.png)
Is Serving Short a Good Strategy?
Introduction
I always thought it was a good strategy to serve short. I remember Coach Alex Chavau employed this tactic with Wessex VC against Polonia SideOut London and we really struggled in the pass. However, when I looked into which zones was the most effective to serve to, the front row (zones 2, 3 and 4) were actually the worst zones to serve to. Although the service rating was poor, it doesn’t necessarily mean the passing is poor too. Service errors can drive down the service rating (5 out of the 13 total attempts to zone 2 were due to service errors) but when the serve is in play, the pass quality can be poor. To test this idea out, I looked into the reception stats by zone, which is essentially the inverse of service stats but excluding the service errors.
Which Zones Do Players Pass Best?
I rated the pass on a five point scale that ranges from 4 for a perfect pass to 0 for a reception error (see link for more details). The reception rating is an weighted average where you multiply each pass by its designated weight and then divide by the total passing attempts. I used data involving teams in the Women’s Super League, 2019-20 season, when I statted serve directions (which wasn’t for every match unfortunately). The average reception rating for the league is 2.29. The reception and service rating by zone can be found below.
The serves that landed short were actually the best passing zones (except for zone 2) but serves that lands mid-court (zones 7, 8 and 9) are actually the worst passing zones. This is a bit paradoxical in relation to if serving short is a good strategy. At first glance, this doesn’t look to be the case. However, it could be that players do struggle when the serve dies and lands low in front of them. This may explain why passing is bad in the mid-court zones. The reason why this doesn’t logically extend to short serves (zone 2, 3 and 4) could be because the front row middle players help out when the serve is short. I would really need to review the video to see if that’s the actually the case. The exception is zone 2, with poor passing at 2.19. It is only based on 8 reception attempts so you can’t expolate much but it could be that the setter took some of those 8 passes, which would lower the overall reception quality.
Zone 7 is really peculiar. It is the worst passing zone (1.92) but it is also the second worst service zone (1.97). Passing is just the inverse of service so if one is high, the other should be low and vice versa. The service can be explained because just over a quarter of serves to that zone are service errors (45 out of 174). Although I am not sure why the error rate is so high. I would have expected passing to be a lot better, or at least better than the zones 8 and 9, because the player responsible for passing in that zone is usually the front row outsider hitter, who usually holds a slightly higher line than the two back row passers as to not be in rotation violation. So in theory, it should be easier to pick up balls that land mid-court/ in front of them because they are slightly closer to the net. One explanation for the low reception rating could be that the front row outside hitter (left passer) has to transition into attack so they don’t take full care with the pass. A second explanation could be that the coaches would want the front row outside hitter (left passer) to take less responsbility on the pass so the centre passer has to take some more area of responsibility. This can add an area of confusion of when the ball lands in between the left and centre passer on who should take it. A third explanation is that in three rotations, the middle blocker is transitioning from zone 4 to attack so this movement can add potential confusion for the left side passer.
The reception stats show that when the serve is deep, it is passed best in the middle (zone 6, 2.48 passing) and not so good in the deep corners (zone 1, 2.27 passing; zone 5, 2.28 passing). This is reflected in the service stats.
Is Serving Short a Good Strategy?
I would say a serve that lands just beyond the 3 metre line is a good serving strategy. The passers should struggle dealing with the shorter serves but it’s not so short that the front row middle players are able help out or that the serves goes into the net. If you are going to serve just beyond the 3 metre line then zone 7 is probably the best zone to serve to as it’s the lowest reception rating. However, the service error rate is high so it can be a risk to serve in that zone, although I don’t know why it would be such a risk to serve that zone.
Comments