Analysis of the variables that predict serve efficacy in young volleyball players

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