In this article, we examine the space-time coordination dynamics of two basketball teams during competition. We identified six game sequences at random, from which the movement data of each player were obtained for analysis of team behaviours in both the longitudinal (basket-to-basket) and lateral (side-to-side) directions. The central position of a team was measured using its spatial (geometric) centre and dispersion using a stretch index, obtained from the mean distance of team members from the spatial centre. Relative-phase analysis of the spatial centres demonstrated in-phase stabilities in both the longitudinal and lateral directions, with more stability in the longitudinal than lateral direction. As anticipated, this finding is consistent with the results of an analysis of individual playing dyads (see companion article, this issue), as well as the more general principle of complex systems conforming to similar descriptions at different levels of analysis. Phase relations for the stretch index demonstrated in-phase attraction in the longitudinal direction and no attraction to any values in the lateral direction. Finally, the difference between the two stretch indexes at any instant showed phase transitions between two stable patterns when the difference was represented in binary form. This result is attributed to the reciprocity between teams in their amounts of expansion and contraction when possession of the ball is won and lost.

No abstract

No abstract

This exploratory case study describes the sharedness of knowledge within a basketball team (nine players) and how it changes during an official match. To determine how knowledge is mobilised in an actual game situation, the data were collected and processed following course-of-action theory (Theureau 2003). The results were used to characterise the contents of the shared knowledge (i.e. regarding teammate characteristics, team functioning, opponent characteristics, opposing team functioning and game conditions) and to identify the characteristic types of change: (a) the reinforcement of a previous element of shared knowledge; (b) the invalidation of an element of shared knowledge; (c) fragmentation of an element of shared knowledge; (d) the creation of a new element of shared knowledge. The discussion deals with the diverse types of change in shared knowledge and the heterogeneous and dynamic nature of common ground within the team. STATEMENT OF RELEVANCE: The present case study focused on how the cognitions of individual members of a team coordinate to produce a team performance (e.g. surgical teams in hospitals, military teams) and how the shared knowledge changes during team activity. Traditional methods to increase knowledge sharedness can be enhanced by making use of 'opportunities for coordination' to optimise team adaptiveness.

No abstract