Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the manuscript is well written except for the minor language corrections. The topic is very interesting as a survey study for coaches and sports scientists to improve the training concepts. In addition, the novelty in this manuscript was the clearance of how we individualize the racket sports players of competition formats to different maturation groups, dependent upon their physical development needs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The purpose of this systematic literature review is to provide a detailed and comprehensive description of the relevant aspects of performance analysis. The article is well written, but some weak points are noted. The authors have done a great deal of work analyzing a lot of scientific work, but the review is to much general, not focused on specific goals and topics. A lot of analyzis, a lot of descriptions, but no key messages or some conclusions. All paragraphs should have some summary, some practical implication of the literature analyzis. Authors should rewrite this review. It should be more conclusive, because now is to general and does not add nothing to the existing knowledge. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,
the manuscript is very interesting because it provides a detailed and comprehensive description of the relevant aspects of sports performance analysis with a focus on racket sports. Since it is a systematic literature review or otherwise called a systematic-like literature review and not an article, I would indicate it in the title.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in current form