Handball Offensive Analysis: Comparative Evolution of Linear Tendency Lines between Finalist Teams in the EHF CL

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Questions for authors:

Bearing in mind that the analysis refers to matches played 5-10 years ago, to what extent are the findings relevant in 2022?

Can the results obtained from the analysis help to develop a game model and/or a training model for handball players?

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Strengths:

The handball matches played at the highest continental level (Europe) are analysed, the EHF Champions League being recognized as the best interclub competition in the world;

Handball is, in Europe, one of the most loved team sports;

The study is relevant, because 35 matches were analyzed;

The authors conducted the study in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, which was approved by the ethics committee.

 

R: We would like to acknowledge your valuable comments.

 

 

 

Weaknesses:

The analysed matches are those played 5-10 years ago (2012-2017);

Thank you very much for this important topic. In fact, you are right. Nerveless, this study is the result of a PhD thesis developed in before the time that the rules changed. The publication of this study can be important to understand the evolutionary tendencies of the game. This aspect is now referred to in the article, accompanying the conclusions, limitations and future research section. Hopefully accordingly to the expectations and suggestions by the reviewer.

 

The study has no objectives and no working hypotheses/research questions are formulated;

 

R: Changed accordingly and new information concerning these aspects are introduced in this revised version of the paper

 

Some of the conclusions are evident (Finally, we concluded that winning teams have more regularity during the competition. Due to the expected increased difficulty in successive matches, tendency lines tend to present decreasing slope as one advances towards the final. Nevertheless, winning teams need to adapt to the increasing challenge, describing growth in some key indicators, being more regular than others.)

 

R: Thanks for detecting this. The new information has been introduced.

 

 

Questions for authors:

Bearing in mind that the analysis refers to matches played 5-10 years ago, to what extent are the findings relevant in 2022?

 

R: Appreciate your feedback. Mas o estudo continua relevante devido ser identificado em estudos recentes (Þorgeirsson, S., Pic, M., Lozano, D., Sigurgeirsson, O., Sekulic, D., & Saavedra, J. M. (2022); Kim, H. (2021). ) the same variables and methods of data collection that we used for the differentiation between the teams, thus remaining current the data obtained in our research.

 

 

Can the results obtained from the analysis help to develop a game model and/or a training model for handball players?

R: Thank you for your question. And yes, this model of success can be applied in training, because we can identify the main key factors of teams that have achieved not only victory but also sporting success. And by identifying the main variables it is now up to the coaches to apply training that aims to improve and effectiveness of these variables so that they can also obtain their sporting success.

Hopefully accordingly to the expectations and suggestions by the reviewer.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is of special relevance to the elite handball community as it represents the highest level of play.

 

Here are my comments and suggestions for editing

 

Overall I feel this research has several weak points that need to be addressed

 

-       The objectives must be revised as it refers to the teams (many and different involved), „...analyse the evolution of the finalist teams in five (5)“. Since the winners and teams are different each year, the focus should be on the performance of the teams in the stages, not the teams.

-       For me, the changes observed in score between QF, SF, and Finals can at least partially be explained by the occasion rather than the quality of the opposition

-       Therefore we would be looking for a psychological theory to explain this change between the stages of competition if this analysis is to be pursued further.

-       The most interesting trend can best be viewed in comparison to the group stages as there we might see more distribution in quality and a trend emerging. This is way more work, but it's hard to say each game is linearly increasing in difficulty as performances vary and the opposition´s strengths can play out differently according to the current opponent, especially in the final stages (QF-SF-F).

-       The data is from before the important change in rules regarding the substitutions of the 7th player. The work has defiantly less significance now the before the rule change since the game has evolved, especially at the top level.

-       The assist is likely to be correlated with the higher score of the winners, - is it not?

- Coefficient of determination (R2) and Person correlation is not adequate statistics test for this data

Author Response

The topic is of special relevance to the elite handball community as it represents the highest level of play.

 

Here are my comments and suggestions for editing.

 

Overall I feel this research has several weak points that need to be addressed.

 

R: We would like to acknowledge the valuable comments of the reviewer.

 

-       The objectives must be revised as it refers to the teams (many and different involved), „...analyse the evolution of the finalist teams in five (5)“. Since the winners and teams are different each year, the focus should be on the performance of the teams in the stages, not the teams.

 

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

 

-       For me, the changes observed in score between QF, SF, and Finals can at least partially be explained by the occasion rather than the quality of the opposition;

 

-       Therefore we would be looking for a psychological theory to explain this change between the stages of competition if this analysis is to be pursued further.

 

R: Thank you very much for your point of view. This is very interesting considering your suggestion. Nerveless, our point of vie concerning this paper is centered in match analysis. Performance trends and the way in which they evolve over space and time is something that still deserves a great depth of study from a linear and non-linear point of view, and this exploratory study represents only a small contribution, which we hope to see more consolidated and replicated in the future. Thus, the authors face great difficulties in justifying an eventual “Psychological Theory” for the change between the stages of competition if this analysis. However, notwithstanding the foregoing, this aspect certainly deserves further investigation, something that is now proposed in the new version of the article, in detail. Hopefully accordingly to the expectations and suggestions by the reviewer.

 

 

-       The most interesting trend can best be viewed in comparison to the group stages as there we might see more distribution in quality and a trend emerging. This is way more work, but it's hard to say each game is linearly increasing in difficulty as performances vary and the opposition´s strengths can play out differently according to the current opponent, especially in the final stages (QF-SF-F).

 

R: Agreed! We assume this question as a clear opportunity to improve the study, which can also be optimized in future research. This aspect is now referred to in the article, accompanying the conclusions, limitations and future research section. Hopefully accordingly to the expectations and suggestions by the reviewer.

 

 

-       The data is from before the important change in rules regarding the substitutions of the 7th player. The work has defiantly less significance now the before the rule change since the game has evolved, especially at the top level.

 

R: Thank you very much for this important topic. In fact, you are right. Nerveless, this study is the result of a PhD thesis developed in before the time that the rules changed. The publication of this study can be important to understand the evolutionary tendencies of the game. This aspect is now referred to in the article, accompanying the conclusions, limitations and future research section. Hopefully accordingly to the expectations and suggestions by the reviewer.

 

-       The assist is likely to be correlated with the higher score of the winners, - is it not?

- Coefficient of determination (R2) and Person correlation is not adequate statistics test for this data.

 

R: Thank you very much for your interesting point of view! We apologize, but this proposal would imply a substantial change in the statistical analysis of the data. In this regard, we humbly ask the reviewer to take into account the limited time we have to carry out this review (i.e., around 10 days). Given this situation, if necessary, the authors are willing to withdraw data from the statistical analysis. Hopefully accordingly to the expectations and suggestions by the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

first, I would like to thank you for your study. Covering the sport of team handball and applying a current approach in this field is exciting and appropriate.

Before discussing certain specifics, I have a few general questions to understand your approach.
My biggest comprehension problem is to understand why linear trends are expected for both EHF Champions League finalists. Since both teams won their previous matches and the second placed team must have lost the final, linear tendencies in the preliminary rounds and in case of the loser a break in linearity in the final should be expected, right?
I would be grateful for an explanation of the underlying thought in the response letter - or perhaps even integrated into the post.

My further comments in detail are
1 Introduction
Consider changing the order of paragraphs 4 and 5, because the focus on the sport of team handball is varying in these two.
After line 80, a break in the content is to be noted. It is difficult for the reader to immediately switch from team handball to a specific method that has not been mentioned before.
In lines 90-96 it is very difficult for me to understand why you conclude your hypothesis based on the literatur you summarized before.

2 Materials and Methods
Words seemed to be missing in lines 98-99.
What are the reasons for you to chose especially these five competitions (and why five)? (lines 100-101).
Maybe you could add the variables analysed in some kind of appendix (lines 102-106).
Do you have Cohen's Kappa for every single variable (lines 118-120)?
Lines 121-123 are redundant (lines 114-117).

3 Results
Maybe you could add a reason why you divide the results in that way (lines 125-132).
An additional mentioning of the dispertion of the values in text, tables and figures could lead to additional value since the data become more interpretable.
Table 1: Year seems to be a wrong header.
Figures: Could you add the data points? I am not sure if there's a linear tendency between the single points.
Lines 161-162 belong to the methods-section in my opinion.
Lines 166-167 contain a judgment that does not belong in the result part.

4 Discussion
I cannot follow the first paragraph since I don't know how assists are defined here. Is this variable indenpendent from the variable of goals scored?
Did you check your variables for interdepencies?

5 Conclusions
Maybe you could comment on the relevance of different context variables (type of defence, values of the opponent, venue, ...) to interpret your results?
Line 338: SPSS is just a software and has not to be reduced to linear statistics.

Kind regards

Author Response

Dear authors,

first, I would like to thank you for your study. Covering the sport of team handball and applying a current approach in this field is exciting and appropriate.

Before discussing certain specifics, I have a few general questions to understand your approach.
My biggest comprehension problem is to understand why linear trends are expected for both EHF Champions League finalists. Since both teams won their previous matches and the second placed team must have lost the final, linear tendencies in the preliminary rounds and in case of the loser a break in linearity in the final should be expected, right?
I would be grateful for an explanation of the underlying thought in the response letter - or perhaps even integrated into the post.

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your review.

 

“My biggest comprehension problem is to understand why linear trends are expected for both EHF Champions League finalists. Since both teams won their previous matches and the second placed team must have lost the final, linear tendencies in the preliminary rounds and in case of the loser a break in linearity in the final should be expected, right?
I would be grateful for an explanation of the underlying thought in the response letter - or perhaps even integrated into the post.”(please, see conclusions).

 

 

R: Thank you! Agreed. Please, see conclusions and limitations.

 

Dear Reviewer,

Again:

I would like to thank you for your review.

My further comments in detail are
1 Introduction
Consider changing the order of paragraphs 4 and 5, because the focus on the sport of team handball is varying in these two.

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

After line 80, a break in the content is to be noted. It is difficult for the reader to immediately switch from team handball to a specific method that has not been mentioned before.

In lines 90-96 it is very difficult for me to understand why you conclude your hypothesis based on the literatur you summarized before.

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

 

2 Materials and Methods
Words seemed to be missing in lines 98-99.

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

 

What are the reasons for you to chose especially these five competitions (and why five)? (lines 100-101).

R: Thank you for your comment. The five competitions were analyzed to follow the same number of competitions used in study 29.

Maybe you could add the variables analysed in some kind of appendix (lines 102-106).

R: Thank you! Agreed. Although the variables analyzed were based on cited reference 29, they are now also inserted in the new Appendix C.

Do you have Cohen's Kappa for every single variable (lines 118-120)?

R: Thank you! Yes. It was done for all variables and what was inserted in the text was the average of all Cohen's Kappa.

Lines 121-123 are redundant (lines 114-117).

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

3 Results
Maybe you could add a reason why you divide the results in that way (lines 125-132).

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

An additional mentioning of the dispertion of the values in text, tables and figures could lead to additional value since the data become more interpretable.

Table 1: Year seems to be a wrong header.

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

Figures: Could you add the data points? I am not sure if there's a linear tendency between the single points.

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

Lines 161-162 belong to the methods-section in my opinion.

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

Lines 166-167 contain a judgment that does not belong in the result part.

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

4 Discussion
I cannot follow the first paragraph since I don't know how assists are defined here. Is this variable indenpendent from the variable of goals scored?

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

 

Did you check your variables for interdepencies?

R: Thank you! Agreed. Please, see conclusions and limitations.

5 Conclusions
Maybe you could comment on the relevance of different context variables (type of defence, values of the opponent, venue, ...) to interpret your results?

R: Thank you! Agreed. Please, see conclusions and limitations.

 

Moreover:

 

“My biggest comprehension problem is to understand why linear trends are expected for both EHF Champions League finalists. Since both teams won their previous matches and the second placed team must have lost the final, linear tendencies in the preliminary rounds and in case of the loser a break in linearity in the final should be expected, right?
I would be grateful for an explanation of the underlying thought in the response letter - or perhaps even integrated into the post.”(please, see conclusions).

 

 

R: Thank you! Agreed. Please, see conclusions and limitations.

Line 338: SPSS is just a software and has not to be reduced to linear statistics.

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thanks for the reply. It is my opinion that the manuscript is still facing major weaknesses that warranted the rejection in the first round.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, I understand and thank you for your interest. Thank you very much.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for the fast and sound editing and answering.

I still don't get why you look for a linear tendency for the second-placed teams (as I would expect a non-linear graph there). But that may be due to a misunderstanding on my part.

My further comments in detail are
1 Introduction
Fine for me.

2 Materials and Methods
lines 108/109: Thy did you exclude these variables?
Your other decisions are now much easier to follow when you reason them by citing the study you are relying on.
Appendix C helps be, but only a bit. Since you gathered your data by observing (I guess), I am missing written operationalization of the observation elements (for example the clear definition of "assists"). Could you add them?
line 124: For a sound check for objectivity, I recommend to either present all Kappa values or at least the lowest ones (therefore, no bad values can be hidden by averaging with good values).

3 Results
I am still missing values describing the dispersion for the presented average-data-points (Table 2 and all Figures). It's hard to decide whether a mean value makes sense without knowing the dispersion of the single values.

4 Discussion
lines 215-216: I am sorry to confuse you: I did not want you to provide a definition here. In my opinion, this has to be defined in the appendix or the methods section right from the start.

5 Conclusions
Fine for me.

Kind regards

Author Response

Dear authors,

thank you for the fast and sound editing and answering.

I still don't get why you look for a linear tendency for the second-placed teams (as I would expect a non-linear graph there). But that may be due to a misunderstanding on my part.

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your review.

My further comments in detail are
1 Introduction
Fine for me.

R: Thank you!

2 Materials and Methods
lines 108/109: Thy did you exclude these variables?

R: Thank you! Yes it was excluded because we only analyse the shots.

Your other decisions are now much easier to follow when you reason them by citing the study you are relying on.

R: Thank you!

Appendix C helps be, but only a bit. Since you gathered your data by observing (I guess), I am missing written operationalization of the observation elements (for example the clear definition of "assists"). Could you add them?

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly in appendix C.

Line 124: For a sound check for objectivity, I recommend to either present all Kappa values or at least the lowest ones (therefore, no bad values can be hidden by averaging with good values).

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly. Insert a table 1

3 Results
I am still missing values describing the dispersion for the presented average-data-points (Table 2 and all Figures). It's hard to decide whether a mean value makes sense without knowing the dispersion of the single values.

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly. We apologise, but we had doubts about what was being requested. We hope that it complies with the request. In the Tables, it seems that this data is already inserted. We have added the respective values in the figures.

 

 

 

4 Discussion

lines 215-216: I am sorry to confuse you: I did not want you to provide a definition here. In my opinion, this has to be defined in the appendix or the methods section right from the start.

R: Thank you! Agreed. Changed accordingly.

5 Conclusions
Fine for me.

R: Thank you!

Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,
my last minor questions/remarks are:

2 Materials and Methods
lines 108/109: Did you mention anywhere before that you focus onlye on the shots? Maybe that should be clear in the title or at least in the introduction?

3 Results
Concerning the dispersion: Are the m-values describing the dispersion? I could not find any source helping me how to interpret them. I expected some kind of standard deviation. Are the values in table 2 not mean-values?

All the best

Author Response

 

 

Reviewer 3

 

 

Dear authors,
my last minor questions/remarks are:

 

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to thank you for your review.

2 Materials and Methods
lines 108/109: Did you mention anywhere before that you focus onlye on the shots? Maybe that should be clear in the title or at least in the introduction?

R: The variables that were mentioned have been removed only for the analysis of the effectiveness of the shots, in the other variables these values are maintained.

3 Results
Concerning the dispersion: Are the m-values describing the dispersion? I could not find any source helping me how to interpret them. I expected some kind of standard deviation. Are the values in table 2 not mean-values?

R: Thank you! Agreed. Please, see in the table 2 and 3 the DP is insert.

 

All the best