42 Faculty of Sport, University of Ljubljana, ISSN 1318-2269 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 17, 1, 42–51 (2011) IZVLEČEK Glavna cilja raziskave sta bila opredeliti somatotip najboljših mladih hrvaških igralcev namiznega tenisa s pomočjo metode C a r t e r j a i n H e a t h a (19 9 0) t e r u g o t o v i t i , a l i s e m e r j e n c i , k i s o b i l i glede na telesne značilnosti oz. podobne vrednosti komponent somatotipa razdeljeni v tri skupine, med seboj razlikujejo glede na starost, staž treniranja in zlasti tekmovalni uspeh. Rezultati so pokazali prevlado mezomorfne komponente somatotipa, ki je očitna in poudarjena pri skoraj polovici merjencev. Ektomorfna komponenta somatotipa je tudi pomembna, saj je prevladovala pri več kot tretjini merjencev, medtem ko je bila endomorfna komponenta v skladu s pričakovanji najmanj izstopajoča. Rezultati analize variance so pokazali, da so merjenci v vsaki skupini, v kateri je prevladala ena od komponent somatotipa, enake starosti in z enakimi igralskimi izkušnjami ter da se skupine ne razlikujejo med seboj glede na tekmovalni uspeh. Tako lahko zaključimo, da somatotip igralca pri teh letih ni glavni dejavnik doseganja tekmovalne uspešnosti v namiznem tenisu. Prevladujoč odstotek merjencev s telesno konstitucijo, za katero sta najznačilnejši mezomorfna in ektomorfna komponenta somatotipa, samo nakazuje potencialno prednost tega tipa telesne konstitucije, ki lahko poveča možnosti za uspeh, vendar ni dejavnik, ki bi neposredno vplival na tekmovalno uspešnost mladih namiznoteniških igralcev. Ključne besede: antropometrija, igre z loparji, namizni tenis, igralci, uspeh ABSTR ACT The main objectives of this research were to determine the somatotype of the best young male Croatian table tennis players using the Carter and Heath (1990) method and to establish whether the subjects classified in three groups of physique, according to similarities in their somatotype component values, differ in terms of their age, years of training, and especially competitive success. The results reveal the predominance of the mesomorphic somatotype component, which is evident and emphasised in almost half the subjects. The ectomorphic somatotype component is also significant since it was established as a dominant component of more than one-third of the subjects while, as expected, the least dominant component is the endomorphic component. T he re su lt s of a n a na ly si s of va r i a nc e re ve a l t hat t he subje c t s i n each group dominated by a different somatotype component a re t he sa me a ge a nd p os se s s t he sa me play i ng e x p er ienc e , a nd that the groups do not differ in their competitive success. It is thus possible to conclude that the somatotype of players at this age is not a crucial factor in achieving competitive success in table tennis. The predominance of a physique dominated by the mesomorphic and ectomorphic somatotype components only reveals the potential advantage of these body constitution types, one that increases the probability of success but is not a factor that directly influences the competitive success of young table tennis players. Key words: anthropometry, racket sports, table tennis, athletes, success 1 University of Split, Faculty of Kinesiology, Croatia 2 University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Slovenia *Corresponding author: University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport Gortanova 22, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia Phone: +386 1 520 77 00, +386 1 520 77 37 Fax: + 386 1 520 77 40 E-mail: miran.kondric@fsp.uni-lj.si http://www.fakultetazasport.si; www.miran-tt.com THE INFLUENCE OF SOMATOTYPE ON YOUNG TABLE TENNIS PLAYERS’ COMPETITIVE SUCCESS VPLIV SOMATOTIPA NA TEKMOV ALNO USPEŠNOST MLADIH IGRALCEV NAMIZNEGA TENISA Goran Munivrana 1 Jelena Paušić 1 Miran Kondrič 2* Somatotype and success in table tennis 43 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 17, 1, 42–51 (2011) INTRODUCTION There is a long tradition in sports sciences of researching physiques and determining somatotypes. Attempts to categorise and describe human beings according to different somatotypes date back to Hippocrates and throughout history many have attempted to establish the connection between somatotypes and different anthropological determinants. Today, the most frequently used model for determining somatotypes is the Heath and Carter method (1967) that was developed on the basis of Sheldon’s type classification (1940). This method uses 10 anthropometrical measure- ments to establish the value characteristics of the three somatotype components; endomorphy (a high degree of subcutaneous fat tissue), mesomorphy (a highly developed musculoskeletal system) and ectomorphy (the linearity of the body is emphasised). Since 1940 numerous studies of body composition have influenced the development of somato- typing (Carter & Heath, 1990) and, in the last 20 years, many studies have defined the somatotype profile of athletes in different sport disciplines (Orvanova, 1990; Charjewski, 1991; Claessens et al. 1991; Leake & Carter, 1991; Gualdi-Russo & Graziani, 1993; Hawes & Sovak, 1994; Travill, 1995) and games (Popichev, 1992; Casagrande & Viviani, 1993; Viviani, 1994; Carter, Ackland, Kerr & Stapff, 2005; Bayios et al., 2006; Čanaki, Sporiš & Leko, 2006; Malousaris et al., 2008; Pradas et al. 2007; Pradas et al. 2009; Carrasco, Pradas & Martinez, 2010). According to Carter (1984), successful athletes competing in different sports within different competitive classes show similarities (which become more and more evident in higher com- petitive classes) in their body dimension and body constitution, although this similarity varies greatly among sports. Within specific sports, sport disciplines or playing positions in team sport games, it is evident that an almost identical somatotype profile dominates, characterised by certain anthropometric features that are crucial or at least extremely important for achieving top competitive results. At the same time, this similarity in physique is less common among some other sports, that is, an athlete’s morphological constitution does not play such an important role in achieving good competitive results. Table tennis is an acyclic sport in which playing time and rest time periods alternate continuously. The players’ most important physical capacities are endurance and velocity. Although it is clear that physical preparation is an important factor in reaching the top, several studies have demonstrated that, at the same training level, the best performances are achieved by players with more compatible anatomic conditions (Faccini et al., 1989; Yu Zhang et al., 2010). Many authors have attempted to establish the connection between somatotypes and competitive success or performance levels in different sports (Siders, 1993; Sullivan, 1994; Gualdi-Russo & Zaccagni, 2001; Slater et al., 2005; Sanchez-Munoz, Sanz & Zabala, 2007; de Hojo, Sanudo & Paris, 2009), and it would be interesting to establish whether and to what extent the different somatotypes themselves affect the competitive success of juvenile table tennis players and to determine the importance of physique in achieving good competitive results in table tennis (Carrasco, Pradas & Martinez, 2010; Pradas, Carrasco, Martinez & Herrero, 2007; Pradas et al., 2009). The main objectives of this research are to determine the somatotype of the best young Croatian table tennis players (young cadets and cadets), to establish whether a certain somatotype is dominant in this age group and to establish whether the subjects, who are classified in three types 44 Somatotype and success in table tennis Kinesiologia Slovenica, 17, 1, 42–51 (2011) of physique according to similarities in their somatotype component values, differ in terms of their age, years of training, or competitive success. METHODS Sample of cases The participant sample included 62 male table tennis players participating in the Croatian na- tional championship for young cadets and cadets in the 2007/2008 season. The Croatian national championship is a closed competition; that is, competitors have to earn the right to be invited through regional qualifications or by being placed within the top 16 on the national ranking list. Accordingly, all of them are high-level players within their age group (YC, C; age10-14), can be found on the CTTA (Croatian Table Tennis Association) ranking lists for the 2007/2008 season, and have been playing for 3 to 8.5 years. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Croatian Table Tennis Association. Sample of variables We employed the Carter and Heath method (1990). The anthropometric measurements needed to determine somatotype using this method are as follows: body height (cm) 1. knee diameter (femur breadth) (cm) 2. elbow diameter (humerus breadth) (cm) 3. body mass (kg) 4. lower leg span in a standing posture (calf girth) (cm) 5. upper arm span during flexion and contraction (biceps girth-tensed) (cm) 6. upper arm skinfold (triceps skinfold) (cm) 7. skinfold of the back (subscapular skinfold) (cm) 8. abdominal skinfold (suprailiac skinfold) (cm) 9. lower leg skinfold 10. (calf skinfold) (cm) All of these variables are described in detail in Carter and Heath (1990). For each measurement, the whole measuring procedure was repeated three times so as to produce a measuring instrument of a composite type. On the basis of the 10 anthropometric measurements, three variables describing individual somatotype component values were selected from the sample of variables: endomorphic somatotype component • mesomorphic somatotype component • ectomorphic somatotype component • The following variables were selected as criteria variables: age of the participants • years of training • competitive success – based on points won and registered on the CTTA ranking lists for • each category (cadets and young cadets) for the 2007/2008 season Somatotype and success in table tennis 45 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 17, 1, 42–51 (2011) Procedure The anthropometric measure ments were conducted during the Croatian national championship for young cadets and cadets held at Dugo Selo in April 2008 and were performed by the same experienced researcher. The data obtained using anthropometric measurements were entered into the “Somatotype” computer program (Sweat Technologies) which calculates the somatotype using the 10 anthro- pometric measurements and is based on the Carter and Heath method (1990). Numerical values obtained on the basis of the 10 anthropometrical measurements using this program determine the level of correspondence with a certain somatotype component (endomorphic, mesomorphic, ectomorphic) for each subject individually, using the numbers 1-7 in such a way that an extreme endomorph would be defined as somatotype 7-1-1, an extreme mesomorph 1-7-1, and an extreme ectomorph 1-1-7. The majority of subjects do not belong to any of the extreme somatotypes; in fact, they possess a mixture of mild characteristics belonging to all of these somatotypes. Each mixture is individual and determines the somatotype of a specific subject. The “Somatotype” computer program recognises different combinations of the individual components of a soma- totype and places subjects in different groups and sub-groups depending on the influence of each component. Figure1: Graphic display of somatochart values for each subject Data Analysis The numerical values obtained for each of the three somatotype components (endomorphic, mesomorphic, ectomorphic) by the “Somatotype” computer program and the results of the three criteria variables were processed using the statistical package Statistics 7 (StatSoft, USA). 46 Somatotype and success in table tennis Kinesiologia Slovenica, 17, 1, 42–51 (2011) Basic descriptive statistical parameters and distribution normalities were calculated for each variable. The participants were classified in three groups using a taxonomic analysis: the K- means method (by selecting the three clusters) according to similarities in their physique based on the soma- totype component values. Differences between the three groups based on the criteria variables were determined using an analysis of variance (breakdown & one-way). R ESULTS The aim of this study was to determine the influence of somatotype on the competitive success of young table tennis players. Although we do not have clear information on the influence of anthropometric characteristics on table tennis performance, it seems obvious that a mesomorphic predominance can play a decisive role in any sport, including table tennis (Pradas et al., 2007). The basic descriptive statistical parameters show the results are normally distributed (K-S test) for all the variables and that an average subject (table tennis player) is almost 13 years old, has been playing table tennis for more than 5 years, and that the average values of the mesomorphic and ectomorphic somatotype components predominate over the values of the endomorphic component (Table 1). Table 1: Basic descriptive and distribution statistical parameters for all variables for all subjects Mean N SD Min. Max. max D K-S Endomorphic component 2.82 62 1.19 1.3 6.2 0.171 p < .10 Mesomorphic component 3.65 62 0.91 1.3 6.3 0.063 p > .20 Ectomorphic component 3.54 62 1.25 0.8 7.4 0.081 p > .20 Age 12.83 62 1.7 10.07 14.9 0.124 p > .20 Years of training 5.23 62 1.53 3.00 8.5 0.171 p < .10 Competitive success points 535.12 62 450.35 2.1 1580 0.135 p > .20 Limit max D = 0.175 Based on the numerical values calculated for each somatotype component, the subjects were clas- sified in three different physique groups (using a taxonomic analysis – the K-means method – by selecting three clusters) established on the somatotype similarities (Table 2). Table 2: The division of subjects into three physique groups (Predominant endomorphs, Predomi- nant mesomorphs and Predominant ectomorphs) Groups Predominant ENDOMORPHS group (n=10) Predominant MESOMORPHS group (n=30) Predominant ECTOMORPHS group (n=22) A N O VA Components Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F p Endomorph comp. values 4.96 0.94 2.73 0.66 1.98 0.41 74.56 0.000 Mesomorph comp. values 4.74 0.69 3.90 0.57 2.84 0.66 36.30 0.000 Ectomorph comp. values 1.83 0.60 3.32 0.41 4.90 0.87 85.56 0.000 Somatotype and success in table tennis 47 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 17, 1, 42–51 (2011) Figure 2: Graphic display of somatotype component values for each of the three basic physique groups According to the results gained using the taxonomic analysis (Tables 2 and 3), the majority of subjects (48.39%) belong to the group (Predominant mesomorphs) d om i n a t e d by t h e mesomorphic somatotype component. Table 3: The frequencies (F) and percentage (%) of subjects belonging to each particular physique group dominated by individual somatotype components Groups F % Predominant ENDOMORPHS 10 16.13 Predominant MESOMORPHS 30 48.39 Predominant ECTOMORPHS 22 35.48 TOTAL 62 100.00 A little over one-third of the subjects (35.48%) form the second group (Predominant ectomorphs) consisting of 22 players dominated by the ectomorphic somatotype component. The third group (Predominant endomorphs) is the smallest (16.3%) and comprises 10 subjects with an accentuated influence of the endomorph somatotype component but also a highly emphasised mesomorphic component. The results obtained by the analysis of variance (breakdown & one-way) reveal a lack of significant differences for each of the criteria variables among the three individual physique groups domi- nated by a specific somatotype component. This can be confirmed by looking at the descriptive statistical parameters (Table 4). 48 Somatotype and success in table tennis Kinesiologia Slovenica, 17, 1, 42–51 (2011) Table 4: Descriptive statistical parameters for each of the three physique groups, with a variance analysis to determine the significance of differences between the groups based on the three criteria variables. Predominant ENDOMORPHS group (n=10) Predominant MESOMORPHS group (n=30) Predominant ECTOMORPHS group (n=22) A N O VA Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F p Age 13.24 1.84 13.09 1.44 12.44 1.63 1.573 0.216 Years of training 5.41 1.65 5.90 1.47 4.88 1.41 1.929 0.154 Competitive success points 474.95 413.03 536.58 486.49 578.76 474.25 0.330 0.720 DISCUSSION The variable sample is based on the 10 anthropometric parameters needed to determine somato- type using the Carter and Heath method (1990). The growth and development differences among participants at this age (the subjects were aged 10-14) are too significant to compare them directly via anthropometric measurements, but when determining the somatotype using the Carter and Heath method the only relevant interrelation is that between the 10 anthropometric measure- ments and the chronological age of the participants. This fact nullifies the age difference and enables further comparisons. The majority of subjects (48.39%) belong to the group (Predominant mesomorphs) dominated by the mesomorphic somatotype component. This group (n = 30) is made up of subjects with high numerical values for the mesomorphic component compared to the other two somatotype components (endomorphic and ectomorphic). Based on the values of those two less emphasised components, it is possible to further divide the subjects of this group into those dominated by the endomorphic component of the mesomorphic somatotype (endomorphic mesomorphs), those dominated by the ectomorphic component (ectomorphic mesomorphs), and those with a balance of the two components (balanced mesomorphs). A little over one-third of the subjects (35.48%) form the second group (Predominant ectomorphs) consisting of 22 players dominated by the ectomorphic somatotype component. The values of the other two components (endomorphic and mesomorphic) are much less emphasised and subdivide this group into two ectomorphic subtypes (mesomorphic ectomorphs and balanced ectomorphs). The group with an accentuated influence of the endomorphic somatotype component but also a highly emphasised mesomorphic component is characterised by high levels of subcutaneous fat tissue. It includes endomorphs, the majority of whom have an accentuated mesomorphic component (mesomorphic endomorphs), followed by those with a balance of the two components (mesomorphic-endomorphic); there are also a few mesomorphs with an accentuated endomor- phic component. Subjects in all three groups do not differ significantly in their age or in years of training (Table 4); therefore, these two variables were not relevant for differentiating the subjects; their ages are similar and so are their years of training. Somatotype and success in table tennis 49 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 17, 1, 42–51 (2011) These results enable a quality comparison of the subjects based on the third variable – their competitive success – which also reveals the lack of significant differences between the groups as regards the players’ competitive success (points won during the competitive season). As a result, it becomes obvious that no kind of somatotype domination has a crucial influence on the competitive success of young table tennis players in this specific age group. Similar results were found by Carrasco et al. (2010) and Pradas et al. (2009). Fleck’s (1983) study of body composition data for various groups of elite American athletes concluded that extremely low fat values were not a necessity for success in many sports. In a structurally complex game such as table tennis, competitive success is primarily a result of the quality and degree of technical and tactical knowledge. Accordingly, the differences in the competitive success of the young table tennis players are mostly the result of differing levels of technical/tactical skills. Those differences are much more salient at this competitive level than among top senior players where a high level of technical/tactical knowledge can be assumed. Although the existence of suitable morphological features certainly represents an advantage and plays a role in achieving competitive success (especially among top players), in a technically complex game like table tennis it is just one of many factors that influence competitive success. At this age and competitive level, as an integral part of a player’s basic anthropological status body constitution is an important yet far from crucial factor in achieving top competitive results. The predominance of a physique dominated by the mesomorphic and ectomorphic somatotype components only reveals the potential advantage of these types of body constitution in increasing the likelihood of success, but it is not a decisive factor that directly influences competitive success among young table tennis players. CONCLUSION The results of this research reveal that none of the three somatotype components is sufficiently dominant to be named the model somatotype for table tennis players in this specific age group, but the predominance of a physique dominated by the mesomorphic somatotype component among these top young Croatian table tennis players (young cadets and cadets) is evident in almost half the subjects. The influence of a physique dominated by the ectomorphic somatotype component is also significant since it emerged as the dominant somatotype in more than one- third of the subjects; as expected, the least dominant type of physique is the one dominated by the endomorphic somatotype component. The results also show that there are no significant differences among the three groups dominated by different somatotype components, or in terms of the competitive success of the players in each group. Since differences were not established, this leads to the conclusion that, at this age, body constitution is not a crucial factor in achieving top results in table tennis. REFERENCES Bayios, I. A., Bergeles, N. K., Apostolidis, N. G., Noutsos, K. S., & Koskolou, M. D. (2006). Anthropometric, body composition and somatotype differences of Greek elite female basketball, volleyball and handball players. Journal of sports medicine and physical fitness, 46(2), 271-280. 50 Somatotype and success in table tennis Kinesiologia Slovenica, 17, 1, 42–51 (2011) Carrasco, L., Pradas, F., & Martinez, A. (2010). Somatotype and body composition of young top-level table tennis players. International Journal of Table Tennis Sciences, 6, 175-177. Carter, J.E.L. (1984). Physical Structure of Olympic Athletes. Part II: Kinanthropometry of Olympic Athletes. Medicine and Sport Science. Karger Basel: N. York. Carter, J.E.L., & Heath, B.H. (1990). Somatotyping – Development and application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Carter, J.E.L., Ackland, T.R., Kerr, D.A., & Stapff, A.B. (2005). Somatotype and size of elite female basket- ball players. Journal of Sport Sciences, 23, 1057-1063. Casagrande, G., & Viviani, F. (1993). Somatotype of Italian rugby players. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 33(1), 65-69. Charjewski, J. (1991). Somatotype characteristics of elite European wrestlers. Biology of Sport, 8(4), 213- 221. Claessens, A.L., Veer, F.M., Stijnen, V., Lefevre, J., Maes, H., Steens, G., & Beunen, G. (1991). Anthropomet- ric characteristics of outstanding male and female gymnasts. Journal of Sports Sciences, 9, 53-74. Čanaki, M., Sporiš, G., & Leko, G. (2006). Morphological advantages and disadvantages in Croatian U-16 and U-18 tennis players. Croatian Sports Medicine Journal, 21, 98-102. De Hojo, M., Sanudo, B., & Paris, F. (2009). Analysis of the somatotype, body composition and anthro- pometry in badminton players between 12 and 16 years. In: A. Lees, D. Cabello, G. Torres Luque (Eds.), Science and racket sports IV (pp.112-117). London, New York: Routledge. Faccini, P., Faina, M.K., Scarpellini, E., & Dal-Monte, A. (1989). “Il costo energetico nel tennistavolo”. [Energy cost in table tennis]. Scuola dello sport, 17, 38-42. Fleck, S.J. (1983). Body composition of elite American athletes. The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 11, 398-403. Gomez, J.R., Berral, C.J., Viana, B., Leiva, A., Ibnziaten, A., & Berral, F.J. (2002). Un studio de somatotipo en adolescentes de 10 a 14 anos [A somatotype study in teenagers (10-14 years)]. Medicina del Ejercicio, XVII(1-2), 22-34. Gualdi-Russo, E., & Graziani, I. (1993). Anthropometric somatotype of Italian sport participants. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 33(3), 282-291. Gualdi-Russo, E., & Zaccagni, L. (2001). Somatotype, role and performance in elite volleyball players. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 41(2), 256-262. Hawes, M. R., & Sovak, D. (1994). Morphological prototypes, assessment and change in elite athletes. Journal of Sports Sciences, 12, 235-242. Heath, B.H., & Carter, J.E.L. (1967). A modified somatotype method. American Journal of Physical An- thropology, 21, 57-74. Leake, C. N., & Carter, J.E.L. (1991). Comparison of body composition and somatotype of trained female triathletes. Journal of Sport Sciences, 9, 125-135. Malousaris, G.G., Bergeles, N.K., Barzouka, K.G., Bayios, I.A., Nassis, G.P., & Koskolov, M.D. (2008). Somatotype, size and body composition of competitive female volleyball players. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 11, 337-344. Orvanová, E. (1990). Somatotypes of weight lifters. Journal of Sport Sciences, 8, 119-137. Popichev, M. (1992). Body types and jumping ability in teen-age volleyball players. Fitness and Sports Review International, 27(5), 177-179. Pradas, F., Carrasco, L., Martinez, E., & Herrero, R. (2007). “Anthropometric profile, somatotype, and body composition of young table tennis players”. Revista Internacional de Ciencias Deporte, 7(3), 11-23. Somatotype and success in table tennis 51 Kinesiologia Slovenica, 17, 1, 42–51 (2011) Pradas, F., Martinez, E., Alcaraz, P.E., & Carrasco, L. (2009). Kinanthropometric profile, body composi- tion, somatotype and grip strength dynamometry in young high level tennis, badminton and table tennis players. In: A. Lees, D. Cabello, G. Torres Luque (Eds.). Science and racket sports IV (pp. 83-90). London, New York: Routledge. Sanchez-Munoz, C., Sanz, D., & Zabala, M. (2007). Anthropometric characteristics, body composition and somatotype of elite junior tennis players. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 41(11), 793-799. Sheldon, W.H. (1940). The varieties of human physique. New York /London: Harper& Brothers. Siders, W. (1993). Relationships among swimming performance, body composition and somatotype in competitive collegiate swimmers. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 33(2), 166-171. Slater, G.J., Rice, A.J., Mujika, I., Hahn, A.G., Sharpe, K., & Jenkins, D.G. (2005). Physique traits of lightweight rowers and their relationship to competitive success. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 39, 736-741. Sullivan, J. (1994). Anthropometric characteristics and performance related predictors of success in adolescent pol. Journal of Sports Medicine, 34(2), 179-184. Travill, A. (1995). Somatotypes of male Olympic high, long and triple jumpers. S.A. Journal for Research in Sport, Physical Education and Recreation, 18(1), 67-75. Viviani, F. (1994). The somatotype of medium class Italian basketball players. The Journal of Sports Medi- cine and Physical Fitness, 34(1), 70-75. Yu Zhang, H., Ushiyama, Y., Yang, F., Iizuka, S., & Kamijima, K. (2010). Estimation of energy consumption from heart rates of Chinese professional table tennis players in training condition. International Journal of Table Tennis Sciences, 6, 139-144.