.png)
Are Back Row Volleyball Attacks Worth It?
Prologue
When I look at the attack stats after the match, I find that the hitting pct. for back row attacks are nearly always bad. The hitting pct. always hover around the 0% mark or lower. This got me thinking whether back row attacks are actually worth it. I decided to dive deep into the stats for an answer.
Hitting Percentage Organised by Attack Zone and Competition
Below is a table showing hitting pct. organised by attack zone and competition. Hitting pct. is calculated as =(Kills – Errors)/ Total Attack Attempts. Attack zones include left side, middle, right side and back row. Middle attacks also includes slide attacks, although they are spiked from the right side. This is so there’s an understanding that middle attacks are essentially hit by middle hitters. Back row attacks includes both pipes (middle back) and tens (right back). This is just to average out the data as there are very few attempts in certain situations. I separated the data by competition because hitting percentages for one playing level and gender may not be the same for another. Women’s Super League 2019-20 also includes National Cup matches that involves Super League teams only since the level will be the same. There is some bias in the data as nearly half of the data for the Men’s Super League (over two seasons) and for BUCS Tier 1 Women is based on IBB Polonia London and City University London, respectively.
The middle zone is the best attacking zone in all competitions, as indicated by the green highlight. This will make sense because the middle players are only utilised in optimal attacking situations, which will stretch out the block-defence. You can see that the back row attacks are the worst hitting zone in any competition, as indicated by the red highlight. The only exception being at the Novotel Cup Men 2019. The overall average hitting pct. for back row attacks is only 3%.
So this is what I see that makes me think whether back row attacks are not worth it. However, it could be argued that back row hitting percentage is only low because it is generally used in poor situations,i.e. with less than optimal attacking conditions. It could be that in optimal attacking conditions, the back row hitting pct. will be higher.
Hitting Percentage Organised by Attack Zone, Situation and Competition
Below is a table showing the hitting pct. organised by attack zone, situation and competition. Situations include attack after a perfect pass, a positive pass, a neutral pass, a negative pass, after an opposition attack and after an oppositional free ball. For a full set of operational definitions, click on this link. The men has the neutral and negative pass grouped together, as I did not stat neutral passes in the 2018-19 season of the Men’s Super League. I did not include the individual competitions because most had too few atack attempts in each category so I grouped them together. The hitting percentages in grey writing indicates there was less than 30 attack attempts.
You can see that in nearly all situations, including after a perfect and positive pass, the back row attack still has the lowest hitting pct. out of all the attacking zones (highlighted red). Even if you look at the actual percentages, it rarely goes into the double digits, unless it is a negative hitting percentage. However, the back row attack is pretty high after an opposition free ball for the European/ International competition (33%) and in men’s volleyball (26%). It could be that in these ideal situations, the quick pipe/ BIC play could be utilised, which if executed correctly is highly effective.
So even in the best attacking situations, the back row attack is still largely ineffective. However, it could be argued that looking at hitting percentages for whole competitions is too generalised. Teams could drag the overall hitting percetange down but you could use still certain players that can hit back row attacks well.
Hitting Percentage Organised by Attack Zone and Individual Players
I compiled individual players’ hitting percentage by zone in the Women’s Super League 2019-20 and in the Men’s Super League 2018-19. I set a minimum of 30 attack attempts in the back row to reduce variability in the data.
There are only 15 women players that has hit 30 or more balls in the back row. You can see there is a marked drop in the players’ hitting pct in the back row hitting percentage compared to the front row in all players. The average drop is -26%. There is only one player, Gabriela Durczynski, who seems to have a negligible drop of 1% but still has a good overall hitting percentage of 19-20% overall. For the actual hitting percentage values, only 6 players has hit more than 0% while the rest hits a negative, i.e. more errors than kills.
The men has less data since I only statted IBB Polonia London matches and we faced Team Essex Blaze, Sheffield Hallam and Durham Palatinates the most times in that season. Only 5 players has accrued more than 30 attack attempts in the back row. As with the women, there is a drop in hitting percentages for all players in the back row attack compared to the front row. However, the drop is less steep at -12% on average. All five players has hit a positive, which is good. Seain Cook almost hits as well in the back row (30%) than in the front row (35%).
As a performance analylst, I would not recommed the setter to set to anybody hitting a negative. You are hindering the team more than you are helping it because you are losing more points via errors than scoring them via kills. You can see this leaves you with only a handful of players that can hit a positive hitting percentage, i.e. above 0% (it may be more men that can do it but I don’t have the data). Of those handful of players, I would say only a few of them are good enough to be utilised. The way I figure this out is to compare that player’s back row hitting percentage with another player’s front row hitting percentage. If it’s better or similar then the back row attack should be utilised. If it’s slightly worst then I would use the back row attack seldomly. If it’s a lot worse then I would avoid the back row attack if possible. For example, TeamBU Wessex’s outside hitter Lara Picht has a back row hitting pct. of 15%, which is pretty decent. However, in the same situation that Picht was set to, would it better for the setter to set to the second outside hitter Brianna Gardner, who hits 25% in the front row, or to opposite Madison Weg who hits 32% in the front row? Of course, it depends on the situation and the ability of the setter. The setter may be in a poor situation and not be able to set a good set to the front row wing players.
So Are Back Row Volleyball Attacks Worth It?
If looking , it is best to avoid setting back row attacks if possible in general from Super League level and below. You can see that in all competitions shown, in all situations and for the vast majority of players, the hitting percentage is poor. There are only a handful of players that I could say that the back row attack is effective and should be utilised.
Above Super League level, the data (European/ International level) does start to show a trend that the difference between front and back row attacks are narrowed at higher levels of volleyball. So probably at higher levels, back row attacks are worth it. It could be useful to revisit this topic with more data, especially at above Super League level.
Comments