29 JPJO 7 (1) (2022) 29-39 Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga Available online at: https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/article/view/45053 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17509/jpjo.v7i1.45053 Anaerobic Capacity Level Differences of Each Player Position in Volleyball Muhamad Wilman Nugraha*, Lily Department of Sport Physiology, Master Student, Beijing Sport University Article Info Article History : Received February 2022 Revised March 2022 Accepted March 2022 Available online April 2022 Keywords : Volleyball, Anaerobic Capacity, Position, Level Competition. Abstract Volleyball is one of the most popular sports in the world. To be a professional volley- ball player, a coach needs to know how to train their athletes. According to the physio- logical component, the most used energy of a volleyball player comes from ATP-PC and glycolysis. This study aimed to classify an anaerobic capacity standard of male volleyball athletes in Indonesia. In this study, 60 athletes participated in 2 levels: Jun- ior 15-17-year-old High School student level and 18-25-year-old University student level. The samples were chosen according to their achievement in national-level com- petitions in the last few years. The measurement used the Running Anaerobic Sprint Test, Vertical Jump Test, and 5-Meter Multiple Shuttle Repeat Sprint Test. The analy- sis employed an ANOVA test using SPSS 16 and Tukey post hoc test. This study found differences in several anaerobic performance aspects of each position in the same level of competition and at the different levels of competition. In the junior-level athletes, a significant difference was found in the average power between outside hitter and libero, peak power vertical jump between middle blocker and libero, and total dis- tance achieved among outside hitter, opposite hitter, and setter. Senior-level athletes showed a significance different in maximum power, average power, and fatigue index of outside hitters, middle blocker, opposite hitters, setter, and libero, peak power of vertical jump among hitters, setter, and libero, and total distance achieved by hitters, setter, and libero. In conclusion, senior-level athletes showed superiority shown by higher scores of anaerobic capacity than junior-level athletes. It is suggested to conduct more research on the characteristics of each position in volleyball to train athletes more effectively and efficiently according to their position.  Correspondence Address : No. 48 Xinxi Road, Haidian District, Beijing, China E-mail : wilman.aishan@gmail.com https://ejournal.upi.edu/index.php/penjas/index 30 INTRODUCTION Modern volleyball is known as a speed sports game which means at one point ended fast. Today, a typical rally in a men's or women's collegiate game lasts only about 10 to 15 seconds (Scates, Linn, & Kowalick, 2003). It makes a volleyball game demands athletes to move faster, jump higher, hit harder, and decide more quickly, yet accurate, individually influenced team works which most of the energy used by volleyball players is an anaerobic energy system. As a volleyball player, physiological attributes are involved in an ath- lete's performance; also, there are other physical and mental requirements. Moreover, victory in sport de- pends on a combination of many factors: technical and tactical actions and physiological, psychological, and anthropometric parameters(Ciemiński, 2017). For volleyball players, the anthropometric aspect is the first aspect that decides which type of volleyball player is he/she. Height is the first anthropometric as- pect determining the successful player; therefore, height is considered a core factor for playing at the highest levels (Vargas et al., 2018). Furthermore, height also decided what position he\she will be playing and focus for he/her volleyball career because there were essential differences concerning anthropometric characteristics and muscular strength and power test scores of players based on their specific position on a team (Marques, Van den Tillaar, Gabbett, Reis, & González-Badillo, 2009). In modern volleyball, there are five positions, and different positions have their roles and characteristics. For example, five positions in volleyball are outside hitter, opposite hitter, middle blocker, setter, and libero. This specialization sometimes is determined by the coach when looking at the athlete's anthropometric as- pect or by the athlete's experience. Therefore, as the players gain experience in the sport, they usually start to specialize in a certain position on the court, such as setter, libero, opposite hitter, middle blocker, or outside hitter (Education, 2011). Each player in volleyball needs to master every technique in volleyball, such as an attack, defense, block, setting, and service, because junior level athlete's coach will specialize the athlete by their unique skill or the best position they fit in, despite their anthropometric aspect. The specialization in volleyball makes each posi- tion has its characteristics and role; for example, the middle blocker needs to be tall because their main job is to block the opponent's attack as the first defense, which makes the middle blocker need to move fast in the front line to jump in the right time and right position as the opponent attack; furthermore, the middle block- ers are the players that execute the most blocks, so, in theory, they should have adequate anthropometric and/ or physical characteristics to fulfill this role (Palao, Manzanares, & Valadés, 2014); however, middle block- er seldom receiving service. The next position is an outside hitter, which needs to be tall or have a high vertical jump; he/her job is to attack, block, defend, and receive service that they need to perform very well in every technique in volleyball. Moreover, the Outside hitter is called the number one spiker; therefore, the outside hitter's most prevalent at- tack is made for most volleyball teams, no matter the level of gender (Lenberg, 2006). Finally, another hitter is the opposite hitter, called opposite because it's the opposite position of the setter; their job is to attack, block, and defend; furthermore, the Opposite hitter needs to have great blocking skills and great hitting skills (Saxena, 2014). The most critical position is the setter which is the center of attack strategy of the team; he/her main job is to arrange the ball for hitters; therefore, setters while many players on the team focus on defense, the setter is the foundation of a team offense (Saxena, 2014); how- ever, the setter can get the point for the team by attack- ing (service, tip ball, spike) also they need to be ably performed block because setter participated in the front line as well as hitters and do defense in the back-line, despite they seldom receiving service because the setter usually touches the second contact of the ball. The set- ter is a position that isn't looked up to anthropometric aspect to specialization the athlete; moreover, the setter and the libero do not need to be as tall or strong (Fattahi, Ameli, Sadeghi, & Mahmoodi, 2012). The position that focuses on improving the team's defense is the libero. Libero is a position that focuses on back-line defense; if setters are called the center of attack strategy, then libero is called a center of defense strategy; furthermore, there is one libero on a team, and they are the foundation of a team's defense (Saxena, 2014). The main job of the libero is to prevent the ball from touching the ground in the team's court, not only that but also to provide a good first contact of the ball Copyright © 2022, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Muhamad Wilman Nugraha & Lily/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 7 (1) (2022) 31 for the setter to arrange an attack. Libero is the one po- sition that can't attack, block and service; they only stay on back-line defense as the second base of defense strategy. The anthropometric aspect does not need to be considered because, mostly, a libero is lighter and smaller than other positions. The specialization in volleyball players makes vol- leyball athletes need to focus on their position tech- nique mostly used. As explained above middle blocker is more focused on blocking the opponent's attack, the outside hitter needs to focus on attacking, blocking, defense, receive service, the opposite hitter needs to focus on blocking and attacking, setter needs to focus more on providing a good setting to hitters, and libero focus on digging and defense. Each technique has a different pattern and movement that makes the energy used to perform is different. Volleyball is a sport in which the players' effort during the game is not constant but includes a variety of interrupted explosive movements (Kasabalis, Douda, & Tokmakidis, 2005). Explosive movements happened in a short time when an anaerobic energy system was used. Moreover, volleyball is rated as a dynamic or an- aerobic sports activity where 95% of the required ener- gy comes from ATP-PC and 5% from glycolysis (Kasabalis et al., 2005). Anaerobic energy systems are divided into two types: the alactic anaerobic system used for the first 10 seconds (short duration energy) and the lactic anaerobic system used for more than 10 sec- onds and last after 90 seconds (medium duration ener- gy). The movement that uses an anaerobic energy sys- tem called anaerobic power and anaerobic capacity is defined as the average power and total work in the re- peated same movement for a short time. Furthermore, the maximal rate of energy release for muscular work is known as anaerobic power. It is governed by the ability to rapidly recruit a large number of muscle fibers, and anaerobic capacity refers to the amount of energy re- leased that is not accounted for by the uptake of oxygen (Reilly, Secher, Snell, Williams, & Williams, 2005). Recently, researchers have found an anaerobic performance of volleyball athletes, such as anaerobic power in the vertical jump, spike, agility, etc. Most of them show the physical characteristics of volleyball athletes in each position. However, the attributes of physiology attribute shown in general. As the recent study is more concerned about phys- ical characteristics and anaerobic power, it also showed the general needs of volleyball players, not more specif- ically in each position. The author wants to show that anaerobic capacity is more critical than the aerobic pro- file for volleyball athletes. The information about the anaerobic capacity in each position and different levels of competition will help volleyball coaches to train the athletes more effectively and efficiently than just in- creasing the aerobic profile of volleyball athletes be- cause the most energy used in volleyball is an anaerobic energy system. So author wants to analyze and classify the anaerobic performances of junior and senior volley- ball athletes in each position. METHODS This research aims to classify the anaerobic perfor- mances of Indonesian male volleyball players with sev- eral measurements, and the data is numeric. In quantita- tive analysis, hypotheses and research questions are based on theories that researchers seek to test (Smith, 2010). Which research question here is how the differ- ence in anaerobic capacity in different positions and levels in volleyball which makes this research method used quantitative research design is using descriptive research design whereas descriptive research focuses on what is happening rather than on why it happens (Andrew, Pedersen, & McEvoy, 2019). Participants The study required Indonesian male volleyball players who participated in the two different levels of national competition in the last few years. The first lev- el of competition is junior-level athletes: high school students with 30 players (15-17 YO, six players in each position) and university students with 30 players (18-25 YO, six players in each position). The athletes had cho- sen by their representatives in national competitions from 2017 to 2021. The competitive playing experience of players ranged between 3 and 10 years. Players were grouped according to their specialization and level of competition. Procedure This research has conducted in Bandung. Because of conditions that couldn't have tested athletes simulta- neously. The first section is for junior-level athletes and the second section is for senior-level athletes. The au- Copyright © 2022, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Muhamad Wilman Nugraha & Lily/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 7 (1) (2022) 32 thor and 7 Assistants have conducted the test as time- keepers and testers. The data for collected by three tests, and before the test 3 tests, athletes had physical attributes measurements such as height, body weight, and body part length; after finished measuring physical attributes, three athletes in the same position were called to do the first test conducted is Running-Based Anaerobic Sprint test, and after the first test, athletes should rest for 10-15 minutes to do the following test which is Vertical Jump Test, in this test athletes have three chance to do vertical jump. After the second test athletes have given rest for 5-10 minutes and need to be ready for the last test, which is the 5-Meter Multiple Shuttle Repeat Sprint Test. The test result has been written in a scoring table for each test. After the test results have been collected, the data should be calculated by some calculation sys- tem for each test to collect the data needed. After the data has been collected, analyze the data by SPSS 16. Instrument Running Based Anaerobic Sprint Test The Running Based Anaerobic Sprint Test was devised at the University of Wolverhampton in the UK. It involved six sprints over 35 meters with a 10- second recovery between each sprint. It provides meas- urements of peak power, average power, minimum power, and a fatigue index (Draper & Whyte, 1997). Furthermore, the running-based anaerobic sprint test output (i.e., peak, power, mean power, fatigue index, maximal speed, and mean speed) are similar to those determined in Wingate anaerobic test, showing high correlations with the same variables. Therefore, in re- cent studies, a running-based anaerobic sprint test has been used to determine athletes' anaerobic capacity in different types of sports (Santosa, Setiowati, & In- drawati, 2019). Vertical Jump Test The Vertical Jump test is designed to measure the research sample's lower body strength. The Vertec de- vice is a simple, inexpensive, and portable device that can measure an athlete's vertical jump height. Vertical jump height has been shown to correlate with volleyball player performance. In addition, the Vertec is a reliable measure (r = 0.906) of vertical jump height (Schaal, Ransdell, Simonson, & Gao, 2013). 5-Meter Multiple Shuttle Repeat Sprint Test 5-Meter Multiple Shuttle Repeat Sprint Test measures anaerobic power and agility. This test was adapted from the Welsh Rugby Union shuttle run test (Pendleton, 1997). The 5 m-RST is reliable in female hockey and rugby players (interclass correlation coeffi- cient; r = 0.98) (Durandt, Tee, Prim, & Lambert, 2006). Data Analysis To calculate each test result, there is a calculated system used in each test. Moreover, the data analysis was conducted using the SPSS version 16. First, the data were collected in each position and each level of competition. Then, validity, reliability, and homogenei- ty of the data were tested, and more statistical analysis was conducted one-way Anova to see the significant difference with p < 0.05. Furthermore, Tukey's posthoc test was conducted to check for each group's significant difference. RESULT Junior Level Athlete Running-based anaerobic sprint test Conducted one-way Anova on the measurement data and expressed the differences between junior-level athlete positions. Furthermore, Tukey post hoc test was performed to see which position has a significantly dif- ferent p (<0.05) between positions. There's showed sig- nificant difference with p (0.043) in the average power of junior-level athletes. Moreover, Tukey's post hoc test found a significant difference in average power be- tween Libero and Outside Hitter. The Tukey post hoc test showed that average power between positions in junior-level athletes showed a significant difference only between libero with a score of 340.17 and outside hitters with a score of 440.83. However, the other as- pect that doesn't show a significant difference doesn't mean there's no difference, but still showed a different anaerobic performance, which below table 1 and fig. 1 show the result of the running-based anaerobic test in each position volleyball player of junior level athletes. Those showed that the opposite hitter has the high- est maximum power with a score of 666 in junior level athletes. On the other hand, the outside hitter has the highest minimum power with a score of 312.3 and an Copyright © 2022, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Muhamad Wilman Nugraha & Lily/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 7 (1) (2022) 33 average power of 440.8. For fatigue index, an opposite hitter with a score of 11.53; however, the highest fa- tigue index means the lower athlete's ability to maintain power over the six runs. So in the fatigue index, players who are superior in maintaining power in six runs to other positions are libero with a score of 6.87. Those showed that the opposite hitter has the high- est maximum power with a score of 666 in junior level athletes. On the other hand, the outside hitter has the highest minimum power with a score of 312.3 and an average power of 440.8. Fig. 2 showed fatigue index, an opposite hitter with a score of 11.53; however, the highest fatigue index means the lower athlete's ability to maintain power over the six runs. So in the fatigue index, players who are superior in maintaining power in six runs to other positions are libero with a score of 6.87. Vertical Jump Conducted one-way Anova on the measurement data and expressed the differences in vertical jump scores between junior-level athletes. Furthermore, the Tukey post hoc test was performed to see which posi- tion has a significantly different p (0.05) from other positions. For example, there's showed a significant difference between the position in junior-level athletes with p (0.044), significant difference showed only be- tween middle blocker with a libero. Moreover, table 2 show that the middle blocker is superior to the other position. . The results indicate that each position showed a different score, but only the middle blocker with libero showed a significant difference; the middle blocker showed a vigorous peak power. Peak power shows the athlete's lower body ability to perform anaerobic power, a vertical jump. 5-Meter Multiple Shuttle Repeat Sprint Test Conducted one-way Anova on the measured data and expressed the differences between junior and senior -level athlete positions with a significant p (0.05). In addition, it showed a significant difference in the total distance achieved at each position. Moreover, a signifi- cant difference was found between the setter with oppo- site hitters and outside hitters with p (0.009). However, there's no-showed significant difference between each position in the fatigue index. Moreover, the table and 3 show the total distance and fatigue index result, which means the anaerobic performance of junior-level ath- letes. Copyright © 2022, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Table 1. The result of the running-based anaerobic test in each position volleyball player of junior-level athletes. Position Maximum Power Minimum Power Average Power Fatigue Index Outside Hitter 599.67 312.3 440.8* 8.3 Middle Blocker 544.67 264.83 358.3 7.15 Opposite Hitter 666 235.83 381.67 11.53 Setter 597.67 242.16 354.83 9.27 Libero 484.5 230 340.16* 6.87 Fig. 2. Fatigue Index Fig. 1. The result of the running-based anaerobic test in each position volleyball player of junior level athletes Position Peak Power Outside Hitter 3521.725 Middle Blocker 3819.465* Opposite Hitter 3355.155 Setter 3293.16 Libero 3036.99* Table 2. The differences in vertical jump scores between junior-level athletes Muhamad Wilman Nugraha & Lily/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 7 (1) (2022) 34 From the table 3, we can see that the outside hitter has achieved the highest score in the total distance, which is 680.83 meters, the opposite hitter in second place with a total distance of 677.5 meters, and the set- ter has the lowest score, which means distance achieved by setter 642.5 meter is the shortest; however, setter showed a superior of fatigue index with a score 11.8 which means the ability to maintain anaerobic perfor- mances is better than others position, also in fatigue index libero (13.14) showed poor ability to maintain anaerobic performance than other position. Senior Level Athlete Running-based anaerobic sprint test Here's showed a significant difference in maxi- mum power, average power, and fatigue index. Moreo- ver, the Tukey post hoc test showed that in maximum power, there's a significant difference with p (0.00) be- tween outside hitter, middle blocker, and opposite hitter with libero; in average power showed a significant dif- ference with p (0.00) between outside hitter and oppo- site hitter with libero and setter, and middle blocker with libero; in the fatigue, the index showed significant different with p<0.05 between outside hitter, middle blocker, opposite hitter, and setter with a libero. Moreo- ver, the table 4 showed the running-based anaerobic sprint test result in senior-level athletes to show which position is superior to others in each aspect. It showed that outside hitter, middle blocker, and opposite hitter have similar anaerobic performance; therefore, Anova's analysis showed no significant dif- ference between each position. However, from the table 4, we can see in maximum power opposite hitter with a score of 889.3 is superior to others, the outside hitter is superior in minimum power with a score of 479.3, for average power seems outside hitter and opposite hitter in the top two, yet fatigue index libero with score 7.95 showed a good ability in maintaining anaerobic power than other position and an opposite hitter who showed vigorous maximum power has the highest score of fa- tigue index. Vertical Jump Conducted one-way Anova on the measurement data and expressed the differences between senior-level athlete positions. Furthermore, the Tukey post hoc test was performed to see which position has a significant difference p (0.05) than the other position. The table 5 showed vertical jump test results of senior-level ath- letes. The table 5 show a significant difference with p<0.05 between positions in senior-level athletes. A significant difference was found in the outside hitters, middle blockers, and opposite hitters with a libero. Fur- thermore, the table and graphic below showed that the opposite hitter has the highest peak power with a score of 4584.24 than other positions, and the libero, with a score of 2948.7, showed the lowest score of peak pow- er. 5-Meter Multiple Shuttle Repeat Sprint Test The third test showed that a significant difference was only found in the total distance achieved by senior- level athletes. The table 6 show the test results for sen- ior-level athletes. From table 5 showed a significant difference with p<0.05 in total distance achieved. Moreover, there are significant differences between outside hitter, middle blocker, and opposite hitter with setter and libero. However, athletes don't show signifi- cant differences in the fatigue index with p<0.05. Copyright © 2022, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Table 3. The total distance and fatigue index result for Position Total Distance Fatigue Index Outside Hitter 680.83* 12.54 Middle Blocker 657.5 12.99 Opposite Hitter 677.5* 12.74 Setter 642.5* 11.88 Libero 654.16 13.14 Table 4. The result of the running-based anaerobic test in each position volleyball player of senior-level athletes. Position Maximum Power Minimum Power Average Power Fatigue Index Outside Hitter 819 * 479.3 654.83* 10.91* Middle Blocker 885.83 * 466 633.5* 12.95* Opposite Hitter 889.3 * 467.5 655.83* 13.18* Setter 794.67 436.83 583.67* 11.02* Libero 700.83 * 456.16 557.3* 7.95* Position Peak Power Outside Hitter 4278.8 * Middle Blocker 4390.62 * Opposite Hitter 4584.24 * Setter 4201.932 * Libero 2948.7 * Table 5. The differences in vertical jump scores between senior-level athletes Muhamad Wilman Nugraha & Lily/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 7 (1) (2022) 35 Therefore, in total distance, the opposite hitter gets the highest score with a score of 770.83 for the other posi- tion even though the score is close to the outside hitter and middle blocker; for libero showed the lowest score with a score of 710.83 means achieving the shortest distance. Moreover, in the fatigue index, the score is closely similar. However, the setter showed the lowest fatigue index score (8.61), which means the setter's ability to maintain anaerobic performance is better than other positions. Also, in the highest score, the fatigue index was found in libero with 10.67. Analyzes differences between each position at a different level of competition Running-based anaerobic sprint test To analyze two different levels of competition also conducted one-way Anova on the measured data and expressed the differences between positions in junior level and senior level athletes with the level of signifi- cant p<0.05. The opposite hitter setter and libero showed significant differences in maximum power and minimum power for the outside hitter. Also, average power with p (< 0.05); for middle blocker showed sig- nificant differences in maximum power, minimum power, average power, and fatigue index (figure 3). Fa- tigue index only middle blocker of junior-level athletes and senior-level athletes showed a significant difference in the ability to maintain anaerobic performance (figure 4). Moreover, the figure 3 shows the result of the run- ning-based anaerobic sprint test in each position be- tween junior-level and senior-level athletes. Therefore, we can see the difference between each position of volleyball players in the different levels of competition. Of course, there's a big difference in every aspect; however, even in maximum power, minimum power, and average power, senior-level athletes showed superior to junior-level athletes, yet in fatigue index, junior-level athletes showed lower results means have a good ability to maintain anaerobic performances. Vertical Jump Copyright © 2022, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Table 6. The total distance and fatigue index result for senior-level athletes Position Total Distance Fatigue Index Outside Hitter 767.5 * 9.28 Middle Blocker 767.5 * 9.6 Opposite Hitter 770.83 * 8.95 Setter 748.3 * 8.61 Libero 710.83 * 10.67 Fig. 3. The result of the running-based anaerobic sprint test in each position between junior-level and senior- level athletes. Fig. 4 The fatigue index result in each position between junior-level and senior-level athletes. Fig. 5. The vertical jump scores in each position between junior-level and senior-level athletes. Muhamad Wilman Nugraha & Lily/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 7 (1) (2022) 36 Figure 5 showed a significant difference in outside hitter p<0.05, middle blocker p<0.05, opposite hitter p<0.05, and setter p<0.05, however, libero doesn't show significant difference with p>0.05. Moreover, the graphic below shows results of different peak power in each position of different levels of competition. Figure 5 showed that senior-level athletes in each position are superior in peak power except for libero. Here's influ- enced by characteristics of each position that demand to jump high in some volleyball technique, yet libero only in the court for defense. Back-line defense and digging don't need vigorous power to jump high. 5-Meter Multiple Shuttle Repeat Sprint Test Here's showed the significant difference in total distance achieved by each position of different level athletes. However, the fatigue index showed no signifi- cant difference in middle blocker, setter, and libero. The differences in the result of the 5-Meter Multiple Shuttle Repeat Sprint Test in different levels of compe- tition. The figure 6 shows that senior-level athletes have achieved farther distance which means higher scores than junior-level athletes. Moreover, here's revealed that in each position, senior-level athletes showed a lower fatigue index than junior-level athletes, which means the senior-level athlete has achieved a farther distance and also good ability in maintaining anaerobic performances (figure 7). DISCUSSION Running-based anaerobic sprint test is a test to measure the capacity of the anaerobic athlete (Santosa et al., 2019). Running-based anaerobic sprint tests can describe maximum and minimum power and the fatigue index of athletes. Anaerobic capacity is influenced by long-time training in endurance athletes. In this study, the anaerobic capacity is shown by volleyball athletes in different positions and at varying levels of competi- tion. The anaerobic capacity of each position at differ- ent levels showed different results. In junior-level ath- letes, the opposite hitter showed the highest power val- ue, the outside hitter in the second place, the setter in the third place, the middle blocker in the fourth place, and the libero showed the lowest power value. Howev- er, libero showed the highest ability to maintain anaero- bic performances in the fatigue index, outside hitter in the second place, setter in the third place, middle block- er in the fourth place, and opposite hitter showed the lowest ability to maintain anaerobic performances. It explained that the highest power value showed the most inferior ability to maintain anaerobic performances. Recent research by Santosa et al. (2019) showed that Sprinter has the highest power and fatigue index values. Senior-level athletes showed that the opposite hitter still has the highest power value, middle blocker in the second place, outside hitter in the third place, setter in the fourth place, and libero has the lowest pow- er value. However, the libero still showed the highest ability to maintain anaerobic performance, the outside hitter in the second place, the setter in the third place, the middle blocker in the fourth place, and the opposite hitter who showed the highest power value showed the lowest ability to maintain anaerobic performances. There's only a significant difference between junior- level athletes because their way of training influences them. Physical attributes aspect still in the first places in specialized athletes, and Norkowski (2001) found that Copyright © 2022, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Fig. 6. The total distance result for senior-level athletes in each position between junior-level and senior-level athletes. Fig. 7. The fatigue index result for senior-level athletes in each position between junior-level and senior-level athletes. Muhamad Wilman Nugraha & Lily/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 7 (1) (2022) 37 Individual genetic potential, which might have played a role in selection for specific games and specificity and intensity of training loads, might have contributed to the observed differences between groups. However, senior-level athletes showed a signifi- cant difference between positions because the anthropo- metric aspect will not improve significantly, such as height. Hence, coaches in senior-level athletes are much more concerned with enhancing athletes' physiological aspects with the characteristics of each position. Moreo- ver, Nikolaidis, Ziv, Arnon, & Lidor (2012) found that in anaerobic power, lower values were found in the 14– 18 age group. However, the author suggests that coach- es adopt an individual approach to improve the physical and physiological attributes of the players. Therefore, specific training programs should be developed to ad- dress the specialization's unique physical and physio- logical needs. The second test is vertical jump because volleyball is also called a "jump" sport, which jump could be an important factor for a volleyball team to win a competi- tion. The vertical jump is a standard field test used to evaluate the explosive anaerobic power of the legs (Young, 1995). This study showed middle blocker has the highest anaerobic power value in junior level ath- letes, with the outside hitter in the second position, the opposite hitter in the third position, the setter in the third position, and the libero having the lowest anaero- bic power value. However, only the middle blocker and libero showed a significant difference. This cause of the middle blocker is a position that is decided by height for the first. Therefore, coaches can focus more on training middle blockers in junior-level athletes, which improves middle blocker vertical jumps to block the opponent's attack more effectively and efficiently. Senior-level athletes showed a significant differ- ence between positions, with opposite hitter having the highest anaerobic power value, middle blocker in the second place, outside hitter in the third place, setter in the fourth place, and libero having the lowest anaerobic power value. As the author already explained before, this is caused by the specification training of each posi- tion with their characteristics. However, middle block- ers show significant differences with a libero in senior- level athletes. Still, other positions such as the outside hitter, opposite hitter, and setter showed a significant difference in anaerobic power value with a libero. This is because the high-level competition in senior-level athletes has been training more focus on their job and mostly used technique in their specialization. For exam- ple, the setter not only needs to set the ball for an attack yet needs to do to defend as receive attack or block the opponent's attack, so a significant difference between other positions in libero is founded. On the other hand, respectively to the libero, their job is only to defend the ball which receives serving the ball, back row defense, and digs, and rarely jump to setting the ball from the back row only if the setter got the first touch, so in the vertical jump test libero didn't show a tremendous an- aerobic value with others position. Furthermore, senior-level athletes are not only in- fluenced by their physiological aspect, but recent re- search showed that the anthropometric aspect is vigor- ous. For example, Schaal, Ransdell, Simonson, & Gao (2013) found that The NCAA Division-I female volley- ball players were older, taller, and heavier than their high school counterparts. They also indicated that hit- ters are taller than back row defensive specialists, and hitters and setters are heavier than back row defensive specialists. The third test is 5-Meter Multiple Shuttle Repeat Sprint Test, which this test is to measures anaerobic performances. At the junior level, athletes showed out- side hitter achieved the longest distances, with the op- posite hitter in the second place, middle blocker in the third place, libero in the fourth place, and setter in the fifth place. This test showed a significant difference between the setter with the outside hitter and the oppo- site hitter. However, in the fatigue index, even the setter achieved the shortest distances. Still, the setter showed the highest value in maintaining anaerobic performanc- es, with the outside hitter in the second place, opposite hitter, in the third place, middle blocker in the fourth place, and libero in the last place. Furthermore, this test doesn't like the running- based anaerobic test that used bodyweight in the calcu- lating system. This test only used the result which dis- tance the research samples achieved, so it can't be com- pared. At the senior level, athletes showed opposite hit- ters had achieved the longest distance, with the outside hitter and middle blocker in the second place, setter in the third place, and libero in the last place. However, unlike junior-level athletes, the shortest distance achieved libero showed the highest value of fatigue in- Copyright © 2022, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Muhamad Wilman Nugraha & Lily/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 7 (1) (2022) 38 dex. Yet, the lowest value of fatigue index showed by setter, opposite hitter in the second place, opposite hit- ter in the third place, and middle blocker in fourth place. Furthermore, unlike in the running-based anaero- bic sprint test, where senior-level athletes showed a higher value of fatigue index, in the 5-Meter Multiple Shuttle Repeat Sprint Test senior-level athletes showed a lower value of fatigue index. CONCLUSION This research concludes that the specific position in volleyball needs a different energy source related to motion or technique used depending on the characteris- tics of each position volleyball player in the competi- tion. The study results help establish baseline data and provide a means to test the effectiveness of various training programs designed to enhance volleyball per- formance. The information reported in this study makes test values available to male volleyball athletes across age/competition levels or player positions in Indonesia. These specific comparative values create baseline an- aerobic performance measures for coaches at the junior level and senior-level athletes to create programs that can address deficits in volleyball player performance. Specifically, this study's results indicate that high school athletes showed inferior anaerobic power. Based on these findings, it is recommended that junior-level athletes' training programs address anaero- bic power (lower-body power) and anaerobic fitness as performance components. Hence, these athletes are more prepared to compete at the senior level (college), particularly if they aspire to compete in high-level com- petition. This increased anaerobic power in senior-level athletes provides a tactical and mechanical advantage because an increased stature and a higher vertical jump and lower-body power enable an attacker to achieve an optimal position with the ball when attacking, middle blocker and front-row defense to block the opponent's attack in such a same high jump. The author also con- cludes that senior-level athletes showed no better ability to maintain anaerobic performances while senior-level athletes focus more on improving their anaerobic power and need to be more concerned in training to maintain anaerobic power. CONFLICT OF INTEREST The authors declared no conflict of interest. REFERENCES Andrew, D. P. S., Pedersen, P. M., & McEvoy, C. D. (2019). Research methods and design in sport man- agement. Human Kinetics. Ciemiński, K. (2017). The efficiency of executing tech- nical actions by female volleyball players depending on their positions on the court. Baltic Journal of Health and Physical Activity, 9(3), 44–52. Draper, P. N., & Whyte, G. (1997). Anaerobic perfor- mance testing. Durandt, J., Tee, J. C., Prim, S. K., & Lambert, M. I. (2006). Physical fitness components associated with performance in a multiple-sprint test. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 1(2), 150–160. Education, C. (2011). Coaching volleyball technical and tactical skills. Human Kinetics. Fattahi, A., Ameli, M., Sadeghi, H., & Mahmoodi, B. (2012). Relationship between anthropometric param- eters with vertical jump in male elite volleyball play- ers due to game's position. Journal of Human Sport and Exercise, 7(3), 714–726. Kasabalis, A., Douda, H., & Tokmakidis, S. P. (2005). Relationship between anaerobic power and jumping of selected male volleyball players of different ages. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100(3), 607–614. Lenberg, K. (2006). Volleyball skills & drills. Human Kinetics. Marques, M. C., Van den Tillaar, R., Gabbett, T. J., Reis, V. M., & González-Badillo, J. J. (2009). Physi- cal fitness qualities of professional volleyball play- ers: determination of positional differences. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 23(4), 1106–1111. Nikolaidis, P. T., Ziv, G., Arnon, M., & Lidor, R. (2012). Physical characteristics and physiological attributes of female volleyball players—the need for individual data. The Journal of Strength & Condi- tioning Research, 26(9), 2547–2557. Norkowski, H. (2001). Anaerobic capacity of athletes representing selected team sports. J Hum Kin, 5, 23– 28. Palao, J. M., Manzanares, P., & Valadés, D. (2014). Anthropometric, physical, and age differences by the player position and the performance level in volley- ball. Journal of Human Kinetics, 44, 223. Pendleton, M. H. W. (1997). Reliability and validity of the Welsh rugby union shuttle run test. Unpublished BSc Dissertation, University of Wales Institute Car- diff, Cardiff, Wales, UK. Reilly, T., Secher, N., Snell, P., Williams, C., & Wil- liams, C. (2005). Physiology of sports. Routledge. Copyright © 2022, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Muhamad Wilman Nugraha & Lily/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 7 (1) (2022) 39 Santosa, I., Setiowati, A., & Indrawati, F. (2019). The running-based anaerobic sprint test of different type of sports. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1387(1), 12146. IOP Publishing. Saxena, S. (2014). Volleyball and Its Greatest Players. The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc. Sayers, S. P., Harackiewicz, D. V, Harman, E. A., Fryk- man, P. N., & Rosenstein, M. T. (1999). Cross- validation of three jump power equations. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 31(4), 572–577. Scates, A., Linn, M., & Kowalick, V. (2003). Complete Conditioning for Volleyball. Retrieved from https:// books.google.com/books? hl=pl&lr=&id=BQ4dL43ovPIC&pgis=1 Schaal, M., Ransdell, L. B., Simonson, S. R., & Gao, Y. (2013). Physiologic performance test differences in female volleyball athletes by competition level and player position. The Journal of Strength & Condi- tioning Research, 27(7), 1841–1850. Smith, M. F. (2010). Research methods in sport. Learn- ing Matters. Vargas, J., Loureiro, M., Nikolaidis, P. T., Knechtle, B., Laporta, L., Marcelino, R., & Afonso, J. (2018). Re- thinking monolithic pathways to success and talent identification: The case of the women's Japanese Volleyball Team and why height is not everything. Journal of Human Kinetics, 64(1), 233–245. Young, W. (1995). A simple method for evaluating the strength qualities of the leg extensor muscles and jumping abilities. Strength and Conditioning Coach, 2(4), 5–8. Copyright © 2022, authors, e-ISSN : 2580-071X , p-ISSN : 2085-6180 Muhamad Wilman Nugraha & Lily/ Jurnal Pendidikan Jasmani dan Olahraga 7 (1) (2022)