ANALYSIS OF MALE VOLLEYBALL PLAYERS’ MOTOR
ACTIVITIES DURING A TOP LEVEL MATCH
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
DARIUSZ MROCZEK,1 ALEKSANDER JANUSZKIEWICZ,2 ADAM S. KAWCZYNSKI
 ,1 ZBIGNIEW BORYSIUK,2
1
AND JAN CHMURA
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/28/2023
1
Department of Athletes Motor Skills, University School of Physical Education, Wroclaw, Poland; and 2Faculty of Physical
Education and Physiotherapy, Opole University of Technology, Opole, Poland
ABSTRACT
Mroczek, D, Januszkiewicz, A, Kawczy nski, AS, Borysiuk, Z,
and Chmura, J. Analysis of male volleyball players’ motor activ-
ities during a top level match. J Strength Cond Res 28(8):
2297–2305, 2014—The present study aims to assess motor
activity of volleyball players using an original video recording
method developed by the authors. Twenty-eight volleyball play-
ers taking part in 4 matches of the Polish Volleyball League
were examined. The recorded data were analyzed in view of the
mean total distance covered by volleyball players on different
court positions during a match, set, and rally. The results
showed that volleyball players cover the mean total distance
of 1221 6 327 m (mean 6 SD) in a 3-set match, and 1757 6
462 m in a 4-set match. A statistically significant difference
(p # 0.005) was found between the distance covered by the
middle blockers and setters, defenders, spikers, and libero
players in a match and in a set. The study revealed a tendency
to lengthen the distance by the players in the final sets, which
is indicative of the extended time of individual rallies. The mean
distance covered in a single rally amounted to 10.92 6 0.9 m
in 4 matches (between 9.12 and 12.56 m). Considering the
limited size of the field of play, volleyball players cover relatively
long distances during a match and individual sets, with the
shortest distance covered by middle blockers, and the longest
by setters. From a practical application point of view, detailed
topographic analysis of a player’s movements on the court as
well as precise data on the time of activity and rest breaks
provide the coach with valuable information on the ways of
development of arrhythmic, changing and dynamic training
loads.
KEY WORDS total distance covered, time and motion analysis,
game kinematics
Address correspondence to Prof. Jan Chmura, jan.chmura@awf.wroc.pl.
28(8)/2297–2305
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Ó 2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
INTRODUCTION
V
olleyball is a team ball game with open motor
habits, i.e., requiring players to perform a variety
of acyclic movements during constantly changing
game situations. Hedrick (22) noticed that the
extremely dynamic character of volleyball requires players
to perform a high number of vertical jumps, frequently
change the running direction, and engage in constant offen-
sive actions with the ball.
Studies on players’ motor activities during volleyball
matches have not dealt with a kinematic assessment of play-
ers’ movements on the court. This may have resulted from
authors’ conviction that volleyball is a game played within
a confined space in which players do not move over longer
distances. This is why researchers have concentrated mostly
on the assessment of differences between teams at various
competitive levels (18,28).
Other authors assessed players’ motor activities on the
basis of heart rate (HR) values. According to Urena (41)
and Urena et al. (40), the variable character of volleyball
induces HR changes in players.
On the court, a volleyball player performs a number of
different motor activities involving movements with and
without the ball (locomotion) aimed at attaining specific
goals and heavily engaging the nervous and muscular
system. A volleyball player’s behavior during a game consists
of quick, intentional, and conscious reactions to changing
situations on the court. The mastery of these reactions is
difficult because, according to volleyball regulations (Official
Volleyball Rules 2013–2016, Approved by the 33rd Interna-
tional Federation of Volleyball [FIVB] Congress 2012), the
time of contact with the ball, e.g., while passing, serving, or
spiking, is limited to a fraction of a second, and the vast
majority of actions in volleyball are undertaken without
the ball.
In 1998, the FIVB introduced a number of significant rule
modifications related to scoring, serving, and the libero
player, resulting in a reduction of match length. For example,
the average time of matches in the Spanish Volleyball
League (41) decreased from 96.11 to 66.86 minutes. On
the average, a volleyball set to 25 points consisted of 44
rallies, lasting 7.2 6 5.5 seconds, with 65% of rallies lasting
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2014 | 2297
 Activities of Volleyball Players
between 4 and 10 seconds (40,41). The rally time ranged
from 5.6 to 39.9 seconds with the mean number of 45 rallies
per set (22).
The above data show that analysis and assessment of
actions of volleyball teams and individual players are
important for coaches and can be used to determine the
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
most characteristic aspects of players’ motor activity during
a match. Literature abounds in studies using various mea-
surement parameters. On the one hand, researchers
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/28/2023
(1,2,5,8,13,15,24,27,31,32,37) attempt to assess appropriate
match loads by measuring the time of rallies and intervals
between rallies, types of actions, and so on. On the other
hand, they try to determine the physiological loads of
volleyball players such as HR or blood lactate level (LA).
Numerous authors have carried out kinematic research on
acyclic sports, such as soccer (1,2,5,15,27,31), basketball
(8,24,32), and handball (13,35,37) aiming to assess players’
loads during matches. Their methodology has been based on
an analysis of actions, game periods (6,12,15,31), and players’
physiological loads, with the use of HR (26,37) and blood
LA measurements (3,4,25,27,36,38). Similar methods were
applied to determine the specific loads in volleyball. Studies
using time and motion analysis involved the registration of
duration and type of particular volleyball game phases
(16,30,39,40) as well as the number and type of actions dur-
ing a volleyball match (16,17,30,42). Other methods were
used to examine players’ physiological responses to compet-
itive loads (10,14,16,19–21,26,42,43).
None of these publications have concentrated on volleyball
players’ motor activity related to various temporal aspects of
covered distances during matches. It is hard to find results of
studies of volleyball players’ motion structure. Researchers have
rather focused on a temporal analysis of the game and assess-
ment of physiological loads. This is, primarily, a manifestation
Figure 1. Diagram of the volleyball court and the free zone with a measurement grid and an enlarged grid cell. total covered distances was
the TM
2298 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
of researchers’ 1-sided approach to volleyball as a game,
which—unlike other team games—does not involve covering
long distances with the ball. Modern volleyball places consid-
erable demands on players moving on the court without the
ball, because a player’s contact with the ball is limited to
a fraction of a second and preceded with a number of running
and jumping movements. It is also connected to the difficulty
at determining the match loads, depending, first of all, on the
game score. Considering the above limitations, the present
study was set to analyze the motor activity of elite male
volleyball players during championship matches in terms of
covered distances in a match, set, and rally, as well as players’
functions on the court. Main researches are as follows: (a)
What is the total distance covered by a volleyball player in
a match, set, and rally? (b) What is the total distance covered
by volleyball players on different court positions during
a match, set, and rally? (c) How long are distance segments
covered by volleyball players in a match, set, and rally? What
is the number of such segments? (d) How long are distance
segments covered by volleyball players on different court
positions? We hypothesized that the authors’ own method
of covered distance measurement is effective tool to answer
stated research questions.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The motor activities of volleyball players were assessed using
the authors’ own method of covered distance measurement
on the court in 4 championship matches of the Polish
Volleyball League. The total distance and lengths of distance
segments covered by the players were measured with a grid
scale with 1 grid cell representing 0.5 m2 (0.5 3 0.5 m;
0.71 m of diagonal length). The grid mapped the volleyball
court lines (sidelines, center line, endlines) and was calibrated
on the entire court surface—
including the free zone—covered
by the lens (Figures 1 and 2).
The analysis accounted for
team and individual players’ ac-
tions in view of the players’
team positions determining the
length of covered distances.
Unlike other team games,
volleyball matches are not
timed but their outcome is
determined through a best of 5
sets system.
The analysis covered an
entire match, its individual sets
and rallies. All the match sets
were examined (2 matches of 4
sets, 2 matches of 3 sets); how-
ever, the assessment of players’
made separately for 3-set and
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

played against teams partici-

pating regularly in the CEV
Cup games. The players were
divided according to the func-
tions on the court into: defend-
ers (D, n = 8), middle blockers
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

(MB, n = 8), setters (ST, n = 4),

spikers (SP, n = 4), and libero
players (L, n = 4). The matches
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/28/2023

were played in the competitive

season and the scores were as
follows: first match—1:3 (20:25;
25:22; 19:25; 21:25); second
match—1:3 (25:23; 22:25;
21:25; 22:25); third match—0:3
(13:25; 12:25; 20:25); and fourth
match—0:3 (24:26; 22:25; 21:25).
The players took part in the
Figure 2. The original image of the volleyball court with a plotted measurement grid.
same training program in the
precompetitive and competitive
seasons.
4-set matches. A similar analysis was conducted by Sheppard The players had been informed about the video recording
et al. (34), however, because of the different number of sets in of their activities during the matches. Also, the consent to
analyzed matches, only 3 first sets of each match were taken record the matches had been obtained from the volleyball
into consideration. The following dependent variables were club authorities. All data on the club and individual players
calculated in the present study: mean total distance covered in remained anonymous.
a match and in a set; mean total distance covered in a rally; Detailed demographic data (players’ age, body height,
and mean total distance covered by a player in a match, set, body weight) were collected from players’ medical records
and rally. The independent variables included: match, set, from before the competitive season. The vertical jump
rally, and player’s function on the court. height was measured during a training session at the begin-
ning of the competitive season (Table 1).
Subjects
Twenty-eight professional volleyball players from a Polish Procedures
National Volleyball League top team competing in champi- The matches were recorded in the same indoor sports arena
onship matches took part in the study. The matches were with the use of Sony DCR-SR70E video camera with
a VCL-060X 30.6 wide conver-
sion lens. The camera was
placed under the ceiling, 15 m
TABLE 1. Players’ demographic data. from the floor, perpendicularly
to the net, above the central part
Vertical Vertical
of the court. The footage was
Body Body spike jump block jump
analyzed “rally-by-rally” for each
Position Age height (cm) mass (kg) height (cm) height (cm)
player, with regard to his func-
Middle blocker 28 200 98 345 325 tion on the court in the 4
Setter 32 180 76 325 305 matches.
Middle blocker 36 196 95 340 320 The possible movement lines
Service receiver 25 195 90 345 325
Attacker 20 198 85 352 323 of volleyball players are repre-
Service receiver 25 195 82 335 315 sented in the diagrams below.
Libero 25 185 75 330 300 The solid line represents the
Mean 27.3 192.7 85.9 338.9 316.1 actual route covered by a player
SD 4.9 6.8 8.3 8.7 9.3 moving in a straight line perpen-
Maximum 36 200 98 352 325
Minimum 20 180 75 325 300 dicularly/parallel to the center
line (Figure 3) and diagonally
(Figure 4). When moving “in
a curve” (Figure 5), the covered

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2014 | 2299

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Activities of Volleyball Players

path was mapped (composed) from the perpendicular/parallel

and diagonal sections.

Measurement of Covered Distance—Examples. Example 1:

Moving in a Straight Line. A player (Figure 3) cov-
ered the path of a + b = 12 segments in a straight line (b = 4
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

segments forward a = 8 sideways), i.e., the distance of 6.0 m

(12 3 0.5 m = 6.0 m).
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/28/2023

Example 2: Moving Diagonally. The length of the

distance covered by moving diagonally on the court is the
length of the hypotenuse, following the Pythagorean theo-
rem (a2 + b2 = c2). The numerical values of the covered
hypotenuse distances are presented in Table 2. For example,
a player covering a hypotenuse distance of 8 (4 m) 3 4 (2 m)
grid cells gives the numerical value of 4.5 m.
Example 3: Moving in a Curve. When moving in
a curve (Figure 5) (solid line), a player’s path is mapped with
straight lines (dashed lines) composed of perpendicular/parallel
and diagonal segments, e.g., the covered distance in Figure 5 is
5.13 m (i.e., 6 3 0.5 m + 3 3 0.71 m = 5.13 m).
Statistical Analyses
Matches (1, 2, 3, and 4), sets (1, 2, 3, and 4) and players’
functions (libero, setter, defender, spiker, and middle
blocker) were introduced as within-subject factors in a full-
factorial repeated-measures analysis of variance for the dis-
tance covered in match and set. Bonferroni adjustment for
multiple comparisons was used as a post hoc test. The nor-
mality of data distribution was checked with a Shapiro-Wilk
test. In all tests, p # 0.05 was considered significant. The data
were presented as means and SEM in the text and the
figures.
RESULTS
The study revealed that the mean total distance covered by a
volleyball player during a match amounted to 1,221 6 327 m
during a 3-set match and 1,757 6 462 m during a 4-set
match. The difference was statistically significant (p #
0.005). A detailed analysis of individual sets showed that
Figure 4. The path of a moving volleyball player—diagonally (a and b, the
legs; c, the hypotenuse—covered segment).
the mean total distance in the first set was 423 6 123 m
and that it was 14 m longer than the distance in the second
set (409 6 119 m). The analysis of the other sets revealed
a gradual, however statistically nonsignificant extension of
the covered distance to 433 6 108 m in the third set and
446 6 118 m in the fourth set.
The analysis of individual rallies (from the serve to the
referee’s whistle) showed that mean total distance covered
by volleyball players during a single rally was 10.92 6 0.9 m
in 4 matches, with the variability range between 9.12 and
12.56 m. As far as the individual sets were concerned, the
mean distance covered during a rally was 10.83 6 1.05 m in
the first set, 10.62 6 1.11 m in the second set, 11.22 6 1.23 m
in the third set, and 11.24 6 1.24 m in the fourth set. The
noted differences were statistically nonsignificant.
With regard to the players’ function on the court (Figure 6),
the longest mean total distance in a match was covered by
the setters 1,630 6 170 m, followed by the defenders (1,448 6
112 m), spikers (1,383 6 102 m), and liberos (1,372 6 103 m).
The shortest distance at 788 6 92 m was covered by the
middle blockers. The differences in terms of covered distances

Figure 5. The path of a moving volleyball player in a curve (solid line,

Figure 3. The path of a moving volleyball player—straight line (a and b, actual path; dashed line, measured distance: a, b, c—measured
covered segments). segments).

the TM

2300 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

TABLE 2. The length of diagonals (m) depending on the number of grid cells forming the sides of the geometrical
figure (rectangle/triangle).

Grid cells no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw

1 0.7
2 1.1 1.4
3 1.6 1.8 2.1
4 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.8
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/28/2023

5 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.2 3.5

6 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.9 4.2
7 3.5 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.3 4.6 4.9
8 4.0 4.1 4.3 4.5 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.7
9 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.0 6.4
10 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.4 6.7 7.1
11 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.9 6.0 6.3 6.5 6.8 7.1 7.4 7.8
12 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.2 7.5 7.8 8.1 8.5
13 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.4 7.6 7.9 8.2 8.5 8.8 9.2
14 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.6 7.8 8.1 8.3 8.6 8.9 9.2 9.6 9.9
15 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.7 9.0 9.3 9.6 9.9 10.3 10.6
16 8.0 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.7 8.9 9.2 9.4 9.7 10.0 10.3 10.6 11.0 11.3
17 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.9 9.0 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.9 10.1 10.4 10.7 11.0 11.3 11.7 12.0
18 9.0 9.1 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.8 10.1 10.3 10.5 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.7 12.0 12.4 12.7

between the middle blockers and other players were statisti- mean distance of 452 6 48 m and 445 6 59 m in the first and
cally significant (p # 0.005). second sets, respectively. In the third set, the distance was
An empirical analysis of the distance covered by players in nonsignificantly longer (486 6 50 m), and the longest distance
individual sets with regard to their function on the court (515 6 67 m) was covered by the spikers in the fourth set.
revealed that the longest distance was covered by the setters Similar results were obtained by the libero players, who cov-
(Figure 6) amounting to 548 6 77 m (mean 6 SD) in the first ered 444 6 36 m in the first set, 440 6 66 m in the second set,
set, 517 6 70 m in the second set, 565 6 39 m in the third set, 487 6 29 m in the third set, and 466 6 39 m in the fourth set.
and 579 6 13 m in the fourth set. The differences between the The observed differences were statistically nonsignificant. In
sets were statistically nonsignificant. The second longest dis- all cases, the shortest distances with regard to the volleyball
tance was covered by the defenders: 502 6 61 m in the first player’s function on the court were covered by the middle
set, 477 6 79 m in the second set, 468 6 20 m in the third set, blockers: 255 6 49 m, 253 6 45 m, 279 6 31 m, and
and 507 6 10 m in the fourth set. The spikers covered the 277 6 19 m in 4 consecutive sets, respectively.
During a single set, the lon-
gest mean distance was covered
by the setters (548 6 58 m), fol-
lowed by the defenders (486 6
54 m). The spikers and libero
players covered similar mean
distances: 468 6 54 m and
458 6 45 m, respectively. The
shortest distance was covered
by the middle blockers (265 6
40 m), and the differences
between the middle blockers
and players with other special-
izations on the court were sta-
tistically significant (p # 0.005)
Figure 6. Mean total distance covered by volleyball players (m) with regard to their function on the court. *Means (Figure 7).
significant decrease in mean total distance (m) covered by volleyball players with regard to their function on the court. During a single rally, middle
blockers covered the mean

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2014 | 2301

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Activities of Volleyball Players
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/28/2023

Figure 7. Mean distance (m) covered in individual sets by volleyball players with regard to their functions on the court. *Means significant change in mean
distance (m) covered in individual sets by volleyball players with regard to their function on the court.

distance of 10.43 6 1.16 m, whereas the defenders’ distance (10.36 6 0.16 m). The second longest distance during
was 0.3 m longer (10.71 6 0.24 m). The longest distance, a single rally was covered by the libero players (11.7 6
i.e., 12.1 6 0.38 m, was covered by the setters. A similar 0.3 m). Difference between the distance covered by differ-
distance to the middle blockers’ was covered by the spikers ent players were not statistically significant (Figure 8).

DISCUSSION
The interpretation of the ob-
tained results poses a number of
difficulties because of the lack of
data from other kinematic stud-
ies. Publications concerned with
the analysis of motor activities of
players during matches lack any
data on volleyball. Most likely
this shortage of research interest
can by explained by a conviction
of numerous researchers and
coaches that in comparison with
other team games volleyball pla-
ces relatively light locomotive
demands on the players. No
results have been published on
Figure 8. Mean total distance (m) covered in a rally by volleyball players of different specializations on the court. the distances covered by volley-
ball players in a game.
the TM

2302 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

The obtained results provide some interesting practical
information. The total covered distance by a player during
a top level volleyball match depends on factors such as the
number of played sets, a player’s function on the court, area
of the court, set scores, the number and duration of individ-
ual rallies, and number of type of actions in a rally. The study
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
showed that volleyball players cover a significantly longer
mean distance (1,757 6 462 m; p # 0.005) in a 4-set match
than in a 3-set match (1,221 6 327 m). Unlike all other team
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/28/2023
games, in which the covered distance is affected by contacts
with the ball while kicking or dribbling, volleyball players—
first and foremost—move on the court anticipating the ball
trajectory or their teammates’ or opponents’ behavior. Their
contacts with the ball are extremely limited in number and
duration. A detailed analysis of game play time (33) showed
that individual rallies last from 2.2 to 50 seconds, and breaks
between rallies from 5.5 to 12 seconds. The time of a pass
ranged between 0.95 and 1.3 seconds (float serve) and 0.7
and 0.9 seconds (jump serve).
The analysis of individual sets showed that with time the
distance covered by players became gradually longer in the
third and fourth set. This correlation was opposite to the one
noted in handball (9) and soccer (1,2), where according to
many authors, the main reason for the decreasing of the
length of covered distance in the second half of the match
was growing fatigue, and inadequate endurance and
endurance-speed training of examined players. Different
authors consider volleyball much less demanding than other
team games, in which fatigue affects players’ competitive
performance much more than muscle weakness (29). Studies
(23) show that an average volleyball rally lasts for 6 seconds,
which is followed by a 14-second rest break. Moreover,
volleyball players also use break rests between the sets. A
time analysis (34) of 120 volleyball rallies confirmed that
players used, primarily, short-term explosive force of the
legs, which is generated as fast as possible. This force is
necessary to perform high vertical jumps while spiking or
blocking (7) followed by a rest break before the commence-
ment of a consecutive rally.
The analysis of the length of distances covered by
volleyball players performing different functions on the court
showed that the shortest distance (788 m) was covered by
the middle blockers, i.e., 2 times shorter than the setters’
(1,630 m). This large discrepancy can be explained by the
fact that, following the rules of the game, the middle blocker
remains on the court for a shorter time and performs fewer
actions moving horizontally than jumping vertically. This
was also noted by Cardinale (11) in his study of motor activ-
ity of handball players with regard to their functions on the
team. Hedrick (23) observed that the length of covered dis-
tance is related to the specificity of volleyball and motor
activity of volleyball players, which determine the dynamics
and speed of players’ movements during the game. These
authors confirm that volleyball players must be perfectly
prepared to perform a considerable number of high vertical
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
the TM
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com
jumps, change movement directions frequently, and repeat
a large number of spiking actions.
The analysis of individual rallies from the current study
showed that during a single rally (from the serve to the
referee’s whistle) volleyball players covered the mean dis-
tance of 11 m. The length of covered distance is confirmed
by the time analysis of individual rallies by Sheppard et al.
(34) who revealed that 76% of all rallies lasted approxi-
mately 12 seconds or less, and the mean time of a single
rally was 11 seconds. The range of variability of rallies
extended from 3 seconds (serve) to more than 40 seconds.
Furthermore, approximately 44% of all breaks between
rallies lasted 12 seconds or less, with the mean time of
14 seconds.
In terms of the volleyball players’ function on the court,
the most active was the setter (covering the mean distance
of 12.1 m during a single rally). This can be explained by
the fact that the setter is the only player on the team, who
frequently changes his position from the frontcourt to the
backcourt. The player who covered the second longest
distance was the libero (11.7 m). The libero’s activity is
linked to the performance of his defensive and assisting
skills and to constant changes of his position during serve
reception and assisting attacks. During a single rally, the de-
fenders, middle blockers, and spikers cover the average dis-
tance of 10.5 m. These players are also responsible for the
organization of attacks; thus, their levels of defensive activities
are lower. Their main activities include running and vertical
jumping in blocking in the front or the back row on either side
of the net.
The results of the study indicate the need for such
research in volleyball. The common conviction that volley-
ball does not demand intensive running efforts can be
disproved. It must be admitted that, considering the limited
field of play, volleyball players do cover relatively long
distances during matches and individual sets.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The results of the analysis of mean distances covered by
volleyball players in a single rally can be useful in the design
of individualized training for players in different court
positions. Although there were no significant differences
between the results, it can be assumed that setters and libero
players, i.e., players moving between the backcourt and the
frontcourt, do tend to cover longer distances in a single rally
than defenders and attackers firmly positioned in either
court zone.
The fact that the covered distances become longer in the
final sets of a match is indicative of the extension of rally
time because of the prevalence of defensive actions (main-
taining the ball in play) over offensive actions (scoring on the
first serve). However, this extension may be caused by the
lower effectiveness of the attack resulting in a more effective
defense and counterattacking and thus prolonging the time
of a single rally.
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2014 | 2303
 Activities of Volleyball Players
Results presented in present study confirmed the authors’
hypothesis and showed that authors’ own method of cov-
ered distance measurement is effective tool to answer stated
research questions.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
REFERENCES
1. Andrzejewski, M, Chmura, J, Pluta, B, and Kasprzak, A. Analysis of
motor activities of professional soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/28/2023
26: 1481–1488, 2012.
2. Andrzejewski, M, Chmura, J, Pluta, B, Strzelczyk, R, and
Kasprzak, A. Analysis of sprinting activities of professional soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 27: 2134–2140, 2013.
3. Bangsbo, J. The physiology of soccer, with special reference to
intense intermittent exercise. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 619: 1–155,
1994.
4. Bangsbo, J, Gollnick, PD, Graham, TE, and Saltin, B. Substrates for
muscle glycogen synthesis in recovery from intense exercise in man.
J Physiol 434: 423–440, 1991.
5. Bangsbo, J, Mohr, M, and Krustrup, P. Physical and metabolic
demands of training and match-play in the elite football player.
J Sports Sci 24: 665–674, 2006.
6. Bangsbo, J, Nørregaard, L, and Thorsø, F. Activity profile of
competition soccer. Can J Sport Sci 16: 110–116, 1991.
7. Barnes, J, Schilling, B, Falvo, M, Weiss, L, Creasy, A, and Fry, A.
Relationship of jumping and agility performance in female volleyball
athletes. J Strength Cond Res 21: 1192–1196, 2007.
8. Ben Abdelkrim, N, Castagna, C, Jabri, I, Battikh, T, El Fazaa, S, and
El Ati, J. Activity profile and physiological requirements of junior
elite basketball players in relation to aerobic-anaerobic fitness,
J Strength Cond Res 24: 2330–2342, 2010.
9. Bon, M. Quantified evaluation of effort and monitoring heart rate of
male players during a team handball match. PhD Thesis, In Slo,
Faculty of Sport, Ljubljana University, Ljubljana, 2001.
10. Bosco, C. La preparacio´n fisica en el voleibol y el desarrollo de la fuerza
en deportes de caracter explosivo-balistico. Buenos Aires, Argentina:
Revista Voley, 1987.
11. Cardinale, M. Handball performance: physiological consideration
and practical approach for training metabolic aspects. On-line: Sport
science information for coaches, 2000.
12. Carling, C, Williams, AM, and Reilly, T. Handbook of Soccer Match
Analysis: A Systematic Approach to Improving Performance. Abingdom,
United kingdom: Routledge, 2005.
13. Chelly, MS, Hermassi, S, Aouadi, R, Khalifa, R, Van den
Tillaar, R, Chamari, K, and Shephard, RJ. Match analysis of elite
adolescent team handball players. J Strength Cond Res 25: 2410–
2417, 2011.
14. Conlee, R, Robinson, K, McGown, C, Fisher, A, and Dalsky, G.
Physiological effects of power volleyball. Physician Sports Med 10:
93–97, 1982.
15. Di Salvo, V, Baron, R, Tschan, H, Calderon Montero, FJ, Bachl, N,
and Pigozzi, F. Performance characteristics according to playing
position in elite soccer. Int J Sports Med 28: 222–227, 2007.
16. Dyba, W. Physiological and activity characteristics of volleyball.
Volleyball Tech 6: 33–51, 1982.
17. Forthomme, B, Croisier, JL, Ciccarone, G, Crielaard, JM, and
Cloes, M. Muscular and physical features correlated with ball
velocity during the volleyball spike. Computer Method Biomec 17(Suppl 1):
105–106, 2005.
18. Giatsis, G and Tzetzis, G. Comparison of performance for winning
and losing Beach Volleyball teams on different court dimensions. Int
J Perform Anal Sport 2003: 3, 65–74.
19. González, C. Análisis del esfuerzo en el juego voleibol, tras los
nuevos cambios en el reglamento, mediante una observación
the TM
2304 Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
sistemática y una medición telemétrica y lactacidémica. Tesis
Doctoral, Universidad de Granada, 2001.
20. Gonzáles, C, Ureña, A, Llop, F, Garcia, JM, Martin, A, and
Navarro, F. Physiological characteristics of libero and central
volleyball players. Biol Sport 22: 13–27, 2005.
21. González Millán, C, Ureña Espá, A, Navarro Valdivielso, F, Martı́n
Morell, A, Santos del Campo, JA, and Llop Garcı́a, F. La concentracio´n
de a´cido la´ctico como ı´ndice de valoracio´n de la contribucio´n energe´tica en el
voleibol. Buenos Aires: Revista Digital, 2002.
22. Häyrinen, M, Mikkola, T, Blomqvist, M, Lahtinen, P,
Honkanen, P, and ja Paananen, A. Mies Ja Poikalentopalloilijoiden
Hyppysyo¨to¨n Biomekaaninen Analyysi. KIHUn Julkaisusarjanro.
Jyväskylä: Kilpa- ja huippu-urheilun tutkimuskeskus, 2010.
ss. 33.
23. Hedrick, A. Training for high level performance in women’s
collegiate volleyball: Part 1 training requirements. Strength Cond J
29: 50–53, 2007.
24. Hoffman, JR, Ratamess, NA, Klatt, M, Faigenbaum, AD, Ross, RE,
Tranchina, NM, McCurley, RC, Kang, J, and Kraemer, WJ.
Comparison between different off-season resistance training
programs in Division III American college football players.
J Strength Cond Res 23: 11–19, 2009.
25. Krustrup, P, Mohr, M, Steensberg, A, Bencke, J, Kjaer, M, and
Bangsbo, J. Muscle and blood metabolites during a soccer game:
implications for sprint performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 1165–
1174, 2006.
26. Kunstlinger, U, Ludwig, H, and Stegmann, J. Metabolic changes
during volleyball matches. Int J Sports Med 8: 315–322, 1987.
27. McLean, DA, Analysis of the physical demands of international
rugby union. J Sports Sci 10: 285–296, 1991.
28. Michalopoulou, M, Papadimitriou, K, Lignos, N, Taxildaris, K, and
Antoniou, P. Computer analysis of the technical and tactical
effectiveness in Greek Beach Volleyball. Int J Perform Anal Sport 5:
41–50, 2005.
29. Mroczek, D, Kawczy nski, A, and Chmura, J. Changes of reaction
time and blood lactate concentration of elite volleyball players
during a game. J Hum Kinet 28: 73–79, 2011.
30. Narr, T. Step by step study of a volleyball player. Sport Coach 6:
41–46, 1982.
31. Randers, MB, Mujika, D, Marcora, SM, Ferrari Bravo, D,
Sassi, R, and Impellizzeri, FM. Validity of simple field tests
as indicators of match-related physical performance in top-
level professional soccer players. Int J Sports Med 28: 228–235,
2007.
32. Scanlan, AT, Dascombe, BJ, Reaburn, P, and Dalbo, VJ. The
physiological and activity demands experienced by Australian
female basketball players during competition. J Sci Med Sport 15:
341–347, 2012.
33. Selinger, A. Power Volleyball. New York: ST Martin’s Press, 1986.
34. Sheppard, JM, Gabbett, TJ, and Stanganelli, LC. An analysis of
playing positions in elite men’s volleyball: considerations for
competition demands and physiologic characteristics. J Strength
Cond Res 23: 1858–1866, 2009.

35. Sibila, M, Bon, M, Uros, M, and Pori, P. Differences in Certain
Typical Performance Indicators at Five Consecutive Men’s European
Handball Championships Held in 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and 2010.
Ljubljana, Slovenia: University Of Ljubljana, Faculty Of Sport,
2011.
36. Spencer, M, Bishop, D, Dawson, B, and Goodman, C.
Physiological and metabolic responses of repeated-sprint
activities: specific to field-based team sports. Sports Med 35:
1025–1044, 2005.
37. Sporis, G, Vuleta, D, Vuleta, D Jr, and Milanovic, D. Fitness profiling
in handball: physical and physiological characteristics of elite
players. Coll Antropol 34: 1009–1014, 2010.
 the TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research | www.nsca.com

38. Stølen, T, Chamari, K, Castagna, C, and Wisløff, U. Physiology of
soccer: an update. Sports Med 35: 501–536, 2005.
39. Tompos, GA. The Effects of Libero Rule on Elite Men’s Volleyball and
Other Time-Motion Analyses. Australia: Centre for Sport Studies,
University of Canberra, 2003.
40. Ure
na, A, Palao, JM, and Saenz, B. La fatiga en voleibol. Lecturas en
Educación Fisica y Deportes. Rev. Digital. 30: 1–6, 2001.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCyw
CX1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC1y0abggQZXdtwnfKZBYtws= on 10/28/2023
41. Urena, D. The Coach no. 4. 2000.
42. Viitasalo, JT, Rusko, H, Pajala, O, Rahkila, P, Ahila, M, and
Montonen, H. Endurance requirements in volleyball. Can J Appl
Sports Sci 12: 194–201, 1987.
43. Voigh, HF and De Marees, H. Zur muskülaren
Beanspruchung im volleyball. Deutsch Z Sportmed 6:
163–170, 1985.

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 8 | AUGUST 2014 | 2305

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.