Somatotype and size of elite female basketball players |
| |
| Authors: | JEL Carter TR Ackland DA Kerr AB Stapff |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Exercise and Nutritional Sciences , San Diego State University , San Diego, CA, USA;2. School of Human Movement and Exercise Science , The University of Western Australia , Crawley, WA, Australia;3. School of Public Health , Curtin University of Technology , Perth, WA, Australia;4. Strathcona Park Lodge and Outdoor Education Centre , Campbell River, BC, Canada |
| |
| Abstract: | The aim of this study was to compare the somatotype and size of elite female basketball players in terms of playing position and team performance. Anthropometry and somatotype data were collected on 168 players from 14 countries before the Women's World Basketball Championship, Australia, 1994. There were 64 guards (mean?±?s: age 25.4?±?3.3 years, height 1.72?±?0.06?m, mass 66.1?±?6.2?kg, somatotype?=?2.9?–?3.9?–?2.6), 57 forwards (age 25.2?±?3.8 years, height 1.81?±?0.06?m, mass 73.3?±?5.9?kg, somatotype?=?2.8?–?3.5?–?3.2) and 47 centres (age 24.1?±?3.1 years, height 1.90?±?0.06?m, mass 82.6?±?8.2?kg, somatotype?=?3.2?–?3.1?–?3.4). Mean somatotypes by position were significantly different (F?=?7.73, P?<?0.01). Guards had greater mesomorphy than centres and less ectomorphy than forwards and centres. When discriminant function analysis was applied to endomorphy, mesomorphy, ectomorphy, age, height and mass, only height, mass and ectomorphy entered (Wilks' λ?=?0.351, F?=?31.40, P?<?0.000), 70% of the variance was accounted for, and 72% of players were correctly classified. In the four top versus four bottom teams, guards were taller and more ectomorphic, forwards were taller, with lower mesomorphy and higher ectomorphy, and centres did not differ. Thus there are some differences in somatotypes by position and team placing, but the combination of height, mass and ectomorphy provide the best differentiation by position. |
| |
| Keywords: | Anthropometry basketball females somatotypes |
|
|
