Multidimensional analysis of players’ responses in basketball small-sided games: The impact of changing game rules

Abstract

This study followed a cross-sectional design and aimed to compare the offensive and defensive tactical-technical actions and the physical and physiological responses between four 3vs.3 basketball small-sided games (SSGs) played on the half-court: with regular rules (3vs.3REGULAR), with defensive pressure (3vs.3DEFPRESS), with the close-shot rule (3vs.3CLOSESHOT), and with offensive numerical superiority (4vs.3). Fifty-one U-14 and U-15 male athletes participated in the study. They were divided into 3-player teams and played one 4-min bout of each SSG 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. SSGs were filmed for the analysis of Space Creation Dynamics and defensive tactical-technical actions. Results showed a higher frequency of space creation without the ball and a mean number of passes per offense in the 4vs.3, with this SSG showing higher offensive performance than the 3vs.3CLOSESHOT (large effect sizes). Defensive behavior was significantly impacted by all rules: in general, 4vs.3 presented the highest frequency of closeouts, 3vs.3DEFPRESS increased the frequency of close off-ball marking and the 3vs.3CLOSESHOT increased the frequency of double-teaming, all differences presenting large effect sizes. Heart rate and the time spent in moderate and high accelerations (zones 2 and 3) were the highest with defensive pressure and the lowest with numerical superiority; heart rate and accelerations in the close-shot rule are higher than in numerical superiority but similar to the 3vs.3REGULAR. We concluded that the SSGs investigated in this study can stimulate different offensive and defensive actions and be used to develop the performance of basketball athletes.

Tactical and Technical Performance in Basketball Small-Sided Games: A Systematic Review

“…By manipulating the number of players in numerically unbalanced SSGs, Bredt et al (2023) found that the 4 vs. 3 format allowed more passing actions compared to the 3 vs. 3 (defensive pressure required during SSGs). Using the imbalance in the number of players, Bredt et al (2022) compared the tactical-technical responses of unbalanced and balanced SSGs formats and found that the 4 vs. 3 format with the additional player scoring promoted greater space creation without the ball when compared to the numerical equality 3 vs. 3 format.…”