Analysis of Errors and Winners in Men’s and Women’s Professional Padel

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I suggest that the authors include the limitations of the research.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the value you give to our work, as it is a great satisfaction for us your recognition. The last paragraph of the discussion is dedicated to the limitations of the study.

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is presented as well constructed and with correct bibliographic reports and citations, with a serious and sufficient mathematical-statistical relationship, I would suggest further analyzes, perhaps in a second moment,  with scientific instrumentations to define the quality of the aforementioned technical gestures. which could be relevant in establishing the correct workloads in training.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the value you give to our work, as it is a great satisfaction for us your recognition. In addition, we will take into account the comments and contributions for future research.

Reviewer 3 Report

This study aims to analyze the errors and winners in men’s and women’s professional Padel. The study is quite interesting with the appropriate analyses and thorough methods. However, some comments and raised issues should be addressed, mainly related to the writing of the manuscript.

Abstract:

·       Abstract would benefit from some numeric data. For example: “Trays and smashes consist of 35% of all last shots in men´s and women´s padel, followed by 28%...”. Or: “In men's padel, there are more winning shots and fewer errors than in women's padel (p < 0.01). The abstract should attract the readers, therefore, it should be interesting.

Introduction:

·       I doubt that padel is one of the most practiced sports in the world. What about running, football, basketball, volleyball, table tennis, or tennis…? In my country (in Europe), there are only several padel courts. Can the authors find some relevant references to this claim? Or authors can say that it increases in popularity. Or it is one of the most practiced sports in some countries.

·       The authors use the word “thus” too often.

·       The fifth paragraph consists of too many of the rules explanations. Authors can simply say that from the 2020 season, the golden point is played after the 40-40 deuce.

·       When presenting the problem and study rationale (sixth paragraph), “necessary to further the knowledge” is not the sentence to be used. Please be more specific in explaining the study problem and rationale. Based on the introduction, it is unclear why it is important to analyze the effectiveness…

Materials and Methods:

·       Study variables – please indicate which ones are dependent and independent variables.

Discussion:

·       The second paragraph has more results than discussion. The authors claim the novelty of the results, which is good. However, these results need thorough elaboration. Authors might try explaining and elaborating these results using similar studies from tennis, table tennis, squash…

·       The third paragraph has a similar problem. Authors simply repeat the results and cite the study that got the same results, followed by the explanation that professional players must train these types of shots. This is not a scientific way to write the discussion. In discussion, we need answers and explanations for them. Why is this the most used shot in men and not in women? Why do padel players select the shots like this?

·       The fourth paragraph is well written and consists of some good elaboration. Use this model to revise the rest of the discussion based on the previous comments.

Conclusion:

·       The Conclusion lacks some recommendations for players and sports practitioners.

·       To increase the significance of this paper, some overall recommendations are needed (something that can be used in other sports). This also implies to the other segments of this manuscript – discussion in particular.

Author Response

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestions, as the comments are pertinent and have been taken into account.

Abtract:

We think the summary is attractive without numerical data. In addition, if we add more information, it would exceed the number of words allowed in the journal's regulations (maximum 200 words).

Introduction:

Padel is one of the most practiced sports, in reference 1 comes the list of countries where it is practiced (more than 50 countries).

The use of the word "thus" has been reduced throughout the document.

So many explanations about scoring rules have been removed.

We are sorry to disagree, but we believe that the problem and the justification for the study is very well explained.

Materials and methods:

We do not see it necessary to indicate whether the variables are independent or dependent because according to a mathematical analysis or another they are considered in one way or another.

Discussion:

In all the paragraphs, we believe that it is necessary to indicate the results. They are always compared with a similar study, indicating the corresponding reference. In addition, a recommendation is given to players and athletes on how to treat these results.

We think that the references should be exclusively about padel studies to give the document specificity. It should not be compared with other sports, as there is a lot of scientific literature on padel.

Conclusions:

Recommendations are given in the discussion.

The results obtained are specific to padel and not to any other sport.

Reviewer 4 Report

I appreciate the opportunity to revise this manuscript.

This study aimed to analyze the factors determining successful performance during padel matches, especifically describing decisive actions for golden point achievement between men and women.

Congratulation for the authors to the lot of work accomplished with data sampling, treatment and presentation. Some general concerns are about the lack of an eligible scientific rationality to investigate the effect of skill frequency on sucessful Padle performance, and to conclude just relating a set of skills with influence on the rate of match win or lose per sex.

Some specific comments are:

#1 – The title is not reflecting what was really analyzed: the Padel skills with ability to determine successful match performance according sex.

#2 – Abstract should present some data information to support the results.

#3 – Please, choose between game or match and apply uniformly.

# 4 – Why changes are already tracked in the text (lines 69 to 73)?

# 5 – Give additional reasons to support how might the frequency of skills assist Padel players and coaches to improve the actual level of performance.

# 6 – one parenthesis is lacking (line 113).

# 7  - The use of the term gender is not recommended to analyze men and women differences in performance.

# 8 – Please, try to figure out more clearly the results highlighting the differences between men and women (from lines 155 to 180). It is not easy to follow!

# 9 – other limitations to be considered are: the technical level; age-group; and conditioning level between participants. Were all these factors controlled?

# 10 – the conclusion just repeated the results. It migh be improved with some practical apllications for players and coaches.

Author Response

We greatly appreciate the value you give to our work, as your recognition is a great satisfaction for us. In addition, we have taken into account the comments and contributions, making changes to the manuscript.

Response to specific comments:

1. We consider that the title of the work, together with the keywords, reflect the objective of the study. Well, the errors and the winners determine the success or effectiveness of the point according to the gender.

2. We have added data to support the results.

3. During the manuscript, it is spoken according to the context about point, game, set and match. these are different terms in padel.

4. Because the manuscript has already been submitted for review before.

5. We believe that enough reasons are given during the discussion.

6. We have included the parenthesis.

7. We believe that the term gender is more appropriate than sex.

8. We have added more numerical data and some more clarification to make it easier to follow.

9. They are professional World Padel Tour players, we believe that their age, technical level, etc. They are not determining factors. In addition, several limitations are described in the last paragraph of the discussion.

10. We have added a paragraph with practical applications in the conclusions.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I`m not pleased with the revised manuscript. In particular, issues regarding the study rationale, discussion, and conclusions. You failed to provide menaingful elaboration on why you disagreed with the reviewer on some of the most critical part of the manuscript (study rationale for example). Furthermore, revisions are not hard to revise for all the issues I`ve suggested.

As a result, I believe that this manuscript in this form is not suitable for publishing in  this journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We have made some more changes, we are sorry that you think it is not suitable for publication in this journal, the rest of the reviewers think that it is suitable.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors

Thank you to address some of my comments.

In fact, I tried to point out during the first round of revision that the manuscript is similar to a scounting analysis during sport matches.

I recognize that this type of analysis is important for coaches to understand players performance, and therefore (re)planning strategies to improve it.

However, from a scientific point of view, the manuscript did not ensured that there are no theoretical flaws when linking the point achivement with a given Padle's skill occurrence. Please, give the reasons demonstrating that findings supports the cause-effect observation, and not a merely casual association.

Please, give the reasons to refute this  

Author Response

Firstly, we appreciate your observations. We know that several factors could affect the result and the game performance. However, in the present study, we try to identify the most used shots to finish the point. Then, we apply the Chi square test, to know the associations between variables. The contingency tables make possible to identify the associations between the categories of the variables through the corrected standardized residuals (CSR). In addition, we have added another statistical analysis. In the variables of type of stroke and effectiveness of the stroke subsequent Z tests were carried out to compare column proportions, adjusting the values of p < 0.05 according to Bonferroni. We hope we have clarified your doubts.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear authors.

Thank you to address my question.

I have no additional concerns,