Enhancing Motor Abilities in Male Basketball Players Through Complex Training: A Systematic Review

Abstract

(1) Background: Complex training combines weight training and plyometric exercises within one series. This is one of the first systematic reviews to thoroughly investigate the effects of complex training on the motor abilities of male basketball players. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to determine the effects of complex training on the motor abilities of male basketball players; (2) Methods: The study protocol of this systematic review was registered at the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY202520116). Papers published from January 2008 to October 2024 were searched digitally using the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, ERIC, and Google Scholar databases following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using the PICOS strategy. The Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) and Physical Therapy Database (PEDro) scale was used to assess the quality of the included randomized and non-randomized control trials, respectively; (3) Results: The results of this study showed that complex training is an effective method for improving the motor abilities of basketball players. Most studies investigating the effects of complex training have focused on explosive strength, where a positive impact has been demonstrated. In addition, studies show the positive effects of complex training on speed, agility, muscle strength, isometric muscle force, and aerobic endurance; (4) Conclusions: The authors of the study recommend that the most effective programs are 10 weeks long and conducted 2–3 times per week, with at least 48 h of recovery between sessions. For the pre-competition period, it is recommended to perform 3–5 sets of one complex pair; 2–12 repetitions of weight training, (70–95% 1RM); and 5–15 repetitions of plyometric exercises which are performed at maximum intensity. Future researchers in the field of basketball are encouraged to compare the effects of complex training in male and female basketball players or to compare the effects among male basketball players based on age (juniors vs. seniors) and competitive level (amateur vs. elite).

1. Introduction

Basketball is a highly intermittent team sport that includes repeated transitions between attack and defense and frequent changes in movement, requiring physical, technical, and tactical preparation for success [1,2]. The complexity of this sport is revealed in high-intensity actions such as explosive jumps, sprints, changes of direction (CODs), dribbling, throwing, and passing the ball, which are performed by players in all positions. Therefore, great attention is paid to the physical preparation [3] of basketball players, who work exclusively on developing these motor abilities [4]. This means that, if basketball players are not at a high level of physical preparation, their technique will progressively deteriorate as fatigue sets in during the game.

In sports practice, it is known that the application of plyometric training [5] and weight training [6] can enhance motor abilities, which contributed to the emergence of a new training method called complex training [7]. Complex training is a combination of high-load training (e.g., weights) and low-load plyometric exercises (e.g., body weight) within one series [8], and it is suggested to increase muscle strength in basketball players. The combination of maximum effort methods and plyometric training is absolutely desirable and justified in sports practice [9,10], which can have important practical implications when programming strength training in basketball [7]. By simultaneously using large external loads (e.g., weights) and small loads (e.g., body mass), it is possible to produce better neuromuscular adaptation [11,12]. Complex training can be performed either between sets of exercises or within exercises. The first approach involves a combination of high loads (over 80% 1RM) and biomechanically similar exercises with low loads performed at maximum speed. The second approach involves grouping two or more exercises that are performed in a superset (large series), which represents the alternating use of high and low loads at maximum performance speed [13].

In general, plyometric training and weight training are complementary to each other [8]. Radovanović [3] concluded that complex training shows greater effects on improving muscle strength, isometric muscle force, speed, and endurance than weight training, and recommends complex training for children and adolescents. Ebben and Watts [14] clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of complex training and presented methods and strategies for including both of these divergent strength characteristics in the same workout session. The authors also showed that complex training has a better effect on improving muscle strength, isometric muscle force, and speed compared to weight training. Ebben and associates [15] confirmed similar results, finding that complex training consisting of complex pairs produced better results in muscle strength and explosive strength than training in which plyometric training and weight training were performed individually. In addition to the positive effect on the motor abilities, Radovanović [3] indicates that complex training has a positive effect on improving body composition, increasing bone mineral density, improving cardiorespiratory endurance, as well as having a positive influence on the psycho-social status of children, adolescent, and adult athletes. Specifically, by combining exercises with high and low loads, beneficial training effects are achieved because performing high-load exercises enhances the excitation of the central nervous system, leading to improved subsequent muscle action [13,16]. The intensity of exercises within complex training is a critical factor. More precisely, the intensity of both plyometric training and weight training should be high, while the volume of complex training should be lower to protect the athlete from fatigue [14].

Complex training is recommended in all team sports, including basketball, to develop motor abilities [17], as there are no studies indicating the negative effects of this training. It should be emphasized that this is one of the first systematic reviews to thoroughly investigate the effects of complex training on the motor abilities of male basketball players. Only Flórez Gil and associates [18] have examined the acute and chronic effects of complex training on physical fitness performance, identifying the most effective characteristics of such programs for basketball players. Previous studies have primarily explored complex training in various team sports (handball, soccer, volleyball, etc.) [17,19,20] or through original scientific research focused on complex training in basketball players [21,22]. Abade and associates [17] have shown that complex training leads to the maintenance and improvement in motor fitness throughout the season, while handball players involved in the same competitive context may require different strength training strategies. The positive effects of complex training were also confirmed in soccer players, where the results showed positive effects on sprint abilities and vertical jumps. It has also been found that complex training leads to significantly greater improvements in vertical jump performance than other traditional training methods in soccer players [23]. Cormier and associates [20] obtained interesting results in their systematic review and meta-analysis. The authors concluded that complex and contrast training lead to positive performance-based transformations in team sports, with complex training being more effective in improving motor abilities than contrast training. On the other hand, complex training has shown positive effects on sprint abilities and minor effects on explosive strength in team-sport athletes [20]. However, Nikolić [21] obtained different results: the study examined the effects of complex training (between series of exercises) on the explosive strength, sprint abilities, and agility of young male basketball players, finding positive effects on these motor abilities.

Therefore, this systematic review of the current literature aims to determine the effects of complex training on the motor abilities of male basketball players.

2. Materials and Methods

The study protocol of this systematic review was registered at the International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (INPLASY202520116), and the systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) standards [24].

2.1. Search Strategy

Existing databases were explored, summaries and translations of the collected literature were conducted, and the study findings were evaluated. Papers were searched digitally using PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MEDLINE, ERIC, and Google Scholar databases from January 2008 to October 2024. The keywords used to search the databases, either separately or combined, included the following: “basketball players”, and (“complex training”, or “contrast training”, or “combine training”, or “plyometric training”) or “basketball players and (“explosive power”, “speed”, “agility”, “strength”, and “change of direction speed”). Reference lists of included articles were scanned to identify additional relevant studies. All titles and abstracts were examined for potential inclusion in the review. Additionally, the lists of prior and original research were evaluated. Relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria were obtained after a thorough investigation.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

To determine whether a study should be included, three authors independently evaluated the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The PICOS criteria (population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, and study design) were employed to select eligible studies. The inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as the results of the descriptive statistical analysis are presented in

Table 1. The inclusion and exclusion criteria used according to the PICOS model.

PICOS Category	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
P (Population)	Male basketball players; Competitive level without age restrictions (amateur–elite), (young–youth–senior)	Female basketball players; Sports other than basketball; Non-healthy athletes
I (Intervention)	Longitudinal studies that included complex training were analyzed and included for further analysis	Interventions testing the effects of other types of training
C (Comparators)	Studies where groups are compared (i.e., EXP vs. CON group) or (EXP1 vs. EXP2); Single group studies	Studies comparing male and female basketball players, male basketball players and other athletes (football players, handball players, volleyball players)
O (Outcomes)	The studies must analyze the effects of complex training on motor abilities (explosive power, speed, muscle strength, agility…)	Interventions that analyze other variables (i.e., cognition-related, nutrition)
S (Study design)	Randomized and non-randomized controlled studies; Studies written in Serbian and English	Duplicates; Conference abstracts; Case reports (e.g., <5 participants per group); Review articles; Inappropriate frame of analysis in the period between 2008 and 2024; Studies written in a language which was not Serbian or English

.

2.3. Study Selection and Methodological Quality

EndNote citation management software (v.21.5) was utilized for literature screening, while duplicate detection was performed using Mendeley reference management software (v. 2.111.0, Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd., Barcelona, Spain). Duplicate identification was thoroughly conducted. Although a meta-analysis was not performed, the study critically assessed the quality of the included research. The systematic review also acknowledged potential limitations, such as sample variability and level of competition, which are explained in detail in Section 4. Therefore, due to the heterogeneity of the study, the authors used a qualitative method to describe the characteristics of the motor abilities of male basketball players, and therefore, it was not possible to perform a meta-analysis. All disagreements were resolved through agreement between two researchers or with the help of a third. Two authors (A.N. and B.S.) independently reviewed and selected the searched papers. Selected papers were then cross-checked by the same two authors. The final decision for included papers was made by a third author (A.R.).

A descriptive method was used for research purposes. The methodological quality assessment of the included studies were performed independently according to the Physical Therapy Database (PEDro) scale, which involves 11 items. These items were displayed and rated as (+ or − ), although numbers (1 or 0) can also be used. If the included study has six or more, then the quality of the study is considered high, results of 4–5 mean studies of moderate quality, while results of less than 4 correspond to studies of poor quality [25].

In order to improve the methodology of this paper and the quality of the included studies, the authors, in addition to the PEDro scale for the evaluation and analysis of the quality of papers, as a specific tool, applied Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS). This score consists of 12 items (Section 3). The MINORS items were scored 0 if not reported, 1 when reported but inadequate, and 2 when reported and adequate. The ideal score was 20. The simplicity of MINORS is reflected primarily in the fact that it consists of 12 items, is easy to administer, and is clear to researchers and readers. The reliability of MINORS has already been demonstrated in the study [26].

3. Results

3.1. Literature Characteristics

A total of 126 articles were identified (31 from PubMed, 22 from web of Science 26 from Scopus, 19 from MEDLINE, 11 from ERIC, and 17 from Google Scholar) through the database search. The reference lists of relevant papers were analyzed to identify additional papers suitable for inclusion in this systematic review.

After removing duplicates and screening the articles based on their title, abstract, and other criteria (studies whose primary objective was not motor abilities under the influence of complex training; female basketball players; case reports; conference abstract; sports other than basketball; studies that compared complex training in team sports, etc.), 31 studies remained. Two researchers independently evaluated these 31 studies. Following the final screening, 16 studies met the set criteria and conditions and were included in the systematic review. The procedure for the collection, analysis, and elimination of the papers is shown in Figure 1.

3.2. Characteristics of the Studies

The total number of participants included in this systematic review was 418 (n = 418). In all studies, the sample consisted of male basketball players, regardless of age and competitive level. Most studies investigated explosive strength (13 studies), as well as speed, muscle strength, isometric muscle force, agility, COD, aerobic endurance, etc. All studies included in this review had at least two groups: an experimental and a control group (EXP vs. CON group) or two or more experimental groups (EXP). The study by Romadhoni and Yudhistira [22] was the only one with a single experimental group.

By analyzing the research summarized in

Table 2. A systematic review of the complex training in basketball players.

First Author and Year	Participants	The Aim of the Research	Measuring Instruments	Statistical Analysis	Key Findings
Santos and Janeira (2008) [7]	Young basketball players 14–15 years N = 25 CON = 10 EXP = 15	To examine the impact of CT (10 weeks) on the development of explosive strength	SJ CMJ ABA DJ MBT	Dependent t-test; Independent t-test	EXP ↑ SJ, ABA, MBT CON NS CT (PT + WT) has a positive effect on the explosive strength of the upper and lower extremities in young basketball players.
Kukrić et al. (2009) [27]	Junior basketball players 16–17 years N = 20 CON = 10 EXP = 10	To determine the influence of CT (10 weeks) on the explosive leg strength	CMJ SJ	Independent t-test	EXP ↑ CMJ (FMAX), SJ (FMAX) EXP ↑ IES NS TMAX CON ↑ SJ (FMAX) CT has a positive effect on explosive leg strength in junior basketball players, while the CON group made progress only in SJ (FMAX).
Javorac (2012) [28]	Young basketball players 16–18 years N = 40 CON = 20 EXP = 20	To determine the effects of CT (10 weeks) on the explosive strength of the legs	SJT TJ SLJ	Univariate analysis of covariance ANCOVA	EXP ↑ SJT, TJ, SLJ CON NS The results confirm the positive effects of CT on explosive leg strength in all three variables, compared to the CON group.
Kukrić et al. (2012) [13]	Junior basketball players 16–17 years N = 30 CON = 10 EXP1 = 10 EXP2 = 10	To examine the effects of CT and PT (10 weeks) on the maximum vertical jump height, body height, body mass, and subcutaneous fat tissue	VJ BH BM SFT	Dependent t-test	EXP1, EXP2 ↑ VJ EXP1, EXP2 NS BH, BM, SFT CON NS NS difference between EXP1 and EXP2 at the final measurement. PT and CT lead to an improvement in the VJ, compared to the CON group. NS difference between the CT and PT in their effectiveness on the development of the VJ.
Nageswaran (2014) [29]	College basketball players 18–22 years N = 30 CON = 10 EXP1 = 10 EXP2 = 10	To determine the influence of PT packages with and without RT (10 weeks) on explosive strength of the legs	VJ	Univariate analysis of covariance ANCOVA	EXP1, EXP2 ↑ VJ EXP1 > EXP2 EXP2 > CON CON NS EXP1 (PT packages with RT) and EXP2 (PT packages without RT lead to an improvement in the VJ; with that, the EXP1 achieved better results compared to the EXP2 group, while the EXP2 achieved better results compared to the CON group.
Roden et al. (2014) [33]	High school basketball players 15.4 ± 1.2 years N = 20 EXP1 = 10 EXP2 = 10	To determine the influence the effect of two different programs of CT (6 weeks) on vertical jump height	VJ	Dependent t-test	EXP1, EXP2 ↑ VJ NS between EXP1 and EXP2 The authors of the study clearly conclude that both types of CT (high–low intensity; low–high number of exercise repetitions) lead to improvement of VJ. CT is effective and safe means for improving VJ which is a key attribute in the basketball.
Nikolić et al. (2017) [32]	Young basketball players 17–18 years N = 31 CON = 15 EXP = 16	To examine the effects of CT (12 weeks) on the sprint abilities	10×5mST SFT S15m	Univariate analysis of covariance ANCOVA	EXP ↑ 10×5mST, S15m NS EXP SFT CON NS CT has a positive effect on sprint abilities, as well as on the development of the capacity COD after a full sprint, compared to the CON group.
Nikolić (2017) [21]	Young basketball players 17–18 years N = 31 CON = 15 EXP = 16	To examine the effects of CT (12 weeks) on the explosive strength of the legs, agility and sprint abilities	SJ CMJ DJ CMJAS TTEST HEX ILIN LAD 10×5mST SFT S15m	Univariate analysis of covariance ANCOVA	EXP ↑ SJ, CMJ, DJ, TTEST, HEX, ILIN, LAD, 10×5mST, S15m NS EXP CMJAS, SFT CON NS The author of the study clearly conclude that CT has a positive influence on the development of explosive strength lower limbs, agility, and sprint abilities, compared to the CON group.
Hasan et al. (2018) [34]	Collegiate basketball players N = 30 EXP1 = 10 EXP2 = 10 EXP3 = 10	To examine the effect of CT (6 weeks) on the angular velocity of shoulder with a program composed of only PT or only WT	AVS	One-way ANOVA	EXP1, EXP2, EXP3 ↑ AVS EXP3 (CT) > EXP2 (PT), EXP1 (WT) The authors concluded that a combination of PT + WT (CT) can improve the AVS in collegiate basketball players more than PT or WT alone.
Freitas et al. (2019) [35]	Semi-professional basketball players 21.3 ± 4.3 years N = 18 EXP1 = 9 EXP2 = 9	To determine the effects on neuromuscular performance of OLT and a novel modified CT (6 weeks) (complex pairs: moderate and an OL) in season	HS HT CMJ SLJ S10m COD BC	Univariate analysis of covariance ANCOVA; Dependent t-test	EXP1, EXP2 ↑ HS, HT EXP1 ↑ S10m, COD EXP2 ↑ SLJ, COD EXP1, EXP2 NS CMJ, BC NS between EXP1 (OLT) and EXP2 (CT) In conclusion, OLT and CT increased basketball players’ strength without the use of heavy loads (>85% 1RM) and without impairing sprint, CMJ and SLJ.
Kukrić et al. (2019) [30]	Junior basketball players 16–17 years N = 20 CON = 10 EXP = 10	To examine the effects of a CT (10 weeks) on the maximal isometric muscle force, its peaking time, and the rate of force development in the semi-squat test	MIF IES	Post hoc analysis (Tukey’s HSD criterion); Dependent t-test	EXP ↑ MIF, IES EXP NS MIFPT CON NS In conclusion, application of the CT method has positive influence on the development of MIF, and the rate of force development.
Shi et al. (2022) [36]	Well-trained collegiate basketball players 20.8 ± 1.4 years N = 21 EXP1 = 11 EXP2 = 10	To examine the differences in neuromuscular performance between variable RT and constant RT within CT (8 weeks)	BS CMJ SJ SLJ S20m S10m	Shapiro–Wilk; Levene’s tests; One-way ANOVA; Repeated-measures ANOVA	EXP1 ↑ BS, CMJ, SJ, SLJ EXP2 ↑ BS, CMJ, SJ NS beetwen EXP1 and EXP2 CMJ, S20m S10m In conclusion, EXP1 (RT within CT) and EXP2 (RT) showed similar improvements in MS. Performing variable RT within a CT program is more efficient to enhance selective power performance.
Biel et al. (2023) [37]	Semi-professional basketball players 18–35 years N = 24 EXP1 = 13 EXP2 = 11	To compare the effectiveness of CT (8 weeks) utilizing intra-CPX active recovery (CMP) on bilateral and single-leg jumping performance, COD, and the PAPE response	CMJ CMJSL SRT	Shapiro–Wilk; Levene’; Mauchly’s tests; Repeated-measures two-way ANOVA	EXP1, EXP2 ↑ CMJSL NS EXP1, EXP2, CMJ, SRT, PAPE response Both training EXP1 (CT), EXP2 (CMP) lead to significant improvements in the CMJSL output of the dominant and non-dominant limbs as well as the height of the non-dominant CMJSL.
Hassan et al. (2023) [31]	Youth basketball players 18–20 years N = 36 EXP1 = 12 EXP2 = 12 EXP3 = 12	To determine the effects of CCT, CT and CE (10 weeks) on some aspects of muscle strength and SA	MBT SA CMS SITUP SLJ SJT	Kolmogorov–Smirnov test; Dependent t-test; One-way ANOVA	EXP1 > EXP2, EXP3 EXP1↑ MBT, SA, CMS, SITUP, SLJ, SJT In tests of muscle strength and basketball shooting ability, the EXP1 (CCT) group out performed the EXP2 (CT) and EXP3 (CE) groups.
Papla et al. (2023) [38]	Senior basketball players 24 ± 6 years N = 26 EXP1 = 13 EXP2 = 13	To compare the effects of a bilateral CT consisting of explosive power with a unilateral one consisting of SS and DJ to LH over sequentially performed CMJ, MATT, and ATS	CMJ MATT ATS	Shapiro–Wilk; Levene’s; Mauchly’s tests; Two-way repeated-measure mixed ANOVA	EXP1, EXP2 ↑ ATS NS EXP1, EXP2 CMJ, MATT In conclusion, bilateral CT, and unilateral CT had no effect on subsequent CMJ and MAT performance. The combinations of exercises, even if they have similar movement patterns, may cause excessive fatigue, resulting in no PAPE effect.
Romadhoni and Yudhistira (2024) [22]	Youth basketball players 17–20 years N = 16 EXP = 16	To investigate the effect of CT (PT + WT) (12 weeks) on aerobic endurance, speed, strength, and agility	VJ MFT S20m LAD AET	Friedman test analysis	EXP ↑ VJ, MFT, S20m, LAD, AET In conclusion, CT provided a significant increase in aerobic endurance, speed, strength, and agility.

Legend: N—Number of participants; CON—Control group; EXP—Experimental group; CT—Complex training; PT—Plyometric training; RT—Resistance training; WT—Weight training; OLT—Optimal load training; CMP—Complex training with compound training; CCT—Core complex training; CE—Core exercise; SJ—Squat jump; CMJ—Countermovement jump; ABA—Abalakov test; DJ—Drop jump; MBT—Medicine ball throw; FMAX—Maximum force; IES—Index of explosive strength; TMAX—Time of maximum force; SJT—Sargent jump test; TJ—Triple jump; SLJ—Standing long jump; VJ—Maximum vertical jump height; 10×5mST—10x5m Shuttle test; SFT—Sprint fatigue test; S20m—Sprint speed at 20m; S15m—Sprint speed at 15m; S10m—Sprint speed at 10m; COD—Change of direction; CMJAS—Countermovement jump arm swing; TTEST—Agility T test; HEX—Hexagon agility test; ILIN—Illinois agility test; LAD—Lane agility drill; AVS—Angular velocity of shoulder; HS—Half squat; HT—Hip thrust; MIF—Maximal isometric muscle force; MIFT—Maximal isometric muscle force’s peak time; BS—Back squat; MS—Maximum strength; PAPE—Post activation performance enhancement; CMJSL—Single-leg countermovement jump; SRT—Shuttle run test; SA—Shooting ability; CMS—Core muscle strength; SITUP—Sit-up abdomen test; MATT—Modified t-agility test; AET—Aerobic endurance test; ATS—Achilles tendon stiffness; SS—Split squats; LH—Lateral hop; MFT—Multi-stage fitness test; BH—Body height; BM—Body mass; SFT—Subcutaneous fat tissue; BC—Body composition; NS—No statistically significant p > 0.05; ↑—Statistically significant improve p < 0.05; p < 0.01; ↓—Statistically significant reduction p < 0.05; p < 0.01; ±—Mean and standard deviation.

, we can see the duration and frequency of the applied complex training programs: 10 weeks (2× per week, 6 studies) [7,13,27,28,29,30]; 10 weeks (3× per week, one study) [31]; 12 weeks (2× per week, three studies) [21,22,32]; 6 weeks (2× per week, three studies) [33,34,35]; 8 weeks (2× per week, two studies) [36,37]. We can see that complex training was most often applied for 10 weeks (7 studies). The frequency of training in all included studies was two times per week, except for the study by Hassan and associates [31], which had a training frequency of three times per week. The data extracted from the selected studies included the following: first author and year of publication, participants, the aim of the research, measuring instruments, statistical analysis, and key findings (see Table 2).

3.3. The Methodological Quality Assessment of the Included Studies

According to the PEDro scale, ten included studies (n = 10) were of high quality [7,21,27,31,33,34,35,36,37,38], six studies (n = 6) were of moderate quality [13,22,28,29,30,32], and no low-quality studies were included in this systematic review (

Table 3. Physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro) score of the included studies.

Reference

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

Santos and Janeira (2008) [7]

+

+

+

+

−

−

+

−

+

+

+

8

Kukrić et al. (2009) [27]

+

+

+

−

−

−

−

+

−

+

+

6

Javorac (2012) [28]

+

+

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

+

+

4

Kukrić et al. (2012) [13]

+

+

−

−

−

−

−

−

+

+

+

5

Nageswaran (2014) [29]

+

+

−

−

−

−

−

−

−

+

+

4

Roden et al. (2014) [33]

+

+

−

+

+

−

−

−

−

+

+

6

Nikolić et al. (2017) [32]

+

+

+

−

−

−

−

−

−

+

+

5

Nikolić (2017) [21]

+

+

+

−

−

−

−

+

−

+

+

6

Hasan et al. (2018) [34]

+

+

+

+

−

+

−

−

−

+

+

7

Freitas et al. (2019) [35]

+

+

−

+

−

−

−

+

−

+

+

6

Kukrić et al. (2019) [30]

+

+

−

+

−

−

−

−

−

+

+

5

Shi et al. (2022) [36]

+

+

+

−

−

−

+

−

−

+

+

6

Biel et al. (2023) [37]

+

+

+

+

+

−

−

+

−

+

+

8

Hassan et al. (2023) [31]

+

+

+

+

+

−

−

−

−

+

+

7

Papla et al. (2023) [38]

+

+

−

−

−

−

−

+

+

+

+

6

Romadhoni and Yudhistira (2008) [22]

+

+

−

−

−

−

−

+

−

−

+

4

Legend: + indicates one point, − indicates no point. (1) Eligibility criteria; (2) Randomization; (3) Concealment of allocation; (4) Between-group homogeneity; (5) Blinded of subjects; (6) Blinded trainers; (7) Blinded testers; (8) Dropout rate < 15%; (9) Intention-to-treat; (10) Statistical between-group comparisons; (11) Point and variability estimates; (12) total scores.

).

According to the MINORS tool, fourteen studies (n = 14) had a low risk of bias [7,13,21,27,28,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38], and two studies (n = 2) had a high risk of bias [22,29] (

Table 4. MINORS tool for assessing the risk of bias of the included studies.

Reference	(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)	(7)	(8)	(9)	(10)	(11)	(12)	(13)
Santos and Janeira (2008) [7]	2	2	2	0	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	22
Kukrić et al. (2009) [27]	2	2	0	2	0	2	0	2	1	0	1	2	14
Javorac (2012) [28]	2	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	1	0	2	8
Kukrić et al. (2012) [13]	2	1	0	2	2	0	2	0	1	0	1	1	12
Nageswaran (2014) [29]	2	0	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	1	6
Roden et al. (2014) [33]	2	2	0	2	2	2	1	2	0	1	2	0	16
Nikolić et al. (2017) [32]	2	2	0	2	1	2	1	0	0	1	1	2	14
Nikolić (2017) [21]	2	2	0	2	0	1	2	2	0	2	0	1	14
Hasan et al. (2018) [34]	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	1	0	20
Freitas et al. (2019) [35]	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	0	2	1	0	2	18
Kukrić et al. (2019) [30]	2	1	0	1	0	2	0	1	0	2	1	0	10
Shi et al. (2022) [36]	2	2	0	2	1	2	2	0	1	2	0	2	16
Biel et al. (2023) [37]	2	2	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	2	22
Hassan et al. (2023) [31]	2	2	0	2	1	2	2	0	1	2	2	2	18
Papla et al. (2023) [38]	2	2	0	2	0	2	2	0	2	2	0	0	14
Romadhoni and Yudhistira (2008) [22]	2	1	0	1	0	0	0	1	0	0	1	0	6

Legend: if not reported 0, when reported but inadequate 1, and when reported and adequate 2. (1) Clearly stated aim; (2) Inclusion of consecutive patients; (3) Prospective data collection; (4) Endpoints appropriate to study aim; (5) Unbiased assessment of study endpoint; (6) Follow-up period appropriate to study aim; (7) <5% Lost to follow-up; (8) Prospective calculation of study size; (9) Adequate control group; (10) Contemporary groups; (11) Baseline equivalence of groups; (12) Adequate statistical analyses; (13) Total score (0/24).

).

4. Discussion

The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effects of complex training on the development of motor abilities in male basketball players. The results of the systematic review clearly show that complex training is an effective method for improving the motor abilities of male basketball players. The practical application of this study is primarily reflected in the fact that basketball coaches, experts in the field of basketball, and sports professionals, in general, will gain new insights into the importance of complex training for developing motor abilities in basketball players. Additionally, this study makes a scientific contribution by providing researchers in the field of basketball with clearer and more recent data on methods for developing motor abilities within the fitness training of basketball players. This research adds to the relatively limited literature on the effects of complex training on the motor abilities of basketball players. Previous studies have primarily focused on the effects of complex training on explosive strength in basketball players. This research, however, provides new information on how complex training affects muscle strength, isometric muscle force, speed, agility, endurance, sprint, shoulder angular velocity, and shooting ability, demonstrating positive effects on these abilities.

As previously mentioned, most studies have examined the explosive strength of basketball players in the form of vertical jumps, and positive impacts have been confirmed. The positive effects of complex training on the explosive strength of the lower extremities are supported by several studies [7,13,21,22,27,28,29,33,35,36], as well as on the explosive strength of the upper extremities (MBT, SA) [7,31]. Roden and associates [33] show that both types of training, complex and resistance (high-low intensity and high-low number of exercise repetitions), yield similar results in improving vertical jump height. However, it should be noted that this study lasted only 6 weeks. Therefore, a combination of exercises with medium load (60–75% 1RM), high load (75–85% 1RM), and submaximal load (85–95% 1RM) can be recommended in basketball, and it primarily depends on the objective, duration, recovery period, volume, and intensity of basketball training. It would be beneficial to conduct a similar study over a 10-week period to achieve more precise and valid results, as most studies (seven studies) applied a complex training method for 10 weeks, with sessions occurring twice per week. Although a large number of included studies confirmed the positive influence of complex training on explosive strength, one study showed the opposite results [37]. Papla and associates [38] indicate the partially positive effects of complex training on explosive strength, where the results showed positive effects on CMJSL, while there was no effect on CMJ. Also, the results of the systematic review cannot confirm with certainty the positive effects of complex training on COD in basketball players because two studies did not confirm positive effects [37,38]. The mentioned studies that obtained different results compared to the other studies included in this systematic review will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter. The authors of this systematic review clearly emphasized in the introduction that the intensity and volume of complex training are very important factors. It should be said that the studies included in Table 2 applied training programs, the intensity of which was in the range (40–100% 1RM), that is, most of the included studies applied complex training (60–95% 1RM) [7,13,21,22,27,28,30,31,32,33,35,36,37,38].

The importance of complex training in basketball is also supported by Freitas and associates [35], who found that complex training positively affects dynamic strength (HS, HT) without impairing sprint (S10m) and jump performance (SLJ), even without the use of heavy loads (>85% 1RM). Shi and associates [36] also confirm the positive effects of resistance training within complex training on maximum strength (BS), as well as on horizontal and vertical jumps (CMJ, SJ, SLJ). This suggests that conditioning coaches can use complex training to counteract strength losses during the basketball season. Similar findings were reported by Kukrić and associates [30], who demonstrated that complex training positively affects the development of the maximum isometric muscle force (MIF, IES).

In addition to its positive impact on explosive strength, isometric muscle force, muscle strength, and shooting ability [31], complex training also enhances agility (TTEST, HEX, ILIN, LAD) and sprinting (10×5mST, S15m, S20m) [21,22,32], as well as aerobic endurance (AET) [23]. However, Biel and associates [37] found that complex training over an 8-week period does not improve COD (SRT) performance. Similar results were observed in a study by Papla and associates [38], which showed that complex training (combining back squats and drop jumps, as well as split squats and depth jumps to a lateral hop) had no effect on explosive strength (CMJ) or COD (MATT) in basketball players. The authors suggest that even exercises with similar movement patterns can cause excessive fatigue, potentially explaining these results. However, a systematic review by Flórez Gil and associates [18] indicates the opposite findings, demonstrating positive effects on explosive strength and COD. Thus, further studies are needed to investigate the effects of complex training on explosive strength and COD in basketball players.

Numerous studies included in this systematic review used samples consisting of two experimental groups that applied and compared plyometric and complex training. Kukrić and associates [13] found no difference in the effectiveness of vertical jump (VJ) performance between plyometric and complex training, whereas Nageswaran [29] reported opposite results, showing that complex training yields better results in VJ compared to plyometric training. It is also worth noting that neither training program caused changes in morphological characteristics (BH, BM, SFT), highlighting the need for more recent research to determine the effectiveness of these training programs in reducing body fat and body mass among young basketball players [13]. On the other hand, Hasan and associates [34] demonstrated that complex training, plyometric training, and weight training all improve shoulder angular velocity (AVS), with complex training being more effective than the other two. This underscores the need for further studies to explore the effectiveness of plyometric, complex, and weight training in enhancing explosive strength, shoulder angular velocity, and other motor abilities.

Therefore, the results of this systematic review clearly show that complex training improves motor abilities in male basketball players. The results of the systematic review are only unclear about the effects of complex training on COD in basketball players, because the included studies obtained different results. However, the findings should be interpreted with some limitations in mind. Notably, there are not many studies specifically addressing complex training for basketball players. Additionally, the authors of this study made general conclusions without first segmenting the participant sample by age (juniors vs. seniors) or competitive level (amateur vs. elite). A recommendation for future researchers on this or similar topics would be to compare the effects of complex, plyometric, and weight training, or compare the effects of complex and contrast training in male basketball players. It would also be interesting to compare the effects of complex training on male and female basketball players, or to examine how complex training affects male basketball players of different ages (juniors vs. seniors) and competitive levels (amateur vs. elite).

5. Conclusions

The main findings of this systematic review, despite some limitations, reveal that complex training contributes to the development of motor abilities in male basketball players. Most studies investigating the effects of complex training have focused on explosive strength, where a positive impact has been demonstrated. Additionally, studies show the beneficial effects of complex training on speed, agility, muscle strength, isometric muscle force, and aerobic endurance. The study’s authors recommend that the most effective programs are 10 weeks long and conducted 2–3 times per week, with a recovery period of at least 48 h between loading the same muscle groups. For the pre-competition period, it is recommended that 3–5 sets of one complex pair; 2–12 repetitions of weight training (70–95% 1RM); and 5–15 repetitions of plyometric exercises are performed at maximum intensity. During the competition season, 1–2 high-intensity complex training sessions per week can be used. The rest period between sets should be 2–5 min, and the rest between similar exercises within the complex should be 30 s, as plyometric exercises should be performed relatively soon after a set of weight exercises. It should certainly be emphasized that, in training practice, a combination of weight training (60–80% 1RM) and plyometric exercises performed at maximum intensity is recommended, or a combination of weight training (90–100% 1RM) and plyometric exercises performed at submaximal intensity. However, the specific complex training programs depend primarily on the team sport and the training objective, basketball player positions on the court, duration, volume, and intensity of training, recovery period, and whether the focus is on developing muscle strength, isometric muscle force, or explosive strength. The practical, theoretical, and scientific contributions of this study lie in providing basketball coaches and experts with clearer and updated information about the importance of complex training and methods for developing motor abilities within the fitness preparation of male basketball players.