Modern volleyball aspects

Modern volleyball aspects

Table of contents Aims 3 Introduction 4 Part 1 Men s volleyball of top level. Main indicators 5 Part 2 Women s volleyball of top level. Main indicators 29 Part 3 Men s and Women s top volleyball comparison 47 Part 4 2012-2016 Olympic Games data in comparison 54 Part 5 New indicator net crossings (2008,2012,2016 Olympic Games 60 comparison) Part 6 Match and set duration 62 Conclusions 66 Appendix Tables 67 Page 2

The aims of this project are as follows: AIMS 1. To investigate and collect data on critical indicators of the game. 2. To compare the data for 2015-16 with previous data. 3. To contrast specifically the data obtained for the Rio Olympics with that of the London Olympics. 3

Introduction This year, as well as for the previous 10 years since 2006, and in line with the permanent monitoring of Volleyball development trends and evolution, the scientific research of the main Game indicators for the top level men s and women s teams (Joint project of the Rules of the Game and Refereeing Commissions Picture of the Game ) is foreseen as one of the most important tasks. It is also of significant relevance to our abilities to create a product which can be marketed world-wide. The results of this scientific statistical research are regularly reported to the FIVB President and always generate a positive response to its value. This was again confirmed during the last Joint meeting of RGC&IRC in January, 2016. The FIVB President strongly supported the idea that any changes in Volleyball must be based on sustainable scientific research. Here in aims 1 and 2 the statistical results are strong as the sample size was sufficient to guarantee validity of the findings. The comparators for London and Rio (aim 3) are less strong due to a reduced sample size nevertheless the results for this comparison are reinforced by the different indicators telling the same story. Taking into consideration the latest FIVB innovations: modern technology (new Hawk-eye challenge, tablets, headsets, etc.), measures for shortening intervals between rallies and the adaptation of match duration to the demands of TV, the results of the research reflect not only the dynamic of volleyball trends, but also their degree of influence on volleyball development. In terms of structure, the report is divided into six parts or chapters. The reason for this is that in reality we have more than one sport of volleyball; while sharing the same rules, the men s and women s games show distinct characteristics of their own. In chapters one and two, the various aspects of the game are treated separately, while in chapter three the men s and women s games are compared and contrasted in the key areas which define our sport. In part 4, the focus becomes the comparison between the Olympic Games of London and the games of Rio de Janeiro. Here we hope to determine if in the key areas, the game has progressed or if there are aspects we should look at before we have to look at them. In part 5, we have identified a new parameter to highlight net crossings. While we can see from our existing studies the length in time for the average rally, and may conclude that if it is shorter than before, then there is something wrong with the dynamic of the game. This would see at odds with a further statistic which reveals more ball contacts in the same time frame. If we then say that the play is faster and more dynamic, what evidence do we have to back up this premise? Hence by augmenting our existing studies with new data looking at net crossings we can see exactly what the increased athleticism and speed of the game is doing to the one aspect which we all relate to: exciting rallies where the ball crosses the net several times. The new indicator compares matches from the Olympic Finals from 2008, 2012, and 2016, in order to determine the trend in this excitement indicator over the period. Part 6 deals specifically with match duration. Finally, there is a summary of findings and recommendations, based on the previous analysis. Sergey Titov, Picture of the Game project leader Sandy Steel, Picture of the Game project analyst 4

Part 1. Men s volleyball of top level. Main indicators. 5

Part 1. Men s volleyball of top level. Main indicators On the basis of 2016 FIVB World League final tournament (Krakov, Poland, 13-17.07.2016) the following statistical data reflecting the main volleyball indicators and has been obtained: 1. Rally duration Average rally duration 5,51 sec. Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6,9 sec. Dynamic of a rally duration indicator 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Average rally duration Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Average rally duration 5,5 4,9 5,8 5,9 5,5 5,4 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 7 6,8 6,6 7,6 6,8 7,2 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Average rally duration 5,4 5,7 5,52 5,51 5,51 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6,9 7 6,8 6,59 6,9 Variability of a rally duration indicator 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Average rally duration Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 7

BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA Average rally duration 5,07 5,43 5,32 5,33 5,57 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6,38 6,92 6,67 6,75 6,96 SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA Average rally duration 5,51 6,34 5,69 5,38 5,08 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6,78 7,8 6,88 6,54 6,45 Comment: Rally duration is one of the key Game indicators. This has been very stable during the last 10 years, and especially over the last 3 years, despite of all our efforts to increase it. The variability between different matches is small and therefore not significant. In order to change it towards greater rally prolongation, it may be necessary to make changes involving further ball handling liberalization (perhaps some liberalization of the second team hit, for example, or a more strict view of the 1 st hit reception may be required). If the pseudo-rallies factor (i.e. rallies involving only service) can be completely eliminated, it is believed that average rally duration will extend by more than one second. See recommendations at the end of the report. 2. Flying ball Flying ball 15,43% from total duration of all sets, OR 13,05% from total match time 15% Rallies time All sets duration 85% 8

Dynamic of a flying ball indicator 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Portion of rallies time in sets duration time From total duration of all sets From total match time From total duration of all sets From total match time 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 18% 15% 17% 17% 15,7% 16,0% --- --- 15,6% 15,5% 14,5% 14,6% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 17,6% 16% 15,2% 14,68% 15,43% 15,3% 14% 14,2% 13,42% 13,05% 9

Variability of a flying ball indicator 18% 17% 17% 16% 16% 15% 15% 14% 14% 13% 13% Portion of rallies time in sets duration time Portion of rallies time in sets duration time Portion of rallies time in sets duration time BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA 14,16% 16,25% 15,07% 14,87% 15,12% SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA 16,94% 16,12% 14,55% 15,63% 14,91% Comment: This is a crucial indicator for volleyball taking into consideration the FIVB motto: Keep the ball flying. From match to match the indicator varies not more than 3 %, but is clearly variable, ranging from 14.16 to 16.94 in the matches studied, and clearly depends on a variety of factors, not least the teams playing and their individual tactics. There is a small trend within the last 10 years showing a reduction in the flying ball time. The new (old) net touch rule and Challenge system possibly also contributed to this trend. This is perhaps the lowest level of active playing time among comparable team sports using a ball. In order to correct this situation it is necessary to consider changes in Game structure or the fixed game interruptions (like changing format, or reducing all interruptions TA, TTO, time between sets, etc.) 3. Portion of pseudo-rallies (ace or service fault, about 1 sec.) 23% Pseudorallies 22,97% 77% Rallies 10

Dynamic of pseudo-rallies indicator 30% 25% 20% Portion of pseudo-rallies 15% 10% 5% 0% Variability of pseudo-rallies indicator 30% 25% 20% 15% Portion of pseudorallies 10% 5% 0% 11

Portion of pseudo-rallies Portion of pseudo-rallies BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA 24,24% 25,12% 23,46% 24,62% 23,32% SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA 21,9% 20,85% 20,29% 21,58% 25,18% Comment: This indicator was very unstable during the last decade, but relatively stable within the last 4 years (between 20% and 25 %). The main reason for having a high percentage of pseudo-rallies has been the increase in the very risky jump service, due to the fact that the less risky service (less power) will most likely lead to the successful attack by the receiving team, who will then win the rally at the first attempt. One of the possible ways to decrease the need for and percentage of risky power jump services is to consider how to ensure that there is not always a very good reception after the floating service (in order to generate a less powerful attack). In other words, we really need the serving team to win the rally this means reducing the risk of a service failure; this is where the reception should be weakened. The overhand reception creates the wrong conditions from our point of view. While we are unlikely to see this modified in the foreseeable future, some new ball structure which allows service swerve over a long distance (12 metres) but which flies true over a short distance (6-8 metres) should be considered to benefit the rally. 4. One attack rally out of all rallies (without pseudo-rallies) 2016 value: 52,97% Two and more attack rally 53% 47% One attack rally 12

Dynamic of one attack rally indicator 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Portion of one attack rallies Linear (Portion of one attack rallies) 20% 10% 0% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 One attack rally 75% 73% 63% 68% 66% 68% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 One attack rally 55% 52% 52,3% 52,22% 52,97% 13

Variability of one attack rally indicator 60% 58% 56% 54% 52% 50% 48% 46% 44% 42% Portion of one attack rallies Portion of one attack rallies Portion of one attack rallies BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA 53,03% 48,34% 53,63% 51,76% 50,67% SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA 55,71% 51,18% 57% 57,55% 52,52% Comment: This indicator was relatively stable during the past 4 years (52%-53%). There was an obvious trend of reducing the portion of one-attack rallies. The variability of this indicator in different matches is +/- 5%. (i.e. it depends very much on which teams are playing, their abilities and tactics). 24% 5. One and less attack rallies out of all rallies (with pseudo-rallies). Two and more attack rally One and less attack rally 76% 14

Dynamic of one and less attack rallies indicator 85% 80% 75% Portion of one and less attack rallies 70% 65% 60% 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 One and less attack rally One and less attack rally 79% 81% 68% 76% 73% 76% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 76% 74,5% 73,8% 74,81% 75,94% 15

Variability of one attack rally indicator 80% 78% 76% 74% 72% 70% 68% Portion of one and less attack rallies Portion of one and less attack rallies Portion of one and less attack rallies BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA 77,27% 73,46% 77,09% 76,38% 73,99% SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA 77,61% 72,03% 77,29% 79,13% 77,7% Comment: This has been a relatively stable indicator over the last 8 years (73%-76%). The variability of this indicator in different matches is between 72% and 79% that means +/- 3,5 %. Practically it means that out from 4 rallies, only one rally consists of more than one attack (long rally). This last comment is key to our understanding of the game dynamic and of our willingness to search for ways to make the game more attractive to a public which demands long rallies and spectacular defensive play. 16

6. Average number of ball contacts during one rally (without pseudorallies) 2016 Value: 6,5 Dynamic of ball contacts indicator 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 Ball contacts during a rally 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Average number of ball contacts during one rally Average number of ball contacts during one rally 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 4,5 4,6 4,7 5,4 4,7 4,9 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 5,7 6,7 6,4 6,6 6,5 17

Variability of ball contacts indicator 8.00 Ball 7.00 contacts 6.00 during a rally 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 Ball contacts during a rally Ball contacts during a rally BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA 6,12 6,63 6,44 6,55 6,55 SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA 6,34 7,35 6,44 6,23 6,25 Comment: This has been a relatively stable indicator over the last 4 years (6,4-6,7 contacts per rally on average). There is a clear trend of increasing the number of ball contacts in each rally during the last decade. This trend means that the game has become faster and the players nowadays are able to make more technical actions within one rally. The variability of this indicator in different matches is not significant (between 6,12 and 7,35). 18

7. Structure of rallies 23% 24% pseudo-rallies One attack rally More than one attack rally 53% Dynamic of structure of rallies indicator Pseudo-rallies One attack rallies More than one attack rallies 19

Pseudo-rallies One attack rallies More than one attack rallies Pseudo-rallies One attack rallies More than one attack rallies 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 21% 28% 12% 23% 20% 26% 59% 52% 56% 53% 53% 50% 20% 20% 32% 24% 27% 24% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 25% 22% 21,5% 21,59% 22,97% 55% 52% 52,3% 50,03% 52,97% 20% 26% 26,2% 28,38% 24,06% Variability of structure of rallies indicator Pseudo-rallies One attack rallies More than one attack rallies 20

Pseudo-rallies One attack rallies More than one attack rallies Pseudo-rallies One attack rallies More than one attack rallies BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA 24,24% 25,12% 23,46% 24,62% 23,32% 53,03% 48,34% 53,63% 51,76% 50,67% 22,73% 26,54% 22,91% 23,62% 26,01% SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA 21,91% 20,86% 20,29% 21,58% 25,18% 55,71% 51,18% 57,01% 57,56% 52,52% 22,38% 27,96% 22,7% 20,86% 22,3% Comment: There has been more or less a stable structure of rallies within the last 4 years. The variability of this indicator in different matches is small. It is interesting that generally the percentage of pseudo-rallies is very close to the percentage of long rallies (more than one attack). 21

8. Attack-defence balance* 2016 Value: 2 * number of rallies won on the opponent service divided on number of rallies won on own service Remark: attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies is 1,8 Dynamic of attack-defence balance indicator 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Attackdefence balance Attack-defence balance Attack-defence balance 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 3 2,3 2,02 2,2 2,45 2,02 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2,09 1,85 2,18 2 2 22

Variability of attack-defence balance indicator 4 3 2 Attackdefence balance 1 0 BRA- ITA POL- FRA POL- SRB USA- ITA BRA- USA SRB- FRA SRB- ITA FRA- BRA SRB- BRA FRA- ITA Attack-defence balance Attack-defence balance BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA 1,73 1,93 2,03 2,21 2,1 SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA 2,23 1,76 1,83 1,67 2,16 Comment: Here the long term trend is positive the imbalance between attack and defense is shortening (from a high point of 3 down to a more acceptable 2). In 2016, as in 2015, this indicator shows no change - i.e. it maintains the value of 2 quoted above. The variability of this indicator in different matches is significantly large +/- 0,28. The current state of this indicator means that in men s volleyball there is still a significant imbalance between attack and defense, and if a team receives a service, most likely (in two out of three cases) this team will win this rally. Current very soft and liberal service reception criteria are likely to be the main factor in creating this imbalance (see above). Another factor likely to contribute to this imbalance is keeping the same net height (2,43 m.) during almost 70 years while at the top level the players average height and physical conditions have increased significantly (although a high spike is usually met with a high block, making the net irrelevant in most cases, and the cost world wide of changing this would mitigate against the average federation s ability to promote the game). 23

9. Portion of rallies won on own service 33,67% 34% Rally won on own service 66% Rally won on opponent service Remark: portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies is 35,58% Dynamic of portion of rallies won on own service indicator 24

37 36 35 34 33 32 31 30 29 28 27 26 25 Picture of the Game - 2016 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Portion of rallies won on own service (%) 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Portion of rallies won on own service Portion of rallies won on own service 30% 33% 31% 29% 33% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 33% 36% 31,65% 33,53% 33,67% Variability of portion of rallies won on own service indicator 25

38 Picture of the Game - 2016 37 36 35 34 33 32 Portion of rallies won on own service (%) 31 30 BRA- ITA POL- FRA POL- SRB USA- ITA BRA- USA SRB- FRA SRB- ITA FRA- BRA SRB- BRA FRA- ITA Portion of rallies won on own service Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudorallies Portion of rallies won on own service Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudorallies BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA 36,36% 34,12% 32,96% 31,15% 32,29% 39% 38,61% 32,85% 32,67% 33,33% SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA 30,95% 36,02% 35,26% 37,41% 31,65% 33,54% 37,12% 36,36% 36,7% 37,5% Comment: Again this is a stable indicator with no significant rising trend on average within the last decade. The variability of this indicator in different matches is +/- 3%. This indicator explains why the captains usually choose a reception during a toss before match. (Again, see above different indicators pointing to the same conclusion). 10. Portion of aces after jump service 2016 value: 7,56% 26

Dynamic of portion of aces after jump service indicator 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 2013 2014 2015 2016 Portion of aces after Jump service (%) 2013 2014 2015 2016 Portion of aces after jump service 5,7% 5,3% 6,25% 7,56% Variability of portion of aces after jump service indicator 27

15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 BRA- ITA POL- FRA POL- SRB USA- ITA Picture of the Game - 2016 BRA- USA SRB- FRA SRB- ITA FRA- BRA SRB- BRA FRA- ITA Portion of aces after jump service (%) Portion of aces after jump service Portion of aces after jump service BRA-ITA POL-FRA POL-SRB USA-ITA BRA-USA 8,91% 7,25% 11,11% 7,94% 8,64% SRB-FRA SRB-ITA FRA-BRA SRB-BRA FRA-ITA 3,82% 6,25% 8,02% 10,91% 3,53% Comment: The calculation of this indicator still has a short history. Over the last 4 years this indicator has stayed relatively stable, at around 5-7 %. The variability of this indicator in different matches is large, however (3,5% - 11,1%). 28

Part 2. Women s volleyball of top level. Main indicators. 29

Part 2. Women s volleyball of top level. Main indicators. On the basis of the FIVB World Grand Prix final matches in Bangkok (Thailand) 06-10.07.2016 the following statistical data reflecting the main volleyball indicators for women s volleyball has been obtained for comparison with previous editions: 1. Rally duration * Average rally duration 7,25 sec. * Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 8,25 sec. Dynamic of rally duration indicator 9 8.5 8 7.5 Average rally duration 7 6.5 2014 2015 2016 6 2014 2015 2016 Average rally duration 7,67 7,48 7,25 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 8,6 8,46 8,25 Variability of rally duration indicator 30

10 9 8 7 6 Average rally duration Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 5 USA- NED THA- BRA CHN- NED RUS- BRA USA- CHN THA- RUS BRA- NED USA- RUS NED- RUS USA- BRA THA- CHN 4 USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS Average rally duration 7,32 7,56 7,58 6,64 7,52 7,77 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 8,42 8,65 8,99 7,57 8,28 8,6 BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Average rally duration 6,89 7,17 7,35 6,54 7,44 Comment: Rally duration is one of the key Game indicators. This has been very stable in the women s game during the last 3 years (difference within 0,5 sec.) The variability between different matches is also very not significant (+/- 0,6 sec.) 2. Flying ball 20,8% from total duration of all sets OR 19,06% from total match time 21% Rallies time Dynamic of flying 79% All sets duration ball indicator 31

2014 2015 2016 21.00% 20.90% 20.80% 20.70% Portion of rallies time in sets duration time 20.60% 20.50% 20.40% 20.30% 20.20% 2014 2015 2016 From total duration of all 20,89% 20,44% 20,8% sets From total match time 18,95% 18,44% 19,06% Variability of flying ball indicator USA- NED THA- BRA CHN- NED RUS- BRA USA- CHN THA- RUS BRA- NED USA- RUS NED- RUS USA- THA- BRA CHN 23% 22% 21% 20% 19% 18% Portion of rallies time in sets duration time 17% 32

Portion of rallies time in sets duration time Portion of rallies time in sets duration time USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS 20,30% 20,29% 20,71% 19,35% 21,79% 21,77% BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN 20,82% 21,30% 20,19% 19,83% 22,55% Comment: This is a crucial indicator for volleyball, taking into consideration the FIVB motto: Keep the ball flying. This indicator varies up and down only to an insignificant level(+/- 0,3 %). The variability of this indicator is different in observed matches over the range +/- 1,6 %. 3. Portion of pseudo-rallies (ace or service fault, about 1 sec.) 13,66 % 14% Pseudo-rallies Rallies 86% 33

Dynamic of pseudo-rallies indicator 2014 2015 2016 14.00% 13.50% 13.00% Portion of pseudorallies 12.50% 12.00% 11.50% 11.00% 2014 2015 2016 Portion of pseudorallies 12,79% 12,01% 13,66% Variability of pseudo-rallies indicator USA- NED THA- BRA CHN- NED RUS- BRA USA- CHN THA- RUS BRA- NED USA- RUS NED- RUS USA- BRA THA- CHN 18% 17% 16% 15% 14% 13% Portion of pseudorallies 12% 11% 10% 9% 8% 34

Portion of pseudo-rallies Portion of pseudo-rallies Picture of the Game - 2016 USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS 15,44% 14,17% 15,66% 14,06% 10,49% 10,96% BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN 14,39% 15,91% 10,96% 16,67% 11,28% Comment: The dynamic of this indicator during the last 3 years is within 1,67 % (down and up). The variability of this indicator in different observed matches is +/- 3,09 % (This is a large variation but clearly depends on the identity of the teams playing). 4. One attack rally out of all rallies (without pseudo-rallies). 2016 value: 52,03% 52% 48% Two and more attack rally One attack rally Dynamic of one attack rally indicator 2014 2015 2016 54.00% 52.00% 50.00% 48.00% 46.00% Portion of one attack rallies 44.00% 42.00% 40.00% 38.00% 35

Variability of one attack rally indicator USA- NED THA- BRA CHN- NED RUS- BRA USA- CHN THA- RUS BRA- NED USA- RUS NED- RUS USA- BRA THA- CHN 70% 65% 60% 55% Portion of one attack 50% 45% 40% 2014 2015 2016 One attack rally 43,59% 48,93% 52,03% Portion of one attack rallies Portion of one attack rallies USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS 44,85% 46,45% 48,50% 57,03% 51,75% 51,37% BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN 64,60% 50,76% 58,97% 48,04% 49,62% Comment: This indicator had a positive dynamic within the last 3 years (+ 9 %). There was an obvious trend of increasing the portion of one-attack rallies contrary to the men s volleyball. The variability of this indicator in different observed matches is +/- 10 % (significant). This may be because the women are also increasing in height significantly and the reception issues mentioned above for the men appears to be happening also in the women s game: reception is too easy, making the first attack decisive and thus reducing the chance of a longer rally. 36

5. One and less attack rally 65,69% of all rallies (with pseudo-rallies). 34% 66% Two and more attack rally One and less attack rally Dynamic of one and less attack rally indicator 2014 2015 2016 68.00% 66.00% 64.00% 62.00% 60.00% 58.00% 56.00% 54.00% 52.00% 50.00% Portion of one and less attack rallies 2014 2015 2016 One and less attack rally 55,49% 60,94% 65,69% 37

Variability of one and less attack rally indicator USA- NED THA- CHN- RUS- USA- THA- BRA- USA- NED- USA- THA- BRA NED BRA CHN RUS NED RUS RUS BRA CHN 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% Portion of one and less attack rallies Portion of one and less attack rallies Portion of one and less attack rallies USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS 60,29% 60,63% 64,16% 71,09% 62,24% 62,33% BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN 78,99% 66,67% 69,93% 64,70% 60,90% Comment: This indicator had a positive dynamic within the last 3 years (+ 10 %). There was an obvious trend of increasing the portion of one and fewer attack rallies. The variability of this indicator in different observed matches is +/- 9,5 % (significant). (See previous comment). 6. Average number of ball contacts during one rally 7,56 (without pseudo-rallies) Dynamic of contacts indicator 38

2014 2015 2016 8.00 7.90 7.80 7.70 7.60 Ball contacts during a rally 7.50 7.40 7.30 Average number of ball contacts during one rally 2014 2015 2016 7,9 7,72 7,56 Variability of ball contacts indicator 8.50 8.00 7.50 7.00 Ball contacts during a rally 6.50 6.00 39

Ball contacts during a rally Ball contacts during a rally USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS 7,81 8,09 8,13 6,83 7,93 7,61 BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN 7,19 7,53 7,15 7,33 7,63 Comment: This indicator had a slight negative dynamic within the last 3 years (- 0,34). The variability of this indicator in different observed matches is +/- 0,63. 7. Structure of rallies * Pseudo-rallies 13,66% * One attack rally 52,03% * More than one attack rally 34,31% Total: 100 % 34.31 13.66 pseudo rallies One attack rally 52.03 More than one attack rally 40

Dynamic of structure of rallies indicator 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% Pseudo-rallies One attack rallies More than one attack rallies 10.00% 0.00% 2014 2015 2016 Variability of structure of rallies indicator 41

70.00% 60.00% 50.00% 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% USA- NED THA- BRA CHN- NED RUS- BRA USA- CHN THA- RUS BRA- NED USA- RUS NED- RUS USA- BRA THA- CHN Pseudorallies One attack rallies More than one attack rallies USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS Pseudo-rallies 15,44% 14,17% 15,66% 14,06% 10,49% 10,96% One attack rallies 44,85% 46,45% 48,50% 57,03% 51,75% 51,37% More than one attack rallies 39,70% 39,37% 35,84% 28,91% 37,76% 37,67% BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN Pseudo-rallies 14,39% 15,91% 10,96% 16,67% 11,28% One attack rallies 64,60% 50,76% 58,97% 48,04% 49,62% More than one attack rallies 21,01% 33,33% 30,07% 35,29% 39,10% Comment: Contrary to the men s volleyball where the percentage of pseudo-rallies is very close to the percentage of long rallies (where there is more than one attack), in women s volleyball the proportion of long rallies is 2,5 times bigger than the proportion of pseudorallies. This is a good indicator of the health of the game. 42

8. Attack-defence balance* 2016 value: 1,64 * number of rallies won on the opponent service divided on number of rallies won on own service Remark: attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies is 1,61 Dynamic of attack-defense balance indicator 2 1.5 1 0.5 1.5 1.47 1.64 0 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Attack-defence balance 1,5 1,47 1,64 43

Variability of attack-defense balance indicator 3 2 Attackdefenc e balance 1 0 USA- NED THA- BRA CHN- NED RUS- BRA USA- CHN THA- RUS BRA- NED USA- RUS NED- RUS USA- BRA THA- CHN Attack-defence balance Attack-defence balance USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS 1,61 1,49 1,11 1,56 1,31 1,32 BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN 2 1,75 1,77 2,34 1,61 Comment: In the last 3 year period, this has shown to be a relatively stable indicator with only a small trend towards imbalance (from 1,5 to 1,64). The variability of this indicator in different matches is quite large, however, at +/- 0,62 (more than twice the variability in men s volleyball). 9. Portion of rallies won on own service 40,87% 41% 59% Rally won on own service Rally won on opponent service 44

Remark: portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies is 40,93%. Dynamic of portion of rallies won on own service indicator 2014 2015 2016 41.19% 40.87% 40.66% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 41% 40% 40% Portion of rallies won on own service 2014 2015 2016 Portion of rallies won on own service 41,19% 40,66% 40,87% Variability of portion of rallies won on own service indicator Portion of rallies won on own service Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudorallies Portion of rallies won on own service Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudorallies USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS 38,23% 40,16% 44,95% 39,06% 43,36% 43,15% 39,13% 41,28% 41,92% 37,27% 42,97% 45,38% BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN 66,67% 36,36% 36,07% 29,90% 38,34% 65,49% 35,13% 37,43% 30,00% 40,68% 45

Comment: This has been a stable indicator within the last 3 years (+/- 0,27 %). The variability of this indicator in different matches is +/- 18,4 % (very big comparing with men s volleyball). This is a value over the period of the study which is much better than in the men s game. 10. Portion of aces after jump service 1,63 % Dynamic of portion of aces after jump service indicator 2014 2015 2016 2.57% 2.07% 1.63% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% Portion of aces after jump service 2014 2015 2016 Portion of aces after jump service 2,57% 2,07% 1,63% Variability of portion of aces after jump service indicator Portion of aces after jump service Portion of aces after jump service USA-NED THA-BRA CHN-NED RUS-BRA USA-CHN THA-RUS 0,00% 0,00% 5,55% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% BRA-NED USA-RUS NED-RUS USA-BRA THA-CHN 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 0,00% 12,50% Comment: The calculation of this indicator, like in men s volleyball, still has a short history. Over the last 3 years, this indicator has shown itself to be stable (varying only +/- 0,47 %). The variability of this indicator in different matches is, however, considerable (varying from 0,0 % to a massive 12,5 %) and may reflect differing training regimes for the teams involved, and different physical condition for the individual players. 46

Part 3 Men s and Women s top volleyball comparison 47

Part 3 Men s and Women s top volleyball comparison Table 1 N Indicator Men Women 1 Average rally duration (sec.) 5,5 7,3 2 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies (sec.) 6,9 8,3 3 Flying ball from total duration of all sets (%) 15,4 20,8 4 Flying ball from total match time (%) 13,1 19,1 5 Portion of pseudo-rallies (ace or service fault, about 23,0 13,7 6 1 sec.) (%) Structure of rallies Pseudo-rallies (%) 23 14 One attack rallies (%) 53 52 More than one attack rallies (%) 24 34 6,5 7,6 7 Average number of ball contacts during one rally (without pseudo-rallies) 8 Attack-defence balance 2 1,64 9 Attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies 1,8 1,61 10 Portion of rallies won on own service (%) 33,7 40,9 11 Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudorallies 35,6 40,9 (%) 12 Portion of aces after jump service (%) 7,6 1,6 1. Average rally duration (sec.) 1 48

8 7 7.3 6 5.5 5 4 3 2 1 0 Women Men 1 with pseudo-rallies Comment: There are longer rallies in women s volleyball. Difference: 1,8 sec. 2. Active playing time portion ( flying ball ) 2 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Women 19.10% 13.10% Men 2 from total match duration Comment: There is considerably more flying ball time in women s volleyball. The difference between men s and women s volleyball is: 6,0 % 3. Average number of ball contacts during one rally 3 49

7.6 7.4 7.2 7 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 6 5.8 Women 7.6 6.5 Men 3 without pseudo-rallies. Comment: There are more ball contacts in women s volleyball. Difference: 1,1 4. Pseudo-rallies portion 4 25% 23.00% 20% 15% 13.70% 10% 5% 0% Women Men 4 from total number of all rallies Comment: There is a smaller proportion of pseudo-rallies in women s volleyball. The difference: 9,3 % 50

5. One attack rallies 53% 53% 53% 52% 52% 52% 52% 52% 51% Women 52.0% 53.00% Men Comment: Despite appearances (graph above) there is or less the same proportion of one attack rallies in both men s and women s volleyball. The difference: just 1,0 % 6. Two and more-attack rallies 35% 34.00% 30% 25% 24.00% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Women Men Comment: More long rallies in women s volleyball. i.e. there is more 2 nd phase play and more net crossings, because the first attack for women is not so decisive. Difference: 10,0 %. 51

7. General structure of all rallies Picture of the Game - 2016 34 14 24% 23% pseudo rallies pseudo-rallies 52 One attack rally More than one attack rally 53% One attack rally More than one attack rally Women Men Comment: The difference in rally structure can be explained by considering only the pseudo rallies and the long rallies, whereas the portion of one attack rallies remains practically the same. 8. Portion of rallies won on own service 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Women 40.90% 33.70% Men Comment: In women s volleyball there are more chances for a team to win a rally after its own service. Difference: 7,2 %. 52

9. Attack-defence balance 5 1,64 2,0 Women Men 5 number of rallies won on the opponent service divided on number of rallies won on own service Comment: Women s volleyball is much more balanced regarding power of attack and ability to play in defence. Difference: 0,36. This may not sound a lot but it is in fact a considerable difference in favour of the women. 53

Part 4 2012-2016 Olympic Games data in comparison 54

Average rally duration (sec.) 1 Picture of the Game - 2016 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 with pseudo-rallies MEN - 2012 London OG 5.5 5.5 MEN - 2016 Rio OG 7.4 7.2 7 6.8 6.6 6.4 6.2 7.3 WOMEN - 2012 London OG 6.6 WOMEN - 2016 Rio OG Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies (sec.) 6.9 6.9 8 8 6.85 7.9 6.8 6.8 7.8 7.8 6.75 MEN - 2012 London OG MEN - 2016 Rio OG 7.7 WOMEN - 2012 London OG WOMEN - 2016 Rio OG Flying ball from total duration of all sets (%) 20 15 19.9 16.2 23 22 23 10 21 20.4 5 20 0 MEN - 2012 London OG MEN - 2016 Rio OG 19 WOMEN - 2012 London OG WOMEN - 2016 Rio OG 55

Flying ball from total match time (%) 18 17 16 15 14 13 17.4 MEN - 2012 London OG 14.8 MEN - 2016 Rio OG 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 21.8 WOMEN - 2012 London OG 18.5 WOMEN - 2016 Rio OG Portion of pseudo-rallies (ace or service fault, about 1 sec.) (%) 25 24 23 22 21 20 24.4 MEN - 2012 London OG 22.1 MEN - 2016 Rio OG 20 15 10 5 0 10.2 WOMEN - 2012 London OG 17.5 WOMEN - 2016 Rio OG Structure of rallies men (%) 25.4 24.4 25% 22% pseudo rallies pseudo-rallies 50.2 One attack rally More than one attack rally 53% One attack rally More than one attack rally Men 2012 London OG Men 2016 Rio OG 56

Structure of rallies women (%) 35 10 17% pseudo rallies 34% pseudo-rallies 55 One attack rally More than one attack rally 49% One attack rally More than one attack rally Women 2012 London OG Women 2016 Rio OG Average number of ball contacts during one rally (without pseudo-rallies) 6.6 6.55 6.5 6.6 6.5 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.1 7.5 7.2 6.45 MEN - 2012 London OG MEN - 2016 Rio OG 7 WOMEN - 2012 London OG WOMEN - 2016 Rio OG 57

Attack-defence balance 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 1.9 2.3 1.8 1.75 1.7 1.7 1.8 0 MEN - 2012 London OG MEN - 2016 Rio OG 1.65 WOMEN - 2012 London OG WOMEN - 2016 Rio OG Attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 1.6 MEN - 2012 London OG 2.1 MEN - 2016 Rio OG 1.7 1.65 1.6 1.55 1.6 WOMEN - 2012 London OG 1.7 WOMEN - 2016 Rio OG Portion of rallies won on own service (%) 30 30 37.2 37.1 29.5 29 29 37 36.8 36.6 36.7 28.5 MEN - 2012 London OG MEN - 2016 Rio OG 36.4 WOMEN - 2012 London OG WOMEN - 2016 Rio OG 58

Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies (%) 35 34 33 32 35 32.6 38 37 36 35 34 35 37.3 31 MEN - 2012 London OG MEN - 2016 Rio OG 33 WOMEN - 2012 London OG WOMEN - 2016 Rio OG Portion of aces after jump service (%) 10 8 6 4 2 8.5 6 8 6 4 2 3.2 7.1 0 MEN - 2012 London OG MEN - 2016 Rio OG 0 WOMEN - 2012WOMEN - 2016 Rio London OG OG Comment: while the statistical basis of this comparison is not perfect, there is the inescapable fact that % flying ball in Rio was significantly down compared to London. It has already been alluded to that between the two Games, the net rule changed and the Challenge system was introduced. This needs to be born in mind when evaluating not just the game itself but those two factors as separate items. 59

Part 5 New indicator net crossings (2008, 2012, 2016 Olympic Games comparison) 60

Net crossings (2008, 2012, 2016 Olympic Games final matches) Women 2.6 2.4 2.2 2 2.58 2.51 2.4 2.4 2.32 2.2 2008 OG 2012 OG 2016 OG All rallies Men 2.2 2 1.8 1.6 2.12 2.16 1.96 2.02 1.97 1.81 2008 OG 2012 OG 2016 OG All rallies Note: zero crossings - situation when a ball after service hit didn't cross vertical plane of the net. When a ball after service hit crossed the net plane and directly went out, then only one crossing was counted. Comment: The net crossings show at first an increase until 2012 followed by a significant decrease in number as we progress from 2008 until 2016. When taken in conjunction with the indicator which shows the INCREASED number of ball contacts or hits per rally over the same period, we have an apparent conflict or contradiction. Ideally we should see the number of net crossings also increase towards 2016. The indicator tells us, however, that there are many rallies which stop after the first attack. This confirms the evidence shown earlier regarding one and more attack rallies. That we do not have a match between the number of hits and the number of net crossings may again be the result of rule changes or one in particular, relating to net contacts. The liberalisation up to 2012 resulted in more long rallies by the 2012 Olympics, but this trend was reversed by Rio 2016. While the play was undoubtedly faster, the feature which was missing (and which the spectators tell us they want) was the long rally element. Recommendation: to continue to search for ways to increase the number of net crossings per rally as a key part of popularising the sport. 61

Part 6 Match and set duration 62

Part 6 Match and set duration Match duration Indicator Average duration (min.) Minimum registered duration (min.) Maximum registered duration (min.) Average number of sets in the match 2016 year data Men 2015 year data OG-2016 data 2016 year data Women 2015 year data OG-2016 data 113,4 111,0 103,5 90,7 94,0 106,6 80 76 75 74 56 68 142 149 148 135 179 134 3,6 4,1 3,6 3,6 3,4 4 63

Set duration Indicator Average duration (min.) Minimum registered duration 1-4 sets (min.) Minimum registered duration 5th set (min.) Maximum registered duration 1-4 sets (min.) Maximum registered duration 5th set (min.) 2016 year data Men Women OG-2016 data 2016 year data OG-2016 data 28,9 27 26,6 24,9 23,0 20 20,0 16 14,0 16 13,0 17 44,0 37 34,0 31 19,0 20 16,0 18 Note: 2015 year data - on the basis of 2015 World Cup statistics 132 matches for men and women 2016 year data on the basis of 21 matches from WGP&WL 2016 finals OG-2016 data on the basis of 16 OG play-off matches (M&W) Sets per match distribution Men - 2016 Men - 2015 3 sets match 17% 3 sets match 40% 30% 4 sets match 5 sets match 54% 4 sets match 5 sets match 29% 30% 64

Women 2016 Women 2015 27% 3 sets match 4 sets match 13% 3 sets match 4 sets match 0% 73% 5 sets match Conclusion 17% 70% 5 sets match Comment: It seems obvious more than ever that we have two almost different games the men s version and the women s version. Even between last season and this we see that matches are either won 3-0 or 3-2. This may be a result of the competition formulae which permits more teams to take part. And the consequent mismatch of teams until the end of the Preliminary rounds. Both versions would benefit from some modification which makes service reception harder the multiplier effect which this creates would increase rally length and reduce the one attack rallies: attack-defence balance would also change for the benefit of rallies. 65

Conclusions: 1. In relation to the above, data was obtained which covered the key areas of rally length, match duration, flying ball time and so on, which allowed a direct comparison with other editions. 2. Some aspects of the game remain relatively stable, while others vary significantly. The following can clearly be seen as significant Number of ball contacts per rally is increasing due to increased athleticism and game speed; Yet % flying ball time is reducing; In men s volleyball there is still a significant imbalance between attack and defense -the one attack rallies predominate still several different indicators show that the receiving team generally wins the rally, and this is something we need to change; In women s volleyball the rallies are significantly longer, and the imbalance between attack and defense is much less. But we must take care not to let the women s game follow the direction of the men. 3. Comparing the Rio and London Games, there was a noticeable shortening of rallies in Rio largely due to the imposition of a much stricter net rule, and % flying ball time is further reduced due to the additional factor of the implemented Challenge regulations. More than ever in our fight for market share of the TV audience, we still need a real flying ball game; 66

Appendix 2016* Olympic Games data in comparison with 2012** OG data Table 2 N Indicator Men Women 2012 2016 2012 2016 1 Average rally duration (sec.) 5,5 5,5 7,3 6,6 2 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies (sec.) 6,9 6,8 8,0 7,8 3 Flying ball from total duration of all sets (%) 19,9 16,2 23,0 20,4 4 Flying ball from total match time (%) 17,4 14,8 21,8 18,5 5 Portion of pseudo-rallies (ace or service fault, about 1 sec.) (%) 24,4 22,1 10,2 17,5 Structure Pseudo-rallies (%) 24,4 22 10 17,5 6 of rallies One attack rallies (%) 50,2 53 55 49 More than one attack rallies (%) 25,4 25 35 33,5 7 Average number of ball contacts during one rally 6,6 6,5 7,5 7,2 (without pseudo-rallies) 8 Attack-defence balance 1,9 2,3 1,7 1,8 9 Attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies 1,6 2,1 1,6 1,7 10 Portion of rallies won on own service (%) 29 30,0 37,1 36,7 11 Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudorallies 35 32,6 35,0 37,3 (%) 12 Portion of aces after jump service (%) 8,5 6,0 3,2 7,1 * on the basis of 2016 OG matches starting from ¼ finals. ** on the basis of 2012 OG matches starting from 1/2 finals for women and 4 top matches in men s tournament (1/4, 1/2, gold match with participation of future OG Champion and 1 match of another ¼ final). 67