本文選題：第31屆奧運會 + 中國男籃　； 參考：《廣州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：在2016年8月份結(jié)束的第31屆里約奧運會男子籃球比賽中,中國男籃與美國男籃、法國男籃、塞爾維亞男籃、委內(nèi)瑞拉男籃、澳大利亞男籃同分在A組。澳大利亞男籃以4勝1負(fù)小組第二的戰(zhàn)績晉級下一輪,而中國男籃五戰(zhàn)皆負(fù)排名小組墊底慘遭淘汰。以第31屆里約奧運會A組所有參賽球隊的技術(shù)統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)以及中國男籃和澳大利亞男籃與同組其他球隊相互比賽的技術(shù)統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)為調(diào)查對象,通過文獻資料法、秩和比綜合評價法、問卷調(diào)查法、數(shù)理統(tǒng)計法等研究方法對中國男籃與澳大利亞男籃進攻RSR值、防守RSR值和攻防RSR值以及攻防技術(shù)統(tǒng)計指標(biāo);中國男籃與澳大利亞男籃各位置球員技術(shù)統(tǒng)計指標(biāo)排名;中國男籃對陣澳大利亞男籃全場及每節(jié)比賽技術(shù)統(tǒng)計指標(biāo)進行比較分析,研究結(jié)果表明:第31屆奧運會中國男籃和澳大利亞男籃相比,中國男籃球隊平均年齡低于澳大利亞男籃,但擁有參加世界級大賽經(jīng)歷的球員數(shù)量遠遠少于澳大利亞男籃,球員整體經(jīng)驗不足。本屆奧運會男籃小組賽,中國男籃除了場均罰籃排名小組第二;場均蓋帽排名小組第二;場均搶斷排名小組第三;其他技術(shù)統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)基本都排在小組末尾。澳大利亞男籃除了場均罰籃命中率、場均蓋帽、場均搶斷排名小組第五,場均罰籃排名小組第四,其他技術(shù)統(tǒng)計數(shù)據(jù)均排在小組前兩名。澳大利亞男籃進攻RSR值為0.72,排名小組第二,進攻實力為B等級;防守RSR值為0.65,排名小組第三,防守實力為B等級;攻防RSR值為0.75,排在小組第二,攻防實力為B等級。中國男籃進攻RSR值為0.25,排名小組倒數(shù)第一,進攻實力為D等級;防守RSR值為0.43,排在小組倒數(shù)第二,防守實力為C等級;中國男籃攻防RSR值為0.3,排名小組墊底,攻防實力為D等級。本屆奧運會中國男籃攻弱于守,澳大利亞男籃攻守兼?zhèn)�。中國男籃球隊進攻RSR值、防守RSR值、攻防RSR值與澳大利亞男籃相比存在差距。中國男籃與澳大利亞男籃技術(shù)統(tǒng)計指標(biāo)相比,中國男籃除了場均蓋帽、場均搶斷和場均罰籃領(lǐng)先以外,其他項技術(shù)統(tǒng)計指標(biāo)均落后于澳大利亞男籃。在場均助攻和場均籃板球尤其是場均前場籃板球這些技術(shù)指標(biāo)統(tǒng)計上差距明顯。澳大利亞男籃球風(fēng)剽悍,大賽經(jīng)驗豐富,善于跟對手進行身體對抗,利用身體接觸擾亂對手心態(tài)。澳大利亞男籃球員拼搶進攻籃板非常積極,掩護配合高質(zhì)量,在籃板球數(shù)(尤其是進攻籃板球)和助攻數(shù)上遠高于中國男籃。中國男籃跟澳大利亞男籃相比,球員身體對抗能力和大賽經(jīng)驗不足,球員基本功不扎實,團隊配合質(zhì)量較低。小組賽雙方直接交手,暴露出中國男籃替補隊員整體實力、球員(尤其是中鋒位置球員)身體對抗、個人基本功、大賽經(jīng)驗、團隊配合質(zhì)量等方面與澳大利亞男籃的差距。
[Abstract]:In the men's basketball competition of the 31st Rio Olympic Games, which ended in August 2016, the Chinese men's basketball team was in Group A with the American Men's Basketball team, the French Men's Basketball team, the Serbian Men's Basketball team, the Venezuelan Men's Basketball team and the Australian Men's Basketball team. The Australian team advanced to the next round with a 4-1 second in the group, while the Chinese men's basketball team all lost to the bottom of the ranking group in five games Based on the technical statistics of all the teams in Group A of the 31st Rio Olympic Games and the technical statistics of the Chinese men's basketball team and the Australian men's basketball team playing with other teams in the same group, Rank sum ratio comprehensive evaluation method, questionnaire survey, mathematical statistics and other research methods to Chinese men's basketball and Australian men's basketball offensive RSR value, defense RSR value and attack and defense RSR value, as well as attack and defense technical statistical indicators; The Chinese men's basketball team and the Australian men's basketball team each position player technical statistics index rank, the Chinese men's basketball team faces the Australian men's basketball entire court and each section competition technical statistical index carries on the comparative analysis, The results show that the average age of the Chinese men's basketball team in the 31st Olympic Games is lower than that of the Australian men's basketball team, but the number of players with world-class competition experience is far less than that of the Australian men's basketball team. The players as a whole are inexperienced. In the Olympic men's basketball group stage, the Chinese men's basketball team ranked second in the group in addition to the average free throw in the field; second in the group with average blocked shots in the field; third in the group in the steals per game; and most of the other technical statistics were at the bottom of the group. The Australian men's basketball team ranked fifth in the group of steals per game, fourth in the group on average in the field penalty basket, and two in the top two in other technical statistics, in addition to the average shooting rate of the free-throw basket in the field, the average shot in the field per game, the fifth in the group and the fifth in the group. Australian men's basketball team offensive RSR value is 0.72, second group, offensive strength is B grade; defensive RSR value is 0.65, group third, defensive strength is B grade; attack and defense RSR value is 0.75, second in group, attack and defense strength is B grade. The offensive RSR value of Chinese men's basketball team was 0.25, ranking first in the group, and the offensive strength was D grade; the defensive RSR value was 0.43, the second lowest in the group, and the defensive strength was C grade; the RSR value of attack and defense of Chinese men's basketball team was 0.3, which was the bottom of the rank group. Attack and defense strength is D grade. This Olympic Games Chinese men's basketball attack weaker than defense, Australian men's basketball attack and defense both. Chinese men's basketball team attack RSR value, defense RSR value, attack and defense RSR value compared with the Australian men's basketball team there is a gap. Compared with the technical statistical indexes of Australian men's basketball, Chinese men's basketball lags behind Australian men's basketball in other technical statistical indexes, except average cap, average steals in the field and lead in free throw in the field. The statistical difference between the technical indexes of assists and rebounds, especially in the front field, is obvious. Australian men's basketball team, the game experience, good at physical confrontation with the opponent, use physical contact to disrupt the opponent's mentality. Australian men's basketball players are very active in attacking rebounds, covering and cooperating with high quality, far higher in rebounds (especially offensive rebounds) and assists than in Chinese men's basketball. Compared with the Australian men's basketball, the Chinese men's basketball team lacks physical confrontation ability and competition experience, the basic skills of the players are not solid, and the quality of team cooperation is low. The direct exchange between the two sides exposed the gap between the Chinese men's basketball substitute team and the Australian men's basketball team in terms of physical confrontation, personal basic skills, competition experience, team cooperation quality, and so on, including the overall strength of the Chinese men's basketball team, the physical confrontation of the players (especially the players in the center position).
【學(xué)位授予單位】：廣州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：G841

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 康喜來;袁海瑞;;從第31屆奧運會看世界男籃的競爭新格局[J];湖北體育科技;2017年01期

2 丁廣鵬;;第31屆里約奧運會中國男籃與對手攻防能力的對比分析[J];湖北體育科技;2016年11期

3 金超;;第31屆奧運會中國男籃攻防能力TOPSIS分析[J];中國學(xué)校體育(高等教育);2016年09期

4 郭曉芳;;對26屆亞洲女籃錦標(biāo)賽中日女籃比賽情況的分析[J];體育科技文獻通報;2016年03期

5 朱焱;周殿學(xué);;2014-2015賽季中國男子籃球職業(yè)聯(lián)賽季后賽各參賽球隊攻、防能力比較研究[J];中國體育科技;2016年01期

6 王曉春;朱焱;;2014-2015賽季CBA季后賽與非季后賽球隊攻防競技能力比較研究[J];山東體育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2015年03期

7 耿建華;王建剛;;2013-2014賽季CBA聯(lián)賽各參賽球隊攻防競技實力的比較研究[J];中國體育科技;2015年01期

8 張X;;CBA技術(shù)統(tǒng)計員臨場統(tǒng)計要求與各項技術(shù)指標(biāo)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和尺度[J];體育科技;2014年05期

9 王太付;杜少武;查代軍;;第27屆亞洲男子籃球錦標(biāo)賽參賽隊攻防實力研究[J];哈爾濱體育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2014年03期

10 侯向鋒;光暉;李鑫;;第27屆亞洲男子籃球錦標(biāo)賽中國隊與對手攻防實力比較[J];上海體育學(xué)院學(xué)報;2014年02期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 單曙光;對籃球比賽技術(shù)統(tǒng)計規(guī)范和分析評價的研究[D];北京體育大學(xué);2007年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 呂騰騰;2013年男籃歐錦賽八強隊三分球運用的研究[D];北京體育大學(xué);2015年

，

本文編號：2066269