Modern volleyball aspectsvolleyball.ir/.../2017/11/6-FIVB_2016_Picture_of_the_Game_report_VB.… · monitoring of Volleyball development trends and evolution, the scientific research

Modern volleyball aspects

Picture of the Game - 2016

2

Table of contents

Page

Aims 3 Introduction 4 Part 1 Men’s volleyball of top level. Main indicators 5 Part 2 Women’s volleyball of top level. Main indicators 29 Part 3 Men’s and Women’s top volleyball comparison 47 Part 4 2012 - 2016 Olympic Games data in comparison 54 Part 5 New indicator – net crossings (2008,2012,2016 Olympic Games

comparison) 60

Part 6 Match and set duration 62

Conclusions 66

Appendix Tables 67


3

AIMS The aims of this project are as follows:

1. To investigate and collect data on critical indicators of the game. 2. To compare the data for 2015-16 with previous data. 3. To contrast specifically the data obtained for the Rio Olympics with that of the London Olympics.


4

Introduction

This year, as well as for the previous 10 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 (Joint project of the Rules of the Game and Refereeing Commissions “Picture of the Game”) is foreseen as one of the most important tasks. 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 last Joint meeting of RGC&IRC in January, 2016. The FIVB President strongly supported the idea that any changes in Volleyball must be based on sustainable scientific research. Here in aims 1 and 2 the statistical results are strong as the sample size was sufficient to guarantee validity of the findings. The comparators for London and Rio (aim 3) are less strong due to a reduced sample size – nevertheless the results for this comparison are reinforced by the different indicators telling the same story.

Taking into consideration the latest FIVB innovations: modern technology (new 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 six parts or “chapters”. The reason for this is that in reality we have more than one 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. In part 4, the focus becomes the comparison between the Olympic Games of London and the games of Rio de Janeiro. Here we hope to determine if in the key areas, the game has progressed or if there are aspects we should look at before we have to look at them. In part 5, we have identified a new parameter to highlight – net crossings. While we can see from our existing studies the length in time for the average rally, and may conclude that if it is shorter than before, then there is something wrong with the dynamic of the game. This would see at odds with a further statistic which reveals more ball contacts in the same time frame. If we then say that the play is faster and more dynamic, what evidence do we have to back up this premise? Hence by augmenting our existing studies with new data looking at net crossings we can see exactly what the increased athleticism and speed of the game is doing to the one aspect which we all relate to: exciting rallies where the ball crosses the net several times. The new indicator compares matches from the Olympic Finals from 2008, 2012, and 2016, in order to determine the trend in this “excitement indicator” over the period.

Part 6 deals specifically with match duration.

Finally, there is a summary of findings and recommendations, based on the previous analysis.

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


5

Part 1.

Men’s volleyball of top level. Main indicators.


6

Part 1.

Men’s volleyball of top level. Main indicators

On the basis of 2016 FIVB World League final tournament (Krakov, Poland, 13-17.07.2016) the following statistical data reflecting the main volleyball indicators and has been obtained:

1. Rally duration

Average rally duration – 5,51 sec. Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies – 6,9 sec.

Dynamic of a rally duration indicator

012345678

Average rallyduration

Average rallyduration withoutpseudo-rallies


7

Variability of a rally duration indicator

0246810121416

Average rally duration

Average rally durationwithout pseudo-rallies

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Average rally duration 5,5 4,9 5,8 5,9 5,5 5,4 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 7 6,8 6,6 7,6 6,8 7,2 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Average rally duration 5,4 5,7 5,52 5,51 5,51 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6,9 7 6,8 6,59 6,9


8

15%

85%

Rallies time

All setsduration

Comment: Rally duration is one of the key Game indicators. This has been very stable during the last 10 years, and especially over the last 3 years, despite of all our efforts to increase it. The variability between different matches is small and therefore not significant. In order to change it towards greater rally prolongation, it may be necessary to make changes involving further ball handling liberalization (perhaps some liberalization of the second team hit, for example, or a more strict view of the 1st hit reception may be required). If the pseudo-rallies factor (i.e. rallies involving only service) can be completely eliminated, it is believed that average rally duration will extend by more than one second. See recommendations at the end of the report.

2. “Flying ball” “Flying ball” – 15,43% from total duration of all sets, OR 13,05% from

total match time

BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA Average rally duration 5,07 5,43 5,32 5,33 5,57 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6,38 6,92 6,67 6,75 6,96

SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA Average rally duration 5,51 6,34 5,69 5,38 5,08 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6,78 7,8 6,88 6,54 6,45


9

Dynamic of a “flying ball” indicator

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 From total duration of all sets

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

From total match time --- --- 15,6% 15,5% 14,5% 14,6%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 From total duration of all sets

17,6% 16% 15,2% 14,68% 15,43%

From total match time 15,3% 14% 14,2% 13,42% 13,05%

0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18%20%

Portion of ralliestime in setsduration time


10

23%

77%

Pseudo-rallies

Rallies

Variability of a “flying ball” indicator

BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA Portion of rallies time in sets duration time 14,16% 16,25% 15,07% 14,87% 15,12%

SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA Portion of rallies time in sets duration time 16,94% 16,12% 14,55% 15,63% 14,91%

Comment: This is a crucial indicator for volleyball taking into consideration the FIVB motto: “Keep the ball flying”. From match to match the indicator varies not more than 3 %, but is clearly variable, ranging from 14.16 to 16.94 in the matches studied, and clearly depends on a variety of factors, not least the teams playing and their individual tactics. There is a small trend within the last 10 years showing a reduction in the “flying ball” time. The new (old) net touch rule and Challenge system possibly also contributed to this trend. This is perhaps the lowest level of active playing time among comparable team sports using a ball. In order to correct this situation it is necessary to consider changes in Game structure or the fixed game interruptions (like changing format, or reducing all interruptions – TA, TTO, time between sets, etc.)

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

22,97%

13%13%14%14%15%15%16%16%17%17%18%

Portion ofrallies time insets durationtime


11

Dynamic of “pseudo-rallies” indicator

Variability of “pseudo-rallies” indicator

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Portion ofpseudo-rallies

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%



12

47%

53%

Two and more attack rally

One attack rally

BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA Portion of pseudo-rallies 24,24% 25,12% 23,46% 24,62% 23,32%

SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA Portion of pseudo-rallies 21,9% 20,85% 20,29% 21,58% 25,18%

Comment: This indicator was very unstable during the last decade, but relatively stable within the last 4 years (between 20% and 25 %). The main reason for having a high percentage of “pseudo-rallies” has been the increase in the very risky jump service, due to the fact that the less risky service (less power) will most likely lead to the successful attack by the receiving team, who will then win the rally at the first attempt. One of the possible ways to decrease the need for and percentage of risky power jump services is to consider how to ensure that there is not always a very good reception after the floating service (in order to generate a less powerful attack). In other words, we really need the serving team to win the rally – this means reducing the risk of a service failure; this is where the reception should be weakened. The overhand reception creates the wrong conditions from our point of view. While we are unlikely to see this modified in the foreseeable future, some new ball structure which allows service swerve over a long distance (12 metres) but which flies true over a short distance (6-8 metres) should be considered to benefit the rally.

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

2016 value: 52,97%


13

Dynamic of “one attack rally” indicator

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

One attack rally 75% 73% 63% 68% 66% 68%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

One attack rally 55% 52% 52,3% 52,22% 52,97%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Portion of oneattack rallies

Linear (Portionof one attackrallies)


14

24%

76%

Two and moreattack rally

One and lessattack rally

Variability of “one attack rally” indicator

BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA Portion of one attack rallies 53,03% 48,34% 53,63% 51,76% 50,67%

SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA Portion of one attack rallies 55,71% 51,18% 57% 57,55% 52,52%

Comment: This indicator was relatively stable during the past 4 years (52%-53%). There was an obvious trend of reducing the portion of one-attack rallies. The variability of this indicator in different matches is +/- 5%. (i.e. it depends very much on which teams are playing, their abilities and tactics).

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

42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%

Portion ofone attackrallies


15

Dynamic of “one and less attack rallies” indicator

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

Portion ofone andlessattackrallies

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

One and less attack rally 79% 81% 68% 76% 73% 76%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 One and less attack rally 76% 74,5% 73,8% 74,81% 75,94%


16


Comment: This has been a relatively stable indicator over the last 8 years (73%-76%). The variability of this indicator in different matches is between 72% and 79% that means +/- 3,5 %. Practically it means that out from 4 rallies, only one rally consists of more than one attack (long rally). This last comment is key to our understanding of the game dynamic and of our willingness to search for ways to make the game more attractive to a public which demands long rallies and spectacular defensive play.

68%

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

Portion ofone andless attackrallies

BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA Portion of one and less attack rallies 77,27% 73,46% 77,09% 76,38% 73,99%

SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA Portion of one and less attack rallies 77,61% 72,03% 77,29% 79,13% 77,7%


17

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

2016 Value: 6,5

Dynamic of “ball contacts” indicator

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average number of ball contacts during one rally

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

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average number of ball contacts during one rally

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

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

Ball contactsduring a rally


18

Variability of “ball contacts” indicator

Comment: This has been a relatively stable indicator over the last 4 years (6,4-6,7 contacts per rally on average). There is a clear trend of increasing the number of ball contacts in each rally during the last decade. This trend means that the game has become faster and the players nowadays are able to make more technical actions within one rally. The variability of this indicator in different matches is not significant (between 6,12 and 7,35).

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.007.008.00 Ball

contactsduring arally

BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA Ball contacts during a rally 6,12 6,63 6,44 6,55 6,55

SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA Ball contacts during a rally 6,34 7,35 6,44 6,23 6,25


19

23%

53%

24% pseudo-rallies

One attack rally

More than one attack rally

7. Structure of rallies

Dynamic of “structure of rallies” indicator

Pseudo-rallies

One attackrallies

More than oneattack rallies


20

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

One attack rallies 59% 52% 56% 53% 53% 50%

More than one attack rallies 20% 20% 32% 24% 27% 24%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Pseudo-rallies 25% 22% 21,5% 21,59% 22,97%

One attack rallies 55% 52% 52,3% 50,03% 52,97%

More than one attack rallies 20% 26% 26,2% 28,38% 24,06%

Variability of “structure of rallies” indicator

Pseudo-rallies

One attack rallies



21

BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA Pseudo-rallies 24,24% 25,12% 23,46% 24,62% 23,32%

One attack rallies 53,03% 48,34% 53,63% 51,76% 50,67%

More than one attack rallies

22,73% 26,54% 22,91% 23,62% 26,01%

SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA Pseudo-rallies 21,91% 20,86% 20,29% 21,58% 25,18%

One attack rallies 55,71% 51,18% 57,01% 57,56% 52,52%

More than one attack rallies

22,38% 27,96% 22,7% 20,86% 22,3%

Comment: There has been more or less a stable structure of rallies within the last 4 years. The variability of this indicator in different matches is small. It is interesting that generally the percentage of pseudo-rallies is very close to the percentage of long rallies (more than one attack).


22

8. Attack-defence balance*

2016 Value: 2

* 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 1,8

Dynamic of “attack-defence balance” indicator

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Attack-defence balance 3 2,3 2,02 2,2 2,45 2,02

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Attack-defence balance 2,09 1,85 2,18 2 2

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

Attack-defencebalance


23

Variability of “attack-defence balance” indicator

Comment: Here the long term trend is positive – the imbalance between attack and defense is shortening (from a high point of 3 down to a more acceptable 2). In 2016, as in 2015, this indicator shows no change - i.e. it maintains the value of 2 quoted above. The variability of this indicator in different matches is significantly large +/- 0,28. The current state of this indicator means that in men’s volleyball there is still a significant imbalance between attack and defense, and if a team receives a service, most likely (in two out of three cases) this team will win this rally. Current very “soft” and “liberal” service reception criteria are likely to be the main factor in creating this imbalance (see above). Another factor likely to contribute to this imbalance is keeping the same net height (2,43 m.) during almost 70 years while at the top level the players’ average height and physical conditions have increased significantly (although a high spike is usually met with a high block, making the net irrelevant in most cases, and the cost world wide of changing this would mitigate against the average federation’s ability to promote the game).

0

1

2

3

4

BRA-ITA

POL-FRA

POL-SRB

USA-ITA

BRA-USA

SRB-FRA

SRB-ITA

FRA-BRA

SRB-BRA

FRA-ITA


BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA Attack-defence balance 1,73 1,93 2,03 2,21 2,1

SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA Attack-defence balance 2,23 1,76 1,83 1,67 2,16


24

34%

66%

Rally won on ownservice

Rally won onopponent service

9. Portion of rallies won on own service

33,67%

Remark: portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies is 35,58%

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


25

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Portion of rallies won on own service 30% 33% 31% 29% 33%

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Portion of rallies won on own service 33% 36% 31,65% 33,53% 33,67%

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

25262728293031323334353637

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Portion ofrallieswon onownservice(%)


26

Comment: Again this is a stable indicator with no significant rising trend on average within the last decade. The variability of this indicator in different matches is +/- 3%. This indicator explains why the captains usually choose a “reception” during a toss before match. (Again, see above – different indicators pointing to the same conclusion). 10. Portion of aces after jump service

2016 value: 7,56%

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

BRA-ITA

POL-FRA

POL-SRB

USA-ITA

BRA-USA

SRB-FRA

SRB-ITA

FRA-BRA

SRB-BRA

FRA-ITA

Portion ofrallieswon onownservice(%)

BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA Portion of rallies won on own service 36,36% 34,12% 32,96% 31,15% 32,29%

Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies

39% 38,61% 32,85% 32,67% 33,33%

SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA Portion of rallies won on own service 30,95% 36,02% 35,26% 37,41% 31,65%

Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies

33,54% 37,12% 36,36% 36,7% 37,5%


27

Dynamic of “portion of aces after jump service” indicator

2013 2014 2015 2016

Portion of aces after jump service 5,7% 5,3% 6,25% 7,56%

Variability of “portion of aces after jump service” indicator

0123456789

10

2013 2014 2015 2016

Portion ofaces afterJumpservice(%)


28

Comment: The calculation of this indicator still has a short history. Over the last 4 years this indicator has stayed relatively stable, at around 5-7 %. The variability of this indicator in different matches is large, however (3,5% - 11,1%).

0123456789

101112131415

BRA-ITA

POL-FRA

POL-SRB

USA-ITA

BRA-USA

SRB-FRA

SRB-ITA

FRA-BRA

SRB-BRA

FRA-ITA

Portionof acesafterjumpservice(%)

BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA Portion of aces after jump service

8,91% 7,25% 11,11% 7,94% 8,64%

SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA Portion of aces after jump service

3,82% 6,25% 8,02% 10,91% 3,53%


29

Part 2.

Women’s volleyball of top level. Main indicators.


30

Part 2.

Women’s volleyball of top level. Main indicators.

On the basis of the FIVB World Grand Prix final matches in Bangkok (Thailand) 06-10.07.2016 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 – 7,25 sec. * Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies – 8,25 sec.

Dynamic of “rally duration” indicator

2014 2015 2016

Average rally duration 7,67 7,48 7,25 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 8,6 8,46 8,25

Variability of “rally duration” indicator

6

6.5

7

7.5

8

8.5

9

2014 2015 2016



31

21%

79%

Rallies time

All sets duration

Comment: Rally duration is one of the key Game indicators. This has been very stable in the women’s game during the last 3 years (difference within 0,5 sec.) The variability between different matches is also very not significant (+/- 0,6 sec.) 2. “Flying ball”

20,8% from total duration of all sets

OR

19,06% from total match time

Dynamic of “flying ball” indicator

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

USA-NED

THA-BRA

CHN-NED

RUS-BRA

USA-CHN

THA-RUS

BRA-NED

USA-RUS

NED-RUS

USA-BRA

THA-CHN


Average rallydurationwithoutpseudo-rallies

USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS Average rally duration 7,32 7,56 7,58 6,64 7,52 7,77 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies

8,42 8,65 8,99 7,57 8,28 8,6

BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Average rally duration 6,89 7,17 7,35 6,54 7,44


32

2014 2015 2016 From total duration of all sets 20,89% 20,44% 20,8%

From total match time 18,95% 18,44% 19,06%

Variability of “flying ball” indicator

20.20%

20.30%

20.40%

20.50%

20.60%

20.70%

20.80%

20.90%

21.00%2014 2015 2016

Portion of ralliestime in setsduration time

17%

18%

19%

20%

21%

22%

23%

USA-NED

THA-BRA

CHN-NED

RUS-BRA

USA-CHN

THA-RUS

BRA-NED

USA-RUS

NED-RUS

USA-BRA

THA-CHN

Portion ofralliestime insetsdurationtime


33

14%

86%

Pseudo-ralliesRallies

USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS Portion of rallies time in sets duration time

20,30% 20,29% 20,71% 19,35% 21,79% 21,77%

BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Portion of rallies time in sets duration time

20,82% 21,30% 20,19% 19,83% 22,55%

Comment: This is a crucial indicator for volleyball, taking into consideration the FIVB motto: “Keep the ball flying”. This indicator varies up and down only to an insignificant level(+/- 0,3 %). The variability of this indicator is different in observed matches over the range +/- 1,6 %. 3. Portion of “pseudo-rallies” (ace or service fault, about 1 sec.) – 13,66 %


34

Dynamic of “pseudo-rallies” indicator

2014 2015 2016

Portion of “pseudo-rallies” 12,79% 12,01% 13,66%

Variability of “pseudo-rallies” indicator

11.00%

11.50%

12.00%

12.50%

13.00%

13.50%

14.00%2014 2015 2016


8%

9%

10%

11%

12%

13%

14%

15%

16%

17%

18%

USA-NED

THA-BRA

CHN-NED

RUS-BRA

USA-CHN

THA-RUS

BRA-NED

USA-RUS

NED-RUS

USA-BRA

THA-CHN



35

48% 52%

Two and moreattack rallyOne attack rally

USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS Portion of pseudo-rallies

15,44% 14,17% 15,66% 14,06% 10,49% 10,96%

BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Portion of pseudo-rallies

14,39% 15,91% 10,96% 16,67% 11,28%

Comment: The dynamic of this indicator during the last 3 years is within 1,67 % (down and up). The variability of this indicator in different observed matches is +/- 3,09 % (This is a large variation but clearly depends on the identity of the teams playing).

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

2016 value: 52,03% Dynamic of “one attack rally” indicator

38.00%

40.00%

42.00%

44.00%

46.00%

48.00%

50.00%

52.00%

54.00%2014 2015 2016

Portion of oneattack rallies


36


USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS Portion of one attack rallies

44,85% 46,45% 48,50% 57,03% 51,75% 51,37%

BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Portion of one attack rallies

64,60% 50,76% 58,97% 48,04% 49,62%

Comment: This indicator had a positive dynamic within the last 3 years (+ 9 %). There was an obvious trend of increasing the portion of one-attack rallies contrary to the men’s volleyball. The variability of this indicator in different observed matches is +/- 10 % (significant). This may be because the women are also increasing in height significantly and the reception issues mentioned above for the men appears to be happening also in the women’s game: reception is too easy, making the first attack decisive and thus reducing the chance of a longer rally.

40%

45%

50%

55%

60%

65%

70%

USA-NED

THA-BRA

CHN-NED

RUS-BRA

USA-CHN

THA-RUS

BRA-NED

USA-RUS

NED-RUS

USA-BRA

THA-CHN

Portionof oneattack…

2014 2015 2016

One attack rally 43,59% 48,93% 52,03%


37

34%

66%

Two and moreattack rallyOne and lessattack rally

5. One and less attack rally – 65,69% of all rallies (with pseudo-rallies).

Dynamic of “one and less attack rally” indicator

2014 2015 2016

One and less attack rally 55,49% 60,94% 65,69%

50.00%52.00%54.00%56.00%58.00%60.00%62.00%64.00%66.00%68.00%

2014 2015 2016

Portion ofone and lessattack rallies


38

Variability of “one and less attack rally” indicator

Comment: This indicator had a positive dynamic within the last 3 years (+ 10 %). There was an obvious trend of increasing the portion of “one and fewer attack rallies”. The variability of this indicator in different observed matches is +/- 9,5 % (significant). (See previous comment).

6. Average number of ball contacts during one rally – 7,56 (without pseudo-rallies)

Dynamic of “contacts” indicator

40%45%50%55%60%65%70%75%80%85%

USA-NED

THA-BRA

CHN-NED

RUS-BRA

USA-CHN

THA-RUS

BRA-NED

USA-RUS

NED-RUS

USA-BRA

THA-CHN

Portion ofone andless attackrallies

USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS Portion of one and less attack rallies 60,29% 60,63% 64,16% 71,09% 62,24% 62,33%

BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Portion of one and less attack rallies 78,99% 66,67% 69,93% 64,70% 60,90%


39

2014 2015 2016 Average number of ball contacts during one rally

7,9 7,72 7,56

Variability of “ ball contacts” indicator

7.30

7.40

7.50

7.60

7.70

7.80

7.90

8.002014 2015 2016

Ballcontactsduring arally

6.00

6.50

7.00

7.50

8.00

8.50

Ballcontactsduring arally


40

Comment: This indicator had a slight negative dynamic within the last 3 years (- 0,34). The variability of this indicator in different observed matches is +/- 0,63.

7. Structure of rallies

* Pseudo-rallies 13,66%

* One attack rally 52,03%

* More than one attack rally 34,31%

Total: 100 %

13.66

52.03

34.31

pseudo rallies

One attack rally

More than oneattack rally

USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS Ball contacts during a rally 7,81 8,09 8,13 6,83 7,93 7,61

BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Ball contacts during a rally 7,19 7,53 7,15 7,33 7,63


41

Dynamic of “structure of rallies” indicator

Variability of “structure of rallies” indicator

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

2014 2015 2016

Pseudo-rallies

One attackrallies



42

USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS

Pseudo-rallies 15,44% 14,17% 15,66% 14,06% 10,49% 10,96% One attack rallies 44,85% 46,45% 48,50% 57,03% 51,75% 51,37% More than one attack rallies 39,70% 39,37% 35,84% 28,91% 37,76% 37,67%

BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Pseudo-rallies 14,39% 15,91% 10,96% 16,67% 11,28% One attack rallies 64,60% 50,76% 58,97% 48,04% 49,62% More than one attack rallies 21,01% 33,33% 30,07% 35,29% 39,10%

Comment: Contrary to the men’s volleyball where the percentage of pseudo-rallies is very close to the percentage of long rallies (where there is more than one attack), in women’s volleyball the proportion of long rallies is 2,5 times bigger than the proportion of pseudo-rallies. This is a good indicator of the health of the game.

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%

USA-NED

THA-BRA

CHN-NED

RUS-BRA

USA-CHN

THA-RUS

BRA-NED

USA-RUS

NED-RUS

USA-BRA

THA-CHN

Pseudo-rallies

One attackrallies

More thanone attackrallies


43

8. Attack-defence balance*

2016 value: 1,64

* 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 1,61 Dynamic of “attack-defense balance” indicator

2014 2015 2016

Attack-defence balance 1,5 1,47 1,64

1.5 1.47 1.64

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2014 2015 2016


44

41%

59%

Rally won on ownservice

Rally won onopponent service

Variability of “attack-defense balance” indicator

Comment: In the last 3 year period, this has shown to be a relatively stable indicator with only a small trend towards imbalance (from 1,5 to 1,64). The variability of this indicator in different matches is quite large, however, at +/- 0,62 (more than twice the variability in men’s volleyball).


40,87%

0

1

2

3

USA-NED

THA-BRA

CHN-NED

RUS-BRA

USA-CHN

THA-RUS

BRA-NED

USA-RUS

NED-RUS

USA-BRA

THA-CHN


USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS Attack-defence balance 1,61 1,49 1,11 1,56 1,31 1,32

BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Attack-defence balance 2 1,75 1,77 2,34 1,61


45

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 Portion of rallies won on own service

41,19% 40,66% 40,87%

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

41.19%

40.66%

40.87%

40%40%41%41%41%41%41%41%41%41%41%

2014 2015 2016

Portion ofrallies wonon ownservice

USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS Portion of rallies won on own service 38,23% 40,16% 44,95% 39,06% 43,36% 43,15% Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies

39,13% 41,28% 41,92% 37,27% 42,97% 45,38%

BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Portion of rallies won on own service 66,67% 36,36% 36,07% 29,90% 38,34% Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies

65,49% 35,13% 37,43% 30,00% 40,68%


46

Comment: This has been a stable indicator within the last 3 years (+/- 0,27 %). The variability of this indicator in different matches is +/- 18,4 % (very big comparing with men’s volleyball). This is a value over the period of the study which is much better than in the men’s game.

10. Portion of aces after jump service 1,63 %

Dynamic of “portion of aces after jump service” indicator

2014 2015 2016

Portion of aces after jump service 2,57% 2,07% 1,63%

Variability of “portion of aces after jump service” indicator

Comment: The calculation of this indicator, like in men’s volleyball, still has a short history. Over the last 3 years, this indicator has shown itself to be stable (varying only +/- 0,47 %). The variability of this indicator in different matches is, however, considerable (varying from 0,0 % to a massive 12,5 %) and may reflect differing training regimes for the teams involved, and different physical condition for the individual players.

2.57%

2.07%

1.63%

0%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%2014 2015 2016

Portion ofaces afterjump service

USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS Portion of aces after jump service 0,00% 0,00% 5,55% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Portion of aces after jump service 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 12,50%


47

Part 3

Men’s and Women’s top volleyball comparison


48

Part 3

Men’s and Women’s top volleyball comparison Table 1

N

Indicator

Men

Women

1 Average rally duration (sec.) 5,5 7,3 2 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies (sec.) 6,9 8,3 3 “Flying ball” from total duration of all sets (%) 15,4 20,8 4 “Flying ball” from total match time (%) 13,1 19,1 5 Portion of “pseudo-rallies” (ace or service fault, about

1 sec.) (%) 23,0 13,7

6

Structure of rallies

Pseudo-rallies (%) 23 14 One attack rallies (%) 53 52 More than one attack rallies (%) 24 34

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

6,5

7,6

8 Attack-defence balance 2 1,64 9 Attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies 1,8 1,61 10 Portion of rallies won on own service (%) 33,7 40,9 11 Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-

rallies (%) 35,6 40,9

12 Portion of aces after jump service (%) 7,6 1,6

1. Average rally duration (sec.)1


49

1 – with pseudo-rallies

Comment: There are longer rallies in women’s volleyball. Difference: 1,8 sec.

2. Active playing time portion (“flying ball”)2

2 – from total match duration

Comment: There is considerably more “flying ball” time in women’s volleyball. The difference between men’s and women’s volleyball is: 6,0 %

3. Average number of ball contacts during one rally 3

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Women Men

7.3

5.5

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

Women Men

19.10%

13.10%


50

3 – without pseudo-rallies. Comment: There are more ball contacts in women’s volleyball. Difference: 1,1

4. Pseudo-rallies portion4

4 – from total number of all rallies Comment: There is a smaller proportion of pseudo-rallies in women’s volleyball. The

difference: 9,3 %

5.8

6

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7

7.2

7.4

7.6

Women Men

7.6

6.5

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Women Men

13.70%

23.00%


51

5. One attack rallies

Comment: Despite appearances (graph above) there is or less the same proportion of one

attack rallies in both men’s and women’s volleyball. The difference: just 1,0 %

6. Two and more-attack rallies

Comment: More long rallies in women’s volleyball. i.e. there is more 2nd phase play and

more net crossings, because the first attack for women is not so decisive. Difference: 10,0 %.

51%

52%

52%

52%

52%

52%

53%

53%

53%

Women Men

52.0%

53.00%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Women Men

34.00%

24.00%


52

23%

53%

24%

pseudo-rallies

One attack rally


7. General structure of all rallies

Women Men

Comment: The difference in rally structure can be explained by considering only the pseudo rallies and the long rallies, whereas the portion of one attack rallies remains practically the same.


Comment: In women’s volleyball there are more chances for a team to win a rally after its

own service. Difference: 7,2 %.

14

52

34

pseudorallies

One attackrally

More thanone attackrally

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Women Men

40.90%

33.70%


53

9. Attack-defence balance5 1,64 2,0

Women Men

5 – number of rallies won on the opponent service divided on number of rallies won on own service

Comment: Women’s volleyball is much more balanced regarding power of attack and ability to play in defence. Difference: 0,36. This may not sound a lot but it is in fact a considerable difference in favour of the women.


54

Part 4

2012 - 2016 Olympic Games data in comparison


55

Average rally duration (sec.)1

1 –with pseudo-rallies

Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies (sec.)

“Flying ball” from total duration of all sets (%)

0123456

MEN - 2012London OG

MEN - 2016 RioOG

5.5 5.5

6.26.46.66.8

77.27.4

WOMEN - 2012London OG

WOMEN - 2016Rio OG

7.3

6.6

6.75

6.8

6.85

6.9

MEN - 2012London OG

MEN - 2016 RioOG

6.9

6.8

7.7

7.8

7.9

8


WOMEN - 2016Rio OG

8

7.8

0

5

10

15

20

MEN - 2012London OG

MEN - 2016 RioOG

19.9 16.2

19

20

21

22

23


WOMEN - 2016Rio OG

23

20.4


56

22%

53%

25%

pseudo-rallies

One attack rally


“Flying ball” from total match time (%)

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

Structure of rallies – men (%)

Men – 2012 London OG Men – 2016 Rio OG

131415161718

MEN - 2012London OG

MEN - 2016 RioOG

17.4

14.8

16171819202122


WOMEN - 2016Rio OG

21.8

18.5

202122232425

MEN - 2012London OG

MEN - 2016 RioOG

24.4

22.1

0

5

10

15

20


WOMEN - 2016Rio OG

10.2

17.5

24.4

50.2

25.4

pseudorallies

One attackrally



57

17%

49%

34% pseudo-rallies

One attack rally


Structure of rallies – women (%)

Women – 2012 London OG Women – 2016 Rio OG

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

10

55

35

pseudorallies

One attackrally


6.45

6.5

6.55

6.6

MEN - 2012London OG

MEN - 2016 RioOG

6.6

6.5

77.17.27.37.47.5


WOMEN - 2016Rio OG

7.5

7.2


58

Attack-defence balance

Attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies

Portion of rallies won on own service (%)

00.5

11.5

22.5

MEN - 2012London OG

MEN - 2016 RioOG

1.9 2.3

1.65

1.7

1.75

1.8


WOMEN - 2016Rio OG

1.7

1.8

00.5

11.5

22.5

MEN - 2012London OG

MEN - 2016 RioOG

1.6 2.1

1.55

1.6

1.65

1.7


WOMEN - 2016Rio OG

1.6

1.7

28.5

29

29.5

30

MEN - 2012London OG

MEN - 2016 RioOG

29

30

36.4

36.6

36.8

37

37.2


WOMEN - 2016Rio OG

37.1

36.7


59

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

Portion of aces after jump service (%)

Comment: while the statistical basis of this comparison is not perfect, there is the inescapable fact that % flying ball in Rio was significantly down compared to London. It has already been alluded to that between the two Games, the net rule changed and the Challenge system was introduced. This needs to be born in mind when evaluating not just the game itself but those two factors as separate items.

31

32

33

34

35

MEN - 2012London OG

MEN - 2016 RioOG

35

32.6

333435363738


WOMEN - 2016Rio OG

35

37.3

02468

10

MEN - 2012London OG

MEN - 2016 RioOG

8.5

6

0

2

4

6

8


WOMEN - 2016 RioOG

3.2

7.1


60

Part 5

New indicator – net crossings

(2008, 2012, 2016 Olympic Games comparison)


61

Net crossings (2008, 2012, 2016 Olympic Games final matches)

Women

Men

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 net crossings show at first an increase until 2012 followed by a significant decrease in number as we progress from 2008 until 2016. When taken in conjunction with the indicator which shows the INCREASED number of ball contacts or “hits” per rally over the same period, we have an apparent conflict or contradiction. Ideally we should see the number of net crossings also increase towards 2016. The indicator tells us, however, that there are many rallies which stop after the first attack. This confirms the evidence shown earlier regarding one and more attack rallies. That we do not have a match between the number of hits and the number of net crossings may again be the result of rule changes – or one in particular, relating to net contacts. The liberalisation up to 2012 resulted in more long rallies by the 2012 Olympics, but this trend was reversed by Rio 2016. While the play was undoubtedly faster, the feature which was missing (and which the spectators tell us they want) was the long rally element. Recommendation: to continue to search for ways to increase the number of net crossings per rally as a key part of popularising the sport.

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2008 OG 2012 OG 2016 OG

2.4 2.4

2.2

2.58 2.51

2.32

All rallies

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2008 OG 2012 OG 2016 OG

1.96 2.02

1.81

2.12 2.16

1.97

All rallies


62

Part 6

Match and set duration


63

Part 6

Match and set duration

Match duration

Indicator

Men

Women

2016 year data

2015 year data

OG-2016 data

2016 year data

2015 year data

OG-2016 data

Average duration (min.)

113,4 111,0 103,5 90,7 94,0 106,6

Minimum registered duration (min.)

80 76 75 74 56 68

Maximum registered duration (min.)

142 149 148 135 179 134

Average number of sets in the

match

3,6 4,1 3,6 3,6 3,4 4


64

54%

29%

17% 3 sets match

4 sets match

5 sets match30%

30%

40%

3 sets match

4 sets match

5 sets match

Set duration

Indicator

Men

Women

2016 year data

OG-2016 data 2016 year data OG-2016 data

Average duration (min.)

28,9 27 26,6 24,9

Minimum registered duration

1-4 sets (min.)

23,0 20 20,0 16

Minimum registered duration

5th set (min.)

14,0 16 13,0 17

Maximum registered duration

1-4 sets (min.)

44,0 37 34,0 31

Maximum registered duration

5th set (min.)

19,0 20 16,0 18

Note: 2015 year data - on the basis of 2015 World Cup statistics – 132 matches for men and women

2016 year data – on the basis of 21 matches from WGP&WL 2016 finals OG-2016 data – on the basis of 16 OG play-off matches (M&W)

Sets per match distribution Men - 2016 Men - 2015


65

70% 17%

13% 3 sets match

4 sets match

5 sets match73% 0%

27% 3 sets match

4 sets match

5 sets match

Women – 2016 Women – 2015

Conclusion Comment: It seems obvious more than ever that we have two almost different games – the men’s version and the women’s version. Even between last season and this we see that matches are either won 3-0 or 3-2. This may be a result of the competition formulae which permits more teams to take part. And the consequent mismatch of teams until the end of the Preliminary rounds. Both versions would benefit from some modification which makes service reception harder – the multiplier effect which this creates would increase rally length and reduce the one attack rallies: attack-defence balance would also change for the benefit of rallies.


66

Conclusions:

1. In relation to the above, data was obtained which covered the key areas of rally length, match duration, flying ball time and so on, which allowed a direct comparison with other editions.

2. Some aspects of the game remain relatively stable, while others vary significantly. The following can clearly be seen as significant • Number of ball contacts per rally is increasing due to increased athleticism and game speed; • Yet % flying ball time is reducing; • In men’s volleyball there is still a significant imbalance between attack and defense -the one attack

rallies predominate still – several different indicators show that the receiving team generally wins the rally, and this is something we need to change;

• In women’s volleyball the rallies are significantly longer, and the imbalance between attack and defense is much less. But we must take care not to let the women’s game follow the direction of the men.

3. Comparing the Rio and London Games, there was a noticeable shortening of rallies in Rio largely due to the imposition of a much stricter net rule, and % flying ball time is further reduced due to the additional factor of the implemented Challenge regulations. More than ever in our fight for market share of the TV audience, we still need a real “flying ball” game;


67

Appendix

2016* Olympic Games data in comparison with 2012** OG data

Table 2

N

Indicator

Men

Women

2012 2016 2012 2016 1 Average rally duration (sec.) 5,5 5,5 7,3 6,6 2 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies (sec.) 6,9 6,8 8,0 7,8 3 “Flying ball” from total duration of all sets (%) 19,9 16,2 23,0 20,4 4 “Flying ball” from total match time (%) 17,4 14,8 21,8 18,5 5 Portion of “pseudo-rallies” (ace or service fault, about

1 sec.) (%) 24,4 22,1 10,2 17,5

6

Structure of rallies

Pseudo-rallies (%) 24,4 22 10 17,5 One attack rallies (%) 50,2 53 55 49 More than one attack rallies (%) 25,4 25 35 33,5

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

6,6

6,5 7,5 7,2

8 Attack-defence balance 1,9 2,3 1,7 1,8 9 Attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies 1,6 2,1 1,6 1,7 10 Portion of rallies won on own service (%) 29 30,0 37,1 36,7 11 Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-

rallies (%) 35 32,6 35,0 37,3

12 Portion of aces after jump service (%) 8,5 6,0 3,2 7,1 * on the basis of 2016 OG matches starting from ¼ finals. ** on the basis of 2012 OG matches starting from 1/2 finals for women and 4 top matches in men’s tournament (1/4, 1/2, gold match with participation of future OG Champion and 1 match of another ¼ final).

Modern volleyball aspectsvolleyball.ir/.../2017/11/6-FIVB_2016_Picture_of_the_Game_report_VB.… · monitoring of Volleyball development trends and evolution, the scientific research

Documents