Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2004, 18(3), 480–485
q 2004 National Strength & Conditioning Association
MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND
PERFORMANCE VARIABLES OF WOMEN
SOCCER PLAYERS
FILIZ CAN, ILKER YILMAZ, AND ZAFER ERDEN
Hacettepe University School of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Ankara, Turkey.
ABSTRACT. Can, F., I. Yilmaz, and Z. Erden. Morphological char-
acteristics and performance variables of women soccer players.
J. Strength Cond. Res. 18(3):480–485. 2004.—The purpose of this
study was to describe certain morphological characteristics of
women soccer players and to examine aspects of training and
performance. Twenty-two anthropometric sites were used in
measurements of somatotype and body composition; flexibility,
agility, anaerobic power, leg muscle power, and dynamic pul-
monary functions were used as performance variables. Mea-
surements were made on 17 professional athletes and 17 age-
matched sedentary women who acted as controls. The women
soccer players showed less fat content and less lean body mass
than did the sedentary women. The mean somatotype for the
soccer players was 3.07–3.55–2.43 and for the nonathletes was
3.57–3.35–2.90. Anaerobic power, leg muscle power, and agility
in the athletes were higher than in the nonathletes, whereas no
differences were found in flexibility and pulmonary functions
(p . 0.05). The women soccer players showed more significantly
mesomorphic, less endomorphic, least ectomorphic components
and higher performance level than did the sedentary women.
KEY WORDS. women soccer players, morphology, somatotype,
body composition, anthropometry, performance variables
INTRODUCTION
omatotype, or morphological characteristics of
S the body, has become a major field of interest
for many exercise and sports scientists as well
as physiotherapists. Recent advances in
sports physiology have led to an interest in
the development of physiological profiles to describe the
qualities and characteristics of athletes in their respec-
tive sports. With respect to body composition, these pro-
files reflect both the levels of training necessary for the
sport and the genetic endowment of the athlete who finds
success in that sport. Some researchers have studied the
relationship between somatotype and physical perfor-
mance in sport to evaluate both the effect of physical pre-
disposition on the choice of sport and the influence of
training for that particular sport on the somatotype (2, 9,
11, 21, 38).
According to the studies, most successful athletes
have the appropriate structures with their performance
task; therefore, assessment of the variability between
these structures and tasks will increase our understand-
ing of the aspects of human physique (4, 8, 20, 21, 24, 37).
Anthropometric somatotyping is one method for de-
scribing human body characteristics as a whole and is a
system of classifying body structure into 3 basic catego-
ries: endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy (2, 11,
34, 36). The somatotype entails measuring of body girth,
percent body fat, and bone diameters (1, 3, 6, 22, 32, 34,
480
36), although fat and lean body composition is most ac-
curately estimated with laboratory methods such as bone
density, total body potassium, total body water, and hy-
drostatic weighing (6, 15, 32, 33, 40).
A great variability in physique and body composition
has been reported among different categories of athletes
(3, 5, 23, 28, 31, 32). Because of the large number of sports
and the recent development of the subject of human mor-
phology, there has not been enough scientific information
about the morphological variables of players from differ-
ent athletic activity (14, 30, 37). Only a few studies ad-
dress body fat and somatotype for soccer players in the
literature (28, 29), although many studies address other
sports activities such as swimming, gymnastic, basket-
ball, volleyball, tennis, skiing, weightlifting, judo, run-
ning, hockey, and football (1, 3, 7, 9, 15, 23, 24, 26, 31,
32, 35, 37, 38).
Some sports such as soccer are still new and uncom-
mon for women, although large numbers of women ath-
letes have begun to train more strenuously and have com-
peted more vigorously than in the past (19, 26, 37). The
morphological characteristics of women soccer players
and their performance level have not been clearly defined
in the literature. The degree to which fundamental per-
formance characteristics contribute to a player’s ability to
be selected for team play in soccer has also not been de-
termined. The studies about women soccer players were
mostly based on bone mass, sport-related injuries, and
menstrual cycles, whereas very few studies have been de-
signed for analyzing their somatotypes. Some authors
measured somatotype and body composition but did not
describe performance level or other determinants of train-
ing with a control group in their studies (10, 18, 19, 25,
33). If there is a relationship between somatotype and
performance, more information is required about the so-
matotypes of women soccer players enhancing their per-
formance level. Therefore, identifying the physiological
requirement of women soccer players might provide a
more objective basis on which coaches could evaluate pro-
spective talent, formulate training programs, and plan
team strategy.
The purpose of this study was to describe morpholog-
ical characteristics of women soccer players and to deter-
mine the effect of soccer training on their performance
variables in comparison with sedantary women.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
The subjects for this study were 17 professional women
athletes who play soccer in one of the top-class Turkish
 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE VARIABLES 481

soccer team and 17 sedentary women who were students Table 1. Physical characteristics of the athletes and nonath-
in Hacettepe University School of Physical Therapy. All letes.
the subjects in the study group were 18–24 years old with Student’s
a mean age of 20.73 6 2.09 and had at least 3 years of Athletes Nonathletes t-test
active participation in professional soccer. In the control Mean SD Mean SD t p
group, nonathletes of similar ages (18–23 years old) with
a mean age of 21.47 6 1.06 had never actively partici- Variables
pated in regular sports or such a sportive training. Sub- Age (y) 20.73 2.09 21.47 1.06 1.22 . 0.05
jects in both groups were assessed by the same tests and Weight (kg) 56.63 5.03 52.80 6.49 1.81 . 0.05
in the same environmental status. All the measurements Lengths (cm)
were taken by the same physical therapist. The athlete Height 162.40 5.79 160.93 5.18 0.73 . 0.05
who had been injured recently was not included in the Lower limb 83.77 4.00 81.37 4.02 1.64 . 0.05
study. Upper limb 70.47 3.71 69.30 3.98 0.83 . 0.05
The Ethics Committee approved the study, and all Circumferences (cm)
subjects gave informed content to participate. The sub- Chest 85.10 3.43 82.10 3.95 2.22 , 0.05
jects’ heights and weights were measured without clothes Abdomen 74.57 3.14 72.23 6.38 1.27 . 0.05
and shoes. Circumferences measurements were taken
Relaxed arm
around the flexed biceps, relaxed arm, forearm, thigh,
Right 25.20 2.53 24.60 2.42 0.66 . 0.05
calf, chest, and abdomen with a constant-tension steel Left 24.80 2.45 24.70 2.33 0.11 . 0.05
tape. Diameters were taken of the biacromial, biiliac, bi-
trochanteric, wrist, elbow, knee, and ankle sites. Skinfold Flexed arm
sites that were measured included biceps, triceps, sub- Right 27.27 2.24 25.67 2.50 1.85 . 0.05
scapular, chest, midaxillar, abdominal, suprailiac, ante- Left 27.00 2.43 25.20 2.55 1.98 . 0.05
Forearm 22.47 1.48 21.93 1.52 0.99 . 0.05
rior thigh, and medial calf. These measurements were
Thigh 51.07 2.87 48.60 3.12 2.26 , 0.05
taken on the right side of the body with the Lange Calf 34.80 1.81 33.60 2.49 0.51 . 0.05
skinfold caliper (Body Trends, Carpinteria, CA) and were
used in the assessment of body composition from the Diameter (cm)
nomogram proposed by Jackson and Pollock (2, 11, Biacromial 35.27 1.95 34.97 2.91 2.54 , 0.05
21, 22). From these measurements, the ponderal index Biiliac 27.93 1.97 28.77 1.75 1.23 . 0.05
Bitrochanteric 31.83 1.88 32.27 1.43 0.72 . 0.05
(height / Ïweight)
3
was calculated. Somatotype was deter- Knee 8.91 0.77 8.17 0.65 2.84 , 0.05
mined by the Heath-Carter anthropometric somatotype Ankle 6.42 0.51 6.03 0.42 2.29 , 0.05
method (11, 36). Elbow 5.87 0.30 5.81 0.45 0.43 . 0.05
Lower-back and hamstring flexibility was evaluated Wrist 4.96 0.33 4.88 0.28 0.72 . 0.05
with the Sit-and-Reach Test. Trunk flexion, extension,
and lateral flexion to both sides were used for trunk flex-
ibility (2, 9).
Agility was measured by 4-Level Squat Thrust Agility letes had also significantly larger biacromial, knee, and
Test in 10 seconds (36). Anaerobic power was determined ankle diameter than did the nonathletes.
by Sargent Vertical Jump and Standing Broad Jump. As shown in Table 2, there was a difference in body
Vertical jump height was measured and, by using body composition between the groups. Statistically significant
weight, was converted by the Lewis nomogram to anaer- differences occurred in percent body fat and lean body
obic power. Standing broad jump was also used to eval- weight between the groups, although the difference in ab-
uate leg muscle power (11, 36). solute body fat was not significant. Ponderal index (a
Dynamic pulmonary functions were measured at rest measure of linearity) was 42.36 6 1.38 for the women
by a vitalograph spirometer (compact) to obtain the forced athletes and 42.99 6 1.4 for the nonathletes (p . 0.05).
expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and the forced vital Means and SDs of somatotype values for the women
capacity (FVC). FEV1 and FVC were expressed as a per- athletes were 3.07 6 0.80 (endomorphy), 3.55 6 1.33 (me-
centage of predicted normal values based on age, sex, and somorphy), and 2.43 6 0.96 (ectomorphy) for the women
height (13). athletes, whereas those for the women nonathletes were
Data obtained were analyzed to provide statistical 3.57 6 0.95 (endomorphy), 3.35 6 0.89 (mesomorphy),
evaluation. Initially, means and SDs were calculated for and 2.90 6 0.97 (ectomorphy) (Figure 1). The women soc-
the both groups. Student’s t-test was used to compare the cer players showed more mesomorphic, less endomorphic,
groups for variables and to calculate the level of signifi- and least ectomorphic components than did the nonath-
cance. The level of significance was set up p # 0.05, and letes, who had predominantly endomorphs. A statistically
a 95% confidence internal was calculated (17). significant difference was found in endomorphy when the
groups were compared with each other (Table 2 and Fig-
RESULTS ure 2).
The athletes had more flexibility than did the nonath-
Table 1 summarizes the physical characteristics of the letes according to the flexibility tests, but differences be-
soccer players and the nonathletes. The analysis of age, tween the groups were not significant. Trunk extension
weight, and lengths showed that the physical character- flexibility, however, was statistically significant in favor
istics of the groups were similar. In the women athletes, of the women soccer players (Table 3).
the results of the circumferential measurements for mus- Table 4 indicates the results of some performance
cle girths in their chest and thigh were significant com- measurements included in agility, leg muscle power, and
pared with those in the nonathletes (p , 0.05). The ath- anaerobic power. The score for the agility, measured by
482 CAN, YILMAZ, AND ERDEN

Table 2. Body composition and somatotype characteristics of the athletes and nonathletes.
Student’s
Athletes Nonathletes t-test
Mean SD Mean SD t p
Body composition
Percent body fat 19.75 0.69 22.63 0.50 3.39 , 0.05
Absolute body fat (kg) 10.87 2.62 12.17 2.68 1.34 . 0.05
Lean body weight (kg) 45.66 3.86 40.63 3.91 3.55 , 0.05
Indexes
Ponderal index 42.36 1.38 42.99 1.41 1.24 . 0.05
Somatotype
Endomorphy 3.07 0.80 3.57 0.95 2.22 , 0.05
Mesomorphy 3.55 0.89 3.35 1.33 0.48 . 0.05
Ectomorphy 2.43 0.96 2.90 0.97 1.33 . 0.05

Table 3. Flexibility for the athletes and nonathletes.

Student’s
Athletes Nonathletes t-test
Flexibility (cm) Mean SD Mean SD t p
Trunk flexion 8.93 6.17 7.97 8.31 0.36 . 0.05
Trunk extension 28.33 7.24 20.57 7.32 2.92 , 0.05
Lateral flexion
Right 21.03 4.67 22.13 3.00 0.77 . 0.05
Left 21.00 5.13 22.47 2.64 0.99 . 0.05
Sit-and-Reach Test 12.23 8.94 9.00 7.63 1.06 . 0.05

FIGURE 1. Somatotype distribution of the women soccer play-
ers (n 5 17) and sedentary women (n 5 17) according to
Heath-Carter somatotype method.
FIGURE 2. Histograms of somatotype of the athletes and the
nonathletes.
Squat Thrust Test for the athletes, was 2.20 number per
10 seconds higher in the athletes than that for the non-
athletes; this difference between the 2 groups was statis-
tically significant (Table 4). In the athletes, the leg mus-
cle power and anaerobic power indicated by vertical jump
and standing broad jump tests were also higher than in
the nonathletes (p , 0.05). Anaerobic power for the ath-
letes was 73.08 6 10.93 kg·s21 and 59.05 6 11.22 kg·s21
for the nonathletes. As shown in Table 4, a difference be-
tween the 2 groups favored the athletes (p , 0.05).
In lung function measured at rest with a vitalograph
spirometer, FEV1 and FVC were expressed as a percent-
age of predicted normal values based on age, sex, and
height. As shown in Table 5, no significant differences
were found between the groups in dynamic pulmonary
measurements (p . 0.05).
DISCUSSION
Morphological factors are fundamental to successful
sports performance. Somatotype is one the factors which
predisposes an individual to potential high achievement.
Body composition is most accurately estimated by sophis-

Table 4. Agility, leg muscle power, and anaerobic power measurements for performance of the athletes and nonathletes.
Student’s
Athletes Nonathletes t-test
Mean SD Mean SD t p
Squat thrust (number per 10 s) 6.28 0.66 4.48 0.52 8.30 , 0.05
Vertical jump (cm) 34.48 7.11 25.77 6.51 3.50 , 0.05
Standing broad jump (cm) 192.48 15.60 152.20 21.55 5.86 , 0.05
Anaerobic power (kg·s21) 73.08 10.93 59.05 11.22 3.47 , 0.05
 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE VARIABLES 483
Table 5. Dynamic pulmonary measurements for the groups.*
Athletes
Lung functions
(vitalograph spirometer) Mean SD
FEV 1 (%) 90.53 9.52
FVC (%) 90.93 8.02
FEV 1/FVC (%) 88.07 3.84
PEF (%) 104.33 12.71
* FEV 1 5 forced expiratory volume in 1 second; FVC 5 forced vital capacity; PEF 5 peak expiratory flow.
ticated laboratory methods such as radiography, total
body potassium, and total body and hydrostatic weighing.
However, the procedure is time consuming, requires mon-
itorily prohibitive laboratory equipment, and demands
extensive subject cooperation (6, 11, 26, 32, 37, 39, 40).
We measured body girths, skinfolds, percent body fat, and
bone diameter to estimate somatotype calculated by the
Heath-Carter method.
Raven et al. (29) stated that the height and weight for
men soccer players was about 176 cm and 75.5 kg, which
was lower than for other sportsmen. The physique of soc-
cer players has been characterized as small and rather
stout with significantly lesser skeletal width and length
measurements than in rowers and water-polo players (14,
28, 29, 37). Our soccer players were shorter compared
with other sports participants, although their heights
were similar to field-hockey players (4, 26, 31).
Mayhew et al. (26) found significant differences in
some diameters between trained and untrained women
in accordance with our results, although their results
showed no differences in biocromial and ankle diameters.
Our results support the other studies, which found some
differences in diameters between athletes and nonath-
letes (20, 29). As we expected, the knee and ankle diam-
eters of soccer players were higher than for the nonath-
letes, because soccer demands a great stabilization in low-
er-limb articulation and requires large bone diameter. We
also found significantly larger chest- and thigh-circum-
ference measurements (p , 0.05) in the athletes com-
pared with the nonathletes.
Scott (31) found that Sit-and-Reach flexibility in hock-
ey players was about 9 cm, which was concluded as an
unsatisfactory result, whereas the flexibility was about 13
cm in the same sport in another study (1). Our flexibility
average with the Sit-and-Reach Test was 12.23 6 8.94
cm, which was concluded as a satisfactory result for the
soccer players. Our results showed that the women soccer
players were more flexible than the sedentary women,
but those values were not significant except for trunk ex-
tension. Because other studies have not had sedentary
groups as controls, we could not compare our results. In
a sport such as soccer, which needs running, stopping,
starting, changing direction, and dodging, it is very im-
portant to have good flexibility to improve performance
level and also to prevent sports injuries.
The various pulmonary volumes and capacities are af-
fected by body size, body build, and body position. Body
size has been shown to be especially directly proportional
to total lung capacity and vital capacity, and athletes as
a group are generally taller and heavier than are their
nonathletic counterparts. The lung volumes measured
under resting conditions are typically larger in trained
men than in untrained men. Miyamura et al. (27) stated
Student’s
Nonathletes t-test
Mean SD t p
95.75 6.80 1.73 . 0.05
94.25 5.44 1.33 . 0.05
87.50 8.29 0.24 . 0.05
107.67 13.85 0.69 . 0.05
that trained subjects had significantly higher maximum
oxygen uptake and pulmonary ventilation compared with
the untrained subjects. Another study showed a signifi-
cant increase in vital capacity with training of sedentary
and active women (16). Fuso et al. (12) found that inspi-
ratory muscle strength is increased in soccer players. The
majority of these changes can be attributed to training,
which produces improved pulmonary functions and there-
fore larger lung volumes. However, we did not find sig-
nificant difference in dynamic pulmonary function be-
tween athletes and nonathletes in our study. Our unex-
pected findings might be attributed to a lack of strenuous
activity or sport-specific exercises in the women’s soccer
training program, for women’ soccer is still a recently de-
veloping sport in Turkey. Another reason might be that
the body sizes of the groups were similar to each other.
If any differences in body size or mesomorphic component
were to show beneficial effects of training or increased
level of performance, it would be the differences between
the groups in pulmonary functions. Besides, the athletes
were measured at preseason when duration might be less
active for training.
Comparative studies generally have shown that wom-
en athletes have 5–10% greater relative fat content than
do men athletes. Because women’s lean body mass is sub-
stantially smaller, excess weight in the form of fat may
impose more severe penalties on their performance than
would excess weight on the performance of men (6, 25).
Athletes involved in events more demanding of endur-
ance have been shown to be leaner, whereas athletes in
sports that demand anaerobic power tend to be fatter (24,
28). Mayhew et al. (26) found that fat percentage in wom-
en athletes was 19.3%, which is the same percentage in
the athletes in our study, although no soccer players were
in their study group. The percentages of body fat of non-
athletes in their and our study groups were also the same.
Indian university players were lean with 9.8% body fat
(23), and U.S. proffessional soccer players had 9.6% body
fat (37). Body-fat percentages of men soccer players have
been reported to range between 6.2 and 15.7% (28, 29).
Those values support our results of the body-fat percent-
age for the athletes; this could be attributed to training
characteristics of the sports. A low relative body-fat per-
centage is desirable for successful competition in almost
any sport. A high negative correlation exists between per-
centage of body fat and performance in those activities
where the body mass must be moved through space, ei-
ther vertically as in jumping or horizontally as in run-
ning.
Ramadan and Byrd (28) found that somatotypes of
elite men soccer players were 2.06 6 0.51 (endomorphy),
4.50 6 0.69 (mesomorphy), and 2.08 6 0.75 (ectomorphy).
They concluded that these values fall in about the center
484 CAN, YILMAZ, AND ERDEN
of the distribution of elite athletes from a wide variety of
sports. Some studies (20, 21) indicated that the athletes
were more mesomorphic and less ectomorphic than were
the nonathletes. These studies found no significant dif-
ferences between the athletes and the nonathletes in en-
domorphic components, whereas our results showed sta-
tistically significant difference in this component. The
nonathletes in our study showed more slightly endomor-
phy than mesomorphy. Gualdi-Russo and Graziani (14)
found that the average somatotype for the Italian women
athletes was 3.6–3.7–2.8, which was very near to our val-
ues. Our results showed that the nonathletes were less
mesomorphic and more endomorphic than were the ath-
letes. Thus, the mesomorphic component may be predom-
inant in soccer. Regular training can produce a general
increase in the mesomorphic component and a decrease
in the endomorphic component with the increasing level
of performance. Clearly, remarkable differences in so-
matotype exist between the athletes and the nonathletes.
The women soccer players were more agile than were
the sedentary women according to the Squat Thrust Test
in our study (p , 0.05). Another study used the Scholl
volleyball agility test and found that varsity team players
were significantly better than junior players (1).
Bale (3) found that the mean vertical jump of women
basketball players was 47.4 6 5.2 cm and of sedentary
women was 34.7 6 6.1 cm. Although our vertical-jump
values were lower because of the different characteristics
of basketball and soccer, a significant difference in ver-
tical jump between the athletes and the nonathletes was
apparent in our study.
Anaerobic power of men soccer players has been mea-
sured at 116, 106, and 103 kg·s21 in young amateur col-
lege players and young nationals compared with 119
kg·s21 in Kuwaiti soccer players (28, 29). In our study,
anaerobic power for the women soccer players was 73.08
kg·s21, which is lower than men counterparts shown in
the other studies. Although the result of the aerobic pow-
er in the women soccer players was higher than in the
nonathletes in our study (p , 0.05), the women soccer
players had lower aerobic power compared with other
women athletes. A more accurate comparison with our
findings could be made if more studies about the perfor-
mance variables of women soccer players were in the lit-
erature.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
We concluded that the women soccer players are less en-
domorphic than the sedentary women. The highest cate-
gory for the soccer players was mesomorph- endomorph,
whereas it was endomorph-mesomorph for the sedentary
women. The mesomorphic component was predominant
in soccer players. The best athletes in activities involving
strength and power were in the endo-mesomorphic group
with dominence of mesomorphy. Apparently, the women
soccer players of this study were in good physical condi-
tion based on the relatively low percentage of fat.
As with other studies, ours has implied that certain
somatotypes are favored in the same sport and that train-
ing can modify somatotype. Regular training may gener-
ally increase the mesomorphic component and decrease
the endomorphic component by increasing the level of
performance.
By examining a variety of body somatotypes and per-
formance characteristics, which are believed to be advan-
tageous for competetion, and the conditioning training of
professional women soccer players, we may be able to en-
hance ability of selection of the best possible soccer play-
ers for the athletic team or to determine the physiological
demands of soccer. Ideally, this would lead to enhanced
conditioning and training strategies and improved per-
formance. Also, the somatotype of the soccer players can
be studied according to their positions played on the team
to plan individualized training regimens. Furthermore,
selecting the best sport and the best training program
according to an athlete’s somatotype and determining the
physiological demands of the sport might be key for pre-
venting sports-related injuries.
REFERENCES
1. AGRE, J., D.C. CASAL, A.S. LEON, M.C. MCNALLY, T.L. BAXTER,
AND R.C. SERFASS. Professional ice hockey players: Physiologic,
anthropometric, and musculoskeletal characteristics. Arch.
Phys. Med. Rehabil. 69:188–192. 1988.
2. AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS. Athletic
Training and Sports Medicine (2nd ed.). Boston: The Book De-
partment, Inc., 1991. pp. 58–63, 205–215, 921–932.
3. BALE, P. Anthropometric, body composition and performance
variables of young elite women basketball players. J. Sports
Med. 31(2):173–177. 1991.
4. BALE, P., E. COLLEY, AND J. MAYHEW. Relationships among
physique, strength, and performance in women students. J.
Sports Med. 25:98–103. 1985.
5. BANGSBO, J., AND F. LINDQUIST. Comparison of various exer-
cise tests with endurance performance during soccer in profes-
sional players. Int. J. Sports Med. 13:125–132. 1992.
6. BULBIAN, R. The influence of somatotype on anthropometric
prediction of body composition in young women. Med. Sci.
Sports. 16 (4):389–397. 1984.
7. CALLISTER, R., D.J. CALLISTER, R.S. STARON, S.J. FLECK, P.
TESCH, AND G.A. DUDLEY. Physiological characteristics of elite
judo athletes. Int. J. Sports Med. 12 (2):196–203. 1991.
8. CHATTARJEE, S., A. MANDAL, AND N. DAS. Physical and motor
fitness level of Indian school-going boys. J. Sports Med. 33(3):
277–286. 1993.
9. DANIELS, L., AND C. WORTHINGHAM. Therapeutic Exercise: For
Body Alignment and Function (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders, Co., 1977. pp. 1–136.
10. ENSTROM, B., C. JOHNSSON, AND H. TÖRNKVIST. Soccer injuries
among elite women players. Am. J. Sports Med. 19(4):372–375.
1991.
11. FOX, E., R.W. BOWERS, AND M.L. FOSS. The Physiological Basis
of Physical Education and Athletic (4th ed.). Philadephia: Saun-
ders Collage Publishing, W.B. Saunders, Co., 1988. pp. 376–
395, 554–589.
12. FUSO, L., V. COSMO, B. NARDECCHı̇A, S. SAMMARRO, G. PAGLI-
ARI, AND R. PISTELLI. Maximal inspiratory pressure in elite soc-
cer players. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness. 36(1):67–71. 1996.
13. GARDNER, R.M., J.L. HANKINSON, AND B. WEST. Evaluating
commercially available spirometers. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 121:
73–81. 1980.
14. GUALDI-RUSSO, E., AND I. GRAZIANI. Anthropometric somato-
type of Italian sport participant. J. Sports Med. 33(3):282–291.
1993.
15. GUALDI-RUSSO, E., G. GRUPPIONI, P. GUERESI, M.G. BELCAS-
TRO, AND V. MARCHESINI. Skin folds and body composition of
sports participants. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness. 32(3):303–
313. 1992.
16. HENRI, J., P. VANRAECHEM, AND R. VANRAECHEM-RAWAY. The
influence of training upon physiological and psychological pa-
rameters in young athletes. J. Sports Med. 18:175–182. 1978.
17. HICKS, C.M. Research for Physiotherapists, Project Design and
Analysis (2nd ed.). Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone,
1985.
18. HOARE, D.G., AND C.R. WARR. Talent identification and wom-
 MORPHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND PERFORMANCE VARIABLES 485
en’s soccer: An Australian experience. J. Sports Sci. 18(9):751–
758. 2000.
19. HUSTON, L.J., AND E.M. WAJTYS. Neuromuscular performance
characteristics in elite women athletes. Am. J. Sports Med.
24(4):427–437. 1996.
20. IGBOKWE, N.U. Somatotype of Nigerian power athletes. J.
Sports Med. 31(3):439–441. 1991.
21. INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITEE IOC MEDICAL COMMIS-
SION. Sports Medicine Manual: A Publication of Olympic Soli-
darity. Calvary, Canada: Alberta Hurford Enterprises, Ltd.,
1990. pp. 35–41.
22. JACKSON, A.S., AND M.L. POLLOCK. Practical assessment of
body composition. Phys. Sports Med. 13(5):76–90. 1985.
23. KANSAL, D.K., S.K. VERMA, L.S. SIDHU, AND M.S. SOHAL. Phy-
sique of hockey, kabaddi, basketball and volleyball players. J.
Sports Med. 23:194–200. 1983.
24. KUKOLJ, M., R. ROPRET, D. UGARKOVIC, AND S. JARIC. Anthro-
pometric, strength and power predictors of sprinting perfor-
mance. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness. 39(2):120–123. 1999.
25. LUI, Y.N., J.A. PLOWMAN, AND C.L. WELLS. Somatotypes of pre-
menarcheal athletes and nonathletes. Hum. Biol. 61(2):227–
247. 1989.
26. MAYHEW, J.L., F.C. PIPER, J.A. KOSS, AND D.H. MONTALDI.
Prediction of body composition in women athletes. J. Sports
Med. 23:333–340. 1983.
27. MIYAMURA, M., K. KITAMURA, A. YAMADA, AND H. MATSUI. Car-
diorespiratory responses to maximal treadmill and bicycle ex-
ercise in trained and untrained subjects. J. Sports Med. 18:25–
32. 1978.
28. RAMADAN, J., AND R. BYRD. Physical characteristics of elite soc-
cer players. J. Sports Med. 27:424–428. 1987.
29. RAVEN, P.B., L.R. GETMAN, M.L. POLLOCK, AND K.H. COOPER.
A Physiological evaluation of professional soccer player. Br. J.
Sports Med. 10:209–216. 1971.
30. REILLY, T., R.J. MAUGHAN, AND L. HARDY. Body fat consensus
statement of the steering groups of the British Olympic Asso-
ciation. Sports Exerc. Inj. 1:46–50. 1994.
31. SCOTT, P.A. Morphological characteristics of elite male field
hockey players. J. Sports Med. 31:57–61. 1991.
32. SMITH, J.F., AND E.R. MANSFIELD. Body composition in univer-
sity football players. Med. Sci. Sports. 16(4):398–405. 1984.
33. SODERMAN, K., E. BERGSTROM, R. LORENZTON, AND H. ALFRED-
SON. Bone mass and muscle strength in young women soccer
players. Calcif. Tissue Int. 67(4):297–303. 2000.
34. STAMFORD, B. Somatotypes and sports selection. Phys. Sports-
med. 14(7):430. 1986.
35. THISSEN-MILDER, M., AND J.L. MAYHEW. Selection and classi-
fication of high school volleyball players from performance
tests. J. Sports. Med. 31(3):380–384. 1991.
36. VODAK, P. Assessing the athletic potential of young athletes.
In: Sports Medicine: Health Care for Young Athletes. N.J. Smith,
ed. Evanston, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, 1983. pp.
32–58.
37. WILMORE, J.H. Body composition in sport and exercise: Direc-
tions for future research. Med. Sci. Sports. 15:21–31. 1983.
38. WILSON, B.A., H.W. OLSON, H.A. SPRAGUE, W.D. VAN HUSS,
AND H. MONTOGE. Somatotype and longevity of former univer-
sity athletes and nonathletes. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 60:1–6.
1990.
39. WITHERS, R.T., N.O. WHITTINGHAM, K.I. NORTON, J. LA FAR-
GIA, M.W. ELLIS, AND A. CROCKETT. Relative body fat and an-
thropometric prediction of bone density of women athletes. Eur.
J. Appl. Physiol. 56(2):169–180. 1987.
40. ZWIREN, L., J.S. SKINNER, AND E.R. BUSKIRK. Use of body den-
sity and various skinfold equations for estimating small reduc-
tion in body fatness. J. Sports Med. 13:213–218. 1973.
Address correspondence to Filiz Can, P.T., Ph.D.,
filizcan2002@yahoo.com.