backcourt scoring exceeded frontcourt scoring by nearly 18%.[4] In the collegiate game, the predominance of backcourt scoring was even more pronounced. Kills in zones 5, 6 and 1 exceeded kills in zones 4, 3 and 2 by more than 34% overall.
Zone Usage in Serve Receive and Transition
There was considerable consistency among the zones used to score by teams in serve receive and in transition. As shown in Figure 7, in both phases of the game players scored least frequently ("F") in zones 2 and 3. Beyond those zones, relative use frequencies varied between the two phases of offense, but the statistical differences were minor, with one exception. Players used zone 1 to score nearly 5% more often in serve receive than in transition and used zone 5 to score slightly more than 5% more frequently in transition than in serve receive.
FIGURE 6: (zone use frequencies by serve receive and transition offenses)
In terms of the most and least used zones, our findings closely track data from our Olympic research in which we determined that players used Zone 5 to score most often and used Zone 3 to score least often in both phases of the game. Lastly, the data show no significant difference in front and backcourt scoring when comparing the serve receive and transition offense. In both serve reception and in transition, backcourt scoring exceeded frontcourt scoring by approximately 2:1. Consistent with our findings from the Olympic level of competition, offensive scoring in women's collegiate beach volleyball occurs predominantly in the back half of the court.
Offensive Scoring - First Ball v. Transition
Our results indicate that the majority of offensive scoring by kill in women's collegiate sand volleyball is in the serve receive offense rather than primarily in transition. Kills in serve receive exceeded kills scored in transition by nearly 1.5: 1, which is slightly less than the 2:1 ratio we found at the Olympic level, suggesting that collegiate serve receive offenses are less efficient than at elite competitive levels. Among 994 recorded kills, 58.551% (n=582) were scored on the first offensive play by the receiving team following the serve and 41.448 (n=412) were scored in transition - by either team. Offensive kills in serve receive exceeded kills in transition in 25 out of 26 or 96.153% of all matches observed suggesting the amount of training that should be dedicated to this aspect of the game.
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 collegiate levels of competition the data indicate performance standards for success at more advanced levels of play.
Conclusion
The present study provides researchers, coaches and athletes information concerning the offensive use of various zones of the court in collegiate women's sand 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. 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] Institutions included were: Pepperdine University, Long Beach State University, University of Southern California, University of North Florida, Florida State University, University of Louisiana-Monroe, Georgia State University, University of California/Los Angeles, Florida International University, the University of Alabama/Birmingham, the University of the Pacific, Jacksonville University, Loyola Marymount University and Saint Mary's College of California. None of these institutions, players or coaches are affiliated with this study nor have endorsed it.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] Holly, W.D., Offensive Scoring in Women's Beach Volleyball: An Analysis of Zone Usage in the 2012 Summer Olympic Games., available at http://teachingvolleyball.blogspot.com/2013/04/offensive-scoring-in-womens-beach.html, April 2013.
Purpose
The aim of this study was to identify the areas of the court used to score offensively in collegiate beach or "sand" volleyball. This is the first study of its kind of which we are aware and we fully acknowledge that the data collected and summarized here represents merely an initial foray into action sequence analysis of the college women's beach volleyball game. The information presented represents a collegiate parallel to our study of offensive scoring in women's beach volleyball at the Olympic level. Read alone or in conjunction with our previous findings the data suggest training, tactical and strategic considerations for players and coaches in the sport.
Methods and Protocol
Data were compiled by observing a total of 26 matches in the 2013 AVCA Collegiate Sand Volleyball Championships. Matches were observed in both the team championship and pairs championship segments of the event. A total of 1,062 kills were observed of which 994 (93.596%) were recorded by zone in the court according to Figure 1.
FIGURE 1 (Zone identification)
A total of 6.403% (n=68) of observed kills were excluded from zone assignment. Excluded kills were of four types: (a) kills in an indeterminant zone (n=20), (b) kills that rebounded off a block and landed outside of the court or hit an antennae (n=34), (c) kills for which a blocking error resulted in a kill being awarded to the opposing team (n=4), 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=10).
Athletes
Athletes whose performances were analyzed were female collegiate sand volleyball players, comprising beach volleyball doubles teams. All players were members of their respective collegiate sand volleyball programs representing 14 different institutions.[1] Results include performances from at least one doubles team from each institution participating in the tournament and are drawn from matches in both the team and pairs championship segments of the event.
Results
Overall, each zone was used to score offensively according to the percentage distribution shown in Figure 2. This 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 = 26.156%, in Zone 2 = 11.468%, in Zone 3 = 7.243%, in Zone 4 = 14.285%, in Zone 5 = 24.547% and in Zone 6 = 16.297%.
FIGURE 2: (Overall zone usage for all offensive kills)
Zone 1 - 26.156% (n=260)
Zone 2 - 11.468% (n=114)
Zone 3 - 7.243% (n=72)
Zone 4 - 14.285% (n=142)
Zone 5 - 24.547% (n=244)
Zone 6 - 16.297% (n=162)
To determine whether zones were used to score differently in serve receive[2] and in transition[3], we analyzed all zone 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.
In the serve receive offense, players scored in Zone 1 = 28.178 in Zone 2 = 12.027%, in Zone 3 = 6.872%, in Zone 4 = 13.402%, in Zone 5 = 22.336% and in Zone 6 = 17.182%. In the transition offense, players scored in Zone 1 = 23.300%, in Zone 2 = 10.679%, in Zone 3 = 7.766%, in Zone 4 = 15.533%, in Zone 5 = 27.669% and in Zone 6 = 15.048%.
FIGURE 3: (Zone usage for all assigned kills in the serve receive offense)
Zone 1 - 28.178% (n=164)
Zone 2 - 12.027% (n=70)
Zone 3 - 6.872% (n=40)
Zone 4 - 13.402% (n=78)
Zone 5 - 22.336% (n=130)
Zone 6 - 17.182% (n=100)
FIGURE 4: (Zone usage for all assigned kills in the transition offense)
Zone 1 - 23.300% (n=96)
Zone 2 - 10.679% (n=44)
Zone 3 - 7.766% (n=32)
Zone 4 - 15.533% (n=64)
Zone 5 - 27.669% (n=114)
Zone 6 - 15.408% (n=62)
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 67.002% and used the frontcourt zones at a rate of 32.997% overall. The backcourt scoring predominance held in both serve receive and transition offenses. Backcourt scoring in serve receive = 67.697% (n=394) and in transition = 66.019% (n=272) while front court scoring in serve receive = 32.302% (n=188) and in transition = 33.980% (n=140).
FIGURE 5: (Overall zone usage by horizontal grouped zones)
Zones 1, 5 and 6 (backcourt) - 67.002% (n=999)
Zones 2, 3 and 4 (frontcourt) - 32.997% (n=328)
As indicated in Figure 6, players utilized the middle of the court to score significantly less often than either the left or right side overall. Left-side zones were used to score at a rate of 38.832%, right-side zones were used to score at a rate of 37.625%, and the middle zones were used to score at a rate of only 23.541% overall. In serve receive, there was 4.468% increase in the right side of the court over the left side. In transition, the data are reversed. The left-side of the court was used 9.223% more often to score than the right side. Player use of the middle zones to score offensively remained relatively constant in the overall offense and in both serve receive and transition.
Left-side scoring in serve receive = 35.738% (n=208) and in transition = 43.203% (n=178); middle zone scoring in serve receive = 24.054% (n=140) and in transition = 22.815% (n=94); and right-side scoring in serve receive = 40.206% (n=234) and in transition = 33.980% (n=140).
FIGURE 6: (Overall zone usage by vertical grouped zones)
Zones 4-5 - 38.832% (n=386)
Zones 3-6 - 23.541% (n=234)
Zones 2-1 - 37.625% (n=374)
Discussion
Offensive Scoring by Zone
The results indicate some significant differences among zone usage in women's collegiate sand volleyball. Players scored most frequently in Zones 1 and 5, at rates of 26.156% (n=260) and 24.457% (n=244), respectively. Zones 6 and 4 ranked 3rd and 4th respectively in overall percentage distribution with just a 2% difference between them. The fifth most used zone to score overall was zone 2. Players scored least frequently in Zone 3, at a rate of only 7.243% (n=72). The data indicate that Zone 3 is not used to a significant degree to score offensively in women's collegiate sand volleyball.
There was no significant difference in the overall use of the left and right sides of the court to score offensively but results do indicate that the middle zones (zones 3 and 6) were used less frequently than either the left or right side. Players scored in the middle zones of the court approximately 15% less often than either the left or right side. Zone 3 was the used least among front row zones and zone 6 was used least among back row zones.
Offensive Scoring - Frontcourt v. Backcourt
The statistical data indicate that offensive scoring in women's collegiate sand volleyball is predominantly accomplished in the back three zones of the court. This is consistent with our earlier findings in a study of beach volleyball at the Olympic level in which backcourt scoring exceeded frontcourt scoring by nearly 18%.[4] In the collegiate game, the predominance of backcourt scoring was even more pronounced. Kills in zones 5, 6 and 1 exceeded kills in zones 4, 3 and 2 by more than 34% overall.
Zone Usage in Serve Receive and Transition
There was considerable consistency among the zones used to score by teams in serve receive and in transition. As shown in Figure 7, in both phases of the game players scored least frequently ("F") in zones 2 and 3. Beyond those zones, relative use frequencies varied between the two phases of offense, but the statistical differences were minor, with one exception. Players used zone 1 to score nearly 5% more often in serve receive than in transition and used zone 5 to score slightly more than 5% more frequently in transition than in serve receive.
FIGURE 6: (zone use frequencies by serve receive and transition offenses)
In terms of the most and least used zones, our findings closely track data from our Olympic research in which we determined that players used Zone 5 to score most often and used Zone 3 to score least often in both phases of the game. Lastly, the data show no significant difference in front and backcourt scoring when comparing the serve receive and transition offense. In both serve reception and in transition, backcourt scoring exceeded frontcourt scoring by approximately 2:1. Consistent with our findings from the Olympic level of competition, offensive scoring in women's collegiate beach volleyball occurs predominantly in the back half of the court.
Offensive Scoring - First Ball v. Transition
Our results indicate that the majority of offensive scoring by kill in women's collegiate sand volleyball is in the serve receive offense rather than primarily in transition. Kills in serve receive exceeded kills scored in transition by nearly 1.5: 1, which is slightly less than the 2:1 ratio we found at the Olympic level, suggesting that collegiate serve receive offenses are less efficient than at elite competitive levels. Among 994 recorded kills, 58.551% (n=582) were scored on the first offensive play by the receiving team following the serve and 41.448 (n=412) were scored in transition - by either team. Offensive kills in serve receive exceeded kills in transition in 25 out of 26 or 96.153% of all matches observed suggesting the amount of training that should be dedicated to this aspect of the game.
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 collegiate levels of competition the data indicate performance standards for success at more advanced levels of play.
Conclusion
The present study provides researchers, coaches and athletes information concerning the offensive use of various zones of the court in collegiate women's sand 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. 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] Institutions included were: Pepperdine University, Long Beach State University, University of Southern California, University of North Florida, Florida State University, University of Louisiana-Monroe, Georgia State University, University of California/Los Angeles, Florida International University, the University of Alabama/Birmingham, the University of the Pacific, Jacksonville University, Loyola Marymount University and Saint Mary's College of California. None of these institutions, players or coaches are affiliated with this study nor have endorsed it.
[2] 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.
[3] 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.
[4] Holly, W.D., Offensive Scoring in Women's Beach Volleyball: An Analysis of Zone Usage in the 2012 Summer Olympic Games., available at http://teachingvolleyball.blogspot.com/2013/04/offensive-scoring-in-womens-beach.html, April 2013.
Wednesday, March 20, 2013
Serving Methods in Beach Volleyball According to Time in the Game
In the sport of beach volleyball the choice of which opposing player to serve is a highly strategic consideration for
teams at all levels of competition. In most beach offenses the player receiving serve will also be the team's primary attacker, so the serving team can use its serve to dictate (or at least heavily influence) the opponent's offense. Serve choice may turn on the receiving player's perceived offensive skills, her partner's setting ability or by other conditions such as wind direction or sun location - and the choice may be revisited several times throughout a game. As the choice of who to serve is the first opportunity to expose an opponent's weakness, it properly occupies a high strategic priority for competitive beach volleyball teams.
Serving Methods
A separate but related question involves not who to serve but what type of serve should be utilized. The predominant serves in beach volleyball right now are the standing float serve, the jump float serve[1] and the jump spin serve. Game planning a match requires some consideration of which of these serves to use, which in turn requires players and coaches to agree on some principles for making this decision.
Researchers in Spain have recently continued a growing trend toward studying the serve in beach volleyball and in a paper published in the Journal of Human Sport & Exercise,[2] concluded that that fatigue and risk management dictate how beach volleyball athletes choose their methods of serving early and late in competition. The study was limited to the professional men's game so its application to the women's beach game - where jump spin serving is less prevalent, and to other levels of play, awaits further study and experience.
Participants & Procedures
Participants in the study were ten professional male beach volleyball players comprising five teams competing in the 2005 European Beach Volleyball Championship. Researchers recorded each serve according to type of serve and time in the match. Serve types recognized were the standing float serve (SF), the jump float serve (JF) and the jump spin serve (JS). Games were divided into three periods: Period 1 (points 1-7); Period 2 (points 8-14) and Period 3 (points 15-21). A total of 327 serves were recorded and the Chi-square test confirmed the significance of the data within a margin of five percent error.
Results
For all periods, the researchers found that overall the standing float serve was used 11.6%, the jump float serve used 26.0% and the jump serve used 62.4 %. Examining the results by period in the game, there were significant differences in player's service methods from early to late in the game with lower risk serving generally becoming more predominant as games progressed toward the final period.
As indicated in Tables 1-3, the jump float serve increased from only 4.0% frequency during the early period of games to 49.4% in the latest period. The higher risk jump spin serve with more velocity and an error rate of 17% was utilized with less and less frequency as the game progressed into later periods. The jump spin serve decreased from a high of 89.7 % in the first period to 27.3% in the final period.
TABLE 1 (Service Methods by % for Points 1-7)
6.3% - Standing Float
4.0% - Jump Float
89.7% - Jump Spin
TABLE 2 (Service Methods by % for Points 8-14)
9.7% - Standing Float
33.9% - Jump Float
56.5% - Jump Spin
TABLE 3 (Service Methods by % for Points 15-21)
23.4% - Standing Float
49.4% - Jump Float
27.3% - Jump Spin
Discussion
According to the authors, the data suggest that players' choice of serve was driven by a risk analysis favoring more balls in play late in the game. Fatigue was also cited as a factor. As players fatigued and the risk of error associated with the jump spin serve was perceived as more costly late in the game, players became more risk averse and served more conservatively.
Coaching Implications
So what does this contribute to our knowledge of the game and how we coach our beach athletes? For this coach, the topic of study alone is a reminder that match preparation should involve principled decisions about our strategic choices and methods we employ in the game. While players commonly consider the question of who to serve, the related strategy of which type of serve to use is given far less consideration.
So let's begin by at least considering the question and identifying some factors relevant to making a principled decision. The present study identified cost/benefit and fatigue as two prominent reasons for players' choice of serving methods. Other reasons for the decision undoubtedly could include (1) skill in one serve but not in another; (2) confidence in one or another serve; (3) opponent's inability to receive one or another serve; (4) strategic fatigue for a primary blocker; and (5) wind direction suggesting one method over another. This list is far from exhaustive and coaches should continue to work with their athletes to identify other factors that may be relevant for their levels of play. As we grow our athletes' knowledge of the game they will become better positioned to make their own informed decisions about how best to serve in a game, when and why.
NOTES:
[1] We do not distinguish here between the jump float serve with an approach and the jump float serve without an approach.
[2] Jimenez-Olmedo, J.M., Penichet-Tomas, A., Saiz-Colomina, S., Martinez-Carbonell, J.A., Jove-Tossi, M.A. (2012), Serve analysis of professional players in beach volleyball. Journal of Human Sport & Exercise, 7:3, 706-713.
Serving Methods
A separate but related question involves not who to serve but what type of serve should be utilized. The predominant serves in beach volleyball right now are the standing float serve, the jump float serve[1] and the jump spin serve. Game planning a match requires some consideration of which of these serves to use, which in turn requires players and coaches to agree on some principles for making this decision.Researchers in Spain have recently continued a growing trend toward studying the serve in beach volleyball and in a paper published in the Journal of Human Sport & Exercise,[2] concluded that that fatigue and risk management dictate how beach volleyball athletes choose their methods of serving early and late in competition. The study was limited to the professional men's game so its application to the women's beach game - where jump spin serving is less prevalent, and to other levels of play, awaits further study and experience.
Participants & Procedures
Participants in the study were ten professional male beach volleyball players comprising five teams competing in the 2005 European Beach Volleyball Championship. Researchers recorded each serve according to type of serve and time in the match. Serve types recognized were the standing float serve (SF), the jump float serve (JF) and the jump spin serve (JS). Games were divided into three periods: Period 1 (points 1-7); Period 2 (points 8-14) and Period 3 (points 15-21). A total of 327 serves were recorded and the Chi-square test confirmed the significance of the data within a margin of five percent error.
Results
For all periods, the researchers found that overall the standing float serve was used 11.6%, the jump float serve used 26.0% and the jump serve used 62.4 %. Examining the results by period in the game, there were significant differences in player's service methods from early to late in the game with lower risk serving generally becoming more predominant as games progressed toward the final period.
As indicated in Tables 1-3, the jump float serve increased from only 4.0% frequency during the early period of games to 49.4% in the latest period. The higher risk jump spin serve with more velocity and an error rate of 17% was utilized with less and less frequency as the game progressed into later periods. The jump spin serve decreased from a high of 89.7 % in the first period to 27.3% in the final period.
TABLE 1 (Service Methods by % for Points 1-7)
6.3% - Standing Float
4.0% - Jump Float
89.7% - Jump Spin
TABLE 2 (Service Methods by % for Points 8-14)
9.7% - Standing Float
33.9% - Jump Float
56.5% - Jump Spin
TABLE 3 (Service Methods by % for Points 15-21)
23.4% - Standing Float
49.4% - Jump Float
27.3% - Jump Spin
Discussion
According to the authors, the data suggest that players' choice of serve was driven by a risk analysis favoring more balls in play late in the game. Fatigue was also cited as a factor. As players fatigued and the risk of error associated with the jump spin serve was perceived as more costly late in the game, players became more risk averse and served more conservatively.
Coaching Implications
So what does this contribute to our knowledge of the game and how we coach our beach athletes? For this coach, the topic of study alone is a reminder that match preparation should involve principled decisions about our strategic choices and methods we employ in the game. While players commonly consider the question of who to serve, the related strategy of which type of serve to use is given far less consideration.
So let's begin by at least considering the question and identifying some factors relevant to making a principled decision. The present study identified cost/benefit and fatigue as two prominent reasons for players' choice of serving methods. Other reasons for the decision undoubtedly could include (1) skill in one serve but not in another; (2) confidence in one or another serve; (3) opponent's inability to receive one or another serve; (4) strategic fatigue for a primary blocker; and (5) wind direction suggesting one method over another. This list is far from exhaustive and coaches should continue to work with their athletes to identify other factors that may be relevant for their levels of play. As we grow our athletes' knowledge of the game they will become better positioned to make their own informed decisions about how best to serve in a game, when and why.
NOTES:
[1] We do not distinguish here between the jump float serve with an approach and the jump float serve without an approach.
[2] Jimenez-Olmedo, J.M., Penichet-Tomas, A., Saiz-Colomina, S., Martinez-Carbonell, J.A., Jove-Tossi, M.A. (2012), Serve analysis of professional players in beach volleyball. Journal of Human Sport & Exercise, 7:3, 706-713.
Friday, February 22, 2013
Scoring by Offensive Zones in Men's and Women's Beach Volleyball
Born as a game of recreation, beach volleyball has evolved from a casual past-time to an international sport played by elite athletes with its own world tour and prominent place in the Olympic Games. In the United States, beach volleyball is now supported by the national governing body for volleyball, is officially an emerging women's collegiate sport, and is currently experiencing unprecedented organized growth at the junior level.
As the sport evolves so grows our need to better understand the game and use that knowledge to develop efficient training programs responsive to the games' unique challenges. One of the most reliable sources of information concerning the training demands of beach volleyball is in scientific investigations of its action sequences. Action sequence studies have long been utilized to predict opponent behavior and develop sport-specific training programs across a variety of sports. Only recently have researchers begun studying the game of beach volleyball in this way. Future research holds promise to better inform our understanding of the game and raise both the level of play and effectiveness of coaching.
In the first published study of its kind, researchers from the University of Alicante in Spain studied differences by gender in the use of offensive scoring zones in beach volleyball.[1] Studying gender-based differences in the indoor game of volleyball has previously lead to a better understanding of how to improve performance through efficient training emphases. The contribution of the instant study seeks to extend the research-based approach to improvement into the discipline of beach (or "sand") volleyball.
Participants were 20 athletes (10 men and 10 women) who competed in the European Beach Volleyball Championship in 2005 and 2006. Results were culled from 659 points scored in 18 sets over 8 matches. The court was divided into 6 zones as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1:
Findings
The researchers found that there were indeed differences by gender in the zones used to score points in beach volleyball. Men used zones 2 and 4 most often to score while women athletes scored most often in zones 1 and 5.
Interestingly, both men and women rarely scored in the deep middle zone (zone 6). Men scored in the deep middle at a rate of only 5.26% while women scored 5.67% of the time.
The zone least utilized to score by men was zone 3 where male athletes scored just 3.44% of the time. By adjacent zones, areas 3 and 6 were the least utilized areas for scoring in both the men's and women's game with men utilizing those zones to score at a combined 8.70% and women scoring there at a combined rate of 13.40%.
Attack Error Rates & Types
Researchers also identified gender related differences in attack error rates and types. In the men's game, out-of-bounds attack errors were committed at a rate of 15.53% compared to 27.38% in the women's game. The frequency numbers were reversed for attack errors into the net. Men's net errors occurred at a rate of 7.73% while women committed net errors only 5.53% of the time. Comparing attack error frequencies, it appears that there is a greater frequency of points scored without a rally in the women's game (32.73%) than in the men's game (23.26%).
Significance & Further Research
The significance of these findings for beach volleyball athletes and coaches remains to be seen. Certainly, knowledge of zone use tendencies has coaching implications both for scouting and training athletes, but our "knowledge" of such tendencies must await further studies. A question for future research will be whether these zone usage findings are consistent with the tactics employed in amateur levels of beach volleyball, for example, in the women's collegiate sand game. As sports science research continues to expand into beach volleyball we all can be excited about its potential to improve our understanding of the game and, in turn, assist us to coach our athletes more effectively.
NOTES
[1] Chinchilla Mira, J. J., Pérez Turpin, J. A., MartÃnez Carbonell, J. A., & Jove Tossi, M. (2012). Offensive zones in beach volleyball: differences by gender. Journal Human Sport & Exercise, 7:3, 727-732.
As the sport evolves so grows our need to better understand the game and use that knowledge to develop efficient training programs responsive to the games' unique challenges. One of the most reliable sources of information concerning the training demands of beach volleyball is in scientific investigations of its action sequences. Action sequence studies have long been utilized to predict opponent behavior and develop sport-specific training programs across a variety of sports. Only recently have researchers begun studying the game of beach volleyball in this way. Future research holds promise to better inform our understanding of the game and raise both the level of play and effectiveness of coaching.
In the first published study of its kind, researchers from the University of Alicante in Spain studied differences by gender in the use of offensive scoring zones in beach volleyball.[1] Studying gender-based differences in the indoor game of volleyball has previously lead to a better understanding of how to improve performance through efficient training emphases. The contribution of the instant study seeks to extend the research-based approach to improvement into the discipline of beach (or "sand") volleyball.
Participants were 20 athletes (10 men and 10 women) who competed in the European Beach Volleyball Championship in 2005 and 2006. Results were culled from 659 points scored in 18 sets over 8 matches. The court was divided into 6 zones as shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1:
Findings
The researchers found that there were indeed differences by gender in the zones used to score points in beach volleyball. Men used zones 2 and 4 most often to score while women athletes scored most often in zones 1 and 5.
Interestingly, both men and women rarely scored in the deep middle zone (zone 6). Men scored in the deep middle at a rate of only 5.26% while women scored 5.67% of the time.
The zone least utilized to score by men was zone 3 where male athletes scored just 3.44% of the time. By adjacent zones, areas 3 and 6 were the least utilized areas for scoring in both the men's and women's game with men utilizing those zones to score at a combined 8.70% and women scoring there at a combined rate of 13.40%.
Attack Error Rates & Types
Researchers also identified gender related differences in attack error rates and types. In the men's game, out-of-bounds attack errors were committed at a rate of 15.53% compared to 27.38% in the women's game. The frequency numbers were reversed for attack errors into the net. Men's net errors occurred at a rate of 7.73% while women committed net errors only 5.53% of the time. Comparing attack error frequencies, it appears that there is a greater frequency of points scored without a rally in the women's game (32.73%) than in the men's game (23.26%).
Significance & Further Research
The significance of these findings for beach volleyball athletes and coaches remains to be seen. Certainly, knowledge of zone use tendencies has coaching implications both for scouting and training athletes, but our "knowledge" of such tendencies must await further studies. A question for future research will be whether these zone usage findings are consistent with the tactics employed in amateur levels of beach volleyball, for example, in the women's collegiate sand game. As sports science research continues to expand into beach volleyball we all can be excited about its potential to improve our understanding of the game and, in turn, assist us to coach our athletes more effectively.
NOTES
[1] Chinchilla Mira, J. J., Pérez Turpin, J. A., MartÃnez Carbonell, J. A., & Jove Tossi, M. (2012). Offensive zones in beach volleyball: differences by gender. Journal Human Sport & Exercise, 7:3, 727-732.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)