# Evaluation of Lower Extremities Power, Movement, Position and Effectiveness in Volleyball
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Parameters** & **Position** & **N** & **X** & **M** & **Min.** & **Max.** & **SD** & **CV** & **H** & \(p\) \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Peace [step/s]} & [PERSON] & 41 & 1.38 & 1.38 & 1.24 & 1.59 & 0.10 & 7.20 & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Middle Blocker & 69 & 1.16 & 1.14 & 0.89 & 1.44 & 0.10 & 8.83 & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Opposite & 31 & 1.14 & 1.32 & 0.66 & 1.55 & 0.30 & 26.78 & 97.23 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Outside Hitter & 67 & 1.14 & 1.17 & 0.40 & 1.31 & 0.13 & 11.53 & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Better & 37 & 1.26 & 1.27 & 1.19 & 1.36 & 0.04 & 3.20 & & \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Tstance [cm]} & Libero & 41 & 0.21 & 0.19 & 0.16 & 0.28 & 0.04 & 20.06 & & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Middle Blocker & 69 & 0.28 & 0.27 & 0.22 & 0.53 & 0.05 & 18.21 & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Opposite & 31 & 0.38 & 0.20 & 0.17 & 0.86 & 0.26 & 68.30 & 48.31 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Outside Hitter & 67 & 0.28 & 0.24 & 0.17 & 1.86 & 0.21 & 74.52 & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Better & 37 & 0.23 & 0.23 & 0.20 & 0.27 & 0.01 & 7.33 & & \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Walking Point X [cm]} & [PERSON] & 41 & \(-\)10.24 & \(-\)7.90 & \(-\)52.10 & 14.00 & 13.69 & \(-\)133.72 & & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Middle Blocker & 69 & \(-\)13.42 & \(-\)13.50 & \(-\)55.20 & 29.70 & 20.77 & \(-\)154.68 & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Opposite & 31 & \(-\)3.20 & \(-\)1.50 & \(-\)30.30 & 29.20 & 18.54 & \(-\)579.63 & 17.27 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Outside Hitter & 67 & \(-\)16.34 & \(-\)12.00 & \(-\)82.30 & 19.80 & 19.49 & \(-\)119.23 & & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Better & 37 & \(-\)1.34 & \(-\)3.60 & \(-\)29.20 & 33.40 & 15.24 & \(-\)1137.29 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Step Width [cm]} & [PERSON] & 41 & 19.39 & 18.80 & 14.60 & 26.00 & 3.23 & 16.66 & & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Middle Blocker & 69 & 28.19 & 28.10 & 19.80 & 39.60 & 4.47 & 15.86 & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Opposite & 31 & 28.06 & 29.20 & 15.60 & 33.30 & 3.61 & 12.89 & 105.31 & \(<\)0.001 \\ \cline{2-10}  & Outside Hitter & 67 & 25.26 & 26.00 & 16.70 & 61.50 & 6.08 & 24.09 & & \\ \cline{2-10}  & Better & 37 & 30.32 & 30.20 & 25.00 & 35.40 & 2.66 & 8.78 & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Position vs movement parameters of studied players. After determining the differences in jumping parameters and players' positions, the correlation between jumping parameters (Table 8) and volleyball coefficients was checked in turn. [PERSON]'s correlation was used for this purpose. Peace [step/s], Tstance [cm], WalkingPoint X [cm], WalkingPoint GapX [cm], and StepWidth [cm] show no significant correlations with the volleyball coefficients. Flight time (TF) shows significance in GPF Points (Figure 1) and EF Attack. The height of jumps confirms this relationship, which also occurs in these two indicators. Lower limb power shows dependence in such indicators as GPF Reception, EF Service and EF Reception, which suggests the dependence between the effectiveness of reception and the power of lower limbs. According to the interpretation of Figure 1, the increase in the value of the player's flight time increases his share in scoring points for the team. The increase in these values is uneven and not unequivocal. Based on Figure 2, it can be stated that players performing an element of service reception have a power higher than 45 N/kg. However, this graph does not show the reason for the relationship between power and efficiency. The effectiveness of the serve also increases with power, which is shown in Figure 3. Receiving players are characterized by higher scores in terms of serve effectiveness and lower limb power.