摘要
为了世界高水平男女排在比赛中能合理选择和运用进攻战术打法以及预测女排进攻战术打法发展趋势,对男女排进攻战术打法差异性进行研究;通过技战术统计法,对第三十一届里约奥运会男排和女排的最后8场比赛进行技战术统计分析,结果显示:男排和女排运用的进攻战术各不相同,女排强攻和快攻的运用明显高于男排,男排在立体攻的运用明显高于女排;各种进攻战术运用的主要进攻打法也不完全一致;男女排进攻区域结构不一致,男排在3号区和1号区进攻的概率明显大于女排,而女排在2号区和4号区进攻的概率明显大于男排;世界女排进攻战术打法应增加强攻进攻点,拓宽快攻与平快掩护攻运用机会,增强组织立体攻的战术意识。
In order to select and use offensive tactics reasonably and predict the development trend of women’s volleyball’s offensive tactics in world high-level men ’s and women ’s volleyball matches,the difference of offensive tactics between men’s and women’s volleyball teams was studied. Through the statistical method of technique and tactics,the last eight matches of men’s and women’s volleyball teams in the 31 st Rio Olympic Games are analyzed. The results show that the offensive tactics used by men’s and women’s volleyball teams are different. The use of strong attack and fast attack by women’s volleyball team is obviously higher than that of men’s volleyball team,and the use of three-dimensional attack by men’s volleyball team is obviously higher than that of women’s volleyball consistently,the attacking regional structure of men’s and women’s volleyball teams is not the same. The attacking probability of men’s volleyball teams in area 3 and area 1 is obviously higher than that of women’s volleyball teams but the attacking probability of women’s volleyball team in area 2 and area 4 is obuiously higher than of men’s volleyball team. The attacking tactics of women’s volleyball teams in the world should increase the attacking points,broaden the opportunities of using fast attack and flat and fast cover attack,and enhance the tactical consciousness of organizing three-dimensional attack.
作者
马倩
张亚楠
MA Qian;ZHANG Ya-nan(School of Public Basic Sciences,South Anhui Medical University,Anhui Wuhu 241000,China)
出处
《重庆工商大学学报(自然科学版)》
2020年第1期122-128,共7页
Journal of Chongqing Technology and Business University:Natural Science Edition
基金
皖南医学院教研项目(2018JYXM39)
关键词
男排
女排
进攻战术
进攻打法
差异
men’s volleyball team
women’s volleyball team
attack tactics
offensive method
difference