Posted by I guess we should start by challenging the title. A serve machine is an inanimate object. It doesn’t actually teach anything. On the other hand, training with a serve machine is an environment in which learning can occur. As Alan Harper from Two and a Half Men might observe that seems to be a distinction without a difference, but as coaches we understand that small distinctions potentially lead to large differences.
To address the question, we should start with an analysis of service reception. Hint… it’s in the name. Service reception is the playing action that occurs immediately after the serve. It is not a long bow to draw to suggest that is all the information we need to answer the question in the title but I will go on, leaning more into scientific research than language semantics1. There are not a lot of specific studies into service reception but there is a lot of research on other striking sports (e.g. cricket, baseball) and lots of fun anecdotes. I will paraphrase and summarise here, but you can check some of the originals in the footnote2.
From scientific literature, what we learn over and over again is that expert performers collect a lot of (almost all?) useful information about the flight of the ball BEFORE the ball is contacted or released. The following video is a very cool demonstration of that fact by Ronaldo, starting at 20:00.
For the receiver, the movement of the server before contact is very, VERY important.
The second element that we can find in the literature is the way receivers behave in a ‘real’ action compared to the ‘artificial’ environment of a serving / bowling / pitching machine. To simplify, the movement and timing characteristics of the movement to the ball, and the action of playing the ball are different. The movement of the feet typically occurs earlier, and the movement of the arms later when working with the machine compared to real life. My interpretation of this is that the feet move earlier because the general direction of the ball is known before release, and the receiver is subconsciously trying to make up for the information that is lost by moving earlier. The arms move later because there is no information being processed until after the release. This is exactly what we would expect knowing how important the movement of the server before contact is.
So to our original question: What Does The Serve Machine Teach? The scientific literature clearly suggests that the learning environment provided by the serve machine teaches something that looks very similar to service reception, but lacks the perceptual requirements and movement characteristics of service reception. These are not just distinctions, these are very big differences. Whatever is being learnt, it is NOT service reception3.
None of this is to say that there is not a place for the serving machine in practice. For example, training in small groups, when it is not possible to use real servers. For example, to drill specific parts of the movement for a short period. For example, to give players confidence. For example, because many players like it4. But always remember that receiving from the machine is different from receiving from live serves. When learning and training the skill of service reception nothing can replace the few seconds before contact.
- Not that there isn’t always a place for language semantics. See above distinctions v differences ↩︎
- Studies of Vision in Cricket—A Narrative Review, Jennifer Swingle Fogt and Nick Fogt,
Vision, 2023, 7(3), 57, https://doi.org/10.3390/vision7030057
Perceptual-Cognitive Expertise in Sport: A Meta-Analysis, Derek T.Y. Mann , A. Mark Williams, Paul Ward, and Christopher M. Janelle, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, Volume 29: Issue 4, pp457–478, https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.29.4.457
Impacts of Kinematic Information on Action Anticipation and the Related Neurophysiological Associations in Volleyball Experts, Xizhe Li, Danlei Wang, Siyu Gao and Chenglin Zhou, Brain Sciences, June 2024, 14(7):647
Expert anticipatory skill in striking sports: A review and a model, Sean Müller, Bruce Abernethy, Research quarterly for exercise and sport, June 2012, 83(2):175-87
Batting stroke timing with a bowler and a bowling machine: A case study. Gibson, A.P. & Adams, R.D. Australian journal of science & medicine in sport, 1989, 21. 3-6
Batter’s behaviour during training when facing a bowling machine and when facing a bowler, Laura Justham, Andrew A. West, A Cork, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology, September 2010, 224, 3
Differences in Baseball Batting Movement Patterns Between Facing a Pitcher and a Pitching Machine. Kuo, Shih-Yu & Cheng, Kuangyou Bruce & Lee, Yu-Chi. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 2020, 92. 1-9. ↩︎ - Which we could also have guessed from the name of the skill. I would also add that the amount of and nature of the spin differs a lot, as well as the flight path of the ball. ↩︎
- This point is actually more important than one might imagine. ↩︎
At Home On The Court 