大專院校男子手球攻擊模式分析（81~86學年）

Analysis on the Attack Models in Intercollegiate Men's Handball Competition (1992~1997)

黃欽永(Ching-Yung Hwang)

《臺大體育學報》 2輯 (1998/06) Pp. 135-188

https://doi.org/10.6569/NTUJPE.199806_(2).0007

摘要

本研究的主要目的在探討攻擊能力與攻擊型態的關係、攻擊型態的一致性及攻擊模式的確立。以參加中華民國大專院校81至86學年度手球錦標賽男子甲組球員爲研究對象，用觀察記錄法在球賽現場，以筆記型電腦記錄每場比賽的攻擊技術，共計53場106隊次的比賽，計有7520次有效攻擊技術資料，並根據名次分成五組不同攻擊技術能力。所得資料以卡方考驗攻擊能力與攻擊型態的相關；以肯德爾和諧係數考驗攻擊型態的一致性；以描述統計分析攻擊模式比率。獲得結論如下：
一、攻擊能力與攻擊型態的關係
在攻擊、射門、得分及射門失敗四個分析變項中，攻擊熊力與攻擊型態之間均有顯著相關存在，四個變項都會因攻擊能力的不同而有不同的攻擊模式。進一步比較不同能力間的差異後，可歸納出A組與B組的攻擊能力是同一等級，C、D及E組是同一等級，而快攻是造成攻擊能力差異的主因。
二、攻擊型態的一致性
A、B、C、D及E各組在攻擊、射門、得分及射門失敗等類別的攻擊型態均具有一致性的趨向。
三、攻擊模式比率
A組和B組以及C組、D組和三組在攻擊、射門、得分及射門失敗等類別中，分別有相同的攻擊模式比率。
（一）攻擊類別
A組及B組兩組在慢攻與快攻的攻擊比率都是7:3，六種攻擊型態比率爲8:31:1:1:6；而C組、D組及E組三組慢攻與快攻比率爲8:2，六種攻擊型態比率爲10:3:1:1:1:4。
（二）射門類別
A組及B組在慢攻與快攻的射門比率都是7:3，六種攻擊型態比率爲7:4:1:1:1:6；而C組、D組及E組三組慢攻與快攻比率爲8:2，六種攻擊型態的比率爲8:4:1:1:2:4。
（三）得分類別
A組及B組在慢攻與快攻的得分比率都是6:4，六種攻擊型態比率爲5:4:1:1:1:8；而C組、D組及E組三組慢攻與快攻爲8:2，六種攻擊型態比率爲6:5:1:1:2:5。
（四）射門失敗類別
A組及B組在慢攻與快攻的射門比率都是8:2，六種攻擊型態比率爲10:2:2:1:1:4；而C組、D組及E組三組慢攻與快攻爲9:1，六種攻擊型態比率爲11:3:2:1:1:2。

並列摘要

The main purposes of this study were to (1) research the relationships between attack capabilities and types, (2) realize the consistency of attack types, and (3) set up the attack models. The subjects of this study were those grade A players who participated in the Intercollegiate Men's Handball Competition from the school years of 1992 to 1997. All of the data in this study were collected by ”The Observation Method”, i. e., using a laptop computer to record the attack skills in 53 matches of 106 teams. A total of 7620 times of attack were deemed as effective. Meanwhile, based on the competition ranking (top-down), the sample was then classified into five different attack capability groups (A-E), Furthermore the Chi-square statistics was used to examine the relationships between attack capabilities and types. The, Kendall coefficient of concordance for the consistency of attack types, and the descriptive statistics for the ratio of attack models. The conclusions were made as the following.
1. The Relationship Between Attack Capabilities and Types
In terms of four variables: attacks, shooting, scores, and shooting faults, there was a significant relationship between attack capabilities and types. All four variables changed by the different attack abilities. Further, by comparing the different capabilities, groups A and B could be graded into the same competition capability class; groups C, D, and E into the other. The main difference between these two classes was fast break.
2. The Consistency of Attack Types
All the five group attack types were in consistancy with attacks, shooting. scores and shooting faults.
3. The Ratio of Attack Models
There was the same ratio of attack models among 5 groups in the form of attacks, shooting, scores and shooting fault.
(1) Attacks Between groups A and B, the attack ratio of slow and fast break was 7:3, and the ratio of the six attack types was 8:3:1:1:1:6. Among groups C, D, and E, the attack ratio of slow and fast break was 8:2, and the ratio of the six attack types was 10:3:1:1:1:4.
(2) Shooting Between groups A and B, the shooting ratio of slow and fast break was 7:3, and the ratio of the six attack type was 7:4:1:1:1:6. Among groups C, D, and E, the shooting ratio of slow and fast break was 8:2, and the ratio of the six attack types was 8:4:1:1:2:4.
(3) Scores Between groups A and B, the score ratio of slow and fast break was 6:4, and the ratio of the six attack types was 5:4:1:1:1:8. Among groups C, D, and E, the score ratio of slow and fast break was 8:2, and the ratio of the six attack types was 6:5:1:1:2:5.
(4) Shooting Faults Between groups A and B, the shooting fault ratio of slow and fast break was 8:2,and the ratio of the six attack types was 10:2:2:1:1:4. Among groups C, 0, and B, the shooting fault ratio of slow and fast break was 9:1, and the ratio of the six attack types was 11:3:2:1:1:2.