Search Results

Purpose: To systematically quantify the external and internal workloads reported during games-based drills in basketball and identify the effects of different modifiable factors on the workloads encountered. Methods: PubMed, Scopus, MEDLINE, and SPORTDiscus databases were searched for original research published up until January 2, 2019. The search included terms relevant to workload, games-based drills, and basketball. Studies were screened using predefined selection criteria, and methodological quality was assessed prior to data extraction. Results: The electronic search yielded 8,284 studies with 3,411 duplicates. A total of 17 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, with quality scores ranging from 9 to 10 out of 11. Factors regularly modified during games-based drills among the included studies were team size, playing area, playing and rest time, and game alterations. Games-based drills containing smaller team sizes elicited greater external and internal workloads compared to larger team sizes. Furthermore, full-court games-based drills elicited greater external and internal workloads compared to half-court drills, while continuous games-based drills elicited greater internal workloads compared to intermittent drills. Conclusions: This review provides a comprehensive collation of data indicating the external and internal workloads reported during different games-based drills in various samples of basketball players. Furthermore, evidence is provided for basketball coaches to consider when prescribing games-based drills and modifying factors during drills across the season. Current literature suggests that smaller team sizes and full-court playing areas elicit greater external and internal workloads than larger team sizes and half-court drills, respectively. Furthermore, continuous games-based drills elicit greater internal workloads than intermittent drills.

Purpose: To compare the aerobic capacity of elite female basketball players between playing roles and positions determined using maximal laboratory and field tests. Methods: Elite female basketball players from the National Croatian League were grouped according to playing role (starter: n = 8; bench: n = 12) and position (backcourt: n = 11; frontcourt: n = 9). All 20 players completed 2 maximal exercise tests in a crossover fashion 7 days apart. First, the players underwent a laboratory-based continuous running treadmill test with metabolic measurement to determine their peak oxygen uptake (VO₂peak). The players then completed a maximal field-based 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test (30-15 IFT) to estimate VO₂peak. The VO₂peak was compared using multiple linear regression analysis with bootstrap standard errors and playing role and position as predictors. Results: During both tests, starters attained a significantly higher VO₂peak than bench players (continuous running treadmill: 47.4 [5.2] vs 44.7 [3.5] mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹, P = .05, moderate; 30-15 IFT: 44.9 [2.1] vs 41.9 [1.7] mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹, P < .001, large), and backcourt players attained a significantly higher VO₂peak than frontcourt players (continuous running treadmill: 48.1 [3.8] vs 43.0 [3.3] mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹, P < .001, large; 30-15 IFT: 44.2 [2.2] vs 41.8 [2.0] mL·kg⁻¹·min⁻¹, P < .001, moderate). Conclusions: Starters (vs bench players) and guards (vs forwards and centers) possess a higher VO₂peak irrespective of using laboratory or field tests. These data highlight the role- and position-specific importance of aerobic fitness to inform testing, training, and recovery practices in elite female basketball.

Purpose: Games-based drills are the predominant form of training adopted during basketball practice. As such, researchers have begun to quantify the physical, physiological, and perceptual demands of different games-based drill formats. However, study methodology has not been systematically reported across studies, limiting the ability to form conclusions from existing research. The authors developed this call to action to draw attention to the current standard of methodological reporting in basketball games-based drill research and establish a systematic reporting standard the authors hope will be utilized in future research. The Basketball Games-Based Drill Methodical Reporting Checklist (BGBDMRC) was developed to encourage the systematic reporting of games-based drill methodology. The authors used the BGBDMRC to evaluate the current methodological reporting standard of studies included in their review published in the International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, “A Systematic Review of the External and Internal Workloads Experienced During Games-Based Drills in Basketball Players” (2020), which highlighted this issue. Of the 17 studies included in their review, only 38% (±18%) of applicable checklist items were addressed across included studies, which is problematic as checklist items are essential for study replication. Conclusions: The current standard of methodological reporting in basketball games-based drill research is insufficient to allow for replication of examined drills in future research or the application of research outcomes to practice. The authors implore researchers to adopt the BGBDMRC to improve the quality and reproducibility of games-based drill research and increase the translation of research findings to practice.

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.