Results showed the experience of age in fitness performance in handball players. Differences were evident in mean and best result of 5JT, jumping, standing and sitting throw and T-test (P<0.001). For the repeated sprint and jump sequences mean, best and % decrease in CMJ was significantly different between age groups (P<0.05), but not for sprint sequences. No differences between play positions were found. Finally, body mass and height showed significant correlation between all performance measures (P<0.05) irrespective of age group.

Few studies have evaluated physical and physiological characteristics in elite male handball players. The aim of the present study was to analyze fitness performance of men’s handball players according to age group and specific positional roles.

Introduction

Eighty players from the F.C. Barcelona handball teams volunteered to take part in this study (Senior-b: n = 15; Under-18: n = 16; Under-16a: n = 17; Under-16b: n = 16; Under-14: n = 16). These players were members of regional representative teams competing at he highest level for their category. The sample included members of the national teams and represented Spain at international official competitions. Their were measured for anthropometry (height, body mass), horizontal explosive power (5JT), agility (T-test), handball throwing speed (standing, jumping and sitting throw) and repeated sprint (6 x 12.5 m) and jump (CMJ) sequences. The best result as well as the average of trials in each test were used for analysis. Results were analysed for the entire age group and also according to playing position (goalkeepers, backs, pivots, centrals playmakers and wings).

Torres-Ronda, L. 1,3, Gerona, T. 1, González-Badillo, J.J. 2

These results suggest that there should be some difference in the testing analyzed between the different role positions, central-playmakers and backs at least, given the characteristics of height and body mass between these players. The lack of differences between play positions within each age could be explained by the small number of players within each team in various positions. This knowledge can be beneficial for identify strengths and weakness, talented players, to assess the contribution of training programmes and players’ progress during the season and helping in the optimal design of sport-specific conditioning and handball training programmes.

PHYSICAL PERFORMANCE IN MALE HANDBALL PLAYERS

ACCORDING TO AGE AND PLAYING POSITION

1 F.C. Barcelona, Spain. 2 Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Seville, Spain. 3 Universitat de Vic, Barcelona, Spain.

Materials & Methods

Results

For Further information

Please contact to Lorena Torres lorenatorres07@yahoo.es or on Twitter: @lorenatorres07. Web: www.lorena-torres.com

Discussion and Conclusions

References

Caouachi, A., Brughelli, M., Levin, G., Boudhina, N. B. B., Cronin, J. & Chamari, K. (2009). Anthropometric,

physiological and performance characteristics of elite team-handball players. J Sport Sci, 27(2), 151–157.

Mohamed, H., Vaeyens, R., Matthys, S., Multael, M., Lefevre, J., Lenoir, M., et al. (2009). Anthropometric and

performance measures for the development of a talent detection and identification model in youth handball. J

Sports Sci 27(3), 257–266.

Ziv, G. & Lidor, L. (2009). Physical characteristics, physiological attributes, and on-court performances of

handball players: A review. Eur J Sport Sci 9(6), 37-386

Variable

Senior-b

( n = 15)

U18

(n = 16)

U16a

(n = 17)

U16b

(n = 16)

U14

(n = 16)

Age (year) 21.7 ± 2.9 17.2 ± 0.8 15.5 ± 0.6 14.5 ± 0.5 13.6 ± 0.5

Height (m) 1.88 ± 0.1 1.84 ± 0.1 1.79 ± 0.1 1.77 ± 0.1 1.69 ± 0.1

Body mass (kg) 87.9 ± 9.4 82 ± 10 71.2 ± 12.1 68.3 ± 11.8 57.3 ± 11

BMI (Kg ∙ m-2) 19.8 ± 10.4 24.2 ± 2.5 22.1 ± 2.8 21.7 ± 3.2 18.6 ± 5.8

Table 1. Physical characteristics of the handball players according to age team groups. Values are expressed as

mean ± SD.

Variable

Senior-b

( n = 15)

U18

(n = 16)

U16a

(n = 17)

U16b

(n = 16)

U14

(n = 16)

5J (cm) 12.9 ± 0.7#^ 12.3 ± 1#^ 11.5 ± 1 10.9 ± 0.7 10.6 ± 0.8

Agility T-Test (s) 5.9 ± 0.3#^ 6 ± 0.4#^ 6.3 ± 0.4 6.8 ± 0.3 7 ± 0.5

Standing throw speed (Km ∙ h-1) 98.8 ± 6.9#^ 86.7 ± 6.5# 88.4 ± 10.3# 78 ± 5.7^# 80.1 ± 6.6

Jumping throw speed (Km ∙ h-1) 96.6 ± 5.7#^ 89.3 ± 6.6#^ 86 ± 9.9 79 ± 6.2 81 ± 6.2

Sitting throw speed (Km ∙ h-1) 73 ± 5.7#^ 63.8 ± 5.3#^ 61.9 ± 7.4 56.8 ± 5.5 55.6 ± 5.2

Repeated-sprint best (s) 5.2 ± 1 5.1 ± 0.2 5.2 ± 0.3 5.3 ± 0.4 5.5 0.3

Repeated-sprint decrement (%) 1 ± 0.1 1 ± 0.01 1 ± 0.02 1 ± 0.01 1 ± 0.01

Repeated-jump best jump (cm) 36.5 ± 4.9#^ 33.3 ± 8.3 33.3 ± 5 28.3 ± 5.3 27.4 ± 4.2

Repeated-jump decrement (%) 7.6 ± 3.2^ 10 ± 8^ 8.2 ± 3^ 8.7 ± 2.5^ 42 ± 30.5

Significant differences (P < 0.001) vs. vs. U18. #Significant differences (P < 0.001) vs. U16. ^Significant differences (P < 0.001) vs. U14.

Table 2. Fitness performance of the handball players according to age team groups. Values are expressed as mean ± SD.

The results indicate that age and years of training handball players aged 14 and over 20 years is an important determinant of performance in specific actions in the game, but not the relative endurance and the degree of fatigue reached when performing repeated sprints of the same distance. Therefore, these results suggest that the practice of handball training has a positive influence on the strength, speed and agility to specific actions, but has no influence on the relative endurance. The fact that a significant correlation remains between body mass and height and fitness performance variables analyzed, independently of age, indicates that the body mass and height are key variables in handball performance, which means that these variables are determinants of performance even when players have completed their biological and technical development.