Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Sports Act. Living
Sec. Elite Sports and Performance Enhancement
Volume 6 - 2024 | doi: 10.3389/fspor.2024.1418130
This article is part of the Research Topic Optimizing Player Health, Recovery, and Performance in Basketball-Volume II View all 10 articles

Relationship between screen-play scenarios' effectiveness and player classification in elite wheelchair basketball based on match results of Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games

Provisionally accepted
  • 1 Center for Medical Sciences, Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences, Ami, Japan
  • 2 Department of Physical Therapy, Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences, Ami, Ibaraki, Japan

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

    Background: The competitiveness of wheelchair basketball has increased over time. However, screen-play, considered a vital offensive tactic in running basketball, is still poorly clarified. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify the impact of screen-play on scoring and game results in wheelchair basketball and assess the roles of each player classification (PC). Methods: Information regarding screen-play, including 13 categories such as shot success, location, and PC, was recorded for 22 wheelchair basketball games in the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games. This information was analyzed using the chi-square test to evaluate the significant differences in the appearance frequency of variables in each category (categorical variable) between the winning and losing teams and the shot-success rate. Results: Except for PC-related categorical variables, comparing the appearance frequency of the winning and losing teams confirmed a significant difference for screen and pass locations (all p < 0.05). Regarding the shot-success rates of the winning and losing teams, a significant difference in five categories was confirmed, including shot and pass locations (all p < 0.05). Regarding the PC, comparing the appearance frequency of the winning and losing teams confirmed a significant difference for PC of the screener (p < 0.05). Significant differences were found in the shot-success rates of the winning and losing teams in nine, five, three, and four categories regarding the PCs of the shooter, user, screener, and passer, respectively, such as shot location, pass location, and type of screen (p < 0.05, respectively). Conclusion: In wheelchair basketball offenses, it may be effective to consider the following points in the scenario lead-up to a shot: Using two different spaces, in the paint and the 3-point field goal area, could be crucial in screen-play. Improving the accuracy of on-the-ball screen plays appears vital, and using off-the-ball screens could also contribute to winning. Allocating approximately 50% of screeners to the middle-point classification (Middle) players and the rest to the low-point (Low) and high-point (High) classification players, at approximately 25% each, may be practical. Regarding winning team player roles, using High shooters and users; Low, Middle, and High screeners; and Middle and High passers contributed to play success.

    Keywords: Tactical behavior, para-sports, performance analysis, Sports performances, team sports

    Received: 30 Apr 2024; Accepted: 22 Aug 2024.

    Copyright: © 2024 Yasuda, Tachibana and Mutsuzaki. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

    * Correspondence: Taku Yasuda, Center for Medical Sciences, Ibaraki Prefectural University of Health Sciences, Ami, Japan

    Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.