2 versus 2 game: roles and polyvalence

Court defence with two players introduces a decision making resting on:

• reading of the trajectory
• a repartition of the targets to defend

This is a major qualitative threshold in the learning of volley-ball. It will reveal the assimilation of the preceding stages (trajectory times and game1 vs 1) and require new learning.

An early answer to the question "I play the ball or I don't" is absolutely decisive in the management of time constraints.

To such an extent that "aiming at uncertainty zones" remains an efficient tactic up to highest level. This represents the first form of role distribution and the first form of commitment times which determine efficiency.

We have seen (1vs1) that pupils can cover important distances during the trajectory times particularly on a serve when the ball has to cross all of the opposite camp before entering the defended camp (See again trajectory times).

We must therefore continue to focus our diagnostic and the pupils' work on the points of time, of decision and now of communication through the questions:

• what was I doing just before and at the time of the opponent hit (posture and alertness)?
• at which moment did I move to play the ball?
• did I announce to my partner "Go it" or "Me"?

We show that when we both go to the ball or when nobody goes the result is the same and the cause is generally the same. The activity cycle of the player integrates the choice and reorientation of the activity from one role to the other.

Learning situations

On peut envisager un travail avec ou sans filet. Le filet est un dispositif qui doit donner du temps pour rendre la défense possible. On pourra, selon les installations et le niveau, le remplacer par une zone neutre.

• Stop the ball from falling in your camp with 2 players.
• Attack/defend the court le terrain with 2 players.
• Match 2 versus 2.

3 versus 3 game: roles, polyvalence and specialisation

In the game at 3 versus 3 all players are not directly involved in a direct relation with the pass. From the reception of a serve there is a differentiation between the roles:

• The receiver who draws attention to himself very early on by "got it!".
• The setter (generally pre-designated) who singles himself our by his movement, a visual target (hand raised) and a sound signal "here!".
• The support who covers for the probable error at reception then in case of successful reception anticipates as he proposes an attack solution.

It is this possibility to project into a future action (the attack) without getting involved I the current action (the pass) which constitutes a qualitative rupture with the 2 versus 2. At the same time it brings an extra solution in the attack and creates an additional for the opponent.

In a 2vs2 we can choose:

• Direct counter attack (from receiver).
• Indirect counter attack on the second touch of the ball.
• Indirect counter attack on the third touch by the available player.

In a 3vs3 we add:

• Indirect counter attack by one of the available players. These players can create great uncertainty by moving in time (proposition in short or long time) and space (close to the setter / far from the setter).

This number of players is a good solution through its rich tactics enabling a role differentiation then a specialisation in a relatively simple situation. This brings it a frank success in leisure tournaments.

Learning situations

• Reception of serve with specialised setter
• Defensive placing in the game

Game with 4 and more: specialisation and tactics construction

The game at 4vs4 brings greater complexity and more complete organisation possibilities:

• Possibility to specialise the setter, and to discharge him from serve reception.
• Possibility to combine several attack solutions and a cover of the court on the opponent's direct counterattacks.
• Possibility to combine the game of the back players and that of the front players.

This organisation favours continuity in the game and holds the premises of the technical and tactical development that can be achieved at 6 versus 6. Its mastery is a more than sufficient ambition at school level.

Learning situations

• Game at 3 versus 3 and 4 versus 4

Tests for 1 versus all

Tests can be done using a match 1 versus 3 or 4. Thus the question is clearly asked: Does the team use the collective resources? The forces are asymmetrical this allows to point the problem solving by the team.

Learning situations

• One versus all