What is going on in modern volleyball...Picture of the Game - 2018 FIVB scientific research project 3 AIMS The aims of this project are as follows: 1. To collect and investigate data

What is going on in modern volleyball

Picture of the Game - 2018

FIVB scientific research project 2

Table of contents

Page

Aims 3 Introduction 4 Key findings 5 Part 1 Men’s volleyball of top level. Main indicators 6 Part 2 Women’s volleyball of top level. Main indicators 29 Part 3 Men’s and Women’s top volleyball comparison 51 Part 4 Net height analysis 57 Part 5 Players’ height and a team results: is there any connection?

61

Appendix: Methodsofmatch(tournament)sporttensionassessment64



AIMS The aims of this project are as follows:

1. To collect and investigate data on present-day critical indicators of the game. 2. To compare the current data with the previous year’s data in order to obtain a clear picture of the game

trends and evolution 3. On the basis of data analysis to make conclusions and proposals for further game development 4. To investigate further the concept of match tension analysis



Introduction

This year, as well as for the previous years since 2006, and in line with the permanent monitoring of Volleyball development trends and evolution, the scientific research of the main game indicators for the top level men’s and women’s teams called the “Picture of the Game” is foreseen as one of the most important tasks of the Refereeing and Rules of the Game Commission. It is also of significant relevance to our abilities to create a product which can be marketed world-wide.

The results of this scientific statistical research are regularly reported to the FIVB President and always generate a positive response to its value. This was again confirmed during the meeting of the newly combined commission in January, 2018. The FIVB President strongly supported the idea that any changes in Volleyball must be based on sustainable scientific research.

Taking into consideration the latest FIVB innovations: modern technology (Hawk-eye challenge, tablets, headsets, etc.), measures for shortening intervals between rallies and the adaptation of match duration to the demands of TV, the results of the research reflect not only the dynamic of volleyball trends, but also their degree of influence on volleyball development.

In terms of structure, the report is divided into 4 parts or “chapters”. The reason for this is that in reality we have more than one version of the sport of volleyball; while sharing the same rules, the men’s and women’s games show distinct characteristics of their own. In chapters one and two, the various aspects of the game are treated separately, while in chapter three the men’s and women’s games are compared and contrasted in the key areas which define our sport.

On the occasion of the last Refereeing & Rules of the Game Commission meeting in January 2018, President A. Graça mentioned that new ideas which can help future Game development are highly expected from the Commission members. This was the reason to present in Part 4 the “Net height analysis”: a brief history of the net height rule.

Finally, there is a summary of findings and recommendations, based on the previous analysis. In line with the 2018 report, the key findings have been placed at the beginning of the report, immediately after the Introduction.

One final innovation is contained in this report – match tension analysis. This is created by a mathematical formula which generates a figure for “match tension”. To explain: long matches can be boring, short matches can be exciting. Much depends on the closeness of the scoring between the teams and from set to set. Here we attempt to use statistics to remove the “guesswork” about whether the match was tough, or easy, exciting for the fans or not interesting. This will prove to be a useful tool for marketing and reporting on our sport.

Sergey Titov, Sandy Steel, Picture of the Game project leader Picture of the Game project chief analyst



Key findings:

1. Rally duration – fairly static within statistical norms. i.e. no improvement. The suggestions for rule modification – WEAKENING reception, STRENGTHENING service, should be taken into account to improve rally length. Liberalisation of double contact was not approved for testing, although it shows promise as a means of removing a further subjective assessment by the referees, in line with the philosophy that the players’ actions decide the outcome.

2. Flying ball time has shown a slight increase but since athletes are not at their peak for the entire length of a season – we all are aware of the natural cycles of fitness - this factor makes it difficult to put too much emphasis on this increase; much depends on the teams playing and their squad strength and season priorities at that moment.

3. Percentage of pseudo rallies – which includes service errors. This aspect remains the same for the same reasons; teams must use jump serves in order to win a rally, and because this is a high risk strategy, a large proportion are mistakes (or aces). There is also a psychological factor where the players often do not serve with the same efficiency as in training, probably due to the stress of the big match situation.

4. The % of one-attack rallies in the study has gone down over the past few years – this may be due to tactics, physical preparation of the players or other factors. On the face of it, this is a good thing.

5. One and fewer attack rallies are still in the region of 75% - practically it still means that out of 4 rallies, only one rally consists of more than one attack (long rally).

6. Ball contacts per rally – increasing year on year – which suggests that the game is getting ever-faster. 7. Structure of Rallies – we would like to see an upward trend in the more than one attack rallies

indicator, and should work towards this. 8. Attack-Defence balance – in reality, there has been no change: We still see two out of every three

rallies being won by the receiving team, regardless of the teams playing. 9. Proportion of rallies won on own service: Despite our efforts, the receiving team still wins the rally

most of the time (i.e. too often). 10. Percentage aces has gone down – a small drop in aces seems to be a good thing – the ball stays in play

longer. 11. Number of net Crossings – compared to London 2012, this number is low. It should be realised that

the more net crossings the better the rally, the better the excitement levels, often more spectacular “saves” for TV to replay. It is still likely that too many net faults are being called, thus interrupting the flow of play. TV may be a contributory factor in disrupting the flow of the game via the red replay light.



Part 1.

Men’s volleyball of top level. Main indicators

On the basis of the 2018 FIVB Volleyball Nations League final tournament (Lille, France, 04-08.07.2018) the following statistical data reflecting the main volleyball indicators has been obtained:

1. Rally duration

è Average rally duration – 5,35 sec. è Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies – 6,73 sec.

Dynamic of a rally duration indicator

4

4,5

5

5,5

6

6,5

7

7,5

8

Averagerallyduration

Averagerallydurationwithoutpseudo-rallies



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Averagerallyduration 5,5 4,9 5,8 5,9 5,5 5,4 5,4Averagerallydurationwithoutpseudo-rallies 7 6,8 6,6 7,6 6,8 7,2 6,9 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Averagerallyduration 5,7 5,52 5,51 5,51 5,73 5,35

Averagerallydurationwithoutpseudo-rallies 7 6,8 6,59 6,9 7,03 6,73

Variability of a rally duration indicator

4,5

5,0

5,5

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

8,0

8,5

Average rally duration Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies



15%

85%

Rallies time

All sets duration

Comment: Still key – but the comments from last year are still valid (see below) – if we wish to increase rally length, we need to STRENGTHEN service, and at the same time WEAKEN reception. Taking a more liberal view of overhand pass is probably not going to have a huge impact on rally duration at the top level, since ball handling is generally very good at this level – but could have a positive impact at lower levels. This, however, has not been approved for testing in major competitions. That said, the removal of one more judgement call from the referee would probably be a good thing, given our desire to let the players decide the rally through their play. Although not permitted for testing several years ago, restricting the reception to underhand (dig) would generate the multiplier effect we desire to reduce the receiving team’s ability to win the rally. However, that must be for another day.

2. “Flying ball” “Flying ball” – 15,29% from total duration of all sets, OR 13,34% from

total match time

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USAAveragerallyduration 5,08 5,51 5,80 5,54 6,28Averagerallydurationwithoutpseudo-rallies

6,40 6,96 8,03 6,79 7,79

FRA-SRB FRA-USA RUS-BRA USA-BRA FRA-RUSAveragerallyduration 4,94 5,14 5,14 5,17 4,99Averagerallydurationwithoutpseudo-rallies

6,47 6,23 6,52 6,50 6,04



Dynamic of a “flying ball” indicator

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Fromtotaldurationofallsets

18% 15% 17% 17% 15,7% 16,0% 17,6%

Fromtotalmatchtime --- --- 15,6% 15,5% 14,5% 14,6% 15,3%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Fromtotaldurationofallsets

16% 15,2% 14,68% 15,43% 15,99% 15,29%

Fromtotalmatchtime 14% 14,2% 13,42% 13,05% 14,43% 13,34%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

Portionofralliestimeinsetsdurationtime




Variability of a “flying ball” indicator

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USAPortionofralliestimeinsetsdurationtime

13,37% 15,48% 15,06% 14,30% 16,41%

FRA-SRB FRA-USA RUS-BRA USA-BRA FRA-RUS


14,97% 14,61% 14,21% 13,65% 21,66%

Comment: The slight increase in rally length should be considered carefully – much depends on the teams playing and the state of preparedness of those teams – i.e. are they in build-up phase or are they gearing the team for another event later in the year. Athletes are not at their peak for the entire length of a season, so that this factor makes it difficult to put too much emphasis on this result – only that we should like to see an upward trend. Removing Technical Time Outs would see an instant improvement, of course, to the set duration, and match duration – which would give the impression of modifying the rally duration, without actually doing so.

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

20%

21%

22%

Portion of rallies time in sets duration time



24%

76%

Pseudo-rallies

Rallies

3. Portion of “pseudo-rallies” (ace or service fault, about 1 sec.)

2018 Value: 24,18%

Dynamic of “pseudo-rallies” indicator

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Pseudo-rallies

Pseudo-rallies



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Portionof“pseudo-rallies” 21% 28% 12% 23% 20% 26% 25%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Portionof“pseudo-rallies” 21% 21,5% 22,6% 22,97% 21,67% 24,18%

Variability of “pseudo-rallies” indicator

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USAPortionofpseudo-rallies

24,44% 24,41% 31,65% 21,58% 23,02%

FRA-SRB FRA-USA RUS-BRA USA-BRA FRA-RUSPortionofpseudo-rallies

27,91% 20,85% 25,00% 24,18% 20,71%

20%

22%

24%

26%

28%

30%

32%

34%

Portion of pseudo-rallies



47% 53%

Two and more attack rally

One attack rally

Comment: this is the same issue as we reported last year – this aspect remains the same for the same reasons; teams must use jump serves in order to win a rally – if they do not, the reception of the opponent (especially the overhand reception) simply absorbs the service and a decisive attack is created. Because the jump serve is risky, the % error is quite high. That said, there has been a slight increase in % ace services – and this is actually a benefit to the game, and spectator appeal. (Note: a huge increase in aces would not be a good thing, even if it meant that the serving team won more points. We need a balance of aces, poor receptions and so on to create the conditions for longer and more exciting rallies).

4. One attack rally out of all rallies (without pseudo-rallies)

2018 value: 52,52%

Dynamic of “one attack rally” indicator

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

Portionofone-attackrallies

Portionofone-attackrallies



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Oneattackrally 75% 73% 63% 68% 66% 68% 55%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Oneattackrally 52% 52,3% 52,22% 52,97% 51,78% 52,52%

Variability of “one attack rally” indicator

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USAPortionofoneattackrallies

51,67% 49,76% 43,89% 53,24% 43,88%


Portionofoneattackrallies

52,71% 61,61% 51,61% 54,25% 59,28%

Comment: The % of one-attack rallies in the entire study has gone down over the past few years – this may be due to tactics, physical preparation of the players or other factors. On the face of it, this is a good thing. There does appear to be a levelling off over the past couple of years. This should be watched in case the effect is reversed by modifications to regulations, or tactics due to tactics, physical preparation of the players or other factors.

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

Portion of one attack rallies



23%

77%


One and less attack rally

5. One and less attack rallies out of all rallies (with pseudo-rallies).

2018 Value: 76,71 % Dynamic of “one and less attack rallies” indicator

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

Portionofoneandlessattackrallies



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Oneandlessattackrally 79% 81% 68% 76% 73% 76% 76%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Oneandlessattackrally 74,5% 73,8% 74,81% 75,94% 73,45% 76,71%

Variability of “one and less attack rally” indicator

Comment: Practically it means that only one rally in every four consists of more than one attack (long rally). There is a slight levelling off within the range of statistical error in this study but the value still indicates an attack-defence imbalance.

65%

67%

69%

71%

73%

75%

77%

79%

81%

83%

85%

Portion of one and less attack rallies

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USAPortionofoneandlessattackrallies

76,11% 74,18% 75,54% 74,82% 66,91%



80,62% 82,46% 76,61% 78,43% 80,00%



6. Average number of ball contacts during one rally (without pseudo- rallies)

2018 Value: 6,56

Dynamic of “ball contacts” indicator

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Averagenumberofballcontactsduringonerally

4,5 4,6 4,7 5,4 4,7 4,9 5,7

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Averagenumberofballcontactsduringonerally

6,7 6,4 6,6 6,5 6,76 6,56

3,00

3,50

4,00

4,50

5,00

5,50

6,00

6,50

7,00

Ballcontactsnumber



24%

52%

24% pseudo-rallies

One attack rally

More than one attack rally

Variability of “ball contacts” indicator

Comment: This value shows a slight dip for the first time after several years of steady climb – it still feels like a faster game than before, however, regardless of which teams are playing. It is likely that the game has reverted to a win on the first attack, hence the reduced ball contacts. 7. Structure of rallies

5,0

5,5

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

8,0

Ball contacts during a rally

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USABallcontactsduringarally

6,32 6,84 7,67 6,65 7,41


Ballcontactsduringarally

6,29 6,10 6,33 6,39 5,86



Dynamic of “structure of rallies” indicator

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Pseudo-rallies 21% 28% 12% 23% 20% 26% 25%

Oneattackrallies 59% 52% 56% 53% 53% 50% 55%

Morethanoneattackrallies 20% 20% 32% 24% 27% 24% 20%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Pseudo-rallies 22% 21,5% 21,59% 22,97% 21,67% 24,18%

Oneattackrallies 52% 52,3% 50,03% 52,97% 51,78% 52,22%

Morethanoneattackrallies 26% 26,2% 28,38% 24,06% 26,55% 23,6%

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

40,00%

50,00%

60,00%

70,00%

Pseudo-rallies

One-attackrallies

Morethanone-attackrallies



Variability of “structure of rallies” indicator

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USAPseudo-rallie

24,44% 24,41% 31,65% 21,58% 23,02%

Oneattackrallies

51,67% 49,76% 43,89% 53,24% 43,88%

Morethanoneattackrallies

23,89% 25,82% 24,46% 25,18% 33,09%


Pseudo-rallies

27,91% 20,85% 25,00% 24,18% 20,71%

Oneattackrallies

52,71% 61,61% 51,61% 54,25% 59,28%


19,38% 17,53% 23,39% 21,57% 20,00%

Comment: From the graph it can be seen that the indicator we would like to see increasing (the more than one attack) has been stable over the years. We should keep an eye on this factor and emphasise ways to increase this. This may benefit from the multiplier effect generated by a poor reception of service. So ideally we need a strong service and weak reception, where the setter is disadvantaged and the attack lacks power.

16%

21%

26%

31%

36%

41%

46%

51%

56%

61%

Pseudo-rallie One attack rallies More than one attack rallies



8. Attack-defence balance*

2018 Value: 2,34

* number of rallies won on the opponent service divided on number of rallies won on own service

Remark: attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies is 2,04

Dynamic of “attack-defence balance” indicator

1,00

1,20

1,40

1,60

1,80

2,00

2,20

2,40

2,60

2,80

3,00

Attack-defencebalance



2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Attack-defencebalance 3 2,3 2,02 2,2 2,45 2,02 2,09

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Attack-defencebalance 1,85 2,18 2 2 2,09 2,34

Variability of “attack-defence balance” indicator

Comment: The current very “soft” and “liberal” service reception criteria are likely to be the main factor in continuing to create the imbalance shown in the figures (see above). We still see two out of every three rallies being won by the receiving team, regardless of the teams playing. And hence only one in four rallies show any significant increase in rally length.

1,45

1,65

1,85

2,05

2,25

2,45

2,65

2,85

Attack-defence balance

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USAAttack-defencebalance

2,53 2,61 2,86 2,09 2,16

FRA-SRB FRA-USA RUS-BRA USA-BRA FRA-RUSAttack-defencebalance

2,31 2,35 2,65 2,12 1,59



30%

70%

Rally won on own service

Rally won on opponent service

9. Portion of rallies won on own service

2018 Value: 30,24 %

Remark: portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies is 33,25%

Dynamic of “portion of rallies won on own service” indicator

20,00%

22,00%

24,00%

26,00%

28,00%

30,00%

32,00%

34,00%

36,00%

38,00%

40,00%

Portionofrallieswononownservice



2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Portionofrallieswononownservice 30% 33% 31% 29% 33% 33%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Portionofrallieswononownservice 36% 31,65% 33,53% 33,67% 32,5% 30,24%

Variability of “portion of rallies won on own service” indicator

20

25

30

35

40

RUS-POL

FRA-BRA

USA-POL

SRB-BRA

RUS-USA

FRA-SRB

FRA-USA

RUS-BRA

USA-BRA

FRA-RUS

Portion of rallies won on own service (%)



Comment: This dip in the trend line is significant and continues to disappoint. There is still not enough variation in this factor. When combined with attack-defence balance, these two factors make somewhat disturbing reading. Despite our efforts, the receiving team still wins the rally most of the time. The figures show a return overall to the 2007 state of play with only 30% of own services being won. There has been a significant drop in service efficiency, with many service errors. Despite our efforts, the receiving team still wins the rally most of the time. This may be an area for the coaches to address rather than the rules. Yet, see the apparent contradiction in the next indicator!

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USAPortionofrallieswononownservice 28,30% 27,70% 25,90% 32,37% 31,65%

Portionofrallieswononownservicewithoutpseudo-rallies

29,41% 33,54% 29,47% 33,94% 33,64%

FRA-SRB FRA-USA RUS-BRA USA-BRA FRA-RUSPortionofrallieswononownservice 30,23% 29,86% 27,42% 32,03% 38,57%

Portionofrallieswononownservicewithoutpseudo-rallies

32,26% 31,14% 30,11% 36,21% 43,24%



10. Portion of aces after jump service

2018 value: 6,49 %

Dynamic of “portion of aces after jump service” indicator

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Portionofacesafterjumpservice 5,7% 5,3% 6,25% 7,56% 4,94% 6,49%

2,00%

3,00%

4,00%

5,00%

6,00%

7,00%

8,00%

9,00%

10,00%

Portionofacesafterjumpservice(%)



Variability of “portion of aces after jump service” indicator

Comment: Within individual teams there is often the “star” server, scoring aces on a regular basis. The continued small rise in aces (if we ignore the dip in 2017, the trend is ever upward) seems to be a good thing after the 2017 low point. To maintain a better attack-defence balance, there is a need for the serving team to win a greater proportion of the rallies. Without this factor, it is likely that services would be dominated by the receiving team - and the rally will likely finish at the first attack. It seems likely that better reception techniques are responsible for this. Nevertheless, it would appear that more time needs spent on serving skills or in mental preparation for the pressure of the “big game”.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12

RUS-POL

FRA-BRA

USA-POL

SRB-BRA

RUS-USA

FRA-SRB

FRA-USA

RUS-BRA

USA-BRA

FRA-RUS

Portion of aces after jump service (%)

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USAPortionofacesafterjumpservice

9,86% 2,88% 7,69% 7,37% 6,67%

FRA-SRB FRA-USA RUS-BRA USA-BRA FRA-RUSPortionofacesafterjumpservice

10,11% 6,49% 4,94% 4,72% 5,38%



11. Net crossings

2018 value: 2,03 %

Dynamic of “net crossings” indicator

* Net crossings indicator without pseudo-rallies in 2018 VNL Final is 1,84

Variability of “net crossings” indicator

1,7

1,75

1,8

1,85

1,9

1,95

2

2,05

2008OG2012OG2016OG 2017WLFinal

2018VNLFinal

1,962,02

1,81

1,86

2,03

Netcrossingsinallrallies

1,5

1,6

1,7

1,8

1,9

2

2,1

2,2

2,3

2,4

Net crossings

Net crossings without pseudo-rallies



Note: “zero” crossings - situation when a ball after service hit didn't cross vertical plane of the net. When a ball after service hit crossed the net plane and directly went out, then only one “crossing” was counted. Comment: The more net crossings the better the rally, the better the excitement levels, often more spectacular “saves” for TV to replay, and so on. It is still likely also that there are too many net faults interrupting the rallies, thus preventing this value from increasing. It may also be that there has been a return in 2018 to fewer receptions being done (at least in the men’s game, by overhand reception. The net result here is that the rally becomes unstable, sets are less accurate and therefore attacks do not dominate. If true, it is a welcome finding if we are to increase exciting rallies.

12. Match tension

2018 value*: 53,5 %

*2018 value for all 130 matches is 57,3 %

30,7755,38

12,31 1,54

Structure of 130 VNL matches tension (%)

Low Medium High Super match

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USANetcrossings 1,79 1,91 1,88 1,88 2,0Netcrossingswithoutpseudo-rallies

1,96 2,15 2,20 1,99 2,26

FRA-SRB FRA-USA RUS-BRA USA-BRA FRA-RUSNetcrossings 1,75 1,77 1,79 1,89 1,69Netcrossingswithoutpseudo-rallies

1,93 1,93 1,95 2,01 1,87



Match tension legend*:

Low less than 50 points Medium 50-75 points High 76-100 points Super match 100 points and more

* for calculation method – see appendix

Dynamic of a “match tension” indicator

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

62,7

67,5

60,5

56,5

66

57,5

62

62

55,5

74,5

70

64

53,5

Matchtension



Variability of a “match tension” indicator

Note: During VNL tournament (130 matches) there were two “super matches”:

• 25.05.2018: ARG-USA (27-25, 26-24,24-26,21-25,10-15) - 110 % • 16.06.2018: AUS-CHN (27-25,41-39,29-27,25-21) – 105 %

Comment:

Not only were these matches five set thrillers, but the set scores were close, varying by only two points in each of three sets. When factored into the formula used to calculate the match tension, this gave a figure of 105 and 110 (the % is simply a unit used in the calculation).* Conclusion:

By using this indicator, we can use this in our promotional structure, and sale of TV packages – giving the media more food for thought - and in our marketing/ rules/ refereeing strategies to determine how best to generate such matches within a normal game situation. It also gives us a quantitative basis to describe a match as hard, medium or easy, rather than the more holistic estimation we currently use but which is imprecise and based only on observation and impression.

This may focus the TV marketing/ on-line TV production to show highlights rather than the full match or package in some other way to show the sport in the best light. However, such decisions are outside the scope of this review.

*(See the end of this report for the methodology of calculating match tension.)

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Match tension

RUS-POL FRA-BRA USA-POL SRB-BRA RUS-USAMatchtension 50 80 50 50 45 FRA-SRB FRA-USA RUS-BRA USA-BRA FRA-RUSMatchtension 30 85 20 75 50



Part 2.

Women’s volleyball of top level. Main indicators.

On the basis of the FIVB VNL final matches in Nanjing (China) 27.06 – 01.07.2018 the following statistical data reflecting the main volleyball indicators for women’s volleyball has been obtained for comparison with previous editions:

1. Rally duration

* Average rally duration – 7,14 sec. * Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies – 8,12 sec.

Dynamic of “rally duration” indicator

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Averagerallyduration 7,67 7,48 7,25 6,86 7,14Averagerallydurationwithoutpseudo-rallies 8,6 8,46 8,25 7,93 8,12

6

6,5

7

7,5

8

8,5

9

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Average rally duration

Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies



Variability of “rally duration” indicator

Comment: When we factor in the results for 2018 and compare with data going back to 2014, the trend in rally length has shown a slight but steady downward trend, perhaps because like the men, the women athletes are getting bigger, faster and stronger, and the services are not yet of the strength and power to trouble the defence as much as we would like to create the rally instability which we need. Many service errors were seen throughout the event, often created by pressure. But this is something for the coaches to consider within their training/ big match preparation methods.

6,0

6,5

7,0

7,5

8,0

8,5

9,0

Average rally duration Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRB

Average rally duration 7,25 7,53 7,62 6,84 6,52

Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 8,44 8,58 8,53 7,95 7,44

CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USA

Average rally duration 7,49 6,86 7,91 6,64 6,47

Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 8,22 7,87 8,84 7,28 7,63



19%

81%

Rallies time

All sets duration

2. “Flying ball”

19,44% from total duration of all sets

OR

17,44% from total match time

Dynamic of “flying ball” indicator

18,00%

18,50%

19,00%

19,50%

20,00%

20,50%

21,00%

21,50%




2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fromtotaldurationofallsets

20,89% 20,44% 20,8% 19,11% 19,44%

Fromtotalmatchtime

18,95% 18,44% 19,06% 17,24% 17,44%

Variability of “flying ball” indicator

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRB Portion of rallies time in sets duration time 18,26% 20,38% 21,10% 19,25% 18,60%

CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USA Portion of rallies time in sets duration time 19,34% 18,28% 21,53% 17,82% 18,92%

Comment: 2017 seemed to be abnormally low – yet the 2018 figure is not appreciably better and maintains the same downward trend. There has been a 2% drop in flying ball time since 2014 when all matches are considered – although individual matches will perhaps demonstrate a smaller change in flying ball. Nevertheless, the 2% fall is significant and should be viewed as a trend which we need to bring to a standstill if we are to retain audience as we have done historically.

17%

18%

19%

20%

21%

22%

Portion of rallies time in sets duration time



14%

86%

Pseudo-rallies Rallies

3. Portion of “pseudo-rallies” (ace or service fault, about 1 sec.) – 13,78 %

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Portionof“pseudo-rallies” 12,79% 12,01% 13,66% 15,47% 13,78%

Dynamic of “pseudo-rallies” indicator

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

19%

20%

Pseudo-rallies



Variability of “pseudo-rallies” indicator

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRB Portion of pseudo-rallies 16% 13,81% 12,02% 16,03% 14,28%

CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USA Portion of pseudo-rallies 10,07% 14,68% 11,8% 10,22% 17,56%

Comment: The significance of this figure is perhaps in the number of service errors as opposed to service aces. Again, this is something to consider. We need high risk serves to develop longer rallies, but we need to reduce the errors by the server at the same time. The % error in service in women’s volleyball seems to be a strong influence on other indicators

9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18% 19%

Portion of pseudo-rallies



51% 49%


One attack rally

5. One attack rally out of all rallies (without pseudo-rallies).

2018 value: 48,53%

Dynamic of “one attack rally” indicator

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Oneattackrally 43,59% 48,93% 52,03% 50,26% 48,53%

40,00%

45,00%

50,00%

55,00%

60,00%

Portionofone-attack



Variability of “one attack rally” indicator

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRB Portion of one attack rallies 45,5% 45,3% 45,19% 48,85% 59,86%

CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USA Portion of one attack rallies 54,68% 36,36% 47,75% 56,93% 48,78%

Comment: As the players continue to get bigger – and their skill level also increases – reception becomes a relatively straightforward task, unless a high risk service is employed - and hence the first attack is beginning to prove decisive, just as in the Men’s game.

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

Portion of one attack rallies



38%

62%

Two and more attack rally One and less attack rally

5. One and less attack rally – 62,31% of all rallies (with pseudo-rallies).

Dynamic of “one and less attack rally” indicator

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Oneandlessattackrally 55,49% 60,94% 65,69% 65,73% 62,31%

50,00%

55,00%

60,00%

65,00%

70,00%




Variability of “one and less attack rally” indicator

Comment: Plateaued and dropping are the main impressions here. The same comment and the same reasoning can be levelled at this indicator as in the one-attack rally: strong services/ service errors/ more skilled bigger players/ easy reception/ decisive first (and only) attack. All combine to consolidate this indicator.

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

Portion of one and less attack rallies

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRB Portion of one and less attack rallies 61,5% 59,12% 57,21% 64,88% 74,15%

CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USA Portion of one and less attack rallies 64,57% 51,05% 59,55% 67,15% 66,34%



6. Average number of ball contacts during one rally (without pseudo-rallies)

2018 Value : 7,66

Dynamic of “contacts” indicator

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Averagenumberofballcontactsduringonerally

7,9 7,72 7,56 7,27 7,66

6,00

6,20

6,40

6,60

6,80

7,00

7,20

7,40

7,60

7,80

8,00

Ballcontactsnumber



Variability of “ ball contacts” indicator

Comment: This trend is on the rise after a dip in 2017: the trend line has an upward tendency – bigger, faster players making more fast plays, and making more “saves”, resulting in long rallies with multiple contacts. Essentially, this is good for spectators and for TV audiences.

6,5 6,7 6,9 7,1 7,3 7,5 7,7 7,9 8,1 8,3 8,5

Ball contacts during a rally

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRB Ball contacts during a rally 7,99 8,01 7,86 7,54 7,02

CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USA Ball contacts during a rally 7,65 7,54 8,39 6,86 7,34



7. Structure of rallies

* Pseudo-rallies 13,78 %

* One attack rally 48,53 %

* More than one attack rally 37,69 %

Total: 100 %

Dynamic of “structure of rallies” indicator

13,78%

48,53%

37,69%

Pseudo-rallies

One attack rally

More than one attack rally

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Pseudo-rallies

One-attackrallies

Morethanone-attackrallies



2014 2015 2016 2017 2018Pseudo-rallies

12,79% 12,01% 13,66% 15,47% 13,78%

Oneattackrallies

43,59% 48,93% 52,03% 50,26% 48,53%


43,63% 39,06% 34,31% 34,27% 37,69%

Variability of “structure of rallies” indicator

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRB Pseudo-rallies 16% 13,81% 12,02% 16,03% 14,28%

One attack rallies 45,5% 45,3% 45,19% 48,85% 59,86%

More than one attack rallies 38,5% 40,88% 42,79% 35,11% 25,85%

CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USA Pseudo-rallies 10,07% 14,68% 11,8% 10,22% 17,56%

One attack rallies 54,68% 36,36% 47,75% 56,93% 48,78%

More than one attack rallies 35,25% 48,95% 40,45% 32,85% 33,66%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Pseudo-rallie One attack rallies

More than one attack rallies



Comment: One attack rallies up but more than one attack rallies going down. This is disappointing, and indicates short rallies. This indicator peaked at 48.95% in a match between two top teams. ON average it is up by more than 3% points from 2017. So the downward trend has stopped for the moment – hopefully not a temporary position. However, the trend continues – women’s volleyball is maintaining its downward shift to become more like the Men’s version – the “long rally” game may soon become history if this is indicative of the future. Fortunately, we are not at that stage – but the move upwards must be consolidated.

8. Attack-defence balance*

2018 value: 1,51

* number of rallies won on the opponent service divided on number of rallies won on own service

Remark: attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies is 1,45 Dynamic of “attack-defence balance” indicator

1,30

1,35

1,40

1,45

1,50

1,55

1,60

1,65

1,70

Attack-defencebalance



2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Attack-defencebalance 1,5 1,47 1,64 1,56 1,51

Variability of “attack-defense balance” indicator

Comment: There is a small but noticeable shift towards the attack (receiving team) – but this seems to depend on who is playing. Notice that BRA-TUR was almost 2:1 while TUR-USA was almost 1:1. This is a remarkable difference in success rate.

1

1,1

1,2

1,3

1,4

1,5

1,6

1,7

1,8

1,9

2

Attack-defence balance

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRB Attack-defence balance 1,5 1,48 1,34 1,52 1,58

CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USA Attack-defence balance 1,65 1,98 1,66 1,58 1,11



40%

60%

Rally won on own service

Rally won on opponent service

9. Portion of rallies won on own service 2018 value: 40,02 %

Remark: portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies is 40,93% . Dynamic of “portion of rallies won on own service” indicator

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018


41,19% 40,66% 40,87% 39,17% 40,02%

38,00%

38,50%

39,00%

39,50%

40,00%

40,50%

41,00%

41,50%

42,00%

42,50%

43,00%




Variability of “portion of rallies won on own service” indicator

Comment: The modest rise of 1% is scarcely significant to counter the overall downward trend. Due to the relatively less powerful services in Women’s volleyball overall, we can understand some of the previous figures influencing flying ball, one or more attack rallies and so on. Here we see a little encouragement – the services are maintaining an edge despite the impact of the Libero in the serve-reception units: there has not been too much of a drop overall. That said, we need to maintain a watchful eye on this figure. If reception is too easy, if the service is weakened, then both combined will drive this figure in a direction which cannot be good for the entertainment value of the sport.

30

35

40

45

50

USA-TUR

CHN-NED

SRB-TUR

BRA-NED

USA-SRB

CHN-BRA

BRA-TUR

USA-CHN

BRA-CHN

TUR-USA

Portion of rallies won on own service (%)

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRB Portion of rallies won on own service 40% 40,33% 42,79% 39,69% 38,77%

Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies

40,48% 40,38% 43,71% 41,82% 42,06%

CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USA Portion of rallies won on own service 37,41% 33,57% 37,64% 38,69% 47,32%

Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies

39,2% 35,24% 38,85% 39,02% 46,15%



10. Portion of aces after jump service

2018 value: 3,14 %

Dynamic of “portion of aces after jump service” indicator

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Portionofacesafterjumpservice 2,57% 2,07% 1,63% 6,09% 3,14%

0,00%

1,00%

2,00%

3,00%

4,00%

5,00%

6,00%

7,00%

Portionofacesafterjumpservice(%)



Variability of “portion of aces after jump service” indicator

Comment: Down 3% on the 2017 figure. Yet up on the 2016 figure. If teams move away from the float service to a jump service, then the likelihood is that the trend in the previous indicator can be reversed. Already we see that the jump service is proving a problem to receive when it is used. There were cases where a one-foot take-off for the jump serve seemed to create reception problem on many occasions.

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20

USA-TUR

CHN-NED

SRB-TUR

BRA-NED

USA-SRB

CHN-BRA

BRA-TUR

USA-CHN

BRA-CHN

TUR-USA

Portion of aces after jump service (%)

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRB Portion of aces after jump service 0% 0% 16,67% 0% 0%

CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USA Portion of aces after jump service 0% 0% 10% 0% 0%



11. Net crossings

2018 value: 2,24

Dynamic of “net crossings” indicator

2008 2012 2016 2017 2018

Netcrossing 2,4 2,4 2,2 2,18 2,24

Netcrossingwithout“pseudo-rallies”

- - - - 2,34

2,05

2,1

2,15

2,2

2,25

2,3

2,35

2,4

2008OG2012OG2016OG 2017WGPFinal

2018VNLFinal

2,4 2,4

2,22,18

2,24

Netcrossingsinallrallies



Variability of “net crossings” indicator

Comment: This is up from the 2017 figure and can be regarded as a good thing. We need to find ways to de-stabilise the initial reception – if that is done, we can create many more net crossings. It is clear from the occasions when we do get long rallies and multiple net crossings, that this was caused by a poor reception or by strong serving. This result should be looked at in conjunction with the success of the jump serve.

2,0

2,1

2,2

2,3

2,4

2,5

2,6

The ball crossing net The ball crossing the net without 0

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRB The ball crossing net 2,25 2,38 2,34 2,17 2,03 The ball crossing the net without 0 2,41 2,46 2,44 2,30 2,15

CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USA The ball crossing net 2,31 2,15 2,47 2,17 2,10 The ball crossing the net without 0 2,39 2,18 2,57 2,23 2,19



12. Match tension Variability of a “match tension” indicator Introduction: This indicator was proposed last year as another way of analysing the

“spectator appeal” in any match, provided that the same parameters are used as the basis of the study in each case. We can see here in the accompanying graph that TUR-USA had a high degree of match tension, as did SRB-TUR, when compared to other matches in the same event. In fact, the values of these matches were almost double those of the least tense matches in the study. It should be pointed out that this is not simply the case that 5-set matches are more “tense” than 3-set matches. Other factors need to be taken into consideration, as we can see below.

2018 value*: 55,5 %

*2018 value for all 130 matches is 48,85 %

Match tension legend*: Low less than 50 points Medium 50-75 points High 76-100 points Super match 100 points and more

* for calculation method – see appendix

52,3140,00

6,92 0,77





Dynamic of a “match tension” indicator

Variability of a “match tension” indicator

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

55

58,33

60,67

57,67

55,33

50,83

52,33

51,67

50,67

50,67

50

71,5

55,5

Matchtension

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Match tension



Note: During VNL tournament (130 matches) there was one “super match”:

• 17.05.2018: USA-TUR (26-28,19-25,25-20,26-24,14-16) - 105 % Comment:

Not only was this match a five set thriller, but the set scores were close, varying by only two points in each of three sets. When factored into the formula used to calculate the match tension, this gave a figure of 105 (the % is simply a unit used in the calculation).

It is interesting that while we would expect comparable teams like BRA-NED and BRA-CHN to generate close-fought matches, the match tension indicator shows otherwise, with values of only 40 %*.

*(See the end of this report for the methodology of calculating match tension.)

USA-TUR CHN-NED SRB-TUR BRA-NED USA-SRBMatchtension 60 55 75 40 55 CHN-BRA BRA-TUR USA-CHN BRA-CHN TUR-USAMatchtension 45 55 55 40 75



Part 3

Men’s and Women’s top volleyball comparison

Table 1

N

Indicator

Men

Women

1 Average rally duration (sec.) 5,35 (5,73) ê 7,14 (6,86) é

2 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies (sec.)

6,73 (7,03) ê 8,12 (7,93) é

3 “Flying ball” from total duration of all sets (%) 15,29 (15,99) ê 19,44 (19,11) é

4 “Flying ball” from total match time (%) 13,34 (14,43) ê 17,44 (17,24) é

5 Portion of “pseudo-rallies” (ace or service fault, about 1 sec.) (%)

24,18 (21,67) é 13,78 (15,47) ê

6

Structure of rallies

Pseudo-rallies (%) 24,18 (21,67) é 13,78 (15,47) ê

One attack rallies (%) 52,22 (51,78) é 48,53 (50,26) ê

More than one attack rallies (%)

23,6 (26,55) ê 37,69 (34,27) é

7 Average number of ball contacts during one rally (without pseudo-rallies)

6,56 (6,76) ê

7,66 (7,27) é

8 Attack-defence balance 2,34 (2,09) é 1,51 (1,56) ê

9 Attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies 2,04 (1,71) é 1,45 (1,52) ê

10 Portion of rallies won on own service (%) 30,24 (32,5) ê 40,02 (39,17) é

11 Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies (%)

33,25 (36,88) ê 40,93 (39,93)é

12 Portion of aces after jump service (%) 6,49 (4,94) é 3,14 (6,09) ê

13 Net crossings 2,03 (1,86) é 2,24 (2,18) é 14 Match tension in final VNL tournament (%) 53,5 55,5 15 Match tension in all VNL matches (130) (%) 57,3 48,85

* in brackets – previous year data. é - increasing ê - decreasing

Positive trend Negative trend



Conclusion Introduction: The reality of our sport, currently, is that there is a great divide between what is being seen in the men’s game compared to that of the women’s game. Service: Starting with the service – The men are making more ace services than before but the women are making fewer aces than previously. In reality, at the recent VNL and WWCH events, the service efficiency of the women was somewhat disappointing. This is something perhaps for the coaches to evaluate but from a spectator viewpoint, the service errors contribute to a feeling of disappointment and reduces the spectacular elements in the game. Despite this statistical fact, the proportion of rallies won by the men on their own service has actually dropped! So if the team does not make an ace, the chances are that the receiving team will simply absorb the service, set up their own attack and finish the rally at the first attempt. For women there has been a slight positive increase – it seems that the successful services are creating enough of a problem for the reception that the team cannot mount a successful attack. Net Crossings: It follows that this can create an increased number of contacts and net crossings for the women but a decreasing number of contacts and net crossings for the men. This is not exactly what we see – the men have shown a slight increase in net crossings; the women a bigger increase. These results can be explained with a look at the blocking techniques used today; the block is slowing the ball enough to allow a transition to attack, and hence the increase in net crossings. Attack-Defence Balance: Attack-defence balance shows the greatest difference between the two genders – 2.34 for the men (up from 2.09) and 1.51 (down from 1.56) for the women. Analysis: Physical condition of Players - It is still the case that the players are taller and faster than before, the net play is contested stronger than ever – in both genders – but there are key reasons for the differences: Overhand reception - this means that the receivers win on almost every occasion. Without this allowed technique, it is likely that the attack-defence balance would reduce to a position closer to the women (who use the technique less often). Service – we need stronger but more efficient services (anecdotally, it appears that when players take the full time for service, they make better services – but if they feel rushed by the 15 seconds rule, they often serve into the net (rather than out of court). Tip - the tip in volleyball can be a problem – if too lenient an approach is taken, this becomes impossible to defend against. Final Conclusion: This comparison is a vital element in understanding our game and how we need to consider modifications to keep it fresh and alive.



Part 4 Ideas to discuss

Volleyball net height issue: time to think over?

Introduction

On the occasion of the Refereeing & Rules of the Game Commission meeting in January 2018 the FIVB President Dr.

A.Graça mentioned, that new ideas which can help future Game development are highly expected from the Commission members. In connection with this wish we present for consideration the analysis and idea regarding a height of the volleyball net. In our opinion it can lead to a positive shift of the attack-defence balance, which is currently, according to the last “Picture of the Game” research, significantly shifted towards an attack. The levelling of attack-defense balance will possibly have, as a result, an increase in rally duration and, as a consequence, an increase in Game attractiveness.

«Picture of the Game» project group Sergey Titov, Sandy Steel,

When volleyball was invented in 1895 by William Morgan the net height was less than 2 meters, or 1,98 m to be exact. During the years it has been changing together with the volleyball rules as follows:

1900 year – 229 сm 1916 year – 240 сm 1917 year – 243 сm 1935 year – 245 сm 1947 year – 243 cm

Current net height for men – 243 cm - was set up in 1917, i.e. 100 years ago! During this 100-year period of time the average human height has changed in the direction of significant increase. This height increase is different for different countries and continents. However, summarizing the most relevant and accurate sources of information, it can be said with some surety that during the last 100 years the average adult human in the civilized world has increased by up to 10 cm. An average height of volleyball players has changed even more. Throughout the 40s, 50s and 60s of the last century, the volleyball player height was, as a rule, 175-185 cm. By 1970-80 this had increased to 185-195 cm. By 1990-2000 the male height was 190-200 cm. The height of modern top level players is 195-205 cm. The tallest volleyball player in the world nowadays is Dmitry Musersky (RUS) – 219 cm (see picture). The height of a spike is determined not only by the player’s height but also by the length of the hands. This length has a direct correlation with a human height. Assuming that the well-



formed man has a hand-spread equal to his height, we can assert that a 10 cm height increase will lead to the 15 cm subsequent increase of an attack-hit height. What do we have at the end? Net height has not changed in 100 years, but the height of a spike (player’s height + hand length) has been increased by 45 cm (30 cm by height and 15 cm by hand length). Unlike volleyball played at the beginning or in the middle of the 20th century, it is almost impossible to receive a ball after a spike without block with the existing net height. Attack is prevailing over the defense by a factor of 2 (see “Picture of the Game annual report”). It means that the rallies are too short and it leads to a negative impact on the game attractiveness. How to solve a problem of a rally prolongation (“Keep the ball flying”)?

In recent years the FIVB was trying to solve a problem by the different means: less strict refereeing of a ball handling, decreasing the number of the non-playing intervals and so on. However, the simplest and the most direct way – net height increase – in accordance with the players’ modern height, was tested only once, in 1957. The results of this test, unfortunately, were either lost or not followed up. This test didn't lead to the volleyball net height being raised.

How much can we raise the net height and what will be the possible consequences of this? Taking into consideration that the spike height during the last 100 years has increased by up to 45 cm, the raising of the net height by just 10 cm (one mesh) could be considered appropriate and acceptable. The ball trajectory with the net heights of 243 and 253 cm will be considerably different (within the rally and during service) and that will facilitate the defensive play and increase rally duration. Many of us will appreciate that when we train young children, the long rally is facilitated by setting the net at a height which makes spiking difficult, so other methods of playing the ball over the net have to be found, and the rallies become longer as a consequence.

Proposal: To consider an expediency of a practical test on a competition: the proposal would be to raise up the net height by 10 cm. Provided that a positive decision to have this test will be taken, then to carefully analyse the statistical data of such an experiment and present the conclusions and recommendations for the final decision to the corresponding FIVB bodies.



Interesting to know

Players’ height and a team results: is there any connection?

After the 2018 Men’s World Championships, a correlation between average team height and final team ranking has been analysed to answer a simple question: is there any connection between the two variables, and if “yes”, how strong is this connection? Taking into consideration that the result of a team performance is determined by the players who really played but not by the reserve players, we counted only those players who played in a minimum 50 % of all matches.

Final standing Team Average

height

1 Poland 199,00

2 Brazil 199,54

3 USA 201,00

4 Serbia 199,91

5 Italy 201,30

6 Russia 203,10

7 France 198,00

8 Netherlands 198,62

9 Canada 201,50

10 Belgium 199,09

11 Bulgaria 200,50

12 Slovenia 202,00

13 Iran 197,27

14 Australia 201,73

15 Argentina 195,08

16 Finland

193,45

17 Japan 191,00

18 Cuba 196,45

19 Cameroon 197,09

20 Egypt 199,73

21 Puerto-rico 191,46

22 China 197,83

23 Tunisia 192,90

24 Dominican Rep. 192,45



Pic.1 Average team height v. team place correlation for all 24 teams

Pic.2 Average team height v. team place correlation for the top 6 teams (1-6 places)

199,00

199,54

201,00

199,91

201,30

203,10

198,00

198,62 201,50

199,09

200,50

202,00

197,27

201,73

195,08

193,45

191,00

196,45

197,09 199,73

191,46

197,83

192,90

192,45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718192021222324

Averageteamheight

196,00

197,00

198,00

199,00

200,00

201,00

202,00

203,00

204,00



24teams 1-6places 7-17places 18-24places 7-24places

-0,659865825 0,887722891 -0,612365665 -0,547814625 -0,603022329

Findings:

1. There is an opposite trend for the top 6 teams compared to the rest of the teams. 2. For all 24 teams the overall trend is: the taller the players the better the place (medium

straight correlation) 3. For first 6 teams the trend is: the taller the players the worse place achieved (i.e. there is

a strong inverse correlation). Conclusion: If a team is not on the top level – the shortest way up to success is to increase players’ height. If a team is in the top level – the players’ height is a negative factor. Discussion: What does this tell us? In earlier analysis of a similar type (1999), it was clear even then that at the top level, the biggest impact on success is preparation (both physical and mental), tactics and most importantly all-round athleticism. That the leading team in this 2018 study is the smallest team of the first six, tells is that the earlier study is still true. All round athletes (even if slightly smaller than other leading teams) are the best at performing to the level expected of a top team. Yet the instant fix of drafting in taller and taller players is appealing, and clearly has been adopted by some teams, as the trend in the lower part of the ranking table confirms. However, those teams seem to plateau unless they can ally all-round athletic qualities to a combination of height, youth and experience. It would be interesting to view those mid-ranking teams if they were able to stay together and were to be developed as all round athletes rather than specialists. It seems that the “manufactured” team is limited in its ability to reach the very top positions. Perhaps that is because they cannot adapt well enough to different circumstances, to opponents who play a different type of volleyball, to the unpredictability of match play, and so on. Lesson: select height by all means but develop the players’ all-round abilities if you want real success. Sergey Titov, Sandy Steel, «Picture of the Game» research project team

16/12/2018



Appendix

Methodsmatch(tournament)sporttensionassessment

1. Theassessmentofamatchtensionismadebyusingascalewithaswingfrom0to100points.

2. Amatchtensionassessmentisasummaryofthematchevaluationsforeachsetaccordingtothefollowingcriteria:

§ Setwith2-pointsdifference(e.g.25-23,26-24,15-13) -valueis20points§ Setwith3-5pointsdifference(e.g.25-22,25-20,15-12,15-10) -valueis15points§ Setwith6-10pointsdifference(e.g.25-19,25-15,15-9,15-5) -valueis10points§ Setwiththedifferencemorethan10points(e.g.25-14,15-4) -valueis0points

3. Ifoneteamscoresmorethan25(15–for5thset)points(e.g.26-24,16-14) -bonusvalueis5

points

4. Ifbothteamsscoremorethan25(15)points(e.g.28-26,17-15) -bonusvalueis10points

5. Matchtensioninthewholetournamentisanaveragefromallmatchesinthistournament.

6. Tensionevaluationscaleforamatch(tournament):

• lessthan50points -Lowtension• 50–75points -Mediumtension• 76–100points -Hightension• morethan100points -Supermatch!

7. Calculationexamples:

• 3-0match(25-23,25-23,25-23)=20+20+20=60points(Mediumtension)

• 3-0match(25-23,25-20,25-18)=20+15+10=45points(Lowtension)

• 3-1match(25-23,25-27,25-21,25-19)=20+20+15+10+5(bonus)=70points(Mediumtension)

• 3-2match(25-19,18-25,25-20,20-25,15-12)=10+10+15+15+15=65points(Mediumtension)

• 3-2match(25-23,23-25,25-23,20-25,15-13)=20+20+20+15+20=95points(Hightension)

(Briefreport)

²  Since2006–JointprojectofRulesoftheGameandRefereeingCommission(nowcombinedR&RGC)

²  13Editions–13yearsofGamestatemonitoringandreportingtoFIVB

leaders²  Includes12thekeyGameindicatorsincluding“matchtension”

²  AnnualreporttoworldvolleyballsocietyviaFIVBsite

AIMS:

•  Tocollectandinvestigatedataonpresent-daycriticalindicatorsofthegame

•  Tocomparethecurrentdatawithpreviousyearsdatainordertoobtaina

clearpictureofthegametrendsandevolution•  Onthebasisofdataanalysistomakeconclusionsandproposalsfor

furthergamedevelopment

Modernmen’stop

levelVolleyball

Short-term:arallylastsonly5-6secondsonaverage

Risk:oneoutoffive

serviceseitheraceorservicefault

Flyingball:13-14%ofmatch

duration

Speed:theplayersofboth

teamscontactaball6-7timesinonerally

Attackprevailing:twooutofthreeralliesarewonbyteamreceiving

service

Efficiency:thefirstattackinarallyissuccessfulin50%of

allcases

Excellentreceptionskills:onlyoneoutof15powerfuljumpservicesisendedby

anace

Transitionplay:aballcrossesthe

verticalnetplaneabitmorethantwotimes

perrally

Averagematchtension53-57%

Source:“FIVBresearchproject“PictureoftheGame”.Reportfor2018.


30,77

55,38

12,31

1,54



Matchtensionlegend*:Low-lessthan50points;Medium-50-75points;High-76-100points;Supermatch-100pointsandmore.

Modernwomen’stoplevelVolleyball

Short-term:arallylastsonly7-8secondsonaverage

Risk:oneoutofseven

serviceseitheraceorservicefault

Flyingball:17-18%ofmatch

duration

Speed:theplayersofboth

teamscontactaball7-8timesinonerally

Attackprevailing:threeoutoffiveralliesarewonbyteamreceiving

service

Efficiency:thefirstattackinarallyissuccessfulin50%of

allcases

Excellentreceptionskills:onlyoneoutof30jump

servicesisendedbyanace

Transitionplay:aballcrossesthe

verticalnetplane2,24timesinaverageper

rally

Averagematchtension:49-56%



Matchtensionlegend*:Low-lessthan50points;Medium-50-75points;High-76-100points;Supermatch-100pointsandmore.

52,3140,00

6,92

0,77



Documents

What is going on in modern volleyball...Picture of the Game - 2018 FIVB scientific research project 3 AIMS The aims of this project are as follows: 1. To collect and investigate data