See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233819252

Effect of team level on Volleyball game actions performance

Chapter · January 2008

CITATIONS READS

7 204

2 authors:

Mesquita Isabel Rui Marcelino

University of Porto Universidade da Maia (University of Maia)
271 PUBLICATIONS   3,978 CITATIONS    103 PUBLICATIONS   2,533 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Sports periodization: truth or myth? View project

Learning and Professional Development of High Level Coaches in Brazil (Formação e Desenvolvimento Profissional do Treinador de Alto Nível ) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Rui Marcelino on 10 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1857 2008

Top-level Sport

5th INTERNATIONAL
SCIENTIFIC
CONFERENCE ON
KINESIOLOGY

“KINESIOLOGY RESEARCH Editor:

TRENDS AND APPLICATIONS” Prof. Dragan Milanović, PhD

Chair persons:
Prof. Dragan Milanović, PhD
Prof. Włodzimierz Starosta, PhD
Prof. Erich Müller, PhD
Prof. Barry Drust, PhD
Prof. Anita Höckelmann, PhD
Prof. Leonid Dragunov, PhD
Prof. Izet Rađo, PhD
Y OF Z
SIT A
ER
G
V

RE
I
UN

B
FA C

GY

Secretary:
LO
UL

T O
Y
OF K I N E SI Cvita Gregov, BEd
 5th International Scientific Conference on Kinesiology, 2008, Zagreb, Croatia

EFFECT OF TEAM LEVEL ON VOLLEYBALL GAME ACTIONS PERFORMANCE

Isabel Mesquita and Rui Marcelino

Faculty of Sport, Porto, Portugal

Abstract
The present study aimed to analyze the effect of team level on the performance of the volleyball game actions. 65.949
actions from to 550 sets of Men’s Senior World League (2005) were analyzed. The team’s level was established in relation
to the final classification of the team in the competition (level 1: 1st – 8th; level 2: 9th – 16th). The results show a distinctive
performance according to team levels for the spike (t=2,918; p=0,004), block (t=2,009; p=0,045) and dig (t=-1,991;
p=0,047). The present study shows that the spike is the action which is most correlated to the result of the competition.
The best teams also had high performances in the attack and block, getting a balance in these two actions.

Key words: volleyball, notational analysis, terminal actions, continuity actions

Introduction
The top level male volleyball has changed essentially during the last years. In order to have changes in the rules (new
scoring system and the creation of a new player, called Libero) the duration of matches has decreased and there is more
balance between defense and attack (Yiannis, Panagiotis, Ioannis, & Alkinoi, 2004). The changes promoted by International
Volleyball Federation (FIVB) are making the game more exciting, from a spectator’s point of view, and bridging the gap
Top-level Sport

between teams from different levels (Kountouris, 2005). Regardless of the rule changes, the game is constructed by a
series of actions that are directly related to the team’s performance and proficiency. In accordance to the studies done in
this ambit, the spike has been showing a high correlation with the game victory (Eom & Schutz, 1992; Grgantov, Dizdar,
& Jankovic, 1998; Marelic, Zufar, & Omrcen, 1998). However, only the study conducted by Palao (Palao, Santos, &
Ureńa, 2004) studied the game actions performance according to team’s levels. Analyzing 33 male matches from 2000
Olympics Games in Sydney, the study shows that the performance of serve, reception, spike and block differentiated the
team’s levels (higher vs. lower). The present study aimed to analyze the effect of team level on the performance of the
volleyball game actions (serve, reception, spike, block, set and dig), as measured by game-related statistics.

Methods
The sample was composed of 65.949 actions from 550 sets of Men’s Senior World League (2005). The variables
registered were serve performance, reception performance, spike performance, block performance, set performance,
dig performance and team level. The team’s level was established in relation to the fi nal classification of the team in the
competition (level 1: 1st – 8th; level 2: 9th – 16th). Game actions performance was evaluated in relation to the success and
options that the actions gave to own team and the opponent’s team. Data were obtained through official FIVB software
“Volleyball Information System” (VIS). We differentiated two types of actions to categorize the performance: a) Terminal
Actions (TA) (serve, spike and block), which distinguished three levels to categorize the performance: Point – action was
a success and gave point for the team; Continuity – the ball was defended by opponent’s team and still in game; Error
– failed action or action that did not allow the option to continue (point for the opponent). b) Continuity Actions (CA)
(reception, set and dig). We distinguished three levels to categorize the performance: Excellent – the actions gave all
attack options; Continuity - the actions did’t give all attack options; Error – failed action or action that did not allow the
option to continue (point for the opponent).
With the categories of action performance, a performance coefficient is computed to the Terminal Actions (Figure
1) and to Continuity Actions (Figure 2).

4 x Points + 2 Continuity + 0 x Error 3 x Excellent + 1,5 Continuity + 0 x Error

Coef_TA = Coef_CA =
Total attemps (Points+Continuity+Error) Total attemps (Excellent+Continuity+Error)

Figure 1. Performance coefficient for Terminal Actions Figure 2. Performance coefficient for Continuity Actions (Reception,
(Spike, Serve and Block) Set and Dig)

966
Kinesiology Research Trends and Applications

To test the reliability, an independent observer of the VIS, observed 34 sets, corresponding to 12.36% of the total
sets analyzed. Kappa of Cohen analysis and percentage of agreement demonstrated good inter-observer reliability which
confirmed the accuracy of observations.
A descriptive and inferential analysis of the data was done using the software SPSS 14.0 (Independent-samples t-
test) with a level of statistic significance of p<.05.

Results
The results show a distinctive performance according to team levels (Table 1) for the spike (t=2,918; p=0,004), block
(t=2,009; p=0,045) and dig (t=-1,991; p=0,047). The teams belonging to level 1 showed higher performance in spike
and block and lower performance in dig. The higher performance in spike due to the greater number of points (t=1,979;
p=0,048) and the lowest number of errors (t=-2,226; p=0,026).

Table 1. Differences of Terminal Actions performances between team’s levels

Team Level1 Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed)

Level 1 12,68 3,23

Spike point 1,979 ,048
Level 2 12,10 3,20
Level 1 4,02 2,10
Spike error -2,226 ,026
Level 2 4,45 2,17
Level 1 8,62 3,31
Spike continuity -2,174 ,030
Level 2 9,28 3,36
Level 1 2,70 ,32
Coefficient of spike 2,918 ,004
Level 2 2,61 ,33
Level 1 2,54 1,77

Top-level Sport
Block point 1,746 ,082
Level 2 2,27 1,56
Level 1 5,66 2,70
Block error 1,468 ,143
Level 2 5,31 2,66
Level 1 5,13 2,80
Block continuity -1,049 ,295
Level 2 5,39 2,68
Level 1 1,62 ,50
Coefficient of block 2,009 ,045
Level 2 1,54 ,45
Level 1 1,16 1,15
Serve point 1,647 ,100
Level 2 1,00 1,06
Level 1 4,22 1,76
Serve error 1,075 ,283
Level 2 4,05 1,69
Level 1 17,76 3,69
Serve continuity 1,410 ,159
Level 2 17,28 3,83
Level 1 1,74 ,17
Coefficient of serve 1,045 ,296
Level 2 1,72 ,18

Legend: 1 n= 188 Level 1; 362 Level 2

In block, the higher performance was due to the lower percentage of actions that allow continuity (t=-2,114; p=0,035).
The level 1 teams (Table 2) had lower dig performance because they make a higher percentage of actions with continuity
(t=3,208; p=0,001) and a lower percentage of excellent actions (t=-3,030; p=0,003). There are no differences in serve
(t=1,045; p=0,296), reception (t=1,209; p=0,227) and set (t=-1,259; p=0,209) performance according to team levels.

967
 5th International Scientific Conference on Kinesiology, 2008, Zagreb, Croatia

Table 2. Differences of Continuity Actions performances between team’s levels

Team Level1 Mean Std. Deviation t Sig. (2-tailed)

Level 1 10,06 4,22

Reception excellent 1,177 ,240
Level 2 9,59 4,52
Level 1 1,05 1,18
Reception error -1,049 ,294
Level 2 1,16 1,20
Level 1 7,15 3,77
Reception continuity -1,662 ,097
Level 2 7,75 4,14
Level 1 2,53 ,56
Coefficient of reception 1,209 ,227
Level 2 2,46 ,57
Level 1 5,21 4,86
Set excellent -2,351 ,019
Level 2 6,20 4,31
Level 1 ,27 ,51
Set error ,497 ,619
Level 2 ,25 ,50
Level 1 18,48 7,36
Set continuity ,057 ,955
Level 2 18,44 6,82
Level 1 2,28 ,48
Coefficient of set -1,259 ,209
Level 2 2,34 ,44
Level 1 3,81 3,80
Dig excellent -3,688 ,000
Level 2 5,12 4,03
Level 1 5,23 2,62
Dig error -2,670 ,008
Level 2 5,96 3,77
Level 1 5,64 4,19
Dig continuity 1,732 ,084
Level 2 4,94 4,64
Level 1 1,71 ,65
Coefficient of dig -1,991 ,047
Top-level Sport

Level 2 1,83 ,69

Legend: 1 n= 188 Level 1; 362 Level 2

Discussion and conclusion

The present study confirmed the earlier works (Eom & Schutz, 1992; Grgantov et al., 1998; Marelic et al., 1998) which
indicated that the spike is the action which is most correlated to the result of the competition. The results of our study
didn’t confirm the results of Palao (Palao et al., 2004) because game action’s serve and receptions, differenced the teams
at the competitive level. These differences may be explained by two main factors: the fact that the samples are different
(in the Olympic Games the teams levels are more homogeneous than in World League), and that Palao’s study supposes
three team levels: level 1: 1st - 4th; level 2: 5th - 8th; level 3: 9th - 12th, while our study only two.
The major conclusion that stands out is that the best teams had also high performances in the attack and block, getting
a balance in these two actions. The low performance of best teams in dig is curious, indicating that teams with a weaker
defense will not have such a disadvantage.

References
1. Eom, H. J., & Schutz, R. W. (1992). Statistical analyses of volleyball team performance. Research Quarterly for Exercise and
Sport 63(1), 11-18.
2. Grgantov, Z., Dizdar, D., & Jankovic, V. (1998). Structural analysis of the volleyball game elements based on certain anthropological
features. Kinesiology, 44-51.
3. Kountouris, P. (2005). Time characteristics of Volleyball matches in two consecutive Olympic Competitions after the
implementation of Rally Scoring. Coaching Volleyball, 22(6), 18-22.
4. Marelic, N., Zufar, G., & Omrcen, D. (1998). Influence of some situation-related parametres on the score in volleyball. Kinesiology,
30(2), 55-65.
5. Palao, J. M., Santos, J. A., & Ureña, A. (2004). Effect of team level on skill performance in volleyball. International Journal of
Performance Analysis in Sport, 4, 50-60.
6. Yiannis, L., Panagiotis, K., Ioannis, A., & Alkinoi, K. (2004). A comparative study of the effectveness of Greek national men’s
volleyball team with internationally top-ranked teams. International Journal of Volleyball Research, 7(1), 4-9.

Acknowledgment
This study was supported by Portuguese Foundation of Science and Technology (SFRH/BD/36302/2007).

968

View publication stats