International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport

ISSN: 2474-8668 (Print) 1474-8185 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpan20

Receiving and serving team efficiency in Volleyball

in relation to team rotation

Alexandros Laios & Panagiotis Kountouris

To cite this article: Alexandros Laios & Panagiotis Kountouris (2011) Receiving and serving team
efficiency in Volleyball in relation to team rotation, International Journal of Performance Analysis in
Sport, 11:3, 553-561

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2011.11868573

Published online: 03 Apr 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rpan20

Download by: [University of Florida] Date: 03 May 2017, At: 23:25

Receiving and serving team efficiency in Volleyball in relation to team
rotation
Alexandros Laios and Panagiotis Kountouris

University of Athens, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport Science, Department of

Court Games – Volleyball, Greece.

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to examine whether receiving and serving
team efficiency in Volleyball was dependent on the teams’ line-up that
emerges from the clockwise rotation of the players. The sample comprised
all the games of the A1 division of the men’s Greek Championship of
Volleyball for the 2005–2006 period. Specifically all the points (N=21469)
of the two rounds of the regular season from 484 sets in 132 games were
taken into account. Receiving team efficiency for the twelve teams ranged
from 72.1% to 56.5%. Results showed that the teams’ rankings are
strongly dependent both on their serving and receiving efficiency
(Spearman’s rank correlation rho=0.930 and 0.923 respectively).
Rotations differ with regards to the teams’ serving efficiency (chi-square,
p<0.05) but not with regards to their receiving efficiency (chi-square,
p=0.08). Most of the teams have one favoured starting line-up position for
the set with the setter at zone 1 when serving first and at zone 2 when
receiving first. All teams utilized a maximum of two preferred starting
line-ups. The decision of the coaches for the starting line-up positions is
mostly driven by considerations based on the serving but not the receiving
efficiency.

Keywords: Volleyball, rotation, line-up, serving and receiving efficiency.

1. Introduction

Almost all high level volleyball teams have similar structures since they are using the 5-
1 system and so they have the same players, from the point of view of specialization, in
the same order of rotation (Laios & Kountouris, 2010). The regulations are constraining
the players of a team to rotate clockwise by one zone when they win a rally that the
opponent team served (F.I.V.B., 2010). Teams therefore compete assuming six different
Current Rotations (CR) in a specific order. The CR can be named by the zone position
of the setter (e.g. CR1). A Full Rotation (FR) is achieved after six consecutive CR. This
players rotation differentiates volleyball from every other team sport and consequently
every player is forced to play in all six zones in every set. Laios et al. (2004)
emphasised on the importance of the coaches to analyze in detail as many variables that
affect team performance as possible. The coach of a team is responsible for the proper
organisation and function of his team. In order for his team to perform in a game, he has
to fulfil a series of tasks both before and during the game. According to Schleuder

553
(1989) small changes of the order of rotation can improve point productivity. Every
player’s specification affects the line up of the team (Sagula, 2006), since his actions are
subject to limitations regarding CR. Not all of the six distinguished volleyball actions
(Arrington et al., 2006) can be performed in every zone.

The rally point system and the point limitations of the sets caused a decrease of the total
amount of rallies of a game (Kountouris & Laios, 2000a,b), thus the coaches’ starting
line-up declaration is even more significant. Firstly because in every set teams do not,
as a rule, totally complete FR and in that way players are called to compete at some CR
more times than their teammates. Furthermore because from the 72 possible CR
combinations (six CR for the two competing teams, doubled considering the right to
serve) that can arise in a set, only 12 will occur. Every coach must evaluate the
advantages and the disadvantages of his team (Kus, 2004). In that way he can determine
his team’s attacking and defensive tactics and select the best possible way to start any
set, predicting even the match-up of certain players on the net.

Numerous studies have evaluated the performance of volleyball actions and skills
(Nishijima et al., 1987; Marelic et al., 2004; Palao et al., 2004a). Considering that
volleyball actions are performed in a specific order forming a chain of events and affect
one another (Eom & Schutz, 1992), it is logical to assume that valuable conclusions will
also arise by the evaluation of the chains as a whole. In that direction studies have
evaluated team’s skill performance as series of action considering Complex I and II
(Zetou et al., 2006; Patsiarouras et al., 2009).

When a serving team wins the rally there is no change in CR for both opponents. When
the receiving team wins the rally, this team alone makes a shift clockwise to a new CR.
In that way the serving team can win consecutive rallies (therefore points) while the
receiving team can win only one. For that reason the win of a rally by the serving team
changes the point difference of the score of the set, while the win of a rally by the
receiving team preserves it. Because of that it is logical to consider the serving rallies as
the offence and the receiving rallies as the defence. These two types of rallies are
tangled and continuously alternate during the game. That is why their interrelationship
needs to be examined.

Research by Palao et al. (2004b) and Durkovic et al. (2008) took under consideration
the rotation of a team but they were focused on the efficiency of specific actions.
Earlier, Asai (2001) classified the condition to score into two categories according to the
serve or service reception. Recent research, on the same set of data with the present
study, from Laios & Kountouris (2010) showed that teams do not complete FR entirely,
that the serving team wins 34.55% of the rallies and that there were significant
differences of the serving team efficiency (STE) among CR of the serving teams.
All the above considerations point to the fact that the distribution of the efficiency of the
receiving team (RTE) among the six CR can also provide valuable information. The use
of the starting CR in relation of the STE and RTE can be used as a tool for the coach.
The present study addresses these issues.

554
2. Method

2.1. Data collection

Data were used from all the games that took place in the regular season of the men’s A1
division of the Greek Volleyball Championship 2005–2006. Twelve teams competed in
a regular season that was composed by two rounds of 11 games for each team. All 132
games with 484 sets and 21469 points of the regular season were videotaped using plain
HD video cameras and then imported in computer. Using the “Data Volley” software
(Data Project, 2005) for every game it was recorded:
a) The full data of the meeting of the two opponents like the exact date, the time
and the court. Also the rosters of the teams were recorded and
b) The main data of every game, as it is the starting line up and the exact
positioning of the players in the court for every set, the rotation of both teams
for each rally, all the substitutions of the players during the game, the winner of
every rally and the score.

All the above raw data can be recorded very simply and accurately, so that the only
validation required was to check whether the PR were recorded in the right order.
Consequently there is no need for a reliability test.

2.2. Statistical analysis

The dependent variable (point winner) was a dichotomous variable following the
binomial distribution, expressing whether the receiving team won or lost the rally. The
proportion of won points to the total number of points played expresses the overall
efficiency of the receiving teams (RTE) and serving teams (STE) respectively. The
statistical analysis was based on the χ2 test of independence on a 12x2 table for the
comparison of the values of RTE between the teams and on a 6x2 table for the
distribution of RTE and STE between current rotations (CR). It was also examined
whether the efficiency of the receiving team was dependent on round or on whether the
team was playing at home or away. Analysis of the RTE and STE distribution among
CR was performed separately for each of the twelve teams, in order to identify those
teams that their efficiency when receiving or when serving is dependent on the position
of their players. Finally the descending order of the efficiency of the used CR was
examined in relation to the dominant starting line-up positions of the teams. The level of
significance for all the analyses was set at 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed
with the PASW Statistics 18 software.

3. Results

The total number of rallies examined was 21469 from which the 14051 was won by the
receiving team, giving an overall receiving team efficiency (RTE) of 65.45% Figure 1
shows that the 12 teams have significantly different RTE (χ2=189.568, df=11, p=0.000)
and that greater RTE values are associated with higher ranking position of the teams
(Spearman’s rank correlation rho = 0.923). Equally high is correlation between STE and
ranking position (Spearman’s rank correlation rho = 0.930).

555
 Figure 1. Receiving team efficiency (RTE) of the twelve teams.

Table 1. The distribution of receiving team efficiency (RTE) between different current
rotations (CR).

RTE

CR 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Points 2436 2273 2204 2278 2396 2464 14051

Total 3755 3559 3321 3417 3614 3803 21469

% 64.87 63.87 66.37 66.67 66.30 64.79 65.45

The chi-square test shows that there were no significant differences of RTE between the
6 CR (see table 1) (χ2=9.846, df=5, p=0.080). The independence of RTE on CR
remained unaffected in the two rounds or when examined independently for home and
away teams, as well as when the examination was conducted for the games of equally
strong teams (games played between the top, middle and last four ranking teams). Table
2 shows that the balance of the distribution of RTE between CR remained still when
examined for every team individually. From the twelve teams only one showed
significant differences of RTE (p < 0.05) between the six CR. The comparison with the
previous findings (Laios & Kountouris, 2010) for the STE shows that a total of 7 out of

556
12 teams had unbalanced efficiency between the 6 CR and only in one of the two types
of efficiency (STE or RTE).

Table 2. Examination and comparison of the distribution of RTE and STE between CR
for every team.
Significant χ2 for χ2 for
Team Df p p
differences STE RTE
1 5 1.283 0.937 1.115 0.953
2 STE 5 11.572 0.041 4.866 0.432
3 STE 5 16.092 0.007 2.599 0.761
4 STE 5 19.520 0.002 1.377 0.927
5 5 7.324 0.198 1.000 0.963
6 STE 5 11.155 0.048 7.186 0.207
7 5 9.865 0.079 8.991 0.109
8 RTE 5 2.012 0.847 15.069 0.010
9 5 5.013 0.414 3.591 0.610
10 STE 5 12.939 0.024 4.226 0.517
11 STE 5 14.426 0.013 10.414 0.064
12 5 6.950 0.224 5.260 0.385

Table 3. Starting line-ups of Serving and Receiving teams.

Starting CR frequencies
F F
F
CR Serving % Receiving %
Expected
Teams Teams
1 222 45.6 74 15.2 81.16
2 37 7.6 178 36.6 81.16
3 56 11.5 53 10.9 81.16
4 45 9.2 24 4.9 81.16
5 32 6.6 67 13.8 81.16
6 95 19.5 91 18.7 81.16
Total 487 100 487 100 100

557
Table 3 shows the frequencies of the starting CR of both serving and receiving teams
for every set. It seems that in general coaches clearly chose to start a set in CR1 when
serving and CR2 when receiving for the first rally. Both distributions are significantly
different from the theoretical distribution of 81.16 (16.66%). In both cases the second
best choice was CR6.

The examination of the starting CR when serving for every team individually showed
that 8 out of the 12 teams had CR1 as their first choice. Adding their second choice etc
until we reach an accumulative percentage of 50% of the total cases of each team
showed that 11 out of 12 teams had no more than 2 choices. The analogous examination
of each team’s starting CR when receiving resulted that 9 out of the 12 teams had CR2
or CR6 as their first choice. Once more adding the their second choice etc until we
reach an accumulative percentage of 50% of the total cases of each team shows again
that 11 out of 12 teams had no more than 2 choices.

Based upon each team’s dominant choice for the starting CR it was examined whether
the efficiency of a CR was greater than the efficiency of the following CR and whether
the efficiency of the last used CR was less than the first. This examination was
conducted only for the efficiency values of the seven teams that had significant
differences of STE or RTE among CR. A total of six comparisons for seven teams were
made giving a total of 42 comparisons of adjacent CR values of efficiency. In 25 cases
the correct order of values of efficiency was confirmed for both set starting with and
without the right to serve.

4. Discussion

The efficiency of the team that receives in a rally is 65.45% (Laios & Kountouris, 2010)
which is a rather large number and suggests that this team is almost twice as likely as
the serving team (34.55%) to win the current point. Such a large percentage though,
might result in insignificant differences among the teams. If the RTE of teams, even
though it has different values, isn’t significant different among them then the
examination of such a proportion and its distribution among CR wouldn’t have any
meaning. The fact that teams had different STE needed to be examined also for the
nearly doubled sized value RTE. The percentages of efficiency of the teams showed that
there were significant differences among them. That means that RTE characterizes a
team and is an important figure that needs to be considered the same way as STE (Laios
& Kountouris, 2010).

The RTE, as well as STE (Laios & Kountouris, 2010), are significantly correlated to the
team’s ranking position. This means that both RTE and STE provide indication of a
team’s status.

The basic principle of coaching and choosing the optimum starting line-up (CR) in
order to use sooner and more times per set the best CR, leads to a “function with no
solution” if serving and receiving CR do not have the same characteristics. Even in a
case that teams may compete with FR (rotate using all 6 CR) in a set, it is beneficial to
use the CR in an order that gives to the team the advantage to lead the score.

558
Conclusively using the more efficient CR first is most advantageous because it gives the
team the chance to have a head start. The fact that the receiving teams in total do not
have significant differences of RTE among the 6 CR, gives solution to the question of
the right selection of starting line-up and indicates that the STE should be taken under
consideration and not the RTE.

The balance of RTE among CR is solid since nor round of the regular season neither
playing in home or away affects it. Even games between equally strong teams didn’t
result to significant RTE differences among CR and therefore it is concluded that this
value has a firm behavior.

Starting a set with the right to serve showed that coaches chose as first CR the CR1. In
general Laios & Kountouris (2010) showed that CR1 for the serving team was the most
efficient. When receiving in the first rally the first choice was CR2 but in this case there
aren’t any significant differences of the RTE among CR. Serving in CR1 and receiving
in CR2, though, have common ground because these two CR are linked. The team that
receives in CR2 has the advantage (in total 65.45%) to win the rally and if that happens
to perform a change in position according to regulations clockwise. Therefore this team
will then continue to compete in CR1 with the right to serve. Starting, when receiving,
in CR2 and when serving in CR1 is a way to retain a specific starting line-up. In such
way the same order of serving CR will be used in the set. Choosing adjacent starting CR
like that points to the fact that coaches are interested in STE usage in CR rather than
RTE. Since in general teams do not complete FR entirely but rotate partly the CR1, CR6
and CR 5 are likely to be used sooner and more times than the rest CR.

Results showed an agreement with the general trend of starting with the right to serve in
CR1. The fact that 67% of the serving teams have CR1 as their first choice along with
the fact that almost all teams chose between two CR (for at least half of the cases)
points out to the fact that coaches have specific preferences and they base their choices
upon their own team and not their opponent. Similar are the results for the starting line-
up when teams received. In this case 75% of the teams have CR2 and CR6 (two instead
of one CR like for serving rallies) as their first choice and again all except one team
chose between two CR (for at least half of the cases). In general coaches tend to choose
specific starting CR according to the advantages of their own team and in case that
someone wants to calculate CR in order to predict the players match-up is possible to do
so since the coaches choices don’t alternate.

A team’s starting CR provides the order of appearance of the rest of CR as a series. The
clockwise, due to regulations, rotation of the players restricts the order of appearance of
CR with the setter to be present in zones 1-6-5-4-3-2 respectively and all over again.
Coaches declare to the officials the starting CR for every set which is the starting point
of the above mentioned circle. The first used CR is likely to reappear in a set sooner and
more times than the second CR and so on. It is beneficial to a team to try to use the CR
in descending order as far as efficiency values concern. In that way a better (more
productive) CR will be used more and sooner than the rest. Even in a rare case of a set
with FR observed, a team will have the advantage to lead the score using firstly the
stronger CR. The optimum way for a team that has efficiency values that are significant
different between CR is to compete starting with the CR with the higher percentage and

559
to proceed in a similar way so to use last the CR with the lowest percentage. In that way
a more efficient CR is likely to be used more times than the worst and also every FR
tends to start with an advantage instead of a disadvantage. The examination of the
descending order of STE (for the six unbalanced teams) and RTE (for the one
unbalanced team) showed that coaches do try and select specific starting CR aiming to
the optimum usage of more efficient CR. Based upon each coach’s most preferred
starting CR, this goal was achieved in 60% of the cases leaving a 40% room for
improvement. It seems that the choice of the optimum order of CR caused by the choice
of the starting CR is a complex issue that needs to be addressed for both the sets that
teams start with and without the right to serve individually. More analyses are
warranted in order to resolve the above issues. Unfortunately, there is no literature
against which to compare the present findings, since, to the best of our knowledge the
effect of team rotation on receiving and serving team efficiency has not been studied
before.

5. Conclusions

RTE and STE are characteristic values of a team that relate to their rank position.
Contrary to STE, RTE has no significant differences among CR. Teams are more likely
to have unbalanced efficiency among CR for the serving rallies. Coaches choose
specific starting CR based upon their own team and not their opponent, taking primarily
into consideration the serving and not the receiving team efficiency. When serving most
preferred starting position was CR1 and when receiving was CR2, while CR6 was
second choice in both cases. Calculating players match-up is possible due to the limited
selection of starting CR of teams. Even though coaches try to have an optimum order of
CR in a set, a margin for improvement in that area still exists.

6. References

Arrington, P., Backstrom, J., Schall, M., Rose, R., Byron, S., Hardin, D., Liskevych, T.,
McLaughlin, J., Nolen, M., Peterson, J., Powell, J., Sagula, J., & Schleuder, S.,
(2006). Volleyball skills & drills. A.V.C.A. Human Kinetics.
Asai, M., (2001). Game Analytical Study on Scoring in Volleyball Games. Differences
in the Rate of Score between Winning and Losing of the Game in Rally Point
System. Bulletin of Osaka University of Health and Sport Sciences, 32, 13-
24.
Data Project (2005). Manuale del Data Volley versione professionale.
www.dataproject.com.
Durkovic, T., Marelic, N., & Resetar, T. (2008). Influence of the position of players in
rotation on differences between winning and loosing teams in volleyball.
International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 8(2), 8-15.
Eom, H. J., & Schutz, R. W. (1992). Transition play in team performance of volleyball:
a log-linear analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63(3), 261-
269.
F.I.V.B., (2010). Rules of The Game Text File. Official Volleyball Rules Approved by
the 32nd FIVB Congress, Rome 2010.

560
Kountouris, P., & Laios, J. (2000a). Changes effected on the game of Volleyball by the
enforcement of the new regulations. Coaching Volleyball, 17(1), 26-30.
Kountouris, P., & Laios, J. (2000b). Investigation into the time characteristics of the
volleyball game. Coaching Volleyball, 17(3), 16-19.
Kus, S. (2004). Coaching volleyball successfully. Human Kinetics.
Laios, A., & Kountouris, P. (2010). Association Between The Line-Up Of The Players
And The Efficiency Of The Serving Team In Volleyball. International Journal
of Performance Analysis in Sport, 10(1), 1-8.
Laios, Y., Kountouris, P., Aggelonidis, I., & Katsikadelli, A. (2004). A Comparative
Study of the Effectiveness of the Greek National Men’s Volleyball Team With
Internationally Top-Ranked Teams, International Journal Of Volleyball
Research, 7(1), 4-9.
Marelic, N., Resetar, T., & Jankovic, V., (2004). Discriminant analysis of the sets won
and the sets lost by one team in A1 Italian volleyball league – a case study.
Kinesiology, 36(1), 75-82.
Nishijima, T., Ohswava, S., & Matsuura, Y., (1987). The relationship between the game
performance and group skill in volleyball. International Journal of Physical
Education, 1987, 24, (4), 20-26.
Palao, J., M., Santos, J., A., & Urena, A., Y., (2004a). Effect of team level on skill
performance in volleyball. International Journal of Performance in
Volleyball, 4(2), 50-60.
Palao, J., M., Santos, J., A., & Urena, A., Y., (2004b). Effect of the setter’s position on
the block in volleyball. International Journal of Volleyball Research, 6(1),
29-32.
Patsiaouras, A., Charitonidis, K., Moustakidis, A., & Kokaridas, D., (2009).
Comparison of technical skills effectiveness of men's National Volleyball teams.
International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 9(1), 1-7.
Sagula, J., (2006). Playing offence, In K. S. Lenberg (eds), Volleyball Skills & Drills,
American Volleyball Coaches Association, Champaign, Il: Human Kinetics.
Schleuder, S. (1989). Comprehensive volleyball statistics: A guide for coaches,
media and fans. American Volleyball Coaches Association 1998.
Zetou, E., Tsigilis, N., Moustakidis, A., & Komninakidou, A., (2006). Playing
characteristics of men’s Olympic volleyball teams in complex II. International
Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 6(1), 172-177.

Corresponding author:

Alexandros Laios

Address: 18 An. Zinni Str. 11741 Athens, Greece

Tel: +32109243151, Fax: +32109235678

e-mail: alaios@ath.forthnet.gr

561