Study of the Physical Condition of Young Elite Female Handball Players

  2 nd EHFScientificConference    WomenandHandball ScientificandPracticalApproaches                   22‐23November2013 Vienna,Austria    *Bibliography and references have not been included in the articles. They can be obtained directly from the authors. E-mail addresses of all the authors are available at the end of each article. Place of Publication: European Handball Federation, Hoffingergasse 18, A-1120 Vienna, Austria http://www.eurohandball.com Conference co-ordination: Beata Kozlowska, Anna Psintrou, Helmut Höritsch Layout: Richard Turner Printed by: Druck Hofer GmbH, 2054 Haugsdorf, Leopold-Leuthner-Str.2, Austria; Josef Stöger Publication: December 2013 © EHF 145 STUDY OF THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF YOUNG ELITE FEMALE HANDBALL PLAYERS Patricia Irene SOSA GONZÁLEZ, Juan Francisco OLIVER CORONADO, Rosa Maria ALFONSO ROSA 1Faculty of Educational Sciences, University of Seville, Seville, Spain Summary The main aim of this study was to determine physical fitness profile of young elite female handball players. A second objective was to establish differences based on their playing positions. Results showed significant differences in all physical fitness tests based on their specific playing positions. In general, wings and first line players (center, left back and right back) obtained the best results, while goalkeepers obtained the worst results. Keywords Young female handball players, fitness assessment, physical fitness, playing positions in team handball Introduction Team handball is a complex intermittent game, which requires players to have well-developed aerobic and anaerobic capacities (Delamarche et al., 1987; Gorostiaga, Granados, Ibañez, González-Badillo, & Izquierdo, 2006). Motor ability, sprinting, jumping, flexibility and throwing velocity represent physical activities that are considered as important aspects of the game and contribute to the high performance of the team (Granados, Izquierdo, Ibañez, Bonnabau, & Gorostiaga, 2007; Marques & González-Badillo, 2006). Team positions in team handball can be broadly classified as goalkeepers, first line players and second line players (Pezerat-Correia, Valamantos, Francisco, & Santos, 2007). These positions are: center, back players, wing players, pivots, and goalkeepers. Time motion studies have shown that in the course of the game handball players perform different activities depending on their positions (Cambel, 1985; Sibila, Vuleta, & Pori, 2004). During the game, wings seem to cover the longest total distance and the longest distances while sprinting (Luig, Manchado-Lopez, Perse, Kristan, Schander, Zimmermann, & Platen, 2008; Sibila et al., 2004), while backs seem to execute the largest number of throws (Ohnjec, Vuleta, Milanovic, & Gruic, 2003). Few studies have realized comparisons between physical fitness characteristics based on specific playing positions in team handball. In addition, few studies has investigated whether there are any differences among playing positions at young age, when athletes begin to specialize in playing positions (Zapartidis, Toganidis, et al., 2009). The aim of the present study was a) to determine the physical fitness profile of female young elite handball players and b) to establish the differences based on their game location. Additionally, results from motor performance tests will allow trainers to identify players´ weaknesses and design training models for improving specific athletes´ deficiencies, but also follow up the athlete´s improvement during a competitive season. Furthermore, the data of the present study could be added in the international literature and assist in talent identification and development. 146 Methods Participants The total sample consisted of 137 young elite female handball players from 13 to 16 years (M= 14,25; SD= 0,74), which have been playing a mean of 8,66 years (SD=2,16), and a mean of 5,10 years competing (SD=2,18). All players competed in the highest league of their sports category, were selected as the best players of their sport category, belonged to the National Sporting Talent Programme of the Royal Spanish Handball Federation, and commonly performed at least 3 training sessions per week plus one official match. All players and their parents were informed about the procedures of the measurements and provided their written consent for participating according to the research policy of the Royal Spanish Handball Federation. Procedure Six variables were recorder for each young female handball player. These included aerobic capacity (VO2max), explosive power of the lower limbs, throwing velocity, agility and running speed. For motivational purposes, the players were immediately informed of their performance in all tests. Aerobic capacity was expressed as estimated maximal oxygen uptake using a 20m shuttle run test (Course Navette) and predicted by a regression equation according to the age and the running speed at the last completed stage (Leger, Mercier, Gadoury, & Lambert, 1988). The subjects completed only one attempts of this test. For Long jump test, players were placed in a static position behind a line and they must jump pushing forward with both legs at the same time as far as they could, allowing them countermovement of arms and legs. For Squat jump test was used an Ergo Jump Bosco/System®, where was calculated jump height from flight time on a contact platform, using a microcomputer Posion Organiser II (with accuracy of 0,001 sec.). The players started with their hands on their hips and knees bent at 90º and without previous countermovement jumped upward. The players completed 2 attempts of each type of jump, and the better of each one was used for the subsequent statistical analysis. Between jumps, the participants were allowed to recover for 3 minutes to avoid fatigue. Throwing velocity was measured using a radar gun (Pocket Radar™ Personal Speed Radar Gun). Evaluator with the pocket radar in his hand was placed behind the standard goal of handball and in a perpendicular direction to the thrower. The female handball players threw a standard ball of handball as fast as possible towards the goal without goalkeeper, using dominant hand and their personal technique. The sequence of throwing was as follows: a 3- step running throw from the 9-m line, and a 3-step running throw from the 9-m line with a jump. Three throws of each type were performed, and the best trial was used for further analysis. A 3-minute rest elapsed between throws to avoid fatigue. To evaluate the Running speed was measured the time taken to run 30 meters using two pairs of photoelectric cells (AFR System ®), interconnected to an accountant Seiko System Stop Watch S129, with a precision of 0,01 seconds. The test consisted in a 30-m sprint, starting from a static position and standing. The players began to run when they wanted and at that moment the first photocells gate were automatically activated. They had to run 30m as fast as 147 possible until passing the finish line where the second photocells gate was placed. The participants performed twice the 30-m sprint and the best one mark was used for the subsequent statistical analysis. Between each sprint were allowed 3 minutes of rest to avoid fatigue. For Illinois agility test, players had to run a circuit race that occupied an area of 10 m long by 5 m wide, where four cones were used to mark the start, finish and the two turning points. Another four cones were placed down the center an equal distance apart. Each cone in the center was spaced 3,3 meters apart. Athlete must be placed lying on his front (head to the start line) and hands by his shoulders. On the “ready, steady, go” command the stopwatch started to run, and the athlete had to get up as quickly as possible and run around the circuit in the direction indicated, without knocking the cones over, to the finish line, where the timing was stopped. The fastest value obtained from two attempts with 3min recovery in-between was used as the agility score. Data analysis Standard statistical methods were used to calculate the mean and SDs. All data are expressed as mean (SD), minimum and maximum (all data were checked for distribution normality and homogeneity with the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Lilliefors tests). Differences in physical fitness profile based on playing positions were compared using a one-way analysis of variance using Scheffe´s post-hoc test. Statistical significance was set at p≤ 0,05. The results were analyzed using SPSS software, version 17.0. Results Descriptive statistics for physical fitness profile for all young female handball players are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Physical fitness profile of young elite female handball players (N=137). Mean (SD) Min. Max. Centiles 5 10 25 50 75 90 95 30-m sprint (sec) 5,01 (0,30) 4,37 6,29 4,60 4,66 4,80 4,98 5,17 5,37 5,59 Squat jump (cm) 31,78 (5,66) 13,50 45,00 22,30 25 28 32 36 38 41 Long jump (m) 1,77 (0,21) 0,98 2,30 1,41 1,50 1,62 1,80 1,90 2,03 2,10 Throwing vel. (Km.h-1) (3-step running) 68,66 (6,25) 48 84 57,80 59,80 65 69 72 76,20 79 Throwing vel. (Km.h-1) (3-step running with a jump) 69,58 (5,74) 52 80 58,70 61 67 70 73 77 78,10 VO2max (ml.kg- 1.min-1) 45,60 (3,94) 32,27 55,73 39,53 40,60 42,23 46,15 47,63 50,33 50,74 Illinois agility test (sec) 19,76 (1,46) 17,25 27,07 17,96 18,30 18,85 19,41 20,37 21,44 22,44 Table 2 shows the differences in physical fitness characteristics between positions as obtained by the post-hoc test. 148 30m sprints: Centers and wings showed higher velocity values than do backs (p<0,05), pivots (p<0,01) and goalkeepers (p<0,01). However, no significant differences in 30m sprints were found between centers and wings. Squat jump test: Centers showed best performance among all players with significant differences from goalkeepers (p<0,05). Wings performed better than backs, pivots and goalkeepers with significant differences from goalkeepers (p<0,01). Backs on average performed better than pivots and goalkeepers but without significant differences. Long jump: Centers and wings best performance among all players with significant difference from pivots (p<0,01) and goalkeepers (p<0,01). Backs performed better than pivots and goalkeepers with significant differences from goalkeepers (p<0,01). Goalkeepers showed the worst standing long jump values. Throwing velocity (3-step running throw from the 9-m line): centers players achieved the highest values of all players while goalkeepers had the lowest scores, with significant differences only between both positions (p<0,01). Throwing velocity (3-step running throw with a jump from the 9-m line): we were found significantly different with regard to play positions, where goalkeepers obtained poor results (p<0, 01). Estimated VO2max: centers and wings showed best performance among all players with significant difference from goalkeepers (p<0,01). Backs performed better than pivots and goalkeepers but without significant differences. Illinois agility test: centers and wings showed best performance among all players with significant difference from pivots (p<0,01) and goalkeepers (p<0,01). Backs on average performed better than pivots and goalkeepers with significant differences from goalkeepers (p<0,05). Table 2. Mean score (SD) of running speed, explosive power of the lower limbs, ball velocity, aerobic capacity and agility of young female handball players according to their playing position. Test/Specific playing positions (C)Center (N=22) Mean (SD) (B)Backs (N=40) Mean (SD) (W)Wings (N=30) Mean (SD) (P)Pivots (N=25) Mean (SD) (G)Goalkeepers (N=20) Mean (SD) 30-m sprint (sec) 4,81(0,19)BPG [4,45-5,09] 5,04(0,22)CW [4,67-5,63] 4,83(0,22)BPG [4,37-5,33] 5,17(0,38)CW [4,68-6,29] 5,20(0,32)CW [4,83-6,02] Squat jump (cm) 34,26(4,38)G [25,9-43,00] 31,25(5,18) [21,4-41,00] 34,12(5,67)G [23,9-45,00] 30,22(4,78)] [19,00-40,00] 28,46(6,64)CW [13,5-41,00] Long jump (m) 1,88(0,15)PG [1,48-2,12] 1,79(0,18)G [1,48-2,17] 1,84(0,19)PG [1,38-2,30] 1,66(0,20)CW [0,98-1,98] 1,61(0,19)CBW [1,26-2,00] Throwing velocity (Km.h-1) (3-step running) 70,77(6,11)G [55-80] 69,25(5,26) [59-79] 69,60(6,86) [48-84] 68,32(6,47) [55-79] 64,20(5,36)C [55-72] Throwing velocity (Km.h-1) (3-step and jump) 71,23(4,24)G [61-79] 71,10(4,33)G [59-80] 70,43(5,72)G [55-79] 69,72(5,86)G [56-80] 63,25(5,72)CBWP [52-73] VO2max (ml.kg- 1.min-1) 47,36(3,48)G [40,60-55,73] 45,91(2,71) [39,54-50,33] 46,52(3,61)G [40,60-55,73] 44,58(4,76) [34,14-53,03] 41,68(4,28)CW [32,27-50,33] Illinois Agility Test (sec) 18,88(0,72)PG [17,72-21,35] 19,76(0,92)G [17,81-22,38] 18,93(0,93)PG [17,25-21,87] 20,70(1,67)CW [18,66-24,90] 20,87(1,98)CBW [18,28-20,07] C Significantly different from centers. B Significantly different from backs. W Significantly different from wings. P Significantly different from pivots. G Significantly different from goalkeepers. 149 Discussion Despite the importance of physical fitness has on performance in handball, few studies have studied this matter in this age group. The aim of the present study was to determine the physical fitness profile of young elite female handball players and to establish the differences based on their playing positions. This is a very important issue because there are few studies on the differences in physical fitness profile in young elite female Spanish handball players. This article contains new information about young elite female handball players by specific playing positions that could be extremely useful for coaches. Previous literature has been reported similar results to those found in our study except in squat jump test and throwing velocity test (Civar, 2012; Zapartidis, Toganidis, et al., 2009; Zapartidis, Vareltzis, Gouvali, & Korocos, 2009). Nevertheless, interpretation of these comparisons should be made with care because there are few studies published and methodologies and sample levels are also different. The present study found that centers and wings were significantly faster than backs, pivots and goalkeepers. In addition, backs showed superiority, although not significant to pivots and goalkeepers. These findings are in agreement with previous studies (Rogulj, Srhoj, Nazor, Srhoj, & Cavala, 2005; Sibila et al., 2004), which have found that wings are the fastest players of elite male and female teams. However, the results obtained by centers are not agreed with those found in other studies (Civar, 2012; Zapartidis, Toganidis, et al., 2009; Zapartidis, Vareltzis, et al., 2009). Sprinting velocity for short distances is an important element of performance in team handball. Players are required to cover distances between 20-30 m with maximal speed from the phase of attack to the phase of defense after a ball loss, or in order to run a fast break. Wings participate in such moves commonly. Studies have shown than wings spend 18% and 4% of the total playing time running faster than 3,5 m/s and 5,2 m/s, respectively (Sibila et al., 2004). These finding suggest a greater requirement for acceleration and sprint in wings that the other players. Standing long jump test and squat jump test are available tests for evaluating the ability to achieve high muscular force very quickly, which is very importance in team handball. Our players exhibit similar values in standing long jump compared other players with a similar age (Lidor et al., 2005; Zapartidis, Toganidis, et al., 2009; Zapartidis, Vareltzis, et al., 2009). Centers and wings showed significant differences with respect to pivots and goalkeepers. Wings perform throwing with jump forwards in an effort to reach the goalpost as closely as possible, either from the position they have in the game, or at the end of a counter-attack. These actions are performed by other players as well, but, with a considerably lesser extend and intensity (Rogulj et al., 2005). In fact, during the phase of attack, wings move in a limited space of 2-3 meters and require a greater ability to generate great force rapidly. The squat jump mean scores of our players are lower than those previously reported (Civar, 2012). Significant differences were found in vertical jump (SJ) among specific playing positions in our sample, where centers and wings showed significant differences with respect to goalkeepers. Unluckily, we have no found data concerning squat jump according to handball player´s position to compare our results. In the present study, centers showed a significantly higher velocity in throwing the ball with 3-step running from the 9 m line than goalkeepers. On the other hand, goalkeepers showed statistical significance in throwing the ball with 3 steps running from the 9 m line with jump 150 over all other positions. Unfortunately, there are no studies using our throwing velocity test to which compare our results with the same group of age. Players of team handball required a high aerobic uptake (between 4-6,5 km per game) depending on the player´s positions and the competitive level of the teams (Luig, Manchado- Lopez, Perse, Kristan, Schander, Zimmermann, Henke, et al., 2008; Pers, Bon, Kovacic, Sibila, & Dezman, 2002; Sibila et al., 2004). The present study found that centers and wings had greater estimated VO2max than all other playing positions, with significant differences from goalkeepers. These finding are also in agreement with a previous study (Zapartidis, Toganidis, et al., 2009) which reported similar VO2max performance among playing positions, with centers and wings showing significantly higher values than goalkeepers. In addition, it has been reported that wings cover significantly greater total distance during the game than other players, whereas goalkeepers cover the smallest total distance (Luig, Manchado-Lopez, Perse, Kristan, Schander, Zimmermann, Henke, et al., 2008; Sibila et al., 2004). High aerobic fitness is important for wings, as they are the players who perform the most picks and require high levels of aerobic capacity to aid recovery after high-intensity sprint. The mean scores obtained in Illinois agility test by our players are in line with those previously reported in other sports (BenOunis et al., 2013). Nevertheless it is difficult to compare the current results according to player´s positions with other studies, as there are few data for similar age in handball players. Conclusions The present study compared physical fitness profile with to specific playing position of young elite female handball players. The results showed differences in physical fitness profile between playing positions. Above results can prove to be extremely useful for coaches and trainers, as they are based on tests that reflect the specific characteristics of individual playing positions. More profiling studies of young elite female handball players are required in order to obtain normative data. These finding could be added to the international literature and assist in talent identification and development. Acknowledgements To the Royal Spanish Handball Federation and all young elite female handball players who participated in this study as well as the whole team of technicians who assisted in data collection, and, especially, to Dr. Jacobo Vázquez for his technical support and electronic devices. ________________________ [email protected] 151 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CHOSEN FACTORS OF PLAYING PERFORMANCE AND THE LENGTH OF ACTIVE CAREER OF AN ACTIVE CAREER OF FEMALE HANDBALL PLAYERS Martin TŮMA, Kateřina KECLÍKOVÁ Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic Summary The aim of the study was to find out possible effects of career length on selected factors of playing performance. We used a correlation method to determine the relationship between career length and selected factors of playing performance. Career length has an influence on two factors of playing performance – the number of stolen balls and also the number of turn overs. There is only one team in which career length has an influence on the results of the team. Keywords Career length, playing performance, European Championships Introduction Evaluation of playing performance is one of the most important methods of gathering data not only for a team´s sports preparation, but also for further fields of the development of handball (keeping in touch with development trends, description of skills within the range of handball theory etc.) In principle, there are two basic types of playing performance – individual and team one. Team playing performance is correlative with not just the quantity and quality of individual playing performances, but also with their mutual relations. In both types, their basic features are considered to be: non-standard match conditions, a large amount of motor skills and motor structures, variability, creative combinations, anticipation, the choice of solutions in changeable playing situations, fulfillment of tasks within the range of individual functions in the team. The above-mentioned facts suggest that the demands on the quantity and quality of skills and knowledge of individual players as well as teams are high and learning them requires sufficient amount of time filled with training process and games. In this connection, the term very often applied is „playing experience“or its equivalents. On international level, the number of played international games is often considered to be the index of experience. It is naturally connected with the age of the participants of top competitions, as it is automatically presumed that a higher age means a higher number of played matches and thus also more experience, but there is a connection with the length of the player´s active career as well. So the personal make-up of a team might be a factor that influences the playing performance of a team not only in a single match, but in a long-term competition as well. In professional debates, playing experience expressed by means of the length of a player´s career is usually related to the placement of the team in competitions. This naturally reflects the actual playing performances of both players and teams. Nevertheless, available sources failed to contain an expression of a direct relation between the length of playing career and individual indexes of playing performance. We believe that a reliable evaluation of this relation might complement a rather more objective basis to empirical experience which is precisely what our research endeavoured to find out. We set the following aims: 158 THE EFFECT OF MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS ON PLAYER PERFORMANCE IN ELITE FEMALE HANDBALL GOALKEEPERS František URBAN1, Róbert KANDRÁČ2 1Member of the UUHT EHF, Michalovce, Slovakia 2Faculty of Sports, University of Prešov, Prešov, Slovakia SUMMARY The purpose of the cross-sectional study was to determine the effect of morphological parameters on player performance in elite female handball goalkeepers. The correlation analysis showed that investigated morphological parameters in both U17 and U19 goalkeepers poorly correlated with goalkeeping efficiency assessed using 6 cumulative goalkeeping statistics. Keywords Anthropometry, competitive performance, handball players Introduction The performance of goalkeepers has a fundamental effect upon the performance of the team. Goalkeepers' performances are multifactorial manifestations of abilities and skills, where individual factors co-interact. Top level goalkeepers are supple and fast. Somatically, goalkeepers have long arms and are mostly tall. (Kovacs, 2009). Previous studies dealing with handball goalkeepers have investigated their psychological traits (Kajtna et al., 2012), associations between motor abilities and competitive performance (Pori et al., 2012) or cumulative statistics of goalkeeping efficiency (Táborský, 2008, Rizescu, Mihaila, Macovei, 2009). However, there is a paucity of studies dealing with the association between morphological parameters and goalkeeping efficiency. Only few studies have dealt with the effect of anthropometric parameters on goalkeeper's performance (Visnapuu et al., 2011). Methods The purpose of the cross-sectional study was to determine the effect of morphological parameters on player performance in elite female handball goalkeepers. One hundred eighty-five elite female players participated in the study. In total, the study sample consisted of forty-two U17 goalkeepers and thirty-five U19 goalkeepers. All goalkeepers were tested during 2011 Women’s 17 and Women’s 19 European Handball Championships in Czech Republic and Netherlands, respectively. The goalkeepers were divided into four performance groups according to the final team standings: 1st to 4th place (1- 4), 5th to 8th place (5-8), 9th to 12th place (9-12) and 13th to 16th place (13-16). The following morphological parameters were measured and correlated with goalkeeping efficiency: body height, body mass, percentage subcutaneous fat (fat %), arm span (D-D), shoulder breadth (A- A) and somatotype components: endomorphy, mesomorphy and ectomorphy. The somatotypes were determined according to Heath, Carter (1967). Goalkeeping efficiency was assessed using six EHF cumulative statistics based on the following parameters: total goal save percentage, goal saves from 7 meters, goal saves from 9 meters, goal saves from 6 meters, saves from wing positions and saves following a fast break. The effect of morphological parameters on goalkeeping efficiency in goalkeepers was determined using Spearman’s rank order correlation. 159 Results and discussion The data were analyzed in terms of goalkeepers’ morphological parameters, goalkeeping efficiency and correlation between goalkeeping efficiency and morphological parameters. Mean values of morphological parameters and 6 goalkeeping efficiency statistics are presented in Tables 1 through 8. The correlation coefficients expressing associations between morphological parameters and variables of goalkeeping efficiency are presented in Table 5. As shown in Table 1, mean values of morphological parameters in U17 goalkeepers: body height, arm span, shoulder breadth are highest in 1-4 performance group. This has shown that goalkeepers of 1-4 group are taller with greater arm span and skeletal robustness. The difference between mean body height and mean arm span was negative in 13-16 group only. The highest mean value of body mass was observed in 13-16 group of goalkeepers. An interesting finding is higher percentage of subcutaneous fat found in 9-12 and 13-16 groups compared to 1-4 and 5-8 groups. This is indicative of lower volume of fat-free mass. As for the somatotype components, the lowest degree of relative fatness as expressed by endomorphy was found in 5-8 goalkeepers. All groups were predominantly mesomorphic. Somatotype categories were found to be identical in groups 9-12 and 13-16, but different in 1- 4 and 5-8 groups. Mean somatotypes in groups 9-12 and 13-16 were categorized as endomorphic mesomorphs. Mean somatotype in 1-4 group was classified as balanced mesomorph and in 5-8 group as ectomorphic mesomorph. Tab. 1 Morphological parameters: U17 goalkeepers Ranking 1st - 4th 5th - 8th 9th - 12th 13th - 16th X ±SD X ±SD X ±SD X ±SD Body Height (cm) 180.1±3.77 177.3±3.37 176.1±4.71 175.6±6.14 D-D (cm) 181.6±5.77 178.7±2.53 177.8±5.70 174.7±6.41 A-A (cm) 39.8±1.80 38.4±1.16 39.5±1.64 38.6±1.66 Body Mass (kg) 74.5±4.54 69.1±5.06 72.5±5.09 74.6±8.06 Fat (%) 11.7±2.46 9.1±3.94 14.1±2.58 14.0±5.89 Endomorphy 2.3±0.37 1.8±0.93 2.8±0.61 3.0±1.22 Mesomorphy 3.8±0.57 3.3±0.93 3.9±0.57 4.4±1.35 Ectomorphy 2.6±0.47 2.8±0.74 2.1±0.73 2.0±1.16 Tab. 2 Morphological parameters: U19 goalkeepers Ranking 1st - 4th 5th - 8th 9th - 12th 13th - 16th X ±SD X ±SD X ±SD X ±SD Body Height (cm) 176.1±4.70 176.3±4.39 178.3±4.99 176.9±2.91 D-D (cm) 175.7±4.53 180.4±3.03 177.9±5.18 174.8±5.14 A-A (cm) 40.3±0.71 39.5±2.19 38.6±1.29 38.5±1.27 Body Mass (kg) 73.5±4.51 79.3±11.15 73.0±6.75 73.3±6.03 Fat (%) 14.20±2.69 13.8±6.36 12.2±3.65 13.0±3.01 Endomorphy 2.7±0.72 3.0±1.51 2.2±0.72 2.5±0.65 Mesomorphy 4.3±1.13 4.7±1.79 3.9±1.60 3.8±0.93 Ectomorphy 2.0±0.81 1.9±0.92 2.5±1.67 2.2±0.81 160 Unlike U17 goalkeepers, mean body height in U19 goalkeepers was found to be lowest in 1-4 group. Negative difference between body height and arm span was observed in 13-16 group only. The highest degree of skeletal robustness expressed by shoulder breadth was found in 1- 4 group. Mean body mass was greatest in 5-8 group. The differences between mean values of body mass in 1-4, 9-12 and 13-16 groups were minimal. Paradoxically, the highest volume of subcutaneous fat was observed in 1-4 group. However, the highest volume of subcutaneous fat in kilograms was found in 5-8 group. Mean values of endomorphic components ranged from 2.2 to 3.0. The highest degree of relative fatness expressed by endomorphy was observed in 5-8 group. Mean somatotypes of all groups were found to be predominantly mesomorphic. The highest degree of muscular development was observed in 5-8 group. Mean somatotypes in groups 1-4 and 5-8 were identically categorized as endomorphic mesomorphs. The same was observed in groups 9-12 and 13-16 as mean somatotypes in both groups were identically classified as balanced mesomorphs. Tab. 3 Goalkeeping efficiency: U17 goalkeepers Ranking 1st - 4th 5th - 8th 9th - 12th 13th - 16th Total ±SD Total ±SD Total ±SD Total ±SD Total shots 809±74.81 1109±34.36 1150±67.14 1174±70.65 Total saves 310±30.63 376±11.59 387±25.77 388±26.25 Total % saves 38.3 33.9 33.7 33.0 6m shots 211±21.39 296±12.93 290±16.69 291±20.89 6m saves 77±7.09 111±5.62 92±5.21 97±6.98 6m % saves 36.5 37.5 31.7 33.3 7m shots 72±6.58 133±6.57 81±5.31 96±3.89 7m saves 10±1.71 30±2.00 17±1.30 27±1.83 7m % saves 13.9 22.6 21.0 28.1 9m shots 225±20.89 224±10.03 302±21.53 232±10.67 9m save 108±11.52 112±4.65 156±13.43 109±6.13 9m % saves 48.0 50.0 51.7 47.0 Wing shots 125±12.34 162±5.17 185±9.28 164±9.48 Wing saves 64±7.60 64±2.59 78±5.14 72±5.30 Wing % saves 51.2 39.5 42.2 43.9 FB shots 115±13.23 187±7.97 197±14.44 239±14.49 FB saves 43±5.72 40±1.67 34±2.71 49±4.60 FB % saves 37.4 21.4 17.3 20.5 As shown in Table 3, the total percentage of saves was highest in group 1-4 and lowest in 13- 16 group. The table clearly shows that the number of shots at the goal was lowest in 1-4 group. This is indicative of good defense strategy of the team and individual defensive skills of players. However, goalkeeping efficiency when saving shots from 6-meter distance was highest in 5-8 group. When standing against 7-meter shots, the highest number of saves was paradoxically observed in 13-16 group. Table 1 shows that goalkeepers in 9-12 group had to save the highest number of shots from 9-meter distance and were also most effective in saving them reaching over 50 percent efficiency. However, the highest degree of goalkeeping efficiency from the wing positions and after fast breaks was found in group 1-4.