The research was conducted with the purpose of establishing differences in anthropological features between different groups of female cadet handball players divided by their playing quality and playing positions. It includes morphological, motor and psycho-social characteristics of anthropological dimensions, particularly those which were recognized as relevant for young handball players in previous researches. The research was conducted on 70 handball players with the average age of 15,31 who were grouped according to their playing positions into goalkeepers, outer, wing and pivot players. Further on, according to their playing quality, they were divided into two quality groups of players: those included in the wider national team, and therefore characterised as top players in the Republic of Croatia, and those who had never been invited into the cadet national team, and thus can be treated as less quality i.e. as average handball players. By analysing the obtained results in the domain of morphological characteristics, we established the difference in the size of the fist in quality players compared to the average ones. When observing the differences in morphological characteristics based on playing positions, it is obvious that pivots, outer players and goalkeepers, unlike wing players, are dominantly and markedly dimensioned in skeleton measurements. In the basic motor domain, we obtained more expressed values in the quality group in the larger number of variables, particularly stressed in the tests to assess speed, explosive and repetitive power and agility. Regarding playing positions, the differences are mostly expressed between goalkeepers and wing players in flexibility, which is more developed in goalkeepers, and coordination, which is more developed in wing players. Further on, the variable to assess explosive power of sprint type is dominated by players in wing positions. It is well-known the main tasks of the players in wing positions are quick turnovers from the defence to attack phase and run over of the opponents’ defences, so we may assume this is the reason their results in 20-metres sprint testing were the best. Unlike them, goalkeepers have completely different tasks in the game. The agility tests are dominated by outer players, followed by wing players, which is caused by the demands and the roles of these playing positions, overflowed with maximally fast changes of direction course in difficult dynamic conditions and the abilities to quickly restructure movement contents, therefore the obtained results were expected as well. Observing Eysenck’s basic personality characteristics, there are no differences in the obtained results between the playing quality in the two groups of players. It was determined that the respondents differ only in their tendency to dissimulate (i.e. intentional covering of the actual weaknesses). We may assume more quality players have a better image of themselves and more self-respect, which could be harmed by answering the questions truthfully. It has also been discovered that goalkeepers have higher results in introversion than other playing positions. It is assumed that their space isolation in the long-term process of sport preparation probably influenced mechanisms which are the basis for introversion-extroversion characteristics. By inspecting the sociological domain of the handball players regarding the playing quality, it was discovered that quality players have more parental support in exercising handball than the average ones and were more frequently injured during their sport career which is caused by their training and competitive age (years of playing, a larger number of matches through the club engagement and through national team selection). In addition to this, we may assume that quality players are physically more aggressive in duels with their opponents and spend more time in the game which creates more opportunities to get injured than in the average players. It is evident all the anthropological features are repeatedly connected; they intertwine and have mutual influence. It is nearly impossible to view in isolation just one anthropological feature as a predictor for playing quality or the difference towards the positions without taking into consideration the entity on the whole, which is much more than the sum of anthropological dimensions. Therefore, the explanations should be found in the integrity of an athlete’s potential and not in isolated anthropological features.