Participants

Ten semi-professional male basketball players (mean ± SD; age: 20.4 ± 2.1 years; stature: 189.4 ± 8.1 cm; body mass: 77.4 ± 8.4 kg), from the same basketball team competing in the Lithuanian 3^rd division [Regionų Krepšinio Lyga (RKL)], participated in this study. Players were randomly divided into two teams based on playing positions and skill levels according to coaching staff evaluations to ensure a between-team balance (Sansone et al., 2019). Selection criteria included players who did not suffer from any injury during the last three months before the commencement of the study, according to self-reported data obtained through structured interviews. All players participated in four to five training sessions per week, at the same time of the day (i.e., 18.00–19.30) in the same sports hall and played one competitive game per week. All participants were over 18 years old and voluntarily participated in this study. They were informed about the purpose, risks, and benefits of this study and gave their informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Lithuanian Sports University, Kaunas, Lithuania (protocol code: BEK-KTV(M)-2019-161; approval date: 11 March 2019).

Design

Data were collected across two weeks of the in-season period, during which players were involved in four training sessions (i.e., two sessions per week). Before the commencement of the study, players were familiarized with SSG procedures and the adopted questionnaires. The four SSG typologies were played at the beginning of the training sessions (on Tuesdays and Thursdays) following a standardized warm-up, and randomized in the following order: 1) half-court man-to-man defense, 2) half-court zone defense, 3) full-court man-to-man defense, and 4) full-court zone defense. Regarding man-to-man defense, players were required to defend on one opponent during each SSG. Differently, during SSGs encompassing a zone defense, players were required to play a 2–3 zone defense, which represented one of the most adopted defensive strategies in basketball. All SSGs were preceded by a standardized 15–20-min warm-up consisting of low-intensity running, striding, and dynamic stretching. All training sessions were designed, directed, and supervised by the team’s coach on a regular-sized basketball court. Each SSG encompassed two 5-min bouts interspersed by a 1-min active rest interval in which participants were walking and were able to drink ad libitum. In each SSG, the International Basketball Federation rules were adopted, including the 24-s shot-clock, while time-outs and free throws were excluded. Moreover, after fouls, the game started with a throw-in from out-of-bounce from the side or baseline. When a shot was scored, the opponent team was re-positioning outside the 3-point line and was required to re-start playing as fast as possible.

Procedures

Statistical Analysis

For physical demands, descriptive statistics were calculated as mean and standard deviation (± SD), while median and interquartile range (± IQR) were also calculated for perceived demands and technical demands. Normality and homogeneity of variance were assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the Shapiro-Wilk test with results showing physical demand data were normally distributed. Therefore, a two-way (defensive style x court size) ANOVA with repeated measures was used. Successively, effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated to determine the magnitude of the difference between the defensive style and the court size, with values interpreted as: 0–0.19 = trivial, 0.20–0.59 = small, 0.60–1.19 = moderate, 1.20–1.99 = large, >2.0 = very large (Hopkins et al., 2009). Regarding the analyses of the RPE and technical demands, a Friedman test was used to compare the four conditions (i.e., man-to-man defense in a half court, zone defense in a half court, man-to-man defense in a full court and zone defense in a full court). For any statistically significant difference, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used with Bonferroni correction. For some technical actions (i.e., rebounds, assists, steals, turnovers, and blocks) only descriptive statistics were reported due to a low frequency of occurrence. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (SPPS Inc. 23 Chicago, USA) and statistical significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.

Physical Demands

Monitoring the physical demand of basketball SSGs is fundamental to have clear information about the physical requirements during game-based training drills, one of the prominent training modes in basketball. This information can be used to optimize individual and team training programs across the basketball season. While most of previous studies synthetized in a systematic review (O’Grady et al., 2020) analyzing the effects of various constraints on SSGs adopted a man-to-man defense, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the interaction of defensive styles and court sizes on physical demands during 5 vs. 5 SSGs.

Our results documented no interaction between the defensive style and court size for any of the investigated physical variable, suggesting that these two variables should not be considered jointly when aiming at modifying the physical loads imposed, but rather separately. Regarding the effects of defensive strategies, no differences were evident in most of the load measures monitored, and in those reporting significant difference (total distance and distance covered during lowACC end lowDEC) only trivial-to-small effect size was found. These results are in line with those reported in a previous investigation (Castillo et al., 2021) documenting unclear differences between man-to-man and zone defensive styles during game-based drills played 5 vs. 5 on a half court in professional basketball players. Moreover, our findings revealing the lack of differences in physical demands across various defensive styles adopted during SSGs are also in agreement with studies evaluating official basketball matches (Abdelkrim et al., 2010; Sampaio et al., 2016). Indeed, no differences in high-intensity actions (Abdelkrim et al., 2010) and total distance covered (Sampaio et al., 2016) were previously found in youth and semi-professional basketball players, respectively. Overall, our results confirm that the use of man-to-man and 2-3 zone defensive styles does not differ in physical demands during basketball game-based conditioning drills. These findings suggest that changing defensive strategy will not lead to meaningful variations in physical demands imposed on players, and that other constraints should be manipulated during training when aiming at modifying the external loads.

Differently than the defensive style, court size showed influence on all the assessed external load variables except for jumps, with overall higher physical demands in full-court compared to half-court SSGs (ES: moderate-to-very large). These outcomes overlap with previous investigations assessing the effect of court size on physical demands during basketball SSGs (O’Grady et al., 2020). Indeed, Bredt et al. (2020) showed that playing SSGs characterized by 3 vs. 3 on a full court resulted in more time spent in higher acceleration zones compared to 3 vs. 3 SSGs played on a half court in youth basketball players (ES: small-to-moderate). Similarly, Vazquez-Guerrero et al. (2020) found that 5 vs. 5 scrimmages played on a full court produced higher distance covered, peak speed, PL, high-intensity actions, high-intensity accelerations and decelerations compared to the same format played on a half court (ES: large-to-very large). Additionally, in a recent study (Sansone et al., 2023) assessing the effect of the court area per player on the peak external load per minute measured with 1-min rolling averages, it was found that a greater court area per player elicited higher peak physical demands compared to a smaller court area per player. Collectively, these findings suggest that court size is a key variable to manipulate in order to modify the physical demands encountered by basketball players during SSGs. Specifically, coaches can prefer half-court drills in order to decrease the overall external loads, and vice versa, select full-court drills in order to increase the external load.

Perceived Demands

Monitoring perceived demands can provide fundamental information for basketball coaches and practitioners about the internal responses (i.e., internal loads) of players to the prescribed workload (i.e., external loads) (Jeffries et al., 2022). Our results showed no effect of playing man-to-man or zone defense during half- and full-court drills on RPE values during basketball SSGs. It is difficult to make comparisons with previous investigations since, to the best of our knowledge, no previous study had investigated these aspects combined. Previous research assessing the effect of court sizes on RPE values only documented contrasting results in youth basketball (Klusemann et al., 2012; Marcelino et al., 2016). While Klusemann et al. (2012) showed a moderate difference between SSGs played on a full (28 x 15 m) and a half court (14 x 15 m), Marcelino et al. (2016) found no difference (p > 0.05) in the RPE during SSGs played with the same court area per player, although with different settings (i.e., full court: 28 x 15 m vs. half court: 28 x 9 m). Our results also showed no differences between the SSGs played on a full court and a half court (14 x 15 m) either played with man-to-man or zone defense. A possible reason for this discrepancy could be the different statistical approach adopted across studies. Indeed, while in our investigation and in Marcelino et al.’s (2016) study a traditional frequentist statistical analysis was used with results categorized as significant or not based on the set alpha level of the p-value, Klusemann et al. (2012) adopted a magnitude-based inference approach, which was based on the differences between groups relative to a set smallest worthwhile change, which could lead to possible different statistical outcomes. Beside the inferential statistics adopted across studies, it should be noted that different results were also evident when considering descriptive analyses. Indeed, similar RPE values (i.e., ~7 AU for full-court and ~6 AU for half-court SSGs ranging between 10 and 16 min of live time) were found in previous studies (Klusemann et al., 2012; Marcelino et al., 2016), while our results showed lower RPE values, ranging between 3 and 4 AU (with 10 min of live time). A possible reason for the perceived lower RPE could be the different level of basketball players recruited for our study. Indeed, in our study, semi-professional players completed the SSGs, while previous investigations (Klusemann et al., 2012; Marcelino et al., 2016) involved youth basketball players (U17 and U19). Possibly, our semiprofessional players might be more experienced in competing during SSGs, and might have paced themselves during the drills, not perceiving the load as so exacerbating. Additionally, differences in players’ age (Groslambert and Mahon, 2006) and cultural differences (Rejeski, 1981) across studies involving different samples might lead to different interpretations and reporting of subjective scores, including those of perceived exertion. Overall, our results suggest that a combination of court size and the defensive style does not have a significant impact on the players’ RPE, suggesting other strategies to be used by basketball coaches to increase or decrease players’ perceived responses.

Technical Demands

SSGs are a useful training method for the development not only of the physical and physiological characteristics of basketball players, but also for the development of their technical skills (de Souza et al., 2024b; Sansone et al., 2019). Nevertheless, players’ technical involvement in basketball SSGs has not been extensively studied for the constraints examined in our study. Specifically, no previous investigation had assessed the effect of playing different defensive strategies during SSGs on players’ technical demands, while only two investigations assessed the effects of different court sizes (Atli et al., 2013; Klusemann et al., 2012). Therefore, our results provide a unique insight, demonstrating no differences in technical demands across the four experimental sessions carried out (i.e., man-to-man half-court, zone half-court, man-to-man full-court, and zone full-court). However, it should be noted that only shooting actions (total, scored and missed shots) were considered for the inferential statistical analyses due to a low number of occurrence of the other technical actions (rebounds, assist, blocks, steals and turnovers) assessed. Intuitively, we would expect a higher number of shots corresponding to a reduced court size as found in previous studies (Atli et al., 2013; Klusemann et al., 2012). However, it should be considered that our SSGs were characterized by 5 vs. 5 drills, while previous investigations studied drills on a half and a full court with 2 vs. 2, 3 vs. 3 and 4 vs. 4 players. Playing SSGs with a reduced number of players allowed a considerably higher number of shots (average ranging between 12 and 18 shots per player for half-court drills and between 10 and 11 shots per player for full-court drills) (Atli et al., 2013; Klusemann et al., 2012) compared to our 5 vs. 5 drills (3 to 4 shots per player). The main reason possibly explaining the lower number of shots found in our study is the shot-clock duration, which was the full 24 s according to the official international basketball rules. Differently, previous game-based conditioning studies (Klusemann et al., 2012; Sansone et al., 2020) implemented changes in the shot-clock duration that directly affected the performance profile of SSGs, including a higher number of shots taken and ball possessions played with shorter clock duration (Klusemann et al., 2012; Sansone et al., 2020). Furthermore, the limited number of shots in our study diminishes the possibility of finding statistical differences across groups. Altogether, it could be suggested that playing 5 vs. 5 drills which narrowly replicate the real game scenarios (compared to drills with less players involved) does not allow a high number of technical actions, and the manipulation of other constraints such as a shot clock should be considered to increase the individual technical efforts of basketball players.

Limitations and Future Directions

Although this study provides interesting insight for basketball coaches about the use of different defensive styles and court sizes during basketball SSGs, some limitations should be considered. First, no tactical demands were considered in our study, limiting the applicability of our results only to physical, perceived and technical demands. Additionally, only one zone formation (i.e., 2-3) was adopted, while different formations (1-3-1, 2-1-2, box and one, etc.) might lead to different outcomes. Moreover, our sample size was representative of one team composed of ten players, while a larger sample size might increase the results generalizability. Therefore, future studies should focus on the effects of playing various defensive strategies on different court sizes on tactical demands, explore whether different zone defenses could lead to varied physical, perceived and technical demands and involve a larger sample size.