Performance Profiling of Philippine Normal University Basketball
Male and Female Athletes
Aquilino Eduardo P. Santos
Philippine Normal University, Philippine
santos.aep@pnu.edu.ph
Keywords: Performance profile, physical skills, technical skills.
Abstract: The purpose of the study was to identify the strength and weaknesses of male and female basketball athletes
of Philippine Normal University using Richard Butler’s Performance Profiling process. The respondents
consisted of 25 male and female Basketball athletes. The perceived characteristics of a top performer in
basketball were used as criteria for assessing the athletes’ current physical and technical skills in basketball
using percentages. The data gathered were classified into two categories: physical skills and technical skills.
Physical skills and technical skills required of a position in basketball were the basis for analysis and
interpretation. The findings revealed that most of the athletes lack the necessary physical and technical skills
to play the sport. Intervention activities during training were recommended.
1 INTRODUCTION
A successful athletic team is one that has a well-
prepared coach or management team. Along with
their athletes, they carefully planned their campaign
towards success. Sport performance is a complex
blending of several factors relative to the demands of
the sports. An athlete participating in a particular
sport has needs in order to cope up with this demand
to succeed (Barr, K., & Hall, C., 1992). Athletes’
skills and qualities are believed to be essential for
athletic performance. Effective athletic performance
means that the players of a specific sport event is
prepared in three aspect physical, technical and
psychological (Auweele, 1999). In all training
programs, these three aspect are taken into
consideration. Not one of the three should be left
behind if a team aspires to be a top performer in a
sporting arena. Pinpointing strengths and weaknesses
of athletes, designing training strategies and building
better communication with athletes are essential in
achieving effective athletic performance (Baker, F.,
& Kayser, C.S, 1994).
A valuable technique that can be used to identify
strengths and weaknesses, organize training
preparation and the development of an individual
athlete is performance profiling. Performance
profiling of athletes was developed by Richard Butler
who was working with the British Olympic Boxing
team in the early 90’s. According to (Butler, 1996)
evolved as a method of increasing the coach’s
awareness while acknowledging the importance of
athlete’s perspective. This means that the emphasis is
on the athlete’s unique way of making a sense of what
he is to do (Cupal, D.D., & Brewer, B.W., 2001)..
Performance profiling will illustrate the athletes’
perceived strengths and weaknesses, and will enhance
the sensitive coach’s understanding of the athlete and
the athlete’s information and will take these into
account in designing a training program such as in
basketball as one of the world's most popular and
widely viewed sports (Connor O. J , 2001). Basketball
as a fast-paced game that requires the knowledge and
instinct to perform quickly and properly in many
techniques for shooting, passing, dribbling and
rebounding, basketball has specialized player
positions and offensive and defensive structures
(player positioning) is important to athlets (Atkins,
2004).
This study aimed to investigate the current
physical and technical skills of the Philippine Normal
University male and female basketball athletes. It
used the performance profiling system developed by
Richard Butler in 1990 to identify the strength and
weaknesses of the athletes, thus recommend
intervention activities during the training.
Specifically, it had the following statement of
purposes:
322
Santos, A.
Performance Profiling of Philippine Normal University Basketball Male and Female Athletes.
In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education (ICSSHPE 2017) - Volume 1, pages 322-333
ISBN: 978-989-758-317-9
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved
1. to identify qualities or characteristics of top
performers in basketball as perceived by the
PNU athletes,
2. to discover the PNU players current
characteristics by evaluating themselves using
the identified qualities of a top performer as
criteria,
3. to analyze the results of the athletes’ self-
assessment,
4. to recommend activities in their training
program for improvement or enhancement of
the required areas to reach the players’
performance standard.
A measure of performance may be determined
with reference to a formula which states: Performance
= Physical Preparation + technical skill +
Psychological readiness (Butler, 1996).
Figure 1: Model of Attributes necessary for successful
performance (Butler, Richard J. (1996).Sports Psychology
in Action.).
From figure 1, this triadic model highlights the
importance of preparation in all areas and predicts an
inferior performance if any one aspect is neglected
(Butler, 1996 p. 2). According to (Butler, 1996), “in
all areas, preparation is very important. If any aspect
is neglected, this may predict inferior performance.
Thus a gifted or technically skilled player will
underperform when either the physical or
psychological preparation has not been fully
addressed”.
2 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
STUDY
Both athletes and coaches will benefit in performance
profiling of PNU athletes. There will be more active
participation of athletes in decision making.
Important skills needed for good performance will be
identified, thus, it helps in maximizing the motivation
of athletes to implement and adhere to skills training
program. Performance profiling will develop in
coaches a better understanding of their athletes by
highlighting their perceived strengths and
weaknesses, as well as understand the needs and
perspective of the athletes. More so, the athletes’ and
coaches’ vision of the key determinants of a top
performance will be clarified. Performance profiling
of athletes may aid the coach in designing an
appropriate training program or intervention for
enhancement based on the needs of the athletes for
better, if not excellent performance and personal
meanings for the athlete when they enter the sporting
arena.
3 METHODS
The study was delimited to the PNU male and female
members of the basketball teams. The respondents
were ten (10) males and fifteen (15) females’
basketball athletes of the university. Their physical
attributes and the technical attributes of a performer
in basketball comprised the variables of the study.
Although this is in relation with the triadic model of
attributes, the study focused on the physical and
technical skills of the athletes.
This study employed the quantitative-qualitative
type of research. The data were gathered from the 25
PNU athletes of basketball consisting of 10 males and
15 females. The data gathering procedure was done in
two separate sessions with the male athletes and
female athletes. During these sessions, the idea of
performance profiling was introduced and explained
to the athletes and it was stressed that there are no
right or wrong answers in the process but that the
honest appraisal of themselves will facilitate a more
productive outcome. The following questions were
directed to the athlete:
a. What in your opinion are the fundamental
qualities or characteristics of a top performer in
your sport/event?
b. Using your identified characteristics of a top
performer as your criteria, how much of each
Co-ordination
Strategy
Strength
Stamina
Speed
Suppleness
Self-awareness
Desire
Resourcefulness
Monitor feelings
Balance
Eye hand
orientation
Reaction time
Clear thinking
Self belief
Stay focused
Arousal
control
Visualization
Cope with pressure
Planning tactics
Analysis
Sport
s
PHYSICA
L
TECHNICA
L
Performance Profiling of Philippine Normal University Basketball Male and Female Athletes
323
identified characteristic or description do you
currently possess?
The identified characteristics were used as criteria
for self-assessment. This also served as a prompt or a
means for the PNU athletes to rate themselves in
percentages. The data elicited from each player were
categorized using Butler’s (1996 pp. 2-3) attributes,
described as: physical attributes (sometimes referred
to as the “Ss”) strength, speed, stamina, and
suppleness and technical attributes (sport specific)
dribbling, passing, shooting, catching, and
rebounding. The physical and technical attributes
were organized in tabular form for easy analysis.
The player-respondents were categorized
according to their positions in the team (point guard,
shooting guard, small forward, power forward, and
center) and were assigned a code - (Male Athlete
Respondent (MAR) and Female Player Respondent
(FAR).
The self-ratings of each respondent were analyzed
and interpreted vis-a-vis the basic basketball
positions’ roles, qualities and characteristics, adapted
from Ultimate Youth Basketball Guide.Com
http://www.ultimate-youth-basketball-
guide.com/basketball-player-positions.html
Accessed on October 25, 2014.)(See Appendix B)
The following scale was used for the
interpretation of the athletes’ self-rating.
Table 1: scale was used for the interpretation of the athletes’
self-rating.
Scale was used for the interpretation of the athletes’
self-rating on table 1.
4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section presents the performance profiles of
PNU male and female athletes in tabular form
according to their designated basketball positions in
the team. The responses/self-ratings of the athletes
which were categorized as physical skills required of
a basketball athlete, and as technical skills related to
the roles, qualities, and characteristics of their
positions in the team are reflected on separate
columns. The analyses, interpretations and
discussions were done according to positions in the
team since all attached requirement and
responsibilities on physical skills and technical/
tactical skills of a basketball athlete vary from one
position to another position. The overall self-rating
percentages were computed.
4.1 Performance Profiles of Male and
Female Basketball Point Guards
Basketball is a fast-paced and vigorous game.
Physical factors play a major role to be a good
performer.
The profile in Table 2, shows that this male athlete
rated himself on stamina (70%) interpreted as
average, and below average on suppleness (65%).
The overall physical skills (67.5%) which means
below average is an indication he has not physically
trained well in his sport. The point guard is the best
ball-handler of the team, a good passer, a good short
and long range shooter and an attacker. The table
reflects how this player rated himself in these
technical skills. This athlete/point guard is less skilful
in dribbling (66.7%) and in offensive tactic as an
attacker (60%), moderately skilful (70%) in passing
and shooting. Overall, the 61.3% technical skills of
this point guard fall below average. This is a key
concern that has to be addressed during training.
Table 2: Performance Profile of the PNU Male Basketball
Point Guard.
PLAYER
PHYSICAL
SKILLS
%
TECHNICAL/TA
CTICAL SKILLS
%
MAR1
STRENGTH
DRIBBLING
(Good
dribbler,70%;
“Magaling
humawak ng
bola”,70%
“magaling mag
crossover, 60%)
66.7
%
SPEED
PASSING
(“magaling
pumasa”, 70%)
70%
STAMINA
(Endurance
, 70%;
Physically
fit, 70%)
70%
SHOOTING
(shooter, 70%;
Long shooter,
70%; Perimeter
shooter, 70%)
70%
SUPPLEN
ESS (Agile,
70%;
65%
CATCHING
SCALE
PHYSICAL
TECHNICAL
90% - 100%
Excellent
Very Skillful
80% - 89%
Very Good/
Above Average
Skillful
70% - 79%
Good/Average
Moderately
Skillful
69% - 50%
Poor/Below
Average
Less Skillful
49% - Below
Needs
improvement
Needs
Retraining
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
324
Flexible,
60% )
REBOUNDING
(“malakas
rumebound”,
40%)
40%
TACTICS
(attacker, 60%)
60%
OVERALL
67.5
%
61.3
%
Performance Profile of the PNU Male Basketball
Point Guard on table 2. The quickest among the 5
positions in the team is the point guard. As shown in
Table 2, the self-rating on speed of FAR1 (88%) and
FAR2 (80%) were interpreted as above average while
FAR3 (90%), excellent. These are indicators can
speak well of a point guard. The self-rating of above
average to excellent in other physical attributes of the
three female athletes means that they are above
average in terms of physical skills. As shown on the
table, the overall self-rating of FAR1 (88.2%), FAR2
(89.6%) and FAR3 (87.2%) means that these athletes
are technically skilful as point guards.
Table 3: Performance Profile of the Three PNU Female
Basketball Point Guards
PLAYER
PHYSICAL
SKILLS
%
TECHNICAL/TA
CTICAL SKILLS
%
FAR1
STRENGT
H (strength,
89%)
89%
DRIBBLING
(Power
dribbling, 88%;
In-between
dribbling, 86%;
Ball
manipulation,
87%;
coordination,
87%)
87%
SPEED
(speed,
88%)
88%
PASSING
STAMINA
(endurance,
96%;
power,
86%;
recoverabili
ty, 88%)
90%
SHOOTING
(Long distance
shooting, 87%;
Short distance
shooting, 88%;
Lay-up, 93%;
Reverse
shooting, 87%)
88.8
%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
88%;
mobility,
87%;
flexibility,
87%)
87.3%
CATCHING
REBOUNDIN
G (rebounding,
89%)
89%
TACTICS
(defense, 89%;
87.8
%
offense, 88%;
reaction, 86%;
balance, 88%;
Pivoting skill,
88%)
OVERALL
88.6
%
88.2
%
FAR2
STRENGT
H (strength,
90%)
90%
DRIBBLING
(dribbling,
95%;
coordination,
90%)
92.5
%
SPEED
(speed,
80%)
80%
PASSING
(Long pass,
90%; Short
pass, 95%)
92.5
%
STAMINA
(endurance,
85%;
power,
85%)
85%
SHOOTING
(Long shooting,
80%;
Short shooting,
90%; Lay-up,
90%)
86.7
%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
85%;
mobility,
95%;
flexibility,
85%)
88.3%
CATCHING
REBOUNDIN
G (rebounding,
90%)
90%
TACTICS
(penetrating,
80%; screening,
85%; defense,
80%; balance,
100%; reaction,
86%)
86.2
%
OVERALL
85.8
%
89.6
%
FAR3
STRENGT
H (strength,
85%)
85%
DRIBBLING
(dribbling,
95%; In-
between
dribbling, 95%;
crossover, 95%;
coordination,
90%)
93.8
%
SPEED
(speed,
90%)
90%
PASSING
(Long passing,
90%)
90%
STAMINA
(Endurance
, 80%;
power,
90%)
85%
SHOOTING
(Long shooting,
80%;
Short shooting,
90%; Reverse
shooting, 50%)
73.3
%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
90%;
mobility,
95%;
91.7%
CATCHING
Performance Profiling of Philippine Normal University Basketball Male and Female Athletes
325
flexibility,
90%)
REBOUNDIN
G (rebounding,
90%)
90%
TACTICS
(defense, 85%;
Offense, 90%;
balance, 90%;
reaction, 90%;
Pivoting skill,
90%)
89%
OVERALL
87.9
%
87.2
%
Performance profile of the three PNU female
basketball point guards on table 3.
4.2 Performance Profiles of Male and
Female Basketball Shooting Guards
Typically a shooting guard is lengthy, athletic, strong
and physical. He is ideally a good ball handler and a
competent passer, and the best shooter of the team
and versatile in scoring. He has full complement of
speed, lateral quickness, running ability, and jumping
ability. In Table 4, among the four male shooting
guards, MAR5 (90%) rated himself excellent on
strength extremely different from MAR4 (40%)
which is poor. It was noted that the physical skills of
the four shooting guards vary- MAR5 (85%) and
MAR2 (80.5%) are interpreted as above average,
MAR3 (70.4%), average and MAR4 (40.1%) which
is poor and way below the standard position expected
of a shooting guard. Ideally, a shooting guard is a
good ball-handler, has a good passing skills, and most
of all the best shooter of the team. As reflected on the
table, MAR2 (81.1%) and MAR5 (89%) rated
themselves skilful in shooting while MAR3 and
MAR4 have less skill in shooting. Among the four
male shooting guards, MAR4 who is both physically
and technically below the expected standard of a
basketball athlete is a key concern of the coach and
needed to be attended to.
Table 4: Performance Profiles of the Four Male Basketball
Shooting Guards.
PLAYER
PHYSICAL
SKILLS
%
TECHNICAL/TA
CTICAL SKILLS
%
MAR2
STRENGT
H (strength,
75%; force,
80%)
77.5
%
DRIBBLING
(dribbling skills,
79%; crossover,
80%)
79.5
%
SPEED
(Speed,
80%;
Quickness,
78%)
79%
PASSING
STAMINA
(Power ,
85%;
endurance,
80%;
Physically
fit, 85%)
83.3
%
SHOOTING
(shooter, 90%;
Lay-up, 90%;
Jump shot, 78%;
dunk, 75%; Free
throw, 80%;
Hook shot,
75%; Long shot,
80%)
81.1
%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(Flexibility,
82%)
82%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(rebounding,
78%)
78%
TACTICS
(pivoting skill,
79%)
79%
OVERALL
80.5
%
79.4
%
MAR3
STRENGT
H (strength,
70%)
70%
DRIBBLING
(crossover,
50%; Dribbling,
75%)
62.5
%
SPEED
(speed,
80%;
quickness,
70%)
75%
PASSING
(Good passer,
60%)
60%
STAMINA
(power ,
75%;
endurance,
65%;
Stamina,
75%)
71.7
%
SHOOTING (
Perimeter
shooter, 50%;
3-point shooter,
45%;
Free-throw
shooter, 75%;
Lay-up, 80%)
61.3
%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
65%)
65%
CATCHING
REBOUNDIN
G
TACTICS
(defense, 60%)
60%
OVERALL
70.4
%
48.8
%
MAR4
STRENGT
H (strength,
40%)
40%
DRIBBLING
SPEED
(speed,
40%;
quickness,
60%)
50%
PASSING
STAMINA
(endurance,
30%;
Stamina,
30%; “less
fatigue”,
40%)
33.3
%
SHOOTING (3-
point shooter,
60%)
60%
SUPPLEN
ESS
40%
CATCHING
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
326
(agility,
40%)
REBOUNDING
TACTICS
(Good follow
thru, 80%;
Managing the
floor, 35%; Ball
control, 30%;
Eye-hand
coordination,
60%; Strong
court vision,
50%)
51%
OVERALL
40.1
%
55.5
%
MAR5
STRENGT
H (Body
strength,
90%)
90%
DRIBBLING
SPEED
PASSING
STAMINA
(endurance,
80%)
80%
SHOOTING
(Shooting
long/short, 89%)
89%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
85%)
85%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(rebounding,
80%)
80%
TACTICS
(driving, 85%;
blocking, 75%;
defense, 95%;
Game control,
78%;
coordination,
87%; steal,
85%)
84.2
%
OVERALL
85%
84.4
%
From table 4, the two female shooting guards,
FAR4 and FAR5 rated themselves above average on
strength (88%), while FAR6 rated herself as average
(70%). Very important characteristic of shooting
guards is speed and can run the floor without undue
fatigue. The self-rating of the three female athletes on
speed vary - FAR5 indicated that she has currently
excellent (90%) speed, while FAR4 said she is above
average (88 %), and WPR6 below average (50%).
With these indicators, the coach should concern
himself with FAR6 during the training.
The shooting guard is the “marksman” of team
which gained himself the refutation of the best
shooter of the team, and a versatile scorer who can
shoot in short and long range, a perimeter shooter, 3-
point shooter, and who can shoot on the move. In
terms of technical and tactical skills as presented in
Table 4, In shooting, FAR4 indicated that she is
skilful (88.3%), and so with FAR5 (84%). FAR4 and
FAR5 rated themselves skilful on dribbling (88.5%
and 89% respectively) and very skilful (90%) in
passing skill.
Both FAR4 and FAR5 rated themselves very
skilful (92% and 90% respectively) on rebounding
skill. The defense tactics of FAR4 (92%) and FAR5
(95%) are interpreted as very skilful. The overall
average of 60% (below average) in physical skill and
60.9% (less skilful) of FAR6 should be noted for
further training.
Table 5: Performance Profile of the Three Female
Basketball Shooting Guards.
PLAYER
PHYSICAL
SKILLS
%
TECHNICAL/TA
CTICAL SKILLS
%
FAR4
STRENGT
H (strength,
88%)
88%
DRIBBLING
(dribbling, 88%;
In-between
dibbling, 88%;
Crossover, 88%;
Coordination,
90%)
88.5
%
SPEED
(speed,
88%)
88%
PASSING
(Long passing,
90%)
90%
STAMINA
(endurance,
98%;
power,
88%)
93%
SHOOTING
(Short shooting,
90%; Lay-up,
95%; Reverse
shooting, 80%)
88.3
%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
90%;
mobility,
95%;
flexibility,
89%)
91.3
%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(rebound, 92%)
92%
TACTICS
(defense, 92%;
offense, 89%;
reaction, 90%;
Pivoting skill,
90%)
90.3
%
OVERALL
90.1
%
89.8
%
FAR5
STRENGT
H (strength,
88%)
88%
DRIBBLING
(dribbling, 88%;
In-between
dribbling, 85%;
crossover, 88%;
coordination,
95%)
89%
SPEED
(speed,
90%)
90%
PASSING
(Long passing,
90%
Performance Profiling of Philippine Normal University Basketball Male and Female Athletes
327
85%; Short
passing, 95%)
STAMINA
(endurance,
89%;
power,
88%)
88.5
%
SHOOTING
(Reverse
shooting, 80%;
Lay-up, 88%)
84%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
89%;
mobility,
90%;
flexibility,
90%)
89.7
%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(rebound, 90%)
90%
TACTICS
(defense, 95%;
offense, 88%;
balance, 90%;
coordination,
95%; reaction,
95%; Pivoting
skill, 90%)
92.2
%
OVERALL
89.1
%
89%
FAR6
STRENGT
H (strength,
70%)
70%
DRIBBLING
(dribbling, 60%;
coordination,
60%)
60%
SPEED
(speed,
50%)
50%
PASSING
(Medium
passing, 50%)
50%
STAMINA
(power,
70%;
recovery,
60%)
65%
SHOOTING
(Short passing,
60%; Close
shooting, 60%;
Lay-up, 80%)
66.7
%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
60%;
flexibility,
50%)
55%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(rebound, 60%)
60%
TACTICS
(defense, 80%;
balance, 60%;
coordination,
60%; reaction,
70%; Pivoting,
70%)
68%
OVERALL
60
%
60.9
%
Performance orofile of the three female basketball
shooting guards on table 5.
4.3 Performance Profiles of Male and
Female Basketball Small Forward
The small forward has the strength and quickness on
the floor. As shown in Table 6, the self-rating 35% of
MAR7 is poor and below the standard as a small
forward along with below average speed (50%).
MAR7 is not skilful and needs full training with an
overall average of 45. % technical skills.
The small forward is the most versatile position in
that he can slide down and play shooting guard or
even play power forward in certain stretches of the
game. He is usually called a “swing man”.
Table 6: Performance Profile of the Male Basketball Small
Forward.
MAR
7
STRENGTH
(strength,
50%;
Muscular
strength, 70%)
35%
DRIBBLING
(Dribbling
skills, 40%)
40%
SPEED
(speed, 50%)
50%
PASSING
(Passing skills,
40%)
40%
STAMINA
(power, 45%;
endurance,
65%;
Physically fit,
75%)
61.7%
SHOOTING
(Good shooting
skills, 40%;
Lay-up, 60%)
50%
SUPPLENESS
(agility, 50%)
50%
CATCHING
REBOUNDIN
G (Leg power,
50%)
50%
TACTICS
(Defense, 40%;
Box out, 50%;
Pivoting skill,
50%; finger
roll, 40%)
45%
OVERALL
49.2
%
45.
%
From table 6, for the position of small forward, the
higher the speed the better the athlete delivers. The
self-rating of FAR10’s speed (90%) on Table 7
interpreted as excellent is a good indicator of the
position. This can also be true for FAR9 (88%). The
above average core strength (85%) of FAR9 speaks
well of a small forward-designate.
As a small forward, the physical skills and
technical skills of FAR7 that fall below average
should be noted well by the coach for further training.
The overall average of FAR9 in physical skills and
technical skills that are interpreted as above average
can speak well of a small forward.
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
328
Table 7: Performance Profile of the Four Female Basketball
Small Forward.
PLAYER
PHYSICAL
SKILLS
%
TECHNICAL/TAC
TICAL SKILLS
%
FAR7
STRENGT
H
DRIBBLING(dribb
ling 70%
70%
SPEED
(speed,
65%;
quickness,
65%;
Power to
pass, 75%)
68
.3
%
PASSING
(passing, 70%;
Short pass, 50%)
STAMINA
(runner,
80%)
80
%
SHOOTING (Lay-
up, 65%; shooting,
50%; Free-throw
shooting, 70%;
Outside shooting,
45%; Board
shooting, 55%)
60%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
40%)
40
%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
TACTICS
(screening, 50%;
cut, 50%; balance,
85%; rhythm, 80%;
eye-hand
coordination, 80%)
69%
OVERALL
62
.7
%
66.3
%
FAR8
STRENGT
H (strength,
50%)
50
%
DRIBBLING
(dribbling, 76%)
76%
SPEED
PASSING
(Medium passing,
86%;
Short passing,
98%)
92%
STAMINA
(power,
60%; fit,
90%;
Endurance,
85%)
78
.3
%
SHOOTING (Short
shooting, 98%)
98%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
85%)
85
%
CATCHING
(Receiving the ball,
78%)
78%
REBOUNDING
TACTICS
(balance, 78%;
coordination, 83%;
reaction, 70%;
Defense, 75%)
76.5
%
OVERALL
71
.1
%
84.1
%
FAR9
STRENGT
H (Core
85
%
DRIBBLING
(dribbling, 88%;
coordination, 85%)
86.5
%
strength,
85%)
SPEED
(speed,
88%)
88
%
PASSING (Long
passing, 88%;
Short passing,
88%)
88%
STAMINA
(endurance,
88%;
power,
90%;
Recovery
rate, 85%)
87
.7
%
SHOOTING (Long
shooting, 88%;
Short shooting,
85%; Lay-up, 85%)
86%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
88%;
flexibility,
88%)
88
%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(rebounding, 82%)
82%
TACTICS
(balance, 85%)
85%
OVERALL
87
.2
%
85.5
%
FAR10
STRENGT
H
DRIBBLING
SPEED
(speed,
90%)
90
%
PASSING (Long
passing, 60%;
Short passing,
100%;
Medium passing,
95%)
85%
STAMINA
(power ,
60%;
endurance,
80%;
explosivene
ss, 30%)
56
.7
%
SHOOTING (Long
shooting, 50%;
Short shooting,
100%; Close
shooting, 100%)
83.3
%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
80%;
mobility,
90%;
flexibility,
100%)
90
%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(recovery, 60%)
60%
TACTICS (Ball
manipulation, 60%;
Balance, 60%;
reaction, 80%;
rhythm, 80%)
70%
OVERALL
78
.9
%
74.6
%
Performance Profile of the Four Female Basketball
Small Forward on table 7.
Performance Profiling of Philippine Normal University Basketball Male and Female Athletes
329
4.4 Performance Profiles of Male and
Female Basketball Power Forward
One of the most important lines of defense, because
he is so close to the basket is the position of the power
forward. Strength, athleticism, rugged, and with good
feet are some of the characteristics of the position. As
shown on Table 8, MAR6 rated himself above
average on strength (80%), and average in speed
(77.5%) and stamina (73.3%). The overall self-rating
of 75.8% can be interpreted that the athlete has an
average physical skills. MAR6’s general average of
82.7% on technical skills can be interpreted as skilful.
However these perceived attributes can still be
enhanced through set routines during training.
Table 8: Performance Profile of the Male Basketball Power
Forward.
PLAYER
PHYSICAL
SKILLS
%
TECHNICAL/T
ACTICAL
SKILLS
%
MAR6
STRENGTH
(strength,
80%)
80
%
DRIBBLING
(dribbling, 75%)
75%
SPEED
(speed, 80%;
quickness,
75%)
77.
5%
PASSING (High
passing, 80%;
Low passing,
80%)
80%
STAMINA
(power,
70%;
Physically
fit, 70%;
endurance,
80%)
73.
3%
SHOOTING (3-
point shooting,
75%; Mid-range
shooting, 85%;
Long range
shooting, 75%;
Lay-up, 90%)
81.3
%
SUPPLENE
SS
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(rebounding,
80%)
80%
TACTICS
(screening, 90%;
Foot works,
90%; side
stepping skill,
90%)
90%
OVERALL
75.
8%
82.7
%
Performance Profile of the Male Basketball
Power Forward on table 8.
Table 9: Performance Profile of the Two Female Basketball
Power Forwards.
PLAYER
PHYSICAL
SKILLS
%
TECHNICAL/TA
CTICAL SKILLS
%
FAR11
STRENGT
H (Core
strength,
70%)
70%
DRIBBLING
(Dribbling,
80%)
80%
SPEED
(speed,
50%)
50%
PASSING
(Short passing,
70%)
70%
STAMINA
(endurance,
60%)
60%
SHOOTING
(Short shooting,
70%)
70%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
40%;
mobility,
30%)
35%
CATCHING
(receiving,
40%)
40%
REBOUNDING
(rebounding,
80%)
80%
TACTICS
(balance, 40%)
40%
OVERALL
50%
63.3
%
FAR12
STRENGT
H (strength,
50%)
50%
DRIBBLING
(dribbling, 40%)
40%
SPEED
(speed,
30%)
30%
PASSING
(Medium
passing, 40%)
40%
STAMINA
(endurance,
30%;
power,
40%)
35%
SHOOTING
(Short shooting,
70%;
Long shooting,
20%)
45%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(flexibility,
30%;
agility,
40%)
35%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(rebounding,
50%;
Leg power,
60%;
recoverability,
75%)
61.7
%
TACTICS
(blocking, 20%;
screening, 30%;
Ball
manipulation,
30%;
Balance, 40%)
30%
OVERALL
41.7
%
43.1
%
Table 9 reveals that the two female power forward
athletes where their physical skills and technical skills
fall below the standard skills of a power forward. This
has to be addressed by the coach, since the position
requires athleticism and strength on defense, and
versatility in traveling around the paint. Rebounding,
blocking shots, setting screens, and playing solid
defense are some the important roles that a power
forward has to accomplish.
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
330
4.5 Performance Profiles of Male and
Female Basketball Centers
Speed, mobility, and strength are a winning
combination that a center possesses. The performance
profiles of the three male Basketball centers in Table
10 reveals that the combination cannot be found on
the self-rating. Only MAR10’s self-rating of 80%
strength interpreted as above average is reflected. The
overall percentage of the three male athletes fall
between below average and poor. A good center is
skilled in gathering rebounds, takes high percentage
shooter on offense (open shots and shots close to the
basket. He is the gatekeeper and the last line of
defense to the basket. Shown on the table, is a
revelation that the three male center lack skills
technically.
Table 10: Performance Profile of the Three Male Basketball
Centers.
PLAYER
PHYSICAL
SKILLS
%
TECHNICAL/TA
CTICAL SKILLS
%
MAR8
STRENGTH
(force, 40%)
40%
DRIBBLING
(crossover, 20%)
20%
SPEED
(Speed,
60%)
60
%
PASSING
(Passing skill,
59%)
59%
STAMINA
(Physically
fit, 30%;
Endurance,
30%)
30
%
SHOOTING
(Lay-up, 85%;
Turn around
shot, 60%; 3-
point shot, 35%;
dunk, 50%;
Back shot, 50%;
Jump shot,
40%)
53.3
%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
31%)
31
%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(Vertical jump,
80%; High
jumper, 50%)
65%
TACTICS (Shot
selection, 65%;
Box out, 45%;
timing, 65%)
56.7
%
OVERALL
40.3
%
50.8
%
MAR9
STRENGT
H (strength,
50%)
50
%
DRIBBLING
(dribbling, 40%;
crossover, 40%)
40%
SPEED
(quickness,
50%;
speed,
60%)
55
%
PASSING
(passing, 50%)
50%
STAMINA
(endurance,
56.7
%
SHOOTING
(shooting, 50%;
65%
70%;
power,
50%;
Physically
fit, 50%)
Mid-range
shooter, 60%;
Lay-up, 85%;
Free-throw
shooting, 65%)
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
50%)
50
%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(Leg power,
70%)
70%
TACTICS
(defense, 50%;
balance, 35%;
Body
coordination,
50%)
OVERALL
52.9
%
56.3
%
MAR10
STRENGT
H (Upper
body
strength
80%)
80
%
DRIBBLING
(Crossover,
40%; dribbling,
35%)
37.5
%
SPEED
PASSING
STAMINA
(stamina,
75%)
75
%
SHOOTING
(Accuracy in
shooting, 20%;
Shooting, 25%)
22.5
%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
40%)
40
%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
TACTICS
(Good court
vision, 30%;
“No hesitation”,
50%; Foot
work, 30%)
33.3
%
OVERALL
65
%
31.1
%
Performance Profile of the Three Male Basketball
Centers on table 10. The self-rating of the three
female basketball centers reveals that FAR13’s
overall rating in physical skills is interpreted as poor,
and in technical skills is far beyond poor which the
coach needs to address and decide. On the other hand,
the self-rating of FAR14 speed (85%) and strength
(85%) are interpreted as above average. FAR15 rated
herself above average on speed. In terms of technical
skills FAR14 and FAR15 rated themselves skilful in
passing and shooting which are important
characteistics of a center. The moderate skill in
rebounding of FAR14 and FAR15 should be
enhanced since the center plays low post on the floor.
Performance Profiling of Philippine Normal University Basketball Male and Female Athletes
331
Table 11: Performance Profile of the Three Female
Basketball Centers.
PLAYER
PHYSICAL
SKILLS
%
TECHNICAL/TA
CTICAL SKILLS
%
FAR13
STRENGT
H
DRIBBLING
SPEED
(Speed,
50%)
50%
PASSING
STAMINA
(Core
endurance,
15%;
Power,
20%)
17.5
%
SHOOTING
SUPPLEN
ESS
(flexibility,
30%;
Agility,
50%)
40%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
TACTICS
(balance, 15%;
reaction time,
10%)
12.5
%
OVERALL
35.8
%
12.5
%
FAR14
STRENGT
H (strength,
85%)
85%
DRIBBLING
SPEED
(speed,
85%)
85%
PASSING
(Long passing,
85%; Short
passing, 80%;
Medium
passing, 80%)
81.7
%
STAMINA
(power,
85%;
endurance,
80%)
82.5
%
SHOOTING (3-
point shooting,
80%;
Free-throw
shooting, 85%)
82.5
%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
85%;
flexibility,
80%)
82.5
%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(recoverability,
75%)
75%
TACTICS
(Ball
manipulation,
80%;
Balance, 85%)
82.5
%
OVERALL
83.8
%
80.4
%
FAR15
STRENGT
H
DRIBBLING
(dribbling, 75%)
75%
SPEED
(speed,
80%;
80%
PASSING
(Long passing,
80%)
80%
quickness,
80%)
STAMINA
(endurance,
80%;
power,
75%;
explosivene
ss, 75%)
76.7
%
SHOOTING
(Long shooting,
75%;
Close shooting,
85%; Lay-up,
80%)
80%
SUPPLEN
ESS
(agility,
80%;
Flexibility,
70%)
75%
CATCHING
REBOUNDING
(Rebounding,
75%)
75%
TACTICS
(Screening,
80%; defense,
85%; balance,
80%; rhythm,
80%)
81.3
%
OVERAL
L
72.2
%
78.3
%
Performance Profile of the Three Female
Basketball Centers on table 11.
5 CONCLUSION
Based on the findings on the physical skills and
technical skills of both male and female athletes in
relation to the achievement of top performance by the
team, the following conclusions are articulated:
Although most of the basketball athletes have
above average or average physical skills, there are
still areas that need to be enhanced. In the same way
that there are certain areas in technical skills needing
improvements, especially those areas required of a
position in basketball.
Since basketball is a head-to-head competition
between two teams, having two or three players who
are above average is not enough for a team to achieve
top performance. A 90% to 100% percent good speed,
agility, endurance, stamina and athletic body among
players can be targeted by the coaches.
Coaches have to concern themselves with the
below average and poor physical skills among the
players during the training. While the different
positions requires different technical attributes it is
best to have at least some ability in all five areas other
than the skills required in the position.
ICSSHPE 2017 - 2nd International Conference on Sports Science, Health and Physical Education
332
REFERENCES
Atkins, K. 2004. Basketball Offenses and Plays. United
States: Human Kinetics,
Auweele, I., et.al. 1999. Psychology For Physical
Educators. United States: Human Kinetics.
Baker, F., Kayser, C.S. 1994. Effect of a self-help mental
training programme. International Journal of Sports
Psychology, 25, 158-175.
Barr, K., Hall, C. 1992. The use of imagery by rowers.
International Journal of Sport Psychology, 23, 243-261.
Butler, R. 1996. Sports Psychology in Action.
Butler. 1996. Sport Psychology in Action, Oxford: Butter
worth-Heinemann.
Connor O. J. 2001, NLP and Sports, Oxford: Thorsons
Harper Collins. Corbin, C.B. (1967). Effect of mental
practice on skill development after controlled practice.
Research Quarterly, 38, 524-538.
Cupal, D.D., Brewer, B.W. 2001. Effects of relaxation and
guided imagery, re-injury anxiety and pain following
anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 46, 28-43.
Ultimate Youth Basketball Guide.Com.
http://www.ultimate-youth-basketball
guide.com/basketball-player-positions.html (Accessed
on October 25, 2014.
Performance Profiling of Philippine Normal University Basketball Male and Female Athletes
333