Leadership is defined to be the action of leading a group of people or an organization. In the coaching profession, coaches lead their teams. If you were to ask me what my personal definition and general philosophy of leadership is, I would say, “Leadership is the role model for success. It is a person that is willing to lead from behind.” What I mean is I lead by staying out of the spotlight. I allow my team to get the recognition for their hard work. I believe this is why I consider myself a servant leader. Servant leaders often lead by example. This is their primary mode of motivation, as well as direction. Integrity is high in these types of leaders. They lead with compassion, heart, and generosity. Servant leaders often involve the whole team when it comes to making decisions and they learn to get their “buy in” when it comes to any change, attaining a goal, or upholding team standards.
Since transitioning into the coaching profession, I have realized that I am also a transformational leader. Leadership is being the visionary and being able to implement and execute to attain a common goal. As a coach, I have the ability to take athletes and identify that needed change that has to occur for them to perform at their peak. I create the vision and guide my athletes through the change by means of inspiration. These two types of leadership exhibit communication skills, decision-making skills, foresight (vision), as well as interpersonal skills. Leaders must be able to communicate effectively to get the results desired. They possess the ability to make decisions quickly as well as the right decisions to lead their teams. These leaders also include foresight and vision in order to achieve the desired goal. The vision must align with the common goal.
I consider myself a combination of a servant leader as well as a transformational leader. I believe that there is a happy balance between the two. In athletics, I am more of a motivator and strive hard to be an inspiration. I strive to create a standard for my teams to ensure that I create well-rounded athletes. I believe in athlete development in the game of volleyball and strive to also teach my athletes how to win a game through strategy. One aspect of volleyball where a team can control tempo and the game, is the start of every play, which is the serve. I teach my athletes different types of serves and help them to determine which technique is best to use during each game.
Statement of the Problem
Volleyball is a team sport where the onset of a rally starts with a team serving. A player serves the ball by tossing or releasing it into the air and then hitting it with their hand from behind the back line of the court, over the net, and into the receiving team’s court. A serve is considered to be both an offensive as well as a defensive tactic to score a point or to make defensive performance easier by limiting the opposing team’s offensive attack. Serve performance is affected by how the serve is executed.
I have been a varsity boys’ head volleyball coach for the past two years and am working on sharpening my technical skills to help me transition into the collegiate level in the future. I have coached both girls’ and boys’ volleyball teams, but my personal preference is coaching the boys’ side. I have chosen to explore the technical skill of serving and possible coaching philosophies on what serve works the best in the game of volleyball. The research question that I have chosen to develop and research is:
Based on information from the 2018 men’s volleyball season in the Southern California region; to what extent do the serving approaches of high school athletes, in terms of top spin or float serving, reflect that of the serving philosophies of collegiate athletes and coaches in the men’s game?
Review of the Literature
The jump serve brings a different dynamic to the game of volleyball. It brings power into the game from the serving line and puts the serving team into an attack mode the minute the server gets the ball. Nothing puts fear into a defensive team like a hard topspin serve (jump serve) booming over the net. Yet on the other hand, nothing can deflate an attack quicker than a jump serve collapsing into the net.
The two types of serves that will be examined and discussed are the float serve and the topspin float (jump serve). Float serves are tough to pass because the ball dances in the air making it tough to judge where exactly the ball is going. This floating volleyball movement can also make it difficult for the server to keep the ball in the court. A topspin serve can be tough to pass because the ball will drop much faster than a float serve (Volleyball Serving Strategies).
During the last 20 years, the jump serve has become commonplace in the men’s game. The women’s game has been slower to adopt the jump serve. On the high school level, jump servers are few, but those who can jump serve can change the course of a match with one service turn. Some volleyball coaches believe that as the game evolves and the athletes become more skilled, there will be more jump serves (Hanley, 1994). High school competition is at the base level. It is a game of mistakes and momentum. The jump serve can lead to either. Some coaches would rather not take the risk of jump serving, preferring a floating serve to a topspin serve. The higher the level of play, the more an aggressive serve is needed. A passive serve will allow a good team to set its big hitters (Hanley, 1994).
The United States Men’s National Team Head Coach Doug Beal and his staff wanted to use the results in training for the Olympic Games. It was concluded that the worst thing a team could do in volleyball in the men’s game was to miss the serve. The second worst thing a team could do was serve a ball that the opponent passed perfectly. The third worst thing a team could do was to serve a ball that the opponent passed “okay” (a 2-point pass), and the fourth worst thing was an attacking error. Indeed, it was pretty surprising to the coaches that the three least productive outcomes in volleyball all had to do with serving, while an attacking error was fourth on the list. It was also very surprising that passing “just okay” was that damaging to a team’s side of the net. That confirmed that serving is a critical skill in the game of volleyball (Black, 2016).
Ciuffarella’s et al. (2013) study investigated the serving techniques used in high level male volleyball competitions. Results show that at the considered level of competition, that is fairly high, the most used serve is a jump serve – JS (69.9%) respect to the float jump serve – FJS (26.9%) or the float serve – FS (3.3%). JS is doubtless the most powerful technique in terms of increasing difficulties for the defense, but its relative high percentage of errors must make coaches reflect on using this serve strategically, most of all because there are no relationships between the role of the server and the serve’s outcome.
García-De-Alcaraz’s, et al. (2016) study shows the technical–tactical performance profile of the serve and its various forms of execution among age groups and categories of competition in men’s volleyball. The results reveal significant changes in serve performance throughout various categories of competition. There was an increase in the frequency of use of jump serves, particularly of jump serve, and a decrease in the efficacy of all serves when analyzing higher categories, regardless of how the serve was executed. The increase in frequency of the use of jump serves (jump serve and jump float serve) at higher levels of competition may be due to a decline in the performance of standing serve. Nevertheless, jump serves, although more effective than standing serve in all categories, also show a decline in performance in higher categories. The small and trivial effect sizes of most of the differences found between age categories show that the development is progressive along the various competition stages in terms of serve performance. Results show that at higher age groups, the receivers have the ability to intercept, neutralize, and control the ball at a high-performance level.
Valhondo’s et al. (2018) study found that the quality of opposition sets affects the serve action of players in elite men’s volleyball. In high quality of opposition sets, elite men’s volleyball players must assume greater risk in the serve. There are many tactics that can be used, such as tennis jump serve instead of the jump float serve, and sending the serve to zones close to the sidelines or to the back of the court, and to the space between players, instead of to central zones of the court. These tactics would be used if they wish to increase serve efficacy, as the serve type and reception zone are the two variables that mainly predict its efficacy. Regardless of the quality of opposition sets, high-level volleyball players, when serving, must try to avoid high reception. To this end, they must serve with descending paths and at high speed.
Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected and analyzed from The Top Spin or Float Serve Questionnaire and Interview. The best method for data collection involves a cross-sectional study, where the serving philosophies of collegiate athletes and coaches are compared to the serving approaches of high school athletes, in terms of top spin or float serving. For this study, a random sample of high school coaches and college coaches with Division I volleyball programs across the Southern California region (from Los Angeles County to San Diego County) will be selected to first complete a questionnaire, followed by an in-person interview. The questionnaire will be sent online via email to all Division I high school and college coaches. A follow-up interview will be scheduled once a questionnaire is returned. This study aims to show the correlation of serving at the high school level to the college level, in terms of top spin or float serving and which is more effective at each level.
Terms and Assumptions
The survey will be administered to coaches of Division I volleyball programs on two levels: high school and collegiate. They will be asked to answer a questionnaire by reflecting back on their experiences in coaching, in terms of what has been an effective strategy for their program to take in terms of serving. High school competition is basic as opposed to the collegiate level. The skill level of players is less refined and disciplined. It is a game of mistakes and momentum. The jump serve can lead to either. Some coaches would rather not take the risk of jump serving, preferring a floating serve to topspin serve. The higher the level of play at the collegiate level warrants a more aggressive serve (Hanley, 1994). Topspin, for the purpose of this study, is defined to be a serve that spins rapidly forward from the top. The server tosses the ball a little higher, strikes the ball towards the top of the back in a down and outward motion and follows through with his or her swing. This serve has a much more predictable movement, but can be difficult to handle because of its quick speed. A float serve, for the purpose of this study, is defined to be a serve that does not spin. It is called a floater because it moves in unpredictable ways making it difficult to pass. A float serve catches the air and can move unexpectedly to the right or the left or it can drop suddenly (Oden, 2017).
Population and Sample
The population of this study would include all high school and collegiate volleyball programs in Southern California starting from Los Angeles and ending in San Diego County. The sampling technique that will be used is stratified random sampling, where in this study, the subgroup within the population would be all Division I volleyball programs. Here, random samples are taken within these programs.
The research design used for this study is that of cross-sectional. The questionnaire will be sent to all coaches by mid-season or by April 15th, because they will have a greater understanding of their strategy for the season and what has been successful and not successful for their program. All participating schools will be members of the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). After the conclusion of the season, an interview will be scheduled.
The data that will be collected will be through informed consent from all participants (coaches). Permission will be asked in the pre-season and will entail all the details of their participation and the nature of the study, the use of the data supplied before data is collected from them through the use of a participant information sheet, which will then allow them to sign a consent form. The participant’ information sheet will allow participants to make a fully informed decision about their participation in the study. It will give a summary of the study, clearly outlining the entire process in a clear and accessible manner. Subjects will also be given the right to withdraw from the study at any time, and will be made aware of this option.
In this study, a questionnaire will be used. The questions are: (1) How many athletes on a team? (2) How many athletes jump serve? (3) Out of those athletes that jump serve, how many use topspin? A float serve? In addition to the questionnaire, a structured interview will be conducted with the coaches. The questions asked are: (1) how long have you been coaching at the Division I level? (2) What is your personal coaching philosophy on serving? (3) When would you use a topspin serve as a strategy? (4) When would you use a float serve as a strategy? (5) What is your personal favorite serve to use and why?
Reliability and Validity of the Instruments
The questionnaire and the interview will develop in valid results, but may not quite be reliable due to the lack of information collected and being able to relate the high school versus collegiate serving approaches.
Reliability and Validity of the Methodology
This study will be a mixed methodology of quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative data will measure the number of athletes and among those athletes, who does topspin versus float serve. In terms of qualitative, coaching philosophies will be compared based on the level of competition. The reliability of the quantitative data that will be collected is a bit apprehensive, where the questions asked may not warrant the answers needed to correlate the serves to the different levels.
Once all questionnaires have been completed and all interviews conducted, all data will be compiled into chart form in order to determine which serve is more efficient at the high school level versus the collegiate level.