See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/47402467

Anthropometrical characteristics and somatotype of young soccer players and

their comparison with the general population

Article  in  Biology of Sport · March 2010

DOI: 10.5604/20831862.906762 · Source: DOAJ

CITATIONS READS

69 7,174

5 authors, including:

Susana María Gil Javier Gil

Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
106 PUBLICATIONS   2,126 CITATIONS    98 PUBLICATIONS   2,223 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Fátima Ruiz Jon Irazusta

Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea Universidad del País Vasco / Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
39 PUBLICATIONS   1,406 CITATIONS    202 PUBLICATIONS   3,042 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Activity and expression of peptidases in renal neoplasms View project

Growth and Maturation of Elite football players View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jon Irazusta on 19 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2007, 21(2), 438–445
䉷 2007 National Strength & Conditioning Association
PHYSIOLOGICAL AND ANTHROPOMETRIC
CHARACTERISTICS OF YOUNG SOCCER PLAYERS
ACCORDING TO THEIR PLAYING POSITION:
RELEVANCE FOR THE SELECTION PROCESS
SUSANA M. GIL,1,2 JAVIER GIL,3 FÁTIMA RUIZ,3 AMAIA IRAZUSTA,4
Faculty of Physical Activity and Sports Sciences, University of the Basque Country, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Alava,
1
Spain; 2Bilbao Athletic Club Foundation, Bilbao, Spain; 3Department of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine and
Dentistry, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain; 4Department of Nursing, I. School of
Nursing, University of the Basque Country, Bilbao, Bizkaia, Spain.
ABSTRACT. Gil, S.M., J. Gil, F. Ruiz, A. Irazusta, and J. Irazus-
ta. Physiological and anthropometric characteristics of young
soccer players according to their playing position: Relevance for
the selection process. J. Strength Cond. Res. 21(2):438–445.
2007.—The aim of this study was to establish the anthropomet-
ric and physiological profiles of young nonelite soccer players
according to their playing position, and to determine their rel-
evance for the selection process. Two hundred forty-one male
soccer players who were members of the Getxo Arenas Club (Biz-
kaia) participated in this study. Players, age 17.31 (⫾ 2.64)
years, range 14–21 years, were classified into the following
groups: forwards (n ⫽ 56), midfielders (n ⫽ 79), defenders (n ⫽
77), and goalkeepers (n ⫽ 29). Anthropometric variables of par-
ticipants (height, weight, body mass index, 6 skinfolds, 4 diam-
eters, and 3 perimeters) were measured. Also, their somatotype
and body composition (weights and percentages of fat, bone, and
muscle) were calculated. Participants performed the Astrand
test to estimate their absolute and relative V̇O2max, an endur-
ance test, sprint tests (30 meters flat and 30 meters with 10
cones) and 3 jump tests (squat jump, counter movement jump
and drop jump). Forwards were the leanest, presenting the high-
est percentage of muscle. They were the best performers in all
the physiological tests, including endurance, velocity, agility,
and power. In contrast, goalkeepers were found to be the tallest
and the heaviest players. They also had the largest fat skinfolds
and the highest fat percentage, but their aerobic capacity was
the lowest. In the selection process, agility and the jump tests
were the most discriminating for forwards. In contrast, agility,
height, and endurance were the key factors for midfielders. The
defenders group was characterized by a lower quantity of fat.
Thus, we may conclude that anthropometric and physiological
differences exist among soccer players who play in different po-
sitions. These differences fit with their different workload in a
game. Therefore, training programs should include specific ses-
sions for each positional role.
KEY WORDS. body composition, somatotype, sprint, running,
jump
INTRODUCTION
occer is a team sport, and efficient organiza-
S tion of the team is essential for optimal de-
velopment of the abilities of every player, the
control of the opponent, and the successful
resolution of a match. Therefore, players are
placed in certain positions to fulfill specific tasks. Both
the tactic and the position of players on the soccer field
are essential for the organization of a soccer match. In
most research studies, soccer players are classified into 4
groups: forwards or attackers, midfielders, defenders, and
goalkeepers (7, 18, 27, 34). However, sometimes defend-
438
AND JON IRAZUSTA3
ers are divided into full-backs and center-backs as inde-
pendent groups (9, 10). Players of different positions have
a very different workload during a game: midfielders run
the longest distances (up to 11–11.5 km) compared to for-
wards or defenders (6, 34), whereas goalkeepers run
around 4 km (8).
The average height and weight of elite professional
soccer players is about 180–185 cm and 75–80 kg respec-
tively, when all players are taken into account (4, 25, 34).
Goalkeepers are the tallest followed by defenders. The
shortest are the midfielders (5, 25, 29). Body shape can
be defined in terms of 3 somatotype components, namely
endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy (15). In soc-
cer players, mesomorphy is usually the most predominant
somatotype component. Thus, the somatotype of elite soc-
cer players has been measured to be around 3-5–2.5 (27,
33). This predominance in mesomorphy has also been re-
ported in young soccer players (32), although their ecto-
morphy is higher than in adult players (18).
Soccer players have higher percentages of muscle in
comparison to the sedentary population, being as high as
62% (25, 27). Fat percentages are lower than in sedentary
people but higher than in endurance runners (29). Elite
soccer players have a fat percentage ranging from 7 to
19% (7, 9, 26, 27, 35). This wide range is, in part, due to
the fact that there are many formulas to estimate fat per-
centage. Nevertheless, the appropriate amount can be
reasonably considered to be around 10% (29).
Regarding the endurance, the maximal oxygen uptake
(V̇O2max) of elite soccer players ranges between 55–70
ml·kg⫺1·min⫺1 (1, 12, 22, 23), a value which is higher than
that of the general population, but lower than that of elite
endurance runners (25, 31). Differences among players
according to their different positions have also been re-
ported. Thus, highest oxygen consumption values have
been found in midfielders, whereas lowest values have
been found in goalkeepers (9, 34). However, it is not clear
if players are chosen as midfielders due to their high en-
durance capacity, or rather, if they develop a better
V̇O2max because they play in this position with high de-
mands (5). In any event, an adequate V̇O2max for field
soccer players can be considered to be between 60–65
ml·kg⫺1·min⫺1 (15, 29).
In elite soccer, forwards are the fastest players and
according to some studies, they sprint the longest dis-
tances during a soccer match (27). The slowest players
are goalkeepers followed by midfielders (5). On the other

TABLE 1. Age (mean ⫾ SD) and number of players classified according to their playing positions.*
Team Age (y) T (n) Forwards (n)
B Cadet 14.66 ⫾ 0.23 48 10
A Cadet 15.49 ⫾ 0.33 54 10
B Junior 16.83 ⫾ 0.60 34 9 10
A Junior 18.04 ⫾ 0.66 52 14
Senior 21.50 ⫾ 1.91 53 13
Total 17.31 ⫾ 2.64 241 56
Age (y) 17.61 ⫾ 2.58
* T ⫽ total number of players.
hand, different studies have shown that the leg power of
soccer players measured with vertical jumps is between
38–45 cm (8, 26, 31). However, Wisloff et al. measured
heights of 50–55 cm in their players (34). In the same
study, attackers and defenders jumped higher than mid-
fielders. In contrast, younger players have been reported
to jump shorter heights (11).
Therefore, many studies have been published report-
ing the characteristics of professional soccer players of
different positions; however, few similar studies of youn-
ger soccer players are available to date. Thus, the aim of
the present study was to establish the anthropometric
and physiological profiles of young, nonelite soccer play-
ers according to their playing position, in order to facili-
tate the elaboration of a template describing their profile
which can be used for comparison in future research stud-
ies and which can also be used by coaches and technical
staff. Our objective was also to determine which of those
characteristics were the most relevant in the selection
process of soccer players for each position. Thus, in the
present study, we compared the anthropometric and
physiological characteristics of soccer players selected to
play in superior teams with those who were not selected.
METHODS
Experimental Approach to the Problem
We assessed 241 soccer players from the Getxo Arenas
Club (Vizcaya, Spain). To describe the physique of the
players we used several anthropometric measurements
such as height and weight, 6 skin fatfolds, 4 diameters
and 3 perimeters. The body composition and the somato-
type were then calculated using various formulas.
To determine the physiological characteristics of the
soccer players, we used the Astrand test and a rectan-
gular progressive test to measure endurance. A 30-meter
flat sprint test was used to measure velocity, while agility
was measured using the same test, including 10 cones. To
measure leg power, players performed 3 jump tests (squat
jump, counter movement jump [CMJ], and drop jump).
Subjects
Two hundred forty-one soccer players belonging to the
Getxo Arenas Club (Bizkaia, Spain) participated in this
study. The number of players in each team and their av-
erage age are shown in Table 1. Players were classified
according to their playing roles into 4 groups: forwards,
midfielders, defenders, and goalkeepers (Table 1). The
protocol was fully approved by the Clinical Research Eth-
ical Committee of the local Cruces Hospital (Bizkaia,
Spain). All players and their parents or guardians were
fully informed and they signed a consent form.
Measurements were carried out in December, near the
end of the first half of the soccer league (week 19–20).
The training season starts in August with 8 weeks of
PLAYING POSITION IN SOCCER 439
Midfielders (n) Defenders (n) Goalkeepers (n)
16 16 6
18 20 6
10 5
19 14 5
16 17 7
79 77 29
17.20 ⫾ 2.40 17.27 ⫾ 2.67 17.63 ⫾ 2.37
physical conditioning training, including endurance
training in particular. This is followed by specific soccer
training. Players trained for 90 minutes 3 times per week,
and played a soccer match at the weekend.
During the next training period, participants per-
formed 1 physical conditioning (power, agility, or velocity)
session per week, 1 soccer technique session, and a third
training session of tactics (simulation of a short soccer
match in a small soccer pitch). Within each team, all play-
ers of the different positions trained together except from
the goalkeepers. The goalkeepers dedicated 2 of the ses-
sions to specific goalkeeper training.
The Senior Team (age 21.5 ⫾ 1.91 years) played in the
Spanish Third League Division, the A Junior team (age
18.04 ⫾ 0.66 years) played at a national level (Northern
Spain), the A Cadet team (age 15.49 ⫾ 0.33 years) played
at a regional level and the B Junior (age 16.83 ⫾ 0.6
years) and the B Cadet (age 14.66 ⫾ 0.23 years) teams
played at a county level.
Study Protocol
Anthropometry, Somatotype and Body Composition. The
height (cm) and weight (kg) of each player was measured
and the body mass index (BMI) was calculated as weight
(in kg)·height (in m2). Skinfolds (mm) were measured at
6 sites: triceps, subscapular, abdominal, suprailial, thigh,
and lower leg, using a skinfold caliper (Harpenden, UK).
Each individual measurement and the sum of the 6 mea-
surements were used for analysis. The circumferences of
the upper arm, thigh, and lower leg were measured (cm),
as well as the following 4 diameters (cm): biepicondylar
humerus (elbow), biestyloid at the wrist, biepicondylar fe-
mur (knee), and bimaleolar in the ankle. All the mea-
surements were made following the guidelines outlined
by the International Society for the Advancement of Kin-
anthropometry (ISAK) by a level 3 ISAK anthropome-
trist. Afterwards weights and percentages of fat, bone,
and muscle were calculated in order to evaluate body
composition, using the formulas of Faulkner (13), Rocha
(28), Wurch (36), and Matiegka (19). The endomorphy,
mesomorphy, and ectomorphy components of the somato-
type were also calculated (15).
Physiological Tests
Estimation of Aerobic Capacity. To estimate players’ aer-
obic capacity, we used the Astrand test. All players com-
pleted the Astrand test (3) on a cycloergometer (Monark
834, Sweden). Heart rate was measured by a pulsometer
(Advantage NV; Polar, Kempele, Finland) and used to es-
timate absolute (L·min⫺1) and relative (ml·kg⫺1·min⫺1)
maximal oxygen uptake (V̇O2max) by Astrand nomogram.
The validity of this test for the estimation of V̇O2max has
been verified recently (16, 17, 30).
Endurance Test. Players also performed a rectangular
440 GIL, GIL, RUIZ ET AL.

TABLE 2. Physical characteristics, somatotype, and absolute (L·min⫺1) and relative (ml·kg⫺1·min⫺1) oxygen consumption (V̇O2max)
of soccer players (mean ⫾ SD).*
Forwards Midfielders Defenders Goalkeepers
Weight (kg) 68.35 ⫾ 9.05 68.46 ⫾ 9.71 68.86 ⫾ 9.12 73.95 ⫾ 7.90†
Height (cm) 174.83 ⫾ 6.80 174.69 ⫾ 7.60 175.47 ⫾ 7.60 179.50 ⫾ 5.90†
BMI (kg·m⫺2) 22.24 ⫾ 2.24 22.38 ⫾ 2.24 22.31 ⫾ 2.16 22.89 ⫾ 1.72
Endomorphy 2.16 ⫾ 0.51† 2.56 ⫾ 0.95 2.47 ⫾ 0.77 2.68 ⫾ 0.69
Mesomorphy 4.49 ⫾ 0.99 4.39 ⫾ 0.98 4.44 ⫾ 0.98 4.37 ⫾ 0.93
Ectomorphy 2.85 ⫾ 0.98 2.81 ⫾ 0.93 2.84 ⫾ 1.08 2.78 ⫾ 0.83
Abs. V̇O2max 4.37 ⫾ 1.09 4.28 ⫾ 0.99 4.13 ⫾ 0.97 3.63 ⫾ 0.92‡
Rel. V̇O2max 62.4 ⫾ 10.76 57.71 ⫾ 9.91 58.55 ⫾ 9.48 48.41 ⫾ 11.10‡
* BMI ⫽ body mass index, weight·height⫺1 (in m2); Abs. ⫽ absolute; Rel. ⫽ relative.
† Goalkeepers vs. forwards, midfielders, and defenders; p ⬍ 0.05.
‡ Goalkeepers vs. forwards, midfielders, and defenders; p ⬍ 0.001.

FIGURE 1. Measurements of different skinfolds of soccer play-
ers, classified according to their playing positions (mean ⫾
SD). * Forwards vs. goalkeepers, p ⬍ 0.01 (all the skinfolds).
† Forwards vs. defenders, p ⬍ 0.05 (suprailiac skinfold).
progressive test on a 400-meter athletics track. They ran
6 repetitions of 800 meters at an increasing pace. The
speed in each consecutive run increased by 1.5 km per
hour. Therefore, the runs were covered at 9, 10.5, 12,
13.5, 15, 16.5, and 18 km per hour. Participants were al-
lowed to recover for 1 minute between the runs. Heart
rates were measured with a pulsometer (Polar) during
the runs and the resting times.
Sprint Time. On the athletics track, soccer players
performed 2 tests: a 30-meter flat sprint to estimate ve-
locity and a 30-meter sprint with 10 cones to estimate
agility. In the latter, the distance between 2 consecutive
cones was 3 meters. Sprint times were measured using
electronic timing lights (Seiko System S129, Tokyo, Ja-
pan). In order to run at their maximal velocity, they had
15 meters to accelerate before the first timing light.
Jump Tests. In order to measure the explosive power
of the lower extremities, participants jumped twice in
each of the 3 jumping modalities using a jump mat (Er-
gojump, Bosco-Systems, Italy). The squat jump was per-
formed with a squat starting position, i.e., knees flexed
to 90⬚ and hands on hips. From this position they made
a maximal vertical jump landing with straight knees on
the mat. The starting position of the counter movement
jump was standing straight, then participants flexed
their knees to the squat position and performed a maxi-
mal vertical jump. In the drop jump, soccer players
jumped from a height of 40 cm to the jump platform,
flexed to the squat position and followed with a maximal
vertical jump. The height of the jumps was measured in
cm, and the best jump of each modality was selected.
Selection Process of the Soccer Players
At the end of the season, the technical staff of the club
selected some of the players to continue playing in the
same team and the rest were not selected. In this study,
the anthropometric and physiological characteristics of
the selected and the nonselected players were analyzed
in order to identify the variables associated with selection
for a given positional role.
Statistical Analyses
The results were analyzed using SPSS software (version
11.5; SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL). A 2-way analysis of vari-
ance was used to evaluate group differences (95% confi-
dence interval). Post hoc comparisons were determined by
the Scheffé test when the variances were equal and by
the Games-Howell test when they were not equal.
To analyze differences between the selected and the
nonselected players within each playing position, the Stu-
dent’s t-test was performed using each variable. Also, lo-
gistic regression was used to study the importance of the
variables in the selection process. The anthropometric
and physiological variables were included in a model to
determine which variable was the best predictor for the
outcome (to be selected). An alpha of p ⱕ 0.05 was used
for statistical significance. The results shown are the
mean and the SD.
RESULTS
The results of this study demonstrate that soccer players
of different positions show differences in anthropometric
and the physiological characteristics. These differences
are more significant among the goalkeepers and the for-
wards groups.
The number of soccer players and their playing posi-
tions are shown in Table 1. A total of 56 forwards, 79
midfielders, 77 defenders, and 29 goalkeepers participat-
ed in the study.
Anthropometry, Somatotype, and Body Composition
The average weight and height are shown in Table 2.
Goalkeepers were the tallest players and they were also
the heaviest.
The BMI (kg·m⫺2) of the goalkeepers was bigger com-
pared to that of the forwards, midfielders, and the de-
fenders, but this difference was not statistically signifi-
cant (Table 2).
Forwards had less fat in all the skinfold sites com-
pared to goalkeepers (p ⬍ 0.01), as shown in Figure 1.
Also, the group of forwards had less fat than the defend-
ers in the suprailiac site (p ⬍ 0.05). When all the skin-
folds were added, forwards (52.65 ⫾ 12.9 mm) were found
to be leaner than midfielders (62.55 ⫾ 22.9 mm), defend-
ers (62.83 ⫾ 19.55 mm), and goalkeepers (67.15 ⫾ 17.55
mm), p ⬍ 0.01.
 PLAYING POSITION IN SOCCER 441

TABLE 3. Body composition (weight and percentage, mean ⫾ SD) of soccer players playing in different positions. The residual
percentage is always 24.12%, and therefore it has been deleted from the table.
Forwards Midfielders Defenders Goalkeepers
Weight (kg) Fat 7.56 ⫾ 1.72* 8.27 ⫾ 2.99 8.08 ⫾ 1.87 9.08 ⫾ 1.84
Muscle 32.89 ⫾ 5.23 32.13 ⫾ 5.33 32.43 ⫾ 4.72 34.72 ⫾ 4.19
Bone 11.54 ⫾ 1.28 11.55 ⫾ 1.33 11.75 ⫾ 1.37 12.32 ⫾ 1.17
Residual 16.51 ⫾ 2.46 16.49 ⫾ 2.79 16.59 ⫾ 2.19 17.82 ⫾ 1.91
Percentage (%) Fat 10.95 ⫾ 1.31* 11.85 ⫾ 2.34 11.69 ⫾ 1.90 12.22 ⫾ 1.74
Muscle 47.94 ⫾ 1.39*† 46.14 ⫾ 1.72 47.02 ⫾ 1.62 46.90 ⫾ 1.83
Bone 17.02 ⫾ 1.59 17.09 ⫾ 1.74 17.17 ⫾ 1.65 16.76 ⫾ 1.65
* Forwards vs. goalkeepers, p ⬍ 0.05.
† Forwards vs. midfielders, p ⬍ 0.01.

TABLE 4. Heart rate (mean ⫾ SD) at the end of an 800-m run (End) and after a 1-minute recovery (Rec) of soccer players
classified according to their playing positions.
Pace Analysis of
(km·h⫺1) Forwards Midfielders Defenders Goalkeepers Variance p
9 End 147.5 ⫾ 11.9 150.4 ⫾ 15.1 152.6 ⫾ 15.8 158.8 ⫾ 13.0* 0.020
Rec 110.1 ⫾ 13.1 114.2 ⫾ 16.0 113.0 ⫾ 18.3 122.4 ⫾ 18.6* 0.026
10.5 End 157.8 ⫾ 11.3 161.6 ⫾ 13.4 160.5 ⫾ 15.9 170.4 ⫾ 11.1* 0.003
Rec 115.2 ⫾ 16.0 122.3 ⫾ 15.7 118.6 ⫾ 18.0 128.9 ⫾ 15.2* 0.005
12 End 165.8 ⫾ 10.8 170.0 ⫾ 13.2 168.9 ⫾ 16.1 179.0 ⫾ 10.1*†‡ 0.001
Rec 122.0 ⫾ 14.3 128.2 ⫾ 15.4 124.2 ⫾ 19.0 137.8 ⫾ 14.6*†‡ 0.001
13.5 End 174.7 ⫾ 10.5 179.2 ⫾ 10.5 176.5 ⫾ 16.0 187.0 ⫾ 9.4*†‡ 0.001
Rec 129.6 ⫾ 14.8 135.5 ⫾ 15.3 129.8 ⫾ 18.2 142.4 ⫾ 16.3*†‡ 0.003
15 End 182.9 ⫾ 9.8 185.7 ⫾ 9.0 185.3 ⫾ 11.1 190.8 ⫾ 7.2* 0.008
Rec 137.9 ⫾ 13.8 142.6 ⫾ 15.5 139.8 ⫾ 17.3 149.9 ⫾ 9.7* 0.018
16.5 End 189.5 ⫾ 7.5 189.3 ⫾ 6.6 189.0 ⫾ 10.0 198.6 ⫾ 4.8 0.062
Rec 147.6 ⫾ 13.2 149.3 ⫾ 13.2 147.7 ⫾ 16.6 160.8 ⫾ 7.6 0.188
18 End 193.0 ⫾ 6.5 192.1 ⫾ 6.0 187.2 ⫾ 7.8 202.0 0.065
Rec 154.7 ⫾ 8.9 156.5 ⫾ 12.6 145.8 ⫾ 10.5 158.0 0.104
* Goalkeepers vs. forwards, p ⬍ 0.05.
† Goalkeepers vs. midfielders, p ⬍ 0.05.
‡ Goalkeepers vs. defenders, p ⬍ 0.05.

The assessment of body composition showed similar

results regarding the amount of fat (Table 3). Thus, for-
wards had the lowest fat percentage (10.95%), and goal-
keepers had the highest (12.22%), p ⬍ 0.05. In contrast,
muscle percentage was higher in the forwards compared
to the midfielders (p ⬍ 0.01) and the goalkeepers (p ⬍
0.01).
The somatotype of the soccer players is shown in Ta-
ble 2. Forwards presented the lowest endomorphy value
compared to the rest of the groups (p ⬍ 0.05). In addition,
forwards also presented the highest mesomorphy.
FIGURE 2. Velocity and agility of soccer players according to
Estimation of Aerobic Capacity their playing position (mean ⫾ SD). * Forwards vs. defenders
Goalkeepers had the lowest oxygen consumption values (p ⬍ 0.05) and goalkeepers (p ⬍ 0.01). † Forwards vs. goal-
keepers, p ⬍ 0.01.
compared to the rest of the groups, as measured using
the Astrand test. In Table 2 the results of the absolute
(L·min⫺1) and relative V̇O2max (ml·kg⫺1·min⫺1) are shown.
Forwards were found to have the best endurance mea- Sprint Time
sured using this ergometric test.
In the 30-meter flat sprint, forwards were faster than de-
Endurance Test fenders and goalkeepers. In the agility test (30 meters
Goalkeepers had the highest cardiac frequency during the with 10 cones), forwards were also the fastest group; this
runs and during the recovery period in every run (Table difference was statistically significant in the case of for-
4). Moreover, the rate of dropping out of the runs was wards vs. goalkeepers (see Figure 2).
much higher in the group of goalkeepers. Thus, only 4% Jump Tests
(n ⫽ 1) of the goalkeepers finished the seventh run,
whereas 40% of the forwards successfully completed the In the 3 jump tests, forwards showed the best perfor-
run (n ⫽ 20). The heartbeats of the forwards were the mance of all the positional groups (Figure 3). In the squat
lowest in all the tests. jump, midfielders produced the shortest jumps.
442 GIL, GIL, RUIZ ET AL.

FIGURE 3. Jump test performances by players classified ac- FIGURE 4. Differences in relative maximal oxygen consump-
cording to their playing positions (mean ⫾ SD). SJ ⫽ squat tion (ml·kg⫺1·min⫺1) between the selected and nonselected play-
jump; CMJ ⫽ counter movement jump; DJ ⫽ drop jump. ers for each playing position (mean ⫾ SD). * Selected vs. non-
* Forwards vs. midfielders, p ⬍ 0.05. selected, p ⬍ 0.05.

Differences Among Selected and Nonselected Players
Selected soccer players were taller and heavier than the
nonselected ones, but these differences were statistically
significant only for the midfielders (Table 5). Fat per-
centage of selected defenders was lower than that of the
nonselected defenders. The rest of the body components
were similar in the selected and nonselected players with-
in each playing position.
Relative maximal oxygen consumption in the mid-
fielders was higher (p ⬍ 0.05) in the selected group com-
pared to the nonselected group (Figure 4). For the endur-
ance run, selected players presented lower heart rates
(Table 6), and this difference was larger during the re-
covery periods (Table 7).
Selected players, particularly the forwards and the
midfielders, performed better in the velocity test, al-
though this difference was not statistically significant
(Figure 5).
All the selected players ran faster in the agility test
(30 meters and 10 cones) compared to the nonselected
players. This difference was particularly significant in the
case of the forwards (p ⫽ 0.05) and midfielders (p ⬍ 0.05)
groups (Figure 6).
Selected forwards and defender players were able to
jump slightly higher (CMJ) than their nonselected coun-
terparts; however, the differences were not statistically
significant (Figure 7).
Logistic Regression
After including the different variables in the model, the
best predictor to be selected in the group of forwards was

TABLE 5. Anthropometric characteristics and body composition (mean ⫾ SD) of selected and nonselected soccer players classified
according to their playing positions. The residual percentage is always 24.12%, and therefore it has been deleted from the table.*
Forwards Midfielders Defenders Goalkeepers
Weight (kg) Selected 69.22 ⫾ 10.35 67.41 ⫾ 8.19† 67.65 ⫾ 9.34 71.99 ⫾ 8.59
Nonsel 63.94 ⫾ 7.49 62.10 ⫾ 10.93 67.78 ⫾ 10.21 74.87 ⫾ 8.71
Height (cm) Selected 175.23 ⫾ 7.20 174.86 ⫾ 6.98† 175.36 ⫾ 8.01 176.87 ⫾ 5.38
Nonsel 172.17 ⫾ 6.28 170.45 ⫾ 7.67 173.48 ⫾ 8.22 181.42 ⫾ 6.31
Fat % Selected 11.23 ⫾ 1.33 11.33 ⫾ 1.62 11.43 ⫾ 1.67† 12.44 ⫾ 1.95
Nonsel 10.75 ⫾ 1.50 11.50 ⫾ 1.81 12.56 ⫾ 2.47 12.41 ⫾ 1.93
Bone % Selected 17.02 ⫾ 1.80 17.34 ⫾ 1.47 17.66 ⫾ 1.78 16.94 ⫾ 1.99
Nonsel 17.41 ⫾ 1.04 17.79 ⫾ 1.86 16.86 ⫾ 1.60 16.76 ⫾ 1.72
Muscle % Selected 47.66 ⫾ 1.51 47.22 ⫾ 1.32 46.79 ⫾ 1.37 46.51 ⫾ 2.12
Nonsel 47.72 ⫾ 1.23 46.59 ⫾ 1.60 46.47 ⫾ 1.91 46.72 ⫾ 1.81
* Nonsel ⫽ nonselected players.
† Selected vs. nonselected, p ⬍ 0.05.

TABLE 6. Heart rate (mean ⫾ SD) at the end of the runs of the endurance test of soccer players classified according to their
playing positions.*
Forwards Midfielders Defenders Goalkeepers
Run 1 Selected 150.63 ⫾ 11.6 153.25 ⫾ 10.2 154.42 ⫾ 17.1 160.60 ⫾ 4.0
Nonsel 149.08 ⫾ 10.7 155.35 ⫾ 17.3 154.42 ⫾ 12.1 164.55 ⫾ 15.4
Run 2 Selected 159.52 ⫾ 11.1 162.67 ⫾ 10.8 163.68 ⫾ 16.8 125.79 ⫾ 13.3
Nonsel 161.27 ⫾ 10.8 167.10 ⫾ 14.2 165.74 ⫾ 12.8 129.11 ⫾ 19.3
Run 3 Selected 167.40 ⫾ 10.2 170.45 ⫾ 11.3 173.26 ⫾ 16.8 171.30 ⫾ 6.3
Nonsel 168.90 ⫾ 11.2 175.60 ⫾ 13.5 174.15 ⫾ 12.1 177.11 ⫾ 6.3
Run 4 Selected 176.27 ⫾ 10.4 179.53 ⫾ 8.6 176.05 ⫾ 17.0 179.00 ⫾ 6.9
Nonsel 176.28 ⫾ 11.0 183.45 ⫾ 11.4 183.46 ⫾ 9.4 184.11 ⫾ 11.7
Run 5 Selected 183.00 ⫾ 11.7 187.13 ⫾ 9.4 185.80 ⫾ 8.8 189.50 ⫾ 8.4
Nonsel 183.80 ⫾ 9.5 187.06 ⫾ 7.9 190.21 ⫾ 8.6 189.12 ⫾ 11.4
Run 6 Selected 189.00 ⫾ 8.7 190.30 ⫾ 6.5 189.66 ⫾ 7.5 192.77 ⫾ 8.0
Nonsel 190.78 ⫾ 7.8 180.71 ⫾ 5.6 195.00 ⫾ 9.2 191.00 ⫾ 8.8
* Nonsel ⫽ nonselected players.
 PLAYING POSITION IN SOCCER 443

TABLE 7. Heart rate (mean ⫾ SD) at the end of the recovery period (1 minute) of the endurance test of soccer players, classified
according to their playing positions.*
Forwards Midfielders Defenders Goalkeepers
Rec 1 Selected 111.83 ⫾ 11.5 116.35 ⫾ 12.4 117.45 ⫾ 13.9 125.70 ⫾ 13.3
Nonsel 113.63 ⫾ 13.0 121.60 ⫾ 12.5 118.21 ⫾ 16.1 129.11 ⫾ 19.3
Rec 2 Selected 119.12 ⫾ 13.4 124.22 ⫾ 12.2 122.97 ⫾ 13.7 130.60 ⫾ 11.6
Nonsel 120.90 ⫾ 15.2 129.51 ⫾ 14.1 124.10 ⫾ 16.9 133.22 ⫾ 18.7
Rec 3 Selected 124.20 ⫾ 13.4 129.51 ⫾ 14.1 128.97 ⫾ 14.9 136.70 ⫾ 9.2
Nonsel 127.45 ⫾ 13.9 132.33 ⫾ 14.9 129.63 ⫾ 17.0 142.77 ⫾ 18.6
Rec 4 Selected 130.68 ⫾ 14.0 135.33 ⫾ 15.5 136.10 ⫾ 14.0 143.90 ⫾ 13.4
Nonsel 137.09 ⫾ 13.1 141.05 ⫾ 11.7 133.05 ⫾ 15.7 147.12 ⫾ 21.7
Rec 5 Selected 137.95 ⫾ 13.3 143.20 ⫾ 14.7 139.93 ⫾ 12.7 152.00 ⫾ 10.6
Nonsel 142.90 ⫾ 14.5 145.20 ⫾ 16.7 145.65 ⫾ 15.3 151.00 ⫾ 9.8
Rec 6 Selected 147.52 ⫾ 12.6 150.30 ⫾ 13.8 151.08 ⫾ 12.4 160.00 ⫾ 12.8
Nonsel 152.62 ⫾ 14.9 148.28 ⫾ 9.0 155.75 ⫾ 13.3 169.50 ⫾ 5.6
* Rec ⫽ recovery period; Nonsel ⫽ nonselected players.

the 30 meter and 10 cone test, followed by the drop jump

test (p ⫽ 0.038), explaining 73.1% of selection in the for-
wards group. In the midfielders group, the most impor-
tant variable was again the 30 meter and 10 cone test,
followed by the height of the players (p ⫽ 0.047). These
two variables classified 70.6% of the selected players. For
the defenders group, the predictor variables were amount
of fat in the extremities and after that the CMJ (p ⬍
0.026), explaining 73.8% of the selection.

FIGURE 5. Differences in the 30-m flat test(s) between the se-
lected and nonselected players for each playing position (mean
⫾ SD).
FIGURE 6. Differences in the 30 m ⫹ 10 cone test(s) between
the selected and nonselected players for each playing position
(mean ⫾ SD). * Selected vs. nonselected, p ⬍ 0.05.
FIGURE 7. Differences in the jump test (height) between the
selected and nonselected players for each playing position
(mean ⫾ SD). CMJ ⫽ counter movement jump.
DISCUSSION
Assessing the differences among soccer players who play
in different positions is not a trivial task, depending on
the match, the strategy, the opponent, and the demands
on every player which change sometimes from match to
match. Taking this into account, the participants of this
study were divided in 4 groups: forwards, midfielders, de-
fenders, and goalkeepers. This classification has been
used in most of the relevant research (2, 7, 18, 25, 27, 29,
31, 34).
Soccer is one of the most popular sports worldwide
and a lot of research has been conducted on various as-
pects of this sport. However, most of the relevant studies
have been based on elite or professional soccer players,
and there is little research about young, nonelite soccer
players. The participants of the present study were young
soccer players between 14 and 21 years of age and be-
longed to a nonprofessional soccer club, which is the most
important club in the local area. Anthropometric and
physiological differences were found among the young
soccer players in accordance with their different playing
positions. These differences were particularly significant
between the goalkeepers and the forwards.
In anthropometric terms, goalkeepers were the tallest
and heaviest players; this pattern has also been reported
for mature elite goalkeepers (2, 20) and young elite goal-
keepers between 11–16 years of age (18). Bigger boys are
often selected for this position, sometimes from very
young ages. We found that goalkeepers also presented the
highest fat, in terms of skinfold and fat percentage. Sim-
ilar findings have been described previously (9). When we
calculated the percentiles (Pc) of fat percentage in the
goalkeepers group, we found that the 75th percentile was
12.89% and the 90th percentile was 15.29%, implying
that 25% of the goalkeepers had a fat percentage around
13%, and 10% had a fat percentage above 15%. Even
though the physiological and energetic demands of goal-
keepers are different from outfield players, fat quantity
444 GIL, GIL, RUIZ ET AL.
should not exceed 11.5–12% for a soccer player, irrespec-
tive of his playing position. And, it should not exceed 14%
for a young sedentary man.
Upon examination of BMI percentiles, we found sim-
ilar results in goalkeepers: 25% had a BMI higher than
24.13 kg·m⫺2 (Pc 75) and 10% had a BMI higher than
25.21 kg·m⫺2 (Pc 90). These BMI values are not only too
high for sportsmen but also for sedentary people. In fact,
some of the goalkeepers could be considered as being
overweight. On occasion, in nonelite soccer teams, espe-
cially in the younger ones, heavier and bigger boys are
selected as goalkeepers, not due to the fact that they have
better skills for this position but rather, because they are
not as fit as the rest of the players. Moreover, goalkeepers
themselves frequently do not train as hard as the rest of
the team because they think that their post does not re-
quire such a high demand. This type of attitude is mis-
taken, since a higher amount of fat significantly decreas-
es jumping and sprinting performance, and it is also neg-
atively correlated with endurance and agility (14). An ex-
cess of fat is due to a combination of factors; 2 of the most
easily manageable ones are nutrition and exercise, and
recommendations to young sportsmen in this regard
should be untiring.
Goalkeepers displayed the lowest performances in the
endurance tests; similar results have been published by
other authors (9, 31). As mentioned earlier, the role of the
goalkeeper is very different from that of the other players.
Careful analysis of the percentiles of the maximal oxygen
consumption revealed startling results. Thus, the Pc 75
of goalkeepers was estimated at 39.21 ml·kg⫺1·min⫺1
which is too low for a soccer player of any position. Be-
sides, the Pc 90 was 30.4 ml·kg⫺1·min⫺1, meaning that the
V̇O2max of 10% of goalkeepers is lower than the recom-
mended aerobic capacity of sedentary men.
Analysis of measurements of endurance run also re-
vealed interesting results. Thus, goalkeepers ran with an
average of 158, 170, and 179 b·min⫺1 in the first 3 runs.
These values show that their endurance capacity is very
low, since the paces of these runs are low for a young
trained man (9, 10.5, and 12 km per hour, respectively).
Also, only 1 goalkeeper (3.4%) managed to finish the fast-
est run in contrast to 40% of the forwards, 30.8% of the
midfielders, and 22% of the defenders.
The demands on goalkeepers, and therefore their
training, are very different from those on the other play-
ers on a soccer team. However, a good aerobic capacity is
necessary in order to endure long training sessions and
matches. Thus, special aerobic sessions should be under-
taken particularly by those with very low aerobic perfor-
mances. Regarding the endurance capacity of outfield
players, published studies show different results. Similar
maximal oxygen consumption has been observed in all
outfield players (2, 25, 29). However, some studies have
found that midfielders have the best aerobic capacity (27,
34). In our study, forwards presented the best oxygen con-
sumption values and the lowest cardiac frequency in the
endurance test during the runs and the recovery periods,
in keeping with Raven et al. (24) who also observed that
the oxygen consumption of forwards was better than that
of the midfielders.
Forwards were the fastest players in the 30-meter flat
and the 30-meter with 10 cones trials and the most pow-
erful in the jump tests. Velocity, agility, and power are
some of the most important characteristics of the attack-
ers during a soccer match. Other authors have observed
similar results (31, 34). Goalkeepers should also be fast
and agile, but they did not perform that well in the 30-
meter flat and 30-meter with cones tests. Perhaps these
2 tests are not the most appropriate to measure their fit-
ness. In fact, goalkeeper movements are much shorter
and their sprinting distance has been reported to be be-
tween only 1–12 meters long (5). Thus, more specific tests
should be designed to measure the capacities and abilities
of goalkeepers.
The best performances in the endurance, velocity,
agility, and power tests were observed in the group of
forwards. This may be due to the fact that trainers and
technical staff may select leaner and stronger soccer play-
ers with the best physiological characteristics for the for-
wards group, reflecting the belief that the success of a
match depends primarily on this particular group of soc-
cer players.
As for the selection process, the most important fac-
tors for forwards were found to be agility and the power
of the lower extremities. This finding is consistent with
the role of attackers who must jump, be agile and fast,
and who must cover the longest distances in high-inten-
sity running (21).
Agility was also the best predictor for the selection of
midfielders, together with height. Endurance capacity
was a significant variable to differentiate the selected
from the nonselected players. In a soccer match, midfield-
ers usually link the back and the center of the field with
the front and, therefore, they are the ones who run the
longest distances in a match and need the highest endur-
ance capacity.
In the defenders group, one of the discriminating var-
iables was the power of the lower legs. In this position,
players must be able to jump high in order to stop the
ball going into the goal. Also, having a leaner body was
found to be an important factor. As has been discussed
earlier, an excessive fat amount is not only a risk factor
for chronic diseases, but also a negative factor for perfor-
mance.
Although none of the differences among goalkeepers
were found to be statistically significant, the selected
players tended to perform slightly better in all the tests.
It is possible that a different set of tests would be more
appropriately used for goalkeepers, as their workload is
completely different from that of the other players.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
In conclusion, in the present study, we found anthropo-
metric and physiological differences amongst forwards,
midfielders, defenders, and goalkeepers who were mem-
bers of a young, nonelite soccer club. Goalkeepers were
the tallest and heaviest and also presented the highest
fat percentage. These players and their coaches should
bear in mind that an excessive amount of fat is one of the
most important negative factors related to performance.
Moreover, goalkeepers also had the lowest endurance ca-
pacity. The fact that the demand on goalkeepers is dif-
ferent from that on outfield players should not be used
as an excuse to pay little attention to their nutritional
intake and their aerobic capacity.
In contrast, forwards were the leanest, presenting the
highest muscle percentage. They were generally the best
performers, producing the best results in the Astrand
test, the endurance test, and the velocity, agility, and
jumping tests.
The agility and power of the lower extremities were
found to be the most important characteristics in the se-
lection of forwards, whereas agility, height, and endur-

ance were the principal factors associated with selection
of midfielders. A leaner body was found to be an impor-
tant factor for defenders.
Therefore, each positional role can be seen to be char-
acterized by a different profile. This finding, together
with the fact that each position has a different physiolog-
ical workload in a soccer match, demonstrates that some
of the training sessions should be dedicated to training
specific to each position, as already happens with goal-
keepers.
Taking into account the present findings when plan-
ning the training schedule of young soccer players at a
nonelite level may prove to optimize both training ses-
sions and the resulting matches.
REFERENCES
1. APPOR, P. Successful formulae for fitness training. In: Science and Foot-
ball. T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davids K, and W. Murphy, eds. London: E. &
F.N. Spon, 1988. pp. 95–107.
2. ARNASSON, A.S.B., A. SIGURDSSON , I. GUDMUNDSSON , I.
HOLME, L. ENGEBRETSEN, AND R. BAHR. Physical fitness, injuries, and
team performance in soccer. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 36:278–285. 2004.
3. ASTRAND, P.O., AND I. RYHMING. A nomogram for calculation of aerobic
capacity (physical fitness) from pulse rate during sub-maximal work. J.
Appl. Physiol. 7:218–221. 1954.
4. BANGSBO, J. Energy demands in competitive soccer. J. Sports Sci. 12:S5–
S12. 1994.
5. BANGSBO, J., AND L. MICHALSIK. Assessment and physiological capacity
of elite soccer players. In: Science and Football IV. W. Spinks, T. Reilly,
and A. Murphy, eds. Cambridge: Routledge, 2002. pp. 53–62.
6. BANSGBO, J., L. NORREGAARD, AND F. THORSO. Activity profile of com-
petition soccer. Can. J. Sport Sci. 16:110–116. 1991.
7. CASAJÚS, J.A., AND M.T. ARAGONÉS. Estudio cineantropométrico del fut-
bolista profesional español. Arc. Med. Dep. 59:177–184. 1997.
8. COMETTI, G., N.A. MAFFIULETTI, M. POUSSION, J. CHATARD, AND N. MA-
FULLI. Isokinetic strength and anaerobic power of elite, subelite and am-
ateur soccer players. Int. J. Sports Med. 22:45–51. 2001.
9. DAVIS, J.A., J. BREWER, AND D. ATKIN. Pre-season physiological charac-
teristics of English first and second division soccer players. J. Sports Sci.
10:541–547. 1992.
10. DI SALVO, V., AND F. PIGOZZI. Physical training of soccer players based
on their positional rules in the team. Effects on performance-related fac-
tors. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 38:294–297. 1998.
11. DOWSON, M.N., J.B. CRONIN, AND J.D. PRESLAND. Anthropometric and
physiological differences between gender and age groups of New Zealand
National soccer players. In: Science and Football IV. W. Spinks, T. Reilly,
and A. Murphy, eds. Cambridge: Routledge, 2002. pp. 63–70.
12. FAINA, M., C. GALLOZZI, S. LUPO, R. COLLI, R. SASSI, AND C. MARINI.
Definition and physiological profile of the soccer player. In: Science and
Football. T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davids, and W. Murphy, eds. London: E.
& F.N. Spon, 1988. pp. 158–163.
13. FAULKNER, J.A. Physiology of swimming and diving. In: Human Exercise
Physiology. H. Falls, ed. Baltimore: Academic Press, 1968. pp. 87–95.
14. GIL, S.M., J. GIL, A. IRAZUSTA, F. RUIZ, AND J. IRAZUSTA. Relationship
between anthropometric and physiological parameters in young soccer
players of different ages. 10th Annual Congress of the European College
of Sport Science. Belgrade, Serbia, 2005.
15. HEATH, B.H., AND J.E.L. CARTER. A modified somatotype method. Am.
J. Phys. Anthropol. 27:57–74. 1967.
16. KANG, J., E.C. CHALOUPKA, M.A. MASTRANGELO, G.B. BIREN, AND R.J.
ROBERTSON. Physiological comparisons among three maximal treadmill
exercise protocols in trained and untrained individuals. Eur. J. Appl. Phy-
siol. 84:291–295. 2001.
View publication stats
PLAYING POSITION IN SOCCER 445
17. MACSWEEN, A. The reliability and validity of the Astrand nomogram and
linear extrapolation for deriving V̇O2max from submaximal exercise data.
J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 41:312–317. 2001.
18. MALINA, R.M., M.E. PEÑA REYES, J.C. EISENMANN, L. HORTA, J. RO-
DRIGUES, AND R. MILLER. Height, mass and skeletal maturity of elite
Portuguese soccer players aged 11–16 years. J. Sports Sci. 18:685–693.
2000.
19. MATIEGKA, J. The testing of physical efficiency. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol.
4:223–230. 1921.
20. MATKOVIC, B.R., M. MISIGOJ-DURAKOVIC, B. MATKOVIC, S. JANKOVIC, L.
RUZIC, G. LEKO, AND M. KONDRIC. Morphological differences of elite Cro-
atian soccer players according to the team position. Coll. Antropol.
27(Suppl.):167–174. 2003.
21. MOHR, M., P. KRUSTRUP, AND J. BANGSBO. Match performance of high-
standard soccer players with special reference to development of fatigue.
J. Sports Sci. 21:519–528. 2003.
22. NOWACKY, P.E., D.Y. CAI, C. BUHL, AND U. KRUMMELBEIN. Biological
performance of German soccer players tested with special ergometry and
treadmill methods. In: Science and Football. T. Reilly, A. Lees, K. David,
and W. Murphy, eds. London: E. & F.N. Spon, 1988. pp. 145–157.
23. PUGA, R., J. RAMOS, J. AGOSTINHO, I. LOMBA, O. COSTRA, AND F. FREITAS.
Physical profile of a first division professional soccer team. In: Science
and Football II. J. Clarys, M. Stibbe, and T. Reilly, eds. London: E. &
F.N. Spon, 1993. pp. 40–42.
24. RAVEN, P.B., L.R. GETTMAN, M.L. POLLOCK, AND K.H. COOPER. A phys-
iological evaluation of professional soccer players. Br. J. Sports Med. 10:
209–216. 1976.
25. REILLY, T., J. BANGSBO, AND A. FRANKS. Anthropometric and physiolog-
ical predispositions for elite soccer. J. Sports Sci. 18:669–683. 2000.
26. RICO-SANZ, J. Evaluaciones del rendimiento en futbolistas. Arch. Med.
Dep. 59:207–212. 1997.
27. RIENZI, E., B. DRUST, T. REILLY, J.E. CARTER, AND A. MARTIN. Investi-
gation of anthropometric and work-rate profiles of elite South American
international soccer players. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 40:162–169.
2000.
28. ROCHA, M.S.L. Peso ósseo do brasileiro de ambos sexos de 17 a 25 años.
Arq. Anat. Antropol. 1:445–451. 1975.
29. SHEPHARD, R.J. Biology and medicine of soccer: An update. J. Sports Sci.
17:757–786. 1999.
30. STEVENS, N., AND K. SYKES. Aerobic fitness testing: An update. Occup.
Health (Lond). 48:436–438. 1996.
31. TUMILTY, D. Physiological characteristics of elite soccer players. Sports
Med. 16:80–96. 1993.
32. VIVIANI, F., G. CASAGRANDE, AND T. TONIUTTO. The morphotype in a
group of peripubertal soccer players. J. Sports Med. Phys. Fitness 33:178–
183. 1993.
33. WHITE, J.E., T.M. EMERY, J.L. KANE, R. GROVES, AND B. RISMAN. Pre-
season profiles of professional soccer players. In: Science and Football. T.
Reilly, A. Lees, K. Davis, and W. Murphy, eds. London: E. & F.N. Spon,
1988. pp. 164–171.
34. WISLOFF, U., J. HELGERUD, AND J. HOOF. Strength and endurance of elite
soccer players. Med. Sci. Sport Exerc. 30:462–467. 1998.
35. WITTICH, A., M.B. OLIVERI, E. ROTEMBERG, AND C. MAUTALEN. Body com-
position of professional football (soccer) players determined by dual X-
ray absorptiometry. J. Clin. Densitom. 4:51–55. 2001.
36. WÜRCH, A. La femme et le sport. Med. Sport 4:441–445. 1974.
Acknowledgments
This work was facilitated by an agreement between the Getxo
Arenas Football Club and the University of the Basque Country
and was sponsored financially by the Bizkaia-Bizkaialde Foun-
dation of the Diputación Foral of Bizkaia.
Address correspondence to Dr. Susana M. Gil, susana.
gil@ehu.es.