Anthropometrics According To Position

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness
EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

ARTICLE ONLINE FIRST
This provisional PDF corresponds to the article as it appeared upon acceptance.
A copyedited and fully formatted version will be made available soon.
The final version may contain major or minor changes.
Anthropometric and Physiological Characteristics of Male

Soccer Players According to their Competitive Level,
Playing Position and Age Group: A Systematic Review
Maamer SLIMANI, Pantelis Theodoros NIKOLAIDIS
The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2017 Dec 01

DOI: 10.23736/S0022-4707.17.07950-6
Article type: Review Article
© 2017 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA
Article first published online: December 01, 2017

Manuscript accepted: November 30, 2017
Manuscript revised: November 16, 2017
Manuscript received: July 12, 2017
Subscription: Information about subscribing to Minerva Medica journals is online at:

http://www.minervamedica.it/en/how-to-order-journals.php
Reprints and permissions: For information about reprints and permissions send an email to:
journals.dept@minervamedica.it - journals2.dept@minervamedica.it - journals6.dept@minervamedica.it
EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

COPYRIGHT© EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA
Anthropometric and Physiological Characteristics of Male Soccer Players

According to their Competitive Level, Playing Position and Age Group: A
Systematic Review
Maamer Slimani1, Pantelis Theodoros Nikolaidis2
1
Research Laboratory ‘‘Sport Performance Optimization’’, National Centre of Medicine and
Science in Sports (CNMSS), El Menzah, Tunisia
2
Exercise Physiology Laboratory, Nikaia, Greece
Running head title: Physiology of soccer.
Corresponding Author:
Maamer Slimani
Research Laboratory - Sport Performance Optimisation, National Centre of Medicine and

Science in Sport (CNMSS), El Menzah, Tunisia
Email: maamer2011@hotmail.fr
Phone: +21697067695
Acknowledgments
No sources of funding were used to assist in the preparation of this review. The authors have
no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this review.
1
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is permitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one
copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies (either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distribute
the electronic copy of the article through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any
part of the Article for any Commercial Use is not permitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is not
permitted. It is not permitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to
frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo, or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The aim of the present systematic review was to profile soccer players'
anthropometric, physiological, and physical attributes relative to different competitive levels,
playing positions and age groups. METHODS: The systematic search was conducted using
different databases and according to the Population/Intervention or
Exposure/Comparison/Outcome(s) [PICO] criteria. RESULTS: The present review shows
that the somatotype characteristics, percentage (%) of body fat, maximal oxygen uptake
(VO2max), repeated-sprint ability (RSA), running speed, strength, and muscular power of the
lower limbs were the most powerful discriminators between male soccer players of different
competitive levels, playing positions, and age groups. Specifically, higher VO2max, muscle
strength, muscular power (vertical jump height), running speed (10-30 m) and agility, and
lower % of body fat were identified in elite soccer players (higher-level) compared to all other
competitive levels (i.e., lower-level: sub-elite, amateur, recreational). As for the competitive
level differences, higher VO2max, mean anaerobic power, RSA and sprint performances (5 to
20 m), and lower % of body fat and lower limbs’ explosive capabilities (countermovement
jump (CMJ) and squat jump (SJ)) were found in outfielders (forwards, midfielders, and
defenders) as compared to goalkeepers, from a very youth age (8 years old). Concerning age-
related performance, it appears that physical performance increased significantly with age.
CONCLUSIONS: These data, together with the fact that each position, age category, and
playing level has a different physiological background in male soccer players, demonstrate
that training programs should be individualized to each position, playing level and age
category, as is already done with goalkeepers.
Key Words: anthropometric, physiology, fitness, football.
2
INTRODUCTION
Soccer is ubiquitous across the globe and has been part of Olympic competition since 1900.
The game takes place over two 45-min halves interspersed with a 15-min rest interval in-
between. However, in a team sport such as soccer, the requirement for frequent changes in the
type of movements (e.g., walking, running, sprinting, jumping, tackling), speed (e.g.,
accelerations, decelerations), direction, and technical tasks features an activity profile that is
intermittent in nature [1]. It is well known that understanding the specific requirements of
elite-level soccer playing can provide insightful information regarding what is truly needed
for competitive success in that sport [1]. Particularly, anthropometric measures of body
composition, and both physiological and physical capabilities, including cardiorespiratory
endurance, muscular strength, muscular endurance, and flexibility, are generally assessed
through testing of the soccer players [1,2]. These measures can complement each other, and
their combination may provide soccer coaches, strength and conditioning coaches, and
athletic trainers with better knowledge of those characteristics required for successful
participation at the elite level.
A review article addressing the applied physiology of soccer has previously been
published by Stølen et al. [1]. However, since the review was published, several studies have
further documented the anthropometric and physiological characteristics of soccer players
according to age category, playing level, and position, which were not well discussed in the
above review [2-10]. Hence, for soccer coaches and scientists, an in-depth understanding of
the determinants of success, such as the specific anthropometric and physiological
characteristics of the players, may be important in both the talent identification and
development processes [11]. Previous studies on soccer players have disclosed significant
differences in anthropometric and fitness measures between playing levels [5-7,10], across
playing positions [4,8,9,12,13] and between age categories [2,3,14-16]. For instance, knowing
the anthropometric and physiological/physical attributes of soccer players relative to
competitive level, playing position, and age group would provide the basis upon which
practitioners could i) provide individualized practice, in an attempt to evaluate and develop
the specific attributes relative to each of these factors and ii) optimize their performance.
Despite the abovementioned large number of original research on soccer, no

comprehensive review has been conducted so far. Since it has been well established that
3
sport-specific training induce physiological adaptations unique for those practicing a

particular sport [17], it would be of great practical interest for coaches and trainers working
with soccer players to summarize the anthropometric and physiological characteristics of their
athletes. With this in mind, the aim of this review paper is to provide a comprehensive review
of the science of soccer at all competitive levels, and in all of the playing positions and age
groups of the soccer players. Directions for future research are also provided.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Search Strategy
The present systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Figure 1 [18]). The reviewed
articles were selected from an extensive search process of the English language literature,
including major computerized databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Web of
Science and Scopus) and library holding searchers, with the dates ranging from January 1,
1995 to May 31, 2017. Search terms included: soccer players, anthropometric measures,
physical, performances, physiology, age, playing positions, and levels.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion of criteria was according to the Population/Intervention/Comparison/
Outcome(s) (PICO) criteria:
(a) Population: Studies recruiting male soccer players at any age category and
competitive level as participants.
(b) Intervention: Original investigations comparing anthropometric, physical, and

physiological characteristics between male soccer players of different competitive levels,
playing positions, and/or age categories.
(c) Comparison: Anthropometric, physical, and physiological characteristics between
male soccer players of different competitive levels, playing positions, and/or age
categories.
(d) Outcome(s): Anthropometric characteristics (i.e., somatotype and body fat),
physiological profiles (i.e., aerobic and anaerobic profiles), and physical attributes (i.e.,
repeated-sprint ability (RSA), muscle strength, muscular power, speed and agility).
4
The exclusion criteria were:
(a) Reviews, comments, opinions, and commentaries, interviews, letters to the editor,
editorials, posters, conference abstracts, book chapters, and books were excluded;
available reviews were scanned for increasing the chance of including potentially
relevant articles.
(b) Studies not comparing anthropometric, physical, and physiological characteristics
between soccer players of different competitive levels, playing positions, and/or age
categories.
(c) Lacking quantitative information and details.
RESULTS
Descriptive Characteristics of Included Studies
The search strategies yielded a preliminary pool of 4455 possible papers. The full text of 82
articles were retrieved and assessed for eligibility against the inclusion criteria. After a careful
review of their full texts 3 articles were excluded and the remaining 79 articles were eligible
for inclusion in the review (Figure 1). Particularly, forty papers examined anthropometrical
profile of male soccer players according to their age categories [2,6,14,16,19-30], playing
positions [4,7-9,12,13,28,31-46], or competitive levels [6-8,11,32,44,47,48]. A number of the
studies examined the physiological attributes of male soccer players. Some described the
players’ aerobic performance according to their competitive levels [6,11,32], playing
positions [3,9,12,13,32,38,42,46,49-53], or age categories [2,3,6,14,19,20,30,50,54], while
several also looked at the anaerobic performance of soccer players according to the
competitive levels [6], playing positions [49,51,55], or age categories [30,56]. Furthermore,
fifteen studies assessed measures of repeated-sprint ability (RSA) in male soccer players
according to their competitive levels [57-60], playing positions [46,50,58,61,62], or age
categories [21,24,57,63-67]. Seven studies looked at the muscular strength performance of
male soccer players according to their competitive levels [5,7,68,69], playing positions [4,42],
or age categories [2]. Twenty-four studies described the players' muscular power according to
their competitive levels [5-7,11,32,47,58,68,70,71], playing positions [3,4,7,13,32,34,
5
53,58,72,73], or age categories [3,6,14,15,26,70,71,74,75]. Finally, twenty-two studies

assessed measures of speed and/or agility in male soccer players according to their
competitive levels [5-7,10,11,58,68,76], playing positions [3,4,7,12,13,33,34,53,55,58,72], or
age categories [2,3,6,10,16,24,75,77,78]. Each research work was analyzed to evaluate the
soccer players’ anthropometric, physiological, and physical attributes, particularly in terms of
a wide range of characteristics, including the participants’ level, age, and playing position
(Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5).
***Figure 1 here***
***Table 1 here***
***Table 2 here***
***Table 3 here***
***Table 4 here***
***Table 5 here***
DISCUSSION
Anthropometric Characteristics
Somatotype
Human physique can be categorized using a somatotype, and a popular method of
somatotyping is the one of Heath and Carter [79]. This method uses a three-number rating
representing endomorphy (relative fatness), mesomorphy (relative musculo-skeletal
robustness), and ectomorphy (relative linearity or slenderness). Some studies showed that the
somatotypes were significantly different between players of different playing levels and
positions. Hazir et al. [48] showed that the mean somatotype of the overall players was 2.4-
4.8-2.3 (0.9-0.8-0.7) in the Turkish Super League and was 3.0-4.5- 2.6 (0.9-0.9-0.8) in the
Turkish First League. Super League players were more mesomorphic, less endomorphic, and
less ectomorphic than First League players. Further, the authors reported that Super League
players were older and heavier than First League players, while height was similar between
Super League and First League groups. Elite players also possessed lower endomorphy
ratings than their less elite counterparts [11].
6
The balanced mesomorph somatotype has been observed for most positions in national
and international studies [28,36,40,41,43]. This could be observed in South American
professional athletes, where the somatotype characteristics were the same for all positions
except for goalkeepers [28]. Another study showed that the somatotype characteristics of
soccer players were similar between positions, except for midfield players [36]. Ribeiro et al.
[43] investigated only full back/wing back players in the U-20 category, and found that both
professional and semi-professional athletes were classified as balanced mesomorphs, with
somatotype values of 2.4-4.4-3.0 and 2.7-4.5-3.2, respectively. A similar result was found for
soccer players in the United States, who, regardless of the playing position, were classified as
balanced mesomorphs [37]. Thus, in non-elite soccer players, it was shown that forwards
presented the lowest endomorphy value compared to the other playing positions [40,41], but
forwards and defenders had a greater difference between the ectomorphic and mesomorphic
components [41]. Thus, except for goalkeepers, there were significant differences in paired
means between whole somatotype means of the Super League and First League according to
playing positions [48]. In addition, forwards and external defenders presented the highest
mesomorphy [12,39] and ectomorphy [39] values, respectively, while goalkeepers exhibited
significantly more endomorphy than midfielders [42,44] and forwards, as did defenders when
compared with forwards [42].
According to the age-related performance, no significant differences in the three
somatotype components were observed during the phase of growth and development (between
10 to 13 years of age; [2]). A previous study investigating the somatotype of 203 Spanish
soccer players aged between 14 and 19 years of U-15 (2.5-4.2-3.4), U-16 (2.3-4.3-3.1), U-17
(2.6-4.4-2.6), U-18 (2.5-4.4-2.6), and U-19 (2.4-4.3-2.4) categories found a decrease in the
ectomorphy component with advancing age [22]. Gontarev et al. [23] showed that the 14-
year-old age group had the highest values of the ectomorphy component in relation to all
other age groups (i.e., 15, 16, 17, 18 years-old). Furthermore, Nikolaidis et al. [25] showed
that all of the age groups (between U-13 and U-21) as well as the adult group (soccer players
older than 21 years old) differed from the child group (U-12) with respect to endomorphy.
The latter authors also reported that somatotype components changed across adolescence too;
endomorphy and ectomorphy decreased, while mesomorphy increased. Indeed, elite and
amateurs soccer players, particularly young players of 17 and 18 years old [29] present a
profile that accentuates the mesomorphic characteristics (i.e., very high muscularity, low
7
linearity, and low fat). The findings of this study are in line with those of Perroni et al. [27]
and Rienzi et al. [28], who demonstrated the mesomorph prevalence in the somatotype of
adult and young soccer players. Finally, elite soccer players were more mesomorphic, and less
endomorphic and ectomorphic, than players at other competitive levels in all playing
positions. In this view, the players’ somatotype largely distinguished higher- from lower-level
soccer players.
Body Composition
Body composition is a major health- and sport-related physical fitness component, and is
investigated using a five-level model [80]. Sport studies usually examine the fourth level
(tissues-systems) of this model, according to which the human body is divided into fat mass
and fat-free mass. Previous studies on soccer players have provided significant differences in
the percentage (%) of body fat between playing levels (Table 1). The overall of % of body fat
mean values reported in the scientific literature vary between 9.9 and 11.9% for male elite and
between 12.4 and 16.5% for amateur senior soccer players (Table 1). Particularly, Arnason et
al. [32] showed that the % of body fat was higher in the Icelandic first division teams’ players
(11.2 ± 4.3%) than in the elite league teams’ players (10.0 ± 4.2%). Accordingly, it has been
shown that the % of body fat was higher in sub-elite than in elite soccer players [11]. In
contrast, other studies reported no significant differences between international and non-
international soccer players in the % of body fat [7,8].
The % of body fat did not differ significantly during the phase of growth and development
(between 10 to 13 years) [2] or between adolescent ages [25] in soccer players. Thus, as
compared to the other groups (U-17, U-19, and Pro2), the U-15 players had a significantly
higher % of body fat [21].
Furthermore, the % of body fat is affected by the playing position. The mean range of %
of body fat extends from 11.2 to 31.91%, 8.5 to 29.84%, 8.4 to 25.82%, and 9.39 to 27.89%
for goalkeepers, defenders, midfielders and forwards, respectively, in different competitive
levels and age groups (Table 1). Particularly, higher % of body fat in goalkeepers than
outfielders (forward players, midfielders, and defenders) were noted [9,12,34,40,45]. In
contrast, in elite soccer players, previous studies showed that the % of body fat was lower in
midfielders than in other positions (i.e., defenders, attackers, and goalkeepers) [13], while
others reported that the body fat % of goalkeepers and defenders was greater than that of
8
midfielders [31]. Accordingly, it was shown that the 10-13 year-old amateur forwards
exhibited lower values of % of body fat than all the other athletes (12.1 ± 4.5 vs. goalkeepers:
17.0 ± 6.7; defenders: 15.3 ± 5.1; midfielders: 14.0 ± 5.7%, p<0.01) [42]. In contrast, another
study showed no significant differences in the % body fat between playing positions [33].
This contradiction could be due to the competitive-level differences between soccer players.
This review suggests that elite midfielders and amateur forwards had lower body fat % than
other soccer players. Also, % of body fat measurement was able to discriminate between
higher- and lower-level soccer players and between goalkeepers and outfielders.
Physiological Profile
Soccer is a complex sport, taxing both the aerobic and anaerobic systems [1]. Thus, to
optimally sustain the performance demands during a soccer match, a player must possess an
efficient anaerobic component that combines strength, speed, and power [1], in order to be
able to perform short sprints, jumps, tackles, and duel play. In addition, soccer also requires a
strong aerobic component to assist in rapid recovery between the intermittent bouts of high-
intensity work and to maintain a high endurance capacity over long match play [1].
Aerobic profile
Cardiovascular fitness is one of the most important aspects of physical fitness conditioning in
soccer [1]. In this context, well-developed aerobic fitness helps the soccer players to maintain
repetitive high-intensity actions within a soccer match, accelerate the recovery process, and
maintain their physical condition at a good level until the end of the match. Soccer players’
aerobic fitness has been established by measuring maximal oxygen consumption (VO 2max)
during a continuous graded exercise test, using either a cycle ergometer or a treadmill in the
laboratory or a multistage shuttle-run test as a field test (Table 2). The VO2max values
reported extend from 59.2 to 66.6 ml/kg/min and from 57.8 to 61.7 ml/kg/min for elite and
amateur male soccer players, respectively, in different competitive levels and age groups
(Table 2). A previous investigation reported that aerobic performance was different between
9
playing levels, with a higher peak VO2max in elite league teams players (63.2 ± 4.5 ml·kg -
1
·min-1) than in the first division teams players (61.7 ± 5.1 ml·kg-1·min-1) [32]. Thus, compared
to the sub-elite group, the elite players had higher aerobic power [11]. Canhadas et al. [2]
indicated that VO2max increased significantly with age: 10 years < 11 years < 12 years < 13
years. Accordingly, another study showed that the selected and non-selected soccer players’
14-year-old team had lower VO2max than older soccer players (U-15, U-16, and U-17) [14].
Thus, youth soccer players (U-16 and U-18) had higher VO2max than U-23 and university
players [50]. In contrast, other studies reported that there was no significant difference in the
values of VO2max between U-14, U-15, and U-16 soccer players [30] or between pubescent
and post-pubescent players [54].
Furthermore, it has been shown that outfielders (i.e., forward players, midfielders, and
defenders) had higher values of VO2max and peak O2 uptake than goalkeepers [9,32,50]. The
same authors showed that defenders and midfielders had a slightly higher mean VO2max than
forward players. Accordingly, in another study the Croatian midfielders had superior values
of VO2max compared with attackers and defenders, because midfielders have to cover more
distance during a game [13]. In contrast, it has been shown that forwards had the higher mean
VO2max values compared with midfielders, defenders, and goalkeepers [12]. It has been also
shown that the VO2max of midfielders and forwards was superior to that of the goalkeepers
[12,38,81] and defenders [38]. While other studies showed that VO2max did not differ
significantly among players of different field positions [42,49,51,52], midfielders seemed to
have the biggest intermittent endurance capacity, especially in the younger age categories (U-
9–U-15) [3]. This contradiction could be explained by the fact that the non-professional
forwards had higher mean VO2max values compared with non-professional young
midfielders and defenders, but when the players approached the professional level, positional
differences also existed, with higher values of VO2max in elite young midfielders compared
with elite attackers and defenders.
In conclusion, aerobic power is important variable for achieving high-level soccer
performance and accurately discriminates between selected and non-selected soccer players.
For that reasons, this review highlights that the fact that soccer places a strong demand on
cardiorespiratory fitness, particularly in elite young midfielders, amateur forwards, and youth
players (between U-15 and U-18).
10
Anaerobic profile
High-intensity, intermittent sports rely mostly on anaerobic sources (alactic anaerobic/ATP-
CP and lactic anaerobic/anaerobic glycolysis mechanisms), as the decisive actions in these
sports depend on powerful movements [1,82]. As in other sports, the Wingate anaerobic test
has been used to evaluate the anaerobic profile of soccer players. Briefly, this is an all-out 30-
s test on a cycle ergometer, whose main indices are peak power (Ppeak), i.e. the peak
performance in the beginning of the test; mean power (Pmean), i.e. the overall performance;
and fatigue index (FI), i.e. the percentage decrease of performance during the test. Few
studies have investigated the anaerobic profile of soccer players according to their playing
position and level. In the professional group, one study reported significant differences for
Ppeak values in midfielders (d = 0.62) compared to amateurs [6]. In contrast, Nilsson and
Cardinale [51] and Tasmektepligil et al. [55] reported that there was no difference between
anaerobic capacities of the players according to their playing positions. Moreover, another
comparison of positional groups revealed differences between goalkeepers and outfielders,
with the latter showing higher Pmean and lower FI [83]. Concerning age-related performance,
Nikolaidis [56] revealed differences in anaerobic power (Ppeak and Pmean) between the age
groups across adolescence, with the age groups in the higher spectrum of adolescence
performing better than those in the lower spectrum. Previous data also showed that Ppeak was
9.3 ± 0.2 W·kg-1 in U-14, 10 ± 0.3 W·kg-1 in the U-15, and 10.5 W·kg-1 in U-16 group, Pmean
8 ± 0.2 W·kg-1, 8.1 ± 0.2 W·kg-1, and 8.7 ± 0.2 W·kg-1, and FI 27.1 ± 1.9%, 36.8 ± 1.9%, and
35 ± 1.9%, respectively, with the U-16 group exhibiting significantly greater Ppeak and
fatigue than the U-14 athletes [30], while the corresponding values in older adults (16-18
years) were 10.6 ± 0.9 W·kg-1, 8.7 ± 0.4 W·kg-1, and 36.3 ± 7.4% [84].
As there have been no studies dealing with the effects of competitive level on anaerobic
power, future research is warranted to clarify the influence of this factor on the anaerobic
performance of soccer players.
Physical Profile
Repeated-sprint ability (RSA)

RSA is one of the most important predictors of match physical performance in soccer players.
RSA can be defined either as the ability to perform repeated sprints with minimal recovery
11
[85] or the ability to produce the best possible average sprint performance over a series of
sprints separated by short recovery periods [86]. The study of Abrantes et al. [57] showed that
professional players were superior to semi-professional players in RSA performance. Indeed,
e Silva et al. [58], Impellizzeri et al. [59], and Rampinini et al. [60] all found better RSA
performance in professional players as compared with amateur players. However, a previous
study reported that outfielders had better RSA performance than goalkeepers [50]. In addition,
the latter authors also showed that forwards had higher RSA performance than defenders and
midfielders [50]. Recently, Ben Brahim et al. [61] showed that soccer players from different
playing positions perform differently across repeated sprint tests. Particularly, in a 7 × 34.2 m
RSA test, forwards scored the fastest sprint time, the fastest total time, and had the highest
fatigue index; in a 12 × 20 m RSA test, defenders scored the fastest sprint time, the fastest
total time, and the highest FI; in a 6 × 40 m repeated sprint test, midfielders scored the fastest
sprint time and the fastest total time, but not the highest FI [61]. For instance, forwards scored
the highest FI in both a 7 × 34.2 m and a 6 x 40 m RSA test but not the best time either test. In
addition, forwards have been reported to score best on RSA tests in studies that used distances
of ~30 m [62] but not on distances ~40 m [46]. This contradiction could be due to the fact that
elite and amateur forward players tend to perform more sprints than elite and amateur back
players and midfielders over a shorter distance, compared to midfielders who conduct a
higher number of high intensity actions and sprints over a longer distance [87,88].
Other investigations have shown that with increasing age, the ability to repeat short-term
maximal efforts (such as the repeated sprint running exercise) declines [66]. In contrast, it has
been reported that performance decrement during a RSA test was not negatively affected by
age in a sample of well-trained soccer player aged 11–18 years [24,63]. This unexpected
finding contrasts with the general belief that children recover faster from sprint exercise, due
to their higher reliance on oxidative metabolism, faster phosphocreatine resynthesis, and
reduced glycolytic potential. In addition, Abrantes et al. [57] compared the RSA of three
groups of junior players (U-12, U-14, and U-16) with that of senior players using a test
consisting of 7 × 34.2 m, with a change of direction component and a 40-m active recovery
between sprints. The authors reported a significant reduction in mean sprint time between the
U-12, U-14, and U-16 groups (7.83 ± 0.07, 6.86 ± 0.06, and 6.35 ± 0.07 s, respectively) [57].
This trend is consistent with the results of Mujika et al. [63], who measured a larger number
of age groups. The latter authors showed no further significant improvements in RSA between
12
the U-15, U-16, U-17, and U-18 age groups; that is, with maturation there was a plateau in
RSA when the athletes reached U-15.
In this context, coaches should pay attention to the physiological profile, chronological
age, biological maturity, training age, and playing level, in order to estimate which factors
could affect the RSA performance. However, for the age of 11-15 years, we recommend
testing and developing the RSA, which could be among the most important factors for
success. Hence, RSA performance is the specific attribute of amateur and elite outfielders,
and may be of greater importance to pubertal midfielders over long distances and the
forwards' position over short distances, and for soccer players of all positions who are aged
between 11 and 15 years. For this reason, regardless of playing positions, U-11-15 requires a
general program soliciting the neuromuscular and metabolic components in order to
simultaneously improve the RSA performance, whereas in after U-17, when the positional
roles are clearly determined, the training should be adapted according to the different playing
position and the technical-tactical instructions of the coach.
Muscle Strength
Muscle strength is one of the keys to success in soccer. The development of this characteristic
can contribute to the performance success of a decisive soccer skill. Moreover, isometric tests,
lower limb strength, handgrip strength, strength of knee extension, and elbow flexion are
popular tests that have been widely used to assess the force-producing capacity of the
neuromuscular system in soccer players (Table 3). Particularly, it has been shown that
according to the various competitive levels, elite young soccer players demonstrate higher
values in maximal isometric force, one-repetition maximum (1-RM) of lower limb muscle
strength, force–time curve characteristics, leg extensor strength, and peak torque of knee
extensors and flexors in eccentric action compared to sub-elite, amateur recreational young
soccer players [5,68,69]. This could be explained by the fact that young soccer players on the
elite team participate in a greater number of weekly soccer training sessions (4–5
sessions/week) or to their greater experience in soccer training (4–5 years), or that they have
performed specific strength training programs for their lower limb muscles in comparison to
sub-elite (3–4 sessions/week and 3–4 years experience), amateur and recreational (2–3
sessions/week and 2–4 years experience) young soccer players [5]. Further, Rebelo et al. [7]
13
showed that elite goalkeepers tended to present better levels of lower-limb strength than non-
elite goalkeepers.
Concerning the playing positions-related performance, the handgrip strength of
goalkeepers and defenders was significantly higher than that of midfielders and forwards
(57.1 ± 12.8 and 51.9 ± 13.8; vs. 46.0 ± 11.0 and 43.9 ± 12.9 kg, respectively, p<0.05) [42].
Thus, goalkeepers had higher lower limb strength than soccer players from all other field
positions (43.6 ± 5.2 vs. defenders: 40.8 ± 7.1; midfielders: 40.0 ± 7.5; forwards: 38.6 ± 6.7,
p<0.05) [42].
Handgrip strength and strength of knee extension were significantly higher in 13-year-old
boys compared to the other groups (10-, 11-, and 12 year-old boys). Thirteen-year-old boys
were also significantly stronger than 10- and 11-year-old boys in the elbow flexion exercise.
Lower limb power was greater in 12- and 13-year-old boys compared to 10- and 11-year-old
boys [2]. Future studies dealing with the effects of age categories (preadolescent vs.
adolescent) on strength performance, particularly lower-limb muscle strength, are urgently
needed.
The available evidence highlights that elite soccer players and amateur goalkeepers had
higher levels of lower-limb strength performance than amateurs and all other field positions,
respectively. Providing a specific strength program for maintaining or increasing strength
throughout the season in goalkeepers should be considered by soccer coaches and strength
and conditioning coaches.
Muscular power
Vertical jump tests, such as the squat jump (SJ), countermovement jump (CMJ), and vertical
jump, can determine muscle power of the lower limbs in soccer players [82] (Table 4).
According to the competitive level, the jumping ability of elite soccer players is significantly
higher than this ability in the soccer players of both sub-elite and recreational levels [5].
Reilly et al. [11] also showed significant differences in vertical jump height among soccer
players of different competition levels. Particularly, elite U-19 goalkeepers and central
defenders were largely differentiated from non-elite goalkeepers and central defenders in
vertical jump performance, respectively [7]. Other studies showed that soccer players playing
at a higher level have a significantly higher vertical jump than players at a lower level
[11,58,70,71], but not all studies have confirmed this finding [32,68]. Indeed, le Gall et al. [6]
14
reported significant differences for CMJ in professional forwards and international players (d
= 0.50) compared to amateurs.
Furthermore, it has been shown that muscular power is affected by the playing position,
with higher SJ, CMJ, and vertical jump heights in the goalkeepers than in the players in the
field (attackers, midfielders, and defenders) [13,72,89] and forwards only [42]. Thus, when
comparing the players in the field, no significant differences were shown between the
defenders, midfielders, and attackers for CMJ [13,73]. In contrast, Ben Brahim et al. [72]
showed that midfielders had the lowest SJ and CMJ heights compared with those of defenders
and forwards. This contradiction could be due to the age differences, i.e., the participants were
elite young soccer players (28.3 ± 5.9 and 23.4 ± 4.9 years, respectively) in the studies of
Sporis et al. [13] and Pivovarniček et al. [73], and elite U-13 soccer players in the study of
Ben Brahim et al. [72]. Thus, when the players became older (U-17–U-19), explosive power
also became important in discriminating between the elite attackers from the other field
positions [3].
Concerning age-related performance, previous studies reported no significant difference
between elite U-14 and U-16 [6] and between U-17, U-20, and U-21 [74] male soccer players
in vertical jump height, claiming that this might be due to the small age difference between
the groups. In contrast, other study reported significant differences between U-19 and U-15 in
term of jump performance [75]. Thus, Nikolaidis [26] reported a significant increase in CMJ
with arm swing across age (U-12 < U-16 < U-18), whereas there were no significant
differences between U-18 and adult (older than 18 years) soccer players. Based on the
information in the literature, it was reported that while age-related physical performance
differences were at insignificant levels before adolescence, these differences might be more
significant after adolescence [15,90].
Overall, on the basis of the available scientific investigations, it appears that muscular
power is of particular importance for achieving high-level soccer performance, particularly
for elite goalkeepers (from a young age – 8 years), forwards (from 13 to 19 years), and
adolescent soccer players (regardless of playing position). Therefore, we recommend testing
and developing muscular power in the above-mentioned soccer players, as it could be among
the most important factors for success.
Speed and agility
15
Speed and agility are integral aspects of almost every defensive and offensive maneuver
performed by soccer players in practices and games [1,82]. For instance, speed was found to
be affected by the competitive level and age of soccer players (Table 5). Particularly,
maximum speed on the bicycle ergometer and 10 m sprint performance were higher in elite
young soccer players than in sub-elite and recreational young soccer players [5]. In le Gall et
al. [6], significant differences in 40-m sprint time (d = 0.50) in international versus amateur
soccer players, and in sprint time over distances of 10-m (d = 0.50) and 20-m (d = 0.47) in
professional versus amateur goalkeepers, were observed. In accordance with the previous
findings, it has been reported that the main physical difference between elite and amateur
soccer players is their sprinting speed and agility performance [91]. For instance, the elite
players recorded better performance times over the 15-, 25-, and 30-m sprint distances and the
agility than sub-elite players [11]. Furthermore, Rebelo et al. [7] showed that elite goalkeepers
tended to present better sprint and agility performances than non-elite goalkeepers. In
contrast, in speeds over 30 m, no significant difference between elite, second division, and
amateur players was observed, contrary to the previous study and the data reported for French
players [68]. This contradiction could be due to the age differences between soccer players;
however, differences that distinguish elite vs. amateur and sub-elite players would probably
become more apparent in early adolescence [92] and later stages of development [10],
respectively. Accordingly, another study showed that sprint tests differed significantly among
competitive levels within each age group, with better 30 m sprint performance in elite players
than in sub-elite and non-elite players; however, group differences were most apparent in U-
13 and U-14 players [10].
Indeed, sprint performance is differed between playing positions, with higher 5, 10, 20,
and 30-m sprint performances recorded in attackers (or forwards) than defenders and
goalkeepers, and lower sprint performance (for the above-mentioned distances) in goalkeepers
than in other positions (defenders, attackers, midfielders) [12,14,55,89]. Other studies showed
that the best performance in the 20 m sprint time in U-13 elite midfielders [72] and amateur
defenders [55] was comparable with other positions. In contrast, other investigations found no
difference in running speed and agility performances between soccer players according to
their playing positions [38,53]. In a study by Taskin [93], there was a similarity among
goalkeeper, defenders, midfielders, and forwards in terms of 30-m sprint ability. This
contradiction could be explained by the observation that U-13 midfielders have greater
16
abilities of sprint performance than other playing positions, but when they are approaching the
professional level and the age of 17-19 years, positional differences occur, where elite
forwards become the fastest sprinters, as they cover the greatest distance at high speed during
games.
Concerning age-related performance, previous studies showed higher agility and sprint
performance over 10 and 20 m in the U-19 than in the U-17 and U-15 players [75], and higher
agility performance (Illinois Agility Test) in the U-12 than in the U-11 and U-10 players [78].
Accordingly, Canhadas et al. [3] indicated that agility performance significantly increases
with age. Mendez-Villanueva et al. [24] also showed higher 10 and 20 m sprint performance
in U-18 players than in U-16 and U-14 players, as well as in U-16 than U-14 players.
Accordingly, it has been shown that age groups older than 15 years were faster than the age
groups younger than 15 years, whereas no differences were observed among U-10, U-11, and
U-12 groups, nor among the U-16, U-17, U-18, U-19, U-20, U-21, U-25, U-30, and U-35 age
groups [16]. Furthermore, Mendez-Villanueva et al. [77] showed that the correlation between
maximal sprinting speed and maximal aerobic speed was affected by maturation in a cohort of
highly-trained young soccer players, with higher maximal sprinting speed and maximal
aerobic speed after the stage of peak height velocity (APHV) (16.9 ± 0.7 years) than around
the APHV players (14.3 ± 0.9 years) and even before the APHV (12.3 ± 0.7 years). For
instance, improvements in sprint performance with age are also likely to be associated with
the greater glycolytic capacity, peak lactate concentrations, and percentage of type II fibres
reported for pubescent compared with prepubescent boys [94].
Finally, speed and agility were shown to be the most powerful discriminators between
elite and non-elite soccer players, particularly until 15 years of age, when they reach their
respective peaks. Moreover, speed and agility performances are the specific attributes of
midfielders (8 to 15 years old), amateur defenders (18 years old) and elite forwards (17 to 19
years old). On this basis, testing and developing the speed and agility of the above-mentioned
soccer players is recommended for coaches and fitness trainers.
Limitation and Strength of the Present Review

The main limitation of the present study was the variation in the assessment methods used by
various studies to evaluate a parameter, which makes it difficult to compare the findings of
17
the collected studies. For instance, body fat percentage has been assessed using different
methods that cannot be used interchangeably, making a comparison impossible between the
studies. However, a strength of this study was that it reviewed a large number of studies and
parameters. Despite the variety of methods used, conclusions on the variation of the
parameters by age, performance level, and position can be safely drawn when considering the
within-study comparisons.
CONCLUSIONS
This article reviews a series of studies (n = 79) examining anthropometric, physical, and
physiological characteristics of male amateur and elite soccer players according to their
competitive level, playing position, and age category. The data showed that anthropometric
and physiological characteristics, including aerobic and anaerobic performances, maximal
sprint speed, RSA, muscle strength, and muscular power, can discriminate across various age
categories and/or playing positions between male soccer players who are or are not successful
in achieving the highest standards of play. This review also suggests that performance
assessment can play an important role in player selection. Specifically, higher VO2max,
muscle strength, muscular power (vertical jump height), speed (10-30 m), and agility, and a
lower % of body fat in elite (higher-level) soccer players than sub-elite and amateur (lower-
level) soccer players were reported, particularly in the later stages of childhood development
and early adolescence, respectively. Higher VO2max, mean anaerobic power, RSA, and sprint
performance (5 to 20 m), and lower % of body fat and lower limbs’ muscular power (CMJ
and SJ) in outfielders (forward players, midfielders, and defenders) compared to goalkeepers
were shown from a young age (8 years old). More specifically, when comparing the above-
mentioned attributes between outfield positions within age categories and competitive levels,
the present review shows that non-professional forwards had higher VO2max values
compared to non-professional young midfielders and defenders, but when players were
approaching the professional level, positional differences also exist, with higher values of
VO2max in elite young midfielders compared to elite attackers and defenders. The data also
highlight that amateur and elite forwards present better RSA performance over a short
distance than amateur and elite defenders and midfielders, while the latter show greater RSA
18
performance over a long distance than forwards. Thus, it has been shown that there was no
significant difference between the semi-professional and the elite young defenders,
midfielders, and attackers for CMJ, while the elite U-13 midfielders had the lowest SJ and
CMJ heights compared to the defenders and forwards. In addition, U-13 midfielders had a
higher level of sprint performance than the other playing positions, but when they were
approaching the professional level and the age of 17–19 years, positional differences also
existed, when forwards became the fastest sprinters and jumpers. Concerning age-related
performance and regardless of playing positions, the following increased significantly with
age: VO2max (between 11 to 17 years old), RSA (between 11 to 15 years old), muscular
strength, particularly, handgrip strength, strength of knee extension, and elbow flexion (13
vs. 10 and 11 year-old), muscular power (the differences might be more significant after
adolescence), and agility and sprint performance over 10 and 20 m (U-19 vs. U-17 and U-15
players; U-18 vs. U-16 and U-14 players, U-16 vs. U-14 players).
Therefore, each factor (i.e., age category, playing position, and playing level) can be seen
to be characterized by a different profile. These data, together with the fact that each position,
age category, and playing level has a different physiological background in male soccer
players, demonstrate that some of the training sessions should be dedicated to training
specifically for each position, as already occurs with goalkeepers, and age category. Finally,
talent identifications strategies can be addressed from early stages of soccer practice
participation by optimizing the decisional process through a multidimensional analysis that
considers anthropometrical, physiological, and physical characteristics. In conclusion, a deep
understanding and consideration of these data may likely help in planning the training
schedule of male soccer players, with the aim of optimizing soccer performance.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
a) Practitioners should consider fitness characteristics in the development of male soccer

players and also that performance on tests of these characteristics can vary according
to age categories, playing positions, and competitive levels.
19
b) Measures of fitness characteristics can help to discriminate between players who have
already been selected and exposed to systematic training, and may provide a basis for
employing objective criteria in respect to player selection and development.
c) Distinguishing competitive levels, playing positions and age-related physical
performance in soccer players may be useful for trainers and coaches in both the talent
evaluation and development processes.
 Anthropometric characteristics (low body fat %, somatotype), aerobic, RSA
and sprint performances are the most important indicators of talent in soccer..
 Outfielders, particularly young midfielders (over long distance) and forwarders
(over short distance), and all soccer players who are aged between 11 and 15
years regardless of playing positions had higher RSA performance than other
soccer players.
 Higher levels of strength performance in elite soccer players and amateur
goalkeepers than amateurs and all other field positions were reported.
 Muscular power is of particular importance to achieving high-level soccer
performance, especially for goalkeepers from a children age (8 years old) and
for adolescent soccer players, particularly from young forwards.
 Speed and agility performances are the specific attributes of midfielders and
pubertal forwards, and for soccer players who are aged between 12 and 18
years, regardless of playing positions.
 From 9 to 15 years, the selection for a certain position is strongly focused on
anthropometrical characteristics and soccer-specific skill, to discriminate
goalkeepers and midfielders from the other positions, respectively.
d) Regardless of playing positions, youth and young players (9 to 18 years) requires a
general program soliciting the neuromuscular and metabolic component, in order to
simultaneously improve RSA and anaerobic performances, whereas in after U-17,
when the positional roles are clearly determined, the training should be adapted
according to the different playing positions and to the technical-tactical instructions of
the coach.
e) Regardless of playing positions, testing and developing aerobic performance (between
15 and 18 years old), RSA (between 11 and 15 years old), muscular power (between
12 and 18 years old), and speed and agility (between 12 and 18 years old) at the
specific age is recommended for coaches and fitness trainers.
Finally, it is hoped that coaches and sports scientists may use the present results as a tool for a
better understanding of the role and interpretation of anthropometric and physiological
measures as indicators of talent identification and development programs in soccer.
20
REFERENCES
1. Stolen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, Wisløff U. Physiology of soccer: An update. Sports

Med 2005;35:501-536.
2. Canhadas IL, Silva RLP, Chaves CR, Portes LA. Anthropometric and physical fitness
characteristics of young male soccer players. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho
Hum 2010;12:239.
3. Deprez D, Fransen J, Boone J, Lenoir M, Philippaerts R, Vaeyens R. Characteristics of
high-level youth soccer players: variation by playing position. J Sports Sci 2014;7:1-
12.
4. Gil SM, Zabala-Lili J, Bidaurrazaga-Letona I, Aduna B, Lekue JA, Santos-Concejero
J, et al. Talent identification and selection process of outfield players and goalkeepers
in a professional soccer club. J Sports Sci 2014;32(20):1931-1939.
5. Gissis I, Papadopoulos C, Kalapotharakos VI, Sotiropoulos A, Komsis G,
Manolopoulos E. Strength and speed characteristics of elite, subelite, and recreational
young soccer players. Res Sports Med 2006;14:205-214.
6. le Gall F, Carling C, Williams M, Reilly T. Anthropometric and fitness characteristics
of international, professional and amateur male graduate soccer players from an elite
youth academy. J Sci Med Sport 2010;13:90-95.
7. Rebelo A, Brito J, Maia, J, Coelho-e-Silva MJ, Figueiredo AJ, Bangsbo J, Malina RM,
Seabra A. Anthropometric characteristics, physical fitness and technical performance
of under-19 soccer players by competitive level and field position. Int J Sports Med
2013;34(4):312-317.
8. Sutton L, Scott M, Wallace J, Reilly T. Body composition of English Premier League
soccer players: Influence of playing position, international status, and ethnicity. J
Sports Sci 2009;27(10):1019-1026.
9. Tahara Y, Moji K, Tsunawake N, Fukuda R, Nakayama M, Nakagaichi M, et al.
Physique, body composition and maximum oxygen consumption of selected soccer
players of Kunimi High School, Nagasaki, Japan. J Physiol Anthropol 2006;25:291-
297.
10. Vaeyens R, Malina RM, Janssens M, Van Renterghem B, Bourgois J, Vrijens J, et al.
A multidisciplinary selection model for youth soccer: the Ghent Youth Soccer Project.
Br J Sports Med 2006;40:928-34.
11. Reilly T, Williams AM, Nevill A, Franks A. A multidisciplinary approach to talent
identification in soccer. J Sport Sci 2000;18:695-702.
12. Gil SM, Gil, Ruiz F, Irazusta A, Irazusta J. Physiological and anthropometric
characteristics of young soccer players according to their playing position: relevance
for the selection process. J Strength Cond Res 2007;21:438-45.
21
13. Sporis G, Jukic I, Ostojic SM, Milanovic D. Fitness profiling in soccer: physical and
physiologic characteristics of elite players. J Strength Cond Res 2009;23(7):1947-
1953.
14. Gil S, Ruiz F, Irazusta A, Gil J, Irazusta J. Selection of young soccer players in terms
of anthropometric and physiological factors. J Sports Med Phys Fit 2007;47:25-32.
15. Lloyd Rhodri S, Oliver JL, Radnor JM, Rhodes BC, Faigenbaum AD, Myer GD.
Relationships between functional movement screen scores, maturation and physical
performance in young soccer players. J Sports Sci 2015;33(1):11-19.
16. Nikolaidis PT, Knechtle B, Clemente F, Torres-Luque G. Reference values for the
sprint performance in male football players aged from 9–35 years. Biomed Hum
Kinetics 2016;8:103-112.
17. Battaglia G, Paoli A, Bellafiore M, Bianco A, Palma A. Influence of a sport-specific
training background on vertical jumping and throwing performance in young female
basketball and volleyball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2014;54(5):581-7.
18. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: The prisma statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-269.
19. Boraczyński M, Boraczyński T, Podstawski R, Wójcik Z. Relationships between
anthropometric traits, body composition and aerobic capacity in male soccer players
aged 13–15 years. J Kinesiology Exer Sci 2015;69 (25):33-40.
20. Chamari K, Moussa-Chamari I, Boussaidi L, Hachana Y, Kaouech F, Wisløff U.
Appropriate interpretation of aerobic capacity: Allometric scaling in adult and young
soccer players. Br J Sports Med 2005;39(2):97-101.
21. Dellal A, Wong DP. Repeated sprint and change-of-direction abilities in soccer
players: Effects of age group. J Strength Cond Res 2013;27(9):2504-2508.
22. Gil SM, Gil J, Ruiz F, Irazusta A, Irazusta J. Anthropometrical characteristics and
somatotype of young soccer players and their comparison with the general population.
Biol Sport 2010;27:17-24.
23. Gontarev S, Kalac R, Zivkovic V, Ameti V, Redjepi A. anthropometrical
characteristics and somatotype of young Macedonian soccer players. Int J Morphol
2016;34(1):160-167.
24. Mendez-Villanueva A , Buchheit M , Kuitunen S , Douglas A , Peltola E , Bourdon P .
Age-related differences in acceleration, maximum running speed repeated-sprint
performance in young soccer players. J Sports Sci 2011;29:477-484.
25. Nikolaidis PT, Karydis NV. Physique and body composition in soccer players across
adolescence. Asian J Sports Med 2011;2 (2):75-82.
26. Nikolaidis PT. Age-related differences in countermovement vertical jump in soccer
players 8-31 years old: the role of fat-free mass. Am J Sports Sci Med 2014;2:60-64.
22
27. Perroni F, Vetrano M, Camolese G, Guidetti L, Baldari C. Anthropometric and

somatotype characteristics of young soccer players: differences among categories,
subcategories, and playing position. J Strength Cond Res 2015;29(8):2097-2104.
28. Rienzi E, Drust B, Reilly T, Carter JE, Martin A. Investigation of anthropometric and
work-rate profiles of elite South American international soccer players. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness 2000;40:162-169.
29. Salgado B, Vidal S, Silva S, Miranda R, Deus R, Garganta R, et al. Somatotype and
body composition in Portuguese youth soccer players. Int Res Sci Soccer
2009;19:141-145.
30. Vanderford LM, Meyers MC, Skelly WA, Stewart CC, Hamilton KL. Physiological
and sport-specific skill response of Olympic youth soccer athletes. J Strength Cond
Res 2004;18(2):334-342.
31. Abdullah MR, Musa RM, Maliki ABHM, Suppiah PK, Kosni NA. Relationship of
physical characteristics, mastery and readiness to perform with position of elite soccer
players. Int J Adv Eng Appl Sci 2016;01(01):08-11.
32. Arnason A, Sigurdsson SB, Gudmundsson A, Holme I, Engebretsen L, Bahr R.
Physical fitness, injuries, and team performance in soccer. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2004;36:278-285.
33. Aurélio J, Dias E, Soares T, Jorge G, da Cunha Espada MA, Filho DMP, et al.
Relationship between body composition, anthropometry and physical fitness in under-
12 soccer players of different positions. Int J Sports Sci 2016;6(1A):25-30.
34. Bidaurrazaga-Letona I, Lekue JA, Amado M, Santos-Concejero M, Gil SM.
Identifying talented young soccer players: conditional, anthropometrical and
physiological characteristics as predictors of performance. RICYDE. Rev Int Cienc
Deporte 2015;39(11):79-95.
35. Carling C, Orhant E. Variation in body composition in professional soccer players:
interseasonal and intraseasonal changes and the effects of exposure time and player
position. J Strength Cond Res 2010;24:1332-9.
36. Fidelix YL, Berria J, Ferrari EP, Ortiz JG, Cetolin T, Petroski EL. Somatotype of
competitive youth soccer players from Brazil. J Hum Kinet 2014;42:259-266.
37. Galavíz UZ, Fierro LGL. Somatotype of semiprofesional soccer players classified by
their position in the game. Rev Int Cienc Desporte 2007;3:29-36.
38. Lago-Penas C, Casais L, Dellal A, Rey E, Dominguez E. Anthropometric and
physiological characteristics of young soccer players according to their playing
positions: relevance for competition success. J Strength Cond Res 2011;25:3358-3367.
39. Lago-Penas C, Rey E, Casais L, Gomez-Lopez M. Relationship between performance
characteristics and the selection process in youth soccer players. J Hum Kinet
2014;40:189-199.
23
40. Masocha V, Katanha A. Anthropometry and somatotype characteristics of male

provincial youth league soccer players in Zimbabwe according to playing positions.
Int J Sci Res 2014;3:554-557.
41. Noh JW, Kim MY, Lee LK, et al. Somatotype and body composition analysis of
Korean youth soccer players according to playing position for sports physiotherapy
research. J Phys Ther Sci 2015;27:1013-1017.
42. Portes LA, Canhadas IL, RLP Silva, de Oliveira NC. Anthropometry and fitness of
young elite soccer players by field position. Sport Sci Health. 2015;11:321-328.
43. Ribeiro RS, Dias DF, Claudino JGO, Gonçalves R. Analysis of the somatotype and
physical conditioning between soccer player under-20. Motriz: Rer Educ Fis
2007;13:280-287.
44. Rogan S, Hilfiker R, Clarys P, Clijsen R, Taeymansa J. Position-specific and team
ranking-related morphological characteristics in German amateur soccer players - a
descriptive study - anthropometry in amateur soccer players. Int J Appl Sports Sci
2011;23(1):168-182.
45. Santi-Maria T, Gómez Campos R, Andruske CL, Gamero DH, Luarte-Rocha C,
Arruda M, et al. percentage of body fat of young soccer players: comparison of
proposed regression frequencies between goalkeepers and soccer camp players.
JEPonline 2015;18(6):70-80.
46. Silvestre R, West C, Maresh CM, Kraemer WJ. Body composition and physical
performance in men's soccer: a study of a National Collegiate Athletic Association
Division I team. J Strength Cond Res 2006;20(1):177-183.
47. Gravina L, Gil SM, Ruiz F, Zubero J, Gil J, Irazusta J. Anthropometric and
physiological differences between first team and reserve soccer players aged 10–14
years at the beginning and end of the season. J Strength Cond Res 2008;22:1308-1314.
48. Hazir T. Physical characteristics and somatotype of soccer players according to
playing level and position. J Hum Kinet 2010;26: 83-95.
49. Alpay CB. Comparison of athletic performances of male soccer players with respect to
their respective positions in game. Anthropol 2016;24(2):519-525.
50. Aziz AR, Mukherjee S, Chia MY, Teh KC. Validity of the running repeated sprint
ability test among playing positions and level of competitiveness in trained soccer
players. Int J Sports Med 2008;29:833-838.
51. Nilsson J, Cardinale D. Aerobic and anaerobic test performance among elite male
football players in different team positions. LASE J Sport Sci 2015;6(2):73-92.
52. Strauss A, Jacobs S, Van Den Berg L. The influence of anaerobic and aerobic fitness
on the technical skill ability of national elite male under-18 African soccer players.
Mediterranean J Soc Sci 2014;5(27 P3):1704-1711.
24
53. Wong PL, Chamari K, Dellal, A, Wisløff U. Relationship between anthropometric and
physiological characteristics in youth soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
2009;23(4):1204-1210.
54. Cunha G, Lorenzi T, Sapata K, Lopes AL, Gaya AC, Oliveira A. Effect of biological
maturation on maximal oxygen uptake and ventilatory thresholds in soccer players: An
allometric approach. J Sports Sci 2011;29(10):1029-1039.
55. Tasmektepligil MY, Arslan O, Ermis E. The evaluation of anaerobic power values and
sprint performances of football players playing in different positions. Anthropol
2016;23(3):497-504.
56. Nikolaidis P. Anaerobic power across adolescence in soccer players. Hum Movement.
2011;12(4):342-7.
57. Abrantes C, Macas V, Sampaio J. Variation in football players’ sprint test
performance across different ages and levels of competition. J Sports Sci Med
2004;3:44-49.
58. e Silva MJC, Figueiredo AJ, Simoes F, Seabra A, Natal A, Vaeyens R, Philippaerts
RM, Cumming SP, Malina RM. Discrimination of U-14 soccer players by level and
position. Int J Sports Med 2010;31:790-796.
59. Impellizzeri FM, Rampinini E, Castagna C, Bishop D, Ferrari Bravo D, Tibaudi A,
Wisløff, U. Validity of a repeated-sprint test for football. Int J Sports Med
2008;29:899-905.
60. Rampinini E, Sassi A, Morelli A, Mazzoni S, Franchini M, Coutts, AJ. Repeated
sprint ability in professional and amateur soccer players. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab
2009;34(6):1048-1054.
61. Ben Brahim M, Mohamed A, Shalfawi SAI. The evaluation of soccer players
performance on different repeated sprint tests: training and testing implications.
Kinesiol Slov 2016;22(2):49-63.
62. Kaplan T. Examination of repeated sprinting ability and fatigue index of soccer
players according to their positions. J Strength Cond Res 2010;24(6):1495-1501.
63. Mujika I, Spencer M, Santisteban J, Bishop D. Age-related differences in repeated-
sprint ability in highly trained youth football players. J Sports Sci 2009;27:158-1590.
64. Dupont G, Berthoin S, Gerbeaux M. Performance during anaerobic intermittent
exercise: comparison between children and mature subjects [in French]. Sci Sports
2000;15:147-53.
65. Lazaar N, Ratel S, Rudolf P, et al. Performance during intermitent running exercise:
effect of age and recovery duration [in French]. Biom Hum Anthropol 2002;20:29-34.
66. Ratel S, Bedu M, Hennegrave A, Doré E, Duché P. Effects of age and release induced
by recovery duration on peak power output during repeated cycling sprints. Int J
Sports Med 2002; 23:397-402 42.
25
67. Ratel S, Williams CA, Oliver J, Armstrong N. Effects of age and mode of exercise on
power output profiles during repeated sprints. Eur J Appl Physiol 2004; 92: 204-10.
68. Cometti G, Maffiuletti NA, Pousson M, Chatard JC, Maffulli N. Isokinetic strength
and anaerobic power of elite, sub-elite and amateur French soccer players. Int J Sports
Med 2001;22:45-51.
69. Kalapotharakos VI, Strimpakos N, Vithoulka I, Karvounidis C, Diamantopoulos K,
Kapreli E. Physiological characteristics of elite professional soccer teams of different
ranking. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2006;46(4):515-9.
70. Keiner M, Sander A, Wirth K, Hartmann H. Differences in the performance tests of
the fast and slow stretch and shortening cycle among professional, amateur and elite
youth soccer players. J Hum Sport Exerc 2015;10(2):563-570.
71. Rösch D, Hodgson R, Peterson TL, Graf-Baumann T, Junge A, Chomiak J, et al.
Assessment and evaluation of football performance. Am J Sports Me 2000;28:S29-
S39.
72. Ben Brahim M, Rym B, Amri M. Anthropometric and physical characteristics of
Tunisians young soccer players. Adv Phys Ed 2013;3(3):125-130.
73. Pivovarniček P, Pupiš M, Lacena M. A level of jump abilities of elite Slovak soccer
players at different positions in field. J Phys Educ Sport 2015;15(1):53-56.
74. Castagna C, Castellini E. Vertical jump performance in Italian male and female
national team soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 2013;27(4):1156-1161.
75. Karahan M. Age-related physical performance differences in male soccer players.
Anthropol 2016;24(3):724-729.
76. Ré AHN, Corrêa UC, Böhme MTS. Anthropometric characteristics and motor skills in
talent selection and development in indoor soccer. Percept Mot Skills 2010;110(3):1-
15.
77. Mendez-Villanueva A , Buchheit M , Kuitunen S , Poon TK , Simpson BM , Peltola E.
Is the relationship between sprinting maximal aerobic speeds in young soccer players
affected by maturation? Pediatr Exerc Sci 2010;22:497-510.
78. Saygın Ö, Göral K, Ceylan H İ, Karacabey S. Investigation of agility performance on
10-12 years soccer players. Int J Hum Sci 2015;12(2):1912-1917.
79. Heath BH, Carter JE. A modified somatotype method. Am J Phys Anthropol 1967
27(1):57-74.
80. Wang ZM, Pierson RN Jr, Heymsfield SB. The five-level model: a new approach to
organizing body-composition research. Am J Clin Nutr 1992;56(1):19-28.
81. Stroyer J, Hansen L, Klausen K. Physiological profile and activity pattern of young
soccer players during match play. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2004;36(1):168-174.
26
82. Slimani M, Chamari K, Miarka B, Del Vecchio FB, Chéour F. Effects of plyometric
training on physical fitness in team sport athletes: a systematic review. J Hum Kinetics
2016;53:231-247.
83. Nikolaïdis PT. Short-term power output and local muscular endurance of young male
soccer players according to playing position. Coll Antropol 2014;38(2):525-31
84. Meckel Y, Machnai O, Eliakim A. Relationship among repeated sprint tests, aerobic
fitness, and anaerobic fitness in elite adolescent soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
2009;23(1):163-169.
85. Stojanovic MD, Ostojic SM, Calleja-González J, Milosevic Z, Mikic M. Correlation
between explosive strength, aerobic power and repeated sprint ability in elite
basketball players. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2012;52(4):375-381
86. Bishop D, Girard O, Mendez-Villanueva A. Repeated-sprint ability part II:
Recommendations for training. Sports Med 2011;41(9):741-756.
87. Bradley PS, Sheldon W, Wooster B, Olsen P, Boanas P, Krustrup P. High-intensity
running in English FA Premier League soccer matches. J Sports Sci 2009;27(2):159-
168.
88. Carling C, Le Gall F, Dupont G. Analysis of repeated high-intensity running
performance in professional soccer. J Sports Sci 2012;30(4):325-336.
89. Malina RM, Pena Reyes ME, Eisenmann JC, Horta L, Rodrigues J, Miller R. Height,
mass and skeletal maturity of elite Portuguese soccer players aged 11-16 years. J
Sports Sci 2000;18:685-693.
90. Mulazimoglu O. The relative age effect (RAE) in youth and professional soccer
players in Turkey. Anthropol 2014;18(2):391-398.
91. Kaplan T, Erkmen, N, Taskin H. The evaluation of the running speed and agility
performance in professional and amateur soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
2009;23(3):774-778.
92. Gonaus C, Muller E. Using physiological data to predict future career progression in
14- to 17-year-old Austrian soccer academy players. J Sports Sci. 2012;30:1673-1682.
93. Taskin H. Evaluating sprinting ability, density of acceleration, and speed dribbling
ability of professional soccer players with respect to their positions. J Strength Cond
Res 2008;22:1481-1486.
94. Ratel S, Duche P, Williams CA. Muscle Fatigue during high-intensity exercise in
children. Sports Med 2006;36:103-1065.
27
Table 1 Body fat percentage (%) of male soccer players according to age categories, playing
positions and competitive levels (data are presented as the mean ± SD).
Table 2 Maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) of male soccer players according to age
categories, playing positions and competitive levels (data are presented as the mean ± SD).
Table 3 Strength performance of male soccer players according to age categories and playing
positions (data are presented as mean ± SD).
Table 4 Lower-body explosive power test performance of male soccer players according to
age categories, playing positions and competitive levels (data are presented as mean ± SD).
Table 5 Sprinting performance of male soccer players according to age categories, playing
positions and competitive levels (data are presented as mean ± SD).
28
Table 1 Body fat percentage (%) of male soccer players according to age categories, playing
Study Athlete Position, age, and/or Body mass (kg) Body fat (%)
characteristics (n; level
age; level)
Reilly et al. [11] (n=31; 16.4 years; Elite 63.1±1.1 11.3±2.1

elite, sub-elite) Sub-elite 66.4±2.5 13.9±3.8
Arnason et al. [32] (n=226; 16–38 years;Elite division 77.0±0.7 9.9±0.5

elite division, Division I 75.7±0.7 11.2±0.5
division I) All 76.5±6.6 10.5±4.3
Strikers 75.3±5.9 9.6±5.1
Midfielders 75.9 ± 7.0 10.7±4.2
Defenders 76.9 ± 6.1 10.6±3.6
Goalkeepers 81.4 ± 7. 12.3±5.3
Vanderford et al. [30] (n=59; U 14, U 15, U 14 49.9±0.4 7.8±0.3
U 16; elite) U 15 62.8±0.3 7.7±0.5
U 16 68.6±0.4 9.0±0.4
Chamari et al. [20] (n=24, elite senior; Elite senior 75.7±7.2 11.8±3.2
n=21, elite youth) Elite youth 60.2±7.3 11.6±1.8
Silvestre et al. [46] (n=27; 19.9±1.3 All 77.5±9.2 13.9±5.8
years; semi- Goalkeepers 86.7±10.8 21.8±6.4
1
1
1
1
professionnal) Backfielders 79.0±4.9 12.2±3.7

Midfielders 73.7±6.0 11.7±3.3
Forwards 74.0±16.1 15.2±10.9
Tahara et al. [9] (n=72; 16-18 years; All 65.2±5.3 9.6±3.0
high school) Forwards 65.8±5.5 10.9± 2.9
Midfielders 62.8 ±5.2 9.5±2.5
Defenders 65.5±4.8 8.5±2.4
Outfielders 64.6 ±5.1 9.3±2.6
Goalkeepers 71.4±3.5 13.7±4.1
Gil et al. [12] (n=241; B Cadet, A Selected
Cadet, B Junior, A Forwards 69.22±10.35 11.23±1.33
Junior, Senior, total= Midfielders 67.41±8.19 11.33±1.62
17.31 ±2.64 years; Defenders 67.65±9.34 11.43±1.67
non-professional) Goalkeepers 71.99±8.59 12.44±1.95
Non selected
Forwards 63.94±7.49 10.75±1.50
Midfielders 62.10±10.93 11.50±1.81
Defenders 67.78±10.21 12.56±2.47
Goalkeepers 74.87±8.71 12.41±1.93
Gil et al. [14] (n=194; 14-17 years; U 14
NR) Non-selected 57.4±1.9 11.9±0.5
Selected 60.4±1.1 11±0.4
2
2
2
2
U 15
Non-selected 65.6±1.5 11.1±0.4
Selected 67.6±1.1 11.5±0.3
U 16
Non-selected 71±2.1 13.3±0.7
Selected 72.5±1.2 12.1±0.5
U 17
Non-selected 73.8±1.9 12.3±0.5
Selected 74±1.5 11.6±0.2
Gravina et al. [47] (n=66; 10-14 years; First team players 57.74±10 10.95±1.9
first team and Reserves 58.85±10 11.56±3.0
reserve)
Sporis et al. [13] (n=270; 28.3±5.9 All 78.4±3.1 11.9±3.1

years; elite) Defenders 74.5±5.6 12.2±0.7
Midfielders 64.4±3.2 8.4±2.9
Attackers 78.4±5.2 10.2±2.1
Goalkeepers 81±2.3 14.2±1.9
Sutton et al. [8] (n=64; 26.2±4.0 All 83.2±7.5
years; professional) Midfielders 78.0±5.8 10.2±1.8
Forwards 82.7±5.6 9.9±2
Goalkeepers 91.2±4.6 12.9±2
Defenders 86.0±7.3 10.6±2.1
3
3
3
3
International 82.1±5.8 10.0±1.9

Non international 81.9±8.7 10.5±2.0
Canhadas et al. [2] (n=282; 10 to 13 All

years; the most 10 years 34.7± 7.0 14.8±5.1
important soccer 11 years 35.9±6.2 13.1±5.6
clubs in Brazil) 12 years 40.4±7.8 14.5±5.8
13 years 46.5±10.1 13.9±5.2
Carling and Orhant [35] (n=26; 24.4±4.1 All 77.48±6.04 10.81±1.77
years; professional) Goalkeepers 81.75±3.81 11.63±2.96
Defenders 77.84±5.32 10.66±2.09
Midfielders 74.04±6.19 10.34±0.83
Forwards 79.60±6.57 10.50±1.01
le Gall et al. [6] (n= 161; U 14, U 15, U 14
U 16; internationals, Internationals 52.5±9.9 11.9±1.42
professionals , Professionals 53.8±9.5 12.5±2.6
amateurs) Amateurs 50.8±9.2 12.4±2.3
U 15
Internationals 59.3±10.3 11.6±1.8
Professionals 60.3±9.2 13.0±5.0
Amateurs 58.8±9.2 12.6±2.52
U 16
4
4
4
4
Internationals 65.3±8.8 11.3±1.5

Professionals 66.0±8.2 12.6±2.3
Amateurs 58.8±9.2 12.6±2.5
Lago-Penas et al. [38] (n=321; 15.63±1.82 Goalkeepers 67.48±11.57 11.99±1.58
years; regional) External defenders 58.81±9.19 11.21±1.40
Central defenders 70.03±9.81 12.07±2.09
Central midfielders 62.13±10.27 11.41±1.57
External midfielders 58.04±10.76 10.90±1.39
Forwards 61.18±12.08 10.84±1.35
Mendez-Villanueva et (n=61; 12.0– U 14 38.6±5.5 9.7±3.5
al. [24] 17.8 years; highly U 16 51.0±7.6 9.2±1.6
trained) U 18 61.9±6.6 10.0±2.4
Nikolaidis and Karydis (n=290; 12.01-20.98 U 12 40.37±9.81 18.57±6.73

[25] years; NR) U 13 48.46±8.72 16.61±5.22
U 14 56.66±7.92 15.8±3.57
U 15 61.17±9.25 16.43±4.18
U 16 65.82±8.86 16.5±3.94
U 17 70.78±12.8 16.29±4.32
U 18 69.48±10.32 15.8±3.51
U 19 70.58±6.51 14.75±3.01
U 20 73.19±6.15 15.24±3.46
U 21 75.21±6.42 14.45±2.07
5
5
5
5
Adult 76.7±6.75 15.06±2.96

Rogan et al. [44] (n=72; 23.8±3.8 Goalkeepers 93±6.1 16.5±5.4
years; fifth division) Defenders 77.5±7.6 15.6±3.6
Midfielders 74.7±7.6 15.4±4.1
Strikers 77.6±11.3 16.1±2.8
Team A 76.8±7.7 15.5±4.0
Team B 77.6±7.5 14.1±3.2
Team C 81.1±11.3 16.4±2.1
Team D 74.6±10.8 16.5±3.5
Dellal et al. [21] (n=49; Pro2, U 19, U U 15 53.40±9.87 10.67±1.54
17, U 15; first U 17 67.25±4.70 8.84±0.85
division) U 19 68.96±6.38 9.93±1.65
Pro2 72.38±4.27 7.87±0.71
Rebelo et al. [7] (n=180; U 19; elite, Elite
non-elite) Goalkeeper 78.7±8.1 12.4±4.5
Central defender 78.0±6.6 10.7±3.7
Fullback 69.3±6.5 10.4±2.9
Midfielder 71.6±7.1 10.8±2.9
Forward 71.7±7.4 11.1±2.9
Non-elite
Goalkeeper 70.4±7.6 12.5±5.6
Central defender 73.1±7.8 10.6±3.5
6
6
6
6
Fullback 68.4±7.0 10.4±2.6

Midfielder 66.6±8.5 10.8±3.3
Forward 68.3±6.5 11.8±3.5
Gil et al. [4] (n=64; 9–10 years; Outfielders 32.96±4.28 9.84±1.25

professional) Goalkeepers 38.13±3.72 11.30±1.35
Lago-Peñas et al. [39] (n=161; U 15, U 17, Goalkeepers 64.31±10.17 13.75±3.36

U 20; regional) External defenders 55.84±10.89 12.28±2.28
Central defenders 68.22±10.91 13.14±2.81
External midfielders 54.47±10.91 11.59±1.81
Central midfielders 54.35±12.35 10.94±1.63
Forwards 61.50±12.06 11.55±0.95
Masocha et al. [40] (n=16; 15.3±0.68 Goalkeepers 66.6±3.14 11.2±0.91
years; NR) Defenders 59.3±2.71 9.7±0.87
Midfielders 62.6±8.12 9.2±0.26
Forwards 64.1±5.27 10.0±1.49
Total 63.0±5.49 10.0±1.19
Nikolaidis [26] (n=275; U 10, U 12, U 10 33.6±7.3 16.4±4.4
U 14, U 16, U 18, U 12 42.5±9.0 19.3±4.8
Adults; competitive) U 14 50.8±9.5 16.1±5.1
U 16 62.6±8.4 15.4±3.8
U 18 66.6±5.9 14.4±3.3
7
7
7
7
Adults 74.1±8.4 15.9±3.5

Bidaurrazaga-Letona et (n=55; 12.61±0.6 Goalkeepers 46.15 ± 5.60 12.05 ± 2.36
al. [34] years; professional) Forwards 36.53 ± 2.41 9.39 ± 0.93
Midfielders 42.26 ± 3.94 10.10 ± 0.92
Defenders 40.60 ± 5.75 10.14 ± 1.73
Boraczyński et al. [19] (n=27; 13.59±15.57 U 13 53.33±7.39 16.59±1.89
years; NR) U 14 59.95±7.50 16.40±2.27
U 15 65.43±6.54 15.80±2.16
Noh et al. [41] (n=22; 16.3±0.1; Forwards NR 4.0±0.6
amateur) Midfielders 5.5±0.9
Defenders 4.4±0.7
Goalkeepers 3.7±0.4
Portes et al. [42] (n=296; 10-13 years; Goalkeepers 52.5±8.9 17.0±6.7
school) Defenders 45.1±9.7 15.3±5.1
Midfielders 39.8±7.3 14.0±5.7
Forwards 37.9±8.9 12.1±4.5
Santi-Maria et al. [45] (n=163; 14.74±2.36 Goalkeepers 69.3±15.1 21.5±7.5
years; professional) Side Defenders 56.8±13.5 16.9±3.8
Central defenders 69.7±10.1 17±3.5
Central Midfielders 61.9±12.9 18±5.9
Side Midfielders 55.1±10.5 17.7±0.5
Attackers 61.3±14.1 16.8±4.2
All 61.6±13.7 17.9±5.3
8
8
8
8
Nikolaidis et al. [16] (n=474 ; 9-35 years ; U 10 33.9 ±4.4 17.0±4.2

second, third and U 11 40.5±7.4 18.8±5.8
fourth national U 12 45.6±8.5 20.5±5.0
leagues) U 13 47.4±8.6 17.6±4.3
U 14 54.1±8.2 16.3±3.9
U 15 60.5±9.7 17.4±3.8
U 16 63.8±9.5 15.3±3.7
U 17 68.4±7.6 15.0±2.8
U 18 70.6±10.4 15.1±3.3
U 19 71.1±7.8 14.6±2.6
U 20 72.5±8.3 15.6±2.8
U 21 71.0±6.4 15.1±2.7
U 25 75.3±6.7 16.0±2.3
U 30 77.1±7.0 16.6±3.3
U 35 79.8±7.5 16.2±2.4
Abdullah et al. [31] (n=207; ± 17 years; Goalkeepers 63.01±10.06 31.91±11.08
elite) Defenders 59.04±9.27 29.84±10.83
Midfielders 53.24±8.47 25.82±5.02
Strikers 55.41±8.89 27.89±6.06
Total 56.75±9.50 28.30±8.62
Aurélio et al. [33] (n=18; U 12; first Defenders 44.0±4.6a 12.0±2.5
division) Midfielders 35.6±4.0 12.1±3.1
9
9
9
9
Forwards 39.9±4.3 12.0±2.3

All: All positions; NR: not reported; U: under
Table 2 Maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) of male soccer players according to age categories, playing
Study Athlete characteristics Position, age, and/or Test VO2max
(n; age; level) level (ml .kg-1 .min-1)
Reilly et al. [11] (n=31; 16.4 years; elite, sub- Elite 20-m progressive 59.0±1.7
elite) Sub-elite run test 55.5±3.8
Arnason et al. [32] (n=306; 16–38 years; elite Elite Division Treadmill test 63.2±0.4
division, division I) Division I 61.9±0.7
All 62.5±4.8
Strikers 62.9±5.5
Midfielders 63.0±4.3
Defenders 62.8±4.4
10
10
10
10
Vanderford et al. (n=59; U 14, U 15, U 16; elite) U 14 Maximal Bruce 52.9±1.2
[30] U 15 treadmill test 54.5±1.3
U 16 56.2±1.5
Chamari et al. [20] (n=45; senior and youth; elite) Elite senior Treadmill running 66.6±5.2
Elite youth test 66.5±5.9
Tahara et al. [9] (n=72; 16-18 years; high All Treadmill test 60.8±5.6
school) Forwards 59.1±5.1
Defenders Outfielders 61.6±5.7
54.2±4.5
Silvestre et al. [46] (n=27; 19.9±1.3 years; semi- Goalkeepers Yo-yo test 56.3±3.1
professionnal) Backfielders 60.4±3.0
Forwards 56.6±7.3
Gil et al. [12] (n=241; B Cadet, A Cadet, B Forwards Astrand test on a 62.4±10.76
Junior, A Junior, Senior, total= Midfielders cycloergometer 57.71±9.91
17.31±2.64 years; non- Defenders 58.55±9.48
professional) Goalkeepers 48.41±11.10
Gil et al. [14] (n=194; 14-17 years; NR) U 14 Cycloergometer
11
11
11
11
Non-selected 48±3
Selected 56±2
U 15
Non-selected 57±3
Selected 58±2
U 16
Non-selected 57±5
Selected 53±3
U 17
Non-selected 57±3
Selected 62±2
Aziz et al. [50] Study 1 (n=121; Goalkeepers 20 m multistage 50.2±5.3
goalkeepers=24.3 ± 5.6 years, Outfielders shuttle run test 54.3±3.4
outfielders= 24.1 ± 4 years; Defenders 53.7±2.6
professional). Midfielders 54.7±3.8
Forwards 54.5±3.6
Study 2 (n=70 outfielders; U Youth (U16, U 18) 51.2±3.5
16, U 18 and U 23; national) U 23 54.8±2.8
University 54.5±5.0
Sporis et al. [13] (n=270; 28.3±5.9 years ; elite) All Treadmill test 60.1±2.3
Defenders 59.2±1.5
12
12
12
12
Attackers 58.9±2.1
Wong et al. [53] (n=70; U 14; regional) Goalkeepers Treadmill test 55.1±8.5
Defenders 53.2±6.8
Forwards 56.5±4.9
Canhadas et al. [2] (n=282 ; 10 to 13 years; the 10 years 1,000-m run/walk 52.3±5.2
most important soccer clubs in 11 years test 56.7±2.6
Brazil) 12 years 58.1±3.1
13 years 60.4±2.7
le Gall et al. [6] (n= 161 ; U 14, U 15, U 16 U 14 Continuous
years; internationals, Internationals progressive track 59.2±3.2
professionals , amateurs) Professionals run test 58.2±2.69
Amateurs 57.8±2.8
U 15
Internationals 61.5±3.87
Professionals 59.9±2.7
Amateurs 60.1±3.6
U 16
13
13
13
13
Amateurs 61.7±3.7
Cunha et al. [54] (n=110; pubescent=13.4±1.0 Pubescent Treadmill test 59.6±4.3
years, post-pubescent=17.0±1.4Post-pubescent 60.1±4.9
years; First Division amateur)
Boraczyński et al. (n=27; 13.59±15.57 years; NR) U 13 NR 50.94±6.22

[19] U 14 47.80±6.58
U 15 46.44±4.88
Portes et al. [42] (n=296; 10-13 years; school) Goalkeepers 1000 m run/walk 57.5±3.0
Defenders test 58.5±3.5
Forwards 57.7±3.8
All: All positions; NR: not reported; U: under
14
14
14
14
Table 3 Strength performance of male soccer players according to age categories and playing positions (data are presented as mean ± SD).
Study Athlete characteristics (n; Position, age, Hand grip strength (kg) Elbow flexion (kg) Knee extension (kg)
age; level) and/or level
Canhadas et al. [2] (n=282 ; 10 to 13 years; the10 years 37.7±7.3 23.0±4.5 79.1±14.4
most important soccer 11 years 40.5±6.2 25.7±7.6 87.8±20.8
clubs in Brazil) 12 years 46.1±10.1 28.7±6.2 92.2±24.1
13 years 54.4±15.5 32.6±9.2 109.7±29.1
15
15
15
15
Gil et al. [4] (n=64; 9–10 years; Outfielders 18.46±2.89

Portes et al. [42] (n=296; 10-13 years; Goalkeepers 57.1±12.8 34.7±11.9 121.1±30.9
school) Defenders 51.9±13.8 30.2±7.1 102.2±25.6
Midfielders 46.0±11.0 29.5±7.4 92.3±23.7
Forwards 43.9±12.9 26.8±8.2 91.5±21.1
Table 4 Lower-body explosive power test performance of male soccer players according to age categories, playing
positions and competitive levels (data are presented as mean ± SD).
Study Athlete characteristics (n; Position, age, and/or SJ (cm) CMJ (cm)
age; level) level
Cometti et al. [68] (n=95; first division= 26.1 ± Division 1 38.48±3.80 41.56±4.18
16
16
16
16
4.3 years, second division= Division 2 33.86±7.47 39.71±5.17

23.2± 5.6 years, amateur= Amateur 39.83±5.15 43.93±5.65
25.8± 3.9 years)
Arnason et al. [32] (n=306; 16–38 years; elite Elite Division 39.4±0.4
division, division I) Division I 38.8±0.7
All 37.6±4.8 39.2±5.0
Strikers 37.8±4.4 39.4±4.2
Midfielders 37.6±4.8 39.3±4.9
Defenders 37.7±4.9 39.3±5.5
Goalkeepers 35.8±5.3 38.0±5.6
Gissis et al. [5] (n=54; elite=16.3±1.26 years, Elite 23.6±3.5
sub-elite=16.4±1.32 years, Sub-elite 21.4±4.5
recreational=16.2±1.29 years)Recreational 20.3±4.3
Gil et al. [14] (n=194; 14-17 years; NR) U 14

Non-selected 36.7±1.3 37.3±1.4
Selected 35.8±0.7 38±0.9
U15
Non-selected 39.8±0.9 43.3±1.4
Selected 39.6±1 40.5±0.9
U 16
Non-selected 39.2±0.8 40±1.4
17
17
17
17
Selected 40.9±1.2 42.3±1.2

U 17
Non-selected 42.7±0.8 44.6±0.8
Selected 42.6±1.1 44±0.9
Gravina et al. [47] (n=66; 10-14 years; first team First team players 30.11±0.55 32.12±0.36
and reserve) Reserves 30.54±0.41 32.11±0.48
Wong et al. [53] (n=70; U 14; regional) Goalkeepers 52.5±5.7

Defenders 54.3±7.7
Forwards 53.9±6.1
Sporis et al. [13] (n=270; 28.3±5.9 years; elite) All 44.1±1.3
Defenders 42.3±2.1
Attackers 44.2±3.2
e Silva et al. [58] (n=128; 13.0–14.1 years; Local 27.1±4.4

local, elite) Elite 31.2±5.1
Defender 27.6±4.5
Midfielder 29.1±4.7
Forward 30.0±6.2
le Gall et al. [6]* (n= 161; U 14, U 15, U 16; U 14 43.7±7.25
internationals, professionals, Internationals 42.6±5.8
18
18
18
18
amateurs) Professionals 42.8±5.5

Amateurs
U 15 47.9±6.1
Amateurs
U 16 50.6±6.4
Amateurs
Ben Brahim et al. (n=100; U 13; first division) Goalkeepers 29.30±2.87 32.55±3.21
[72] Defenders 27.39±4.25 29.41±4.29
Midfielders 25.49±2.95 27.41±3.92
Forwards 26.86±3.44 28.29±3.81
Castagna et al. [74] [n=56; U 17 (n = U 17 37.3±4.7 40.9±5.1
21, age 16.9 ± 0.2 years, U 20U 20 38.0±4.9 40.2±4.7
(n = 17, age 19.8 ± 0.4 years, U 21 37.0±3.9 40.3±4.3
U 21 (n = 18, 20.8 ± 0.4
years)]
Rebelo et al. [7] (n=180; U 19; elite, non-elite)Goalkeeper

Elite 40.9±5.0 41.9±6.0
19
19
19
19
Non-elite 34.2±6.0 32.8±1.4

Central defender
Elite 41.8±6.0 40.6±5.0
Non-elite 35.1±4.0 39.7±5.0
Fullback
Elite 34.8±5.0 36.8±5.0
Non-elite 35.7±5.0 37.5±5.0
Midfielder
Elite 36.1±4.0 37.8±4.0
Non-elite 34.4±6.0 37.6±6.0
Forward
Elite 37.9±5.0 40.4±5.0
Non-elite 35.6±6.0 38.3±6.0
Deprez et al. [3] (n=744; 8 to 18 years; high- U 9
level) Mean 19.5±3.3
Goalkeeper 18.5±3.0
Defender 19.8±3.0
Attacker 19.3±3.4
U 11
Mean 22.0±3.2
20
20
20
20
Defender 22.1±3.4
Attacker 22.1±3.1
U 13
Mean 25.2±3.5
Defender 25.3±3.3
Attacker 25.5±3.8
U 15
Mean 28.9±4.3
Defender 28.8±4.4
Attacker 29.0±3.9
U 17
Mean 34.3±4.4
Defender 34.1±4.0
Attacker 35.8±4.6
21
21
21
21
U 19
Mean 36.3±4.3
Defender 35.5±3.7
Attacker 37.5±5.0
Nikolaidis [26]* (n=275; U10, U12, U14, U 10 19.8±3.9

U16, U18, Adults; U 12 22.8±3.6
competitive) U 14 30.0±5.9
U 16 36.1±5.9
U 18 40.8±5.6
Adults 41.8±6.0
Bidaurrazaga-Letona (n=55; 12.61±0.6 years; Goalkeepers 30.68±3.42
et al. [34] professional) Forwards 34.45±5.51
Defenders 33.42±3.92
Keiner et al. [70] (n=163; 16.7±0.2 to 26.1±3.7 U 17 33.7±3.4 35.1±3.7
years; professional, semi- U 19 33.3±3.4 37.4±3.5
professional, amateur) Amateur 34.6±4.7 37.6±5.6
Semi-professional 34.7±4.6 39.1±3.7
22
22
22
22
Professional 38.7±4.0 41.2±3.8

Lloyd et al. [15] (n=30; U 11, U 13, U 16; U 11 25.10±3.49
professional) U 13 29.33±5.67
U 16 35.14±2.27
Pivovarniček et al. (n=38; 23.4±4.9 years; elite) Defenders 36.3±4.0 37.3±4.4
[73] Midfielders 37.1±4.4 37.8±5.9
Forwards 36.7±2.9 37.8±3.6
Aurélio et al. [33] (n=18; U 12; first division) Defenders 28.4±4.2
Forwards 32.1±5.4
Karahan [75] (n=128; 14-19 years; U 15 33.23±0.18
Professional) U 17 36.65±0.48
U 19 36.76±0.22
All: All positions; NR: not reported; U: under; SJ: squat jump; CMJ: countermovement jump; *: countermovement jump with
arm swing
Table 5 Sprinting performance of male soccer players according to age categories, playing positions and competitive levels (data are presented as mean ±
SD).
23
23
23
23
Study Athlete characteristics (n; Position, age, and/or Sprinting performance

age; level)
level
10 m 20 m 30 m 40 m
Reilly et al. [11] (n=31; 16.4 years; elite, sub- Elite 4.31±0.14
elite) Sub-elite 4.46±0.21
Cometti et al. (n=95; first division= 26.1 ± Division 1 1.804±0.063 4.223±0.192

[68] 4.3 years, second division= Division 2 1.818±0.058 4.249±0.147
23.2± 5.6 years, amateur= Amateur 1.859±0.075 4.294±0.141
25.8± 3.9 years)
Gissis et al. [5] (n=54; elite=16.3±1.26 years, Elite 1.95±0.34

sub-elite=16.4±1.32 years, Sub-elite 2.14±0.41
recreational=16.2±1.29 years) Recreational 2.21±0.45
Vaeyens et al. (n= 160 ; 12.2±0.7 years; U 13

[10] elite, sub-elite, non-elite) Elite 4.4±0.2
Sub-elite 4.5±0.2
Non-elite 4.7±0.2
U 14
Elite 4.3±0.2
Sub-elite 4.3±0.2
Non-elite 4.5±0.3
24
24
24
24
U 15
Elite 4.1±0.2
Sub-elite 4.2±0.2
Non-elite 4.4±0.3
U 16
Elite 3.9±0.2
Sub-elite 4.0±0.2
Non-elite 4.0±0.2
Gill et al. [12] (n=241; B Cadet, A Cadet, B Forwards 3.514
Junior, A Junior, Senior, Midfielders 3.68
total= 17.31±2.64; non- Defenders 3.708
professional) Goalkeepers 3.827
Selected
Forwards 3.61
Midfielders 3.7
Defenders 3.79
Goalkeepers 3.86
Non Selected
Forwards 3.76
Midfielders 3.79
Defenders 3.81
Goalkeepers 3.86
25
25
25
25
Wong et al. [53] (n=70; U 14; regional) Goalkeepers 2.06±0.12 4.92±0.32

Defenders 2.09±0.23 4.81±0.36
Midfielders 2.05±0.14 4.82±0.31
Forwards 2.07±.015 4.96±0.42
Sporis et al. [13] (n=270; 28.3±5.9 years; elite) All 2.27 ± 0.4 3.38 ±0.7
Defenders 2.14 ±0.7 3.36 ± 0.6
Midfielders 2.23±0.5 3.43 ±0.8
Attackers 2.03 ± 0.9 3.28±0.7
Goalkeepers 2.35 ± 0.8 3.51±0.9
le Gall et al. [6] (n= 161 ; U 14, U 15, U 16; U 14

internationals, professionals, Internationals 1.96±0.10 3.34±0.14 5.88±0.29
amateurs) Professionals 1.95±0.09 3.32±0.14 5.91±0.29
Amateurs 1.96±0.08 3.33±0.14 5.91±0.28
U 15
Internationals 1.87±0.08 3.17±0.13 5.52±0.40
Professionals 1.89±0.08 3.20±0.14 5.63±0.26
Amateurs 1.89±0.07 3.22±0.11 5.69±0.23
U 16
Internationals 1.82±0.10 3.06±0.16 5.40±0.29
Professionals 1.85±0.08 3.12±0.12 5.47±0.22
Amateurs 1.85±0.07 3.11±0.24 5.52±0.18
Mendez- (n=61; 12.0– U 14 1.93±0.11 2.85±0.23
26
26
26
26
Villanueva et al. 17.8 years; highly trained) U 16 1.80±0.06 2.53±0.11

[24] U 18 1.73±0.06 2.34±0.08
Rebelo et al. [7] (n=180; U 19; elite, non-elite) Elite

Central defender 4.29±0.08
Fullback 4.23±0.18
Forward 4.27±0.13
Non-elite
Central defender 4.27±0.18
Fullback 4.35±0.21
Forward 4.31±0.27
Ben Brahim et al. (n=100; U 13; first division) Goalkeepers 3.88±.07
[72] Defenders 3.37±.05
Midfielders 3.30±.07
Forwards 3.52±.09
Deprez et al. [3] (n=744; 8 to 18 years; high- U9
level) Mean 5.73±0.30
Defender 5.72±0.28
27
27
27
27
Attacker 5.71±0.29
U 11
Mean 5.43±0.25
Defender 5.42±0.23
Attacker 5.42±0.26
U 13
Mean 5.11±0.24
Defender 5.10±0.20
Attacker 5.04±0.23
U 15
Mean 4.80±0.25
Defender 4.79±0.23
Attacker 4.74±0.24
U 17
28
28
28
28
Mean 4.48±0.20
Defender 4.48±0.19
Attacker 4.39±0.18
U 19
Mean 4.35±0.16
Defender 4.35±0.16
Attacker 4.28±0.14
Karahan [75] (n=128; 14-19 years; U 15 2.2±0.02 3.76±0.01

Professional) U 17 2.1±0.01 2.79±0.01
U 19 2.05±0.01 2.74±0.01
Aurélio et al. [33] (n=18; U 12; first division) Defenders 6.50±0.35
Forwards 6.14±0.66
Nikolaidis et al. (n=474; 9-35 years; second, U 10 4.15
[16] third and fourth national U 11 4.12
leagues) U 12 3.89
29
29
29
29
U 13 3.82
U 14 3.50
U 15 3.45
U 16 3.34
U 17 3.16
U 18 3.22
U 19 3.09
U 20 3.11
U 21 3.20
U 25 3.11
U 30 3.21
U 35 3.18
Tasmektepligil et (n=40; 18.5±2.26 years; Goalkeeper 3.16±0.06 4.30±0.07
al. [55] amateur) Defenders 2.97±0.18 4.01±0.14
Midfielders 3.03±0.15 4.13±0.12
Forwards 3.02±0.12 4.14±0.16
Grand average 3.03±0.15 4.15±0.14
APHV: age at peak height velocity; Pre-APHV: before the estimated APHV players (>-3.0 years to PHV to < -1.5 years to PHV); Circum-APHV: around the estimated
APHV players (> -1 years to PHV to < +1 yrs from PHV); Post-APHV: after estimated the APHV players (> + 1.5 years from PHV to < 3.0 years from PHV).
30
30
30
30
Figure 1. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis

(PRISMA) flow-chart.
Identification
Records identified through database Additional records identified

searching through other sources
(n = 4455) (n = 0)
Records after duplicates removed

(n = 1325)
Screening
Records screened Records excluded

(n = 1325) (n = 1243)
Full-text articles assessed Full-text articles excluded,

for eligibility with reasons
Eligibility
(n = 82) (n = 3)
Studies included in
Included
qualitative synthesis
(n = 79)

Anthropometrics According To Position

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anthropometrics According To Position

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness

EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

Anthropometric and Physiological Characteristics of Male

The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 2017 Dec 01

Article type: Review Article

© 2017 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

Article first published online: December 01, 2017

Subscription: Information about subscribing to Minerva Medica journals is online at:

EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

Anthropometric and Physiological Characteristics of Male Soccer Players

Maamer Slimani1, Pantelis Theodoros Nikolaidis2

Running head title: Physiology of soccer.

Research Laboratory - Sport Performance Optimisation, National Centre of Medicine and

Key Words: anthropometric, physiology, fitness, football.

Despite the abovementioned large number of original research on soccer, no

sport-specific training induce physiological adaptations unique for those practicing a

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

(b) Intervention: Original investigations comparing anthropometric, physical, and

The exclusion criteria were:

Descriptive Characteristics of Included Studies

53,58,72,73], or age categories [3,6,14,15,26,70,71,74,75]. Finally, twenty-two studies

Repeated-sprint ability (RSA)

Speed and agility

Limitation and Strength of the Present Review

a) Practitioners should consider fitness characteristics in the development of male soccer

1. Stolen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, Wisløff U. Physiology of soccer: An update. Sports

27. Perroni F, Vetrano M, Camolese G, Guidetti L, Baldari C. Anthropometric and

40. Masocha V, Katanha A. Anthropometry and somatotype characteristics of male

Reilly et al. [11] (n=31; 16.4 years; Elite 63.1±1.1 11.3±2.1

Arnason et al. [32] (n=226; 16–38 years;Elite division 77.0±0.7 9.9±0.5

professionnal) Backfielders 79.0±4.9 12.2±3.7

Sporis et al. [13] (n=270; 28.3±5.9 All 78.4±3.1 11.9±3.1

International 82.1±5.8 10.0±1.9

Canhadas et al. [2] (n=282; 10 to 13 All

Internationals 65.3±8.8 11.3±1.5

Nikolaidis and Karydis (n=290; 12.01-20.98 U 12 40.37±9.81 18.57±6.73

Adult 76.7±6.75 15.06±2.96

Fullback 68.4±7.0 10.4±2.6

Gil et al. [4] (n=64; 9–10 years; Outfielders 32.96±4.28 9.84±1.25

Lago-Peñas et al. [39] (n=161; U 15, U 17, Goalkeepers 64.31±10.17 13.75±3.36

Adults 74.1±8.4 15.9±3.5

Nikolaidis et al. [16] (n=474 ; 9-35 years ; U 10 33.9 ±4.4 17.0±4.2

Forwards 39.9±4.3 12.0±2.3

Study Athlete characteristics Position, age, and/or Test VO2max

(n; age; level) level (ml .kg-1 .min-1)

Gil et al. [14] (n=194; 14-17 years; NR) U 14 Cycloergometer

Boraczyński et al. (n=27; 13.59±15.57 years; NR) U 13 NR 50.94±6.22

Gil et al. [4] (n=64; 9–10 years; Outfielders 18.46±2.89

4.3 years, second division= Division 2 33.86±7.47 39.71±5.17

Gil et al. [14] (n=194; 14-17 years; NR) U 14

Selected 40.9±1.2 42.3±1.2

Wong et al. [53] (n=70; U 14; regional) Goalkeepers 52.5±5.7

e Silva et al. [58] (n=128; 13.0–14.1 years; Local 27.1±4.4

amateurs) Professionals 42.8±5.5

Rebelo et al. [7] (n=180; U 19; elite, non-elite)Goalkeeper

Non-elite 34.2±6.0 32.8±1.4

Nikolaidis [26]* (n=275; U10, U12, U14, U 10 19.8±3.9

Professional 38.7±4.0 41.2±3.8

Study Athlete characteristics (n; Position, age, and/or Sprinting performance

Cometti et al. (n=95; first division= 26.1 ± Division 1 1.804±0.063 4.223±0.192

Gissis et al. [5] (n=54; elite=16.3±1.26 years, Elite 1.95±0.34

Vaeyens et al. (n= 160 ; 12.2±0.7 years; U 13