Warming Up for Basketball: Comparing Traditional vs. Small-Sided Game Approaches in Youth Players

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-conceived, methodologically sound, and practically valuable study that advances understanding of basketball warm-up strategies. It provides the first empirical comparison of SSG and traditional warm-ups in basketball, supporting the use of SSGs as effective and engaging alternatives.

Suggestions

1. Expand the limitations paragraph to include sample homogeneity and short-term assessment period.

Sample homogeneity

Your participants were 24 male under-17 players from only two teams competing at a similar level.
This means the sample is very homogeneous (same age, sex, competitive level, country, and probably training context).
Therefore, the findings might not generalize to other populations — for example, female players, younger or older athletes, or elite/professional players.

Short-term assessment period

The study tested players only in two isolated sessions (each warm-up performed once, one week apart).
There was no longitudinal follow-up to determine how repeated use of SSG warm-ups might influence adaptation, performance consistency, or injury risk over time.
In other words, you measured acute responses, not long-term effects.

 

2. Add a final sentence reinforcing the dual benefit of physical readiness and motivational engagement.

Your Conclusion section already summarizes that both warm-ups (traditional and SSG) prepare players physically, and that SSGs are more enjoyable. However, it stops a bit abruptly after stating that SSGs could be prioritized because of higher enjoyment. You should end the conclusion with one strong, integrated statement emphasizing that SSG warm-ups not only prepare players physically (physiological readiness) but also increase their psychological and motivational engagement — both of which are important for optimal performance.

Author Response

This is a well-conceived, methodologically sound, and practically valuable study that advances understanding of basketball warm-up strategies. It provides the first empirical comparison of SSG and traditional warm-ups in basketball, supporting the use of SSGs as effective and engaging alternatives.

ANSWER: We thank reviewer1 for reviewing our manuscript and for providing insightful comments.

Suggestions

1. Expand the limitations paragraph to include sample homogeneity and short-term assessment period.

Sample homogeneity

Your participants were 24 male under-17 players from only two teams competing at a similar level.
This means the sample is very homogeneous (same age, sex, competitive level, country, and probably training context).
Therefore, the findings might not generalize to other populations — for example, female players, younger or older athletes, or elite/professional players.

Short-term assessment period

The study tested players only in two isolated sessions (each warm-up performed once, one week apart).
There was no longitudinal follow-up to determine how repeated use of SSG warm-ups might influence adaptation, performance consistency, or injury risk over time.
In other words, you measured acute responses, not long-term effects.

 ANSWER: We thank reviewer1 for the comment. Accordingly, we included the further limitations and future directions suggested.

1. Add a final sentence reinforcing the dual benefit of physical readiness and motivational engagement.

Your Conclusion section already summarizes that both warm-ups (traditional and SSG) prepare players physically, and that SSGs are more enjoyable. However, it stops a bit abruptly after stating that SSGs could be prioritized because of higher enjoyment. You should end the conclusion with one strong, integrated statement emphasizing that SSG warm-ups not only prepare players physically (physiological readiness) but also increase their psychological and motivational engagement — both of which are important for optimal performance.

ANSWER: We thank reviewer1 for the comment. Accordingly, we included a final statement integrating the various outcomes.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please consider the following an attempt to aid in the refinement of an already well written document. These suggestions/comments are meant to assist. 

• The title is clear, specific, and accurate. It precisely states the intervention (SSG-based warm-up), the outcome measures (Physical and Perceptual Responses), and the population (Young Male Basketball Players).

• The methods section of the abstract is slightly lengthy compared to the results. Consider condensing the methods slightly and bolding the key quantitative findings in the results section to make them stand out.
• The conclusion is excellent, providing a clear, actionable summary for coaches (prioritize SSG for enjoyment and adherence).

•  Ensure the introduction clearly sets up why the conflicting results exist (e.g., variations in SSG constraints, duration, intensity, or the type of performance test used). This study's use of a pre-warm-up is a critical factor that may help reconcile previous findings; this should be highlighted.
• The final paragraph clearly states the aim. Ensure that the specific combination of outcome measures (external load, internal load, performance, and enjoyment) in young male basketball players is presented as the primary novel contribution, as this is the study's main strength.
• Physical Performance Tests: The use of validated, reliable tests (CMJ, S20, T-Test) is appropriate.

• Load Assessment (GPS): The use of Catapult devices is standard. The definitions for High Speed Running (HSR) and Acceleration/Deceleration are clear and relevant to basketball.
• Internal Load: The use of RPE and the Enjoyment Scale is essential for the perceptual outcomes and is highly appropriate for this study.

• Clarity and Organization: The results are presented clearly, organized by performance, load, and perceptual responses, which is easy to follow.

• The discussion is well-structured, starting with the load/RPE comparison, moving to performance, and concluding with enjoyment.
• Suggestion 1 (Reconciling Load vs. RPE): The finding that SSG showed lower external load but higher RPE is critical. It should be more emphatically linked to the chosen SSG constraint—it's a function of the game and rule-set used.
• Suggestion 2 (Performance Equivalence): The finding of no difference in performance is attributed to the standardized pre-warm-up. This is an excellent point and a key takeaway for researchers. This mechanism (SSG/TRAD only needing to maintain the effects of the pre-warm-up) should be highlighted as a major theoretical contribution.
• The limitations are appropriate (lack of physiological measures, age group, specific SSG design). However, the discussion should briefly mention how these limitations might affect the interpretation of the results.

 

 

Author Response

Please consider the following an attempt to aid in the refinement of an already well written document. These suggestions/comments are meant to assist. 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for reviewing our manuscript and for providing insightful comments.

The title is clear, specific, and accurate. It precisely states the intervention (SSG-based warm-up), the outcome measures (Physical and Perceptual Responses), and the population (Young Male Basketball Players).

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for the comment.

 

The methods section of the abstract is slightly lengthy compared to the results. Consider condensing the methods slightly and bolding the key quantitative findings in the results section to make them stand out.

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for this comment. Yes, unfortunately, there were more pieces of information to be provided about the methods compared to the result section. Synthetize them all is not always simple. We think that we are still providing a good amount of information regarding both methods and results allowing the reader to fully understand how the study was conducted and the main outcomes. Therefore, we considered leaving the abstract as it stands.

 

The conclusion is excellent, providing a clear, actionable summary for coaches (prioritize SSG for enjoyment and adherence).

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for the comment.

 

Ensure the introduction clearly sets up why the conflicting results exist (e.g., variations in SSG constraints, duration, intensity, or the type of performance test used). This study's use of a pre-warm-up is a critical factor that may help reconcile previous findings; this should be highlighted.

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for this comment. Overall, we think that this outcome referred to the pre-warm up might not be included in the introduction section. It was not one of the main aim of the study, although it came out as one of the main outcomes. Possibly more research is needed to highlight the influence of the pre warm-up, the type of exercise used, its duration, its effect on different outcome measures (here we have only jump and sprint). We think that highlighting this part in the introduction section might be misleading for the reader. Differently, we would like to keep our introduction section as it stands, focusing mostly on the comparison between TRAD and SSG.

 

The final paragraph clearly states the aim. Ensure that the specific combination of outcome measures (external load, internal load, performance, and enjoyment) in young male basketball players is presented as the primary novel contribution, as this is the study's main strength.

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for raising this point. Accordingly, we changed the desciption of our aim to have a consistent terminology across the manuscript. We changed it also in the first sentence of the abstract.

 

Physical Performance Tests: The use of validated, reliable tests (CMJ, S20, T-Test) is appropriate.

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for the comment.

 

Load Assessment (GPS): The use of Catapult devices is standard. The definitions for High Speed Running (HSR) and Acceleration/Deceleration are clear and relevant to basketball.

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for the comment.

 

Internal Load: The use of RPE and the Enjoyment Scale is essential for the perceptual outcomes and is highly appropriate for this study.

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for the comment.

 

Clarity and Organization: The results are presented clearly, organized by performance, load, and perceptual responses, which is easy to follow.

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for the comment.

 

The discussion is well-structured, starting with the load/RPE comparison, moving to performance, and concluding with enjoyment.

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for the comment.

 

Suggestion 1 (Reconciling Load vs. RPE): The finding that SSG showed lower external load but higher RPE is critical. It should be more emphatically linked to the chosen SSG constraint—it's a function of the game and rule-set used.

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for this insightful comment. Accordingly we modified this part of the discussion section trying to emphasize the importance of this contrasting result between internal and external load outcomes.

 

Suggestion 2 (Performance Equivalence): The finding of no difference in performance is attributed to the standardized pre-warm-up. This is an excellent point and a key takeaway for researchers. This mechanism (SSG/TRAD only needing to maintain the effects of the pre-warm-up) should be highlighted as a major theoretical contribution.

 

ANSWER:  Accordingly, we included a further sentence at the end of this paragraph indicating the importance of this outcome and that future research should consider the pre-warm up when designing similar studies.

 

The limitations are appropriate (lack of physiological measures, age group, specific SSG design). However, the discussion should briefly mention how these limitations might affect the interpretation of the results.

 

ANSWER: We thank reviewer2 for the comment.