## 4 Discussion
Some limitations need to be considered: (1) Data were collected from a single basketball team comprised of 17 young basketball players, which limits generalizability to other basketball populations; (2) the post hoc power analysis calculation highlighted the lack of power for most of the variables, being sufficiently powered to detect changes only in RD (m\(\cdot\)min\({}^{-1}\)). Hence, a bigger sample size or number of observations would be needed to detect differences in those back-to-back scenarios; (3) in addition to well-being scores, no internal load data, such as heart rate, were measured; (4) the 60 s time epoch was exclusively used to investigate the PD of match-play; (5) no minimum time duration was established related to the acceleration and deceleration obtained values; (6) and finally, periods when the clock was stopped were included in the analysis. While high-intensity actions can occur during the five seconds allowed to restart play, contributing to the external load, this aspect requires further study. Additionally, periods when the referees have the ball and there is no team movement or interaction should be excluded. However, the ecological validity of this type of study is of great use to optimize the training in a club with very particular characteristics and with a unique model that works with players who will play in the Euroleague basketball league. Regarding PD and back-to-back scenarios, future research should examine the internal and external load of different populations (e.g., young, professional, female players) participating in game-congested tournaments considering the analysis of different match-specific time epochs, such as 30 or 90 s, to understand better the basketball performance during competition. The current research findings indicate that most average physical demands (HSR, ACC, and DEC) and the PD of basketball match-play are unaffected during U-18 back-to-back basketball games. The fact that only the average RD decreased during the second game could indicate that players may cope with high-intensity physical demands and try to manage their volume during extensive low-intensity actions. Players could train at higher intensities for longer to avoid this RD reduction during games. Simultaneously, the player's well-being did not decrease throughout the weekend. Together, these results may indicate quasi-optimal physical preparation for back-to-back basketball games. Finally, our findings suggest that basketball performance should be examined from multiple angles, considering more aspects than external (average and peak physical demands) and perceptual responses (Hooper index) to understand the players' performance better. Strength and conditioning coaches applied sports scientists, and basketball coaches should consider that RD parameters significantly decrease in the second U-18 back-to-back games. Likewise, the other dependent variables (HSR, ACC, and DEC) should be considered during average and peak physical demands. These ideas should not be generalized and can only be applied in the context of the examined and unique club model. Lastly, the added value of our research could be that the number of kilometers that U-18 basketball players cover presents a decrease in our specific context.