What is going on in modern volleyball

What is going on in modern volleyball

Table of contents Aims 3 Introduction 4 Key findings 5 Part 1 Men s volleyball of top level. Main indicators 6 Part 2 Women s volleyball of top level. Main indicators 29 Part 3 Men s and Women s top volleyball comparison 51 Part 4 Match and set duration 57 Page FIVB scientific research project 2

The aims of this project are as follows: AIMS 1. To collect and investigate data on present-day critical indicators of the game. 2. To compare the current data with previous years data in order to obtain a clear picture of the game trends and evolution 3. On the basis of data analysis to make conclusions and proposals for further game development FIVB scientific research project 3

Introduction This year, as well as for the previous 12 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 (Rules of the Game and Refereeing Commission project (now Refereeing and Rules of the Game Commission) - 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 meeting of the new combined commission in January, 2017. The FIVB President strongly supported the idea that any changes in Volleyball must be based on sustainable scientific research. Taking into consideration the latest FIVB innovations: modern technology (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 5 parts or chapters. The reason for this is that in reality we have more than one version of the 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. Part 4 deals specifically with match duration. Part 5 is dedicated to the timing results of a new best of 7 sets format. Additionally, in the appendices there are two special concepts: (1) Special reception zone (SRZ) concept - this an idea for discussion regarding how to make a more appropriate attack-defence balance, while at the same time decreasing the number of pseudo-rallies. An added bonus of this concept is the new attractive look given to the volleyball playing area. (2) A handicap system, where the team winning the set starts the next set with a disadvantage or handicap. Finally, there is a summary of findings and recommendations, based on the previous analysis. Unlike previous PoG report additions, the key findings have been placed at the beginning of the report, immediately after the Introduction. Sergey Titov, Picture of the Game project leader Sandy Steel, Picture of the Game project chief analyst FIVB scientific research project 4

Key findings: 1. Rally duration fairly static within statistical norms. i.e. no improvement. The suggestions for rule modification WEAKENING reception, STRENGTHENING service, liberalisation of overhand pass (double only) should be taken into account to improve rally length. 2. Flying ball time has shown a slight increase but since athletes are not at their peak for the entire length of a season, that this factor makes it difficult to put too much emphasis on this increase; much depends on the teams playing and their squad strength at that moment. 3. Percentage of pseudo rallies includes service errors. This aspect remains the same for the same reasons; teams must use jump serves in order to win a rally, and because this is a high risk strategy, a large proportion are mistakes (or aces). 4. The % of one-attack rallies in the study has gone down over the past few years this may be due to tactics, physical preparation of the players or other factors. On the face of it, this is a good thing. 5. One and fewer attack rallies are still in the region of 75% - practically it still means that out from 4 rallies, only one rally consists of more than one attack (long rally). 6. Ball contacts per rally increasing year on year which suggests that the game is getting ever-faster. 7. Structure of Rallies we would like to see an upward trend in the more than one attack rallies indicator, and should work towards this. 8. Attack-Defence balance in reality, there has been no change: We still see two out of every three rallies being won by the receiving team, regardless of the teams playing. 9. Proportion of rallies won on own service: Despite our efforts, the receiving team still wins the rally most of the time (i.e. too often). 10. Percentage aces has gone down - small drop in aces seems to be a good thing the ball stays in play longer. 11. Number of net Crossings compared to London 2012, this number is low. It should be realised that the more net crossings the better the rally, the better the excitement levels, often more spectacular saves for TV to replay. It is still likely that too many net faults are being called, thus interrupting the flow of play. FIVB scientific research project 5

Part 1. Men s volleyball of top level. Main indicators On the basis of 2017 FIVB World League final tournament (Curitiba, Brazil, 04-08.07.2017) following statistical data reflecting the main volleyball indicators and has been obtained: the 1. Rally duration è è Average rally duration 5,73 sec. Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 7,03 sec. Dynamic of a rally duration indicator 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 Average rally duration Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 1 0 FIVB scientific research project 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 2017 Average rally duration 5,4 5,7 5,52 5,51 5,51 5,73 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6,9 7 6,8 6,59 6,9 7,03 Variability of a rally duration indicator 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Average rally duration Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies FIVB scientific research project 7

FRA-USA BRA-CAN RUS-CAN SRB-USA BRA-RUS Average rally duration 5,78 5,66 6,12 5,63 5,32 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6,87 7,07 7,56 7,2 6,42 FRA-SRB BRA-USA FRA-CAN USA-CAN BRA-FRA Average rally duration 5,56 5,85 5,74 6,4 5,43 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6,68 7,26 7,17 7,93 6,53 Comment: Still key but the comments from last year are still valid ( see below) if we wish to increase rally length, we need to STRENGTHEN service, WEAKEN reception. Taking a more liberal view of overhand pass is probably not going to have a huge impact on rally duration at the top level, since ball handling is generally very good at this level but could have a positive impact at lower levels. That said, the removal of one more judgement call from the referee is probably a good thing, given our desire to let the players decide the rally through their play. 2016 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. 2. Flying ball Flying ball 15,99% from total duration of all sets, OR 14,43% from total match time 16% Rallies time All sets duration 84% FIVB scientific research project 8

Dynamic of a flying ball indicator Portion of rallies time in sets duration time 19% 18% 17% 16% Portion of rallies time in sets duration time 15% 14% 13% 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 2017 17,6% 16% 15,2% 14,68% 15,43% 15,99% 15,3% 14% 14,2% 13,42% 13,05% 14,43% FIVB scientific research project 9

Variability of a flying ball indicator 20% 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Portion of rallies time in sets duration time Portion of rallies time in sets duration time Portion of rallies time in sets duration time FRA-USA BRA-CAN RUS-CAN SRB-USA BRA-RUS 16,72% 14,92% 17,48% 14,83% 14,33% FRA-SRB BRA-USA FRA-CAN USA-CAN BRA-FRA 16,50% 15,56% 16,86% 17,69% 15,44% Comment: The slight increase in rally length should be considered carefully much depends on the teams playing and the state of preparedness of those teams i.e. are they in build-up phase or are they gearing the team for another event later in the year. Athletes are not at their peak for the entire length of a season, so that this factor make it difficult to put too much emphasis on this result only that we should like to see an upward trend. Removing Technical Time Outs would see an instant improvement, of course. 3. Portion of pseudo-rallies (ace or service fault, about 1 sec.) 21,67% FIVB scientific research project 10

Dynamic of pseudo-rallies indicator Pseudo-rallies 30% 25% 20% Pseudo-rallies 15% 10% 22% Pseudorallies 78% Rallies FIVB scientific research project 11

Variability of pseudo-rallies indicator 30% 25% 20% 15% Portion of pseudo-rallies 10% 5% 0% Portion of pseudo-rallies Portion of pseudo-rallies FRA-USA BRA-CAN RUS-CAN SRB-USA BRA-RUS 19,44% 23,29% 21,92% 25,27% 20,29% FRA-SRB BRA-USA FRA-CAN USA-CAN BRA-FRA 19,80% 22,53% 23,20% 22,10% 19,90% Comment: same issue as last year this aspect remains the same for the same reasons; teams must use jump serves in order to win a rally if they do not, the reception of the opponent simply absorbs the service and a decisive attack is created. Because the jump serve is risky, the % error is quite high. 4. One attack rally out of all rallies (without pseudo-rallies) 2017 value: 51,78% FIVB scientific research project 12

52% 48% Two and more attack rally One attack rally Dynamic of one attack rally indicator Portion of one-attack rallies 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% Portion of one-attack rallies 55% 50% 45% 40% FIVB scientific research project 13

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 One attack rally 75% 73% 63% 68% 66% 68% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 One attack rally 55% 52% 52,3% 52,22% 52,97% 51,78 Variability of one attack rally indicator 60% 55% 50% 45% Portion of one attack rallies 40% 35% 30% Portion of one attack rallies Portion of one attack rallies FRA-USA BRA-CAN RUS-CAN SRB-USA BRA-RUS 51,85% 48,29% 49,31% 47,85% 56,04% FRA-SRB BRA-USA FRA-CAN USA-CAN BRA-FRA 55,44% 50,55% 49,72% 48,07% 58,25% Comment: The % of one-attack rallies in the entire study has gone down over the past few years this may be due to tactics, physical preparation of the players or other factors. On the face of it, this is a good thing. FIVB scientific research project 14

5. One and less attack rallies out of all rallies (with pseudo-rallies). 2017 Value: 73,45% 27% Two and more attack rally 73% One and less attack rally Dynamic of one and less attack rallies indicator 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% Portion of one and less attack rallies 60% 55% 50% FIVB scientific research project 15

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 2017 76% 74,5% 73,8% 74,81% 75,94% 73,45 Variability of one and less attack rally indicator 80% 75% Portion of one and less attack rallies 70% 65% Portion of one and less attack rallies Portion of one and less attack rallies FRA-USA BRA-CAN RUS-CAN SRB-USA BRA-RUS 71,29% 71,59% 71,23% 73,12% 76,33% FRA-SRB BRA-USA FRA-CAN USA-CAN BRA-FRA 75,25% 73,08% 72,93% 70,16% 78,15% Comment: Practically it means that out from 4 rallies, only one rally consists of more than one attack (long rally). There is a slight downward trend in this study but the value still indicates an attack-defence imbalance. FIVB scientific research project 16

6. Average number of ball contacts during one rally (without pseudorallies) 2017 Value: 6,76 Dynamic of ball contacts indicator 7,00 6,50 6,00 5,50 5,00 4,50 Ball contacts number 4,00 3,50 3,00 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 2017 5,7 6,7 6,4 6,6 6,5 6,76 FIVB scientific research project 17

Variability of ball contacts indicator 7,60 7,40 7,20 7,00 6,80 6,60 6,40 6,20 6,00 5,80 Ball contacts during a rally Ball contacts during a rally Ball contacts during a rally FRA-USA BRA-CAN RUS-CAN SRB-USA BRA-RUS 6,76 7 7,15 7 6,37 FRA-SRB BRA-USA FRA-CAN USA-CAN BRA-FRA 6,51 6,64 6,81 7,34 6,34 Comment: This value is still increasing which suggests a faster game even than before, regardless of which teams are playing. 7. Structure of rallies 22% 26% pseudo-rallies One attack rally More than one attack rally 52% FIVB scientific research project 18

Dynamic of structure of rallies indicator 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% Pseudo-rallies One-attack rallies More than one-attack rallies 0,00% 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 2017 25% 22% 21,5% 21,59% 22,97% 21,67% 55% 52% 52,3% 50,03% 52,97% 51,78% 20% 26% 26,2% 28,38% 24,06% 26,55% FIVB scientific research project 19

Variability of structure of rallies indicator 100,00% 90,00% 80,00% 70,00% 60,00% 50,00% 40,00% 30,00% 20,00% 10,00% 0,00% Pseudo-rallies One attack rallies More than one attack rallies Pseudo-rallie One attack rallies More than one attack rallies Pseudo-rallies One attack rallies More than one attack rallies FRA-USA BRA-CAN RUS-CAN SRB-USA BRA-RUS 19,44% 23,29% 21,92% 25,27% 20,29% 51,85% 48,29% 49,31% 47,85% 56,04% 28,70% 28,41% 28,77% 26,88% 23,67% FRA-SRB BRA-USA FRA-CAN USA-CAN BRA-FRA 19,80% 22,53% 23,20% 22,10% 19,90% 55,44% 50,55% 49,72% 48,07% 58,25% 24,75% 26,92% 27,07% 29,83% 21,84% Comment: From the graph it can be seen that the indicator we would like to see increasing (the more than one attack) has been stable over the years. We should keep an eye on this factor and emphasise ways to increase this. This may benefit from the multiplier effect generated by a poor reception of service. FIVB scientific research project 20

8. Attack-defence balance* 2017 Value: 2,09 * 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 1,71 Dynamic of attack-defence balance indicator 3,00 2,80 2,60 2,40 2,20 2,00 1,80 Attack-defence balance 1,60 1,40 1,20 1,00 FIVB scientific research project 21

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Attack-defence balance Attack-defence balance 3 2,3 2,02 2,2 2,45 2,02 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2,09 1,85 2,18 2 2 2,09 Variability of attack-defence balance indicator 3 2 Attackdefence balance 1 FRA- USA BRA- CAN RUS- CAN SRB- USA BRA- RUS FRA- SRB BRA- USA FRA- CAN USA- CAN BRA- FRA Attack-defence balance Attack-defence balance FRA-USA BRA-CAN RUS-CAN SRB-USA BRA-RUS 2 2,09 2,48 2,1 1,9 FRA-SRB BRA-USA FRA-CAN USA-CAN BRA-FRA 1,77 1,89 1,87 2,48 2,47 Comment: Current very soft and liberal service reception criteria are likely to be the main factor in continuing to create the imbalance shown in the figures (see above). We still see two out of every three rallies being won by the receiving team, regardless of the teams playing. FIVB scientific research project 22

9. Portion of rallies won on own service 2017 Value: 32,5 % 33% Rally won on own service 67% Rally won on opponent service Remark: portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies is 36,88% Dynamic of portion of rallies won on own service indicator 40,00% 38,00% 36,00% 34,00% 32,00% 30,00% 28,00% Portion of rallies won on own service 26,00% 24,00% 22,00% 20,00% FIVB scientific research project 23

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 2017 33% 36% 31,65% 33,53% 33,67% 32,50% Variability of portion of rallies won on own service indicator 40 35 30 25 Portion of rallies won on own service (%) 20 FRA- USA BRA- CAN RUS- CAN SRB- USA BRA- RUS FRA- SRB BRA- USA FRA- CAN USA- CAN BRA- FRA FIVB scientific research project 24

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 FRA-USA BRA-CAN RUS-CAN SRB-USA BRA-RUS 33,33% 32,39% 28,77% 32,26% 34,30% 39,08% 35,55% 35,96% 36,69% 40% FRA-SRB BRA-USA FRA-CAN USA-CAN BRA-FRA 36,14% 34,61% 34,81% 28,73% 28,64% 38,89% 37,59% 36,69% 33,33% 33,94% Comment: Still not enough variation in this factor. When combined with attack-defence balance, these two factors make somewhat disturbing reading. Despite our efforts, the receiving team still wins the rally most of the time. 10. Portion of aces after jump service 2017 value: 4,94% FIVB scientific research project 25

Dynamic of portion of aces after jump service indicator 10,00% 9,00% 8,00% 7,00% 6,00% 5,00% Portion of aces after jump service (%) 4,00% 3,00% 2,00% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Portion of aces after jump service 5,7% 5,3% 6,25% 7,56% 4,94 Variability of portion of aces after jump service indicator 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 FRA- USA BRA- CAN RUS- CAN SRB- USA BRA- RUS FRA- SRB BRA- USA FRA- CAN USA- CAN BRA- FRA Portion of aces after jump service (%) FIVB scientific research project 26

Portion of aces after jump service Portion of aces after jump service FRA-USA BRA- CAN RUS- CAN SRB-USA BRA-RUS 2,2% 5,62% 2,08% 6,33% 5,06% FRA-SRB BRA-USA FRA-CAN USA- CAN BRA-FRA 6,57% 5,93% 9,37% 3,88% 2,42% Comment: The continued small drop in aces seems to be a good thing the ball stays in play longer and the rally will likely not finish at the first attack. It seems likely that better reception techniques are responsible for this. 11. Net crossings Dynamic of net crossings indicator 2017 value: 1,86 % 2,05 2 1,96 2,02 1,95 1,9 1,85 1,81 1,86 Net crossings in all rallies 1,8 1,75 1,7 2008 OG 2012 OG 2016 OG 2017 WL Final * Net crossings indicator without pseudo-rallies in 2017 WL Final is 2,09 FIVB scientific research project 27

Variability of net crossings indicator 2,4 2,3 2,2 Net crossings 2,1 2 1,9 Net crossings without pseudorallies 1,8 1,7 FRA-USA BRA-CAN RUS-CAN SRB-USA BRA-RUS Net crossings 1,89 1,81 1,90 1,82 1,79 Net crossings without pseudo-rallies 2,13 2,01 2,18 2,04 1,99 FRA-SRB BRA-USA FRA-CAN USA-CAN BRA-FRA Net crossings 1,86 1,89 1,78 2,05 1,86 Net crossings without pseudo-rallies 2,04 2,18 1,98 2,30 2,05 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: There has been only a marginal change in the number of net crossings. At this point we should not read too much into this figure except to say that the more net crossings the better the rally, the better the excitement levels, often more spectacular saves for TV to replay, and so on. It is still likely also that there are too many net faults interrupting the rallies, thus preventing this value from increasing. FIVB scientific research project 28

Part 2. Women s volleyball of top level. Main indicators. On the basis of the FIVB World Grand Prix final matches in Nanjing (China) 02-06.08.2017 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 6,86 sec. * Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 7,93 sec. Dynamic of rally duration indicator 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Average rally duration Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies FIVB scientific research project 29

2014 2015 2016 2017 Average rally duration 7,67 7,48 7,25 6,86 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 8,6 8,46 8,25 7,93 Variability of rally duration indicator 10 9,5 9 8,5 8 7,5 7 6,5 6 Average rally duration Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies CHN-BRA SRB-USA USA-ITA BRA-NED SRB-ITA Average rally duration 6,23 7,28 7,32 7,22 7,16 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 6,87 8,46 8,39 8,07 8,45 CHN-NED SRB-BRA CHN-ITA CHN-SRB ITA-BRA Average rally duration 6,94 6,56 6,42 6,36 6,89 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 7,91 7,55 7,69 7,78 7,88 Comment: When we factor in the results for 2017 and compare with data going back to 2014, the trend in rally length has shown a slight but steady downward trend, perhaps because like the men, the women athletes are getting bigger, faster and stronger, and the services are not yet of the strength and power to trouble the defence as much as we would like to create the rally instability which we need. FIVB scientific research project 30

2. Flying ball 19,11% from total duration of all sets OR 17,24% from total match time 19% Rallies time All sets duration 81% Dynamic of flying ball indicator 21,50% 21,00% 20,50% 20,00% 19,50% Portion of rallies time in sets duration time 19,00% 18,50% 18,00% FIVB scientific research project 31

2014 2015 2016 2017 From total duration of all 20,89% 20,44% 20,8% 19,11% sets From total match time 18,95% 18,44% 19,06% 17,24% Variability of flying ball indicator 22,0% 21,0% 20,0% 19,0% Portion of rallies time in sets duration time 18,0% 17,0% Portion of rallies time in sets duration time Portion of rallies time in sets duration time CHN-BRA SRB-USA USA-ITA BRA-NED SRB-ITA 17,76% 20,21% 21,12% 19,14% 19,68% CHN-NED SRB-BRA CHN-ITA CHN-SRB ITA-BRA 19,84% 18,23% 17,23% 18,22% 19,10% Comment: There has been a 2% drop in flying ball time since 2014 when all matches are considered although individual matches will perhaps demonstrate a smaller change in flying ball. Nevertheless, the 2% fall is significant and should be viewed as a trend which we need to bring to a standstill if we are to retain audience as we have done historically. FIVB scientific research project 32

3. Portion of pseudo-rallies (ace or service fault, about 1 sec.) 15,47 % 15% Pseudo-rallies Rallies 85% Dynamic of pseudo-rallies indicator 20,00% 19,00% 18,00% 17,00% 16,00% 15,00% 14,00% Pseudo-rallies 13,00% 12,00% 11,00% 10,00% FIVB scientific research project 33

2014 2015 2016 2017 Portion of pseudorallies 12,79% 12,01% 13,66% 15,47% Variability of pseudo-rallies indicator 22% 21% 20% 19% 18% 17% 16% 15% 14% 13% 12% 11% 10% Portion of pseudo-rallies Portion of pseudo-rallies Portion of pseudo-rallies CHN-BRA SRB-USA USA-ITA BRA-NED SRB-ITA 11,03% 16,02% 14,52% 11,98% 17,32% CHN-NED SRB-BRA CHN-ITA CHN-SRB ITA-BRA 13,90% 15,64% 18,95% 20,97% 14,35% Comment: The significance of this figure is perhaps in the number of service errors as opposed to ace services. Again, this is something to consider. We need high risk serves to develop longer rallies, but we need to reduce the errors by the server at the same time. FIVB scientific research project 34

4. One attack rally out of all rallies (without pseudo-rallies). 2017 value: 50,26% 50% 50% Two and more attack rally One attack rally Dynamic of one attack rally indicator 60,00% 55,00% 50,00% Portion of one-attack 45,00% 40,00% FIVB scientific research project 35

2014 2015 2016 2017 One attack rally 43,59% 48,93% 52,03% 50,26% Variability of one attack rally indicator 63% 61% 59% 57% 55% 53% 51% 49% 47% 45% Portion of one attack rallies Portion of one attack rallies Portion of one attack rallies CHN-BRA SRB-USA USA-ITA BRA-NED SRB-ITA 62,07% 45,14% 50,00% 50,69% 49,16% CHN-NED SRB-BRA CHN-ITA CHN-SRB ITA-BRA 50,67% 51,95% 46,31% 48,39% 51,20% Comment: As the players continue to get bigger and their skill level also increases reception becomes a relatively straightforward task, and hence the first attack is beginning to prove decisive, just as in the Men s game. FIVB scientific research project 36

5. One and less attack rally 65,73% 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 70,00% 65,00% 60,00% Portion of one and less attack rallies 55,00% 50,00% 2014 2015 2016 2017 One and less attack rally 55,49% 60,94% 65,69% 65,73% FIVB scientific research project 37

Variability of one and less attack rally indicator 74% 72% 70% 68% 66% 64% Portion of one and less attack rallies 62% 60% Portion of one and less attack rallies Portion of one and less attack rallies CHN-BRA SRB-USA USA-ITA BRA-NED SRB-ITA 73,10% 61,16% 64,52% 62,67% 66,48% CHN-NED SRB-BRA CHN-ITA CHN-SRB ITA-BRA 64,57% 67,60% 65,26% 69,35% 65,55% Comment: The same comment and the same reasoning can be levelled at this indicator as in the one-attack rally: strong services/ service errors/ more skilled bigger players/ easy reception/ decisive first (and only) attack. All combine to consolidate this indicator. FIVB scientific research project 38

6. Average number of ball contacts during one rally (without pseudo-rallies) 2017 Value : 7,27 Dynamic of contacts indicator 8,00 7,80 7,60 7,40 7,20 7,00 6,80 Ball contacts number 6,60 6,40 6,20 6,00 Average number of ball contacts during one rally 2014 2015 2016 2017 7,9 7,72 7,56 7,27 FIVB scientific research project 39

Variability of ball contacts indicator 8,00 7,80 7,60 7,40 7,20 7,00 6,80 6,60 6,40 6,20 6,00 Ball contacts during a rally Ball contacts during a rally Ball contacts during a rally CHN-BRA SRB-USA USA-ITA BRA-NED SRB-ITA 6,21 7,84 7,9 7,37 7,51 CHN-NED SRB-BRA CHN-ITA CHN-SRB ITA-BRA 7,3 6,95 7,04 7,02 7,31 Comment: This is strange in a sense, as it goes against the trend in the men s game we would expect the bigger skilled players would create more contacts as in the Men s, but perhaps realistically, as the majority of attacks are single attacks, this result really should come as no surprise it is a logical trend. So maybe the Men s result is the anomalous one! FIVB scientific research project 40

7. Structure of rallies * Pseudo-rallies 15,47 % * One attack rally 50,26 % * More than one attack rally 34,27 % Total: 100 % 34,27 15,47 pseudo rallies One attack rally 50,26 More than one attack rally Dynamic of structure of rallies indicator 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Pseudo-rallies One-attack rallies More than one-attack rallies 0% FIVB scientific research project 41

Variability of structure of rallies indicator 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Pseudo-rallies One attack rallies More than one attack rallies 10% 0% 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: The trend continues women s volleyball is maintaining its downward shift to become more like the Men s version the long rally game may soon become history. FIVB scientific research project 42

8. Attack-defence balance* Picture of the Game - 2017 2017 value: 1,56 * 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 1,52 Dynamic of attack-defence balance indicator 1,70 1,65 1,60 1,55 1,50 1,45 Attack-defence balance 1,40 1,35 1,30 2014 2015 2016 2017 Attack-defence balance 1,5 1,47 1,64 1,56 FIVB scientific research project 43

Variability of attack-defense balance indicator Attackdefence balance CHN- BRA SRB- USA USA- ITA BRA- NED SRB- ITA CHN- NED SRB- BRA CHN- ITA CHN- SRB ITA- BRA Attack-defence balance Attack-defence balance CHN-BRA SRB-USA USA-ITA BRA-NED SRB-ITA 1,46 1,36 1,45 1,41 1,43 CHN-NED SRB-BRA CHN-ITA CHN-SRB ITA-BRA 1,67 1,77 1,57 1,73 1,74 Comment: There is a small but noticeable shift towards the attack but depends on who is playing. FIVB scientific research project 44

9. Portion of rallies won on own service 2017 value: 39,17 % 39% 61% Rally won on own service Rally won on opponent service Remark: portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies is 39,93%. Dynamic of portion of rallies won on own service indicator 43,00% 42,50% 42,00% 41,50% 41,00% 40,50% 40,00% Portion of rallies won on own service 39,50% 39,00% 38,50% 38,00% 2014 2015 2016 2017 Portion of rallies won on own service 41,19% 40,66% 40,87% 39,17 FIVB scientific research project 45

Variability of portion of rallies won on own service indicator 50 45 40 35 Portion of rallies won on own service (%) 30 CHN- BRA SRB- USA USA- ITA BRA- NED SRB- ITA CHN- NED SRB- BRA CHN- ITA CHN- SRB ITA- BRA 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 CHN-BRA SRB-USA USA-ITA BRA-NED SRB-ITA 40,69% 42,23% 40,86% 41,47% 41,34% 40,31% 45,09% 42,77% 41,36% 43,91% CHN-NED SRB-BRA CHN-ITA CHN-SRB ITA-BRA 37,22% 36,31% 38,95% 36,56% 36,36% 35,94% 37,09% 38,31% 36,73% 37,99% Comment: Due to the relatively less powerful services in Women s volleyball overall, we can understand some of the previous figures influencing flying ball, one or more attack rallies and so on. Here we see a little encouragement the services are maintaining an edge despite the impact of the Libero in the serve-reception units: there has not been too much of a drop overall. That said, we need to maintain a watchful eye on this figure. If reception is too easy, if the service is weakened, then both combined will drive this figure in a direction which cannot be good for the entertainment value of the sport. FIVB scientific research project 46

10. Portion of aces after jump service 2017 value: 6,09 % Dynamic of portion of aces after jump service indicator 7,00% 6,00% 5,00% 4,00% 3,00% Portion of aces after jump service (%) 2,00% 1,00% 0,00% 2014 2015 2016 2017 Portion of aces after jump service 2,57% 2,07% 1,63% 6,09 FIVB scientific research project 47

Variability of portion of aces after jump service indicator 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 Portion of aces after jump service (%) 2 0 CHN- BRA SRB- USA USA- ITA BRA- NED SRB- ITA CHN- NED SRB- BRA CHN- ITA CHN- SRB ITA- BRA Portion of aces after jump service Portion of aces after jump service CHN-BRA SRB-USA USA-ITA BRA-NED SRB-ITA 0% 0% 5,71% 0% 5,55% CHN-NED SRB-BRA CHN-ITA CHN-SRB ITA-BRA 11,11% 11,11% 5,71% 18,37% 3,22% Comment: if teams move away from the float service to a jump service, then the likelihood is that the trend in the previous indicator can be reversed. Already we see that the jump service is proving a problem to receive when it is used. FIVB scientific research project 48

11. Net crossings Dynamic of net crossings indicator 2017 value: 2,18 % 2,4 2,4 2,4 2,35 2,3 2,25 2,2 2,2 2,18 Net crossings in all rallies 2,15 2,1 2,05 2008 OG 2012 OG 2016 OG 2017 WGP Final Variability of net crossings indicator 2,5 2,45 2,4 2,35 2,3 2,25 2,2 2,15 The ball crossing nets The ball crossing nets without 0 2,1 2,05 2 FIVB scientific research project 49

CHN-BRA SRB-USA USA-ITA BRA-NED SRB-ITA The ball crossing nets 2,03 2,22 2,17 2,31 2,23 The ball crossing nets without 0 2,08 2,32 2,26 2,39 2,37 CHN-NED SRB-BRA CHN-ITA CHN-SRB ITA-BRA The ball crossing nets 2,29 2,17 2,1 2,05 2,15 The ball crossing nets without 0 2,36 2,27 2,25 2,2 2,23 Comment: We need to find ways to de-stabilise the initial reception if that is done, we can create many more net crossings. It is clear from the occasions when we do get long rallies and multiple net crossings, that this was caused by a poor reception. FIVB scientific research project 50

Part 3 Men s and Women s top volleyball comparison Table 1 N Indicator Men Women 1 Average rally duration (sec.) 5,73 (5,5) é 6,86 (7,3) ê 2 Average rally duration without pseudo-rallies 7,03 (6,9) é 7,93 (8,3) ê (sec.) 3 Flying ball from total duration of all sets (%) 15,99 (15,4) é 19,11 (20,8) ê 4 Flying ball from total match time (%) 14,43 (13,1) é 17,24 (19,1) ê 5 Portion of pseudo-rallies (ace or service fault, about 1 sec.) (%) 21,67 (23,0) ê 15,47 (13,7) é Structure Pseudo-rallies (%) 21,67 (23) ê 15,47 (14) é 6 of rallies One attack rallies (%) 51,78 (53) ê 50,26 (52) ê More than one attack rallies (%) 26,55 (24) é 34,27 (34) é 7 Average number of ball contacts during one rally 6,76 (6,5) é 7,27 (7,6) ê (without pseudo-rallies) 8 Attack-defence balance 2,09 (2) é 1,56 (1,64) ê 9 Attack-defence balance without pseudo-rallies 1,71 (1,8) ê 1,52 (1,61) ê 10 Portion of rallies won on own service (%) 32,5 (33,7) ê 39,17 (40,9) ê 11 Portion of rallies won on own service without pseudo-rallies (%) 36,88 (35,6) é 39,93 (40,9) ê 12 Portion of aces after jump service (%) 4,94 (7,6) ê 6,09 (1,6) é 13 Net crossings 1,86 (1,81) é 2,18 (2,2) ê * in brackets previous year data. é - increasing ê - decreasing Positive trend Negative trend FIVB scientific research project 51

1. Average rally duration (sec.) 1 Picture of the Game - 2017 7 6,8 6,6 6,4 6,2 6 5,8 5,6 5,4 5,2 5 Women 6,86 5,73 Men 1 with pseudo-rallies Comment: There are longer rallies in women s volleyball. Difference: 1,13 sec. (last year - 1,8 sec.). This indicator is, however, shortening, as the style of play in Women s volleyball mirrors that of the Men. This is a trend which should be concerning, as the longrally game has long been the aspect which people talk about as the reason people watch volleyball. 2. Active playing time portion ( flying ball ) 2 18% 17,24% 17% 17% 16% 16% 15% 15% 14% 14% 13% Women 14,43% Men 2 from total match duration Comment: There is more flying ball time in women s volleyball. The difference between men s and women s volleyball is: 2,8 % (last year - 6,0 %). Again, the trend is against the desired one, as the women match the men in technique, and power/athleticism. FIVB scientific research project 52

3. Average number of ball contacts during one rally 3 7,3 7,2 7,1 7 6,9 6,8 6,7 6,6 6,5 Women 7,27 6,76 Men 3 without pseudo-rallies. Comment: There are more ball contacts in women s volleyball. Difference: 0,51 (last year - 1,1). Despite the additional ball contacts in women s volleyball, this aspect should concern us as the men s is and women s ought to follow the same trend. Interestingly it is women s volleyball which seems to follow the logic of the other trends. 4. Pseudo-rallies portion 4 25% 21,67% 20% 15% 15,47% 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: 6,2 % (last year - 9,3 %). Fewer ace serves and fewer serve-errors due to the different technique favoured by men as compared to women may be the reason for this difference. FIVB scientific research project 53

5. One attack rallies 52% 51,78% 52% 51% 51% 50,3% 50% 50% Women Men Comment: Despite appearances (graph above) there is more or less the same proportion of one attack rallies in both men s and women s volleyball. The difference: just 1,5 % (last year - 1,0 %) 6. Two and more-attack rallies 35% 34,27% 30% 25% 26,55% 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: 7,7% (last year - 10,0 %). This trend continues more net crossings but the % is getting smaller. FIVB scientific research project 54

7. General structure of all rallies Picture of the Game - 2017 34,27 15,47 pseudo rallies 26% 22% pseudo-rallies 50,26 One attack rally More than one attack rally 52% 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 very close to each other. As the Women s game mirrors that of the Men, the differences also become less. The preponderance of one-attack rallies is still a concern. 8. Portion of rallies won on own service 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Women 39,17% 32,50% Men Comment: In women s volleyball there are more chances for a team to win a rally after its own service. Difference: 6,7 % (last year - 7,2 %). It ought to be an aim to try to develop strategies to get teams to win more services. Without this, there will always be an imbalance between attack and defence. Anything which reduces the power of the service, or increases the stability of reception will continue to erode the game as a spectacle. Rallies will get ever-shorter and more predictable. FIVB scientific research project 55

9. Attack-defence balance 5 2,5 2 1,56 2,09 1,5 1 0,5 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: 0,53 (last year - 0,36). While this remains favourable, at least in Women s Volleyball, the trend has been against defence and pro-attack. It is much more attack-dominant in Men s Volleyball, but unfortunately the Women re catching up fast as their height and athleticism increases year-on-year. 10. Net crossings 2,2 2,18 2,1 2 1,9 1,86 1,8 1,7 Women Men Comment: More net crossings in women s volleyball. Difference 0,32 General conclusion regarding men s and women s volleyball comparison: women s volleyball becoming closer to men s volleyball in terms of negative trends in the majority of indicators. This negative progression is becoming even more marked. FIVB scientific research project 56

Part 4 Match and set duration FIVB scientific research project 57

Match duration Indicator Average duration (min.) Minimum registered duration (min.) Maximum registered duration (min.) Average number of sets in the match 2015 year data Men 2016 year data 2017 year data 2015 year data Women 2016 year data 2017 year data 111,0 113,4 124,8 94,0 90,7 127,4 76 80 93 56 74 92 149 142 143 179 135 152 4,1 3,6 4,3 3,4 3,6 4,3 Comment: Gradual increase in match duration for men is not matched by the women there is a significant upwards spike in match duration in Women s Volleyball. This is in line with the increased number of sets played on average the women are now averaging four sets, compared to the 2015 value of 3 sets. Interestingly the Men dipped in 2016 but have since recovered. FIVB scientific research project 58

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 2017 year data 2016 year data 2017 year data 28,9 27,15 26,6 27,7 23,0 21 20,0 21 14,0 14 13,0 14 44,0 36 34,0 33 19,0 21 16,0 22 Note: on the basis of WGP&WL finals data Comment: While there has been a decrease of almost two minutes in the average duration of the sets in Men s Volleyball over the two-year period of the study comparison, the Women have increased by just over a minute. It is not known if these changes are linked to the number of challenges at the top level. Fifth sets have increased in both genders but mostly in the Women s game where there was a full 7 (seven) minute increase in the maximum duration measured. FIVB scientific research project 59

Sets per match distribution Men 2015 Women - 2015 17% 3 sets match 4 sets match 54% 5 sets match 13% 3 sets match 4 sets match 17% 70% 5 sets match 29% Men 2016 Women - 2016 40% 30% 3 sets match 4 sets match 27% 5 sets match 73% 0% 3 sets match 4 sets match 5 sets match 30% Men 2017 Women - 2017 10% 3 sets match 10% 3 sets match 40% 4 sets match 5 sets match 40% 4 sets match 5 sets match 50% 50% FIVB scientific research project 60

Comment: While there has been a decrease of almost two minutes in the average duration of the sets in Men s Volleyball over the two-year period of the study comparison, the Women have increased by just over a minute. It is not known if these changes are linked to the number of challenges at the top level. Fifth sets have increased in both genders but mostly in the Women s game where there was a full 7 (seven) minute increase. So to summarise, we see more 3-1 matches in Women s volleyball than hitherto which may be due to the qualification process for top events more strong teams contesting the early rounds can increase the proportion of longer matches. The longer 5 th set can mean that both teams contested right to the very end good for spectator tension! But we should not suggest that this is entirely healthy we already know that rally length needs to increase to create spectator appeal; and that means increasing the power of the serve and decreasing the stability of reception. This will become even more marked in the next set of data however, we have no way of evaluating the true impact of testing a modified service rule at the same time as testing a seven-set format. FIVB scientific research project 61