Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports

Volume 6, Issue 4 2010 Article 3

Relationship between the Opponent Block and the Hitter in Elite Male Volleyball
Rui Manuel Arajo, Universidade do Porto Jos Castro, Universidade do Porto Rui Marcelino, Universidade do Porto Isabel R. Mesquita, Universidade do Porto

Recommended Citation: Arajo, Rui Manuel; Castro, Jos; Marcelino, Rui; and Mesquita, Isabel R. (2010) "Relationship between the Opponent Block and the Hitter in Elite Male Volleyball," Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports: Vol. 6: Iss. 4, Article 3. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol6/iss4/3 DOI: 10.2202/1559-0410.1216 2010 American Statistical Association. All rights reserved.

Relationship between the Opponent Block and the Hitter in Elite Male Volleyball
Rui Manuel Arajo, Jos Castro, Rui Marcelino, and Isabel R. Mesquita

Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the opponent block, i.e. the blockers starting points and the number of blockers, compared to the hitter chosen by the setter to attack in elite male volleyball competition. 4531 sequences were analyzed, corresponding to 97 sets, of 12 national male teams participating in the 2007 World Cup. In order to test the association between variables, descriptive and inferential statistics the chi-square test with analysis of the adjusted residual were used. Intra- and inter-observer reliability was assessed via the percentage error method. Results showed that the pinched block starting point and the double block final blocking action were the most recurrent ones and the opposite player (right side) was the most requested hitter. This study showed a significant association between the blockers starting points and the hitter chosen by the setter to finalize the play set. There was a downward trend in the attack from the middle hitter with pinched block and an upward trend in the attack of the opposite (right side) with mixed block (pinched zone 2). A significant association between hitter and number of blockers was also verified: middle hitters show a high tendency to attack facing individual block, opposite players (right side) usually attack vs. double block and left-side hitters usually face double and triple block. These results suggest that blockers starting points are taken in consideration by the opponent setter to create the best conditions for the hitters. Hence, the setter takes advantages of the specific features (skills and ability to score) of its hitters and the space where they perform the attack in order to create difficulties to the opponent block (i.e. middle hitters has a high trend to attack with individual block, opposite player with double block and left-side hitters with double and triple block). The present study shows that the volleyball game at the elite male level is characterized by a constant adaptation between setters options and the opponent block tactics and strategies. These trends must be considered in the training process to prepare hitters and blockers for the most common situations occurring in the competition and, therefore, to create better and more appropriated and effective solutions to the game problems. KEYWORDS: attack, block, analysis, high level, volleyball

Arajo et al.: Relationship between Opponent Block and the Hitter

Introduction The increase of competiveness in Volleyball has required the specialization of the hitters (Marcelino, Mesquita, Castro, & Sampaio, 2008). Selinger & AckermannBlount (1986) divided players into two broad categories: hitters and setters. The hitters category is further divided into three subcategories by court position: leftside hitters, called ace players (A); middle hitters, often referred to as quick attackers (C); right-side hitters, called option players (O). Usually, there are two players for each sub-category who are positioned opposite each other in the formation. In the 5-1 team composition, the player who plays opposite the setter is called a utility player (U), and usually plays on the right side of the court. The U or opposite player has to perform offensive tasks, not only in the front row (offensive zone) but also in the back row (defensive zone) (Mesquita & Csar, 2007). In the recent years the left-side hitters also perform offensive tasks when playing back row. Like the attack, the block is one of the games most important actions in high level Volleyball game (Marcelino, Mesquita, & Afonso, 2008; Marcelino et al., 2008; Marelic, Resetar, & Jankovic, 2004; Marelic, Zufar, & Omrcen, 1998). In a study with male and female high level teams, Palao, Santos & Urea (2004) showed that the attack was the game action most correlated with the match victory followed by the block. The authors concluded that the block establishes the difference amongst top level male teams and it is the most important action to oppose the attack. Concerning the number of blockers, studies have shown that the double block is the most used in elite male Volleyball (Afonso, Mesquita, & Palao, 2005; Palao et al., 2004). Because the setter is the one who has to decide quickly, taking in consideration the opponents blockers and his own offense (Mesquita & Graa, 2002), the block final formation (none, one, two or three players) depends mainly of the speed of the offensive play set, the attack zone and the setters tactical and technical skills (Mesquita & Marcelino, 2008). One of the opponent team indicators considered by the setter is the analysis of the block, namely the starting points (Mesquita & Graa, 2002). Therefore it is reasonable to presume that the setter will choose the hitter and the play set according to this variable in order to raise the best attack conditions, namely the reduction of the number of blockers. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between the opponent block, i.e. the starting points and the number of blockers, and the hitter chosen by the setter to attack in elite Volleyball game.

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, Vol. 6 [2010], Iss. 4, Art. 3

Methods Sample Twelve national male teams (Brazil, Russia, Bulgaria, U.S.A, Spain, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Egypt, Korea and Tunisia; teams were named by final standing) were sampled from the finals phase of the 2007 World Cup, played in Japan. The actions of the teams were analyzed in 4351 sequences, from 97 sets, corresponding to 27 games. Variables In this study the variables under analysis were the Hitter and the Block Opposition related to the Blockers Starting Points and Number of Blockers. The hitters were differentiated into: setter (S); 1st and 2nd left-side hitters (A1 and A2, respectively); 1st and 2nd middle hitters (C1 and C2, respectively) and opposite or right side hitter (U) (adapted from Selinger & Ackermann-Blount, 1986). In the categories left-side and middle hitters, the 1st hitter is the player who starts near the setter in the initial formation prior to the start of each set. Blockers starting points was adapted from Selinger & Ackermann-Blount (1986) and foresee four different posibilities: spread block (exterior block - EB) zone 4 and zone 2 blockers are positioned away from the middle blocker, about one meter off the side line; pinched block (interior block - IB) - the zone 4 and zone 2 blockers move closer to the central blocker, about 3 meters from the side line; mixed block with pinched zone 2 (IZ2) - zone 2 blocker moves closer to the middle blocker and the zone 4 blocker stays away from him; mixed block with pinched zone 4 (IZ4) - zone 4 blocker moves closer to the middle and the zone 2 blocker stays away from the middle blocker. Block opposition nomenclature was adapted from Selinger and Ackermann-Blount (1986): 1 vs. 3 - compact triple block; 1 vs. (2+1) - three blockers, with open spaces between the blockers or the blockers jump at different times; 1 vs. 2 - compact double block; 1 vs. (1+1) - two blockers with open spaces between the blockers or the blockers jumped at different times; 1 vs. 1 - individual block; 1 vs. 0 - without block. Data-collect procedures and data analysis All matches were recorded with a camera positioned 15 meters above the playing area and 20 meters away back from the edge of the playing area, parallel with the baseline. Data observation and registration were performed by four teams, each one gathering two trained operators. Each team analysed a minimum

http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol6/iss4/3 DOI: 10.2202/1559-0410.1216

Arajo et al.: Relationship between Opponent Block and the Hitter

of twenty sets and a maximum of thirty-two sets. The descriptive statistics were applied to obtain the frequencies and respective percentages. To test the association between the variables the chi-square test with analysis of the adjusted residual was used. Statistical significance was set at 5% and all analyses were performed in SPSS 17.0 (SPSS Inc, USA). Reliability Data reliability was assessed through intra- and inter-observer testing procedures (James, Taylor, & Stanley, 2007). Following a 3-week period, each team reanalysed one random set. For inter-observer reliability testing, each team observed one set previously analysed by another observation team. Intra- and inter-observer agreement were assessed via the percentage error method (Hughes, Cooper, & Nevill, 2004) and all data was within acceptable levels (i.e. <5% error). Results showed percentages of agreement above the minimum indicated, namely, 80% (Van der Mars, 1989). The minimum value found was 85.20% in the variable Blocks starting position (inter-observer reliability) and the maximum value of 100% in the variable hitter (intra-observer). Results and Discussion The most frequent starting point was the pinched block (49.6%), followed by mixed block with pinched zone 4 (35.3%), spread block (7.8%) and mixed bock with pinched zone 2 (7.3%) (Table1). This result corroborates Castro & Mesquitas study (2008), also with elite male teams, concerned to the hierarchical order of the block starting points. In the their study the percentages were 65.2%, 31.9% and 2.9% respectively to the pinched block, mixed block and spread block. The most requested hitter was the opposite (32.1%), which confirms previous studies both in elite female teams (Marcelino, Csar, Afonso, & Mesquita, 2009) and in elite male teams (Marcelino et al., 2008). This trend was followed by the zone 4 hitter (20.3% to A1 and 20.9% for A2), the middle hitter (12.8% to C1 and 12.2% to C2) and, finally, the setter (1.7%). A significant relationship between variables was found (chi-square (9) =36.184; p=0.002) (Table 1). The adjusted residual shows lower values than expected between spread starting points and setters attack and pinched starting points and attack of the 1st middle hitter, which means that the block starting position affects the opposite teams setters options.

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, Vol. 6 [2010], Iss. 4, Art. 3

Table 1 Relationship between block starting points and the hitter Hitter Setter Count (EC) % within BSP
EB

Opposite 89 (80.3) 35.6 8.6 2.8 1.2 514 (512) 32.3 49.8 16.0 0.2 89 (75.2) 38.0 8.6 2.8 2.0

A1 41 (50.7) 16.4 6.3 1.3 -1.6 328 (323) 20.6 50.4 10.2 0.4 52 (47.4) 22.2 8.0 1.6 0.8

A2 57 (52.3) 22.8 8.5 1.8 0.8 347 (333.4) 21.8 51.6 10.8 1.2 44 (49.0) 18.8 6.5 1.4 -0.8 224 (237.3) 19.8 33.3 7.0 -1.2 672 20.9

C1 34 (31.9) 31.9 8.3 1.1 0.4 172 (203.4) 10.8 42.0 5.4 -3.3 22 (29.0) 9.4 5.4 0.7 -1.6 182 (144.8) 16.0 44.4 5.7 4.1 410 12.8

C2 29 (30.4) 11.6 7.4 0.9 -.03 204 (194) 12.8 52.2 6.4 1.1 26 (28.5) 28.5 6.6 0.8 -0.5

Total 250 (250) 100.0 7.8 7.8

0 (4.3) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.2 28 (27.3) 27.3 50.9 0.9 0.2 1 (4.0) 0.4 1.8 0.0 -1.6 26 (19.4) 2.3 47.3 0.8 1.9 55 1.7

% within Hitter % of Total Adjusted Residual Count (EC) % within BSP % within Hitter % of Total Adjusted Residual Count (EC) % within BSP

1593 (1593) 100.0 49.6 49.6

Block starting points

IB

234 (234) 100.0 7.3 7.3

IZ2

% within Hitter % of Total Adjusted Residual Count (EC) % within BSP

340 (364.5) 230 (229.9) 30.0 32.9 10.6 -1.9 1032 32.1 20.3 35.3 7.2 0.0 651 20.3

132 (138.1) 1134 (1134) 11.6 33.8 4.1 -0.7 391 12.2 3211 100. 0 100.0 35.3 35.3

IZ4

% within Hitter % of Total Adjusted Residual

Total

Count % within BSP

Legend: BSP - Block starting points; EC Expected Count

Indeed, the pinched block allows zone 4 and zone 2 blockers to help the middle blocker to create difficulties to the attack of the middle hitter, resulting in a low tendency for this hitter to be chosen for the setter. In the same context, the attack performed by the setter diminish when the opposite blocker applies spread starting points and the attack of the opposite player increases when the mixed block with pinched zone 2 is used by opponent team. These results suggest that the setter set the ball to the space where it is most difficult for blockers to reach according to their starting positions, i.e., setting the ball to the player that has no blocker committed to him/her. Therefore, these results demonstrate the adaptation of the setters play sets / attack options to the features of the opponents blocking

http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol6/iss4/3 DOI: 10.2202/1559-0410.1216

Arajo et al.: Relationship between Opponent Block and the Hitter

tactics and strategies. The importance attributed to the blockers starting points as an indicator to the setters play sets / attack options was highlighted by a Portuguese expert setter (Mesquita & Graa, 2002). However, the increasing of the number of attacks from the 1st middle (C1) against a mixed block with pinched zone 4 shows the importance of playing fast even the middle blocker is committed to the middle hitter. As the attack from the central zone has demonstrated a significant correlation with the point scoring (Agelonidis, 2004; Bellendier, 2002; Castro & Mesquita, 2008) the risk taken by the setter playing with a hitter who has a blocker committed to him is compensated by the high speed of attack. Even playing in the same position, the 1st and 2nd middle hitters (C1 and C2, respectively) interfered with the starting points options of the opponent block as the mixed block with pinched zone 4 happened more than expected with the C1. The C1s most frequent positioning closer to the setter in the first offensive line (in two of three possible offensive formations with only two hitters, left side hitter and middle hitter), could explain the pinched position of the zone 4 blocker, since no hitter is positioned in zone 2. Indeed the higher occurrence of the mixed block was associated with numerical inferiority of the attack (fewer attackers than blockers) as confirmed by Santandreu, Molina & Anguera (2008), in a study where 1222 actions of attack-defense were analyzed corresponding to 13 games of the 2003 men's World League final. Contrarily the pinched position adopted by all blockers had a higher occurrence in situations of numerical equality or superiority in the offensive system. Table 2 shows that the double block (1x2) was the most frequent type of opposition (32.1%) followed by the single block (29.3%), the no block (6.2%) and lastly, by the triple block (5.6%). These results confirmed that the double block is the usual formation against the attack in peak performance (Afonso, Mesquita, Marcelino, & Coutinho, 2008; Afonso et al., 2005; Marcelino & Mesquita, 2008; Mesquita & Csar, 2007; Palao et al., 2004).

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, Vol. 6 [2010], Iss. 4, Art. 3

Table 2 Relationship between Hitter and Block opposition
Hitter Setter 1 vs. 3 Count (EC) % within BO % within Hitter % Total 0 (4) 0.0 0.0 1.5 Opposite 70 (59.1) 37.8 6.6 1.8 1.8 14 (13.7) 32.65 1.3 0.4 0.1 426 (329.4) 41.3 40.4 12.95 7.8 285 (278.7) 32.6 27.0 8.6 0.5 213 (309.0) 22.0 20.2 6.4 -7.9 47 (65.1) 23.0 4.5 1.4 -2.8 1055 A1 51 (37.8) 27.6 7.5 0.1 2.5 16 (8.8) 37.2 2.4 0.5 2.7 243 (211.1) 23.5 35.9 7.4 3.0 187 (178.6) 21.4 27.7 5.7 0.8 126 (198.0) 13.0 18.6 3.8 -6.8 53 (41.7) 26.0 7.8 1.6 2.0 67 20.5 A2 60 (38.6) 32.4 8.7 0.0 4.0 12 (9.0) 27.9 1.7 0.4 1.1 238 (215.1) 23.1 34.5 7.2 2.1 185 (182.0) 21.2 26.9 5.6 0.3 155 (201.8) 16.0 22.5 4.7 -4.4 39 (42.5) 19.1 5.7 1.2 -.6 689 20.8 C1 3 (23.3) 1.6 0.7 0.0 -4.6 1 (5.4) 2.3 .2 0.0 -2.0 60 (130.2) 5.8 14.4 1.8 -7.9 C2 1 (22.2) 0.5 0.3 0.0 -4.9 0 (5.2) 0.0 0.0 0.0 -2.4 64 (123.7) 1032 (1032.0) 6.2 16.2 1.9 -6.9 100.0 31.2 31.2 43 (43.0) 100.0 1.3 1.3 Total 185 (185) 100.0 5.6 5.6

Adjusted Residual -2.1 1 vs. (2+1) Count (EC) % within BO % within Hitter % Total 0 (0.9) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Adjusted Residual -1.0 1 vs. 2 Count (EC) % within BO % within Hitter % Total
Block opposition

1 (22.5) 0.1 1.4 0.0

Adjusted Residual -5.5 1 vs. (1+1) Count (EC) % within BO % within Hitter % Total 6 (19.0) 0.7 8.3 0.2

101 (110.1) 109 (104.6) 873 (873.0) 11.6 24.2 3.1 -1.1 12.5 27.5 3.3 0.5 100.0 26.4 26.4

Adjusted Residual -3.5 1 vs. 1 Count (EC) % within BO % within Hitter % Total 34 (21.1) 3.5 47.2 1.0

232 (122.1) 208 (116.09 968 (968.0) 24.0 55.6 7.0 12.6 20 (25.7) 9.8 4.8 0.6 -1.2 417 12.6 21.5 52.5 6.3 10.8 14 (24.4) 6.9 3.5 0.4 -2.3 396 12.0 3305 100.0 204 (204.0) 100.0 6.2 6.2 100.0 29.3 29.3

Adjusted Residual 3.4 1 vs. 0 Count (EC) % within BO % within Hitter % Total 31 (4.4) 15.2 43.1 0.9

Adjusted Residual 13.1 Total Count 72

% within BO 2.2 31.9 Legend: BO - Block opposition; EC Expected Count

http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol6/iss4/3 DOI: 10.2202/1559-0410.1216

Arajo et al.: Relationship between Opponent Block and the Hitter

The occurrence of the compact block (1 vs. 3 and 1 vs. 2) was higher (37.7%) than the occurrence of the open block [1x (1 + 2) and 1 vs. (1 +1)] (28.3%), which corroborates previous study in elite female teams (Mesquita & Csar, 2007). This shows the improvement of tactical and technical skills of the blockers that could be explained by the importance ascribed to this game action, as it differentiates the ranking in elite teams, and, therefore, its increasing importance in the training process (Palao et al., 2004). A significant relationship was verified between the number of blockers and the hitter chosen by the setter (chi-square (11) = 629.689, p<0.001) (table 2). The individual block happened more than expected when the attack was performed by the middle hitters (C1 and C2), because most attacks of this player are fast and executed on the central zone of the net close to the setter (Afonso et al., 2005; Castro & Mesquita, 2008) not often allowing the double or triple block formation as it was verified. On the other hand, the opposite player performed the attack against the double block situation (1 vs. 2) more than expected corroborating the findings of the Mesquita & Csars study (2007). Being the opposite player the one that usually scores more points per game (Marcelino et al., 2009) his proficiency is more relevant, as he is capable to be successful even facing hard conditions to attack through the opposing double block. Concerning the outside hitter (A1 and A2), this player faced the individual block lower than expected and the triple block, the open triple block and the compact double block more than expected. Once zone 4 is the more frequent attack zone used in resource situations, where slowest tempos are played, this allows more time for blockers to apply double or triple block (Papadimitriou, Pashali, Sermaki, Mellas & Papas, 2004). This result confirmed previous studies, in which the zone 4 is characterized as the security attack zone (Marcelino et al., 2008; Mesquita & Csar, 2007) since many sets goes to this zone mainly because most of the times the defended ball does not allow the setter to run other play sets along the net. Once again, the setters position interfered with the block opposition since the open triple block was more used than expected against the left-side hitter A1. Once this player plays in the front row in two formations near the setter with only two hitters, the zone 4 blocker of the opponent team tends to move on to the interior of the court as no hitter is positioned in zone 2 (where the setter plays when he/she is front row). So, this allows the zone 4 blocker to be closer to the middle blocker and be on time for the double or even to the triple block if necessary.

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, Vol. 6 [2010], Iss. 4, Art. 3

Conclusions Some trends of attack and block actions were found from the sample under analysis. The pinched block and the double block were the most recurrent ones and the opposite player was the most requested hitter. This study highlighted that the blockers starting points are taken in consideration by the opponent setter to create the best conditions for the offensive players (hitters). Indeed, from a pinched block starting position the opponent setter tends to set the ball on the side zones (left and right) away from the central zone. Notwithstanding, the opponent block also showed some adaptations facing some apparent weaknesses from the opponents attack. Since the middle hitter C1 plays most of the time with the setter in the front row than the middle hitter C2, the opponent block took advantage of this situation using a mixed block with pinched zone 4. Moreover, a mixed block with pinched zone 2 was more used against the opposite players attack and a mixed block with pinched zone 4 to face the fast attack of the central player that shows the block adaptation to the hitters features (skills and ability to score). Concerning the relationship between the hitter and the number of blockers this study demonstrates that the setter takes advantages of the specific features (skills and ability to score) of its hitters, and the space where they perform the attack, in order to create difficulties to the opponent block. So, as the central hitter plays in the middle zone he must apply fast attack to face the single block; the opposite player (right side hitter), being a powerful hitter with many resources, he is able to perform against double block while left-side hitter, once he is the security player, faces the worst attack conditions playing against double and triple block. Indeed, this study shows that the Volleyball game at the elite male level is characterized by a constant adaptation between setters options and the opponent block tactics and strategies. These trends must be considered in the training process to prepare hitters and blockers for the most common situations that occur in the competition and, therefore, to create better and more appropriated and effective solutions to the game problems. Concerning future research, it would be interesting to analyze the starting points of the block and the number of blockers according to the game phases i.e. side-out (attack after the reception) and transition (attack after the dig) as they could interfere with tactics and strategies of the opponent blocking system.

http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol6/iss4/3 DOI: 10.2202/1559-0410.1216

Arajo et al.: Relationship between Opponent Block and the Hitter

References Afonso, J., Mesquita, I., Marcelino, R., & Coutinho, P. (2008). The effect of the zone and tempo of attack in the block opposition, in elite female volleyball. In A. Hkelmann & M. Brummund (Eds.), Notational Analysis in Sport - VIII (pp. 412-415). Magdeburn: Otto-von-Guericke-Universitt Magdeburg. Afonso, J., Mesquita, I., & Palao, J. (2005). Relationship between the use of commit-block and the numbers of blockers and block effectiveness. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 5, 36-45. Agelonidis, Y. (2004). The jump serve in Volleyball from oblivion to dominance. Journal of Human Movement Studies, 47:205-213. Bellendier, J. (2002) Ataque de rotacin en el voleibol, un enfoque actualizado. Efdeportes Revista Digital, ano 8, 51. Disponivel em http://www.efedeportes.com/efd60. Castro, J. & Mesquita, I. (2008) Estudo das implicaes do espao ofensivo nas caractersticas do ataque no Voleibol masculino de elite. Revista Portuguesa de Cincias do Desporto, 8(1), 114-125. Hughes, M., Cooper, S., & Nevill, A. (2004). Analysis of notation data: Reliability. In M. Hughes & I. Franks (Eds.), Notational analysis of sport: Systems for better coaching and performance in sport (Second ed., pp. 189-204). Abingdon, UK: Routledge. James, N., Taylor, J., & Stanley, S. (2007). Reliability procedures for categorical data in Performance Analysis. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 7, 1-11. Marcelino, R., Csar, B., Afonso, J., & Mesquita, I. (2009). Attack-Tempo and Attack-Type as predictors of attack point made by opposite players in volleyball. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 9(3), 391. Marcelino, R., & Mesquita, I. (2008). Associations between performance indicators and set's result on male volleyball. In D. Milanovic & F. Prot (Eds.), 5th International Scientific Conference on Kinesiology (pp. 955957). Zagreb, Croatia: Univ Zagreb, Fac Kinesiology. Marcelino, R., Mesquita, I., & Afonso, J. (2008). The weight of terminal actions in Volleyball. Contributions of the spike, serve and block for the teams rankings in the World League2005. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 8(2), 1-7. Marcelino, R., Mesquita, I., Castro, J., & Sampaio, J. (2008). Sequential analysis in Volleyball attack performance: a log-linear analysis. Journal of Sport Sciences, 26(Supp 2), S83-S84.

Published by Berkeley Electronic Press, 2010

Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports, Vol. 6 [2010], Iss. 4, Art. 3

Marelic, N., Resetar, T., & Jankovic, V. (2004). Discriminant Analysis of the Sets Won and the Sets Lost by One Team in A1 Italian Volleyball League-a Case Study. Kinesiology, 36(1), 75-82. Marelic, N., Zufar, G., & Omrcen, D. (1998). Influence of some situation-related parametres on the score in volleyball. Kinesiology, 30(2), 55-65. Mesquita, I., & Csar, B. (2007). Characterisation of the opposite player's attack from the opposition block characteristics. An applied study in the Athens Olympic games in female volleyball teams. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 7, 13-27. Mesquita, I., & Graa, A. (2002). Probing the Strategic Knowledge of an Elite Volleyball Setter: A case Study. International Journal of Volleyball Research, 5(1), 13-17. Mesquita, I., & Marcelino, R. (2008). Effect of team level on Volleyball game actions performance. 5th International Scientific Conference on Kinesiology, 966-968. Zagreb, Croatia: Univ Zagreb, Fac Kinesiology. Palao, J., Santos, J. , & Urea, A. (2004). Effect of the Setter's Position on the Block in Volleyball. International Journal of Volleyball Research, 6(1), 29-32. Papadimitriou K., Pashali E., Sermaki I., Mellas S. & Papas M. (2004). The effect of the opponents serve on the offensive actions of Greek setters in Volleyball games. International Performance Analysis in Sport. 4 (1). 2333. Santandreu, C., Molina, J., & Anguera, M. (2008). Incidencia del nmero de atacatens en la defensa de primeira lnea en voleibol. Apunts - Educacin Fsica e Desportes, 93, 36-45. Selinger, A., & Ackermann-Blount, J. (1986). Arie Selinger's power volleyball. New York: St. Martn Press. Van der Mars, H. (1989). Observer reliability: issues and procedures. In Darst, Zakrajsek & Macini (Eds.), Analysing Physical Education and Sport Instruction (pp. 53-79): Human Kinetics.

http://www.bepress.com/jqas/vol6/iss4/3 DOI: 10.2202/1559-0410.1216

10