, 2009). In short, it is obvious that this anthropometric characteristic allows them to cover the wider space of the goal and hence selleck screening library to defend the net more successfully. Because of the constant contact during the game, Centers are known to be the largest of all players in terms of body length and body mass. Therefore, it was not surprising that, although similar to the Points and Goalkeepers in BH, the Centers are the heaviest and have the highest BMI of all five playing positions. Apparently, their increased BM and BMI are partially but not entirely related to increased body fat (i.e. Centers have higher skinfolds than the Goalkeepers and Wings, but there is no significant difference in any of the body fat measures between the Centers, Points and Drivers).

This is in line with previous findings where authors discussed the clear need for a Center��s morphological-anthropometric dominance in terms of advanced BM, especially against rival Points (M. Lozovina, et al., 2009). More precisely, these two playing-positions are direct opponents (i.e. the Point guards the offensive Center) and if a Center wants to be effective in his/her offensive tasks, he/she must be physically superior to the defensive player guarding him (her). Although previous studies rarely studied water polo goalkeepers with regard to their anthropometric status, the results of the Goalkeepers�� anthropometric variables did not surprise us. Most particularly, they are slightly, although not significantly dominant in AS, and have the lowest BMI of all players.

Such an anthropometric profile allows them to cover the net efficiently (because of their large arm span) and to change position quickly (because of their low BMI). Since the official rules of water polo protect Goalkeepers from the contact-game, their low BMI is clearly a function of their agile movement and quick positioning in front of the goal with regard to offensive actions and his/her team��s defensive tactics. The importance of the specific physical fitness profile of different playing positions is already recognized in team sports (Ben Abdelkrim et al., 2010; Markovic and Mikulic, 2011; Pyne et al., 2006), but such studies are evidently scarce in water polo, especially among junior players. Therefore, the results of the specific physical fitness tests we presented above are hardly comparable to previous findings.

Although the playing positions did not differ significantly in the lactate capacity (4x50m) and 100m swimming results, the swimming performance Cilengitide measured by swimming 25m (ATPCP capacity), and 400m (aerobic capacity) revealed the Points to be the best swimmers. According to previous studies, the background to such findings should be identified through anthropometric profiles. In a recent study where authors identified the optimal morphological/anthropometric characteristics of young competitive swimmers, Sekulic et al.