4.3 Article

Influence of Fatigue on Some Kinematic Parameters of Basketball Passing

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18020700

Keywords

angular velocity; accuracy; pelvis; ball speed

Funding

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study examined the kinematic analysis of passing in basketball players under fatigue and non-fatigue conditions. Results showed significant differences in kinematic parameters, accuracy, and ball speed between fatigue and non-fatigue states, suggesting that coaches should incorporate drills that replicate game conditions to improve player performance.
Kinematic analysis is an objective method for examining basketball technique. However, there are just a few studies featuring a kinematic analysis of passing. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the kinematic parameters and accuracy of passing changed when players were under the influence of fatigue. Eleven Croatian basketball players who are members of the youth national program (age: 18.36 +/- 0.67 years; height: 192.32 +/- 9.98 cm; weight: 83.35 +/- 11.19 kg; body fat: 15.00 +/- 4.40%, arm span: 194.34 +/- 10.39 cm) participated in fatigue and non-fatigue repetitive tests. A Xsens suit was used to analyze the kinematic parameters of push passing; a radar gun was used to determine ball speed; heart rate and blood lactate were used to identify fatigue and non-fatigue state. There was a significant difference in angular velocities of shoulder (p = 0.01), elbow (p = 0.04), and wrist (p = 0.01), accuracy (p = 0.01), ball speed (p = 0.00), pelvis position (p = 0.00), and velocity of the pelvis in X-axis (p = 0.00) between fatigue and non-fatigue state. Fatigue influences some kinematic parameters and accuracy of passing. The findings of this study suggest that coaches conduct as many drills as possible in situational conditions that are similar to the conditions during the basketball game itself.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available