In the present study, the way basketball fast breaks are executed was analysed, while determining how the best results are obtained and studying the differences between the men's and women's game. Utilizing observational methodology, a total of 294 fast breaks were analysed from 30 games played at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. Eighteen of the games were high-level men's games and 12 were high-level women's games. Statistically significant differences were observed between the men's and the women's game in the following aspects with regard to fast breaks: (1) duration, (2) completion area, and (3) shot opposition. For men, some dependence relationships were found between the fast break result and the following variables: duration, completion area, and opposition to its completion. For women, the results revealed a weak association between the fast break result and the opposition to its completion

Refoyo Román, Ignacio

Romaris Durán, Iria Uxia

Sampedro Molinuevo, Javier

Diposit Digital de Documents de la UAB

Iria Uxía RomarísE-mail: iria_uxia@yahoo.es*Universidad Politécnica de Madrid**Universidade da CoruñaUniversitat de les Illes BalearsUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaRevista de Psicología del Deporte2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 439-444ISSN: 1132-239XANALYSIS OF MEN’S ANDWOMEN’S BASKETBALL FAST-BREAKSIgnacio Refoyo*, Iria Uxía Romarís** & Javier Sampedro*KEY WORDS: basketball, offence, fast break..ABSTRACT: In the present study, the way basketball fast breaks are executed was analysed, while determining how the bestresults are obtained and studying the differences between the men’s and women’s game. Utilizing observational methodology, atotal of 294 fast breaks were analysed from 30 games played at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing. Eighteen of the games werehigh-level men’s games and 12 were high-level women’s games. Statistically significant differences were observed between themen’s and the women’s game in the following aspects with regard to fast breaks: (1) duration, (2) completion area, and (3) shotopposition. For men, some dependence relationships were found between the fast break result and the following variables:duration, completion area, and opposition to its completion. For women, the results revealed a weak association between the fastbreak result and the opposition to its completion.IntroductionThe fast break (FB) is the phase of thegame where the team that possesses the balltries to “take it to the basket as quickly and assafely as possible, with the goal of getting numericalequality or advantage over the defending team orobtaining a good shot option with a high success ratebefore the defence recovers and gets organized” (FEB,2008, p. 2). The FB can help to create andtake advantage of opportunities for scoringwith relative ease, but they can also causehaste or turnovers. The way FB aredeveloped and the clearness of the players’ideas when executing them could influencethe final result. In this study, basketball fastbreaks were analysed with the aim of:knowing how they are executed in the men’sand women’s categories at the highest level,determining what options get the best results,and analysing the possible differencesbetween the men´s and women´s game.MethodIn order to analyse FB, observationalmethodology (Anguera, 1983) was used. Datawere registered by means of a systematic andnatural observation of the recordings of 30games from the 2008 Beijing OlympicGames. A sample of 18 men’s games and 12women’s games was studied, consisting of atotal of 294 fast breaks. Data analysis wasdone using the program SPSS v. 11.5 bymeans of a descriptive and correlationalanalysis of the variables.Refoyo, I., Uxía Romarís, I. & Sampedro, J. Basketball fast-breaksRevista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 439-444440MEAN DURATION* M 3.89 s   W 4.42 s # PASSES M 1.03   W 1.22 # PLAYERS M 1.95  W 2.13FB INITIATIONFB COMPLETIONACTIONPLAYERAREATable 1. Results of the variables: Comparison of men’s (M) and women’s (W) data*Statistically significant differences, p<.05Field goalM 4.5%W 4.4%Free-throwM 1.5%W 1.1%Throw-inM 1.0%W 2.2%Def reboundM 32.2%W 33.0%F-T reboundM 1.0%StealM 59.4%W 59.3%Jump ballM 0.5%Guard  M 32.2%   W 28.9% Forward  M 41.1%   W 40.0% Center  M 26.7%   W 31.1%LaneM 33.5%  W 38.0%Baseline – FT lineM 20.0%  W 15.2%FT line – half-courtlineM 31.5%  W 30.4%FrontcourtM 8.0%  W 8.7%Out of boundsM 7.0%  W 7.6%ADVANCE MODE ADVANCE AREADribble   M 57.0%   W 50.0% Pass   M 43.0%   W 50.0%Centre   M 33.7%   W 29.5% Sidelines   M 66.3%   W 70.5%Primary   M 89.6%   W 88.0% Secondary   M 10.4%   W 12.0%BREAK PLAYERTYPE AREA *OPPOSITION *RESULTGuard  M 19.3%   F 16.7% Forward  M 58.9%  F 55.6% Center  M 21.8%  F 27.8%Dribble and completion Pass reception and completion TurnoverM 57.4%   F 51.1% M 37.1%   F 44.6% M 5.4%   F 4.3%Lane  M 88.1%   F 76.1%Intermediate   F 14.1%Intermediate   F 14.1%None   M 49.0%   F 33.7% Some   M 51.0%   F 66.3%Unsuccessful   M 27.7%   F 33.7% Successful   M 72.3%   F 66.3%Refoyo, I., Uxía Romarís, I. & Sampedro, J. Basketball fast-breaksRevista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 439-444 441Table 2. Result of  FB (S-success, NS-no success) in each category of the studied variables*n<10% of the sample of each category (men category: n<21, women category: n<10)AVERAGEDURATION (s) M S 3.70    UN 4.38 W S 4.30   UN 4.68AVERAGE # PASSES M S 1.01   UN 1.05 W S 1.23   UN 1.20AVERAGE # PLAYERS M S 1.95   UN 1.96 W S 2.12   UN 2.17INITIATINGACTIONField goal Free-throw Throw-in Def rebound FT rebound Steal Jump ballM S 77.8% S 33.3% S 100% * S 61.5% S 50% S 78.3% S 100% *UN 22.2% * UN 66.7% * UN 38.5% UN 50% * UN 21.7%W S 75% S 70% S 66.7%UN 25% * UN 100% * UN 100% * UN 30% UN 33.3%INITIATINGPLAYERMGuardS 69.2%   UN30.8%Forward S 72.3%   UN27.7%CentreS 75.9%   UN24.1%W S 76.9%   UN23.1%S 55.6%   UN44.4%S 67.9%   UN32.1%INITIATINGAREALane Baseline – FT line FT line – half-court Frontcourt Out of boundsM E 70.1% S 85% S 63.5% S 81.3% S 71.4%NE 29.9% UN 15% UN 36.5% UN 18.8% * UN 28.6% *W E 65.7% S 71.4% S 64.3% S 87.5% S 42.9%NE 34.3% UN 28.6% UN 35.7% UN 12.5% * UN 57.1% *MODE OFADVANCE MDribbleS 65.7%   UN 34.3%PassS 76.6%   UN 23.4%W S 61.9%   UN 38.1% S 66.7%   UN 33.3%ADVANCEAREACOMPLETIONBREAKMCentreS 78.3%   UN 21.7%SidelinesS 66.9%   UN 33.1%W S 60.9%   UN 39.1% S 63.6%   UN 36.4%MPrimaryS 71.8%   UN 28.2%SecondaryS 76.2%   UN 23.8%W S 76.2%   UN 23.8% S 72.7%   UN 27.3%COMPLETIONPLAYERMGuard  S 64.1%   UN 35.9%ForwardS 71.4% UN 28.6%Center S 81.8%  UN 18.2%WS 60%   UN 40%S 64%  UN 36% S 72%  UN 28%COMPLETIONTYPEMDribble andcompletionPass reception andcompletionTurnoverWS 68.1%   UN 31.9%S 78.4%   UN 21.6%S 73.3%   UN 26.7%S70.7%   UN 29.3%UN 100% *UN 100% *COMPLETIONAREAMLaneS 78.1% UN 21.9%IntermediateOutside 3-point lineS 29.2%  UN 70.8%W S 67.1% UN 32.9% S 69.2% UN 30.8% S 55.6%  UN 44.4% *COMPLETIONOPPOSITIONMWithoutS 80.8%   UN 19.2%WithS 64.1%   UN 35.9%W S 90.3%   UN 9.7% S 54.1%   UN 45.9%442 Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 439-444Refoyo, I., Uxía Romarís, I. & Sampedro, J. Basketball fast-breaksResults  Firstly, the results from the descriptiveanalysis with a comparison of the men’sand women’s data are presented in Table 1.Significant differences between the men’sand women’s data for the fol lowingvariables were found: FB durat ion(p=.002), completion area (p=.000), andopposit ion to the shot’s  complet ion(p=.010).Fast break results are analysed more indepth in Table 2,  where there is  acomparison of the successful  andunsuccessful FB from each category ofvariables. A correlational analysis was donein which the possible association of thestudy’s variables with the result of the FBwas studied. For males, some dependencerelationships between the result of the FBand the variables of FB durat ion,  FBcompletion area, and opposition to itscomplet ion were found. There is  amoderate, negative association between theFB result and duration. Therefore, thelonger the FB lasts, the less likely it will besuccessful .  There is  a lso a moderateassociation between the completion areaand the result of the FB, as the proportionof successful FB finished in the lane andthe unsuccessful FB completed in the areaoutside the 3-point line is significantlyhigher than what is expected under the nullhypothesis of independence. The resultsdemonstrate a very weak associat ionbetween the result  of the FB and theopposition to its completion. The rate ofshot success without opposition and ofunsuccessful shots with opposit ion issignificantly higher than what is expectedunder the null hypothesis of independence.When analysing the mode uti l ised foradvancing the ball, as well as the area forthis advancement, a success rate that isslightly higher than expected is observedfor the advance with a pass as well asgoing through the centre under the nullhypothesis of independence; likewise, aslightly lower than expected success ratefor dribbling and going along the sidelineswas found under the null hypothesis ofindependence, but neither of these resultsare conclusive. However, for women,there was only some statistically significantevidence demonstrating that there is notan independent relationship between theresult of the FB and the opposition to itscompletion, with a weak association andthe same result as the men.Discussion The duration of the FB analysed in thepresent study ranged from 0 to 8 seconds,and this corresponds with the data foundin the literature. For example, Madejón(2002) delimits the duration of a FB from0 to 7 seconds, and Carballo and Dopico(2005) delimit it from 1 to 8 seconds. Theaverage duration of the FB observed inthe present study was shorter for men(3.89 seconds), than for women (4.42seconds) and shorter for the FB thatended successfully than those that wereunsuccessful (Table 2).  These resultsdemonstrate a shorter FB duration than inother studies. For example, Gómez (2007)showed averages of 4.09 s for men and5.44 s for women in play-off matches,Cárdenas et al. (1995) obtained an averageof 5.15 s for effective FB, and Ortega et al(2007) found an average of 4.7 s  forwinning teams and 4.8 for losing teams.As occurred with duration, the numberof passes and players involved in each FBwas lower for men (1.03 passes and 1.95443Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 439-444Refoyo, I., Uxía Romarís, I. & Sampedro, J. Basketball fast-breaksplayers) than for women (1.22 passes and2.13 players) as well as for successful FBthan for unsuccessful FB (Table 2). Theseresults are lower than those found byCardenas et al .  (1995), whose averagenumber of passes per effective FB was1.43.  Gómez (2007) obtained averagevalues of 1.36 and 1.01 passes as well as2.28 and 1.97 participating players formen´s and women´s teams, respectively. Incomparison with the results from thepresent study, the values from Gómez´sstudy are higher for the men’s category andlower for the women’s category.Regarding the initiations of the FB, it isobserved that the action with which nearly60% of the FB from this study began wasthe steal ,  fol lowed by the defensiverebound. Cruz and Tavares (1998) cited thesame actions as the first and second mostused actions to begin a FB. Cárdenas et al.(1995) and Parra (2008) concurred withthese two actions although reversing theirorder of use. Forwards were the playerswho most often initiated FB, though forwomen they were the least effective. Forwomen, the most effective were the guards(76.9% success rate). The most frequentareas for initiating FB were the lane andthe area between the extension of the freethrow line and the half-court line; however,the most effective ones were the areabetween the baseline and the free throwline (except for the lane), which resulted ina success rate of 85% for men, and thefrontcourt, which resulted in a success rateof 87.5% for women.In its advance towards the basket, theball crossed the midcourt on a similarnumber of occasions while being dribbledas well as while being passed, though formen the use of the dribble is more frequentthan the pass. Parra (2008) assesses thisdifferently and affirms that the “dribble isthe means that is most used for executingFB, whether alone or combined withpasses”.“It is universally said that, for FB, theball must go through the centre of thecourt. This way, both sides are kept aspossible outlet  options for i ts  f inalresolution” (Comas, 1991, p. 61). Despitethis traditional vision, nowadays somecoaches prefer the ball to advance closerto the sidelines. This is the tendencyobserved in the results, as in nearly 70%of the FB, the bal l  advanced near asideline; however, for men, the successrate for FB where the ball went throughthe centre was better.When analysing the completion of theFB, it is observed that nearly 90% finishedin the primary break. Cárdenas et al .(1995) found an even higher value at95.74%. Despite presenting such highfrequencies, FB that terminated in primarybreaks had lower success rates thansecondary breaks. Forwards were theplayers who finished the most FB (morethan 55%), although centres were the oneswho obtained the best results. A higherpercentage of FB finished with a dribblefol lowed by a shot than with a shotdirectly after the pass reception. The studyby Cárdenas et  a l .  (1995) a lsodemonstrates a higher frequency of a shotafter a dribble than a shot after the passreception while stopped; however, it is thelay-up that was most used in completing aFB, although this category was not analyzedand thus cannot be compared to the resultsof the present study. Regarding thecompletion area, more than 75% of FBfinished in the lane. The area outside the 3-point line was the least used, and it was theone that had the least effectiveness; in fact, 444 Revista de Psicología del Deporte. 2009. Vol. 18 - suppl., pp. 439-444Refoyo, I., Uxía Romarís, I. & Sampedro, J. Basketball fast-breaksfor men, FB completed in this outer areaonly had a 29.2% success rate. The amountof opposition to the FB completion isdirectly related to its success, as FB withoutopposition have high success rates. In fact,without opposition, women had a 90.3%success rate. However, the frequency of thisoccurrence is quite low (33.7%) for women,though for men, it is higher (49% of FB).Both values are higher than the 23.5% of thepossessions (not only FB) that finishedwithout opposition in the study by Ribeiroand Sampaio (2001).The percentage of FB that finishedsuccessfully for men was 72.3% and forwomen it was 66.3%. The efficacy percentageof the FB analysed by Cárdenas et al. (1995)was 63.31%. In the study by Gómez (2007),this percentage was 65.1% for men and50.6% for women in play-off matches. Inboth studies, the results demonstratedefficacy percentages lower than those foundin the present study.In conclusion, due to the high efficacypercentage of FB, i ts  use should besought,  especia l ly  after steals  anddefensive rebounds. The use of the laterallanes provides many options for FB, butin men´s basketball, if possible, it is bestto advance through the centre. Althoughsecondary break completions are moreeffective, there are more possibilities ofculminating FB in primary breaks. It isbetter to seek its completion in the laneand not hesitate when there is a chance toshoot without opposition.ReferencesAnguera, Mª T. (1983). Manual práctico de observación. Trillas Méjico.Carballo, O., & Dopico, J. (2005). Perspectivas de análisis en los deportes de equipo. Un casopráctico en baloncesto. Kronos, 4, 5-9. Cárdenas, D., Moreno, M.I., & Almendral, P. (1995). Análisis de los factores que inciden en laeficacia del contraataque en baloncesto. Revista de entrenamiento deportivo, 9(4), 11-16.Comas, M. (1991). ¡Contraataca! Contraataque y transición. Madrid: Gymnos.Cruz, J., & Tavares, F. (1998). Notational analysis of the offensive patterns in cadets basketballteams. En M. Hughes & Tavares, F. (Ed.), Notational Analysis of Sport IV. Proceedings of theIV World Congress. (pp. 112-119). Oporto. Portugal: FCDEF-UP.FEB (2008). Llegar jugando. Curso de entrenador superior de baloncesto. Madrid: FEB.Gómez, M.A. (2007). Estudio de la actividad competitiva en baloncesto masculino y femenino mediante elanálisis de las estadísticas de juego y las posesiones de balón. Tesis Doctoral, UPM.Madejón, M. (2001). Un modelo comparativo. Clínic, 50, 40-43.Ortega, E., Palao, J.M., Gómez, M.A., Lorenzo, A., & Cárdenas, D. (2007). Analysis of theefficacy of possessions in boys 16-and-under basketball teams: differences betweenwinning and losing teams. Perceptual and motor skills, 104, 961-964.Parra, J (2008). El contraataque: un análisis comparativo ACB-Mundial 06. La Pizarra-AEEB.http://www.aeeb.es/v2/publicaciones.php?area=publicaciones&sub=pizarra.Ribeiro, C., & Sampaio, J. (2001). Análise dos últimos 5 minutos dos jugos equilibrados de basquetebol.Trabajo presentado en I Congreso Ibérico de Baloncesto, UEX. Cáceres.

Analysis of men's and women's basketball fast-breaks

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Diposit Digital de Documents de la UAB