The objective of this study was to examine the offense positions a shot is taken in the field and the ending points of the shots taken from a spot of equal number of defense and offense players (6-6). Matches were recorded (14 match) by a camera and recordings were analyzed by marking and collecting data with notation match analysis method. Repeated measures of ANOVA was used for the statistical analysis. Significant differences were found in 4 of the 6 positions (p3, p4, p5, p6) in shot efficiency (p0.05). The highest shot efficiency was in P6 (65.35%) and at the overhead (52.52%) in goal. Significant differences were found in 4 of the 6 positions (p1, p3, p5, p6) in goal efficiency (p<0.05). P6 had the highest (27.64%) goal efficiency. P3 was the position with the highest number of shots (140) constituting 30.4% of the total shots (461). 42 (28.2%) of the 149 goal-bound shots depending on the positions were taken from P6. In conclusion, the results of this study show the importance of center players (P6); the number of shot scores from P3 is higher than the other positions. Most players preferred down corners.

Background: To cope with their horizontal swimming phases, water polo players use different swimming techniques, such as specific variants of the crawl swimming style. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the swimming skills of young water polo players. Methods: An all-out 25-m sprint swimming test in crawl style was completed by 273 international youth water polo players (age = 14.0 ± 0.8 yrs) in two modalities: basic crawl with the head in the water (25C_HeadIN), and a crawl performed while dribbling the ball (25C_Ball). Results: We registered an average time of 14.79 and 15.64 s for 25C_HeadIN and 25C_Ball, respectively, in which the ball dribbling increased to 5% of the swimming time. A swimming skill index (25C_SIC) was calculated to account for differences in ball dribbling speeds, which, considering our international sample and in the absence of previous data, we could speculate as the first international standard value for 14-year-old male water polo players competing at international level. The averaged values for 25C_SI and 25C_SIC were 0.94 ± 0.04 (a.u.) and 1.52 ± 0.15 (a.u.), respectively. Factor analysis indicated that swimming with and without the ball are structurally distinct technical skills, highlighting the specificity of these water polo players’ abilities. Moreover, the study shows significant differences (p < 0.05) between players from different countries and despite some limitations, its results provide valuable insights for the assessment and development of sprint swimming skills in youth water polo players. Conclusions: In summary, the findings of this research provide practical implications for training, player selection, player development and the optimization of youth water polo player performance.

The purpose of this study was to analyse in detail body weight squat (BWS)’ fatigue effect on the range of motions (ROM) of the hip, knee, ankle and ground reaction forces (GRF). Twenty male recreational athletes (24.0 ± 3.1 years, 178.85 ± 7.12 cm and 78.7 ± 11.45 kg) participated in this study. BWS were performed on four load cell platforms until the participants failed to continue. Participants performed 73 ± 27 repetitions and the duration to complete of the repetitions was 140.72 ± 62.28 s during the BWS exercise. The forefoot and hindfoot of the feet were on two load cells, thus, there were two under each foot. All of the data collected was divided into three sections for analysis (24 ± 9 repetitions for each). In terms of GRF of the fore feet and hind feet, significant differences and medium to large effect size were found between each section (p = 0.006~0.040, ES = 0.693~0.492). No significant differences were found between right and left leg in all sections. Significant differences were found in the ROM of the hip between the sections of first-third (p = 0.044, ES = 0.482) and second-third (p = 0.034, ES = 0.510), the ROM of the knee first-third (p = 0.014, ES = 0.602) and second-third (p = 0.005, ES = 0.701) and for the ROM of the ankle first-second (p = 0.045, ES = 0.479). As a result, end-of-exercise fatigue caused an increase in the ROM of the hip, knee and ankle. Thus, it is observed that fatigue induced increased ROM, also increases the GRF towards the forefeet.

Study aim: This study was aimed to analysis in detail how different tempos [2:0:2 (30 bpm), 1:0:1 (60 bpm), Explosive (EXP)] effect to ground reaction forces (vGRF) and joint kinematics of push-up exercise (PUP). Material and methods: Twenty-four recreationally male athletes (age: 24.9 ± 3.6 years) participated in this study. Kinetic and kinematic data were obtained by load-cells and a motion analysis software. Data was analysed from a single repetition which is showed peak vGRF of dominant side during PUP. Joint velocities were calculated by taking the difference between the descent and ascent phases. Results: There was significant difference between 2:0:2 (30 bpm) – EXP in terms of dominant side of shoulder (p ≤ 0.02) and between 1:0:1 (60 bpm) – EXP in the dominant elbow joint displacements (p ≤ 0.05). The velocity differences between the descent and ascent phases of shoulder and elbow joints were found statistically significant between tempos (p ≤ 0.05). In terms of range of motion (ROM) of right and left side, there was significant differences between tempos (p ≤ 0.001). No significant differences were found between all tempos in the ascent phase of right-left and left descent phase in terms of average vGRF (p > 0.05) except right descent average vGRF (p ≤ 0.02). Conclusions: In conclusion, right-left sides of ROM was used most effectively in 2:0:2 (30 bpm) and 1:0:1 (60 bpm) tempos. Less displacement was also observed in EXP and when tempo increased percentage of peak vGRF (at elbow flexion phase for right-left sides) to total repetition decreased. Highest ascent and descent phase velocity differences (for right-left sides) and highest peak vGRF (elbow flexion phase) observed in EXP. This study shows that increasing tempo will result in more unsteady joint kinematics and more vGRF, so if the goal is controlled and safe PUP, tempo should be slow.