photo – jastrzebskiwegiel.pl
Volleyball is a game of protocols. Everywhere you look there are protocols. How and where the players, coaches and officials must stand. What they can wear and when. How to make substitutions, take timeouts, talk to your team. Protocols, protocols, protocols.
And where there are protocols there are anarchists who will do anything to subvert them. For example, volleyball rules state that players must play with their shirts tucked in. And referees, as the high priests of protocol, must control all players before the start of the match. Many players do not like to play with their shirts tucked in and most others are just anarchists.
The ‘Checking The Players’ Shirts’ protocol fits into the ‘Teams Lining Up’ protocol before the start of the match. The players line up on the sideline of their respective sides. The referees check that the captain and liberos are standing where they must (captain first, first libero second, second libero last; another protocol) and that the players’ shirts are tucked in.
Many / most players, even those who have played hundreds of professional matches know that the referee will check their shirt, yet they will not tuck it in until after the referee asks them too. And to confirm their anarchist credentials they will all untuck their shirts again the moment they move to the middle of the court. If you are bored before a match you can watch this predictable, yet highly entertaining dance.
And if you are especially lucky, you might catch the player whose superstition it is to be the last in the line. Watch the lengths he will go to to circumvent the protocols. It is hilarious.
It is conventional wisdom in volleyball, and indeed in most sports, that the team that makes the fewest errors should win. Many maintain that attack efficiency, and therefore implicitly attack errors, are the key determinant to success. Conversely many say that a minimum number of service errors is required in order to develop enough pressure to win.
However to the best of my knowledge noone has ever looked at other kinds of errors or how the total number of errors might influence the outcome. It sounds like something we should know about.
The first problem is how to measure errors. Total errors might be one way to go if we are looking at indivdual sets. But in general totals, or even per set averages, are not very good because they don’t take into account number of opportunities. Therefore the obvious measurement is a percentage of total contacts. But that ends up being a very small number. And how do you include block attempts.
The number I have started working is errors per 100 rallies. This ends up being a quite nice number. In my league the average is between 12 and 16. Conversely the number of points ‘won’ is between 30 and 36. I haven’t done any serious analysis but eyeballing it, it looks like there might be something there.
My question is: Is this a reasonable way to measure errors? Can you think of a better way?
All comments welcome.
Bobby Knight is one of the most famous basketball coaches of all time.
By many / most / all accounts he was also one of the best basketball coaches of all time.
He was a renowned for being an ill tempered bully and was fired from his most famous job for mistreatment of athletes.
He always maintained that he genuinely cared about his players and that all of them graduated.
I have never quite understood how saying that you care about someone excuses bad behaviour after the fact.
Below is a surreptiously taped clip of one of his half time speeches. Count the number of times he says ‘we’ and ‘I’.
The most common misconception about coaching is that the work of the coach is in the stuff he ‘does’ and most specifically the stuff he ‘does’ that other people see. So coaches are judged on the number of timeouts they take in a game because that is what people recognise as ‘coaching’. They are judged on the things they shout at the players in practice or games, because that is what people recognise as coaching. They are judged on the amount of feedback they give in practice because that is what people recognise as coaching.
I have written before about coaching and these interventions. Simply, coaching is not in the interventions. This short YouTube addresses the difference between what happens when the coach relies on interventions in practice and when the coach relies on other methods. It is a great way to spend two and a half minutes if you are a coach. Or a parent for that matter.
Read about the great new Vyacheslav Platonov coaching book here.