See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317174336

The biomechanics of volleyball

Chapter · May 2017

DOI: 10.1002/9781119227045.ch3

CITATIONS READS

18 28,734

1 author:

Markus Tilp
University of Graz
166 PUBLICATIONS 2,895 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Markus Tilp on 19 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Biomechanics of Volleyball

1. Jumping and landing

In order to serve, set, spike or block the ball as high as possible, the jumping ability is a key
factor in indoor and beach volleyball. A great jumping height allows the server to play the ball
with a flatter initial projection angle, the setter to decrease the time between set and attack,
the attacker to spike over the block and the blocker to overreach the net with the arms.
Individual muscle properties, movement conditions and jumping technique determine the
height of a jump. Following a jump landing is inevitable and the way athletes land will influence
the stress in their joints. Therefore, landing techniques are crucial regarding injury prevention.

a. The neuromechanics of jumping

There is a deterministic relationship between the velocity of the centre of mass (CoM) at take-
off (vTO) and its increase in height during a jump (Equ. (i)). Thus, athletes intend to accelerate
their centre of mass to maximize take-off velocity. According to Newton’s law of motion (Equ.
(ii)), the necessary acceleration (a) is proportional to the sum of the applying forces (Fi). During
a jump the forces acting on the body are at one hand the weight of the athlete and on the other
hand the forces developed by the muscles that are transferred to the ground. While the
constant weight force is acting downwards, athletes extend their legs to produce force that
accelerates the CoM upwards. The more force they are able to apply on the ground until take-
off (i.e. the greater the applied impulse), the higher they accelerate their centre of mass which
results in a higher take-off velocity, leading to greater jumping heights.

2
𝑣𝑇𝑂
i) ℎ= 2∙𝑔
ii) ∑ 𝐹𝑖 = 𝑚 ∙ 𝑎

Besides the intrinsic development of force by the muscles due to recruitment of motor units
and increase of their firing rates, the amount of force acting on the centre of mass also depends
on movement conditions, i.e. the contraction dynamics or the transfer of force to the ground.
According to the force-velocity relationship (Hill 1938), the force a muscle is able to develop is
related to its contraction velocity. Higher forces are related to lower contraction velocities or
even zero or negative contraction velocities during isometric or eccentric contractions,
respectively. In addition, the force-length relationship (Gordon et al. 1966) is determining the
force which a muscle can develop depending on its length. The muscle force is then transferred
via the tendons to the bones and subsequently to the ground. This is influenced by the
properties of the tendons and the jumping surface (shoes and floor type).

Intrinsic muscle properties like neural activation capacity, force-velocity relationship and force-
length relationship can be altered by training (Widrick et al. 2002) within individual boundaries.
Simulation studies (Thaller et al. 2010) have shown that individuals have to alter specific
aspects of their muscle properties to increase jumping height. This indicates the importance of
individualized training. While some athletes would have to increase their maximal force, others
might have a deficit in maximum contraction velocity or maximum power capacity. Since the
amount of time during a jump movement is limited, the increase of force which is related to the
neural activation capacity also affects the jumping height. Besides simulations, regression
analyses on experimental data have shown that in general the capacity to develop high
mechanical power during the push-off phase is closely related to jumping height (Aragon-
Vargas und Gross 1997). The general importance of muscular power is also underlined by the
results of the review by (Ziv und Lidor 2010) who pointed out the success of explosive
plyometric training to increase jump height in volleyball players.

Different techniques like a counter movement or the use of arm swings have substantial effects
on jumping height. A counter movement, i.e. a lowering of the CoM before the upward
movement during the push-off phase increases the jumping height by around 7 % (Bobbert
und van Ingen Schenau, G J 1988; Wagner et al. 2009). The causes for this increase are an
increased myoelectrical activity in the stretch-shortening-cycle (SSC, (BOSCO et al. 1982), the
storage and recoil of elastic energy (Kurokawa et al. 2003), and a greater level of active state
(Bobbert et al. 1996). Lees et al. (2004) and Hara et al. (2006) have reported an increase of
jumping height by 19-23 % due to the use of an arm swing. The reasons for this improvement
are an increased centre of mass (due to the already elevated arms at take-off) and a decrease
of contraction velocity of the leg muscle which leads to an increase in muscle force due the
force-velocity relationship. Another important movement condition is the surface where the
jump is performed. (Giatsis et al. 2004) have shown experimentally that jumps on sand are 14
% lower than jumps from a rigid surface. The reason for this decrease is the energy absorbed
by the soft surface due to the mechanical work done on the surface, i.e. the sand. Similar, but
less substantial effects can be expected by different shoe sole or indoor surface materials.
Although stiff materials have advantages during the take-off, they will also absorb less energy
during the landing phase which might lead to higher stress in the athlete’s lower limb joints.

Jumping is a specific skill of volleyball players which is underlined by studies that reported
greater counter movement jumping heights reached by volleyball players compared to athletes
from soccer, handball, basketball, or rowing (Kollias et al. 2004). Furthermore, recent findings
(Sattler et al. 2014) revealed that volleyball players from the first division jump higher than their
colleagues from the second division in Slovenia.

b. Spike and serve jumps

In order to smash the volleyball in the court of the opponent, athletes try to reach the greatest
possible jumping height during their spike jump. The volleyball spike jump technique includes
a three step approach with a two-legged jump, a countermovement, and the use of an arm
swing (Wagner et al. 2009). Due to this favorable movement conditions, spike jump (SPJ)
heights are greater than heights reached during squat jumps (SJ) or counter movement jumps
(CMJ) from a standing position. While SPJ are reported to be approx. 25 % higher than CMJ
(Maffiuletti et al. 2002; Sheppard et al. 2008), CMJ are about 7 % higher than SJ (Wagner et
al. 2009; Bobbert et al. 1996).

The kinematics of the volleyball SPJ was early analyzed by (Coleman et al. 1993). Lately,
(Wagner et al. 2009) have analyzed SPJ technique and identified the most important kinematic
parameters related to the volleyball SPJ height. SPJ height correlated significantly with the
maximal horizontal velocity of the centre of mass (CoM) and with the minimum height of the
CoM during the three step approach in high-level athletes. Thus, within the measured ranges
a faster approach and a lower squat during the jump preparation (see Fig. 1) were related with
greater jumping heights.

Figure 1: The last two steps of the three step approach of a volleyball spike jump: 1-2 approach phase, 2-4
downward phase, 4-6 upward phase (adapted from Wagner et al. (2009), with permission)

Although the SPJ is a two-legged jump, only the range of motion (RoM) of the right knee flexion
extension and the maximal angular velocity of the left shoulder hyperextension were
significantly related to jumping height. The reason for this is probably that the SPJ is rather
asymmetrical as can be seen in Figure 1. (Wagner et al. 2009) found out that during the upward
phase the right foot is closer to the CoM than the left foot and therefore would contribute
predominantly to the vertical acceleration of the CoM. Another asymmetry can be observed in
the upper body. Figure 1 shows the trunk rotation around the vertical axis in order to increase
the acceleration path of the hitting arm.

c. Block jumps

Similar to a soccer goalkeeper acting against an approaching attacker, block players try to
decrease the attacking angle of the spiker by overreaching the net with their arms.
Mechanically, this produces an angular momentum around the transversal axis. Since the
blocking player is in the air during the jump, the laws of physics implicate a preservation of
(angular) momentum. Hence, the momentum by the arms has to be counteracted by an
opposite (angular) momentum of a different body part. If this compensation movement is not
actively executed by the legs (Figure 2), the compensation might occur by a backward
movement of the trunk which is not desired because it decreases the overreaching of the arms
and might open a gap between the arms and the net. Compensation of the angular momentum
of the arms by the lower extremities can also be observed around the anterior-posterior axis
(Figure 2). In order to avoid a technical mistake by touching the line or an uncontrolled landing,
these angular impulses have to be reversed during the landing.

Figure 2: Upper body movement compensated by lower body movements around the transversal (left picture) and
anterior-posterior axis (right picture) during block movements (from www.fivb.ch, with permission).
 d. Landing

What goes up must come down - it is inevitable to land following a jump. During the downward
phase of a jump the athlete increases his/her downward momentum due to gravity. This
momentum must be decreased during the touch down phase by the ground reaction force
acting on the body. Depending on the surface (hard/soft) or the muscle activation and hence
the stiffness of the legs, the peak ground reaction forces can vary substantially during the
landing and the peak forces and loading rate generally exceed those during the take-off
movement. Such high forces are related to high stress in the lower limb joints and may cause
acute and overuse injuries like anterior cruciate ligament ruptures or patellar tendinopathies,
respectively (Bahr und Reeser 2003).

In volleyball, several factors influence the ground reaction force during landing. The landing
surface affects the forces that are acting on the athletes. Stiffer surfaces will lead to higher
forces. This is in line with the fact that elite beach volleyball players that play on soft sand
surface are less vulnerable to patellar tendinopathies compared to indoor players (Lian et al.
2005). Similarily, the stiffness of the shoes will influence the developed forces during landings
following a jump (DeBiasio et al. 2013). Besides the environmental factors also the activation
pattern and landing techniques will affect forces during landings substantially. (Lobietti et al.
2010) analyzed landing patterns (left or right foot or both feet together) in high-level volleyball
and reported e.g. differences between the sexes in block, set, and spike but not for the jump
serve. Furthermore, one foot landings with higher risk of injuries were related to court position
and setting trajectory. Athletes that spiked faster sets were more likely to land on one foot.

e. Differences between indoor and beach volleyball

Although the playing concept and game idea of indoor and beach volleyball is quite similar,
techniques of these athletes vary significantly from a biomechanical point of view due to
different movement conditions, i.e. sand compared to indoor surface or the number of players.
When comparing the spike technique of these types of sport, (Tilp et al. 2008) found out that
beach volleyball players adapt their techniques to the softer sand surface. They slowed down
their movements, especially during the eccentric-concentric phase at maximum knee flexion
and during the acceleration phase. On sand, players decrease their CoM lower than indoors
(see Figure 3) to reach maximum jumping height. Furthermore, beach volleyball players placed
their feet more parallel and flat on the ground compared to indoor players. The authors
hypothesized that the flatter sole contact on sand increases the contact area where force can
be distributed and therefore may decrease the sinking process.

Figure 3: Vertical position (solid lines) and linear velocity (dotted lines) of the centre of mass during a beach
volleyball (black) and an indoor volleyball (grey) spike jump (from).

While the sand surface has disadvantages regarding the jumping height, it has advantages
regarding the landing. Besides the lower jumping height, which results in a lower downward
momentum, also the yielding property of sand decreases forces during the landing compared
to hard surfaces. At touch-down the downward momentum must be decreased by the ground
reaction force acting on the body. On a softer surface the sum of the ground reaction force is
distributed over a greater distance (due to the greater penetration in the sand compared to a
hard surface in the gym) and greater time. Thus, the maximum force on a sand surface is
smaller compared to a hard surface. Furthermore, the playing concept of beach volleyball with
only two players is slower compared to indoor volleyball. Because it is obvious who is playing
the next ball within a team, fast sets and surprising tactics are not as effective as in indoor
volleyball. This results in more controlled landings on both feet on the sand following most of
the techniques especially in men (Tilp und Rindler 2013) which might be one reason for less
acute and overuse injuries in beach compared to indoor volleyball. Only following sets beach
volleyball players land more often on one foot compared to their indoor colleagues. The reason
for this is that beach volleyball players have less time to reach the setting position because at
the time of the serve it is not yet clear who of the two players will set the ball.
 2. Spiking

Similar to other sports like team handball, tennis or baseball, an overarm technique is used
during the spike to accelerate the volleyball. While players in handball or baseball throw the
ball and tennis players hit the ball with a racket, indoor or beach volleyball players hit the ball
with their hand to score a point. At the instant of the spike a momentum (=mass.velocity) is
transferred from the hand to the ball from a mechanical point of view. Besides the two
parameters mass and velocity, the elastic properties of the ball and the hand affect the result,
i.e. the ball velocity. The mass and elastic property of the ball is regulated by the FIVB. The
elastic property of the hand and the mass acting on the ball can be regulated by muscle
activation of the athlete. Briefly, the stiffer the hand and the more mass is included (i.e. the
interacting of hand, arm, shoulder and trunk) the greater the momentum which is transferred
to the ball. This is however an optimization process since a fusion of the acting body parts to
one mass by muscle activation would also decrease the overall movement velocity. The body
solves this by a coordinated proximal-to-distal sequencing of the maximum velocities of the
interacting body parts (Wagner et al. 2014). (Coleman et al. 1993) determined that maximal
humerus velocity was associated with high post-impact ball speed. Furthermore, an increase
in ball speed can be achieved by an increase in pelvis, trunk and shoulder rotation in the
preparation phase of the spike which increases the range of motion. (Li Fang et al. 2008, 2008)
reported that a high range of motion is a key factor of the spiking technique and differentiates
beginners from high-level athletes. During the preparation phase and at the instant of the spike
the volleyball athlete is in the air and therefore, similar to the block movement, the laws of
physics implicate a preservation of (angular) momentum. Hence the momentum by the upper
body has to be counteracted by an opposite (angular) momentum of the lower body, i.e. a hip
extension and knee flexion during the preparation phase and a hip flexion and knee extension
at the instant of the ball hit (Figure 4).

Figure 4: Aerial phase of the spike jump including the smash: 1–3 cocking phase, 3–5 acceleration phase, 6 follow‐
through phase. Source: adapted from Wagner et al. (2014). Reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons.
 3. Physics of the ball trajectory

Depending on the volleyball technique, ball trajectories are slightly different. During a set the
trajectory will be approximately parabolic because the ball has low velocity and no rotation.
Hence, besides the gravity this parabolic trajectory is determined by the initial position, take-
off angle, and -velocity at the instant of the set (Figure 5).

Figure 5: Different parabolic setting trajectories related to take off velocity (V0), take off angle (α). Please note the maximal
height (H), length (L) and especially the time (T) of the sets.

Contrary, when the ball flies with a higher velocity, air resistance affects the trajectory
significantly. Air resistance, described in Equ. (iii), is related to the drag coefficient (CD), the air
density (ρ, 1.2 kg/m³), the projected area of the volleyball (A), and the velocity (V). An important
factor influencing air resistance (through the drag coefficient CD) is the boundary layer, defined
as a thin layer of air near the surface, which the ball carries with. During the flight this boundary
layer will peel away from the surface at the back of the ball and has two distinct states: “laminar”
and “turbulent”. While in the laminar state, tiers are laid one on top of each other, in the
turbulent state the air is moving chaotically. A turbulent state is related with a smaller wake
behind the ball and therefore a smaller drag coefficient and thus to lower air resistance. The
transition from laminar to turbulent state occurs when a critical Reynolds number, which
depends on velocity and ball surface (Metha und Pallis 2001), is achieved where CD drops
abruptly. Interestingly, critical Reynolds numbers of Re=220.000-270.000 for volleyballs ((Asai
et al. 2010) occur at typical volleyball spike or service velocities and therefore lead to deviations
of the trajectory. During a float swerve this process leads to irregular non-symmetrical lateral
forces acting on a ball and leading to unpredictable trajectories (Qing-ding et al. 1988). Due to
structure differences in the surface of volleyballs of different producers in the past (smooth,
honeycomb, dimples), volleyballs have also changed their floating properties and therefore
trajectories (Asai et al. 2010).

1 1
iii) 𝐹𝐷 = 2 ∙ 𝐶𝐷 ∙ 𝜌 ∙ 𝐴 ∙ 𝑣 2 iv) F𝐿 = 2 ∙ 𝐶𝐿 ∙ 𝜌 ∙ 𝐴 ∙ 𝑣 2

In a rotating ball, the so-called Magnus-effect alters the ball trajectory by introducing a lift force
(FL , see equation (iv) including a lift coefficient CL) in the direction of the ball rotation. Initially,
the German physicist Heinrich Gustav Magnus has explained this by different streaming
velocities and resulting in different pressure (Bernoulli Effect) on the different sides of the ball.
Later the American physicist Lyman J. Briggs explained this effect by a turbulent wake behind
the spinning ball. (Metha und Pallis 2001) explained that the rotation of a ball leads to an
asymmetric separation of the boundary layer and therefore to a wake deflected in the opposite
direction of the rotation. Following Newton’s 3rd Law of Motion the deflected wake implies a
(Magnus) force on the ball and thus a curved trajectory. Thus, service or spikes with a topspin
rotation are deflected downwards (Figure 6). Consequently, a ball that was spiked over the
opponent’s block with topspin rotation might still hit the ground within the court while a ball
without spin or even backward spin would be out. Similarly, a topspin serve will come down
closer to the net or can be played with higher velocity due to its downward deflection.

Figure 6: Comparison of the ball trajectory of a topspin serve (light crosses) and loat serve (dark crosses)
at similar serve speed of ~14 m/s. Note that the path of the topspin serve is delected downward.
Based on the knowledge of the influence of ball rotation on the trajectory and further
experimental data, (Kao et al. 1993)) has made simulations to find out the optimal spike
position on the court against a block with two blockers. They defined the optimal spike position
as the coordinates from where an attacker has the greatest possible attacking angle against a
central double block of 1.2 m width. They used a ball velocity of 20 m/s and an angular velocity
of 7 revolutions/s. Including this information they calculated an optimal spike position with an
attacking angle of 30° at 1.6 to 2.5 m behind the middle line and 0 – 1.5 m from the side line
from position II or IV on the volleyball field. This underlines the excellent spiking conditions for
back row spikers.

4. Summary and conclusion

Biomechanics in volleyball is important for maximal performance and regarding injury

prevention. Maximal jumping heights are achieved by maximizing take-off velocity. This is
supported by a countermovement and the use of an arm swing and will be decreased by a
yielding surface like sand.

During the aerial phase of serve-, spike- or block movements the (angular) momentum is
preserved. Therefore, angular moments produced by the arms are compensated by other body
parts. This coordinate processes should be trained in order to use adequate techniques. During
the overarm spike technique the momentum (mass.velocity) of the hand is transferred to the
ball. Coordinated muscle activity increases the momentum and the elastic properties of the
hand.

Acting forces during the landing phase are influenced by the landing surface and technique. A
yielding surface and landing on two feet will reduce force peaks and therefore injury risk.

The volleyball trajectory is greatly affected by velocity and rotation. While setting trajectories
are approximately parabolic, following spikes and serves at critical velocities the boundary
layer around the ball peels away in a turbulent state behind the ball which makes the trajectory
less predictable. A rotation on the ball leads to an asymmetric separation of the boundary layer
and therefore to a deflection in the opposite direction of the rotation.

References
Aragon-Vargas, Luis F.; Gross, Melissa (1997): Kinesiological Factors in vertical jump performance:
Differences among individuals. In: Journal of applied biomechanics 13 (1), S. 24–44.
Asai, Takeshi; Ito, Shinichiro; Seo, Kazuya; Hitotsubashi, Akihiro (2010): Aerodynamics of a new
volleyball. In: Procedia Engineering 2 (2), S. 2493–2498. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2010.04.021.

Bahr, Roald; Reeser, Jonathan C. (2003): Injuries among world-class professional beach volleyball
players. The Fédération Internationale de Volleyball beach volleyball injury study. In: The American
journal of sports medicine 31 (1), S. 119–125.

Bobbert, M. F.; Gerritsen, K. G.; Litjens, M. C.; Van Soest, A J (1996): Why is countermovement jump
height greater than squat jump height? In: Medicine and science in sports and exercise 28 (11), S.
1402–1412.

Bobbert, M. F.; van Ingen Schenau, G J (1988): Coordination in vertical jumping. In: Journal of
biomechanics 21 (3), S. 249–262.

BOSCO, C.; TIHANYI, J.; KOMI, P. V.; FEKETE, G.; APOR, P. (1982): Store and recoil of elastic energy in
slow and fast types of human skeletal muscles. In: Acta Physiologica Scandinavica 116 (4), S. 343–
349. DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.1982.tb07152.x.

Coleman, S. G.; Benham, A. S.; Northcott, S. R. (1993): A three-dimensional cinematographical

analysis of the volleyball spike. In: Journal of sports sciences 11 (4), S. 295–302. DOI:
10.1080/02640419308729999.

DeBiasio, Justin C.; Russell, Mary E.; Butler, Robert J.; Nunley, James A.; Queen, Robin M. (2013):
Changes in Plantar Loading Based on Shoe Type and Sex During a Jump-Landing Task. In: Journal of
Athletic Training 48 (5), S. 601–609. DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-48.3.08.

Giatsis, George; Kollias, Iraklis; Panoutsakopoulos, Vassilios; Papaiakovou, George (2004):

Biomechanical differences in elite beach-volleyball players in vertical squat jump on rigid and sand
surface. In: Sports biomechanics / International Society of Biomechanics in Sports 3 (1), S. 145–158.
DOI: 10.1080/14763140408522835.

Gordon, A. M.; Huxley, A. F.; Julian, F. J. (1966): Tension development in highly stretched vertebrate
muscle fibres. In: The Journal of physiology 184 (1), S. 143–169.

Hara, Mikiko; Shibayama, Akira; Takeshita, Daisuke; Fukashiro, Senshi (2006): The effect of arm swing
on lower extremities in vertical jumping. In: Journal of biomechanics 39 (13), S. 2503–2511. DOI:
10.1016/j.jbiomech.2005.07.030.

Hill, A. V. (1938): The Heat of Shortening and the Dynamic Constants of Muscle. In: Proceedings of the
Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 126 (843), S. 136–195. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1938.0050.

Kao, S.; Sellens, R.; Stevenson, J. (1993): The trajectory of the spiked volleyball. In: Journal of
biomechanics 26 (3), S. 307. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(93)90433-F.
Kollias, Iraklis; Panoutsakopoulos, Vassilios; Papaiakovou, Georgios (2004): Comparing jumping ability
among athletes of various sports: vertical drop jumping from 60 centimeters. In: Journal of strength
and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association 18 (3), S. 546–550. DOI:
10.1519/1533-4287(2004)18<546:CJAAAO>2.0.CO;2.

Kurokawa, Sadao; Fukunaga, Tetsuo; Nagano, Akinori; Fukashiro, Senshi (2003): Interaction between
fascicles and tendinous structures during counter movement jumping investigated in vivo. In: Journal
of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) 95 (6), S. 2306–2314. DOI:
10.1152/japplphysiol.00219.2003.

Lees, Adrian; Vanrenterghem, Jos; Clercq, Dirk de (2004): Understanding how an arm swing enhances
performance in the vertical jump. In: Journal of biomechanics 37 (12), S. 1929–1940. DOI:
10.1016/j.jbiomech.2004.02.021.

Li Fang, L.; Gin-Chang, L.; Chiao-Wen, S.; Chen-fu, H. (2008): The application of range of motion
(ROM) an coordination on volleyball spike. In: Young-Hoo Kwon, Jaeho Shim, Jae Kun Shim, In-Sik
Shin (Hg.): ISBS Conference Proceedings 2008. ISBS. Seoul, Korea, 14.-18.7. Seoul, Korea.

Lian, Oystein B.; Engebretsen, Lars; Bahr, Roald (2005): Prevalence of jumper's knee among elite
athletes from different sports: a cross-sectional study. In: The American journal of sports medicine 33
(4), S. 561–567. DOI: 10.1177/0363546504270454.

Lobietti, Roberto; Coleman, Simon; Pizzichillo, Eduardo; Merni, Franco (2010): Landing techniques in
volleyball. In: Journal of sports sciences 28 (13), S. 1469–1476. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2010.514278.

Maffiuletti, Nicola A.; Dugnani, Sergio; Folz, Matteo; Di Pierno, Ermano; Mauro, Franco (2002): Effect
of combined electrostimulation and plyometric training on vertical jump height. In: Medicine and
science in sports and exercise 34 (10), S. 1638–1644. DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000031481.28915.56.

Metha, R. D.; Pallis, J. M. (2001): Sports Ball Aerodynamics: Effects of Velocity, Spin and Surface
Roughness. In: F. H. Froes und S. J. Haake (Hg.): Materials and Science in Sports. Materials and
Science in Sports. Coronado, Califronia, US, 22.-24.4., S. 185–197.

Qing-ding, Wei; Rong-sheng, Lin; Zhi-jie, Liu (1988): Vortex-induced dynamic loads on a non-spinning
volleyball. In: Fluid Dyn. Res. 3 (1-4), S. 231–237. DOI: 10.1016/0169-5983(88)90071-8.

Sattler, Tine; Hadžić, Vedran; Dervišević, Edvin; Markovic, Goran (2014): Vertical jump performance
of professional male and female volleyball players: effects of playing position and competition level.
In: Journal of strength and conditioning research / National Strength & Conditioning Association. DOI:
10.1519/JSC.0000000000000781.
 Sheppard, Jeremy M.; Cronin, John B.; Gabbett, Tim J.; McGuigan, Michael R.; Etxebarria, Naroa;
Newton, Robert U. (2008): Relative importance of strength, power, and anthropometric measures to
jump performance of elite volleyball players. In: Journal of strength and conditioning research /
National Strength & Conditioning Association 22 (3), S. 758–765. DOI:
10.1519/JSC.0b013e31816a8440.

Thaller, Sigrid; Tilp, Markus; Sust, Martin (2010): The effect of individual neuromuscular properties
on performance in sports. In: Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical Systems 16 (5), S.
417–429. DOI: 10.1080/13873954.2010.507082.

Tilp, Markus; Rindler, Michael (2013): Landing techniques in beach volleyball. In: Journal of sports
science & medicine 12 (3), S. 447–453.

Tilp, Markus; Wagner, Herbert; Müller, Erich (2008): Differences in 3D kinematics between volleyball
and beach volleyball spike movements. In: Sports biomechanics / International Society of
Biomechanics in Sports 7 (3), S. 386–397. DOI: 10.1080/14763140802233231.

Wagner, H.; Pfusterschmied, J.; Tilp, M.; Landlinger, J.; von Duvillard, S. P.; Müller, E. (2014): Upper-
body kinematics in team-handball throw, tennis serve, and volleyball spike. In: Scand J Med Sci Sports
24 (2), S. 345–354. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2012.01503.x.

Wagner, H.; Tilp, M.; von Duvillard, S P; Mueller, E. (2009): Kinematic analysis of volleyball spike
jump. In: International journal of sports medicine 30 (10), S. 760–765. DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1224177.

Widrick, Jeffrey J.; Stelzer, Julian E.; Shoepe, Todd C.; Garner, Dena P. (2002): Functional properties of
human muscle fibers after short-term resistance exercise training. In: American journal of physiology.
Regulatory, integrative and comparative physiology 283 (2), S. R408-16. DOI:
10.1152/ajpregu.00120.2002.

Ziv, G.; Lidor, R. (2010): Vertical jump in female and male volleyball players: a review of observational
and experimental studies. In: Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 20 (4), S. 556–567.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.01083.x.

View publication stats