Additional players and half-court areas enhance group tactical-technical behavior and decrease physical and physiological responses in basketball small-sided games

Abstract

Small-sided games are used to improve tactical-technical and physical performances in team sports. This study compared the physical, physiological, and tactical-technical responses during 3 versus 3 basketball small-sided games performed in full and half-court: numerical equality (3 vs. 3), numerical superiority (4 vs. 3), and with a non-scorer floater (3 vs. 3 + 1). A total of 45 U-14 and U-15 male athletes participated in the study. They were divided into three-player teams and played one 4-minute bout of each small-sided game type. Heart rate and the time spent in four acceleration zones (0.0–0.5, 0.5–1.0, 1.0–1.5, and 1.5–2.0 g) were recorded using heart rate monitors and triaxial accelerometers. Small-sided games were filmed for the analysis of tactical-technical behavior. Results showed a higher frequency of space creation without the ball, and a mean number of passes per offense in the formats 4 versus 3 and 3 versus 3 + 1, and a lower frequency of space creation with the ball dribbled in 3 versus 3 + 1 compared with 3 versus 3. Physical and physiological responses were higher in the full-court regardless of format and in numerical equality regardless of court area; only the time spent in the highest acceleration zone was higher in half-court small-sided games. We concluded that additional players increase group tactical actions and decrease physical and physiological responses in 3 versus 3 basketball small-sided games.

Keywords

Accelerometer constraints-led approach game-based approach heart rate

Introduction

Small-sided games (SSGs) can be used during training to improve both tactical-technical¹ and physical² performances in various team sports. From a tactical perspective, changes in SSGs characteristics such as the number of players per team, the playing area, and the rules can emphasize different tactical-technical actions,^3,4 stimulating players to perceive different relevant cues to solve the problems of the game.⁵ For example, including an additional player in offense (e.g. numerical superiority), provides players with new possibilities to interact with this teammate (e.g. pass, receive a screen) and create opportunities to shoot. Manipulating emerging problems through task-constraints (constraints-led approach) is supported by ecological theories that advocate the intrinsic interaction and mutual influence between the person and the environment.^6,7 Changes in SSG characteristics also influence the physical and physiological responses and the high exercise intensity provided by SSGs also allows its use for physical conditioning.⁸ As adopting SSGs in team sports training has been widely accepted, studies on different game formats can provide coaches with evidence to better design training activities in favor of players’ development.

Coaches can direct players’ attentional focus to specific relevant cues and improve tactical performance by adjusting SSGs rules (task constraints). In basketball, at the early stages of the teaching–learning–training process, SSGs with numerical superiority improved novices’ performances and decision-making⁹ in comparison to numerically equal games. Another study with basketball athletes included two additional players who moved along the court sides to support players in the offense.¹⁰ In youth academies, the use of simpler but representative tasks such as SSGs provide players with the opportunity to perform skills within a similar environment to competition.⁵ SSGs can also provide different unusual game situations for athletes to solve and practice different tactical actions, stimulating players’ autonomy, exploratory behavior, and creativity.¹¹ The inclusion of additional players in basketball SSGs can be used both to create a permanent offensive numerical superiority (e.g. 4 vs. 3) or to provide support to players in offense with non-scorer floaters (e.g. 3 vs. 3 + 1).¹² In a set offense, we can expect SSGs with numerical superiority to stimulate more passes between teammates to perceive the best opportunity to shoot on the basket due to the constant adjustments made by the defenders playing in numerical inferiority. On the other hand, a non-scorer floater is an always-free teammate who can provide new possibilities to pass and receive, facilitating the interaction between two or more offensive players. This increase in ball circulation and group tactical actions caused by additional players is suggested by previous results on football SSG.¹³

From the perspective of physical conditioning, no previous studies have investigated the influence of additional players on physical/physiological responses in basketball SSGs. In football, the inclusion of floaters decreased the physical/physiological responses in 3 versus 3 SSGs, due to the decrease in the area per player (relative area).¹⁴ Reducing the available space per player may limit players’ displacements and the reach of higher speeds, decreasing the physical and physiological responses.¹⁴ This rationale is in line with previous results on basketball SSGs, which showed lower physical/physiological responses in smaller relative areas (28 × 15 vs. 15 × 14 m, both with two hoops).¹⁵ Nevertheless, the use of one or two hoops also changes game dynamics, allowing players’ to perform transitions/fast-breaks or not. A previous study showed that full-court (two hoops) basketball SSGs elicited higher heart rate responses compared to half-court (one hoop)¹⁶; the increase in the physiological response in the full-court in this study may have been influenced by both larger relative area and the inclusion of transitions (possibly fast-breaks) due to the two hoops. Although it may decrease the relative area, including a constantly free teammate in a full-court SSG with two hoops could facilitate fast-breaks (i.e. facilitates the creation of space through running in the length) and accelerate the game pace, contributing to increasing the physical/physiological responses. This dynamics would not occur in the half-court. Therefore, we could expect the influence of additional players on tactical-technical, physical, and physiological responses to interact with the playing area and the number of hoops (full vs. half-court). Nevertheless, there are no investigations on the impact of different additional players and playing areas on tactical-technical, physical, and physiological responses in basketball SSGs.

Most of the investigations on basketball SSGs focused on the physiological responses (i.e. heart rate and rate of perceived exertion).^16,17 The analysis of physical demands using acceleration data can add to the understanding of the mechanical load imposed on athletes during training activities, especially in sports such as basketball which demand a high number of fast, explosive movements (i.e. sprints, jumps) and changes of direction.^18,19 Concerning tactical-technical behavior, studies in basketball have so far focused on individual actions,^20,21 with only a few studies including group and collective behavior.^3,22,23 Space Creation Dynamics are an interesting way to analyze the tactical behavior in basketball²⁴ because they include individual, group, and collective behaviors performed to create shooting opportunities. Considering the game modification as the basis of teaching and training sports in game-based approaches, the knowledge and discussion on the impact of different SSGs on the individual, group, and collective tactical behavior is essential. Moreover, multidimensional performance analysis in SSG is recommended to overcome the traditional fragmented approaches.²⁵ Information on the physical and physiological responses complements tactical data providing a holistic view of the possibilities supplied by SSGs for integrating physical and tactical-technical training.

Based on the issues raised above, this study aimed to compare the physical, physiological, and tactical-technical responses during 3 versus 3 basketball SSGs performed in full and half-court: numerical equality (3 vs. 3), numerical superiority (4 vs. 3), and with a non-scorer floater (3 vs. 3 + 1). We hypothesized that (1) numerical superiority (4 vs. 3) and the non-scorer floater (3 vs. 3 + 1) would present a higher frequency of passes and group tactical actions compared to numerical equality (3 vs. 3); (2) full-court SSG would present higher physical/physiological responses than half-court games; (3) in the half-court, additional players (4 vs. 3 and 3 vs. 3 + 1) would decrease the physical and physiological responses, while in the full-court they would increase the physical–physiological responses compared to 3 versus 3.

Methods

Participants

Forty-five male athletes from two basketball clubs participated in the study (see Table 1 for athletes’ physical and anthropometric characteristics). Thirteen athletes belonged to the U-15 squad from club 1 (Squad 1); 13 belonged to the U-15 squad from club 2 (Squad 2A), and 19 belonged to the U-14 from club 2 (Squad 2B). All squads participated in regional and national competitions and had five training sessions of approximately 2 h per week. Squad 1 had two athletes who took part in the national team in the year of data collection; Squad 2A was invited to compete in a regional competition in a neighbor country; Squad 2B was the national champion in the year before data collection. All participants and their legal guardians were informed about the research procedures, risks, and benefits and signed informed consent to participate in the study. The local ethics committee approved the study.

Table 1.

Athletes’ physical and anthropometric characteristics in each squad.

Characteristics/squads	Squad 1 (U-15 club 1)	Squad 2A (U-15 club 2)	Squad 2B (U-14 club 2)
Participants (n)	13	13	19
Age (years)	14.7 (0.31)	14.7 (0.3)	13.7 (0.3)
Stature (cm)	180.7 (8.1)	181.7 (7.9)	174.2 (7.6)
Body mass (kg)	72.0 (13.7)	69.6 (14.4)	63.3 (10.4)
Percentage body fat (%)	12.6 (5.81)	7.4 (3.8)	9.0 (4.3)
Aerobic performance^a (m)	1212.0 (394.2)	1288.0 (398.6)	915.7 (359.8)

Mean distance covered in the Yoyo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1.

Procedures

This study followed a cross-sectional design. Although players from each squad could present some variability, we expected it to be relatively stable and that the significant variability found in the comparisons would be associated with the tested conditions (court area and format).

All the research procedures were conducted in each squad separately within each club's facility at the beginning of the pre-season. This study was part of a broader project on 3 versus 3 SSGs with different rules on full and half-court. In each squad, athletes were divided by the head coach into three-player balanced teams. One athlete was selected to play as the non-scorer floater or the fourth offense player in the 3 versus 3 + 1 and 4 versus 3, respectively. Teams were assigned to play against the same opponent during the whole study, totalizing two dyads of opponents (A × B, C × D) in squad 2A and three dyads (A × B, C × D, and E × F) in squads 1 and 2B to reduce the influence of changing the opposing team on the reported responses.

The data collection comprised three training sessions that began with a 10 min standardized warm-up—joint mobility, jogging, jumping, and sprinting. In the first session, athletes were familiarized with all the SSGs. They played 2–3 min of each SSG and had their doubts on the rules of each SSG clarified. This familiarization was considered sufficient as the players used to play 3 versus 3 SSGs with different rules as part of their training routine and with teammates in their free time. On the second and third days, teams performed one SSG of each type (all SSGs considered in the broader project—seven rules in both half and full court, totalizing 14 SSGs per team) in a random order to control for the influence of fatigue; each SSG was played as one four-minute bout. In squads 1 and 2B, the passive rest between SSG was ∼8 min, while in squad 2A the passive rest lasted 4–5 min. One SSG with each rule was played in both half and full court. In the cases an athlete missed the second day of data collection, he was substituted by a player with similar anthropometric and tactical-technical characteristics (four out of the 14 teams had one athlete substituted).

In this study, we compared only the formats 3 versus 3, the 3 versus 3 + 1, and the 4 versus 3 in both full and half-court. All official FIBA rules were adopted in the six SSG types, except for shot-clock, time-outs, and free throws, which were excluded. In the case of personal fouls, the ball was put back into play from the sidelines by the team that suffered the foul. The full-court SSGs were played on an official basketball court without the side corridors (28 × 9 m).²⁶ Although removing the side corridors could influence tactical-technical behavior compared to usual full-court, this procedure intended to approximate the relative playing area (i.e. area per player) near the basket to that from the 5 versus 5 game, as discussed in a previous study on basketball SSG.³ The half-court SSGs were played in the half of an official basketball court with only one hoop, also without the side corridors (28 × 9 m); in the half-court SSGs, players should take the ball out of the three-point line to restart the offense after a scored basket or a defensive rebound (Figure 1). In the 3 versus 3 format, athletes were instructed to play man-to-man defense.

Figure 1.

Playing areas adopted in the full and half-court small-sided games (SSGs): (a) playing area for the full-court SSGs; (b) playing area for the half-court SSGs.

In the 3 versus 3 + 1 format, an additional player was assigned as the non-scorer floater. This player could perform all tactical-technical actions, except for shooting on the basket; he played only as a support player in the offense for both teams (e.g. he could receive and pass the ball, set screens); when the ball possession changed, he automatically played for the team with ball possession. In the 4 versus 3, the additional player played as in the 3 versus 3 + 1 with the difference that he could shoot on the basket in this SSG. In all SSGs, no tactical or technical instructions were provided by the coaching staff or the researchers. All the SSGs were filmed for further analysis.

Instruments and variables

Tactical-technical behavior

Players’ tactical behavior was measured using the observational instrument Space Creation Dynamics (SCDs).²⁴ This instrument was previously adopted in basketball and showed sensitiveness to detect differences in players’ behavior in different squads and different game tasks.^3,24 One well-trained observer analyzed the SSGs’ videos regarding the SCDs, which are the actions performed by players in offense to create scoring opportunities: (1) space creation with ball dribbled (player dribbles the ball to overcome the defender and shoot without the cooperation of teammates); (2) space creation with the ball not dribbled (player overcomes the defender by faking without dribbling without the cooperation of teammates, e.g. pivoting on one foot); (3) perimeter isolation (all players stay far from the teammate with the ball for him to play 1 on 1 in the perimeter); (4) post isolation (all players stay far from the teammate with the ball for him to play 1 on 1 inside the lane); (5) space creation without the ball (player overcomes the defender by faking without the ball and receiving it from a teammate to shoot); (6) on-ball screen (player hinders the defender of the teammate with the ball by staying in his trajectory and creating space for him to penetrate and shoot); (7) off-ball screen (player hinders the defender of the teammate without the ball by staying in his trajectory; the player who had his direct opponent hindered receives the ball from a third teammate and gets free to penetrate and shoot).²⁴ Only the SCDs that occurred before a shot were recorded. The mean number of passes per offense and the number of set offenses, fast-breaks, and offenses with no shot (i.e. rule violations, turnovers, blocked shots) were also recorded, as well as the number of offenses the additional player participated and the number of offenses the additional player was decisive to create the scoring opportunity (passed to the teammate who shot or performed the shot himself). A fast-break was considered when one or more players crossed the length of the court and attacked the basket with numerical superiority or against a disorganized defense.²⁷ Fast-breaks were not considered for the half-court SSGs.

Physical and physiological responses

Before each session of data collection, athletes wore a 1 Hz heart rate monitor (Polar ®, Finland) and an elastic vest specially designed to attach a GPS unit (5 Hz) with an embedded accelerometer (100 Hz) (GPSports, Canberra, Australia; squad 1 used the model SPI ProX; squads 2A and 2B used the model HPU). Acceleration data provided by this equipment was shown to be reliable and able to identify differences between sports activities.²⁸ Only the acceleration data were analyzed for the time (in seconds) spent in different acceleration zones; zone 1: 0–0.5 g; zone 2: 0.5–1.0 g; zone 3: 1.0–1.5 g; and zone 4: 1.5–2.0 g, as in previous studies in basketball SSG,¹⁸ using a MatLab worksheet designed for this purpose. Each athlete always carried the same equipment unit to avoid interunit differences.²⁹ The physiological variables included were the percentage mean heart rate (HR_MEAN), the percentage peak heart rate (HR_PEAK), and the time (in seconds) spent above 85% of the maximum heart rate (T85%). Athletes’ maximum heart rates were defined during the Yoyo Intermittent Recovery Test Level 1 performed one week after the study in the clubs’ tests battery.

Data analyses

The tactical-technical variables are presented as medians and interquartile amplitudes and were analyzed using a two-way non-parametric ANOVA (ANOVA-type statistics) with the factors “format” and “area.” The number of fast-breaks was considered only for the full-court SSG and analyzed using the Friedman test (one-way ANOVA for repeated measures) with Dunn's post hoc. Effect sizes r were calculated to characterize the magnitude of the differences between paired data and classified as small (r < 0.10), medium (0.10 < r < 0.30), or large (> 0.30).³⁰

Data regarding additional players were excluded from the analyses (three players, one from each squad). For the physical and physiological variables, the data of substituted athletes were excluded (four athletes); and three athletes did not have their maximum heart rate measured during the YIRT1. Therefore, statistical analyses included 38 participants for the physical and 35 participants for the physiological variables. These variables are presented as means and standard deviations and were tested for normality (Shapiro-Wilk's test) and sphericity (Mauchly's test), matching all parametric criteria. The variables were compared using a two-way ANOVA with repeated measures and Bonferroni post hoc. Cohen's d effects sizes were calculated between paired data and classified as small (d = 0.2), medium (d = 0.5), or large (d = 0.8).³¹

Ten percent (12 SSGs) of all SSGs were reanalyzed to check for within and between-observer reliability of the tactical-technical actions performed by athletes using the Cohen's Kappa coefficient. The Kappa values for each variable ranged between .85 and .96 for within and .82 and .95 for between-observer reliability.

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS® (SPSS Version 19.0 for Windows, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was set at 5% (p ≤ 0.05).

Results

Figure 2 shows the time spent in the different acceleration zones. There was an interaction between factors (“format” and “area”) for the time spent in zone 1 (0.0–0.5 g) (F = 3.857, p = 0.025). Within each court area, the pairwise comparisons showed a significantly lower time spent in zone 1 in the 3 versus 3 compared to 4 versus 3 (p = 0.001, d = 0.663, medium-to-large effect size) and 3 versus 3 + 1 (p = 0.007, d = 0.507, medium effect size) only in half-court. Within each format, the pairwise comparisons showed that the time spent in zone 1 was lower in full-court compared to half court regardless of the format (p = 0.001, 2.055 < d < 2.528, large effects sizes). There was also an interaction between factors for the time spent in accelerations in zone 2 (0.5–1.0 g) (F = 4.964, p = 0.009). Within each court area, the pairwise comparisons showed a significantly higher time spent in zone 2 in the 3 versus 3 compared to 4 versus 3 (p = 0.001, d = 0.667, medium-to-large effect size) and 3 versus 3 + 1 (p = 0.007, d = 0.519, medium effect size) only in half-court. Within each format, the pairwise comparisons showed that the time spent in zone 2 was higher in full-court compared to half-court regardless of the format (p = 0.001, 2.210 < d < 2.670, large effect sizes). There was a main effect of “format” for the time spent in acceleration zone 3 (1.0–1.5 g) (F = 6.572, p = 0.002), with 3 versus 3 showing significantly higher time spent in zone 3 compared to 4 versus 3 (p = 0.017, d = 0.367, small-to-medium effect size) and 3 versus 3 + 1 (p = 0.007, d = 0.310, small-to-medium effect size), regardless of the court area. There was a main effect of “area” for the time spent in zone 4 (1.5–2.0 g), with SSG in half-court showing higher time spent in zone 4 compared to full-court (F = 6.276, p = 0.017, d = 0.347, small-to-medium effect size), regardless of the format.

Figure 2.

Mean (standard deviation) time spent in the four acceleration zones during the small-sided games performed with different formats on full and half-court: (a) time spent in acceleration values within zones 1 and 2; (b) time spent in acceleration values within zone 3 and 4. * indicates significantly different compared to the other formats within the same court area; # indicates significantly different compared to the other court area within the same format.

Figure 3 shows the values found for the physiological variables. There was a main effect of “format” and A main effect of “area” for mean heart rate (area: F = 37.382, p = 0.001; players: 5.301, p = 0.007), peak heart rate (area: F = 27.489, p = 0.001; players: 5.402, p = 0.007), and the time spent above 85% of maximum heart rate (area: F = 26.325, p = 0.001; players: 5.679, p = 0.005). All variables showed higher values in the 3 versus 3 compared to other SSGs (p < 0.05, 0.222 < d < 0.352, small-to-medium effect sizes) and in the full court compared to the half-court (p < 0.05; 0.510 < d < 0.634, medium-to-large effect sizes).

Figure 3.

Mean (standard deviation) values of the physiological responses during the small-sided games performed with different formats on full and half-court: (a) mean and peak heart rate measured during the different small-sided games (SSGs); (b) T85% = time in seconds spent above 85% of maximum heart rate. * indicates significantly different compared to the other formats within the same court area; # indicates significantly different compared to the other court area within the same format.

Table 2 shows the tactical-technical variables. Space creation with the ball not dribbled, post isolation, and on-ball and off-ball screens presented very low frequencies in all SSGs (did not occur or occurred once or twice in more than half of the SSGs performed) and were excluded from analyses.

Table 2.

Tactical-technical variables recorded in the SSG performed with different formats in full and half-court (grouped data per factor).

	Factor “format”			Factor “area”
Variables/SSG	3vs.3	4vs.3	3vs.3+1	Half	Full
Space Creation With Ball Dribbled (n)	7.0 (5.75–9.0)	7.0 (5.0–7.25)	5.0* (4.75–6.0)	5.0 (4.5–7.0)	7.0 (5.0–8.5)
Perimeter isolation (n)	1.5 (0.75–3.0)	0.5 (0.0–2.0)	1.0 (0.0–1.25)	1.0 (0.5–3.0)	1.0 ^# (0.0–1.0)
Space creation without ball (n)	7.5* (5.0–10.0)	12.5 (8.0–15.0)	9.0 (7.75–10.0)	10.0 (7.0–12.5)	8.0 (6.0–10.0)
Total number of offenses (n)	22.0 (20.75–23.0)	23.0 (21.0–24.25)	20.5 (17.75–22.5)	23.0 (20.5–24.0)	21.0 (20.0–22.0)
Fast–breaks (n)	6.0 (3.0–9.0)	7.0 (5.0–9.0)	6.0 (4.0–11.0)	N/A	6.0 (4.0–9.0)
Offenses with no shot	3.0 (2.0–4.25)	3.0 (2.0–4.0)	2.5 (2.0–3.25)	2.0 (2.0–3.0)	3.0 (2.0–4.5)
Participation of floater (n)	N/A	10.5 (8.0–14.25)	9.5 (6.75–11.25)	11.5 ^# (8.0–16.0)	9.0 (6.25–10.25)
Decisive floater (n)	N/A	8.5 (5.75–10.5)	5.0* (2.0–6.0)	7.0 (4.0–9.0)	5.0 (3.0–6.5)
Mean number of passes per offense	1.62* (0.22)	2.06 (0.28)	2.27 (0.48)	2.03 (0.44)	1.94 (0.43)

Legend: all values indicate the median frequency of actions (interquartile range) performed during each small-sided game bout, except for the variable “mean number of passes”, which is presented as mean (standard deviation). The values are grouped according to the factors “format” and “area”. * Indicates significantly different compared to the other formats; # indicates significantly different compared to the other court area.

There was a main effect of “format” for the space creation with ball dribbled (H = 7.131, p = 0.028), the space creation without the ball (H = 9.393, p = 0.009), and the mean number of passes per offense (H = 18.266, p = 0.001). The 3 versus 3 + 1 presented a lower frequency of space creation with ball dribbled compared to 3 versus 3 (r = 0.467, large effect size) and 4 versus 3 (r = 0.368, large effect size). The 3 versus 3 showed significantly lower space creation without the ball (r = 0.537, large effect size compared to 4 versus 3; r = 0.260, medium effect size compared to 3 versus 3 + 1) as well as a lower mean number of passes per offense compared to 4 versus 3 (r = 0.611, large effect size) and 3 versus 3 + 1 (r = 0.552, large effect size). The floater was decisive for creating the shooting opportunity more frequently in the 4 versus 3 than in the 3 versus 3 + 1 (H = 8.45, p = 0.013, r = 0.517, large effect size).

There was a main effect of “area” for the perimeter isolation (H = 4.407, p = 0.036), with SSGs performed in half-court presenting significantly higher frequencies of this action (r = 0.304, large effect size). The participation of the floater was higher in the half compared with full-court SSG (H = 7.16, p = 0.020, r = 0.434, large effect size). The other tactical-technical variables did not present any differences between SSGs.

Discussion

This study aimed to compare the tactical-technical, physical, and physiological responses of young players during basketball SSGs performed on full and half-court: 3 versus 3, 4 versus 3, and 3 versus 3 + 1. We hypothesized that numerical superiority (4 versus 3) and the non-scorer floater (3 versus 3 + 1) would stimulate more passes between teammates and the use of group tactical actions to create opportunities to score. This hypothesis was confirmed with the 3 versus 3 + 1 and 4 versus 3 showing higher frequencies of space creation without the ball and a higher mean number of passes per offense compared to 3 versus 3. The 3 versus 3 + 1 also presented a lower frequency of space creation with ball dribbled (individual action) than 3 versus 3 and 4 versus 3. We also hypothesized that full-court SSG would present higher physical/physiological responses than half-court. This hypothesis was partially confirmed with full-court showing a shorter time spent in accelerations up to 0.5 g (zone 1) and longer time spent in higher accelerations (0.5–1.0 g, zone 2). Accelerations in the highest zone (zone 4) were more frequent in the half-court SSG. The expected interaction between factors with higher physical/physiological responses only in the full-court SSG with additional players was not confirmed since there were no differences between formats in the full court. In the half-court, the 3 versus 3 presented a longer time spent at accelerations between 1.0 and 1.5 g (zone 3) compared to the other SSG, confirming our hypothesis of decreasing physical responses with the inclusion of floaters.

The scarcity of previous studies on the influence of additional players on tactical-technical behavior in basketball SSG hinders the comparison of the present results. Regarding the factor “format,” both numerical superiority (4 vs. 3) and the non-scorer floater (3 vs. 3 + 1) increased ball circulation, as suggested in a previous study on football,¹³ and group tactical behavior, stimulating the passes among teammates and space creation without the ball. The latter is a two-player tactical action in which one player gets unmarked and receives a pass from a teammate creating a straightforward opportunity to shoot on the basket.²⁴ The increase in this action is probably related to the presence of the additional player, who is either free (non-scorer floater) or probably under less defensive pressure (in the case of numerical superiority) to receive a pass. Indeed, a previous study on basketball SSGs showed higher efficacy of passes in numerical superiority (3 vs. 2) compared to numerical equality (3 vs. 3),¹² supporting the increased ease to pass in the former. There was also a reduction of space creation with ball dribbled (individual action) in the 3 versus 3 + 1, but not in the 4 versus 3 compared to 3 versus 3. It is possible that in 4 versus 3 the circulation of the ball led to successive adjustments in the defense (as in zone-defense), culminating in free space to dribble to the basket (delayed defender). In the 3 versus 3 + 1, these dynamics did not occur since the floater could not score and, therefore, no defender was directly assigned to him (defenders did not move to mark the non-scorer floater). This result is also supported by a significantly higher number of times in which the floater was decisive in 4 versus 3 compared to 3 versus 3 + 1. In 4 versus 3, the floater could either shoot or dribble to the basket whenever he was free; in 3 versus 3 + 1, he could only pass to teammates. These results support the efficacy of the constraints-led approach to stimulate the exploration of different tactical-technical behaviors in different game conditions.⁶ Interestingly, although on and off-ball screens are group tactical-technical actions that could facilitate space creation with additional players, athletes did not increase the frequency of these actions in those conditions. This result may reflect the influence of the training process of the squads investigated in this study, which may have not encouraged the exploration of these tactical-technical actions. The influence of subjects’ experiences/knowledge on behavior can be supported by ecological theories.⁷ Some recent evidence on the positive impact of practicing SSG with different rules/formats over an extended period (chronic effect) on the diversity of tactical-technical actions has been shown in football.³² This effect remains to be elucidated in youth basketball academies.

The main effect of “area” was found only for the perimeter isolation, which showed a significantly higher frequency in the half-court. In this action, all players coordinate to clear the space in the perimeter for one teammate to overcome his direct opponent in a 1on1 situation.²⁴ This group coordination may be most likely to occur during set offenses, when players have a longer time (compared to fast-breaks) to identify/perceive teammates and opponents’ positions on the court, including mismatch situations (anthropometric unbalance between attacker and defender that generates clear advantages/disadvantages for playing 1on1).³ This may be the reason for the perimeter isolation to occur more frequently in the half-court (no transitions/fast breaks); in the full court, part of the scoring opportunities was created during fast breaks or transitions.

There was a generally higher intensity in the full court SSG, with a longer time spent in zone 2 (0.5–1.0 g) and lesser time spent in zone 1 (0.0–0.5 g) compared to half court, corroborating previous studies on basketball SSG that showed higher physical and physiological responses in larger areas.^15,16 Zone 2 has been associated with running velocities of 8–12 km/h,^18,33 which was probably caused by the running actions during the transition phases in the full court. We also found a higher intensity in the 3 versus 3 compared to the other SSGs with a longer time spent in zone 2 (0.5–1.0 g) and lesser time spent in zone 1 (0.0–0.5 g), but these results occurred only in the half-court, confirming our hypothesis. The numerical equality situation (3 versus 3) leads to more fakes and intense movements to overcome the defense than the SSG with additional players, especially during set offenses, which are more frequent in the half-court. The smaller area per player with the inclusion of the additional players may have also contributed to a decrease in the physical and physiological responses, leading to the reach of lower speeds and shorter displacements, as suggested in previous studies on football¹⁴ and basketball^15,16 SSGs. The physiological response accompanied the physical trend, with main effects of “format” and “area”: consistently higher values in full than in half-court and in numerical equality compared with additional players (Figure 3).

We hypothesized that there would be an interaction between factors (court area and format) for the physical and physiological responses. Different from half-court, where the inclusion of additional players would decrease the physical/physiological responses, as we discussed above, in the full court, we expected a higher exercise intensity in the 4 versus 3 and 3 versus 3 + 1 compared to 3 versus 3. We expected players to use the floaters to create fast breaks and accelerate the game pace in the full court since the creation of space running through the court length could facilitate this behavior. This expectation was not confirmed as the number of fast breaks was similar between formats in the full court and the floaters were significantly less required (lower participation) compared to half-court. Removing the side corridors in full-court size may have influenced tactical-technical behavior during fast-breaks, due to the decrease in the space available to overcome the defense during transition running, hindering possible differences between SSGs in full-court. Further studies should investigate the influence of additional players on other full-court basketball SSGs.

Last but not least, the half-court SSGs showed a significantly longer time spent in zone 4 (1.5–2.0 g or 15–20 m/s²). It seems that in set offenses (the only type of offense possible in half-court), the reduced space between teammates and opponents demanded the highest movement intensities during specific tactical-technical actions, such as fakes, jumps, and short sprints. This demand is different from full-court, which requires a more continuous, less intense linear running during transitions, which also impacts the physiological response measured by heart rate. In this context, full-court SSGs may be helpful to enhance muscular and cardiovascular endurance, while half-court may provide a better stimulus to develop neuromuscular adaptations (e.g. stretch-shortening cycle, explosive strength).

The limitations of this study include the lack of analysis of the defensive behavior, which may add to the understanding of the interactions between opponents and the possibilities of these SSGs for teaching and training defensive actions. We were unable to analyze the physical responses associated with specific tactical-technical actions, which could help to understand the differences between the time spent in the acceleration zones, as well as during offense and defense. In addition, ecological theories advocate that individuals’ different characteristics and experiences influence their interaction with the environment⁷ and previous studies showed that players from different age groups and playing experiences may present distinct tactical-technical and physical/physiological responses during the same SSG.^14,34 Therefore, although the current results provide insight for coaches to change task constraints according to training goals, the effects observed in this study might not apply to all youth groups in basketball, being influenced by their training history. The impact of different training approaches on players’ responses to basketball SSGs requires further investigation.

Conclusions

From a pedagogical point of view, the different game situations investigated in this study encourage players to find appropriate solutions according to the task, reinforcing coaches’ role as designers of appropriate training activities, as proposed by constraints-led approaches. In general, results suggest that SSGs with additional players or played on half-court enhance group tactical-technical behavior and decrease physical/physiological responses. SSGs in the full-court and with numerical equality may be used by coaches to increase exercise intensity and develop aerobic performance. On the other hand, the most intense accelerations are more frequent in half-court SSG, suggesting these should be prioritized if coaches aim to stimulate neuromuscular adaptations. Coaches and physical trainers can combine the pieces of information on the court area and additional players provided in this study to reach training objectives using the different SSGs.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541211053638 - Supplemental material for Additional players and half-court areas enhance group tactical-technical behavior and decrease physical and physiological responses in basketball small-sided games

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-spo-10.1177_17479541211053638 for Additional players and half-court areas enhance group tactical-technical behavior and decrease physical and physiological responses in basketball small-sided games by Sarah da Glória Teles Bredt, Daniel de Souza Camargo, Bernardo Vidigal Borges Mortoza, André Gustavo Pereira de Andrade, Leopoldo Augusto Paolucci, Tomaz Lemos Nascimento Rosso, Gibson Moreira Praça and Mauro Heleno Chagas in International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank to Coordenação de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) and Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) for financial support. We also thank to Universidade Estadual de Londrina (Prof. Felipe Moura) for equipment support.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) and Coordenação de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES).

ORCID iDs

Sarah da Glória Teles Bredt

Gibson Moreira Praça

Daniel de Souza Camargo

Bernardo Vidigal Borges Mortoza

André Gustavo Pereira de Andrade

Leopoldo Augusto Paolucci

Tomaz Lemos Nascimento Rosso

Mauro Heleno Chagas

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Kinnerk

Harvey

MacDonncha

, et al. A review of the game-based approaches to coaching literature in competitive team sport settings. Quest 2018; 70: 401–418.

Hammami

Gabbett

Slimani

, et al. Does small-sided games training improve physical-fitness and specific skills for team sports? A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2017; 58: 1446–1455.

Bredt

SGT

Morales

JCP

Andrade

AGP

, et al. Space creation dynamics in basketball small-sided games. Percept Mot Skills 2017; 125: 162–176.

Clemente

Afonso

Castillo

, et al. The effects of small-sided soccer games on tactical behavior and collective dynamics: a systematic review. Chaos, Solitons Fractals 2020; 134: 109710.

Davids

Araújo

Correia

, et al. How small-sided and conditioned games enhance acquisition of movement and decision-making skills. Exerc Sport Sci Rev 2013; 41: 154–161.

Correia

Carvalho

Araújo

, et al. Principles of nonlinear pedagogy in sport practice. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog 2019; 24: 117–132.

Davids

Araújo

Vilar

, et al. An ecological dynamics approach to skill acquisition: implications for development of talent in sport. Talent Dev Excell 2013; 5: 21–34.

O’Grady

Fox

Dalbo

, et al. A systematic review of the external and internal workloads experienced during games-based drills in basketball players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2020; 15: 603–616.

Tallir

Lenoir

Valcke

, et al. Do alternative instructional approaches result in different game performance learning outcomes? Authentic assessment in varying game conditions. Int J Sport Psychol 2007; 38: 263–282.

10.

Clemente

Martins

FML

Mendes

, et al. The effects of small-sided and conditioned games on the heart rate responses, technical and tactical performances measured by mathematical methods. Res J Appl Sci 2016; 11: 7–13.

11.

Chow

Komar

Davids

, et al. Nonlinear pedagogy and its implications for practice in the Singapore PE context. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog 2021; 26: 230–241.

12.

Diniz

LBF

Bredt

SdG

Praça

. Influence of non-scorer floater and numerical superiority on novices’ tactical behaviour and skill efficacy during basketball small-sided games. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2021. Epub ahead of print. https://journals-sagepub-com-s.web.bisu.edu.cn/doi/abs/10.1177/17479541211021986

13.

Padilha M

Guilherme

Serra-Olivares

, et al. The influence of floaters on players’ tactical behaviour in small-sided and conditioned soccer games. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2017; 17: 721–736.

14.

Praça

Bredt

SGT

Torres

, et al. Influence of numerical superiority and players’ tactical knowledge on perceived exertion and physical and physiological demands in soccer. Rev Psicol del Deport 2018; 27: 29–36.

15.

Klusemann

Pyne

Foster

, et al. Optimising technical skills and physical loading in small-sided basketball games. J Sports Sci 2012; 30: 1463–1471.

16.

Atli

Köklü

Alemdaroglu

, et al. A comparison of heart rate response and frequencies of technical actions between half-court and full-court 3-a-side games in high school female basketball players. J Strength Cond Res 2013; 27: 352–356.

17.

Vaquera

Suárez-Iglesias

Guiu

, et al. Physiological responses to and athlete and coach perceptions of exertion during small-sided basketball games. J Strength Cond Res 2018; 32: 2949–2953.

18.

Bredt

SGT

Torres

Diniz

LBF

, et al. Physical and physiological demands of basketball small-sided games: the influence of defensive and time pressures. Biol Sport 2020; 37: 131–138.

19.

Petway

Freitas

Calleja-González

, et al. Training load and match-play demands in basketball based on competition level: a systematic review. PLoS One 2020; 15(3): e0229212. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0229212

20.

Ferioli

Rucco

Rampinini

, et al. Combined effect of number of players and dribbling on game-based-drill demands in basketball. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2020; 15: 825–832.

21.

Sansone

Tessitore

Lukonaitiene

, et al. Technical-tactical profile, perceived exertion, mental demands and enjoyment of different tactical tasks and training regimes in basketball small-sided games. Biol Sport 2020; 37: 15–23.

22.

Clemente

González-Víllora

Delextrat

, et al. Effects of the sports level, format of the game and task condition on heart rate responses, technical and tactical performance of youth basketball players. J Hum Kinet 2017; 58: 141–155.

23.

Martínez-Fernández

García

Ibáñez

. Incidence of type of game mode in player participation in minibasket. Rev Psicol del Deport 2015; 24: 65–68.

24.

Lamas

Junior

Santana

, et al. Space creation dynamics in basketball offence: validation and evaluation of elite teams. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2011; 11: 71–84.

25.

Folgado

Bravo

Pereira

, et al. Towards the use of multidimensional performance indicators in football small-sided games: the effects of pitch orientation. J Sports Sci 2019; 37: 1064–1071.

26.

Marcelino

Aoki

Freitas

, et al.

Does small-sided-games’ court area influence metabolic, perceptual, and physical performance parameters of young elite basketball players?

Biol Sport 2016; 33: 37–42.

27.

Conte

Favero

Niederhausen

, et al. Determinants of the effectiveness of fast break actions in elite and sub-elite Italian men’s basketball games. Biol Sport 2017; 34: 177–183.

28.

Kelly

Murphy

Watsford

, et al. Reliability and validity of sports accelerometers during static and dynamic testing. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2015; 10: 106–111.

29.

Buchheit

Haddad

Simpson

, et al.

Monitoring accelerations With GPS in football : time to slow down ?

Int J Sports Physiol Perform 2014; 9: 442–445.

30.

Field

. Discovering statistics using SPSS. 3rd ed. London: Sage, 2009.

31.

Cohen

. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1988.

32.

Praxedes

Del Villar Alvarez

Moren

, et al. Effects of a nonlinear pedagogy intervention programme on the emergent tactical behaviours of youth footballers. Phys Educ Sport Pedagog 2019; 24: 332–343.

33.

McGregor

Busa

Yagie

, et al. High resolution MEMS accelerometers to estimate VO2 and compare running mechanics between highly trained inter-collegiate and untrained runners. PLoS One 2009; 4: e7355.

34.

Moreira

PED

Barbosa

Murta

CDCF

, et al. Network analysis and tactical behaviour in soccer small-sided and conditioned games: influence of absolute and relative playing areas on different age categories. Int J Perform Anal Sport 2020; 20: 64–77.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB