National u16, u18 and u20 reserve basketball teams: special physical fitness analysis

Associate Professor Y.O. Averyasova1
Dr. Hab., Professor S.I. Filimonova1
PhD, Associate Professor T.N. Shutova1
O.N. Andryushchenko2
1Plekhanov Russian University of Economics, Moscow
2Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow
3Russian State University of Physical Education, Sports, Youth and Tourism (SCOLIPE), Moscow

Keywords: basketball, national junior U16, U18 and U20 basketball teams, special physical fitness, competitive performance, heart rate, 3-point and penalty scores

Background. National basketball teams of Russia have lately shown notable regresses on the global arenas, and the situation needs to be responded by special efforts to analyze the problems of the national basketball and the reasons for the failures – to take urgent actions based on a sound theoretical and practical basis to improve the basketball elite training systems [1, 3, 7]. The solution may be facilitated by a comprehensive analysis of the national U16, U18 and U20 basketball team fitness and competitive progress data on an age- and gender-specific basis [8, 9]. The recent regresses urged the national sport community to explore the ways to improve the training service quality in the national elite basketball. We would mention the following latest study reports on these issues: ball handling and body control skills training in the high-class 16-18 year old basketball players [2]; off-seasonal self-reliant training systems for the high-class 18-19 year old basketball players [6]; all-round yearly progress tests in the national elite basketball [4]; and the modern coaching methods in elite basketball [5].

Objective of the study was to analyze the techical and physical fitness and performance standards in the men’s and women’s youth U16, U18, U20 basketball teams.

Methods and structure of the study. The study was based on the following: analyzes of the theoretical and practical literature on the subject; and progress tests to rate the physical fitness (with the fat/ muscle mass, postural control and balancing skills tests) by the 30m sprint; squat-to-jump, standing high jump and activity tests; technical fitness by the 2- and 3-point throws, dribbling using both hands; and mental/ physiological qualities tests (including the simple/ complex visual motor response, attention focusing and choice reaction tests); with application of modern computerized Stabilan-01-2 and Dynavision D2 test systems. Sampled for the study run in 2018 were the U16 (cadets), U18 (juniors) and U20 (youth national team qualifiers) of both sexes (n=89).

Results and discussion. The physical fitness tests of the women’s U16, U18 and U20 players to obtain the 3-point and penalty scores, defense speed and speed endurance test rates showed virtually no age differences: see Table 1.

Table 1. Physical fitness test data of the women’s U16, U18 and U20 players

 Tests

(Χ± σ)          

16-y-o

n=13

18-y-o

n=15

T

20-y-o

n=15

T

18-20

t

16-20

Standing high jump, cm

34,7±3,3

36,0±5,2

0,08

37,3±5,1

0,24

0,05

Defense speed

9,6±0,3

9,9±0,6

0,12

9,3±0,4

0,00

0,03

20m sprint, s

3,25±0,19

3,29±0,2

0,47

3,38±0,1

0,16

0,11

Speed endurance, s

Test 1

27,2±0,8

29,9±1,8

0,00

30,1±2,1

0,36

0,00

Test 2

28,5±1,0

31,0±1,6

0,00

30,6±1,3

0,23

0,00

Serial jumping, cm

32,7±4,7

33,8±4,9

0,21

36,0±4,9

0,12

0,30

3-point score

47,8±13,2

48,6±12,1

0,20

56,2±11,8

0,04

1,44

High-speed technical skills, s

11,8±0,5

13,6±0,9

0,00

13,2±0,7

0,12

0,01

Penalty score

14,7±2,8

15,6±2,6

0,13

15,7±1,8

0,43

0,14

Note: Χ – mean arithmetic value; σ – mean square deviation; *significance of difference, р<0.05

Neither of the progress tests found a significant advantage of the women’s U18 and U20 individuals over the U16 ones. Thus the penalty scores stayed virtually unvaried at 14.7, 15.6 and 15.7 points for the 16, 18 and 20 year olds, respectively. The 3-point scoring was tested significantly better only in the U20 group albeit the score was associated with a high mean square deviation indicative of the high instability and, hence, drawbacks of the throw techniques.

The women’s group physical fitness tests also found insignificant intergroup differences, with the U20 group tested with even slightly lower speed in the 20m sprint tests. The serial jumping test showed a significant advantage of the U20 group (32.7cm; 33.8cm and 36.0cm for U16, U18 and U20 respectively). The standing high jump test yielded 34.7cm, 36.0cm and 37.3cm for U16, U18 and U20 respectively.

The men’s group tests found no differences in the penalty scores – 15.4, 15.5 and 15.3 points for U16, U18 and U20, respectively – that may be interpreted as indicative of the poor technical progress in this element. Age differences in the 3-point scoring were also insignificant and associated with the high mean square deviations. Defense speeds were tested to average 8.1s, 8.5s and 9.3s in U16, U18 and U20 groups, respectively. Speed endurance tests also showed insignificant intergroup differences. The U20 group physical fitness was tested insignificantly higher in the 20m sprint test and standing high jump test. Speed control skills were tested virtually the same in the groups. On the whole, the test data analysis showed insignificant intergroup differences: see Table 2.

Table 1. Physical fitness test data of the men’s U16, U18 and U20 groups

 Tests

(Χ± σ)          

16-y-o

n=15

18-y-o

n=15

t

16-18

20-y-o

n=16

t

18-20

t

16-20

Standing high jump, cm

43,8±4,6

46,9±5,4

0,07

47,3±5,1

0,28

0,02

Defense speed

8,1±0,3

8,5±0,5

0,01

9,3±0,6

0,00

0,01

20m sprint, s

3,04±0,13

3,05±0,2

0,39

2,67±0,23

0,00

0,10

Speed endurance, s

Test 1

26,1±0,6

26,3±0,7

0,08

26,9±1,0

0,14

0,00

Test 2

26,7±0,5

27,7±0,8

0,00

27,4±2,5

0,21

0,14

Serial jumping, cm

40,3±6,0

43,2±43,2

0,15

42,8±5,3

0,37

0,10

3-point score

47,1±11,7

49,2±13,5

0,32

47,8±10

0,34

0,42

High-speed technical skills, s

11,2±0,3

11,5±0,6

0,01

11,5±0,5

0,34

0,02

Penalty score

15,4±3,0

15,5±1,6

0,44

15,3±1,9

0,44

0,47

 

Note: Χ – mean arithmetic value; σ – mean square deviation; *significant of difference, р<0.05

 

The study found a few significant improvements with age in the speed endurance tests, with the women’s U20 group tested with better (lower) HR and HR maximum versus U16 and U18 – that may be interpreted as indicative of the higher adaptability to the physical stresses, higher fitness and more economic cardiovascular system performance with age. Thus the HR recovery rate in U20 group was tested 2-3min shorter than in U16: see Table 3.

 

Table 3. Women’s intergroup HR variation analysis: speed endurance test

 (Χ± σ)

16-y-o

18-y-o

t16-18

20-y-o

t18-20

t16-20

Test 1

HR under stress

Mean

169,0±6,6

165,4±7,9

0,11

160,7±8,8

0,07

0,02

Max

182,4±4,8

177,8±5,9

0,03

176,6±7,9

0,32

0,02

HR recovery time

1min

160,5±8,9

161,8±16,5

0,1

154,2±10,8

0,07

0,02

Test 2

HR under stress

Mean

177,2±17,2

170,2±13,2

0,07

172,1±7,0

0,32

0,0

Max

185,0±5,5

179,8±9,1

0,06

181,6±7,0

0,27

0,0

HR recovery time

1min

158,2±9,3

156,7±19,7

0,28

154,6±14,2

0,37

0,1

2min

139,1±8,1

140,8±14,4

0,4

129,4±7,7

0,02

2,06*

3min

131,1±6,2

134,4±9,8

0,25

121,4±7,1

0,00

2,1*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Χ – mean arithmetic value; σ – mean square deviation; *significance of difference, р<0.05

 

In the men’s groups, the HR variability was virtually the same (see Table 4), i.e. the U20 was tested with the lower HR under stress and shorter HR recovery times of 1-3min, albeit the  cardiovascular system performance was rated ‘unsatisfactory’ in 50% of the U16 and U18 – versus no unsatisfactory rates in the U20. On the whole, only one individual and 2-3 individuals in every group were tested ‘excellent’ and ‘good’ in the tests, respectively. The speed endurance test found unsatisfactory HR variations in the U16 and U18 groups irrespective of the gender (see Tables 3, 4) – that may be indicative of the need to have the functionality trainings individualized at no sacrifice for the all-round physical conditioning practices [8].

 

Table 4. Men’s intergroup HR variation analysis: speed endurance test

 (Χ± σ)

16-y-o

18-y-o

t16-18

20-y-o

t18-20

t16-20

Test 1

 

HR under stress

Mean

162,5±11,0

161,6±8,4

0,3081

158,9±14,4

0,25

0,22

 

Max

180,5±10,7

173,2±8,90

0,02

174,1±8,2

0,44

0,04

HR recovery time

1min

158,1±11,5

150,50±11,9

0,04

157,5±9,9

0,04

0,44

Test 2

HR under stress

Mean

172,1±9,0

169,0±8,5

0,16

169,9±8,4

0,45

0,24

Max

184,6±9,3

177,2±7,5

0,01

177,0±9,0

0,12

0,01

HR recovery time

1min

155,1±12,5

149,4±9,6

0,11

146,4±11,5

0,13

0,02

2min

133,9±8,9

129,4±0,1

0,14

123,8±8,0

0,03

2,016*

3min

121,9±13,7

122,2±9,4

0,45

113,5±10

0,01

1,03

                           

Note: Χ – mean arithmetic value; σ – mean square deviation; *significance of difference, р<0.05

Conclusion. National basketball teams of Russia have lately shown notable regresses on the global arenas, and the situation needs to be responded by special efforts to analyze the problems of the national basketball and reasons for the failures and take urgent actions based on a sound theoretical and practical basis to improve the basketball elite training systems. A comparative analysis of the special physical fitness of the men’s and women’s junior teams trained for the European events found the following: no statistically significant progress with age (U20 versus U18 and U16), with the speed endurance tested unsatisfactory in every age group; unsatisfactory post-stress HR recovery rates; poor competitive stress tolerance (as verified by the penalty scores among other things) that showed no progress with age; and virtually no progress with age in the shooting accuracy, particularly in the 3-point scoring.

The precompetitive training systems of the junior basketball teams for the top-ranking events are recommended being revised to: improve the qualifications based on the precise test data produced by modern computerized test systems, with a special attention to the stress tolerance test rates; efficiently manage the training and competitive processes based on the real-time test data flow generated by the modern digital and BOS technologies; and step up the psychological and coaching service in the individualized and group trainings customized to the players’ ages, body types and other individual specifics.

References

  1. Averyasova Yu.O. Gotovnost basketbolistov k sorevnovatelnoy deyatelnosti [Fitness of basketball players for competitive activity]. Teoriya i praktika fiz. kultury. 2018. no. 3. P. 73.
  2. Al Anssari Sbhi Abdulrazak. Soderzhanie i metodika trenirovki ruchnoy i telesnoy lovkosti u kvalifitsirovannykh basketbolistov 16-18 [Сontent and methods of training hand and body dexterity in skilled basketball players 16-18]. PhD diss. abstr. St. Peterasburg, 2017. 23 p.
  3. Andryushchenko L.B., Averyasova Yu.O., Kozlov T.M. Psikhofiziologicheskaya gotovnost u basketbolistov U16 k sorevnovatelnoy deyatelnosti na mezhdunarodnom urovne [Psychophysiological fitness of U16 basketball players for international competitions]. Rudikovskie chteniya [Rudik conf.]. Proc. XIII Intern. res.-practical conf. of physical education and sports psychologists. 2017. pp.  302- 308.
  4. Zakharov P.S. Innovatsionnaya metodika etapnogo kontrolya integralnoy podgotovlennosti kvalifitsirovannykh basketbolistov v strukture godichnogo trenirovochnogo tsikla [Innovative method of staged monitoring of integrated fitness in skilled basketball players in annual training cycle]. PhD diss. abstr. Smolensk, 2013. 24 p.
  5. Ponomarev P.L. Pedagogicheskoe vozdeystvie trenera na basketbolistov vysokoy kvalifikatsii v trenirovochnoy i sorevnovatelnoy deyatelnosti [Pedagogical influence of coach on elite basketball players in training and competitive processes]. PhD diss. abstr. M., 2008. 23 p.
  6. Fomin A.S. Spetsifika vnesezonnoy samostoyatelnoy podgotovki professionalnykh basketbolistov 18-19 let [Specifics of off-season self-training of professional basketball players aged 18-19 years]. PhD diss. abstr.. Smolensk, 2013. 23 p.
  7. Averyasova Yu.O., Filimonova S.I., Andryushchenko L.B., Andryushchenko O.N. Sport reserve training system optimization in elite basketball. Theory and Practice of Physical Culture. 2018. no.  6. P. 27.
  8. Andryushchenko L.B., Bodrov I.M., Zaytsev V.A., Buyanova T.V., Nosov S.M. Esteck complex application for age-specific functionality tests. Teoriya i Praktika Fizicheskoy KulturyIssue 9, 1  September 2018, pp. 16-18
  9. Andryushchenko L.B.a, Chernov S.V.a, Markova A.A.a, Andryushchenko O.N.b Highly-skilled female basketball players' competitive three-point scoring analysis. Teoriya i Praktika Fizicheskoy KulturyVolume 2017-January, Issue 5, 2017, pp. 68-71

Corresponding author: yulasha15@mail.ru

Abstract

National basketball teams of Russia have lately shown notable regresses on the global arenas, and the situation needs to be responded by special efforts to analyze the problems of the national basketball and reasons for the failures and take urgent actions based on a sound theoretical and practical basis to improve the basketball elite training systems. The study analyzes the special physical fitness test data of the men’s and women’s national U16, U18 and U20 reserve basketball teams. The study was timed to the 2018 precompetitive training periods prior to the top-ranking international tournaments. The women’s group physical fitness tests found the U18 and U20 group fitness being actually no better than the U16 one in every test. The men’s groups were also tested with no physical fitness progress in the U20 versus U16 and U18. It should be also mentioned that every age group showed too high mean square deviations in the tests, particularly in the 3-point scores and HR recovery rates after the speed endurance tests. The test data showed the training systems being in need of revisions to secure progress. The authors recommend that special attention should be given to prospects selection for the precompetitive trainings based on the performance test data produced by the cutting-edge test systems; with a due priority to the psychological and coaching service in the individualized and group trainings customized to the players’ ages, body types and other individual specifics.