Technical-Tactical Performance from Data Providers: A Systematic Review in Regular Football Leagues

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

First of all, I would like to thank the authors for the effort made by the research and writing of the article. It is clear that the only way to advance in knowledge is through research.

However, before conducting a more in-depth and detailed review, trying to improve the detail of some concepts, I consider that the article, in its current version, should be deeply modified in its structure and approach. For this reason, I consider it more effective to present my main arguments and concerns, for once the article has been modified, if the authors consider it so, review some more details.

My main concerns are the following, trying to expose them from more important, or mandatory, to less important.

1. On the results and discussion section ... From my point of view, it is obligatory to split this section into the two traditional chapters, exposing the results of the review on the one hand, and on the other hand, discussing them by comparing the results with each other and with the existing literature.

2. On the objectives and the discussion ... I believe that it is necessary for the authors to reflect deeply and establish greater coherence between the objective of the study and the discussion that takes place. In its current version, there is little relationship between the objective and the discussion, making it necessary to review the latter and order it.

3. At some point, the authors point out that the latest studies related to this topic have been carried out in 2014 (p. 6, l. 1,2 and 3) ... I consider it necessary to modify this perspective, including the review of Sarmento et al (2018), in my view specific to this topic, and modify the discussion based on its inclusion.
This fact seems important to me, because the fact of not including it reflects, in my view, a lack of knowledge that affects the article.
Sarmento, H., Clemente, F.M., Araújo, D. et al. What performance analysts need to know about research trends in association football (2012-2016): a systematic review. Sports Med 48, 799–836 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0836-6

4. I consider it essential to include a study of the quality of the research carried out ... For this, it is recommended to use the following scale, specific to football.
Sarmento, H., Clemente, F.M., Araújo, D. et al. What performance analysts need to know about research trends in association football (2012-2016): a systematic review. Sports Med 48, 799–836 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0836-6

5. About the Method ... In the case of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, I consider it necessary to have a little more depth in them ... Does the level of category of the competition or of the players matter? Are competitions such as World, European Championships, ... excluded? Men and women alike? Only Europe? Do you consider reviews on the topic as a control of the results?

6. Errors have been observed in the bibliographic references. Please revise. For example, p.6, line 47 ... In the same way, errors have been observed in the tables, some expressions appear in Spanish, it is not known what is the order of presentation of the different articles (if by year, if by alphabetical order)

Having established my main considerations, I thank the authors again for their effort, and I encourage them to continue improving the article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Hello.
The article falls both in the area of the field and addresses an interesting topic.
The research presentation is very well done, orderly, explicit and with sufficient bibliographic sources.
The argument and introduction are solid and support the idea of research. The methods are clearly presented, as well as the content of the research (activities).
The conclusions support and result from the research carried out and open new directions for future research.
Congratulations. All the best!.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper deals with the solution of the problem of technical-tactical performance from data providers.

This paper deals with the design of a user interface for an augmented reality system in an industrial context. This paper was well-written and presented a good quality as academic and practical research.

To improve this manuscript I suggested the following corrections: 

• All citations in the text, figures, or tables must be in the reference list and vice-versa.
• i suggest to add to references this work: Fedushko S, Mastykash O, Syerov Y, Peracek T. Model of User Data Analysis Complex for the Management of Diverse Web Projects during Crises. Applied Sciences. 2020; 10(24):9122. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10249122

• The paper should be divided into the following sections: 1. Introduction, 2. Materials and Methods, 3. Results, 4. Discussion, 5. Conclusions

• The paper needs to be better reorganized also in subsections, with better and easier differentiation.

• The way the data is collected lacks validity and reliability. The authors explicitly expressed this problem in the "Limitations" of the study, but I still think it is a very problematic issue.

Also, I suggest adding a concluding paragraph with that, how these main findings of the paper address the challenge of the sustainability.

Thank you for a good job.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My main concerns with the papers are still the same.

1. In the first review, the authors were asked to perform an analysis of the quality of the research carried out in this field. This point is considered mandatory, especially with the methodological evolution that bibliographic reviews are experiencing.
The fact that the authors have not done it in this second review, nor has it been answered in their letter, cannot be favorably understood. Just like your time and his work must be respected and considered, mine, as a reviewer, too. I consider that this is not acceptable, and therefore, I am obliged to reject the article.

Also, I would point out other important aspects that make it difficult to accept the article.

2. The objective of this study was to review the studies on technical-tactical variables. However, for example, the results presented in the abstract do not speak of any technical-tactical variable. The authors talk about the most analyzed leagues, the most used system, or the type of research design, but not about technical-tactical variables. This happens throughout the results and especially in the discussion.

3. I think there is a structural error, either in the title or in the results and discussion raised. The title talks about "Technical-tactical performance of data providers", while the discussion does not talk about technical-tactical variables, but rather the type of studies or the limitations of the data provided by the different companies in charge. to supply the data. I suggest modifying the discussion or writing the title and objective better.

4. The conclusions section begins with the limitations. This is not possible. The conclusions must be drawn up first, and they must be related to the results obtained and not generalities. At the end of this section, the limitations should be indicated, and not the other way around.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for his contributions. All the contributions have improved the article. Especially the first contribution about the 'quality of the studies'. We have worked hard. We hope that the contributions are to your liking.

 

My main concerns with the papers are still the same.

1. In the first review, the authors were asked to perform an analysis of the quality of the research carried out in this field. This point is considered mandatory, especially with the methodological evolution that bibliographic reviews are experiencing.
   The fact that the authors have not done it in this second review, nor has it been answered in their letter, cannot be favorably understood. Just like your time and his work must be respected and considered, mine, as a reviewer, too. I consider that this is not acceptable, and therefore, I am obliged to reject the article.

Also, I would point out other important aspects that make it difficult to accept the article.

 

As indicated, an application of the quality criteria of Sarmento's article has been carried out. The 28 articles have been analyzed under these criteria. The result of the analysis was a quality score. This quality score has been added to the tables. These aspects have been briefly described in the ‘methodology’ section.

A file in word is also attached. This file shows how the criteria have been applied in the 28 articles.

A new section called ‘2.4 Quality of the studies’ has been created.

2. The objective of this study was to review the studies on technical-tactical variables. However, for example, the results presented in the abstract do not speak of any technical-tactical variable. The authors talk about the most analyzed leagues, the most used system, or the type of research design, but not about technical-tactical variables. This happens throughout the results and especially in the discussion.

The technical-tactical variables have been mentioned and specified on several occasions to correct this error. Some examples can be seen in light blue. (Ball possession', 'percentage of duels won' or 'Dribbles' were some of the technical-tactical variables used to determine the differences between the demarcations)

3. I think there is a structural error, either in the title or in the results and discussion raised. The title talks about "Technical-tactical performance of data providers", while the discussion does not talk about technical-tactical variables, but rather the type of studies or the limitations of the data provided by the different companies in charge. to supply the data. I suggest modifying the discussion or writing the title and objective better.

The discussion has been modified by clarifying that:

The technical-tactical variables  (Forwards passes, Passes from defensive third to attacking third, crosses…)  of the studies in the present review are directed, mainly, towards objectives that explain "style of play" of the teams, the influence of "contextual variables "and the technical-tactical differences depending on the "demarcation".

Likewise, the technical-tactical variables are mentioned in all paragraphs of the discussion.

 

4. The conclusions section begins with the limitations. This is not possible. The conclusions must be drawn up first, and they must be related to the results obtained and not generalities. At the end of this section, the limitations should be indicated, and not the other way around.

The conclusions have been reorganized following all the reviewer's recommendations.

1) The results have been specified beyond general conclusions. The results were shown according to the type of analysis and according to the objectives pursued.

2) The order of the conclusion has been reorganized. The new 'conclusion' no longer starts with the limitations .

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx