Match Analysis of serving in Italian male top series. Ciuffarella Andrea1, Masedu Francesco1, Russo Luca1 and De Angelis Marco1. 1 Human Movement and Sport Science Faculty University of L’Aquila - Italy
Introduction In volleyball it is possible to discriminate three different styles of serving: Jump serve (JS), Float Jump serve (FJS) and Float Serve (FS). A recent study(1) compared these three styles in terms of effectiveness and speed, but the analyzed sample was very small (4 teams for an amount of only 377 serves from 4 games). Aim of this study was to better investigate the effectiveness of serving modalities in a lager sample of serves. Methods Fourteen teams, of the Italian male top series, were analyzed in 7 official games for an amount of 1062 serves. Player’s role, serve’s type (JS, FJS, FS), defense opponent’s strategy, serve’s target zone, receiver’s evaluation and serve’s outcome were analyzed through a video analysis software (Dartfish 5.0). Statistical analysis of frequencies was performed.
Results The 1062 serves showed that: JS was the 66.2%, FJS was the 30.7%, FS was the 3.1% of total serves (Fig.1; Tab.1). Direct aces and indirect aces from JS were respectively 2.3% and 3.4%, from FJS were 0.9% and 0.6%, from FS were both 0% (Tab.2). Wrong serves were 21.6% for JS, 7.7% for FJS and 0% for FS (Tab. 3). Bad received serves were 7.1% for JS, 2.7% for FJS and 3% for FS (Tab.3 in red).
Serves
Serves
JS
FJS
FS
Total
Count % within Serves % within Point % of Total Count % within Serves % within Point % of Total Count % within Serves % within Point % of Total Count % within Serves % within Point % of Total
Aces 16 2,3% 84,2% 1,5% 3 ,9% 15,8% ,3% 0 ,0% ,0% ,0% 19 1,8% 100,0% 1,8%
Indirect Aces 24 3,4% 92,3% 2,3% 2 ,6% 7,7% ,2% 0 ,0% ,0% ,0% 26 2,4% 100,0% 2,4%
Frequency 703 326 33 1062
Percent 66,2 30,7 3,1 100,0
Valid Percent 66,2 30,7 3,1 100,0
Cumulative Percent 66,2 96,9 100,0
Tab. 1 – Frequencies of serve modalities
Fig. 1 – Frequencies of serve modalities
Received serves -
-+
1 ,1%
23 3,3%
26 3,7%
309 44,0%
++ 152 21,6%
Aces 16 2,3%
Indirect Aces 24 3,4%
Wrong Serves 152 21,6%
Total 703 100,0%
100,0%
79,3%
86,7%
64,2%
50,8%
84,2%
92,3%
85,9%
66,2%
,1% 0 ,0%
2,2% 5 1,5%
2,4% 4 1,2%
29,1% 158 48,5%
14,3% 129 39,6%
1,5% 3 ,9%
2,3% 2 ,6%
14,3% 25 7,7%
66,2% 326 100,0%
,0%
17,2%
13,3%
32,8%
43,1%
15,8%
7,7%
14,1%
30,7%
,0% 0 ,0%
,5% 1 3,0%
,4% 0 ,0%
14,9% 14 42,4%
12,1% 18 54,5%
,3% 0 ,0%
,2% 0 ,0%
2,4% 0 ,0%
30,7% 33 100,0%
,0%
3,4%
,0%
2,9%
6,0%
,0%
,0%
,0%
3,1%
,0% 1 ,1%
,1% 29 2,7%
,0% 30 2,8%
1,3% 481 45,3%
1,7% 299 28,2%
,0% 19 1,8%
,0% 26 2,4%
,0% 177 16,7%
3,1% 1062 100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
100,0%
,1%
2,7%
2,8%
45,3%
28,2%
1,8%
2,4%
16,7%
100,0%
-Serves
JS
Point No point 663 94,3% 65,2% 62,4% 321 98,5% 31,6% 30,2% 33 100,0% 3,2% 3,1% 1017 95,8% 100,0% 95,8%
JS FJS FS Total
Total 703 100,0% 66,2% 66,2% 326 100,0% 30,7% 30,7% 33 100,0% 3,1% 3,1% 1062 100,0% 100,0% 100,0%
FJS
FS
Total
Tab. 2 – Crosstab Serves vs Points
Count % within Serves % within Received serves % of Total Count % within Serves % within Received serves % of Total Count % within Serves % within Received serves % of Total Count % within Serves % within Received serves % of Total
+
Tab. 3 – Crosstab Serves vs Received serves
Discussion Compared to the only previous study(1) on the same topic, the results of the present one, on a much bigger sample, are deeply different. Results underline the greater use of the JS compared to the other styles, but, at the same time, this technique is clearly more risky than the other ones in terms of wrong serves. It has to be added that the benefits of JS, compared to the FJS or to the FS technique, in terms of direct and indirect aces or in terms of bad opponent received serves, are not so big as it is traditionally supposed. References 1.Moras G. et al. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2008, 48:31-36. Acknowledgement: work supported by Italian Volleyball League Series A.
Correspondence: andreaciuffarella@hotmail.com