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 Men1 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 semantics2. 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 footnote3.
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 reception4.
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 it5. 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.
- I couldn’t find a clip on YouTube, but it is season 2, episode 13, from 12:00 if you want to check your own collection. ↩︎
- Not that there isn’t 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 
I saw this video many years ago. Loved it. And thought it might be a good way to show my young middle school team why they have to watch the server and not just wait for the ball to cross the net before deciding whether, or how, to play it.
But I kept seeing all the complaints from parents I would have to deal with if I started turning off the lights in the room right after the ball was served. I envisioned lots of little girls getting whacked by the ball in the dark…
After a while I finally hit on an idea to try that wouldn’t put my players at too much risk. I moved the serve receivers across the court, so that they were standing about 5 ft. away from the server. They were not allowed to turn their heads and watch the ball. They had to keep facing forward – watching just the server. Then as the serve disappeared over their heads they had to tell me – where the ball landed? Was is short or long, and in the left, right, or center of the court. Or was it short or too long?
Then after a few serves we would move them back to the middle of the servers court. So they get to see the ball for about 15 feet. Then at the net so they get to see it for 30 feet.
After just a couple weeks of practice at 30 ft. they were right almost 100 percent. At 15 ft. around 80%
Girls with a couple years experience were right from 5 ft. almost 80% of the time.
Then ask them – “If you can tell where that ball is going to land when only seeing the server, and 5 ft. of ball flight, why would you ever be surprised by the ball when you get to see the server and 50 ft. of ball flight?”
I still run this drill at least once every season, as a reminder of what they are supposed to be watching and learning about every serve.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To quote The Troggs, David, you make my heart sing.
I think that is all great.
PS I don’t think the Ronaldo clip was actually a drill suggestion. But I love where you ended up.
LikeLike
I’m sorry, but I have to ask the question. Did you team get better at actual passing?
LikeLike
Of course they got better at passing, as they grew, and kept practicing and playing.
I don’t have metrics or hard data, but from my perspective on the sidelines. The girls who really paid attention during this drill, and who really watched, or looked at the server during regular serve receive – did improve a lot faster than others.
But maybe they would have anyways, even without this drill, since they were the type to push themselves harder in practice than most.
But I never saw any downside to the drill, and so have been doing it regularly for close to 15 years. It doesn’t take too long. So if it helps just one kid a season – its worth it. Maybe I’m just wishful thinking that it is helping…
LikeLike
That is cool.
You do touch on the dangerous subject of how much impact the coach really has on learning.
LikeLike