PhD, Associate Professor D.A. Kazakov¹
PhD, Associate Professor A.V. Romanova¹
PhD, Associate Professor M.V. Eremin¹
PhD, Associate Professor M.N. Komarov^1
1Russian State Social University, Moscow

Corresponding author: vokazak73@mail.ru

Abstract

Objective of the study was to profile and analyze the age- and game-position-specific physical / technical fitness test data correlations in the 14-19 year-old basketball groups.

Methods and structure of the study. We sampled 95 junior 14-19 year-old basketball players for the study that was run in March through November 2019 at the Ravinsky Olympic Reserve Sports School No. 49. The players’ physical and technical fitness were tested using the standard test toolkit. 

Results and conclusion. The 14-15-year-old defenders were tested with 10 significant technical fitness / competitive success correlations. The highest (one-percent margin) technical fitness / competitive success correlations were found for the 5x6m shuttle sprint (r = 0.616) and standing high jump r = 0.590) tests. The 14-15-year-old attackers were tested with six significant (five-percent margin) technical fitness / competitive success correlations; whilst the centers were tested with only two significant technical fitness / competitive success correlations for the standing long jump and 10 penalty shots tests.

The 16-17-year-old defenders were tested with nine significant technical fitness / competitive success correlations, with the top correlation found for the defense square test (r = 0.671).

The study found that the 14-19 year-old basketball players with age are tested with the shorter numbers of significant technical / physical fitness test rate correlations – apparently indicative of the growing sports mastery levels.

Keywords: physical fitness, technical fitness, test data correlations, junior basketball players, game position.

Background. Modern basketball sport communities give a special priority to the physical fitness / technical fitness tests and test data correlation analyses, particularly at beginner stages of the long-term training systems when the sport skill sets are in formation and progress [1-5]. The youth basketball training systems are still in need of the relevant research findings and recommendations, and this was the reason for this study deemed relevant.

Objective of the study was to profile and analyze the age- and game-position-specific physical / technical fitness test data correlations in the 14-19 year-old basketball groups.

Methods and structure of the study. We sampled 95 junior 14-19 year-old basketball players for the study that was run in March through November 2019 at the Ravinsky Olympic Reserve Sports School No. 49. The players’ physical and technical fitness were tested using the standard test toolkit.  

Results and conclusion. The 14-15-year-old defenders were tested with 10 significant technical fitness / competitive success correlations. The highest (one-percent margin) technical fitness / competitive success correlations were found for the 5x6m shuttle sprint (r = 0.616) and standing high jump r = 0.590) tests. The 14-15-year-old attackers were tested with six significant (five-percent margin) technical fitness / competitive success correlations; whilst the centers were tested with only two significant technical fitness / competitive success correlations for the standing long jump and 10 penalty shots tests.

The 16-17-year-old defenders were tested with nine significant technical fitness / competitive success correlations, with the top correlation found for the defense square test (r = 0.671). The 16-17-year-old attackers were tested with eight significant technical fitness / competitive success correlations, with the highest one found for the 5x6m shuttle sprint test (r=-0.610); whilst the centers were tested with only two significant technical fitness / competitive success correlations for the standing long jump (r=0.661) and 10 penalty shots tests  (r=0.650).

The 18-19-year-old defenders were tested with 11 significant technical fitness / competitive success correlations, with the top correlations found for the 6m sprint (r=-0.678) and standing long jump (r = 0.670) tests. Most expresses for the 18-19-year-old attackers were the technical fitness / competitive success correlations in the complex technical fitness (r=0.639) and slalom ball control (r=-0.633) tests; whilst the centers were tested with only two significant technical fitness / competitive success correlations for the 10 jump shots and 10 hook shots tests.

On the whole, we found the test rate correlations with the competitive success being game-position-specific. Most important for the defenders’ and attackers’ were the speed and speed-strength tests and fine motor skills tests; whilst the centers’ skills were best tested by the shooting accuracy tests. It should be emphasized that the speed-strength tests were found beneficial for every game-position group. We also found benefits of the special physical fitness tests growing with age, with growth of the physical fitness test repetitions contributing to the test data accuracy.

We also analyzed the technical / physical fitness correlations in the sample. The 14-15-year-old defenders were tested with the highest (1% margin) correlation for the 20m sprint and 3x10m shuttle sprint (r = 0.679), long stuffed ball shooting and 30s wall rebound pass (r = 0.664) tests. Most beneficial for the 14-15-year-old attackers were the technical / physical fitness correlations of the 2x40m/ 3x10m shuttle sprint with the ball control (r = 0.617) test, and the 3x10m shuttle sprint with the 20m sprint (r = 0.616) tests; and for the centers – 20m spring with 3x10m shuttle sprint tests (r = 0.634).

The 16-17 year-old defenders were tested with the highest correlations of the 20m sprint with the 5x6m shuttle sprint (r = 0.677), standing high jump and combined technical fitness (r = -0.616) test rates. The 16-17 year-old attackers were tested with the highest correlations of the 20m spring with 3x10m ball control (r = 0.672) test rates; whilst the centers showed the top correlations of the 2x40s and 5x6m sprint (r = 0.694) test rates.

Most beneficial for the 18-19-year-old defenders were the correlations of the 20m sprint with 3x10m ball control (r = 0.664) tests; for the attackers 2x40m with 3x10m ball control (r = 0.636 ) test rates; and for the centers - the 20m sprint with the 30s wall rebound passes (r = -0.498) test rates.

The technical / physical fitness correlations were found age-specific. Thus most beneficial for the 14-15-year-olds were the correlations of the ball reception and control skills under time pressure with the lower-limbs speed-strength qualities and speed-strength endurance of the torso flexors.

Most beneficial for the 16-17 year-olds were the footwork and high-speed ball control skills tests with the test data correlation analyses. Progress in the technical / physical fitness tests in this age group is recommended being facilitated by special complex motor coordination training tools. The group progress was also found to depend on correlations of the speed-strength qualities with the shooting accuracy under mounting fatigue. Most successful in this group were the players capable to maintain the high shooting accuracy under mounting fatigue – testable by the skills sustainability probes.

Most beneficial for the 18-19 year-olds were the special game-position-specific motor skills tests with the test data correlation analyses. Significant correlations in the group were found for the long-distance shooting, 30s both-hands passing and speed-strength test rates. The age- and game-position specific technical / physical fitness training systems are recommended being customized as dictated by the test data correlations.

Conclusion. The study found that the 14-19 year-old basketball players with age are tested with the shorter numbers of significant technical / physical fitness test rate correlations – apparently indicative of the growing sports mastery levels.

           References

1. Elevich S.N. Dynamics of special fitness of elite basketball players in competitive period of annual cycle. PhD diss. abstract. Moscow, 2004.27 p.
2. Kazakov D.A. Analysis of physical fitness and its role in educational and training process of female volleyball players aged 17-19 years of different game positions. Slobozhansky scientific and sports bulletin. 2010. no. 1 (21). pp. 29-31.
3. Karpov V.Y., Petrunin R.E., Rodin A.V. Content of technical training of team athletes. Bulletin of the Sochi State University of Tourism and Resort Business. 2011. No. 4 (18). pp. 271-273.
4. Kostikova L.V. Basketball. Moscow: Fizicheskaya kultura i sport, 2014. 176 p.
5. Portnov Y.M. Theoretical and scientific-methodological foundations of training of elite team athletes. Doct. diss. Abstract (Hab.). Moscow, 1989. 51 p.