# How to Optimize Training Design? A Narrative Review of Load Modulators in Basketball Drills
## 3 Discussion of the Present Evidence  
### Space Constraints  
The playing space appears to be a fundamental and critical variable in regulating exercise intensity [25, 28, 29, 31]. The physical and physiological demands of the drills can be influenced by modifying or restricting absolute or relative playing spaces (m\({}^{2}\)/player) [32].  
Several studies compare SSGs played in full-court versus half-court settings, either with different combinations of players or with the same number of players in each drill. These studies reveal that although the absolute distance may increase, if the relative distance does not--meaning more space but also more players--the difference in intensity, measured as a percentage of maximal heart rate (HR) between 3v3 and 4v4 drills, is minimal [43]. However, when the number of players remains constant, but the playing area expands (resulting in increased relative distance), significant differences emerge between the various SSGs [37]. In a study by [28], 5v5 drills were compared across different spaces: half-court (HALF), half-court with transition (HTRAN), and full-court (FULL). Their findings suggest a correlation between larger playing areas and increased distance covered, as well as heightened intensity in variables such as Player Load (PL), maximum speed reached, high-intensity accelerations (\(\geq\)2 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-2}\)), and high-intensity decelerations (\(\leq\)\(-\)2 m\(\cdot\)s\({}^{-2}\)). Particularly, notable differences were observed between HALF drills compared to HTRANS or FULL. It was noted that with a larger playing area and the same number of players, overall intensity was higher. In HALF drills, compared to FULL, there were fewer instances of variables such as total distance covered, PL, maximum speed, high-intensity actions, accelerations, and decelerations at high intensity, with only the total number of accelerations and decelerations in HALF drills showing higher values than FULL. When comparing HALF with HTRANS, all variables were higher in HTRANS drills. Comparing HTRANS with FULL, it was observed that HTRANS drills achieved higher values in maximum speed, total number of accelerations and decelerations, and maximum acceleration, while FULL drills achieved higher values in total distance covered, PL, high-intensity actions, accelerations, and decelerations. Therefore, it could be concluded that when the playing dimensions are reduced, the applied load on the player is lower. This disparity in results between drills can be attributed to the fact that in HTRANS and FULL drills, a second playing option is allowed, such as a counterattack, transition, or positional attack on the other field, resulting in greater distances to cover.  
In this regard, other studies [44] also found that full-court 3v3 and 5v5 drills accumulated the highest PL when compared to similar half-court drills. However, for specific variables (such as accelerations per minute), it was observed that half-court drills might be more targeted. For instance, 2v2 drills, in particular, and half-court 5v5 drills showed the highest acceleration load per minute among all the SSGs studied. These findings align with the hypotheses of other authors who, on one hand, attribute higher intensity to drills with fewer players (2v2) [24, 25] and, on the other hand, to more specific tasks (5v5) [45]. When quantifying drill load, it is important to separately assess the physical or biomechanical load and the physiological load, as it appears that confined space and opposition situations increase biomechanical load, whereas full-court scenarios elevate physiological load.