Interaction network analysis of the six game complexes in high-level volleyball through the use of Eigenvector Centrality

Abstract

Social Network Analysis establishes a network system and provides information about the relationships (edges) between system components (nodes). Although nodes usually correspond to actors within the network (e.g., the players), it is possible to stipulate game actions as nodes, thus creating a network of the flow of game actions. In this study, Eigenvector Centrality (a form of weighted centrality that considers n-order connections) was used to identify differences in the centrality of distinct game actions within each of the six game complexes of volleyball. Thirteen matches (46 sets, 2,049 rallies) of the final round of the 2015 FIVB's World Grand Prix (Women) were analyzed. Results showed that analyzing actions as actors (i.e., nodes) offers a clear and comprehensive understanding of game flow and poses an interesting alternative to mainstream research where players are considered nodes. Functional differences between the six game complexes were highlighted, denoting the validity of such division. Out-of-system playing (i.e., having to set the attack under non-ideal conditions, e.g., in KI, KII, KIII and KIV), emerged as a regularity of the game and should be translated into the training process.

Reception and performance in high level male volleyball: A relational study

“…Following strategies were used to provide construction and content validity to this instrument (Castro & Mesquita, 2016). First, a literature review was carried out in order to identify different zonal reception instruments (Afonso et al, 2012(Afonso et al, , 2010Callejón & Hernández, 2009;Carrero et al, 2017;Ciuffarella et al, 2013;García-Tormo, Redondo, Valladares, & Morante, 2006;Gil, Del Villar, Moreno, García-González, & Moreno, 2011;González-Silva, Moreno, Fernández-Echeverría, Claver, & Moreno, 2016;Hernández, Ureña, Molina, & Sánchez, 2013;Hurst et al, 2016;João & Pires, 2015;Laporta et al, 2018;Lima et al, 2008;Maia & Mesquita, 2006;Marcelino et al, 2014;Moreno et al, 2007;Paulo et al, 2016;Rentero et al, 2015;Stamm, Stamm, Vantsi, & Jairus, 2016;Stankovic, Ruiz-Llamas, Peric, & Quiroga-Escudero, 2018;Valhondo et al, 2018). The categories that best fit our vision of the problem, based on a structure of three online receivers that is most used by high-level men's teams (Ciuffarella et al, 2013), were those that divided the width of the field in 4 longitudinal reception corridors (Marcelino et al, 2014).…”

“…One of the factors studied is the reception area. Traditionally, the division of the field into six spatial zones established by the regulation has been used (Hurst et al, 2016;Laporta et al, 2018;Maia & Mesquita, 2006;Rentero, João & Moreno, 2015), although it does not seem an adequate topographic division according to the functionality of the game and in order to draw relevant conclusions (Maia & Mesquita, 2006). Probably for this reason, different researchers have increased the number of zones or modified them with Ad-Hoc instruments, to assess the reception zone (Afonso et al, 2012;Afonso, Mesquita, Marcelino, & Da Silva, 2010;João & Pires, 2015;Lima, Mesquita, & Pereira, 2008;Marcelino, Afonso, Moraes, & Mesquita, 2014;Moreno, García de Alcaraz, Moreno, Molina, & Santos, 2007;Valhondo, Fernandez-Echeverria, Gonzalez-Silva, Claver, & Moreno, 2018).…”

Characteristics of Serve, Reception and Set That Determine the Setting Efficacy in Men’s Volleyball

“…Due to the sequential nature of volleyball, knowledge of the relationships between the different game actions is essential. The analysis of the interaction between game actions through social networks provides information about the relationships between the different elements of the system through the establishment of a network system (Laporta et al, 2018).…”

The Sequencing of Game Complexes in Women’s Volleyball

“…In practical terms, this finding suggests that ball control drills using a net should not require women players to practice long rallies with more than six complexes or ball exchanges over the net. Laporta et al (2018a) found that the most frequent game complex in elite women's volleyball was K0, followed in order of frequency by KI, KII, KIII, KV, and KIV. In the present study, however, the order of frequency was K0, KI, KII, KIII, KIV, KV, and UK.…”

“…Palao et al (2004) produced a flowchart with only three game complexes (KI, KII, and KIII). Laporta et al (2018a) developed another flowchart with six game complexes (labeled from K0 to KV), from which the authors identified a total of 13 transitions between complexes (K0 to KI; KI to KII, KIV, and KV; KII to KIII and KIV; KIII to KIII, KIV, and KV; KIV to KIII and KV; and KV to KIII and KIV). Unfortunately, the diagrams did not show which complex transitions were the most frequent and which needed to be worked on the most in training.…”