POSITION-SPECIFIC CATEGORIZATION OF SOMATOTYPES: 2011 WOMEN’S
19 EUROPEAN HANDBALL CHAMPIONSHIP
František URBAN1, Róbert KANDRÁČ2, František TÁBORSKÝ3
1
Member of the Union of University Handball Teachers / EHF (SVK)
University of Presov, Faculty of Sport, Presov (SVK)
3
Charles University, Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, Prague (CZE)
2
Introduction
Sports performance in handball is determined by anthropometric and morphologic
dispositions of players as well. Several studies have confirmed relevance of appropriate
anthropometric and somatometric parameters with respect to playing position (Srhoj,
Marinović, Rogulj, 2002, Rogulj et al., 2005, Zapartidis et al., 2009, Čavala, Katić, 2010, Vila
et al., 2011, Urban, Kandráč, Táborský, 2011). Therefore, handball players at elite level are
expected to be physically suited to the playing position they occupy in order to achieve the
highest individual and team performance level possible.
Aim
The purpose of the present anthropometric study was to determine and compare positionspecific somatotypes in U19 elite female handball players who participated in 2011 Women’s
19 European Handball Championship.
Tasks
1. To determine somatotypes according to Heath, Carter (1967) in elite female handball
players who participated in 2011 Women’s 19 European Handball Championship.
2. To calculate mean somatotypes and categorize position-specific somatotypes
according to Carter (2002).
3. To compare mean somatotypes and somatotype components between playing
positions.
Methods
In total. 207 players of 13 national teams (except Norway, Sweden and Austria) that
participated in 2011 Women’s 19 European Handball Championship (W19 ECh) in
Netherlands took part in the cross-sectional anthropometric study. The players who
participated in the study were between 17-19 years. Mean somatotypes and somatotype
components of players are described and compared with respect to playing position:
goalkeepers (GKs): n = 35, wings (Ws): n = 53, center backs (CBs): n = 30, backs (Bs): n =
58 and pivots (PVs): n = 31.
The somatotypes were determined according to Heath, Carter (1967) using the following
parameters:
1. body height and body mass,
2. skinfold thickness: triceps skinfold, subscapular skinfold, supraspinale skinfold and
medial calf skinfold,
3. biepicondylar breadths: biepicondylar humerus breadth and biepicondylar femur
breadth,
4. girths: upper arm girth, flexed and tensed and standing calf girth.
Somatotypes with similar relationships between the dominance of the components are
grouped into categories named to reflect these relationships (Carter, 2002). The definitions of
somatotype categories as represented on the somatochart are given below:
1. Balanced mesomorph: mesomorphy is dominant and endomorphy and ectomorphy
are equal (or do not differ by more than one-half unit).
2. Ectomorphic mesomorph: mesomorphy is dominant and ectomorphy is greater than
endomorphy.
3. Mesomorph-ectomorph: mesomorphy and ectomorphy are equal (or do not differ by
more than onehalf unit). and endomorphy is smaller.
4. Mesomorphic ectomorph: ectomorphy is dominant and mesomorphy is greater than
endomorphy.
5. Balanced ectomorph: ectomorphy is dominant and endomorphy and mesomorphy are
equal (or do not differ by more than one-half unit).
6. Endomorphic ectomorph: ectomorphy is dominant and endomorphy is greater than
mesomorphy.
7. Endomorph-ectomorph: endomorphy and ectomorphy are equal (or do not differ by
more than onehalf unit). and mesomorphy is lower.
8. Ectomorphic endomorph: endomorphy is dominant and ectomorphy is greater than
mesomorphy.
9. Balanced endomorph: endomorphy is dominant and mesomorphy and ectomorphy
are equal (or do not differ by more than one-half unit).
10. Mesomorphic endomorph: endomorphy is dominant and mesomorphy is greater than
ectomorphy.
11. Mesomorph-endomorph: endomorphy and mesomorphy are equal (or do not differ
by more than onehalf unit). and ectomorphy is smaller.
12. Endomorphic mesomorph: mesomorphy is dominant and endomorphy is greater
than ectomorphy.
13. Central: no component differs by more than one unit from the other two.
The collected data were processed using basic statistical characteristics: x - arithmetic mean,
SD - standard deviation, min - minimum value and max - maximum value. The data
necessary to determine somatotypes of handball players were processed using the software
SOMATO. The resultant somatotypes were plotted on a somatochart. Somatocharts for
plotting somatotypes were designed using CorelDRAW X5 software.
Results and discussion
Mean somatotype of goalkeepers was 2.6 - 4.1 - 2.1, which is endomorphic mesomorph.
This somatotype category is characterized by predominant mesomorphy with relatively high
endomorphy rating. Above-average endomorphy values were found in 17 GKs out of whom
11 GKs had endomorphy rating over 3.0. Mesomorphy ratings that were above-average were
observed in 19 GKs. Out of these 19 GKs, 10 GKs had mesomorphy higher than 3.0.
Table 1 Mean somatotype and somatic parameters: Goalkeepers
GKs
(n=35) ENDOMORPHY
X
2.57
0.97
SD
1.1
min
6.2
max
SOMATOTYPE
MESOMORPHY
4.13
1.41
0.6
8.3
ECTOMORPHY
2.15
1.12
0.5
6.2
Body
height
176.89
4.29
168.5
186.0
Body
mass
74.63
7.83
58.8
102.9
%
Fat
13.29
4.17
6.3
26.0
Similarly to previous researches (Ech M20 2010, Ech W17 2011), there were 2 types of GKs:
1st type (22 GKs): higher endomorphy with higher mesomorphy rating indicated by
somatopoint location to the left of the longitudinal somatochart axis. Mean somatotype, body
height, body mass and percent subcutaneous fat were 1.7 - 3.0 - 3.2, 179.3 cm, 69.3 kg and
9.5 %, respectively.
2nd type (13 GKs): higher ectomorphy rating with lower mesomorphy rating plotted to the
right of the longitudinal somatochart axis. Mean values of somatotype, body height, body
mass and percent subcutaneous fat were 3.1 - 4.8 - 1.6, 175.5 cm, 77.8 kg and 15.5 %,
respectively.
Figure 1 Somatotypes of goalkeepers
In the sub-group of GKs, there were 2 extreme somatotypes of Spanish goalkeepers.
Overall, somatotypes of GKs were categorized in 9 categories. Each of categories 5, 6 and 11
included only one somatotype. The highest number of somatotypes was classified in category
12: 13 players and in category 1: 8 players. As shown on the somatochart (Fig. 1), the
somatotype distribution of GKs was quite heterogeneous. The order of final placement seems
not to have affected the number of somatotype categories as the number of categories was 4
and 5, respectively. Somatopoints of 11 out of 16 GKs on the teams that finished 1st to 8th
were plotted to the left of the longitudinal somatochart axis.
Mean somatotype of wing players was 1.9 - 4.2 - 2.3, which is balanced mesomorph. Among
all playing positions, only Ws had endomorphy rating lower than 2.0. Low endomorphy
values not exceeding 2.0 (36 Ws), high mesomorphy rating over 4.5 (30 Ws) and ectomorphy
rating over 2.0 (33 Ws) are indicative of athletic physique with higher level of muscularity
and relatively low percent subcutaneous fat.
Table 2 Mean somatotype and somatic parameters: Wings
Ws
(n=53) ENDOMORPHY
X
1.88
0.83
SD
0.5
min
3.8
max
SOMATOTYPE
MESOMORPHY
4.16
1.07
1.7
6.4
ECTOMORPHY
2.26
0.94
0.6
4.8
Body
height
170.08
5.48
159.0
183.0
Body
mass
64.75
6.38
49.7
79.6
%
Fat
9.44
4.20
2.6
17.0
In the sub-group of wing players, there was only one case of extreme somatotype. Overall,
somatotypes of Ws were classified in 5 categories. It should be noted that mean somatotype of
Ws was balanced mesomorph. The highest number of somatotypes was categorized in
category 12: 15 players classified as endomorphic mesomorphs. On the other hand, remaining
players were classified in categories 1: 13 Ws, 2: 11 Ws, 3: 8 Ws and 4: 6 Ws. Therefore, it
should be distinguished between two somatotypes in wing players:
1st type (19 players): mean values of somatotype, body height, body mass and percent
subcutaneous fat were: 2.8 - 5.0 - 1.4, 168.7 cm, 69.0 kg and 14.0 %, respectively.
2nd type (34 players): mean values of somatotype, body height, body mass and percent
subcutaneous fat were: 1.3 - 3.7 - 2.8, 170.9 cm, 62.4 kg and 6.9 %.
With respect to final placement at the championship, the somatotypes of players on the teams
that finished in 1st to 4th and 5th to 8th as well as on teams that finished 9th to 12th and 13th to
16th showed identical somatotype categorizations.
Figure 2 Somatotypes of wings
Table 3 Mean somatotype and somatic parameters: Center backs
CBs
(n=30) ENDOMORPHY
X
2.11
0.63
SD
1.1
min
3.8
max
SOMATOTYPE
MESOMORPHY
3.82
0.86
1.4
5.4
ECTOMORPHY
2.35
0.68
1.0
4.0
Body
height
173.63
4.82
161.5
183.5
Body
mass
68.20
6.99
53.8
80.7
%
Fat
11.09
3.40
4.2
20.3
Mean somatotype of center backs was 2.1 - 3.8 - 2.3 categorized as balanced mesomorph.
Having mesomorphy rating lower than 4.0 (20 players), endomorphy rating over 2.0 (16
players) and ectomorphy rating exceeding 2.0 (19 players), mean somatotype is located in
category 1 close to category 13 (Fig. 2). Therefore, the somatotype of CBs cannot be
characterized as athletic as is the case of balanced mesomorphs. The somatotype components
were quite homogeneous (Tab. 3). The lowest number of somatotype categories was found in
teams that finished in top eight. However, the highest rate of somatotype heterogeneity
indicated by a total of 7 somatotype categories was found in players on the teams that finished
in 13th to 16th place. With respect to the final placement, the category present in all teams,
irrespective of the order of finish, was somatotype category 1.
Figure 3 Somatotypes of center backs
Table 4 Mean somatotype and somatic parameters: Backs
Bs
(n=58) ENDOMORPHY
X
2.04
0.63
SD
0.5
min
3.5
max
SOMATOTYPE
MESOMORPHY
3.97
0.88
1.4
5.8
ECTOMORPHY
2.41
0.82
0.5
4.5
Body
height
178.68
4.59
172.0
196.0
Body
mass
73.60
5.69
60.7
85.8
%
Fat
10.76
2.96
3.4
18.1
Mean somatotype of backs was 2.0 - 4.0 - 2.4 classified as balanced mesomorph similarly to
center backs. In mesomorphy, 30 players had rating equaling or over 4.0. Ectomorphy rating
equaling or over 2.5 was found in 30 players as well. As for endomorphy, values over or
equaling 2.0 were observed in 31 players. Back players may benefit from higher mesomorphy
rating ranging from 4.0 to 5.0 with higher ectomorphy values ranging from 2.5 to 3.5. In total,
somatotypes of Bs were classified in 8 somatotype categories. The highest rate of somatotype
variation was found in players on the teams that finished in 9th to 12th place. On the contrary,
the lowest degree of somatotype homogeneity was observed in teams in 13th to 16th place.
What all teams have in common is categorization of somatotypes in categories 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Figure 4 Somatotypes of backs
Table 5 Mean somatotype and somatic parameters: Pivots
PVs
(n=31) ENDOMORPHY
X
2.75
0.78
SD
1.1
min
4.2
max
SOMATOTYPE
MESOMORPHY
4.93
0.85
3.4
6.6
ECTOMORPHY
1.51
0.67
0.5
2.8
Body
height
175.56
4.99
166.0
186.5
Body
mass
77.16
6.61
63.0
90.0
%
Fat
13.75
3.15
6.6
18.4
Mean somatotype of pivots was 2.7 - 4.9 - 1.5 categorized as endomorphic mesomorph. With
respect to somatotype components, PVs had the highest endomorphy value of all playing
positions. Overall, 19 players had endomorphy rating equaling or over 2.5, 22 players had
mesomorphy rating equaling or exceeding 4.5 and 13 pivots demonstrated ectomorphy rating
equaling or lower than 1.5. The ectomorphy rating was also lowest out of all playing positions
measured. As for somatotype categorization, the highest rate of homogeneity in somatotype
distribution was found in players in the teams that finished 1st to 4th and 5th to 8th as confirmed
by 2 somatotype categories. The highest degree of heterogeneity was observed in players on
the teams that placed 9th to 12th. It should be noted that pivots were categorized in 4 categories
in total. With regard to final placement, somatotype category 1 was observed in all teams
irrespective of final standings.
Figure 5 Somatotypes of pivots
Table 6 Overall somatotype categorization with respect to playing position
Playing
Positions
Goalkeepers
Wings
Center Backs
Backs
Pivots
∑
1
2
3
4
8
13
11
20
10
62
2
11
4
10
1
28
4
8
5
7
24
2
6
1
4
13
CATEGORIES
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13
1
1
1 13
3
- 15
1
7
1
1
1 13
2
2 18
3
1
4 66
6
∑
35
53
30
58
31
207
As shown in Tab. 6 and Fig. 1, the highest number of players: 66, 31.9 % was classified in
category 12, which is endomorphic mesomorph. As for position specificity, the difference
between playing positions in the number of players was minimal. In total, 62 players (30 %)
were classified in category 1: balanced mesomorph. With respect to playing position, back
players were dominant in the balanced mesomorph category. In category 2 of ectomorphic
mesomorph, the highest number of somatotypes was found in wings and backs. Category 3,
which is mesomorph-ectomorph, included 24 players (11.6 %).
The total number of players in categories 1, 2, 3 and 12 equaled 86.96 %, that is 180
players. The common characteristic of these somatotype categories is mesomorphy. This
shows that adequate level of musculo-skeletal development is absolutely necessary regardless
of the playing position. The difference between playing positions was found in the ratio of
endomorphy to ectomorphy. This ratio is indicative of linearity or robustness and significantly
determines the selection of playing position.
Figure 6 Somatotype with respect to playing position
Conclusions
With respect to somatotype components, the highest rate of adiposity indicated by
endomorphy was found in pivots and goalkeepers. The lowest degree was observed in wing
players followed by backs. The mesomorphy rating indicative of relative musculo-skeletal
development was also observed in pivots. The highest degree of relative slenderness indicated
by ectomorphy was found in backs while the lowest was observed in pivots. The greatest
difference between maximum and minimum value equaling 1.1 was found in mesomorphic
component.
Goalkeeper:
Wing:
Center back:
Back:
Pivot:
ENDO
2.6
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.7
MESO
4.1
4.2
3.8
4.0
4.9
ECTO
2.1
2.3
2.3
2.4
1.5
endomorphic mesomorph
balanced mesomorph
balanced mesomorph
balanced mesomorph
endomorphic mesomorph
The somatotype categorization has shown that all playing positions are predominantly
mesomorphic. The mean somatotype in Ws, CBs and Bs has been categorized as balanced
mesomorph. The goalkeepers and pivots can be characterized as endomorphic mesomorphs.
References
CARTER. J. E. L. 2002. The Heath-Carter Anthropometric Somatotype (Instruction manual).
In http://www.somatotype.org
ČAVALA, M., KATIĆ, R. 2010. Morphological, Motor and Situation-motor Characteristics
of Elite Female Handball Players According to Playing Performance and Position. In Coll.
Antropol. 2010. Vol. 32. No. 4. pp. 1355-1361. ISSN 0350-6134.
HEATH. B. H.. CARTER. J. E. L. 1967. A Modified Somatotype Method. In Amer. J. Phys.
Anthrop.. 1967. Vol. 27. No. 1. pp. 57-74. ISSN 0002-9483.
ROGULJ, N., SRHOJ, V., NAZOR, M., SRHOJ, L., ČAVALA, M. 2005. Some
Anthropologic Characteristics of Elite Female Handball Players at Different Playing
Positions. In Coll. Antropol. 2005. Vol. 29. No. 2. pp. 705-709. ISSN 0350-6134.
SRHOJ, V., MARINOVIĆ, M., ROGULJ, N. 2002. Position Specific Morphological
Characteristics of Top-Level Male Handball Players. In Coll. Antropol. 2002. Vol. 26. No.
1. pp. 219-227. ISSN 0350-6134.
URBAN, F., KANDRÁČ, R., TÁBORSKÝ, F. 2011. Position-related changes in
Somatotypes of Top Level Male Handball Players. In EHF Scientific Conference 2011.
Science and Expertise in Handball (Scientific and practical approaches). Vienna: EHF,
2011. ISBN 987-3-9503311-0-3, pp. 214-218.
VILA, H., MANCHADO, C., ABRALDES, A., ALCARAZ, P., RODRÍGUEZ, N. 2011.
Anthropometric Profile in Female Elite Handball Players by Playing Positions. In EHF
Scientific Conference 2011. Science and Expertise in Handball (Scientific and practical
approaches). Vienna: EHF, 2011. ISBN 987-3-9503311-0-3, pp. 219-222.
ZAPARTIDIS, I., VARELTZIS, I., GOUVALI, M., KOROROS, P. 2009. Physical Fitness
and Anthropometric Characteristics in Different Levels of Young Team Handball Players.
In The Open Sports Sciences Journal. 2009. Vol. 2. pp. 22-28. ISSN 1875-399X.