POSITION-SPECIFIC CATEGORIZATION OF SOMATOTYPES: 2011 WOMEN’S

19 EUROPEAN HANDBALL CHAMPIONSHIP

František URBAN1, Róbert KANDRÁČ2, František TÁBORSKÝ3

1 Member of the Union of University Handball Teachers / EHF (SVK) 2 University of Presov, Faculty of Sport, Presov (SVK) 3 Charles University, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Prague (CZE)

Introduction

Sports performance in handball is determined by anthropometric and morphologic dispositions of players as well. Several studies have confirmed relevance of appropriate anthropometric and somatometric parameters with respect to playing position (Srhoj, Marinović, Rogulj, 2002, Rogulj et al., 2005, Zapartidis et al., 2009, Čavala, Katić, 2010, Vila et al., 2011, Urban, Kandráč, Táborský, 2011). Therefore, handball players at elite level are expected to be physically suited to the playing position they occupy in order to achieve the highest individual and team performance level possible.

Aim

The purpose of the present anthropometric study was to determine and compare position-specific somatotypes in U19 elite female handball players who participated in 2011 Women’s 19 European Handball Championship.

Tasks

1. To determine somatotypes according to Heath, Carter (1967) in elite female handball players who participated in 2011 Women’s 19 European Handball Championship.

2. To calculate mean somatotypes and categorize position-specific somatotypes according to Carter (2002).

3. To compare mean somatotypes and somatotype components between playing positions.

Methods In total. 207 players of 13 national teams (except Norway, Sweden and Austria) that participated in 2011 Women’s 19 European Handball Championship (W19 ECh) in Netherlands took part in the cross-sectional anthropometric study. The players who participated in the study were between 17-19 years. Mean somatotypes and somatotype components of players are described and compared with respect to playing position: goalkeepers (GKs): n = 35, wings (Ws): n = 53, center backs (CBs): n = 30, backs (Bs): n = 58 and pivots (PVs): n = 31.

The somatotypes were determined according to Heath, Carter (1967) using the following parameters:

1. body height and body mass, 2. skinfold thickness: triceps skinfold, subscapular skinfold, supraspinale skinfold and

medial calf skinfold, 3. biepicondylar breadths: biepicondylar humerus breadth and biepicondylar femur

breadth, 4. girths: upper arm girth, flexed and tensed and standing calf girth.

Somatotypes with similar relationships between the dominance of the components are grouped into categories named to reflect these relationships (Carter, 2002). The definitions of somatotype categories as represented on the somatochart are given below:

1. Balanced mesomorph: mesomorphy is dominant and endomorphy and ectomorphy are equal (or do not differ by more than one-half unit).

2. Ectomorphic mesomorph: mesomorphy is dominant and ectomorphy is greater than endomorphy.

3. Mesomorph-ectomorph: mesomorphy and ectomorphy are equal (or do not differ by more than onehalf unit). and endomorphy is smaller.

4. Mesomorphic ectomorph: ectomorphy is dominant and mesomorphy is greater than endomorphy.

5. Balanced ectomorph: ectomorphy is dominant and endomorphy and mesomorphy are equal (or do not differ by more than one-half unit).

6. Endomorphic ectomorph: ectomorphy is dominant and endomorphy is greater than mesomorphy.

7. Endomorph-ectomorph: endomorphy and ectomorphy are equal (or do not differ by more than onehalf unit). and mesomorphy is lower.

8. Ectomorphic endomorph: endomorphy is dominant and ectomorphy is greater than mesomorphy.

9. Balanced endomorph: endomorphy is dominant and mesomorphy and ectomorphy are equal (or do not differ by more than one-half unit).

10. Mesomorphic endomorph: endomorphy is dominant and mesomorphy is greater than ectomorphy.

11. Mesomorph-endomorph: endomorphy and mesomorphy are equal (or do not differ by more than onehalf unit). and ectomorphy is smaller.

12. Endomorphic mesomorph: mesomorphy is dominant and endomorphy is greater than ectomorphy.

13. Central: no component differs by more than one unit from the other two.

The collected data were processed using basic statistical characteristics: x - arithmetic mean, SD - standard deviation, min - minimum value and max - maximum value. The data necessary to determine somatotypes of handball players were processed using the software SOMATO. The resultant somatotypes were plotted on a somatochart. Somatocharts for plotting somatotypes were designed using CorelDRAW X5 software.

Results and discussion

Mean somatotype of goalkeepers was 2.6 - 4.1 - 2.1, which is endomorphic mesomorph. This somatotype category is characterized by predominant mesomorphy with relatively high endomorphy rating. Above-average endomorphy values were found in 17 GKs out of whom 11 GKs had endomorphy rating over 3.0. Mesomorphy ratings that were above-average were observed in 19 GKs. Out of these 19 GKs, 10 GKs had mesomorphy higher than 3.0.

Table 1 Mean somatotype and somatic parameters: Goalkeepers

GKs

(n=35)

SOMATOTYPE Body

height

Body

mass

%

Fat ENDOMORPHY MESOMORPHY ECTOMORPHY

X 2.57 4.13 2.15 176.89 74.63 13.29

SD 0.97 1.41 1.12 4.29 7.83 4.17 min 1.1 0.6 0.5 168.5 58.8 6.3 max 6.2 8.3 6.2 186.0 102.9 26.0

Similarly to previous researches (Ech M20 2010, Ech W17 2011), there were 2 types of GKs: 1

st type (22 GKs): higher endomorphy with higher mesomorphy rating indicated by

somatopoint location to the left of the longitudinal somatochart axis. Mean somatotype, body height, body mass and percent subcutaneous fat were 1.7 - 3.0 - 3.2, 179.3 cm, 69.3 kg and 9.5 %, respectively. 2

nd type (13 GKs): higher ectomorphy rating with lower mesomorphy rating plotted to the

right of the longitudinal somatochart axis. Mean values of somatotype, body height, body mass and percent subcutaneous fat were 3.1 - 4.8 - 1.6, 175.5 cm, 77.8 kg and 15.5 %, respectively.

Figure 1 Somatotypes of goalkeepers

In the sub-group of GKs, there were 2 extreme somatotypes of Spanish goalkeepers. Overall, somatotypes of GKs were categorized in 9 categories. Each of categories 5, 6 and 11 included only one somatotype. The highest number of somatotypes was classified in category 12: 13 players and in category 1: 8 players. As shown on the somatochart (Fig. 1), the somatotype distribution of GKs was quite heterogeneous. The order of final placement seems not to have affected the number of somatotype categories as the number of categories was 4 and 5, respectively. Somatopoints of 11 out of 16 GKs on the teams that finished 1st to 8th were plotted to the left of the longitudinal somatochart axis.

Mean somatotype of wing players was 1.9 - 4.2 - 2.3, which is balanced mesomorph. Among all playing positions, only Ws had endomorphy rating lower than 2.0. Low endomorphy values not exceeding 2.0 (36 Ws), high mesomorphy rating over 4.5 (30 Ws) and ectomorphy rating over 2.0 (33 Ws) are indicative of athletic physique with higher level of muscularity and relatively low percent subcutaneous fat.

Table 2 Mean somatotype and somatic parameters: Wings

Ws

(n=53)

SOMATOTYPE Body

height

Body

mass

%

Fat ENDOMORPHY MESOMORPHY ECTOMORPHY

X 1.88 4.16 2.26 170.08 64.75 9.44

SD 0.83 1.07 0.94 5.48 6.38 4.20 min 0.5 1.7 0.6 159.0 49.7 2.6 max 3.8 6.4 4.8 183.0 79.6 17.0

In the sub-group of wing players, there was only one case of extreme somatotype. Overall, somatotypes of Ws were classified in 5 categories. It should be noted that mean somatotype of Ws was balanced mesomorph. The highest number of somatotypes was categorized in category 12: 15 players classified as endomorphic mesomorphs. On the other hand, remaining players were classified in categories 1: 13 Ws, 2: 11 Ws, 3: 8 Ws and 4: 6 Ws. Therefore, it should be distinguished between two somatotypes in wing players: 1

st type (19 players): mean values of somatotype, body height, body mass and percent

subcutaneous fat were: 2.8 - 5.0 - 1.4, 168.7 cm, 69.0 kg and 14.0 %, respectively. 2

nd type (34 players): mean values of somatotype, body height, body mass and percent

subcutaneous fat were: 1.3 - 3.7 - 2.8, 170.9 cm, 62.4 kg and 6.9 %. With respect to final placement at the championship, the somatotypes of players on the teams that finished in 1st to 4th and 5th to 8th as well as on teams that finished 9th to 12th and 13th to 16th showed identical somatotype categorizations.

Figure 2 Somatotypes of wings

Table 3 Mean somatotype and somatic parameters: Center backs

CBs

(n=30)

SOMATOTYPE Body

height

Body

mass

%

Fat ENDOMORPHY MESOMORPHY ECTOMORPHY

X 2.11 3.82 2.35 173.63 68.20 11.09

SD 0.63 0.86 0.68 4.82 6.99 3.40 min 1.1 1.4 1.0 161.5 53.8 4.2 max 3.8 5.4 4.0 183.5 80.7 20.3

Mean somatotype of center backs was 2.1 - 3.8 - 2.3 categorized as balanced mesomorph. Having mesomorphy rating lower than 4.0 (20 players), endomorphy rating over 2.0 (16 players) and ectomorphy rating exceeding 2.0 (19 players), mean somatotype is located in category 1 close to category 13 (Fig. 2). Therefore, the somatotype of CBs cannot be characterized as athletic as is the case of balanced mesomorphs. The somatotype components were quite homogeneous (Tab. 3). The lowest number of somatotype categories was found in teams that finished in top eight. However, the highest rate of somatotype heterogeneity indicated by a total of 7 somatotype categories was found in players on the teams that finished in 13th to 16th place. With respect to the final placement, the category present in all teams, irrespective of the order of finish, was somatotype category 1.

Figure 3 Somatotypes of center backs

Table 4 Mean somatotype and somatic parameters: Backs

Bs

(n=58)

SOMATOTYPE Body

height

Body

mass

%

Fat ENDOMORPHY MESOMORPHY ECTOMORPHY

X 2.04 3.97 2.41 178.68 73.60 10.76

SD 0.63 0.88 0.82 4.59 5.69 2.96 min 0.5 1.4 0.5 172.0 60.7 3.4 max 3.5 5.8 4.5 196.0 85.8 18.1

Mean somatotype of backs was 2.0 - 4.0 - 2.4 classified as balanced mesomorph similarly to center backs. In mesomorphy, 30 players had rating equaling or over 4.0. Ectomorphy rating equaling or over 2.5 was found in 30 players as well. As for endomorphy, values over or equaling 2.0 were observed in 31 players. Back players may benefit from higher mesomorphy rating ranging from 4.0 to 5.0 with higher ectomorphy values ranging from 2.5 to 3.5. In total, somatotypes of Bs were classified in 8 somatotype categories. The highest rate of somatotype variation was found in players on the teams that finished in 9th to 12th place. On the contrary, the lowest degree of somatotype homogeneity was observed in teams in 13th to 16th place. What all teams have in common is categorization of somatotypes in categories 1, 2, 3 and 4.

Figure 4 Somatotypes of backs

Table 5 Mean somatotype and somatic parameters: Pivots

PVs

(n=31)

SOMATOTYPE Body

height

Body

mass

%

Fat ENDOMORPHY MESOMORPHY ECTOMORPHY

X 2.75 4.93 1.51 175.56 77.16 13.75

SD 0.78 0.85 0.67 4.99 6.61 3.15 min 1.1 3.4 0.5 166.0 63.0 6.6 max 4.2 6.6 2.8 186.5 90.0 18.4

Mean somatotype of pivots was 2.7 - 4.9 - 1.5 categorized as endomorphic mesomorph. With respect to somatotype components, PVs had the highest endomorphy value of all playing positions. Overall, 19 players had endomorphy rating equaling or over 2.5, 22 players had mesomorphy rating equaling or exceeding 4.5 and 13 pivots demonstrated ectomorphy rating equaling or lower than 1.5. The ectomorphy rating was also lowest out of all playing positions measured. As for somatotype categorization, the highest rate of homogeneity in somatotype distribution was found in players in the teams that finished 1st to 4th and 5th to 8th as confirmed by 2 somatotype categories. The highest degree of heterogeneity was observed in players on the teams that placed 9th to 12th. It should be noted that pivots were categorized in 4 categories in total. With regard to final placement, somatotype category 1 was observed in all teams irrespective of final standings.

Figure 5 Somatotypes of pivots

Table 6 Overall somatotype categorization with respect to playing position

Playing C A T E G O R I E S

∑ Positions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Goalkeepers 8 2 4 2 1 1 - - - - 1 13 3 35

Wings 13 11 8 6 - - - - - - - 15 - 53

Center Backs 11 4 5 1 1 - - - - - - 7 1 30

Backs 20 10 7 4 1 - - - - - 1 13 2 58

Pivots 10 1 - - - - - - - - 2 18 - 31

∑ 62 28 24 13 3 1 - - - - 4 66 6 207

As shown in Tab. 6 and Fig. 1, the highest number of players: 66, 31.9 % was classified in category 12, which is endomorphic mesomorph. As for position specificity, the difference between playing positions in the number of players was minimal. In total, 62 players (30 %) were classified in category 1: balanced mesomorph. With respect to playing position, back players were dominant in the balanced mesomorph category. In category 2 of ectomorphic mesomorph, the highest number of somatotypes was found in wings and backs. Category 3, which is mesomorph-ectomorph, included 24 players (11.6 %). The total number of players in categories 1, 2, 3 and 12 equaled 86.96 %, that is 180

players. The common characteristic of these somatotype categories is mesomorphy. This shows that adequate level of musculo-skeletal development is absolutely necessary regardless

of the playing position. The difference between playing positions was found in the ratio of endomorphy to ectomorphy. This ratio is indicative of linearity or robustness and significantly

determines the selection of playing position.

Figure 6 Somatotype with respect to playing position

Conclusions

With respect to somatotype components, the highest rate of adiposity indicated by endomorphy was found in pivots and goalkeepers. The lowest degree was observed in wing players followed by backs. The mesomorphy rating indicative of relative musculo-skeletal development was also observed in pivots. The highest degree of relative slenderness indicated by ectomorphy was found in backs while the lowest was observed in pivots. The greatest difference between maximum and minimum value equaling 1.1 was found in mesomorphic component.

ENDO MESO ECTO

Goalkeeper: 2.6 4.1 2.1 endomorphic mesomorph Wing: 1.9 4.2 2.3 balanced mesomorph

Center back: 2.1 3.8 2.3 balanced mesomorph

Back: 2.0 4.0 2.4 balanced mesomorph

Pivot: 2.7 4.9 1.5 endomorphic mesomorph

The somatotype categorization has shown that all playing positions are predominantly mesomorphic. The mean somatotype in Ws, CBs and Bs has been categorized as balanced

mesomorph. The goalkeepers and pivots can be characterized as endomorphic mesomorphs.

References

CARTER. J. E. L. 2002. The Heath-Carter Anthropometric Somatotype (Instruction manual). In http://www.somatotype.org

ČAVALA, M., KATIĆ, R. 2010. Morphological, Motor and Situation-motor Characteristics of Elite Female Handball Players According to Playing Performance and Position. In Coll.

Antropol. 2010. Vol. 32. No. 4. pp. 1355-1361. ISSN 0350-6134. HEATH. B. H.. CARTER. J. E. L. 1967. A Modified Somatotype Method. In Amer. J. Phys.

Anthrop.. 1967. Vol. 27. No. 1. pp. 57-74. ISSN 0002-9483. ROGULJ, N., SRHOJ, V., NAZOR, M., SRHOJ, L., ČAVALA, M. 2005. Some

Anthropologic Characteristics of Elite Female Handball Players at Different Playing Positions. In Coll. Antropol. 2005. Vol. 29. No. 2. pp. 705-709. ISSN 0350-6134.

SRHOJ, V., MARINOVIĆ, M., ROGULJ, N. 2002. Position Specific Morphological Characteristics of Top-Level Male Handball Players. In Coll. Antropol. 2002. Vol. 26. No. 1. pp. 219-227. ISSN 0350-6134.

URBAN, F., KANDRÁČ, R., TÁBORSKÝ, F. 2011. Position-related changes in Somatotypes of Top Level Male Handball Players. In EHF Scientific Conference 2011.

Science and Expertise in Handball (Scientific and practical approaches). Vienna: EHF, 2011. ISBN 987-3-9503311-0-3, pp. 214-218.

VILA, H., MANCHADO, C., ABRALDES, A., ALCARAZ, P., RODRÍGUEZ, N. 2011. Anthropometric Profile in Female Elite Handball Players by Playing Positions. In EHF

Scientific Conference 2011. Science and Expertise in Handball (Scientific and practical

approaches). Vienna: EHF, 2011. ISBN 987-3-9503311-0-3, pp. 219-222. ZAPARTIDIS, I., VARELTZIS, I., GOUVALI, M., KOROROS, P. 2009. Physical Fitness

and Anthropometric Characteristics in Different Levels of Young Team Handball Players. In The Open Sports Sciences Journal. 2009. Vol. 2. pp. 22-28. ISSN 1875-399X.