I heard a couple of volleyball analysis paper whereas listening to an episode of the Notion & Motion podcast. That paper is How practical motion variability facilitates profitable talent adaptation through the volleyball assault by, I imagine, a gaggle of Portuguese researchers.
Whereas I believe the podcast does an honest job of presenting the last word conclusions of the paper, I discovered it troublesome to determine from it how the experiment was truly executed. Thankfully, that’s fairly clearly outlined within the paper. Because the title signifies, it’s about attacking. Particularly, attacking in opposition to a block beneath three situations:
- Double block taking cross
- Double block taking line
- Cut up double block permitting an assault at 6
Hitters took turns attacking as a part of a serve-pass-set-attack sequence, with three receivers. The attackers weren’t included among the many passers. They every did an equal variety of assaults in opposition to all three of the above blocking set-ups. There’s a diagram within the paper exhibiting the drill construction.
There have been two coaching teams:
Conventional Strategy (TA) group: Every blocking set-up was skilled individually. The hitters first confronted the block taking cross for six balls, then taking line for six balls, and at last the break up block within the final 6 balls. Or another variation of the sequence. In different phrases, the hitters knew what block set-up they had been going to face earlier than every rep.
Constraints Led Strategy (CLA) group: Right here the attackers nonetheless unfold their assaults evenly throughout the three block set-ups. The distinction right here, although, is these set-ups had been random. So the hitters didn’t know earlier than every rep which sort of block they confronted.
There’s an entire part on spacial temporal variables. You could discover that fascinating, although it’s fairly technical. For many of us, the important thing bit is the assault efficiency the outcomes from the preliminary check (t1), instantly following 6 weeks of coaching (t2), then lastly considerably later to check retention (t3).
Right here’s the graph exhibiting the outcomes for the 2 teams:
As anticipated, the 2 teams confirmed the identical efficiency earlier than the coaching. Whereas the TA group confirmed little achieve from the coaching, the CLA group improved markedly, and even prolonged the achieve barely within the retention check. The * within the graph signifies a statistically vital distinction.
Is smart when you consider it, proper? Actual attacking conditions contain uncertainty about what the hitter will face. That requires decision-making. The CLA strategy incorporates this, whereas the TA strategy removes it.
Now, this research is predicated on a complete of 12 male gamers who averaged about 17 years outdated initially of the research. All of the gamers play at a comparatively excessive stage within the Portuguese system. So not precisely a broadly consultant pattern. It is a limitation you must look ahead to in these sorts of analysis research. Thus, we are able to’t soar to the agency conclusion the CLA strategy used above is best than the TA strategy primarily based simply on these findings.
That stated, this paper is a part of a rising literature supportive of variability in coaching over low variability, blocked strategies. In different phrases, whereas doing one thing repetitively is perhaps helpful in some particular situations, broadly talking it’s higher to make issues extra variable.
Oh, and it’s seems to be like variability is best for damage prevention too. That’s a dialogue in How we Study Transfer, and in this different episode of the Notion & Motion podcast.
6 Steps to Higher Practices – Free Information
Subscribe to my weekly publication as we speak and get this free information to creating your practices one of the best, together with masses extra teaching suggestions and data.