## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MODEL 1**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**MODEL 2**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Analysis of the Presence**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Analysis of the Presenceof**} \\  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**of Multicollinearity**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Multicololololumn{2}{c}{**Multicollinearity**}} \\ \cline{3-7}  & & **Tolerance** & **VIF** & & **Tolerance** & **VIF** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Model 2**} & \(\Delta\)AS & 0.832 & 1.202 & \(\Delta\)FG\% & 0.996 & 1.004 \\  & \(\Delta\)TO & 0.832 & 1.202 & \(\Delta\)ST\% & 0.947 & 1.056 \\  & & & & \(\Delta\)OR\% & 0.943 & 1.060 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Model 3**} & \(\Delta\)MFT & 1.000 & 1.000 & \(\Delta\)2\% & 0.929 & 1.077 \\  & & & & \(\Delta\)OR\% & 0.828 & 1.208 \\  & & & & \(\Delta\)3\% & 0.605 & 1.652 \\  & & & & \(\Delta\)ST\% & 0.620 & 1.614 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Model 4**} & \(\Delta\)AS & 0.587 & 1.704 & \(\Delta\)2\% & 0.908 & 1.101 \\  & \(\Delta\)MFT & 0.892 & 1.121 & \(\Delta\)OR\% & 0.862 & 1.160 \\  & \(\Delta\)M3 & 0.468 & 2.139 & \(\Delta\)ST\% & 0.876 & 1.142 \\  & \(\Delta\)A2 & 0.755 & 1.324 & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Model 5**} & \(\Delta\)M2 & 0.641 & 1.560 & \(\Delta\)TO\% & 0.961 & 1.041 \\  & \(\Delta\)A3 & 0.830 & 1.204 & \(\Delta\)OR\% & 0.968 & 1.033 \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(\Delta\)DR & 0.743 & 1.345 & \(\Delta\)3\% & 0.942 & 1.062 \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(\Delta\)ST & 0.612 & 1.634 & \(\Delta\)2\% & 0.977 & 1.024 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Model 1: standard parameters; Model II: efficiency parameters; VIF—Variance Inflation Factor; \(\Delta\)A2—2 points attempted; \(\Delta\)M2—2 points made; \(\Delta\)A3—3 points attempted; \(\Delta\)M3—3 points made; \(\Delta\)MFT—free throws made; \(\Delta\)DR—defensive rebounds; \(\Delta\)AS—assis; \(\Delta\)TO—turnovers; \(\Delta\)ST—steals; \(\Delta\)2%—2-point efficiency; \(\Delta\)3%—3-point efficiency; \(\Delta\)FG%—field goal efficiency; \(\Delta\)DR%—efficiency of defensive rebound; \(\Delta\)OR%—efficiency of offensive rebound; \(\Delta\)TO%—inefficiency of turnover; and \(\Delta\)ST%—efficiency of steal.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._successful team offense, as well as the final result, are dependent on \"the quality of player decision-making and shot execution as well as upon team coordination\" [18]. Research in women's basketball has shown a correlation between shooting efficiency parameters and game outcomes [14; 18; 25; 26; 34; 53]. As regards the structure of shooting efficiency recorded by standard parameters in the observed competitions, the results show that the two-point field goal percent appears as a variable affecting the final result in six of them (AfroBasket being an exception). The difference in points scored from two-point field goals was retrieved in the second iteration of Model 1 for all observable competitions (\(\beta\) = 0.421; \(p\) < 0.000; \(\mathrm{r_{p}}\) = 0.552) with R\({}^{2}\) = 0.683 and in the first iteration at EuroBasket (\(\beta\) = 0.727; \(p\) < 0.000; \(\mathrm{r_{p}}\) = 0.727) with R\({}^{2}\) = 0.529. The first iteration of Model 2 extracted the two-point field goal percentage at the Olympic Games (\(\beta\) = 0.517; \(p\) < 0.007; \(\mathrm{r_{p}}\) = 0.517) with R\({}^{2}\) = 0.237, the World Cup (\(\beta\) = 0.676; \(p\) < 0.007; \(\mathrm{r_{p}}\) = 0.676) with R\({}^{2}\) = 0.443, and the AmeriCup (\(\beta\) = 0.674; \(p\) < 0.000; \(\mathrm{r_{p}}\) = 0.674) with R\({}^{2}\) = 0.433. In other words, variables affecting two-point field goal shooting efficiency in women's representative competitions accounted for 23.7% to 52.9% of the observed occurrences. Furthermore, the difference in the two-point field goal percent was derived in the fifth iteration of the observed contests and the fourth iteration of the EuroBasket. The difference in the number of two-point field goal attempts (\(\Delta\)A2) was retrieved in the fourth version of the Asia Cup.