IDENTIFICATION OF MAPPING MODELS OF PLAYERS COOPERATION IN CREATING POINT SITUATIONS IN VOLLEYBALL DEPENDING ON SETTER POSITION

Transcription

1 Pol. J. Sport Tourism 2018, 25, DOI: /pjst IDENTIFICATION OF MAPPING MODELS OF PLAYERS COOPERATION IN CREATING POINT SITUATIONS IN VOLLEYBALL DEPENDING ON SETTER POSITION LESZEK MAZUR 1, EDWARD SUPERLAK 2 1 Doctoral Studies, University School of Physical Education Wroclaw, Faculty of Physical Education, Wrocław, Poland 2 University School of Physical Education Wroclaw, Faculty of Sport Science, Department of Biological and Motor Bases of Sports, Wrocław, Poland Mailg address: Leszek Mazur, University School of Physical Education Wroclaw, Faculty of Physical Education, 35 Paderewskiego Ave., 51-2 Wrocław, tel.: , fax: , leszek.mazur@hotmail.com Abstract Introduction. Team games, which have been studied by researchers for several years, clude both dividual and cooperative. Although cooperation is the essence of team sports, there is still a dearth of research that has thoroughly explored the process of player cooperation. The aims of the current study are to identify the models of player cooperation creatg pot situations dependg on the of the setter and evaluate the efficiency of this cooperation. The process of cooperation was analysed by means of praxeological models reproducg the game, considerg the efficiency of the and the surprise effect on the opponent s block. Material and methods. A novel research method was used this study, which is the qualitative study of unique cases. The material analysed was the observation sheets from matches played by the four best teams of the top Polish volleyball league the 2013/14 season. Results. The observations yielded a large amount of data, which enabled us to identify models of cooperation creatg pot situations dependg on the of the setter durg the game. We also evaluated the reliability of the and the effectiveness of surprisg the opponent s block. Conclusions. Each of the teams had a specific model mappg cooperation creatg pot situations dependg on the of the setter on the court. Teams achieve different levels of reliability as well as of the surprise effect on the opponent s block these ter. Key words: volleyball, cooperation, mappg models, creatg pot situations, reliability, Introduction Team games have been some of the most popular sports the world for many years. The variability of, surprisg developments, and unique solutions to the situations durg matches contribute to the fact that team games are eagerly watched and practised by many people the world. Contemporary team games are characterised by dynamic taken by the players on the court relation to the current situation [1]. Team sports games can be regarded as regulators of the terests of the players, who, usg the co-conscious and co-tuitive abilities of actg and teractg the offence as well as counteractg the defence, compete accordg to the rules order to achieve uncerta dividual, common, and opposg goals [2]. The essence of team games is cooperation. The players dividual activities are limited favour of cooperative ones, which are completely dependent on the partners. Volleyball is the only game where activities which are relatively dependent on partners that is those where the presence of partners is not necessary to perform a given action are practically non-existent (the only such action is the serve). For this reason, the successful implementation of the cooperation process determes the level of effectiveness this sport disciple. Cooperative teams can achieve goals that dividual players would not be able to accomplish. There are few studies that have attempted to look at team games a holistic way, the context of cooperation. The contemporary literature presents many issues regardg the effectiveness of the game [3, 4, 5, 6]; however, these papers focus on dividual activities, not takg to account the context of teraction between players. Volleyball is a disciple which cooperation plays the most important role. Each action performed the game is related to the previous one, which is why disciple experts often consider volleyball the most collaborative among all team games. Team sports have different game phases. Panfil [2] has distguished three phases of the game the offence, that is game g, creatg pot situations, and pot scorg, and three phases the defence, namely counteractg game g, counteractg creatg pot situations, and preventg scorg. The phase of creatg pot situations the offence cludes all relatively and absolutely dependent on the partners which make it possible to potentially score pots. Durg pot situations, the setter plays a very important role. Afonso et al. [7] considered this player to be the leader of the phase; after analysg the situation on the court, the setter makes correct decisions so as to surprise the opponent and enable the team to get a pot. The scorg phase is related to the dicator of reliability. High reliability understood as the quotient of all effective and the sum of all taken by the players depends on the way the ball is set as well as on the surprise effect on the opponent. The place where the ball is set by the setter determes the level of the effectiveness of the team s various ways of teractg. Therefore, an attempt was made the current study to identify Copyright 2018 by the Józef Piłsudski University of Physical Education Warsaw, Faculty of Physical Education Download and Date Sport 1/8/19 Biała Podlaska 4:29 AM

2 26 Pol. J. Sport Tourism 2018, 25, the cooperation of players with regard to the, that is the location on the court, of the player actg as the setter. The of the setter, who is the most important player the phase of creatg pot situations, are heavily dependent on the effectiveness of acceptg the serve, cludg on the parabola of the set ball, its direction, the speed of its flight, and the place where it was received. The setter s is therefore very important the context of identifyg models of player cooperation creatg pot situations, and it also determes the level of the reliability of selected ways of cooperation. The cooperation of the players creatg pot situations, takg to account the setter s on the court, has been presented the form of praxeological models mappg team play. Praxeological models are defed as complex objects reflectg complex existg fragments of reality [8]. The cooperation of players the game is a difficult process to identify because of its uniqueness and complexity, which is why presentg it the form of mappg models seems to be reasonable. Praxeological models of the game are based on objectified and reliable observation of the game. The analysis of the current research results has made it possible to present the collected data the form of selected cognitive models. Praxeological game models have already been used the works of other authors [i.a., 9, 10, 11, 12]. The analysis of mappg models allows one to draw appropriate conclusions for sport practice. The models provide a certa scheme and can determe the direction of taken creatg design models, which can be used the games of other sports teams. The aims of the study were to identify and compare models mappg the cooperation of players the phase of creatg pot situations volleyball, takg to account the (that is the location on the court) of the player actg as the setter, along with the evaluation of the efficiency of this cooperation. The efficiency of cooperation was evaluated usg the criterion of the reliability of the made the. In order to be able to accomplish the ma aims of the research, we formulated the followg research questions: 1. Which models of player cooperation were applied creatg the pot situations and how did the models differ dependg on the of the setter on the court? 2. What was the reliability of the achieved by the teams the cooperation models implemented dependg on the of the setter on the court? 3. What was the effectiveness of surprisg the opponent s block dependg on the of the setter on the court? Material and methods The research material consisted of the observations of matches of the followg four top-class men s teams Poland: PGE Skra Bełchatów, Asseco Resovia Rzeszów, Jastrzębski Węgiel, and ZAKSA Kędzierzyn-Koźle. The study focused on players playg the role of the setter, expandg on the research of Mazur and Superlak [13], who analysed the of the setter from PGE Skra Bełchatów,, by examg three more players, that is (Assecor Resovia Rzeszów), (ZAKSA Kędzierzyn-Koźle), and (Jastrzębski Węgiel). The research cluded matches played between these teams the ma season of the top volleyball league Poland 2013/2014. These teams took the four top places the competition. In total, 51 sets were analysed, which 1,529 were observed. We used the research method developed by Panfil and Superlak [14], that is a qualitative study of unique cases. The method is applicable analysg complex, unique, and special entities, and this case, these are teams (practisg volleyball) havg the highest levels of sport performance. The research procedure cluded observg the matches along with recordg particular of the players [13]. For this purpose, the court was divided to zones which players activities were identified (Fig. 1). POSITION 4 POSITION 3 POSITION 0 POSITION 2 POSITION 4 POSITION 3 POSITION 0 POSITION 2 POSITION 5 POSITION 6 POSITION 1 1. Division of the court to s for observation of the setter s [13] In order to record the data, cludg those concerng the identification of the players offensive situations, we used Panfil and Superlak s observation sheets [14] modified by Mazur and Superlak [13]. The sheet comprises quantitative criteria, cludg the number of the (described the two works of Panfil and Superlak [14, 15]), and qualitative criteria, as it contas an assessment of the degree of cooperation efficiency (effective, effective, or counter-effective) (see Tab. 1). Table 1. Observation sheet for recordg data regardg cooperation the [13] Names of Attack after high ball pass Effectiveness of player cooperation All Number of Effective Ineffective Countereffective Block surprise Number of Selection and description of criteria and dicators for cooperation evaluation The criterion for evaluatg the efficiency of cooperation, understood accordance with Panfil [16] as a collection of all the positive qualities of this cooperation, was its effectiveness. Therefore, the assessment of the efficiency of cooperation was made as follows:

3 Pol. J. Sport Tourism 2018, 25, effective action endg with g and scorg a pot; effective action where the game contued, and the was defended; counter-effective action endg with an correct and givg the opponent a pot [13]. Two dicators of the efficiency of players are used this paper: 1) the reliability dex (ARI) calculated usg the followg formula [17]: effective ARI = ; all (effective + effective + counter-effective) 2) the block surprise dex (BSI) calculated as follows [18]: s without opponent s block + s with one player s block BSI =. all s In addition, basic statistical values, that is averages and percentages, were computed. Results The observations of the matches made it possible to record the followg number of for the selected setters: (Jastrzębski Węgiel) 4, (ZAKSA Kędzierzyn-Koźle) 2, (Asseco Resovia Rzeszów) 390, and (PGE Skra Bełchatów) 9. When makg a quantitative evaluation of the of these players, we used an dicator the form of the quotient of the total number of dividual s of all the players and the sum of all taken by them, expressed as a percentage (see Fig. 2). Such a way of presentg the data made it possible to determe the s which the setters usually acted. Confirmg the results of Mazur and Superlak s research [13], the players took the largest number of s 0, 0, and 3, which is why these three items were taken to account the further analysis of the research results. 6% 1% 2% 9% 3% 13% 7% 2% 18% 39% Postion 0 Postion 0' Postion 3 Postion 3' Postion 2 Postion 2' Postion 4 Postion 4' Postion 1 Postion 6 Postion 5 2. Distribution of the percentages of (%) for particular setter s Mappg models of player cooperation the After observg the players and recordg them on the observation sheets (see Tab. 1), we summed up the results and expressed them as percentages. Position 0 on the court, which is often called the zone of the perfect receive by experts the disciple, is where the ball is 2% most often passed after receivg the 7% serve. This was also found to be the case our research, Postion sce 0 it is the 0 6% that the highest number of Postion performed 0' 1% by the setters 2% was recorded. Durg the analysis of the Postion strategy 3 of cooperation 3% this, differences 39% between selected Postion 3' teams were noticed. The most common way of cooperatg Postion the 2 of the 9% teams of P.Z,, and were 1st tempo Postion 2' (quick s played by predomantly Postion middle 4 blockers). In s team, the proportion of these, Postion 4' as compared to all other played this Postion, 1 amounted to as 13% much as 36%. The percentage of this kd Postion 6of cooperation other teams relation to the other Postion 5 played was approximately 31%. 18% Significant differences were also noticeable the use of zone 1, as the team of setter chose this type of cooperation defitely more often compared to the other teams under study (2 of all combi- 2. Distribution of the percentages of (%) for particular setter s nations the ) (see Fig. 3) Percentage 3. Percentage (%) of (%) of played played with setter with 0 setter In 3, even larger differences the creation of pot situations by the teams evaluated were observed. The most similar results were obtaed pipe, their percentage beg 9% all teams. An terestg fact is also the very heavy use of by the team of (46% of all the ) and the frequent use of zone 1 by s team (see Fig. 4) Percentage 4. Percentage (%) of (%) of played played with setter with 3 setter

4 28 Pol. J. Sport Tourism 2018, 25, Position 0 is a place on the court where the distance to the net is at least 1.5 m (see Fig. 1). When analysg the results of the research, we observed significant differences the types of teraction chosen by each setter after the ball was played from this. An terestg fact is the significant number of 1st tempo chosen by player (as many as 44% of all cooperation methods) as well as the small number of zone 2 performed by the team of It is visible that the teams of and most often chose where the so-called left wg (zone 4) was used (see Fig. 5) Percentage (%) of played with setter 0 Models that reproduce player cooperation creatg pot situations allow for identifyg the differences and similarities various ways of cooperatg after the reception of the serve. The results obtaed from the observations were summed up and expressed as percentages. The average percentage distribution of cooperation the was also determed, and it was possible to compare it with the percentage distribution of this cooperation carried out by the teams observed. The results presented the radar charts best show the differences between the teams and make it possible to identify significant differences the phase of creatg pot situations. The only team that significantly distguished itself creatg pot situations from 0 was the team of Referrg to the average distribution of the, this team decided to use and zone 1 more often and used pipe least often. The cooperation of the other teams the was similar and close to the average. More frequent of zone 4 by s team compared to other teams were observed (see Fig. 6). Average distribution 6. Percentage distribution (%) of played 6. Percentage with setter distribution (%) of 0 (with average played distribution) with setter 0 (with average distribution) Analysg the results of the research cludg the of the setters 3, we found large differences the creation of pot situations. Interestgly, each of the teams used one of the much more frequently relation to the average, and each of the teams, this was a different way of cooperation. The greatest similarity among the teams was noted for pipe. In addition, each team had a different model of cooperation the with the setter this (see Fig. 7). Average distribution 7. Percentage distribution (%) of played with setter 3 (with average distribution) 7. Percentage distribution (%) of played with setter 3 (with average distribution) In 0, the number of s team was observed to be above the average value. There was also a small number of of zone 2 s team and very large variation the of zone 4 all teams (between 2 and 41%) (see Fig. 8). Average distribution 8. Percentage distribution (%) of played with setter 0 (with average distribution) Percentage distribution (%) of played with setter 0 (with average distribution) Reliability of cooperation dependg on setter The reliability dex (ARI) used the current study was the quotient of the number of and the sum of all taken by the players expressed as a percentage. In the 0, attention should be paid to the high ARI the zone

5 2 and zone 1 obtaed by s team, amountg to 73% and 81%, respectively. It is worth notg that the high value of the ARI dex was obtaed 1st tempo by M.M s team, bearg md that it was the most commonly used combation this by this team. The lowest reliability dex, apart from beg obtaed by the team of setter, was achieved by the teams zone 4 (see Fig. 9) st tempo Cooperation particular 9. Cooperation reliabilityreliability particular (ARI) with setter (ARI) with setter It 2 is terestg to note the 10 reliability the zone played from by the team of after they , as well as high values of the ARI the pipe com bations of low 78 all teams from this. We also observed of the reliability ob 1st tempo team Zone 4of Zonecomparison 2 Zone 1to taed by the other teams, as well as a low ARI of zone 2 of the teams of 9. Cooperation reliability particular (ARI) with setter to the teams of and players and, contrast 4 0 (see Fig. 10) Cooperation reliability particular (ARI) with setter Cooperation reliability particular (ARI) with setter Effectiveness of opponent block surprise dependg on setter The block surprise dex (BSI) represents all types of coop 33 confused, and their attempts eration where the opponent was 6 3 to counteract were severely hdered. Surprisg an opponent s 2 5 block is a situation which the opponent makes a sgle or double block accurately, that is with a large gap38between play1 4 In 0 0 place. ers (the so-called hole the block ) or the wrong s 0 and 3, the highest opponent block surprise effective3 ness was achieved by s team, and it was 72% and 76%, re2 spectively. The block surprise effect achieved by s team had reliability particular with setter a BSI11.ofCooperation 4, which wasthe highest value of this(ari) dicator of all 1 0 teams after they played from the 0 (see Fig. 12). 8 7 Position Position 3 76 Position 0' 12. Opponent block surprise effectiveness (BSI) particular s Pol. J. Sport Tourism 2018, 25, Cooperation reliability particular (ARI) with setter Position 0 Position 3 Position 0' 12. Opponent block surprise effectiveness (BSI) particular 12. Opponent block surprise effectiveness (BSI) particular s 2 s 10. Cooperation reliability particular (ARI) with setter Cooperation reliability particular (ARI) with setter 3 High reliability all was achieved by the team of setter after playg the 0. On the other hand, s team achieved a low ARI value 1st tempo, despite the fact that it was the most common way of cooperatg this team s. Nevertheless, this team achieved high values of reliability with the use of the wgs and zone 1 (see Fig. 11). Discussion The presented analysis of the research results was aimed at identifyg mappg models which showed the effective cooperation of players creatg pot situations, dependg on the of the setter on the court. A study of unique cases was applied the work. Teams havg the highest level of sport performance (the best teams of the top league Poland) carry out unique activities durg the game, and therefore the use of this method was justified this case. The study examed four teams, each of which has a unique way of functiong the game and a specific model of cooperation the phase of creatg pot situations. A case study based on the technique of observation called shadowg, where the observer describes

6 Pol. J. Sport Tourism 2018, 25, events without terferg with them a direct way, made it possible to create mappg models representg the teams unique ways of cooperatg. The detailed analysis of the research results aimed to duce reflection and dicate the direction of further research on this problem on larger and more diverse research groups (takg to account performance level and gender). Expandg on the research undertaken by Mazur and Superlak [13], we have presented models that mapped the cooperation of four different teams creatg pot situations. The results dicated that the teams differed from each other the choice of the ways of teractg the dependg on the of the setter. Differences were also noted the level of the efficiency of these types of cooperation as well as the effectiveness of surprisg the opponent s block by the g teams. Three s on the court (0, 0, and 3) were chosen for the analysis of the results; these were the s where the most were taken by the setters, which confirmed the fdgs of Mazur and Superlak s analysis [13]. In each of the s, the teams differed the choice of ways to cooperate creatg pot situations. The greatest similarity among the models, cludg the modes of cooperation of the researched teams, except for one case (the team of player ), was noticed after playg from 0. Nevertheless, when we analysed the reliability of various ways of teractg the, the values of the ARI were varied. The analysis of the cooperation of the players the after playg the ball from the 0 and 3 s confirmed that each team had its own unique way of creatg pot situations the. Obviously, there were some similarities the choice of some of the, but it was evident that each team cooperated a specific way, at the same time achievg different effectiveness (noticeable the values of the ARI). The ARI values were strongly related to the surprise effect on the opponent s block (BSI). Surprisg the block makes it possible to achieve high reliability. The effectiveness of surprisg the opponent s block differed the teams examed. The highest values of the BSI were achieved by the teams s which the setters were near the net (s 0 and 3). Significantly lower values were obtaed with the setter 0, that is at least 1.5 m away from the net. This is due to the fact that teams then create more with the use of wg players, and the tempo of this kd of cooperation is also slightly lower. In an analysis of the cooperation model creatg pot situations, the block surprise dex provides very important formation, because it allows for a more accurate analysis of the efficiency of this cooperation, as well as the understandg of the choice of the types of by the setters creatg pot situations. In the contemporary literature, there are few scientific papers that focus on the analysis of the process of player cooperation a team game. We have undertaken an origal attempt to vestigate some of the issues related to creatg pot situations elite volleyball. The research results presented also clude the assessment of the effectiveness of the players the takg to account the of the setter on the court. Many authors have dealt with the effectiveness of the of dividual players performg various functions the game [i.a., 4, 5, 6, 19]. Others have examed the impact of dividual on ws or losses the match [3, 20]. The research that is the most similar to the one presented this article is the analysis of the effectiveness of the with respect of the presence of the setter particular court zones [21, 22] and an attempt to determe the most effective play zone with relation to the type of service and its reception [23]. Another example is the paper by Papadimitriou et al. [24] concerng the impact of receivg a serve on the pace of play and the effectiveness of the. All these works actually refer to the effectiveness of settg the ball the. However, none of these papers takes a holistic view of the process of cooperation between players the or makes an attempt to present the team s activities a holistic and comprehensive manner. The ma purpose of this study was to show unique ways of cooperation practised by high-level teams. In the literature, there is still a lack of papers that would focus on the process of cooperation, present its value, and treat ways of cooperation as a whole, rather than focusg on the effectiveness of dividual. Also, no study was found that would analyse the effectiveness of the players cooperation the with respect to the location of the ball after the serve and thus the of the setter such a detailed manner as was presented this article (11 s were considered). The majority of papers undertake to analyse the settg of the ball the with respect to the origal of the player, accordg to the division to zones resultg from the rules of the game (6 areas of the court). The analysis of the research results presented has led us to conclude that there are differences the ways of creatg pot situations dependg on the of the setter. The identified models of the cooperation of the players the differed from each other, and this serves as an centive for undertakg further research on this problem. Analysg and attemptg to identify models of a larger number of teams may make it possible to create an optimal model of cooperation the dependg on the of the player actg as the setter. Conclusions The research results presented this paper make it possible to conclude that teams that achieve high levels of effectiveness volleyball have specific models of cooperation creatg pot situations with respect to the of the setter the court, and these models are varied. Based on an analysis of the detailed results of the study, the followg answers can be formulated with regard to the research questions: 1. Each team had a specific model of cooperation creatg pot situations with respect to the of the setter on the court. Dependg on the of the setter, the teams used various ways of cooperation the. When the 0 was used, the choices of the combation were most similar to each other. When the setter was s 0 and 3, the variation between the teams was greater. 2. The teams differed terms of the reliability of the implementation of particular when the of the setter on the court was taken to account. 3. When implementg the specific ways of cooperation the, the teams achieved different levels of effectiveness surprisg the opponent s block. The block surprise dices for setter s 0 and 3 (that is under the net) are much higher compared to that of the 0. The team that was found to be the most effective surprisg the opponent s block s 0 and 3 was the team of, and 0, this was the team of This study may enable a more precise formulation of the trag tasks and determation of the goals of the trag process terms of the organisation of cooperation between players creatg pot situations the game. The problem undertaken the study is new and may serve as an centive for carryg out further research this area.

7 Pol. J. Sport Tourism 2018, 25, Literature 1. Panfil R. (2011). The effectiveness of cooperation the team game (pragmatic study of unique cases). Antropomotoryka 21(), Panfil R. (2012). Pragmatics of cooperation team sports. Wrocław: WSZiC. [ Polish] 3. Silva M., Marcelo R., Lacerda D., Joao P.V. (2016). Match analysis volleyball: A systematic review. Montenegr Journal of Sport Science and Medice 5(1), Costa G., Ceccato J.S., de Britto Evangelista B.F., Freire A.B., Silva de Oliveira A., Milistetd M. et al. (2016). Tactic determants of game practiced by middle er men s volleyball. Brazilian Journal of Kanthropometry and Human Performance 18(3), Mesquita I., César B. (2007). Characterisation of the opposite player s from the op block characteristics. An applied study the Athens Olympic games female volleyball teams. International Journal of Performance Analysis Sport 7(2), Marcelo R., Mesquita I., César B., Afonso J. (2008). Attack-tempo and -type as predictors of pot made by opposite players volleyball. World Congress of Performance Analysis of Sport VIII, 3-6 September. 7. Afonso J., Mesquita I., Marcelho R., Silva J.A. (2010). Analysis of the setter s tactical action high-performance women s volleyball. Kesiology, Pszczołowski T. (1978). A small encyclopedia of praxeology and organizational theory. Wrocław: Ossoleum. [ Polish] 9. Panfil R., Paluszek K. (2005). Efficiency models of futsal players activities. In S. Żak, M. Spieszny, T. Klocek (eds), Team games physical education and sport (pp. 2-2). Kraków: AWF Kraków. [ Polish] 10. Becella Ł. (2005). An efficiency model of creatg and usg the situation to score at the European Football Championship In S. Żak, M. Spieszny, T. Klocek (eds), Team games physical education and sport (pp ). Kraków: AWF Kraków. [ Polish] 11. Nowak M. (2014). Positiong skills the game of tennis. A pragmatic study of rare cases. Rozprawy Naukowe AWF Wrocław 44, [ Polish] 12. Nowak M., Panfil R. (2012). Scorg abilities the game of tennis A pragmatic study of unique cases. Human Movement 13(4), Mazur L., Superlak E. (2015). Organization and efficiency of cooperation abilities durg phase dependg on setter on the court a volleyball game. Rozprawy Naukowe AWF Wrocław 51, [ Polish] 14. Panfil R., Superlak E. (2011). Strategies for usg teraction skills creatg pot situations (a pragmatic study of a volleyball game). Antropomotoryka 21(53), Panfil R., Superlak E. (2012). The relationships between the effectiveness of team play and the sportg level of a team. Human Movement 13(2), Panfil R. (2008). Effective coachg of task teams based on the example of sports teams. Wrocław: University School of Physical Education Wrocław. [ Polish] 17. Superlak E. (2005). Setter situational action analysis. Biuletyn szkoleniowy PZPS 1, 4-8. [ Polish] 18. Superlak E., Wojtyczka M. (2011). Evaluation of players cooperation abilities the the Polish men s national volleyball team. Rozprawy Naukowe AWF Wrocław 32, [ Polish] 19. Rentero L., Joao P.V., Moreno M.P. (2015). Analysis of the fluence of the libero different phases of game volleyball. Revista Internacional de Medica y Ciencias de la Actividad Fisica y del Deporte 15(), Hayren M., Hoivala T., Blomqvist M. (2004). Differences between wng and losg teams men s European toplevel volleyball. Conference: Performance Analysis of Sport VI, Belfast. 21. Palao J.M., Santos J.A., Ureña A. (2005). Effect of setter s on the spike volleyball. Journal of Human Movement Studies 48(1), Silva M., Lacerda D., Joao P.V. (2013). Match analysis of discrimation skills accordg to the setter zone high level volleyball. International Journal of Performance Analysis Sport 13, Afonso J., Esteves F., Araújo R., Thomas L., Mesquita I. (2012). Tactical determants of settg zone elite men s volleyball. Journal of Sports Science and Medice 11, Papadimitriou K., Pashali E., Sermaki I., Mellas S., Papas M. (2004). The effect of the opponents serve on the offensive of Greek setters volleyball game. International Journal of Performance Analysis Sport 4(1), Submitted: October, 2017 Accepted: March 7, 2018