How context influences the tactical-technical behavior of learners: the case of volleyball

Gustavo De Conti Teixeira Costa Corresponding author Gustavo De Conti Teixeira Costa Faculdade de Educação Física e Dança Universidade Federal de Goiás, Campus Samambaia Avenida Esperança s/n, Goiânia, Goiás, Brasil. CEP: 74.690-900. Email: conti02@ufg.br

Universidade Federal de Goiás. Goiânia, GO. Brazil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0911-8753

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: Freire AB, Mitre GP, Castro HO, Costa GCT. Performed the experiments: Rocha ACR, Silva Junior AB, Martins LR, Maia MP. Analyzed the data: Costa GCT. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: Rocha ACR, Silva Junior AB, Martins LR, Maia MP. Wrote the paper: Rocha ACR, Freire AB, Mitre GP,Castro HO, Costa GCT.

Corresponding author Gustavo De Conti Teixeira Costa Faculdade de Educação Física e Dança Universidade Federal de Goiás, Campus Samambaia Avenida Esperança s/n, Goiânia, Goiás, Brasil. CEP: 74.690-900. Email: conti02@ufg.br

		Aspects analyzed	Situation	Mean ± SD	P
Reception	Adjustment	Player moves to occupy position where the ball is more likely to fall (item 1)	3.0m x 3.0m	0.14 ± 0.35	0.001^* * Difference found for p <0.05.
			4.5m x 2.0m	0.53 ± 0.50	0.001^* * Difference found for p <0.05.
		Player is in expectation position and adjust his position according to the proximity of the sidelines (left foot forward when closer to the line on his left or right foot forward when closer to the line on his right) (item 2).	3.0m x 3.0m	0.34 ± 0.48	0.001^* * Difference found for p <0.05.
			4.5m x 2.0m	0.60 ± 0.48	0.001^* * Difference found for p <0.05.
		After receiving, player moves to perform the next action (attack or cover) (item 3)	3.0m x 3.0m	0.65 ± 0.48	0.256
			4.5m x 2.0m	0.72 ± 0.45	0.256
	Efficiency	Lower limbs are semi-flexed and flat on the floor at the moment of contact (item 1).	3.0m x 3.0m	0.82 ± 0.38	0.617
			4.5m x 2.0m	0.85 ± 0.36	0.617
		Player positions the body behind the ball and contacts the ball in the middle of supports (item 2).	3.0m x 3.0m	0.94 ± 0.23	0.387
			4.5m x 2.0m	0.91 ± 0.28	0.387
		Contacts the ball on the forearm platform with the upper limbs in extension (forearm pass) or contacts the ball above and in front of the forehead (touch) level (item 3).	3.0m x 3.0m	0.98 ± 0.15	0.793
			4.5m x 2.0m	0.98 ± 0.14	0.793

			Situation		Total
			3.0m x 3.0m	4.5m x 2.0m	Total
Decision Making in Reception	Send the ball directly to the opposing court.	Occurred	3	3	6
		Expected	3.3	2.7	6.0
		% DM in reception	50.0%	50.0%	100.0%
		% Situation	2.4%	2.9%	2.6%
		Adjusted residue	-.2	.2
	Keep the ball in play on the team itself but without direction (ball up)	Occurred	85	46	131
		Expected	71.0	60.0	131.0
		% DM in reception	64.9%	35.1%	100.0%
		% Situation	69.1%	44.2%	57.7%
		Adjusted residue	3.8^* * Difference found for p <0.05.	-3.8^* * Difference found for p <0.05.
	Anticipate and direct the ball to the setting zone.	Occurred	35	55	90
		Expected	48.8	41.2	90.0
		% DM in reception	38.9%	61.1%	100.0%
		% Situation	28.5%	52.9%	39.6%
		Adjusted residue	-3.7^* * Difference found for p <0.05.	3.7^* * Difference found for p <0.05.
Total		Occurred	123	104	227
Total		% DM in reception	54.2%	45.8%	100.0%
Reception effectiveness	Error.	Occurred	3	4	7
		Expected	3.8	3.2	7,0
		% Reception effectiveness	42.9%	57.1%	100.0%
		% Situation	2.4%	3.8%	3.1%
		Adjusted residue	-.6	.6
	Continuity.	Occurred	79	80	159
		Expected	86.2	72.8	159.0
		% Reception effectiveness	49.7%	50.3%	100.0%
		% Situation	64.2%	76.9%	70.0%
		Adjusted residue	-2.1^* * Difference found for p <0.05.	2.1^* * Difference found for p <0.05.
	Excellent Reception or point when sending the ball to the opposing court.	Occurred	41	20	61
		Expected	33.1	27.9	61.0
		% Reception effectiveness	67.2%	32.8%	100.0%
		% Situation	33.3%	19.2%	26.9%
		Adjusted residue	2.4^* * Difference found for p <0.05.	-2.4^* * Difference found for p <0.05.
		Occurred	123	104	227
		% Reception effectiveness	54.2%	45.8%	100.0%

		Aspects analyzed	Situation	Mean ± SD	p
Setting Efficiency	Adjustment Adjusts body position according to the ball trajectory (item 2)	Quickly moves to the setting position (item 1).	3.0m x 3.0m	0.11 ± 0.31	0.001^* * Difference found for p <0.05.
		4.5m x 2.0m	0.55 ± 0.52	0.341
		.3.0m x 3.0m	0.99 ± 0.10
		4.5m x 2.0m	1.00 ± 0.00
	Stabilizes body position according to the attack completion zone (setting at the frontal plane) (item 3).	3.0m x 3.0m	0.78 ± 0.42	0.708
		4.5m x 2.0m	0.80 ± 0.40
	Contacts the ball on the forearm platform with the extended upper limbs (forearm pass) or contacts the ball above and in front of the forehead (touch) level (item 1).	3.0m x 3.0m	0.97 ± 0.17	0.147
		4.5m x 2.0m	0.92 ± 0.27

	Coordinates flexion and extension of the upper and lower limbs (item 2).	3.0m x 3.0m	0.22 ± 0.42	0.001*
		4.5m x 2.0m	0.54 ± 0.50
	At the moment of contact, moves the body position to the attack completion zone (item 3).	3.0m x 3.0m	0.83 ± 0.40	0.927
		4.5m x 2.0m	0.84 ± 0.37	0.927

			Situation		Total
			3.0m x 3.0m	4.5m x 2.0m	Total
Decision making in attack	Keeps the ball in play. but without direction.	Occurred	96	56	152
		Expected	80.2	71.8	152.0
		% DM in attack	63.2%	36.8%	100.0%
		% Situation	84.2%	54.9%	70.4%
		Adjusted Residue	4.7^* * Difference found for p <0.05.	-4.7^* * Difference found for p <0.05.
	Directs the ball to a particular player (collective tactic).	Occurred	0	26	26
		Expected	13.7	12.3	26.0
		% DM in attack	0.0%	100.0%	100.0%
		% Situation	0.0%	25.5%	12.0%
		Adjusted Residue	-5.7^* * Difference found for p <0.05.	5.7^* * Difference found for p <0.05.
	Deflects the ball from the block by attacking in the free space of the opposing court or exploit the block.	Occurred	18	20	38
		Expected	20.1	17.9	38.0
		% DM in attack	47.4%	52.6%	100.0%
		% Situation	15.8%	19.6%	17.6%
		Adjusted Residue	-.7	.7
Total		Occurred	114	102	216
Total		% DM in attack	52.8%	47.2%	100.0%

[1] Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no conflict of interests to declare.

Brasil

Brasil

How context influences the tactical-technical behavior of learners: the case of volleyball

Como o contexto influencia o comportamento técnico e tático de aprendizes: o caso do voleibol

Abstract