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

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

PSYCHOL

OGICAL

PHYSICA

TECHNICA

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

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

60.9

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

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

DRIBBLING(dribb

ling 70%

70%

SPEED

(speed,

65%;

quickness,

65%;

Power to

pass, 75%)

PASSING

(passing, 70%;

Short pass, 50%)

STAMINA

(runner,

80%)

SHOOTING (Lay-

up, 65%; shooting,

50%; Free-throw

shooting, 70%;

Outside shooting,

45%; Board

shooting, 55%)

60%

SUPPLEN

ESS

(agility,

40%)

CATCHING

REBOUNDING

TACTICS

(screening, 50%;

cut, 50%; balance,

85%; rhythm, 80%;

eye-hand

coordination, 80%)

69%

OVERALL

66.3

FAR8

STRENGT

H (strength,

50%)

DRIBBLING

(dribbling, 76%)

76%

SPEED

PASSING

(Medium passing,

86%;

Short passing,

98%)

92%

STAMINA

(power,

60%; fit,

90%;

Endurance,

85%)

SHOOTING (Short

shooting, 98%)

98%

SUPPLEN

ESS

(agility,

85%)

CATCHING

(Receiving the ball,

78%)

78%

REBOUNDING

TACTICS

(balance, 78%;

coordination, 83%;

reaction, 70%;

Defense, 75%)

76.5

OVERALL

84.1

FAR9

STRENGT

H (Core

DRIBBLING

(dribbling, 88%;

coordination, 85%)

86.5

strength,

85%)

SPEED

(speed,

88%)

PASSING (Long

passing, 88%;

Short passing,

88%)

88%

STAMINA

(endurance,

88%;

power,

90%;

Recovery

rate, 85%)

SHOOTING (Long

shooting, 88%;

Short shooting,

85%; Lay-up, 85%)

86%

SUPPLEN

ESS

(agility,

88%;

flexibility,

88%)

CATCHING

REBOUNDING

(rebounding, 82%)

82%

TACTICS

(balance, 85%)

85%

OVERALL

85.5

FAR10

STRENGT

DRIBBLING

SPEED

(speed,

90%)

PASSING (Long

passing, 60%;

Short passing,

100%;

Medium passing,

95%)

85%

STAMINA

(power ,

60%;

endurance,

80%;

explosivene

ss, 30%)

SHOOTING (Long

shooting, 50%;

Short shooting,

100%; Close

shooting, 100%)

83.3

SUPPLEN

ESS

(agility,

80%;

mobility,

90%;

flexibility,

100%)

CATCHING

REBOUNDING

(recovery, 60%)

60%

TACTICS (Ball

manipulation, 60%;

Balance, 60%;

reaction, 80%;

rhythm, 80%)

70%

OVERALL

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%)

DRIBBLING

(dribbling, 75%)

75%

SPEED

(speed, 80%;

quickness,

75%)

77.

PASSING (High

passing, 80%;

Low passing,

80%)

80%

STAMINA

(power,

70%;

Physically

fit, 70%;

endurance,

80%)

73.

SHOOTING (3-

point shooting,

75%; Mid-range

shooting, 85%;

Long range

shooting, 75%;

Lay-up, 90%)

81.3

SUPPLENE

CATCHING

REBOUNDING

(rebounding,

80%)

80%

TACTICS

(screening, 90%;

Foot works,

90%; side

stepping skill,

90%)

90%

OVERALL

75.

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%)

PASSING

(Passing skill,

59%)

59%

STAMINA

(Physically

fit, 30%;

Endurance,

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%)

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%)

DRIBBLING

(dribbling, 40%;

crossover, 40%)

40%

SPEED

(quickness,

50%;

speed,

60%)

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%)

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%)

DRIBBLING

(Crossover,

40%; dribbling,

35%)

37.5

SPEED

PASSING

STAMINA

(stamina,

75%)

SHOOTING

(Accuracy in

shooting, 20%;

Shooting, 25%)

22.5

SUPPLEN

ESS

(agility,

40%)

CATCHING

REBOUNDING

TACTICS

(Good court

vision, 30%;

“No hesitation”,

50%; Foot

work, 30%)

33.3

OVERALL

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

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

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

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