IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v5y2005i1p72-82.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of effectiveness of organized offences between two different championships in high level basketball

Author

Listed:
  • K. Mexas
  • G. Tsitskaris
  • D. Kyriakou
  • A. Garefis

Abstract

The aim of the present study is to compare the offensive effectiveness of teams participating in high level basketball. The evaluation was established in relation to the type of defence, the position of the athlete initiating the offensive effort, the area by which the offence was released and the conditions under which the shot was attempted. The sample constituted of 25 games of the A1 Greek National Championship and 25 games of the European Championship. The results showed that offensive attacks from the region of the 3′′ present the higher rate of use and success. Man-to-man defence represents the most usual form of defence in modern European basketball, while the perimeter players are responsible for the majority of offensive efforts compared to the post players. The difference in effectiveness between national teams and basketball clubs were not statistically significant. The results demonstrate that the offensive effectiveness of Greek basketball clubs is equivalent to this played by the leading European national teams.

Suggested Citation

  • K. Mexas & G. Tsitskaris & D. Kyriakou & A. Garefis, 2005. "Comparison of effectiveness of organized offences between two different championships in high level basketball," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(1), pages 72-82, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:5:y:2005:i:1:p:72-82
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2005.11868317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2005.11868317
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2005.11868317?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:5:y:2005:i:1:p:72-82. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPAN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.