Profile of Accelerations and Decelerations in Young Basketball Players

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study analyzed the accelerations and decelerations profile of U18 male players. This is an interesting study with possible practical implications for researchers and coaches. The authors collected a significant amount of data from 94 players, and for that, I congratulate the authors.  

My main critiques are: 

The extension of the manuscript is too long (this is not a thesis), which makes it hard to read. You present a long introduction, sometimes repeating the same ideas; please shorten it and be more concise and direct to the point. The discussion is the same; the first paragraph only repeats your study goals. It’s not clear which are your main results here. Try to be more concise and direct (and take some text that repeats information or doesn’t bring anything new). What’s your best result from the study? Highlight the principal results and discuss them later. The conclusion part, four paragraphs?  

Study limitations (and not “study limits”): “players who participated more than 6 min within a quarter” Did all the players (in the study) play the 4 quarters at least 6 min? Nevertheless, different players played different game times, and this should be considered in the limitations since the time of the game could impact their ability to perform the accelerations and decelerations.  

You presented a practical applications section (and you did well); however, the suggestions seem superficial. How can coaches implement your results in daily practice? Can you present specific advice for training the Guards, Forwards and Centers players? You suggest high-intensity training, but should aerobic training also be considered? In order for the players to hold their capacities during the whole game and not decrease their acceleration and deceleration performances?

My last main critique is to highlight what novelty your work brings to the literature (mainly comparing with the two articles you cited [3 and 20] with U18 too. 

 

“ACC and DEC” should be defined in the abstract and in the text on the first appearance. 

“Genders” change to sexes. 

“Petway, Freitas, Calleja-González, Leal and Alcaraz [14] conducted…” This way of citing takes a lot of work to read. Maybe “Petway et al. [14]” it’s better. Correct along the text these citations

Abstract

Lines 32-34 – When you say something differed, tell the reader which was higher/lower or best/worse.

“Distance covered depended on maximum ACC and DEC, initial velocity on covered distance, and final velocity on maximum ACC and DEC, distance, and initial velocity.” These are naturally well-related variables. I don’t know if it makes sense to highlight it in the abstract.

Lines 105-107 – when you talk about differences, tell which are (at least which group is higher/lower or best/worse)

Line 152 – Design

Line 216 – Correct to: According to the Rico-González et al. [45] guidelines, the use… (don’t use "," before et al. along the text)

In Figures 1 and 2, I suggest using other colours to highlight the differences between moderate and high.

Line 331- avoid using “us” or “we” to make the text more scientific. 

Line 339 – “This fact should be considered by coaches to personalize their preparation". Ok, how? 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

This study analyzed the accelerations and decelerations profile of U18 male players. This is an interesting study with possible practical implications for researchers and coaches. The authors collected a significant amount of data from 94 players, and for that, I congratulate the authors. 

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you for your words and time spent reviewing this article. This document will include your appreciations and the modifications made by the authors considering your comments. We hope that the changes will be in accordance with your expectations. Your contributions have improved the quality of the article considerably. To facilitate your work, all corrections to the article are shown in red.

 

Point 1. My main critiques are:

The extension of the manuscript is too long (this is not a thesis), which makes it hard to read. You present a long introduction, sometimes repeating the same ideas; please shorten it and be more concise and direct to the point. The discussion is the same; the first paragraph only repeats your study goals. It’s not clear which are your main results here. Try to be more concise and direct (and take some text that repeats information or doesn’t bring anything new). What’s your best result from the study? Highlight the principal results and discuss them later. The conclusion part, four paragraphs? 

Response 1: Thank you for your comments.

We regret that the length of the manuscript was too long for the reviewer. The authors have tried to explain our findings in detail.

Despite this, we have proceeded to simplify it, reducing paragraphs, and merging ideas.

The first presents the characteristics of the analyzed tournament. The second shows how microtechnology positively affects the collection of information. The third and fourth paragraph highlights the importance of accelerometry in a sport like basketball. In the fifth and sixth paragraphs, the need for individualization of training is addressed. Finally, in the seventh paragraph, the statement of the problem and the definition of the objectives are presented.

Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 have been simplified following your recommendation.

The discussion was organized in 13 paragraphs. The first presents the research objectives and main findings and the last reflects on the contributions that the use of microtechnology is having on the knowledge of sport.

The rest of the paragraphs have focused on discussing the analyzes and findings found.

To be more direct, paragraphs 5, 8 and 12 have been deleted.

The first paragraph of the discussion has been improved, including the greatest contribution and novelty of the study.

In the conclusion, a paragraph had been placed for each of the analyses. It has been merged and simplified, remaining as follows:

“This study provides valuable insights into the ACC and DEC performed by sub-18 basketball players during competition, highlighting the effects of fatigue across game periods and differences between playing positions. It was identified that demands ex-ceeding ACC and DEC >4 m·s⁻² differentiate player interventions. The findings can in-form physical conditioning approaches and gameplay strategies to optimize players' accelerometry capabilities.

High-intensity ACC (>4 m·s⁻²) is greater in the first period compared to the third and fourth periods in terms of distance covered and final velocity. Guards and For-wards differ from Centers in high-intensity ACC (>4 m·s⁻²). Similarly, in moderate DEC (2-4 m·s⁻²), Guards differ from Centers in the speed at which deceleration begins.

For all playing positions, high-intensity accelerations (>4 m·s⁻²) are greater during the first period compared to subsequent periods. While Guards only show differences in final velocity between the first and fourth periods, Forwards exhibit variances in distance covered between the first and second periods versus the third and fourth periods, as well as in the initial and final acceleration velocity between the first and fourth periods. Additionally, high-intensity deceleration is superior in the first period compared to the second and fourth. Finally, Centers demonstrate differences between the first period and the rest in the distance covered with high-intensity accelerations and the final velocity attained.

The four variables characterizing ACC and DEC are interconnected. Distance de-pends on maximum ACC and DEC, initial velocity on distance covered, and final velocity on maximum ACC and DEC, distance, and initial velocity.”

Point 2. Study limitations (and not “study limits”): “players who participated more than 6 min within a quarter” Did all the players (in the study) play the 4 quarters at least 6 min? Nevertheless, different players played different game times, and this should be considered in the limitations since the time of the game could impact their ability to perform the accelerations and decelerations. 

Response 2: Thank you very much for your contribution.

A grammatical correction has been made.

Your appreciation is very pertinent. A new limitation has been included.

“In this research, the minimum playing time of each player per quarter was established as a limiting factor to be included in the data analysis. It is true that the results may be affected by the total playing time of each player, so this value should be taken into account in future research.”

Point 3. You presented a practical applications section (and you did well); however, the suggestions seem superficial. How can coaches implement your results in daily practice? Can you present specific advice for training the Guards, Forwards and Centers players? You suggest high-intensity training, but should aerobic training also be considered? In order for the players to hold their capacities during the whole game and not decrease their acceleration and deceleration performances?

Response 3: We appreciate your positive review.

The authors did not want to make a very specific specification of the practical applications, only to provide ideas for the work of the coaches.

The following paragraph has been included:

“Coaches must design three types of tasks to meet the speed demands of the play-ers: Type I) Low intensity speed change tasks (starts, braking, changes of direction, receiving movements, unmarking) with short movements (less than 2 meters). Type II) Medium speed change tasks (large receiving movements, Reception movements in a quarter court) with medium displacements (between 2 and 5 meters). Type III) High speed change tasks (sprints from one side of the field to the other, changes from one side of the field to the other) with large movements (more than 5 meters). In each of them, the three speed change thresholds are worked specifically.”

The following sentence has been included at the end of the last paragraph:

Personalizing training by playing positions will be able to differentiate tasks between perimeter players (guards and forwards) and interior players (centers). For perimeter players, type III tasks must be designed with greater distances than those of centers.

By collecting their contribution, those contributions have been further defined.

Point 4. My last main critique is to highlight what novelty your work brings to the literature (mainly comparing with the two articles you cited [3 and 20] with U18 too.

Response 4: The authors thank you for your comment, as it is very pertinent.

The major contribution of this research over others that have worked on the same population is the definition of three ranges, both for accelerations and decelerations, in which are defined, in addition to the maximum value and the distance that has been traveled with that change in velocity, the initial and final velocity at which that change in velocity occurs.

The following sentence has been included in the first paragraph of the discussion:

"The main novelty provided by this study is the identification of the initial and final speed at which the speed changes occur (ACC and DEC), as it allows coaches a more specific design of the tasks, attending to the real demands of the competition."

Point 5. “ACC and DEC” should be defined in the abstract and in the text on the first appearance.

Response 5: We appreciate your comment.

The clarification has been carried out in the Abstract and in the manuscript.

Point 6. “Genders” change to sexes.

Response 6: His assessment is full of controversies and nuances.

His change suggestion has been carried out

Point 7. “Petway, Freitas, Calleja-González, Leal and Alcaraz [14] conducted…” This way of citing takes a lot of work to read. Maybe “Petway et al. [14]” it’s better. Correct along the text these citations

Response 7: The authors appreciate the suggestion, but we cannot respond to it. As this is a first citation, all authors must be included, especially when there are less than six. For this reason, on this first occasion we have to place everyone.

Point 8. Abstract

Lines 32-34 – When you say something differed, tell the reader which was higher/lower or best/worse.

Response 8: Your comment has been addressed by making a clarification in the Abstract.

“Distinctions were observed between Guards and Forwards concerning high-intensity ACC being superior to the centers, and Guards differed from Centers in moderate DEC (2-4 m·s⁻²) presenting higher values.”

Point 9. “Distance covered depended on maximum ACC and DEC, initial velocity on covered distance, and final velocity on maximum ACC and DEC, distance, and initial velocity.” These are naturally well-related variables. I don’t know if it makes sense to highlight it in the abstract.

Response 9: The authors appreciate your comment.

We expressly wanted to include this phrase at the end of the abstract to make clear the relationship between changes in speed (ACC and DEC) with the distances traveled and the intensities at which the player must move. This relationship is what physical trainers must know to design tasks in which players must make longer/shorter movements and with higher/lower speeds.

Point 10. Lines 105-107 – when you talk about differences, tell which are (at least which group is higher/lower or best/worse)

Response 10: The authors appreciate your comment.

In response to your recommendation, that phrase was deleted to simplify the introduction section, so the differences have not been detailed.

Point 11. Line 152 – Design

Response 11: The authors apologize for this spelling error.

It has been corrected.

Point 12. Line 216 – Correct to: According to the Rico-González et al. [45] guidelines, the use… (don’t use "," before et al. along the text)

Response 12: The authors thank you for your style correction. This correction has been made in five cases.

Point 13. In Figures 1 and 2, I suggest using other colours to highlight the differences between moderate and high.

Response 13: We appreciate your comment.

The color palette has been modified to improve the visualization of the graphics

Point 14. Line 331- avoid using “us” or “we” to make the text more scientific.

Response 14: The authors appreciate your grammatical rigor.

The text has been modified.

“The results of this research have made it possible to know more precisely the acceleration and deceleration profiles of the sample under study, as well as to verify that there are differences in these profiles between periods and between playing positions.”

Point 15. Line 339 – “This fact should be considered by coaches to personalize their preparation". Ok, how? 

Response 15: Your comment is very pertinent. The authors have made this statement concrete, including the following sentence:

“To do this, at the beginning of the training session they must perform the most intense tasks, adapting them to the playing positions. Furthermore, since point guards and forwards have similar demands, they will be able to perform similar tasks, differentiated from centers.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

 

            I am grateful for the opportunity to evaluate the manuscript about basketball and external load. After reading, I realized that the manuscript was well done, points out the knowledge gap to be filled, indicates how data collection occurred (allowing reproducibility), has results consistent with the methods and discusses based on the results found. Given the above, I suggest approval of the manuscript.

 

Sincerely,

 

Reviewer.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

I am grateful for the opportunity to evaluate the manuscript about basketball and external load. After reading, I realized that the manuscript was well done, points out the knowledge gap to be filled, indicates how data collection occurred (allowing reproducibility), has results consistent with the methods and discusses based on the results found. Given the above, I suggest approval of the manuscript.

 

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you for your words and time spent reviewing this article. This document will include your appreciations and the modifications made by the authors considering your comments. We hope that the changes will be in accordance with your expectations. Your contributions have improved the quality of the article considerably. To facilitate your work, all corrections to the article are shown in red.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides measurements of acceleration and deceleration among elite Under-18 European basketball players. The data were collected during competitive basketball games during tournament play. The data suggest that there are distinct patterns in acceleration and deceleration across quarters of the basketball game and across positions. The authors suggest that the findings can be helpful for training purposes.

It would prove useful if the authors could determine whether the differences they find across quarters and positions is statistically significant - that would help put the results in better statistical context. 

Finally, the authors do not really put the distance results into context - is the distance covered during acceleration and deceleration large or small?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a few typographical errors that a good proofreading of the paper should detect. Otherwise, the English is fine. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

The paper provides measurements of acceleration and deceleration among elite Under-18 European basketball players. The data were collected during competitive basketball games during tournament play. The data suggest that there are distinct patterns in acceleration and deceleration across quarters of the basketball game and across positions. The authors suggest that the findings can be helpful for training purposes.

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you for your words and time spent reviewing this article. This document will include your appreciations and the modifications made by the authors considering your comments. We hope that the changes will be in accordance with your expectations. Your contributions have improved the quality of the article considerably. To facilitate your work, all corrections to the article are shown in red.

 

Point 1.  It would prove useful if the authors could determine whether the differences they find across quarters and positions is statistically significant - that would help put the results in better statistical context.

 

Response 1: Thank you for your comments.

In lines 265-271, the statistically significant differences between quarters are explicitly developed.

“The ACC and DEC demands of basketball players during competitive matches by quarters are displayed in Table 1. Statistical and practical differences were found for distance covered (F(3,903) = 3.52; p = 0.015; ES > 0.2) and for the final speed achieved (F(3,903) = 4.72; p = 0.003; ES > 0.2) in high ACC actions between matches quarters. Spe-cifically, greater distance was covered in high ACC actions in the 1st match quarter in comparison to the 3rd¬ (p = 0.050; ES = 0.22) and 4th quarters (p = 0.047; ES = 0.23). No practical significance (ES > 0.2) was found for others ACC and DEC variables across match quarters.”

 

In lines 284-292, the statistically significant differences between playing positions are explicitly developed.

“The ACC and DEC demands of basketball players during competitive matches by playing position are displayed in Table 2. Statistical and practical differences were found for distance covered (F(2,854) = 3.20; p = 0.041; ES > 0.2), start speed (F(2,854) = 4.11; p = 0.017; ES > 0.2), and final speed (F(2,854) = 3.42; p = 0.033; ES > 0.2) in high ACC actions between playing positions. Specifically, Centers covered lower distance than Guards (p = 0.043; ES = 0.25) and Forwards (p = 0.044; ES = 0.25), performed lower start speed than Guards (p = 0.040; ES = 0.27) and Forwards (p = 0.015; ES = 0.33), and achieved lower final speed than Guards (p = 0.030; ES = 0.28) and Forwards (p = 0.049; ES = 0.20). No practical significance (ES > 0.2) was found for others ACC and DEC variables be-tween playing positions.”

 

In lines 295-313, the interaction between the quarters and the playing positions is presented.

“The ACC and DEC demands of basketball players by playing position and matches quarters are displayed in Table 3. Statistical differences were found for high ACC de-mands in all playing position across basketball matches quarters (p < 0.05; ES > 0.20). Specifically, final speed achieved by Guards was higher in the 1st quarter than 4th quarter (p = 0.036 and ES = 0.25). Forwards players covered greater distance in high ACC in the 1st and 2nd quarters than 3rd (1st versus 3rd [p = 0.045; ES = 0.29]; 2nd versus 3rd [p = 0.030; ES = 0.039]) and 4th quarters (1st versus 4rd [p = 0.045; ES = 0.23]; 2nd versus 4rd [p = 0.38; ES = 0.33]), the start speed was higher in 1st quarter in comparison to the 4th quarter, and achieved greater final speed in the 1st quarter than 3rd (p = 0.048; ES = 0.31) and 4th (p = 0.045; ES = 0.39) quarters. Centers players cov-ered greater distance in high ACC in the 1st in comparison to 2nd quarters (p = 0.022; ES = 0.60), 3rd quarter (p = 0.04; ES = 0.55), and 4th quarters (p = 0.04; ES = 0.56) and achieved greater final speed in the 1st quarter than 2nd quarter (p = 0.049; ES = 0.51), 3rd quarter (p = 0.025; ES = 0.40), and 4th quarter (p = 0.048; ES = 0.56). Regarding DEC demands, statistical differences were found for Forwards and Centers players in high DEC demands (p < 0.05; ES > 0.20). Forwards players achieved greater start speed in 1st in comparison to 2nd quarter (p = 0.045; ES = 0.33) and 4th quarter (p = 0.021; ES = 0.36). Centers players achieved lower start speed distance in high DEC in the 4th when compared with the 1st quarter (p = 0.047; ES = 0.41), 2nd quarter (p = 0.045; ES = 0.54), and 3rd quarter (p = 0.047; ES = 0.47).”

The authors believe that this suggestion is documented in the manuscript. If the reviewer considers that it should be mentioned in another section, please let us know.

 

Point 3. Finally, the authors do not really put the distance results into context - is the distance covered during acceleration and deceleration large or small?

Response 2: Thank you very much for your contribution.

Tables 1, 2 and 3 show the distances traveled at each of the speed change thresholds. In them you can see an increase in distance at each threshold.

The following paragraph has been included after the results in Table 3 to highlight this result.

"As can be seen in tables 1, 2 and 3, the distance traveled at each speed threshold increases with increasing intensity. At low intensities, the distances traveled for ACC and DEC are small, both by quarters and by playing position (less than 2 meters). In high intensity ACC and DEC these distances are greater than 5 meters. These results show the interaction between speed and distance traveled, which must be considered for the design of specific training tasks.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors presented their research really well. I have 2 comments.

Firstly, make your introduction shorter and include only basic information. The rest is for the discussion.

Secondly, do not repeat your results in the conclusion. Please make a summary with your findings.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

Authors presented their research really well. I have 2 comments.

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you for your words and time spent reviewing this article. This document will include your appreciations and the modifications made by the authors considering your comments. We hope that the changes will be in accordance with your expectations. Your contributions have improved the quality of the article considerably. To facilitate your work, all corrections to the article are shown in red.

 

Point 1. Firstly, make your introduction shorter and include only basic information. The rest is for the discussion.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments.

We regret that the length of the manuscript was too long for the reviewer. The authors have tried to explain our findings in detail.

Despite this, we have proceeded to simplify it, reducing paragraphs, and merging ideas.

The first presents the characteristics of the analyzed tournament. The second shows how microtechnology positively affects the collection of information. The third and fourth paragraph highlights the importance of accelerometry in a sport like basketball. In the fifth and sixth paragraphs, the need for individualization of training is addressed. Finally, in the seventh paragraph, the statement of the problem and the definition of the objectives are presented.

Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 have been simplified following your recommendation.

Point 2. Secondly, do not repeat your results in the conclusion. Please make a summary with your findings.

In the conclusion, a paragraph had been placed for each of the analyses. It has been merged and simplified, remaining as follows:

“This study provides valuable insights into the ACC and DEC performed by sub-18 basketball players during competition, highlighting the effects of fatigue across game periods and differences between playing positions. It was identified that demands ex-ceeding ACC and DEC >4 m·s⁻² differentiate player interventions. The findings can in-form physical conditioning approaches and gameplay strategies to optimize players' accelerometry capabilities.

High-intensity ACC (>4 m·s⁻²) is greater in the first period compared to the third and fourth periods in terms of distance covered and final velocity. Guards and For-wards differ from Centers in high-intensity ACC (>4 m·s⁻²). Similarly, in moderate DEC (2-4 m·s⁻²), Guards differ from Centers in the speed at which deceleration begins.

For all playing positions, high-intensity accelerations (>4 m·s⁻²) are greater during the first period compared to subsequent periods. While Guards only show differences in final velocity between the first and fourth periods, Forwards exhibit variances in distance covered between the first and second periods versus the third and fourth periods, as well as in the initial and final acceleration velocity between the first and fourth periods. Additionally, high-intensity deceleration is superior in the first period compared to the second and fourth. Finally, Centers demonstrate differences between the first period and the rest in the distance covered with high-intensity accelerations and the final velocity attained.

The four variables characterizing ACC and DEC are interconnected. Distance de-pends on maximum ACC and DEC, initial velocity on distance covered, and final velocity on maximum ACC and DEC, distance, and initial velocity.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study aimed to analyze the acceleration and deceleration patterns of male basketball players in official games. Additionally, it examined the correlation between specific positions and acceleration thresholds during the playing periods. It may not be feasible to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the treatment condition and outcomes through a quasi-experimental empirical design. This is especially true when there are uncontrollable confounding variables.

 

Comments;

Comments;

1) The introduction is too long. Authors need to make it more concise to make it easier for the reader to follow.

2) What was the physical condition of these players? Athletic performance during the game is dependent on the  physical condition

3) The conclusion is not clear.

4) What was the message of this study? 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments

This study aimed to analyze the acceleration and deceleration patterns of male basketball players in official games. Additionally, it examined the correlation between specific positions and acceleration thresholds during the playing periods. It may not be feasible to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between the treatment condition and outcomes through a quasi-experimental empirical design. This is especially true when there are uncontrollable confounding variables.

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you for your words and time spent reviewing this article. This document will include your appreciations and the modifications made by the authors considering your comments. We hope that the changes will be in accordance with your expectations. Your contributions have improved the quality of the article considerably. To facilitate your work, all corrections to the article are shown in red.

 

Point 1.  The introduction is too long. Authors need to make it more concise to make it easier for the reader to follow.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments.

We regret that the length of the manuscript was too long for the reviewer. The authors have tried to explain our findings in detail.

Despite this, we have proceeded to simplify it, reducing paragraphs, and merging ideas.

The first presents the characteristics of the analyzed tournament. The second shows how microtechnology positively affects the collection of information. The third and fourth paragraph highlights the importance of accelerometry in a sport like basketball. In the fifth and sixth paragraphs, the need for individualization of training is addressed. Finally, in the seventh paragraph, the statement of the problem and the definition of the objectives are presented.

Paragraphs 3, 5 and 6 have been simplified following your recommendation.

 

Point 2.   What was the physical condition of these players? Athletic performance during the game is dependent on the  physical condition

Response 2: The authors appreciate your question.

The study presented in this manuscript has a quasi-experimental empirical design of a descriptive and cross-sectional nature. It is also ecological, that is, the researchers do not manipulate the sample, we only collect data from their intervention during the official competition. Therefore, we cannot objectively know what the physical condition of the participants was.

As it was the Adidas Next Generation Tournament, the final phase of the competition for the best European under 18 teams, we sensed that the teams prepared very well and their level of preparation was high.

We fully agree with the reviewer that the level of physical preparation can affect the findings. Therefore, the following phrase has been introduced in the limitations:

"Another possible limitation of the study is that the results may be conditioned by the level of physical condition of the participating teams. The level of the participants was very high, as it was the final phase of the Adidas Next Generation Tournament, but it could not be done a physical condition test for all players."

Point 3.   The conclusion is not clear.

Response 3: In the conclusion, a paragraph had been placed for each of the analyses. It has been merged and simplified, remaining as follows:

“This study provides valuable insights into the ACC and DEC performed by sub-18 basketball players during competition, highlighting the effects of fatigue across game periods and differences between playing positions. It was identified that demands ex-ceeding ACC and DEC >4 m·s⁻² differentiate player interventions. The findings can in-form physical conditioning approaches and gameplay strategies to optimize players' accelerometry capabilities.

High-intensity ACC (>4 m·s⁻²) is greater in the first period compared to the third and fourth periods in terms of distance covered and final velocity. Guards and For-wards differ from Centers in high-intensity ACC (>4 m·s⁻²). Similarly, in moderate DEC (2-4 m·s⁻²), Guards differ from Centers in the speed at which deceleration begins.

For all playing positions, high-intensity accelerations (>4 m·s⁻²) are greater during the first period compared to subsequent periods. While Guards only show differences in final velocity between the first and fourth periods, Forwards exhibit variances in distance covered between the first and second periods versus the third and fourth periods, as well as in the initial and final acceleration velocity between the first and fourth periods. Additionally, high-intensity deceleration is superior in the first period compared to the second and fourth. Finally, Centers demonstrate differences between the first period and the rest in the distance covered with high-intensity accelerations and the final velocity attained.

The four variables characterizing ACC and DEC are interconnected. Distance de-pends on maximum ACC and DEC, initial velocity on distance covered, and final velocity on maximum ACC and DEC, distance, and initial velocity.”

4) What was the message of this study?

Response 4: The authors thank you for your comment, as it is very pertinent.

The major contribution of this research over others that have worked on the same population is the definition of three ranges, both for accelerations and decelerations, in which are defined, in addition to the maximum value and the distance that has been traveled with that change in velocity, the initial and final velocity at which that change in velocity occurs.

The following sentence has been included in the first paragraph of the discussion:

"The main novelty provided by this study is the identification of the initial and final speed at which the speed changes occur (ACC and DEC), as it allows coaches a more specific design of the task

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a good job improving the manuscript. Congratulations.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The authors did a good job improving the manuscript. Congratulations.

 

Dear Reviewer.

Thank you very much for your appreciations. The authors made a great effort to respond to your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has undergone some changes that have improved its quality. However, the introduction seems too lengthy and could be made more concise to make it easier to read. The conclusion appears to be a summary of the results, whereas it should indicate future research directions and provide recommendations. Although the Adidas Next Generation Tournament may not be synonymous with a high level of preparation, the authors justified the limitations of their study.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 5 Comments The article has undergone some changes that have improved its quality. Dear Reviewer. This document will include your appreciations and the modifications made by the authors considering your comments. We hope that the changes will be in accordance with your expectations. To facilitate your work, all corrections to the article are shown in red. Point 1. However, the introduction seems too lengthy and could be made more concise to make it easier to read. Response 1:We appreciate your comment. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 have been unified and simplified. Paragraph 7 has also been reduced Point 2. The conclusion appears to be a summary of the results, whereas it should indicate future research directions and provide recommendations. Response 2: The authors appreciate your comment. We have tried to be more direct in our conclusions. The first paragraph has been simplified. The second paragraph has been rewritten to read as follows: "The greatest amount of high-intensity ACC occurs during the first quarter, decreasing during the second half of the game. In addition, guards and forwards present higher high-intensity ACC demands than centers. Similarly, in moderate DEC, guards differ from centers in the speed at which deceleration begins.” A paragraph about the future and recommendations has been included at the end of the conclusion: "This research must continue to be developed in the future to identify these profiles in other populations, professional players, women or players in training. The data provided by each group of players by sex and competitive level will allow the training processes to be personalized, adapting them to each population and playing position. For all these reasons, it is recommended that the protocols for speed training be reviewed, adapting them to the objective data provided by microtechnology, including for each speed change threshold the distance that players must travel, as well as the initial and final speed before each speed change, with specific game tasks." Point 3. Although the Adidas Next Generation Tournament may not be synonymous with a high level of preparation, the authors justified the limitations of their study. Response 3: We appreciate your comment. The authors consider that this tournament is one of the highest competitive level competitions at the European club level, in which the best players of that age range participate. This championship is like the European national team championship. To participate in this championship, we believe that teams must prepare specifically. As we have indicated previously, we have placed a limitation on the study by not being able to evaluate the level of physical condition of the players.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx