Analysis of Successful Offensive Patterns in Critical Moments in Men’s EuroBasket 2022 and Women’s 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

 

I am grateful for the opportunity to review the basketball manuscript. After carefully reading the manuscript, I realized that:

 

1 – The introduction does not reveal what is already known about the subject of the manuscript.

 

2 – Based on the theoretical basis, the authors should indicate hypotheses for this study.

 

In the other sections of the manuscript, I realize that the authors did a good job. In view of the above, I suggest minor corrections that do not need to be reviewed again by the reviewer, given the simplicity and ease of the corrections.

 

Best regards,

 

Reviewer.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work analyzed the effectiveness and detect successful patterns on offense at critical moments in the men's EuroBasket 2022 and women's EuroBasket 2021. Overall, the current study brings some recommendations for game strategy and athletic training, but lacks sufficient practical insights. The introduction lacks sufficient information to elucidate the study's background. The authors must reorganize the study's rationale and content to correspond with its objectives and effectively emphasize the study's importance. This can significantly enhance the reader's engagement with the text and acknowledge the study's importance. Previous studies, for instance, have made significant research advancements. The methodology section should include a corresponding motion layout diagram to better explain the methodology process. It is advisable to present the results as a figure, as this will improve visual representation, reader engagement, and paper readability. Kindly refine the conclusions section by eliminating redundancies in the results and providing more substantial recommendations. It is essential to include relevant recommendations in the abstract section, which can elevate the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

none

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.  Please change the format of letter 2.1. Thank you.

2.  Can you explain the blindness between 2 observers, in part 2.4, to make sure the observation was finished independently at the beginning of the manuscript. Thank you.

3.  Why the results of start of play and ending court zone only include one gender? Can you explain further? Thank you.

4.  In line 164, the number of the subtitle 3.2 was written twice.

5.  Can you give further explanations of the effect of physiological responses on the performance of players in lines 250-251. Thank you.

 

6.  If it is possible, please add a graph to show the analysis of the players in the videos, which can be comprehensive. Thank you.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to Applied Sciences. I find this to be an interesting analysis of high level basketball gameplay. I do however have questions regarding this submission before making any recommendations of publication.

 

General Comments:

The very large tables make the readability of the results and early discussion challenging. Please consider submitting these as supplementary tables and remove them from the manuscript itself.

 

Specific Comments:

This manuscript examined a very specific situation of the game with many other factors that could lead to this moment in which all criteria was met. While I understand the rationale of the criteria used, why was no other criteria used in terms of teams shooting percentage for the game, largest margin of score, number of free throws taken in the game, etc?

All of these factors can be contribute to the gameplay strategy used by either the winning or losing side. If a team has made a large comeback by shooting a high number of three point shots, or driving to the basket and obtaining fouls, they may continue on a similar trend. Thus, please explain why more general game statistics were not used in determining inclusion criteria.

 

What is the rationale for view each possession independently rather as a collective as previously has been employed in the literature? While I believe this is a better approach, having your rationale for this methodology explained in either the methods or discussion would be of benefit to the reader and to be used in future investigations.

 

Outside of the methodology used, what about this investigation really sets it apart as providing new information. It appeared that much of the investigation was confirming previous findings (longer possession time for the winning team, losing team looking to move faster, number of passes on successful plays). I would suggest that the authors lean more into the novel aspects of this investigation during the discussion, and where the information from this analysis pushes our understanding forward.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved with revisions, please consider the following. The Y-axis of Figure 3 needs to be adjusted, please increase the font size and clarity. Other figures should also be taken care of to provide readability of the image. Lines 32-34: To provide more effective evidence for basketball, the authors may consider referring to the following relevant studies: Irish Basketball Players: Current Practices, Attitudes, Barriers, and Facilitators to Injury Prevention (https://doi.org/10.5334/paah.374); Accurately and effectively predict the ACL force: Utilizing biomechanical landing pattern before and after-fatigue (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmpb.2023.107761). The other information has been revised in detail and is recommended for acceptance with minor revisions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for your valuable reply, which has resolved many of my questions. I sincerely appreciate it.

I would like to recommend that the authors consider citing the study with DOI 10.3390/nu15030582 in their analysis, as it employs the χ² goodness-of-fit test.

Additionally, I have one point of confusion. In line 298, the authors state: "in contradiction with several authors [51,57–59]." I would like to ask for clarification regarding the statement: "For the two teams, the team in a trailing position executed more transition plays than the leading team." Does this indicate that such a choice reversed the trailing team's performance, enabling them to overcome their disadvantage? Or did it lead the trailing team to continue falling behind until they ultimately lost?

If the latter, I feel that the study may lack significant research value. It would be ideal if the authors could describe how many teams successfully reversed their situation and achieved victory by adopting this strategy. Of course, if such an analysis is particularly challenging to implement, I still fully support the publication of this paper. In that case, I suggest adding further explanations to lines 299–307 to address this context.

Thank you!

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx