More on servers vs. passers games

I want to follow up on my serve reception scoring philosophy post. After some consideration, I experimented with a different scoring version. This was motivated by a discussion with Mark Lebedew.

The scoring was as follows:

Pass is a 3 or 2 (positive pass in DataVolley) = point for passers
Pass is a 1 or overpass, or get aced = point for servers
Missed serve = -1 for servers

The game started at 3-0 in favor of the servers. That allowed the servers to miss a reasonable number of serves.

I set the game up to go to 25. Unfortunately, I quickly realized the game was going to take too long. As a result, when the first group reached 15 (passers in this case), I told the team it was bonus time. Moving forward, aces and 3 passes (perfect) were worth 2 points. That sped things up. It also led to the score being tighter in the end.

I will experiment with this further. One thing to look at is shorter games. So too is going with the 2 point plays from the beginning. Also, I need to think about the number of missed serves to allow for with the starting score. It has to be based on the number of serves made to be more fair based on how aggressive you want to the servers to be.

Here are a couple of interesting games, though:

6 Steps to Better Practices - Free Guide

Subscribe to my weekly newsletter today and get this free guide to making your practices the best, along with loads more coaching tips and information.

No spam ever. Unsubscribe at any time. Powered by Kit

John Forman

John is a volleyball performance director and coach educator with 20+ years of experience across the NCAA (all three divisions plus junior college), university and club volleyball in the UK, professional coaching in Sweden, and juniors clubs. He has also served as a visiting coach with national team, professional club, and juniors programs in multiple countries.

Please share your own ideas and opinions.

Latest Posts

Remembering Jim Stone

The volleyball coaching world has lost a great thinker and educator in Jim Stone. His mind and willingness to engage will be missed.

Hating to lose = competitive?

It's said that true competitors hate losing. But can we really call that a true hallmark of a competitor when it's a general human bias?