BACKGROUND: Researchers of the game of volleyball often study the diff erences that separate the winning and losing teams. Namely, the volleyball game runs in two complexes (K1 – game after rceive of serve: serve – receipt of serve – setting the attack – attack ; K2 – game after own serve: serve – block – defence – counter attack), in addition the players have to rotate in accordance with the rules of the game of volleyball. Playing situations in six rotations do not equally correlate to K1 and K2 in their tactical aspect, nor are they of the same diffi culty. OBJECTIVES: The study examined whether there are statistically signifi cant diff erences in the phases of a volleyball game between the winners and losers for each of the six volleyball rotations separately. Diff erences in individual rotations between winning and losing teams were examined. For rotations with statistically signifi cant diff erences between the teams, the phases that determine those diff erences the most were also researched. METHODS: The study was carried out at the European youth volleyball championships for women. Twenty games were analysed, a fi ve level scale was used to evaluate the successfulness of the game for 98 under 18 years old women players. Six phases of the volleyball game were analysed: serve, receipt of serve, attack in K1, attack in K2, block and defence (attack receipt). A criterion variable was represented with each individual rotation. Simple descriptive statistical parameters were calculated together with six canonical discriminant analyses, one for each of the volleyball rotations. RESULTS: The results of canonical discriminatory analysis revealed that four out of six volleyball rotations were statistically signifi cant at the level of p < 0.05 (rotation 1 = 0.02 ; rotation 2 = 0.00 ; rotation 3 = 0.00 ; rotation 6 = 0.04). It is interesting to notice that diff erent game phases show the largest projection of discriminatory function exactly in the rotations with statistically signifi cant diff erences. They were: receipt of serve and attack in K1 and K2 for rotation 1, receipt of serve, block and defence for rotation 2, serve and defence for rotation 3, attack in K1 for rotation 6. CONCLUSIONS: These results point to the specifi c characteristics of individual rotations in this age period, which have to be considered in the organisation of the training process. The results undoubtedly indicate that in the process of the synchronisation of team play, each of the six rotations require specifi c attention both in the technicaland tactical sense.