Performance profile and game-related statistics of FIBA 3x3 Basketball World Cup 2017

Abstract

The study aimed to characterize the performance profile of 3x3 basketball and particularly to assess: a) the differences between games in live time (LT) and stoppage time (ST) phases and their ratio, and b) the game-related statistics and derived game indicators differentiating between winning and losing teams. Eight games [quarterfinals, semifinals and finals (1 st and 3 rd place)] of the FIBA 3x3 basketball world cup (Serbia, 17 th -21 st June 2017) were analysed. The LT and ST phases were categorized into three phase durations: 1-20 s, 21-40 s, >40 s. The LT/ST ratio was calculated. The game-related statistics and derived parameters were assessed through video-based notational analysis methods, and differences between winning and losing teams were calculated using a mixed linear model. The results revealed no statistically significant differences in the distribution of LT and ST phases between games, with an LT/ST ratio of 0.92±0.13. Moreover, winning teams showed a significantly higher (p<0.05) number of free throws made and attempted, team offensive ratings, and recovered balls per possession compared to losing teams. Conversely, winning teams revealed significantly lower (p<0.05) values for turnover, rebound (offensive, defensive and total), offensive rebound percentage and team defensive rating compared to losing teams. These results provide coaches and practitioners with novel and applied information regarding the performance profile of 3x3 basketball to optimize training sessions, which should be characterized by short live time phases and a work-to-rest ratio ~1 and focused on developing the ability to avoid turnovers and increase the recovered balls per possession, minimizing the scoring possibilities for the opponent team.

The perceptual, heart rate and technical-tactical characteristics of 3 × 3 basketball

“…19 The large percentage of time spent at high internal intensities may be a result of the little recovery time afforded to players during competition. In a recent study, Conte et al., 7 observed that stoppages during 3 × 3 basketball were typically less than 20 seconds in duration, indicating a very short time for physiological recovery during play. Physical preparation of 3 × 3 basketball athletes should therefore include exposure to high internal intensities that mimic those of gameplay to ensure such intensities can be sustained.…”

“…7,24,40 Differences in methodologies may account for the variation in work to rest ratios within the literature. For example, Conte et al., 7 defined a work to rest ratio using live time (ball in play) and stoppage time (ball out of play) in 3 × 3, whilst Ben Abdelkrim et al., 40 defined rest as walking, jogging and low-intensity shuffling, and work as all other activities in 5 × 5 basketball. The present study used time on the court as a marker of work, and time on the bench as rest.…”

“…9,10 Similarly, during the 2017 3 × 3 World Cup, free throws, turnovers and recovered balls per possession were demonstrated to be the main game-related statistics discriminating between winning and losing teams. 7 More recently, Erčulj et al., 8 demonstrated a trend towards close-range shots being taken more frequently than long-range shots in elite youth 3 × 3 players, however the difference was non-significant. Physiologically, during 3 × 3 basketball, males and females exhibit mean game heart rates of 164 ± 12 beats per minute (bpm −1 ) and 165 ± 18 bpm −1 , and mean blood lactate levels of 6.33 ± 2.43 and 6.09 ± 2.24 mmol⋅L −1 , respectively (mean±SD).…”

“…Studies into 3 × 3 basketball demands have been conducted previously to investigate the techno-tactical (combination of technical sport skills and tactical gameplay elements) 7–10 and physiological 11,12 characteristics of 3 × 3 games. During the 2010 Youth Olympic Games, both male and female basketball teams were more successful when their athletes were taller and had higher shooting percentages.…”

“…Indeed, international 3 × 3 basketball rules have changed considerably since the earliest published literature 9,10 making it inappropriate to apply findings to the current context (for example, altered playing and rest periods may change game dynamics to a large extent). Additionally, most studies have largely utilised European subjects 7,11,12 or examined youth populations. 8–12…”