Posted by The curse of the father is to teach lessons that the son doesn’t completely understand until he himself is a father. My father often talked to me about first principles. When I had a problem of any sort, he would tell me to go back to first principles. I kind of understood what he meant, but until I got to study calculus at school I didn’t realise that first principles was an actual thing and not something my father made up. And it wasn’t until years later, that it (finally, and embarrassingly) dawned on me that what he meant was go to back to the rules that exist and information you possess and start from there. It turned out to be astonishingly good advice.
Rick Rubin is a famous music producer, and not my father. He wrote a book on creativity. In the book he tells the story of the time Google did an AI project with the ancient Chinese board game Go. The game is so complex that it was theorised AI could never beat a human. To cut a long story short, to the complete shock of everyone involved, the AlphaGo program basically won on the first move. The first move was so shocking that spectators thought it was against the rules and the opponent had to leave the table to compose himself. It turns out that computer had been taught the game starting from the rules, whereas the the human had the learnt from the conventions and tactics that had evolved over 2500 years. Starting first principles instead of conventional wisdom (a particular bugbear of mine, click here for more) won the day.
One of the enduring debates in some areas of the volleyball world is what is the optimal distance from the net to attack the ball. Is it better for the set to be close to the net, or some distance from the net? You already have an opinion. I already have an opinion. It is entirely possible that our opinions divarge. Is there a first principles approach to solve the problem once and for all? Let’s see.
TIPS AND PLANS FOR YOUR PRACTICE
What are the rules of the game? A player must direct the ball onto the floor of the opponent’s court without touching the ball on the opponent’s side of the net and or touching the net. Therefore the set must be on the attacker’s side of the net. Not particularly revealing, but a start.
What are the court dimensions? What is the geometry of the problem? Between the two teams there is a huge net that the ball has to go over. I will jump the next few steps to get to the good bit, but soon one concludes that the higher one is the easier to direct the ball over the net. Volleyballers need to be tall. Again not revelatory, but the next step is; at any given contact point above the net, the closer the attacker is to the net, the larger the area of the court that can be attacked.
So geometry is clear on the subject. In the absence of an opponent, the position in relation to the net that gives the attacker the most area of the court to attack is close to the net.
COACHING WEBINAR SPECIAL OFFER!!
What happens if there is an opponent? What do the rules say about the block? If the attack touches the block and lands out of court, it is a point to the attacking team. So it is not necessary to hit the court to win a point. An attack can go off the block and out. The rules also say that the block cannot touch the ball before the attacker. So even if the set is within reach the block cannot touch it first.
What is the best position of the ball to hit off the block? Does our initial finding still hold? The closer the ball is to the block, the greater the chance of the attacker being able to direct the ball to hit the block and go out of court. Given that the attacker must also see the block peripherally, a set close the net allows the attacker to see the block most clearly.
In conclusion, the position in relation to the net that gives the attacker the most options to attack to an empty space on the court, or off the block and out is close to the net.
POSTSCRIPT: I am preparing a webinar on modern, or advanced, attacking solutions. In addition to the basic scenarios described above, a set close to net allows for more variable and creative attack solutions such as various types of tips and recycling. Watch out for the webinar soon, and if you comment on this post I will organise a special deal.
A collection of Coaching Tips can be found here.
Read about the great Vyacheslav Platonov coaching book here.
At Home On The Court 
I disagree on the second premise. The optimal distance tu utilize the block is so far away from the net as the block can reach over. It brings the block to its limits of reach but offers the attacker all available options. If the ball is closer than that it offers more freedom and options for the block.
Secondly when the ball is closer to the net the block can take away more of the possible angles, reducing, negating or even counteracting the advantage from premise one, if the loss of angle by bock is bigger than the gain of angle of court.
And is the rule not that the block is allowed to touch the same time as the attacker? Then there is an bigger disadvantage when setting (too) close.
best, Tino Mikosch
LikeLike
Thanks, Tino.
If you watch carefully the block reaches its full extension AFTER the ball has already passed. Which negates your first point.
*I did have something else written there, but have thought more and added another comment.
LikeLike
Also, you will notice that at no point do i talk about spiking. I am talking attacking.
Spiking and attacking are not the same thing.
LikeLike
-> “I disagree on the second premise.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
-> “Secondly …”
This is the situation to play off the block. The attacker is no longer interested in the court.
LikeLike
I mostly agree with the reasoning, until I start to think about the different possible starting positions of an attacker for his run-up to the ball. I would agree that setting close to the net is optimal if the attacker had the chance to get to a run-up position where he can move towards the net diagonally (for example, an outside hitter getting outside of court to start his approach to the ball). If the attacker only has a perpendicular approach to the ball available (for example, because the attacker needed to receive a tactical serve placed in an awkward position), I would argue that setting the ball close to the net presents an increased risk of net touch or opposing side invasion for the (outside) attacker, and the attacker would likely have to use a sub-optimal contact point with the ball to reduce risk of net touch/invasion from his arm swing or jump momentum.
I would also like to hear your opinion on whether any of the first principles need to be re-evaluated in case of first tempo attack, where the block would potentially commit to a particular set height and placement before the attacker does.
LikeLike
The first principles evaluation exists before technique. That is the point. To take away all preconceived ‘understanding.
Your points are about applying the first principles solution. To your first point, I do not like the diagonal approach for other reasons. Approaching perpendicular to the net is an advantage. Also, I never talk about spiking. Spiking in the specific technique. I talk about attacking, which includes spiking and also other forms of attack.
To your second point, if the block is in a fixed position before the attacker attacks it is a better target to hit off.
LikeLike
Sign me up for the attack solutions webinar!
LikeLike