Do the Best National Padel Players Form the Best Teams? Analysing the 2024 World Championships

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study addresses the relationship between individually ranked padel players and the team performance in the 2024 World Padel Championship. The methods and stats section are simple but well documented. The authors have presented the relevant data in the results section and identified the limitations of the study. However, there are a few major concerns that first need to be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted.

This includes the lack of theory in the introduction and a lack of comparative discussion related to the theory in the discussion.

 

Introduction provides a brief history of the sport of padel and its growing popularity. The gap in the research is identified. The introduction does however lack in theory. This section would be greatly improved with the inclusion of theory underpinning the individual versus team perspective.

 

Results

Please use actual p values for the post hoc analysis in this section of the table.

Post-hoc Tests (FIP Rank- ing Avg)	Top > Mid, Top > Bot- tom (p < .05)	Top > Mid, Top > Bottom (p < .05)
Post-hoc Tests (FIP Points Total)	Top > Mid, Top > Bot- tom (p < .05)	Top > Mid, Top > Bottom (p < .05)

 

Discussion

The discussion lacks integration with the theory. It also lacks a comparison of the relationship between individual performance or skill and team performance.

 

There is a high artificial intelligence detection. I am not sure to what extent this related to plagiarism. The authors need to address the matter with the editor.

Author Response

AUT.- First of all, we would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and for their constructive comments. We appreciate the time and effort they put to improve the quality of our work. We have carefully considered each suggestion and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide detailed responses to each point raised.

We inform the editors and reviewers that all the changes in the manuscript are marked with RED font.

 

REVIEWER 1

 

REV.- The study addresses the relationship between individually ranked padel players and the team performance in the 2024 World Padel Championship. The methods and stats section are simple but well documented. The authors have presented the relevant data in the results section and identified the limitations of the study. However, there are a few major concerns that first need to be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted.

This includes the lack of theory in the introduction and a lack of comparative discussion related to the theory in the discussion.

AUT.-

We thank the reviewer for their constructive feedback and for highlighting key areas for improvement. In response to the concerns raised, we have revised the manuscript to strengthen the theoretical grounding in the introduction and expanded the discussion to better situate our findings within existing literature.

 

REV.- Introduction provides a brief history of the sport of padel and its growing popularity. The gap in the research is identified. The introduction does however lack in theory. This section would be greatly improved with the inclusion of theory underpinning the individual versus team perspective.

AUT.- We have modified the introduction by adding a few more paragraphs to strengthen the theory.

 

Results

REV.- Please use actual p values for the post hoc analysis in this section of the table.

Post-hoc Tests (FIP Rank- ing Avg)	Top > Mid, Top > Bot- tom (p < .05)	Top > Mid, Top > Bottom (p < .05)
Post-hoc Tests (FIP Points Total)	Top > Mid, Top > Bot- tom (p < .05)	Top > Mid, Top > Bottom (p < .05)

 AUT.- Thank you for this valuable comment. We have reworked this section of the results to enhance both clarity and precision. Modifications have been made to the corresponding table as well as the accompanying text in the results section, with particular attention given to the precision of p values and the clarification of the statistical tests employed.

 

Discussion

REV.- The discussion lacks integration with the theory. It also lacks a comparison of the relationship between individual performance or skill and team performance.

AUT.- The Discussion section has been revised to include additional paragraphs that contextualize the results within the theoretical frameworks previously cited in the introduction, particularly those addressing the distinction between individual and team performance dynamics.

 

REV.- There is a high artificial intelligence detection. I am not sure to what extent this related to plagiarism. The authors need to address the matter with the editor.

AUT.- We appreciate the reviewer’s concern. As none of the authors are native English speakers, we used artificial intelligence tools solely to assist with improving the grammar, clarity, and overall readability of the manuscript. All scientific content, ideas, interpretations, and conclusions are entirely our own and original. No AI-generated content was used to produce results or form arguments.

We understand the importance of transparency and integrity in academic publishing and are happy to provide further clarification or work with the editor if needed.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Below is a detailed review organized by key areas

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Review 1

 

AUT.- First of all, we would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and for their constructive comments. We appreciate the time and effort they put to improve the quality of our work. We have carefully considered each suggestion and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide detailed responses to each point raised.

We inform the editors and reviewers that all the changes in the manuscript are marked with RED font.

REVIEWER 2

 

Abstract

REV.- Line 16: Explain FIP abbreviation. For me, FIP stands for Federación Internacional de Pádel– because it was founded in Madrid (Spain) and it had to be in Spanish language. In English is International Padel Federation (IPF). I saw on the official website that they mostly use FIP as abbreviation, except for Documents (I saw there IPF as the chosen abbreviation).

Choose one of these two abbreviations (the more logical one) and apply it in manuscript, everywhere.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment. we used FIP because it is the most commonly used abbreviation, even in English, “FIP” is also used to categorise the professional tour (FIP Bronze, Fip Silver, …) and the ranking (FIP ranking). We added the explanation of the abbreviation with both the original name (Federación Internacional de Pádel) and the translation in English (International Padel Federation).  

 

REV.- Line 26 and 27: „..Belgium and the Netherlands (men) and Portugal and Argentina (women)” This should be clarified. I assume that both Belgium and the Netherlands refer to men. However, one can assume it only refers to the Netherlands. Same goes for Argentina.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment. We revised the wording: “Balanced ranking distributions were observed in male teams such as Belgium and the Netherlands and in female teams such as Portugal and Argentina.”

 

Introduction

REV.- Please, in this section explain in more details Padel competition disciplines. Are there singles, or only doubles (mixed or not mixed pairs)? What is team in Padel? Two players form the team, or is it maybe the same as a team in Artistic gymnastics? Do it for the readers.

AUT.- Thank you for this helpful suggestion.
In line 41 of the manuscript, we already clarify that padel is played in doubles. To further explain the structure of national team competition, we have now added the following sentence to the Introduction:

“Additionally, players compete not only for personal success, but for their team and country, facing unique psychological and social pressures [23]. In each tie, three doubles pairs from one team (i.e., country) face three pairs from the opposing team, with the nation that wins at least two matches claiming victory in the tie.”

We believe this addition clarifies that each pair is composed of two players, and that all selected players represent a national team (i.e., a country). It is also worth noting that in some padel literature, the terms “pair” and “team” are used interchangeably to refer to the doubles unit (i.e., two players), depending on the context.

Regarding the question of mixed versus gendered competition: we believe this is already clear in both the Abstract and the Methods section, where we specify, “Data from 16 men’s and 16 women’s teams…” To ensure even greater clarity, we have revised the final paragraph of the Introduction to state:

“The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the quality of national padel teams—quantified by the individual rankings and points of their players—and their final team placements in the 2024 World Padel Championships held in Qatar, in both men’s and women’s competitions.”

 

Materials and Methods

REV.- Line 78: At the end of first paragraph, you mention International Padel Federation. There you should add its abbreviation – FIP or IPF.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

REV.- Line 92: Please, provide explanations for these two abbreviations: SD and IQR.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

REV.- Line 98: Please, specify which ANOVA. You mentioned in the Results it is one-way ANOVA (Lines 171 and 172).

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

 

Results

REV.- Table 1: At the end of the table, replace Note with Legend, and add FIP or IPF (it depends), UAE and USA, besides SD and IQR.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

 

REV.- Table 2: Similar, only without UAE.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

 

REV.- Line 117: ...(Figure 1) – Please, capitalize letter F.

Line 123: ...(Figure 2) – Please, capitalize letter F.

Line 141: ...(Figure 3) – Please, capitalize letter F.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

 

REV.- Line 146: Please, mention Figure 4 in this paragraph.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

 

REV.- Line 148: Sweden, instead of Sewden.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

 

REV.- Line 156: Female, not Male.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part

 

REV.- Lines 162 and 163: Please, place the results of correlation analysis (Pearson) in brackets, for both men and women.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

 

REV.- Lines 165 and 166: Please, place the results of correlation analysis (Spearman) in brackets, for both men and women.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

 

REV.- Line 171: ...(Table 3) – Please, capitalize letter T.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

REV.- Line 173: Please, place the ANOVA results in brackets, for both men and women.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

 

REV.- Lines 176 and 177: Please, place the results of Kruskal-Wallis test in brackets, for both men and women.

AUT.- Thank you for this comment, we revised this part.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors evaluated the relationship between the quality of national padel teams in terms of FIP ranking and their final team placements in the 2024 World Padel Championships. The results demonstrated a strong correlation between the individual player quality and team performance.

Despite the author’s effort, I reckon the paper is not suitable for publication since it is characterized by very low scientific relevance.

The application of quiet standard statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA, Pearson and Spearman coefficient, Kruskal-Wallis) to not scientific data (e.g., FIP ranking and placement in tournaments) do not provide a solid scientific relevance justifying the publication in a peer-review scientific journal. Therefore, I suggest deeply revising the whole study.

As minor revisions, I suggest improving the data visualization of the results substituting the tables with some plots.

Author Response

Review 1

 

AUT.- First of all, we would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript and for their constructive comments. We appreciate the time and effort they put to improve the quality of our work. We have carefully considered each suggestion and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide detailed responses to each point raised.

We inform the editors and reviewers that all the changes in the manuscript are marked with RED font.

REVIEWER 3

 

REV.- In this paper, the authors evaluated the relationship between the quality of national padel teams in terms of FIP ranking and their final team placements in the 2024 World Padel Championships. The results demonstrated a strong correlation between the individual player quality and team performance.

Despite the author’s effort, I reckon the paper is not suitable for publication since it is characterized by very low scientific relevance.

The application of quiet standard statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA, Pearson and Spearman coefficient, Kruskal-Wallis) to not scientific data (e.g., FIP ranking and placement in tournaments) do not provide a solid scientific relevance justifying the publication in a peer-review scientific journal. Therefore, I suggest deeply revising the whole study.

AUT.- We respectfully disagree with the reviewer’s assessment of the scientific value of this study. While we acknowledge the use of standard statistical techniques (e.g., Pearson correlation, ANOVA), these methods are commonly employed in applied sport sciences when analysing performance outcomes based on objective, real-world data — particularly in emerging sports or disciplines where controlled experimental data are not yet abundant.

Importantly, FIP rankings, FIP ratings, and tournament placements are official and standardized metrics widely used to determine player status and team success in elite padel. Similar proxies (e.g., ATP/WTA rankings and ratings in tennis, FIFA rankings in football, medal counts or placements in Olympic studies) have been widely used in previous peer-reviewed literature as legitimate performance indicators.

 

Furthermore, the study provides novel insight into how national federations might optimize selection criteria for international competitions. This applied focus is particularly relevant given the rapid global expansion of padel, with over 30 million players and growing institutional support.

 

To further strengthen the manuscript’s scientific contribution, we have:

• Added theoretical grounding related to individual vs. collective performance frameworks (see revised Introduction and Discussion).
• Acknowledged the exploratory nature of this study and proposed future directions for multi-dimensional performance modelling (e.g., match stats, tactical adaptability, psychological factors).
• We have included some references in the methods section regarding the use of the performance metrics.

We hope these clarifications and improvements address your concerns and highlight the relevance of the topic within the growing field of performance analysis in emerging sports.

 

 

REV.- As minor revisions, I suggest improving the data visualization of the results substituting the tables with some plots.

AUT.- We thank the reviewer for this observation. However, we respectfully disagree and maintain that the current format of result presentation is appropriate. Graphical plots were employed to illustrate the various types of distributions analysed across teams, as they effectively capture patterns in the data. Conversely, tables were used to present the seed, FIP ranking, and FIP point totals for each team, as this format is more suitable for conveying precise numerical values and facilitating direct comparison. In our view, the use of tables for these specific variables represents the most accurate and comprehensible method of presentation.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have prepared an excellent, well-structured manuscript that addresses a relevant and original research question in the growing field of padel science. The analysis is sound, the methodology is appropriate, and the discussion is well-grounded in the literature. Most of the significant issues appear to have been resolved in the previous round of review. The current review focuses on refining the presentation, clarifying minor points, and ensuring consistency throughout the manuscript. In this regard, I would like to direct the revision process as follows:
Introduction
This is comprehensive and makes a convincing case for the relevance of the study.
The suggestion is as in the paragraph where it is stated that “only eight players [are] selected per national team”. It would be useful to add a brief justification for this choice (e.g., “…as per the competition regulations, which mandate a squad size of eight players…”).
In Discussion:
On page 10, line 247, the sentence “This could explain why two national teams with players who have similar FIP rankings might still finish at different positions” is a bit speculative, as your study did not directly test tactical adaptability. Rephrase slightly to better reflect the limitation of the study: “Future research should investigate if such tactical adaptability…”.
Congratulations on an excellent paper.

Author Response

Do the best national padel players form the best teams? Analysing the 2024 World Championships

 

Review 3

 

AUT.- First of all, we would like to sincerely thank the new reviewer for his/her careful reading of our manuscript and history of prior reviews and for his/her constructive comments. We appreciate the time and effort he/she put to improve the quality of our work. We have carefully considered each suggestion and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide detailed responses to each point raised.

 

We inform the editors and reviewer that all the changes in the manuscript are marked with RED font.

 

REVIEWER 4

 

REV.- The authors have prepared an excellent, well-structured manuscript that addresses a relevant and original research question in the growing field of padel science. The analysis is sound, the methodology is appropriate, and the discussion is well-grounded in the literature. Most of the significant issues appear to have been resolved in the previous round of review. The current review focuses on refining the presentation, clarifying minor points, and ensuring consistency throughout the manuscript. In this regard, I would like to direct the revision process as follows:

AUT.- We thank the new reviewer for the time and effort dedicated to evaluating our work.

REV.- Introduction

This is comprehensive and makes a convincing case for the relevance of the study.
The suggestion is as in the paragraph where it is stated that “only eight players [are] selected per national team”. It would be useful to add a brief justification for this choice (e.g., “…as per the competition regulations, which mandate a squad size of eight players…”).

AUT.- Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have now clarified that the squad size is determined by the official competition regulations. The sentence has been revised as follows (line 70):

With only eight players selected per national team, in accordance with the official competition regulations, the competition is fierce, and each athlete’s performance contributes to the overall team outcome.

 

REV.- In Discussion:

On page 10, line 257, the sentence “This could explain why two national teams with players who have similar FIP rankings might still finish at different positions” is a bit speculative, as your study did not directly test tactical adaptability. Rephrase slightly to better reflect the limitation of the study: “Future research should investigate if such tactical adaptability…”.
Congratulations on an excellent paper.

AUT.- Thank you for this insightful comment. We agree that the original phrasing may have suggested a stronger causal interpretation than warranted by the data. We have revised the sentence to frame it as a potential hypothesis and future research direction, as follows (lines 257-260):

“This may partly explain why two national teams with players who have similar FIP rankings might still finish at different positions. Future studies could explore whether tactical adaptability during match play contributes to such differences in team performance.”

In addition to revising the main sentence as suggested, we also reflected this limitation in the Limitations and Future Studies section by noting that tactical adaptability was not directly measured and could be a factor explaining differences in performance between similarly ranked teams (lines 313-315):

“Additionally, this study does not account for the role of coaching strategies, team cohesion, or adaptability to match conditions, which can all be critical factors in high-level team competitions. In particular, tactical adaptability—i.e., the ability to adjust strategies dynamically during matches—was not measured, although it may help explain differences in performance among teams with similarly ranked players.”

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all my concerns. 

Author Response

Thank you very much. We are happy to hear that.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper, the authors evaluated the relationship between the quality of national padel teams in terms of FIP ranking and their final team placements in the 2024 World Padel Championships. The results demonstrated a strong correlation between the individual player quality and team performance.

This is the second version of the manuscript.

Despite the author’s effort, I still believe the paper is not suitable for publication since it has low scientific relevance. I reckon the application of standard statistical tests to not scientific data do not provide a solid scientific relevance justifying the publication in a peer-review scientific journal: maybe a conference one could be more suitable.

Author Response

Do the best national padel players form the best teams? Analysing the 2024 World Championships

 

Review 2

 

AUT.- First of all, we would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their careful reading of our manuscript once again and for their constructive comments. We appreciate the time and effort they put to improve the quality of our work. We have carefully considered each suggestion and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Below, we provide detailed responses to each point raised.

 

We inform the editors and reviewers that all the changes in the manuscript are marked with RED font.

 

REVIEWER 3

 

REV.- In this paper, the authors evaluated the relationship between the quality of national padel teams in terms of FIP ranking and their final team placements in the 2024 World Padel Championships. The results demonstrated a strong correlation between the individual player quality and team performance.

 

This is the second version of the manuscript.

 

Despite the author’s effort, I still believe the paper is not suitable for publication since it has low scientific relevance. I reckon the application of standard statistical tests to not scientific data do not provide a solid scientific relevance justifying the publication in a peer-review scientific journal: maybe a conference one could be more suitable.

 

AUT.- We thank the reviewer again for the time and effort dedicated to evaluating our work. We respectfully disagree with the view that the data analysed in this manuscript lack scientific value or relevance.

 

Our study uses standard but widely accepted inferential statistical procedures to test a clear and relevant hypothesis: whether national team performance in the World Padel Championships can be predicted by player-level FIP rankings and ratings. While these metrics may not come from a controlled laboratory setting, they are official, standardized indicators of sporting performance, analogous to ATP/WTA rankings in tennis or FIFA rankings in football, and are widely used in both practice and published research in sports sciences.

 

Furthermore, the practical implications of these findings are considerable. In team-based competitions in padel (and also in other sports like tennis), clubs and federations invest substantial financial resources in recruiting players based on rankings, with the expectation of improving team results. This is the case of national leagues or international championships, where success often translates into sponsorship, institutional funding, and player salaries. Understanding whether individual player rankings effectively predict team performance provides critical insight for decision-makers, and filling this knowledge gap is aligned with the goals of applied sport science.

We believe that future studies should adopt more complex models including tactical, psychological, and contextual variables. However, we also believe that our current approach represents a methodologically rigorous, hypothesis-driven, and practically relevant contribution to the literature on performance analysis in an emerging sport in which scientific literature is limited.

 

We kindly hope this clarifies the rationale and scientific merit of the study.

 

Specifically in the manuscript, we have added one paragraph in the introduction (lines 57 to 65):
Beyond sporting prestige, national team selections carry significant economic implications [22]. Federations often invest substantial financial resources to recruit and support players based on rankings and perceived individual quality, aiming to improve their chances in international competitions [23]. These decisions impact not only sporting success but also institutional funding, sponsorship agreements, and athlete contracts. Similar dynamics can be observed in professional club competitions, where player rankings influence recruitment [24]. Therefore, understanding whether individual player metrics—such as rankings and points—predict collective performance has not only scientific value but also direct practical relevance for stakeholders in high-level padel.

 

We have added one paragraph in the discussion (lines 289 to 299):

Also, from an applied perspective, these findings may help guide team selection and recruitment strategies in federations and private clubs, where decisions are often based on individual rankings. Studies across European football show that team sporting rankings are significantly associated with financial returns, implying that clubs’ investments in high-ranked players often yield measurable economic outcomes [42–44]. Given that many clubs allocate considerable budgets to sign high-ranked players for team competitions, confirming a statistical association between individual rankings and collective outcomes offers valuable evidence to support or refine such investment decisions. In this regard, our results contribute not only to the academic understanding of team performance but also to its economic implications in professional padel.

 

And also one paragraph in the limitations and future studies subsection of the discussion (lines 319 to 324):

In addition, while this study highlights potential economic implications related to player recruitment and team composition at the national level as seen in previous studies in football [42–44], these aspects were not directly measured. Future research could explore the financial impact of selection strategies—such as investment in high-ranked players or team-building policies—on national federation budgets, sponsorships, and long-term performance outcomes.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf