1
1
ANALYSIS OF THE VARIABLES THAT PREDICT SERVE
2
EFFICACY IN YOUNG VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS.
3
4
Ca men Fe nandez-Eche e ia1, Alexande Gil2, Albe o Mo eno1, Fe nando Cla e 1
5
and M. Pe la Mo eno1
6
7
1Facul y o Spo Sciences. Uni e si y o Ex emadu a
8
2Facul y o Physical Ac i i y and Spo Sciences. Sain An onio Ca holic Uni e si y o
9
Mu cia.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Abs ac .
18
The main objec i e o his esea ch s udy was o analyse, in olleyball, he
19
p edic ion le el o di e en se e a iables on i s e icacy. The sample
20
was comp ised o 2038 se e ac ions, co esponding o 36 emale eams
21
pa icipa ing in he Spanish Championship emale in 2010 in he Unde -
22
14 and Unde -16 ca ego ies. The independen a iables we e: se e zone,
23
se e ype, s iking echnique, in-game ole o he se e , ecep ion zone,
24
ecei e playe and se e di ec ion. The dependen a iable was se e
25
e icacy. The mul inomial logis ic eg ession applied showed ha all he
26
a iables conside ed in he s udy, excep o se e di ec ion and s iking
27
echnique, p edic ed he e icacy o se e. The p obabili y o inc easing
28
se e e icacy was achie ed h ough: execu ing s anding se es, se ing o
29
he space be ween playe s and se e ecep ion by playe s o he han he
30
libe o. These esul s can guide coaches in olleyball playe aining
31
p ocesses, wi h espec o he se e ac ion.
32
33
Key wo ds: No a ional analysis, olleyball, pe o mance, mul inomial
34
logis ic eg ession.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
2
ANALYSIS OF THE VARIABLES THAT PREDICT SERVE
1
EFFICACY IN YOUNG VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS.
2
3
4
Abs ac .
5
The main objec i e o his esea ch s udy was o analyse, in olleyball, he
6
p edic ion le el o di e en se e a iables on i s e icacy. The sample
7
was comp ised o 2038 se e ac ions, co esponding o 36 emale eams
8
pa icipa ing in he Spanish Championship emale in 2010 in he Unde -
9
14 and Unde -16 ca ego ies. The independen a iables we e: se e zone,
10
se e ype, s iking echnique, in-game ole o he se e , ecep ion zone,
11
ecei e playe and se e di ec ion. The dependen a iable was se e
12
e icacy. The mul inomial logis ic eg ession applied showed ha all he
13
a iables conside ed in he s udy, excep o se e di ec ion and s iking
14
echnique, p edic ed he e icacy o se e. The p obabili y o inc easing
15
se e e icacy was achie ed h ough: execu ing s anding se es, se ing o
16
he space be ween playe s and se e ecep ion by playe s o he han he
17
libe o. These esul s can guide coaches in olleyball playe aining
18
p ocesses, wi h espec o he se e ac ion.
19
20
Key wo ds: No a ional analysis, olleyball, pe o mance, mul inomial
21
logis ic eg ession.
22
23
24
1. In oduc ion.
25
26
Volleyball is a spo whe e a ack p e ails o e de ence (Mo eno e al., 2007). Di e en
27
modi ica ions ha e been made o he ules o he game, in an a emp o o se his
28
imbalance, bu always a ou ing de ence: inc ease o he se e zone (1998) and he
29
inco po a ion o a new playe , he libe o (1998). The inclusion o he libe o has led o
30
g ea e e ec i eness bo h in ecep ion (Joao e al., 2006; Callejón and He nández,
31
2009) and in de ence (Mesqui a e al., 2007), al hough imbalance be ween a ack and
32
de ence s ill exis s.
33
34
Due o his imbalance be ween a ack and de ence, one o he game ac ions ha eams
35
conside o be e y impo an is he se e (Mo eno, e al., 2007), as an imp o emen in
36
i s e ec i eness may a oid o limi he cons uc ion o he opponen ’s a ack, and
37
he e o e, a ou de ence. Thus, he se e has gone om being an ac ion used o s a
38
he game, o being an a ack weapon ha is able o sco e a di ec poin [ace] (Qui oga e
39
al., 2010).
40
41
The se e, jus like a acking and blocking, has a pu pose-de e mined na u e and may be
42
decisi e in a eam’s pe o mance (D ikos e al., 2009; Pa siaou as e al., 2009). The
43
bene i o he se e is no jus ha a poin is immedia ely sco ed, bu a he , he se e
44
has an in luence on he la e de elopmen o he game. Thus, i has been obse ed ha
45
he execu ion o a good se e (powe se e o wi h a ac ical in en ion), a ec s he
46
ecep ion pe o mance (Qui oga e al., 2010; Qui oga e al., 2012) and he a acking
47
op ions o he opposi e eam, educing i s empo a acks and inc easing second empo
48
3
a acks (Ka sikadelli, 1996; Papadimi iou e al., 2004). This in luence o he se e on
1
he a ack op ions causes an inc ease in blocking pe o mance, signi ican ly inc easing
2
iple block (Palao e al., 2004), which would acili a e he de ence.
3
4
Due o he impo ance o he se e in he de elopmen o he game, many di e en
5
esea ch s udies ha e been de eloped o de e mine he ypical cha ac e is ics o he
6
se e and how his a ec s he opposi e eam, bo h a a high le el and in o ma i e
7
s ages. To his end, he ypical a iables o he se e ac ion ha e been analysed, such as
8
he se e zone (Qui oga e al., 2010; T a los, 2010), he se e ype (Ma celino e al.,
9
2011; Cos a e al., 2012), he se e di ec ion (Gil e al., 2011b; Ma celino e al., 2011),
10
he in-game ole o he se e (A onso e al., 2012) and e en some mo e kinema ic ype
11
a iables such as he se e speed (Coleman e al., 1993; Qui oga e al., 2012) o
12
si ua ional a iables, such as he se numbe (Campos e al., 2014) and momen in he
13
se when he se e is execu ed (Ma celino e al., 2012).
14
15
Ano he o he a iables mos equen ly analysed in connec ion wi h he se e, a e he
16
a iables ela ed o ecep ion such as he ecei e playe (Qui oga e al., 2012), he
17
ecep ion zone (Lido e al., 2007; A onso e al., 2010) and he ecei ing echnique
18
(A onso e al., 2012).
19
20
The majo i y o he esea ch s udies conduc ed on he se e a e desc ip i e s udies,
21
which analyse he equency o occu ence o each se e ype, o whose aim is o
22
disco e he exis ing associa ion be ween di e en se e a iables. These s udies ha e
23
been ca ied ou bo h a high le el (Papadimi iou e al., 2004; Mo eno e al., 2007;
24
Qui oga e al., 2010), and in o ma i e s ages (Gil e al., 2011a; Cos a e al., 2012;
25
Dá ila-Rome o e al., 2012).
26
27
Desc ip i e s a is ics help us cha ac e ise he game ac ions, bu ecen ly and so as o
28
disco e which ac o s de e mine pe o mance in he di e en game ac ions, he
29
mul inomial logis ic eg ession analysis has s a ed o be used, hus pe mi ing an
30
es ima ion o he p edic i e ange o he a iables. The applica ion o his s a is ical es
31
in he analysis o spo ing pe o mance gi es ise o g ea e comp ehension o he
32
undamen al dynamics o he spo (Ne ill e al., 2002). Howe e , his es has la gely
33
been applied, un il now, in high-le el esea ch s udies (Ma celino e al., 2011; A onso
34
e al., 2012; Cos a e al., 2012).
35
36
Due o he educed numbe o s udies conduc ed on o ma i e s ages and o he
37
implica ions ha hese s udies may ha e, we belie e i ad isable o conduc s udies ha
38
p o ide ele an in o ma ion ega ding he se e ac ion o he aining p ocess o
39
playe s in o ma i e s ages, aking echnical and ac ical ac o s in o accoun .
40
41
Thus, he main objec i e o ou esea ch s udy was o analyse he p edic ion le el o
42
di e en se e a iables (se e zone, se e ype, s iking echnique, in-game ole o he
43
se e , ecep ion zone, ecei e playe and se e di ec ion), on he se e e icacy, in
44
o ma i e s age olleyball.
45
46
The hypo heses o his s udy a e:
47
4
- The a iables: se e zone, se e ype, s iking echnique, in-game ole o he se e ,
1
ecep ion zone, ecei e playe and se e di ec ion, will ac as p edic o s o he se e
2
e icacy.
3
4
- S anding se es will inc ease he se e e icacy compa ed wi h jumping se es.
5
6
- Se es made o he space be ween playe s will inc ease he se e e icacy, compa ed
7
wi h se es made o he mid ield zone.
8
9
- Se es made o a playe o he han he libe o will inc ease he se e e icacy,
10
compa ed wi h se es made o he libe o.
11
12
2. Me hods
13
14
2.1 Sample
15
16
The s udy sample was comp ised o 2038 se e ac ions, co esponding o he
17
obse a ion o 36 eams pa icipa ing in he Spanish Championship emale in he
18
Unde -14 and Unde -16 ca ego ies. The numbe o eams and se e ac ions obse ed
19
pe ca ego y we e dis ibu ed as ollows: Unde -14 emale (18 eams/1029 se e
20
ac ions) and Unde -16 emale (18 eams/1009 se e ac ions). To gua an ee da a
21
homogenei y, he se es analysed co espond o he obse a ion o one ma ch played by
22
each eam o be s udied. The esul s o he obse ed ma ches whe e h ee se s o wo and
23
h ee se s o one, hese esul s assu e simila le el o play in bo h ma ches. Fu he mo e,
24
due o he championship been played in neu al ield o bo h eams, i was no
25
necessa y o ake in o accoun whe he he eams we e playing a home o away.
26
27
The p o ocol was ully app o ed by he Resea ch E hics Commi ee o he Uni e si y o
28
Ex emadu a (Spain). All playe s and hei pa en s o gua dians we e ully in o med
29
abou he s udy, and hey signed a consen o m.
30
31
2.2 Va iables
32
33
The ollowing independen a iables we e conside ed in ou s udy: (a) se e zone,
34
de ined as he zone om whe e he se e is ca ied ou , co e ing a 9-me e wide space
35
loca ed behind he baseline o he cou and as an ex ension o he sidelines o he cou ,
36
di e en ia ing h ee zones o o igin (zone 1, zone 6, zone 5); (b) s iking echnique,
37
de ined as he ype o se e echnique used by he playe , conside ing he ligh
38
ajec o y o he ball a e s iking (powe o loa ); (c) se e ype, de ined as he ype o
39
se e used by he playe , conside ing he loca ion o he playe a he ime o con ac
40
wi h he ball (s anding o jump); (d) ecep ion zone ( igu e 1), de ined as he zone whe e
41
he se e is ecei ed (lane 1, lane 6, lane 5 and space be ween playe s); (e) in-game ole
42
o he se e , de ined as he in-game ole o he playe se ing (se e , ecei e -a acke ,
43
middle a acke , opposi e); ( ) ecei e playe de ined as he in-game ole o he playe
44
who he se e is aimed a o ecep ion ( o wa d-a acke , libe o and o he playe s); (g)
45
se e di ec ion, de ined as he di ec ion de e mined by he se e depending o he se e
46
zone and ecep ion zone (pa allel, mid c oss-cou and long c oss-cou ).
47
48
5
Lane 5
Lane 6
Lane 1
1
Figu e 1. Zone whe e he se e is ecei ed
2
3
The dependen a iable conside ed in ou s udy was; se e e icacy, de ined as he
4
pe o mance o e ec ob ained wi h he se e. In o de o assess he e ec i eness, he
5
FIVB s a is ics sys em was used, adap ed om Coleman (1975), g ouping oge he
6
some alues ha we e di e en ia ed in his sys em. Th ee le els we e es ablished: (I)
7
pe mi s a acking, “Se e ha pe mi s he cons uc ion o an a ack, wi h all he a ack
8
op ions o wi h limi ed op ions"; (II) does no pe mi a acking, "Se e ha makes i
9
impossible o cons uc he a ack, which is he equi alen o se ing a ee ball"; (3)
10
Poin , “Se e ha di ec ly sco es a poin ".
11
12
The a o emen ioned a iables we e measu ed ia he sys ema ic obse a ion o he
13
se e.
14
15
2.3 P ocedu es
16
17
Ini ially, and o gua an ee he alidi y o he ins umen , a g oup o ou esea che s –
18
expe s in analysing olleyball pe o mance – de eloped a i s e sion o he
19
ins umen , in ag eemen wi h he heo e ical amewo k and based on exis ing
20
bibliog aphy. La e , his ins umen was used by a g oup o 10 olleyball coaches, hus
21
enabling he c ea ion o a inal e sion o he ins umen ha would gua an ee i s
22
alidi y o he s udy (Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004).
23
24
The da a we e la e collec ed on ideo. The ma ches we e eco ded using a SONY
25
HDR-XR155 digi al came a (M2TS o ma ). This came a was loca ed a one o he ends
26
o he cou , gua an eeing a heigh o 5 m abo e loo le el and a dis ance o 7 me es
27
behind he baseline, o ob ain an op imal line o sigh .
28
29
Fo he eliabili y o he obse a ion, a e collec ing he ideo oo age and p e iously o
30
he coding p ocess, one obse e wi h expe ience in his unc ion we e ained o
31
obse e and encode game ac ions, ca ied ou a aining p ocess, using, in he di e en
32
aining sessions, samples wi h di e en cha ac e is ics, and exceeding 10% o he o al
33
sample (203 se es), indica ed by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007). The in a-obse e
34
Cohen’s Kappa alues eached, in he obse a ion o all he a iables, we e highe han
35
.81 (in able 1), in he six h aining session, which was he minimum alue conside ed
36
o be almos pe ec ag eemen (Landis and Koch, 1977). To gua an ee he ime
37
Be ween playe s
Be ween playe s

6
eliabili y o he measu emen , he same coding was de eloped on wo occasions, wi h a
1
ime di e ence o 10 days, ob aining Cohen’s Kappa alues o o e .81.
2
3
Table 1. Reliabili y o in a-obse e
4
In a-obse e
In a-obse e
(wi h a space in e al o 10 days)
Se e zone
0.92
1.00
S iking echnique
0.88
0.92
Se e ype
0.92
0.92
ecep ion zone
0.92
0.92
In-game ole o he se e
1.00
1.00
Recei e playe
1.00
1.00
Se e di ec ion
0.92
1.00
5
6
2.4. S a is ical Analysis
7
8
P e iously, he absence o mul icollinea i y was e i ied h ough he le el o ole ance
9
and he in la ion ac o (VIF). The ole ance alues o he model a e g ea e han 50%,
10
so he e a e no collinea i y p oblems, as he alues a e a long way om 0. The in la ion
11
ac o alues o he model a e less han 5, which implies an absence o collinea i y, as
12
he accep able alue o VIF is 5 o less han 5 (Kleinbaum e al., 1988).
13
14
A mul inomial logis ic eg ession analysis was pe o med o ob ain he es ima ed
15
occu ence p obabili ies o he dependen a iable based on he alues o he
16
independen a iables. The le el o signi icance was es ablished as p< .05.
17
18
The associa ion o each independen a iable wi h he dependen a iable (c ude odds
19
a io) was e i ied o de e mine which a iables p esen ed s a is ical signi icance and
20
hus en e hem in o an adjus ed model (adjus ed odds a io). This s ep p o ides
21
in o ma ion abou which independen a iables con ibu e o p edic ing he dependen
22
a iable. Acco ding o Field (2009), he in e p e a ion o he odds a io (OR) alues
23
indica e ha i hey a e g ea e han 1 as he p edic o inc eases, he odds o he ou come
24
occu ing also inc ease. On he o he hand, a alue less han 1 indica es ha as he
25
p edic o inc eases, he odds o he ou come occu ing dec ease.
26
27
3. Resul s.
28
29
I was ini ially e i ied (in able 2), h ough an in e en ial analysis using Chi-cuad ado
30
(x2), ha all he a iables, excep o he s iking echnique, had a signi ican associa ion
31
(p<.05) wi h e icacy.
32
33
Table 2. Associa ion o independen a iables wi h he dependen a iable.
34
X2
P.
V de C ame
Se e zone
17.316
.002
.047
S iking echnique
5.812
.055
.039
Se e ype
11.158
.004
.054
ecep ion zone
151.223
.000
.140
7
In-game ole o he se e
16.328
.012
.046
Recei e playe
90.589
.000
.109
Se e di ec ion
57.250
.000
.086
1
2
In able 3, we p esen he esul s o e he comple e mul inomial logis ics eg ession
3
model.
4
5
Table 3. Adjus ed model o se e e ec i eness.
6
Se e
a iables
Pe mi s
a ackinga
%
Does no
pe mi
a acking %
OR
C ude
OR
Adjus ed
P
Poin
%
OR
C ude
OR
Adjus ed
P
Se e zone
Zone 1
58.7%
22.8%
0.879
(0.697-1.109)c
0.909
(0.706-1.171)c
.460
18.5%
0.802
(0.626-1.027)c
0.811
(0.621-1.058)c
.123
Zone 5
48.9%
29.2%
1.352
(0.987-1.1853)
1.531
(1.083-2.165)
.016
21.9%
1.140
(0.809-1.605)
1.218
(0.840-1.766)
.299
Zone 6 b
54.5%
24.1%
21.4%
Se e ype
S anding
54.1%
25.6%
1.566
(1.167-2.103)
1.623
(1.193-2.280)
.002
20.2%
1.064
(0.800-1.415)
0.992
(0.734-1.341)
.960
Jump b
50.5%
18.3%
21.2%
Recep ion zone
Lane 1
58.1%
23.5%
0.910
(0.674-1.229)
0.858
(0.602-1.225)
.400
18.3%
1.116
(0.798-1.562)
1.134
(0.771-1.668)
.524
Space be ween
playe s
34.5%
25.3%
1.644
(1.103-2.450)
1.138
(0.668-1.939)
.634
40.2%
4.125
(2.840-5.990)
3.247
(1.936-5.443)
.000
Lane 5
56.4%
22.0%
0.878
(0.680-1.134)
0.871
(0.641-1.182)
.374
21.5%
1.352
(1.027-1.779)
1.439
(1.039-1.994)
.028
Lane 6 b
57.9%
25.8%
16.3%
In-game ole o he se e
Se e
52.5%
27.0%
1.383
(1.032-1.854)
1,457
(1.075-1.975)
.015
20.5%
1.211
(0.883-1.662)
1.240
(0.892-1.725)
.201
A acke
ecei e
52.9%
26.6%
1.352
(1.033-1.769)
1.436
(1.091-1.890)
.010
20.5%
1.201
(0.900-1.602)
1.251
(0.930-1.682)
.139
Opposi e
59.1%
17.8%
0.808
(0.550-1.188)
0.869
(0.584-1.292)
.488
23.1%
1.213
(0.841-1.749)
1.335
(0.909-1.960)
.141
Middle
a acke b
59.0%
22.0%
19.0%
Recei e playe
Fo wa d
a acke
57.5%
21.8%
1.631
(1.122-2.373)
1.583
(1.050-2.388)
.028
20.7%
2.271
(1.486-3.472)
1.798
(1.133-2.852)
.013
O he s playe s
50.0%
27.5%
2.359
(1.669-3.335)
2.267
(1.588-3.237)
.000
22.5%
2.836
(1.899-4.235)
2.627
(2.153-4.178)
.000
Libe o b
71.9%
16.7%
11.4%
8
Se e di ec ion
Long
C oss cou
44.2%
26.2%
1.414
(1.045-1.913)
1.571
(1.021-2.415)
.040
29.6%
2.025
(1.493-2.745)
1.333
(0.863-2.058)
.194
Mid
C oss cou
58.4%
23.8%
0.973
(0.769-1.231)
1.076
(0.839-1.380)
.563
17.8%
0.923
(0.713-1.196)
1.000
(0.764-1.310)
.997
Pa allel b
57.2%
23.9%
18.9%
”a” Ca ego y o e e ence o he dependen a iable. “b” Ca ego y o e e ence o he independen a iables.
1
“c” Numbe s in b acke s e e o he 95% con idence in e al.
2
3
All he a iables p esen ed (se e zone, se e ype, in-game ole o he se e , ecep ion
4
zone, ecei e playe ), excep o he se e di ec ion, show signi ican associa ion, and
5
he e o e p edic he se e e icacy in he adjus ed model (Table 3).
6
7
Execu ing he se e om zone 1 ins ead o om zone 6, inc eases he equency
8
(OR=1.53) o he se e no pe mi ing he cons uc ion o a subsequen a ack on he
9
opposi e eam (does no pe mi a acking/pe mi s a acking a io).
10
11
Execu ing he s anding se e ins ead o he jump se e, inc eases he equency
12
(OR=1.63) o he se e no pe mi ing he cons uc ion o he subsequen a ack on he
13
opposi e eam (does no pe mi a acking/pe mi s a acking a io).
14
15
Aiming he se e a he seam o o lane 5 ins ead o o lane 6, inc eases he equency
16
(OR=3.24 and OR=1.43, espec i ely) o ob aining an ace wi h he se e (poin /pe mi s
17
a acking a io).
18
19
I he se e is execu ed by he se e and he a acke ecei e , ins ead o being execu ed
20
by he middle a acke , his inc eases he equency (OR=1.45 and OR=1.43,
21
espec i ely) o he se e no pe mi ing he cons uc ion o he subsequen a ack on he
22
opposi e eam (does no pe mi a acking/pe mi s a acking a io).
23
24
I he se e is ecei ed by he o wa d a acke o by ano he ecei e , ins ead o by he
25
libe o, his inc eases he equency (OR=1.58 and 2.35, espec i ely) o he se e no
26
pe mi ing he cons uc ion o an a ack (does no pe mi a acking/pe mi s a acking
27
a io). Fu he mo e, he se e ecei ed by he o wa d a acke o by ano he ecei e ,
28
ins ead o by he libe o, inc eases he equency (OR=1.79 and OR=2.62, espec i ely)
29
o ob aining an ace wi h he se e (poin /pe mi s a acking a io).
30
31
4. Discussion
32
33
The main objec i e o his esea ch s udy was o analyse he p edic ion le el o di e en
34
se e a iables in olleyball, on i s e icacy, in o ma i e s ages.
35
36
The i s hypo hesis indica ed ha he a iables: se e zone, se e ype, s iking
37
echnique, in-game ole o he se e , ecep ion zone, ecei e playe and se e
38
di ec ion will ac as p edic o s o he se e e icacy. The esul s o ou s udy do no
39
con i m his hypo hesis, as he a iables, s iking echnique and se e di ec ion do no
40
p edic i s e icacy.
41
42
9
Fu he mo e, he a iables conside ed in ou s udy ha e been used in p e ious esea ch
1
s udies, showing a signi ican associa ion wi h he se e e icacy, bo h a o ma i e
2
s ages (Ga cía-To mo e al., 2006; Gil e al., 2011b), and in high le el olleyball
3
(A onso e al., 2012; Qui oga e al., 2012). A a high le el olleyball, p edic i e s udies
4
indica e ha he se e ype, ecei e playe and ecep ion zone a iables ac as
5
p edic o s o he se e e icacy (A onso e al., 2012), whils in ou s udy in o ma i e
6
s ages, he e is a g ea e numbe o p edic i e a iables o he se e e icacy. These
7
esul s clea ly show ha , in o ma i e s ages, he e is a g ea e numbe o a iables ha
8
a ec he se e e icacy han a high le el olleyball. I is hus ad isable o wo k wi h
9
di e en a iables (se e zone, se e ype, s iking echnique, in-game ole o he
10
se e , ecep ion zone, ecei e playe ) o imp o e he pe o mance o his echnical-
11
ac ical ac ion. Whils , a a high le el olleyball, he a iables ha a ec he se e
12
e icacy a e mo e pa icula ize (Qui oga e al., 2012), a ou ing much mo e speci ic
13
aining.
14
15
The second hypo hesis indica ed ha s anding se es will inc ease he se e e icacy
16
wi h espec o jump se es. The esul s o ou s udy con i m his hypo hesis, as i is he
17
s anding se e, ins ead o he jump se e ha inc eases he likelihood o he opposi e
18
eam no being able o cons uc he a ack.
19
20
In line wi h ou esul s, Ga cía-To mo e al. (2006) and Gil e al. (2011a) ound a
21
signi ican associa ion be ween he a iables, se e ype and e icacy, indica ing ha he
22
leas missed se e is he loa e s anding ype. I is also he se e ype ha os e s play
23
con inui y and is commonly used in o ma i e s ages. I is also mo e equen in emale
24
han in male ca ego ies.
25
26
Howe e , esea ch s udies pe o med a high le el olleyball di e om ou esul s, as
27
hey showed ha he jump se e is he mos e ec i e se e ype (As e ios e al., 2009;
28
Palao e al., 2009; Cos a e al., 2012).
29
30
Along his line, in high le el emale olleyball, he mos commonly used ype o se e
31
is he jump se e (Cos a e al., 2012), highligh ing ha he g ea e pe cen age o aces is
32
se ed wi h he powe jump se e and wi h he ennis loa e se e, he i s o hese
33
being he as es se e and he one wi h he la ges numbe o e o s in execu ion wi h
34
espec o o he se e modali ies (Qui oga e al., 2012).
35
36
This shows di e ences be ween he se e ype used in eli e women’s olleyball, he
37
jump se e, and he se e used in o ma i e s ages in emale ca ego y, ha is, he
38
s anding se e (Vesco i and Dunning, 1999). These di e ences may be due o he ac
39
ha , in o ma i e s ages, he echnical mas e y o he jump se e is limi ed due o he
40
an h opome ic cha ac e is ics (S amm, 1999) and physical-physiological cha ac e is ics
41
(Cô é e al., 2003) o emale playe s. These aspec s may, in o ma i e s ages, slow
42
down he jump se e and make i less agg essi e, no ob aining he same e icacy as a a
43
high le el olleyball.
44
45
The hi d hypo hesis indica ed ha se es made o he space be ween playe s, will
46
inc ease he se e e icacy, compa ed wi h hose made o he mid ield a ea. The esul s
47