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.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
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.
Monday, November 5, 2012
Perception and Motor Skill in Reading Shot Location in Beach Volleyball - Part II
Participants, Method, Stimulus
and Procedure
The VU team invited 32 participants who were 8 expert beach players, 8 expert beach coaches, who formerly were expert players, 8 expert referees, who had not reached expert levels of play, and an inexperienced control group of 8 novices to participate. Each group watched video clips of attacking sequences and predicted the depth and direction of the shot at various times before the attack.
The VU team invited 32 participants who were 8 expert beach players, 8 expert beach coaches, who formerly were expert players, 8 expert referees, who had not reached expert levels of play, and an inexperienced control group of 8 novices to participate. Each group watched video clips of attacking sequences and predicted the depth and direction of the shot at various times before the attack.
All of the clips were culled from 25 women’s World Tour
beach volleyball matches and included a pass, a set and an attack. They were recorded approximately 6 meters
behind the end-line, from the perspective of a defensive player. Videos were progressively occluded at three
different times: (a) at setter-ball
contact, (b) when the set was half-way to the hitter, and (c) at hitter-ball
contact.[5] Sequences were balanced for
attacks from the left- and right-side, and in all sequences the blocker stayed
at the net. Also, because the defender
was in view, clips equally balanced correct and incorrect anticipatory movements
by the defensive player. After viewing
each sequence, participants had three seconds to decide whether the ball was
attacked to the short or deep line or to the short or deep angle.[6]
Motor Experience
Contributes to Reading Ability
Analysis of overall performances revealed that the expert
players and coaches predicted shot location more accurately than novices, while
the referees did not. In addition, players
outperformed both referees and novices in the latest occlusion condition.[7] Accordingly, since “the group with the
highest perceptual-motor expertise (and, notably, less watching experience)
outperformed experience watchers,” the findings suggest that perceptual motor
experience does contribute to anticipatory skills in beach volleyball.
An issue for further research, according to the authors, will
be to study whether players were better readers because they more efficiently utilized
cues from the video frame showing hitter-ball contact (3rd occlusion
point) or because they were superior at culling information from the entire offensive
sequence.
Reading Depth and
Direction
Comparing results on depth and direction the results
indicate that reading the shot depth in beach volleyball is significantly more
difficult than reading shot direction. Overall accuracy scores were higher for
direction predictions than depth judgments in the latest occlusion condition
with players, coaches and referees all outperforming novices in reading whether
the ball was attacked cross-court or down the line. The available evidence therefore suggests that
coaches should include more opportunities in practice for players to read cues
indicative of short and deep shots in the game.
Knowledge of this weakness may also counsel in favor of positional
adjustments to defensive players and movement training to improve overall small
area quickness and account for potential depth related mis-reads in the game
Conclusion
Like the indoor game, the sport of beach volleyball is overwhelmingly
played between contacts. While those
contacts are extremely important indicators of success, the ability to
anticipate opponent’s intentions and prepare for the next contact is a proven
skill variable separating the most accomplished players from their less skilled
counterparts.
Over a decade ago, sports science determined that “[t]here
is little doubt . . . that the ability to extract and use the information
available from an opponent’s movement pattern is a limiting factor to
successful performance for less skilled performers.”[8]. The results of the present study provide
experimental evidence that motor experience gained from playing beach
volleyball contributes to the ability to anticipate opponent shots both
directionally and for depth. The
findings also suggest training emphases and strategies for improving
performances in the game.
Since its birth on the shores of southern California, the
sport of beach volleyball is now an emerging collegiate sport in the United
States, has enormous worldwide popularity, and is an official summer sport of
the Olympic Games. As research science
continues to teach us how great readers anticipate we coaches
have an obligation to learn the science of the sport and develop principled
methods for training the next generation of beach volleyball athletes.
NOTES
[1] Aglioti, S.M., Cesari, P., Romani, M., Urgesi, C.
(2008). Action anticipation and motor
resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 1109-1116;
Schutz-Bosbach, S., Prinz, W. (2007).
Perceptual resonance: Action-induced modulation of perception. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 349-355.
[2] Aglioti, S.M., Cesari, P., Romani, M., Urgesi, C.
(2008). Action anticipation and motor
resonance in elite basketball players. Nature Neuroscience, 11, 1109-1116.
[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] Canal-Bruland, R., Mooren, M., Savelsbergh, G.
(2011). Differentiating expert’s
anticipatory skills in beach volleyball.
Research Quarterly for Exercise
and Sport 82:4 667-674. I am
grateful to Professor Canal-Bruland for providing me with a copy of the
research.
[5] For an excellent discussion of the possible limitations
of occlusion paradigms, see van der Kamp, J., Rivas, F., van Doorn, H., &
Savelsbergh, G. (2008). Ventral and
dorsal contributions in visual anticipation in fast ball sports. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 39, 100-130.
[6] Two stimulus conditions of the study have limiting
effects. First, it is unclear what
impact, if any, visible blocker’s movements played in the participant’s
predictions. Also, anticipation ability
was measured as a function of viewing randomized progressively occluded clips
of offensive sequences. Therefore, anticipation
scores did not account for participant’s abilities to utilize other cues that
commonly inform defensive reads in beach volleyball such as situational factors,
opponent’s recent history and pattern recognition.
[7] Only in the latest occlusion condition (at hitter-ball
contact) did participants predict shot location more accurately than chance.
[8] Farrow, D., Abernathy, B. (2002). Can anticipatory skills be learned through
implicit video-based perceptual training?
Journal of Sports Sciences 20,
471-485.
Perception and Motor Skill in Reading Shot Location in Beach Volleyball - Parts I & II
Elite sports performers possess the twin abilities to repeatedly execute complex actions and anticipate the
behavior of other players. Indeed, anticipatory skill is one of the most clearly
established variables distinguishing highly successful athletes from their
less accomplished counterparts.
In the sport of volleyball, anticipation is a key ingredient in successful performance. Blockers who can read setter and hitter intentions, passers who can read servers and ball flight, and defenders who can anticipate shot speed, depth and direction all have an advantage over players whose anticipatory skills are less developed.
In the sport of volleyball, anticipation is a key ingredient in successful performance. Blockers who can read setter and hitter intentions, passers who can read servers and ball flight, and defenders who can anticipate shot speed, depth and direction all have an advantage over players whose anticipatory skills are less developed.
The ability to read is likewise critical to success in
the beach game. With more court to cover
and fewer teammates to help, defensive success in beach volleyball is
inextricably intertwined with the ability to anticipate an opponent’s offensive
intentions. The growing dynamics of
beach volleyball offenses, fewer blockers at the net compared to indoors and a
playing surface that constrains small area quickness highlight the need for
beach defenders to develop acute reading abilities.
How Do Great
Readers Anticipate?
We’ve all seen volleyball players who just seem to know
where the ball is going. So how did they
do it, and why are some athletes better than others in figuring out their
opponents? As it turns out, athletes
with superior reading abilities do some rather than unique things that less
capable readers do not.
Principles garnered from scientific literature show that
elite athletes: (1) make superior use of anticipatory visual cues, (2) utilize
unique perceptual strategies, (3) employ efficient visual search patterns, (4) exhibit
fast information-movement coupling (integrating vision and action); and (5) demonstrate
superior pattern recognition ability. Essentially,
superior readers see the game in a very
unique way from others -- but their perceptual expertise is not the whole
story.
While we know that elite athletes are better than novices at reading, and we know a lot about how they do it, we still don’t know everything that contributes to the why? Why is it that some athletes see the game so uniquely, extracting information from everything that’s going on, and thus are better able to accurately predict what is about to happen?
While we know that elite athletes are better than novices at reading, and we know a lot about how they do it, we still don’t know everything that contributes to the why? Why is it that some athletes see the game so uniquely, extracting information from everything that’s going on, and thus are better able to accurately predict what is about to happen?
Perceptual vs.
Motor Experience
One of the most important questions scientists are
studying to better understand the skill of reading is whether elite athlete’s
motor skills in addition to their perceptual experience contribute to anticipation
abilities.
There are two related accounts.
In one view, anticipation ability is a function of
perceptual experience. In this view, elite
level athletes’ extensive exposure to the game enhances their sensitivity to
the relevant cues that reveal what other players intend to do.
Another view says that athletes’ motor skills also have
something to do with it. This view links
perceptual experience with motor experience by positing that skilled athlete’s
motor experience contributes to their superior anticipation abilities.
The developing idea is that athletes are perceptually
better attuned to actions within their own motor repertoire. Thus elite athletes are better at identifying
the kinematic cues that indicate in others an intention to perform the same or
similar skills the athletes themselves are capable of performing.[1] Research comparing the anticipation ability
of elite level athletes with those possessed primarily of perceptual experience
alone (e.g., coaches, referees and fans) seems to support this view.
For example a team of Italian researchers found that expert
basketball players were able to predict the success of free throws more
accurately and quickly than coaches and journalists who lacked playing
experience.[2] Evidence published this
year similarly found that volleyball athletes were better able to utilize kinematic
information to predict the fate of float serves more accurately than expert
watchers and novices who did not play the game.[3]
Anticipation in
Beach Volleyball Defense
A new study from researchers at the VU University in
Amsterdam recently contributed to our understanding of elite reading ability in
the sport of beach volleyball.
The researchers brought together beach volleyball players,
coaches, referees and novices to compare their performances in a beach
volleyball defensive reading experiment.
The VU team sought to isolate participants with perceptual experience
(referees) from participants with perceptual and motor experience (players and
coaches) in order better to understand the contributions of perceptual and
motor experience to action anticipation in beach volleyball.
Based on current research suggesting that motor
experience does contribute to anticipatory skills, the team predicted that the
players and coaches would perform better than the referees and novices. The research was published in the Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport.[4]
[Continued in Part II - click here]
Sunday, October 28, 2012
The Role of Observation and Motor Experience in Reading a Float Serve in Volleyball
The importance of service reception
in women’s volleyball is well established.
Statistical data consistently have confirmed the close correlation of
multi-option passing and winning. One of
the most basic elements of success in serve receive is the ability to predict
the flight of the ball. Misjudgments in
ball flight commonly produce poor passes and single option passes are extremely
inefficient events in the game. Thus,
developing players with the skill to accurately predict the flight of the ball
during the serve receive phase of the game should be a high coaching priority.
[1] 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.
So how do we get our players
to make these predictions? Do we recruit
players that we think have an innate ability to track a ball? Do we wait for players with excellent reading
skills to just walk into the gym? The
answer is we train them. Action
prediction ability in sport is neither a magical quality nor an innate talent. It’s a learned skill, and like any skill, it
should be trained from the earliest stages of a player’s development and
continuously honed throughout her career.
As reading is perhaps the most important skill in the game, the more we
know about it the better we can teach it.
A recent study published in Psychological Research offers valuable insights into the elements that
contribute to successful service-reading abilities in volleyball players[1].
Action Prediction Abilities in Volleyball
A team of Italian researchers
examined the role of visual and motor experience in the ability of athletes to
predict the action of float serves in volleyball. The authors compared the reading abilities of
three groups of adult, right-handed females in their mid-twenties. Group 1 consisted of 12 volleyball athletes
with about 15 years of playing experience (experts). Group 2 was comprised of 12 supporters who
had no experience playing volleyball but who had regularly attended to watching
volleyball for at least 10 years (watchers).
Group 3 was comprised of 12 adults with no volleyball experience at all
(novices).
Participants were shown video clips
of two experienced players performing a series of float serves. Videos showed a front- and back-view of the
server. Clips were shown using a
modified temporal occlusion in which only the body movements of the server or
only the ball was shown. Half of the
clips showed the beginning of the action to the point of the server’s contact
with the ball, thus showing only the server’s body kinematics; the other half
showed the moment of contact to the initial falling trajectory of the serve
(when it was approximately at the height of the net), thus showing only the
ball trajectory.
Participants were asked to view the
clips and predict as fast as possible whether the ball was served in our out of
the court. Notably, in the front-view
perspective the ball was not fully visible in the last part of ball trajectory
– when the ball was falling to the floor.
Study Results
What the researchers found was a mix
of predictable and not so predictable results.
The volleyball athletes outperformed the novices in predicting serves
both from reads based on the server’s body kinematics and the ball trajectory –
regardless of the viewing perspective.
These results confirm years of research consistently showing the superior
action-prediction abilities of elite athletes in their sports, including
volleyball.
So what about the watchers? Did their visual experience contribute to
accurate predictions although they had no playing experience? The evidence suggests that it did. Although watchers were again outperformed by
athletes, the watchers outperformed novices in one important phase - predicting
the serve when viewed from behind the server.
According to the authors, since the
late stages of ball flight stayed in view only for the back-view clips, the
watchers’ visual experience seems to have improved only their ability to read
the serve by using this late ball flight information. In contrast, the volleyball athletes showed
proficiency in utilizing both early and late cues from ball trajectory which
were visible in both the front and back view videos.
Significance for Coaching
The participant-athletes’ superior
performance in predicting ball flight based on the server’s body movements
confirms again the profound implications of teaching players how to read. With serve reception playing a critical role
in winning volleyball matches coaches should be eager to incorporate ways to
improve players’ serve-receive reading skills.
So how do we do this?
Serve Receive Actual Serves -
Reading the Server
Serving and passing must occupy a
significant portion of practice time.
Passers should be passing live serves – and lots of them. Success in predicting ball flight in
volleyball comes in part from the twin abilities to recognize cues in the
server’s behavior and then link those cues to results. When coaches toss balls to players or chip
balls in from the sideline, players are robbed of the cues they need to learn
from actual servers and consequently are deprived of valuable opportunities to
link cues with results. Only through
receiving served balls from real servers do players have an opportunity to
identify and interpret the kinematic cues of real servers and develop the motor
experience that is essential to predicting the flight of served volleyballs.
But we can’t just set up serving and
passing games. Like all training, serve
receive practice should be accompanied by effective feedback. We should coach players what cues to look for, ask them
what they see, and guide them to understand the connection between what they
see and how the ball reacts. Practice
with feedback is the only principled basis for teaching the skill of reading.
Importance of Early Ball Flight -
Reading the Ball
In addition to planning lots of
serving and passing games coaches must emphasize the value of early preparation
in serve receive. The instant research
suggests that athletes’ advanced reading abilities are tied to their unique
skills in reading both kinematic cues and
the initial phase of ball trajectory. In
other words, athletes draw heavily from what is happening on the other side of
the net. Emphasizing early visual
preparation teaches athletes that much of their success in service reception
can be determined long before their “technique” comes into play.
NOTES
[1] 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)