International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2013, 8, 410-418
© 2013 Human Kinetics, Inc.
www.IJSPP-Journal.com
ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION
Heart-Rate Responses by Playing Position
During Ball Drills in Basketball
Anne Delextrat and Semah Kraiem
The physiological load experienced during basketball drills is crucial to understand players’ adaptation to
team-sport training and plan physical-conditioning programs. Purpose: To compare mean heart-rate (HRmean)
responses by playing position during 2-a-side (2v2) and 3-a-side (3v3) ball drills in male junior basketball
players and explore the relationship between HRmean and repeated-sprint ability (RSA). Methods: Thirtyone players volunteered to participate in this study. On separate occasions, they performed 2v2 and 3v3 ball
drills and 6 repetitions of shuttle-run sprints of 20 m (10+10 m), departing every 20 s (RSA). Ball drills took
place on the full length but only half the width of the court and were three 4-min bouts separated by 1-min
rest periods. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) assessed the effect of the number of players on court (2v2 vs
3v3) and playing position (guards vs forwards vs centers) on HRmean, and a Pearson correlation coefficient
evaluated the relation between HRmean and RSA. Results: The main results showed greater HRmean in 2v2
than in 3v3 ball drills (P < .001) in all playing positions (90.7% ± 1.3% vs 87.6% ± 3% of HRpeak in guards,
91.3% ± 2.1% vs 87.5% ± 3.7% of HRpeak for forwards, and 88.2% ± 3.5% vs 82.2% ± 5.6% of HRpeak in
centers, respectively, for 2v2 and 3v3). In addition, centers were characterized by lower HRmean than guards
and forwards in 3v3 only (P = .018). Conclusions: These results suggest that 2v2 drills should be preferred to
3v3 drills for aerobic conditioning, in particular for centers. Finally, RSA does not seem to influence players’
acute responses to ball drills.
Keywords: 2-a-side, 3-a-side, heart-rate zones, aerobic conditioning
Basketball relies mainly on high-intensity runs,
jumps, and lateral displacements, repeated with an average work-to-rest ratio of 1:3.6 during competition.1,2
Analysis of the physiological determinants of success
in basketball reveals the importance of both aerobic
and anaerobic pathways.2,3 Mean heart rates (HRmean)
recorded during matches range from 87.0% to 89.0% and
are 91.0% and 94.4% of players’ maximal HR (HRpeak)
in nonelite and elite male players, respectively.1,4–7 The
HRmean reported for elite players are within the range of
training intensities suggested to improve aerobic fitness in
team-sport players.8–11 However, nonelite players experience lower match HRmean and training volume than elite
players,4,12 and many authors have highlighted the need
to train aerobic fitness during practice sessions for this
population.4,5,11,13
Ball drills are a popular method to improve the
aerobic characteristics of basketball players because
they improve physical fitness while maintaining technical skills.14 Precise knowledge of the physiological load
represented by these types of sessions is particularly
Delextrat is with the Department of Sport and Health Sciences,
Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK. Kraiem is with the
Laboratory of Human Motricity, Education, Sport and Health,
University of Nice Sophia Antipolis, Nice, France.
410
useful to plan physical-conditioning programs and
optimize training periodization. However, in basketball
only 2 studies have investigated these aspects. Castagna
et al3 reported that full-court 2-a-side (2v2) drills elicited a greater HRmean than 3-a-side (3v3) and 5-a-side
(5v5) drills (92.0% ± 5.6% vs 88.0% ± 8.4% vs 84.0%
± 9.2% of HRpeak, respectively, for 2v2, 3v3, and 5v5).
Montgomery et al7 observed that offensive and defensive
drills with a reduced number of players represented,
respectively, 90.7% and 93.8% of HRmean observed in
competition. These studies showed that both 2v2 and
3v3 drills could be used to improve aerobic fitness.
However, the main limitation evoked by these authors is
the small participant samples used, which did not allow
any analysis by playing position. It is crucial to establish
whether ball drills represent an adequate stimulus to
develop aerobic fitness in each playing position. Indeed,
some players might not reach a high-enough HR during
these types of drill due to the technical or strategic constraints imposed by their playing position, in particular
at nonelite level. If this were observed, athletic-based
conditioning could be more beneficial for these players.
It is well established that centers are characterized by
lower HR than guards and forwards during competitive
matches.4,15,16 However, a recent study reported similar
maximal oxygen-consumption (VO2max) values between
shooting guards, forwards, and centers,1 suggesting that
Heart Rate in Basketball Drills 411
centers might develop their aerobic fitness during drills
in practice sessions.
Aerobic fitness has been identified by many authors
as one of the limiting factors for repeated-sprint ability
(RSA).8,10,11,13,17 Indeed, in their recent review, Bishop et
al17 highlighted that fatigue during repeated sprints could
be attenuated by factors such as increased mitochondrial
density, faster oxygen-uptake kinetics, faster postsprint
muscle reoxygenation rate, and VO2max. In basketball,
only a few studies have focused on these aspects, showing either low correlations or no relationship between
VO2max and RSA parameters or the frequency of sprints
during a match.1,18 However, it has been emphasized that
aerobic factors other than VO2max could be associated
with RSA,17 and further research is therefore needed
in this area. In particular, acute training responses have
received little attention, and it could be useful to investigate the link between RSA performance and HRmean
responses during ball drills. This could help determine
if players with a better capacity to repeat sprints achieve
higher HRmean or, in contrast, work at a lower percentage of their HRpeak during ball drills than players with a
poorer capacity to repeat sprints, as it has been recently
suggested.13–19
Therefore, the main objective of the current study
was to compare HRmean responses by playing position
during 2v2 and 3v3 ball drills in male junior basketball
players. The second objective was to investigate the
relationship between HR recorded during these ball
drills and RSA.
Methods
Subjects
Thirty-one male junior basketball players volunteered to
participate in this study. They were randomly selected
from 3 teams involved in the same Under 17 regional
championship. Their characteristics are described in
Table 1. They undertook 240 minutes of practice and
1 match per week. Their typical warm-up for practice
sessions consisted of 5 minutes of aerobic activity with
the ball, followed by 2 minutes of joint-mobility exercise, 2 minutes of neuromuscular exercise (3 s of skipping followed by 10-m sprint and 3 countermovement
jumps followed by 10-m sprint, repeated for 2 min),
and 2 minutes of passive recovery (free throws). None
of these players was performing additional strength and
conditioning at the time of the study. Selection criteria
included the absence of injury in the past 6 months.
Before testing, the participants and their legal guardians
were fully informed of the aims, risks, and benefits of the
study and provided written informed consent. The local
ethics committee approved the study, in accordance with
the Helsinki declaration.
Overview
The study used an observational within-subject repeatedmeasures design. It was conducted during the first phase
of the season, to ensure that an optimal level of fitness
had been reached by the players. Subjects took part in 6
testing sessions involving an assessment of maximal aerobic performance, 4 ball-drill sessions, and an RSA test.
Testing sessions were undertaken on separate occasions,
at the same time of the day (6–7 PM) and with at least
48 hours rest between sessions. Familiarization was not
needed for the fitness test and drills because these were
regularly used on this team as part of their preseason and
in-season practice sessions. Players performed each type
of ball drill twice, on separate days (2 sessions for 2v2 and
2 sessions for 3v3), and within-subject reliability between
trials was very good (kappa correlation coefficients of .88
and .87 for 2v2 and 3v3, respectively).20 Players were
instructed to refrain from eating or consuming caffeine
at least 2 hours before each testing session.
Preliminary Session
Subjects took part in the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test
(30-15IFT) to assess their maximal aerobic performance
(VIFT, km/h) and HRpeak (beats/min). This test has a very
good test–retest reliability (ICC of .96).21 Recent studies on team-sport players have used it.22,23 It consists of
30-second bouts of 20-m shuttle running at increasing
speeds, separated by 15 seconds of passive recovery.
The test ended when the subject could no longer maintain the speed, and the speed and HR attained in the last
fully completed stage were recorded as VIFT and HRpeak,
respectively.
Ball Drills
Ball drills were 2v2 and 3v3 on the full length (28
m) but only half the width (7.5 m) of the court. This
Table 1 Subject Characteristics
Guards (n = 12)
Forwards (n = 11)
Centers (n = 8)
Age (y)
16.6 ± 1.0
15.8 ± 0.9
16.1 ± 0.6
Height (cm)
175.0 ± 5.7
183.0 ± 4.7
191.0 ± 8.3
Weight (kg)
69.3 ± 5.4
75.0 ± 6.5
81.0 ± 3.4
Playing experience (y)
5.3 ± 2.3
5.5 ± 1.9
4.8 ± 2.9
Guards: playing positions 1 and 2; forwards: playing positions 3 and 4; centers: playing position 5.
412 Delextrat and Kraiem
configuration is different from previous research, where
full court (28 × 15 m) is commonly used, but it is often
used by coaches, since more players can exercise simultaneously. In addition, this choice is linked to our purpose to analyze the effects of playing position, because
players have to work in specific spaces of the court that
involve technical abilities specific to their playing position. Ball drills were presented in a random order and
consisted in three 4-minute bouts, separated by 1-minute
rest periods. This is similar to exercise durations used in
previous studies on basketball, while a shorter recovery
was allowed because of the smaller space used.3 They
were played like a competition, with only man-to-man
defense allowed. There were no free throws or time-outs
allowed during the 4-minute periods to avoid excessive
stops. Players could only recover passively in a standing position during rest periods.8 They were given strict
guidelines for starting positions, but they could then
move freely. Starting positions are detailed in Figure 1.
Ball drills always took place at the start of the practice
session, immediately after a standardized warm-up
(Table 1).
RSA Test
The RSA test involved 6 repetitions of shuttle-run sprints
of 20 m (10+10 m), departing every 20 seconds. This
RSA protocol was adapted (ie, distance made shorter)
from a test previously used in handball and field hockey,
characterized by a good test–retest reliability.23,24 Each
subject performed 3 maximal 20-m shuttles before the
RSA test to ensure familiarization and determine a criterion score. During the first sprint of the RSA test, each
player was required to achieve at least 95% of their own
criterion score.18 If this was not achieved, they had to
repeat the first sprint until achievement of the criterion
score after 3 minutes of recovery. Subjects were instructed
to avoid pacing during the RSA test and produce a maximal effort during each sprint. The researchers provided
verbal encouragement throughout each attempt to help
achieve this goal.
During the RSA and criterion-score tests, photocells
(Wireless speedtrap2, Brower timing systems, Draper,
UT, USA) located at the starting line recorded sprint
times. Players started each sprint from a line placed 50
cm before the starting line, and timing started when they
broke the light beam. The following parameters were
calculated from each of the RSA tests:
• Total time (TT), defined as the sum of the 6 sprint
times
•Ideal time (IT), calculated as the best sprint time
multiplied by 6
• Performance decrement (PD, %), determined according to the following equation25: PD = (TT/IT × 100)
– 100
HR Measurements
During the 30-15IFT and all the ball drills, HR monitors
(Suunto Pro Team Pack, Vantaa, Finland) continuously
monitored HR. HRmean was calculated as the average of
the values recorded from the start to end of ball drills. It
was expressed in absolute values (beats/min), as well as
relative (%) to HRpeak measured during the preliminary
session. In addition, 4 HR zones were established, and
the time spent in each zone during ball drills was calculated as a percentage of total time. The HR zones were
defined as low (<75% of HRpeak), moderate (75–85% of
HRpeak), high (85–95% of HRpeak), and maximal (>95%
of HRpeak), according to previously established criteria
in basketball.1,4
Statistical Analyses
Figure 1 — Starting positions for the two-a-side (2v2) and
three-a-side (3v3) ball drills (G, guard; F, forward; C, center).
All parameters were expressed as mean ± SD. ShapiroWilk tests assessed the normality of distributions,
revealing parametric data. Subsequently, a mixed-design
factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) examined the
effects of the number of players on court (2v2 vs 3v3,
within subjects) and playing position (guards vs forwards vs centers, between subjects) on absolute and
relative HRmean. Where differences were identified,
Heart Rate in Basketball Drills 413
Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons identified
where they lay. Statistical significance was set as P < .05.
In addition, a Pearson correlation coefficient assessed the
relation between HR measures and RSA. Effect sizes
were calculated using partial eta squared (ηP2). Since
this measure is likely to overestimate effect sizes, values
were interpreted according to Ferguson26 as no effect if
ηP2 was between 0 and .04, a minimum effect if ηP2 was
between .04 and .25, a moderate effect if ηP2 was between
.25 and .64, and a strong effect if ηP2 was greater than .64.
Results
Preliminary Session
The main results of the 30-15IFT were an HRpeak of 204
± 4 beats/min and a VIFT of 17.3 ± 1.4 km/h. There
was no difference between playing positions for these
variables (95% CL: –5 to 1.5, –3 to 4.4, and –1.4 to 6.2,
respectively, for guards vs forwards, guards vs centers,
and forwards vs centers; ηP2 = .23; P = .359 for HRpeak;
95% CL: –1.6 to –1.7, –0.6 to –3.2, and –0.7 to 3.2,
respectively, for guards vs forwards, guards vs centers,
and forwards vs centers, P = 311; ηP2 = .27 for VIFT).
Ball Drills
The statistical analyses showed an effect of the number of
players on court on HRmean, with the 2v2 ball drill characterized by greater absolute HRmean (95% CL: 6–11; P
< .001; ηP2 = .73; Figure 2[a]) and relative HRmean (95%
CL: 3.1–5.5; P < .001; ηP2 = .72, Figure 2[b]) than with
the 3v3 ball drill.
There was an effect of playing position on absolute
HRmean (P = .041, ηP2 = .33; Figure 2[a]) and relative
HRmean (P < .018, ηP2 = .40; Figure 2[b]). However, post
hoc analyses demonstrated differences in the 3v3 ball
drills only, with lower HRmean in centers than in guards
(95% CL: –1.5 to 21.0 and 0.05–10.8, respectively, for
absolute and relative HRmean; P = .048; Figures 2[a] and
2[b]) and in centers than in forwards (95% CL: –1.7 to
21.3, and 0.1–10.6, respectively, for absolute and relative
HRmean; P = .034; Figures 2[a] and 2[b]). There was no
difference between playing positions in the 2v2 drill (P
= .726). Values were 185 ± 3 beats/min (90.7% ± 1.3%
of HRpeak), 187 ± 5 beats/min (91.3% ± 2.1% of HRpeak),
and 181 ± 6 beats/min (88.2% ± 3.5% of HRpeak), respectively, for guards, forwards, and centers in the 2v2 drill
and 179 ± 8 beats/min (87.6% ± 3.0% of HRpeak), 179 ± 7
beats/min (87.5% ± 3.7% of HRpeak), and 170 ± 13 beats/
min (82.2% ± 5.6% of HRpeak), respectively, for guards,
forwards, and centers in the 3v3 drill.
Figure 3 shows an example of HR responses to the
2v2 and 3v3 drills in a center player. There were differences between ball drills in the time spent in the different
HR zones (P < .05; Figure 4). More specifically, players
spent more time in low and moderate zones in the 3v3
than in the 2v2 drill (P < .001 and ηP2 = .63 for low HR
zone, and P < .01 and ηP2 = .53 for moderate HR zone).
Differences were observed in guards and centers for the
low HR zone (8.8% ± 4.4% vs 2.7% ± 2.3% in guards
and 16.6% ± 11.9% vs 7.1% ± 2.5% in centers; 95% CL:
4.3–10.6; P < .001) and for all players in the moderate HR
zone (26.0% ± 19.8% vs 9.2% ± 5.2% in guards, 15.0% ±
8.3% vs 8.5% ± 2.2% in forwards, and 37.8% ± 31.0% vs
16.8% ± 7.4% in centers; 95% CL: 9.1–28.5; P = .009).
No effect of ball drills was found on the time spent in
the high HR zone (P = .538). However, compared with
the 2v2 drill, the 3v3 drill elicited a lower percentage of
total time spent in the maximal HR zone in guards and
forwards (11.8% ± 22.5% vs 29.5% ± 28.3% in guards
and 16.9% ± 26.1% vs 44.7% ± 25.3% in forwards; 95%
CL: 1.9–37.9; P = .032).
There was an effect of playing position on the time
spent in the low and moderate HR zones only (P = .001
and ηP2 = .61 for low HR zone, and P = .05 and ηP2 =
.51 for moderate HR zone, Figure 4). Guards spent less
time than centers in the low HR zone in both ball-drill
types (2.7% ± 2.3% vs 7.1% ± 2.5% in the 2v2 drill and
16.6% ± 11.9% vs 7.1% ± 2.5% in the 3v3 drill; 95%
CL: –3.3 to –15.9; P = .005). In addition, guards spent
less time than centers in the moderate HR zone in both
ball-drill types (9.2% ± 5.2% vs 16.%8 ± 7.4% in the 2v2
drill and 26.0% ± 19.8% vs 37.8% ± 31.0% in the 3v3
drill; CL: –2.1 to –33.9; P = .003), and forwards spent
less time in the moderate HR zone than centers in the 3v3
drill only (15.0% ± 8.3% vs 37.8% ± 31.0%; CL: –6.8
to –38.6; P = .005).
RSA Test
Performance indicators achieved by players in the RSA
test were 27.8 ± 1.9 seconds, 29.0 ± 2.1 seconds, and
4.0% ± 2.7%, respectively, for ideal time, total time,
and performance decrement. There were no differences
between playing positions (P = .596) and no correlation
between RSA parameters and any of the HR variables
measured (correlation coefficients ranging from –.273
to .483, P = .628).
Discussion
The main results of this study showed that in junior players, 2v2 ball drills elicited greater absolute and relative
HR in all playing positions than the 3v3 ball drills. In
addition, centers were characterized by lower HR than
guards and forwards in the 3v3 drill only. Finally, there
was no relationship between acute HR responses to
ball drills and RSA. This is the first study to show HR
responses of the 3 main playing positions during basketball drills. While our findings confirm those already
published in basketball, they add useful information for
strength and conditioning coaches.
The relative HR achieved by players of the current
study ranged from 88.2% to 91.3% of HRpeak in the 2v2
drill and from 82.2% to 87.6% of HRpeak in the 3v3 drill.
Only 1 previous study has described basketball players’ HR during 2v2 and 3v3 ball drills.3 Our results are
414 Delextrat and Kraiem
Figure 2 — (a) Absolute and (b) relative heart rates measured during the 2-a-side (2v2) and 3-a-side (3v3) ball drills. *Different
from 2v2, P < .05. †Different from centers, P < .05.
slightly lower than those observed by those authors in
male junior players of the same level (92.0% and 88.0%
of HRpeak, respectively, for 2v2 and 3v3).3 The lower HR
observed in the current study could be explained by the
reduced playing area used compared with previous studies (full-court length but only half the width, compared
with full-court length and width in the study of Castagna
et al3). Indeed, many authors in basketball and other
team sports have observed that reducing the number of
players for the same area or increasing the area for the
same number of players results in substantially greater
HR.8–10 For example, Montgomery et al7 observed that
offensive and defensive drills with a reduced amount of
players represented, respectively, 90.7% and 93.8% of
HRmean observed in competition.
Basketball coaches commonly use 2v2 or 3v3
full-court ball drills to train physical, tactical, and
technical skills during practice sessions.14 These drills
are believed to be as efficient as generic running-based
interval training to improve aerobic fitness.8,11 In the
Figure 3 — Individual heart-rate responses of a center player to the 2-a-side (2v2) and 3-a-side (3v3) ball drills.
Figure 4 — Percentage of total time spent in low (<75% of HRpeak), moderate (75– 85% of HRpeak), high (85–95% of HRpeak), and
maximal (>95% of HRpeak) heart-rate zones by playing position during the 2-a-side (2v2) and 3-a-side (3v3) ball drills, % of total
time. *Different from 2v2, P < .05. †Different from centers, P < .05.
415
416 Delextrat and Kraiem
2v2 ball drills, although the HR were slightly lower than
those measured during full-court drills in basketball,
they are still within the range recommended to improve
aerobic fitness.27,28 HR were substantially lower in the
3v3 than with the 2v2, as shown by strong effect sizes
(.72–.73). This is in accordance with the results of Castagna et al.3 Although the intensities experienced during
3v3 (82– 87% of HRpeak) could enhance aerobic fitness
by inducing mostly central adaptations,29 most physicalconditioning drills used by team-sport coaches are
performed at greater intensities (88–94% of HRpeak).13,30
These greater intensities have been associated with central, as well as peripheral, adaptations such as muscle
capillarization, oxidative enzyme activity, mitochondrial
volume, and myoglobin.31–33 In addition, although blood
lactate levels were not measured in the current study, a
recent investigation reported that blood lactate was significantly lower in 3v3 than in 2v2 drills (6.2 ± 2.3 vs 7.8
± 1.2 mmol/L).3 Therefore, our results suggest that 2v2
drills should be preferentially used to train team-sportspecific aerobic fitness because of the greater average
physiological load and the greater range of adaptations.
To gain a greater insight into the exact cardiovascular
responses experienced by players, coaches could also
benefit from work-to-rest ratio analyses, including the
time spent in different HR zones.
In basketball, only 1 research group has reported
HR zones during real competition, showing that junior
players spent 19.3% ± 3.5% of total time in the maximal HR zone (>95% of HRpeak), 56.0% ± 6.3% of total
time in the high HR zone (85– 95% of HRpeak), 17.%3
± 5.5% of total time in the moderate HR zone (75– 85%
of HRpeak), and 7.4% ± 6.1% of total time in the low HR
zone (<75% of HRpeak).1 The results of the current study
show different percentages for ball drills, with more time
spent at maximal intensity, similar time spent at high
intensity, and less time at moderate and low intensity.
The effect sizes associated with these differences were
moderate to strong, showing that these differences could
be considered important. Therefore, both drill forms
present a physiological load superior to competition
and could be used to train the aerobic system. Castagna
et al3 also found greater HR responses to 2v2 and 3v3
than to 5v5 drills, but they did not use HR zones. When
comparing the 2v2 and 3v3 performed by our players,
we found that the 2v2 elicited a greater duration spent
at a maximal HR and a lower duration spent at moderate and low HR than did the 3v3, with moderate effect
sizes. In contrast, there were no differences between
drills for the duration at a high HR. This highlights that
more analysis based on HR zones should be conducted
on basketball, because it gives more precise information
about training stimulus than HRmean. Indeed, 2 drills
might be characterized by a similar HRmean but a different breakdown into HR zones and thus would present a
different training goal.
It is well established that physiological responses to
competitive basketball vary according to playing position. Ben Abdelkrim et al5 reported greater HR during
male junior competition in guards than in forwards and
centers. Other authors showed greater HR in guards than
other positions and in forwards than in centers.15,16 In our
study, no difference was observed among playing positions during 2v2, while centers reached a lower HRmean
than guards and forwards during 3v3. Therefore, while
3v3 seems to be closer to the reality of the competition
in terms of cardiovascular stress, the 2v2 offers the possibility to create a greater aerobic training stimulus than
competition or 3v3 for centers. Indeed, in our study the
difference in relative HRmean between 2v2 and 3v3 drills
was 5.6% in centers and only 2.6% and 2.7% in guards
and forwards. However, moderate effect sizes were associated with these results, suggesting that further studies
are needed to strengthen our findings. There are 2 main
elements of explanation for the lower HR experienced
by centers in the 3v3. The first is that they might have
covered more distance at a high speed during the 2v2
than the 3v3. Indeed, centers and forwards both started
outside the 3-point line in the 2v2, while centers started
closer to the basket in the 3v3 (Figure 1). It is likely that
the starting position was reached at a slow or moderate
speed, whereas centers then had to sprint toward the
basket to post in the 2v2 but not in the 3v3. Although no
time–motion analysis was performed in the current study,
a recent study on ball drills in soccer showed a greater HR
in the drills where players had to cover more distance at
a high speed.14 The second explanation is related to the
specific actions performed by players. The 3v3 condition
might have led to more postplay by the centers, given
the restricted area used. The specific actions related to
postplay were listed by Trninic and Dizdar34 and included
rebounding, inside shots, dribble penetration, and screening. While these actions are physically demanding, they
rely mostly on isometric strength. In contrast, the 2v2
might have involved more running-based effort, which
is more likely to result in high HR.
The relationship between aerobic fitness and
RSA has been studied in several investigations, and
various authors mentioned that aerobic fitness could
a limiting factor for RSA.8,10,11,13,17 Since most studies
have used VO2max as an indicator of aerobic fitness, it
was suggested to consider other variables. Therefore,
a secondary aim of the current study was to focus on
the relationship between RSA and acute HR responses
during ball drills. From the past literature in team
sports, 2 possible links between these variables could
be expected. The first is a positive association, with
players with the greatest RSA also capable of reaching
a greater HR during ball drills. This is based on a study
reporting that soccer players with a greater capacity to
repeat sprints during an RSA test were also capable
of producing greater sprint speed during a game,19
although no direct relation between sprint speed and
HR has been demonstrated. The second possible link
is a negative association, with players with a greater
RSA showing the lowest physiological load during ball
drills, as shown in another study on soccer players.13
This latter possibility would suggest that ball drills
Heart Rate in Basketball Drills 417
are less demanding for fitter players than for less fit
players. In the current study, none of these hypotheses
was confirmed, as we did not observe any relationship
between acute HR responses to ball drills and RSA.
This suggests that other parameters might play a role
during ball drills, such as technical or strategic aspects.
In accordance with our findings, Castagna et al18 did
not show any correlation between aerobic fitness and
RSA performance in male junior basketball players.
The main limitations of this study are the limited
number of players to compare playing positions and
the absence of time–motion analysis during ball drills.
In addition, our results could only be applied to junior
basketball of regional level. Further studies are necessary to investigate these aspects in adult players and/or
elite players.
Practical Application
The high HR observed in this study suggests that ball
drills can be used by coaches to train physical fitness and
technical and tactical skills. In particular, 2v2 ball drills
should be selected by coaches, rather than 3v3, to focus
on maximal HR zones and/or when short rest periods
are targeted (little time spent in low and moderate HR
zones). The 2v2 would be particularly useful to enhance
the aerobic fitness of centers, who are not subjected to
these high intensities during competition.
In conclusion, the current study showed that greater
HR are achieved by junior basketball players during 2v2
than during 3v3 ball drills. In addition, centers were
characterized by lower HR than guards and forwards in
the 3v3 drill only. These results suggest that 2v2 drills
should be preferred to 3v3 drills for aerobic conditioning,
in particular for centers. Finally, RSA does not seem to
influence players’ acute responses to ball drills. Further
studies should be undertaken to clarify the link between
these variables, which would be very helpful in planning
physical-conditioning sessions.
References
1. Ben Abdelkrim N, Castagna C, Jabri I, Battikh T, El Fazaa
S, El Ati J. Activity profile and physiological requirements
of junior elite basketball players in relation to aerobicanaerobic fitness. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(9):2330–
2342. PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181e381c1
2.McKeag DB. Basketball. Indianapolis, IN: Blackwell
Science; 2003.
3.Castagna C, Impellizzeri FM, Chaouachi A, Ben
Abdelkrim N, Manzi V. Physiological responses to balldrills in regional level male basketball players. J Sports
Sci. 2011;29(12):1329–1336. PubMed doi:10.1080/0264
0414.2011.597418
4.Ben Abdelkrim N, Castagna C, El Fazaa S, El Ati J.
The effect of players’ standard and tactical strategy on
game demands in men’s basketball. J Strength Cond
Res. 2010;24(10):2652–2662. PubMed doi:10.1519/
JSC.0b013e3181e2e0a3
5. Ben Abdelkrim N, El Fazaa S, El Ati J. Time–motion analysis and physiological data of elite under-19 basketball players during competition. Br J Sports Med. 2007;41(2):69–
75. PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsm.2006.032318
6. Narazaki K, Berg K, Stergiou N, Chen B. Physiological
demands of competitive basketball. Scand J Med Sci
Sports. 2009;19(3):425–432. PubMed doi:10.1111/j.16000838.2008.00789.x
7. Montgomery PG, Pyne DB, Minahan CL. The physical and
physiological demands of basketball training and competition. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2010;5:75–86. PubMed
8. Buchheit M, Laursen PB, Kuhnle J, Ruch D, Renaud C,
Ahmaidi S. Game-based training in young elite handball
players. Int J Sports Med. 2009;30(4):251–258. PubMed
doi:10.1055/s-0028-1105943
9. Foster CD, Twist C, Lamb KL, Nicholas CW. Heart rate
responses to small-sided games among elite junior rugby
league players. J Strength Cond Res. 2010;24(4):906–911.
PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181aeb11a
10.Stone NM, Kilding AE. Aerobic conditioning for team
sport athletes. Sports Med. 2009;39(8):615–642. PubMed
doi:10.2165/00007256-200939080-00002
11. Impellizzeri FM, Marcora SM, Castagna C, et al. Physiological and performance effects of generic versus specific aerobic training in soccer players. Int J Sports Med.
2006;27(6):483–492. PubMed doi:10.1055/s-2005-865839
12. Delextrat A, Cohen D. Physiological testing of basketball
players: toward a standard evaluation of anaerobic fitness.
J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(4):1066–1072. PubMed
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181739d9b
13.Little T, Williams AG. Suitability of soccer training
drills for endurance training. J Strength Cond Res.
2006;20(2):316–319. PubMed
14. Dellal A, Hill-Haas S, Lago-Penas C, Chamari K. Smallsided games in soccer: amateur vs. professional players’
physiological responses, physical, and technical activities.
J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(9):2371–2381. PubMed
doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181fb4296
15.Rodriguez-Alonso M, Fernandez-Garcia B, Perez-Landaluce J, Terrados N. Blood lactate and heart rate during
national and international women’s basketball. J Sports
Med Phys Fitness. 2003;43(4):432–436. PubMed
16. Vaquera Jiménez A, Refoyo I, Villa Vicente JG, et al.
Heart rate response to game-play in professional basketball
players. J Hum Sport Exerc. 2008;3(1):1–9. doi:10.4100/
jhse.2008.31.01
17. Bishop D, Girard O, Mendez-Villanueva A. Repeated sprint
ability. part II: recommendations for training. Sports Med.
2011;41(9):741–756. PubMed doi:10.2165/11590560000000000-00000
18. Castagna C, Manzi V, D’Ottavio S, Annino G, Padua E,
Bishop D. Relation between maximal aerobic power and
the ability to repeat sprints in young basketball players. J
Strength Cond Res. 2007;21(4):1172–1176. PubMed
19. Mendez-Villanueva A, Buchheit M, Simpson B, Peltola E,
Bourdon P. Does on-field sprinting performance in young
soccer players depend on how fast they can run or how fast
they do run? J Strength Cond Res. 2011;25(9):2634–2638.
PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e318201c281
418 Delextrat and Kraiem
20. Altman DG. Some common problems in medical research.
In: Altman DG, ed. Practical Statistics for Medical
Research. London, UK: Chapman & Hall; 2003:396–439.
21. Buchheit M. The 30-15 intermittent fitness test: accuracy
for individualizing interval training of young intermittent
sport players. J Strength Cond Res. 2008;22(2):365–374.
PubMed doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181635b2e
22. Nakamura FY, Soares-Caldeira LF, Laursen PB, Polito MD,
Leme LC, Buchheit M. Cardiac autonomic responses to
repeated shuttle sprints. Int J Sports Med. 2009;30(11):808–
813. PubMed doi:10.1055/s-0029-1234055
23. Buchheit M, Bishop D, Haydar B, Nakamura FY, Ahmaidi
S. Physiological responses to shuttle repeated-sprint running. Int J Sports Med. 2010;31(6):402–409. PubMed
doi:10.1055/s-0030-1249620
24. Spencer M, Fitzsimons M, Dawson B, Bishop D, Goodman C. Reliability of a repeated-sprint test for fieldhockey. J Sci Med Sport. 2006;9(1-2):181–184. PubMed
doi:10.1016/j.jsams.2005.05.001
25. Fitzimons M, Dawson B, Ward D, Wilkinson A. Cycling
and running tests of repeated sprint ability. J Sci Med Sport.
1993;25:82–87.
26. Ferguson CJ. An effect size primer: a guide for clinicians
and researchers. Prof Psychol. 2009;40(5):532–538.
doi:10.1037/a0015808
27. Billat LV. Interval training for performance: a scientific
and empirical practice. Special recommendations for
middle- and long-distance running—part I, aerobic inter-
val training. Sports Med. 2001;31(1):13–31. PubMed
doi:10.2165/00007256-200131010-00002
28.Wenger HA, Bell GJ. The interactions of intensity,
frequency and duration of exercise training in altering
cardiorespiratory fitness. Sports Med. 1986;3(5):346–356.
PubMed doi:10.2165/00007256-198603050-00004
29. Cunningham DA, McCrimmon D, Vlach LF. Cardiovascular response to interval and continuous training in women.
Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1979;41(3):187–197.
PubMed doi:10.1007/BF00430011
30.Chamari K, Hachana Y, Kaouech F, Jeddi R, MoussaChamari I, Wisløff U. Endurance training and testing with
the ball in young elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med.
2005;39(1):24–28. PubMed doi:10.1136/bjsm.2003.009985
31.Gute D, Fraga C, Laughlin MH, Amann JF. Regional
changes in capillary supply in skeletal muscle of
high-intensity endurance-trained rats. J Appl Physiol.
1996;81(2):619–626. PubMed
32. Harms SJ, Hickson RC. Skeletal muscle mitochondria and
myoglobin, endurance, and intensity of training. J Appl
Physiol. 1983;54(3):798–802. PubMed
33.Helgerud J, Høydal K, Wang E, et al. Aerobic highintensity intervals improve VO2max more than moderate
training. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39(4):665–671.
PubMed doi:10.1249/mss.0b013e3180304570
34. Trninic S, Dizdar D. System of the performance evaluation
criteria weighted per positions in the basketball game. Coll
Anthropol. 2000;24(1): 217–234.