Impact of One Additional Substitution on Player Load and Coaching Tactics in Elite Football

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

the article is interesting. It is focused on a relevant topic given the new approach  of International Football Boards allowing for a more substitutions during the pandemic, and contribute to the debate around the opportunity to extend the transition rules to the period after the end of Covid-19 emergency.

The article is suitable for publication after adjustments that, in my opinion, could make the reading easier and interesting.

Please, check for the following items:

- page 2, row 92. "was conducted" is replicated.

- page 4, in the section "Evaluation of TOS", I think it would be better to use "max_NS" instead of "max. NS". The same is for all the other variables using min or max identifiers.

- page 4, in the section "Evaluation of TOS", I think it would be of interest to add a table summarizing the descriptive statistics of the main variables at single match level, for the Bundesliga and the other Leagues. As example, the average number of substitutions, the LRpS, the rLRpS, the rLR, and so on.

- I wonder why the authors use the Utilization Rate (UR) instead of simply the Number of Substitution (NOS). I think that the reduction of variables and, as a consequences, of acronyms will make the reading easier.

- page 4, equation (3), what is GB? 

The presentation of results of Study I, in my opinion, could be resumed by tables instead of the representation of "numbers" in the parenthesis. I think that once the authors represent the main statistics in tabels (Mean, SD, U, Z an prob associated) the discussion could be better developed.

Actually, in my opinion, Study II, in the way you presented it, seems to be a replication of the Study I, but focused on another topic, the substitution in the extra time. Since nothing of relevant is added to the results emerged in Study I, my opinion is that you can reduce that part in a single paragraph structured differently with respect to Study I section, discussing the substitution attitude in extra time as a special case. I think that it could make the reading easier. 

In the "limitations" section I think that you can stress more the fact that in the study a limited role has been attributed to the closeness of the game that, in my opinion, is crucial both from the player load and coaching tactical perspectives. 

 

I also suggest readings not cited in the article that can improve the discussion of the literature, particularly the 2020 and 2021 publications where the debate is properly around the question if it is the time to change the rules permanently, and I think that this topic must be included in the final considerations of the article.

• Amez, S., Neyt, B., Van Nuffel, F., & Baert, S. (2021). The right man in the right place? Substitutions and goal-scoring in soccer. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 54, 101898.
• Mota, G. R., Santos, I. A. D., Arriel, R. A., & Marocolo, M. (2020). Is It High Time to Increase Elite Soccer Substitutions Permanently?. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(19), 7008.
• Ribeiro, C. F. B., Siqueira, L. D. S., Pinto, D. P., & Silva, C. D. D. (2020). The three and six-substitution rules in football: A preliminary comparative analysis in quantitative replacing, game statistics, win rate and winning probability. Motriz: Revista de Educação Física, 26(2).
• Lorenzo-Martínez, M., Rein, R., Garnica-Caparrós, M., Memmert, D., & Rey, E. (2020). The Effect of Substitutions on Team Tactical Behavior in Professional Soccer. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 1-9.
• Hirotsu, N., & Wright, M. (2002). Using a Markov process model of an association football match to determine the optimal timing of substitution and tactical decisions. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(1), 88-96.
• Rey, E., Lago-Ballesteros, J., & Padrón-Cabo, A. (2015). Timing and tactical analysis of player substitutions in the UEFA Champions League. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 15(3), 840-850.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the evaluation of our manuscript. We are happy that you appreciate the idea and implementation of the study. We also appreciate your helpful and constructive feedback. We tried to carefully edit all of your notes and suggested improvements so that the thoroughly reviewed manuscript will hopefully be accepted for publication in the journal Applied Sciences.

Please see the attachment for our responses and comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper reads like cut and pasted sections of a thesis and not like a scientific manuscript. Please revise, especially the Methods section because it is very difficult to follow. Also, dramatically reduce the number of abbreviations. I cannot follow your results because there are so many abbreviations that are not standard. The paper is very poorly prepared needs major work. The study is not very novel and has very little impact on addressing the concerns expressed in the Introduction.

 

Line 34: Spell out “IFAB” before abbreviating.

Line 40: “….assessed in this study…”

Lines 49-50: “…who surpasses the physical performance…” – Please revise and use more appropriate grammar.

Line 89: Again, spell out “TOS” before abbreviating.

Line 92: Delete “was conducted.”

Lines 95-97: This sentence should be divided into two sentences for ease of the reader.

Line 107: What is ‘Mros’?

Line 119: There are too many abbreviations, that are not standard’ already in this manuscript.

Line 125: ‘min’?

Line 130: Is the questionnaire validated? How was the questionnaire created? Did you pilot it?

Line 186: “fourth substitution”

Line 248-249: You need to categorise the magnitude of effect sizes in the Methods (Statistical Analysis) section.

 

Author Response

Thank you for the evaluation of our manuscript. We also appreciate your helpful and constructive feedback. To address one of the mayor concerns, we have had it proofread by a native speaker now and tried to straighten out the method section. With regard to the abbreviations, we would like to note that writing out every abbreviation would lead to a strong impairment of the reading flow due to lengthy sentences and the prescribed number of words would be far exceeded. We have cut back on some abbreviations and hope they make the method and results section more understandable.

We tried to carefully edit all of your notes and suggested improvements so that the thoroughly reviewed manuscript will hopefully be accepted for publication in the journal Applied Sciences.

Please see the attachment for our responses and comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

DEAR AUTHORS

Manuscript entitled Impact of one Additional Substitution on Player Load and Coaching Tactics in elite Football

Clarity of content and adequacy to scientific language was demonstrated throughout the manuscript. In addition, the manuscript is interesting, however it is necessary to make some considerations.

 

To meet the objective of this study, if possible I suggest that the authors add the following information

 

Is there information about using recovery methods?

There is some data on the relation stimulus (games + training) x rest.

What rest interval between each game?

What rest interval between physical workouts?

What rest interval between games and training?

Did players use any method for recovery?

 

About the cumulative load

Is there information about intensity?

Author Response

Thank you for the evaluation of our manuscript. We are happy that you appreciate the idea and implementation of the study. We also appreciate your constructive feedback and helpful considerations. We tried to carefully answer all of your questions and added resultant improvements so that the thoroughly reviewed manuscript will hopefully be accepted for publication in the journal Applied Sciences.   Please see the attachment for our responses and comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Well done on sufficiently improving the quality of your manuscript. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you again for the evaluation of our manuscript. 

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

DEAR AUTHORS

Discussion
I suggest the authors mention the importance of controlling these variables: 

control of intensity; interval between each game; rest interval between physical workouts; interval between games and training.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you again for the evaluation of our manuscript. 

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx