Notational Analysis of Men’s Singles Pickleball: Game Patterns and Competitive Strategies

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer’ s comments

The present study offers a valuable contribution to the literature on Pickleball, providing insightful information regarding game patterns and competitive strategies in Men's singles. The authors successfully expand upon previous research, which often centered on the recreational aspects of the sport. This work has the potential to be of significant interest to Pickleball athletes and serve as a foundation for future studies in the field.

The introduction is well-structured and provides a solid theoretical framework, demonstrating the authors' thorough understanding of the subject matter. However, the placement of the study's aim in two separate paragraphs may lead to confusion for readers. Additionally, the use of the term "likelihood" without a clear basis for statistical analysis or modeling of rallies raises concerns.

The methods section presents the primary challenges. The observers' reliability could be further strengthened, the figure is incomplete, and the statistical terms employed are not entirely standard. Also, the effect size and analysis of residuals are missed from the statistical analysis.  Moreover, the use of the THEME 6 software requires additional explanation. These shortcomings are reflected in the results section, which could benefit from improvements aligned with the methods section.

The discussion follows a coherent structure, effectively addressing the key themes of the analysis. The text is well-structured and easy to follow, with clear explanations and concise language. However, analyze in depth the differences between pickleball and other racquet sports which is not the aim of the study.

Despite the study's merits, several recommendations can be made to enhance the manuscript.

 

Major recommendations

Observers' reliability

The use of Cohen Kappa coefficient is not adequate, as the nature of the data is in a nominal scale with Neighborhood values. As a suggestion to the authors, I encourage them to read the study of (Robinson and O’Donoghue (2007) and to use the Adjusted Kappa coefficient of Cohen (Cohen, 1968).

Figure 1

Figure 1 is incomplete, as value Z1 is missed, value Z4 is duplicated, while value Z6 is missed. Also, Values SZ (Serve Zone), and OUT (shot out) are not referred to in the figure.

Statistical terms

The χ²  test which was used to assess differences, indeed is a χ²  goodness of fit test.

The χ²  test which uses crosstabs is a χ²  test of independence.

 

Statistical Analysis and Effect Size

For a more comprehensive analysis of categorical variables, it is recommended to supplement the chi-square test with an effect size index. This index provides a quantitative measure of the strength of association between the variables, offering valuable insights beyond the mere statistical significance of the test. Effect size measures, such as Cramer's V, allow researchers to gauge the practical importance of the relationship, ensuring that significant chi-square results are not misinterpreted as automatically indicating substantial associations.

Residual Analysis

To further enhance the statistical analysis, it is advisable to examine the residuals of the chi-square test. By analyzing these residuals, researchers can identify specific cells that contribute most significantly to the overall chi-square statistic. This information can aid in pinpointing the precise locations of the significant associations between the categorical variables, providing a more nuanced understanding of the relationship.

THEME 6 software

Please provide additional information about the use of THEME 6 software.

 

 

Minor recommendations

Table 3

Does not exist p<,000, as there is lower than zero probability. It is preferable to refer to it as p<,001.

Across the text  and inside Table 3 please change “χ2” to “χ²”

Please use a unique system of decimal units across the manuscript (text and tables), with a comma or a dot.

Table 2

Please name the figure 2 graphs 2a -2d.

For the graphs in Table 2, maybe a clustered bar graph is preferable.

Table 4

Regarding the probabilistic analysis of Table 4, 95% confidence intervals are needed. Also, a more detailed explanation of the probabilistic analysis is needed.

 

Table 5

Please add a line at the bottom of each FS analysis.

Also, put the Total FS at the bottom of the table.

Discussion

The bigger part of the discussion compares pickleball to tennis and padel, highlighting similarities and differences in game dynamics, point structure, and shot selection. It would be more beneficial to emphasise an in-depth analysis of certain aspects, such as the impact of court positioning on point outcomes or the effectiveness of different serving strategies.

 

 

References of the review

Cohen, J. (1968). Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychological Bulletin, 70(4), 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/H0026256

Robinson, G., & O’Donoghue, P. (2007). A weighted kappa statistic for reliability testing in performance analysis of sport. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 7(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2007.11868383

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: Notational Analysis of Men's Singles Pickleball: Game Patterns and Competitive Strategies

 

The aim of the study was to perform match analysis in men's singles, and with the data obtained to enhance the understanding of the game and optimize training practices.

 

Major concerns:

-            The description of the court’s ‘striking zones’ and ‘finish zones’ are poorly done and describe throughout the paper. For example, Figure 1 is not properly done. What is the purpose of the green and blue colour? Second, one of the finish zones (next to net and bottom) is missing a description/value. Third, there are 2 zones with the same label of Z4!! Forth, “SZ” (from Table 1 and from Table 3) was not defined in your Figure 1!! Fifth, in your Figure 2C and 2D, the author used a different designation such as ZG1 and ZS to zones – which is really confuse the reader. And in the main text, the reader was again unclear when author wrote describing the zones – whether the author was referring to the striking or finish zones. The reviewer would like to suggest the followings. In your revision, to redefine the ‘Striking’ zones as SZ1, SZ2 and so on and to define the ‘Finishing’ zones as FZ1, FZ2 and so. And when referring the different zones in the main text, the authors should actually write-out the exact zones as SZ1 or FZ1 and so on, rather than merely Z1 or Z2 – this will make the referring to various zones clearer to the reader. And please amend the current Figure 1 and Figure 2 accordingly.

  

-            Line 88-89. There is a need to provide additional information on the type of participants that are playing in the 5 chosen tournaments. What are their levels of competitiveness, amateurs or professional, the number of locals and international participants, etc, etc. The information provided will give some context to the level of competition of the tournaments and hence the ‘validity” of the data collected in the present study.

 

-            Line 124. Please provide detail of the 2 experts in pickle ball. What makes them experts?

 

-            All Figures and Tables should be ‘self-sufficient’ or able to stand-alone. This means that the information provided in the figure/table should allow the reader to comprehend the information/data in the Figure/Table on its own, without refereeing to others. So please make sure that the necessary information in each Table and Figure complete.

 

-            Consistency throughout the manuscript. In table 4 you use capitalised letters and then in Table 5, all became uncapitalised letters – please please be consistent. Also in Table 5, what does ‘fs’ and “In” mean – this is the first time I am seeing this. Another example, in Line 350, you use the term “hitting zones” rather than “striking zones” – this is what I meant by being consistent in writing.

 

-            There is a need to better explain the T-pattern analysis in the main text. I got confused sometimes.

 

 

 

Minor issues:

-            Throughout the manuscript. For the decimal pint of numerical values, in the Tables 2 and 3, you use (,) as your decimal point, but yet in Tables 4 and  5, you use (.). Please be consistent, this reviewer suggests to use (.) as your decimal point for ease of reader.

-            In your abstract, your need to provide the definition of ‘short’, ‘medium’ and ‘long’ rallies. Also need to define and inform the reader where is zone 2 (please refer to my major concern above).

 

-            Line 16 and 91. Please define PPA.

 

-            Table 1. Is there such as thing as “0” shot. I think it should at least be 1 short in the SH rally length.

 

-            Figure 2. The title of the Figure 2. Is it between different criteria within the present study or it is between different studies??

 

-            Line 382. I don’t think you are measuring “performance indicators” but rather ‘successful patterns of rallies/play’.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Simple short sentences please.

Author Response

See attached document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Nothing further to add.