A Principled Approach to Equipment Scaling to Enhance Skill Acquisition in Female Junior Basketball

Christopher McCormack

doi:10.25907/00009

Background: Multiple studies have shown that the participation of children in team sports can facilitate the development of many physical, mental, and social skills, as well as being positively associated with academic achievement (Crane & Temple, 2015; Bruijn, Kostons, van Der Fels, Visscher, Oosterlaan, Hartman, & Bosker, 2019). With the understanding of the importance of youth participation in organised sports, governments have created programs with the aim of increasing youth involvement and continued participation into adulthood, specifically that of females (Active Healthy Kids Australia, 2016). However, an increase in the rate of sport attrition has been identified, particularly amongst older male and female adolescents (Active Healthy Kids Australia, 2016). Investigations into ways of improving participation and retention rates in organised sports have become popular within the literature (Arias, Argudo, & Alonso, 2012a; Arias, Argudo, & Alonso, 2012b; Buszard, Reid, Masters, & Farrow, 2016; Chase, Ewing, Lirgg, & George, 1994; Farrow & Reid, 2010). One such method utilised is to modify task constraints by reducing the size of equipment so that it is scaled to the individual (see Buszard et al., 2016). The research investigates the use of equipment scaling as a means to improve enjoyment, performance outcomes, and skill development which can have a compounding effect on participation and retention. Currently, junior female basketball players are required to use the same size basketball as senior, high-level, female basketball players, however, the extant research has generally not applied an objective method to scale equipment for players (for an exception, see Limpens, Buszard, Shoemaker, Savelsbergh, & Reid, 2018). A principled approach to equipment scaling for basketball could lead to enhanced player performance and retention. Aims: The primary aim of this research was to determine whether the characteristics of junior basketball games were different to those present in high-level open-age games. The characteristics that were examined included shooting and passing, as well as the spacing between players at the time of shot attempts. The second aim of this research was to use a principled approach to equipment scaling by using the theoretical framework of ecological dynamics and in particular the theory of affordances to undertake a comparison of the anthropometric characteristics of junior and senior female basketball players to identify the appropriate size of basketball for the juniors. Study Design: Comparative cross-sectional study. Procedure: In Study 1, five female junior basketball games and five senior female basketball games were recorded and analysed. Video analysis was conducted by superimposing a grid on the basketball court surface using known dimensions. This allowed measures of passing and shooting distance to be recorded, as well as categorical measures including pass/shot type and shot success. To determine the spacing between players at the time of a shot attempt, player coordinates were used to measure (a) the attacking surface area which comprised the space occupied by the five attacking players and (b) the defensive surface area which comprised the space occupied by the five defending players. In Study 2, the participants included a total of 48 junior female basketball players (M age = 10.87 years, SD = ±0.83) and 40 senior female high-level basketball players (M age = 25 years, SD = ±7.75). The junior players had an average of 2.77 (SD = ±1.52) years of experience playing basketball, while the senior players had an average of 14.87 years (SD = ±6.4) of basketball playing experience. The anthropometric measurements included hand span, hand length, hand size, and height. These measurements were made following guidelines used by previous research (Alahmari et al., 2017; Chahal & Kumar, 2014; Fallahi & Jadidian, 2011). The senior players’ anthropometric measurements were compared to the size 6 ball (current regulation size) to create a hand size to ball size ratio. Then, using the senior ratio as the reference point, the hand measures of the junior participants were compared to the diameters of four different basketball sizes (sizes 3, 4, 5, and 6) to determine the basketball that most closely matched the characteristics of the two groups. Similarly, a ratio of hoop height to player height for the adult players was calculated to enable comparison with juniors and to determine the relative height at which the hoop should be set to identify the same hoop height/stature ratio for the junior players. Results: The comparison of game characteristics revealed that the senior group had significantly more total successful shot attempts and a significantly greater number of shot attempts between 6 to 6.99 m and from distances greater than 7 m, compared to the juniors. Analysis of the junior games revealed a greater number of shot attempts between 0 to 1.99 m and 2 to 3.99 m compared to the senior games. The seniors recorded 5.56 more passes per minute of gameplay compared to the juniors. The median offensive and defensive surface areas at the time of which a shot was executed were significantly larger for the senior games compared to the junior games. In the junior games, there were significantly more shot attempts compared to the senior games when the offensive teams’ surface area was 0 to 9.99 m2 or 10 to 19.99 m2, while in the senior games, there were significantly larger offensive surface areas compared to the junior games in the categories of 30 to 39.99 m2, 40 to 49.99 m2, and 50 to 59.99 m2. As expected, the anthropometric measures of senior participants (M hand length = 19.14 ±1.01 cm; M hand span = 21.12 ±1.22 cm; M hand size = 40.26 ±1.92 cm; M height = 176.94 ±6.40 cm) were significantly larger than the anthropometric measures of the juniors (M hand length = 17.39 ±1.29 cm, M hand span = 18.56 ±1.8 cm, M hand size = 35.95 ±2.96 cm, M height = 150.07 ±10.12 cm). The senior participants’ hand to ball size ratio for the size 6 basketball was significantly different to the junior hand to ball size ratios for basketball sizes 3, 5, and 6, but there were no significant differences between the two groups for the hand to ball size ratios for the size 4 basketball. The heights of senior and junior participants were on average 58.01% and 49.20% of the regulation hoop height (305 cm), respectively. By using the height to hoop percentage of the senior group, a scaled hoop height for the junior group would be 258.69 cm (i.e., approximately 46 cm lower than a regulation basket). Conclusion: There are significant differences between junior and senior female basketball games in terms of the performance variables for shooting, passing, and spacing between players. The results demonstrate that junior players are less successful when shooting the basketball and attempt significantly fewer attempts from distances greater than 6 m from the hoop when compared to the senior group. The junior group also completed fewer passes per minute when compared to the senior group with 92.4% of the passes for the junior players within a distance of 0 to 8.99 m compared to 83.7% for the senior group. The average offensive and defensive surface areas for the junior participants were also significantly less than those of the senior group. Collectively these results could be due to the lower skill level of the junior group in terms of their capability to shoot and pass over the same distances as the senior players. Alternatively, the shorter passes and shots from closer could be due to the fact that the equipment (e.g., basketball, hoop height) used by the junior players was not appropriately scaled to create the same affordances as found in the adult game. The results show that the junior game does not replicate the skill demands of the senior game. Based upon the anthropometric characteristics of the senior players in relation to the size 6 ball, the analysis of the hand to ball size ratios showed that the size 4 basketball is likely to provide the closest anatomical match. Similarly, based upon the junior players standing heights, the hoop was 46 cm higher above the ground for the junior players when scaled to the height of the senior players. Previous research has supported the use of ball sizes and hoop heights that are smaller than current regulations for junior players (Arias et al., 2012a; Arias et al., 2012b; Chase et al., 1994; Haywood, 1978; Isaacs & Karpman, 1981; Regimbal, Deller, & Plimpton, 1992). The current research extends these findings by using an objective and principled approach to identify the specific ball size and hoop height for junior players. From this research, sporting associations and school programs should further investigate how the implementation of a scaled ball size and hoop height would affect the performance of junior female basketball players and their continued participation in the sport.

A Principled Approach to Equipment Scaling to Enhance Skill Acquisition in Female Junior Basketball

Files and links (1)

Abstract

Details

Metrics