Specific Physical Training in Elite Male Team Handball

Abstract

Wagner, H, Gierlinger, M, Adzamija, N, Ajayi, S, Bacharach, DW, and von Duvillard, SP. Specific physical training in elite male team handball. J Strength Cond Res 31(11): 3083–3093, 2017—Specific physical training in elite team handball is essential for optimal player's performance; however, scientific knowledge is generally based on temporary training studies with subelite athletes. Therefore, the aim of the study was to analyze the effects of specific physical training in an elite male handball team over the entire season. Twelve players of a male handball team from the First Austrian Handball League conducted a 1-year specific physical training program in addition to their normal (team handball techniques and tactics) weekly training. Performance was measured with 5 general and 4 specific tests as well as game statistics during competition. Repeated measures analysis of variances and paired sample t-test were used to analyze differences in performance during training. We found a significant increase in oxygen uptake, offense time, defense time, fast break time, and jump height in the specific tests. Game performance statistics revealed a lower throwing percentage in the hosting team (59%) compared with the rival teams (63%). Our results indicated that specific endurance and agility are an acceptable modality in elite male team handball. However, performance in competition is strongly influenced by specific techniques and tactics. We recommend to strength and conditioning professionals that they tailor strength and power training, coordination and endurance as specific as possible, using free weights, agility exercises that include change in direction and jumps as well as short (10–15 seconds) high-intensity intervals.

Introduction

Team handball is a dynamic sport game that is characterized by frequent changes in intensities, high demands on specific techniques, tactics and cognition as well as challenging physical confrontations during the game. The large number of competitions on a very high level, especially in elite team handball, require high levels of a player's physical performance. Consequently, physical training in elite team handball is essential to improve performance in competitions to enable an optimal regeneration between competitions and training and to prevent injuries.

In previous studies, it was found that male team handball players of varied performance levels differ in upper-body and lower-body strength and power, body weight and throwing performance and a lack of general endurance and sprinting as well as jumping performance (^13,33,36,40). However, using specific agility tests instead of straight sprinting tests and game-based performance tests (GBPTs) instead of general endurance tests, differences were found between elite, subelite, and nonelite male team handball players in specific agility and endurance (³⁴). The influence of strength and power on throwing, jumping and sprinting performance are well documented (^5,19,20,31); but, there is a lack of scientifically based knowledge and its influence on endurance and coordination on team handball–specific performance. Evaluating the physiological capacity and physical demands during match-play (^23,25), the relative workload is 65–80% of the maximal oxygen uptake (V̇o₂max) with postmatch blood lactate concentration (BLC) ranging from 3 to 11 mmol·L⁻¹. In treadmill running tests (ITRTs), shuttle-run tests, small-size games and GBPTs, the V̇o₂max of elite male team handball players (^2,4,24,34,35) ranged between 50 and 65 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹ and a peak BLC of 10–12 mmol·L⁻¹ was found in GBPTs (^34,35). The positive effect of strength and power training (^{11,12,14,18,27,32}) and specific endurance (small-size game, repeated sprints, or high-intensity training [HIT]) and agility training (^3,7,12,39) was found in several training studies; however, these training studies were conducted during a short training period (6–8 weeks), subelite and nonelite players, and/or isolated training methods (e.g., only bench press training). Unfortunately, these training studies do not represent the daily strength and conditioning routines of professionals in elite team handball.

Based on the results of scientific studies in training and competition as well as practical experience in team handball, specific physical training should include (¹) strength and power training that significantly influence jumping and throwing performance as well as physical confrontations in team handball (²), specific agility training that significantly influence quickness in team handball offense and defense, and (³) specific endurance training to delay fatigue in team handball training and competition. To enable a strong link between science and practice, which was the main focus of the present study, specific physical training and all tests to determine specific and general performance should be a part of the entire season of training for an elite handball team and not during a short training period or with isolated training methods as in previous studies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that measures the influence of specific physical training in elite team sport over the entire season. The results of this study should guide strength and conditioning professionals, athletes, and coaches in team handball to increase the quality of specific physical training as well as significantly impact the limited knowledge in team sport science. Consequently, the aim of the present study was (1) to analyze general and specific performance of an elite male handball team, (2) to conduct a specific physical training program over the entire season based on the player's deficits in physical performance, (3) to analyze the differences in performance because of the physical training, and (4) to analyze game performance in competition. We hypothesized to observe an increase in (1) strength and power, (2) specific endurance, (3) specific agility, and (4) game performance when specific physical training was part of the yearly training.

Methods

Experimental Approach to the Problem

This was a longitudinal training study over a 1-year period that included the regular competitive season of the Handball League Austria (HLA) 2015/2016 (Qualification round: 18 games + 1 Cup game, Playoff: 8 games + 1 Cup game, Quarterfinal: 2 games). As shown in Figure 1, a pretest was conducted during the postseason 2014/2015, followed by a second and third test during the preseason 2015/2016. Pretest, second, and third test as well as posttest consisted of general tests (isokinetic trunk and shoulder rotation test, isometric leg extension test, countermovement jump [CMJ] test, incremental ITRT, and 30-m sprint test) and aGBPT. The fourth test was conducted during the competition break in January and the posttest between the end of the playoffs and the first quarterfinal game (Figure 1). In the fourth test, the subjects have not performed the specific test because of the short time for preparation before the playoffs. General and specific tests were used to determine general and team handball–specific performance that should be increased by the specific physical training used in this study.

Figure 1.: Description of the study design including tests, specific and general physical training, games and training blocks. (HIT_{15 s/15 s}: High-intensity training including 5 repetitions and 3 series of 15 seconds high and 15 seconds low intensity, HIT_{4 min/3 min:} High-intensity training including 4 series of 4 minutes high and 3 minutes low intensity, LIT_{20 min}/LIT_{40 min}: 20/40 minutes low-intensity endurance training).

Specific physical training was divided into 4 training blocks with different focus and included low-intensity endurance training (LIT), HIT with different intervals, specific agility training as well as strength and power training. During the preparation phase (first and second training phase), 6–7 training sessions (Figure 2) and in the competitive phase of the periodization (third and fourth training phase) 4 training sessions (Figure 3) with specific physical training were included in 6–8 training sessions per week. The numbers of training sessions per week depend on the timing (e.g., a competition on Sunday needs an additional tactical training on Saturday) and a number of competitions per week. In summary, only 2–4 training sessions per week were used exclusively for specific physical training. All other training sessions per week were combination training (specific physical training combined with team handball technical and tactical training) or exclusive team handball technical and tactical training (Figures 2 and 3, respectively). All trainings were coached by the head and assistant coach of the team and the physical conditioning coach additionally observed and coached the specific physical components of training. In elite handball teams, every player of the team had to sign a contract with the club indicating that all players (and therefore all subjects of the study) had to perform all trainings and competitions ensuring training frequency close to 100% for the entire training period.

Figure 2.: Example of a training week (week #9) of the second training block. (1RM = 1 repetition maximum; HIT = high-intensity training; LIT = low-intensity training; CoD = change in direction; acc = acceleration).

Figure 3.: Example of a training week (week #36) of the fourth training block. (1RM = 1 repetition maximum; HIT = high-intensity training; LIT = low-intensity training; CoD = change in direction; acc = acceleration).

A control group was not incorporated in the study because in elite team sports it is virtually impossible to analyze a team of the same league that would strengthen the comparison between control and training group.

Subjects

Twelve male elite (7 players have been selected to the Senior or Junior National Team in their country) team handball players (4 wings, 2 pivots, 6 backcourt players; age: 24.6 ± 5.5 [range: 18–35] years, body mass: 91.2 ± 12.5 kg, height: 1.88 ± 0.06 m, training experience: 18.6 ± 5.5 years) from a club playing in the HLA participated in the present study. All subjects provided their written consent to participate in this study after being informed of all procedures and risks. They were physically healthy, in good physical condition and reported no injuries, infections, or cardiopulmonary risk factors during the time of the study.

The normal weekly training routine of the players consisted of 6–8 training sessions (100–140 minutes for each session) and 1–2 competition games per week. The training background of the players was focused on team handball–specific training (technical and tactical skills), aerobic and anaerobic training (on- and off-court exercises), and strength and power training (medicine balls, weightlifting, and strength training equipment exercises).

Two subjects (not included in the 12 subjects described above) had to be excluded from the study because of an anterior cruciate ligament injury and a later reduced income to the team (both in January 2016). None of the other subjects reported any current or ongoing neuromuscular diseases or musculoskeletal injuries during the time of the study. At the beginning of the study (pretest), all players were in the end of the competitive phase (postseason 2014/2015) of their periodization. Before participation, the experimental procedures, potential risks, and benefits of the project were fully explained to the subjects, and they all provided written informed consent before entering the study. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Salzburg, Austria, in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Procedures

General Tests

Before testing, subjects were informed about the nature of the tests and performed a standardized warm-up of 20 minutes. In the general test block, all subjects performed a 30-m sprint test, an isokinetic trunk and shoulder rotation test, an isometric leg extension test, a CMJ test and an ITRT.

In the 30-m sprint test, each subject performed a sprint as fast as possible from a standing start with their front foot 1 meter behind the first timing gate. All subjects were instructed to sprint as fast as possible. To measure sprinting time, we used 3 light beams (Brower Timing System CM L5; Brower, UT, USA) placed at 0, 15, and 30 m of the testing distance. Each light beam consisted of an infrared sender and an infrared emitter with antennas. Each unit was mounted on a tripod 1 m above the floor. Data were sent from the beam sets directly to the handheld coach monitor. Each subject had to repeat the sprint test twice (2-minute recovery between tests). The fastest 30-m sprinting time was used for further calculation. A high test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.94, CV = 0.04) was found in a similar test (20-m sprint test) in female soccer players (¹⁶).

Isokinetic trunk and shoulder rotation strength tests were conducted using an IsoMed 2000 dynamometer (D&R Ferstl GmbH, Hemau, Germany) combined with the manufacturer's attachments for bilateral trunk and unilateral shoulder rotation. Before testing, subjects were informed about the nature of the tests and they were asked to perform 4–5 moderate-to-submaximal specific warm-up practice trials to become familiarized with the testing procedure. To measure trunk rotation (^9,10,29), subjects sat in the chair of the IsoMed 2000 in an upright position with their feet on the frontal platform to produce a consistent hip and knee angle of 90°. For fixation, hip and knee pads were used to restrict lower-body movement and a hinged bracket to secure trunk rotation. For all subjects, the range of motion was 80° and set to reach rotation from −40 (rotated to the left) to +40° (rotated to the right) using an angular velocity of 80° per second with a fast acceleration at the beginning and a strong deceleration at the end of the movement. Trunk rotation was performed in both directions (left and right). To assess shoulder rotation (^1,8) of the dominant arm (throwing arm), subjects were placed on a custom-made chair with a hip and knee angle of 90° as well as an arm abduction and elbow flexion of 90° in the frontal plane. The positions of the chair, height of the dynamometer head, and the shoulder attachment were adjusted to adapt the longitudinal axis of the humerus to the rotation axis of the dynamometer. To fix the upper body, we used Velcro straps on the backrest of the seat and the dominant arm was secured on the hinged bracket of the shoulder dynamometer. For all subjects, the range of motion was 80° and set to reach 10^o (arms raised upward) to 90° using an angular velocity of 150° per second with a fast acceleration at the beginning and a strong deceleration at the end of the movement. The shoulder rotation measurement trials were conducted with 30-second recovery time between each trial. For both measurements, we used a rest period of 1 minute between practice and testing and the tests were introduced by a standardized verbal countdown. To determine maximal strength, we calculated the peak torque within a range of motion of 50° (−25/25° for trunk and 25/75° for shoulder rotation). The highest peak torques for shoulder and trunk rotation of the 5 trials were used for further calculation. A high test-retest reliability was found for the trunk rotation (ICC = 0.89, CV = 0.09) (²⁹) and for a similar protocol as used for the shoulder rotation (ICC = 0.96) using the IsoMed 2000.

To measure isometric multijoint leg extension strength, subjects performed a maximal isometric contraction over 3 seconds with one leg (first left) on a leg press in a sitting position with a hip, knee, and ankle angle of 100°. Leg press force was measured (150 Hz) by a load cell (HBM load cell 27-2; Hottinger Baldwin Measuring, Darmstadt, Germany) and maximal force was calculated using our own analysis software in LabVIEW (LabVIEW 8.1; National Instruments, Salzburg, Austria). Each test was repeated 3 times with a 20-second rest between each interval. Maximal leg strength was defined as the peak force within the measuring interval. A high test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.96) for isometric multijoint leg extension strength was found in a previous study (²⁶) using a similar measuring protocol.

To determine jump height, subjects performed 3 CMJ's on an AMTI force platform (AMTI BP600900-2000; AMTI, Watertown, NY, USA) from an upright position. Arm swing was allowed during the jump. Jump height in the CMJ was calculated by the vertical velocity of the center of mass calculated from force time curves by subtracting body mass, divided by body mass, and using the trapezoidal rule for numeric integration with respect to time (³⁸). Data were recorded and reduced using LabVIEW (LabVIEW 8.1; National Instruments, Salzburg, Austria). In a validation study of the CMJ test, a high test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC] = 0.995, coefficient variation [CV] = 0.02) was found in elite male basketball and soccer players (²⁸). For leg extension strength and CMJ tests, maximal values of the 3 repetitions were included in calculations.

To determine general endurance, all subjects performed an ITRT. After a 5-minute warm-up at a constant running speed of 6 km·h⁻¹, the ITRT started with an initial treadmill speed of 6 km·h⁻¹ (hp cosmos Saturn, hp cosmos, Traunstein, Germany) using a 1° treadmill incline evaluation. Speed increased by 1.5 km·h⁻¹ every minute until volitional fatigue. Initial speed, incremental speed, and treadmill elevation of 1° were selected to ensure a total testing time of 8–12 minutes to determine maximal oxygen uptake (V̇o_2ITRT) during the ITRT (^15,22). During the test, heart rate (HR) (Suunto T6d; Suunto, Vantaa, Finnland) and oxygen uptake (ZAN 600 CPET; nSpire Health GmbH, Oberthulba, Germany) were monitored and recorded. Maximal oxygen uptake (V̇o_2general) was calculated by manufacturer's software and was defined as the maximal value from a 30-second rolling average. Total testing time (excluding warm-up) was also measured to determine endurance running performance. The air condition in the laboratory enabled a constant temperature/humidity of 22° C/33% and was equivalent for all subjects on testing days. The high validity and reliability of the used method to determine maximal oxygen uptake has been shown in several studies (^17,21,22,37).

Specific Test

Before the test, all subjects were familiarized with the testing procedures (in 2 additional training sessions before the test) and testing equipment (on the day of the study). In the GBPT, all subjects had to perform one warm-up heat and 8 testing-heats including defense, defense to offense, offense, offense to defense, and breaks. To standardize these actions, (20-second breaks between the actions within a heat and 40-second breaks for the determination of BLC between heats), they started with a 3-second acoustic countdown controlled by Multi-Timer-Ultimate software (Multi-Timer-Ultimate 3.1; Multi Timer, Wallroth, Germany). All distances during these actions (6-m line to 9-m line in defense, 9-m line to 12-m line in offense, 3 m left and right in defense and offense) were standardized by special markers on the court. During defensive actions, subjects had to tackle mat roles (to simulate a tackle-like movement in competition), and in offensive actions, subjects had to catch and pass the ball during pushing movements (to simulate pushing movements similar to competition). After the last catch in the offensive action, subjects had to throw the ball as fast as possible to the left low corner of the goal after maximal take-off from the left foot (for right-handed players). A mat role was positioned in front of the goal similar to the position of the goalkeeper in competition. To simulate game-specific intensities, defensive and offensive actions had to be performed once in 5 heats (#1, 2, 5, 7 and 8) and twice in 3 heats (# 3, 4 and 6), whereas these 3 heats also included fast breaks (# 3 and 6) and/or running backs (#4 and 6). The number of activity changes, changes in direction, throws, passes, and tackles was selected as described in studies measured during the competition (^24,25). A more detailed description of the GBPT including figures and tables of the measuring area and the test protocol was reported in a separate study (³⁵).

During the GBPT, the peak oxygen uptake (V̇o_2specific) and peak HR (HR_specific) were measured using a portable respiratory gas exchange measurement analysis system in the breath-by-breath mode (K4b²; Cosmed, Rome, Italy). To prevent errors in the determination of V̇o_2specific, only peak values were used where 2 breath-by-breath values before and after the peak value were not less than 90%. BLC was obtained from the hyperemic earlobe by an experienced sport scientist using 20 μl capillary tubes using a fully enzymatic amperometric measurement system (Biosen 5040; EKF Diagnostics, Leipzig, Germany). The highest peak value for the V̇o_2specific, HR_specific, and BLC of all heats was used for further calculations. To determine offense and defense time as well as specific sprinting performance (sprinting time during fast breaks and running backs), a local position measuring system (Inmotiotec, Abatec, Regau, Austria) was used. Data (1000 Hz) from the transponder, fixed at the waist belt on the subjects, were transmitted to a base station and 2D positions were calculated by manufacturer's computer software. The mean value of all offense, defense, fast breaks, and running backs in all heats was used for further calculations. Ball velocity and jump height during the jump throws in the GBPT were measured by the calculation of the 2D-position of the center of the ball and flight time from high-speed video files (Basler piA640-210gm; Basler Ag, Ahrensburg, Germany) using PeakMotion (PeakMotion 8.1; Vicon Peak, Oxford, United Kingdom). We used the mean value of the 4 best ball velocities and jump heights, out of 7 throw for further calculations. Temperature and humidity were measured during the GBPT and remained the same for all subjects during all testing days and ranged within 20–24° C and 30–35%, respectively.

The test-retest reliability in the GBPT was determined for V̇o_2specific (ICC = 0.92, CV = 0.02), BLC (ICC = 0.80, CV = 0.12), HR_specific (ICC = 0.73, CV = 0.03), offense time (ICC = 0.73, CV = 0.02), defense time (ICC = 0.74, CV = 0.02), fast break time (ICC = 0.44, CV = 0.04), ball velocity (ICC = 0.76, CV = 0.4), and jump height (ICC = 0.66, CV = 0.16) in a previous validation study (³⁵). Regarding the validity of the GBPT, it was also found that male team handball players of different performance level (elite, subelite, and nonelite) differ significantly (p ≤ 0.05) in V̇o_2specific, HR_specific, offense time, defense time, ball velocity, and jump height in the jump throw (³⁴) as well as found that the percentage of low (∼75%), moderate (∼15%), and high intensities (∼10%) in the GBPT was similar to those in a team handball test game (³⁵) and in competition (²³).

Game Performance

To determine the specific performance in all games in the HLA season 2015/2016 (n = 30), we used team handball game statistic software (CoachBook Team Handball App, Zimmermann, Germany). During the game, throwing position, throwing direction (area in the goal or beside the goal), and throwing efficiency (goal, missed, or goalkeeper save) of every throw from each player of both teams were inserted on the iPad touch screen in CoachBook by an experienced team handball statistician. Additional data as in yellow and red cards, 2-minute suspension, 7-m throw, fast breaks and technique errors were also documented. All throws and additional data of all players, separated in host and rival teams were summarized and are shown in Figure 4. The host team comprised all subjects (n = 12) in the study, and all other players of the team (n = 6) competed for the club in the HLA season 2015/2016. The rival teams summarized that all other players from all other teams competed against the host team in the HLA season 2015/2016.

Figure 4.: Game statistics (own team and rival teams) in 26 team handball games in the regular season and playoffs of the Handball League Austria (HLA) Season 2015/2016. (Perc = throwing percentage; FB = fast break; 7 m = penalty throw; 2 min = two-minutes suspension; Yellow = yellow card; Red = red card).

Specific Physical Training

As described in the experimental approach to the problem, specific physical training consisted of 4 training blocks (Figure 1), each with a different focus. For basic physical training, all players had to perform a 40-minute low-intensity endurance training (LIT_{40 min}) and medicine ball (3–5 kg) throws (10 minutes) one time per week during the entire training year. Running intensity in the LIT_{40 min} was controlled by the player's individual training HR (determined in the ITRT) using Polar Team App (Polar H7; Polar Electro Inc., Kempele, Finnland).

In the first training block, all players of the team had to perform high-intensity training (HIT_{15 s/15 s}) (15 seconds high/15 seconds low intensity/5 repetitions/3 series) and specific agility training for 40 minutes (including numerous changes in directions, jumps, and short accelerations using coordination ladders, hoops, and hurdles as well as passing and throwing drills) one time per week. All HIT_{15 s/15 s} and specific agility training was included in the regular team handball training (combination training). Two times per week, all players performed maximal lower-body and upper-body strength training. One set in the lower-body and upper-body strength training consisted of 4 net body weight exercises (sit-ups, whole body rolling movements, pelvis lifting and asymmetric leg and arm lifting, 30 reps for each exercise), bench press in combination with subsequent 5 medicine ball throws and back squats with subsequent 5 CMJs (8–10 reps with 80% 1 repetition maximum [1RM] or 1–3 reps with 95–100% of 1RM), power cleans and overhead squats (15 reps with 60–70% of 1RM), dumbbell and barbell curls, strength training equipment exercises for knee flexion as well as leg abduction, and adduction (20 reps with 60–70% of 1RM). In the first training session, the following was performed: 3 sets (bench press and back squat with 80% of 1RM) with a subsequent HIT_{4 min/3 min} (4 minutes 90–95% HRmax/3 minutes 70–75% HRmax/4 series) one time per week (³⁰) (exclusively physical training). In the second training of the week, 3 sets (bench press and back squats with 95–100% of 1RM) with subsequent technical and tactical team handball training (combination training) were performed by all players. The focus in lower-body and upper-body strength training was to use free weightlifting exercises as often as possible instead of strength equipment exercises.

In the second training block, specific agility training was increased to 2–3 training sessions per week, whereas the HIT_{15 s/15 s} was excluded. Based on the results of the second test, the 12 subjects were divided into 2 subgroups of 6 subjects. The first subgroup (endurance group) performed 3 sets of lower-body and upper-body strength training (bench press and back squats with 80% of 1RM) and a HIT_{4 min/3 min}, and the second group (strength group) performed 5 sets of lower-body and upper-body strength training (bench press and back squats with 80% of 1RM) and a 20 minutes LIT (LIT_{20 min}) one time per week. Similar to the first training block, all players performed additional 3 sets of lower-body and upper-body strength training (bench press and back squats with 95–100% of 1RM) with subsequent technical and tactical team handball training (combination training) one time per week.

In the third and fourth training block, specific agility was reduced to one time per week. Endurance and strength training (in the 2 subgroups) were performed that was equivalent to the second training block. However, in the fourth training block, bench press and back squats were trained eccentrically (5–6 reps with 140% of 1RM) instead of concentrically (8–10 reps with 80% of 1RM) in the first lower-body and upper-body strength training in the training week.

Statistical Analyses

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS ver. 22.0 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). All variables were tested for normal distribution, and mean and SDs of the variables were calculated for descriptive statistics. To determine the differences in performance because of the specific physical training, we calculated a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) (n = 12) from the second test to the posttest (factor time) for all variables tested in the specific and general tests. Global differences between the tests were considered significant if p-values were less than 0.05. In addition, effect size (η²) and power (β−1) were calculated. Effect size (η²) was defined as low for η² > 0.01, moderate for η² > 0.09, and high for η² > 0.25 (⁶). To determine significant differences between each test, we used the Bonferroni post hoc tests. Six players missed the pretest because of no contract at that time (3 players), one was injured, and 2 players were absent because of a training camp with the Austrian National Team. Therefore, only 6 subjects performed the pretest. We additionally calculated a paired sample t-test (n = 6) from pretest to posttest to determine the difference in general and specific performance between pretest and all other tests. All variables of game performance, separated in host team and rival teams were only calculated for descriptive statistics to ascertain the influence of specific physical training on performance in competition.

Results

Descriptive data of mean, SDs, and p-values for the repeated measures ANOVA are presented in Table 1 and Figure 3. To show the differences in the second test, the mean values ± SD of the 6 subjects measured in the pretest and all subjects (n = 12) measured in all other tests in the study were added in Table 1 and Figure 3. We found a significant increase in the performance in the BLC, V̇o_2specific, running time, offense and defense time, fast break_acc time, and jump height in the team handball jump throw. Analyzing the game performance of the team during the HLA season 2015/2016, we found a lower throwing percentage (59% vs. 63%) of the host team compared with the rival teams based on more missed throws (137 vs. 104) and more saves by the visiting goalkeepers (325 vs. 304) as shown in Figure 2.

Table 1.: Mean (±SD) values of the pretest, second (for n = 6 and n = 12 subjects), third, fourth test, and posttest in the specific and general variables as well as p-value, effect size, and power for repeated measures ANOVA.*

Discussion

The aim of this study was to conduct a specific physical training program over the entire team handball season based on the player's deficits in physical performance and to measure the increase in specific and general performance.

The general concept of the study was to increase specific physical performance; however, based on the results of the pretest and the basic conditions (competition, time for technical and tactical training, training per week, training facilities, and gym for training), the detailed plan for physical training was finalized after the pretest. In the pretest, we found a V̇o_2general (52.0 ± 4.0 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) that was on the minimum level (55–65 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹) found in previous studies in elite male team handball players (^2,4,24). However, the V̇o_2specific measured in the GBPT was lower (45.4 ± 4.7 ml·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹). Based on these results, we decided to focus on specific and general endurance in the first training block. To enable short holidays for all players during summer, all teams in the HLA normally use this time of the year for basic training. Although 6 players missed the pretest because of injuries (1 player), absence because of the National Team training (2 players), or no contract at that time (3 players), all players of the team were able to participate in the first training block. By performing specific and general training, it was possible to increase V̇o_2specific (+22%) within this 6-week training block until the second test (Figure 5 and Table 1). Similar effects of polarized training (HIT, LIT, and sprints) to V̇o₂peak (+11%) was also found in a 9-week training study of competitive endurance athletes (³⁰).

Figure 5.: Mean values (±SD) in specific peak oxygen uptake (V̇o ₂specific) and defense time in the game-based performance test as well as general maximal oxygen uptake (V̇o ₂general) in the incremental treadmill running test and 30-m sprint test time. (dashed line: 6 subjects in the pretest and second test; filled line: 12 subjects in the second, third, fourth test, and posttest). * p<0.05; *** p<0.001.

In the pretest and in the second test, specific agility (offense, defense, and fast break time) in the subjects of the present study was similar to those measured in a male subelite handball team (³⁴). Consequently, we decided to focus on specific agility in the second training block. As shown in Figure 5 and Table 1, the combination of 2–3 specific agility training sessions and 2 general endurance training sessions per week leads to an increase in offense, defense, and fast break time as well as jump height in the jump throw and V̇o_2specific in the GBPT from the second test to the third test. We propose that agility training with numerous changes in direction and jumps in combination with passing and throwing drills is a very effective training method to increase specific team handball performance. However, the character of this agility training (high intensities over 40 minutes) also increased performance in V̇o_2specific (+20%). Similar effects were also found in training studies comparing team handball small-size games with high-intensity interval training (^3,7). Both training methods increased V̇o₂peak and other specific endurance parameters but small-size games additionally improved performance in team handball–specific techniques. We recommend that in team sports specific agility and endurance training serve as effective methods to optimize economy in fast accelerations, decelerations, and changes in direction.

It is well known that in elite male team handball, the focus during the period of competition is on technical and tactical training. Therefore, we reduced physical training in the third and fourth training block (Figure 1). However, the subjects in the study were able to retain their performance level from the third test to posttest in specific and general endurance, specific agility (except defense time), sprinting performance, strength and power as well as ball velocity, and jump height in the team handball jump throw (Figure 5 and Table 1).

In numerous studies in team handball, it was suggested that strength and power are the most important factors in physical performance of elite male team handball players (^{5,13,19,20,33,34,40}). Thus, one important aim of the study was to improve performance in strength and power. There was no increase in strength and power during the entire season in the lower body (leg strength) or in the upper body (trunk and shoulder rotation). Therefore, we considered the level of strength and power in all players that was already quite high because of intensive training over several years that limited an improvement by the addition of 2 more training sessions per week. A further increase in strength and power may only be possible by an increase to 3–4 training sessions per week. The financial possibilities of the most clubs in the HLA, especially the possibilities of the club that cooperated in the present study, allowed for only marginal financial support for the players. Therefore, most players had to either work or study during the weeks of the study and that reduced the possibilities of additional training sessions. However, from a practical point of few, it was important to reduce the inhomogeneity of the team. That is, especially true for the pivots that we were able to increase performance in specific agility and endurance that reduced the difference compared to the other players.

Physical performance is important in team handball; however, performance in competition is strongly influenced by specific techniques and tactics. Game statistics over the entire season revealed a smaller throwing percentage of the host team (59%) compared with the rival teams (63%). Although the host team threw more in all games, the players scored less goals based on more missed throws and more saves by the rival goalkeeper (Figure 4). In this context, it has to be added that 6 players of the team were 21 years old or younger and had less experience in the HLA. A lower throwing percentage, especially in match-winning situations or throwing in closer distances to the goal may be due to reduced experience of the younger players. In the closer distance (between 6 and 9 m) in the middle of the field, the percentage of the host team (65%) was drastically lower compared with the rival teams (74%) as shown in Figure 4. From a tactical point of view, the host team had a higher mismatch in throwing and scoring between the left and the right backcourt positions that enabled the rival defense to focus more on the left backcourt. Less experience of the host team may also explain more 2 minutes suspensions of the host team and more penalty throws of the rival teams (Figure 4). Thus, the final performance of the team (eighth place in the HLA) was not expected at the beginning of the season.

The current study may be considered somewhat limited because of the absence of a control group, as the comparison of a control team with the training group would allow for a more definitive conclusion about the influence of the used physical training in relation to performance. As mentioned in the methods, it is impossible to recruit elite players from a rival team in the HLA for 4–5 general and specific tests during the entire game season. However, comparing the results from the pretest (end of the season 2014/2015) and the posttest (end of the season 2015/2016), the increase in physical performance may be justified by the physical training used in the present study.

Practical Applications

The main goal of the present study was to link science with practice. Consequently, the used training methods could be transferred directly to practice. Based on the results of our study, we offer the following recommendations to strength and conditioning professionals and coaches in team handball:

• • Strength and power training should include net body weight exercises for the trunk (basic exercises that are also used in gymnastics), bench press in combination with subsequent medicine ball throws, back squats with subsequent CMJs, power cleans and overhead squats, dumbbell and barbell curls. Team handball includes numerous different complex movements in offense and defense. We, therefore recommend using free weightlifting exercises instead of fixed strength equipment exercises as often as possible.
• • Coordination training should include specific agility exercises that have numerous changes in direction, jumps, and short accelerations using coordination ladders, hoops, and hurdles. We suggest that straight sprinting exercises are not adequate to improve specific team handball performance.
• • Endurance training should include high-intensity training with intervals close to team handball–specific competition (10–15 seconds high intensity). Based on the results of the present study, the combination of specific agility training as described above with passing and throwing drills is a very effective method to increase specific performance in team handball. To prevent or reduce fatigue in team handball training and competition, we suggest training endurance as specific as possible.

The specific physical training of the present study was designed for team handball; however, we suggest that the practical applications may also be very effective in an adapted form in other team sports, e.g., basketball, American football, ice hockey, rugby, soccer, volleyball, and others.