Pediatric Exercise Science, 2010, 22, 114-134
© 2010 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Physical Characteristics and Physiological
Attributes of Adolescent Volleyball
Players—A Review
Ronnie Lidor and Gal Ziv
Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences
The purpose of this article was to review a series of studies (n = 31) on physical
characteristics, physiological attributes, and volleyball skills of female and male
adolescent volleyball players. Among the main findings were (a) that male national
players were taller and heavier than state and novice players, while female national
players showed lower body fat values compared with state and novice players,
and (b) vertical jump values were higher in starters versus nonstarters. Among the
methodological concerns based on the reviewed studies were the lack of information on maturational age and lack of longitudinal studies. It was recommended
that a careful selection of physiological tests should be made when assessing the
abilities of adolescent volleyball players.
Training programs for adolescent volleyball players can benefit from the use
of theoretical and practical knowledge from various related domains, among them
exercise physiology, kinesiology, measurement and evaluation in sport, motor
development, and sports medicine. Relevant information on issues related to the
training process, such as physical characteristics of the female and the male adolescent players, physiological attributes, and volleyball skills, can be effectively
applied in volleyball programs, particularly strength and conditioning programs
specifically developed for adolescent players.
The sport sciences team that works with adolescent volleyball players throughout the training program, typically composed of volleyball coaches, strength and
conditioning coaches, athletic trainers, and sport physicians, should obtain relevant
information on the physical and physiological aspects of adolescent volleyball
players to (a) use it when planning not only the entire training program but also
the practice sessions undertaken in each phase of the training program—preparation, competition, and transition (3), and (b) assess the contribution of the training
program to the development of the players.
The current article had three purposes: (a) to review a series of studies on
physical characteristics, physiological attributes, and volleyball skills of female
and male volleyball adolescent players; (b) to outline a number of methodological
Lidor and Ziv are with the Zinman College of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Wingate Institute,
Netanya 42902, Israel.
114
Attributes of Adolescent Volleyball Players 115
concerns associated with the reviewed studies; and (c) to provide several practical
recommendations for volleyball coaches and strength and conditioning coaches
who work with both competitive and recreational adolescent volleyball players.
The reviewed articles were selected from an extensive search of the literature
in the English language, including major computerized-databases (PubMed and
SPORT Discus) and library holdings of sport sciences journals. In addition, a
manual search was performed on East European journals published in English
(e.g., Kinesiology and Biology in Sport). Search terms included, among others,
volleyball, volleyball players, adolescent volleyball players, volleyball tests, and
volleyball physiology. The articles included in this review were those reporting on
volleyball players of amateur through elite status. We defined the term adolescence
as the period of development between the ages 8–19 years in girls and 10–22 years
in boys (19). We chose an age criterion of under 19 years, after which virtually all
girls and most boys can be considered adults. Articles that pooled data for both
female and male players were excluded. Thirty-one articles conforming to our
criteria were included in this review.
Physical Characteristics
A summary of the physical characteristics of the female and male adolescent
players across the reviewed studies is presented in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. In
most studies percent body fat was estimated from skinfold measurements which
have a standard error of the estimate (SEE) of 3.4–3.9% fat (44), depending on
the number of skinfold sites and the formulas used. Comparisons should be made,
therefore, with caution.
Female Players
The description and the understanding of physical characteristics are of importance, since variations in physiological [e.g., vertical jump (VJ), speed] and skill
(e.g., spike, feint) performances can be explained to some extent by the anthropometric data (29). Height, body mass, and percent fat values ranged from 141
± 6.6 cm in 10 year-old players (18), 31.26 ± 4.56 kg in 8–9 year-old players
(25), and 17.2 ± 3.8% in 16 year-old players (39) to 182.19 ± 5.88 cm in 14–17
year-old players (31), 68.4 ± 1.3 kg in 16 year-old players (6), and 25% in 13–14
year-old players (25), respectively. For comparison, the average height and body
mass for 16-year old American females are 161.9 cm and 63.0 kg, respectively
(11). One specific example suggested that Czech players aged 8–14 were taller
and slimmer than the Czech standards from 1981 (25). Similarly, Malina (18)
reported that players aged 9–13 had a similar body mass but were taller than
average American girls.
Three studies (9,21,36) showed increased height and body mass as age
increased while one showed no significant differences (39). In the latter study, the
lack of differences may have been due to the small differences in age (from 14 to
16 years).
In one study (36), significant correlations among 14 anthropometric measurements as well as players’ proficiency in several aspects of the game, such as attacking, blocking, and serving, were reported. For example, the tallest and heaviest
116
Members of 13 volleyball
teams in Croatia
Ages = 12–13 (n = 32), 14–15
(n = 147), 16–17 (n = 50),
18–19 (n = 17)
Female players aged 12–17
years (13.8 ±1.3; n = 16)
Grgantov et
al. 2006 (9)
Leone et al.
2002 (14)
Gabbett and
Georgieff
2007 (6)
Players from Taiwan’s junior
national team and a highschool (n = 39)
Junior volleyball players (n
= 96); scholarship holders
within the Queensland Academy of Sport Talent Search
volleyball program (age =
15.6 ±.1 years)
Chang et al.
2008 (4)
Population
Ranked adolescent volleyball
players (n = 23; ages = 14–17
years)
Beals 2002
(2)
Study
Mass (kg)
62.7 ± 5.8
National level:
68.4 ± 1.3
State level:
67.2 ± 1.3
Novice:
66.8 ± 1.2
Ages 12–13:
55.92 ± 8.62
Ages 14–15:
59.51 ± 7.28
Ages 16–17:
63.98±.46
Ages 18–19:
66.84 ± 7.37
57.7 ± 8.3
National level:
179.2 ± 1.0
State level:
179.5±.6
Novice:
177.0±.6
Ages 12–13:
169.33 ± 6.09
Ages 14–15:
170.86 ± 6.45
Ages 16–17:
174.36 ± 6.57
Ages 18–19:
175.99 ± 7.37
163 ± 5
65.2 ± 8.7
168 ± 6.0
171.9 ± 8.0
Height (cm)
Sum of 5 skinfolds reported
63.1 ± 15.5
18.3 ± 2.5
4-site skinfold;
Equations of Jackson and Pollock
18.13 ± 2.62
Bioelectrical impedance
analysis
Sum of 7 skinfolds reported
National level:
69.7 ± 1.1 mm
State level:
85.1 ± 2.4 mm
Novice:
114.0 ± 3.1
N/A
%BF
Table 1 A Summary of the Physical Characteristics of Female Players (Means ± SD)
N/A
N/A
N/A
51.3*
(continued)
FFM (kg)
53.3*
117
175.2 ± 6.3
Players aged 17.2 ± 1.3 years
(n = 28)
Noutsos
et al. 2008
(23)
Melrose
et al. 2007
(21)
Players from local high
school volleyball team (n =
19); Two training groups:
Control group (n = 10; age =
15 ± 1 years)
Aquatic training group (n = 9;
age = 4±1 years)
Members of competitive
Ages 12–14:
volleyball club (n = 29). Ages 167 ± 9.0
= 12–17 years (14.31 ± 1.37) Ages 15–17:
170 ± 7.0
Height (cm)
Age 10 (n = 16)
141.1 ± 6.6
Age 11 (n = 19)
147.3 ± 6.6
Age 12.0 (n = 18)
154.1 ± 6.7
Age 13.1 (n = 11)
160.3 ± 5.8
Control group:
167 ± 9
Aquatic training
group:
164 ± 8
Martel et al.
2005 (20)
Study
Population
Malina 1994 Female players aged 9–13
(18)
years (n = 19)
Table 1 (continued)
64.7 ± 6.5
Ages 12–14:
56.08 ± 8.47
Ages 15–17:
62.80 ± 6.61
Mass (kg)
Age 10 (n = 16)
31.3 ± 3.5
Age 11 (n = 19)
35.9 ± 3.6
Age 12 (n = 18)
41.7 ± 4.7
Age 13.1 (n = 11)
48.6 ± 5.1
Control group:
64 ± 13
Aquatic training
group:
57 ± 8
N/A
Ages 12–14:
43.9 ± 4.41
Ages 15–17:
49.39 ± 3.68
N/A
Ages 12–14:
21.64 ± 4.26
Ages 15–17:
20.97 ± 5.46
3-site skinfold measurements;
Siri formula
?18%*
5-site skinfold measurements
(continued)
55.3 ± 4.6
N/A
FFM (kg)
N/A
%BF
118
170.0 ± 9.0
Age 13 (n = 10)
163.19 ± 7.23
Age 14 (n = 14)
164.08 ± 4.41
Age 15 (n = 12)
168.43 ± 5.30
Age 16 (n = 10)
169.60 ± 5.50
Elite players (n = 21); Age=
16.3±.8 years
13–16 year-old players playing at the under 16 championship (n = 46);
Tanner stages III-IV
Rousanoglou et al.
2008 (26)
Stamm et al.
2002 (29)
Height (cm)
Age 8–9 (n = 16)
141.14 ± 5.20
Age 9–10 (n = 45)
144.67 ± 5.29
Age 10–11 (n = 58)
151.05 ± 5.90
Age 11–12 (n = 42)
158.94 ± 6.34
Age 12–13 (n = 29)
163.74 ± 6.06
Age 13–14 (n = 48)
169.37 ± 4.26
Population
Czech players aged 8–14 (n
= 238)
Each age group with players
from the 1st day of attained
age to the last day before
entering the next age group
Study
Prokopec
et al. 2003
(25)
Table 1 (continued)
Only individual skinfold measurements were reported
Age 13 (n = 10)
54.48 ± 13.34
Age 14 (n = 14)
52.55 ± 6.65
Age 15 (n = 12)
58.26 ± 4.20
Age 16 (n = 10)
60.46 ± 9.47
61.5 ± 7.1
%BF
Age 8–9 (n = 16)
21%
Age 9–10 (n = 45)
22%
Age 10–11 (n = 58)
23%
Age 11–12 (n = 42)
23%
Age 12–13 (n = 29)
24%
Age 13–14 (n = 48)
25%
4-site skinfold measurements
N/A
Mass (kg)
Age 8–9 (n = 16)
31.26 ± 4.56
Age 9–10 (n = 45)
33.71 ± 4.29
Age 10–11 (n = 58)
37.50 ± 4.96
Age 11–12 (n = 42)
43.15 ± 5.70
Age 12–13 (n = 29)
47.56 ± 6.33
Age 13–14 (n = 48)
54.21 ± 4.15
N/A
N/A
(continued)
FFM (kg)
Age 8–9 (n = 16)
24.7*
Age 9–10 (n = 45)
26.3*
Age 10–11 (n = 58)
28.9*
Age 11–12 (n = 42)
33.2*
Age 12–13 (n = 29)
36.1*
Age 13–14 (n = 48)
40.7*
119
Stamm et al. Players from eight most suc2004 (30)
cessful volleyball teams of
Class C who participated in
Estonian championships (n =
77; Ages = 13–15 years)
Stamm et al. Players from 12 teams (ages
2005 (31)
= 14–17 years) who participated at Girl’s Youth European Volleyball Championship (n = 144)
ThissenHigh school volleyball playMiller et al. ers (n = 50)
(39)
Freshman team (n = 12);
Age= 14.12±.61 years
Junior varsity (n = 14; Age=
15.65±.63 years
Varsity team (n = 24; Age=
16.04±.64 years
Study
Population
Stamm et al. 13–16 year-old players par2003 (36)
ticipating in young female
volleyballers’ championships
(n = 32)
Tanner stages III-IV
Table 1 (continued)
Freshman:
48.2*
Junior
40.8*
Varsity:
48.5*
Freshman:
18.1 ± 2.6
Junior varsity:
19.6 ± 3.4
Varsity:
17.2 ± 3.8
5-site skinfold measurements;
Equations for children and
young women
Freshman:
58.8 ± 6.4
Junior varsity:
50.7 ± 8.0
Varsity:
58.6 ± 10.5
Freshman:
167.1 ± 6.7
Junior varsity:
167.0 ± 7.4
Varsity:
168.7 ± 7.8
(continued)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
65.94 ± 7.69
N/A
FFM (kg)
182.19 ± 5.88
N/A
%BF
Mass (kg)
Age 13 (n = 5)
56.93 ± 17.13
Age 14 (n = 9)
51.76 ± 6.69
Age 15 (n = 10)
58.28 ± 4.57
Age 16 (n = 8)
60.45±.16
58.05 ± 7.4
Range:
39.9–76.0
Height (cm)
Age 13 (n = 5)
165.46± 8.57
Age 14 (n = 9)
164.20 ± 4.89
Age 15 (n = 10)
168.03 ± 5.55
Age 16 (n = 8)
170.74 ± 1.15
168.47 ± 6.2
Range:
150.7–193.4
120
Population
Height (cm)
Players from a team that won 168.7 ± 5.89
interhigh school meetings in
Japan. (n = 12); Age = 17.4 ±
.73 years
Junior players (n = 25); Age = 163.3 ± 5.7
13–18 years (14.4 ± 1.2)
56.4 ± 8.8
Mass (kg)
59.7 ± 5.73
Note. %BF = percent body fat; FFM = fat-free mass; * Data not provided in text, calculated by authors.
Viviani and
Baldin 1993
(43)
Study
Tsunawake
et al. 2003
(41)
Table 1 (continued)
%BF
18.4 ± 3.29
Eight-site skinfold measurements and underwater weighing
21.3 ± 4.6
Skinfold measurements; Siri
equations
44.4*
FFM (kg)
48.6 ± 4.53
121
Population
Junior players (n = 25); Age= 16–19
years (17.5±.5)
Junior players (n = 26) Scholarship holders within the Queensland
Academy of Sport Talent Search
volleyball program. Age= 15.5±.2
years
Gabbett et al.
Junior players from Brisbane metro2007 (8)
politan area (n = 28);
Age = 15.5 ± 1.0 years
Tested for being accepted to the
Queensland Academy of Sport
Talent Search volleyball program
Gabbett and
Junior volleyball players (n = 57)
Georgieff 2007 Scholarship holders within the
(6)
Queensland Academy of Sport
Talent Search volleyball program
(age= 15.6±.1 years)
Gabbett et al.
2006 (7)
Study
Duncan et al.
2006 (5)
72.3 ± 2.5
Selected for program:
71.1±.6
Not selected:
77.3 ± 13.6
National level:
80.2 ± 1.9
State level:
81.8 ± 1.7
Novice:
80.9 ± 2.5
Selected for program:
184.0 ± 8.0
Not selected:
184.0 ± 7.0
National level:
195.2 ± 2.4
State level:
190.0 ± 1.2
Novice:
187.3±.5
Mass (kg)
Setters:
71.2 ± 9.3
Hitters:
77.9 ± 8.4
Centers:
77.6 ± 5.9
Opposites:
71.3 ± 9.2
182.2 ± 1.5
Height (cm)
Setters:
191 ± 5.0
Hitters:
193 ± 4.5
Centers:
187 ± 3.6
Opposites:
190 ± 5.9
Sum of 7 skinfolds reported.
National:
57.8 ± 3.0 mm
State:
50.5 ± 1.0 mm
Novice:
88.4 ± 6.2
Sum of 7 skinfolds reported.
Selected for program:
83.1 ± 23.9 mm
Not selected:
98.7 ± 34.7 mm
%BF
Setters:
12.9 ± 3.4
Hitters:
12.5 ± 2.4
Centers:
11.5 ± 2.2
Opposites:
11.8 ± 3.5
4-site skinfold measurements
Sum of 7 skinfolds reported.
Pretraining: 88.7 ± 5.7 mm
Post training: 86.8 ± 5.7 mm
Table 2 A Summary of the Physical Characteristics of Male Players (Means ± SD)
(continued)
N/A
N/A
N/A
FFM (kg)
Setters:
43.4 ± 5.2
Hitters:
50.9 ± 7.1
Centers:
49.6 ± 4.4
Opposites:
44.5 ± 5.2
122
First week:
85.8 ± 6.0
Ninth week:
88.4 ± 6.4
18th week:
87.6 ± 5.6
198.7 ± 5.5
(no differences
between testing
times)
Players (n = 25) aged 13–18 (15.5 ±
1.2) years
Note. %BF = percent body fat; FFM = fat-free mass; * Data not provided in text, calculated by authors.
Viviani 2004
(42)
66.6 ± 8.5
70.5 ± 9.7
183.5 ± 6.5
Malatesta et al. Players of regional level Italian
2003 (17)
Volleyball Federation League (n =
12; age = 17.2±.3
Naczk et al.
Players aged 15 years (n = 15)
2006 (22)
Staganelli et
Under-19 male Brazilian players (n
al. (37)
= 11; age = 18.0±.5 years)
Testing on first week of training,
ninth week of training, 18th week of
training
178.0 ± 7.4
Starters:
75.6 ± 5.9
Nonstarters:
71.5 ± 8
73.0 ± 4.2
Starters:
188 ± 2.9
Nonstarters:
186.7 ± 4.6
181.8±.3
Members of a coherent team that
competed in the 2nd Israeli national
league (n = 15). Age= 16.4±.82
years
Lidor et al.
2007 (16)
Mass (kg)
Ages 10–11:
42.0 ± 6.0
Ages 15–16:
77.0 ± 6.6
Height (cm)
Ages 10–11:
150.5 ± 5.9
Ages 15–16:
189.6 ± 5.6
Study
Population
Kasabalis et al. Players aged 10–11 (n = 21) and
2005 (12)
15–16 (n = 18)
Table 2 (continued)
First week:
8.3±.9
Ninth week:
8.7 ± 1.0
18th week:
8.9 ± 0.9
3-site skinfold measurements
11.8 ± 6.0
Skinfold measurements; Siri
equations
N/A
N/A
%BF
Ages 10–11:
17.3 ± 2.4
Ages 15–16:
15.1 ± 2.2
No data on %BF measurement
N/A
58.75
First week:
78.6 ± 5.1
Ninth week:
80.6 ± 5.5
18th week:
79.7 ± 4.9
N/A
N/A
N/A
FFM (kg)
Ages 10–11:
34.7 *
Ages 15–16:
65.4 *
Attributes of Adolescent Volleyball Players 123
girls were the most proficient at blocking. Another study (30) found similar results:
the most successful players at attack, block, and reception were taller, heavier, and
had larger circumference dimensions than the less successful players. In addition,
taller and heavier girls comprised 25% of the players in teams ranked 1–6 in the
Youth European Championship compared with only 12.5% in teams ranked 7–12
in the Championship (31).
One study (6) suggested that national and state-level players in Australia had
lower skinfolds measurements than novice players. In contrast, no differences in
height, body mass, or percent body fat were found between starters and nonstarters
of a high school team (39).
Conflicting results were observed when volleyball players were compared with
athletes of other sports. While no anthropometric differences were found between
basketball and volleyball players in one study (41), another study (14) reported that
volleyball players tended to be the tallest and heaviest of skaters, swimmers, and
tennis players (aged approximately 14 years). Similarly, volleyball players were
taller than handball players (age = 17.8 ± 1.2), while no differences were seen in
body mass and body fat (23).
Male Players
Height, body mass, and percent fat values ranged from 150.5 ± 5.9 cm, 42.0 ± 6.0
kg, and 17.3±.4%, respectively, in a group of 10–11 year-old players (12) to 198.7
± 5.5 cm, 88.4 ± 6.4 kg, and 8.3±.9%, respectively, in a group of under-19 Brazilian
elite players (37). In comparison, the average height and body mass for 16 year-old
American males are 175.3 cm and 69.0 kg, respectively (11).
In one study (12), while no differences in height and body mass were found
between volleyball players and nonathletes in the 10–11 age-group, 15–16 yearold players were reported to be taller and heavier than nonathletes. These results
are in line with findings from another study (42) reporting that 14–15 year-old
Italian amateur volleyball players were taller and heavier than sedentary Italians
of a similar age.
Three studies examined the relationship between the proficiency of players
and anthropometric measurements (6,8,16). While two studies failed to find differences in anthropometric measurements based on proficiency level (8,16), one
study (6) indicated that national players were taller than state and novice players.
Another study (5) found no differences in anthropometric measurements between
centers, hitters, opposites, and setters in players aged 16–19 years. Nevertheless,
anthropometric data cannot be completely disregarded, since successful players
require a combination of well-developed motor, physiological, and anthropometric
characteristics to achieve a high level of proficiency (8).
Different types of physical training did not seem to affect body mass and percent fat in adolescent volleyball players. In one observational study that followed
under-19 elite Brazilian players through 18 weeks of training (37), and in another
experimental study assessing an eight-week conditioning program (7), training did
not influence body mass or percent fat. In the latter study (7) the main objective of
the training program was to improve a number of volleyball skills rather than to
enhance the physiological performance. In the former study (37), it was suggested
that the elite players began the training in such a physical condition (8–9% body
124 Lidor and Ziv
fat) that the applied loads could not have induced significant adaptations over an
18-week period.
Physiological Attributes
Comparisons of physiological measurements between studies should be made with
caution, as different testing protocols can lead to different results. For example,
VO2max values differ when they are measured on a cycle ergometer or treadmill
than when estimated from a field test.
Aerobic Capacity
Female Players. Only five studies examining VO2max were found. One
study (20) reported estimated VO2max values of 42 mlO2·kg¯1·min¯1, based on a
submaximal cycle ergometry test in nineteen 14–15 year-old girls from a local
high-school volleyball team. Another study (6) estimated VO2max values of
37.0±.8, 39.3±.7, and 41.2±.9 mlO2·kg¯1·min¯1 in novice, state-, and national-level
players, respectively (approximate age = 15 years old). Estimation was based
on a multistage field fitness test. VO2max values, as measured on a maximal
treadmill test, were 46.6 ± 2.9 and 56.7 ± 4.17 mlO2·kg¯1·min¯1 in high-school
volleyball and basketball players in Japan (age = 17.5 years), respectively (41).
A study that compared tennis players, skaters, swimmers, and volleyball players (ages = 12–17) found similar VO2max values in all groups (14). VO2max of
the volleyball players was 48.9 ± 3.6 mlO2·kg¯1·min¯1. Lastly, V02max values of
46.3–49.2 mlO2·kg¯1·min¯1 were estimated from a 1000-m run over a training
period of eight months in 14–15 year-old players who were between the 4th and
5th Tanner stages (1).
Rowland (27) reported that VO2max relative to body weight does not increase
and actually decreases as girls mature. Hence, differences in VO2max are probably
due to factors such as genetics, selection, and training rather than the effects of
maturation.
Male Players. Four studies estimated VO2max values using a multistage fitness
test in which players ran back and forth along a 20-m track, keeping in time by a
series of signals. In one study (6), VO2max values were 41.2 ± 1.2, 49.8±.1, and
50.6 ± 1.4 mlO2·kg¯1·min¯1 for novice, state, and national players, respectively
(approximate age = 15 years old). In another study (8), VO2max values of 43.0 ±
6.1 and 41.4 ± 3.5 mlO2·kg¯1·min¯1 were found in junior players (age = 15.5 ± 1.0
years) who were selected and nonselected, respectively, to a volleyball talent search
program. A third study estimated VO2max values of more mature setters, hitters,
centers, and opposites (age = 17.5±.5 years) and found values of 46.9 ± 4.9, 51.1
± 3.7, 50.4 ± 3.7, and 48.3 ± 6.7 mlO2·kg¯1·min¯1, respectively (5).
Lastly, Gabbett et al. (7), found no significant differences in estimated VO2max
values of talent-identified junior players (age = 15.5±.2 years) before (40.8 ± 1.1
mlO2·kg¯1·min¯1) and after (43.2 ± 1.1 mlO2·kg¯1·min¯1) an 8-week skill-based training program. Since VO2max relative to body weight remains stable throughout the
growing years in boys (27), the described differences in VO2max are probably due
to genetics, selection, and training rather than the effects of maturation.
Attributes of Adolescent Volleyball Players 125
Strength and Power
Female Players. In one study (21), VJ (with arm swing allowed) values of 12–14
year-old players were 33.22 ± 6.07 cm and those of 15–17 year-old players were
37.42 ± 5.74 cm. In another study (13), players were ranked according to their
playing efficiency. The highest-ranked players aged 14–15 years demonstrated
higher values for standing VJ (46.09 cm) and VJ with approach (50.09) than the
lowest ranked players (32.66 and 35.12, respectively). Both jumping tests were
conducted with arm swing allowed. Similar results were indicated in players aged
16–17 years. For comparison, the 90th percentile rank for 15–16 year-old females
is 47.0 cm (11), suggesting that the highest-ranked players have excellent leaping abilities. The importance of jumping ability was revealed in one study (31)
reporting that players from teams that were ranked 1–6 had better jumping abilities
than players in teams ranked 7–12 in a European Youth Volleyball Championship.
In a study of 50 high-school players (39) in which the VJ protocol allowed arm
swing, varsity players had significantly higher VJ values (43.6 ± 5.6 cm) compared
with junior varsity (35.6 ± 5.9 cm) and freshman (37.8 ± 7.1 cm) players. However,
when VJ values were converted to power, the differences between the varsity players
and the freshman players were not significant (836.9 ± 79.9 and 782.2 ± 52.7 W,
respectively). Similar values were reported for national (45.7± .6 cm), state (41.5
± .9 cm), and novice (35.9 ± 1.4 cm; 6).
The effect of aquatic plyometric training (APT) on VJ was examined in 19
players (age = 15 ± 1 years; 20). The APT exercises included power skips, spike
approaches, bounding, continuous jumping, squat jumps, and depth jumps. VJ protocol included a jump with arm swing allowed. VJ values improved by 11% in the
APT group compared with 4% in a control group participating in regular training.
This study suggested that APT could provide comparable benefits to land-based
plyometric training, with a lower risk of muscle soreness and/or overtraining (20).
With the exception of the VJ values reported by Katic et al. (13), and those
found in Gabbett and Georgieff’s (6) study, the VJ values of adolescent volleyball
players were reported to be similar to those of the population at large: the 50th
percentile rank for VJ is 36.8 cm in 13–14 year-old females, and 39.4 cm in 15–16
year-old females (13). These observations can be explained by the fact that most
studies examined amateur players rather than highly-talented players.
Male Players. One study (8) found higher values for VJ and spike jump (arm
swing allowed in both jumps) in players aged 15.5 ± 1.0 years who were selected
to a volleyball talent search program (46.0 ± 11.2 and 50.7 ± 13.6 cm, respectively)
compared with those not selected (41.9 ± 10.9 and 47.5 ± 12.8 cm, respectively).
Another study (6) found higher VJ and spike jump values (arm swing allowed) in
novice (48.5 ± 1.0, 53.6 ± 1.1 cm), state (63.3 ± 3.2, 71.9 ± 2.9 cm), and national
(54.6 ± 2.2, 65.8 ± 3.7 cm) players (approximate age = 15 years). In older adolescents (age = 16–19 years) VJ values were: setters (42.8 ± 8.1 cm), hitters (49.0 ±
5.7 cm), centers (47.2 ± 5.1 cm), and opposites (42.0 ± 5.1 cm; 5).
Standing VJ and VJ with approach were measured six times over a 15-month
period in 15 players (age = 16.4 ±.82 years; 16). Values of both jumps improved
over time. Starters had higher values of VJ with approach than those of nonstarters in the last testing session of the 15-month period (71 ± 5.3 vs. 66.1 ± 8.3 cm,
respectively).
126 Lidor and Ziv
The relationship between values of VJ and power measured by the Wingate
Anaerobic Test (WanT) were examined in 10–11 and 15–16 year-old players (12).
Significant relationships were found between VJ and peak power (r = .86, p <
.001), VJ and average power (r = .86, p < .001), and VJ and the lowest power (r
= .56, p < .01). These relationships indicate that a VJ jump test can provide valid
information on players’ anaerobic power (12). Muscle power is of importance to
volleyball players; young players (age = 15) appear to have higher power values
than nonathletes (22).
Since VJ is of importance to volleyball players, improving this skill can enhance
game performance. Two studies examined the effects of training on VJ performances
(17,37). In one study (37), the jumping performance of 11 players of the Brazilian
under-19 team (age = 18.0 ± .5 years) improved over an 18-week training period
composed of weight training, endurance training, jumping training, anaerobic capacity training, and stretching training. Five types of VJ tests were performed: squat
jump (SJ), counter movement jump (CMJ), jump anaerobic resistance test (JAR;
15 s of continuous jumping), attack jump (ATJ), and block jump (BLJ). In the SJ,
CMJ, and JAR, hands were kept on the waist throughout the tests. The values of
ATJ and BLJ increased the most (by approximately 10 cm from baseline to Week
9). It was suggested that ATJ and BLJ may be better suited than SJ and CMJ for
testing training effects on jumping performance in volleyball.
In the second study (17), an electromyostimulation (EMS) training consisting of three weekly sessions over the first 30 days of a 40-day training program
improved SJ, CMJ, and 15-s consecutive CMJ by 5–6% by day 40 in 12 regionallevel players in the Italian Volleyball Federation League. Hands were kept on the
waist throughout the tests. It was suggested that EMS training can be useful in
increasing VJ in volleyball players.
Agility and Speed
Female Players. In one study (21), no significant differences in agility and speed
were found between players of two age groups (12–14 and 15–17 years). In another
study, high-school varsity team players (age = 16.04 ± .64 years) showed significantly greater agility than junior varsity (age = 15.65 ± .63 years) and freshman
(age = 14.12 ± .61 years) team players (39). The agility test required the players
to rapidly change directions through a symmetrical maze of cones. Agility and
speed performances were also better in national-level players compared with
state-level and novice players in Australia (age = 15.6 ± .1 years) (6).
In another study (36), agility and speed as measured by a shuttle zig-zag
run were found to be related to the efficiency of ball reception (partial correlation coefficient = -.58). Ball reception efficiency was assessed on the basis of
at least four games, by recording a grade from 1 (excellent) to 5 (failed) during
each game.
Lastly, 197 players (age = 14–17 years) were ranked based on their individual
quality within the team as well as based on the quality of the team as a whole
(13). A series of agility and speed tests were performed by the players. Data were
presented separately for the 14–15 group and the 16–17 group. In both groups,
performance in the tests improved from the lowest-ranking to the highest-ranking
players.
Attributes of Adolescent Volleyball Players 127
Male Players. In one study (8), no significant differences in a 5-m sprint test,
a 10-m sprint test, and an agility test were indicated in 28 players (age = 15.5 ±
1.0 years) who were trying out for a volleyball academy. Similarly, in a 15-month
follow-up of 15 players (age = 16.4 ± .82 years; 16), no differences were observed
between starters and nonstarters. However, improvements were found in a 10-m
sprint test, a 20-m sprint test, and an agility test over time.
While no differences in sprint times were found between national, state, and
novice players in Australia (age = 15.6±.1; 6), national-level players (9.9 ± .17 s)
and state-level players (9.76 ± .15) performed better on an agility test compared
with novice players (10.47 ± .18). Improved performance of national-level players
may reflect the higher training and competition intensity at that level (6).
Only one study that examined agility and speed before and after a training
program was found (7). Twenty-six junior players (age = 15.5 ± .2 years) underwent
agility and speed tests before and after an 8-week skill-based training program
designed to develop volleyball fundamentals such as blocking, game tactics, passing,
positioning, setting, serving, and spiking. Speed and agility improved significantly
from the pre- to posttraining phases. These improvements are noteworthy since the
training program was not designed to improve physiological performance per se.
It was proposed that the improved agility may have been due to increased running
speed as well as improved perception and decision-making skills.
Volleyball Skills
Female Players. In one study, serving and spiking velocity were tested in two
groups of players (ages = 12–14 and 15–17 years) of a volleyball club (21). While
no significant differences in spiking velocity were found between groups, serving
velocity was higher in the 15–17 group (17.3 ± 1.61 m·s¯1) than in the 12–14 group
(14.8 ± 2.63 m·s¯1). Serving velocity had a moderate correlation with age (r = .71)
while spiking velocity correlated weakly with age (r = .32). In another study of
77 players (age = 13–15 years; 30), performances of various basic fundamentals
of the game (e.g., attacking and blocking) were recorded during actual volleyball
games. Recording of game performance was performed using a specialized computer program (33), used also in other studies (e.g., 28,32,35). It was found that
the players performing best in attack, block, and reception were also the taller and
heavier among the players who took part in the study.
In a study of 50 high-school players (39), the varsity team players (age = 16.04
± .64 years) outperformed the junior varsity (age = 15.65 ± .63) and the freshman
team players (age = 14.12 ± .61) in four volleyball skills—bump-set, forearm
pass, overhead volley, and wall spike. In addition, starters (age = 15.3 ± 1.0 years)
outperformed the nonstarters (age = 14.8 ± 1.1) in all four skills.
In another study (9), six volleyball skills (blocking, field defense, serving
reception, serving, setting, and spiking) were assessed in 246 players who were
divided into four age groups: 12–13, 14–15, 16–17, and 18–19 years. A significant
improvement in serving, setting, and spiking was indicated in the 14–15 and the
16–17 groups. Significant improvement in blocking and serving reception was
observed in the 16–17 and the 18–19 groups. The best predictor of playing quality
was serving in the 12–13 group, blocking and spiking in the 14–15 group, spiking
and blocking in the 16–17 group, and field defense in the 18–19 group. It appears
128 Lidor and Ziv
that the easier techniques to master are learned first, while the more complex techniques take longer to master (9).
In a similar study that assessed the same skills (13), 14–15 and 16–17 year-old
players were ranked based on their quality within the team as well as on the quality
of the team as a whole. The highest ranked players in both age groups demonstrated
better performance in all six skills assessed in the study compared with the lowest
ranked players. In addition, the players aged 16–17 years achieved better results
than the players aged 14–15 years in a series of motor tests (e.g., double-hand tapping, foot tapping, foot tapping against the wall, and hand tapping). The differences
in volleyball performance in this study were thought to be due to the process of
selection rather than the training process per se (13). In fact, another study using
a factor analysis (10) suggested that performance was predominantly determined
by longitudinal skeleton dimensions (mostly height) and muscle tissue.
Another study (34) examined the relationships among 21 computerized tests
of psycho-physiological properties (e.g., auditory and visual reaction time and
perception of speed of a moving object) and players’ efficiency in basic fundamentals of the game in 32 high-level players (age = 13–16 years). The best predicted
fundamentals were blocking (98%), attacking (80%), and feinting (60%). It was
suggested that psycho-physiological tests have good prospects in the understanding of volleyball, and these tests should be used in assessing individual player’s
characteristics.
Male Players. One study (8) examined the accuracy and technique of four
volleyball skills (passing, serving, setting, and spiking) in junior players (age
= 15.5 ± 1.0 years) who were trying out for a volleyball academy. Players who
were ultimately selected for the program were better at passing accuracy, as well
as at spiking, serving, and passing technique. However, passing technique and
serving technique were not found to be good predictors for talent identification in
volleyball. It was indicated in this study that selected skill tests can discriminate
between junior players selected to a talent-identified program and those who were
not selected (8).
In another study (15), serving accuracy in rested conditions and after physical
exertion conditions were similar in elite and near-elite adolescent players. Elite
players were members of an adult Division 2 team in Israel (age = 16.4 ± .82 years)
and near-elite players were members of a high-school team competing in the Division 1 high-school league (age = 16.3 ± .53 years).
Finally, in another study (7), four volleyball skills—passing, serving, setting,
and spiking—were tested after an 8-week skill-based training program designed to
develop technique and accuracy as well as game tactics and positional skills in 26
talent-identified junior players (age = 15.5 ± .2 years). After eight weeks, accuracy
significantly improved in spiking (+76%), setting (+335%), and passing (+40%),
while serving accuracy showed only a trend for improvement (+15%). Training
also induced a significant improvement in technique in passing (+29%) and spiking
(+24%). When summing up the results of all the tests, a general improvement of
21% in technique and 117% in accuracy can be determined. The large improvement in accuracy most likely reflected the poor performance of the players before
training. It is assumed that such a training program would not induce such great
improvement in more proficient players.
Attributes of Adolescent Volleyball Players 129
Physical Characteristics and Physiological
Attributes—The Existing Interrelationships
Four key points can summarize the interrelationships between the physical characteristics and physiological attributes discussed in this review:
a. In female adolescent players, anthropometric data are correlated to volleyball
skills’ proficiency and to game performance. In general, a taller and heavier
body is related to better game proficiency. Unfortunately, the scarce data in
male players project conflicting results regarding the relationships between
anthropometrics and game proficiency.
b. In both male and female players, VJ is higher in highly skilled players
than players of lesser abilities. In addition, VJ performance appears to
increase as children grow older. The combination of a tall stature and
superb VJ abilities seems to differentiate elite players from players of
lesser skills.
c. While there is not enough evidence to establish a relationship between
agility and speed and player performance in male players, it appears that
agility and speed are related to players’ skill in female players.
d. Basic volleyball skills, such as blocking, spiking, and feinting, are related
to players’ success in both male and female players. In addition, these skills
develop as children grow older, with the more complex skills developing
at later ages rather than the more basic skills.
While data in male adolescent players are generally lacking and those that do
exist are somewhat conflicting, these four key points suggest that the successful
adolescent volleyball player is tall with a relatively high body mass. In addition, he
or she has excellent leaping abilities and is fast and agile. These players perform
basic volleyball skills better than their less skilled peers. Lastly, as these players
grow older they seem to improve their performances in game skills and physiological abilities.
What Can We Learn From the Reviewed Studies?—
Six Methodological Concerns
Analyses of the designs of the reviewed studies revealed a number of methodological concerns. Before implementing the findings from these studies, the following
concerns should be taken into account by both researchers and practitioners:
a. The lack of information on the exact chronological age of the players
participated in the reviewed studies. In most studies, the information on
how the mean average of the age of the players was calculated is missing.
For example, if the age of one of the adolescent players is 14 years, does it
refer to his or her birth date (e.g., 14.2, 14.4), or to another value reflecting
six months before and after his or her birth date (e.g., 13.50–14.49)? More
precise information on the chronological age of the players in the reviewed
studies can allow for better comparisons among studies.
130 Lidor and Ziv
b. The lack of information on the maturational stage of the players participating
in the reviewed studies. Maturation affects anthropometrics, body composition, and physiological variables (19). In most of the studies, information
on maturational age (e.g., skeletal age, secondary sex characteristics, and
age at peak height velocity) was not provided. While older adolescents,
especially girls, are usually already mature, maturity status is important in
younger adolescents. In comparison, forming maturity groups of similar
chronological ages (while not without limitations) can be useful in explaining variations in performance (19). Preferably, maturational assessment
should be clinically assessed rather than self-assessed by the players.
c. The lack of longitudinal studies. Most of the studies reviewed in this article
lack a longitudinal approach. In only one study (16) was a longitudinal
approach adopted, enabling the researchers to collect data throughout a
15-month training program. In a longitudinal study, a group of athletes was
observed over a long period of time (40), during which various dependent
variables were collected, analyzed, and interpreted. The conduction of
longitudinal studies allows the researcher to obtain relevant information
on developmental stages of the athlete. In the case of adolescent volleyball
players, it would be interesting to examine their physical characteristics and
physiological attributes over a number of years of training, as well as the
contribution of the training to these characteristics and attributes. In addition, the use of the longitudinal approach can provide relevant information
on developmental stages of female and male players not only at different
ages but also at different skill levels. Adopting a longitudinal approach
can help both researchers and practitioners increase their understanding
of the interrelationships among the physical characteristics, physiological
attributes, and skill levels in adolescent players across a number of years
of professional development. In addition, this approach can help in the
understanding of behavioral changes that occur with age in the young players as well as of other developmental factors, among them the timing and
tempo of the growth spurt and sexual maturation (19). Although it can be
difficult for researchers to deal with methodological issues such as player
dropout and injury while collecting data in a longitudinal process, it is
recommended that this approach be used to obtain the relevant information
on the multiyear developmental aspects of adolescent players.
d. The lack of experimental studies. Only a few experimental studies were
conducted on adolescent volleyball players (e.g., 7,20). Although the sample
size of the elite adolescent volleyball players taking part in experimental
studies can be small, due to the size of the team (e.g., 15–17 players; see
16), those studies are of importance in examining the contribution of environmental factors to the development of adolescent volleyball players. By
conducting experimental studies, researchers and practitioners can increase
their theoretical and practical knowledge of the actual contribution of different training programs (e.g., strength and conditioning training, specific
skills programs), testing devices (e.g., agility and speed tests, power and
strength tests), or protocols of physical tests to the achievement of adolescent
volleyball players. Experimental studies should examine the effectiveness
of learning/training environments on task-specific volleyball skills. Among
Attributes of Adolescent Volleyball Players 131
the research questions that can be asked in these studies are: What is the
optimal age to start developing VJ performance in adolescent players? At
what age should players practice according to their playing position? What
are the most effective techniques for improving agility in adolescent players? And, do agility techniques match the needs of both female and male
players? It is assumed that if answers are provided for these questions,
coaches will be able to develop effective training programs that match the
individual needs of their players.
e. The relative lack of data on volleyball-specific skills. Only a few studies
examined the development of volleyball-specific skills such as passing,
serving, setting, and spiking and their association with the physical characteristics and physiological attributes of adolescent players (e.g., 9,31).
Obtaining relevant information on the existing interrelationships between
the physical characteristics, physiological attributes, and skill level in adolescent players should help volleyball coaches develop effective practice
environments for the benefits of their players. This might also help them
predict the future volleyball performance of their players.
f. The lack of studies with data on players’ performances during actual
games. In only a few of the reviewed studies were data collected on physical and physiological performances of players during actual games (e.g.,
9,24,34). To plan effective volleyball training programs and strength and
conditioning programs for adolescent volleyball players, more information
should be gathered on the actions players perform during an actual game. A
systematic analysis of the main actions demonstrated by the players during
the game should be made, and then, based on this analysis, field observations should be conducted on players of different skill levels as well as
on players playing different positions. It is suggested that game analyses
performed on other ball games (e.g., soccer; 38) be adapted for volleyball.
For example, quantifying the actions performed by volleyball players in
both the defensive and offensive aspects of the game should be helpful for
the volleyball coach in planning their training programs effectively.
Practical Recommendations for Volleyball Coaches
and Strength and Conditioning Coaches
Based on the reviewed studies, as well as on the six methodological concerns discussed in our review, four practical tips for volleyball and strength and conditioning
coaches are provided, as follows.
First, it is recommended that the tests most appropriate for assessing abilities
in the players should be carefully selected. It is also recommended that the same
test be used for comparing achievements in a specific ability among the volleyball players. As reported in this review, there are a large number of different tests
assessing physiological attributes in adolescent volleyball players, such as agility
and speed, and strength and power that can yield different values.
Second, volleyball training programs should be planned for the players according to their playing positions. Centers, hitters, opposites, and setters have different
physical characteristics and physiological attributes. Ultimately, volleyball and
132 Lidor and Ziv
strength and conditioning coaches should plan their training programs according
to the unique characteristics of each player.
Third, to develop appropriate training programs aimed at improving skill as
well as the conditioning and strength in adolescent players, actions performed by
the players during actual games should be also considered, among them blocking,
serving, and spiking.
Fourth, volleyball coaches should adopt a cautious approach when attempting
to predict the success of players based on their physical characteristics and on the
results obtained from physiological tests. Although a number of actions such as
the standing vertical jump and the vertical jump with approach were found to be
good performance predictors, there are many other physiological and psychological
factors that are associated with achievement in volleyball.
References
1. Altini Neto, A., I.L. Pellegrinotti, and M.I.L. Montebelo. Effects of a neuromuscular
training program on the maximal oxygen consumption and vertical jump in beginning
volleyball players. Rev. Bras. Med. Esporte. [Online]. 12:33–38, 2006.
2. Beals, K.A. Eating behaviors, nutritional status, and menstrual function in elite female
adolescent volleyball players. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 102:1293–1296, 2002.
3. Bompa, T. Periodization: The Theory and Methodology of Training, 4th ed. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics, 1999.
4. Chang, C.K., H.L. Lin, and H.F. Tseng. The side-to-side differences in bone mineral
status and cross-sectional area in radius and ulna in teenage Taiwanses female volleyball
players. Biol. Sport. 25:69–76, 2008.
5. Duncan, M.J., L. Woodfield, and Y. al-Nakeeb. Anthropometric and physiological
characteristics of junior elite volleyball players. Br. J. Sports Med. 40:649–651,
2006.
6. Gabbett, T., and B. Georgieff. Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of
Australian junior national, state, and novice volleyball players. J. Strength Cond. Res.
21:902–908, 2007.
7. Gabbett, T., B. Georgieff, S. Anderson, B. Cotton, D. Savovic, and L. Nicholson.
Changes in skill and physical fitness following training in talent-identified volleyball
players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 20:29–35, 2006.
8. Gabbett, T., B. Georgieff, and N. Domrow. The use of physiological, anthropometric,
and skill data to predict selection in a talent-identified junior volleyball squad. J Sports
Sci. 25:1337–1344, 2007.
9. Grgantov, Z., R. Katic, and V. Jankovic. Morphological characteristics, technical
and situation efficacy of young female volleyball players. Coll. Antropol. 30:87–96,
2006.
10. Grgantov, Z., D. Nedovic, and R. Katic. Integration of technical and situation efficacy
into the morphological system in young female volleyball players. Coll. Antropol.
31:267–273, 2007.
11. Hoffman, J. Norms for Fitness, Performance, and Health. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2006.
12. Kasabalis, A., H. Douda, and S.P. Tokmakidis. Relationship between anaerobic power
and jumping of selected male volleyball players of different ages. Percept. Mot. Skills.
100:607–614, 2005.
13. Katic, R., Z. Grgantov, and D. Jurko. Motor structures in female volleyball players aged
14-17 according to technique quality and performance. Coll. Antropol. 30:103–112,
2006.
Attributes of Adolescent Volleyball Players 133
14. Leone, M., G. Lariviere, and A.S. Comtois. Discriminant analysis of anthropometric
and biomotor variables among elite adolescent female athletes in four sports. J Sports
Sci. 20:443–449, 2002.
15. Lidor, R., M. Arnon, Y. Hershko, G. Maayan, and B. Falk. Accuracy in a volleyball
service test in rested and physical exertion conditions in elite and near-elite adolescent
players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21:937–942, 2007.
16. Lidor, R., Y. Hershko, A. Bilkevitz, M. Arnon, and B. Falk. Measurement of talent in
volleyball: 15-month follow-up of elite adolescent players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness.
47:159–168, 2007.
17. Malatesta, D., F. Cattaneo, S. Dugnani, and N.A. Maffiuletti. Effects of electromyostimulation training and volleyball practice on jumping ability. J. Strength Cond. Res.
17:573–579, 2003.
18. Malina, R.M. Attained size and growth rate of female volleyball players between 9 and
13 years of age. Pediatr. Exerc. Sci. 6:257–266, 1994.
19. Malina, R.M., C. Bouchard, and O. Bar-Or. Growth, Maturation, and Physical Activity,
2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2004.
20. Martel, G.F., M.L. Harmer, J.M. Logan, and C.B. Parker. Aquatic plyometric training increases vertical jump in female volleyball players. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.
37:1814–1819, 2005.
21. Melrose, D.R., F.J. Spaniol, M.E. Bohling, and R.A. Bonnette. Physiological and performance characteristics of adolescent club volleyball players. J. Strength Cond. Res.
21:481–486, 2007.
22. Naczk, M., P. Zurek, A. Naczk, and Z. Adach. Anaerobic-phosphagenic capacity of
adolescent volleyball players. Physical Education and Sport. 50:48–49, 2006.
23. Noutsos, K., M. Koskolou, K. Barzouka, N. Bergeles, and I. Bayios. Physical characteristics of adolescent elite female handball and volleyball players. In: Annual Congress of
the European College of Sport Science; 2008, J. Cabri, F. Alves, D. Araujo, J. Barreiros,
J. Diniz, and A. Veloso (Eds.). Estoril, Portugal., 2008, pp. 482.
24. Pack, M. Effects of four fatigue levels on performance and learning of novel dynamic
balance skill. J. Mot. Behav. 6:191–197, 1974.
25. Prokopec, M., M. Remenar, and J. Zelezny. Morpho-physiological characteristics of
young female volleyball players. Papers Anthropol. 12:202–218, 2003.
26. Rousanoglou, E.N., G.V. Georgiadis, and K.D. Boudolos. Muscular strength and
jumping performance relationships in young women athletes. J. Strength Cond. Res.
22:1375–1378, 2008.
27. Rowland, T.W. Children’s Exercise Physiology, 2nd ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
28. Stamm, M., R. Stamm, and S. Koskel. Proficiency assessment of male volleyball teams
of the 13-15-year age group at the Estonian championship. Physical Education and
Sport. 52:35–38, 2008.
29. Stamm, R., M. Stamm, and S. Koskel. Age, body build, physical ability, volleyball
technical and psychophysiological tests and proficiency at competitions in young female
volleyballers (ages 13-16 years). Papers Anthropol. 11:253–282, 2002.
30. Stamm, R., M. Stamm, and S. Koskel. Individual proficiency of young female volleyballers at Estonian championships for class c and its relation to body build. Papers
Anthropol. 13:239–247, 2004.
31. Stamm, R., M. Stamm, and S. Koskel. Combined assessment of proficiency in the game,
anthropometric variables and highest reach test results in a body build classification
at girls’ youth European volleyball championship 2005 in Tallinn. Papers Anthropol.
14:333–343, 2005.
32. Stamm, R., M. Stamm, and S. Koskel. Adolescent female volleyballers’ (aged 13-15
years) body build classification and proficiency in competitions. Anthropol. Anz.
64:423–433, 2006.
134 Lidor and Ziv
33. Stamm, R., M. Stamm, and A. Oja. A system for recording volleyball games and their
analysis. Intern. J. Volleyball Res. 2:18–22, 2000.
34. Stamm, R., M. Stamm, and K. Thomson. Role of adolescent female volleyball players’
psychophysiological properties and body build in performance of different elements
of the game. Percept. Mot. Skills. 101:108–120, 2005.
35. Stamm, R., G. Veldre, M. Stamm, H. Kaarma, and S. Koskel. Young female volleyball
players’ anthropometric characteristics and volleyball proficiency. Intern. J. Volleyball
Res. 4:8–11, 2001.
36. Stamm, R., G. Veldre, M. Stamm, et al. Dependence of young female volleyballers’
performance on their body build, physical abilities, and psycho-physiological properties. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 43:291–299, 2003.
37. Stanganelli, L.C., A.C. Dourado, P. Oncken, S. Mancan, and S.C. da Costa. Adaptations on jump capacity in Brazilian volleyball players prior to the under-19 World
Championship. J. Strength Cond. Res. 22:741–749, 2008.
38. Stroyer, J., L. Hansen, and K. Klausen. Physiological profile and activity pattern of
young soccer players during match play. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 36:168–174, 2004.
39. Thissen-Milder, M., and J.L. Mayhew. Selection and classification of high school
volleyball players from performance tests. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 31:380–384,
1991.
40. Thomas, J.R., and J.K. Nelson. Research Methods in Physical Activity, 5th ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2005.
41. Tsunawake, N., Y. Tahara, K. Moji, S. Muraki, K. Minowa, and K. Yukawa. Body
composition and physical fitness of female volleyball and basketball players of the
Japan inter-high school championship teams. J. Physiol. Anthropol. Appl. Human Sci.
22:195–201, 2003.
42. Viviani, F. The somatotype of “amateur” Italian male volleyball-players. Papers
Anthropol. 13:286–293, 2004.
43. Viviani, F., and F. Baldin. The somatotype of “amateur” Italian female volleyball-players.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 33:400–404, 1993.
44. Whaley, M.H., P.H. Brubaker, and R.M. Otto (Eds.). ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise
Testing and Prescription, 6th ed.), Philadelphia, PA: American College of Sports
Medicine, 2006.