Training Load Differences Between Position And Set In NCAA D1 Collegiate Women’s Volleyball Match

PURPOSE: This study investigated the training load differences between positions and sets in NCAA DI collegiate women’s volleyball matches. METHODS: Training load data from twenty NCAA D1 collegiate women’s volleyball players (mean ± SD; age, 20 ± 1y; height, 185.4 ± 3.3 cm; weight, 77.2 ± 8.2 kg) were monitored during all matches throughout the season where players donned an accelerometer-based player tracking device. Training loads included energy, %Hard-landing (when landing force was >15G), Jump 15+ (Jumps>15 inches), average jump height, and total number of jumps. Players’ positions were classified either in middle blocker (MB), outside hitter (OH), and setter, and sets consisted of Set1, Set2, Set3, Set4, and Set5. Players were included only if they played >10 min per set. Liner mixed effect models with Tuckey post hoc analysis were used to compare training load differences in positions and sets. In these models, training load, set, and position were classified as the fixed effect while each player was the random effect, and it was nested within each match date. Significance was set at P ≤ 0.05. RESULTS: Energy in setters (338 ± 294 J) was significantly higher than MB (226 ± 249 J, p = 0.0218) and OH (220 ± 238 J, p = 0.0157). Energy from MB, OH and setters in Set5 (142 ± 147 J) was significantly lower than Set1 (239 ± 245 J, p < 0.001), Set2 (251 ± 263 J, p < 0.001), Set3 (244 ± 252 J, p < 0.001), and Set4 (270 ± 2878 J, p < 0.001). %Hard landing was significantly higher in MB (2.90 ± 5.51%, p = 0.0015) and OH (3.16 ± 6.82%, p = 0.005) compared to setters (0.283% ± 1.45). Jumps +15 was significantly higher in setters (9.63 ± 9.92) compared to OH (7.55 ± 8.67, p = 0.05). Average jump height and total number of jumps was not significant between positions or set (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Player energy significantly dropped in Set5 compared to Set1, Set2, Set3 and Set4, however the energy in setters is significantly higher than their front row counterparts independent of sets. %Hard-landing, which can be used to predict injury, was significantly higher in MB and OH. These findings provide insight into the varying physical demands placed on players based on their position and the progression of sets in a match, suggesting potential areas for position-specific training and recovery strategies.