The effect of jump topspin serve speed on reception quality in men’s volleyball

INTRODUCTION

The pivotal determinants contributing to victory in a volleyball game encompass the serve, offense, and block [1]. In volleyball, critical actions, such as offense and serve, are characterized by high-speed strikes involving explosive movements like sprinting, vertical jumping, and ball striking [2,3]. Volleyball success can be comprehensively explained by two primary performance indicators: the effectiveness of reception and complex two success [4]. Considering the game's system and organization, the serve emerges as the inaugural offensive play, profoundly shaping the eventual outcome of the game. Notably, the advent of the jump topspin serve as the method of choice to initiate games that occurred during the late 20^th century, predominantly championed by Brazilian players, as documented by Coleman [5]. The jump topspin serve is rooted in the mechanics of an attacking strike – the spike. The kinetic sequence of a jump topspin serve encompasses distinct phases, including the ball toss, run-up, jump, flight phase, the ball hit in flight phase, and the player’s landing [6]. The basis of the correct jump topspin serve essentially resides in the spike technique, except for frontal velocity, which is lower in the spike [7]. Both the spike and jump topspin serve share a common motor foundation, delineated into four phases: the approach, arm cocking, arm acceleration, and follow-through [8,9].

Barzouka et al. [10] reported that male players employed the jump topspin serve in approximately 75.4% of instances. The prevalence of the jump topspin serve can be attributed to its propensity to significantly disrupt the receiving team's ability to construct effective offensive combinations following its execution despite a comparatively higher error rate when compared to other serve types [11]. Lima et al. [12] emphasized that the jump topspin serve has emerged as an indispensable skill, particularly in men's volleyball. They further underscored that due to the inherent characteristics of the jump topspin serve, its execution predominantly aims for the shortest feasible distance. This strategic choice is intertwined with minimizing the ball's flight time to the opponent's court, reducing the reaction time available to the receiving player. The receiver’s movement initiation time takes around 0.3 seconds from the ball contact of the serving player [13]. Zahálka et al. [14] validated that the jump's height serves as a reliable indicator concerning the execution of the jump topspin serve, particularly in relation to the ball's velocity. Considering the technical resemblance between the spike and the jump topspin serve, Sarvestan et al. [15] introduced an intriguing recommendation related to specific factors affecting spike speed, such as ball positioning. From a biomechanical perspective, spike height and spike speed represent the primary variables underpinning the assessment of success rates, as established by prior studies [16–18]. Baena-Raya et al. [19], in their investigation of factors influencing both serve and spike speed, assert that the optimal toss technique plays a pivotal role in facilitating the effective transmission of power and speed from horizontal to vertical trajectories.

Coleman [5] documented that the average velocity of the jump topspin serve, as observed in his research on male players in 1993, registered at 85 kilometers per hour (km·h⁻¹). In contrast, Moras et al. [20] reported that the mean jump topspin serve speed, assessed during the 2004 Men's Olympic Qualifying Tournament, was approximately 83 km·h⁻¹. It's worth noting that investigations into ball speed in the context of volleyball are relatively scarce, and the relationship between ball speed and the speed of the hitting arm remains an underexplored area of study, as highlighted by Lima et al. [12]. No prior studies comprehensively evaluated the potential association between serve speed and its effectiveness [20]. The primary conclusion drawn from their research was the absence of a significant association between serve speed and superior outcomes pertaining to its effectiveness. Consequently, our research endeavors to focus on the interplay between the speed of the jump topspin serve and the quality of reception in volleyball.

We aim to ascertain whether the increasing speed adversely affects reception quality and to discern any potential association between the categories denoting the quality of reception and the corresponding categories delineating serve speed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

RESULTS

Figure 1 shows the descriptive statistics of serve speed related to reception quality. The reception quality decreased as the serve speed increased. The Ace or direct point from the serve was achieved at an average speed of 95.2 ± 9.6 km·h^-1. On the other hand, Perfect reception (from the point of view of the serving team) was achieved at an average value of 78.6 ± 14.4 km·h^-1. The Kruskal-Wallis test points to significant difference between the reception quality based on serve speed (p < 0.001; η² = 0.16). The effect size of the pairwise comparison points to a large effect between the reception based on the speed of serve: Serve Error vs. Perfect (g = 0.93); Perfect vs. Negative (g = -1.1); Perfect vs. Half Error (g = -1.14); Perfect vs. Ace (g = -1.27). A pairwise comparison between the other reception categories indicates a medium or small effect (Figure 2).

Table 2 contains the frequency of reception quality concerning the categories of serve speed. Players' most errors (Serve Errors) were made when serving at a speed above 84 km·h^-1 (77.4%). On the other hand, we can see that the most Aces (95.8%) and Half Errors (88.9%) were achieved by players who served at speed also above 84 km·h^-1. Based on the chi-square test, we can claim that the association between reception categories and serve speed categories is statistically significant (χ² = 25.6; df = 15; p < 0.001). Cramer’s V indicates a medium effect (V = 0.26) between categorical variables.

DISCUSSION

The primary objective of this investigation was to examine the influence of the velocity of a jump topspin serve on its effectiveness in volleyball. Our findings, derived from effect size pairwise comparisons, reveal a substantial impact of serve speed on reception quality. Specifically, we consider the results of comparisons between Perfect and Negative (g = -1.1), Perfect and Half Error (g = -1.14), and Perfect and Ace (g = -1.27) to be of paramount significance. In contrast, pairwise comparisons involving other reception categories indicate moderate or minor effects. These data substantiate that the speed of the jump topspin serve exerts a notable influence on the quality of reception. These conclusions align with those presented in the study by Palao and Valades [24], positing that a serve's success depends on factors such as contact height, direction, and ball speed. The effectiveness of the serve appears to be a pivotal determinant in the outcome of individual offensive plays [20]. Our data analysis reveals a discernible pattern: as the average speed of the jump topspin serve increases, the reception quality tends to decrease. Specifically, when reception is assessed as Perfect, the serve's average speed is 78.6 km·h⁻¹. In cases rated as Good, the serve achieves an average speed of 88.2 km·h⁻¹. For Negative ratings, the speed averages 92.8 km·h⁻¹, Half Error is associated with 93.9 km·h⁻¹, and serves culminating in Aces exhibiting an average speed of 95.2 km·h⁻¹. These observed values underscore a noticeable trend of rising jump topspin serve speed being inversely associated with a decline in reception quality.

Coleman [5] has documented that the mean speed of the jump topspin serve executed by male players stood at approximately 85 km·h⁻¹. This observation aligns with the findings of Moras et al. [20], who reported a similar mean jump topspin serve speed, measured at the Men's Olympic Qualifying Tournament in 2004, at roughly 83 km·h⁻¹. Furthermore, Bhasi and Sadanandan [25] present an average jump topspin serve speed of 87 km·h⁻¹ for players aged between 19 and 25 years. Our data, with an average speed of 88.2 km·h⁻¹, are consistent with the research conducted by Pekyavaş et al. [26] who assessed the average speed of the jump topspin serve among foreign players competing in Turkey's 1^st division and reported it as 88.4 km·h⁻¹. Collectively, this information suggests a discernible trend of long-term increase in the average speed of jump topspin serves within the men's category.

Evaluating the attainment of maximum vertical jump height in the context of volleyball offensive plays has been a recurrent subject of sports analysis [15,27–29]. This focus on jump height is underpinned by its recognition as a pivotal parameter contributing to enhanced volleyball success, as Ziv and Lidor underscored it [30]. Forthome et al. and Terol-Sanchis et al. [31,32] have reported a correlation between spike velocity and multiple factors, including the maximal isokinetic torque developed by the internal rotators of the dominant shoulder, the height at which a player makes contact with the ball during a spike, and the player's body mass index. Zahálka et al. [14] have posited that jump height is a reliable indicator for executing a jump topspin serve, predominantly due to its influence on ball speed. Furthermore, Bhasi and Sadanandan [25] have established a positive relationship between jump topspin serve speed and variables such as take-off speed, the height of the player's center of gravity at the point of ball contact, and the distance covered during the flight phase before impact. Sarvestan et al. [15] have corroborated that higher angular velocities of the hip and knee joints, in conjunction with efficient arm swing mechanics, can contribute to increased jump height during real-game offensive actions. They have also emphasized the influence of various situation-specific parameters on spike velocity, which can fundamentally alter a player's performance. Marcelino et al. [33] assert that serving constitutes the initial offensive action for a team. Consequently, Ciuffarella et al. [34] recommend the use of the jump topspin serve as the most effective technique in terms of facilitating subsequent defensive plays. However, it is imperative to acknowledge its relatively elevated error rate, which necessitates strategic consideration by coaches in its deployment.

We consider a limitation of our research to be the fact that the processed data also includes serves with a lower speed, a phenomenon that has become more prevalent at the top level over the past decade. Specifically, these are shortened serves targeting zones II, III, and IV of the receiving team. The presence of such data within our dataset introduces a potential source of distortion in our findings, constituting a constraining factor in our overall research endeavor. Excluding these lower-speed serves from our analysis could conceivably result in a higher overall average speed for serves executed with the primary intent of achieving maximum speed. Furthermore, our research is subject to additional constraints stemming from the intricate interplay between serve and pass dynamics. Factors such as the direction of the serve, the number of players involved in the receiving team's pass, the trajectory of the serve, the reaction time of the passing players, and the point of origin of the serve are all critical parameters that influence the outcomes and could be used as contextual variables in future research [35].

CONCLUSION

Based on the obtained findings, it is possible to deduce that the utilization of the jump topspin serve can be advantageous for the team, particularly when elite athletes consistently attain average speeds exceeding 92 km·h^-1. Conversely, when a player's serve registers a sustained decline in average speed below 83 km·h^-1 over an extended duration, it becomes imperative for the player or their coach to contemplate adopting an alternative approach to initiate the game. This is due to the diminishing efficacy of the serve, leading to a notable decrease in the team's defensive prowess.

The jump topspin serve proves effective in upholding the desired speed parameters. Currently, speed assessment of serves is a commonly employed tool for appraising the skill level of elite players, yet this practice is not yet common within youth categories. Due to the long-term acquisition of the jump topspin serve technique, we recommend regularly monitoring the speed of the serve from the adolescent categories, both in training and in games. These longitudinal data records will serve as valuable feedback for players, bolstering their technical proficiency and success with the jump topspin serve. Therefore, an avenue for further research could involve enhancing jump topspin serve speeds among adolescent volleyball players. The intrinsic motivation for young athletes could stem from the pursuit of achieving the highest speed recorded during training, serving as a primary driving force for performance-oriented players. Feedback on their attained speeds can inspire young players to push their limits. We posit that coaches could use our results to facilitate long-term comparisons of their players' jump topspin serve speeds across various age groups and performance categories.

Additionally, an intriguing future research direction could involve examining the effectiveness of serves characterized by a high element of surprise. In such serves, speed may not play as pivotal a role. For most players, this "shortened serve" is intertwined with a serve that maximizes speed, and the type of serve employed often remains concealed until the moment of contact with the ball.