PHYSIOLOGICAL DEMANDS OF ELITE TEAM HANDBALL

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO PLAYING POSITION

SUSANA C. A. POVOAS,1,2 ANTONIO A. M. R. ASCENSAO,3 JOSE MAGALHAES,3 ANDRE F. SEABRA,3
PETER KRUSTRUP,4,5 JOSE M. C. SOARES,6 AND ANTONIO N. C. REBELO6
1

Research Center in Sports, Health Sciences and Human Development, Vila Real, Portugal; 2Maia Institute of Higher
Education, Research Center in Sport and Physical Activity, Maia, Portugal; 3Research Center in Physical Activity, Health and
Leisure, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal; 4Sport and Health Sciences, College of Life and Environmental
Sciences, University of Exeter, United Kingdom; 5Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports, Copenhagen Center for Team
Sport and Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark; and 6Center of Research, Education, Innovation and
Intervention in Sport, Faculty of Sport, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
ABSTRACT

Povoas, SCA, Ascensao, AAMR, Magalhaes, J, Seabra, AF,

Krustrup, P, Soares, JMC, and Rebelo, ANC. Physiological
demands of elite team handball with special reference to playing
position. J Strength Cond Res 28(2): 430442, 2014This study
aimed to analyze the physiological demands of match play for
different playing positions in elite male team handball. Time motion
(N = 30) and heart rate (HR; N = 70) data were recorded throughout 10 official matches. The mean distance covered by backcourt
players (4.96 6 0.64 km) was greater (p # 0.02) than for wings
and pivots (4.23 6 0.52 and 3.91 6 0.51 km, respectively). Backcourt players spent less time standing still and walking (;76%)
than wings and pivots (;80%) (p # 0.03), and wings spent more
time sprinting than the other playing positions. Backcourt players
(122.9 6 17.0) and pivots (126.8 6 33.0) performed more highdemanding actions per game than wings (54.6 6 15.6) (p = 0.01).
The time spent by pivots in high-intensity activities decreased from
the first to the second half (4.1 6 2.4 to 2.7 6 0.9%; p # 0.01),
while backcourt players showed a decrease in high-demanding
playing actions (p # 0.05). Backcourt players and pivots had higher mean (84 6 9 and 83 6 9% vs. 79 6 10%; p # 0.03) and
peak effective HR, and percentage of total time at intensities
.80% maximal HR (HRmax) than wings. The fraction of total time
spent at intensities .80% HRmax decreased for all outfield playing positions in the second half (from 3976 to 3046%). Competitive team handball involves position-specific differences in the
physiological demands. Furthermore, exercise intensity decreases
from the first to the second half for all outfield playing positions
suggesting that these players experience neuromuscular fatigue.
Training of elite handball players should comprise high-intensity
Address correspondence to Susana C.A. Povoas, spovoas@docentes.ismai.pt.
28(2)/430442
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research
2014 National Strength and Conditioning Association

430

the

position-specific exercises aiming at improving the ability to maintain a high exercise intensity throughout the game.

KEY WORDS time motion analysis, heart rate, intermittent

exercise, professional top male handball players, specific
positions

INTRODUCTION

eam handball is played professionally in many

European countries. Despite being an Olympic
sport since 1972, and one of the most popular team
sports for men worldwide, scientific knowledge
regarding the physiological demands in elite team handball
is scarce. Time motion and heart rate (HR) analyses of handball players during games have shown considerable variation
among players (19). As position-related demands might contribute to this variation, specific positions of the players
should be considered in the analysis. In fact, previous studies
found differences between playing positions regarding the
total distance covered and the distance covered at different
locomotor categories (15,24). Nevertheless, no studies so far
have investigated in detail the activity profile of elite male
handball throughout official matches for different playing
positions, including low- and high-intensity movements
and the specific handball actions such as turns, stops, jumps,
throws, changes of direction, and one-on-one situations in
the offensive and defensive play. These are actually critical
actions for the game implying elevated energy and mechanical demands for the players (18). In addition, the tacticaltechnical demands in handball matches differ between the
main phases of the game (attack vs. defense) among different
playing positions. Thus, it is expected that activity profiles
would also be different between these phases. Moreover, the
official rules of team handball were changed in 2000, which
increased the intensity of the game (3,9,10). Nonetheless, to
the best of our knowledge, no study has been published
concerning position-related handball time motion characteristics after the rule changes.

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Handball is considered a complex and highly demanding
intermittent sport, as it involves multiple high-intensity runs
(19,24), frequent body contacts, and several other high-intensity actions. The ability to intermittently perform maximal
short-duration activities during games is crucial to obtain
a high level of performance in team sports (21). However,
no studies to date have described the frequency and duration
of maximal and high-intensity activities during handball
matches or the time and the intensity of periods that intersperse these activities, which is of critical importance to better
develop training exercises aiming at improving handball-specific physical capacities. On the other hand, handball involves
frequent body contact and several high-intensity actions as
part of match play, which is not well represented in time
motion data. In this regard, although HR and time motion
are considered valuable and relatively sensitive tools to measure exercise intensity, the separate analysis of match HR and
activity data may provide incomplete information, leading to
a misinterpretation of the overall physical performance of the
players. Accordingly, to better characterize the demands of
the game, it would be useful to combine the 2 analyses.
Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to analyze
the physical and physiological demands of elite male handball
players during matches according to their specific playing
position. We hypothesize that team handball players will
show position-related differences in high-intensity activities
and also in power-related actions during the match such as
sprints, stops, turns, and changes of direction that possibly
lead to a differential decrease in exercise intensity toward
the end of the match. Depending on the detailed characterization of match demands, our data will allow the development of novel training strategies and the design of appropriate
physical tests that consider specific team handball playing
positions.

METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem

In this study, individual maximal HR (HRmax) of top

professional league handball players of different playing
positions was determined during the Yo-Yo intermittent
endurance testlevel 2 (5) using Polar Team System (Polar
Electro Oy, Kempele, Finland). The players also performed
an incremental treadmill (Quasar-Med, Nussdorf, Germany)
test (17) until voluntary exhaustion to determine peak oxygen consumption. Expired respiratory gas fractions were
measured using an open circuit breath-by-breath automated
gas-analysis system (Metalyzer 3B; Cortex, Leipzig,
Germany). To examine the activity pattern and physiological
demands of the handball match, individual HR was monitored during official matches, which were video filmed for
time motion analysis. At the time of the evaluations, the
players were in the middle of their competitive season, performing 67 training sessions per week and were previously
familiarized with all test protocols. Body mass and fluid
loss, environmental temperature, and humidity values were

| www.nsca.com

recorded during matches. Time motion and HR analyses

were performed on 30 outfield male players (10 of each outfield playing position: wings, backcourt players, and pivots),
and HR analyses were additionally performed on 10 goalkeepers. Weight and percentage of body fat were measured
using Tanita Inner Scan digital-BC532 (Tanita, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands).
Subjects

A total of 40 elite male players participated in the study (10

of each playing position: wings, backcourt players, pivots,
and goalkeepers). Anthropometric and physiological characteristics of the players according to playing position are
presented in Table 1. The participants had at least 5 years of
experience in the top Portuguese handball professional
league. The evaluated teams were regularly involved in
European championships for clubs. All subjects were previously informed of the aims and the experimental risks of
the study and subsequently provided informed written consent to participate. Ethical approval was provided by the
Institutional Review Board of the Faculty of Sport of the
University of Porto and by the club officials.
Procedures

Match Time Motion Analysis. The players were video filmed

during 10 entire official matches from the top Portuguese
handball professional league to establish game motion
patterns according to the methods previously described
(19). Briefly, players displacements were coded into 8 locomotor categories: (a) standing still, (b) walking, (c) jogging,
(d) fast running, (e) sprinting, (f ) backwards movement, (g)
sideways medium-intensity movement, and (h) sideways
high-intensity movement. High-intensity activities equaled
the sum of categories d, e, and h and low-intensity activities
were the sum of categories a, b, c, f, and g. In addition, 5 types
of specific handball playing actions were also studied: (a)
jumps, (b) shots, (c) stops when preceded by high-intensity
activities, (d) changes of direction, and (e) one-on-one
situations. The total duration of the matches and distance
covered were analyzed. For each locomotor category, the
percentage of total time and distance, the duration, distance,
and frequency were determined. The recovery time, that is,
the time intervals between (a) the maximal intensity activities (i.e., sprints and sideways high-intensity movement) and
between (b) the high-intensity activities were also analyzed.
Because this study aimed to describe the demands of a playing position, data were collected from the playing position
and not from individual players (27), which means that when
a player was substituted, the camera filmed the substitute.
Heart Rate

Seventy HR recordings of 40 players (27 wings, 23 backcourt

players, 10 pivots, and 10 goalkeepers) were registered in
5-second intervals using Polar Team System (Polar Electro
Oy) during 10 official matches. The players were previously
acquainted with the use of HR monitors during matches.
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2014 |

431

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

6
6
6
6

3.0
5.9
2.4
3.7

(53.063.0)
(47.064.0)
(50.056.0)
(49.058.0)

Definitions and procedures regarding HR analysis are

described elsewhere (19); although, in this study, only effective relative HR (i.e., HR during the time in which the player
is inside the playing court) is presented, as comparisons are
made between different players. The matches were held in the
middle of the competitive season, between 4 and 8 PM and in
standard environmental conditions (temperature 17218 C
and humidity 5070%). Participants were asked to refrain
from additional vitamin dietary supplementation, ergogenic
supplements, and alcoholic beverages and not to introduce
appreciable deviations from their normal eating habits during
the evaluation period. For the determination of effective time
spent in each HR zone, only the values corresponding to the
first and second halves were considered.

57.9
53.4
53.8
55.0

V_ O2peak (ml$min$kg21)

(171.0186.0)
(178.0202.0)
(188.0195.0)
(187.0193.0)
177.3 6 5.0zjj
191.0 6 5.6
192.0 6 2.7
189.8 6 2.2

Height (cm)

Team Handballs Physiological Demands of Specific Playing Positions

432

the

7 (176202)
11 (172206)
6 (179206)
8 (182200)
6
6
6
6
193
191
185
188

HRmax (b$min21)

6
6
6
6
Wings, (N = 10)
Backcourt players, (N = 10)
Pivots, (N = 10)
Goalkeepers, (N = 10)

(7.016.0)
(6.011.3)
(7.012.0)
(9.011.0)

Reliability of all variables was estimated using a test-retest

procedure after 7 days, with a random sub-sample of 12 subjects
(4 of each playing position). The reliability of the anthropometric measurements was determined by the coefficient of variation
(,5%), whereas the intraclass correlation coefficient was used
for the time motion and physiological variables (R . 0.80).
Statistical Analyses
*Values are presented as mean 6 SD and range.
HR = heart rate.
zSignificantly different (p # 0.01) from backcourt players.
From pivots.
jjFrom goalkeepers.
Significantly different (p # 0.02) from wings.

10.5
8.9
10.0
10.0

3.2
1.5
2.4
0.8

Fat mass (%)

Playing position

(71.492.4)
(73.7102.2)
(92.6105.7)
(78.0100.2)
80.5 6 6.1zjj
89.8 6 7.4
98.6 6 4.9
87.4 6 8.7
(2129)
(1935)
(2029)
(2233)

Because dehydration and hyperthermia during a match can

influence HR values (11), changes in body mass and fluid
loss were recorded for all players. To determine sweat loss
during a match, the players were weighed wearing dry
shorts, immediately before and after the matches using a digital balance (Tanita Inner Scan digitalBC532). The players
were allowed to drink water ad libitum during the matches
and water intake was recorded. Weight and fluid loss (absolute and relative to body mass) during the match were calculated according to Andersson et al. (2).
Measurement Reliability

24.6
25.7
24.4
26.2

2.8
4.1
3.9
4.1
6
6
6
6
Wings, (N = 10)
Backcourt players, (N = 10)
Pivots, (N = 10)
Goalkeepers, (N = 10)

Weight (kg)
Age (y)
Playing position

TABLE 1. Anthropometric and physiological characteristics of the players according to playing position.*

Fluid Loss and Intake

Results are presented as mean 6 SD and range. Differences

between HR and time motion variables during the 2 halves
were assessed by Students paired t-test. Differences between
high- and low-intensity activities, attack and defense phases,
and total and effective HR were determined by Students
independent t-test. Differences between playing positions
were determined by 1-way analysis of variance. When a significant difference was detected, post hoc analysis was performed using the Bonferroni test for multiple comparisons to
check for specific differences by playing positions. Statistical
Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS Inc, version 20.0,
IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for all analyses. Statistical significance was set at p # 0.05.

RESULTS
Activity Profile During Matches

The number of occurrences, total time spent, and distance

covered (absolute and relative values) for each locomotor
and intensity category of the analyzed outfield playing
positions during the match are presented in Table 2. The

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TABLE 2. Activity profile of team handball players during the match according to playing position.*
Locomotor categories
Playing position

293 6 70
34.8 6 2.9z
6.8 6 7.4
45.7 6 5.6z
1990 6 274
218 6 76
26.2 6 4.3
7.1 6 8.0
34.6 6 5.9
1552 6 305

48.7 6 9.3
2117 6 461

Jogging

FR

263
31.1
5.6
7.4
34.1
46.2
1485
1939

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

71
2.2
4.7z
6.1z
3.7z
6.2z
182
237

78
9.5
3.7
9.8
6.6
18.2
290
768

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

13z
1.3z
2.0
5.2
1.0z
2.1z
46
122

41
4.9
3.2
17.3
3.0
16.4
132
702

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

16
1.7
1.4
7.2
1.2
5.2
49
262

25
2.9
3.0
19.1
0.6
3.9
26
168

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

9z
1.0
1.0z
6.4z
0.4z
2.4
16
102

278
33.9
6.6
8.6
40.9
48.5
1826
2385

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

71
3.1
5.3
6.9
4.5
7.1
234
306

122
15.1
3.8
10.0
10.5
24.6
462
1225

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

33
3.9
1.9
5.0
4.3
7.3
163
433

30
3.6
2.9
15.3
1.9
8.8
87
461

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

20
2.3
1.1
5.7
1.2
4.6
55
292

22
2.6
2.6
16.4
0.3
1.9
15
97

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

11
0.8
1.0
6.6
0.2
1.3
11
69

242
30.5
5.3
7.0
29.9
42.9
1287
1681

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

53
4.4
4.0z
5.3z
7.3z
7.7z
303
396

94
11.9
4.2
11.2
9.2
26.9
396
1049

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

18z
1.9z
2.0z
5.4z
2.0
4.2
76
203

21
2.5
3.3
17.7
1.5
9.3
68
362

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

11
1.0
1.2z
6.6z
0.7
4.3
34
183

19
2.4
2.8
17.8
0.2
1.5
9
57

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

8z
0.6
1.3
8.2z
0.2
1.4
8
49

Locomotor categories
Playing position
Wings
Freq (N)
Freq (%)
Duration (s)
Distance (m)

SideMI
53
6.2
2.6
3.5

6
6
6
6

30z
2.8z
1.2z
1.7z

Sprint

SideHI
15
1.7
2.0
7.7

6
6
6
6

13z
1.3
8.9z
3.4z

Intensity categories
Back

High

6
6
6
6

81 6 22
9.6 6 1.4

92
10.8
3.0
6.0

29z
1.8z
1.4
2.8

Low
762 6 190k
90.4 6 1.4k

| www.nsca.com

433

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

TM

(continued on next page)

the

292 6 97
36.1 6 4.4z
7.2 6 9.2

Walking

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2014 |

Wings
Freq (N)
Freq (%)
Duration (s)
Distance (m)
Fraction of total time (%)
Fraction of total distance (%)
Total time (s)
Total distance covered (m)
Backcourt players
Freq (N)
Freq (%)
Duration (s)
Distance (m)
Fraction of total time (%)
Fraction of total distance (%)
Total time (s)
Total distance covered (m)
Pivots
Freq (N)
Freq (%)
Duration (s)
Distance (m)
Fraction of total time (%)
Fraction of total distance (%)
Total time (s)
Total distance covered (m)

Standing

the

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

TM

3.1
3.9
135
170

6
6
6
6

1.7z
1.8
71z
90

0.7
2.8
30
117

6
6
6
6

0.5
2.2
23z
88

6.2
8.6
271
370

6
6
6
6

1.7
1.8z
80
110

84
10.3
3.2
4.4
6.0
6.9
269
340

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

22
2.4
1.6
2.2
2.3
2.8
105
133

16
1.8
2.7
10.3
0.9
3.1
42
161

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

12
1.3
1.1
4.1
0.7
2.2
34
130

73
8.5
3.0
6.0
4.8
6.2
216
295

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

44
2.7
1.3
2.6
2.3
3.3
108
148

87
10.7
3.2
4.3
6.4
8.8
279
352

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

54
4.6
1.9
2.6
4.2
4.8
174
219

30
3.3
2.3
9.0
1.6
7.1
70
270

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

29
2.4
1.0z
3.8z
1.3
5.5
57
222

36
4.6
2.8
5.7
2.3
3.5
102
139

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

10z
1.4z
1.4
2.9
0.9
1.2z
40
55

4.3
23.2
188
987

6
6
6
6

1.1z
5.2z
49
277

68 6 36
8.2 6 3.8
3.2
13.8
143
719

6
6
6
6

2.0
7.4
92
456

70 6 37
8.7 6 2.5
3.4
17.9
147
689

6
6
6
6

1.5
7.8
70
311

95.7
76.8
4170
3247

6
6
6
6

1.1k
5.2zk
275k
412k

759 6 206k
91.8 6 3.8k
96.8
86.2
4325
4245

6
6
6
6

2.0k
7.4k
244k
351k

736 6 192k
91.3 6 2.5k
96.6
82.1
4180
3222

6
6
6
6

1.5k
7.8k
286k
588zk

*Values are presented as mean 6 SD.

Freq = frequency; back = backwards movement; FR = fast running; SideMI = sideways medium-intensity movement; SideHI = sideways high-intensity movement.
zSignificantly different (p # 0.05) from backcourt players.
From pivots.
kSignificantly different (p # 0.05) from high-intensity movements.
From wings.

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Team Handballs Physiological Demands of Specific Playing Positions

434
Fraction of total time (%)
Fraction of total distance (%)
Total time (s)
Total distance covered (m)
Backcourt players
Freq (N)
Freq (%)
Duration (s)
Distance (m)
Fraction of total time (%)
Fraction of total distance (%)
Total time (s)
Total distance covered (m)
Pivots
Freq (N)
Freq (%)
Duration (s)
Distance (m)
Fraction of total time (%)
Fraction of total distance (%)
Total time (s)
Total distance covered (m)

TABLE 3. Game actions during the match and in each half according to playing position.*
Game total
Game actions

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

2.9z
1.8
4.0z
4.1z
6.9z
3.7z
4.4z
6.7z
1.1z
2.5z
2.3z

19.1
10.3
19.0
19.2
38.2
19.0
19.2
37.9
6.3
12.9
18.9

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

5.2z
4.4z
5.1
1.0
9.2
5.1z
10.0
9.2
3.7z
6.6
6.6z

Pivots
14.0
5.4
14.0
22.7
36.8
13.1
22.0
35.4
16.8
19.3
36.4

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

3.9
2.1
4.2
8.8
11.1
3.3
9.3
11.1
10.3
8.9
16.2

Wings
3.8
1.7
4.4
5.8
10.2
4.4
5.7
9.9
1.1
1.9
3.1

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

1.4
1.0
2.7
3.6
4.3
2.4
3.7
4.2
1.0
2.0
2.0

4.4
2.6
3.3
5.9
8.9
3.0
5.5
8.5
0.5
2.2
2.5

Backcourt players
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

2.2
2.1
2.5
2.5
4.4
2.5
2.7
4.6
0.7
1.2
1.3

9.7
5.0
11.0
10.4
21.4
11.0
10.4
21.0
3.5
8.1
11.3

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

4.1
3.0
3.2
6.8
6.1
3.3
6.9
6.1
2.5
4.5
5.0

9.4
5.3
8.0
8.8
16.8
8.0
8.8
16.9
2.8
4.8
7.6

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

2.5
2.2
3.0k
4.2
5.1k
3.1k
4.3
5.2k
2.8
2.6k
4.0

Pivots
7.7
2.8
7.0
12.3
19.4
6.4
11.4
18.2
8.7
10.0
18.0

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

3.1
1.5
3.2
4.5
7.1
2.0
5.3
6.8
3.9
4.7
7.9

6.2
2.6
7.0
10.4
17.4
6.7
10.6
17.2
8.1
9.3
17.6

6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6

TM

435

| www.nsca.com

VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2014 |

*Values are presented as mean 6 SD.

Significantly different (p # 0.05) from backcourt players.
zFrom pivots.
From wings.
kSignificantly different (p # 0.05) from the first half of the match.

2.4
1.7
2.5
5.4
5.4
2.5
5.2
5.5
6.9
4.7
9.0

the

8.2
4.3
7.7
11.7
19.1
7.4
11.2
18.4
1.6
4.1
5.6

Backcourt players

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Jumps
Throws
Stops in the attack
Stops in the defense
Total stops
Changes of direction in the attack
Changes of direction in the defense
Total changes of direction
One-on-one situations in the attack
One-on-one situations in the defense
Total one-on-one situations

Wings

First half vs. second half

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Team Handballs Physiological Demands of Specific Playing Positions

Figure 1. Relative time spent in each locomotor category in the first and second halves of the match for wings (A), backcourt players (B), and pivots (C). Values
are presented as mean 6 SD. FR = fast running; Back = backwards movement; SideMI = sideways medium-intensity movement; SideHI = sideways highintensity movement; *indicates significantly different (p = 0.03) from the first half of the match.

436

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

| www.nsca.com

Figure 2. Relative time spent in each locomotor category in the attack (A) and defense (B) phases of the match according to playing position. Values are
presented as mean 6 SD. Back = backwards movement; FR = fast running; SideMI = sideways medium-intensity movement; SideHI = sideways high-intensity
movement; *indicates significantly different (p # 0.04) from backcourt players; #, from pivots; , from wings.

duration and distance covered in each locomotor category

are also shown.
Match duration was 73 6 4 minutes, and total distance
covered was 4.44 6 0.70 km. Backcourt players covered 15
and 21%, respectively, more (p # 0.02) total distance than
wings and pivots (4.96 6 0.64 vs. 4.23 6 0.52 and 3.91 6
0.51 km), whereas wings covered the highest relative distances and spent the highest time in high-intensity activities
(p # 0.01). Backcourt players (122.9 6 17.0) and pivots
(126.8 6 33.0) performed more physically demanding playing actions per game than wings (54.6 6 15.6) (p , 0.001)
(Table 3). Backcourt players showed a higher number of
jumps, throws, and changes of direction (p # 0.02), whereas
pivots performed more one-on-one situations in the attack
and in total match time (p # 0.01). Locomotor profile of the

different playing positions in both halves of the match is

presented in Figure 1.
Pivots spent less time conducting high-intensity activities
in the second half of matches (4.1 6 2.4 vs. 2.7 6 0.9%; p #
0.01), and backcourt players showed a decrease in several
high-demanding playing actions (p # 0.05) in the second
half of matches (Table 3).
In the attack phase, wings spent the highest fraction of
total match time executing high-intensity activities (3.7 6
1.1 vs. 2.9 6 1.9 vs. 2.0 6 0.8%; p # 0.03, for wings, backcourt, and pivots, respectively; Figure 2). No significant
differences were observed in the defense phase (5.1 6
2.0 vs. 3.5 6 2.1 vs. 4.6 6 2.2%; p # 0.03, wings, backcourt,
and pivots, respectively). Pivots spent 2-fold more time
performing high-intensity activities in the defensive phase
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2014 |

437

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Team Handballs Physiological Demands of Specific Playing Positions

Figure 3. Relative time spent in each locomotor category in the periods between maximal intensity activities according to playing position. Values are presented
as mean 6 SD. Back = backwards movement; FR = fast running; SideMI = sideways medium-intensity movement; *indicates significantly different (p # 0.05)
from backcourt players; #, from pivots; , from wings.

than in the offensive phase (4.6 6 2.2 vs. 2.0 6 0.8%;

p , 0.001).
For all outfield playing positions, in 60% of the occurrences, the time between maximal intensity activities was
.90 seconds, and 4863% of the recovery periods included
low-intensity activities (Figure 3). In almost half of the recovery time, the players were standing still, with backcourt players reporting the lowest values (p , 0.01). The time between
high-intensity activities was frequently ,30 or $90 seconds.
No position-dependent differences were observed in the

time intervals distribution separating both maximal and

high-intensity activities.
In both halves, there were no significant differences in the
time between maximal intensity activities in all outfield playing
positions. Additionally, only recovery periods between 30 and
60 seconds showed a significant decrease in the second half for
backcourt players (20.5 6 13.0 vs. 17.4 6 6.5%; p = 0.04). Also,
the activity pattern between maximal intensity activities did
not show significant differences between both halves of the
match in any of the analyzed playing positions.

Figure 4. Average and maximal relative effective heart rate (HR) during the first and second halves and total match time according to playing position. Data are
presented as mean 6 SD. Relative to individual maximal HR values are shown. *indicates significantly different (p # 0.03) from backcourt players; #, from pivots;
, from wings; , from goalkeepers; , Significantly different (p # 0.01) from the first half of the match.

438

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

| www.nsca.com

Figure 5. Percentage of effective match time spent at different interval percentages of players maximal heart rate (HR) in the first and second halves of the
match for wings (A), backcourt players (B), pivots (C) and goalkeepers (D). Values are presented as mean 6 SD. *indicates significantly different (p # 0.03) from
the first half of the match.

Match Heart Rate Analysis

Wings had mean (79 6 10% HRmax) and peak (95 6 4%

HRmax) HR values lower than backcourt players (84 6 9
and 96 6 4% HRmax) and pivots (83 6 9 and 98 6 2%
HRmax) (p , 0.001; Figure 4). During the second half, mean
HR decreased for backcourt players and pivots and
increased for the goalkeepers (p # 0.01) when compared
with the first half. Goalkeepers present the lowest mean
and peak HR values during the match (70 6 11 and 90 6
7% HRmax) (p , 0.001; Figure 4).
Backcourt players and pivots spent the highest fraction of
effective match time (.53%) in intensities .80% HRmax
(p # 0.01; Figure 5). The percentage of effective match time
spent by the goalkeepers in this HR zone was 3158% lower
than for the outfield playing positions (p # 0.01). The percentage of effective match time spent in different HR zones
for both halves and for each playing position is presented in
Figure 5.
The percentage of time spent at exercise intensities .80%
HRmax decreased during the second half for all outfield
playing positions (Figure 5; p # 0.03). The opposite was
observed for the goalkeepers.
Fluid Loss and Intake

The body mass loss during the matches was 0.8 6 0.5 (0.0
1.4 kg) corresponding to 0.9 6 0.34 (0.01.3%) of their body
mass, and their fluid intake was 1.2 6 0.3 (0.61.5 L). Thus,
the fluid loss during matches was 2.1 6 0.4 (1.42.9 L)

corresponding to 2.3 6 0.4 (1.93.1%) of the body mass.

No significant differences were observed in these fluid loss
endpoints between playing positions.

DISCUSSION
This study is the first to provide detailed information on the
movement patterns and cardiovascular strain of elite male
handball players of different playing positions during the 2
halves and different phases of the game. Differences in the
motor activity profile and physiological demands of the
different playing positions were observed. Backcourt players
covered the longest total distances, whereas wings showed
the highest fraction of total time spent and distance covered
in high-intensity activities. Backcourt players and pivots
performed the highest number of high-demanding actions
and spent the highest percentage of time at intensities .80%
HRmax. Exercise intensity evaluated by both time motion
and HR decreased in the second half of the match only for
these players, although all outfield players spent less time at
intensities .80% HRmax in the second half of the match. In
opposition, goalkeepers showed higher HR values in the
second half of the match. Position-specific differences were
also observed in the activity profile related to defensive and
offensive play phases.
In opposition to Sibila et al. (24), but accordingly to
Michalsik et al. (15), time motion analysis showed that backcourt players covered the longest total distances, although
wings showed the highest fraction of time spent and distance
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2014 |

439

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Team Handballs Physiological Demands of Specific Playing Positions

covered in high-intensity activities, in accordance with what
was previously reported (15,24). In other intermittent team
sports such as soccer, high-intensity running during the
match has been suggested as a more accurate and key indicator of the physical stress imposed by the match than the
total distance covered (4,13). However, high-intensity running distance does not include high-demanding actions such
as jumps, stops, turns, and one-on-one situations, which are
stressful conditions imposed that should be recognized as
intense moments of the match. Backcourt players and pivots
performed double as many high-demanding actions than
wings and exercised for longer periods of time at intensities
.80% HRmax, which suggests that total distance covered
may not be the best indication of game demands for pivots.
This might be related to the fact that pivots perform a considerable amount of high-intensity work during the match
without covering a great distance, namely in one-on-one
situations as shown by the present data in which pivots
performed the highest number of these actions (Table 3).
No significant differences were observed between the outfield playing positions in the time spent and distance covered
in low-intensity activities, in opposition to observations from
other team sports (6).
Wings showed the highest number and length of sprints,
a fact that is probably related to their position on the playing
court. The handball playing area is longer in the outer aisles
than the central domain of the court because of the design
of the goal areas, enabling wing players to cover larger
distances. Additionally, wings are also frequently involved in
fast breaks that might also account for the highest amount of
high-intensity work, namely sprints, performed by these
players during the match (Table 2).
Sideways movements occurred more frequently and
accounted for a greater fraction of total time in backcourt
players and pivots (Table 2) in opposition to previous studies
that have reported no differences between playing positions
in this locomotion category (15). When analyzing only the
defensive phase, in which these types of movements are
more frequently performed (19), backcourt players and pivots spent twice as much time with sideways-medium intensity movements than wings. Backcourt players and pivots are
often required to play in the center of the defensive systems
in which the frequency of these events are high, but the
distance to be covered is low, whereas wings often defend
in the outer positions or in front of the defense, where the
distance to be covered is higher.
Differences were found between the playing positions in
the specific time motion categories of the defensive and
offensive phases of the handball match. As in previous
studies (15), wings spent the greatest proportion of total
match time in high-intensity activities in the attack phase,
which, as aforementioned, may be related to number of
sprints performed during the fast breaks. Regardless of
the distinct defensive playing actions between backcourt
and pivot players and wings, and in opposition to

440

the

Michalsik et al. (15), no significant differences were observed

in the defense phase between the outfield playing positions in
this intensity category. Backcourt players spent less time standing in the attack phase, when compared with pivots, who
performed most of the offensive work without covering long
distances, and wings, who were usually stationary while waiting for a scoring opportunity near the outer goal line. During
the defensive phase, wings spent twice as much time with
backwards running, which may be related to the initial phase
of the defense, when trying to stop a fast break of the opponents. In the offensive phase, pivots spent one-third of the total
match time with backwards running, which is much more
than the other outfield players. This is probably a consequence
of pivots operating frequently in the core of the opposite team
defensive system placed backwards to the goal area. Pivots
spent twice as much time with high-intensity activities in the
defensive phase than in the offensive phase, which highlights
the importance of this playing position in the defensive phase.
Maximal intensity activities were frequently interspersed by
periods frequently lasting longer than 90 seconds, and more
than half of the recovery periods were of active nature (Figure
3), which is known to accelerate recovery between short duration, high-intensity exercises (25). Nonetheless, for almost half
of the recovery time, the players were standing still, although
backcourt players showed the lowest values. This may be
because of the fact that backcourt players both in the attack
and defensive playing phases (especially, during the organized
phase) play in the central area of the playing court, with a higher frequency of ball and player movements. Although pivots
also operate in this area, the above-mentioned specificity of
their actions, particularly in the attack phase, can differentiate
them from backcourt players.
No studies have so far analyzed the cardiovascular
demands in handball considering the playing positions.
Heart rate measurement is a commonly used method to
estimate exercise intensity (14,20,23), despite the known variation in HR attributed to several intrinsic and extrinsic factors (1,8). Effective and total HR refers to HR responses
during the time in which the player is inside the playing
court and the total game time, respectively. Although, this
distinction is important to address when analyzing data,
since we are comparing playing positions, only data regarding effective HR were presented. Goalkeepers clearly present
distinct values compared with outfield players, which is in
accordance with time motion data (24). Backcourt players
and pivots showed the highest average HR values and percentage of total match time at intensities .80% HRmax.
Backcourt players also covered the highest distances in the
match, followed by wings and pivots. This shows that the
isolated evaluation of distances covered at different speeds
may not be the most suitable method for describing the
match intensity, particularly for pivots. In fact, accompanying information from high-demanding playing actions
showed that both pivots and backcourt players performed
the highest number of these actions during the match.

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Therefore, a more sensitive marker of physical demands may
be needed to accurately determine the intensity of work
during match play for pivot position players. The notion that
measurements of HR and movement pattern can be used
complementary is supported by the observation that wings
showed the highest distance covered and time spent in highintensity activities, but the lowest average HR values and
percentage of total match time at intensities .80% HRmax
of all outfield playing positions.
Time motion analyses and HR data showed that the
exercise intensity decreased in the second half of the match
only for backcourt players and pivots, which may be because
of the fact that these players performed the highest number of
high-demanding actions and spent the highest percentage of
time at intensities .80% HRmax, contributing to increased
neuromuscular fatigue. A decrease in exercise intensity in the
second half, evaluated as lowered HRs, and less high-intensity
running and total distance covered, has also been reported in
other field sports such as soccer (6,7,12,16,22,26,28). In opposition, goalkeepers showed higher HR values in the second
half of the match. Considering that fluid loss did not differ
between game halves (data not shown) and that fatigue does
not occur for goalkeepers during the game because of the
extended recovery times between actions, other noncontrolled/evaluated influencing factors might be present in the
second half that contribute to explain this finding. However,
further studies are needed to better understand the physiological and physical strains related to the possible development of
fatigue during elite male handball matches.

| www.nsca.com

Association. S. C. A. Povoas, A. A. M. R. Ascensao, and

J. Magalhaes are supported by grants from the Portuguese
Foundation for Science and Technology (SFRH/BD/
38148/2007,
SFRH/BPD/4225/2007,
SFRH/BPD/
66935/2009).

REFERENCES
1. Achten, J and Jeukendrup, AE. Heart rate monitoring: Applications
and limitations. Sports Med 33: 517538, 2003.
2. Andersson, H, Raastad, T, Nilsson, J, Paulsen, G, Garthe, I, and
Kadi, F. Neuromuscular fatigue and recovery in elite female soccer:
Effects of active recovery. Med Sci Sports Exerc 40: 372380, 2008.
3. Anti, T, Kada, A, Quintin, E, Delafuente, O, Petreski, T, and
Basny, Y. Quelle attaque place dans le jeu qui saccele`re? Approches
du Handball 96: 1623, 2006.
4. Bangsbo, J. Anaerobic energy yield in soccer: Performance of young
players. Sci Football 5: 2428, 1991.
5. Bangsbo, J. Fitness Training in Football: A Scientific Approach.
Bagsvaerd, Denmark: HO & Storm, 1994.
6. Bangsbo, J. The physiology of soccerWith special reference to intense
intermittent exercise. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 619: 1155, 1994.
7. Bangsbo, J, Norregaard, L, and Thorso, F. Activity profile of
competition soccer. Can J Sport Sci 16: 110116, 1991.
8. Buchheit, M, Mendez-Villanueva, A, Quod, MJ, Poulos, N, and
Bourdon, P. Determinants of the variability of heart rate measures
during a competitive period in young soccer players. Eur J Appl
Physiol 109: 869878, 2010.
9. Canayer, P. Les tendances de la montee de balle de la LNH au
niveau europeen. Approches du Handball 102: 41, 2007.
10. Constantini, D. Les evolutions et principes generaux de la montee
de balle. Approches du Handball 102: 3840, 2007.
11. Coyle, EF. Fluid and fuel intake during exercise. J Sports Sci 22: 39
55, 2004.

PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS

12. Ekblom, B. Applied physiology of soccer. Sports Med 3: 5060, 1986.

The present study shows that physical performance and HR

response and, therefore, the physical and physiological
demands of the players during a handball match are highly
dependent on the positional role within the team. Specific
locomotor high-demanding actions and HR profile during
the match provide combined useful information for better
characterizing the demands of the game for each playing
position. The decrement in performance observed in the
second half of the match differentiates between playing
positions. Hence, training strategies should consider intense
position-specific exercises aiming at improving the ability of
the players to sustain high exercise intensities throughout
the game. It is also possible that the results obtained could be
useful in the future design of physical tests to specifically
evaluate the performance of handball players in different
playing positions.

13. Krustrup, P and Bangsbo, J. Physiological demands of top-class

soccer refereeing in relation to physical capacity: Effect of intense
intermittent exercise training. J Sports Sci 19: 881891, 2001.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thankfully acknowledge to all the elite handball players
and coaches who participated in this study. We also thank
Luke Conolly for editing the manuscript. No sources of
funding were used to assist in the preparation of this
manuscript. The results of the present study do not reflect
any endorsement by the National Strength and Conditioning

14. McLellan, CP, Lovell, DI, and Gass, GC. Performance analysis of
elite rugby league match play using global positioning systems.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 17031710, 2011.
15. Michalsik, LB, Aagaard, P, and Madsen, K. Locomotion
Characteristics and Match-Induced Impairments in Physical
Performance in Male Elite Team Handball Players. Int J Sports Med
34: 590599, 2013.
16. Mohr, M, Krustrup, P, and Bangsbo, J. Match performance of highstandard soccer players with special reference to development of
fatigue. J Sports Sci 21: 519528, 2003.
17. Noakes, TD. Implications of exercise testing for prediction of athletic
performance: A contemporary perspective. Med Sci Sports Exerc 20:
319330, 1988.
18. Osgnach, C, Poser, S, Bernardini, R, Rinaldo, R, and di Prampero, PE.
Energy cost and metabolic power in elite soccer: A new match
analysis approach. Med Sci Sports Exerc 42: 170178, 2010.
19. Povoas, SC, Seabra, AF, Ascensao, AA, Magalhaes, J, Soares, JM,
and Rebelo, AN. Physical and Physiological Demands of Elite Team
Handball. J Strength Cond Res 26: 33653375, 2012.
20. Rebelo, AN, Ascensao, AA, Magalhaes, JF, Bischoff, R,
Bendiksen, M, and Krustrup, P. Elite futsal refereeing: Activity
profile and physiological demands. J Strength Cond Res 25: 980987,
2011.
21. Reilly, T and Thomas, V. A motion analysis of work-rate in different
positional roles in professional football match-play. J Hum Mov Stud
2: 8797, 1976.
VOLUME 28 | NUMBER 2 | FEBRUARY 2014 |

441

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.

Team Handballs Physiological Demands of Specific Playing Positions

22. Reilly, T and Thomas, V. Estimated daily energy expenditures of
professional association footballers. Ergonomics 22: 541548, 1979.
23. Russell, M, Rees, G, Benton, D, and Kingsley, M. An Exercise Protocol
that Replicates Soccer Match-Play. Int J Sports Med 32: 511518, 2011.

26. Sirotic, AC, Coutts, AJ, Knowles, H, and Catterick, C. A comparison

of match demands between elite and semi-elite rugby league
competition. J Sports Sci 27: 203211, 2009.

24. Sibila, M, Vuleta, D, and Pori, P. Position-related differences in

volume and intensity of large-scale cyclic movements of male
players in handball. Kinesiology 36: 5868, 2004.

27. Spencer, M, Lawrence, S, Rechichi, C, Bishop, D, Dawson, B, and

Goodman, C. Time-motion analysis of elite field hockey, with
special reference to repeated-sprint activity. J Sports Sci 22: 843850,
2004.

25. Signorile, JF, Ingalls, C, and Tremblay, LM. The effects of active and
passive recovery on short-term, high intensity power output. Can J
Appl Physiol 18: 3142, 1993.

28. Waldron, M, Highton, J, Daniels, M, and Twist, C. Preliminary

evidence of transient fatigue and pacing during interchanges in
rugby league. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 8: 157164, 2013.

442

the

TM

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.