Techniques and Tactics in Basketball According to the Intensity in Official Matches

Daniel, José Francisco; Montagner, Paulo César; Padovani, Carlos Roberto; Borin, João Paulo

doi:10.1590/1517-869220172304167577

Cited by 7 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 165 articles reviewed, 35 met the criteria for the systematic review. Of the 35 articles that met the criteria, 12 had participants for elite competition demands [4,5,6,11,12,13,14,15,16,7,9,30,32], 16 articles had participants for elite training load [2,10,3,12,15,35,37,38,39,41,20,42,25,27,43,47], 6 for sub-elite competition demands [4,11,13,21,26,32], 3 for sub-elite training load [23,44,48], 5 for youth competition demands [11,18,22,9,28] and 1 for youth training load [24]. A full view of the search and selection process can be found in the PRISMA flow diagram [45] in Fig 2.…”

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This seemingly paradoxical finding suggests that the total distance covered may be a poor indicator of in-game performance. In fact, one could infer that the observed phenomenon is a product of technical mastery relative to the demands of competition, as well as elite level players having a higher level of economy in relation to the tactical aspects of basketball [1,5,6]. Based on the present results and as it occurs in other team-sports [50], the key aspect here appears to be not "how much" distance a player covers (i.e., quantity) but "how" and at "what intensity" that distance is covered (i.e., quality).…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Basketball is a court-based team sport that requires proficiency in a vast array of physical parameters and motor abilities (i.e., speed, strength, and endurance) to achieve success from both a technical and tactical standpoint [1]. The ability to accelerate, decelerate, change direction, jump, and shuffle are paramount for on-court success, due to the intermittent high-a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 intensity nature of most actions and basketball-specific movements [2,3] as well as the demands of the sporting activity [4,5,6]. Importantly, in competition settings, the aforementioned abilities must be expressed in an efficient and economical manner over the course of four quarters with contributions from both aerobic and anaerobic energy pathways [1].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is for this reason that practitioners must have a precise overview of match-play demands as well as the load elicited during training [4,5,2,6,10,3,11,12,13,14,15]. In fact, over the past years, there have been several studies documenting match-play demands in basketball [4,5,2,6,10,3,11,12,13,14,15,16,7,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,9,25,26,27,28]. Particularly, a recent review by Stojanovic et al [29] analyzed the activity demands and physiological responses obtained during basketball competition and found that playing period, playing position, level, geographical location and sex greatly influenced the stress experienced by basketball players.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to note that amongst the several methods used to quantify the demands of play, and regarding internal load quantifications, HR [6,3,11,12,14,20] and blood lactate concentration [4,13,14,16,9,30] were the most frequently used. In fact, internal variables such as average and maximal HR can be extracted to quantify loading parameters during match-play [11,12,21,30,26].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Training load and match-play demands in basketball based on competition level: A systematic review

Petway¹,

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Basketball is a court-based team-sport that requires a broad array of demands (physiological, mechanical, technical, tactical) in training and competition which makes it important for practitioners to understand the stress imposed on the basketball player during practice and match-play. Therefore, the main aim of the present systematic review is to investigate the training and match-play demands of basketball in elite, sub-elite, and youth competition. A search of five electronic databases (PubMed, SportDiscus, Web of Science, SCOPUS, and Cochrane) was conducted until December 20 th , 2019. Articles were included if the study: (i) was published in English; (ii) contained internal or external load variables from basketball training and/or competition; and (iii) reported physiological or metabolic demands of competition or practice. Additionally, studies were classified according to the type of study participants into elite (20), sub-elite (9), and youth (6). A total of 35 articles were included in the systematic review. Results indicate that higher-level players seem to be more efficient while moving on-court. When compared to sub-elite and youth, elite players cover less distance at lower average velocities and with lower maximal and average heart rate during competition. However, elite-level players have a greater bandwidth to express higher velocity movements. From the present systematic review, it seems that additional investigation on this topic is warranted before a "clear picture" can be drawn concerning the acceleration and deceleration demands of training and competition. It is necessary to accurately and systematically assess competition demands to provide appropriate training strategies that resemble match-play.

show abstract

Section: Search Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Training load and match-play demands in basketball based on competition level: A systematic review

Petway¹,

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Measuring Physical Demands in Basketball: An Explorative Systematic Review of Practices

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Measuring the physical work and resultant acute psychobiological responses of basketball can help to better understand and inform physical preparation models and improve overall athlete health and performance. Recent advancements in training load monitoring solutions have coincided with increases in the literature describing the physical demands of basketball, but there are currently no reviews that summarize all the available basketball research. Additionally, a thorough appraisal of the load monitoring methodologies and measures used in basketball is lacking in the current literature. This type of critical analysis would allow for consistent comparison between studies to better understand physical demands across the sport. Objectives The objective of this systematic review was to assess and critically evaluate the methods and technologies used for monitoring physical demands in competitive basketball athletes. We used the term 'training load' to encompass the physical demands of both training and game activities, with the latter assumed to provide a training stimulus as well. This review aimed to critique methodological inconsistencies, establish operational definitions specific to the sport, and make recommendations for basketball training load monitoring practice and reporting within the literature. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using EBSCO, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science to identify studies through March 2020. Electronic databases were searched using terms related to basketball and training load. Records were included if they used a competitive basketball population and incorporated a measure of training load. This systematic review was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO Registration # CRD42019123603), and approved under the National Basketball Association (NBA) Health Related Research Policy. Results Electronic and manual searches identified 122 papers that met the inclusion criteria. These studies reported the physical demands of basketball during training (n = 56), competition (n = 36), and both training and competition (n = 30). Physical demands were quantified with a measure of internal training load (n = 52), external training load (n = 29), or both internal and external measures (n = 41). These studies examined males (n = 76), females (n = 34), both male and female (n = 9), and a combination of youth (i.e. under 18 years, n = 37), adults (i.e. 18 years or older, n = 77), and both adults and youth (n = 4). Inconsistencies related to the reporting of competition level, methodology for recording duration, participant inclusion criteria, and validity of measurement systems were identified as key factors relating to the reporting of physical demands in basketball and summarized for each study. Conclusions This review comprehensively evaluated the current body of literature related to training load monitoring in basketball. Within this literature, there is a clear lack of alignment in applied practices and metho...

show abstract

Body Fat of Basketball Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study aimed to provide reference values for body fat (BF) of basketball players considering sex, measurement method, and competitive level. Methods A systematic literature research was conducted using five electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL, Scopus). BF values were extracted, with analyses conducted using random-effects models and data reported as percentages with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results After screening, 80 articles representing 4335 basketball players were selected. Pooled mean BF was 13.1% (95% CI 12.4–13.8%) for male players and 20.7% (95% CI 19.9–21.5%) for female players. Pooled mean BF was 21.4% (95% CI 18.4–24.3%) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), 15.2% (95% CI 12.8–17.6%) via bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), 12.4% (95% CI 10.6–14.2%) via skinfolds and 20.0% (95% CI 13.4–26.6%) via air displacement plethysmography. Pooled mean BF across competitive levels were 13.5% (95% CI 11.6–15.3%) for international, 15.7% (95% CI 14.2–17.2%) for national and 15.1% (95% CI 13.5–16.7%) for regional-level players. As the meta-regression revealed significant effects of sex, measurement method and competitive level on BF, the meta-analysis was adjusted for these moderators. The final model revealed significant differences in BF between male and female players (p < 0.001). BF measured by DXA was significantly higher than that measured by BIA or skinfolds (p < 0.001). International-level players had significantly lower BF than national and regional-level players (p < 0.05). Conclusions Despite the limitations of published data, this meta-analysis provides reference values for BF of basketball players. Sex, measurement method and competitive level influence BF values, and therefore must be taken into account when interpreting results.

show abstract

Techniques and Tactics in Basketball According to the Intensity in Official Matches

Cited by 7 publications

References 15 publications

Training load and match-play demands in basketball based on competition level: A systematic review

Training load and match-play demands in basketball based on competition level: A systematic review

Measuring Physical Demands in Basketball: An Explorative Systematic Review of Practices

Body Fat of Basketball Players: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About