Journal Pre-proof

Analysis of Jump Load During a Volleyball Season in Terms of Player

Role

Antonio Garcı́a-de-Alcaraz Rodrigo Ramı́rez-Campillo Miguel

Rivera-Rodrı́guez Blanca Romero-Moraleda

PII: S1440-2440(19)30798-4
DOI: https://doi.org/doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2020.03.002
Reference: JSAMS 2273

To appear in: Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

Received Date: 16 July 2019

Revised Date: 2 March 2020
Accepted Date: 8 March 2020

Please cite this article as: García-de-Alcaraz A, Ramírez-Campillo R, Rivera-Rodríguez M,

Romero-Moraleda B, Analysis of Jump Load During a Volleyball Season in Terms of Player
Role, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport (2020),
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2020.03.002

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as
the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the
definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and
review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early
visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be
discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal
pertain.

© 2020 Published by Elsevier.

 1 Analysis of Jump Load During a Volleyball Season in Terms of Player Role

2 Antonio García-de-Alcaraz1,2, Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo3, Miguel Rivera-Rodríguez4, Blanca

3 Romero-Moraleda5.
4
5 1.- Faculty of Education. University of Almería, Almería, Spain.
6 2.- LFE Research Group. Faculty of Physical Activity and Sport Sciences-INEF. Universidad
7 Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
8 3.- Universidad de Los Lagos (University of Los Lagos). Department of Physical Activity Sciences.
9 Research Nucleus in Health, Physical Activity and Sport. Laboratory of Measurement and
10 Assessment in Sport, Osorno, Chile.
11 4.- Teruel Volleyball Club, Teruel, Spain.
12 5.- Faculty of Education and Health. Camilo José Cela University, Madrid, Spain
13
14 Corresponding author:

f
15 Antonio García-de-Alcaraz

oo
16 E-mail: antoniogadealse@gmail.com
17

18 Word count: 2,978

pr
19 Abstract word count: 209

20 Number of tables: 2
e-
21 Number of figures: 1
Pr
22

23 Analysis of Jump Load During a Volleyball Season in Terms of Player Role

al

24

25 Abstract
rn

26 Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze the jump load performed by top-level volleyball
u

27 players during an entire training season in terms of the player role, training period, type of daily
Jo

28 training, and quality of opposition in the subsequent match.

29 Design: longitudinal panel observational study

30 Methods: The total number of jumps performed by players was recorded through 174 training days

31 distributed in 32 weeks during the 2016/2017 season (pre-season, 5 weeks; in-season, 27 weeks). The

32 players role were classified as middle-blocker, outside-hitter, opposite and setter (the libero was

33 omitted). A generalized mixed linear model was performed (with Bonferroni post-hoc test at p<.05) to

34 assess the effect of training variables and the repeated-measures data of players’ jumps along various

1
Page 1 of 21
35 training days. Additionally, the effect sizes at 95% confidence intervals were calculated to compare

36 the jump load between players’ role and training variables.

37 Results: The results showed a significant and moderate higher amount of jumps performed by

38 middle-blockers regardless the type of macro- or micro-cycle, the micro-cycle phase, the type of

39 training and the quality of match opposition. Contrarily, the setter performs the least jump load in all

40 variables analyzed. Only the players’ role, macro-cycle and micro-cycle phase had significant effects

41 on the player’s jump load variation along the season.

f
42 Conclusions: This information could be useful to guide the monitoring and preparation process for

oo
43 coaches and physical trainers. These values allow differentiating between players’ role and could be

44 used as references values in order to avoid injuries whereas performance increase along the season.

pr
45 Keywords: team sports, monitoring, external load, performance analysis, player role.
e-
46 Practical applications
Pr
47  The outcomes of this study may be useful for monitoring training load in order to avoid

48 injuries, particularly in clubs where sport training halls have hard floor surfaces.

49  If jump loads may be monitored during (not after) training sessions, coaches may have a
al

50 powerful tool to control the training load of players.

rn

51  If a certain number of jumps is reached, training may finish earlier than scheduled in order to

52 avoid fatigue-induced injuries.

u
Jo

53 Using the data of this study as reference values, coaches and physical trainers may decide how to

54 progressively introduce players in team dynamics (e.g., recovering after an injury) and manage his/her

55 efforts with an objective measurement beyond subjective feelings.

56

57 Introduction

58 Volleyball is a net sport characterized by collective behaviors performed for short and high

59 intensity periods of time, followed by long and low intensity rest periods.1 Typical actions are sprints,

2
Page 2 of 21
60 jumps, hits and multidirectional movements.2 However, actions that allow scoring a point (spike,

61 block and serve) are mostly performed while jumping, and the number of jumps varies in terms of

62 players’ role because of different technical-tactical and match motor requirements.2,3 Thus,

63 monitoring jump actions throughout training is crucial to improve performance and avoid injuries.4

64 Volume of jumps and game speed (intensity) in volleyball increase in senior categories5 and at

65 higher competition levels.5,6 Moreover, players improve their jumping performance along a season in

66 male7 and female senior categories,8 or between seasons, both in male senior9 and junior players.10

f
67 This evolution is associated with an adequate periodization of training loads that induce optimal

oo
68 training adaptations and performances throughout time. Such combination is implemented in different

69 periodical structures sequenced along a season by taking into account the competitive system.11 In

pr
70 order to avoid negative adaptations to training, it is necessary that jump load be monitored accurately.

71 The above-mentioned quantity and intensity of jump load is unbalanced depending on player
e-
72 role. Thus, setters perform submaximal jumps mostly (jumps prior to setting a ball), whereas middle-
Pr
73 blockers (who play in the center of the net) perform more spike and block jumps than opposite and

74 outside-hitter players (who play at the sides of the court).2,3 Moreover, middle-blockers usually

75 perform the highest jumps.3 Based on these differences, monitoring and controlling jump external
al

76 load is crucial in order to evaluate training efficacy and to design individual programs most suitable to
rn

77 competition demands.12 Number of jumps in training is related to risk of injuries,13,14 therefore

78 controlling for micro-cycle loads is a key factor in sport success.4 Besides, situational variables such
u

79 as quality of opposition may influence training load due to the high impact of team ability on playing
Jo

80 styles and consequently on the players’ performances.15

81 Despite the need to monitor jump loads in terms of players’ role, most studies have analyzed

82 competition demands in elite senior3 and junior categories.16 The studies on training monitoring

83 usually evaluate the evolution in physiological variables (jumps and other capabilities) comparing

84 specific moments (pre- and post-measures) along various seasons,9,10 in pre-season,17 or in-season.7,8,18

85 No information on differences between players’ role has been found, except for the study by Sattler et

86 al.,6 which focused on jump height. In other team sports, individual training monitoring is a key

3
Page 3 of 21
87 process to obtain valuable information to train more effectively.19 Moreover, the studies on

88 monitoring daily training load only show information about internal load yet do not differentiate

89 between player roles.20,21 Thus, there is a lack of research on monitoring external load (jumps) on a

90 daily basis (from the start to the end of season) and in terms of player role. Therefore, the aim of this

91 study was to analyze the jump load by top-level volleyball players during an entire training season in

92 terms of player role, training period, type of daily training, and quality of opposition in the subsequent

93 match. This study provides a new perspective to monitor and manage external load during a season in

94 a top-level volleyball team by analyzing the differences between player role in various season phases

f
oo
95 in order to avoid injuries and achieve maximum performance.

96 Methods

pr
97 This study involved eleven male volleyball players who participated in the first league in Spain

98 (2016/2017 season; 2nd place). They were 28.0±6.12 years of age, 197.2±6.93 height (cm), 87.9±6.41
e-
99 weight (kg), 9.9%±0.51 fat mass, and 8.4±5.31 years of experience playing volleyball at top-level.
Pr
100 The participants were informed about the study and they signed the informed consent form, which

101 was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

102
al

The total number of jumps performed by players of a top-level volleyball team was recorded during

103 174 training days distributed in 32 weeks during the 2016/2017 season (pre-season, five weeks; in-
rn

104 season, 27 weeks). A typical season week involved five training days (with in-court and resistance

105 training sessions), a training session plus a match, and a day off. The player roles were classified into
u

106 middle-blocker -MB- (responsible for blocking and spiking fast tempo attacks), outside-hitter -OH-
Jo

107 (responsible for receiving and spiking, especially in the left side of the court), opposite -OP-

108 (responsible for attacking, especially in the right side of the court), and setter -SE- (responsible for

109 setting the ball).3

110 Jumps were analyzed in terms of 13 training and competition variables divided into five categories:

111 (a) type of macro-cycle, (b) type of micro-cycle, (c) micro-cycle phase, (d) type of daily training, and

112 (e) quality of opposition (table 1).11,15

4
Page 4 of 21
113 ***Table 1 near/here***

114 Three coaches participated in the study, including the head coach, the assistant coach, and the

115 scoutman. A Sony Handycam HDR-CX240 (30 Hz) video camera, located at the end of the court and

116 at a height greater than the official volleyball net height, was used to record all in-court training

117 sessions. One of the coaches observed and recorded jumps from all players while training. The head

118 and the assistant coach randomly selected and watched three in-court training sessions from different

119 season times in order to assess the reliability of the data recording. An intra-class correlation

f
120 coefficient (ICC) of 0.98 was found (r = 0.99; typical error of measurement = 1.1).

oo
121 Descriptive analyses (mean ± standard deviation and coefficient of variation -CV%-) of all

122 player roles and training variables were done. The micro-cycle variable was described in terms of a K-

pr
123 means cluster test (Schwartz’s Bayesian), using the number of in-court and resistance training

124 sessions per week. A generalized mixed linear model was used to assess the effect of players’ role,
e-
125 training variables, and the repeated-measures data of players’ jumps from all training days along the
Pr
126 season. The players’ role and the training variables (macro-cycle, micro-cycle, micro-cycle phase,

127 daily training, and quality of opposition) were included as fixed effects (nominal predictor variables in

128 the model). A random effect for player role identity was added to account for repeated measurement
al

129 of players in all training days. Moreover, pairwise comparisons with Bonferroni post-hoc test were
rn

130 performed in each fixed effect. A 5% of error was set in all tests. Additionally, standardized mean

131 differences (effect size -ES-) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using magnitude
u

132 threshold recommended:22 0–0.2 trivial, >0.2–0.6 small, >0.6–1.2 moderate, >1.2–2 large, and >2
Jo

133 very large. A negative ES in the results refers to the fact that the former player role scored highest,

134 while a positive ES indicates that the latter player role scored highest. Analyses were conducted with

135 SPSS software (IBM SPSS Statistical for Windows, version 21.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp).

136 Results

137 A total of 118,349 jumps were recorded and divided into outside-hitters (40,694), opposites

138 (22,997), middle-blockers (41,432) and setters (13,226). Descriptive data (mean ± standard deviation

139 and CV%) are shown in Table 2, comparing each training variable in terms of the players’ role.

5
Page 5 of 21
140 ***Table 2 near/here***

141 From the generalized mixed linear model, players’ role, type of macro-cycle and micro-cycle

142 phase had a significant effect on players jump load along the season (F = 52.144, p = 0.001; F =

143 10.108, p = 0.001; F = 36.486, p = 0.001, respectively), while type of micro-cycle, type of daily

144 training and quality of opposition did not show a significant effect (F = 0.006, p = 0.936; F = 2.833, p

145 = 0.060; F = 0.001, p = 0.999, respectively).

146 Only significant fixed effects were included in the final model. Thus, according to players’

f
147 role, middle blockers -MB- showed the greatest jump load (83.60 ± 2.40), followed by opposites -OP-

oo
148 (69.42 ± 2.40), outside-hitters -OH- (61.29 ± 2.40) and setters -SE- (42.48 ± 2.40). Regarding the type

149 of macro-cycle, the transformation period exhibited the greatest jump load (69.90 ± 1.79), followed

pr
150 by the realization period (65.80 ± 2.28) and the accumulative one (56.90 ± 2.28). Finally, the first

151 phase of the micro-cycle showed the greatest amount of jumps (71.57 ±1.69) compared to the second
e-
152 part of the week prior to the match (56.83 ±1.75).
Pr
153 Regarding the estimations from fixed effects, the expected value in terms of number of jumps

154 in a session for an OH was 55.53 (t = 17.384; p =0.001), while 36.72 (t = -5.595; p =0.001), 63.66 (t =

155
al

2.418; p =0.016) and 77.84 (t = 6.638; p =0.001) jumps were significantly expected in SE, OP and

156 MB, respectively. Only a non-statistically significant difference was observed between OP and OH
rn

157 players (t = 1.645; p =0.095). Moreover, from the 55.53 jumps expected for a realization macro-cycle,

158 a non-statistically significant increase of 4.09 jumps (59.62) (t = 1.411; p =0.159) in the
u

159 transformation period, and a significant decrease of 8.91 jumps (46.62) (t = 2.730; p =0.006) in the
Jo

160 accumulative phase were expected. Also, a statistically significant increase of 14.74 jumps was

161 expected in the first phase of the micro-cycle (70.27) (t = 6.040; p =0.001) compared to the second

162 phase.

163 Concerning the effect size (ES), several comparisons were performed among players’ role in

164 terms of training and competition variables (Figure 1). Regarding to the jump load performed in terms

165 of the macro-cycle, the ES analysis revealed moderate differences in the jump load between MB and

166 OH (-0.63±0.32), and large differences between MB and SE (-1.68±0.38), OH and SE (-1.13±0.40),

6
Page 6 of 21
167 and OP and SE (-1.21±0.37) in the transformation phase. Also, only moderate differences between

168 OH and SE (-0.85±0.53) and OP and SE (-1.10±0.50), and large differences between MB and SE (-

169 1.31±0.49) were found in the realization macro-cycle. Finally, moderate differences were found

170 between OH and SE (-0.64±0.50) and OP and SE (-0.79±0.50) in the accumulative macro-cycle. In all

171 macro-cycles, moderate differences were found between MB and OH, and MB and OP.

172 In the micro-cycle analysis, large differences between MB and SE (-1.34±0.35), and moderate

173 differences between OH and SE (-0.82±0.37), and OP and SE (-0.91±0.35) were found in the impact

f
174 micro-cycle. In low-impact and second micro-cycle phases, large differences between MB and SE (-

oo
175 1.32±0.35, -1.50±0.37), and OP and SE (-1.24±0.37, -1.42±0.42), and moderate differences between

176 OH and SE (-0.99±0.38, -1.06±0.40) were observed, respectively. In the first phase of the week,

pr
177 moderate differences were found between MB and SE (-1.19±0.32), OH and SE (-0.79±0.35), and OP

178 and SE (-0.86±0.31).

e-
179 Related to the type of daily training, in the case of in-court training day, large differences
Pr
180 between MB and SE (-1.65±0.45), OH and SE (-1.50±0.55), and OP and SE (-1.36±0.46) were found.

181 On the resistance plus in-court training day, large differences between MB and SE (-1.42±0.37), and

182 OP and SE (-1.34±0.43); and moderate differences between OH and SE (-1.00±0.41) were observed.
al

183 Finally, in the case of the resistance plus double in-court training day, the ES only showed moderate
rn

184 differences between MB and SE (-0.85±0.45).

185 According to the quality of opposition, the ES showed large differences between MB and SE
u

186 (-1.40±0.47, -1.48±0.47); and moderate differences between OH and SE (-0.91±0.50, -1.02±0.50),
Jo

187 and OP and SE (-1.10±0.48, -1.14±0.47) when the team faced top-level or bottom ranking teams,

188 respectively. When the team played against middle-level teams, large differences were found between

189 MB and SE (-1.27±0.46), OH and SE (-1.26±0.57), and OP and SE (-1.33±0.55).

190 ***Figure 1 near/here***

191 Discussion

7
Page 7 of 21
192 The aim of this study was to analyze the jump load differences by top-level volleyball players

193 by controlling the effects of player role and training variables (macro-cycle, micro-cycle, micro-cycle

194 phase, daily training, and quality of opposition) along all training days in a season. Players’ role, type

195 of macro-cycle and micro-cycle phase had an effect on the jump load variation along the season.

196 Indeed, the greatest amount of jumps was observed in the middle-blocker player, in the transformation

197 period, and in the first phase of the week.

198 The result highlights the greatest jump load in MB, which supports other studies that

f
199 emphasize the great involvement of MB in jump actions, especially block and spike, during

oo
200 competitions of elite senior3 and junior players.16 Despite the fact MB only plays in positions close to

201 the net, he/she undergoes the greatest demand in terms of jump load. More specifically, OH jumps

pr
202 most frequently in attack, whereas MB jumps in block in youth elite level.13 Other studies point out

203 that SE, who participates in almost every rally in order to send the ball to a partner so that he/she
e-
204 spikes, perform the highest number of jumps. This occurs in top-level competitions in which setters

205 try to set while jumping, but their jump load is defined as a submaximal effort,2,23 which implies fewer
Pr

206 injury risks because of a lower jump height.24

207 Regarding the macro-cycle, the influence of the transformation and realization phases on
al

208 jump load may point at the specificity of these periods in terms of training actual game demands
rn

209 Moreover, an increase in jump load during the transformation phase, followed by a decrease in the

210 realization macro-cycle, should confirm a common reduction load employed in tapering-phases prior
u

211 to crucial events (important matches, competition final, etc.). This periodization seems to be a usual
Jo

212 strategy to unload players before a match in order to enable recovery of accumulated fatigue and

213 promote readiness to perform.25 Indeed, the higher jump load in the first phase of a week again

214 reflects modulation between load and recovery in order to achieve the best performances when

215 competing. In other team sports, studies have also found the highest training load in the first three

216 training sessions of the week during a typical week, whereas the training session closest to a

217 competition has usually provided the smallest load.26

8
Page 8 of 21
218 The lack of effect in the type of training could be explained by the different stimulus

219 introduced in the sessions analyzed. Thus, when the coach includes resistance exercises or designs a

220 double in-court session, the average of jumps performed in a daily training does not vary too much.

221 These small changes could be related to a specific coaching style or the fact that top-level volleyball

222 players usually train with higher intensities because proper recovery periods are allowed between

223 training or matches.11 This balanced jump load could also explain the lack of effects from the type of

224 micro-cycle although the cluster analysis differentiates between an impact and a non-impact week.

225 This fact could be related to the fact that no matches were recorded or the inclusion of resistance

f
oo
226 training sessions in which jumping is usually neglected. These results are related to the absence of

227 influence derived from the quality of opposition. Thus, the main effects of jump load distribution

pr
228 derive from the phase of the week (first to second part) and when several micro-cycles (weeks) are

229 grouped together in a more general block of periodization.

e-
230 In summary, the SE is the player who performs the smallest jump load. It is important to

231 elucidate that the jumping set was not recorded because it is considered a sub-maximal jump.2 The
Pr

232 OH and OP have a very similar jump load, with trivial and small differences always favorable to OP.

233 This fact could be associated with the attack participation of the OP in front and back zones. Although
al

234 the OH can also attack from the back zones, the OP is usually a more effective player in order to

235 obtain a point after a spike.27 The MB also shows greater jump load compared with OH and OP, but
rn

236 with small differences. Also, the MB presents moderate differences in the transformation phase in
u

237 comparison with OH. These differences are useful for training design and control, especially for
Jo

238 optimizing performance and avoiding injuries in terms of a more accurate load for each player role.

239 Despite these data, there are some limitations in this study. Firstly, the competition jump load

240 was not recorded. It may be useful to know if a team trains according to competition demands or not.

241 The extra load that occurs in competition increases the risk of injury (more than twice) in youth male

242 players because players tend to exceed the load that they are familiar with.24 Secondly, no internal

243 load was recorded. Thirdly, jump is not always performed with the same neuromuscular implications,

244 that is, with the same technical movement. Also, differences in jump technique (spike, block or serve)

9
Page 9 of 21
245 imply differences in landing motions. On the one hand, spike jumps have a dissimilar implication

246 between left and right leg (more implication in left one),28 despite the fact that more than 90% of jump

247 landings are performed with both feet in training and match situations.13 On the other hand, block

248 jumps involve both feet in a similar way.29 Finally, performance variability of jump performance

249 should be of interest because if would reveal when a player is advance to a risk period. In this respect,

250 a study pointed out that in competition the height of jump decreased in all actions as the match

251 progresses while the greatest jump height was recorded at the beginning and final part of set.23 Also,

252 the greatest number of injuries occur in the final third of match or practice session. This suggests

f
oo
253 changes in the neuromuscular system induced by fatigue.30

254 Based on previous considerations, future studies should bear in mind competition demands,

pr
255 analysis of internal variables, technical movements involved in jump and performance variations.

256 Also, a similar research study should be conducted on female players because they have a greater
e-
257 likelihood of knee injury.29
Pr
258 Conclusions

259 This study provides new information about monitoring external jump load during a season in

260
al

a top-level volleyball team by analyzing differences between player roles in different season phases in

261 order to maximize performance. The middle-blockers showed the greatest jump load regardless of the
rn

262 season period, while the setters performed the smallest. Similar jump load was found in opposites and

263 outside-hitters. The type of macro-cycle (transformation period) and the micro-cycle phase (first
u

264 phase of the week) have also a great impact on the distribution of jump load along several training
Jo

265 sessions performed during the season. The specific differences in each variable analyzed may be

266 useful to physical trainers who will be able to learn that different player roles require specific jump

267 training loads, and to coaches, who will be able to manage task constraints in order to design proper

268 training conditions for optimal performance.

269

270 Acknowledgments

10
Page 10 of 21
271 A special thank to Club Voleibol Teruel, to its staff members (Lorenzo Vicente, Juanjo Susín

272 and Fran de Alba) and to players. Their availability, eagerness to grow and efforts made this study

273 possible.

274

275

276

277

278

f
oo
279

280

pr
281

282
e-
283 References
Pr
284 1. Polglaze T, Dawson B. The physiological requirements of the positions in state league

285 volleyball. Sports Coach. 1992; 15:32-37.

286
al

2. Sheppard JM, Gabbett T, Taylor KL, et al. Development of a repeated-effort test for elite

287 men’s volleyball. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2007; 2:292-304.

rn

288 3. Sheppard JM, Gabbett TJ, Stanganelli LCR. An analysis of playing positions in elite men's

289
u

volleyball: considerations for competition demands and physiologic characteristics. J Strength

290 Cond Res. 2009; 23:1858-1866.

Jo

291 4. Gabbett TJ. The training—injury prevention paradox: should athletes be training smarter and

292 harder?. Br J Sports Med. 2016; 50:273-280.

293 5. García-de-Alcaraz A, Valadés D, Palao JM. Evolution of game’s demands from young to

294 elite players in men’s volleyball. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017; 12:788-795.

11
Page 11 of 21
295 6. Sattler T, Hadžic V, Derviševic E, et al. Vertical jump performance of professional male and

296 female volleyball players: effects of playing position and competition level. J Strength Cond

297 Res. 2015; 29:1486-1493.

298 7. Sheppard JM, Chapman DW, Gough C, et al. Twelve-month training-induced changes in elite

299 international volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2009; 23:2096-2101.

300 8. González-Ravé JM, Arija A, Clemente-Suarez V. Seasonal changes in jump performance and

301 body composition in women volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2011; 25:1492-1501.

f
oo
302 9. Borràs X, Balius X, Drobnic F, et al. Vertical jump assessment on volleyball: a follow-up of

303 three seasons of a high-level volleyball team. J Strength Cond Res. 2011; 25:1686-1694.

pr
304 10. Sheppard JM, Nolan E, Newton RU. Changes in strength and power qualities over two years

305 in volleyball players transitioning from junior to senior national team. J Strength Cond Res.
e-
306 2012; 26:152-157.

307 11. Issurin VB. New horizons for the methodology and physiology of training periodization.
Pr

308 Sports Med. 2010; 40:189-206.

309 12. Cardinale M, Varley MC. Wearable training monitoring technology: applications, challenges
al

310 and opportunities. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017; 12;S2-55-S2-62.

rn

311 13. Bahr MA, Bahr R. Jump frequency may contribute to risk of jumper’s knee: a study of

312 interindividual and sex differences in a total of 11 943 jumps video recorded during training
u

313 and matches in young elite volleyball players. Br J Sports Med. 2014; 48:1322-1326.
Jo

314 14. Soligard T, Schwellnus M, Alonso JM, et al. How much is too much? (Part 1). International

315 Olympic Committee consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. Br J Sports Med.

316 2016; 50:1030-1041.

317 15. García-de-Alcaraz A, Marcelino R. Influence of match quality on men’s volleyball

318 performance at different competition levels. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2017; 17: 394-405

12
Page 12 of 21
319 16. Stankovic M, Peric D, Ruíz-Llamas G, et al. Effects of Experimental Volleyball Rules

320 Quantified by Type and Number of Jumps, Hits and Contacts. Sport Mont J. 2017; 15:9-16.

321 17. Trajković N, Milanović Z, Sporis G, et al. The effects of 6 weeks of preseason skill-based

322 conditioning on physical performance in male volleyball players. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;

323 26:1475-1480.

324 18. Stanganelli LCR, Dourado AC, Oncken P, et al. Adaptations on jump capacity in Brazilian

325 volleyball players prior to the under-19 World Championship. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;

f
326 22:741-749.

oo
327 19. Izadi M, Arazi H, Ramírez-Campillo R, et al. In-season in field variable resistance training:

328 effects on strength, power, and anthropometry of junior soccer players. J Sports Med Phys

pr
329 Fitness, 2019; https://doi.org/10.23736/S0022-4707.19.09937-7
e-
330 20. Clemente FM, Mendes B, Palao JM, et al. Seasonal player wellness and its longitudinal

331 association with internal training load: study in elite volleyball. J Sports Med Phys Fitness.
Pr
332 2019; 59(3):345-351.

333 21. Debien PB, Mancini M, Coimbra DR, et al. Monitoring training load, recovery, and
al

334 performance of brazilian professional volleyball players during a season. Int J Sports Physiol

335 Perform. 2018; 13(9):1182-1189.

rn

336 22. Hopkins W, Marshall S, Batterham A, et al. Progressive statistics for studies in sports
u

337 medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009; 41:3-12.
Jo

338 23. Wnorowski K, Aschenbrenner P, Skrobecki J, et al. An assessment of a volleyball player's

339 loads in a match on the basis of the number and height of jumps measured in real-time

340 conditions. Baltic J Health and Phys Activity. 2013; 5:199-206.

341 24. Visnes H, Bahr R. Training volume and body composition as risk factors for developing

342 jumper's knee among young elite volleyball players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2013; 23:607-

343 613.

13
Page 13 of 21
344 25. Bosquet L, Montpetit J, Arvisais D, et al. Effects of tapering on performance: a meta-

345 analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007; 39:1358-1365.

346 26. Malone JJ, Di Michele R, Morgans R, et al. Seasonal training-load quantification in elite

347 English Premier League soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015; 10:489–497.

348 27. Millán-Sánchez A, Morante JC, Álvarez M, et al. Participation in terminal actions according

349 to the role of the player and his location on the court in top-level men’s volleyball. Int J

350 Perform Anal Sport. 2015; 15:608-619.

f
oo
351 28. Marquez WQ, Masumura M, Ae M. The effects of jumping distance on the landing mechanics

352 after a volleyball spike. Sports Biomechanics. 2009; 8:154-166.

pr
353 29. Hughes G, Watkins J. Lower limb coordination and stiffness during landing from volleyball

354 block jumps. Res Sports Med. 2008; 16:138-154.

e-
355 30. Hiemstra LA, Lo IK, Fowler PJ. Effect of fatigue on knee proprioception: implications for

356 dynamic stabilization. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2001; 31:598-605

Pr

357
al

358
u rn
Jo

14
Page 14 of 21
358

Table 1. Training and competition variables

Type of macro-cycle a training period over two weeks

Accumulative macro-cycle characterized by greater volumes of training

Transformation macro-cycle characterized by a reduction in volume and greater intensities

Realization macro-cycle highly specialized training in relation to the competition demands

f
oo
Type of micro-cycle a training period of one week

Impact micro-cycle a mean of 7.4 in-court training sessions and 3.4 resistance training sessions

pr
Low-impact micro-cycle a mean of 5.7 in-court training sessions and 2.3 resistance training sessions

Micro-cycle phase
e-
a part of a micro-cycle

First phase Monday to Wednesday training sessions

Pr

Second phase Thursday to Saturday morning training sessions, previous to a match

Type of daily training the type of load in a full training-day

al

In-court technical-tactical sessions in the hall

rn

Resistance + in-court technical-tactical sessions plus resistance training

u

Resistance + double in-court session technical-tactical sessions (morning and evening) plus resistance training
Jo

Quality of opposition ranking of the opponent at the end of the regular league

High-opposition the opponent achieve the first third of the competition ranking

Middle-opposition the opponent achieve the medium third of the competition ranking

Low-opposition the opponent achieve the bottom third of the competition ranking

15
Page 15 of 21
 Table 1. Training and competition variables

359

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
al
u rn
Jo

16
Page 16 of 21
359

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
al
rn
u
Jo

17
Page 17 of 21
Table 2. Number of jumps (mean ± standard deviation; and CV%) per playing role and training variables

Outside-hitter Opposite Middle-blocker Setter

(n=4) (n=2) (n=3) (n=2)

Type of macro-cycle

Accumulative macro-

cycle 55.2±33.7; 61 61.3±39.3; 64.1 73.9±48.9; 66.1 42.3±31.3; 74.1

f
Transformation macro-

oo
cycle 67.2±26.1; 38.9 74.0±29.7; 40.2 90.7±35.1; 38.7 43.9±22.0; 50.2

Realization macro-

pr
cycle 59.4±25.1; 42.3 71.4±32.2; 45
e- 82.6±35.9; 43.5 42.6±21.3; 50

Type of micro-cycle

Impact micro-cycle 63.6±28.4; 44.6 70.0±33.6; 48 87.3±40.5; 46.4 46.9±26.9; 57.3

Pr

Low-impact micro-

cycle 59.2±28.7; 48.5 69.3±33.8; 48.8 79.2±39.4; 49.8 38.2±20.8; 54.5

al

Micro-cycle phase
rn

First phase 67.2±31.4; 46.7 77.2±38.5; 49.9 90.1±44.3; 49.2 48.8±27.1; 55.7
u

Second phase 55.8±24.0; 43 61.7±25.3; 41 76.9±34.1; 44.3 37.1±20.3; 54.9

Jo

Type of daily training

In-court 68.3±24.4; 35.7 76.1±30.4; 40 87.5±31.7; 36.2 44.4±18.4; 41.4

Resistance + in-court 57.2±27.9; 48.7 64.4±30.2; 46.9 80.7±41.5; 51.4 38.5±24.8;.64.4

Resistance + double in-

court session * 64.9±31.0; 47.7 75.4±39.5; 52.4 89.1±44.0; 49.3 52.9±28.4; 53.6

18
Page 18 of 21
 Table 2. Number of jumps (mean ± standard deviation; and CV%) per playing role and training variables

Outside-hitter Opposite Middle-blocker Setter

(n=4) (n=2) (n=3) (n=2)

Quality of opposition

High-opposition 63.2±26.2; 41.4 72.3±30.9; 42.8 85.9±35.4; 41.2 44.4±21.2; 47.8

Middle-opposition 65.1±24.5; 37.6 70.8±30.0; 42.4 85.8±35.2; 41 40.9±22.2; 54.3

f
oo
Low-opposition 65.5±25.3; 38.6 74.2±30.1; 40.5 88.8±35.5; 40 43.5±21.5; 49.3

*: number of jumps related to the mean of the two intra-day training sessions.

pr
CV%: coefficient of variation e-
360

361
Pr
al
u rn
Jo

19
Page 19 of 21
361

f
oo
pr
e-
Pr
al
rn
u
Jo

20
Page 20 of 21
 f
oo
pr
e-
l Pr
na
ur
Jo

362

363 Figure 1. Mean standardized differences between players role in terms of training and competition variables. Mac.: macro-cycle; A:

364 accumulative; T: transformation; R: realization; Mic.: micro-cycle; ; Tr: Type of daily training; 2x In-court: double session in the same day; QO:

365 quality of opposition

21

Page 21 of 21