Technical-tactical performance in basketball: evaluation of gaming actions according to specific positions

Abstract

Aim:

This study aimed to analyze the level of technical-tactical performance of female basketball base players, considering the association between the game actions and the specific positions performed by the players.

Methods:

Twenty-six players from a basketball club in the state of Santa Catarina (Brazil) participated. The performance was analyzed with the aid of the Individual Technical-Tactical Basketball Performance Assessment Instrument (IAD-BB). The statistical treatment involved the use of descriptive (simple and percentage frequency) and inferential (Pearson’s Chi-square test, Cramer’s V coefficients, adjusted residuals), adopting a 5% significance level for the interpretation of the results.

Results:

It was found a statistically significant association of the functions performed by the players with the actions of reception, dribble, throw, marking and rebound block. The guards performed better in the reception, dribble and clearing actions, the centers were better in rebound block, throw and clearing, while the forwards showed better performance in clearing and rebound block.

Conclusion:

It is concluded that the analysis of tactical-technical performance, considering the actions and specific positions of female players, is necessary for a better understanding of the factors that influence their performance in the game. Results are discussed with the literature and suggestions are made for future research in order to expand the quantity and quality of evidence in sports performance analysis.

Keywords:
team sport; players; efficacy; decision making

Introduction

The analysis of sports performance can be performed in different ways, depending on the focus of the area of study of Sport Sciences (Human Movement Biodynamics, Sport Pedagogy, Sport Psychology). Its complexity comes from the multiple factors that can be considered for its interpretation, among which stand out the internal factors (emotional, cognitive, energetic, biomechanical) and the external factors (physical, technical, tactical training) to the player^1,2. The comprehensiveness of these factors has provided the professional and scientific community with technological evolution in material (instruments, equipment) and structural (equipped laboratories) terms, which has allowed the advance of the sporting phenomenon itself^3,4.

The sports performance indicators in the collective sport modalities range from the general aspects of sport to the technical and tactical actions that contribute to the understanding of the specific demands of each sport⁵. From this perspective, it is understood that during the practice of collective sports games, the player needs to respond to different and unpredictable game situations, essentially of a technical-tactical nature⁶. Consequently, it will not be enough for the player to have skills if he does not know how to apply them properly during the game⁷.

Assessing players’ performance in game situations may provide useful information for detecting aspects that require the coach to pay more attention to training sessions. In this sense, it is necessary to diagnose and monitor the teaching and learning processes, as well as the level of physical, psychological, technical and tactical development of the players, in order to analyze their performance in a different game and competition situations⁸.

The components of the technical dimension of performance include the efficiency - quality of the technical gesture^3,5 and the effectiveness – the result of motor performance^9,10. They are the most easily observed because they are related to motor actions and their respective results⁵. The components of the tactical dimension involve the adjustment - movement without the ball^3,5, the adaptation - movement adaptability, from observation and analysis of the game^9,10, and decision-making - choosing a particular action to solve the problem situation that you face^5,9,10. The tactical components, in turn, present greater difficulty of evaluation because they involve subjective interpretation and the presence of cognitive aspects by the player^5,9,10.

Particularly, basketball is a sport characterized by the complexity and dynamism of actions and movements, since during the game there are innumerable situations presented to the players in order to keep the ball possession and control the defensive actions. The evolution of the rules of the modality and the demands around the technical-tactical actions has resulted in greater physiological and anthropometric differentiation¹¹ and imposed demands that differ according to the position of each athlete’s game¹².

In this context, depending on the playing position (guard, forward, center), players have different levels of physical fitness, body composition and morphological profiles that ultimately determine their role in court¹³. Guards, because they are the shortest players, are the fastest and most agile, end up making quick transitions, mastering ball-handling skills (control, dribble, pass, assistance),. The centers, being the taller players, stronger and heavier, play closer to the basket and aim to secure rebounds^12,13. The forwards are usually of medium height in relation to guards and centers¹⁴ and are responsible for mid and long-range throws, as well as assisting the centers in the rebound¹².

When considering these characteristics, it seems reasonable to understand that players’ performance is related to the specific position they assume in the team¹². In addition, the specific development of the qualities needed for better performance in each game position should be encouraged by coaches¹⁵.

Despite the expansion of research on the subject, it is still observed, both in Brazilian and international reality, the predominance of studies developed on the analysis of the technical dimension through game statistics^{16 -18}, the analysis of the tactical dimension only from the tactical-procedural knowledge^{19 -22}, as well as the predominant observation of the technical and/or tactical performance in basketball of male players^{23 -27}.

On the other hand, an investigative gap is identified with female basketball players^15,28, especially of training categories^{29 -31}, which provide an integrative view of existing knowledge, focusing on the training process and analysis of women’s basketball games. Despite gender differences (biological and physiological), most studies are developed from male data, which cannot be applied to female basketball³², thus justifying conducting studies that provide data for greater understanding of the sport specificities of female players²⁸.

Another very important issue that has not yet been adequately investigated concerns the relationship between players’ specific position and game-related performance¹². Thus, to overcome the lack of studies conducted with Brazilian female players and the analysis of the game actions by specific position, this study aimed to analyze the level of technical-tactical performance of female basketball players, considering the association between the game actions and the specific positions (guard, forward, center) exercised by the players. The option of analyzing the three-game positions meets the trend of developed research on performance based on statistics and specific basketball game positions^{12,31,33 -37} and the specification provided by players and coaches researched in this study.

Materials and Methods

The present study is characterized as empirical, cross-sectional and descriptive in nature. The associative strategy was used for the analysis of collected data³⁸.

Participants

The sample consisted of 26 players from Under-16 (U16) (13 to 16 years old) and Under-18 (U18) (14 to 18 years old) categories from a Santa Catarina Basketball Club, who became unbeaten champion of both categories in the State Championship promoted by the Santa Catarina Basketball Federation (FCB) in the 2011 season. In the U16 category actions of 14 players (two guards, seven forwards, and five centers) were evaluated, while in the U18 category were analyzed actions of 12 players (two guards, seven forwards, and three centers).

The specific positions of the players were self-indicated by the players in characterization sheets, according to their roles in the team. Moreover, such functions were confirmed by the coaches and by observing the filming of the games.

Data collection procedures

Initially, preliminary contact was made with the Basketball Club managers and coaches to invite them to participate in the study, explaining the research objectives and data collection procedures. After authorization for the institution’s involvement, the project was approved by the Ethics Committee on Research with Human Beings of the Federal University of Santa Catarina (opinion no. 1170/2010).

The structured observation of the tactical and technical performance of the players in the game situation was made through the recording of six official games of each category, being the first two matches of the year, the two intermediate matches and the last two matches that the teams played. The U16 state championship was held in turn and return games (all against all) during the qualifying phase, while the final phase was held in quadrangular. Similarly, the U18 championship was also held in turn and return games (all against all) during the qualifying round. However, the finals were held on a best-of-three games system (requiring only two matches) between the top two teams in the early stages.

The recordings were made with the aid of a portable digital camcorder, fixed on a tripod positioned in the stands of the sports gyms and aligned with the center of the court. According to the direction of the game, the camera was moved towards the game actions, along with the movement of the ball. The collected data were transcribed in a systematic observation form, elaborated based on the Individual Technical-Tactical Basketball Performance Assessment Instrument (IAD-BB), built and validated by Folle, Quinaud, Barroso, Rocha, Ramos, and Nascimento¹⁰.

The purpose of the IAD-BB is to evaluate, in a formal game situation, the level of technical-tactical performance of basketball players, considering the game actions of this modality. The performance level is classified by the IAD-BB as inadequate (0 to 33.3%), intermediate (33.4% to 66.6%) or adequate (66.7% to 100%). In the validation process, the IAD-BB presented 92.4% consensus percentages among experts (content analysis) and reliability indixes of 0.84 (intra-rater) and 0.96 (inter-rater)¹⁰.

Statistical analysis

The data obtained from the analysis of the games with the IAD-BB were organized and grouped in a spreadsheet of Excel® 2013 software and analyzed using the Pearson’s Chi-square. The 12 games (six of each category) filmed were evaluated the game actions (pass, reception, dribble, throw, clearing, cut-off, throw, rebound blocking, marking and rebounds) performed by the players, totaling 14,872 actions, of which 3,084 pass, 3,083 receptions, 2,079 dribbles, 1,102 throws, 579 clearing, 132 cut-off, 739 rebound blocks, 3,366 markings, and 708 rebounds.

In the analysis process, descriptive (absolute and relative frequency) and inferential (hypothesis testing) statistical resources were used with the aid of IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0 software. The association between the level of technical-tactical performance in game actions and the specific positions of the investigated players was analyzed through Pearson’s Chi-square test and the adjusted residuals. The effect size was calculated through the Cramer’s V coefficients. A significance level of 5% was adopted for the interpretation of the results from the inferential analysis.

Results

Table 1 presents the overall performance level in-game actions, considering the functions performed by the players. There was a statistically significant association between the reception, dribble, throw and rebound block actions and the positions that the players acted. The guards presented the highest percentage of appropriate actions in the reception and dribble and the centers in the rebound block. In contrast, the forwards presented a higher percentage of inappropriate actions in dribble and throw, similarly to the centers that besides these actions, also presented a higher percentage of inappropriate actions in reception.

Table 1
Overall performance level in game actions, considering the positions of the players.

Game actions	Position	Inappropriate n (%)	Intermediate n (%)	Appropriate N (%)	Total n	p	V
Pass	Guard	50 (4.5)	33 (3.0)	1027 (92.5)	1110	0.539
	Forward	62 (4.8)	48 (3.7)	1188 (91.5)	1298
	Center	23 (3.4)	22 (3.3)	631 (93.3)	676
	Subtotal	135 (4.4)	103 (3.3)	2846 (92.3)	3084
Reception	Guard	05 (0.5)+	02 (0.2)	1031 (99.3)++	1038	0.003	0.05
	Forward	16 (1.2)	04 (0.3)	1277 (98.5)	1297
	Center	17 (2.3)++	06 (0.8)++	725 (96.9)+	748
	Subtotal	59 (1.9)	12 (0.4)	3012 (97.7)	3083
Dribble	Guard	16 (2.0)+	5 (0.6)+	774 (97.4)++	795	<0.001	0.10
	Forward	48 (5.5)++	8 (0.9)	815 (93.6)	871
	Center	28 (6.8)++	15 (3.6)++	370 (89.6)+	413
	Subtotal	92 (4.4)	28 (1.3)	1959 (94.2)	2079
Throw	Guard	97 (30.0)	101 (31.3)	125 (38.7)	323	0.037	0.07
	Forward	100 (25.7)++	119 (30.6)	170 (43.7)	389
	Center	132 (33.8)++	92 (23.6)+	166 (42.6)	390
	Subtotal	329 (29.9)	312 (28.3)	461 (41.8)	1102
Cut-off	Guard	2 (15.4)	1 (7.7)	10 (76.9)	13	0.807
	Forward	3 (7.9)	7 (18.4)	28 (73.7)	38
	Center	11 (13.6)	13 (16.0)	57 (70.4)	81
	Subtotal	16 (12.1)	21 (15.9)	95 (72.0)	132
Marking	Guard	304 (33.1)	119 (12.9)	496 (54.0)	919	0.249
	Forward	475 (33.7)	210 (14.9)	725 (51.4)	1410
	Center	356 (34.3)	167 (16.1)	514 (49.6)	1037
	Subtotal	1135 (33.7)	496 (14.7)	1735 (51.5)	3366
Clearing	Guard	16 (12.3)	10 (7.7)	104 (80.0)	130	0.566
	Forward	25 (11.1)	21 (9.3)	180 (79.6)	226
	Center	35 (15.7)	15 (6.7)	173 (77.6)	223
	Subtotal	76 (13.1)	46 (7.9)	457 (78.9)	579
Rebound	Guard	31 (24.4)	22 (17.3)	74 (58.3)	127	0.681
	Forward	40 (20.3)	29 (14.7)	128 (65.0)	197
	Center	95 (24.7)	56 (14.6)	233 (60.7)	384
	Subtotal	176 (23.4)	107 (15.1)	435 (61.4)	708
Rebound block	Guard	47 (52.2)	10 (11.1)	33 (36.7)	90	0.025	0.09
	Forward	95 (44.2)	40 (18.6)+	80 (37.2)	215
	Center	193 (44.5)	46 (10.6)+	195 (44.9)++	434
	Subtotal	335 (45.3)	96 (13.0)	308 (41.7)	739

In the adaptation component (Table 2), no statistically significant associations were observed between the performance and the specific functions of the players.

Table 2
Adaptation level in game actions, considering the players’ positions.

Game actions	Position	Inappropriate n (%)	Intermediate n (%)	Appropriate n (%)	Total n	p
Cut-off	Guard	1 (7.7)	5 (38.5)	7 (53.8)	13	0.766
	Forward	2 (5.3)	13 (34.2)	23 (60.5)	38
	Center	10 (12.3)	24 (29.6)	47 (58.0)	81
	Subtotal	13 (9.8)	42 (31.8)	77 (58.3)	132
Marking	Guard	230 (25.0)	226 (24.6)	463 (50.4)	919	0.167
	Forward	337 (23.9)	395 (28.0)	678 (48.1)	1410
	Center	251 (24.2)	306 (29.5)	480 (46.3)	1037
	Subtotal	818 (24.3)	927 (27.5)	1621 (48.2)	3366
Clearing	Guard	16 (12.3)	53 (40.8)	61 (46.9)	130	0.095
	Forward	26 (11.5)	89 (39.4)	111 (49.1)	226
	Center	36 (16.1)	105 (47.1)	82 (36.8)	223
	Subtotal	78 (13.5)	247 (42.7)	254 (43.9)	579
Rebound block	Guard	43 (47.8)	22 (24.4)	25 (27.8)	90	0.055
	Forward	82 (38.1)	68 (31.6)	65 (30.2)	215
	Center	153 (35.3)	114 (26.3)	167 (38.5)	439
	Subtotal	278 (37.6)	204 (27.6)	257 (34.8)	739

Table 3 presents the associations between game actions in the decision-making component and the specific functions of the investigated players. A significant association was found between dribble, throw and marking actions with the functions performed by the players. Specifically, the guards had a higher percentage of appropriate actions in dribble and clearing, while centers exhibited a higher percentage of adequate actions in throws and inappropriate actions in dribble.

Table 3
Decision making level in game actions, considering the players’ positions.

Game actions	Position	Inappropriate n (%)	Intermediate n (%)	Appropriate n (%)	Total n	p	V
Pass	Guard	58 (5.2)	304 (27.4)	748 (67.4)	1110	0.101
	Forward	71 (5.5)	407 (31.4)	820 (63.2)	1298
	Center	27 (4.0)	215 (31.8)	434 (64.2)	676
	Subtotal	156 (5.1)	926 (30.0)	2002 (64.9)	3084
Dribble	Guard	17 (2.1)+	287 (36.1)	491 (61.8)++	795	<0.001	0.09
	Forward	47 (5.4)	345 (39.6)	479 (55.0)	871
	Center	36 (8.7)++	158 (38.3)	219 (53.0)	413
	Subtotal	100 (4.8)	790 (38.0)	1189 (57.2)	2079
Throw	Guard	30 (9.3)	91 (28.2)	202 (62.5)	323	0.013	0.08
	Forward	37 (9.5)	96 (24.7)	256 (65.8)	389
	Center	49 (12.6)	131 (33.6)+	210 (53.8)++	390
	Subtotal	116 (10.5)	318 (28.9)	668 (60.6)	1102
Marking	Guard	196 (21.3)	392 (42.7)	331 (36.0)	919	<0.001	0.07
	Forward	284 (20.1)	652 (46.2)	474 (33.6)	1410
	Center	171 (16.5)	575 (55.4)	291 (28.1)	1037
	Subtotal	818 (24.3)+	927 (27.5)++	1621 (48.2)+	3366
Clearing	Guard	11 (8.5)	44 (33.8)	75 (57.7)	130	0.657
	Forward	17 (7.5)	77 (34.1)	132 (58.4)	226
	Center	25 (11.2)	67 (30.0)	131 (58.7)	223
	Subtotal	78 (13.5)	247 (42.7)	254 (43.9)	579

The relationship between specific positions and performance in the efficacy component can be seen in Table 4. A significant association was observed in the reception, dribble, throw and rebound block actions. The highest percentages of appropriate actions were obtained by the guards at the reception and dribble, as well as by the centers in the rebound block. The forwards showed the highest percentage of inappropriate actions in the dribble and intermediate in the rebound block, while the centers presented the highest percentage of inappropriate actions in two actions (reception and dribble).

Table 4
Effectiveness level in game actions considering the players’ positions.

Game actions	Position	Inappropriate n (%)	Intermediate n (%)	Appropriate n (%)	Total n	p	V
Pass	Guard	37 (3.3)	55 (5.0)	1018 (91.7)	1110	0.492
	Forward	55 (4.2)	69 (5.3)	1174 (90.4)	1298
	Center	23 (3.4)	27 (4.0)	626 (92.6)	676
	Subtotal	115 (3.7)	151 (4.9)	2818 (91.4)	3084
Reception	Guard	05 (0.5)+	02 (0.2)	1031 (99.3)++	1038	0.003	0.05
	Forward	16 (1.2)	04 (0.3)	1277 (98.5)	1297
	Center	17 (2.3)++	06 (0.8)++	725 (96.9)+	748
	Subtotal	38 (1.2)	12 (0.4)	3033 (98.4)	3083
Dribble	Guard	11 (1.4)+	11 (1.4)	773 (97.2)++	795	0.001	0.07
	Forward	38 (4.4)++	21 (2.4)	812 (93.2)+	871
	Center	21 (5.1)++	11 (2.7)	381 (92.3)+	413
	Subtotal	70 (3.4)	43 (2.1)	1966 (94.6)	2079
Throw	Guard	191 (59.1)++	5 (1.5)+	127 (39.3)	323	0.051	0.07
	Forward	199 (51.2)	17 (4.4)	173 (44.5)	389
	Center	204 (52.3)	19 (4.9)	167 (42.8)	390
	Subtotal	594 (53.9)	41 (3.7)	467 (42.4)	1102
Cut-off	Guard	02 (15.4)	02 (15.4)	09 (69.2)	13	0.916
	Forward	03 (7.9)	09 (23.7)	26 (68.4)	38
	Center	07 (8.6)	18 (22.2)	56 (69.1)	81
	Subtotal	12 (9.1)	29 (22.0)	91 (68.9)	132
Marking	Guard	319 (34.7)	366 (39.8)	234 (25.5)	919	0.901
	Forward	465 (33.0)	566 (40.1)	379 (26.9)	1410
	Center	352 (33.9)	418 (40.3)	267 (25.7)	1037
	Subtotal	1136 (33.7)	1350 (40.1)	880 (26.1)	3366
Clearing	Guard	13 (10.0)	31 (23.8)	86 (66.2)	130	0.589
	Forward	17 (7.5)	48 (21.2)	161 (71.2)	226
	Center	26 (11.7)	50 (22.4)	147 (65.9)	223
	Subtotal	56 (9.7)	129 (22.3)	394 (68.0)	579
Rebound	Guard	31 (24.4)	22 (17.3)	74 (58.3)	127	0.681
	Forward	40 (20.3)	29 (14.7)	128 (65.0)	197
	Center	95 (24.7)	56 (14.6)	233 (60.7)	384
	Subtotal	166 (23.4)	107 (15.1)	435 (61.4)	708
Rebound block	Guard	46 (51.1)	17 (18.9)	27 (30.0)	90	0.015	0.09
	Forward	88 (40.9)	62 (28.8)++	65 (30.2)	215
	Center	178 (41.0)	85 (19.6)+	171 (39.4)++	434
	Subtotal	312 (42.2)	164 (22.2)	263 (35.6)	739

Discussion

This study aimed to analyze the level of tactical-technical performance, considering the association between game actions and the specific positions of female basketball players. In general, the results revealed significant associations between the actions reception, dribble, throw, marking and rebound block and the specific positions that the players performed.

In overall performance, the guards excelled in the reception and dribble actions, while the centers outperformed the rebound block. The forwards, in turn, obtained the highest percentage of inappropriate actions in dribble and throw, while the centers were inadequate in reception. These results corroborate with the indication that game action performance matches the characteristics of certain specific roles performed by players during a basketball game^4,37.

The guards, for example, are responsible for organizing and setting the pace of the game, which requires the discernment to properly perform certain actions^4,39, such as reception and dribble. In fact, these responsibilities reflect the need for higher performance levels in these actions, as, in addition to having longer possession of the ball, the guards play a dominant role in the team’s performance on court³².

The rebound block, action dominated by the centers in this study, reinforces the finding that it requires a strategic and specific position on the court so that if a basket is not converted, the player is in an appropriate position to gain possession of the ball⁴⁰. Thus, it is essential for players of this position to perform well in this action, as this feature requires a better posture of the athlete in moments preceding and/or following the action of the ball towards the basket⁴¹ and prevent the action of the opposing team.

In fact, centers are oriented to use their size (height and body mass) to benefit the team in terms of rebounds, defensive blocks and close-range throws as these players act closer to the basket and therefore are more specialized in these types of foundations^12,42. Therefore, it seems that the anthropometric status of the players investigated may also have influenced these results, since in basketball some body sizes are better suited to the demands of some playing positions⁴², ie, it is more logical to select taller players to act closer to the basket^14,12, in the center position.

The forwards, in turn, have the responsibility of throw from medium and long distance⁴, besides performing infiltration actions, dribble and assisting in rebounds⁴³. In this study, the forwards presented higher percentage of inappropriate actions in dribble and throw, which may be reflecting the high number of attempts made in a match by the players with this profile. Given that it is a prominent position in the average of team points, the players in this position are also the most targeted by the opposing defense.

The evaluation of the dimension revealed no association between the game actions and the positions of the basketball players, since the percentages were distributed between the levels. In turn, the performance in the actions of clearing and rebound block were more adequate by the forwards and centers, while the guards showed higher percentages of inadequate actions when securing the rebound.

Adaptation is characterized by the ability of players to adapt to situations and movements of the game, which are performed without possession of the ball and require positioning and agility of the player and may cover movements that occur before or after contact with the player the ball¹⁰. More experienced players often interpret information better because they have more attention and selection processes, which means they are better able to anticipate the game compared to their less experienced opponents, leading them to adapt more favorably to the actions.

The evidence found reinforces the idea that the demands imposed on players differ according to their playing position. In the case of guards, whose task is to prepare offensive situations so that forwards and centers have better finishing opportunities¹², rebound actions are not expected, given their position within the game, as well as their physical profile in relation to the characteristics of the other positions, which may have led the players in this study not to perform well in this action.

About decision making, the guards stood out in dribble and clearing, while the centers obtained a higher percentage of inappropriate actions in dribbling but stood out in throwing actions. These results reinforce the fact that the guards must have a satisfactory control of the ball possession, as well as better select the game actions, in order to solve their team’s problem situation^4,10. The opposite of the centers, which are responsible for the actions near the basket, and because it is a very congested area, little need to use the dribble.

Distinct characteristics were observed in a study with Portuguese league players, in which the guards and the centers played more defensive roles, through rebounding and defensive block actions, in addition to the players standing out in assists and three-point throws. However, in the American league these positions were characterized by offensive rebounds, mainly by the centers¹².

The guards investigated revealed high levels of adequate performance in the reception and dribble actions, the opposite presented by the centers in these actions in the effectiveness component. The forwards, however, stood out with high levels of inadequate dribble performance and intermediate levels in rebound block, action in which the centers demonstrated more adequate performance. The results corroborate the indications of De Rose Junior, Tavares and Gitti⁴, Ruano, Calvo, Toro and Zafra³⁹ and Carvalho and Folle⁴⁴, who state that the fact that the centers play near the basket facilitates effective rebound block.

Effectiveness can be characterized as the consequence of the execution of game fundamentals, which is why this component is directly related to the other components of tactical-technical performance⁹. In this sense, effectiveness is defined by the consequence of an individual or opponent’s error or success in the execution of the fundamental skills of the game^10,45.

Based on the results obtained, it can be reflected that due to the responsibility of the forwards to score for their team, a situation that, in most cases, attracts the defensive effort of the opposing team, makes their performance in dribble and throw, especially, requires greater experience and willingness in terms of effectiveness to predict the actions of the opponent and the moment of play itself. In addition, it is possible to predict that players from basic categories, still in the sports training phase, do not show great performance in all game actions, being necessary the coaches’ attention in the actions most performed by the players due to their specific position within of court.

Although the present study provides relevant information about the level of technical-tactical performance, considering the association between game actions and the functions performed by female basketball players, some limitations should be addressed, such as not observing other playing actions (assistances, turnovers, fouls) and positions held by players (e.g. forward-guard, forward-center) of basketball base categories. In addition, this study did not consider the momentary situation of the scoreboard when analyzing the players performance, a situation that could help in contextualizing the performance scores presented by the players.

Conclusion

The evidence found revealed a statistically significant association of the functions performed by the players with the actions of reception, dribble, throw, marking and rebound block. The guards performed better in the reception, dribble and clearing actions, the centers were better in rebound block, throw and clearing, while the forwards showed better performance in clearing and rebound block.

The results obtained can be used by coaches to make training programs more specific, aiming at higher performance of their players in line with their role on court in competitions. For example, it is seen that the guards need to spend more time improving their performance in throw actions and rebound block, actions in which the investigated players obtained the lowest indexes. Considering their important defining role, forwards should focus their training on throw and dribble, while centers need to specialize in dribble and reception as well as throw.

We believe that this study provided important information to basketball coaches that can encourage them to identify the potential and technical-tactical needs of their players during the training and competition. This diagnosis enables practitioners to structure training sessions to enhance the continued development of basketball players throughout their development in sport, contributing to the training of players increasingly aware of their possibilities and responsibilities on the court.

Given the limitations observed in the present study, it is suggested that future investigations broaden the contextualization of the analysis of the performance of young basketball players from the identification of the specific moments of the game (eg quarter of the game, score difference between teams involved) in which the actions were performed, which could deepen the understanding about the other factors that are associated with the sportive performance of young players of this modality.

References

• ^1.
  Kiss MAPDM, Böhme MTS, Mansoldo AC, Degaki E, Regazzini M. Desempenho e talentos esportivos. Rev Pau Educ Fís. 2004; 18 (1): 89-100.
• ^2.
  Sá P, Gomes R, Saavedra M, Fernandez JJ. Percepción de los porteros expertos en balonmano de los factores determinantes para el éxito deportivo. Rev Psicol Deport. 2015; 24 (1):21-27.
• ^3.
  Massa M, Böhme MTS, Silva LRR, Uezu R. Análise de referenciais cineantropométricos de atletas de voleibol masculino envolvidos em processos de promoção de talentos. Rev Mackenzie Educ Fís Esporte. 2003; 2(2): 101-113.
• ^4.
  De Rose Junior D, Tavares AC, Gitti V. Perfil técnico de jogadores brasileiros de Basquetebol: relação entre os indicadores de jogo e posições específicas. Rev Bras Educ Fís Esp. 2004; 18(4): 377-384. DOI: 10.1590/S1807-55092004000400006
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-55092004000400006
• ^5.
  Collet C, Nascimento JV, Ramos V, Stefanello JMF. Construção e validação do instrumento de avaliação do desempenho técnico-tático no voleibol. Rev Bras Cineantropom Desempenho Hum. 2011; 13(1): 43-51. DOI: 10.5007/1980-0037.2011v13n1p43
  » https://doi.org/10.5007/1980-0037.2011v13n1p43
• ^6.
  Garganta J. Trends of tactical performance analysis in team sports: bridging the gap between research, training and competition. Rev Port Ciênc Desporto. 2009; 9(a): 81-89. DOI: 10.5628/rpcd.09.01.81
  » https://doi.org/10.5628/rpcd.09.01.81
• ^7.
  De Rose Junior D. Esporte, jogo e brincadeira: uma perspectiva sóciopsicológica do basquetebol. In: Brandão MRF, Machado AA, organizadores. Basquetebol. Várzea Paulista, Fontoura; 2016. p. 25-38.
• ^8.
  Greco PJ, Benda NR. Iniciação esportiva universal: da aprendizagem motora ao treinamento técnico. Belo Horizonte, Editora; 1998.
• ^9.
  Saad MA. A formação técnico-tática de jogadores de futsal nas categorias sub-13 e sub-15: análise do processo de ensino-aprendizagem-treinamento. Florianópolis. Tese [Doutorado em Educação Física] - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina; 2012.
• ^10.
  Folle A, Quinaud RT, Barroso MLC, Rocha JCS, Ramos V, Nascimento JV. Construção e validação preliminar de instrumento de avaliação do desempenho técnico-tático individual no Basquetebol. Rev Educ Fís. 2014; 25(3): 405-418. DOI: 10.4025/reveducfis.v25i3.23085
  » https://doi.org/10.4025/reveducfis.v25i3.23085
• ^11.
  Vaquera A, Santos S, Villa JG, Morante JC, García-Tormo V. Anthropometric characteristics of Spanish professional basketball players. J Hum Kinet. 2015; 46(1): 99-106. DOI: 10.1515/hukin-2015-0038.
  » https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2015-0038
• ^12.
  Sampaio J, Janeira M, Ibáñez S, Lorenzo A. Discriminant analysis of game-related statistics between basketball guards, forwards and centres in three professional leagues. European J Sport Sci. 2006; 6(3): 173-178. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390600676200
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390600676200
• ^13.
  Pojskić H, šeparović V, Užičanin E, Muratović M, Mačković S. Positional role differences in the aerobic and anaerobic power of elite basketball players. J Hum Kinet. 2015; 49(1): 219-227. DOI: 10.1515/hukin-2015-0124
  » https://doi.org/10.1515/hukin-2015-0124
• ^14.
  Carter JEL, Ackland TR, Kerr DA, Stapff AB. Somatotype and size of elite female basketball players, J Sports Sci. 2005; 23 (1): 10, 1057-1063, DOI: 10.1080/02640410400023233
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/02640410400023233
• ^15.
  Delextrat A, Cohen D. Strength, power, speed, and agility of women basketball players according to playing position. J Strenght Cond Res. 2009; 23(7): 1974-1981.
• ^16.
  Parejo I, García A, Antúnez A, Ibáñez SJ. Differences in performance indicators among winners and losers of group a of the Spanish Basketball Amateur League (EBA). Rev Psicol Dep. 2013; 22(1): 257-261.
• ^17.
  García J, Ibañez JS, Gómez AM, Sampaio J. Basketball Game-related statistics discriminating ACB league teams according to game location, game outcome and final score differences. Int J Perform Anal Sport. 2014; 14(2): 443-452. DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2014.11868733
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2014.11868733
• ^18.
  Canan F, Mendes JC, Silva RV. Análise estatística no Basquetebol de base: perfil do Campeonato Paranaense de Basquetebol masculino Sub-17. Rev Bras Educ Fís Esp. 2015; 29(2): 289-302. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-55092015000200289
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-55092015000200289
• ^19.
  Sousa RB, Soares VOV, Praça GM, Matias CJAS, Costa IT, Greco PJ. Avaliação do comportamento tático no futebol: princípios táticos fundamentais nas categorias sub-14 e sub-15. Rev Bras Ciênc Mov. 2015; 23(2): 59-65. DOI: 10.18511/0103-1716/rbcm.v23n2p59-65
  » https://doi.org/10.18511/0103-1716/rbcm.v23n2p59-65
• ^20.
  Müller E, Garganta J, Santos RMM, Teoldo I. Comportamento e desempenho táticos: estudo comparativo entre jogadores de futebol e futsal. Rev Bras Ciênc Mov. 2016;24(2):100-109. DOI: 10.18511/0103-1716/rbcm.v24n2p100-109
  » https://doi.org/10.18511/0103-1716/rbcm.v24n2p100-109
• ^21.
  Praça GM, Costa CLA, Costa FF, Andrade AGP, Chagas MH, Greco JP. Comportamento em pequenos jogos no futebol: influência do conhecimento tático processual e da superioridade numérica. J Phys Educ. 2016; 27(1): e-2736. DOI: 10.4025/j%20physical%20edu.v27i1.28662
  » https://doi.org/10.4025/j%20physical%20edu.v27i1.28662
• ^22.
  Castro TP, Morales JCP, Silva SR, Greco PJ. Coordenação com bola e conhecimento tático processual de crianças praticantes de futsal. Corpoconsciência. 2017; 21(2): 52-66.
• ^23.
  De Rose Junior D, Lamas L. Análise de jogo no basquetebol: perfil ofensivo da Seleção Brasileira Masculina. Rev Bras Educ Fís Esp. 2006; 20(3): 165-73.
• ^24.
  Fewell JH, Armbruster D, Ingraham J, Petersen A, Water JS. Basketball Teams as Strategic Networks. Plos one. 2012; 7(11): 1-9.
• ^25.
  Meneses LR, Gois Junior LEM, Almeida MB. Análise do desempenho do basquetebol brasileiro ao longo de três temporadas do Novo Basquete Brasil. Rev Bras Ciênc Esp. 2016; 38(1): 93-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbce.2015.12.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbce.2015.12.002
• ^26.
  Jesus CS, Gomes JH, Almeida, MB. Efeitos do esforço prévio de alta intensidade no desempenho técnico-tático em jogadores de basquetebol universitário. J Phys Educ. 2018; 29(1): 1-12. DOI: 10.4025/jphyseduc.v29i1.2977
  » https://doi.org/10.4025/jphyseduc.v29i1.2977
• ^27.
  Conte D, Tessitore A, Gjullin A, Mackinnon D, Lupo C, Favero T. Investigating the game-related statistics and tactical profile in NCAA division I men’s basketball games. Biol Sport. 2018; 35(2): 137–143. DOI: 10.5114/biolsport.2018.71602
  » https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2018.71602
• ^28.
  Delextrat A, Badiella A, Saavedra V, Matthew D, Schelling X, Torres-Ronda L. Match activity demands of elite Spanish female basketball players by playing position. International J Perform Analys Sport. 2015; 15(2): 687-703.
• ^29.
  Rubio RJ, Godoy SJI, González IP, Molina SF, Alonso MC. Diferencias entre nivel de juego y categoría de los jugadores en etapas de formación. Rev Esp Educ Fís Dep. 2011; 395(1): 13-28.
• ^30.
  Silva DC, Bezerra L, Folle A, Farias GO, Nascimento JV. Indicadores de desempenho de jogo no basquetebol feminino de acordo com as posições específicas. Rev Min Educ Fís. 2013; 9(1): 571-576.
• ^31.
  Maciel LFP, Folle A, Salles WN, Flach MC, Nascimento JV. Desempenho técnico-tático no basquetebol feminino: associação com as posições específicas das atletas. Rev Bras Ciênc Movim. 2019; 26(4): 87-97. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18511/rbcm.v26i4.8017
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.18511/rbcm.v26i4.8017
• ^32.
  Román MR, García-Rubio J, Feu S, Ibáñez SJ. Training and competition load monitoring and analysis of women’s amateur basketball by playing position: approach study. Front Psychol. 2019; 9(1): 1-11. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02689
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02689
• ^33.
  Pinilla J, Pérez-Tejero J, Van Biesen D, Vanlandewijck Y. Performance variability in basketball players with intellectual impairment: Ankara World Championships 2013 analysis. Rev Psicol Dep. 2015; 24(1): 77-83.
• ^34.
  Whitte AMH, Hoozemans MJM, Berger MAM, Dirkjan LHV. Do field position and playing standard influence athlete performance in wheelchair basketball? J. Sports Sci. 2016; 34(9):811-820. DOI: 10.1080/02640414.2015.1072641
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2015.1072641
• ^35.
  Pehar M, Sekulic D, Sisic N, Spasic M, Uljevic O, Krolo A, et al. Evaluation of different jumping tests in defining position-specific and performance-level differences in high level basketball players. Biol Sport. 2017; 34(3): 263-272.
• ^36.
  Sekulic D, Pehar M, Krolo A, Spasic M, Uljevic O, Calleja-González J, Sattler T. Evaluation of basketball-specific agility: applicability of preplanned and nonplanned agility performances for differentiating playing positions and playing levels. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(8):2278-2288.
• ^37.
  Rangel W, Ugrinowitsch C, Lamas L. Basketball players’ versatility: assessing the diversity of tactical roles. Int J Sports Scienc Coach. 2019; 14(4): 55-561. DOI: 10.1177/1747954119859683
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954119859683
• ^38.
  Ato M, López JJ, Benavente A. Un sistema de clasificación de los diseños de investigación en Psicología. An Psicol. 2013; 29(3): 1038-1059. DOI: 10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
  » https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.29.3.178511
• ^39.
  Ruano MAG, Calvo AL, Toro EO, Zafra AO. Diferencias de los indicadores de rendimiento en baloncesto femenino entre ganadores y perdedores en función de jugar como local o como visitante. Rev Psicol Dep. 2007; 16(1): 41-54.
• ^40.
  Sousa MA, Venditti Júnior R. Iniciação esportiva no Programa Segundo Tempo: perspectivas teóricas, reflexões e proposta metodológica para os fundamentos do Basquetebol. Mov Percepc. 2009; 10(14): 94-121.
• ^41.
  Porath M, Collet C, Milistetd M, Salles WN, Nascimento JV. Nível de desempenho técnico-tático das equipas de voleibol em escalões de formação. Motricidade. 2016; 12(2):08-17. DOI: 10.6063/motricidade.6012
  » https://doi.org/10.6063/motricidade.6012
• ^42.
  Pion J, Segers V, Stautemas J, Boone J, Lenoir M, Bourgois JG. Position-specific performance profiles, using predictive classification models in senior basketball. Int J Sports Scienc Coach. 2018; 0(0): 1-9. DOI: 10.1177/1747954118765054
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1747954118765054
• ^43.
  Okazaki FHA, Sarraf TA, Dezan VH, Okasaki VHA. Diagnóstico da especificidade técnica dos jogadores de Basquetebol. Rev Bras Ciênc Mov. 2004; 12(4): 19-24.
• ^44.
  Carvalho ABCD, Folle A. Perfil estatístico dos atletas do NBB 2009/2010. Rev Mack Educ Fís Esp. 2014; 13(1): 59-70.
• ^45.
  Folle A, Salles WN, Quinaud RT, Nascimento JV. Fatores associados à eficácia no desempenho esportivo de equipes campeãs de Basquetebol em categorias de formação. Rev Psicol Dep. 2017; 26(1): 75-79.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 Apr 2020
• Date of issue
  Jan-Mar 2020

History

• Received
  30 Sept 2019
• Accepted
  23 Jan 2020