4.4 Review

Physical characteristics, physiological attributes, and on-court performances of handball players: A review

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SPORT SCIENCE
Volume 9, Issue 6, Pages 375-386

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17461390903038470

Keywords

Team handball; sports performance; throwing velocity; throwing accuracy; on-court performances

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The main purpose of this article was to review a series of studies (n = 23) on physical characteristics, physiological attributes, throwing velocity and accuracy, and on-court performances of male handball players - amateur players, experienced players, professional players, and players on the national team. Five main findings emerged from our review: (1) Elite players are heavier and have higher fat-free mass than amateur players. (2) The maximal oxygen uptake of male players is between 50 and 60 ml . kg(-1) . min(-1). (3) Throwing velocity is higher by as much as 9% in elite male players compared with amateur male players. (4) Heart rates can rise above 160 beats . min(-1) in male players during a game. (5) On-court distance covered in a game averaged approximately 4 km and ranged between 2 and 5 km, depending on playing position. Our methodological concerns based on the reviewed studies are: (a) a lack of on-court physiological data; (b) a lack of experimental/manipulative studies; (c) limited data on throwing accuracy; and (d) a lack of longitudinal studies. The practical implications include: (a) strength and power exercises should be emphasized in conditioning programmes, as they are associated with both sprint performance and throwing velocity; (b) speed and agility drills should also be implemented in conditioning programmes; and (c) specificity of training based upon the position of the player is of great importance when planning strength and conditioning programmes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available