The Effects of FIFA 11+ and Harmoknee Warm-Up Protocols on Flexibility, Vertical Jump and Shooting Speed in Female Football Players: A Comparative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
I believe your work is relevant and can help in sports practice. However, I would like to make some suggestions for improvement.
- In the abstract, I believe the information on descriptive measures of the sample should be reduced and more emphasis should be placed on the warm-up exercises. This would make the manuscript easier to understand.
- Figure 1 is unclear and difficult to read.
- On line 177, I think the E is unnecessary.
- On line 178, I think the abbreviation mph should be defined.
- On line 188, you mention Table 2, but I think you are mistaken.
However, despite these minor considerations, I think you should take into account a couple of relevant aspects.
First, the warm-up order and the time between tests are not clear. It may be that the Harmoknee warm-up is influenced by the FIFA 11+ warm-up if it is performed first. This may be one of the study's limitations.
Regarding statistics, I believe the tests were not used correctly. Paired tests should determine the differences between the before and after results for each test, and an independent samples test should be used to compare the results of the two groups. If this was done, it is not well reflected in the text, so I suggest it be written appropriately.
I hope my comments are helpful.

Author Response

Comments 1. In the abstract, I believe the information on descriptive measures of the sample should be reduced and more emphasis should be placed on the warm-up exercises. This would make the manuscript easier to understand.
Response 1. Thank you for pointing this out. We revised as “Harmoknee and the FIFA 11+ neuromuscular warm-up protocols, were applied to the study group on different days (48 hours apart).” and added “Two trials were allowed for each test, with a 3-minute break between trials.”

Comments 2. Figure 1 is unclear and difficult to read.
Response 2. Figure 1 have been revised.

Comments 3. On line 177, I think the E is unnecessary
Response 3. Agree. We revised as “Two trials were given to achieve each player's highest possible grade and the results were recorded in miles per hour (mph) and then converted to km/h [36].”

Comments 4. On line 178, I think the abbreviation mph should be defined.
Response 4. We defined mph as miles per hour on line 190

Comments 5. On line 188, you mention Table 2, but I think you are mistaken.
Response 5. “Table 3” has been changed as “Table 4” on line 202

Comments 6. First, the warm-up order and the time between tests are not clear. It may be that the Harmoknee warm-up is influenced by the FIFA 11+ warm-up if it is performed first. This may be one of the study's limitations.
Response 6. Has been revised as “First, the HarmoKnee warm-up protocol was applied 48 hours after the FIFA 11+ warm-up protocol” on lines 311,312

Comments 7. Regarding statistics, I believe the tests were not used correctly. Paired tests should determine the differences between the before and after results for each test, and an independent samples test should be used to compare the results of the two groups. If this was done, it is not well reflected in the text, so I suggest it be written appropriately.
Response 7. Thank you for pointing this out. The data analysis section was revised and the tests used were corrected: on lines 202-204

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed the article, The Effects of FIFA 11+ and Harmoknee Warm-up Protocols on Flexibility, Vertical Jump and Shooting Speed in Female Football Players: A Comparative Study, which assessed warm-up protocols on various performance outcomes in 14 female football players. 
Abstract: The average athlete height, weight, BMI, and starting age is not needed in the abstract.  Replace with brief descriptions of warm-up protocol and performance measures as well as study design.  Also, the second sentence of the results is not actually a result but a belief – provide direct results only from the study.
Methods: Lines 130-132 are redundant with the info in Table 3.  It can be removed.
Results: Table 3 and Figure 2 are redundant. 
This study was a cross-over design, however, it was not randomized.  Therefore, the order could have played a role in the results. The sample size, study design, and very limited results (sit-and-reach, jump mat, run speed) are not enough for a full article publication but may be a short communication pilot study.  The intro and discussion are written well.

Author Response

Comments 1. Abstract: The average athlete height, weight, BMI, and starting age is not needed in the abstract.  Replace with brief descriptions of warm-up protocol and performance measures as well as study design.  Also, the second sentence of the results is not actually a result but a belief – provide direct results only from the study.
Response 1. Thank you for comment. We removed unnecessary information and revised as " The aim of this study was to compares the acute effects of the FIFA 11+ and Harmoknee warm-up protocols in female football players, on flexibility, vertical jump and shooting speed performance. " And also we revised the second sentence of the results as “…  ”

Comments 2. Methods: Lines 130-132 are redundant with the info in Table 3.  It can be removed.
Response 2. Thank you for comment. Lines 130-132 have been removed.

Comments 3. Results: Table 3 and Figure 2 are redundant. 
Response 3. Thank you for comment.Table 3 and figure 2 have been revised on lines 105 and 137.

Comments 4. This study was a cross-over design, however, it was not randomized.  Therefore, the order could have played a role in the results. The sample size, study design, and very limited results (sit-and-reach, jump mat, run speed) are not enough for a full article publication but may be a short communication pilot study.  The intro and discussion are written well.
Response 4. Thank you for pointing this out. We revised the method section using G power analysis and Cohens d.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript, “The Effects of FIFA 11+ and Harmoknee Warm-up Protocols on Flexibility, Vertical Jump and Shooting Speed in Female Football Players: A Comparative Study.”

The aim was. to investigate the acute effects of the FIFA 11+ and Harmoknee warm-up protocols, known for their injury prevention effects in female football players, on physical performance (flexibility, vertical jump, and shooting speed).

Line 17-19. We are given the characteristics of the sample instead of the criteria for inclusion, exclusion to the study.

Only post-exercise values were measured?

Line 62-65. Since similarities of the programmes are given, it would be good to provide differences between them.

Lines 85-86: Explaining what the Methods section entails is unnecessary.

Lines 92-93: The warm-up protocol was applied in only one session. This part should be better explained.

Lines 100-101: If there is a section on statistics, it is not appropriate to discuss the analysis strategy here.

Line 104: It is unusual to start a paragraph with a direct quote long after its inclusion.

Line 120: In this section, I took the opportunity to improve the wording of the study's inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Lines 129 and 186: There are two tables labeled as Table 3. Please correct this numbering error.

Lines 130-132: This information is already included in the tables and does not need to be repeated.

Line 134: What do you mean by "3 sessions"? Do you mean three sessions for each warm-up program? Please clarify the timing of the intervention.

Lines 155-178: These sections would benefit from an illustrative photo and reliability data for the test used.

Line 186: The results cannot be limited to the placement of a table, which is also incorrectly numbered.

Line 194: The discussion should begin with summarising whether the study objectives were achieved.

The discussion should be completely restructured, as the authors present raw study data without interpretation (e.g., lines 208-210 refer to the study by Trajković et al.).

Additionally, at the beginning of each section, the results are repeated verbatim (e.g., lines 199-202, 232-235, and 271-274).

Author Response

Comments 1. The aim was. to investigate the acute effects of the FIFA 11+ and Harmoknee warm-up protocols, known for their injury prevention effects in female football players, on physical performance (flexibility, vertical jump, and shooting speed)
Response 1. Thank you for your comment. Agree. We revised the purpose statement as “In this study, it was aimed to investigate the acute effects of FIFA 11+ and Harmoknee warm-up protocols, known for their injury prevention effects in female football player, on physical performance (flexibility, vertical jump and shooting speed).” on lines 82-85.

Comments 2. Line 17-19. We are given the characteristics of the sample instead of the criteria for inclusion, exclusion to the study.
Response 2. Thank you for your comment. These lines have been chanced as ”This study involved 17 female football players who volunteered to participate, had no history of medical injuries, maintained regular menstrual cycles (28 ± 2 days, range: 26–33 days) in the three months preceding the study, and consistently engaged in football training.”

Comments 3. Only post-exercise values were measured?
Response 3. Thank you for your comment. In the study, only the post-test was applied and the results obtained between two different warm-up protocols were compared.

Comments 4. Line 62-65. Since similarities of the programmes are given, it would be good to provide differences between them.
Response 4. Thank you for your comment. Agree. We added some informations about differences between FIFA 11+ and HarmoKnee warm-up protocols “Despite their similarities, the FIFA 11+ warm-up protocol includes exercises focusing on core stabilization, dynamic stabilization, and plyometric training, whereas HarmoKnee aims to achieve an optimized movement pattern that reduces stress on the knee joint.” on lines 63-66.

Comments 5. Lines 85-86: Explaining what the Methods section entails is unnecessary.
Response 5. Thank you for your comment. These lines have been removed.

Comments 6. Lines 92-93: The warm-up protocol was applied in only one session. This part should be better explained.
Response 6. Thank you for your comment. Revised. 
Comments 7. Lines 100-101: If there is a section on statistics, it is not appropriate to discuss the analysis strategy here.
Response 7. Thank you for your comment. These lines have been removed.

Comments 8. Line 104: It is unusual to start a paragraph with a direct quote long after its inclusion.
Response 8. Thank you for your comment. Line 104 has been removed.

Comments 9. Line 120: In this section, I took the opportunity to improve the wording of the study's inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Response 9. Thank you for your comment. We revised these line as “Fourteen healthy female football players with no history of medical injuries, in the 2nd or 3rd week of their menstrual cycle, and regularly engaged in football training were included in the study (n= 17; mean age 15,42±1,74).” on lines 127-129.

Comments 10. Lines 129 and 186: There are two tables labeled as Table 3. Please correct this numbering error.
Response  10. Thank you for your comment. “Table 3” has been revised as “Table 4” on line 202. 

Comments 11. Lines 130-132: This information is already included in the tables and does not need to be repeated.
Response 11. Thank you for your comment. These lines have been removed.

Comments 12. Line 134: What do you mean by "3 sessions"? Do you mean three sessions for each warm-up program? Please clarify the timing of the intervention.
Response 12.1. Thank you for your comment. “Three standart tests” have been revised as “Flexibility test, vertical jump and ball speed measurements” on line 140. 
Response 12.2. The timing of the intervention has been explained on lines 154-148. “A standardized 27-minute Harmoknee warm-up program (five phases) and a 20-minute FIFA 11+ warm-up program (three phases) were performed before the tests. The data for the study were collected at 48-hour intervals.
Comments 13. Lines 155-178: These sections would benefit from an illustrative photo and reliability data for the test used.
Response 13. Thank you for your comment. Agree. We added some photos on lines 177 and 192.

Comments 14. Line 186: The results cannot be limited to the placement of a table, which is also incorrectly numbered.
Response 14. Thank you for your comment. The table number has been corrected and the results section has been revised.

Comments 15. Line 194: The discussion should begin with summarising whether the study objectives were achieved
Response 15. Thank you for your comment. The discussion has been revised, starting with a summary of the study objectives. 

Comments 16. The discussion should be completely restructured, as the authors present raw study data without interpretation (e.g., lines 208-210 refer to the study by Trajković et al.).
Response 16. Thank you for your comment. The discussion was restructured by interpreting the results of the studies. Raw study data were removed and replaced with interpretation.

Comments 17. Additionally, at the beginning of each section, the results are repeated verbatim (e.g., lines 199-202, 232-235, and 271-274).
Response 17. Thank you for your comment. These lines have been revised as “When the warm-up protocols were compared, it was observed that the FIFA 11+ warm-up protocol had a statistically significant impact on vertical jump, in comparison to the HarmoKnee warm-up protocol, among female football players (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between FIFA 11+ and Harmoknee protocols on flexibility and shooting speed test values (p>0.05). When the correlation analysis between physical parameters and performance tests was analyzed, it was concluded that the relationship between vertical jump and height; height and body weight; and BMI and height were statistically significant (p<0.05).” on lines 226-233.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Clearly articulate the primary objective in a standalone statement (e.g., "This study compares the acute effects of ...").

Differentiate between injury prevention (the original purpose of the protocols) and performance enhancement (the study’s focus) to avoid ambiguity.

Specific durations for each exercise within phases (e.g., "8 minutes running" in FIFA 11+ Part 1) are missing.

Lack of detail on rest intervals between warm-up and testing, standardization of ball-kicking technique, or radar gun placement for shooting speed.

Provide a step-by-step description of warm-up exercises (including reps/sets).

Specify environmental conditions (e.g., artificial turf type) and ensure test protocols (e.g., radar gun positioning) are replicable.

Small sample size (n=14) reduces statistical power and generalizability. No power analysis provided, raising concerns about Type II errors.

Protocols were administered at 48-hour intervals without counterbalancing, risking fatigue or learning bias.

Researchers conducting tests were aware of the warm-up protocol, introducing measurement bias.

The discussion overrelies on descriptive comparisons (e.g., "34.78±6.87 vs. 32.35±8.93") without contextualizing effect sizes.

Non-significant shooting speed results are appropriately attributed to technical factors (e.g., kicking technique) but lack deeper discussion (e.g., measuring ball speed post-fatigue).

Limited exploration of why FIFA 11+ outperformed Harmoknee mechanistically (e.g., neuromuscular activation differences).

No control for menstrual cycle phases or prior training load, which may influence performance.

The results section is too brief, comprising a single table (Table 3) and a short text summary of key differences between protocols.

Including effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d) would clarify the practical significance of observed differences (e.g., FIFA 11+ vs. Harmoknee flexibility: 34.78 ± 6.87 vs. 32.35 ± 8.93) beyond statistical significance.

Report 95% confidence intervals for mean differences to quantify precision.

Break down results by playing positions (defenders, midfielders, strikers) since training demands differ. 

Explore relationships between variables (e.g., BMI vs. vertical jump, age vs. flexibility).

If collected, integrate heart rate, RPE (ratings of perceived exertion), or electromyography (EMG) data to explain performance differences.

For shooting speed, include metrics like accuracy (e.g., distance from target) alongside speed.

Use scatterplots to show how each athlete responded to FIFA 11+ vs. Harmoknee (e.g., vertical jump gains per protocol).

If shooting speed was measured at intervals post-warm-up, plot speed changes over time to assess performance decay.

Use Boxplots to show distributions of flexibility, jump height, and shooting speed to highlight outliers or skewness.

Since shooting speed lacked significance, analyze whether fatigue (e.g., from warm-up intensity) affected performance.

Note if all athletes completed all phases of both protocols (e.g., attrition/non-compliance).

Author Response

Reviewer 4
Comments 1. Clearly articulate the primary objective in a standalone statement (e.g., "This study compares the acute effects of ...").
Response 1. Thank you for your comment. The primary objective was stated as “The aim of this study was to compares the acute effects of the FIFA 11+ and Harmoknee warm-up protocols in female football players, on flexibility, vertical jump and shooting speed performance.”

Comments 2. Differentiate between injury prevention (the original purpose of the protocols) and performance enhancement (the study’s focus) to avoid ambiguity.
Response 2. Thank you for your comment. Differentiates added to introduction.

Comments 3. Specific durations for each exercise within phases (e.g., "8 minutes running" in FIFA 11+ Part 1) are missing.
Response 3. Thank you for your comment. In Table 1 and Table 2, specific durations for each exercise were revised and added.

Comments 4. Lack of detail on rest intervals between warm-up and testing, standardization of ball-kicking technique, or radar gun placement for shooting speed.
Response 4. Thank you for your comment. The topics have been reviewed and revised in detail. “2-minutes test was given between warm-up and test.” on lines 152, 153. “The kicks were made in accordance with FIFA standards. The kickers were asked to make the most powerful kick targeting the goal with the correct kicking technique (position of the supporting foot, movement of the kicking leg, foot strike, contact with the ball and movement of the upper body). The highest velocity recording device was placed on a 122 cm high fixed tripod, 60 cm behind a standard football goal, directly opposite the target of the player's kick, and captured the data with a handheld radar at a distance close to the target” on lines 183-189.

Comments 5. Provide a step-by-step description of warm-up exercises (including reps/sets).
Response 5. Thank you for your comment. Revised. 

Comments 6. Specify environmental conditions (e.g., artificial turf type) and ensure test protocols (e.g., radar gun positioning) are replicable.
Response 6. Thank you for your comment. Information on environmental conditions (e.g., artificial turf type) and test protocols (e.g., radar gun positioning) have been revised as “Warm-up protocols and performance tests were performed simultaneously (17:00-18:30) on the artificial turf football pitch. On the day the FIFA11+ warm-up protocol was applied, the temperature was 17.2°C, the wind direction was 3.9km/h Northwest and the humidity was 62% and Harmoknee warm-up On the day the protocol was applied, the temperature was 16 °C, the wind direction was 3.8 km/h Northwest and the humidity was 67%.” in  2.1. Study Design section and “The highest velocity recording device was placed on a 122 cm high fixed tripod, 60 cm behind a standard football goal, directly opposite the target of the player's kick, and captured the data with a handheld radar at a distance close to the target.” in 2.4.4. Ball Speed Measurement section.

Comments 7. Small sample size (n=17) reduces statistical power and generalizability. No power analysis provided, raising concerns about Type II errors.
Response 7. Thank you for your comment. G power software was used and revised according to the results.

Comments 8. Protocols were administered at 48-hour intervals without counterbalancing, risking fatigue or learning bias.
Response 8. Thank you for your comment. As the players didnot participate any other training section for risking fatigue or learning bias.

Comments 9. Researchers conducting tests were aware of the warm-up protocol, introducing measurement bias.
Response 9. Thank you for your comment. In order to avoid bias, the process was controlled by being more careful during all measurements.

Comments 10. The discussion overrelies on descriptive comparisons (e.g., "34.78±6.87 vs. 32.35±8.93") without contextualizing effect sizes.
Response 10. Thank you for your comment. The discussion section has been revised 

Comments 11. Non-significant shooting speed results are appropriately attributed to technical factors (e.g., kicking technique) but lack deeper discussion (e.g., measuring ball speed post-fatigue).
Response 11. Thank you for your comment. Some sentences added about technical factors to method section. 

Comments 12. Limited exploration of why FIFA 11+ outperformed Harmoknee mechanistically (e.g., neuromuscular activation differences).
Response 12. Thank you for your comment. New explanations added to discussion in line 322-325.

Comments 13. No control for menstrual cycle phases or prior training load, which may influence performance.
Response 13. Thank you for your comment. Agree. We added some information about the menstrual cycle of participants “Fourteen healthy female football players with no history of medical injuries, in the 2nd or 3rd week of their menstrual cycle, and regularly engaged in football training were included in the study (n= 17; mean age 15,42±1,74) (31).”

Comments 14. The results section is too brief, comprising a single table (Table 3) and a short text summary of key differences between protocols.
Response 14. Thank you for your comment. Results section has been revised.

Comments 15. Including effect sizes (e.g., Cohen’s d) would clarify the practical significance of observed differences (e.g., FIFA 11+ vs. Harmoknee flexibility: 34.78 ± 6.87 vs. 32.35 ± 8.93) beyond statistical significance.
Response 15. Thank you for your comment. Agree. We added effect sizes (Cohen’s d) in Table 4.

Comments 16. Report 95% confidence intervals for mean differences to quantify precision.
Response 16. Thank you for your comment. 95% confidence intervals are reported in table 5.

Comments 17. Break down results by playing positions (defenders, midfielders, strikers) since training demands differ. 
Response 17. Thank you for pointing this out. Due to the different physical and physiological demands, we did not include only goalkeepers in the study. However, we would like to point out that you are correct in your comment about separation by playing position and we would like to take your comment into account in future studies.

Comments 18. Explore relationships between variables (e.g., BMI vs. vertical jump, age vs. flexibility).
Response 18. Thank you for your comment. We analyzed the relationships between variables and revised the results section.  

Comments 19. If collected, integrate heart rate, RPE (ratings of perceived exertion), or electromyography (EMG) data to explain performance differences.
Response 19. None

Comments 20. For shooting speed, include metrics like accuracy (e.g., distance from target) alongside speed.
Response 20. Thank you for your comment. The ball speed measurements section has been revised with detailed information.

Comments 21. Use scatterplots to show how each athlete responded to FIFA 11+ vs. Harmoknee (e.g., vertical jump gains per protocol).
Response 21. Thank you for your comment. We added flexibility, vertical jump and scatterplots of participants according to FIFA 11+ and HarmoKnee warm-up protocols in results section.

Comments 22. If shooting speed was measured at intervals post-warm-up, plot speed changes over time to assess performance decay.
Response 22. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we added about this stiuations as a limitation.

Comments 23. Use Boxplots to show distributions of flexibility, jump height, and shooting speed to highlight outliers or skewness.
Response 23. Thank you for your comment. Revised.

Comments 24. Since shooting speed lacked significance, analyze whether fatigue (e.g., from warm-up intensity) affected performance.
Response 24. Thank you for your comment.  Revised.

Comments 25. Note if all athletes completed all phases of both protocols (e.g., attrition/non-compliance).
Response 25. Thank you for your comment.  We noted that all participants completed all phases of both warm-up protocols.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
I believe the quality and clarity of the work has improved considerably. I suggest some modifications to improve its comprehension. I believe the calculation of Cohen's d should be added to the methodology in the statistical analysis section. I think that the results should be explained briefly as a text in its section and not only in the discussion. Of course, taking into account that the effect size is between moderate and high, it should be reflected, since it speaks about the quality of the work.
Otherwise, I consider the work to be of sufficient quality to be published.

Author Response

Comments 1. Dear authors, I believe the quality and clarity of the work has improved considerably. I suggest some modifications to improve its comprehension. I believe the calculation of Cohen's d should be added to the methodology in the statistical analysis section. I think that the results should be explained briefly as a text in its section and not only in the discussion. Of course, taking into account that the effect size is between moderate and high, it should be reflected, since it speaks about the quality of the work.
Otherwise, I consider the work to be of sufficient quality to be published.
Response 1. Thank you for your comment. We added information regarding the calculation of Cohen's d in the data analysis section. “Cohen's d was used as a measure of effect size, with values below 0.5 reflecting a small effect, values between 0.5 and 0.8 reflecting a medium effect, and values above 0.8 reflecting a strong effect.” 
Response 2. Thank you for your comment. We added a brief explanation of the results as a text in its own section “When the correlation of performance parameters obtained after FIFA 11+ and Harmoknee warm-up programs in Table 6; the relationship between vertical jump and height, height and body weight, BMI and height were statistically significant (p<0.05). No significance was found in other parameters (p>0.05). In addition, Figures 4, 5, and 6 illustrate the scatter plots of the variables based on the warm-up protocols.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have strengthened the paper.

Author Response

Comments: The authors have strengthened the paper.

Response: Thank you for your comment. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Some figures and tables are not referenced in the text (Figures 3 to 6 and some tables). 

Author Response

Comments 1. Some figures and tables are not referenced in the text (Figures 3 to 6 and some tables). 
Response 1. Thank you for your comment. The manuscript has been revised with all figures and tables appropriately referenced.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In v1 the protocols were administered 48 hours apart without mention of counterbalancing. In v2 the manuscript states that “all participants completed all phases” but still does not specify if the order of the warm-up protocols was randomized or counterbalanced.

There is still no indication in v2 that the researchers were blinded to the protocol being administered, so the potential for measurement bias is not mitigated.

v2 now states that participants were in the 2nd or 3rd week of their menstrual cycle, thereby controlling for this variable. Prior training load is still not mentioned explicitly, but controlling the menstrual cycle is a clear improvement.

Although v2 indicates that the playing positions were almost evenly distributed, the results are still not broken down by positions (defenders, midfielders, strikers).

v2 does not integrate any additional physiological measures (such as heart rate, ratings of perceived exertion, or electromyography), so this suggestion remains unfulfilled. in the very least, discuss it as future research.

v2 provides scatterplots but does not add boxplots to depict the distributions or outliers among flexibility, jump height, and shooting speed.

There is no targeted analysis on whether fatigue due to warm-up intensity affected shooting speed performance.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable contribution. We have made corrections according to your reviews.  

Comments 1. In v1 the protocols were administered 48 hours apart without mention of counterbalancing. In v2 the manuscript states that “all participants completed all phases” but still does not specify if the order of the warm-up protocols was randomized or counterbalanced.
Response 1. Thank you for your comment. The sentence “All participants completed all phases of both warm-up protocols” has been revised to “All participants completed all phases of both warm-up protocols in a counterbalanced and sequential manner.”

Comments 2. There is still no indication in v2 that the researchers were blinded to the protocol being administered, so the potential for measurement bias is not mitigated.
Response 2. Thank you for your comment. The statement “The researchers remained neutral towards the protocols and athletes during the implementation phase, avoiding any emphasis on one of the protocols” has been added to the Materials and Methods section, on lines: 103-103.

Comments 3. v2 now states that participants were in the 2nd or 3rd week of their menstrual cycle, thereby controlling for this variable. Prior training load is still not mentioned explicitly, but controlling the menstrual cycle is a clear improvement.
Response 3. Thank you for your comment. It has been assumed that players in the same football team are homogeneous, and as a result, are subjected to a similar training load. Additionally, we added the statement, “The subjects were selected from the same football club and had similar prior training load histories to avoid the effects of different training programs.” on lines: 126-128.

Comments 4. Although v2 indicates that the playing positions were almost evenly distributed, the results are still not broken down by positions (defenders, midfielders, strikers).
Response 4. Thank you for your comment. Considering the age characteristics of the athlete group in our study, we believed that making such a distinction might not align with the purpose of the study, as the athletes are open to development and take on multiple positions. 
We addressed this issue as a suggestion, stating that “Considering these findings, it is recommended that future research investigate the effects of warm-up protocols on football players who play different positions, as position-specific technical skills may influence performance parameters such as shooting speed.” on lines: 347-349

Comments 5. v2 does not integrate any additional physiological measures (such as heart rate, ratings of perceived exertion, or electromyography), so this suggestion remains unfulfilled. in the very least, discuss it as future research.
Response 5. Thank you for your comment. We greatly appreciate your suggestion and agree with your recommendation. Therefore, we added the following statement as a suggestion: “Additionally, incorporating supplementary physiological measurements, such as heart rate, ratings of perceived exertion, or electromyography, could provide a more comprehensive understanding of the protocols' impact on athletic performance.” on lines: 349-352

Comments 6. v2 provides scatterplots but does not add boxplots to depict the distributions or outliers among flexibility, jump height, and shooting speed.
Response 6. Thank you for your comment.  We have added boxplots to illustrate the distributions and identify potential outliers in flexibility, jump height, and shooting speed.

Comments 7. There is no targeted analysis on whether fatigue due to warm-up intensity affected shooting speed performance.
Response 7. Thank you for your comment. A fixed order was maintained for all athletes during the measurements. We believe that the warm-up protocols did not induce excessive fatigue in the athletes. However, in future studies, we will take your suggestions into consideration.