First-Serve Advantage and Emerging Tactical Limitations in Elite U-14 Boys’ Tennis: A Les Petits as Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The paper ‘Serve tactical patterns and effectiveness in elite U-14 international boys’ tennis’ presents an interesting analysis of tactical patterns in U-14 tennis players.

 

The manuscript is clearly and cohesively written and presents interesting results. The instruments used are well described, and the evaluators' reproducibility coefficient is provided.

 

GENERAL COMMENTS:

Title: The title is generic and does not reflect the study's findings. Suggestion: A title more closely aligned with the study's results may be more appropriate.

 

Methods

Sample: The authors presented the total number of points analyzed (971 points) but did not specify the number of players or matches analyzed, nor whether all matches were evaluated. This is important information, as it may indicate a diversity of players (which would be desirable) or the use of a limited sample of athletes (which would reduce the potential for analysis and extrapolation of results).

Additionally, I suggest that the authors include information regarding the players' sex. Although this detail is indirectly mentioned in other sections (boys' competition), it is not explicitly stated in the "Sample" section.

Note: In the "Procedure" section, it is mentioned that data from both boys and girls were recorded, which raises questions regarding other parts of the text and the "Study Limitations" section.

 

Procedure

It would be important to describe how the matches were recorded: what equipment was used, the number of cameras, and their positioning in relation to the court.

 

Results

The results are clearly described, but the tables use a large number of acronyms and abbreviations (previously introduced in the manuscript). I suggest including captions for each figure to ensure they are self-explanatory.

Table 3 – It has an unusual format, and some closing lines are missing.

Figure 2 – I suggest including a caption to make the figure self-explanatory.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript delivers a meaningful analysis of U-14 tennis players' tactical patterns, particularly in serve strategies. The research design is robust, the data analysis methods are fitting, and it offers practical training advice for U-14 players. Still, there's room for enhancement in the introduction, results presentation, and discussion.
1. Line 24: The terms like "serve +1 shot," "serve +1 strokes," "serve +1 sequences," "first shot after the serve," and "serve +1 execution" are used. Please confirm if they all denote the same concept.
2.Paragraphs 2 and 3: The repeated emphasis on the tournament's significance can be streamlined. Summarize its relevance in one clear sentence. Since gender-based differences aren't the study's main focus, consider removing or substantially shortening that section.
3.Line 121: The study centers on male players, yet results from female matches are included. Please clarify or justify this inclusion.
4.When introducing LINCE PLUS software, provide a more detailed explanation or include references. Do the same for THEME 6 Edu software, adding a relevant reference or briefly describing its analytical role.
5.Explain the approach taken to resolve disagreements between observers.
6.Enhance the quality of figures and tables for clarity, in line with the journal's template. Some data points are presently hard to interpret.
7.Figure 2: Verify if the “second service short rally ADVAN” value should indeed be shown as “-.”
8.Lines 262-264: The claim of "a slight advantage of approximately 5% in the success rate when serving from the advantage side" requires further clarification. Please supply the statistical basis for this 5% figure.
9.The discussion's first part is overly lengthy. Consider splitting it into subsections with clear subheadings, mirroring the structured approach in Section 4.1 "Practical Applications."
10.Line 271: The statement on the “T-zone exhibited a higher winning percentage” should specify whether this applies to both first and second serves.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

This is a methodological sound study based on observational analysis of points in a U14 significant for later-career tournament. The statistical analyses and the results were well presented and discussed. The strong point of the study is the pool of data on which the analyses were based, for the reason that it represents points made during a prestigious tournament for U-14 tennis players and therefore, the conclusions would bear practical significance for coaches and players. There are, however, some points to be addressed that could improve the clarity of the manuscript.

Introduction

L61-62: the meaning of the phrase is unclear. I read it like "excelling in emotional regulation" was negative. The connective "while" word here almost implies a contrast. Why would emotional regulation not also have a positive impact on self-confidence?

L69: "higher error rates and missed opportunities for point construction" - do the authors refer to comparing between junior and adolescent players? Please clarify.

L69-78: there is a lot of repetition here. In lines 50-52, there was also referral to the gap in the literature. It is suggested to re-organize this part as to limit repetitions.

Materials and methods

L107-109: the "...various playing possibilities in tennis..." is bit vague, please specify. May be the authors refer to playing patterns or tactics?

L112: may be clarify the word "exhaustiveness" becaus it is highly unlikely that it refers to the state of physical exhaustion.

L127: correct to "...with experience in teaching...".

L135-136: based on Kappa coefficient values, the 1st observer had a greater value. Why was not he the one assessing the study's sample points?

Results

L207: correct to seve from service in Table's 4 legend. Do the same in the 1st row of the Table.

L209, L211, L212, L214, L223: correct to serve from service.

Discussion

Overall comment: The Discussion had 2-3 parts where the phrases involved a bit of repetition with regards to the interpretation of the tactical choices of players. Moreover, It would be nice to have a brief comment on whether the notable differences between the U14 and the U18 and professional players also relates to differences in physical attributes (e.g., less strength, neuromuscular coordination) or it is more associated to lack of experience that may also dictate a more or less aggressive style by a U14 player. 

L227: correct "...or de deuce side" to "...or the deuce side..."

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Thank you for addressing the reviewer comments and revising the manuscript. The responses provided appear to satisfactorily address the points raised.

Regarding specific comments:

Comment 1 (Terminology): The rationale for using varied terminology for "serve +1" instances is noted. Authorial discretion regarding the final choice between consistency and readability is appropriate.
Comment 6 (Figures/Tables): The efforts to enhance figure and table clarity are acknowledged. Nevertheless, further improvements to ensure optimal presentation quality and interpretability are encouraged. Final assessment rests with the editor.