The aim of this study was to examine the relationships among physical fitness of professional Bosnian basketball players (n = 38) and shooting accuracy during one basketball season. A related, secondary aim was to examine relationships between basketball shooting assessments and competitive shooting accuracy during game play. Physical fitness components included: muscular endurance and aerobic endurance, lower and upper-body power, speed, agility, anaerobic capacity and anaerobic power. The specific basketball shooting accuracy was assessed by stationary and dynamic shooting assessments. Competitive shooting accuracy was represented by data collected during one basketball season for each player (free throw, field goal, and three-point %). Results of the regression analyses showed that there were significant positive relationships among shooting assessments and competitive shooting accuracy during game play. The relationship was stronger when the dynamic shooting tests were applied compared to the stationary tests. However, few or weak relationships existed among physical fitness components and competitive shooting accuracy. Only the power tests showed to be good predictors for shooting over longer distances. The findings support the inclusion of the dynamic basketball shooting accuracy tests in regular basketball assessment procedures as a valuable testing instrument.

The aim of the present study was to compare the aerobic and anaerobic power and capacity of elite male basketball players who played multiple positions. Fifty-five healthy players were divided into the following three different subsamples according to their positional role: guards (n = 22), forwards (n = 19) and centers (n = 14). The following three tests were applied to estimate their aerobic and anaerobic power and capacities: the countermovement jump (CMJ), a multistage shuttle run test and the Running-based Anaerobic Sprint Test (RAST). The obtained data were used to calculate the players’ aerobic and anaerobic power and capacities. To determine the possible differences between the subjects considering their different positions on the court, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Bonferroni post-hoc test for multiple comparisons was used. The results showed that there was a significant difference between the different groups of players in eleven out of sixteen measured variables. Guards and forwards exhibited greater aerobic and relative values of anaerobic power, allowing shorter recovery times and the ability to repeat high intensity, basketball-specific activities. Centers presented greater values of absolute anaerobic power and capacities, permitting greater force production during discrete tasks. Coaches can use these data to create more individualized strength and conditioning programs for different positional roles.

SUMMARY:The aim of this research was the estimation of anthropometric characteristics of elite male basketball players from four Bosnian first league teams, as well as the identification of possible differences between players who play in different positions in the teams. Fifty-five, healthy players (age: 19.09±3.13 years; body height: 189.13±8.30 cm; body mass: 83.42±12.48 kg) were divided into three different subsamples according to their positional role (twenty two guards, nineteen forwards and fourteen centers). Twenty morphological variables were measured and afterwards one (BMI) was calculated. For all anthropometric characteristics, descriptive parameters (mean, standard deviation and range) were calculated. In order to determine the possible differences between the players that play in different positions in the teams the analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferoni post-hoc test for multiple comparisons was used. The results obtained show that there are significant differences between the different groups of players in sixteen out of twenty-one measured variables. Centers (big players) are dominantly heavier, taller, with longer and wider skeletons dimensionality as well as with bigger body circumferences compared to forwards and guards. Forwards are significantly heavier and taller with longer leg and arm lengths compared to guards. There are no significant differences between the groups in terms of body fat percentage, fat free percentage, body mass index and biepicondylar breadth of the femur and humerus. Generally, the values of the measured variables rise from guards to centers, except for body fat percentage and skinfolds. The obtained information can help coaches to indirectly evaluate fitness levels of the players and to design training and nutritional programs for basketball players.

The aim of the present study was to compare the effects of different warm-up interventions on jump, sprint and agility performance in collegiate soccer players. Twenty-one healthy male college soccer players (age: 20.14 ± 1.65 years; body height: 179.9 ± 8.34 cm; body mass: 74.4 ± 13.0 kg; % body fat: 9.45 ± 4.8) participated in the study. Subjects underwent four different randomized warm-up protocols separated by at least 48 hours. The warm-up schemes were: 1. no conditioning contraction protocol (NCC); 2. dynamic stretching (DS); 3. prolonged intermittent low-intensity isometric exercise (ST); and, 4. ST with an additional external load equal to 30% of body weight (ST + 30% BW). All interventions were preceded by a general warm-up. Results from one-way repeated measures ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference in countermovement jump (CMJ) at F(3,60) = 10.2, ηρ2 = 0.337, p < 0.01. Post hoc analysis revealed a significant difference in CMJ performance in DS when compared to NCC and ST + 30% BW. No significant difference in CMJ was observed between DS and ST. CMJ scores in NCC, ST, and ST + 30% BW were non-significant. There was a significant difference in speed; F(3, 60) = 6.61, ηρ2 = 0.248, p < 0.01. Post hoc analysis revealed significantly better time in DS than NCC and ST. However, no difference in speed was observed between DS and ST + 30% BW. Similarly, speed was similar in NCC, ST and ST + 30% BW. A significant difference in agility performance was also observed; F(3, 60) = 24.1, ηρ2= 0.546, p < 0.01. Post hoc analysis revealed significantly greater performance gains in DS than NCC. No significant difference in agility was observed in DS, ST and ST + 30% BW. In conclusion, a prolonged intermittent low-intensity isometric protocol using bodyweight only showed similar benefits with dynamic stretching in countermovement jump performance. When the same isometric condition with additional load equal to 30% of bodyweight was applied, effects in speed and agility were similar to dynamic stretching.