Qarouach Abdelaziz, Matulaitis Kęstutis, Butautas Ramunas, Conte Daniele
Institute of Sports Science and Innovation, Lithuanian Sports University, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Department of Coaching Science, Lithuanian Sports University, Kaunas, Lithuania.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2025 Feb 25;20(4):575-581. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2024-0325. Print 2025 Apr 1.
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of executing different pick-and-roll (PnR) actions and performing different defensive strategies on workloads during basketball small-sided games.
Twelve male basketball players (age: 21 [3] y; stature: 192 [5] cm; body mass: 84 [9] kg) completed 4 randomized small-sided games including PnRs executed on 2 court positions (ie, middle and side PnR) and 2 defensive strategies (ie, aggressive [ie, trap] and containing [ie, drop and ice for middle and side PnR, respectively] strategy). PlayerLoad and number of accelerations, decelerations, and changes of direction are classified as low (<2.5 m·s-2), medium (between 2.5 and 3.5 m·s-2), and high (>3.5 m·s-2), and jumps categorized as low (<40 cm) and high (≥40 cm) were used as external-load measures, while rating of perceived exertion was used as an internal-load measure.
Higher PlayerLoad values were found when playing middle PnR compared with side PnR (P = .046; effect size [ES] = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.0-1.2; moderate). Furthermore, trap defense showed moderately higher values of PlayerLoad (P < .001; ES = 1.1; 95% CI, 0.5-1.7), high accelerations (P = .006; ES = 0.8; 95% CI, 0.3-1.4), medium changes of direction (P = .047; ES = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.0-1.2), and high changes of direction (P = .050; ES = 0.6; 95% CI, 0.0-1.2) compared with drop and/or ice defense. No effects of court position and defensive strategy were found in rating of perceived exertion (P > .05).
When planning small-sided games with tactical target, basketball coaches are advised to use middle PnR and aggressive defensive strategies to increase player's external load compared with side PnR and containing defensive strategies.
本研究旨在评估在篮球小场比赛中执行不同的挡拆（PnR）动作以及采用不同的防守策略对工作量的影响。
12名男性篮球运动员（年龄：21[3]岁；身高：192[5]厘米；体重：84[9]千克）完成了4场随机小场比赛，包括在2个场地位置执行挡拆（即中场和边线挡拆）以及2种防守策略（即积极防守[即包夹]和控制防守[即分别对中场和边线挡拆采用回缩和冻结防守]策略）。将运动员负荷以及加速、减速和变向次数分为低（<2.5米·秒-2）、中（2.5至3.5米·秒-2之间）和高（>3.5米·秒-2），并将跳跃分为低（<40厘米）和高（≥40厘米），以此作为外部负荷指标，同时将主观用力感觉评分作为内部负荷指标。
与边线挡拆相比，进行中场挡拆时运动员负荷值更高（P = 0.046；效应量[ES]=0.6；95%置信区间，0.0 - 1.2；中等）。此外，与回缩和/或冻结防守相比，包夹防守的运动员负荷值略高（P < 0.001；ES = 1.1；95%置信区间，0.5 - 1.7），高加速次数（P = 0.006；ES = 0.8；95%置信区间，0.3 - 1.4）、中等变向次数（P = 0.047；ES = 0.6；95%置信区间，0.0 - 1.2）和高变向次数（P = 0.050；ES = 0.6；95%置信区间，0.0 - 1.2）也更高。在主观用力感觉评分方面未发现场地位置和防守策略的影响（P > 0.05）。
在规划具有战术目标的小场比赛时，建议篮球教练采用中场挡拆和积极防守策略，与边线挡拆和控制防守策略相比，以增加运动员的外部负荷。
