|
|
Post by canadianinfluence on Aug 27, 2011 1:37:22 GMT -5
During the AVCA tonight, I watched 4 different teams use the jump float serve in their pursuit of hitting the ball out, way out, into the net (almost over), into the net (like a grade 7 learning to serve for the first time and you tell her nice try when you are really thinking...man that was a bad serve why did I pick her?), and finally the almost as dreaded into the net (but it trickles over for a dirty point that the announcer goes on about how great of a serve it was).
I will sit down with any coach of any program any time and not listen to him or her while he or she tells me about how great the jump float serve is for:
1) Flattening Trajectory (most girls are about 2 inches off the ground when they hit the magical "jump" float)
2) Increasing Speed or Force (or insert word that makes the serve sound tough).
3) Adds a weapon from the service line.
The reality of the jump float is that it is the bridesmaid to the spike serve.
I just don't believe that if you did a cost/benefit of the JF that it is worth it.
1) The JF adds jumps to your athletes with a small chance of a point and a slight chance of the passers going under a 2 for their passing effort.
2) Back in the day when you could drop a poor toss (and serve again), you had a chance to correct a bad toss, step or just a bad feeling...now when you "take off" you have one chance not to slip, forget where the line is, mis-toss the ball, or lung forward to try and hit an under tossed ball over the net.
3) Loss of direction and placement: much easier to hit spots (when it counts) when you are on the ground and you can position your body properly and step in the direction you want to go.
4) Eating the lollipop factor: you start outside the court, run in, hit a soft serve and get crushed by the other team passing a 3+ and smashing the ball down hard on you and your team. Kinda makes you think twice about all the effort it took to execute that jump serve that your team just got pounded with.
Unfortunately when young players first see a player spike serve, kids want to do that. I wanted to dunk like Air Jordan, but there is no Jump Float dunk in basketball...the closest is a layup...however at least lay ups score points.
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by VBCOACH on Aug 27, 2011 2:04:52 GMT -5
The men's and women's National Team coaches think that the jump-floater is the best serve. What you're seeing is just an execution problem. A little more coaching and practicing should solve that.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaBOOOOM on Aug 27, 2011 3:30:11 GMT -5
The jump float is like a knuckleball in baseball. It has no spin which makes the flight of the ball hard to read. It may drop all of a sudden or it may go longer than expected. If the ball was coming with quite some pace, the ball is really coming straight to you and you as a passer have to decide (a) if it's going in or out and (b) if it's going to drop or fly. That's why the jump float serve is effective, if used properly  |
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 27, 2011 8:39:14 GMT -5
I don't know what a coach would say but Gil Fellingham's recent study of the value of volleyball events found the jump float to be the most effective serve type.
|
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Aug 27, 2011 8:43:12 GMT -5
During the AVCA tonight, I watched 4 different teams use the jump float serve in their pursuit of hitting the ball out, way out, into the net (almost over), into the net (like a grade 7 learning to serve for the first time and you tell her nice try when you are really thinking...man that was a bad serve why did I pick her?), and finally the almost as dreaded into the net (but it trickles over for a dirty point that the announcer goes on about how great of a serve it was). I will sit down with any coach of any program any time and not listen to him or her while he or she tells me about how great the jump float serve is for: 1) Flattening Trajectory (most girls are about 2 inches off the ground when they hit the magical "jump" float) 2) Increasing Speed or Force (or insert word that makes the serve sound tough). 3) Adds a weapon from the service line. The reality of the jump float is that it is the bridesmaid to the spike serve. I just don't believe that if you did a cost/benefit of the JF that it is worth it. 1) The JF adds jumps to your athletes with a small chance of a point and a slight chance of the passers going under a 2 for their passing effort. 2) Back in the day when you could drop a poor toss (and serve again), you had a chance to correct a bad toss, step or just a bad feeling...now when you "take off" you have one chance not to slip, forget where the line is, mis-toss the ball, or lung forward to try and hit an under tossed ball over the net. 3) Loss of direction and placement: much easier to hit spots (when it counts) when you are on the ground and you can position your body properly and step in the direction you want to go. 4) Eating the lollipop factor: you start outside the court, run in, hit a soft serve and get crushed by the other team passing a 3+ and smashing the ball down hard on you and your team. Kinda makes you think twice about all the effort it took to execute that jump serve that your team just got pounded with. Unfortunately when young players first see a player spike serve, kids want to do that. I wanted to dunk like Air Jordan, but there is no Jump Float dunk in basketball...the closest is a layup...however at least lay ups score points. Any thoughts? I might agree if I didn't see an equal number of ineffective standing float serves, and wild jump top-spin serves. It is amazing how many teams seem to focus on just hitting the magic spot the coach calls for, and not having any real quality in their serve. So many seem to serve with no purpose other than to get their serve in. |
|
ixxl
High School
Posts: 11
|
Post by ixxl on Aug 27, 2011 9:19:46 GMT -5
Isnt making the other team pass poorly the whole idea? This is a non-issue. With a little practice the toss of a jump floater is just as consistant as a standing toss. A topspin jumper is what you are thinking of. The timing of the toss and the motion of the toss of a jump floater is completely different. I've found that the players who can most precisely hit a zone on the ground are also the ones who can do it with a jump serve, short zones included. If that was truly the case, teams wouldnt be using jump floaters. If its truly a lollipop serve then it isnt a good jump floater. Although most players go through a phase when first learning the jump floater in which there serves are less aggressive, thats normal and they become more difficult to pass with practice. What you keep calling a 'spike serve' is a topspin jump serve. I think it was Penn States libero last year that had a good one of these. But even she would generally have a service error after anywhere from 2-3 serves. Ace to error ratio was outstanding though (if I remember correctly.) But the jump floater simply is not that inconsistant. And the young players learn to do what the coaches want them to do, not what they want  . It almost sounds like you are confusing the topspin serve and the float serve a little as some of the things you've complained about apply more to the topspin jumper than the floater. One added benefit that you dont see in serve stats for either kind of jumper is the plyo training to the legs with all the extra jump reps in practice and matches. |
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Aug 29, 2011 10:06:53 GMT -5
Some very good points, and nice breakdown by ixxl.
Sure there are some very ineffective jump float serves (especially in the first weekend), however, a lot of skills are far from refined at this point. Mistaking lack of execution with effectiveness of a type of serve is the error I think is going on here.
The only real study I'm aware of is the one BotS pointed out, which points to it being the most effective, as well as most high level coaches (including several National team coaches) agree with it's effectiveness. You can even watch some of the top Men's passers in the world struggle with some of the very good jump floaters (it happened a lot in this past world league).
As far as risk v reward, once the skill has been refined some, the risk is fairly low for the reward, and the jump/swing exertion is far less than that of a jump topspin.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 29, 2011 10:23:13 GMT -5
I think it was Penn States libero last year that had a good one of these. But even she would generally have a service error after anywhere from 2-3 serves. I don't disagree with most of your post, but I just want to say that any server who consistently has a "service error after 2 - 3 serves" is going to be welcome on my team. I'd take a whole team of them if I could, and we would be close to unstoppable. It's not the service error, it is the "2 - 3 serves." If you can average two serves per rotation, you are going to win most of your matches. That means the opponents only have a sideout rate of 50%. Translates into a more than 90% winning percentage. |
|
|
|
Post by Not Me on Aug 29, 2011 10:31:02 GMT -5
The problem with ixxl's points (which I agree with) is simply how the skill is being executed.
If a Jump float is being executed correctly, then it is effective. But so many servers execute the jump float incorrectly or inconsistently that render it ineffective.
And the one thing I don't get is this rounding approach to hit the ball. Why not go in a straight line? It doesn't provide anything extra, and makes the skill much more unpredictable in how the athlete will contact the ball.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Bofa on the Sofa on Aug 29, 2011 10:52:24 GMT -5
The problem with ixxl's points (which I agree with) is simply how the skill is being executed. If a Jump float is being executed correctly, then it is effective. But so many servers execute the jump float incorrectly or inconsistently that render it ineffective. Then again, that is fewer, apparently, than the number who have ineffective standing float or jump serves. What you say applies to anything: If you execute it well, it will be effective. Yeah, but the challenge is in executing it _well_. If it is easier to execute an effective jump float, then it is going to be more effective. And I think that is what we are seeing. In terms of handling, it is more difficult than a simple float serve. Not as difficult to handle than a legit jump serve (although there are those who will argue that a hard top spin serve is easier to return than a floater because it moves predictably), but then again, far less risky than a jump serve. |
|
|
|
Post by redbeard2008 on Aug 29, 2011 12:01:56 GMT -5
Of course, the more teams use it and defend it, the better they will get at hitting and receiving it.
UW seems to be almost exclusively using the jump float right now and seems to have dropped the jump topspin serve. In their first three games, they've hit 25 aces vs. 14 serve errors, or 2.5 aces/set. Against their toughest opponent (LBSU), they had 8 aces and 4 serve errors.
|
|
|
|
Post by Garand on Aug 29, 2011 16:09:44 GMT -5
I think that the wear and tear on the legs and shoulder that occurs while learning and maintaining an effective topspin jump serve is prohibitive for some players. These tend to be your hitters who are already taking many, many practice and game swings. I think the addition of the necessary serving practice might lead to overuse issues. By comparison, the jump floater does not use such an all-out approach and jump, and is much less tiring and wearing on the player.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf on Aug 30, 2011 9:09:52 GMT -5
And the one thing I don't get is this rounding approach to hit the ball. Why not go in a straight line? It doesn't provide anything extra, and makes the skill much more unpredictable in how the athlete will contact the ball. This started due to gym space. (along with a few people attempting a slide jump topspin). Many training facilities (and more than a few competition courts) for the younger ages do not have enough room behind the service line for a worthwhile straight on approach. A few people also thought you could be more deceptive with this approach, but I haven't heard of anyone holding on to this ideal for long. |
|
|
|
Post by karellen on Aug 30, 2011 10:25:30 GMT -5
I am assuming the "spike serve," as canadianinfluence calls it, is a top spin or traditional jump serve. As a player and coach I will tell you this is an easier serve to handle than a good float (standing or jump).
As someone else mentioned, the trajectory of the float serve is all guess work. As a passer, I need to keep my feet moving and be ready for last minute adjustments as the ball moves around.
A "spike serve" (really?), travels in a straight line and, depending on the amopunt of top spin, will fall along that same line. As long as I recognize the spin and get my feet going (needed for any serve reception), it is easier to handle that serve.
Hancock had great success with her jump serve this weekend vs USC for two reasons (IMO) - 1) early season and even the best teams are still working out kinks in their systems. Those two teams play again, I doubt she will have teh same level of success, and 2) she does have a slight hook in the serve, so it is not travellin in a straight line.
While I appreciate the original's posters thoughts, I think the float serve is and can be very effective. The key, as with anything else, is proper execution.
|
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Aug 30, 2011 10:30:05 GMT -5
What I have found, after decades of coaching and extensive research, is that the thing that correlates most strongly with winning percentage is the percentage of games you win.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the scope of the Fellingham study only correlate its valuation to rally outomes, not set/match victories?
While it's probably generally true that if you can perform an action that will increase your chances of winning the rally, that you will also increase your chances of winning the match, this is not always the case. We can't just simply take the aggregate of several individual actions and presume the overall system is going to follow the same trend line. The reason is that an individual action could increase your chances of winning this one individual rally, but that action might decrease your chances of winning specific rallies in the future.
For example, you may have a player who can pass well and play fantastic defense. Having that player in the backrow as a primary passer and in whatever digging zone is the most active in your team's block/dig system, would greatly increase your chances of continuing a specific rally and eventually winning the point. However, if that player is also your primary attacking middle, having her throw her body all over the backcourt digging, and exposing her to the possibility of being a serving target for the other team, might wear her down faster, such that when she is on the front row you have a decreased chance of winning specific rallies, because her attacking/blocking will suffer.
|
|
.
