## 4 Discussion
The present findings provide an interesting snapshot of basketball performance, providing coaches with valuable information on how to manipulate the physical loads of defensive PnR scenarios by applying different tactical strategies. No effect of court location was found for any of the investigated variables. This result is apparently in contrast with a previous investigation [6], where moderately higher PL values were reported during basketball SSGs (i.e., three vs. three, half-court) when executing middle PnR compared to side PnR. A possible reason for this discrepancy might be due to the different analyses performed across studies. Indeed, in the current study, physical load was monitored during official games and considering the two players involved in defending the PnR. Conversely, in the previous study examining three vs. three SSGs [6], the physical load was measured in training settings and for all the involved players, including the third defensive player and the offensive ones. Previous research agrees that the physical loads of official basketball games are higher than those of training [22]. Furthermore, the role of the third player in the PnR action is likely different to the ones played by the two other more involved players, likely leading to different findings compared to previous research [6]. Therefore, the detailed analysis of the current study suggests that the physical load, measured through video-based TMA and IMUs, is similar for the two defensive players directly involved in the PnR when comparing middle- and side-court locations. Another interesting result of the current study is the absence of differences in duration, PL, and PL-min\({}^{-1}\) between switch (duration = 2.50 s; PL = 0.58 AU; PL-min\({}^{-1}\) = 13.3 AU-min\({}^{-1}\)) and drop/ice (duration = 2.29 s; PL = 0.54 AU; PL-min\({}^{-1}\) = 14.2 AU-min\({}^{-1}\))], which are two of the most-implemented defensive tactical strategies on PnRs. The lack of statistical difference was somewhat expected, since neither switch nor drop/ice options represent highly physically demanding tasks for basketball players compared to the trap options [7]. Specifically, during the switch option, defensive players are just required to switch the assigned offensive players, which limits the distance which players have to cover [23]. During the ice/drop option, while a high effort is needed for the screened player to chase the ball handler as fast as possible, this effort is somewhat compensated by the stationary position of the defender with respect to the screener, who is just required to slip into the paint and/or near the free throw line. By contrast, when performing trap defense, both defensive players pressure the ball handler simultaneously, likely increasing their physical load, as shown by a previous study [7] indicating trap defense as the most physically demanding option (compared to switch and drop) when defending the middle PnR during basketball SSGs. However, in the current investigation, we found a limited number of traps performed during official games (n = 22, 8.4%, for middle PnR and n = 8, 7.9%, for side PnR), which did not allow us to include this option in the inferential statistical analysis (i.e., LMM). Therefore, future studies should assess a larger number of games to verify whether the higher physical loads elicited by trap options during basketball SSGs [7] can also be confirmed during official games. Interestingly, the analysis of physical load based on PnR effectiveness demonstrated greater duration, PL, and PL-min\({}^{-1}\) in unsuccessful PnR actions compared to successful ones. No previous investigation assessed the physical load based on PnR outcome during official games, making our results hard to compare. A potential explanation for our results could be the occurrence of unorganized efforts and movements by the defensive players to overcome the offensive PnR advantage.