## 5 Discussion  
This study aimed to examine serve dynamics and their effects on the effectiveness of the game during the 2023 Santiago Pan American Games Women's Volleyball tournament. Overall, the findings from this study indicate that, although both float serves and power serves tend to generate a high frequency of in-system receptions, float serves are associated with a greater number of out-of-system receptions, whereas power serves yield a slightly higher proportion of returns. Moreover, both serve types primarily target sectors 5 and 6, although differences in their distribution are statistically significant with a small-to-moderate effect size. Regarding the probability of achieving a direct point, power servers demonstrated greater effectiveness than float servers, reinforcing their impact on performance. In contrast, the serve's point of origin (right, left, or center) does not appear to exert a significant influence on the attainment of direct points or reception outcomes; however, it differentially affects the selection of the destination, particularly for zones other than 5 and 6, which account for most deliveries. The results indicated that jump float serves were the most frequently used, accounting for 81.716% of the executions, whereas power jump serves were used in 18.284% of the cases. These results suggest an evolution in serving strategies that influences overall game performance. They also highlighted the variety of serves employed by teams, reflecting a trend toward tactics that balance offensive and tactical aspects, particularly regarding jump float serves. According to [PERSON] et al. [3] (2010), who analyzed 1300 serves in the European Women's League, 59% were standing serves, 17% were jump float serves, and 24% were power jump serves, thus demonstrating a definitive shift toward jump serves in women's volleyball. This preference for jump serves (float and power) in elite women's volleyball approaches the patterns observed in high-level men's volleyball. For example, [PERSON] et al. [18] reported that top-level European male players used a power jump 57.7% of the time to disrupt their opponent's attack setup. [PERSON] [19] found that, in men's high-performance volleyball, 76.2% of players employed power jump serves and 20.6% used jump float serves, with almost no use of standing float serves. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [20] noted that 69.9% of male players in the Italian league allocated 69.9% to power jump serves and 26.9% to jump float serves. Although power jumps and serves can increase the reception difficulty, they must be used strategically because of their higher error rates. Similar trends were observed in the Men's World Cup, where 76.3% of serves were power jump serves and 23.7% were jump float serves. This study suggests that serving strategies are influenced by the opponent's quality and match circumstances, improving volleyball performance when adjusted accordingly [21]. When examining serves across different male age groups in the Spanish league, varied usage patterns emerged: in the U14 category, 16.4% were jump float serves and 1.4% were power jump serves; in U16, 40.5% were jump float serves and 8.2% were power jump serves; and in U19, 51% performed jump float serves and 11% used power jump serves. At the international level, the trend shifts: 69% of serves are power jump serves and 29% are jump floats [22]. In terms of serve origin in our study, Zone 1 was the most frequently used (38.806%), followed by Zone 6 (33.022%) and Zone 5 (27.985%). These findings align with those of [PERSON] et al. [18] in men's competitive volleyball, where 47.4% of servesoriginated from Zone 1, producing diagonal trajectories that forced forearm receptions. These parameters should be considered when planning training. [PERSON] et al. (2010) [PERSON] et al. (2010) likewise found that high-level European female players predominantly served from Zone 1 (60%). However, this contrasts with [PERSON] et al.