What If You're the One Making the Mistake?

Why Player Errors Are Symptoms, Not the Problem

Author	Benjamin Slate Smith
Article Depth	In-depth; a systemic, evidence-based analysis of coaching’s impact on player performance.
Required Knowledge	Fundamentals of motor learning, sport psychology, systemic thinking, and objective self-analysis.
Primary Audience	Volleyball Coaches

A crucial point is lost. The ball sails long, a serve-receive shanks, or an attack finds the net. The immediate, almost visceral reaction for any competitive volleyball coach is often a surge of frustration, a subtle tightening, and an internal (or sometimes external) attribution of blame to the player. This scenario is a universal experience on the sideline, a moment of perceived individual failure that can feel acutely personal. But what if the root of that error began long before the player touched the ball? What if the mistake is, in fact, the coach’s? This article will systematically deconstruct common player errors, demonstrating how they are frequently symptoms of deeper, underlying issues rooted in a coach’s system, practice design, communication style, or tactical instructions. This is not about assigning individual culpability but about fostering professional growth and embracing a systemic analysis to unlock true team potential.

The immediate attribution of errors solely to players often stems from an emotional, rather than analytical, response to perceived failure. A coach’s reaction to such moments serves as a critical indicator of their coaching philosophy. When a coach interprets a player’s mistake as an embarrassment or a personal affront, their response is likely to be driven by emotion and defensiveness, bypassing objective analysis. This emotional, ego-driven reaction prevents a deeper inquiry into the causal factors of the error. It leads to a superficial “fix the player” approach, rather than the necessary “analyze the system” mindset, because the coach’s own self-perception becomes an impediment to effective problem-solving.

This can inadvertently foster a culture where players fear failure, leading to more “unforced errors” under pressure. When players perceive that making mistakes will lead to negative consequences, they develop a heightened apprehension. This translates into mental and physical tension, indecisiveness, and a preoccupation with avoiding errors rather than executing skills confidently. The very “unforced errors” that frustrate coaches might, in fact, be “forced” by the psychological climate they themselves have cultivated. Athletes, consumed by the apprehension of failure, become less assertive and more prone to mistakes, especially under pressure, perpetuating a cycle of blame and underperformance.

The Taxonomy of “Player Errors” with Coaching Roots

This section systematically deconstructs common player errors, demonstrating how they are frequently symptoms of deeper, underlying issues rooted in the coach’s system, practice design, communication style, or tactical instructions. Each analysis is supported by established principles from motor learning, biomechanics, and sport psychology.

A. Hitting Errors

A hitter consistently makes unforced attacking errors, failing to convert opportunities in crucial moments. These errors, while seemingly individual, often have roots in coaching methodologies.

One common coaching fault lies in practice design, specifically the trap of predictability. Many practices fall into the pattern of excessively repetitive and predictable drills. For instance, hitters might consistently receive perfect sets from the same spot, allowing them to develop a rhythm that, while efficient for initial skill acquisition, fails to translate effectively to the dynamic and unpredictable nature of real game situations. This “blocked practice” approach, where a single skill is practiced repeatedly before moving to another, has been extensively studied in motor learning. Research consistently demonstrates that “random practice”—where multiple skills or variations of a skill are interleaved in an unpredictable order—leads to superior long-term retention and transfer performance, even if initial acquisition performance might appear slower. If practice environments do not adequately train hitters to adapt to out-of-system or imperfect sets—which are the norm, not the exception, in competitive volleyball—then their “unforced errors” in a game are not truly unforced, but rather a predictable outcome of insufficient variability in their training. The consensus among elite coaches is to make practices “as game-like as possible,” a sentiment that emphasizes integrating multiple skills into drills to ease the transition from practice to game competition. Training for “out-of-system” play is critical. The “unforced error” in hitting is often a predictable outcome of practice designs that prioritize “looking good” or “getting reps” over “learning for transfer” in dynamic, game-like scenarios. If a coach predominantly uses blocked practice schedules, players develop motor programs that are highly specific to those predictable training contexts. When the actual game introduces inherent variability, the learned skill does not transfer effectively. This mismatch directly leads to errors that appear to be unforced but are, in fact, a direct and predictable consequence of the training methodology. The coach, by choosing predictable drills for the sake of perceived efficiency or to ensure “clean” execution in practice, inadvertently trains players not to adapt to real-game chaos, making the coach’s design choices a primary cause of the errors.

Another coaching fault is tactical rigidity, which stifles decision-making. A coach’s insistence on a specific shot choice, such as “hit line!” even when the opposing block or defense is clearly positioned to defend it, can severely limit a player’s court vision and autonomous decision-making. The greatest athletes are distinguished not only by their athleticism but also by an extraordinary understanding of the game itself, which allows them to read opponents, anticipate plays, and make intelligent, decisive actions under pressure. When coaches rigidly dictate every shot, they inadvertently prevent players from cultivating this crucial “Volleyball IQ.” This transforms the player from an adaptive decision-maker into a reactive robot, ill-equipped to navigate the fluid, unpredictable nature of rally play. Errors that appear to be poor shot selection might not stem from a player’s inability to technically execute a specific shot, but rather from a fundamental lack of training in when and why to choose it. As outlined in any taxonomy of errors, “tactical” errors involve the decision-making process that precedes technical execution, and an incorrect choice significantly lowers the chances of success.

Information overload can lead to cognitive paralysis. Bombarding players with an excessive number of technical cues simultaneously—for example, “Keep your elbow high, snap your wrist, watch the block, hit the deep corner!”—can lead to cognitive paralysis. The psychological principle of cognitive load highlights the limited capacity of working memory. When coaches provide too much information, especially if it is redundant or requires “split attention,” it overwhelms the athlete’s working memory, impeding the transfer of essential learning points to long-term memory. This cognitive overload can induce stress and pressure, leading to a decline in overall cognitive functions and, consequently, poor performance. Research consistently shows that an external focus of attention—for instance, focusing on the intended movement effect like “hit the deep corner” or “manipulate the ball”—is significantly more effective for motor learning than an internal focus, such as concentrating on body movements like “keep your elbow high” or “manipulate your body.” An external focus facilitates more automatic control processes and reduces conscious micromanagement. A hitter who struggles with execution might not lack the physical ability to perform the skill but rather is mentally overwhelmed and unable to process the multitude of instructions. This is a direct consequence of the coach’s communication strategy, not solely the player’s technical deficiency. Over-coaching technical cues with an internal focus not only hinders immediate performance but also impedes the development of autonomous decision-making and adaptability. An internal focus forces conscious control over movements, which is inherently slower and less efficient than automatic, fluid execution. When a player’s cognitive resources are consumed by micromanaging their body parts, there is less mental capacity available for crucial real-time processes such as reading the block, anticipating defensive movements, or adapting to the set quality. This creates a bottleneck in decision-making and fosters a dependency on the coach’s constant instruction rather than nurturing the player’s intrinsic ability to “read” the game.

Coaches must also possess a strong understanding of hitting biomechanics. An over-emphasis on a “high elbow” might be less effective for generating power than teaching proper torso rotation, and improper landing mechanics can lead to knee injuries. Sound coaching advises teaching players to err with the ball in front of them, which allows for greater power and a safer, two-foot landing.

B. Serve-Receive Errors

Passers are inconsistent, and the team struggles significantly against tough servers, leading to lost points or out-of-system attacks.

A system flaw can manifest as mismatched personnel and patterns. The serve-receive pattern chosen by the coach might not optimally leverage the personnel’s individual strengths and weaknesses. Forcing a weaker passer to cover an excessive amount of court or a particularly difficult seam, or conversely, not maximizing the range of the strongest passer, can create inherent vulnerabilities. Respected coaches have long discussed various serve-receive patterns, including strategies like designating the best passer to cover critical seams or strategically freeing up the best hitter from serve-receive responsibilities. If a player consistently “shanks” passes in a specific zone, it may not be a flaw in their technique, but a systemic issue where the coach’s pattern places them in an inherently unfavorable position. The system should adapt to the players, not the other way around.

Lack of specificity in training can create false confidence. Practices frequently fail to adequately simulate the intensity and variety of serves the team will encounter. Coaches often serve “easy” balls during drills to “get more reps,” which, while increasing volume, inadvertently creates a false sense of competence. A core tenet of coaching is that the vast majority of success in serve receive comes before the ball crosses the net—underscoring the paramount importance of reading the server and ball flight. There can never be enough serve-receive practice, and too much time is wasted on isolated passing drills that do not mimic game reality. Training drills should have primary passers receive serves as tough as—or even tougher than—those they’ll see from opponents. If players are only exposed to easy serves in a controlled environment, they will lack the crucial perceptual-motor skills and mental fortitude required to handle game-speed serves. Their “inconsistency” is a direct result of a training environment that fails to mirror the demands of competition. An over-emphasis on isolated technique drills without integrating game-like scenarios creates a skill-performance gap. When players primarily engage in isolated technical drills, they develop motor programs optimized for predictable tasks. However, actual serve reception demands a complex interplay of rapid reading, anticipation, dynamic positioning, and decision-making under high pressure. The coach’s choice of “easy” or isolated drills, while seemingly building “fundamentals,” creates a false sense of proficiency that doesn’t transfer to real-game conditions.

Unclear seam responsibility can lead to hesitation and confusion. Players often hesitate or allow balls to drop between them because their specific seam responsibilities have not been drilled to the point of automaticity. This is fundamentally a coaching and practice-planning issue, not solely a player communication problem. The principle is that players need to know instinctively who has the short seam and who has the deep one in all situations to drastically reduce the number of balls that land between players who are standing there looking at each other. Achieving this requires consistent, deliberate drilling of principles that apply across various court positions. A ball dropping untouched is frequently not a technical passing error, but a “behavioral error” stemming from a lack of clarity in the defensive system. Hesitation and miscommunication on seams are often a symptom of ambiguous or overly complex defensive systems. The coach’s role is to simplify the message and create practice environments that compel players to internalize these responsibilities through dynamic, game-like play.

C. Serving Errors

A player exhibits a high service error percentage, particularly under pressure. This common issue often highlights underlying coaching challenges.

One significant coaching fault stems from conflicting goals, creating a fear-aggression paradox. A common coaching paradox arises when coaches demand an “aggressive, tough serve” while simultaneously punishing errors. This creates a high-risk, high-fear environment. The reality is that serving tough means living with a few errors; increased aggression often correlates with a higher error rate. Research in sport psychology consistently shows a significant positive relationship between a coach’s controlling motivational style and athletes’ apprehension of failure. This apprehension, in turn, leads to increased anxiety and poor performance. If a player’s apprehension of making an error outweighs their desire to execute an aggressive serve, they will often “play it safe,” resulting in less effective serves or, ironically, more errors due to a lack of commitment to the aggressive action. The “unforced error” is often “forced” by the psychological pressure and conflicting messages imposed by the coach. The coach’s verbal and non-verbal reactions to serving errors directly shape the player’s willingness to take risks. If a coach consistently expresses frustration or uses punitive language, players internalize that aggressive actions carry a high personal cost. This internal conflict often manifests as hesitation, overthinking, or a conservative approach.

Insufficient situational training also contributes by neglecting pressure simulation. Failing to practice serving under conditions that simulate game pressure, such as at the end of a long practice or with a game-like score on the board, leaves players ill-prepared. Serving, while a closed skill in isolation, becomes an open skill when the pressure of a match is introduced. It is vital to make practices as game-like as possible, creating challenging environments that promote competition. If players only practice serving in a low-pressure setting, they will not develop the mental resilience to execute under duress. Their increased error rate under pressure is a direct consequence of a training gap.

Neglecting the mental game by an absence of routines and focus techniques is a significant coaching oversight. Coaches often fail to actively teach players pre-serve routines and mental focusing techniques. A hallmark of the world’s greatest players is their ability to master the voice inside their head, employing mental strategies to perform flawlessly under pressure. A player might possess technically perfect serve mechanics, but without the mental tools to manage anxiety, those mechanics are highly susceptible to breaking down. This is a crucial aspect of performance psychology that coaches must proactively integrate into their training. A lack of deliberate, integrated mental skills training means coaches are only addressing the “what” (physical mechanics) and not the “how” (mental execution under pressure). If coaches focus exclusively on physical mechanics, players will lack the complete toolkit required to perform when it matters most.

D. Defensive & Blocking Errors

Blockers are consistently late or jump in the wrong spot; defenders are out of position, leading to easy kills.

An ambiguous defensive system with unclear roles and schemes is a frequent coaching fault. The team’s base defensive positions and blocking schemes may not be clearly defined or thoroughly drilled. Players might not have a precise understanding of where they are “supposed” to be. While scouting is important for adapting defensive systems, if the coach’s own system is ambiguous, players cannot execute it effectively. This extends to “seam responsibilities” in defense, a common source of balls dropping between players. A player being “out of position” might not be due to a lack of effort, but a fundamental misunderstanding of the defensive system, pointing directly to a coaching failure in clarity of instruction.

“Scouting report” overload can also contribute by providing too much information too fast. Providing an overly complex scouting report can overwhelm players, making it impossible for them to process the information in real-time. While coaches scout to target weaknesses, this adaptation must result in actionable, digestible information. Because working memory has a limited capacity, when players are bombarded with too much information, it leads to cognitive overload, hindering their ability to make rapid decisions. Coaches should remember that players typically only remember the last couple of things said in a time-out. They need simple, actionable cues, not a comprehensive dissertation on every opponent tendency. If their cognitive resources are consumed by trying to recall an overly complex report, their reaction time will inevitably suffer. The goal is to facilitate quick, intelligent action, not to provide detail that paralyzes decision-making.

Truth is, drills that do not translate from static to dynamic scenarios are a significant coaching flaw. Relying on static, predictable defensive drills instead of dynamic, read-and-react scenarios is a mistake. Blocking is a highly reactive skill that demands players read the hitter’s approach and arm swing. The most effective blocking requires each player to focus and read the game. Practice environments must be as gamelike as possible. Drills should be designed to improve quickness, reaction time, and platform control in competitive, unpredictable situations. Defense and blocking are inherently reactive and anticipatory. If drills do not force players to read and react to unpredictable stimuli, they will not develop the necessary “perception” skills. Consequently, their errors in positioning and timing are a direct result of a training environment that fails to prepare them for the dynamic demands of competition. These errors often stem from a disconnect between theoretical knowledge (whiteboard diagrams) and practical application, a gap created by non-game-like drilling.

Common Player Error (Symptom)	Observed Player Behavior	Potential Coaching Root (Underlying Cause)	Underlying Principle/Concept
Hitting into net/out/block	Frequent hitting into antenna, deep corner, or blocked	Practice Design: Overly predictable drills	Motor Learning Principles (Variable vs. Blocked Practice)
	Hesitation on shot choice, hitting into set block	Tactical Rigidity: Dictating specific shots	Development of Game IQ, Tactical Decision-Making
	Appears overwhelmed, slow to react to set/block	Information Overload: Too many technical cues	Cognitive Processing Limits, External Focus of Attention
Serve-Receive Errors	Shanked passes, balls dropping between players	System Flaw: Mismatched personnel/patterns	Optimal System Design, Player Strengths/Weaknesses
	Inconsistent passing against tough serves	Lack of Specificity: Easy serves in drills	Game-like Practice, Perceptual-Motor Skill Development
	Hesitation on seam responsibilities	Unclear Seam Responsibility: Ambiguous roles	Automaticity of Defensive Principles
Serving Errors	High service error percentage, especially under pressure	Conflicting Goals: Aggression vs. Punishment	Fear of Failure, Coach Motivational Style
	Serve quality drops significantly under game pressure	Insufficient Situational Training: No pressure simulation	Game-like Practice, Mental Resilience
	Appears flustered before serve, inconsistent routine	Neglecting Mental Game: No routines/focus techniques	Performance Psychology, Mental Fortitude
Defensive & Blocking Errors	Blockers late/wrong spot, defenders out of position	Ambiguous Defensive System: Unclear roles	Clarity of System, Defensive Schemes
	Slow reaction to opponent’s attack, misreads	“Scouting Report” Overload: Too much info	Cognitive Processing Limits, Actionable Cues
	Poor positioning in rallies, reactive rather than anticipatory	Drills that Don’t Translate: Static vs. Dynamic	Read-and-React Scenarios, Perception Skills

The Solution: A Framework for Self-Correction

Coaches must fundamentally change their approach to game film review by adopting the principle: “Film Don’t Lie – But Watch Yourself First.” Instead of immediately dissecting the player’s error, the primary focus should be on critically analyzing the situation leading up to it, with an emphasis on the coaching context. This involves asking: What was the quality of the set? Was the defensive system correctly deployed? What tactical call did the coach make? Was the preceding practice sufficiently game-like? This analytical approach recognizes the “cause and effect” chain of every rally. This shift in focus is crucial for moving beyond individual blame to systemic analysis. Coaches should scrutinize their own coaching behaviors and decisions as rigorously as they scrutinize player execution. Insightful coaches have long known that watching oneself on film can be a powerful tool for self-correction. Post-game review should be objective, allowing emotions to settle, and prioritizing the identification of patterns rather than isolated incidents.

Another powerful tool is The Power of Questions, fostering player autonomy and insight. Transform post-error discussions from a lecture into a dialogue. Instead of immediately telling a player, “You did X wrong,” adopt an inquiry-based approach by asking open-ended questions like, “What did you see on that play?” or “What other options did you consider?” This method encourages deep self-reflection from the player and reveals whether the error stemmed from a misunderstanding, a misread, or a struggle with decision-making. This questioning protocol has been shown to significantly improve tactical knowledge. This approach empowers player autonomy and critical thinking. It enables coaches to diagnose the root cause of an error—whether it is perception, tactics, or behavior—rather than merely addressing the technical symptom. Adopting an autonomy-supportive coaching style, characterized by such questioning, significantly reduces athletes’ apprehension of failure. The shift from a “telling” to an “asking” approach transforms the coach-player dynamic from a hierarchical relationship into a collaborative, problem-solving partnership.

Coaches should also implement The 80/20 Rule of Practice Design, embracing chaos and competition. This involves a fundamental shift in practice philosophy: dedicate approximately 80% of practice time to game-like, chaotic, and competitive scenarios, reserving the remaining 20% for isolated technical refinement. This challenges the deeply ingrained tradition of “blocked drill” structures and directly applies the motor learning principle of contextual interference for superior long-term learning. Real games are inherently chaotic and demand constant adaptation. Practices must mirror this environment to effectively train adaptability, rapid decision-making, and mental resilience. This approach builds “full-body solutions” for imperfect situations, preparing players to perform effectively when conditions are less than ideal. Implementing the 80/20 rule necessitates that coaches fundamentally rethink their definition of “good practice” and potentially sacrifice immediate “perfection” in drills for long-term, transferable skill. A coach accustomed to seeing “clean” execution might initially perceive an increase in “messiness.” However, this messiness is precisely what forces players to engage in the effortful problem-solving that is essential for true learning.

Finally, coaches should Simplify the Message, prioritizing clarity and empowerment. Adopt a minimalist approach to instruction: focus on one key instruction at a time. Empower players to make their own decisions within a simple, flexible system, rather than rigidly dictating every action. This directly addresses the principles of cognitive load. Great players understand the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’, fostering deeper comprehension. Elite coaches advise keeping information simple, recognizing that players typically only retain a few key points in high-pressure situations. Clear, concise communication reduces cognitive load, allowing athletes to process information more effectively and make quicker, more intelligent decisions. This shifts the coach’s role from a rigid controller to a facilitator of learning.

From a Culture of Blame to a Culture of Accountability

Truly great coaching extends far beyond merely identifying and fixing individual player errors. It is fundamentally about the deliberate creation of an optimal environment—through thoughtful system design, dynamic practice planning, clear communication, and a supportive psychological climate—where players are empowered to succeed. Player errors should not be viewed as failures to be punished, but rather as invaluable data points. These “symptoms” provide crucial insights into the effectiveness of the coaching process itself. This perspective is a hallmark of an elite coaching mindset, viewing failure as an opportunity for improvement and challenges as data points for growth.

Shifting from a “blame culture” to an “accountability culture” fundamentally requires the coach to model vulnerability and a growth mindset. For players to truly embrace learning from errors, they must observe these same behaviors modeled by their coach. If a coach reacts defensively or with frustration, they implicitly teach players to fear consequences. Conversely, if a coach openly analyzes their own system and questions their methods, they create a psychologically safe environment where players feel empowered to do the same. The coach’s behavior is the most potent determinant of team culture. True accountability originates with the coach’s willingness to look inward and acknowledge that their approach might be contributing to player struggles.

The ultimate measure of a coach’s expertise is not their ability to “fix” individual players, but their capacity to design and continuously refine a system that proactively minimizes preventable errors. If a coach consistently adopts a systemic analysis approach, diligently reviewing their methods based on objective player performance data, they move beyond reactive problem-solving. This leads to proactive system optimization. Consequently, “unforced errors” diminish because the underlying conditions that produce them have been addressed at the source. This redefines coaching mastery. It transcends mere technical knowledge, elevating it to a sophisticated application of sports science principles. The master coach becomes an architect of a high-performance learning ecosystem, rather than simply a repairman who addresses individual breakdowns.

Bibliography

Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011). A review of controlling motivational strategies from a self-determination theory perspective: Implications for sports coaches. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 4(2), 215-233.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

Ericsson, K. A., & Pool, R. (2016). Peak: Secrets from the new science of expertise. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Kiraly, K., & Shewman, B. (1999). Karch Kiraly’s Championship Volleyball. Simon & Schuster.

Moreno, A., Moreno, M. P., Ureña, N., & García-González, L. (2016). An intervention based on video feedback and questioning to improve tactical knowledge in expert female volleyball players. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 122(2), 591–605.

Poerio, G. L., Sohl, E., & Wulf, G. (2022). External focus of attention and motor performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 148(11-12), 805–831.

Rose, R., & Professional Volleyball Federation. (2022). Volleyball Coaching Bible, Volume III. Human Kinetics.

Shea, J. B., & Morgan, R. L. (1979). Contextual interference effects on the acquisition, retention, and transfer of a motor skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 5(2), 179–187.

Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and its implications for instructional design. In J. L. Plass, R. Moreno, & R. Brünken (Eds.), Cognitive Load Theory (pp. 9–28). Cambridge University Press.

Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

Wulf, G. (2013). Attention and motor skill learning. Human Kinetics.

Wulf, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(4), 648–660.