Review

International Journal of Sports Science

& Coaching
A systematic review of volleyball spike 0(0) 1–17
! The Author(s) 2020
kinematics: Implications for practice Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
and research DOI: 10.1177/1747954119899881
journals.sagepub.com/home/spo

Leonardo dos Santos Oliveira1 ,

ulio Bernardo Macedo Alfano Moura1,
T

Andr
elix Rodacki2, Markus Tilp3 and
e Luiz F

Victor Hugo Alves Okazaki1

Abstract
The volleyball spike represents one of the more sophisticated attack actions, and the study of its kinematics has been the
aim of several studies. This systematic review summarized and critically appraised the literature on the volleyball spike
kinematics. Studies that analysed the 3D kinematics of the volleyball player during spike movements were searched in the
PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science and SPORTDiscus databases. Eighteen studies met the eligibility criteria and were
assessed as high (n ¼ 7), good (n ¼ 6) and limited quality (n ¼ 5). There are strong indications that the spike jump height
depends on the velocities of the centre of mass and that the ball speed seems to be related to velocity variables of the
spike arm and the trunk of the volleyball player. Cross-court spike performance from position 4 seems to be associated
with the trunk rotation of the volleyball player. In addition to the kinematic differences between the sexes, studies
analysed the relationship between spike technique performance and injuries. However, further studies are required
before a clear relationship can be established. These results may support sports coaches in optimizing athletic perfor-
mance with adequate technique training and using kinematic cues from the opposing volleyball players to anticipate
spike direction.

Keywords
Athletic injuries, athletic performance, biomechanics, motor skills, sports

Introduction injury prevention.5,10,18,20 Nevertheless, no consensus

Volleyball is one of the five most practised sports in the has been reached regarding technique differences
world, and the spike is the primary attack action, which between men and women and the experience level.
is closely related to the outcome of the match.1,2 The
spike is a specific skill of the volleyball with high coor-
dinative demands that is characterized by several
Reviewers: Mikko H€ayrinen (KIHU – Research Institute for Olympic
phases: a run, the countermovement jump, a set of Sports, Finland)
explosive overhead actions in the air and a landing Yu Ozawa (Waseda University, Japan)
phase.3–5 The complexity in the analysis of the spike 1
Centro de Educaç~ao F
ısica e Esportes, Universidade Estadual de
advanced in the last decades and has generated practi- Londrina, Londrina, Brazil
2
cal implications for coaches and athletes.6 Physical Education Department, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba,
Brazil
The success in performing the spike depends on phys- 3
Institute of Sports Sciences, Karl-Franzens-University Graz, Graz,
ical7,8 and psychological9 attributes that may be cap- Austria
tured by a number of kinematic variables of the
movement2,4,10 and the ball speed after the impact.2,11– Corresponding author:
13 Leonardo dos Santos Oliveira, Universidade Estadual de Londrina,
Three-dimensional kinematic studies have provided Rodovia Celso Garcia Cid, Pr 445 Km 380, Campus Universitário, 86057-
relevant information on spike performance regarding 970 Londrina-PR, Brazil.
sex,14–16 level of experience,10,14,17 technique18,19 and Email: leosoliveira@uol.com.br
2 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)
A large number of methods and approaches applied
to determine the central spike kinematic features have
produced a myriad of information.4,5,10,14,17,19,21,22
Previous studies devoted to revising biomechanical
aspects of the spike that are associated with jumping
and reaching height, ball trajectory, and injuries have
not been systematically synthesized.4,23 Furthermore,
the studies devoted to revising the literature critically
failed to apply precise methods to identify, select,
appraise and summarize the recent publications,
although results critically rely on the approach used.
This study aimed to critically review and summarize
the existing analyses of the volleyball spike kinematics
in order to identify: (a) the kinematic parameters asso-
ciated with jump height, ball speed and direction and
(b) differences in the kinematics according to sex, level
of experience, technique and injury presence/absence.
It was hypothesized that kinematic parameters are
associated with the jump height, ball speed and direc-
tion. It was also hypothesized that differences in the
kinematics are related to sex, level of experience, tech-
nique and injury presence/absence. The volleyball spike
represents one of the more sophisticated offensive abil-
ities,24 and a better understanding of its kinematic
characteristics may assist coaches, athletes and
researchers to design more effective training sessions
and to provide elements to improve tactical aspects.
Methods
This review was performed based on the Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-
analyses statement.25
Search strategy and review process
Potential studies were identified applying an electronic
search in the following databases: PubMed, SCOPUS
(Elsevier), Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) and
SPORTDiscus with Full Text (EBSCO) in December
2018. The searches included the combination of a set of
keywords (‘biomechanics’, ‘kinematics’, ‘3D kinemat-
ics’, ‘motion analysis’, ‘volleyball’, ‘spike’, ‘spiking’,
‘spike styles’, ‘spiking technique’ and ‘spike jump’)
and were performed using the following search
syntax: (biomechanics OR kinematics OR 3D kinemat-
ics OR motion analysis OR video analysis) AND (vol-
leyball AND spike) OR (volleyball AND spiking) OR
(volleyball AND spike styles) OR (volleyball AND
spiking technique) OR (volleyball AND spike jump).
The records were transferred to a reference manage-
ment software (EndNote X7, Thomson Reuters,
Canada), and the duplicates were removed. Articles
were selected based on publication date, language and
publication type. Titles and abstracts were assessed for
eligibility criteria. Full-text articles were retrieved and
assessed for relevance. Finally, the references of the
selected studies were also hand-searched for relevant
publications. Two reviewers (LO and TM) indepen-
dently assessed each article for eligibility and quality.
A third reviewer (VO) was consulted when discrepan-
cies occurred.
Eligibility criteria
Manuscripts had to be peer-reviewed original research
(not conference proceedings or reviews) and written in
English, Spanish or Portuguese. Only 3D kinematic
assessments of the volleyball spike published from
1990 to 2018 were included. The studies were excluded
when (a) the outcome included only vertical jump var-
iables; (b) performers were younger than 18 years old;
(c) assessing the validation or reliability of the volley-
ball spike methods; (d) involved movement simulation
without using net or ball; (e) an intervention program
was performed.
Quality assessment
The quality of the studies was determined using a cus-
tomized quality assessment tool based on the STROBE
statement26 and previous systematic reviews involving
motion analysis27,28 (Table 1). The quality assessment
tool used for this systematic review was developed
regarding the major research aims. A formal quality
score for each study was completed by applying a
three-point scale: zero (no description), one (limited
description) or two (good description) to each ques-
tion. The quality of the studies was deemed as ‘limited’
(total score <70%), ‘good’ (70% < total score < 80%)
or ‘high’ (total score 80%). Inter-rater agreement was
quantified by the kappa (j) statistic approach29 accord-
ing to the following categories: ‘very poor’ (<0.20),
‘poor’ (0.21–0.40), ‘moderate’ (0.41–0.60), ‘substantial’
(0.61–0.80) and ‘almost perfect’ (0.81–1.00). When rel-
evant, we computed a posteriori statistical power
(1  b) of significant differences in the selected studies
using G*Power 3.1.9 (Franz Faul, Universit€at Kiel,
Germany).
Data extraction
Data were extracted and examined by one of the
authors (LO) and independently verified by another
author (TM) according to a predefined template. The
template included information on the aim and design,
participant characteristics (age, sex and experience
level), spike data (attempts, spiking position and direc-
tion), kinematic analysis (body region, experimental
setting, motion analysis system and sampling frequen-
cy) and primary outcomes. The controversy was
Oliveira et al. 3

Table 1. Quality analysis form used in the systematic review.

Q1 – Is there in the abstract an explication of what has been done and found?
Q2 – Is the scientific context clearly explained?
Q3 – Are the objectives clearly stated?
Q4 – Is the sampling size stated?
Q5 – If yes, is the sampling size statistically justified?
Q6 – Are the characteristics of the subjects (height, weight, sex, athlete, healthy or pathologic subject) described?
Q7 – Is the motion analysis system described?
Q8 – Are marker locations accurately described?
Q9 – Is the spatial model defined?
Q10 – Are the movement tasks defined?
Q11 – Is the accuracy/reliability computation described?
Q12 – Is the mathematical sequence for angular calculation (e.g. Cardan, Euler, Quaternions) described?
Q13 – Is the data processing (filter, normalization, derived) described?
Q14 – Are the statistical tools used to show significant differences?
Q15 – Are the results about the accuracy/reliability described?
Q16 – Are the results interpretable?
Q17 – Are the limitations of the study discussed?
Q18 – Is the conclusion clearly stated?
Questions were scored as follows: 0 ¼ no description; 1 ¼ limited description; 2 ¼ good description.

resolved through detailed discussion by the reviewers
or consultation with a third author (VO) until consen-
sus was reached.
Definitions of technical terms
Spike position. It was the position of the court where the
volleyball spike was performed (positions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
6).30 For instance, position 1 (right back-court zone),
position 6 (middle back-court zone), position 5 (left
back-court zone), position 4 (left front-court zone),
position 3 (middle front-court zone) and position 2
(right front-court zone).
Tempo of attack. It was defined as the tempo of attack
was defined as the temporal interaction between the
setting and the attacker.31,32 Three categories were con-
sidered32: (a) the first tempo, when the performer jumps
before or during the setter’s pass; (b) second tempo,
when the performer takes two or three approaching
steps for attack after the setting and (c) the third
tempo, when the performer waits for the ball peak tra-
jectory to begin the approach.
Spike direction. It was defined as the trajectory of the
ball regarding the following aspects: (a) cross-court
spike, with follow-through of the hitting arm across
the body midline;17 (b) straight-ahead spike, with
follow-through of the hitting arm along the ipsilateral
body side17 and (c) centre spike, in which spike is
directed to position 6 (middle back-court zone).
Spike technique. It was defined as the style applied to
perform the volleyball spike. Two styles were consid-
ered10: (a) the elevation style (traditional technique),
which is characterized by a loading phase of the
spike where the arms swing forward in the sagittal
plane and during the flight phase; the forward–
upward movement of the shoulders is initiated at
take-off and is continued over 90 , until full extension
is achieved and (b) the backswing style (alternative
technique), which is characterized by the loading
phase that starts with a semi-circumduction of both
upper limbs; the right shoulder does not reach the
full flexion and stops at approximately 90 , while com-
pleting the full horizontal abduction. Also, the two seg-
ments of the upper limb move following a whip-like
pattern before hitting the ball.10 Figure 1 illustrates
these techniques.
Shoulder-hip separation angle. It was defined as the angle
between the horizontal of the lines joining the acro-
mion processes and the anterior–superior iliac spine
processes.4,13
Results
Overview of the studies
The search results and a flow diagram of the selected
studies are presented in Figure 2. The initial search
identified 2571 potentially relevant studies. After the
initial eligibility screening, 31 full-text articles were
retrieved, and two further studies were selected from
the references of these studies.13,33 Based on the eligi-
bility criteria, 15 studies were excluded, and 18 articles
remained for further analysis. Only one article was
written in Spanish,34 while the others were written in
English. Table 2 summarizes the participants, design,
4 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)

Figure 1. Arm swing techniques: (a) elevation style; (b) backswing style.

Figure 2. Flow of studies through the review process.

aim and main results of the selected studies. The major-
ity of the studies (83.3%) presented a cross-sectional/
descriptive design.3–5,10,13,14,18,19,21,22,34–38 The investi-
gations highlighted: (a) kinematic differences between
different types of sports,21,36,37 technique,10,19 sex14 and
experience;14 (b) jump and reach height, volleyball
spike kinematic analysis related to ball speed or spike
direction4,13,17,18 and (c) safety and/or injury
prevention5,10,17,18,20,22,35,38,39 (Table 2).
Study quality
There was 94.1% agreement on the study assessment
criteria (k ¼ 0.823, CI95%: 0.752–0.884) between
authors, and a full consensus was achieved after
discussion. The assessment scores ranged from 1822
to 32.10,36 Seven studies (38.9%) presented high-qual-
ity.3,5,10,13,14,18,36 Six studies (33.3%) presented good
quality,17,20,21,35,38,39 and five studies (27.8%) pre-
sented limited methodological quality4,19,22,34,37
(Table 3). Most studies reached the quality criteria
regarding research aims, participant characterization,
description of the motion analysis system, interpreta-
tion of results and conclusions. However, many stud-
ies failed to analyse sample size and to describe the
accuracy/reliability aspects (Table 3). Only the work
of Seminati et al.10 presented a sample size
calculation.
Oliveira et al.
Table 2. Participants, design, aim and main results of the selected studies (n ¼ 18).
Study Participants
Coleman et al.4 Male players from Indonesia
(n ¼ 3), China (n ¼ 2), Poland
(n ¼ 1), Czechoslovakia
(n ¼ 1), Japan (n ¼ 1), Algeria
(n ¼ 1) and Korea (n ¼ 1)
Age: NR
Richards et al.38 Male players from the Canadian Descriptive, to quantify the
National team (n ¼ 10), six
with history of patellar
tendinitis
Age: 23  1 years
Richards et al.35 Male players from the Canadian Descriptive, to quantify the ankle The maximal external tibial rotation
National team (n ¼ 10), three
with patellar tendinopathy
Age: 23  1 years
Tilp et al.36 Male indoor/beach players from Descriptive, to compare the
the first or second Austrian
Indoor Volleyball League
(n ¼ 8)
Age: 25  4 years
Bergün et al.37 Female players from the Turkish Descriptive, to demonstrate two In the backswing phase, there were
Volleyball Super League (n ¼ 9)
Age: 24  4 years
Wagner et al.3 Male players from the first and
second Austrian Indoor
Volleyball League (n ¼ 16)
Age: 23  4 years
Design and aim
Descriptive, to describe the
spiking actions used by players
in top-level competition and
to examine the relationships
between movement kinemat-
ics and ball speed.
lower extremity kinematics
and dynamics of jumps in a
high-risk group of athletes and
determine the potential pre-
dictive relations between vol-
leyball spike jump dynamics
and patellar tendinitis.
joint complex dynamics during
volleyball jumps and to deter-
mine the potential relations of
volleyball jump ankle joint
dynamics to patellar
tendinopathy.
kinematics of volleyball (on a
hard or indoor surface) and
beach volleyball (on a sand
surface) spike jumps.
different overarm movements,
one in throws and one in
spike, by investigating back-
swing and acceleration phases
as well as kinematic analysis
and technical differences.
Descriptive, to determine the
influence of upper and lower
extremity movements on the
volleyball spike jump and how
5
Main results
A correlation was found between
the square of the COM vertical
velocity at take-off and jump
height (r ¼ 0.78). No correlations
were found between lower limb
angular kinematics and COM
vertical velocity at take-off or
jump height. The ball speed was
correlated to the maximum right
humerus angular velocity
(r ¼ 0.75).
The maximal angle of left knee
flexion during the spike jump
landing was a significant indicator
of patellar tendinitis. A deeper
left knee flexion angle during the
spike landing increased the play-
er’s chance of having patellar
tendinitis.
occurred at or near maximal
dorsiflexion while maximal inter-
nal tibial rotation coincided with
maximal plantarflexion. A cluster
of variables was linked to patellar
tendinopathy.
The movements on the sand were
slower and resulted in lower
jumping heights. The athletes
tried to compensate for the dis-
advantageous compliant proper-
ties of sand by altering their
approach technique and amplify-
ing lower joint amplitudes. No
differences in upper limb move-
ments were observed.
differences in the angular width,
velocity and acceleration between
the volleyball players and handball
players on the transverse, vertical
and sagittal planes of the motions.
In the acceleration phase, the
difference was found in the angu-
lar width of the arm segment
motion on the transverse plane.
On the sagittal plane, the differ-
ence was found in the angular
width, velocity and acceleration
of the arm segment motions
among sports.
The asymmetry of the spike jump
revealed differences in angles,
angular velocities of the right and
left legs and arms and a difference
(continued)
6 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)
Table 2. Continued.
Study Participants
Marquez et al.20 Male players, champions of the
All-Japan University League
(n ¼ 6)
Age: 20  1 year
Reeser et al.17 Female players from the National Experimental, to verify the kine- Angular velocities at the shoulder
Collegiate Athletic
Association Division 1
(n ¼ 14)
Age: 21  2 years
Marquez et al.5 World-level male players from
Brazil (n ¼ 2), Japan (n ¼ 1)
and Bulgaria (n ¼ 1)
Age: 25  3 years
Dong22 Male players from the Henan
Mechanical and Electrical
Engineering College (n ¼ 8)
Age: 22  1 years
Design and aim
this movement may differ from
the standing vertical jumps
due to its asymmetry.
Experimental, to assess the
effects of jumping distance
(normal or long jump) on the
landing mechanics after a vol-
leyball spike, to help in injury
prevention and training for a
safer landing.
matics of the upper limb in
different spikes and serves.
Descriptive, to investigate the
motions during the airborne
phase and their relations with
single-legged landing positions
in elite male players during
official games, and gain insights
into techniques for a safe
landing.
Descriptive, to study the rela-
tionship between college ath-
letes spike technique and
sports injury.
Main results
between the distances of the left
and right foot centre to the
COM. The optimal approach
technique to reach a maximal
jump height in the volleyball spike
jump is important.
The landings under the Long jump-
ing distance condition produced
higher COM velocities and larger
mean loading rates. Landing
motion was asymmetric, and the
left leg was considered to play a
more critical role in the absorp-
tion of the landing impact. The
trunk and hip positions at the
initial contact with the floor and
the range of motions of the knee
and ankle were key kinematic
parameters for reducing the ver-
tical peak ground reaction forces
and extending the time from the
initial contact to the occurrence
of this peak force, which conse-
quently reduced the mean loading
rate upon landing.
and elbow were lowest for the
off-speed spike (roll shot) and
second-lowest for the floater
serve. No differences were
detected between the cross-
court and straight-ahead spikes.
Shoulder abduction at the instant
of ball contact was approximately
130 for all skills.
A moderate backswing position of
the trunk and neutral alignment of
shoulders and hips at the ball
impact can be critical motions to
be observed in evaluating this
technique. These motions con-
tribute to maintaining proper
balance after the ball impact and
to landing with the whole body in
a straighter position, which is
crucial for a safe landing.
Shoulder and elbow as well as the
surrounding muscles’ injury most
happened in the spike action,
while the leading cause of the
injury as the shoulder abduction
angle during the push instant and
elbow maximum abduction angle
in the ball contact moment.
(continued)
Oliveira et al. 7

Table 2. Continued.
Study Participants Design and aim Main results
18
Mitchinson et al. Male players from the Australian Descriptive, to quantify differen- No differences were detected
Institute of Sport and the ces in the upper arm and between the injured and unin-
West Australian National, trunk kinematics during the jured groups. Thoracic rotation
injured (n ¼ 13) and uninjured spike between elite volleyball and shoulder abduction at impact
(n ¼ 11) players with and without a and range of shoulder rotation
Age (injured): 24  7 years recent history of recurrent velocity differed between cross-
Age (uninjured): 26  7 years shoulder overuse injury. court and straight-ahead spikes.
West et al.39 Female players from the state- or Experimental crossover, to No effect of bracing on knee kine-
national-level indoor volleyball examine the effects of ankle matics during any task. Wearing
(n ¼ 15) bracing on knee kinematics the Active Ankle T2 brace will
Age: 22  3 years during volleyball tasks. not impact the knee joint range of
motion in volleyball players.
Wagner et al.21 Male players from the Austrian Descriptive, to analyse upper- Shoulder internal rotation pre-
Volleyball National Team body kinematics and pelvis sented high maximal angular
(n ¼ 2), first and second rotation in overarm move- velocity. Maximal angular veloci-
Austrian Volleyball League ments (team-handball throw, ties occurred in a specific proxi-
(n ¼ 8) tennis serve and volleyball mal-to-distal order starting with
Age: 24  3 years spike) and to compare the pelvis rotation followed by trunk
differences in the proximal-to- rotation, trunk flexion, elbow
distal sequence of the maximal extension, shoulder internal
joint movements as well as rotation and shoulder flexion in
maximal angles and angular all analysed overarm movements.
velocities among the different
overarm movements.
Brown et al.13 Female players from the National Descriptive, to examine the Cross-court spikes were significant-
Collegiate Athletic relationship of both shoulder ly higher than for straight-ahead
Association Division I (n ¼ 14) and hip angular kinematics spikes. The shoulder-hip separa-
Age: 21  3 years with ball velocity during the tion angle (S-HSA), shoulder
volleyball spike. angular velocity and hip angular
velocity were all significantly cor-
related with cross-court spikes.
S-HSA was the most significant
predictor of cross-court spikes as
determined by regression
analysis.
Seminati et al.10 Male (n ¼ 11) and female (n ¼ 10) Descriptive, to assess whether The trajectory of the humerus is
players from the first and the elevation style or back- different for the elevation style,
second Italian Indoor swing style spiking technique with maximal flexion of the
Volleyball League presented advantages from an shoulder reduced by 10 and
Age (male): 22  6 years injury prevention perspective horizontal abduction 15 higher.
Age (female): 23  8 years while maintaining athlete No difference was found for
performance. external rotation angles, while
axial rotation velocities were
higher in backswing style, with a
5% higher ball speed. Results
suggest the backswing style as a
potential preventive solution to
shoulder chronic pathologies,
reducing shoulder flexion during
spiking.
Serrien et al.14 Male (n ¼ 8) and female (n ¼ 10) Descriptive, to analyse differen- Top-level players had higher impact
professional players from the ces in the three-dimensional speeds and jumping height than
Belgian volleyball teams spike kinematics of the pelvis, junior elite players for both gen-
(Liga A) trunk and spike arm shoulder ders and the male players had
Age (male): 23  3 years and elbow between male and higher impact speeds and jumping
(continued)
8 International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)

Table 2. Continued.
Study Participants Design and aim Main results

Age (female): 24  2 years
Male (n ¼ 8) and female
(n ¼ 11) youth players from
the Topsportschool
Age (male): 15  1 year
Age (female): 15  1 year
Garrido-Castro et al.34 Female players from the Spanish
Superleague and National
League (n ¼ 3)
Age: 24  3 years
Zahalka et al.19 Male players from the top league Descriptive, to describe and
in the Czech Republic (n ¼ 12)
Age: 28  4 years
COM, the centre of mass.
Age presented as mean  standard deviation.
female top-level and junior
elite volleyball players.
Descriptive, to characterize the
kinematic parameters players
in a group of experienced
women senior class volleyball
using 3D motion capture and
analysis system.
compare kinematics in two
types of execution of attack
hit: the goofy and regular
approach.
height than the female players for
both levels of expertise.
The interaction effects between
sex and level of expertise were
mostly observed in variables from
the shoulder and elbow, whereas
pelvis and trunk velocities only
presented significant main effects.
Many parameters were described as
spiking flight time, vertical impul-
sion speed, ball speed after and
range of movement in the domi-
nant arm, among others, with
similar values to those published
by other authors.
The trajectory of players with goofy
approach seemed to be conve-
nient for the rotation of should-
ers and hips in the moment of ball
contact. Players with a goofy
approach had a more prolonged
flight phase compared to regularly
approaching players.

Table 3. Quality analysis of the selected studies (n ¼ 18).

Total
Study Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 (max ¼ 36) % Quality

Coleman et al.4 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 2 25 69.4

Richards et al.38 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 27 75.0
Richards et al.35 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 28 77.8
Tilp et al.36 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 32 88.9
Wagner et al.3 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 29 80.6
Bergün et al.37 1 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 23 63.9
Marquez et al.20 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 28 77.8
Reeser et al.17 2 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 2 2 27 75.0
Marquez et al.5 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 2 30 83.3
Dong22 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 18 50.0
Mitchinson et al.18 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 30 83.3
West et al.39 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 28 77.8
Wagner et al.21 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 0 2 28 77.8
Brown et al.13 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 30 83.3
Seminati et al.10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 32 88.9
Serrien et al.14 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 30 83.3
Garrido-Castro et al.34 2 1 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 1 23 63.9
Zahalka et al.19 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 23 63.9

Questions were scored as follows: 0 ¼ no description, 1 ¼ limited description, 2 ¼ good description.

Participant characteristics presented patellar tendinitis/tendinopathy35,38 and

Two hundred and thirteen players (20 < age < 32 years) shoulder injury history,18 respectively. Dong22 did not
were analysed, from which 64.8% were males. It was mention how many injured players were analysed.
noticed that about 4.2 and 6.4% of the players Seven studies reported the experience
Oliveira et al.
level,3,10,13,14,21,22,36 which ranged from 3 to 14 years.
Most studies included right-handed performers, and
only three studies analysed left-handed performers.
Two studies did not state the handedness of the
players.14,19
Experimental setting and motion analysis system
Table 4 includes a summary of the key features of the
experimental setting, and the motion analysis systems
were used in the selected studies. Nine studies were
conducted in a volleyball court,3–5,14,19,21,34,36,37 seven
were performed in a laboratory-based
13,17,18,20,35,38,39
setup and one study analysed players
that both simulated the volleyball spike in the labora-
tory and executed the ball spiking on indoor/competi-
tion court.10 Only two studies were conducted during
official matches.4,5 Dong22 did not mention the data
collection environment. Ten studies reported the
spike position,4,5,13,19,20,34,35,37–39 from which 80%
were performed from position 4. Spike direction was
reported in 11 studies,3–5,10,13,14,17–20,34 and the cross-
court spike was observed in 54.5% of the cases. The
number of analysed attempts varied between studies
and ranged from 3 to 10.
Regardless of the biomechanical model adopted, the
studies focused on the kinematics of the upper
limbs,4,10,13,17,18,21,36,39 trunk4,10,13,17,18,21,36,39 and
lower limbs.3,4,35,36,38,39 Seven studies evaluated the
full-body kinematics.3–5,19,22,36,39 Eight studies used
an optoelectrical system operating at a frequency of
250 Hz for 3D kinematic analysis.3,10,14,18,20,21,36,39
Other motion capture systems with sampling frequen-
cies between 50 and 120 Hz4,13,19,22,34,37 were also iden-
tified (Table 4).
Volleyball spike characteristics
Authors defined several phases during the spike move-
ment,14,17,21 and the most detailed model was suggested
by Coleman et al.,4 comprising six phases: (1)
‘Approach’, defined as the instant between the left
foot take-off and the ground contact of both feet
(last step); (2) ‘Plant phase’, defined as the period
between the ground contact of both feet up to take-
off; (3) ‘Take-off’, which is the instant the feet lose
contact with the ground; (4) ‘Flight’ (integrating body
movements, especially upper limbs, prior to ball con-
tact); (5) ‘Hitting action’ (ball contact) and (6)
‘Landing’, defined as the instants between the initial
contact of the foot with the floor and the lowest posi-
tion of centre of mass. For more details about the
description of the spike phases, see Coleman et al.,4
Tilp et al.,36 Wagner et al.3 and Marquez et al.5
9
Most of the reviewed studies reported data on the
take-off phase,3–5,22,34–37 the flight
4,5,10,14,17,18,21,22,34,37,39
phase and the hitting action
(ball contact).4,5,10,13,14,17,18,20–22,34,37,39
Although different spike techniques (traditional/ele-
vation vs. alternative/backswing) are reported in the
literature, most performers preferred the elevation
style.3,4,10,21,36 Due to methodological differences in
the way positions, angles or velocity were defined,
only a few kinematic variables are presented.
The plant, downward and upward phases were char-
acterized by negative and positive velocities of the
centre of mass.3,4,36 The vertical position of the centre
of mass at take-off ranged from 1.26 to 1.31 m, and the
velocity was close to 3.6 m/s for elite male players.4,36
In a ‘goofy’ approach (right-handers with an opposite
sequence of steps before take-off, i.e. with the right foot
in front at take-off) from position 3, male elite players
presented a maximal vertical velocity of COM between
2.91 and 2.96 m/s.19 Experienced players presented the
horizontal velocity of COM near to 3.7 m/s.3,34 Besides,
Wagner et al.3 concluded that due to the direction of
the acceleration, the right leg contributed predominant-
ly to the vertical acceleration of the COM, whereas the
left leg stabilized the movement in the horizontal direc-
tion and assisted in the translation of the acceleration
from horizontal into vertical.
During the spiking action, the shoulder abduction
angle ranged from 130 to 133 for NCAA female play-
ers17 and 130 –131 for elite male players.18 During the
spike, Tilp et al.36 and Wagner et al.3 verified a range of
motion for shoulder flexion about 160 . In general, a
greater external rotation was observed when compared
to the internal rotation of the attacking arm.10,14,18
Moreover, Marquez et al.5 reported that the trunk of
elite male players was mostly twisted backwards after
the toe-off until it reached the maximum height, from
which it was acutely twisted forward while swinging for
the ball hit. In a spike analysis from position 3,
Zahalka et al.19 verified that the trajectory of players
with the ‘goofy’ approach seemed to be convenient for
the rotation of shoulders and hips in the spike action.
The linear velocity of the attack hand ranged from
19.2 to 21.9 m/s for elite male players4,10 and from 13.8
to 18.7 m/s for elite female counterparts.10,34 The elbow
angular velocity varied from 26.2 to 34.9 rad/s for elite
male players4,14,21 and from about 17.0–28.2 rad/s for
elite female players.14,34
Jump height and reach
The volleyball spike jump for elite players was recorded
in six studies3,4,14,18,34,36 (Table 5). The mean jump
height determined by COM kinematics ranged from
62.014 to 68.2 cm18 for males and from 48.514 to
10
Table 4. Kinematic analysis, spike position, spike direction and motion analysis system of the selected studies (n ¼ 18).
Study Kinematic analysis
4
Coleman et al. Full body
Spike execution in official games
(? attempts)
Richards et al.38 Lower limb
Spike execution in laboratory
(three successful attempts)
Richards et al.35 Lower Limb
Spike execution in laboratory
(three successful attempts)
Tilp et al.36 Full body
Spike execution in court (best
8 of the 12–15 attempts)
Bergün et al.37 Upper limb
Spike execution in court (five
successful attempts)
Wagner et al.3 Full body
Spike execution in court (best 6
of the 10 successful attempts)
Marquez et al.20 Trunk and lower limb
Spike execution in laboratory
(six successful attempts)
Reeser et al.17 Upper limb
Spike execution in laboratory
(five successful attempts per
skill)
Marquez et al.5 Full body
Spike execution in official games
(three successful attempts)
Dong22 Full body
Spike execution in NR (three
successful attempts)
Mitchinson et al.18 Upper Limb
Spike execution in laboratory
(minimum of three successful
attempts per skill)
West et al.39 Knee kinematics
Spike execution in laboratory
(3 attempts)
Wagner et al.21 Upper limb
Spike execution in court (until
five successful attempts)
Brown et al.13 Trunk and upper limb
Spike execution in court (seven
successful attempts)
Seminati et al.10 Upper Limb
Spike simulation in laboratory
and spike execution in court
(three successful attempts)
Serrien et al.14 Pelvis, trunk and upper limb
Spike execution in court (10
successful attempts)
Garrido-castro et al.34 Full body
Spike execution in court (five
successful attempts)
NR, not reported.
?: imprecise information.
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)
Spike position (Z) and
spike direction (D) Motion analysis system
Z: 4 Two Photosonics Biomechanics 500
D: Various spikes cine-cameras (100 Hz)
Z: 4 Four high-speed video digitizing
D: NR (200 Hz) þ Kintrak Motion Analysis
software
Z: 4 Four high-speed video digitizing
D: NR (200 Hz) þ VP 320 Kintrak Motion
Analysis software
Z: NR Eight-camera Vicon 3D motion capture
D: NR system (250 Hz)
Z: 4 Two Sony DCR-TRV330E camcorders
D: NR (50 Hz) þ SIMI motion program
Z: NR Eight-camera Vicon 3D motion capture
D: Centre spike system (250 Hz)
Z: 4 Eight-camera Vicon 3D motion capture
D: cross-court spike system (250 Hz) þ Visual 3D
software
Z: NR Eight-camera EVaRT 5.0 Motion
D: Cross-court and Analysis Corporation (240 Hz)
straight-ahead spikes
Z: 4 Two high-speed VTR cameras
D: Cross-court spike (250 Hz) þ Frame-Dias II VTR
digitizer
Z: NR Two high-speed JVC GR-DVL9800SH
D: NR cameras (100 Hz) þ Ariel
Performance Analysis System
Z: NR Eight-camera Vicon 3D motion capture
D: Cross-court and system (250 Hz) þ Vicon motion
straight-ahead spikes analysis software
Z: 3 Fourteen-camera Vicon 3D motion
D: NR capture system (250 Hz) þ LabVIEW
program
Z: NR Eight-camera Vicon 3D motion capture
D: Straight-ahead spike? system (250 Hz) þ Vicon Nexus
software
Z: 2 and 4 Ten-camera Raptor-E Digital Real Time
D: Cross-court and Camera System (120 Hz)
straight-ahead spikes
Z: NR Eight-camera Vicon 3D motion capture
D: Straight-ahead spike system (250 Hz) þ High-frequency
Casio Exilim camera (210 Hz)
Z: NR Six-camera Vicon 3D motion capture
D: Centre spike system (250 Hz) þ Vicon Nexus
software
Z: 4 Five-high-speed Basler acA640-100 gc
D: Various spikes behind camera (100 Hz) þ UCOTrack
the 3-m line system
Oliveira et al.
Table 5. Volleyball spike jump and the reach height in the selected studies.
Study Sex Level of experience
Coleman et al.4 M Elite
Tilp et al.36 M Elite
Wagner et al.3 M Elite
Mitchinson et al.18 M Elite
Seminati et al.10
M Elite
F Elite
Serrien et al.14 M Elite
F Elite
M Junior
F Junior
Garrido-Castro et al.34 F Elite
Data reported by mean and (standard deviation).
M, male; F, female; ES, elevation style; BS, backswing style.
*Difference for male elite players (p < 0.05; Statistical power 80%).
**Mean calculated from the original paper.
54.3 cm34 for female healthy players. The jump height
for young players (age ¼ 15 years) was assessed only in
one study, which reported 53.8 cm for males and
47.5 cm for females.14
The jump height has been related to the COM var-
iables such as the vertical velocity,36 the squared verti-
cal velocity,4 the maximum horizontal velocity3 and the
minimum height.3 In addition, Wagner et al.3 showed
correlations of spike jump height with: knee flexion–
extension range (during the approach/‘plant’ phase),
maximum angular velocity of left shoulder hyperexten-
sion (in the flight phase) and maximum angular veloc-
ity of flexion of the left shoulder (in the flight phase).
Reach height was measured in two studies10,34
(Table 5). However, the anatomical landmarks on the
hand differed between investigations, and a clear com-
parison requires caution. Seminati et al.10 placed the
markers at the right hand, just below the right third
metacarpus, while Garrido-Castro et al.34 did not pro-
vide details about the marker placement. The highest
reach height was 2.73 m for elite Italian women and
3.05 m for Italian elite counterparts.10
Ball speed and spike direction
The ball speed was recorded in six studies.4,10,13,17,18,34
Coleman et al.4 and Mitchinson et al.18 recorded mean
ball speed for healthy male elite players of 27.0 and
19.0 m/s, respectively. Seminati et al.10 verified that
the ball speed was similar in different spike techniques
for male (elevation style: 25.6 m/s vs. backswing style:
26.3 m/s) and female (elevation style: 20.1 m/s vs. back-
swing style: 22.2 m/s) Italian elite players. Brown
et al.13 showed the ball speed for I Division NCAA
11
Jump height (cm) Reach height (m)
62.3 (0.1)
67.7 (5.7)
67.0 (7.0)
68.2 (7.5)
3.04 (0.09)ES
3.05 (0.10)BS
2.72 (0.06)ES*
2.73 (0.06)BS*
62.0 (3.4)
48.5 (4.5)*
53.8 (6.3)*
47.5 (7.3)*
54.3 (6.6) 2.54 (0.12)**
female volleyball players were higher (computed statis-
tical power ¼ 63.6%) when the volleyball spike was
directed straight-ahead (17.5 m/s) compared to the
cross-court spike (15.9 m/s). However, Reeser et al.17
did not identify differences in ball speed between
straight-ahead (15.5 m/s) and cross-court (15.7 m/s)
spikes for a similar sample. Finally, a mean ball
speed of 18.4 m/s was reported by Garrido-Castro
et al.34 for Spanish elite female players, in which
spikes were driven to areas of the backcourt (cross-
court, straight-ahead or centre spikes).
For the straight-ahead spikes, ball speed correlated
with the shoulder-hip separation angle (r ¼ 0.56),
shoulder angular velocity (r ¼ 0.66) and hip angular
velocity (r ¼ 0.47).13 Besides, Coleman et al.4 reported
a high correlation between ball speed (for various
directions of spikes during competitive matches) and
angular velocity of the spiking arm (r ¼ 0.75).
Spike direction was reported in seven stud-
ies;3,4,13,14,17,18,20 however, only three studies focused
on such kinematic differences.13,17,18 Mitchinson
et al.18 found that elite male players rotated the trunk
more at the instant of ball impact (D ¼ 4 , CI95%:
0.9–7.7, p ¼ 0.015) with their upper arm positioned fur-
ther in front of the trunk (D ¼ 4 , CI95%: 0.9–7.6,
p ¼ 0.016) during cross-court compared to straight-
ahead spikes. Furthermore, they reported that the
range of shoulder rotation velocity was also higher
when performing cross-court spikes compared to
straight-ahead spikes (D ¼ 236 /s).18 Brown et al.13
reported significant differences for the shoulder-hip
separate angle between straight-ahead (9  5 ) and
cross-court (13  5 ) spikes for the I Division
NCAA female volleyball players (p ¼ 0.043, computed
12
statistical power ¼ 61.9%). On the other hand, with a
similar sample, Reeser et al.17 did not observe kinemat-
ic differences between the two spike directions.
Volleyball spike kinematic differences related to sex,
level of experience and technique
Comparisons of kinematic features of the volleyball
spike between sexes and levels of experience were per-
formed by Serrien et al.14 with Belgium players. The
speed of the hand at ball impact instant was higher
(computed statistical power >80%) for elite male
(16.3 m/s) compared to elite female (12.4 m/s) and to
young male (13.9 m/s) and young female (11.2 m/s)
players, with a significant main effect for sex.14 An
important difference observed in the spike kinematics
of elite compared to young players was a higher elbow
extension velocity associated with greater speed at the
impact instant.14 Moreover, Serrien et al.14 reported
that elite players had an earlier elbow extension
onset, and they hit the ball with the elbow in a more
extended position in comparison to young players.
Since Serrien et al.14 analysed the time series at various
time-spans, further statistical main effects were
detected for shoulder horizontal abduction/adduction
velocity (higher for elite male vs. young male players),
shoulder rotation angle (greater for elite male vs. young
male players), pelvis tilt velocity (higher for male vs.
female players), trunk velocity in the sagittal plane
(higher for elite vs. young players), trunk rotation
velocity (higher for elite vs. young players), and lateral
tilting velocity of the trunk (greater for elite vs. young
players at the start of the motion and greater for female
vs. male players at the ball impact).
Seminati et al.10 investigated the differences between
sexes and spike techniques. While there was a higher
maximum height of the attack hand for the male in
comparison to the female players (Table 5), the
attack performed with the backswing style technique
provided similar velocities of the hand at ball impact
instant when compared to elevation style for both male
(elevation style: 20.7 m/s vs. backswing style: 21.9 m/s)
and female Italian elite players (elevation style: 17.9 m/s
vs. backswing style: 18.7 m/s).10 The hand velocity and
ball speeds were about 14 and 18% higher for men,
respectively, regardless of the spiking technique.10
These authors found that the humerus trajectory was
different in the elevation style technique, with the max-
imum shoulder flexion reduced by 10 and the hori-
zontal abduction 15 greater than the backswing
style. Furthermore, internal angular velocity was
approximately 35% higher for the backswing style
technique in male players.10
Zahalka et al.19 found that the players with a ‘goofy’
approach had a more prolonged flight phase in
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)
comparison to regularly approaching players. The
authors described that the vertical position of COM
is similar to both approaches, and the highest differ-
ence was in width between the right and left foot during
the take-off, where the regular approach presented the
value of 0.87 m and the goofy approach of 0.23 m
(computed statistical power ¼ 95.5%).19 In addition,
they reported that this fact appeared to be suitable
for the rotation of shoulders and hips at ball contact
instant.
Volleyball spike kinematics related to safety and
injury prevention
Kinematic analysis of the volleyball spike, in isolation,
did not provide evidence related to safety or injury pre-
vention in three studies of this review.17,35,39
Investigating the shoulder range of motion and the
humerus rotation in elite players, Seminati et al.10 sug-
gested that the backswing style technique is a potential
preventive solution for chronic shoulder pathologies,
reducing shoulder flexion during spiking and therefore
also reducing possibly dangerous impingements. When
comparing players with and without shoulder injuries,
Mitchinson et al.18 did not verify differences in the
range of motion, ball speed or spike jump height.
West et al.39 verified that wearing the Active Ankle
T2 brace did not impact the knee joint range of motion
in the sagittal plane in healthy female players. Richards
et al.38 reported that among 10 elite male athletes, six
had a history of patellar tendinitis. These authors also
found that the likelihood of patellar tendon pain
during spike jump landing was significantly associated
to the maximum left knee flexion angle, predicting cor-
rectly 10 of 10 cases by the logistic regression.
Regarding safe landing, Marquez et al.20 assessed
the effects of jumping distance on the landing mechan-
ics after a volleyball spike for male university volleyball
players. The results revealed that the landings under a
long jumping distance condition (0.7 m augmentation
in the jumping distance) produced significantly higher
centre of mass velocities and significant mean loading
rates for the ground reaction forces.20 The trunk and
hip positions at the initial contact with the ground and
the range of motions of the knee and ankle represented
key kinematic parameters for reducing the vertical peak
ground reaction forces. Loading rate upon landing
could be reduced by extending the time from the initial
contact to the occurrence of vertical peak ground reac-
tion force.20 Moreover, a raised trunk with extended
hip and a slight knee flexion at the initial contact, fol-
lowed by large ranges of motion in the knee and ankle
before the heel strike, were essential elements of safer
landings.20
Oliveira et al.
In a later publication, these authors stated that a
moderate backswing position of the trunk and an
absence of trunk rotation in relation to the hip at the
ball impact contribute to maintaining proper balance
after the ball impact and to landing with the whole
body in a straighter position, which is essential for a
safe landing for elite players.5
Discussion and implications for practice
and research
The present work summarized the analyses involving
the kinematic aspects of the volleyball spike. Due to the
considerable variation in the number of participants
and different research aims, the results are more appli-
cable for right-handed elite adult players (21–32 years
old), and interpretations should prioritize the spike per-
formed from position 4. Moreover, considering differ-
ences in motion analysis systems, especially the
accuracy and the sampling frequency, and the isolated
evidence on the association between injuries and spike
kinematics, data should be analysed with caution.
Thus, the main findings regarding our hypotheses
were based on the quality of the studies.
There was strong evidence that the height of the
jump during the spike is closely related to the COM
variables, and the kinematics differ between sexes. The
ball speed seems to be related to shoulder, humerus and
hip angular velocities as well as to shoulder-hip sepa-
ration angle. Contrary, ball speed does not appear to
depend on the ball direction or technique. Although the
results for the spike direction were conflicting, the
cross-court spike seems to be associated with a larger
trunk rotation of the player compared to the straight-
ahead spikes. Moderate evidence indicated that the vol-
leyball spike kinematics differ by the level of experience
and by technique. Moreover, shoulder injuries did not
change movement kinematics and might be mitigated
by using an alternative technique (backswing style).
Studies devoted to determining spike technique and
injury are scarce, and more longitudinal studies are
required before a clear relationship can be established.
Finally, a balanced position of the trunk and hip at the
ball impact can contribute to a safer landing.
Regarding the quality of the reviewed papers, about
39% presented high quality. One of the main limita-
tions observed is the sample size calculation, which
may increase the risk of type II error (reduces statistical
power) and affect the level of evidence of some
results.40 Another important point comes from the
accuracy/reliability of the analyses. Studies that ana-
lysed the volleyball spike with sampling frequency
less than or equal to 100 Hz, curiously, had the
lowest qualitative scores.4,19,22,34,37 Besides, three of
13
these studies did not use optoelectronic systems nor
reported the accuracy.19,22,37 These findings seem to
indicate that studies with simpler motion analysis sys-
tems present less control of methodological biases;
however, the reasons for this remain unclear.
Therefore, caution is required to evaluate the angular
velocities and the related derivatives, as previously
mentioned by Wagner et al.21
According to the specificity principle, the players
tend to present the best performances when the data
are collected in contexts close to the competition con-
ditions. The studies performed by Coleman et al.4 and
Marquez et al.5 were the only ones that analysed the
volleyball spike during the game. Although the players
performed the movements in official courts in about
60% of the studies, the additional presence of the
opposing block may have a significant impact on
spike performance. It reveals a critical issue in this
field of research, as most studies are performed under
laboratory conditions. Another recurring detail was
whether a second person set the ball (e.g. tossed by a
setter or coach) or fixed it from a predetermined height.
In this case, although the fixed ball can add an advan-
tage in the accuracy of the spike position, it is a situa-
tion far from what happens in the volleyball game and,
therefore, less recommended. Thus, the proposal of
Serrien et al.14 of quantifying the variability in toss-
up using the range on the location of ball impact
seems to be a useful research strategy.
The jump height achieved during the spike depends
on the velocities of COM before the flight phase.3,4,36
Wagner et al.3 reported that high horizontal velocities
of COM were related to greater spike jump height con-
tributing to the vertical acceleration of the COM.
Other studies reinforce that the approach before the
spike and a better use of countermovement41 and
length of the orientation step during approach16 are
important to improve vertical jump performance.
Hence, improving approach speed by appropriate
strength (e.g. heavy-resistance strength training and
plyometric training) and technical training (e.g. usage
of trunk flexion and arm swing to refine the spike
motion and to facilitate the countermovement15)
should be a significant objective for coaches and ath-
letes seeking to improve jumping height and teaching
of the spike.
Additional to jump height, it is speculated that the
reach height should also contribute to the attack effec-
tiveness2 since it is related to the ball speed in the
spike.11 It is further reinforced as elite players hit the
ball with a more extended elbow position in compari-
son to young players,14 which results in greater reach
height. Hence, the reach height in competition-like sit-
uations should be further investigated, and analysis of
ball speed and spike direction should be included.
14
Consequently, coaches should emphasize that players
hit the ball with extended dominant elbow to increase
reach height and ball speed, providing a greater chance
of attack success.14
Previous research identified that the ball speed is an
essential element for the success of the spike since high
speeds reduce the possibilities of the opponent’s
defence.11,12 Our findings allowed us to conjecture
that the ball speed is not related to the spike direction,
volleyball spike technique or even the presence of
shoulder injuries. However, a recent study indicated
that ball speeds higher than 25 m/s present a negative
effect on its effectiveness.2 The history of pain in the
preferred shoulder is also associated with a reduced ball
speed in the volleyball spike.2 Such divergences require
a more comprehensive analysis involving ball speed
and spike direction.
Considering that ball speed in cross-court and
straight-ahead spikes from position 4 are similar,
straight-ahead spikes appear more successful as the
ball reaches position 1 (usually the position of the
setter or the opposite) much faster in comparison to
the defender of position 5 (usually the libero or
middle-blocker) because the attacker is closer to the
defender. Therefore, it seems essential to improve the
positioning and overhead digs of the defenders for this
type of attack, but also the positioning of the blockers.
Furthermore, coaches should perform spike training
(especially for young athletes) without favouring a
single technique for spiking, since performance indica-
tors are not related to the spiking technique. In addi-
tion, athletes with shoulder pain or injury did not have
decreased ball velocity in the attack. Training athletes
with shoulder pain or injury should aim to identify
techniques that do not aggravate shoulder injuries.42
The ball speed during the spike was related to the
following variables: angular velocities of the humerus,4
shoulder and hip13 and shoulder-hip separation
angle.13 Using multiple regression analysis, Brown
et al.13 found out that a 0.2 increase in the shoulder-
hip separation angle increases the ball speed in the
cross-court volleyball spike by 0.28 m/s. This result is
consistent with the theoretical considerations proposed
by Tilp23 that an active trunk movement considerably
supports the acceleration of the attacking arm.
Increased speeds are obtained by a specific proximal–
distal order of the segments that are initiated by the
pelvic rotation and trunk flexion and terminated by
elbow extension, internal shoulder rotation and shoul-
der flexion when maximum angular velocities occur.21
Hence, trunk strengthening exercises should be a sig-
nificant part of volleyball training both to reduce back
problems and to increase performance.
The indication of the spike direction from the vol-
leyball player kinematics seems to be related to the
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)
trunk rotation. The main differences pointed out by
Brown et al.13 for the shoulder-hip separation angle,
and by Mitchinson et al.,18 for the trunk rotation, pro-
vide indications of this result since trunk rotation on
the vertical axis supports the acceleration of the spiking
arm.23 This finding is in agreement with a large trunk
twist from toe-off to ball impact5 and with the trajec-
tory of players from the goofy approach, which seemed
to be more convenient for the following rotation of
shoulders and hips at the ball impact instant.19 Sports
coaches often indicate that goofy jumpers (e.g. right-
handed players with the right foot in the front) are not
able to hit off body spikes well, but are able to hit
cross-body spikes better, probably due to their whole
body orientation. To the best of our knowledge, there
are no studies so far that investigated this phenome-
non, and we recommend future kinematic studies on
this topic.
Understanding the kinematic indicators of the spike
direction may provide relevant insights for organizing
the defensive system. In volleyball, kinematic cues
assist in anticipation of an imminent attack action.43
Appropriate responses for volleyball defence are com-
plicated due to the temporal constraints and the latency
in processing sensory information.44,45 Responding to
the attacker’s action only after the availability of reli-
able information from the ball flight (e.g. after hand-
ball contact), it is sometimes not possible to be in the
right place of the court at the right time to perform the
defence.44,46 Thus, from the defensive point of view, the
anticipation of the spike direction from torso kinemat-
ics may contribute to blocking points or providing
better organization of defensive system for effective
counter-attacks. Coaches should, therefore, aim to
improve the perception of the blocking and defence
players regarding the opponent’s trunk kinematics to
increase the defensive performance. Despite this, visual
information from the arm swing (e.g. dominant shoul-
der and hand) can be more easily used by volleyball
players.
Differences in spike height and ball speed between
sexes were significant and already expected due to
physical attributes.7,8 Such differences were also
reported regarding the experience/competition
level.14,41 In the spike execution, many kinematic dif-
ferences were observed by Serrien et al.,14 indicating
that the strategies between men and women and
levels of experiences present specificities. Although a
recent study endorses the sex-specific technical-coordi-
native characteristics of the volleyball spike jump,15
coaches and athletes should focus efforts on keeping
the elbow above the shoulder throughout the swing
and maximum elbow extension to throw the hand
toward the ball in order to improve the spike height,
especially for young and female performers.
Oliveira et al.
This information may aid in the development of train-
ing programs according to age and expertise; however,
more studies are necessary for supporting specific
methods for teaching spiking. Additionally, attacking
in different spike positions may demand movement
adaptations that require further analyses, depending
on the sex and level of experience/competition.
None of the studies presented substantial evidence
that a clear relationship between spike kinematics and
injury exists. In part, this finding stems from the fact
that investigations on injuries in volleyball players have
applied other biomechanical analysis (force platform,
electromyography, isokinetic apparatus, etc.), and this
is a limitation of our study. The proposition of
Seminati et al.10 that the backswing style technique is
a potential preventive solution for chronic shoulder
pathologies has still to be confirmed, although it is jus-
tified by the idea that reduced shoulder flexion during
the spike may minimize injury incidence. Another
interesting proposal for injury prevention in volleyball
is based on landing technique, including both feet and
with greater amplitudes of the ankle and knee joints.5
This argument is further supported by the fact that
athletes with patellar tendinitis apply deeper knee flex-
ion angles during landing, probably to reduce peak
stress on the tendon.38
The present work provided one of the first systema-
tized reviews focused on volleyball spike kinematics,
which is essential for the advancement of assessment
and teaching methods and the physical and technical-
tactical training of players. It is known that kinetic data
analysis is very important for a wide discussion about
volleyball spike; therefore, other investigation should
be performed. Despite systematizing the search in
large electronic databases and performing a qualitative
analysis of the included studies, the research did not
include ‘grey literature’. Due to the sample size of stud-
ies, the statistical power is relatively small, and some
previous gaps in research could not be closed. Finally,
the application of different methods for the analysis of
the spike makes interpretation difficult.
Conclusion
There are strong indications that the spike jump height
depends on the velocities of the COM during the
approach and that the ball speed seems to be related
to velocity variables of the spike arm and trunk of the
player. The kinematics of the volleyball player’s torso
seems to predict the cross-court spike (spike direction).
In addition to the kinematic differences between the
sexes, other studies should examine differences related
to the level of experience, spike techniques and influ-
ence of injuries in the volleyball spike.
15
These results may support sports coaches in optimiz-
ing athletic performance with adequate technique train-
ing (especially concerning the phases preceding the
spike jump) and using kinematic cues from the oppos-
ing volleyball players to anticipate spike direction.
Considering that other sports have a similar pattern
to the spike movement, the present study may also
contribute to the kinematic analysis of these sports.
Given the limitations presented, it is suggested that
well-designed investigations may explore the gaps
listed in this review, such as longitudinal studies on
injury prevention.
Acknowledgements
We thank the technical contributions to Prof Luis Augusto
Teixeira, PhD (USP, Brazil), Rodrigo Bini, PhD (LTU,
Australia), Prof Felipe Moura, PhD (UEL, Brazil), Prof
Gustavo Conti, PhD (UFG, Brazil) and Norbert Schrapf
for producing the arm swing technique figure in the final
paper.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial sup-
port for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This work was supported by the Coordenaç~ao de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de N
ıvel Superior - Brasil
(CAPES) under Grant Finance Code 001.
ORCID iD
Leonardo dos Santos Oliveira https://orcid.org/0000-
0001-7485-105X
References
1. Marcelino R, Mesquita I and Afonso J. The weight of
terminal actions in volleyball. Contributions of the spike,
serve and block for the teams’ rankings in the World
League 2005. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2008; 8: 1–7.
2. Challoumas D and Artemiou A. Predictors of attack per-
formance in high-level male volleyball players. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform 2018; 13: 1–23.
3. Wagner H, Tilp M, Von Duvillard SP, et al. Kinematic
analysis of volleyball spike jump. Int J Sports Med 2009;
30: 760–765.
4. Coleman SG, Benham AS and Northcott SR. A three-
dimensional cinematographical analysis of the volleyball
spike. J Sports Sci 1993; 11: 295–302.
5. Marquez WQ, Masumura M and Ae M. Spike-landing
motion of elite male volleyball players during official
games. Int J Sport Health Sci 2011; 9: 82–90.
16
6. Reeser JC. Looking ahead: the future of volleyball sports
medicine and science. In: Reeser JC and Bahr R (eds)
Handbook of sports medicine and science: volleyball. 2nd
ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2017, pp.221–223.
7. Ziv G and Lidor R. Vertical jump in female and male
volleyball players: a review of observational and experi-
mental studies. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2010; 20:
556–567.
8. Sattler T, Hadzic V, Dervisevic E, et al. Vertical jump
performance of professional male and female volleyball
players: effects of playing position and competition level.
J Strength Cond Res 2015; 29: 1486–1493.
9. Guldenpenning I, Steinke A, Koester D, et al. Athletes
and novices are differently capable to recognize feint and
non-feint actions. Exp Brain Res 2013; 230: 333–343.
10. Seminati E, Marzari A, Vacondio O, et al. Shoulder 3D
range of motion and humerus rotation in two volleyball
spike techniques: injury prevention and performance.
Sports Biomech 2015; 14: 216–231.
11. Forthomme B, Croisier JL, Ciccarone G, et al. Factors
correlated with volleyball spike velocity. Am J Sports
Med 2005; 33: 1513–1519.
12. Ferris DP, Signorile JF and Caruso JF. The relationship
between physical and physiological variables and volley-
ball spiking velocity. J Strength Cond Res 1995; 9: 32–36.
13. Brown JR, Alsarraf BJ, Waller M, et al. Rotational
angles and velocities during down the line and diagonal
across court volleyball spikes. IJKSS 2014; 2: 1–8.
14. Serrien B, Ooijen J, Goossens M, et al. A motion analysis
in the volleyball spike – part 1: three-dimensional kine-
matics and performance. IJHMSS 2016; 4: 70–82.
15. Fuchs PX, Menzel HK, Guidotti F, et al. Spike jump
biomechanics in male versus female elite volleyball play-
ers. J Sports Sci 2019; 37: 2411–2419.
16. Fuchs PX, Fusco A, Bell JW, et al. Movement character-
istics of volleyball spike jump performance in females.
J Sci Med Sport. Epub ahead of print July 2018. DOI:
10.13140/RG.2.2.23669.06888.
17. Reeser JC, Fleisig GS, Bolt B, et al. Upper limb biome-
chanics during the volleyball serve and spike. Sports
Health 2010; 2: 368–374.
18. Mitchinson L, Campbell A, Oldmeadow D, et al.
Comparison of upper arm kinematics during a volleyball
spike between players with and without a history of
shoulder injury. J Appl Biomech 2013; 29: 155–164.
19. Zahalka F, Maly T, Mala L, et al. Kinematic analysis of
volleyball attack in the net center with various types of
take-off. J Hum Kinet 2017; 58: 261–271.
20. Marquez WQ, Masumura M and Ae M. The effects of
jumping distance on the landing mechanics after a vol-
leyball spike. Sports Biomech 2009; 8: 154–166.
21. Wagner H, Pfusterschmied J, Tilp M, et al. Upper-body
kinematics in team-handball throw, tennis serve, and vol-
leyball spike. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2014; 24: 345–354.
22. Dong F. Relative analysis of shoulder and elbow
common sports injury kinematics parameters in volley-
ball spike. J Chem Pharm Res 2013; 5: 77–82.
23. Tilp M. The biomechanics of volleyball. In: Reeser JC
and Bahr R (eds) Handbook of sports medicine and
International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 0(0)
science: volleyball. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley &
Sons, 2017, pp.29–37.
24. Drikos S, Angelonidis Y and Sobonis G. The role of
skills in winning in different types of set in women’s vol-
leyball. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2018; 18: 950–960.
25. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting
items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the
PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010; 8: 336–341.
26. Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The
strengthening the reporting of observational studies in
epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for
reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 2014; 12:
1495–1499.
27. Lempereur M, Brochard S, Leboeuf F, et al. Validity and
reliability of 3D marker based scapular motion analysis:
a systematic review. J Biomech 2014; 47: 2219–2230.
28. Peters A, Galna B, Sangeux M, et al. Quantification of
soft tissue artifact in lower limb human motion analysis:
a systematic review. Gait Posture 2010; 31: 1–8.
29. Landis JR and Koch GG. The measurement of observer
agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33:
159–174.
30. Palao J and Ahrabi-Fard I. Side-out success in relation to
setter’s position on court in women’s college volleyball.
IJASS 2011; 23: 155–167.
31. Selinger A and Ackermann-Blount J. Arie Selinger’s
power volleyball: the complete guide to the sport by the
coach of the silver-medal-winning US women’s olympic vol-
leyball team. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1986.
32. Costa GC, Castro HO, Evangelista BF, et al. Predicting
factors of zone 4 attack in volleyball. Percept Motor
Skills 2017; 124: 621–633.
33. Hussain I. Kinematic factors and volleyball spike jump
performance of state and national levels male volleyball
players. The Shield 2012; 7: 50–57.
34. Garrido-Castro JL, Gil-Cabezas J, Da Silva-Grigoletto
ME, et al. Caracterizaci
on cinemática 3D del gesto
t
ecnico del remate en jugadoras de voleibol. Rev Andal
Med Deport 2017; 10: 69–73.
35. Richards DP, Ajemian SV, Wiley JP, et al. Relation
between ankle joint dynamics and patellar tendinopathy
in elite volleyball players. Clin J Sport Med 2002; 12:
266–272.
36. Tilp M, Wagner H and Muller E. Differences in 3D kine-
matics between volleyball and beach volleyball spike
movements. Sports Biomech 2008; 7: 386–397.
37. Bergün M, Mensure A, Tuncay Ç, et al. 3D kinematic
analysis of overarm movements for different sports.
Kinesiology 2009; 41: 105–111.
38. Richards DP, Ajemian SV, Wiley JP, et al. Knee joint
dynamics predict patellar tendinitis in elite volleyball
players. Am J Sports Med 1996; 24: 676–683.
39. West T, Ng L and Campbell A. The effect of ankle brac-
ing on knee kinetics and kinematics during volleyball-
specific tasks. Scand J Med Sci Sports 2014; 24: 958–963.
40. Knudson D. Confidence crisis of results in biomechanics
research. Sports Biomech 2017; 16: 425–433.
41. Sattler T, Hadzic V, Dervisevic E, et al. Vertical jump
performance of professional male and female volleyball
Oliveira et al.
players: effects of playing position and competition level.
2015; 29: 1486–1493.
42. Challoumas D, Stavrou A and Dimitrakakis G. The
volleyball athlete’s shoulder: biomechanical adaptations
and injury associations. Sports Biomech 2017; 16:
220–237.
43. Starkes JL, Edwards P, Dissanayake P, et al. A new tech-
nology and field test of advance cue usage in volleyball.
Res Q Exerc Sport 1995; 66: 162–167.
17
44. Muller S and Abernethy B. Expert anticipatory skill in
striking sports: a review and a model. Res Q Exerc Sport
2012; 83: 175–187.
45. Tresilian JR. The accuracy of interceptive action in time
and space. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2004; 32: 167–173.
46. Loffing F and Ca~ nal-Bruland R. Anticipation in sport.
Curr Opin Psychol 2017; 16: 6–11.