Physical Characteristics and Physiological Attributes of … · 2017-03-30 · that a careful selection of physiological tests should be made when assessing the abilities of adolescent

114

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 ZivZinman 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 informa-tion 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 ado-lescent 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 through-out 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—prepara-tion, 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.

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 CharacteristicsA 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 impor-tance, 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 anthro-pometric 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 measure-ments as well as players’ proficiency in several aspects of the game, such as attack-ing, blocking, and serving, were reported. For example, the tallest and heaviest

116

Tab

le 1

A

Su

mm

ary

of

the

Phy

sica

l Ch

arac

teri

stic

s o

f Fe

mal

e P

laye

rs (

Mea

ns

± S

D)

Stu

dy

Po

pu

lati

on

Hei

gh

t (c

m)

Mas

s (k

g)

%B

FF

FM

(kg

)

Bea

ls 2

002

(2)

Ran

ked

adol

esce

nt v

olle

ybal

l pl

ayer

s (n

= 2

3; a

ges

= 1

4–17

ye

ars)

171.

9 ±

8.0

65.2

± 8

.718

.3 ±

2.5

4-si

te s

kinf

old;

Equ

atio

ns o

f Ja

ckso

n an

d Po

l-lo

ck

53.3

*

Cha

ng e

t al.

2008

(4)

Play

ers

from

Tai

wan

’s ju

nior

na

tiona

l tea

m a

nd a

hig

h-sc

hool

(n

= 3

9)

168

± 6

.062

.7 ±

5.8

18.1

3 ±

2.6

2B

ioel

ectr

ical

impe

danc

e an

alys

is

51.3

*

Gab

bett

and

Geo

rgie

ff

2007

(6)

Juni

or v

olle

ybal

l pla

yers

(n

= 9

6); s

chol

arsh

ip h

olde

rs

with

in th

e Q

ueen

slan

d A

cad-

emy

of S

port

Tal

ent S

earc

h vo

lleyb

all p

rogr

am (

age

=

15.6

±.1

yea

rs)

Nat

iona

l lev

el:

179.

2 ±

1.0

Stat

e le

vel:

179.

5±.6

Nov

ice:

177.

0±.6

Nat

iona

l lev

el:

68.4

± 1

.3St

ate

leve

l:67

.2 ±

1.3

Nov

ice:

66.8

± 1

.2

Sum

of

7 sk

info

lds

repo

rted

Nat

iona

l lev

el:

69.7

± 1

.1 m

mSt

ate

leve

l:85

.1 ±

2.4

mm

Nov

ice:

114.

0 ±

3.1

N/A

Grg

anto

v et

al

. 200

6 (9

)M

embe

rs o

f 13

vol

leyb

all

team

s in

Cro

atia

Age

s =

12–

13 (

n =

32)

, 14–

15

(n =

147

), 1

6–17

(n

= 5

0),

18–1

9 (n

= 1

7)

Age

s 12

–13:

169.

33 ±

6.0

9A

ges

14–1

5:17

0.86

± 6

.45

Age

s 16

–17:

174.

36 ±

6.5

7A

ges

18–1

9:17

5.99

± 7

.37

Age

s 12

–13:

55.9

2 ±

8.6

2A

ges

14–1

5:59

.51

± 7

.28

Age

s 16

–17:

63.9

8±.4

6A

ges

18–1

9:66

.84

± 7

.37

N/A

N/A

Leo

ne e

t al.

2002

(14

)Fe

mal

e pl

ayer

s ag

ed 1

2–17

ye

ars

(13.

8 ±

1.3;

n =

16)

163

± 5

57.7

± 8

.3Su

m o

f 5

skin

fold

s re

port

ed63

.1 ±

15.

5N

/A

(con

tinu

ed)

117

Stu

dy

Po

pu

lati

on

Hei

gh

t (c

m)

Mas

s (k

g)

%B

FF

FM

(kg

)M

alin

a 19

94

(18)

Fem

ale

play

ers

aged

9–1

3 ye

ars

(n =

19)

Age

10

(n =

16)

141.

1 ±

6.6

Age

11

(n =

19)

147.

3 ±

6.6

Age

12.

0 (n

= 1

8)15

4.1

± 6

.7A

ge 1

3.1

(n =

11)

160.

3 ±

5.8

Age

10

(n =

16)

31.3

± 3

.5A

ge 1

1 (n

= 1

9)35

.9 ±

3.6

Age

12

(n =

18)

41.7

± 4

.7A

ge 1

3.1

(n =

11)

48.6

± 5

.1

N/A

N/A

Mar

tel e

t al.

2005

(20

)Pl

ayer

s fr

om lo

cal h

igh

scho

ol v

olle

ybal

l tea

m (

n =

19

); T

wo

trai

ning

gro

ups:

C

ontr

ol g

roup

(n

= 1

0; a

ge =

15

± 1

yea

rs)

Aqu

atic

trai

ning

gro

up (

n =

9;

age

= 4

±1

year

s)

Con

trol

gro

up:

167

± 9

Aqu

atic

trai

ning

gr

oup:

164

± 8

Con

trol

gro

up:

64 ±

13

Aqu

atic

trai

ning

gr

oup:

57 ±

8

N/A

N/A

Mel

rose

et

al.

2007

(2

1)

Mem

bers

of

com

petit

ive

volle

ybal

l clu

b (n

= 2

9). A

ges

= 1

2–17

yea

rs (

14.3

1 ±

1.3

7)

Age

s 12

–14:

167

± 9

.0A

ges

15–1

7:17

0 ±

7.0

Age

s 12

–14:

56.0

8 ±

8.4

7A

ges

15–1

7:62

.80

± 6

.61

Age

s 12

–14:

21.6

4 ±

4.2

6A

ges

15–1

7:20

.97

± 5

.46

3-si

te s

kinf

old

mea

sure

men

ts;

Siri

for

mul

a

Age

s 12

–14:

43.9

± 4

.41

Age

s 15

–17:

49.3

9 ±

3.6

8

Nou

tsos

et

al.

2008

(2

3)

Play

ers

aged

17.

2 ±

1.3

yea

rs

(n =

28)

175.

2 ±

6.3

64.7

± 6

.5?1

8%*

5-si

te s

kinf

old

mea

sure

men

ts55

.3 ±

4.6

Tab

le 1

(co

nti

nu

ed)

(con

tinu

ed)

118

Stu

dy

Po

pu

lati

on

Hei

gh

t (c

m)

Mas

s (k

g)

%B

FF

FM

(kg

)Pr

okop

ec

et a

l. 20

03

(25)

Cze

ch p

laye

rs a

ged

8–14

(n

= 2

38)

Eac

h ag

e gr

oup

with

pla

yers

fr

om th

e 1s

t day

of

atta

ined

ag

e to

the

last

day

bef

ore

ente

ring

the

next

age

gro

up

Age

8–9

(n

= 1

6)14

1.14

± 5

.20

Age

9–1

0 (n

= 4

5)14

4.67

± 5

.29

Age

10–

11 (

n =

58)

151.

05 ±

5.9

0A

ge 1

1–12

(n

= 4

2)15

8.94

± 6

.34

Age

12–

13 (

n =

29)

163.

74 ±

6.0

6A

ge 1

3–14

(n

= 4

8)16

9.37

± 4

.26

Age

8–9

(n

= 1

6)31

.26

± 4

.56

Age

9–1

0 (n

= 4

5)33

.71

± 4

.29

Age

10–

11 (

n =

58)

37.5

0 ±

4.9

6A

ge 1

1–12

(n

= 4

2)43

.15

± 5

.70

Age

12–

13 (

n =

29)

47.5

6 ±

6.3

3A

ge 1

3–14

(n

= 4

8)54

.21

± 4

.15

Age

8–9

(n

= 1

6)21

%A

ge 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-si

te s

kinf

old

mea

sure

men

ts

Age

8–9

(n

= 1

6)24

.7*

Age

9–1

0 (n

= 4

5)26

.3*

Age

10–

11 (

n =

58)

28.9

*A

ge 1

1–12

(n

= 4

2)33

.2*

Age

12–

13 (

n =

29)

36.1

*A

ge 1

3–14

(n

= 4

8)40

.7*

Rou

sano

-gl

ou e

t al.

2008

(26

)

Elit

e pl

ayer

s (n

= 2

1); A

ge=

16

.3±

.8 y

ears

170.

0 ±

9.0

61.5

± 7

.1N

/AN

/A

Stam

m e

t al.

2002

(29

)13

–16

year

-old

pla

yers

pla

y-in

g at

the

unde

r 16

cha

mpi

on-

ship

(n

= 4

6);

Tann

er s

tage

s II

I-IV

Age

13

(n =

10)

163.

19 ±

7.2

3A

ge 1

4 (n

= 1

4)16

4.08

± 4

.41

Age

15

(n =

12)

168.

43 ±

5.3

0A

ge 1

6 (n

= 1

0)16

9.60

± 5

.50

Age

13

(n =

10)

54

.48

± 1

3.34

Age

14

(n =

14)

52.5

5 ±

6.6

5A

ge 1

5 (n

= 1

2)58

.26

± 4

.20

Age

16

(n =

10)

60.4

6 ±

9.4

7

Onl

y in

divi

dual

ski

nfol

d m

ea-

sure

men

ts w

ere

repo

rted

N/A

Tab

le 1

(co

nti

nu

ed)

(con

tinu

ed)

119

Stu

dy

Po

pu

lati

on

Hei

gh

t (c

m)

Mas

s (k

g)

%B

FF

FM

(kg

)St

amm

et a

l. 20

03 (

36)

13–1

6 ye

ar-o

ld p

laye

rs p

ar-

ticip

atin

g in

you

ng f

emal

e vo

lleyb

alle

rs’

cham

pion

ship

s(n

= 3

2)Ta

nner

sta

ges

III-

IV

Age

13

(n =

5)

165.

46±

8.5

7A

ge 1

4 (n

= 9

)16

4.20

± 4

.89

Age

15

(n =

10)

168.

03 ±

5.5

5A

ge 1

6 (n

= 8

)17

0.74

± 1

.15

Age

13

(n =

5)

56.9

3 ±

17.

13A

ge 1

4 (n

= 9

)51

.76

± 6

.69

Age

15

(n =

10)

58.2

8 ±

4.5

7A

ge 1

6 (n

= 8

)60

.45±

.16

N/A

N/A

Stam

m e

t al.

2004

(30

)Pl

ayer

s fr

om e

ight

mos

t suc

-ce

ssfu

l vol

leyb

all t

eam

s of

C

lass

C w

ho p

artic

ipat

ed in

E

ston

ian

cham

pion

ship

s (n

=

77; A

ges

= 1

3–15

yea

rs)

168.

47 ±

6.2

Ran

ge:

150.

7–19

3.4

58.0

5 ±

7.4

Ran

ge:

39.9

–76.

0

N/A

N/A

Stam

m e

t al.

2005

(31

)Pl

ayer

s fr

om 1

2 te

ams

(age

s =

14–

17 y

ears

) w

ho p

artic

i-pa

ted

at G

irl’s

You

th E

uro-

pean

Vol

leyb

all C

ham

pion

-sh

ip (

n =

144

)

182.

19 ±

5.8

865

.94

± 7

.69

N/A

N/A

Thi

ssen

-M

iller

et a

l. (3

9)

Hig

h sc

hool

vol

leyb

all p

lay-

ers

(n =

50)

Fres

hman

team

(n

= 1

2);

Age

= 1

4.12

±.6

1 ye

ars

Juni

or v

arsi

ty (

n =

14;

Age

=

15.6

5±.6

3 ye

ars

Var

sity

team

(n

= 2

4; A

ge=

16

.04±

.64

year

s

Fres

hman

:16

7.1

± 6

.7Ju

nior

var

sity

:16

7.0

± 7

.4V

arsi

ty:

168.

7 ±

7.8

Fres

hman

:58

.8 ±

6.4

Juni

or v

arsi

ty:

50.7

± 8

.0V

arsi

ty:

58.6

± 1

0.5

Fres

hman

:18

.1 ±

2.6

Juni

or v

arsi

ty:

19.6

± 3

.4V

arsi

ty:

17.2

± 3

.85-

site

ski

nfol

d m

easu

rem

ents

; E

quat

ions

for

chi

ldre

n an

d yo

ung

wom

en

Fres

hman

:48

.2*

Juni

or40

.8*

Var

sity

:48

.5*

Tab

le 1

(co

nti

nu

ed)

(con

tinu

ed)

120

Stu

dy

Po

pu

lati

on

Hei

gh

t (c

m)

Mas

s (k

g)

%B

FF

FM

(kg

)T

suna

wak

e et

al.

2003

(4

1)

Play

ers

from

a te

am th

at w

on

inte

rhig

h sc

hool

mee

tings

in

Japa

n. (

n =

12)

; Age

= 1

7.4

±

.73

year

s

168.

7 ±

5.8

959

.7 ±

5.7

318

.4 ±

3.2

9E

ight

-site

ski

nfol

d m

easu

re-

men

ts a

nd u

nder

wat

er w

eigh

-in

g

48.6

± 4

.53

Viv

iani

and

B

aldi

n 19

93

(43)

Juni

or p

laye

rs (

n =

25)

; Age

=

13–1

8 ye

ars

(14.

4 ±

1.2

)16

3.3

± 5

.756

.4 ±

8.8

21.3

± 4

.6Sk

info

ld m

easu

rem

ents

; Sir

i eq

uatio

ns

44.4

*

Not

e. %

BF

= p

erce

nt b

ody

fat;

FFM

= f

at-f

ree

mas

s; *

Dat

a no

t pro

vide

d in

text

, cal

cula

ted

by a

utho

rs.

Tab

le 1

(co

nti

nu

ed)

121

Tab

le 2

A

Su

mm

ary

of

the

Phy

sica

l Ch

arac

teri

stic

s o

f M

ale

Pla

yers

(M

ean

s ±

SD

)

Stu

dyPo

pula

tion

Hei

ght (

cm)

Mas

s (k

g)%

BF

FFM

(kg)

Dun

can

et a

l. 20

06 (

5)Ju

nior

pla

yers

(n

= 2

5); A

ge=

16–

19

year

s (1

7.5±

.5)

Sette

rs:

191

± 5

.0H

itter

s:19

3 ±

4.5

Cen

ters

:18

7 ±

3.6

Opp

osite

s:19

0 ±

5.9

Sette

rs:

71.2

± 9

.3H

itter

s:77

.9 ±

8.4

Cen

ters

:77

.6 ±

5.9

Opp

osite

s:71

.3 ±

9.2

Sette

rs:

12.9

± 3

.4H

itter

s:12

.5 ±

2.4

Cen

ters

:11

.5 ±

2.2

Opp

osite

s:11

.8 ±

3.5

4-si

te s

kinf

old

mea

sure

men

ts

Sette

rs:

43.4

± 5

.2H

itter

s:50

.9 ±

7.1

Cen

ters

:49

.6 ±

4.4

Opp

osite

s:44

.5 ±

5.2

Gab

bett

et a

l. 20

06 (

7)Ju

nior

pla

yers

(n

= 2

6) S

chol

ar-

ship

hol

ders

with

in th

e Q

ueen

slan

d A

cade

my

of S

port

Tal

ent S

earc

h vo

lleyb

all p

rogr

am. A

ge=

15.

5±.2

ye

ars

182.

2 ±

1.5

72.3

± 2

.5Su

m o

f 7

skin

fold

s re

port

ed.

Pret

rain

ing:

88.

7 ±

5.7

mm

Post

trai

ning

: 86.

8 ±

5.7

mm

N/A

Gab

bett

et a

l. 20

07 (

8)Ju

nior

pla

yers

fro

m B

risb

ane

met

ro-

polit

an a

rea

(n =

28)

;A

ge =

15.

5 ±

1.0

yea

rsTe

sted

for

bei

ng a

ccep

ted

to th

e Q

ueen

slan

d A

cade

my

of S

port

Ta

lent

Sea

rch

volle

ybal

l pro

gram

Sele

cted

for

pro

-gr

am:

184.

0 ±

8.0

Not

sel

ecte

d:18

4.0

± 7

.0

Sele

cted

for

pro

-gr

am:

71.1

±.6

Not

sel

ecte

d:77

.3 ±

13.

6

Sum

of

7 sk

info

lds

repo

rted

.Se

lect

ed f

or p

rogr

am:

83.1

± 2

3.9

mm

Not

sel

ecte

d:98

.7 ±

34.

7 m

m

N/A

Gab

bett

and

Geo

rgie

ff 2

007

(6)

Juni

or v

olle

ybal

l pla

yers

(n

= 5

7)Sc

hola

rshi

p ho

lder

s w

ithin

the

Que

ensl

and

Aca

dem

y of

Spo

rt

Tale

nt S

earc

h vo

lleyb

all p

rogr

am

(age

= 1

5.6±

.1 y

ears

)

Nat

iona

l lev

el:

195.

2 ±

2.4

Stat

e le

vel:

190.

0 ±

1.2

Nov

ice:

187.

3±.5

Nat

iona

l lev

el:

80.2

± 1

.9St

ate

leve

l:81

.8 ±

1.7

Nov

ice:

80.9

± 2

.5

Sum

of

7 sk

info

lds

repo

rted

.N

atio

nal:

57.8

± 3

.0 m

mSt

ate:

50.5

± 1

.0 m

mN

ovic

e:88

.4 ±

6.2

N/A (c

onti

nued

)

122

Stu

dyPo

pula

tion

Hei

ght (

cm)

Mas

s (k

g)%

BF

FFM

(kg)

Kas

abal

is e

t al.

2005

(12

)Pl

ayer

s ag

ed 1

0–11

(n

= 2

1) a

nd

15–1

6 (n

= 1

8)A

ges

10–1

1:15

0.5

± 5

.9A

ges

15–1

6:18

9.6

± 5

.6

Age

s 10

–11:

42.0

± 6

.0A

ges

15–1

6:77

.0 ±

6.6

Age

s 10

–11:

17.3

± 2

.4A

ges

15–1

6:15

.1 ±

2.2

No

data

on

%B

F m

easu

rem

ent

Age

s 10

–11:

34.7

*A

ges

15–1

6:65

.4 *

Lid

or e

t al.

2007

(16

)M

embe

rs o

f a

cohe

rent

team

that

co

mpe

ted

in th

e 2n

d Is

rael

i nat

iona

l le

ague

(n

= 1

5). A

ge=

16.

4±.8

2 ye

ars

Star

ters

:18

8 ±

2.9

Non

star

ters

:18

6.7

± 4

.6

Star

ters

:75

.6 ±

5.9

Non

star

ters

:71

.5 ±

8

N/A

N/A

Mal

ates

ta e

t al.

2003

(17

)Pl

ayer

s of

reg

iona

l lev

el I

talia

n V

olle

ybal

l Fed

erat

ion

Lea

gue

(n =

12

; age

= 1

7.2±

.3

181.

8±.3

73.0

± 4

.2N

/AN

/A

Nac

zk e

t al.

2006

(22

)Pl

ayer

s ag

ed 1

5 ye

ars

(n =

15)

183.

5 ±

6.5

70.5

± 9

.7N

/AN

/A

Stag

anel

li et

al

. (37

)U

nder

-19

mal

e B

razi

lian

play

ers

(n

= 1

1; a

ge =

18.

0±.5

yea

rs)

Test

ing

on fi

rst w

eek

of tr

aini

ng,

nint

h w

eek

of tr

aini

ng, 1

8th

wee

k of

tr

aini

ng

198.

7 ±

5.5

(no

diff

eren

ces

betw

een

test

ing

times

)

Firs

t wee

k:85

.8 ±

6.0

Nin

th w

eek:

88.4

± 6

.418

th w

eek:

87.6

± 5

.6

Firs

t wee

k:8.

3±.9

Nin

th w

eek:

8.7

± 1

.018

th w

eek:

8.9

± 0

.93-

site

ski

nfol

d m

easu

rem

ents

Firs

t wee

k:78

.6 ±

5.1

Nin

th w

eek:

80.6

± 5

.518

th w

eek:

79.7

± 4

.9

Viv

iani

200

4 (4

2)Pl

ayer

s (n

= 2

5) a

ged

13–1

8 (1

5.5

±

1.2)

yea

rs17

8.0

± 7

.466

.6 ±

8.5

11.8

± 6

.0Sk

info

ld m

easu

rem

ents

; Sir

i eq

uatio

ns

58.7

5

Not

e. %

BF

= p

erce

nt b

ody

fat;

FFM

= f

at-f

ree

mas

s; *

Dat

a no

t pro

vide

d in

text

, cal

cula

ted

by a

utho

rs.

Tab

le 2

(co

nti

nu

ed)


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 year-old 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 dif-ferences 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 per-cent 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 play-ers (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 train-ing 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.


Strength and PowerFemale 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 leap-ing 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 pro-tocol 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 adoles-cents (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 nonstart-ers 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 capac-ity 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 consist-ing 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 regional-level 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 signifi-cantly 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 correla-tion 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.


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 com-puter 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 tech-niques 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 tap-ping, 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 fundamen-tals 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 understand-ing 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 Divi-sion 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 improve-ment 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.


Physical Characteristics and Physiological Attributes—The Existing Interrelationships

Four key points can summarize the interrelationships between the physical charac-teristics 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 physio-logical abilities.

What Can We Learn From the Reviewed Studies?—Six Methodological Concerns

Analyses of the designs of the reviewed studies revealed a number of methodologi-cal 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 composi-tion, 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 explain-ing 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 addi-tion, 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 play-ers 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 envi-ronmental 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 dif-ferent 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


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 play-ers? 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 cha-racteristics 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 ado-lescent 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 physi-cal 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 observa-tions 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 dis-cussed 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 volley-ball 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 accord-ing 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.


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 electromyo-stimulation 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 train-ing 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 per-formance 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 character-istics 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 Kinet-ics, 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 vol-leyballers 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 proper-ties. 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. Adapta-tions 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. Cham-paign, 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.

Physical Characteristics and Physiological Attributes of … · 2017-03-30 · that a careful selection of physiological tests should be made when assessing the abilities of adolescent

Documents