basic motor skills structure in 12 year old water polo players and non sportsmen

7/27/2019 Basic Motor Skills Structure in 12 Year Old Water Polo Players and Non Sportsmen

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/basic-motor-skills-structure-in-12-year-old-water-polo-players-and-non-sportsmen 1/10

Aleksandrovi et al.: Basic motor skills structure in 12-year-old water polo players…. Serb J Sports Sci 1(3): 79-88

79

Serbian Journal of Sports Sciences Original article 2007, 1(3): 79-88, www.sjss-sportsacademy.edu.yu Received: 03 July 2007

UDC 797.253.034.4 ISSN 1452-8827 Accepted: 30 Aug 2007

BASIC MOTOR SKILLS STRUCTURE IN 12-YEAR-OLD WATER POLO PLAYERS AND

NON - SPORTSMEN

Marko Aleksandrovi1

, Georgi Georgiev2

, Tomislav Oki=i1

, Dejan Madi1

and Nikola Malezanov3

1 Faculty of Sport and Physical Education, University of Niš, Niš, Serbia 2 Faculty of Physical Education, University »St. Cirilus and Methodius«, Skopje, Macedonia

3 Department of Education, Salem International University, Salem, WV, USA

Abstract The purpose of this research is to determine latent structure in every basic motor skillsspace of 12-year-old water polo players and non-sportsmen and to determine the differencesbetween the mentioned latent spaces. The sample consisted of total 190 boys, age 12 ± 0.5years divided into two subgroups: the group of water polo players (N = 91) and the group of non-sportsmen (N = 99). Measuring twelve instruments performed determining the level of basicmotor skills. In order to determine the motor skills, space structure (for every sub-group of water polo players and non-sportsmen separately) factor analysis (rotation of main components inOblimin solution) was applied. In order to determine the similarity of factor structure between thegroup of water polo players and the group of non-sportsmen Tucker’s congruency coefficientwas applied. In the sub-group of water polo players 4 factors have been isolated in motor skillslatent space, against only 3 factors in physically inactive 12-year-old boys. A difference has beenspotted in latent anthropological space between 12-year-old water polo players and their non-sportsmen coevals, and reasons for this are, besides training, specific characteristics of water polo movements and specificities of the water polo game itself..

Key words: basic motor skills, water polo players, non-sportsmen

INTRODUCTION There are only few researches that deal with water polo players of pre-puberty age. This is the agewhen the selection of children, future water polo players, is being performed and grounds for future

sport specialisation and highest achievements in this sport being made [3, 4, 12, 20, 33].In this period there are optimal conditions for development of: maximum locomotion speed,individual movement’s speed, acceleration ability, explosive strength, coordination skills and activemobility. Also this period is favourable for development of strength endurance as well as aerobicendurance [7, 11, 14, 24, 35].

The training process has a greater influence on less genetically determined motor skills [6].Water polo training also affects players’ motor skills in the beginning of their swimming career [1, 8].

Basic motor skills are foundations of every motor skills learning and they representelementary value in human’s total motor skills’ space. Researches up to this day have identified thefollowing basic motor skills: strength, speed, endurance, coordination, agility, balance andpreciseness [27]. Specific motor skills are gained and determined by specificity of sport branchtraining process [2]. There is high correlation between basic and specific motor skills in lower




80

category water polo players. In fact, research results of certain basic motor skills showed significantcorrelation with specific motor skills variables in water polo [5, 25, 26].

Every long period sport activity affects the structure of anthropological dimensions’ latentspace [22, 34]. The latent anthropological space of top water polo players is significantly defined bymotor skills [21, 34] and reason for this is specificity of water polo game itself, successful enduranceof variable intensity exertion with frequent change in direction [9, 16, 17, 29, 36].

This study will determine and define more closely the success factors in water polo players of that age based on the structure of basic motor skills. Therefore the purpose of this research is todetermine latent structure in every basic motor skills space of 12-year-old water polo players andnon-sportsmen and to determine the differences between the mentioned latent spaces.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

SUBJECTS

The research sample consisted of total 190 boys, age 12.1 ± 0.5 years divided into two subgroups.

The first subgroup (N = 91) represented the group of water polo players (height 156.98 ± 22.32cm,body mass 51.02 ± 19.82kg), that has at least two years of playing experience in water polo clubs of Serbia. Second subgroup (N = 99), represented the group of non-sportsmen (height 151.53 ± 39.6cm,body mass 43.54 ± 39.46kg), that consisted only of students that attended regular PE classes atschool as a form of organized physical activity and had never played sports.

PROCEDURE AND MEASUREMENTS

MOTOR SKILLS VARIABLE SAMPLES Determining the level of basic motor skills was performed by measuring instruments recommendedby Kureli> et al. [27] and EUROFIT [19] batteries: agility in air (MAGIL), leg tapping (MLTAP), handtapping (MHTAP), deep forward bend on the bench (MDFB), deep forward bend with reaching whileseated (MDFS), diagonal standing on the balance beam (MBAL), 20 m flying start running (M20M),

triple-jump from a standing start (MTRJ), standing bilateral long jump (MSLJ), hanging on the highbars (MHHB), torso elevating in 30 s (MTEL), push ups (MPUP).

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS In order to determine the level in manifest space of water polo players’ and non-sportsmen’s basicmotor skills separately, descriptive statistics were used: average value ( ), minimal value (Min),maximal value (Max), standard deviation of arithmetic mean (SD), standard error of arithmetic mean(SE). In order to determine the normality of distribution of all variables in both sub-samples,Kolmogorov-Smirnov non parametric test (K-S) was applied. Auxiliary parameters were Skewness(Skew), and Kurtosis (Kurt).

In order to determine the space structure of every motor skills (for every sub-group of water polo players and non-sportsmen separately) following methods were applied: Pearson’s correlation(R) communalities (h2); rotation of main components in Oblimin solution (parallel and orthogonal

projection), as well as correlations between isolated Oblimin factors.In order to determine the similarity of factor structure between the group of water polo playersand the group of non-sportsmen Tucker’s congruency coefficient (T) was applied. All analyses weremade by PC using statistic software program SPSS for Win, release 7.5.1 – Standard Version(Copyright © SPSS Inc., 1989-1996).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Results’ average values of water polo players’ motor skills (Mean) indicate good discrimination of measurement (Table 1). Those values are shown through variability and distribution of results. Asfor variability, it can be concluded that the results of standard deviations (SD) (in 8 out of 12 appliedmotor variables) are contained at least 3 times in the results’ average value (Mean). This implies the




81

variables that represent agility (MAGIL), segmental speed (MHTAP and MLTAP), flexibility (MDFB),explosive strength (M20M, MTRJ and MSLJ), and repetitive torso strength (MTEL). Standard

deviations’ results of the mentioned tests are good and show good sensitivity.

Table 1. Basic statistical parameters of water polo players’ basic motor skills

Variable Mean SD SE Min Max Skew Kurt K-S

AGIL 4.77 1.22 .13 2.50 8.23 .86 .38 .19

MHTAP 44.30 5.73 .60 31.00 63.00 .44 .48 .05

MLTAP 30.90 4.21 .44 22.00 44.00 .72 .94 .25

DFB 40.51 7.73 .81 12.00 58.00 -.30 1.23 .77

DFS 22.63 8.75 .91 3.00 47.00 .17 -.19 .68

BAL 2.62 2.76 .29 .75 27.00 7.75 68.19 .00

20M 3.42 .36 .04 2.63 5.00 1.16 3.91 .90

RJ 4.67 .62 .06 3.80 6.45 -.59 4.31 .66

SLJ 1.56 .19 .02 1.15 2.10 .49 .16 .04

HHB 18.18 16.57 1.73 1.00 79.60 1.69 3.16 .01

TEL 22.74 3.85 .40 14.00 32.00 .12 -.61 .33

PUP 16.28 9.76 1.02 2.00 50.00 .84 .58 .30

Results of symmetry in 9 tests do not surpass 1.00, they are not too hard (Skew < 1.00), nor tooeasy (Skew < 1.00), they are suitable for population of chosen water polo players. Symmetry valuesof variables are higher in: balance (Skew = 7.75), static arms force (Skew = 1.69) and explosive legforce (Skew = 1.16), they do not guarantee the normality of distribution. Increased skewness value

indicates diffusion of distribution toward higher values. Achieved results are rambled, which isshown in the value of kurtosis (Kurt < 2.75). Analysed sample regarding motor skills is nothomogenous. Variable of balance (MBAL) does not comply with discrimination because the resultsare very compact (Kurt = 68.19).

Table 2. Correlation matrix of water polo players’ basic motor skills variables

Var.

M A G I L

M H T A P

M L T A P

M D F B

M D F S

M B A L

M T 2 0

M T R J

M S L J

M H H B

M S L

M P U P

AG IL 1.000

MHTAP - .417 1.000

MLTAP - .199 .598 1.000M D F B - .114 .120 .168 1.000

M D F S .078 - .184 - .033 .348 1.000

M B A L - .151 .057 .164 .058 - .131 1.000

M T 2 0 .239 - .347 - .359 .053 .228 - .037 1.000

M T R J - .394 .379 .326 - .034 - .311 .018 - .718 1.000

M S L J - .454 .438 .320 .193 - .065 .015 - .536 .710 1.000

M H H B - .321 .260 .084 - .059 - .114 - .054 - .425 .381 .353 1.000

M T E L - .414 .321 .213 .083 - .389 .125 - .438 .628 .537 .411 1.000

M P U P - .378 .198 .087 - .057 - .124 - .059 - .385 .403 .383 .522 .422 1.000




82

Correlations among variables of water polo players’ motor space (Table 2) are relevant in cases

when correlation coefficients have higher values: from .21 at the level of 95% and from .27 at thelevel of 99%. From the total of 66 correlations 36 of them (54.55%) is relevant at the level of 95%.Two high correlations are located (above .700) between the variables of explosive strength (M20M /MTRJ = - .718, MTRJ / MSLJ = .710). Variables of strength (M20M, MTRJ, MSLJ, MHHB, MTELand MPUP), segmental speed of movement (MHTAP, MLTAP), flexibility (MDFS, MDFB) havemutually relevant correlations.

Variables which represent the mechanism of regulation of excitation intensity (M20M, MTRJ,MSLJ) and mechanism of regulation of excitation duration (MHHB, MTEL, MPUP) inter-correlatewith average and high values. MDFS has relevant correlations with variables of force (M20M,MTRJ, and MTEL). M AGIL has 7 relevant correlations (with all variables of force and MHTAP).Variable of balance doesn’t have any relevant correlations with other applied variables.

Performed factor analysis with rotation of main components of water polo players’ latent basicmotor space explains about 68% percent of total (Cum % = 67.932) (Table 3). Four characteristic

roots (factors) have been isolated.First characteristic root in latent morphological space of selected 12-year-old water poloplayers is 4.291 (O = 4.291) and defines about 36% of common variance (Cum % = 35.758).Second characteristic root is 1.563 (O = 1.563) and independently defines about 13 % (Cum % =13.029), and together with the first factor about 49% of common variance (Cum % = 48.787). Thirdcharacteristic root is 1.283 (O = 1.283) and independently defines about 11 % (Cum % = 10.690),and together with the first and second factor about 59 % (Cum % = 59.477) of common variance.The last, fourth, characteristic root is 1.015 (O = 1.015) and independently defines about 8% of common variance (Cum %= 8.455).

Table 3. Characteristic roots and explained parts of common variance of water polo players’ basicmotor skills in factor analysis with rotation of main components

$ % Var Cum %

1 4.291 35.758 35.7582 1.563 13.029 48.7873 1.283 10.690 59.4774 1.015 8.455 67.932

Table 4 . Isolated factors of water polo players’ basic motor skills in factor analysis with rotation of main components along with orthogonal projection in Oblimin solution

Variables1

factor

2

factor

3

factor

4

factor h

2

MAGIL - .624 - .152 .336 - .406 .583MHTAP .326 .014 - .802 .182 .649

MLTAP .102 .085 - .847 .185 .768MDFB .039 .787 - .201 .213 .691MDFS - .207 .800 .182 - .268 .748MBAL - .028 - .033 - .115 .884 .793M20M - .611 .307 .617 .089 .650MTRJ .726 - .301 - .636 .032 .746MSLJ .704 .075 - .621 .068 .678MHHB .736 - .129 - .170 - .117 .570MTEL .728 - .237 - .421 .310 .651MPUP .772 - .108 - .129 - .074 .625




83

Based on the obtained results the first isolated factor in latent motorical space of water polo players(Table 4) can be defined as the factor of strength and agility (M1WP). Variables representing this

factor have bipolar relevant projections onto the first main component.The first isolated factor is defined by all the variables that represent the mechanism of regulation of excitation intensity (M20M, MTRJ, MSLJ) and mechanism of regulation of excitationduration (MHHB, MTEL, MPUP) as well as the variable which define agility (MAGIL). The secondfactor can be defined as the factor of flexibility ( M2WP ). Variables that represent these factors(MDFS, MDFB) have unipolar relevant projections. The third isolated factor is the factor of segmental speed ( M3WP ). Variables that represent these factors (MHTAP, MLTAP) have bipolar relevant projections. Relevant projection of variable MBAL onto the fourth factor is also dominant.Therefore, this factor can be defined as the factor of balance (M4WP).

There is a significant correlation between the isolated Oblimin factors of water polo players’motor skills space (Table 5). It is a low correlation (- .353) between the first (factor of strength and agility - M1WP) and the third (factor of segmental speed - M3WP). This correlation is expectedbecause the variables of explosive strength which define the first factor have relevance onto the

third factor as well (M20M = .500, MPRS = - .452, MDALJ = - .428). The other correlations amongobtained oblimin factors are not relevant, which indicates their clear isolation.

Table 5 . Correlations among isolated oblimin factors of water polo players’ basic motor skills

31WP 32 WP 33 WP 34 WP

1 WP 1.000 2 WP - .124 1.000 3 WP - .353 .017 1.000 4 WP .042 .040 - .176 1.000

Obtained average values results of non-sportsmen students’ situational motor skills (Mean) indicategood measuring discrimination (Table 6). Those values are shown through variability anddistribution of results. As for variability, it can be concluded that the results of standard deviations(SD) in all applied variables are contained at least 3 times in the results’ average value (Mean).

Table 6 . Basic statistic parameters of non-sportsmen’s basic motor skills

Variables Mean SD SE Min Max Skew Kurt K-S

MAGIL 5.00 .93 .09 3.20 7.15 .81 .01 .04

MHTAP 41.83 6.22 .61 30.00 68.00 .96 2.58 .50

MLTAP 30.35 4.56 .45 19.00 40.00 -.11 -.11 .38

MDFB 38.33 7.18 .71 15.00 75.00 .92 6.68 .06MDFS 12.32 5.26 .52 0.00 24.00 -.23 -.03 .42

MBAL 1.86 1.11 .11 1.00 6.50 1.74 3.38 .00

M20M 3.50 .27 .03 2.90 4.40 .41 .69 .81

MTRJ 4.42 .51 .05 3.15 5.88 -.18 -.08 .28

MSLJ 1.40 .20 .02 1.00 2.00 -.01 -.16 .51

MHHB 10.57 8.74 .86 1.00 43.30 1.16 1.37 .04

MTEL 20.39 6.73 .66 1.00 32.00 -1.22 1.22 .00

MPUP 10.91 8.05 .79 1.00 42.00 1.19 1.98 .07




84

Those are variables that represent: agility (MAGIL), segmental speed (MHTAP, MLTAP), flexibility(MDFB), explosive force (M20M, MTRJ, and MSLJ), and repetitive torso strength (MTEL). Standard

deviations’ results of the mentioned tests are good and show good sensitivity. Results of symmetryin 8 tests do not surpass 1.00, they are not too hard (Skew < 1.00), nor too easy (Skew < 1.00),they are suitable for population of chosen non-sportsmen students.

Symmetry values of variables are higher in: balance (MBAL), static arms force (MHHB), andrepetitive force (MTEL, MPUP). They do not guarantee the normality of distribution (1.74, 1.16, -1.22, and 1.19). Increased skewness value indicates diffusion of distribution toward higher values.

Results in 10 out of 12 variables are rambled, which is shown in the value of kurtosis (Kurt <2.75). Analyzed sample regarding motor skills is not homogenous.

Only variables of balance (MBAL) and flexibility (MDFB) do not comply with discrimination(3.38, 6.68), because the results are very compact.

Correlations between the variables of 12-year old non-sportsmen students’ motor skills spaceare relevant in cases when correlation coefficients have higher values: .20 at the level of 95 % and.25 at the level of 99 % (Table 7). Out of total 66 correlations 32 of them (48.48 %) is relevant at the

level of 95%. One high correlation has been located as well (above .700) between the variables of explosive strength (MTRJ/MSLJ = .759).Strength variables (M20M, MPRJ, MSLJ, MHHB, and MPUP) except for MTEL, segmental

speed of movement (MHTAP, MLTAP), flexibility (MDFS, MDFB), have mutually relevantcorrelations.

Variables which represent the mechanism of regulation of excitation intensity (M20M, MTRJ,MSLJ) and mechanism of regulation of excitation duration (MHHB, MTEL, MPUP) inter-correlatewith average and high values.

MDFS has relevant correlations with variables of force (MPRJ, MSLJ, MHHB) and balance(MBAL). Variable has 7 relevant correlations (with all variables of force and MHTAP). Variable of balance (MBAL) doesn’t have any relevant correlations with other applied variables.

Table 7. Correlation matrix of non-sportsmen’s basic motor skills variables

Var.

M A G I L

M H T A P

M L T A P

M D F B

M D F S

M B A L

M 2 0 M

M T R J

M S L J

M H H B

M T E L

M P U P

3AGIL 1.000

MHTAP - .079 1.000

MLTAP - .165 .303 1.000

MDFB - .172 - .002 .112 1.000

MDFS - .319 - .008 .186 .616 1.000

MBAL - .176 .014 .264 .184 .237 1.000

M20M .378 - .133 - .126 - .133 - .178 - .135 1.000

MTRJ - .582 .119 .275 .209 .382 .226 - .586 1.000

MSLJ - .617 .227 .191 .310 .325 .158 - .650 .759 1.000

MHHB - .381 .112 .194 .175 .201 .112 - .537 .458 .529 1.000

MTEL - .142 .211 .168 .103 .190 .298 .102 .128 .133 .245 1.000

MPUP - .294 .104 .156 .064 .087 .095 - .616 .442 .536 .540 - .114 1.000

Performed factor analysis with rotation of main components of non-sportsmen’s latent basic motor space explains about 60% percent of total (Cum % = 59.753) (Table 8). Three characteristic roots(factors) have been isolated.




85

The first characteristic root in latent morphological space of selected 12-year-old non-sportsmen is 4.147 (O = 4.147) and defines 34.562 % of common variance (Cum % = 34.562). The

second characteristic root is 1.686 (O = 1.686) and independently defines 14.051 %, and together with the first factor 48.613% of common variance (Cum % = 48.613). The third characteristic root is1.337 (O = 1.337) and independently defines 11.139 % of common variance (Cum % = 11.139).

Table 8. Characteristic roots and explained parts of common variance of non-sportsmen’s basicmotor skills in factor analysis with rotation of main components

$ % Var Cum %

1 4.147 34.562 34.5622 1.686 14.051 48.6133 1.337 11.139 59.753

Three factors of non-sportsmen basic motor skills space have been isolated in factor analysis withrotation of main components in Oblimin solution (orthogonal projection). Also, isolated factors inboth variants were almost identical. Therefore interpretation and discussion of the mentionedfactors applies for both mentioned solutions’ versions. Based on the obtained results the firstisolated factor in non-sportsmen’s latent morphological space can also be defined as the factor of strength and agility (M1NS). Variables representing this factor have bipolar relevant projections ontothe first main component. The first isolated factor is defined by all the variables of explosive legforce (M20M, MPRJ, and MSLJ), repetitive force (MPUP), static force (MHHB) and agility (MAGIL).The second factor is dominantly defined by relevant unipolar projections of variables of flexibility(MDFS, MDFB), so this factor can be named the factor of flexibility (M2NS). The third factor isdefined by repetitive torso strength variables (MTEL), segmental speed of movement (MHTAP,MLTAP) and balance (MBAL).

All projections of these variables onto defined isolation have positive fore sign. This factor

can be named the factor of segmental speed of movement, balance and repetitive torso strength (M3NS).

Table 9. Isolated factors of non-sportsmen’s basic motor skills in factor analysis with rotation of main components along with orthogonal projection in Oblimin solution

Variables 31NS 32NS 33NS h2

AGIL - .640 - .344 - .243 .476MHTAP .203 - .228 .627 .524MLTAP .250 .097 .669 .462MDFB .193 .815 .107 .670

MDFS .277 .853 .217 .750MBAL .149 .399 .503 .353M20M - .839 - .059 - .043 .726MTRJ .799 .341 .291 .694MSLJ .865 .304 .270 .781MHHB .718 .128 .275 .532MTEL .008 .267 .711 .554MPUP .772 - .071 .022 .649




86

All correlations among isolated Oblimin factors in non-sportsmen’s basic motor skills space areirrelevant (Table10), which indicates good isolation of obtained oblimin factors and pure structure of

12 years old non-sportsmen’s basic motor skills’ latent space.

Table 10. Correlations among isolated oblimin factors of non-sportsmen students’ basic motor skills

31NS 32NS 33NS

1NS 1.000 2NS .161 1.000 3NS .208 .173 1.000

Values of Tucker’s congruency coefficient (Table11) indicate that two groups of isolated factorswithin the sub-group participants’ basic motor skills latent space are similar and as follows:

• First motor skills factor in water polo players M1WP (the factor of strength and agility) andfirst factor in non-sportsmen students M1NS (the factor of strength and agility) (P = .83),and,

• Second motor skills factor in water polo players M2WP (the factor of flexibility) and secondfactor in non-sportsmen students M2NS (the factor of flexibility) (P = .79).

The values of Tucker’s congruency coefficient indicate that 2 out of 12 isolated factors’ inter-correlations (M1WP/M1NS, P = .83; M2WP/M2NS, P = .79) within the sub-group participants’ basicmotor skills latent space are similar.

Table 11. Correlations among isolated factors- congruency coefficients between the water polo

players and non-sportsmen

31NS 32NS 33NS

1WP .83 .11 .19 2WP .03 .79 - .03 3WP - .42 .04 - .64 4WP - .12 .21 .47

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL APPLICATION This research was conducted in order to determine latent structure at the 12 years old water poloplayers’ and non-sportsmen’s basic motor skills space and to determine the difference between thementioned latent spaces. In the sub-group of water polo players 4 factors have been isolated in

motor skills latent space, against only 3 factors in physically inactive 12-year-old boys. A difference has been spotted in latent anthropological space between 12-year-old water polo

players and their non-sportsmen coevals, and the reasons for this are, besides training, specificcharacteristics of water polo movements and specificities of the water polo game itself [9, 15, 16,18, 29, 30, 32, 36].

Motor skills learning (in this case many years of water polo training) which has specificmeanings and patterns, as the process of assimilation, complementing and use of motor skillsinformation [13], had a positive transfer onto the basic motor skills. Therefore, it can be concludedthat the assuption indicating that perennial training process in water polo affects the latent structureof basic motorics is in fact true. 12-year-old water polo players have more diferenciated structure inregard to their physically inactive coevals (one isolated factor more).




87

This research showed that water polo players of pre-puberty age which took part in perennialtraining process could have significantly higher profiled motor skills’ latent structure in regard to their

coevals attending only school PE classes.It is recommended, and showed as useful, that extra physical activities, conductedsystematically, can have significant and positive effect onto children’s motor skills, which is theprimary purpose of physical education classes at school [23, 24].

The obtained results and conclusions can be applied only to the research sample, variablesand methods of data processing used in this very research.

REFERENCES

1. Aleksandrovi>, M., Quraškovi>, R., & Radovanovi>, D. (2000). Training effects on functional and speedabilities of young water polo players. Yugoslav Physiol Pharmacol Acta., 36(2): 83-88.

2. Aleksandrovi>, M., Madi>, D., & OkiUi>, T. (2004). Cannonical correlations of some functional andsituation-motor abilities at perspective water polo players. In: Dasheva, D. (Ed.). III International Scientific

Congress «Sport, Stress, Adaptation». (pp. 515-518). Sofia: National Sports Academy «Vasil Levski».3. Aleksandrovi>, M., Popovski, D., & Madi>, D. (2005). Connection of basic-motorical and swim-situational

abilities of selected water polo players. Sport Mont . 6-7: 313-319.4. Aleksandrovi>, M., & Radovanovi>, D. (2005). Influence of water polo training on body composition and

functional abilities in predpubescent boys. In: Diki>, N., Živani>, S., Ostoji>, S., et Tornjanski, Z. (Eds.) 10 th

Congress of European College of Sport Sciences Proceedings Book of Abstracts. (pp. 283-284).Belgrade: Sports Medicine Association of Serbia.

5. Aleksandrovi>, M., Naumovski, A., Radovanovi>, D., Georgiev, G., & Popovski, D. (2007). The influence of basic motor abilities and anthropometric measures on the specific motor skills of talented water poloplayers. Facta Universitatis – Series Physical Education and Sport . 5(1): 65-74.

6. Beunen, G., & Malina, R. (2005). Growth and biological maturation: relevance to athletic performance. InO. Bar-Or (Ed.), The child and adolescent athlete. Oxford: Blackwell publishing.

7. Branta, C., Haubenstricker, J., & Seefeldt, V. (1984). Age changes in motor skills during childhood andadolescence. Exerc Sport Sci Rev., 12: 467-520.

8. Bratuša, Z. (2000). Speed ability developement at young boys under the influence of specific water polotraining . Unpublished MSci theses. Belgrade: Faculty of Physical Culture. (In Serbian).

9. Bratuša, Z. (2003). Specific speed ability testing in water at young age groups water polo players. Annual of Faculty of Sport and Physical Culture in Belgrade, 11: 172-182. (In Serbian).

10. Bratuša, Z., Matkovi>, I., & Dopsaj, M. (2003). Model characteristics of water polo players’ movements inthe vertical position during competition. In Chatard, J.-C. (Ed.), Procedings of the IXth World Symposiumon Biomechanics and Medicine in Swimming. (pp. 481-486). Saint-Etienne: University of Saint-Etienne.

11. Vinter, R. (1985). About problem of sensible phases in childhood and youth ages. Belgrade: Coaches tribune85, Sports Association of Serbia – JZFKMS. (In Serbian).

12. ViUevi>, S. (2001). System of cometition and its influence on training at young waterpolo categories. In ViUevi>,S. (Ed.). Yugoslavian waterpolo school «Trifun-Miro 8 irkovi 9 » (pp. 115-118). Kotor: YugoslavianWaterpolo Assosiation. (In Serbian).

13. Zoh, M., Jovanovi>-Golubovi>, D., & Brati>, M. (2004). Motor learning in sport. Facta Universitatis – SeriesPhysical Education and Sport . 2(1): 45-59.

14. Gaji>, M. (1987). Anthropology segments area changes at 11- to 14 yr ages. Physical Culture (Belgrade),

41(3): 166-172. (In Serbian).15. Geladas, N., & Platanou, T. (2000). Energy demands in elite water polo players participating in games of different duration. J Sports Sci., 18: 501.

16. Dopsaj, M., & Matkovi>, I. (1994). Motoric activity of water polo players during the game. Physical Culture(Belgrade), 48(4): 339-346. (In Serbian).

17. Dopsaj, M., & Matkovi>, I. (1998). Phe structure of technical and tactical activities of water polo players inthe first Yugoslav league during the game. In K. L. Keskinen, P. V. Komi, et P-L. Pitkanen, (Eds.), VII International Symposium on Biomechanics and Swimming (p. 435-438). Juvaskyla, University of Jyvaskyla: Gummerus Printing.

18. Dopsaj, M., & Thanopoulos, V. (2006). The structure of evaluation indicators of vertical swimming workability of top water polo players. Portuguese J Sport Sci., 6(2): 124-126.

19. [UROFIT: European test for physical fitness (1988). Rome: Council of Europe, Committee for thedevelopment of sport (CDSS).




88

20. Quraškovi>, R., Stojanovi>, S., & Aleksandrovi>, M. (2002). Anthropometrical characteristics of water poloplayers – factor of success at the competition. Annual of Faculty of Sport and Physical Culture inBelgrade, 10: 45-51.

21. \]^_`abc, d. (1986). ;<=>?@ABCA, DEFA@C=>BA C E<GCDCHC=>BA B> F?CI>GA@B>G> FAJBEKG <=C ?EFB>G> GE<L>. ebfg_: M]hgigjk g fg`al^mlnk.

22. Juki>, I., Milanovi>, D., & Vuleta, D. (2005). Latent structure of variables of sports preparation and athleticpreparedness based on physical conditioning contents in basketball. Kinesiology , 37(2): 182-194.

23. Jurak, G., KovaU, M., & Strel, J. (2006). Impact of the additional physical education lessons programme onthe physical and motor development of 7- to 10-year-old children. Kinesiology , 38(2): 105-115.

24. Karpuljak, D., & Vidmašek, M. (2000). The influence of an experimental training programme on endurancedevelopment among boys in their early puberty age. Gymnica. 30(2): 25-34.

25. Kukolj, M., Ugarkovi>, D., Matavulj, D., & Jari>, S. (1997). Motoric characteristics at athletes in period of maturation. Physical Culture (Belgrade). 51(1): 552-560. (In Serbian).

26. Kukolj, M. (1998). Swimming – research step at Faculty of Physical Education in Belgrade. Physical Culture (Belgrade). 52(1): 52-59. (In Serbian).

27. Kureli>, N., Momirovi>, K., Stojanovi>, M., Šturm, J., Radojevi>, Q., & Viski>-Štalec, N. (1975). Structureand developement of morphological and motorical dimensions of youth. Belgrade: Institute for Scientific

Research of Facyulty of Physical Education. (In Serbian).28. Lozovina, V. (1984). Movement patern of water polo players and training methods for developementenergetic systems. Sports Praxis (Belgrade). 33(3): 14-16. (In Serbian).

29. Lozovina, V., PaviUi>, L., & Lozovina, M. (2004). Analyzis of Indicators of load during the game in theactivity of the center in water polo. Naše more. 51(3-4): 135-141.

30. Lozovina, V., Gusi>, Ž., & Lozovina, M. (2006). Analyzis of differences in intensity and movement quantitybetween center and wing during the water polo game. Naše more, 53(5-6): 251-262.

31. Matkovi>, I., Gavrilovi>, P., Jovovi>, D., & Thanopoulos, V. (1999). Specific abiliyies test of top Yugoslavwater polo players and its validation. In K. L.Keskinen, P. V. Komi et P.-L. Pitkanen (Eds.), Biomechanicsand Swimming VIII (pp. 259-264). Juvaskyla: University of Juvaskyla.

32. Pinnington, H. C., Dawson, B., & Blanksby, B. A. (1988). Heart rate responses and the estimated energyrequirements of playing water polo. J Hum Mov Studies, 15: 101-118.

33. Radovanovi>, D., Aleksandrovi>, M., & Rankovi>, G. (2004). The effects of water polo training on aerobicpower and pulmonary function in 11 and 12 years old boys. Acta Facultatis Medicae Naisseis, 21(3): 137-141.

34. Radisavljevi>, N. (1985). Structure of morphological, motorical and functional dimensions at water polo players of three water polo clubs from Split . Unpublished M. Sci. thesis. Belgrade: Faculty of PhysicalEducation.

35. Schneider, P., & Meyer, F. (2005). Anthropometric and muscle strength evaluation in prepubescent andpubescent swimmers boys and girls. Rev Bras Med Esporte, 11(4): 200-203.

36. Smith, H. (1998). Applied physiology of water polo. Sports Med., 26(5): 317-334.

Address for correspondence:

Marko Aleksandrovi, PhD, assoc. Prof.

Department for Individual Sports (Swimming Sports Department)Faculty of Sport and Physical Education,University of Niš, srt. Garnojevica 10aNiš 18000, SERBIAPhone: (++381) - 18 - 5109000; 511940; 511941 (ext. 105)Fax: (++381)- 18 - 282482

E-mail: [email protected]

basic motor skills structure in 12 year old water polo players and non sportsmen

Documents