POSITION-SPECIFIC ANTHROPOMETRIC PROFILES: 2011 WOMEN'S 17 EUROPEAN HANDBALL CHAMPIONSHIP František URBAN 1, Róbert KANDRÁČ 2, František TÁBORSKÝ 3 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) / chairman of the EHF Methods Commission Introduction Generally, the body dimensions of the player are understood as information on player's body build. Specifically, they may be referred to as the primary factor determining the level of player's game skills. The anthropometric parameters, either longitudinal or circumferential, of individual body segments underlie the body build, proportionality, robustness or gracile skeleton and muscular development (Chytráčková, 1999; Táborský, 2007; Grasgruber, Cacek, 2008; Urban, 2010). Anthropometric profile can be understood as an index based on the relation of individual physical parameters. Generally, team handball is defined as a team sport played by 7 players. Specifically, it is distinguished between specific playing positions: goalkeeper, pivot, wing, and back, of which each is characterized by specific playing functions. The effect of body build of players on an effective execution of offensive and defensive skills is critical. Anthropometric measurements affect the level of athletic achievement during the competitions as there is a relationship between measurements and physical multi-level performance skills (Nabieh, Mohamed, 2010). Anthropometric profile can contribute to the appropriate assignment of top-level handball players to a particular playing function. Aim The purpose of the cross-sectional study was to determine and compare anthropometric profiles in top level female handball players aged 16-17 years from the aspect of national teams and individual playing positions. Material and Methods The research sample consisted of 240 players of 15 national teams (except Norway) that participated in the 2011 Women's 17 European Handball Championship (W17 ECh) in Brno & Zlin, Czech Republic. At the time of the championship, the players were 16 to 17 years old. The players were divided into position-specific groups: GKs goalkeepers: n = 43, Ws - wings: n = 57, CBs - center backs: n = 40, Bs - backs: n = 64 and PVs - pivots: n = 36. Anthropometric measurements were carried out during the championship. We measured the following anthropometric parameters: - parameters of longitudinal dimension: body height, span (D-D); body mass; parameters of transversal dimension: biacromial breadth (shoulder width, A-A), palm breadth (Palm), biepicondylar breadth of the humerus (HB), biepicondylar breadth of the femur (FB); parameters of circumferential dimension: upper circumference (biceps), calf circumference (calf) and fore circumference (fore); body indexes: percent body (subcutaneous) fat (fat %) and span to body height ratio. The circumferential measures were taken in flexed and tensed condition of the individual muscles. The percent subcutaneous fat was calculated using the method by Pařízková (1962), which is based on the measurement of skinfold thickness on 10 body sites: face, chin, chest I, chest II, triceps, back, abdomen, hip, thigh and calf.
The tables show average values: x, standard deviations: SD, minimum values: min and maximum values: max in selected anthropometric parameters used to determine inter-team and inter-position differences. Results and discussion GOALKEEPERS - among the tallest GKs were POL, DEN and HUN, where the body height of 11 GKs exceeded 181 cm (see Table 1). The ratio of span to body height: 3.83 cm was highest in FRA goalkeepers. The highest span to body height difference was found in a FRA goalkeeper: + 10.5 cm. GKs on the SVK, POL and POR national teams (13 th to 16 th place) were found to have negative span to body height ratio from - 1.7 cm to - 3.06 cm. These two parameters are one of the determining factors underlying save efficiency in goalkeepers. Average values of shoulder width ranged from 37.57 to 40.5 cm. The greatest difference in body mass was found between POL and AUT goalkeepers: 16.84 kg. Twentynine goalkeepers fell in the range from 66.2 kg to 78.8 kg. The average values of percent fat in the teams that placed 1 st to 7 th relatively corresponded with mean values of body mass. The percent fat increased proportionally to the overall placement in the championship. As the GKs operate in a limited space and the character of their activity is not as aerobically demanding as the one of their teammates, higher values of percent subcutaneous fat appear to be a negative factor: limited movement, longer reaction time and lower dynamics of movement. The values of transversal measures indicate well-developed skeleton. The differences were minimal and the data were homogeneous. The differences were more profound in circumferential parameters demonstrating adequate muscular development relative to body height. GKs on the POR national team as the GKs with lowest body height average and relatively higher values of subcutaneous fat were found to have the highest mean values of biceps and calf circumference, which is indicative of robust body build. Tab. 1 Anthropometric profiles: Goalkeepers GKs (n=43) 1. RUS 178.13 180.73 39.00 72.67 13.27 7.80 6.50 10.67 29.00 36.67 25.50 2. DEN 181.50 184.25 40.50 75.55 10.60 8.25 6.50 10.10 31.50 37.75 25.75 4. HUN 181.10 180.57 40.00 75.50 10.80 8.40 6.60 10.07 30.33 39.67 26.67 5. FRA 174.50 178.33 38.33 67.67 9.90 7.80 6.53 10.17 28.50 36.67 25.33 6. SWE 178.37 178.37 37.67 70.17 8.33 7.63 6.63 10.17 29.33 37.33 25.83 7. ROU 179.83 180.00 38.67 69.93 6.67 7.57 6.37 9.70 27.33 36.50 24.33 8. NED 176.00 177.75 39.25 68.45 12.60 7.90 6.50 10.25 30.00 35.00 26.00 9. CRO 179.27 179.67 39.83 71.13 13.70 8.27 6.68 10.23 29.67 38.33 24.83 10. GER 176.00 179.33 38.67 69.90 12.90 7.90 6.63 10.00 30.50 36.17 26.17 11. ESP 173.50 175.83 39.67 72.07 14.63 8.00 6.64 10.53 29.33 38.33 25.33 12. CZE 172.90 174.17 40.00 75.87 13.93 7.87 6.23 10.20 29.50 36.50 24.83 13. POR 170.47 168.77 37.57 78.27 15.00 7.83 6.53 10.83 31.83 40.50 26.83 14. AUT 174.07 178.00 37.67 63.03 4.53 7.63 6.33 9.87 26.33 35.83 24.83 15. POL 182.23 179.73 40.50 79.87 17.67 8.30 6.40 10.83 31.50 38.83 26.17 16. SVK 175.53 172.47 38.67 77.03 18.67 8.03 6.63 10.70 30.83 38.67 27.67 X 176.81 177.71 39.03 72.50 12.24 7.94 6.51 10.29 29.65 37.64 25.73 SD 5.13 5.84 1.65 6.33 4.57 0.40 0.21 0.56 1.95 1.86 1.47 min 163.0 164.0 35.0 60.8 3.8 7.1 6.1 9.2 26.0 22.5 34.0 max 187.0 192.0 43.0 85.9 21.0 8.9 6.9 11.2 34.0 29.5 42.0
WINGS - the average body height exceeding 171 cm was found in Ws on the SWE, CZE and DEN national teams (see Table 2). Out of 57 Ws, 11 wing players were taller than 171 cm. The greatest difference in body height was recorded between Ws of SWE and NED: 10.64 cm. Positive ratio of span to body height was found in Ws of FRA, NED, POR, CZE and ROU: 0.4 cm to 3 cm. Negative difference between span and body height ranged from 0.37 cm to 3.8 cm. Longer s are beneficial in each playing position and especially in the wing position as the wing players attempt to score under more difficult conditions: shorter approach, jump from the corner of the playing field. There were minimal differences in the average values of span. Mean values over 37 cm were found in AUT and ROU wing players. Out of all playing positions, Ws were most homogeneous in terms of body mass. The body mass of 43 Ws fell in the range from 56.7 kg to 67.2 kg. Low percent subcutaneous fat 10.00 % in 32 Ws corresponds with the tempo game and indicate the demanding character of contemporary fast game of handball. The inadequate ratio of subcutaneous fat to body build reduces the speed and dynamics of movement. Besides the lowest average value of body height, Ws demonstrated the lowest average values of transversal parameters. On one hand, we may conclude adequate skeletal development. On the other hand, low values of palm breadth may limit the players. Higher values of palm breadth may increase the efficiency of technical shots making the ball handling more effective (Urban, Kandráč, Táborský, 2011). After exclusion of extreme values of circumferential parameters, the differences were relatively low. The highest level of muscular development was found in ROU wing players who also demonstrated low values of percent subcutaneous fat. Tab. 2 Anthropometric profiles: Wings Ws (n=57) 1. RUS 167.65 167.05 38.25 65.08 9.70 7.83 6.13 9.83 29.13 36.63 26.38 2. DEN 171.18 167.38 38.00 64.80 9.93 7.55 6.50 9.80 29.63 35.75 25.75 4. HUN 167.13 166.13 37.50 59.95 9.80 7.90 6.23 9.88 28.13 36.25 25.63 5. FRA 166.88 169.88 37.38 61.68 8.70 7.73 6.28 9.80 28.38 36.00 24.25 6. SWE 172.88 171.00 38.00 65.00 8.93 7.85 6.38 9.70 29.25 35.63 26.63 7. ROU 167.43 167.83 36.83 63.70 8.43 7.33 6.33 9.83 28.00 38.83 25.17 8. NED 162.24 163.40 37.80 59.80 12.04 7.64 6.30 9.84 28.70 35.90 25.20 9. CRO 166.80 165.38 37.00 60.55 11.58 7.48 6.10 9.35 28.25 36.88 25.50 10. GER 168.17 167.33 38.00 58.63 5.60 7.97 6.03 9.23 29.00 35.83 24.83 11. ESP 166.25 165.88 37.50 64.90 12.63 7.93 6.40 10.08 30.00 35.75 25.75 12. CZE 171.87 172.60 37.83 63.13 7.13 7.87 6.10 10.00 28.50 36.17 25.33 13. POR 165.75 166.68 37.88 60.85 6.50 7.65 6.08 9.45 28.63 36.25 26.13 14. AUT 164.70 162.90 36.60 59.78 10.26 7.22 6.04 9.76 27.70 35.50 24.10 15. POL 169.33 169.33 39.17 62.80 11.23 7.80 6.07 10.30 29.17 36.83 25.00 16. SVK 166.85 165.75 37.75 59.30 9.58 7.80 6.25 9.58 27.63 35.63 24.75 X 167.42 166.95 37.66 61.92 9.62 7.69 6.22 9.76 28.66 36.19 25.35 SD 4.64 5.87 1.28 5.24 3.50 0.33 0.29 0.53 1.66 1.87 1.27 min 157.5 154.0 35.0 51.3 3.4 6.8 5.5 8.9 25.5 33.0 23.0 max 179.8 180.8 40.5 78.5 16.8 8.3 6.9 11.1 33.0 40.5 29.0
CENTER BACKS - average body height lower than 170 cm was found in CBs of ESP, AUT and POR national teams (see Table 3). Out of all CBs, 13 center backs were shorter than 170 cm. Mean body height over 175 cm was recorded in POL, RUS and NED national teams. Overall, 12 CBs were taller than 175 cm. The players operating in the CB position are forced to score making the body height one of the benefiting factors. The ratio of span to body height ranging from + 0.50 cm to + 2.75 cm was positive in CBs (except RUS) on the teams that finished in 1 st to 8 th place. In the teams in the 9 th to 16 th place, negative values ranging from - 1.25 cm to - 4.5 cm were found in CBs of 5 national teams. Identical differences were found in shoulder width. In the teams of the top eight, mean shoulder width exceeding 39 cm was recorded in the national team of FRA only. In the teams that finished in 9 th to 16 th place, average shoulder width over 39 cm was found in the CBs of POL only. Mean body height over 70 kg was recorded in CBs of RUS and NED (7 players). In total, 29 CBs fell in the range from 60.1 to 72.8 kg. With regard to the assessment of percent subcutaneous fat, the ratio of percent fat to body height and body mass was disproportionate in CBs of SVK, ESP and NED. Higher percent subcutaneous fat and lower body height and body mass indicate lower volume of lean body mass, which is relevant when executing the playing functions of CBs. There were minimal differences between average values of transversal parameters. CBs on the teams in the 1 st to 4 th place demonstrated above-average values in all three transversal parameters. The highest mean values of circumferential parameters were found in ROU, ESP and RUS center backs. The highest degree of muscular development characterized by low circumferential values and low percent fat were found in ROU and GER center backs. Tab. 3 Anthropometric profiles: Center backs CBs (n=38) 1. RUS 177.30 175.20 39.50 72.13 11.40 8.13 6.50 9.90 29.83 38.17 27.00 2. DEN 171.50 174.25 40.00 64.20 8.80 8.10 6.35 9.90 30.75 34.25 26.25 4. HUN 173.50 174.00 39.25 66.38 11.53 8.05 6.53 9.85 30.50 35.63 26.63 5. FRA 170.25 173.00 38.25 58.70 10.35 7.65 6.40 9.40 28.00 34.50 24.75 6. SWE 173.17 174.70 39.00 63.53 9.17 7.67 6.30 9.37 29.17 36.33 26.00 7. ROU 173.53 175.13 39.00 69.57 6.23 8.03 6.77 9.80 30.33 39.17 27.10 8. NED 175.17 175.83 39.83 71.83 15.43 8.00 6.37 9.87 30.17 37.50 25.83 9. CRO 171.75 170.50 36.50 66.90 12.55 7.75 6.10 10.05 29.75 38.00 25.55 10. GER 170.25 167.88 37.50 64.28 8.30 7.90 6.55 9.50 30.75 36.38 26.88 11. ESP 163.50 159.00 36.00 62.80 14.90 7.80 6.20 10.40 32.00 36.50 27.00 12. CZE 170.00 172.40 38.75 65.45 10.80 7.60 5.80 9.50 29.00 37.25 25.50 13. POR 168.87 169.47 37.50 63.07 6.30 7.70 6.33 9.67 29.17 35.67 26.33 14. AUT 166.50 167.00 38.50 66.20 7.60 8.00 6.50 9.10 29.50 36.00 27.00 15. POL 178.40 174.17 39.00 68.47 12.27 7.83 6.07 10.03 29.67 37.83 25.83 16. SVK 170.88 169.38 38.13 67.73 16.23 7.85 6.38 9.98 29.25 36.63 25.88 X 172.40 172.21 38.67 66.45 10.76 7.89 6.38 9.74 29.84 36.66 26.28 SD 5.46 6.56 1.34 6.34 4.09 0.34 0.36 0.61 1.51 1.90 1.22 min 163.5 159.0 36.0 53.8 3.4 7.1 5.6 8.2 27.0 33.0 23.5 max 187.0 189.5 41.5 82.8 21.0 8.5 7.2 11.1 33.5 42.0 29.0
BACKS - the tallest backs were on HUN, GER and RUS national teams, where 16 players were taller than 180 cm (see Table 4). In total, 48 Bs fell in the body height range from 171 to 182.1 cm. The highest ratio of span to body height was recorded in FRA back players: + 9.37 cm. An interesting finding is that all FRA back players demonstrated high span to body height ratio: 6.0, 7.5, 10.5 and 13.5 cm. The difference between mean spans of FRA backs and NED backs equaled 12.87 cm. The greatest difference in shoulder width was found between HUN and POR backs: 3.37 cm. Mean values of shoulder width over 40 cm were found in HUN and POL backs. The greatest difference in body mass equaling 10.16 kg was recorded between ESP and POR backs. The average value of body mass higher than 70 kg was recorded in the Bs of POR, CZE, NED and CRO national teams. Overall, 29 back players demonstrated body mass lower than 70 kg. The biggest difference in percent subcutaneous fat was found between GER and SVK backs: 6.23 %. Of 64 backs, 28 Bs were found to have percent fat higher than 12 %. Three out of 11 backs on the teams that finished in the 1 st to 4 th place demonstrated percent fat exceeding 12 %. The highest mean values in palm breadth were recorded in backs of GER, FRA and HUN. Mean palm breadth value over 8 cm was found in 8 national teams. The differences in the mean values of humerus breadth were minimal. The average value of femur breadth over 10 cm was found in 5 national teams. Mean biceps circumference lower than 30 cm was recorded in Bs on the teams that finished from 1 st to 8 th place. Overall, the lowest mean value of any of the anthropometric parameters was not found in the teams that finished in the 1 st to 7 th place. POR backs were found to have the lowest mean values in 5 anthropometric parameters out of 11 measured. Tab. 4 Anthropometric profiles: Backs Bs (n=64) 1. RUS 179.07 181.67 38.67 72.83 10.77 7.77 6.63 10.70 30.17 38.67 26.33 2. DEN 178.50 178.83 39.00 70.40 8.82 8.17 6.52 9.80 30.50 36.92 26.58 4. HUN 183.75 182.00 41.25 72.40 12.05 8.30 6.55 10.15 30.75 36.25 25.55 5. FRA 174.38 183.75 39.50 73.85 13.80 8.33 6.43 10.30 31.75 37.13 26.75 6. SWE 176.55 174.73 39.00 72.18 10.23 7.75 6.43 10.35 31.50 38.25 26.13 7. ROU 178.80 179.70 39.75 73.43 9.30 8.05 6.70 10.25 30.50 40.13 27.25 8. NED 172.10 170.88 39.88 69.38 12.23 8.10 6.53 10.28 30.13 38.63 26.38 9. CRO 175.80 176.10 38.20 69.38 12.88 7.70 6.32 9.72 29.60 36.90 25.50 10. GER 181.60 182.45 39.88 72.53 7.90 8.35 6.75 9.85 30.38 38.38 27.63 11. ESP 176.56 177.56 39.70 74.16 13.14 8.06 6.60 10.56 30.50 39.20 26.50 12. CZE 174.88 175.62 39.17 69.42 10.37 7.77 6.32 9.78 29.50 36.17 25.67 13. POR 171.63 175.13 37.88 64.00 8.30 7.80 6.30 9.30 29.38 35.25 26.50 14. AUT 174.52 174.00 39.10 72.62 12.28 7.75 6.44 10.14 30.40 38.10 26.60 15. POL 178.66 177.68 40.40 73.84 13.56 8.12 6.66 10.34 30.70 37.50 27.30 16. SVK 178.83 178.83 39.33 70.43 14.13 7.97 6.53 10.33 28.50 36.83 26.33 X 176.56 177.37 39.23 71.19 11.29 7.97 6.49 10.09 30.27 37.62 26.45 SD 5.52 6.69 1.81 5.79 3.52 0.39 0.30 0.68 1.52 1.85 1.15 min 165.4 161.0 35.0 59.6 3.8 7.0 6.0 8.7 27.0 33.5 24.0 max 190.5 191.5 43.0 83.4 18.6 8.7 7.5 11.8 33.5 42.0 28.5
PIVOTS - the greatest difference in body height was found between CRO and SVK pivots: 16.5 cm (see Table 5). The inter-team differences in body height (except SWE) were minimal. In total, values of body height in 24 PVs fell in the range from 169 cm to 180.3 cm. Positive difference between span and body height was recorded in 7 national teams only: FRA, POR, RUS, DEN, POL, ESP and HUN. The highest mean ratio of span to body height was found in FRA pivots: + 5.75 cm. Overall, the highest positive difference between span and body height was found in a FRA pivot: + 14.5 cm (body height: 180.5 cm, D-D: 195 cm). Mean shoulder width over 40 cm was recorded in 6 teams and 17 PVs. Average body mass over 80 kg was found in POL and RUS pivots and overall, 10 PVs only. The values of body mass of 25 pivots ranged from 67.3 to 84.8 kg. Average values of percent subcutaneous fat lower than 10 % were found in DEN and ROU pivots and 9 players. The highest number of players: 16 demonstrated 12 to 17 % range of subcutaneous fat. PVs were found to have the highest average value of palm breadth. Mean palm breadth over 8 cm was recorded in top 5 teams and ten national teams in total. There were minimal inter-team differences in the humerus breadth. Mean femur breadth over 11 cm was found in CRO, ESP and POL pivots. On the other hand, mean values of femur breadth lower than 10 cm were found in SWE, FRA and SVK national teams. The lowest average values of circumferential parameters were found in SVK pivots. Besides lowest values of circumferential parameters, SVK pivots demonstrated lowest body height average with high percent of subcutaneous fat and low volume of lean body mass. Contradictory finding is evident in the POL and SVK national teams. As shown in Table 5, SVK pivots were found to have the lowest mean values in 7 parameters out of 11 measured. On the contrary, POL pivots demonstrated highest mean values in 5 out of 11 anthropometric parameters. Tab. 5 Anthropometric profiles: Pivots PVs (n=36) 1. RUS 178.60 182.77 40.17 84.23 16.23 8.03 6.80 10.80 32.00 40.00 28.33 2. DEN 171.75 175.25 39.75 69.00 7.75 8.40 6.40 10.20 30.00 37.50 25.75 4. HUN 171.53 172.43 40.50 78.10 16.23 8.27 6.40 10.63 32.17 41.83 27.00 5. FRA 177.25 183.00 39.63 77.00 13.20 8.08 6.88 9.95 31.00 38.50 27.00 6. SWE 167.60 165.60 40.00 71.40 12.70 7.70 6.50 9.20 32.00 38.50 26.50 7. ROU 174.47 173.77 40.67 77.73 9.97 8.20 6.77 10.13 32.33 40.33 27.67 8. NED 174.00 171.50 37.00 70.00 14.55 7.70 6.75 10.45 30.00 36.75 26.50 9. CRO 183.25 182.65 39.50 77.25 11.95 8.40 6.70 11.20 30.00 39.50 26.75 10. GER 180.25 179.50 38.75 78.65 12.05 8.25 6.65 10.25 32.00 40.50 27.00 11. ESP 176.17 177.33 40.17 78.33 15.93 8.63 6.67 11.10 32.00 38.17 27.67 12. CZE 169.75 164.00 37.75 72.05 11.15 7.70 6.75 10.70 31.00 41.00 27.50 13. POR 172.70 177.50 39.50 77.60 13.60 8.20 6.50 10.85 31.50 40.25 28.25 14. AUT 168.15 167.00 38.00 69.85 12.80 7.50 6.50 10.65 30.50 37.75 26.00 15. POL 180.00 182.75 41.50 87.20 19.05 8.40 7.00 11.10 33.50 40.50 28.00 16. SVK 167.10 166.25 36.50 61.35 17.95 7.65 6.25 9.85 28.00 34.50 24.00 X 174.65 175.69 39.41 76.01 13.58 8.11 6.65 10.48 31.20 39.13 27.00 SD 5.67 7.96 1.62 8.76 4.26 0.45 0.29 0.65 2.03 2.59 1.41 min 163.8 158.0 36.5 53.2 4.5 7.3 6.2 9.0 26.5 33.0 23.0 max 185.0 195.0 42.0 91.1 21.7 8.8 7.3 11.6 34.5 44.0 29.5
Position-related differences in anthropometric profiles The average values (see Table 6) show that the greatest difference in body height was found between GKs and Ws: 9.39 cm. The same finding held true for span, where the difference between GKs and Ws equaled 10.76 cm. It may be concluded that high averages of body height and span are beneficial in terms of save efficiency. The ratio of span to body height was positive in GKs, Bs and PVs, while negative difference between average values of span and body height was found in Ws and CBs. The ratio of span and body height was highest in FRA players in all playing positions. Similarly to body height and span, the lowest mean value of shoulder width was found in Ws. The difference between the minimum average value found in Ws and maximum average value found in PVs equaled 1.75 cm. With regard to percent subcutaneous fat, mean value lower than 10 % was recorded in Ws. Tab. 6 Position-related anthropometric profiles Playing height D-D A-A positions Goalkeepers 176.81 177.71 39.03 72.50 12.24 7.94 6.51 10.29 29.65 37.64 25.73 Wings 167.42 166.95 37.66 61.92 9.62 7.69 6.22 9.76 28.66 36.19 25.35 Center backs 172.40 172.21 38.67 66.45 10.76 7.89 6.38 9.74 29.84 36.66 26.28 Backs 176.56 177.37 39.23 71.19 11.29 7.97 6.49 10.09 30.27 37.62 26.45 Pivots 174.65 175.69 39.41 76.01 13.58 8.11 6.65 10.48 31.20 39.13 27.00 Besides mean body height and span, the lowest mean values except femur breadth were found in all remaining anthropometric parameters. The lowest mean value of femur breadth was recorded in CBs. The greatest difference in circumferential parameters was found in calf circumference: 2.94 cm. In transversal parameters, the biggest difference was found in femur breadth: 0.74 cm. Overall, PVs were found to demonstrate the highest mean values in span, body mass, percent subcutaneous fat, transversal and circumferential measures. Conclusions The purpose of the cross-sectional study was to determine inter-team and inter-position differences. In goalkeepers, there is no strong relation between final placement and examined anthropometric profiles. The lowest mean values were predominantly found in teams that finished in 7 th to 16 th place. Heterogeneous character of collected data was evident in POR goalkeepers. In wings, there was high degree of heterogeneity in terms of the final placement and anthropometric profiles. Ten out of 11 lowest mean values were observed in the teams that finished in 10 th to 16 th place. The lowest values of anthropometric parameters were recorded especially in GER and AUT wing players. In center backs, similarly to wings, we found no evident relation between anthropometric parameters and final placing in the championship. ESP center backs demonstrated both the lowest mean values in body height, span and shoulder width and the highest values in femur breadth and biceps circumference. In backs, we recorded no lowest values together with 6 highest means in the teams that finished in the 1 st to 7 th place. The highest number of the lowest mean values was observed in POR backs. In pivots, the data showed contradictory relation between final placing and anthropometric profiles. The pivots on the POL national team that finished 15 th were found to have the
highest values in 5 anthropometric parameters. On the contrary, the pivots on SVK national team were observed to have the lowest values in 7 anthropometric parameters. With respect to position-specific differences in anthropometric profiles, the biggest differences in parameters of longitudinal dimension were found between goalkeepers and wings. The differences in 8 anthropometric parameters were recorded between pivots and wings. References Chytráčková, J. 1999. Kinantropometrie. In Antropomotorika 1998. Banská Bystrica: FHV KTVŠ UMB, SVSTVŠ, 1999. ISBN 80-968103-1-6, pp. 40-43. Grasgruber, P., Cacek, J. 2008. Sportovní geny. Brno: Computer Press, 2008. 480 p. ISBN 978-80-251-1873-3. Nabieh, A., Mohamed, I. 2010. Anthropometric measurements as a significant for choosing juniors in Both Volleyball and Handball Sports (Factorial analysis study). In World J Sport Sci. ISSN 2078-4724, 2010, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 277-289. Pařízková, J. 1962. Rozvoj aktivní hmoty a tuku u dětí a mládeže. Praha: Státní zdravotnické nakladatelství, 1962. 134 p. Táborský, F. 2007. Tělesná výška a vrcholoví hráči házené. In Sborník referátů z mezinárodní konference. České Budějovice: Jihočeská univerzita, 2007. ISBN 978-80-7040-998-5, pp. 113-118. Urban, F. 2010. Somatotypes of Handball Players. Diploma thesis. Prešov: FŠ PU, 2010. 87p. Urban, F., Kandráč, R., Táborský, F. 2011. Position-Related Changes in Anthropometric Profiles of Top Male Handball Players: 1980 and 2010. In EHF Scientific Conference: Science and Expertise in Handball (Scientific and practical approaches). Vienna: EHF, 2011. ISBN 978-3-9503311-0-3, pp. 212-217.