A Critical Analysis of Blocking

By: Mas Shibata

Article 1: Blocking Considerations and Training Strategies

The Critical Analysis of Blocking Series will initially focus on a discussion of the overall value and importance of the skill of blocking at the various levels of volleyball around the country and internationally rather than on specific blocking technique.
Recognizing that there may be coaches of youth teams, middle school and high school, all levels of club volleyball, and collegiate level teams reading this article, I will begin this initial exploration of ideas regarding the skill of blocking at the beginning developmental youth level of volleyball.
 

Blocking Defined

It is essential to understand the rules of the game at any level of volleyball. It would be important to know the rules as to what actually constitutes a block, especially when your players are not able to jump higher than the plane of the net.
The official definition of a block in the “2015-2017 Domestic Competition Regulations as Presented by USA Volleyball” rulebook is stated below:

14 BLOCK

14.1 BLOCKING 14.1.1

Blocking is the action of players close to the net to intercept the ball coming from the opponent by reaching higher than the top of the net, regardless of the height of the ball contact. Only front-row players are permitted to complete a block, but at the moment of the contact with the ball, a part of the body must be higher than the top of the net.
 

14.1.3 Completed Block

A block is completed whenever the ball is touched by a blocker.
Given the rules defining a legal block, the contact with the ball by a shorter player below the plane of the net using a blocking motion would legally be considered a dig and counted as the first contact in the rally. Whether all referees would rule it accordingly seems problematic at some of the earlier youth levels. Would your practice regimen reflect and enforce the fact that according to the written rule, there are only two more contacts remaining to play the ball over the net in this scenario?

How early should the skill of blocking be introduced?

The first question to be answered could be, “should your team be blocking at all?” If you are coaching a team of 10 year old players and none of them are able to get their finger nails over the top of the net with maximum jumps, are you practicing blocking footwork and technique? What would you do if you had only one player on the team that was able to get their wrists over the net? How would your practice training regimen be altered to compensate for this scenario?
I have read a multitude of opinions about whether or not the skill of blocking should be taught to players who are not able to get above the plane of the net. There is the rationale that it is a skill in the sport of volleyball, and that every skill should be taught at all levels to prepare players to be well rounded players as soon as possible. Adam Johnson, a former USA national team indoor player and a top-level beach pro who now runs the Adam Johnson Volleyball Academy in Austin, Texas, has expressed a somewhat similar opinion in a previous The Art of Coaching Volleyball video entitled
“Should kids block before they can block?” posted on July 19, 2015.

How does this view comport with your personal coaching philosophy? If the decision is ultimately made to train blocking technique, how much of your practice time should be devoted to this skill? Another obvious question would be what blocking technique would you select to teach your players?

The contrary thought often expressed has been that if the ultimate goal is to be as competitive as possible, you should devote the time to other skills that would help to make your team compete at its highest and most effective level. One of the prevailing alternative rationales was to have your non-blocking blockers drop off the net to become floor defenders until they were physically able to perform blocking skills above the net.

For the Youth Coaches out there that are reading this article, I have become more keenly aware of the difficult philosophical decisions that have to be made about what should be taught and when. There are obvious short-term and long-term implications with these difficult decisions. The consequences are enormous with regards to establishing muscle memory habits and techniques.

Because the core component of the Critical Analysis of Skills Series is to provoke a degree of thoughtfulness and inquisitiveness in our coaching philosophy and answering the questions of what are we doing and why are we doing it this way, I will take the liberty of reflecting on other philosophical areas of discussion for coaches to ponder. In researching the question of what and when the skill of blocking should be introduced, there seemed to be a countless number of articles and studies pertaining to the pros and cons of segmented technical training, often referred to as “blocked training” or progressions, versus a more “game-like” or “whole training” process. A common phrase adopted to describe this concept in many articles has been, “the game teaches the game”. Your personal philosophy about how to introduce and train these skills will develop and formulate a player’s initial skill technique, and training and learning habits.
 

The Correlation of Blocking to Winning

 
The impetus for this specific article was a comment made by Hugh McCutcheon, former USA Men’s and Women’s National Team and Olympic Gold and Silver Medal Head Coach, and the current Head Coach at the University of Minnesota.

I became intrigued by a comment made by Coach McCutcheon while watching “Defense & Blocking: Terry Liskevych & Hugh McCutcheon, 2013 Calgary Clinic” on The Art of Coaching Volleyball website recorded at the 2013 Calgary Coaches Clinic.

The relevant transcript provoking this research and analysis came approximately 19 minutes and 10 seconds up to 19 minutes and 50 seconds into the video. “First of all, let’s talk about some principles of blocking and then we will break it down a little bit. Blocking is quite obviously a function of position and timing. You’ve got to be in the right place at the right time to make it happen, and it’s probably the lowest correlating skill to winning. So I want you to pay attention to blocking but I want you to think about how you are going to be serving and passing and siding out with your team. If you have lots of time, yah spend some time on blocking. If you don’t have a lot of time, spend it elsewhere.”

The specific comment that blocking was “…probably the lowest correlating skill to winning” became very intriguing to me. I am positive that there is comprehensive and compelling data and analysis which was used to reach this specific conclusion. Because the comment was not accompanied by specific details regarding the data used to formulate this conclusion, and the fact that I do not have access to pose this question directly, I began to research how the skill of blocking actually does influence and correlates to winning in volleyball.

The first challenge was to collect reliable and comparable statistics to analyze and use to formulate some conclusions. The most consistent and reliable data available on the internet appears to be statistics from the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) website and the FIVB (Federation Internationale de Volleyball) website. The data used for this analysis was compiled from the NCAA.org website for statistics on the 2016 NCAA Divisions 1, 2, and 3 and the FIVB.org website for statistics on the 2016 Rio Women’s Olympic Games.

For purposes of collecting, evaluating and analyzing consistent blocking data and statistics at levels other than the Collegiate and Olympic levels, it would be helpful and beneficial to have those in the volleyball community with such access to share their thoughts and analysis of the importance of blocking at these levels of volleyball as well.

What are the realistic expectations of your blockers at your level of competition? I have often asked players how many stuff blocks for points they think the top NCAA Division 1 blocking leaders in the country average per set. The majority of the answers I get usually far exceed the actual number achieved. Before proceeding with this article, how many blocks for points do you think the top ten blockers at the NCAA Division 1 level average per set?
 

2016 NCAA Division 1 Blocking Statistics

 
The following 2016 NCAA Division 1 Statistics Chart is a compilation of all of the Conferences in Division 1 volleyball. It compares the total Sets, Kills, Errors, Total Attacks, Assists, Aces, Service Errors, Digs, Reception Errors, Block Solos, Block Assists, Blocking Errors, Total Points and Ball Handling Error totals for the season for each conference.

An analysis of the blocking statistics reveals that for all of the teams competing at the NCAA Division 1 level, 10.10% of the total points scored were the direct result of a terminating block. The methodology used to calculate this percentage was to take the Block Solos (16,914) + Block Assists (120,824 ÷ 2 = 60,412) - Block Errors (17,272) ÷ Total Points (594,501) = 10.10%
The next chart shows the 2016 NCAA Division 1 team blocking leaders with their average blocks per set totals. For comparative purposes, I have elected to show the top ten teams and the teams with the #20th, #30th, 40th and 50th ranking to analyze the level of decrease in percentages of points scored by the block.

Stanford was the number 1 ranked team in Division 1 with 3.36 bocks per set. This equates to 13.43% of the 25 total points in a set.
Maryland, the 50th ranked team in blocks per set at 2.44, generated 9.76% of their points per set by block kills.
The 2016 NCAA Division 1 individual blocking leaders chart shows their average blocks per set totals. For comparative purposes, the top ten individuals and the players with the #20th, #30th, 40th and 50th ranking are shown to see the level of decrease in the percentage of points scored by the block.

Ali Bastianelli of Illinois was the number 1 ranked individual in Division 1 with 1.79 bocks per set. This equates to 7.16% of the 25 total points in a set.
Taylor Soucie of Kansas, the 50th ranked individual in blocks per set at 1.27, generated 5.08% of their points per set by block kills.
 

2016 NCAA Division 2 Blocking Statistics

 
The following 2016 NCAA Division 2 Statistics Chart is a compilation of all of the Conferences in Division 2 volleyball. It compares the total Sets, Kills, Errors, Total Attacks, Assists, Aces, Service Errors, Digs, Reception Errors, Block Solos, Block Assists, Blocking Errors, Total Points and Ball Handling Error totals for the season for each conference.

An analysis of the blocking statistics reveals that for all of the teams competing at the NCAA Division2 level, 9.12% of the total points scored were the direct result of a terminating block. The methodology used to calculate this percentage was to take the Block Solos (14,315) + Block Assists (87,192 ÷ 2 = 43,596) - Block Errors (12,380) ÷ Total Points (499,406) = 9.12%
The 2016 NCAA Division 2 team blocking leaders chart shows their average blocks per set. For comparative purposes, the top ten teams and the teams with the #20th, #30th, 40th and 50th ranking are included to analyze the level of decrease in percentages of points scored by the block.

Central Washington was the number 1 ranked team in Division 2 with 2.96 bocks per set. This equates to 11.84% of the 25 total points in a set.
Wayne State, the 50th ranked team in blocks per set at 2.11, generated 8.44% of their points per set by block kills.
The 2016 NCAA Division 2 individual blocking leaders chart shows their average blocks per set totals. The top ten individuals and the players with the #20th, #30th, 40th and 50th ranking are presented to show the level of decrease in the percentage of points scored by the block.

Sarah Ragland of Palm Beach Atl. was the number 1 ranked individual in Division 2 with 1.68 bocks per set. This equates to 6.72% of the 25 total points in a set.
Rachel Burts of Anderson, the 50th ranked individual in blocks per set at 1.06, generated 4.24% of their points per set by block kills.
 

2016 NCAA Division 3 Blocking Statistics

 
The following 2016 NCAA Division 3 Statistics Chart is a compilation of all of the Conferences in Division 3 volleyball. It compares the total Sets, Kills, Errors, Total Attacks, Assists, Aces, Service Errors, Digs, Reception Errors, Block Solos, Block Assists, Blocking Errors, Total Points and Ball Handling Error totals for the season for each conference.

An analysis of the blocking statistics reveals that for all of the teams competing at the NCAA Division 3 level, 7.45% of the total points scored were the direct result of a terminating block. The methodology used to calculate this percentage was to take the Block Solos (20,378) + Block Assists (88,504 ÷ 2 = 44,252) - Block Errors (17,576) ÷ Total Points (631,869) = 7.45%
The 2016 NCAA Division 3 team blocking leaders chart shows their average blocks per set. The top ten teams and the teams with the #20th, #30th, 40th and 50th ranking are included to show the level of decrease in the percentage of points scored by the block.

Berry was the number 1 ranked team in Division 3 with 2.73 bocks per set. This equates to 10.92% of the 25 total points in a set.
Wittenberg, the 50th ranked team in blocks per set at 1.97, generated 7.88% of their points per set by block kills.

The 2016 NCAA Division 3 individual blocking leaders chart shows their average blocks per set totals. The top ten individuals and the players with the #20th, #30th, 40th and 50th ranking are presented to show the level of decrease in the percentage of points scored by the block.

Lauren Holt of Springfield was the number 1 ranked individual in Division 3 with 1.60 bocks per set. This equates to 6.40% of the 25 total points in a set.

Ashton Doll of Wis.-Whitewater, the 50th ranked individual in blocks per set at 1.04, generated 4.16% of their points per set by block kills.

2016 NCAA Blocking Statistics Summary

The Summary Chart is provided to show a side-by-side comparison of the NCAA statistical blocking data.

2016 NCAA Divisions 1, 2 & 3 Blocking Statistics Summary Chart

In comparing the NCAA blocking totals, there is a clear reduction in the percentage of points derived from block kills as you move from Division 1 to Division 3. There are obviously exceptions to almost every general rule, but the pattern observed seems fairly consistent.

In NCAA Division 1 volleyball, the average of points scored by a block kill in a 25 point set was 10.10%. Division 2 was 9.12% and Division 3 was 7.45%. Stanford, the team leader in Division 1 scored 13.43% of their points with a block kill. Central Washington, the team leader in Division 2 scored 11.84% of their points by the block, and Berry, the team leader in Division 3 scored 7.45% of their points with a block.

Blocking Analysis of the Women’s 2016 Rio Olympics

The top blockers per set at the 2016 Rio Olympics are shown below with a FIVB description of what the blocking statistics represent and how they are calculated. The other major point of comparison to note when analyzing and comparing the NCAA blocking statistics is that the FIVB International blocking statistics do not include assist blocks which are calculated in the NCAA totals.

Before viewing the blocking statistics, would you anticipate the solo block kills per set to be higher or lower than the totals for the NCAA leaders?

FIVB Definitions:

In reviewing the blocking statistics from the 2016 Rio Olympics, there was only one blocker with a kill block average of over 1 per set and only the top 13 players had a kill block average of over .50 per set. The most surprising information derived from the blocking statistics was that there were only four players out of the forty-two listed who actually had more block kills than blocking faults.

The 1.06 blocks per set by Stephanie Fotso Mogoung of Cameroon equates to 4.24% of the 25 points scored per set. By comparison, the 2nd ranked player, Irina Zaryazhko of Russia recorded 0.84 blocks per set for a 3.36% total. 10th ranked Natalia Pereira of Brazil had 0.55 blocks per set for a 2.20% total. 21st ranked Thaisa Menezes of Brazil with a 0.40 blocks per set equates to a 1.60% total. 42nd ranked Antonella del Core of Italy had 0.25 blocks per set equating to a 1.0% total of points scored.

The box score for the 2016 Rio Gold Medal match shows how points were scored in relation to their total points in the match for China and Serbia.

In the 2016 Rio Olympic Gold Medal match, China scored 8 of their 94 total points by the block for 8.51% of their points. Serbia scored 7 of their 87 total points by the block for 8.04% of their points. The other totals for Gold Medal winner China were 56.38% by spike kills, 28.72% by opponent errors, and 6.38% by service aces. Silver Medal Serbia scored 65.52% by spike kills, 19.54% by opponent errors, and 6.90% by service aces.

Conclusions

This article was an attempt to pique your interest in determining what skills have the highest correlation to competing successfully at your specific level of competition. There is certainly other data and statistics out there in the volleyball community that would shed more light on the skills that most correlate to winning in the sport of volleyball. It would be beneficial to have accurate data at your level of competition to develop an informed philosophy of what skills are the most beneficial to focus on for your specific team.

If you feel that blocking at your level of competition significantly impacts your point scoring opportunities in relation to other skills, it may be to your advantage to focus more on blocking. You may have one extraordinarily talented blocker and can creatively develop a system to give that player more opportunities to block.

If it is true that at your level of competition blocking does have a low correlation to success, what would be the most beneficial allocation of time at practice and resources with your coaching staff? Do these blocking statistics comport with what you believed it to be, or are the totals higher or lower than what you perceived them to be? Are the realistic expectations of your blockers the same or have they evolved to some degree?

Quite possibly, the biggest takeaway for me could be the high expectations I sometimes see in some coaches that their players should block every ball. This may be an exaggeration to some degree, but the block pressing motion over the net by many coaches on the sidelines after seeing a great opponent kill appear to be limitless.