Evaluate the effectiveness of continuous training for improving the performance of a basketball player. (8 marks)
--- 24 WORK AREA LINES (style=lined) ---
Show Answers Only
Sample Answer
Evaluation Statement:
- Continuous training demonstrates limited effectiveness for basketball performance.
- While offering some benefits, it fails to address sport-specific demands adequately.
Aerobic Base Development:
- Continuous training effectively develops endurance for sustaining effort across four quarters.
- Players maintain moderate intensity throughout games without excessive fatigue.
- Sessions at 70% MHR build necessary cardiovascular fitness.
- Recovery between efforts improves through enhanced oxygen delivery.
- However, this foundation alone proves insufficient for basketball’s explosive demands.
Movement Specificity:
- Basketball requires jumping, sprinting, and rapid direction changes that continuous training cannot replicate.
- Running at steady pace fails to develop power for rebounds and fast breaks.
- Players need explosive movements repeated throughout games.
- Continuous training neglects lateral patterns essential for defence.
- Players relying solely on this method struggle with game-specific movements.
Training Efficiency:
- Time spent running could develop basketball fitness more effectively.
- Skills practice combined with conditioning provides superior results.
- Players report boredom during repetitive sessions.
- High-level teams use minimal continuous training.
- Small-sided games achieve fitness while maintaining engagement and skill development.
Final Evaluation:
- Continuous training proves minimally effective for basketball beyond basic fitness.
- Its limitations significantly outweigh benefits.
- Players should use it sparingly in early pre-season only.
- Primary conditioning must involve basketball-specific methods.
- Success requires training that mirrors actual game demands.
Show Worked Solution
Sample Answer
Evaluation Statement:
- Continuous training demonstrates limited effectiveness for basketball performance.
- While offering some benefits, it fails to address sport-specific demands adequately.
Aerobic Base Development:
- Continuous training effectively develops endurance for sustaining effort across four quarters.
- Players maintain moderate intensity throughout games without excessive fatigue.
- Sessions at 70% MHR build necessary cardiovascular fitness.
- Recovery between efforts improves through enhanced oxygen delivery.
- However, this foundation alone proves insufficient for basketball’s explosive demands.
Movement Specificity:
- Basketball requires jumping, sprinting, and rapid direction changes that continuous training cannot replicate.
- Running at steady pace fails to develop power for rebounds and fast breaks.
- Players need explosive movements repeated throughout games.
- Continuous training neglects lateral patterns essential for defence.
- Players relying solely on this method struggle with game-specific movements.
Training Efficiency:
- Time spent running could develop basketball fitness more effectively.
- Skills practice combined with conditioning provides superior results.
- Players report boredom during repetitive sessions.
- High-level teams use minimal continuous training.
- Small-sided games achieve fitness while maintaining engagement and skill development.
Final Evaluation:
- Continuous training proves minimally effective for basketball beyond basic fitness.
- Its limitations significantly outweigh benefits.
- Players should use it sparingly in early pre-season only.
- Primary conditioning must involve basketball-specific methods.
- Success requires training that mirrors actual game demands.