Skip to main content
NCBI home page
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health logoLink to International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
. 2022 Feb 28;19(5):2839. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19052839

Toward an Anthropometric Pattern in Elite Male Handball

Florin Valentin Leuciuc 1,2,*, Ileana Petrariu 1,2, Gheorghe Pricop 1,2, Dan Mihai Rohozneanu 3, Ileana Monica Popovici 4
Editors: Manuel Gómez-López, Luis Javier Chirosa Ríos, Sebastián Feu, Antonio Antúnez, Filipe Manuel Clemente
PMCID: PMC8910445  PMID: 35270532

Abstract

We investigated the anthropometric characteristics associated with specific handball skills in competition. The body anthropometric profiles differ significantly among the playing positions in handball due to the specific tasks. The aim of this study is to identify the anthropometric patterns for each playing position by collecting data from elite male handball players. To determine the anthropometric profile of the elite handball players for each playing position, we used descriptive statistics for every indicator in order to identify the optimal patterns for elite handball players from the top-four ranked teams at the most important competitions over a period of 18 years (2004–2021). Over time, the anthropometric indices evolved: the average height increased (from 190 to 192.6 cm) but less than weight increased (from 90.5 to 95.28 kg), and these affected the body mass index (increase from 25.2 to 25.67). The novelty of our study is that we identified an anthropometric pattern for each playing position and for all teams in elite male handball. Our study also covered a period of 18 years to give our results more accuracy and reliability.

Keywords: handball, pattern, anthropometry, performance

1. Introduction

Currently, along with good sport preparation for elite athletes, the specific anthropometry indices are essential in order to achieve performance in top competitions in collective sports where others are also important: maturity status [1], capacity to be trained [2], body composition [3,4,5], somatotype [6,7,8], physiological performance characteristics [9], specific skills [10,11], playing position [12,13,14] and specifics of the sport branches [8,15,16,17,18].

In elite sport, the anthropometric indices have a major impact on performance [19,20,21,22] and additionally, there are other factors, such as the preparation level [23,24,25], specific preparation [26,27,28] and competition experience [29,30], that influence elite sport outcomes.

Handball has a complex character due to the acyclic movements and situations that appear asking players performing tasks according to the playing position both in attack and in defense. The modern handball game requires players to perform a high number of short, high-intensity specific actions. Based on these considerations, we can state that the features of anthropometric and motor particularities have a high degree of individualization according to the playing position, and it is interesting to determine how personal predispositions can compensate or substitute particular requirements of the playing position.

Somatic and skills indicators of the players can be essential in achieving certain tasks within the game, as in other game situations, they can be a barrier having a limited effect [31,32]. The anthropometric characteristics are determinant in order to efficiently apply the specific handball skills in competitions [33].

Body anthropometric profiles differ significantly among the playing positions in handball due to the specific tasks. From the anthropometric point of view, the wing players were found to be lighter (79.7–81.7 kg) and shorter (177.1–178.3 cm) than backcourt players (193.5–201.9 cm; 90.7–102.3 kg), goalkeepers (192.5–197.6 cm; 82.3–88.1 kg) and pivots (188.6–201.7 cm; 105–121.4 kg); pivots were heavier than centers (83.6–90.5 kg); backcourt players and pivots had higher muscular mass than wings; backcourt players had higher hand-grip values; and the line players (pivots) were the heaviest players.

The majority of elite handball players are part of the mesomorph and endomorph somatotypes; however, according to the playing positions, the backcourt players are mesomorph, wings and pivots showed an endomorph–mesomorph somatotype, and goalkeepers were in the ecto-endomorph somatotype zone [32,34,35]. The players having a higher skill level are usually taller, and their level of fat-free mass is higher, meaning more muscular mass and a better physiological level are required in modern elite handball in order to achieve performance [36,37,38].

From 1960 and 1970, there was information concerning the anthropometric characteristics of the elite handball players for each playing position, and, at least for weight, there are some differences compared to the current requirements [39]. In the study conducted by Taborsky, they presented data on anthropometric indices for players participating in the handball World Championships (W.C.) and Olympic Games (O.G.) in the 1970s and for W.C. and European Championships (E.C.) for the period 1998–2007. There is a visible but slight increase of height through the years, from an average of 184 cm in the 1970s to over 190 cm after the year 2000 [31].

A study concerning the anthropometric indices at senior handball teams participating in the competition E.H.F. Champions League, Final Four 2012 showed average values higher than in previous periods (height—192.48 cm, weight—94.63 kg and body mass index—25.51); however, there were only a small number of handball players (62) compared to O.G., W.C. and E.C., and it is important to mention that all of them are elite players of the best four teams in Europe and possibly of the world [40]. Another study conducted at W.C. in 2013 indicated the following values for anthropometric indicators for male handball players: height—190.10 ± 6.82 cm, weight—92.37 ± 9.80 kg and BMI—25.53 ± 2.09 [41].

Over time, there have been studies concerning physical characteristics of the male handball players with different numbers of participants and performance levels (national vs. elite) (Table 1).

Table 1.

The average values of the anthropometric indices according to the previous studies (updated after Ziv G., Lidor R., 2009).

Authors, Year Level/No. of Participants Height (cm) Weight (kg) BMI
Ghermănescu, Gogaltan, Jianu, Negulescu, 1983 [39] Elite/- 188 86 24.36 1
Bayios et al., 2001 [42] National/15 181 ± 6 83.1 ± 5.2 25.41 1
Gorostiaga et al., 2005 [43] Elite/15 189 ± 8 95.2 ± 13 26.66 1
Marques, Gonzalez-Badillo, 2006 [44] Elite/16 184 ± 13 84.8 ± 13.1 25.01 1
Asci, Acikada, 2007 [45] National/16 185 ± 6 86.1 ± 8.9 25.17 1
Marques et al., 2007 [46] Elite/14 182 ± 7 82.5 ± 12.2 24.92 1
Buchheit et al., 2009 [47] National/9 181 78.4 23.97 1
Sibila, Pori, 2009 [48] National/78 188.44 ± 5.46 89.56 ± 8.41 25.23 1
Leuciuc, 2012 [40] Elite/62 192.48 94.63 25.51
Ghobadi, Rajabi, Farzad, Bayati, Jeffreys, 2013 [41] Elite/409 190.10 ± 6.82 92.37 ± 9.80 25.53 ± 2.09
Michalsik, Madsen, Aagaard, 2015 [49] National/157 188.7 ± 6.1 90.5 ± 7.9 25.42 1
Pireva, 2019 [50] National/133 186.84 ± 5.99 91.41 ± 10.31 26.19 1
Open in a new tab

1 Data not presented in study and calculated by us.

In the studies with a small number of participants, the anthropometric data were collected directly by measuring handball players [42,43,44,45,46,47,48]. In the studies with a large number of subjects [41,49], the anthropometric data were obtained indirectly, without involving the researchers in the assessment process.

Based on the somatic requirements on high performance selection in handball, we can say that, in terms of height, only 25% of the population would meet the standard. The weight and the essential skills (coordination, speed and power) can compensate for a lower height [31]. The aim of this study is to identify the anthropometric patterns for each playing position by collecting data from elite male handball players.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data Collection

This is a cross-sectional study where we use a descriptive analysis of the anthropometric indices of players at handball top competitions (E.C., W.C. and O.G.). The information concerning the anthropometric characteristics (weight and height) was collected from the EHF and IHF websites that present all information, including the team roster (age, anthropometric data, club and international matches). The data were obtained through an informative portal (EHF and IHF website; these two entities being the organizers of the competitions) without the necessary knowledge about the methodology of its collection in order to assess its reliability and validity [50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64].

2.2. Subjects

Our study collected data from 974 players participating at O.G., W.C. and E.C., as components of the teams ranked in the first four places at each competition. Each team had between 16 and 18 players listed for competition.

Inclusion criteria: male handball players from top-four ranked teams at O.G., W.C. and E.C. in the period 2004–2021. Exclusion criteria: female or male handball players from teams ranked out of the top four at O.G., W.C. and E.C. Due to the fact that this covers a period of 18 years, the data for the same player were used as long as he participated in these top handball competitions.

2.3. Statistics

Descriptive statistics were applied in order to identify the anthropometric patterns (height, weight and body mass index) for each playing position (wing, backcourt, center back, pivot and goalkeeper). The study collected information for almost 20 years (2004–2021). At O.G., there were 12 teams involved in the final stage; at W.C., 24 teams/32 teams (since 2021); and at E.C., the number rose from 16 to 24 teams (since 2020). The data were collected only from the players of the teams placed in the first four places at each analyzed competition.

To determine the anthropometric profile of the elite handball players for each playing position, we used descriptive statistics by applying the average, standard deviation, minimum value and maximum value for every indicator in order to identify the optimal patterns for elite handball players. We applied linear regression to find significant relationship between the variables used in our study using IBM SPSS Statistics 26. The coefficients for regression equation and tests of significance were the most important data obtained by applying this statistical method.

3. Results

Starting with O.G. 2004, data were collected for anthropometric characteristics of the male handball players who participated at O.G., W.C. and E.C. in order to identify the specific patterns for each playing position. We calculated the means for each parameter, standard deviation, minimum value and maximum value for each playing position and for all players. All collected data are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

The anthropometric indices for male handball players (2004–2021).

Competition Playing Position /Anthropometric Indices/Statistics Wings Backcourts Center Backs Pivots Goalkeepers Overall
O.G. 2004 H(m) X ± S 1.872 ± 0.033 1.995 ± 0.054 1.903 ± 0.035 1.994 ± 0.072 1.926 ± 0.043 1.940 ± 0.069
MAX 1.92 2.11 1.95 2.14 2.00 2.14
MIN 1.82 1.86 1.84 1.90 1.85 1.82
W(kg) X ± S 86.98 ± 4.833 100.83 ± 7.883 91.17 ± 4.104 109.20 ± 14.19 93.78 ± 3.456 95.64 ± 10.3
MAX 95 118 98 132 100 132
MIN 76 88 87 92 89 76
BMI X + S 24.84 ± 1.344 25.33 ± 1.741 25.19 ± 1.154 27.52 ± 3.539 25.29 ± 1.000 25.41 ± 1.995
MAX 26.88 29.50 28.06 33.67 27.17 33.67
MIN 22.63 21.79 23.91 22.55 24.16 21.79
O.G. 2008 H(m) X ± S 1.834 ± 0.048 1.941 ± 0.026 1.899 ± 0.043 1.970 ± 0.045 1.950 ± 0.034 1.913 ± 0.066
MAX 1.91 1.99 1.97 2.04 2.00 2.04
MIN 1.76 1.90 1.85 1.90 1.91 1.76
W(kg) X ± S 83.86 ± 5.531 97.13 ± 6.019 92 ± 4.359 104.1 ± 6.008 95.88 ± 4.941 93.93 ± 9.146
MAX 114 107 98 114 105 114
MIN 95 85 86 97 90 85
BMI X ± S 24.94 ± 1.224 25.79 ± 1.350 25.52 ± 1.943 26.82 ± 1.245 25.21 ± 0.883 25.67 ± 1.367
MAX 27.171 26.824 28.025 29.079 26.25 29.079
MIN 23.735 23.546 22.933 25.250 23.467 22.933
W.C. 2009 H(m) X ± S 1.816 ± 0.043 1.964 ± 0.047 1.898 ± 0.049 1.951 ± 0.043 1.954 ± 0.045 1.913 ± 0.076
MAX 1.92 2.10 1.97 2.02 2.01 2.10
MIN 1.73 1.89 1.81 1.89 1.90 1.73
G(kg) X ± S 79.06 ± 4.123 97.86 ± 4.704 92.00 ± 7.566 100.9 ± 6.619 97.63 ± 6.927 92.47 ± 9.917
MAX 85 106 100 111 109 111
MIN 72 85 78 91 90 72
BMI X ± S 23.97 ± 1.542 25.38 ± 1.041 25.54 ± 1.085 26.49 ± 1.545 25.58 ± 1.189 25.26 ± 1.459
MAX 26.396 26.846 26.593 28.189 27.525 28.189
MIN 21.267 23.129 23.809 23.212 23.467 21.267
W.C. 2011 H(m) X ± S 1.856 ± 0.063 1.950 ± 0.029 1.895 ± 0.057 1.951 ± 0.040 1.951 ± 0.051 1.914 ± 0.064
MAX 2.00 2.00 1.96 2.00 2.00 2.00
MIN 1.76 1.91 1.78 1.87 1.86 1.76
W(kg) X ± S 83.17 ± 6.758 96.88 ± 4.559 91.36 ± 7.256 103.7 ± 5.461 98 ± 9.661 93.32 ± 9.770
MAX 98 106 100 113 119 119
MIN 73 92 80 98 91 73
BMI X ± S 24.14 ± 1.128 25.48 ± 1.251 25.43 ± 1.424 27.25 ± 1.078 25.73 ± 2.096 25.47 ± 1.662
MAX 25.661 27.633 28.038 28.928 29.750 29.750
MIN 22.531 23.232 22.819 25.252 23.467 22.531
O.G. 2012 H(m) X ± S 1.854 ± 0.073 1.982 ± 0.062 1.924 ± 0.052 1.953 ± 0.043 1.929 ± 0.047 1.928 ± 0.075
MAX 2.00 2.10 1.98 2.03 2.00 2.10
MIN 1.78 1.89 1.83 1.87 1.85 1.78
W(kg) X ± S 88.25 ± 8.250 103 ± 7.458 95.43 ± 5.968 102.8 ± 5.412 95.38 ± 6.589 96.98 ± 9.123
MAX 102 115 102 114 110 115
MIN 75 93 83 93 90 75
BMI X ± S 25.68 ± 1.770 26.22 ± 1.097 25.77 ± 1.770 26.95 ± 0.897 25.64 ± 1.453 26.10 ± 1.292
MAX 27.727 27.633 28.666 28.025 27.701 28.666
MIN 23.148 24.984 22.992 24.967 23.467 22.992
W.C. 2013 H(m) X ± S 1.847 ± 0.047 1.976 ± 0.077 1.911 ± 0.049 1.978 ± 0.034 1.950 ± 0.057 1.933 ± 0.079
MAX 1.93 2.12 1.98 2.03 2.01 2.12
MIN 1.78 1.84 1.84 1.92 1.86 1.78
W(kg) X ± S 83.65 ± 4.471 99.23 ± 6.436 89.63 ± 10.35 108.3 ± 5.610 99.13 ± 10.03 95.73 ± 11.17
MAX 90 110 100 114 119 119
MIN 75 90 74 100 90 74
BMI X ± S 24.52 ± 1.142 25.42 ± 1.631 24.54 ± 2.333 27.66 ± 1.369 26.07 ± 2.050 25.63 ± 1.941
MAX 26.827 29.879 27.147 29.675 29.455 29.879
MIN 21.914 22.472 20.074 25.252 23.514 20.074
E.C. 2014 H(m) X ± S 1.829 ± 0.045 1.953 ± 0.055 1.920 ± 0.044 1.976 ± 0.039 1.942 ± 0.046 1.921 ± 0.072
MAX 1.90 2.10 1.98 2.03 2.00 2.10
MIN 1.78 1.84 1.86 1.92 1.88 1.78
W(kg) X ± S 82.63 ± 5.123 98.50 ± 7.288 92.44 ± 10.44 106.5 ± 6.072 96.33 ± 5.874 94.93 ± 10.49
MAX 93 110 102 114 110 114
MIN 75 85 74 99 92 74
BMI X ± S 24.71 ± 0.985 25.82 ± 1.667 25.08 ± 2.574 27.28 ± 1.346 25.54 ± 1.274 25.71 ± 1.775
MAX 26.827 30.840 28.597 29.117 27.500 30.840
MIN 23.148 23.669 20.074 25.252 23.750 20.074
W.C. 2015 H(m) X ± S 1.832 ± 0.049 1.952 ± 0.0450 1.896 ± 0.064 1.991 ± 0.056 1.930 ± 0.032 1.917 ± 0.075
MAX 1.92 2.03 1.98 2.08 2.00 2.08
MIN 1.77 1.83 1.80 1.92 1.89 1.77
W(kg) X ± S 81.12 ± 6.314 96.96 ± 6.779 90.63 ± 8.088 106.60 ± 7.764 92.22 ± 3.528 92.84 ± 10.62
MAX 97 107 102 120 100 120
MIN 70 82 80 99 87 70
BMI X ± S 24.16 ± 1.434 25.44 ± 1.660 25.20 ± 0.946 26.88 ± 1.439 24.76 ± 0.739 25.25 ± 1.626
MAX 26.870 28.782 26.551 29.117 26.035 29.117
MIN 21.605 20.870 23.872 24.750 23.356 20.870
E.C. 2016 H(m) X ± S 1.859 ± 0.053 1.974 ± 0.057 1.918 ± 0.046 1.961 ± 0.041 1.960 ± 0.049 1.936 ± 0.067
MAX 1.96 2.10 1.98 2.04 2.02 2.10
MIN 1.78 1.87 1.82 1.91 1.89 1.78
W(kg) X ± S 83 ± 3.305 99 ± 7.148 92 ± 4.837 105.92 ± 7.292 100 ± 11.95 95.82 ± 10.28
MAX 90 115 100 121 119 121
MIN 78 88 85 96 80 78
BMI X ± S 24.03 ± 1.525 25.41 ± 0.967 25 ± 0.927 27.55 ± 2.602 26.03 ± 2.371 25.56 ± 1.963
MAX 26.841 27.803 27.171 33.168 29.750 33.168
MIN 21.085 23.428 23.796 24.27 22.161 21.085
O.G. 2016 H(m) X ± S 1.863 ± 0.044 1.972 ± 0.055 1.893 ± 0.043 1.993 ± 0.046 1.938 ± 0.048 1.936 ± 0.067
MAX 1.94 2.10 1.94 2.07 2.01 2.10
MIN 1.79 1.86 1.84 1.92 1.86 1.79
W(kg) X ± S 87.08 ± 4.071 101.53 ± 7.010 99.29 ± 7.566 107.30 ± 5.599 98.75 ± 5.445 98.47 ± 9.078
MAX 94 115 106 118 110 118
MIN 79 92 87 100 93 79
BMI X ± S 24.92 ± 0.916 26.11 ± 1.509 27.71 ± 1.488 27.01 ± 1.628 26.31 ± 1.403 26.26 ± 1.617
MAX 26.57 30.35 29.99 29.84 28.06 30.35
MIN 24.99 23.96 25.70 24.99 24.98 22.99
W.C. 2017 H(m) X ± S 1.840 ± 0.044 1.962 ± 0.049 1.881 ± 0.073 1.976 ± 0.036 1.922 ± 0.045 1.923 ± 0.067
MAX 1.92 2.04 1.97 2.02 2.01 2.04
MIN 1.79 1.88 1.77 1.92 1.87 1.77
W(kg) X ± S 84.50 ± 5.798 97.17 ± 6.697 91.29 ± 9.673 107.75 ± 7.363 98.88 ± 7.039 95.80 ± 10.024
MAX 93 110 107 115 112 115
MIN 74 86 77 95 92 74
BMI X ± S 24.96 ± 1.304 25.24 ± 1.133 25.79 ± 1.460 27.59 ± 1.863 26.75 ± 1.658 25.90 ± 1.672
MAX 26.841 27.633 27.853 29.839 30.068 30.068
MIN 22.84 23.669 23.574 24.729 24.984 22.84
E.C. 2018 H(m) X ± S 1.881 ± 0.066 1.943 ± 0.047 1.914 ± 0.040 1.965 ± 0.051 1.956 ± 0.054 1.930 ± 0.060
MAX 2.02 2.03 1.96 2.05 2.02 2.05
MIN 1.78 1.86 1.84 1.88 1.89 1.78
W(kg) X ± S 87.41 ± 5.501 96.83 ± 6.813 94.00 ± 4.497 104.62 ± 9.332 100.30 ± 7.056 96.11 ± 8.850
MAX 100 112 104 116 115 116
MIN 78 85 87 88 90 78
BMI X ± S 24.72 ± 1.415 25.63 ± 1.255 25.66 ± 1.156 27.10 ± 1.842 26.22 ± 1.837 25.79 ± 1.637
MAX 28.09 28.058 28.06 29.839 29.115 29.839
MIN 22.877 23.872 24.195 24.414 24.262 22.877
W.C. 2019 H(m) X ± S 1.872 ± 0.054 1.966 ± 0.061 1.913 ± 0.035 1.974 ± 0.041 1.958 ± 0.045 1.935 ± 0.063
MAX 1.98 2.12 1.96 2.03 2.01 2.12
MIN 1.79 1.90 1.84 1.92 1.89 1.79
W(kg) X ± S 86.25 ± 4.740 98.26 ± 5.858 95.50 ± 6.474 104.64 ± 7.541 98.50 ± 5.043 96.32 ± 8.612
MAX 97 115 109 115 105 115
MIN 78 92 88 90 90 78
BMI X ± S 24.62 ± 0.829 25.43 ± 1.054 26.11 ± 1.947 26.87 ± 1.857 25.71 ± 0.772 25.72 ± 1.546
MAX 25.96 27.33 30.84 29.94 26.78 30.84
MIN 22.91 22.47 23.91 23.67 24.72 22.47
E.C. 2020 H(m) X ± S 1.861 ± 0.048 1.965 ± 0.044 1.888 ± 0.060 1.961 ± 0.039 1.967 ± 0.067 1.928 ± 0.067
MAX 1.93 2.03 1.97 2.02 2.06 2.06
MIN 1.79 1.87 1.77 1.90 1.85 1.77
W(kg) X ± S 85.56 ± 4.56 98.38 ± 5.51 89.82 ± 6.29 105.25 ± 9.26 98.56 ± 7.44 95.26 ± 9.42
MAX 96 110 99 120 110 120
MIN 79 90 77 90 84 77
BMI X ± S 24.73 ± 1.23 25.47 ± 1.08 25.17 ± 0.95 27.35 ± 1.99 25.46 ± 0.91 25.58 ± 1.53
MAX 27.45 28.06 27.17 29.68 27.14 29.68
MIN 22.71 23.67 24.19 24.41 24.26 22.71
W.C. 2021 H(m) X ± S 1.862 ± 0.048 1.942 ± 0.037 1.893 ± 0.033 1.970 ± 0.044 1.931 ± 0.066 1.921 ± 0.059
MAX 1.97 2.02 1.96 2.04 2.03 2.04
MIN 1.79 1.86 1.84 1.91 1.82 1.79
W(kg) X ± S 84.630 ± 4.609 96.731 ± 5.903 93.900 ± 4.977 107.867 ± 8.709 96.833 ± 9.581 95.634 ± 10.044
MAX 92 110 105 120 120 120
MIN 78 86 88 95 85 78
BMI X ± S 24.43 ± 1.15 25.65 ± 1.32 26.22 ± 1.50 27.78 ± 1.85 25.96 ± 1.99 25.87 ± 1.95
MAX 27.17 28.63 29.71 31.80 31.56 31.56
MIN 21.75 23.47 24.90 25.50 24.27 22.27
Open in a new tab

H—height. W—weight. BMI—body mass index. X—average. S—standard deviation. MAX—maximum value. MIN—minimum value.

All the collected data allowed us to find useful information concerning anthropometric characteristics of the elite handball players for each playing position. The synthetic information for all analyzed competitions is presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Synthetic information for the anthropometric indices obtained in our study.

Playing Position/Anthropometric Indices/Statistics Wings Backcourts Center Backs Pivots Goalkeepers Team
H(m) X ± S 1.852 ± 0.051 1.962 ± 0.050 1.903 ± 0.048 1.971 ± 0.046 1.944 ± 0.048 1.926 ± 0.068
MAX 2.00 2.12 1.98 2.14 2.06 2.14
MIN 1.76 1.83 1.77 1.87 1.85 1.76
W(kg) X ± S 84.477 ± 5.199 98.553 ± 6.404 92.697 ± 6.830 105.096 ± 7.482 97.315 ± 6.953 95.280 ± 9.798
MAX 114 118 106 132 120 132
MIN 70 82 74 88 80 70
BMI X ± S 24.625 ± 1.278 25.588 ± 1.317 25.609 ± 1.510 27.207 ± 1.762 25.745 ± 1.417 25.677 ± 1.647
MAX 27.727 30.84 30.84 33.67 31.56 33.67
MIN 21.085 20.87 20.074 22.55 22.161 20.074
Open in a new tab

We applied linear regression to determine the significance of the collected data for the indicators used in our study for each playing position and for all players. The coefficients for regression used to identify the degree of significance are shown in Table 4. This statistical method was applied for a total of 18 situations. The statistical significance was achieved in 16 out of 18 situations: three for p < 0.05. 6 for p < 0.01, three for p < 0.001, and four for p < 0.0001. Statistical significance (Table 4) was not obtained only in two situations (both for goalkeepers).

Table 4.

The significance of the anthropometric patterns for male elite handball players by applying linear regression.

Playing Position/Anthropometric Indices/Statistics Wings Backcourts Center Backs Pivots Goalkeepers Team
Height (m) t 3.02 ** 6.17 **** 5.54 *** 3.98 ** 2.08 3.73 **
p 0.009 0.0001 0.001 0.003 0.076 0.002
Weight (kg) t 3.88 ** 5.20 *** 3.50 ** 3.08 ** 1.74 6.18 ****
p 0.002 0.001 0.008 0.009 0.13 0.0001
BMI t 4.01 *** 9.42 **** 3.27 * 2.88 * 2.82 * 8.30 ****
p 0.001 0.0001 0.011 0.016 0.026 0.0001
Open in a new tab

Significance for * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. **** p < 0.0001.

In this context, we were able to identify the anthropometric pattern for each playing position, including all players as a whole by determining the lower and the upper limits for each of them (Table 5).

Table 5.

Anthropometric patterns for male elite handball players.

Playing Position/Anthropometric Indices Wings Backcourts Center Backs Pivots Goalkeepers Team
Height (m) 1.80–1.90 1.91–2.01 1.85–1.95 1.92–2.02 1.90–1.99 1.86–2.00
Weight (kg) 79–90 92–105 86–99 98–113 90–104 86–105
BMI 23.3–25.9 24.2–27 24.1–27.1 25.5–29 24.3–27.2 24–27.3
Open in a new tab

4. Discussion

The wings were shorter (average height—1.852 m, lower limit—1.80 m and upper limit—1.90 m) and also the lightest players (84.477 kg, minimum—79 kg and maximum—90 kg). The BMI average was 24.625, meaning they were normo-ponderal with a lower limit of 23.3 and an upper limit of 25.9. For all wing indicators, there were obtained statistical significance for p < 0.01 and p < 0.001 (Figure 1) [14,35,41,42,65,66].

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

The average values for anthropometric indicators for each playing position.

Pivots (1.971 m average height, minimum—1.92 m and maximum—2.02 m) and backcourts (1.956 m, minimum—1.91 m and maximum—2.01 m) were the tallest and also the heaviest players, pivots—105.096 kg with accepted limits between 98 and 113 kg and backcourts—98.553 kg with optimal values between 92 and 105 kg. The average BMI for pivots was 27.207 and 25.588 for backcourts. For pivots, there was significance for p < 0.01 (height) and for p < 0.001 (weight and BMI) (Figure 1) [14,35,41,43,65,66].

Goalkeepers were close in value to pivots and backcourts (height average—1.944 m and accepted limits between 1.90 and 1.99 m, weight average—97.315 kg and optimal values between 90 and 104 kg and BMI average—25.745). At linear regression, we obtained statistical significance only for the BMI of goalkeepers (Figure 1) [14,35,45,48,65,66].

Backcourts were close in height to pivots (1.962 m), but lighter (98.553 kg) and the limits for BMI are between 24.2 and 27. The highest values of coefficients at linear regression were achieved at backcourts indicators (p < 0.0001) (Figure 1) [14,35,44,45,46,65,66].

Centerbacks are shorter than pivots, backcourts and goalkeepers but higher than wings with an average value of 1.903 m for height (limits between 1.85 and 1.95 m); the weight average was 92.697 kg (minimum—86 kg and maximum—99 kg); and the BMI average values was 25.609 (accepted range between 24.1 and 27.1). The level of significance for centerback indicators were for p < 0.01 (weight and BMI) and p < 0.001 (height) (Figure 1) [14,35,41,42,65,66].

The overall analysis of the pattern for a top handball player found that the average height was 1.926 m with optimal limits between 1.86 m and 2 m; the weight average was 95.28 kg with 86 to 105 kg accepted limits; and the average BMI was 25.677 with recommended limits between 24 and 27.3. We also obtained statistical significance for p < 0.001 (height) and p < 0.0001 (weight and BMI) (Figure 1) [14,47,48,49,67,68].

We consider the identified pattern in our study for each playing position valid as, in 16 out of 18 situations, we obtained statistical significance at linear regression, and the data were collected for a period of almost 20 years from 974 top male handball players (Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Linear regression model for anthropometric pattern indicators of the male handball players: (a)—height, (b)—weight and (c)—BMI.

Over time, the anthropometric pattern changes for each playing position compared to those in 1970 and 1980. The values for height and weight increased with an average value of 5%. The most important evolution trend was for pivots where the height increased by 7% and the weight by 20% [31,39].

Comparing the results to recent studies concerning the anthropometric pattern for top male handball players, there are no differences [32,35,40,67,68], and the players belonging to teams from the first half of the final ranking in top competitions are in the optimal limits for each indicator [41,58].

An interesting fact is that the pivots were the tallest (197 cm) and heaviest handball players (105 kg), as the backcourts (196 cm) are usually associated as the highest handball players. To identify the anthropometric pattern in our study, only players from the top four were included for each analyzed competition from the best male handball teams for period 2004–2021.

Every year, the I.H.F. awards the world’s best players; five goalkeepers, four centerbacks and two backcourts were nominated for the analyzed period. In that period of time, Nicola Karabatic and Mikkel Hansen were nominated three times. The world’s best players were in the limits of the anthropometric pattern identified in our study. The exception being the goalkeeper Arpad Sterbik, who exceeded the upper limits. This aspect confirms the validity of the anthropometric pattern determined by our study (Table 6).

Table 6.

Anthropometric characteristics for handball players designated by I.H.F. as world players of the year.

Year Player Playing Position Anthropometric Data
Height Weight BMI
2004 Henning Fritz Goalkeeper 1.89 90.5 25.34
2005 Árpád Sterbik Goalkeeper 2 120 30.00
2006 Ivano Balić Center back 1.90 96 26.59
2007 Nikola Karabatić Center back 1.96 104 27.07
2008 Thierry Omeyer Goalkeeper 1.92 93 25.23
2009 Sławomir Szmal Goalkeeper 1.90 90 24.93
2010 Filip Jícha Left back 2.01 105 25.99
2011 Mikkel Hansen Left back 1.92 93 25.23
2012 Daniel Narcisse Center back 1.89 93 26.04
2013 Domagoj Duvnjak Center back 1.98 100 25.51
2014 Nikola Karabatić Center back 1.96 104 27.07
2015 Mikkel Hansen Left back 1.92 93 25.23
2016 Nikola Karabatić Center back 1.96 104 27.07
2018 Mikkel Hansen Left back 1.92 93 25.23
2019 Nikklas Landin Goalkeeper 2.01 105 25.99
Open in a new tab

5. Conclusions

The anthropometric pattern was found to evolve over time: the average height increased (1.4%) but less than the average weight (4.5%), thereby, influencing the average body mass index (2.7%). More weight in the case of elite handball players typically means more muscular mass required by the modern handball player in order to be effective in game actions during the competitions.

Anthropometric characteristics, including the body composition and the somatotype of the elite handball players, are specific to the playing position in order to allow them to efficiently act in competitions. Among these indicators, the specific preparation of handball players is essential to achieve competition goals and to be efficient in specific actions during the game.

The limitations of the study include access to data concerning only height and weight and indirect data collection from the official website of the International Handball Federation and European Federation. For the future, it will be important to collect data for other variables, such as the body composition, skinfold thickness and body circumference. Among other factors, the anthropometric pattern is essential when a coach wants to select a player for his team, and it is optimal to choose a player that meets these requirements concerning anthropometric patterns.

The novelty of our study is that we identified an anthropometric pattern for each playing position and for all teams in elite male handball, and our study covered a period of 18 years to give our results more accuracy and reliability. These identified patterns will be subject to change over time, and further studies are necessary in order to keep these anthropometric models updated.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.V.L., I.P., G.P., D.M.R. and I.M.P.; methodology, F.V.L., I.P., G.P., D.M.R. and I.M.P.; software, I.M.P.; validation, F.V.L. and G.P.; formal analysis, G.P. and D.M.R.; investigation, F.V.L. and I.M.P.; resources, F.V.L., I.P. and D.M.R.; data curation, F.V.L.; writing—original draft preparation, F.V.L., I.P. and D.M.R.; writing—review and editing, G.P. and I.M.P.; visualization, I.M.P.; supervision, G.P. and D.M.R.; project administration, F.V.L.; funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The APC was funded by Stefan cel Mare University of Suceava.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Di Credico A., Gaggi G., Ghinassi B., Mascherini G., Petri C., Di Giminiani R., Di Baldassarre A., Izzicupo P. The influence of maturity status on anthropometric profile and body composition of youth goalkeepers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:8247. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218247. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Viero V., Triossi T., Bianchi D., Campagna A., Melchiorri G. Physical and performance variables for talent identification in water polo. J. Sport Med. Phys. Fit. 2020;60:1309–1316. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.20.10712-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Siquier-Coll J., Grijota F.J., Bartolome I., Montero J., Munoz D. Anthropometric and physical condition analysis of young female handball players. Difference between categories. J. Sport Health Sci. 2020;12:364–372. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Martins N.C., Alves F.D., Sehl P., Schneider C.D., Souza G.C. Comparison between body composition assessment methods in athletes: A systematic review. RBNE-Rev. Bras. Nutr. Esportiva. 2019;13:912–922. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Pireva A. Anthropometric and body composition differences among elite Kosovo basketball, handball and soccer players. Int. J. Morphol. 2019;37:1067–1072. doi: 10.4067/S0717-95022019000301067. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Kaplanova A., Sagat P., Gonzalez P.P., Bartik P., Zvonar M. Somatotype profiles of Slovak and Saudi Arabian male soccer players according to playing positions. Kinesiology. 2020;52:143–150. doi: 10.26582/k.52.1.17. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Campa F., Silva A.M., Talluri J., Matias C.N., Badicu G., Toselli S. Somatotype and bioimpedance vector analysis: A new target zone for male athletes. Sustainability. 2020;12:4365. doi: 10.3390/su12114365. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.de la Fuente F.P., Gonzalez-Jurado J.A., Garcia-Gimenez A., Tobon F.G., Otin C.C. Anthropometric characteristics of elite paddle players. Pilot study. Rev. Int. Med. Y Cienc. Act. Fis. Y Del Deporte. 2019;19:181–195. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bogild P., Jensen K., Kvorning T. Physiological performance characteristics of Danish national team handball players 1990–2016: Implications on position-specific strength and conditioning training. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2020;34:1555–1563. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.O’Brien-Smith J., Bennett K.J.M., Fransen J., Smith M.R. Same or different? A comparison of anthropometry, physical fitness and perceptual motor characteristics in male and female youth soccer players. Sci. Med. Footb. 2020;4:37–44. doi: 10.1080/24733938.2019.1650197. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Clemente F.M., Conte D., Sanches R., Moleiro C.F., Gomes M., Lima R. Anthropometry and fitness profile, and their relationships with technical performance and perceived effort during small-sided basketball games. Res. Sports Med. 2019;27:452–466. doi: 10.1080/15438627.2018.1546704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Sebastia-Amat S., Pueo B., Villalon-Gasch L., Jimenez-Olmedo J.M. Anthropometric profile and conditional factors of U21 Spanish elite beach volleyball players according to playing position. RETOS Nuevas Tend. En Educ. Fis. Deporte Recreacion. 2020;38:620–625. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Rodriguez-Rodriguez F., Lopez-Fuenzalida A., Holway F., Aguilera C.J. Anthropometric differences per playing position in Chilean professional footballers. Nutr. Hosp. 2019;36:846–853. doi: 10.20960/nh.02474. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Lijewski M., Burdukiewicz A., Pietraszewska J., Stachon A., Andrzejewska J., Chromik K. Anthropometric and strength profiles of professional handball players in relation to their playing position-multivariate analysis. Acta Bioeng. Biomech. 2019;21:147–155. doi: 10.37190/ABB-01471-2019-02. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chino K., Inoue N., Iizuka T., Masuda K., Park J.B. Comparison of anthropometric characteristics between elite singles and doubles badminton players. Gazz. Med. Ital. 2019;178:781–784. doi: 10.23736/S0393-3660.18.03960-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Calleja-Gonzalez J., Mielgo-Ayuso J., Lekue J.A., Leibar X., Erauzkin J., Jukic I., Ostojic S.M., Ponce-Gonzalez J.G., Fuentes-Azpiroz M., Terrados N. Anthropometry and performance of top youth international male basketball players in Spanish national academy. Nutr. Hosp. 2018;35:1331–1339. doi: 10.20960/nh.1897. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Tomaszewski P., Keska A., Tkaczyk J., Nowicki D., Sienkiewicz-Dianzenza E. Somatic characteristics and motor fitness of elite and sub-elite Polish male badminton players. J. Sport Med. Phys. Fit. 2018;58:1456–1464. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.17.07279-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Neogi A., Chakraborty C., Chatterjee S., Dey S.K. Anthropometric profiles and pulmonary function parameters of male Football & Hockey players according to their specific playing position: A Comparative Study. Int. J. Appl. Exerc. Physiol. 2018;7:10–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Mallett A., Bellinger P., Derave W., Osborne M., Minahan C. The age, height, and body mass of Olympic swimmers: A 50-year review and update. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2020;16:210–223. doi: 10.1177/1747954120971797. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sengeis M., Muller W., Storchle P., Furhapter-Rieger A. Competitive performance of Kenyan runners compared to their relative body weight and fat. Int. J. Sports Med. 2020;42:323–335. doi: 10.1055/a-1268-8339. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sanchez Munoz C., Muros J.J., Belmonte O.L., Zabala M. Anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype of elite male young runners. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:674. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17020674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Leon-Guereno P., Urdampilleta A., Zourdos M.C., Mielgo-Ayuso J. Anthropometric profile, body composition and somatotype in elite traditional rowers: A cross-sectional study. Rev. Esp. De Nutr. Hum. Y Diet. 2018;22:279–286. doi: 10.14306/renhyd.22.4.605. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Prieske O., Chaabene H., Gabler M., Herz M., Helm N., Markov A., Granacher U. Seasonal changes in anthropometry, body composition, and physical fitness and the relationships with sporting success in young sub-elite judo athletes: An exploratory study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;19:7169. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17197169. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Giles D., Barnes K., Taylor N., Chidley C., Chidley J., Mitchell J., Torr O., Gibson-Smith E., Espana-Romero V. Anthropometry and performance characteristics of recreational advanced to elite female rock climbers. J. Sports Sci. 2020;39:48–56. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2020.1804784. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Nichas A., Shaw B.S., Millard L., Breukelman G.J., Shaw I. Kinanthropometric attributes of elite South African male kata and kumite karateka. Arch. Budo. 2020;16:181–194. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Mostaert M., Laureys F., Vansteenkiste P., Pion J., Deconinck F.J.A., Lenoir M. Discriminating performance profiles of cycling disciplines. Int. J. Sports Sci. Coach. 2021;16:110–122. doi: 10.1177/1747954120948146. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Chaabene H., Prieske O., Lesinski M., Sandau I., Granacher U. Short-term seasonal development of anthropometry, body composition, physical fitness, and sport-specific performance in young Olympic weightlifters. Sports. 2019;7:242. doi: 10.3390/sports7120242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.van der Zwaard S., de Ruiter C.J., Jaspers R.T., de Koning J.J. Anthropometric clusters of competitive cyclists and their sprint and endurance performance. Front. Physiol. 2019;10:1276. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Dessalew G.W., Woldeyes D.H., Abegaz B.A. The relationship between anthropometric variables and race performance. Open Access J. Sports Med. 2019;10:209–216. doi: 10.2147/OAJSM.S234067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Wazir M.R.W.N., Mostaert M., Pion J., Lenoir M. Anthropometry, physical performance, and motor coordination of medallist and non-medallist young fencers. Arch. Budo. 2018;14:33–40. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Taborsky F. The Body Height and Top Team Handball Players. [(accessed on 3 March 2016)];EHF Web Period. 2007 1:1–3. Available online: http://home.eurohandball.com/ehf_files/Publikation/WP_Taborsky-Body%20height.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Nikolaidis P.T., Ingebrigtsen J., Povoas S.C., Moss S., Torres-Luque G. Physical and physiological characteristics in male team handball players by playing position—Does age matter? J. Sport Med. Phys. Fit. 2015;55:297–304. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Fieseler G., Hermassi S., Hoffmeyer B., Schulze S., Irlenbusch L., Bartels T., Delank K.S., Laudner K.G., Schwesig R. Differences in anthropometric characteristics in relation to throwing velocity and competitive level in professional male team handball: A tool for talent profiling. J. Sport Med. Phys. Fit. 2017;57:985–992. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.17.06938-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Chaouachi A., Brughelli M., Levin G., Boudhina N.B., Cronin J., Chamari K. Anthropometric, physiological and performance characteristics of elite team-handball players. J. Sports Sci. 2009;27:151–157. doi: 10.1080/02640410802448731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ramos-Sanchez F., Camina-Martin M.A., Alonso-de-la-Torre S.R., Redondo-del-Rio P., de-Mateo-Silleras B. Body composition and somatotype in professional men’s handball according to playing positions. Rev. Int. Med. Cienc. Act. Fís. Deporte. 2018;18:91–102. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Manchado C., Tortosa-Martinez J., Vila H., Ferragut C., Platen P. Performance factors in women′s team handball: Physical and physiological aspects: Review. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2013;27:1708–1719. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182891535. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Debanne T., Laffaye G. Predicting the throwing velocity of the ball in handball with anthropometric variables and isotonic tests. J. Sports Sci. 2011;29:705–713. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2011.552112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wagner H., Fuchs P.X., von Duvillard S.P. Specific physiological and biomechanical performance in elite, sub-elite and in non-elite male team handball players. J. Sport Med. Phys. Fit. 2018;58:73–81. doi: 10.23736/S0022-4707.16.06758-X. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ghermănescu I.K., Gogaltan V., Jianu E., Negulescu I. Teoria şi Metodica Handbalului (Theory and Methodic of Handball) 1st ed. Editura Didactică şi Pedagogică; Bucureşti, Romania: 1983. p. 164. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Leuciuc F.V. Somatic model and performance age in elite handball (study case: Male Champions League final four 2012) Gymnasium. 2012;13:113–125. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Ghobadi H., Rajabi H., Farzad B., Bayati M., Jeffreys I. Anthropometry of world-class elite handball players according to the playing position: Reports from men’s handball world championship 2013. J. Hum. Kinet. 2013;39:213–220. doi: 10.2478/hukin-2013-0084. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Bayios I.A., Anastasopoulou E.M., Sioudris D.S., Boudolos K.D. Relationship between isokinetic strength of the internal and external shoulder rotators and ball velocity in team handball. J. Sport Med. Phys. Fit. 2001;41:229–235. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Gorostiaga E.M., Granados C., Ibanez J., Izquierdo M. Differences in physical fitness and throwing velocity among elite and amateur male handball players. Int. J. Sports Med. 2005;26:225–232. doi: 10.1055/s-2004-820974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Marques M.C., Gonzalez-Badillo J.J. In-season resistance training and detraining in professional team handball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2006;20:563–571. doi: 10.1519/R-17365.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Asci A., Acikada C. Power production among different sports with similar maximum strength. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2007;21:10–16. doi: 10.1519/R-16474.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Marques M.C., van den Tillaar R., Vescovi J.D., GonzalezBadillo J.J. Relationship between throwing velocity, muscle power, and bar velocity during bench press in elite handball players. Int. J. Sports Physiol. Perform. 2007;2:414–422. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2.4.414. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Buchheit M., Lepretre P.M., Behaegel A.L., Millet G.P., Cuvelier G., Ahmaidi S. Cardiorespiratory responses during running and sport-specific exercises in handball players. J. Sci. Med. Sport. 2009;12:399–405. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2007.11.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Sibila M., Pori P. Position-Related Differences in Selected Morphological Body Characteristics of Top-Level Handball Players. Coll. Antropol. 2009;33:1079–1086. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Michalsik L.B., Madsen K., Aagaard P. Technical match characteristics and influence of body anthropometry on playing performance in male elite team handball. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015;29:416–428. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000595. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Official Results Book, Handball, 14–29 August, Atena 2004. [(accessed on 3 March 2016)]. Available online: http://www.ihf.info/files/Uploads/Documents/8294_HB.pdf.
  • 51.Official Results Book, Handball, 9–24 August, Beijing 2008. [(accessed on 3 March 2016)]. Available online: http://www.ihf.info/files/Uploads/Documents/8238_HB_Results_Bookoverall%20team%20statistics.pdf.
  • 52.Official Results Book, Handball, 28 July–12 August, London 2012. [(accessed on 3 March 2016)]. Available online: http://www.ihf.info/files/Uploads/Documents/11388_Handball%20%20HB%20Results%20Book%20V1[1].pdf.
  • 53.Official Results Book, Handball, 6–21 August, Rio de Janeiro 2016. [(accessed on 7 December 2016)]. Available online: http://ihf.info/files/Uploads/Documents/43056_Rio_2016_Handball_Results_Book_v1.0.pd.pdf.
  • 54. [(accessed on 3 March 2016)]. Available online: http://www.ihf.info/enus/ihfcompetitions/worldchampionships/mensworldchampionships/xximenshandballworldchampionship2009/teaminfo.aspx.
  • 55. [(accessed on 3 March 2016)]. Available online: http://www.ihf.info/enus/ihfcompetitions/worldchampionships/mensworldchampionships/xxiimenshandballworldchampionship2011/teaminfo.aspx.
  • 56. [(accessed on 3 March 2016)]. Available online: http://www.ihf.info/enus/ihfcompetitions/worldchampionships/mensworldchampionships/menshandballworldchampionshipspain2013/teaminfo.aspx.
  • 57. [(accessed on 3 March 2016)]. Available online: http://www.ihf.info/enus/ihfcompetitions/worldchampionships/mensworldchampionships/menshandballworldchampionshipqatar2015/teaminfo.aspx.
  • 58. [(accessed on 12 May 2017)]. Available online: http://ihf.info/enus/ihfcompetitions/worldchampionships/mensworldchampionships/menshandballworldchampionshipfrance2017/teaminfo.aspx.
  • 59. [(accessed on 28 April 2019)]. Available online: http://www.handball19.com/#teams.
  • 60. [(accessed on 1 February 2021)]. Available online: https://www.ihf.info/competitions/men/308/27th-ihf-mens-world-championship-2021/22415/groups-rankings.
  • 61. [(accessed on 3 March 2016)]. Available online: http://den2014.ehf-euro.com/teams/
  • 62. [(accessed on 3 March 2016)]. Available online: http://pol2016.ehf-euro.com/teams/
  • 63. [(accessed on 9 March 2018)]. Available online: https://cro2018.ehf-euro.com/teams/
  • 64. [(accessed on 17 December 2020)]. Available online: https://www.m20ehfeuro.com/en/teams.
  • 65.Burdukiewicz A., Pietraszewska J., Andrzejewska J., Stachon A., Lijewski M. Variability in professional athletes: Secular changes in the anthropometry of elite handball players. Homo. 2020;70:163–170. doi: 10.1127/homo/2019/1050. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Hermassi S., van den Tillaar R., Khlifa R., Chelly M.S., Chamari K. Comparison of in-season-specific resistance vs. A regular throwing training program on throwing velocity, anthropometry, and power performance in elite handball players. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2015;29:2105–2114. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000855. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Cichy I., Dudkowski A., Kociuba M., Ignasiak Z., Sebastjan A., Kochan K., Koziel S., Rokita A., Malina R.M. Sex differences in body composition changes after preseason training in elite handball players. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2020;17:3880. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17113880. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Ziv G., Lidor R. Physical characteristics, physiological attributes, and on-court performances of handball players: A review. Eur. J. Sport Sci. 2009;9:375–386. doi: 10.1080/17461390903038470. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Articles from International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES