In a dialogue about my put up on instructing center-line (midline) passing vs. platform angle somebody referenced this text. It’s a couple of examine completed on passers within the 2019 girls’s World Championships. The writer of the piece mentioned the target was to “…take a look at the paradigm that serves within the girls’s sport are coming to passers so shortly that it’s nearly unattainable to get behind the ball to move it successfully.”
I’m all for analysis, after all. I additionally suppose, nevertheless, that we should be cautious in our interpretations of the findings. Analysis nearly at all times has limitations. Additionally, it’s simple to fall into affirmation bias and solely tackle that which helps or personal prior beliefs.
The 2019 WC examine got here up when somebody posted:
Right here have been there stats:
– 3,255 complete serve-receive passes
– 70% of passes have been “centerline”
– 30% of passes have been “angle platform”
Centerline passing ranking was 2.69
Angle Platform ranking was 2.36
The examine revealed two issues –
1) 70% of the time, gamers on the highest ranges of ladies’s volleyball, have sufficient time to get behind the ball (centerline)
2) once they obtain serve and their passing ranking was increased than those that obtain by way of angle platform.
They didn’t hyperlink to the examine, so I needed to go seek for it. Seems it doesn’t have numbers on move scores. It merely says, “…when passers have been in a position to get behind the ball, their passing common was increased in comparison with the instances they have been solely relying on their platform angle.” The poster admitted mashing collectively 3 totally different articles, although didn’t say what the opposite two are. I’ve seen at the least one different article exhibiting the move ranking stuff. Jim Stone has a picture of passer scores relative to midline primarily based on a 2015 evaluation. Regardless, I’m wiling to associate with the concept that passing in your midline typically produces the very best outcomes.
Getting again to the remark, although, I took difficulty with the primary revealed factor. Passing the ball centerline doesn’t robotically suggest motion. The ball can merely go straight to the passer. This isn’t to counsel that was the case in all of these passes, after all. However it’s positively true of some fraction. The poster drew a conclusion not truly offered within the article.
Turning to the precise examine
I did discover the put up concerning the examine attention-grabbing, however with some points.
They did discover that 69% of passes got here when the passer was “… in a position to get their our bodies behind the ball to move.” Within the remaining instances, the passer was “… pressured to play the ball the place the ball had both moved exterior of their physique line or they needed to flip away from the goal.” Sporting my tutorial researcher hat, these are barely obscure definitions. And there’s no dialogue of platform vs. hand reception.
On the identical time, there may be a put up from Marko Majstorovic on LinkedIn by which he talks a couple of comparable sort of study. It’s from the identical timeframe, and positively is identical stage (Ladies’s World Championships), so it might truly be from the identical occasion. He mentioned in that one they discovered that the “…proportion of passes that have been midline was 52% and angled 43% (different 5% have been passes when gamers needed to fall down, or move with one knee down).” So we seem to have a discrepancy, which might come all the way down to the methodology for judging the place passers take the ball.
The issue with each research is one thing I introduced up in my put up Don’t simply cite the analysis, truly learn and perceive it! We don’t truly understand how a lot, if in any respect, the gamers moved to move. Might they’ve moved? In that case, would their passes have been higher or worse in the event that they used the approach reverse the one they did use? Mark Lebedew touches on this a bit.
One different factor
I additionally wish to flag up one thing else from the examine. The article says “Our idea is that a world participant’s serve might be reaching the passers sooner than at another stage of play.” Not an unreasonable assumption. However is that true?
They share stats from a pattern they took that about half of all serves attain the passer in 1 second or much less. For a ball struck on the service line and acquired by a participant 6m from the online, that’s about 33.5mph. I do know of faculty coaches – and people at decrease ranges – who goal 40mph. It might be attention-grabbing to see if the internationals truly serve sooner than school gamers.
However there’s one other issue right here. We might additionally anticipate worldwide receivers to react to serves extra shortly. That might are likely to steadiness out any further service tempo, if it exists. And if it doesn’t exist, it suggests they’re are higher in a position to place themselves to move.
Undoubtedly room for some additional analysis there!
And, after all, the lads’s sport is on a complete different stage when it comes to serve velocity.
6 Steps to Higher Practices – Free Information
Subscribe to my weekly e-newsletter at this time and get this free information to creating your practices the very best, together with hundreds extra teaching suggestions and data.