| Sažetak | Osnovni je cilj istraživanja bio dobiti uvid u tjelesnu građu i parametre kondicijske pripremljenosti selekcioniranih perspektivnih hrvatskih rukometašica mlađe dobi – juniorki (JUN) – do 18 (n=32, dob 18,43±0,80 god.), kadetkinja (KAD) – do 16 (n=56, dob 15,94±1,16 god.) i mlađih kadetkinja (MK) –do 14 (n=48, dob 13,88±0,46 god.), pomoću utvrđivanja razlika i strukture tih razlika u antropometrijskim karakteristikama, pokazateljima bazične i specifične kondicijske pripremljenosti, odnosno u indikatorima bazičnih i specifičnih motoričkih te funkcionalnih sposobnosti (aerobni i anaerobni kapacitet). Utvrđivale su se i unutargrupne razlike među igračicama na različitim pozicijama u napadu – vanjske (VAN, n=76), krilne (KRI, n =37) i kružne (KRU, n=23) igračice unutar njihove dobne skupine, ali i razlike među KRI, KRU i VAN igračicama različite dobi. Postavljeno je 14 hipoteza o postojanju razlika među poduzorcima ispitanica. Uzorak ispitanica činilo je 136 članica hrvatskih rukometnih klubova koje su njihovi treneri i izbornici HRS-a prethodno ocijenili perspektivnim igračicama u određenoj dobnoj skupini u Hrvatskoj prema uvježbanosti rukometnih tehnika i iskustvu u igri (ispitanice su počele organizirano trenirati i igrati rukomet u prosjeku sa 10 godina). Uzorak varijabli za utvrđivanje antropoloških obilježja dobiven je mjerenjem 24 morfološke karakteristike, a dodatno su izračunati: indeks tjelesne mase (BMI kg/m2), postotak potkožnog masnog tkiva (%PMT) i suma kožnih nabora. Morfološke mjere i izračuni uporabljeni su za utvrđivanje konstitucijskih tipova (somatotipova) na temelju izračuna endomorfne, mezomorfne i ektomorfne komponente (metoda Heathove i Cartera). Motoričke (18) i funkcionalne (8) varijable dobivene su provedbom 18 motoričkih testova i 2 testa za procjenu funkcionalnih sposobnosti (beep test 20 m i 8 x 40 m). Procjenjivale su se agilnost, eksplozivna snaga – sprinta, skoka i bacanja, repetitivna-relativna snaga – ruku i ramena, trupa i nogu, fleksibilnost te aerobna i anaerobna izdržljivost. Za sve varijable izračunati su deskriptivni statistički parametri, a normalnost distribucije potvrđena je Kolmogorov-Smirnovljevim testom u većini varijabli. Homogenost varijance potvrđena je Levenovim testom i omjerom MIN : MAX. Univarijatna ANOVA uporabljena je za utvrđivanje razlika među 3 grupe rukometašica različite dobi, unutargrupnih razlika među pozicijama i međugrupnih razlika po pozicijama te razlika u latentnim faktorima morfoloških karakteristika među ispitanicama različite dobi i na različitim pozicijama unutar pojedinih dobnih skupina. Faktorskom analizom matrice interkorelacija (GK kriterij) utvrđene su latentne dimenzije morfološkog, motoričkog i funkcionalnog prostora. ANOVA je pokazala generalne značajne razlike među 3 grupe u 15 od 18 morfoloških varijabli (p<0,01: TV, dužina ruke, raspon ruku, TT, opseg nadlaktice u ekstenziji, opseg nadlaktice u fleksiji, opseg podlaktice, opseg natkoljenice, opseg potkoljenice, nabor natkoljenice, nabor aksilarni i nabor na prsima; p<0,05: dužina noge, dijametar lakta i nabor nadlaktice), čime je potvrđena H1. U prostoru transverzalnosti nisu dobivene značajne razlike između grupa, a između JUN i KAD nisu dobivene značajne razlike u longitudinalnosti. Tri značajne razlike u voluminoznosti tijela razlikuju JUN i KAD – KAD vitkije od JUN, što potvrđuje i BMI i %PMT. Očekivano, značajne razlike u varijablama longitudinalnosti, volumena i mase tijela dobivene su između JUN i MK (posljedica različite kronološke i biološke dobi, različitog igračkog iskustva te različitih programa treninga). Značajno veće vrijednosti varijabli PMT pokazuju nepovoljna morfološka obilježja JUN. Dobivene su očekivane razlike između KAD i MK u varijablama longitudinalnosti i voluminoznosti tijela; razlike su vjerojatno uzrokovane većom mišićnom masom KAD jer nije bilo razlika u varijablama za u PMT, što je i opet rezultat razlike u dobi, iskustvu i programima treninga. Nema značajnih razlika između KRU i VAN MK. KRI igračice značajno se razlikuju od ostalih u 11 varijabli (osobito longitudinalnost, transverzalnost i voluminoznost tijela) – vrijednosti su značajno niže (potvrđena H3; gracilnija građa KRI igračica). KAD na različitim pozicijama razlikuju se značajno u 13 varijabli (potvrđena H5). Značajna razlika između KRU i VAN KAD dobivena u samo 3 varijable (kožni nabori) u korist KRU, premda su KRU KAD statistički neznačajno više. KRU i KRI KAD se značajno razlikuju u 3 varijable longitudinalnosti, 2 voluminoznosti i 3 varijable za procjenu PMT (niže vrijednosti KRI igračica). Slične su značajne razlike dobivene između VAN i KRI KAD: 4 varijable longitudinalnosti i 3 voluminoznosti tijela, dok razlike nema u varijablama za procjenu PMT. Među JUN nađene su generalno značajne razlike među pozicijama (11 varijabli; bez značajnosti razlika u longitudinalnosti; potvrđena H7). Između KRU i VAN JUN dobivena je samo 1 značajna razlika (kožni nabor potkoljenice u korist KRU; upućuje na nešto više PMT). Nema značajnih razlika u longitudinalnosti između KRU i KRI JUN! Varijable transverzalnosti potvrdile su temeljne različitosti konstitucije KRU i KRI igračica – KRU robusnije od KRI, što su potvrdile i varijable voluminoznosti te, djelomično, i 2 varijable PMT. Između VAN i KRI JUN nema razlika u longitudinalnim ni gotovo u transverzalnim varijablama. Razlike u varijablama voluminoznosti (sve u korist VAN) vjerojatno su posljedica selekcijskih postupaka. KRI igračice: generalne značajne razlike u 10 morfoloških varijabli (potvrđena H9). Struktura razlika: JUN i KAD značajno se razlikuju samo u dijametru koljena i lakta. Značajne razlike dobivene su očekivano između JUN i MK na KRI poziciji (3 longitudinalnosti, 2 voluminoznosti, u korist JUN, i 1 PMT). KRI KAD i MK značajno se razlikuju samo u TV (u korist KAD) i opsegu potkoljenice (u korist MK). KRU igračice: generalne značajne razlike u 6 morfoloških varijabli voluminoznost (potvrđena H11). JUN i MK KRU igračice značajno se razlikuju u 6 varijabli voluminoznosti, dok se KAD i MK razlikujue samo u varijabli TT. Značajne razlike u voluminoznosti su očekivane s obzirom na dob, igračko iskustvo i različite programe treninga. Među VAN igračicama dobiveno najviše značajnih razlika (16 varijabli – sve varijable longitudinalnosti i voluminoznosti, 2 transverzalnosti i 3 PMT (potvrđena H13). JUN i KAD razlikuju se u 2 varijable transverzalnosti i 3 PMT (u korist JUN), a JUN su ostvarile značajno veće vrijednosti varijabli od MK: 2 longitudinalnosti, sve voluminoznosti i 3 PMT. Prva latentna dimenzija nazvana je faktor longitudinalne dimenzionalnosti skeleta (objašnjava 38,64% varijance), 2. faktor potkožnog masnog tkiva (16,33% varijance), 3. faktor volumena i mase tijela (8,28%) te 4. faktor transverzalne dimenzionalnosti skeleta (5,80%). Značajne razlike između rukometašica različite dobi dobivene su u 1., 3. i 4. faktoru. Među MK značajne razlike dobivene su u 1. faktoru između KRU i KRI igračica te u 4. faktoru između VAN i KRI igračica. Među KAD, KRU i KRI te KRI i VAN igračice razlikuju se u 1. faktoru, dok se u 3. faktoru značajno razlikuju KRI i VAN. Kod JUN, značajno su se razlikovale KRU i KRI igračice u 2. i 4. faktoru. Za KRI značajne su razlike dobivene u 3. faktoru (između JUN i KAD te JUN i MK) i u 4. faktoru (između JUN i KAD). Kod KRU nađena je značajna razlika samo u 3. faktoru (između JUN i MK), a VAN su se razlikovale značajno u 1., 3. i 4. faktoru (između JUN i MK). MK su relativno uravnotežene u sve tri somatotipske komponente (3,47‒3,46‒3,00). KAD se ne razlikuju statistički od JUN i MK, iako se rezultatima približavaju vrijednostima JUN poglavito u ektomorfnoj komponenti (3,43‒3,65‒2,79). Kod JUN (3,72‒3,49‒2,32) dominiraju endomorfna i mezomorfna komponenta u odnosu na ektomorfnu komponentu (najniže vrijednosti u svim dobnim skupinama). MK su endomorfno‒mezomorfno‒ektomorfni, KAD mezomorfno‒ endomorfno‒ektomorfni, a JUN endomorfno‒mezomorfni tipovi. Pozicijske razlike unutar dobnih skupina: samo je u skupini JUN dobivena značajna razlika u mezomorfnoj komponenti, zahvaljujući razlikama između KRU i KRI te KRU i VAN, i ektomorfnoj komponenti, zahvaljujući razlici između KRU i KRI. Međugrupna razlika u komponentama somatotipova dobivena za KRU I VAN u ektomorfnoj komponenti zahvaljujući razlici između JUN i MK. U prostoru bazičnih i specifičnih motoričkih sposobnosti ANOVA je pokazala generalno značajne razlike između JUN, KAD i MK (potvrđena H2) u 12 varijabli (p<0,01): čeona agilnost 96369 OK, koraci u stranu, bacanje lopte iz sjeda, bacanje lopte sa tla, bacanje lopte iz skoka, CMJ, skok u vis, skok u dalj, pretklon raznožno, potisak s klupe 50% TT, čučnjevi u 30 s i podizanje trupa iz ležanja na leđima u 60 s, a na razini p<0,05 u 2 varijable: maksimalna brzina kretanja na 5 m i prednoženje iz ležanja. JUN su od KAD i MK bolje u čeonoj agilnosti, dok su KAD i MK bolje od JUN u lateralnoj agilnosti. JUN dominiraju u eksplozivnoj i repetitivnoj snazi ruku i ramena, a eksplozivna snaga skoka značajno ih razlikuje od MK koje su pokazale značajno slabiju fleksibilnost od JUN (posljedica faze rasta i razvoja). Isto objašnjenje može se dati za značajne razlike u korist JUN u varijablama za procjenu repetitivne snage ruku i ramena te muskulature nogu i trbušnih mišića. Kad su bolje od MK u čeonoj agilnosti, 3 varijable eksplozivne snage bacanja, 3 varijable eksplozivne snage skoka i 3 varijable za procjenu repetitivne snage ruku i ramena, nogu i trbušnih mišića. Pozicijski su se MK razlikovale generalno u 5 varijabli (potvrđena H4). Razlike su potvrđene između KRU i VAN MK u maks. brzini trčanja (5 i 10 m) te KRI i VAN u bacanju iz sjeda, sve u korist VAN. KAD se pozicijski razlikuju u 3 varijable (potvrđena H6). KRU KAD pokazale su veću fleksibilnost i od VAN i KRI, a u lateralnoj agilnosti bile su bolje KRI od KRU I VAN, no KRU I KRI su slabije od VAN u bacanju iz sjeda. Među JUN su značajne razlike donijele samo varijable za procjenu eksplozivne snage bacanja (sa tla i iz skoka), čime je potvrđena H8. VAN JUN značajno bolje od KRU u obje varijable, a od KRI bolje u bacanju iz skoka. KRI igračice različite dobi generalno se značajno razlikuju u 8 varijabli (potvrđena H10). KAD i MK su značajno bolje u bočnoj agilnosti, dok su JUN dominirale u čeonoj agilnosti, varijablama eksplozivne i repetitivne snage ruku i trupa. KRU igračice različite dobi generalno se značajno razlikuju u samo 3 varijable: bacanje lopte iz sjeda (JUN i MK) i potisak s klupe 50%TT (JUN i KAD te JUN i MK) te u repetitivnoj snazi nogu (JUN i MK), čime je potvrđena H12. VAN igračice različite dobi značajno se razlikuju u najvećem broju varijabli (12; u 10 p<0,01), čime je potvrđena H14. KAD su značajno bolje od JUN u lateralnoj agilnosti, dok su JUN bolje u varijablama za procjenu eksplozivne snage bacanja (3) i repetitivne snage ruku i ramena (1). ANOVA je pokazala najviše značajnih razlika između VAN JUN i MK (10 varijabli; u 8 p<0,01): MK bolje u lateralnoj agilnosti, a JUN u čeonoj te u svim varijablama eksplozivne snage (bacanja i skoka) i fleksibilnosti gornjeg dijela tijela. Značajne razlike između KAD i MK dobivene su također u 10 varijabli: čeona agilnost, eksplozivna snaga bacanja (3) i skoka (2), fleksibilnost trupa te u svim varijablama repetitivne snage, sve u korist KAD. Generalno su dobivene značajne razlike u sve 4 varijable za procjenu aerobne izdržljivosti između tri dobne skupine (potvrđena H2). JUN bolje od KAD u FS na anaerobnom pragu i maksimalnoj brzini te u sve 4 varijable od MK, a od kojih su KAD bolje u 3 varijable. Dobivene su pozicijske razlike u aerobnoj izdržljivosti samo među MK (H4), a odbačene su H6 i H8 u prostoru aerobne izdržljivosti. H10 samo je djelomično potvrđena jer je među KRI igračicama dobivena značajna razlika u samo 1 varijabli – FS na anaerobnom pragu između JUN i MK. Značajne razlike među KRU igračicama različite dobi potvrdile su H12 – JUN i MK u 2 varijable: brzina na anaerobnom pragu i maks. brzina trčanja, a KAD i MK samo u brzini na anaerobnom pragu, sve u korist starijih KRU igračica. Značajne su razlike u sve 4 varijable dobivene među VAN igračicama različite dobi (p≤0,01), čime je potvrđena H14, a sve su razlike bile u korist iskusnijih igračica (JUN niža FS na anaerobnom pragu od Kad i MK, a istrčale su i višu razinu u beep testu većom maksimalnom brzinom od MK; KAD su značajno bolje od MK u istrčanoj razini, FS i brzini na anaerobnom pragu). Hipoteza H2 djelomično je potvrđena u dijelu postojanja razlika među dobnim skupinama u varijablama za procjenu funkcionalnih sposobnosti – anaerobne izdržljivosti, u korist iskusnijih igračica. KRI i KRU MK značajno se razlikuju samo u varijabli ukupan rezultat testa 8 x 40, čime je djelomično potvrđena H4 u prostoru anaerobne izdržljivosti. KRI igračice su očekivano bolje u brzinskoj izdržljivosti od KRU, ali i od VAN (neznačajne razlike). Slične su razlike i među KAD (djelomično potvrđena H6). KRI KAD su neznačajno bolje od KRU. U anaerobno izdržljivosti nisu potvrđene H8 (JUN), H10 (KRI) i H14 (VAN), dok je H12 samo djelomično potvrđena. Najviše značajnih dobnih razlika između tri dobne skupine mladih rukometašica dobivene su u prostoru morfoloških obilježja te bazičnih i specifičnih motoričkih sposobnosti između svih dobnih grupa, unutar dobnih grupa između pozicija te dobnih razlika po pozicijama. U somatotipovima, dobivene su značajne pozicijske razlike unutar skupine juniorki te dobne razlike unutar pozicija kružnih i vanjskih igračica. U varijablama za procjenu aerobne izdržljivosti dobivene su međugrupne dobne razlike između sve tri dobne skupine te dobne unutargrupne razlike za sve tri pozicije, dok su pozicijske unutargrupne razlike dobivene samo za mlađe kadetkinje. Najmanje značajnih razlika dobiveno u prostoru funkcionalnih sposobnosti – anaerobna izdržljivost. U koncentraciji laktata u krvi dobivene su dobne razlike između juniorki i mlađih kadetkinja; pozicijske razlike dobivene su unutar dobnih skupina mlađih kadetkinja i kadetkinja, a dobne razlike unutar pozicija utvrđene su samo kod kružnih igračica. |
| Sažetak (engleski) | The principal aim of the research was to get an insight into the body built and parameters of physical fitness of the selected promising Croatian female handball players of young age – juniors (JUN) – under 18 (n=32, age 18.43±0.80 years), cadets (CAD) – under 16 (n=56, dob 15.94±1.16 years) and younger cadets (YCAD) – under 14 (n=48, age 13,88±0,46 years), by establishing differences and structure of the differences in anthropometric characteristics and indicators of the basic and specific physical fitness, i.e. indicators of basic and specific motor and functional abilities (aerobic and anaerobic capacity). Also, the withingroup differences between the players in different offensive playing positions – backcourt players (B, n=76), wingers (W, n =37) and circle runners (P, n=23) within their respective age category, as well as the differences between Ws, Ps and Bs of different age. Fourteen hypotheses were set that ascertained differences did exist among the subsamples. The sample of participants consisted of 136 members of the Croatian handball clubs who had beforhand been evaluated by their coaches and Croatian Handball Federation' selectors as promising players within their respective age group in Croatia according to their handball skills and experience (participants started with thte organized handball training and playing at the age of 10 on average). The sample of anthropometric variables was created by measuring 24 morphological characteristics. Additionally, body mass index (BMI kg/m2), percentage of subcutaneous fatty tissue (%SFT) and sum of skinfolds were calculated. Morphological measures and calculations were used to establish body constitutional types (somatotypes) from the calculations of endomorphic, mesomorphic and ectomorphic component (Heath-Carter method). Motor (18) and functional (8) variables were obtained by the application of 18 motor and 2 functional abilities tests (beep test 20 m and 8 x 40 m) to assess agility, power – of sprinting, jumping and throwing, dynamic-relative strength – of arms and shoulders, trunk ana legs, flexibility as well as aerobic and anaerobic endurance. Variables were processed by descriptive statistics and, for most of them, their goodness of fit was verified using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Homogeinity of variance was confirmed by Levene's test and odd ratio between MIN : MAX variable value. Using univariate ANOVA the differences were determined between 3 age groups of participants in the mentioned variables, as well as the position-related intragroup and intergroup differences. Also, the differences in the latent factors of morphological characteristics were determined between the 3 age groups and between the 3 playing positions within and between age groups. By means of factor analysis of intercorrelation matrices (GK kriterij) latent dimensions of morphological characteristics were determined. ANOVA revealed general differences between the 3 age groups in 15 out of 18 morphological variables (p<0.01: BH, arm length, arm span, BW, extended upperarm circumference, flexed upperarm circumference, forearm circumference, thigh circumference, calf circumference, thigh skinfold, axillary skinfold, and chest skinfold; p<0.05: leg length, elbow diameter and upperarm skinfold), thus confirming H1. No significant differences were obtained between the 3 age groups in the space of body tranversality neither between JUNs and CADs in longitudinality. Three significant differences in body voluminosity were obtained between JUNs and CADs – CADs were more slender than JUNs, which was corroborated also by BMI and %SFT. As expected, significant differences were established in the variables of longitudinality and body volume and mass between JUNs and YCADs (due to different chronological and biological age, experience and training programmes). Significantly greater values in SFT variables indicate unfavourable morphological characteristics of JUNs. Expected differences were obtained between CADs and YCADs in the variables of body longitudinality and voluminosity; the differences were probably due to a greater CADs' muscle mass since no differences were determined in %SFT, which is again a result of differences in age, experience and training programmes. No significant differences were found between YCAD Ps and YCAD Bs. Significantly lower values in 11variables (especially in body longitudinality, transversality and voluminosity) differentiated YCAD wingers from other positions – Ws were more gracile (H3 verified). Position differences among CADs were found in 13 variables (H5 verified). CAD Ps and Bs differed in only 3 variables (skinfolds) in favour of Ps although Ps were insignificantly taller. Differences between CAD Ps and Ws were found in 3 variables of longitudinality, 2 of voluminosity and 3 of skinfolds (lower values in Ws). Similar significant differences were found between CAD Bs and Ws in 4 variables of longitudinality and 3 of voluminosity, whereas there were no differences in SFT. Position differences were generally found among JUNs (in 11 variables; no significant differences in longitudinality; H7 verified). Only 1 significant difference was found between JUN Ps and Bs (lower leg skinfold in favour of Ps indicating a greater amount of SFT). No statistically significant difference was found between JUN Ps and W sin longitudinality variables! Variables of transversality confirmed basic differences in the body constitution of Ps and Ws – Ps are more robust than Ws, which was corroborated by voluminosity variables and, partially, by 2 SFT variables. No significant differences between JUN Bs and Ws in longitudinality variables and, almost, in transversality variables. The differences in voluminosity variables (all in favour of Bs) are probably due to the selection procedures. General age differences were found among Ws in 10 morphological variables (H9 verified). Structure of the differences was as follows: JUN and CAD differed significantly only in knee and elbow diameters. As expected, significant differences were found between JUN and YCAD in W position (3 variables of longitudinality, 2 of voluminosity, in favour of JUN, 1 of SFT). CAD and YCAD Ws significantly differed only in BH (in favour of CAD) and calf circumference (in favour of YCAD). Age differences among Ps were found in 6 morphological variables of voluminosity (H11 verified). JUN and YCAD Ps differed significantly in all 6 voluminosity variables, whereas CAD and YCAD Ps differed only in BW. The finding was expected due to different age, experience and training programmes. The largest number of significant age differences were found among Bs (16 variables – all of longitudinality and voluminosity, 2 of transversality and 3 of SFT ( H13 verified). JUN and CAD Bs differed in 2 variables of transversality and 3 of SFT (in favour of JUN). JUN Bs presented significantly higher values than YCAD in the following variables: 2 of longitudinality, all of voluminosity and 3 of SFT. The first latent dimension was named the factor of longitudinal skeletal dimensionality (38,64 % of variance explained), the 2nd was the factor of subcutaneous fatty tissue (16,33% of variance explained), the 3rd was the factor of body voluminosity and mass (8,28% of variance explained) and the 4th was the factor of transversal skeletal dimensionality (5,80% of variance explained). Age differences were found in factors 1, 3 and 4. Position differences within YCAD were established in factor 1 between Ps and Ws igračica and in factor 4 between Bs and Ws. Within CAD, Ps and Ws as well as Ws and Bs differed significantly in factor 1, the latter differed also in factor 3. Significant position differences were found within JUN between Ps and Ws in factors 2 and 4. For Ws significante age differences were found in factor 3 (between JUN and CAD, and JUN and YCAD) and in factor 4 (between JUN and CAD). For Ps the significant age differences were found only in factor 3 (between JUN and YCAD), whereas for Bs the age differences were established in factors 1, 3 and 4 (between JUN and YCAD). YCAD had all three components of somatotype relatively balanced (3.47‒3.46‒3.00). CAD did not differ statistically from JUN and YCAD, although their results were close to those of JUN, especially in ectomorphy (3.43‒3.65‒2.79). Among JUN (3.72‒3.49‒2.32) endomorphic and mesomorphic components prevailed over the ectomorphic component (the lowest value in all the 3 age groups). YCAD were endomorph‒mesomorph‒ectomorphs, CAD mesomorph‒endomorph‒ectomorphs, and JUN endomorph‒mesomorphs. As regards position differences between age groups, significant differences were found only among JUN in mesomorphic component, due to the differences between Ps and Ws, and Ps and Bs, and in ectomorphic component due to the difference between Ps and Ws. The position difference was found for Ps and Bs in ectomorphic component between JUN and YCAD. In the space of basic and specific motor abilities ANOVA revealed general significant differences between JUN, CAD and YCAD (H2 verified) in 12 variables (p<0.01): frontal agility 96369 OK, side steps, handball throwing while sitting, basic ground throw, jump throw, CMJ, vertical jump, broad jump, straddle seat forward bent, bench press 50% BW, squats in 30 s, crunches from supine position in 60 s; p<0.05: maximal 5 m running speed and leg raise from supine position. JUNs were better in frontal agility than CADs and YCADs, whereas CADs and YCADs were better in lateral agility. JUN predominated in power and dynamic strength of arms and shoulders; power of jumping significantly differentiated JUN from YCAD who demonstrated significantly lower flexibility than JUN (due to the phases of growth and development). The same interpretation may be valid for the significant differences, all in favour of JUN, found in the variables of dynamic strength of arms and shoulder, legs and trunk. CAD were better than YCAD in frontal agility, 3 variables of throwing power, 3 variables of jumping power and 3 variables of dynamic strength of arms, legs and trunk. Positional general differences within YCAD were found in 5 variables (H4 verified). The differences were confirmed between YCAD Ps and B sin maximal speed of running (5 and 10 m) and between Ws and Bs sin handball throwing while sitting, all in favour of Bs. Within CAD position differences were found in 3 variables (H6 verified). CAD Ps demonstrated better flexibility than Bs and Ps, in lateral agilty Ws are better than Ps and Bs,, but Ps and Ws have a poorer throwing power than Bs s in handball throwing while sitting. Within JUN, position differences were found only in the variables of throwing power (of both the ground and jump throw), thus verifying H8. JUN Bs were significantly better in both variables than Ps, whereas they were better than Ws in jump throw. Age differences within Ws were generally established in 8 variables (H10 verified). CAD and YCAD were significantly better in lateral agility, whereas JUN predominated in frontal agility, power and dynamic strength of arms and trunk. Within Ps, age differences were generally found only in 3 variables: handball throwing while sitting (JUN and YCAD), bench press 50%TT (JUN and CAD, JUN and YCAD), and in dynamic strength of legs (JUN and YCAD), thus verifying H12. The largest number of significant age differences were found within Bs (12; in 10 p<0.01), thus verifying H14. CAD were significantly better in lateral agility than JUN, whereas JUN were better in variables assessing throwing power (3) and dynamic strength of arms and shoulders (1). Among Bs, ANOVA revealed the largest number of significant differences between JUN and YCAD (10 variables; in 8 p<0.01): YCAD were better in lateral agility, whereas JUN were better in frontal agility, all power variables (throwing and jumping) and trunk flexibility. Significant differences were found between CAD and YCAD also in 10 variables: frontal agility, power of throwing (3), power of jumping (2), trunk flexibility and all variables of dynamic strength, all in favour of CAD. Generally, significant age differences were obtained in all 4 variables assessing aerobic endurance (H2 verified). JUN were better than CAD in HR at the anaerobic threshold and in maximal running speed; they were also better in all 4 variables than YCAD, who presented lower values than CAD in 3 variables. Position differences in aerobic endurance were established only within YCAD (H4 verified), whereas H6 and H8 were rejected in the part regarding aerobic endurance. H10 was only partially verified since among Ws significant age difference was found only in 1 variable – HR at anaerobic threshold between JUN and YCAD. The significant age differences within Ps confirmed H12 – JUN and YCAD differed in 2 variables: speed at anaerobic threshold and maximal running speed; CAD and YCAD differed only in speed at anaerobic threshold, all in favour o folder P players. The significant age differences were found for Bs in all 4 variables of aerobic endurance (p≤0.01), thus verifying H14. All differences were in favour of more experienced players (JUN had lower HR at the anaerobic threshold than CAD and YCAD, and they also completed a higher stage in beep test achieving a higher maximum speed than YCAD; CAD were significantly better than YCAD in completed stage, HR and speed at the anaerobic threshold). Hypothesis H2 was partially verified in the part regarding the differences among age groups in variables assessing functional abilities – anaerobic endurance, in favour of the more experienced players. YCAD Ws and Ps differed significantly only in total time of the 8 x 40 test, thus partially verifying H4 in the space of anaerobic endurance. Wingers were better, as expected, in speed endurance than Ps, but of Bs as well (although not significantly). Similar differences were obtained among CADs (H6 partially verified): CAD Ws were nonsignificantly better than Ps. In the space of anaerobic endurance H8 (JUN), H10 (W) and H14 (B) were not verified, whereas H12 was only partially verified. The greatest number of significant age differences was established between the three age groups of young female handball players in the space of morphological characteristics as well as basic and specific motor abilities – intergroup differences between all the three age groups, intragroup positional differences between all the three positions, and age differences between all the three positions. In the space of body constitution (somatotypes) the significant positional differences were established within the group of juniors as well as age differences within the position-related groups of backcourt players and pivots. In the variables assessing aerobic endurance, intergroup age differences were established between all the three groups of young players, then the positional intragroup differences in the group of younger cadets, whereas the intragroup age differences were established for all the three positions. The fewest significant differences were established in the variables assessing anaerobic endurance. In the variable blood lactate concentration, the age differences were established between juniors and younger cadets, then intragroup positional differences were established within the groups of cadets and younger cadets, whereas intragroup age differences were only obtained in the group of pivots. |
