Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2020 Feb 28;15(6):825-832. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2019-0645. Print 2020 Jul 1.
To examine the physiological, physical, and technical demands of game-based drills (GBDs) with regular dribble (RD) or no dribble (ND) involving a different number of players (3 vs 3, 4 vs 4, and 5 vs 5).
Ten regional-level male basketball players performed 6 full-court GBD formats (each consisting of 3 bouts of 4 min and 2 min rest) on multiple occasions. The physiological and perceptual responses were measured through heart rate and rating of perceived exertion. Video-based time-motion analysis was performed to assess the GBD physical demands. The frequencies of occurrence and the duration were calculated for high-intensity, moderate-intensity, low-intensity, and recovery activities. Technical demands were assessed with a notional-analysis technique. A 2-way repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to assess statistical differences between GBD formats.
A greater perceptual response (rating of perceived exertion) was recorded during 3 versus 3 than 5 versus 5 formats (P = .005). Significant interactions were observed for the number of recovery (P = .021), low-intensity activity (P = .007), and all movements (P = .001) completed. Greater time was spent performing low-intensity and high-intensity activities during RD than ND format. Greater technical demands were observed for several variables during 3 versus 3 than 4 versus 4 or 5 versus 5. A greater number of turnovers (P = .027), total (P ≤ .001), and correct passes (P ≤ .001) were recorded during ND than RD format.
The number of players predominantly affected the perceptual response to GBD, while both the number of players and rule modification (RD vs ND) affected activities performed during GBD. Reducing the number of players increases the GBD technical elements, while ND format promotes a greater number of turnovers and passes.
研究有球（RD）和无球（ND）的三人制、四人制和五人制游戏式训练（GBD）在生理、物理和技术方面的要求。
10 名地区级别的男性篮球运动员多次进行 6 种全场 GBD 模式（每次包含 3 个 4 分钟和 2 分钟的回合）。通过心率和主观疲劳感知评估测量生理和感知反应。通过视频时间动作分析评估 GBD 的物理需求。计算高强度、中强度、低强度和恢复活动的发生频率和持续时间。使用虚拟分析技术评估技术需求。使用双向重复测量方差分析评估 GBD 模式之间的统计差异。
与 5 对 5 相比，3 对 3 的模式记录到更大的感知反应（主观疲劳感知）（P =.005）。观察到恢复次数（P =.021）、低强度活动（P =.007）和所有动作（P =.001）的数量存在显著的交互作用。RD 比 ND 格式花费更多的时间进行低强度和高强度活动。与 4 对 4 或 5 对 5 相比，在 3 对 3 中观察到更多的变量具有更高的技术要求。ND 格式比 RD 格式记录到更多的失误（P =.027）、总失误（P ≤.001）和正确传球（P ≤.001）。
球员数量主要影响 GBD 的感知反应，而球员数量和规则修改（RD 与 ND）都会影响 GBD 期间的活动。减少球员数量会增加 GBD 的技术元素，而 ND 格式会增加更多的失误和传球次数。
