Author(s): CONTE, D.1,2, VANACORE, M.1, Institution: UNIVERSITY OF ROME FORO ITALICO, Country: ITALY, Abstract-ID: 2266

INTRODUCTION:
Traditional warm-up routines (TRAD) in basketball typically involve individual dribbling and shooting drills, or pair-executed give-and-go drills. However, different warm-up typologies can be implemented during basketball training sessions, including small-sided games (SSGs), such as 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3. Although SSG warm-ups might represent a more specific and enjoyable alternative in preparing players for upcoming activities, limited research is available comparing its effects on workload, physical performance, and enjoyment (ENJ) levels with TRAD warm-up routines. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the differences in workload between TRAD and SSG warm-up routines and their effects on physical performance and ENJ in youth basketball players.
METHODS:
In a counterbalanced, crossover design, 24 male young basketball players (age: 16.0 ± 0.1 years; stature: 1.82 ± 0.07 m; body mass: 73.8 ± 9.1 kg; training experience: 8.6 ± 3.1 years) completed time-matched (~12-min) SSG and TRAD warm-ups performed in groups of six players on a half-court. Before each warm-up typology, players were required to report their fatigue levels via a rating of fatigue (ROF) scale and to complete an 8-min standardized pre-warm-up performed without a ball. For each warm-up typology, players internal [i.e., rating of perceived exertion (RPE), mean heart rate (HRmean), and peak heart rate (HRpeak)] and external [i.e., movement load (ML) measured via inertial movement units] loads were monitored. Prior to and after each warm-up typology, players physical performance was measured via a 20m sprint (including a 10m split time) and a countermovement jump (CMJ) test, while the 505 test was performed only at the post-warm-up time point. After completing each warm-up, players were also required to report their enjoyment levels (ENJ) using a previously used scale.
RESULTS:
No between-group differences were evident for ROF (p=0.053), RPE (p=0.259), and HRmean (p=0.053), while a higher HRpeak was found in SSG compared to TRAD warm-up (p=0.001). Conversely, ML was lower in SSG compared to TRAD (p<0.001). No interaction, effect of time, or warm-up typology was found in any of the physical performance tests evaluated, except for higher CMJ performance documented for TRAD compared to SSG warm-up routine (p=0.047). Finally, no difference was found for ENJ between TRAD and SSG (p=0.066).
CONCLUSION:
The higher external load in TRAD compared to SSG might be explained by the more static basketball activities (e.g., screening, boxing out) performed in SSG compared to TRAD, which yet elicited a higher internal load (i.e., HRpeak). Basketball coaches should use SSG warm-ups when preparing players for specific activities encompassing basketball-specific static conditions typical of basketball match performance. Moreover, the overall lack of differences in physical performance (except for CMJ) suggests that coaches can use both modalities interchangeably to prepare players for the upcoming training session drills.