## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{\(\overline{\mathbf{x}}\)\(\pm\)**SD**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\(\mathbf{t}\)} & \(\boldsymbol{p}\) & \(\mathbf{d}\) \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**U16**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pro**} & & & \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{positions} & 1 & 396.57 \(\pm\) 243.90 & 418.24 \(\pm\) 224.97 & \(-\)0.462 & 0.645 & 0.092 \\  & 2 & 339.21 \(\pm\) 252.03 & 484.90 \(\pm\) 280.54 & \(-\)2.732 & 0.007 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.546 \\  & 3 & 303.72 \(\pm\) 212.58 & 501.11 \(\pm\) 276.53 & \(-\)4.002 & 0.001 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.800 \\  & 4 & 332.59 \(\pm\) 224.93 & 433.53 \(\pm\) 238.68 & \(-\)2.175 & 0.032 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.435 \\  & 5 & 423.83 \(\pm\) 251.97 & 475.88 \(\pm\) 299.90 & \(-\)0.940 & 0.350 & 0.188 \\  & 6 & 417.89 \(\pm\) 246.51 & 442.78 \(\pm\) 222.81 & \(-\)0.530 & 0.597 & 0.106 \\  & 7 & 355.52 \(\pm\) 219.33 & 484.25 \(\pm\) 278.22 & \(-\)2.569 & 0.012 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.514 \\  & 8 & 433.80 \(\pm\) 275.35 & 496.51 \(\pm\) 246.36 & \(-\)1.200 & 0.233 & 0.240 \\  & 9 & 335.55 \(\pm\) 203.23 & 412.57 \(\pm\) 238.33 & \(-\)1.739 & 0.085 & 0.348 \\  & 10 & 336.52 \(\pm\) 196.35 & 411.89 \(\pm\) 252.55 & \(-\)1.501 & 0.136 & 0.333 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{angles} & 0\({}^{\circ}\) & 367.89 \(\pm\) 248.42 & 451.57 \(\pm\) 255.20 & \(-\)2.350 & 0.020 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.332 \\  & 45\({}^{\circ}\) & 318.15 \(\pm\) 218.22 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 467.32 \(\pm\) 259.23 & \(-\)4.402 & 0.001 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.623 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 90\({}^{\circ}\) & 420.86 \(\pm\) 248.01 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) & 459.34 \(\pm\) 263.37 & \(-\)1.064 & 0.289 & 0.150 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 135\({}^{\circ}\) & 394.66 \(\pm\) 250.76 & 490.38 \(\pm\) 261.51 & \(-\)2.642 & 0.009 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.374 \\ \cline{1-1}  & 180\({}^{\circ}\) & 336.04 \(\pm\) 198.81 & 412.23 \(\pm\) 267.16 & \(-\)2.288 & 0.023 \({}^{\star}\) & 0.324 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\star}\)Statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)). (\({}^{\star}\)) Angle 45\({}^{\circ}\) vs. angle 90\({}^{\circ}\).  
\end{table} 
Table 6: Between-group comparison for last fixation duration, according to position and angle (times in milliseconds—ms). not relevant for efficacy. Additionally, the same thing happened with the U16 players. Regarding the first fixation duration, longer times were associated with greater efficacy. The U16 group showed significant within-group differences regarding shot angles (first and last fixation times). Among all between-group differences, the most significant ones were in shot position 7, for number of fixations and time of first and last fixation; and positions 8 and 9, for QE time and total fixation time, shot angle 135\({}^{\circ}\) and number of fixations. These positions and angles were on the left side of the basket, while all participants were right-handed. As shooting positions interfere with efficacy in U16 players, further studies should focus on this aspect, to better understand these discrepancies. Thus, based in [PERSON] et al. [47], we can speculate that players shoot using different cycles of perception-action and different strategies to understand the environment in terms of vision in relation to the basketball. Facing this scenario, disturbances imposed on the players when performing the task allow them to find new ways to solve motor problems. This enables us to hypothesize that the problem of individuality is not confined to ideal or standardized techniques, but contains a variety of strategies that may be implemented according to intra-individual variability. Possibly, the perceptions that the player drew from the properties of the context--\"affordances\" [48]--were important to perform this movement. Hence, when considering that \"functional variability\" is associated with the way we affect the task and the player during the performance, it is plausible that this form of \"noise\" may contribute to a better accommodation to the demands of the task [47].