What is the Most Important Volleyball Skill in the Men’s Game? Using Match Data from the 2012 Men’s Volleyball Olympic Games

INTRODUCTION I have previously discussed what is the most important technical volleyball skill. Those in volleyball have told me that this can’t be the case because you need a good defence to build an effective attack.  I have decided to look at this year’s Olympics and the official statistics (see link) from the men’s volleyball matches to see whether this still held true.  Results from the women’s volleyball matches can be found on this link.

WHAT DID I FOUND OUT?  (FOR THOSE WHO WANTS A QUICK ANSWER)t seems attack is still the strongest indicator of a successful performance.  Point scoring and setting are the next best performance indicators.  Serve, block, reception and dig are not strong indicators.  

BUT… Clearly, this is not a definitive answer.  There are many sources of potential error.  No statistical testing was performed so it is not known whether any result is significant.  There could be operator error where the data is not entered into the system properly or where not all ball actions are called (e.g. see link).  Data may also be changed by the Omega operator that monitors the codes coming in (see link).  No inter-operator reliability testing was done (whether different statisticians will record the same performance in the same way) and operational terminology may not be clearly defined.

METHODOLOGY (FOR THOSE WHO WANT A LONG ANSWER)

I have compared a team’s tournament rank with their performance indicator rank.  There are two performance indicators for each 6 technical skill, except for setting where there is only one.  If their tournament rank matches their performance indicator rank then I have highlighted it green.  If it is one rank away then I have highlighted it orange.  If it two or more ranks away then I have highlighted it red.  I have also grouped the teams’ tournament rank to those who reached the semi-finals (1st-4th), teams that reached the quarters-finals but no further (5th-8th) and teams that did not progressed beyond the group stages (9th-12th).  No statistical testing have been performed so no significant results are known.

ATTACK ANALYSIS

The green squares shows that both performance indicators of Hitting % (H%) and Attack Efficiency Ratio (AER) are highly correlated to tournament ranking.  The groupings show that there is a clear difference between teams ranked 9th to 12th (20.56%) and teams ranked 1st to 8th (33.12% and 32.12%)

Tour. Rank	Team	Spikes	Faults	Shots	Total	H%	H% Rank	AER	AER Rank
1	Russia	388	117	250	755	35.89%	2	3.316	3
2	Brazil	368	106	269	743	35.26%	3	3.472	2
3	Italy	361	142	299	802	27.31%	7	2.542	8
4	Bulgeria	367	115	249	731	34.47%	4	3.191	4
5-8	Poland	277	74	189	540	37.59%	1	3.743	1
5-8	Argentina	243	83	178	504	31.75%	5	2.928	6
5-8	USA	258	88	190	536	31.72%	6	2.932	5
5-8	Germany	237	90	217	544	27.02%	8	2.633	7
9-10	Australia	201	92	163	456	23.90%	9	2.185	9
9-10	Serbia	252	127	187	566	22.08%	10	1.984	10
11-12	Tunisa	170	91	177	438	18.04%	11	1.868	11
11-12	GB	152	85	151	388	17.27%	12	1.788	12
Tour. Rank		Spikes	Faults	Shots	Total	H%	H% Rank	AER	AER Rank
1st – 4th		1484	480	1067	3031	33.12%	1	3.092	1
5th – 8th		1015	335	774	2124	32.02%	2	3.030	2
9th – 12th		775	395	678	1848	20.56%	3	1.962	3

SERVE ANALYSIS The numerous red squares show serve doesn’t look like a good predicator of success.  The groupings show that it can distinguish teams that progressed beyond the group stages (1st-8th) and teams that did not (9th-12th).

Tour. Rank	Team	Aces	Faults	Hits	Total	S%	S% Rank	SER	SER Rank
1	Russia	45	122	516	683	-11.27%	9	2.711	4
2	Brazil	39	108	522	669	-10.31%	5	2.769	6
3	Italy	53	120	481	654	-10.24%	4	2.264	2
4	Bulgeria	36	111	503	650	-11.54%	10	3.083	9
5-8	Poland	31	86	378	495	-11.11%	7	2.774	7
5-8	Argentina	26	64	346	436	-8.72%	2	2.462	3
5-8	USA	32	65	392	489	-6.75%	1	2.031	1
5-8	Germany	19	66	347	432	-10.88%	6	3.474	10
9-10	Australia	24	68	303	395	-11.14%	8	2.833	8
9-10	Serbia	24	66	325	415	-10.12%	3	2.750	5
11-12	Tunisa	7	44	251	302	-12.25%	11	6.286	12
11-12	GB	10	60	213	283	-17.67%	12	6.000	11
Tour. Rank		Aces	Faults	Hits	Total	S%	S% Rank	SER	SER Rank
1st – 4th		173	461	2022	2656	-10.84%	2	2.665	2
5th – 8th		108	281	1463	1852	-9.34%	1	2.602	1
9th – 12th		65	238	1092	1395	-12.40%	3	3.662	3

BLOCK ANALYSIS This is a similar story to the serve analysis.  Rankings are all over the place.  Russia looks good at being block ranking 2.  However, Australia whose performance indicator is the top ranked is only the 9-10th best team.  A caveat of this is that a block out (where an opposition attack deflects off the block and the blocking team loses a point as a result) is considered a blocking error.  This is something I do not agree with because it could be argued it was the skill of the opposition attack that won them the point rather than the blocking team losing a point.

Tour. Rank	Team	Blocks	Faults	Rebounds	Total	B%	B% Rank	BER	BER Rank
1	Russia	89	132	154	375	-11.47%	2	1.483	2
2	Brazil	64	168	137	369	-28.18%	11	2.625	9
3	Italy	64	125	117	306	-19.93%	6	1.953	6
4	Bulgeria	79	137	121	337	-17.21%	5	1.734	4
5-8	Poland	46	101	102	249	-22.09%	7	2.196	8
5-8	Argentina	37	112	87	236	-31.78%	12	3.027	12
5-8	USA	73	116	116	305	-14.10%	3	1.589	3
5-8	Germany	55	112	74	241	-23.65%	8	2.036	7
9-10	Australia	58	65	85	208	-3.37%	1	1.121	1
9-10	Serbia	55	96	95	246	-16.67%	4	1.745	5
11-12	Tunisa	22	61	65	148	-26.35%	10	2.773	11
11-12	GB	19	50	50	119	-26.05%	9	2.632	10
Tour. Rank		Blocks	Faults	Rebounds	Total	B%	B% Rank	BER	BER Rank
1st – 4th		296	562	529	1387	-19.18%	2	1.899	2
5th – 8th		211	441	379	1031	-22.31%	3	2.090	1
9th – 12th		154	272	295	721	-16.37%	1	1.766	3

SET ANALYSIS This looks like a decent performance indicator with only 2 red squares.  The grouping looks like again it can distinguish between teams that progressed past the group stages or not.

Tour. Rank	Team	Sets	Faults	Still Sets	Total	A%	A% Rank
1	Russia	372	7	371	750	48.67%	2
2	Brazil	346	5	358	709	48.10%	3
3	Italy	332	9	428	769	42.00%	7
4	Bulgeria	340	12	355	707	46.39%	5
5-8	Poland	226	5	304	535	41.31%	9
5-8	Argentina	259	2	256	517	49.71%	1
5-8	USA	222	5	246	473	45.88%	6
5-8	Germany	247	4	271	522	46.55%	4
9-10	Australia	193	5	262	460	40.87%	10
9-10	Serbia	236	5	313	554	41.70%	8
11-12	Tunisa	138	9	226	373	34.58%	11
11-12	GB	167	14	269	450	34.00%	12
Tour. Rank	Team	Sets	Faults	Still Sets	Total	A%	A% Rank
1st – 4th		1390	33	1512	2935	46.24%	1
5th – 8th		954	16	1077	2047	45.82%	2
9th – 12th		734	33	1070	1837	38.16%	3

RECEPTION ANALYSIS This is a similar story to the block and serve where there is too many red squares.  I was surprised because after watching the Olympic matches at the match venue, I did think it was important because it was the first attack for the receiving team.  Russia has the best Reception % but the worst Excellent Reception % which is an odd result (they got the ball in play but it wasn’t perfect).

Tour. Rank	Team	Excellent	Faults	Recep.	Total	R%	R% Rank	ER%	ER% Rank
1	Russia	283	25	198	506	95.06%	1	55.93%	12
2	Brazil	331	28	120	479	94.15%	3	69.10%	2
3	Italy	339	34	149	522	93.49%	6	64.94%	3
4	Bulgeria	345	47	140	532	91.17%	10	64.85%	5
5-8	Poland	240	22	127	389	94.34%	2	61.70%	7
5-8	Argentina	237	32	96	365	91.23%	9	64.93%	4
5-8	USA	248	21	86	355	94.08%	4	69.86%	1
5-8	Germany	233	33	105	371	91.11%	11	62.80%	6
9-10	Australia	189	19	109	317	94.01%	5	59.62%	9
9-10	Serbia	233	29	139	401	92.77%	7	58.10%	11
11-12	Tunisa	188	28	91	307	90.88%	12	61.24%	8
11-12	GB	191	24	111	326	92.64%	8	58.59%	10
Tour. Rank	Team	Excellent	Faults	Recep.	Total	R%	R% Rank	ER%	ER% Rank
1st – 4th		1298	134	607	2039	93.43%	1	63.66%	2
5th – 8th		958	108	414	1480	92.70%	2	64.73%	1
9th – 12th		801	100	450	1351	92.60%	3	59.29%	3

DIG ANALYSIS The groupings looks like its a great performance indicator.  However, looking at the individual teams and there are so many red squares so it doesn’t look good.

Tour. Rank	Team	Digs	Faults	Recep.	Total	D%	D% Rank	PD%	ED% Rank
1	Russia	257	85	91	433	80.37%	2	59.35%	3
2	Brazil	229	74	100	403	81.64%	1	56.82%	6
3	Italy	249	86	90	425	79.76%	4	58.59%	5
4	Bulgeria	236	81	60	377	78.51%	7	62.60%	1
5-8	Poland	167	79	61	307	74.27%	10	54.40%	9
5-8	Argentina	179	57	52	288	80.21%	3	62.15%	2
5-8	USA	136	71	56	263	73.00%	12	51.71%	12
5-8	Germany	171	59	61	291	79.73%	5	58.76%	4
9-10	Australia	136	55	68	259	78.76%	6	52.51%	11
9-10	Serbia	148	62	63	273	77.29%	8	54.21%	10
11-12	Tunisa	117	54	35	206	73.79%	11	56.80%	7
11-12	GB	138	61	48	247	75.30%	9	55.87%	8
Tour. Rank	Team	Digs	Faults	Recep.	Total	D%	D% Rank	PD%	PD% Rank
1st – 4th		971	326	341	1638	80.10%	1	59.28%	1
5th – 8th		653	266	230	1149	76.85%	2	56.83%	2
9th – 12th		539	232	214	985	76.45%	3	54.72%	3

POINTS ANALYSIS I expected this to be the strongest performance indicator because to win games, you need to score points and not give too much away.  However, it doesn’t look like a strong indicator of a successful performance.  It is interesting to see that Tunisa and GB had a Points Efficiency Ratio (PER=Points Scored/Points Lost) of less than 1.00.  This means they made more errors than they scored points.

Tour. Rank	Team	Points	Faults	P%	P% Rank	PER	PER %
1	Russia	522	403	17.01%	1	1.295	1
2	Brazil	471	415	15.86%	5	1.135	6
3	Italy	478	430	15.66%	6	1.112	7
4	Bulgeria	482	422	16.30%	3	1.142	4
5-8	Poland	354	288	16.03%	4	1.229	3
5-8	Argentina	306	293	14.87%	9	1.044	8
5-8	USA	363	295	16.82%	2	1.231	2
5-8	Germany	311	305	14.74%	10	1.020	10
9-10	Australia	283	249	15.41%	7	1.137	5
9-10	Serbia	331	323	15.17%	8	1.025	9
11-12	Tunisa	199	233	12.69%	11	0.854	11
11-12	GB	181	233	11.56%	12	0.777	12
Tour. Rank	Team	Points	Faults	P%	Rank	PER	Rank2
1st – 4th		1953	1670	16.21%	1	1.169	1
5th – 8th		1334	1181	15.63%	2	1.130	2
9th – 12th		994	1038	13.90%	3	0.958	3