Fitness, Technical, and Kinanthropometrical Profile of Youth Lithuanian Basketball Players Aged 7–17 Years Old

Abstract

Optimizing basketball performance during the stages of long-term athlete development require to identify the trainability and variation of specific technical skills, when adjusting for anthropometric changes. The aim of this study was to describe differences in height, body mass, arm span, and technical-related fitness (movement, dribbling, shooting) along the long-term development of 7–17 years Lithuanian basketball players. This cross-sectional analysis involved a total of 1051 basketball players from the Sabonis Basketball Center in Lithuania. Testing sessions were performed during 1 day of the competition period in an indoor court. The participants performed technical-related fitness tests to assess dribbling (control dribble, 20 m dribble, two balls of 20 m dribble, Illinois agility dribble), shooting (30 free-throw shoots, 1 min shooting, modified medium and long-range shots, close range shots) and defensive movements. The dribbling skills had substantial improvements (7 to 8-years-old: 20 m sprint with dribbling, effect size = 1.86; control dribble effect size = 2.18; 9 to 10-year-old: 20 m sprint with dribbling, effect size = 1.85; Illinois agility test with dribbling effect size = 1.82). Changes in defensive movement occurred mostly at the 14–15-age period. The best periods to develop dribbling and shooting skills were between 7–10 and 12–13 years, whereas defensive movements can be trained in later adolescent years. Current results and consequent normative profiles, presented as percentile tables, allow to accurately follow the players’ development.

Dribble deficit quantifies dribbling speed independently of sprinting speed and differentiates between age categories in pre-adolescent basketball players

“…Our results revealed that Under-10 players had a higher linear sprinting time compared to Under-9 players, confirming the results of a previous investigation [ 13 ]. Considering dribbling speed tested with traditional total performance times taken during linear and COD tasks, a recent investigation assessing pre-adolescent basketball players aged 7–10 years showed faster dribbling speeds in older players [ 14 ]. Specifically, large differences between 9–10 yearold players were noted in dribbling speed during 20-m linear sprint (effect size = 1.85) and Illinois Agility Dribble tests (effect size = 1.82) [ 14 ].…”

“…Considering dribbling speed tested with traditional total performance times taken during linear and COD tasks, a recent investigation assessing pre-adolescent basketball players aged 7–10 years showed faster dribbling speeds in older players [ 14 ]. Specifically, large differences between 9–10 yearold players were noted in dribbling speed during 20-m linear sprint (effect size = 1.85) and Illinois Agility Dribble tests (effect size = 1.82) [ 14 ]. These results overlap with our investigation given that we observed significant differences in linear and COD dribbling speeds between Under-10 and Under-9 players.…”

“…Pre-adolescent (~7–10 years of age) basketball players usually compete in groups based on chronological age. It has been shown that dribbling speed measured using total dribbling time improves with age in pre-adolescent basketball players [ 13 , 14 ]. However, since dribbling speed using total performance time appears to be influenced by sprint capabilities [ 11 , 12 ], examination of the Dribble Deficit might be useful to understand differences in dribbling skill according to age.…”

Different Training Programs of Mini-Basketball Players Have a Different Effect on Physical and Technical Preparation

“…While evaluating the indicators of our tests of changing-direction-when-dribbling and dribblingthe-ball-for-20-meters and those of other scientists, it was determined that the exploratory basketball players in this study corresponded to a good level of preparation. (Matulaitis et al, 2019). The main aim of all the shooting tests is to determine Notes.…”

“…It was determined that the indicators of all the shooting tests allow determining the technical preparation level of the players (Pojskic, Šeparovic, & Užičanin, 2011). By analysing the indicators of close-range shooting tests, it was discovered that at the start of the study, the indicators were worse than those of peers, but the indicators at the end of the study corresponded to a good level of preparation (Matulaitis et al, 2019).…”