Sports Coaching – Page 33 – The Sport Journal

Analysis of Selected Physical and Performance Attributes of the United States Olympic Team Handball Players: Preliminary Study

Submitted by: Brian Bergemann, Ph.D.

During the Spring of 1995, prior to the Olympic Games in Atlanta, the United States Team Handball team and coaches came to the United States Sports Academy in Daphne, AL for testing. Dr. Thomas P. Rosandich, president of the U.S. Team Handball Federation, and the president of the United States Sports Academy hosted the testing at the Alabama campus. Testing of the athletes consisted of laboratory tests of maximum oxygen uptake, computerized strength measures, blood tests, etc., and a battery of field tests that included assessments of physical characteristics, and physical performance components. This paper reports the results of the field test battery.
Skills test batteries have been used in physical education and in sport to assess various components of the skills of players. These assessments served the teacher and coach to determine a player’s level of ability, or their progress, weaknesses and strengths. These test batteries for sports performance usually dealt with the physical fitness components like strength and endurance, or the motor skills components, like speed, agility, power, or accuracy.

Batteries of tests for team handball have not been developed in the United States. The purpose of this investigation was to construct a team handball test battery that would be reflective of the skills, abilities, physical fitness components and anthropometric factors that contribute to high levels of performance, and to establish a database of performances by the National Team Handball players. Additional purposes for developing the test included using the test to screen potential players at the National level, to provide teachers in the schools and colleges with tests that are inexpensive and easy to administer, and to provide self-administered tests that would train the athletes to improve their performance in team handball.

Methods
Subjects
The United States National Handball team came to the United States Sports Academy in Daphne, Alabama for testing in June of 1995 prior to the Atlanta Olympic Games. There were 20 players in attendance. Their ages ranged from 22.01 to 31.73 years with an average age of 26.69 years (sd = 2.94).

Test Selection and Procedures
The coaches and this investigator discussed the test items and agreed that they were relevant to the sport. The test items included:

Anthropometric measurements: height, weight, hand breadth, arm length, and arm span
Hand grip strength
Running speed: 20 m dash
Vertical jump: take-off of dominant leg with one step, non-dominant leg with one step, and both legs
Accuracy throw: a 7 m throw at a automobile tire hanging vertically from the goal. 2 points for shots through the center, 1 point for hitting the tire but not passing through the center. The player had 10 throws.
50 m dribble test: Five cones are placed in a straight line with 5m between each cone. Player runs 25m, passing each cone alternately on the right and left sides, then goes completely around the last cone and returns to the start line alternating as before. The ball is dribbled once per cone.
Jump and throw test: A volleyball net 2.44 m high placed 7 m from the goal with a tire hanging vertically from the top of the goal. The bottom of the tire rested on the floor. The player had 10 throws. Two points were awarded for hitting the tire or passing through the center and 1 point for passing through the goal mouth.
Endurance test: Four tires are placed on the corners of a basketball court that has the dimensions of 15.24 m by 25.61 m. The player runs diagonally on the first leg, then along the short side, then diagonally again, and then returns to the start. This constitutes one lap. The runner runs 10 laps for a total of 900m; 90 m per lap.

Results
The results of the anthropometric testing are shown in table 1. The data for the skills tests are shown in tables 2 and 3. The mean vertical jump for the dominant leg was 54.03 cm (21.27 in), the non-dominant leg was 46.72 cm (18.39 in), and for both legs was 62.15 cm (24.47 in). This is higher than vertical jumps of 52.8 cm (20.8 in) for professional soccer players (Raven, Gettman, Pollock, & Cooper, 1976), 53.3 cm (21 in) for college basketball players (Noble & Maresh, 1979), but less than 67.0 cm (26.4) for elite men volleyball players (Gladden & Colaccino, 1978). Olympic men’s volleyball players were tested doing the vertical jump with a 4-step approach, as in a spike approach and averaged 94.2 cm (37.1 in). This approach run was estimated to add 10.2 to 15.4 cm (4 to 6 in) higher than the standing position vertical jump off of both legs (McGown et al., 1990). The maximum height reached when the player took off from the dominant leg was 3 m (9 feet, 10.1 in), the non-dominant leg was 2.92 m (9 feet, 7 in), and both legs was 3.08 m (10 feet, 1.26 in).

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-27T17:48:39-06:00February 11th, 2008|Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

International Physical Fitness Test

Submitted by: Dr. Thomas P. Rosandich, President, USSA

FOREWARD

The United States Sports Academy, in cooperation with the Supreme Council for Youth and Sport, presents the Arab world with its own International Physical Fitness Test Manual based on norms collected and processed on Arab youth, ages 9 to 19. This fitness test is one of the few developed outside the Western world and is believed to be the only such test battery that measures the basic components of all physical activity, i.e. speed, strength, suppleness, and stamina.

This test was introduced to 199 physical education teachers by Dr. Thomas P. Rosandich on 15 January 1977 in Manama. This test was initially developed by the International Committee for Physical Fitness Testing in Tokyo in 1964 at which time Dr. Rosandich served that committee as its first Secretary.

On 16 January, this two-day test battery, made up of the 50-meter sprint, standing long jump, grip strength, 1000-meter run, 30-second sit-up, pull-up, 10-meter shuttle run, and trunk flexion, was administered to 500 boys of the Manama Secondary School. The test was coordinated by Dr. Bob Grueninger, Director of Fitness and Research and administered by him and Dr. Bob Ford, Dr. Lawrence Bestmann, Vic Godfrey, James Kampen, Bruce Mitchell, and Larry Nosse, along with their counterparts, the inspectors and teachers of the Ministry of Education.

The Academy faculty and their counterparts eventually tested over 20,000 boys and girls, but not before the components of the test were re-evaluated and modified to better reflect the environment in which it was delivered. The initial test information was presented by Dr. Rosandich and Dr. Grueninger at the First Middle East Sports Science Symposium (MESS I) in April of 1977. The physical performance tables were developed in coordination with the Academy team in Bahrain and the Chairman of Fitness and Research at the Academy’s home office in Mobile, Alabama, then located on the campus of the University of South Alabama. Instrumental in developing these tables were two computer experts, Dr. George Uhlig and Dr. Bill Gilley, both members of the Academy’s National Faculty.

During MESS II, in April of 1978, the Academy did a special study to evaluate the I.C.P.F.T. battery for possible revision. In addition to the Academy coaching team in Bahrain, we brought aboard Dr. Richard Berger, Temple University, and Dr. Bob Stauffer, West Point, both members of the Academy’s National Faculty. This combined team tested the Bahrain Defense Force Personnel and reached the following conclusions, which in essence are reflected in this test manual.

1. The test battery was changed from a two-day test battery to a one-day battery for purposes of efficiency and because the test administered over two days in the heat of the Middle East impacted severely upon the individual students and their second-day performances.

2. The test battery was reduced from eight components to five components that reflected effectively those components needed in sport and eliminated costly equipment such as the hand dynamometer, that often malfunctioned in field testing.

The test battery is as follows:

1. 50-meter test, relative power, speed
2. Pull-up, relative strength, strengt
3. 10-meter shuttle run, relative power, speed and suppleness
4. Back throw, absolute power, speed and suppleness
5. 1,000-meter run, aerobic/anaerobic capacity, stamina

The above test was coordinated by Dr. Grueninger and Dr. Gary Hunter with over 20,000 Bahraini children tested. The results of this test are found in this manual and wer presented for the first time internationally by Dr. Rosandich during the Asian Games in Bangkok, Thailand, in December of 1978. Subsequently, the test battery was adopted in more than 21 nations. Since the initial presentation, the test has been modified by replacing the pull-up with the flexed-arm hang based on data collected in neighboring Saudi Arabia.

During MESS III, in April of 1979, the leadership of the International Committee for Physical Fitness Research, including the organization’s president, Dr. Ladislav Novak, and members, Dr. Leonard Larson (USA), Dr. Roy Shepherd (Canada), and Dr. Ishiko (Japan), attended the symposium, as observers of Bahrain’s leadership role in physical fitness, research and sport medicine. Bahrain, under the leadership of the Supreme Council for Youth and Sport, developed not only the finest sport medicine and research centers found in the Middle East but also programs reflecting research, such as this Physical Fitness Test Manual. Thus, the I.C.P.F.T. named Bahrain its research center for the Middle East. Subsequently, the Arab Sport Medicine Council moved its headquarters from Tunisia to Bahrain, which is yet another indication of Bahrain’s leadership in fitness and research.

The Academy has been privileged to work with the Supreme Council for Youth and Sport — now known as the General Organization of Youth and Sport — and its many constituencies, e.g. the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Interior, and the Ministry of Defense, in the development of this International Physical Fitness Test, which in fact is a major contribution to the world of sport education.

U.S. Sports Academy2016-10-14T14:39:42-05:00February 11th, 2008|Sports Coaching, Sports Exercise Science, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

Pep Talks – Why Didn’t My Team “Win One for the Gipper”?

Submitted by: Mick G. Mack, Ph.D.

From Knute Rockne, the basketball
movie “Hoosiers,” and many other highly publicized
“win one for the Gipper” speeches, we have observed
the magical powers of the pregame pep talk. In fact, today it
is widely believed that coaches must give their team an emotional
message before sending them into competition. Unfortunately,
what has been forgotten over the years is that the pep talk is
just one type of arousal adjustment technique, a tool to be used
only under certain circumstances. Furthermore, as the following
example illustrates, raising the emotional level of every player
on the team may have disastrous consequences.

Game-Day USA

During today’s precompetition
activities, Steve is extremely excited and nervous. Today marks
the first time that his parents are able to attend one of his
games and he is beginning to feel the pressure of having to live
up to their unrealistic expectations. Next to him, sits Jerome.
Jerome has just completed his typical pregame routine. He is
both mentally and emotionally ready to play. Rafael, on the other
hand, appears listless and bored. He shows no energy or emotion,
acting as if he is only going through the motions.

Rah! Rah!

Just before taking
the field, Coach delivers a rousing win-one-for-the-Gipper pep
talk that raises the emotional level of every player on the team.
Caught up in the emotional intensity of the moment, the athletes
sprint onto the field where they immediately make crucial mistakes
and play poorly. In fact, two-thirds of the team members are
playing one of their poorer games of the season. Coach turns
to his assistants and asks “What happened? I thought they
were ready to play.”

Relationship Between Arousal
and Athletic Performance

An examination of the
relationship between arousal and athletic performance may provide
some answers. In sport, arousal refers to the energizing function
of the body that varies from deep sleep to intense excitement.
Sport researchers believe that the relationship between arousal
and performance takes the form of an inverted-U. In other words,
when the athlete’s level of arousal is fairly low, the athlete
will perform poorly. He or she is typically sluggish and under-excited.
With a moderate increase in arousal, the athlete should perform
up to his or her capabilities. However, once the athlete reaches
a state of having too much arousal, performance will suffer.
Thus, it is predicted that best performances occur at moderate
levels of arousal.

The Importance of Individualized
Arousal Adjustment Strategies

This critical relationship
between arousal and athletic performance is why coaches can no
longer haphazardly use a blanket approach when preparing athletes
for competition. The use of arousal adjustment techniques such
as the pep talk need to be individualized so that all players
enter competition at the level of readiness which is conducive
to his or her best performance. To further clarify this idea,
let’s reflect on the experiences of our three athletes.
Steve, who was already too excited and nervous became so over-aroused
that he had problems containing his emotions. An inability to
concentrate caused him to play poorly. Similarly, Jerome was
shifted from an optimal state of moderate arousal to being sky-high.
He started trying too hard which negatively affected his performance.
The only player to benefit from the pep talk was Rafael. His
emotional-readiness reached an optimal level which allowed him
to play well. Thus, while the pep talk helped one player, it
also negatively affected two others. A more perceptive coach
would have realized that, in this scenario, Steve needed to be
calmed down to reach his ideal level of readiness. Likewise,
the only thing that Jerome needed was the assurance that he was
indeed ready.

Summary

As coaches, we can
no longer risk hurting the performance of two out of every three
players on the team by employing a one-technique-fits-all philosophy.
Instead, we need to focus on having every player reach his or
her optimal level of emotional arousal. Therefore, prior to your
next pregame pep talk ask yourself “Do I really want to
raise the arousal level of everyone on the team?”

U.S. Sports Academy2017-08-07T15:38:14-05:00February 11th, 2008|Sports Coaching, Sports Management, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off

Alabama High School Soccer Undergoes Eligibility Rule Changes

Submitted by: Dr. Joe Manjone, Dean of Student Services, Continuing Education & Distance Learning, USSA

Changes in the penalties for Alabama High School soccer players receiving misconducts have had very little effect on the numbers and types of cards issued during the 1997 and 1998 Alabama high school soccer seasons (note: high soccer is a spring sport in Alabama). Although ineligibility penalties for yellow cards were eliminated, there was a slight increase in the number of yellow cards issued per game in 1997, but the number of yellow cards issued per game in 1998 was almost equivalent to 1996. At the same time, revised red card (includes red/yellow cards) penalties seemed to have very little effect on the number of. red cards (ejections) issued per game.

During the 1996 spring season and for several years prior, penalties for Alabama high school soccer players receiving misconducts were as follows: the first accumulation of three yellow cards – ineligible for the next game; the second accumulation of three yellow cards – ineligible for the next two games; the third accumulation of three yellow cards – ineligible for the remainder of the season; the first red card – ineligible for the next game; the second red card – ineligible for the next two games; and the third red card – ineligible for the remainder of the season.

For the 1997 and 1998 seasons, soccer eligibility rules regarding a misconduct were changed to conform to the rules in effect for other high school sports. All penalties for yellow cards were eliminated. The red card (or red/yellow) penalties are as follows: a player’s first red card – the principal at the player’s school receives a warning from the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA); a second red card – the player is ineligible for the next game; and a third red card – the player is ineligible for the remainder of the season.

Prior to 1997, misconduct card totals had to be kept by each team, and the coach was responsible for enforcing the penalty. With the new rules, the referee who gives the ejection must submit a report to the AHSAA, and the AHSAA is responsible for informing the school and seeing that the penalty is enforced.

In 1996, 649 game reports were sent by the head referee in each contest to this writer. In these 649 games, there were 545 yellow cards and 104 red cards given out. This resulted in an average of .84 yellow cards and .16 red cards per game.

In 1997, 513 game reports were submitted. In these 513 games, there were 486 yellow cards and 71 red cards awarded, resulting in an average of .95 yellow cards and .14 red cards for game.

In 1998, 747 game reports were submitted. In these 747 games, there were 612 yellow cards and 113 red cards. This resulted in an average of .82 yellow cards and .15 red cards for game.

As reported above, except for a slight increase in the number of yellow cards given in 1997, the change in the penalties given to players who receive red and yellow cards has had little effect on the average number of red and yellow cards given per game. Although there has been little change in the average number of cards given, there has been considerable criticism about the revised penalties from Alabama referees about the penalty changes.

In giving their opinion about the revised changes to the penalties for players receiving yellow and red cards, the following are some of the statements that were expressed:

1 “The penalty for yellow cards was too harsh under the old system, so I often refrained from giving out a yellow card.”

2 “Giving out a red card means that I will have to take the time to submit a report that will be sent to the school principal, who may then penalize the whole team. It makes me now reconsider if a red card is really necessary.”

3 “Recently, the overtime period for a tie game was changed from two ten-minute regular time and two five-minute sudden victory overtime periods to two ten-minute sudden victory overtime periods. This decrease in game time could have had an effect on the number of cards awarded per game.”

4 “If officials would have turned in game reports for all the games played, the results might have been different.”

5 “The changes were good, because schools do a good job in taking action against players who are ejected from games”

What are your feelings concerning player eligibility penalties for red and/ or yellow cards? Please let this writer know. E-mail: Joeman@USSA-SPORT.USSA.edu

Editor’s Comments: Dr. Joe Manjone is the Alabama State High School Association Soccer rules interpreter. He is also the region V soccer officials’ representative for the National Intercollegiate Soccer Officials’ Association. He is a National High School soccer clinician, and has been officiating high school soccer since 1959.

U.S. Sports Academy2013-11-27T19:07:18-06:00February 11th, 2008|Contemporary Sports Issues, Sports Coaching, Sports Facilities, Sports History, Sports Management|Comments Off

Mind Zone — Compete Like The Pros

Submitted by: Jim Vicory, Ed.D.

When we begin to compete in golf, what can we learn from the professionals to help us play at our best?

Be Prepared

Essential for competition is putting in time and effort on the driving range and putting green. This insures not only the proper execution of your golf skills, but also the confidence that you have prepared for the competition.

The last thing you want to do is enter a tournament having to work on your swing mechanics during important rounds. The mind needs to be free to focus on targets and a plan to play the course in as few strokes as possible.

Become Familiar With the Course

All of us are familiar with the home field/court advantage in almost all sports. The same holds true in golf.

The more you feel at home and like you’ve been there before, the more you feel secure and at ease. If you haven’t played the course before, get there ahead of time to become familiar and comfortable with it. Find out where the pro shop is, the snack bar, the driving range and putting green. If you can’t play the course ahead of time, then at least know how the course plays — the length, the trouble spots, the speed and slope of the greens.

Get Into a Routine

Part of the home court advantage is the establishment of a regular consistent familiar routine. This applies to a pre-course, a pre-round and a pre-shot routine.

Pre-course

Pack and load up your golf gear the night before. On the morning of the tournament, get up early and eat a healthy breakfast. Give yourself some time to sit down, relax and mentally practice successfully executing all the clubs in your bag. Then picture yourself successfully handling all the potential problem golf situations for the day. End up by bringing back in your mind’s eye an earlier round in which you played unusually well.

Drive leisurely to the golf course listening to relaxing, laid back music. Ensure that you arrive at the course 45 minutes to an hour prior to tee time.

Pre-Round

Use this time to gently stretch your golfing muscles and to warm up your swing for the day. Remember this is not a time to practice on the driving range, but simply a time to loosen up and establish a rhythm and a swing tempo for your various clubs. On the putting green, establish a feel for the speed and direction of your putts.

Pre-Shot. Establish a regular, consistent routine prior to the striking of each ball, including the putts. During this time, allow only rational, positive swing thoughts which will aid you for the upcoming shot.

Have a Plan

A plan, any plan, is better than no plan. The plan gives structure to your thinking and prevents you from having to over-think every shot eventuality.

You may plan on being very aggressive and fly every ball for precise targets. Or you may be just the opposite and decide to hit only safe, high-percentage targets. And then again you may be more intermediate and swing in general to safe targets, but get very aggressive within 100 yards of the pin.

Remember there will be a strong tendency to abandon your plan after either getting down or up in the score. When you’re down, you will find yourself wanting to make it up all at once and become excessively aggressive. When you are up in your score or playing from the front, the opposite occurs. You will tend to play not to lose as opposed to play to win and become exceedingly cautious.

Think Vanilla

What is your normal reaction to a stress event, such as missing a two-foot birdie putt? How would you rate it on a scale ranging from 1 to 10, where 1 is extremely calm and 10 is extremely hyper? Let’s say, it is an 8. On tournament day, try to dampen everything so that you respond only to, say, a 5 level. This will help neutralize the natural tendency for the body and mind to become overly reactive during competition.

With further practice, you may become even more bland and begin to respond at a more desirable 2 or 3 level.

Expect the Unexpected

No matter how you prepared for the competition or how well you are playing, expect that something will go wrong. You may have forgotten to bring your sand wedge. You may find your almost perfect drive hitting a hidden impediment on the fairway and bouncing out of bounds. Or, you may even find another golfer playing your ball. If you are ready for any of these probable eventualities, you won’t get caught off guard and will have a plan to deal with them. But, if you expect everything to be perfect, you are likely to get frustrated and lose control when the first thing goes wrong.

Expect to Play Well

At the same time though, expect to play well. Why not? You’ve prepared yourself and done everything necessary for success. Now it’s necessary to begin to believe and develop the ideal mental pictures and self-talk to support this success.

Remember you don’t have to put unnecessary pressure on yourself by saying such things as, “I have to, got to, or must play well.” You don’t have to do anything. It would be desirable to play up to your capabilities though, and there is no reason why you shouldn’t. Expect it!

Have Fun

It can’t be emphasized enough the importance of choosing to enjoy your golf round. Golf is supposed to be sport and/or recreation to be enjoyed. Psychology tells us very clearly that anything we do that is followed by a positive consequence, we tend to repeat. So if you want to make golf a game for a lifetime, you better keep it fun.

And, if you plan on playing in the ideal mind zone that top pros talk about, then you better include fun into the mix.

Research and experience tells that fun is one of the necessary ingredients in achieving this zone.

If you can incorporate the above recommendations on a consistent basis, you are bound to play more relaxed and confident, drop strokes from your score, and enjoy better the game of golf!

U.S. Sports Academy2017-08-07T15:40:39-05:00February 11th, 2008|Sports Coaching, Sports Studies and Sports Psychology|Comments Off