Women’s Singles Tennis Match Analysis and Probability of Winning a Point
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript was based on methodologically very well prepared research. The design of both the measurements and the statistical analysis should be rated highly. The literature review is pertinent and corresponds well to the content of the study. Illustrations and tables properly constructed. The work does not require significant revisions. The reviewer's assessment lacks:
- a chapter of practical recommendations
- significantly the value of the work would be raised by the addition of a section comparing the manner and effectiveness of the game of the same players in the analyzed Grand Slam tournaments.
Congratulations on a very good study.
Author Response
The review has been carried out in one document. Please review the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis research on women’s professional tennis performance offers exploratory insights rather than persuasive arguments. By analyzing 3239 points from the final rounds of three Grand Slam tournaments in 2021, the study aimed to understand the probability of winning points based on variables such as serve type, rally length, and court surface. The results indicate higher probabilities of winning points on first serves compared to second serves, with variations across clay, grass, and hard courts. The high number of points included made data analysis over-powered and significance very likely. However, we needed stronger justifications of key decisions.
If the aim is to assist coaches, these findings could inform strategic decisions during matches. For example, coaches might emphasize the importance of strong first serves and training for short rallies, as these factors showed higher winning probabilities. However, the rationale behind the study and the interpretation of results lack clarity, making it difficult to understand how these data can be directly applied in practical coaching scenarios. The results are not adding to the practical aspect – or that message is not coming through in a persuasive way.
The study did not seek ethics approval, likely because it utilized observational methodology on publicly available match data, which generally does not require such approval.
Additionally, the background highlights a gap in research on women’s tennis performance, justifying the need for more studies to understand tactical actions in matches. Overall, while the study provides valuable descriptive data, a clearer rationale and application framework would enhance its utility for coaches.
Analyzing existing data is often seen as an easier option because it avoids the complexities and costs of collecting new data. However, there must be strong, well-articulated reasons for choosing this approach to ensure the research's relevance and validity. In this study, the justification for using existing match data is not convincingly presented. Clear, persuasive arguments explaining how this data uniquely contributes to understanding women's tennis performance and informing coaching strategies are essential. Without this, the study risks being perceived as opportunistic rather than purposeful and impactful
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEnglish is generally fine; as with all scientific work, authors should spend time trying to make the work as easy to read as possible - my comment to the authors is to try to just this.
Author Response
The review has been carried out in one document. Please review the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have revised and responded in a cautious way. The argument for doing the study is still not overly persuasive. It makes good use of existing data and might have some value.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSome English changes have been made. It can be improved.