Search Results

Purpose: To compare weekly training and game demands according to playing position in basketball players. Methods: A longitudinal, observational study was adopted. Semiprofessional, male basketball players categorized as backcourt (guards; n = 4) and frontcourt players (forwards/centers; n = 4) had their weekly workloads monitored across an entire season. External workload was determined using microsensors and included PlayerLoad^™ (PL) and inertial movement analysis variables. Internal workload was determined using heart rate to calculate absolute and relative summated-heart-rate-zones workload and rating of perceived exertion (RPE) to calculate session-RPE workload. Comparisons between weekly training and game demands were made using linear mixed models and effect sizes in each positional group. Results: In backcourt players, higher relative PL (P = .04, very large) and relative summated-heart-rate-zones workload (P = .007, very large) were evident during training, while greater session-RPE workload (P = .001, very large) was apparent during games. In frontcourt players, greater PL (P < .001, very large), relative PL (P = .019, very large), peak PL intensities (P < .001, moderate), high-intensity inertial movement analysis events (P = .002, very large), total inertial movement analysis events (P < .001, very large), summated-heart-rate-zones workload (P < .001, very large), RPE (P < .001, very large), and session-RPE workload (P < .001, very large) were evident during games. Conclusions: Backcourt players experienced similar demands between training and games across several variables, with higher average workload intensities during training. Frontcourt players experienced greater demands across all variables during games than training. These findings emphasize the need for position-specific preparation strategies leading into games in basketball teams.

Purpose : To compare weekly training, game, and overall (training and games) demands across phases of the regular season in basketball. Methods : Seven semiprofessional, male basketball players were monitored during all on-court team-based training sessions and games during the regular season. External monitoring variables included PlayerLoad^™ and inertial movement analysis events per minute. Internal monitoring variables included a modified summated heart rate zones model calculated per minute and rating of perceived exertion. Linear mixed models were used to compare training, game, and overall demands between 5-week phases (early, middle, and late) of the regular season with significance set at P ≤ .05. Effect sizes were calculated between phases and interpreted as: trivial, <0.20; small, 0.20 to 0.59; moderate, 0.60 to 1.19; large, 1.20 to 1.99; very large, ≥2.00. Results : Greater (P > .05) overall inertial movement analysis events (moderate–very large) and rating of perceived exertion (moderate) were evident in the late phase compared with earlier phases. During training, more accelerations were evident in the middle (P = .01, moderate) and late (P = .05, moderate) phases compared with the early phase, while higher rating of perceived exertion (P = .04, moderate) was evident in the late phase compared with earlier phases. During games, nonsignificant, trivial–small differences in demands were apparent between phases. Conclusions : Training and game demands should be interpreted in isolation and combined given overall player demands increased as the season progressed, predominantly due to modifications in training demands given the stability of game demands. Periodization strategies administered by coaching staff may have enabled players to train at greater intensities late in the season without compromising game intensity.

Purpose : To compare anthropometric and power-related attributes between competition levels in under-19-year-old (U19) male basketball players. Methods : National-level (n = 7; age: 17.7 [0.5] y), first-division state-level (n = 8; 17.4 [0.4] y), and second-division state-level (n = 8; 17.1 [0.4] y) players from Australian basketball programs participated in this pilot study. Players had various anthropometric attributes (height, standing reach height, wingspan, and body mass) and power-related attributes (isometric midthigh pull, linear sprint, countermovement jump, 1-step vertical jump, standing long jump, repeated lateral bound, and Modified Agility T Test) measured in the preseason. Differences between groups were assessed using 1-way analyses of variance with Tukey post hoc tests and effect sizes (ES) interpreted as trivial, <0.20; small, 0.20 to 0.59; moderate, 0.60 to 1.19; large, 1.20 to 1.99; and very large, ≥2.00. Results : Regarding anthropometric attributes, national-level players possessed greater (P < .05, large-very large) height (ES = 2.09), standing reach height (ES = 1.54), wingspan (ES = 1.45), and body mass (ES = 1.77) than second-division state-level players. For power-related attributes, national-level players possessed greater (P < .05, large-very large) isometric midthigh-pull peak force (ES = 1.46–2.57), sprint momentum (ES = 1.17–2.18), and countermovement jump peak force (ES = 1.73–2.01) than state-level players. Moreover, national-level players demonstrated greater (P < .05) 1-step vertical jump height (ES = 1.95, large) than second division state-level players. Conclusions : Specific anthropometric and power-related attributes clearly differ between competition levels in U19 male basketball players. This information can inform development of testing protocols, reference ranges, and training programs in practice. Further research is encouraged on this topic to confirm our findings across larger samples of basketball players.