PONE-D-23-37093Exploring the recurrent states of football teams' tactical organization on the pitchPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Moura,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 31 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ersan Arslan, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

 [This work was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) under grants \\#401004/2022-8, \\#200290/2022-3, and \\#305997/2022-0.].  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: ""The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."" 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3.Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

[This work was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) under grants \\#401004/2022-8, \\#200290/2022-3, and \\#305997/2022-0.].

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

  [This work was supported by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) under grants \\#401004/2022-8, \\#200290/2022-3, and \\#305997/2022-0.].  

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Overall, the article is well written and the topic is interesting. The authors need to make major changes before considering for publication.

Title: Exploring the recurrent states of football teams’ tactical organization on the pitch. Please, modify the title. In my opinion, you are generalising the results of this paper to a broader audience while you just have a sample of 28 Brazilian teams.

Introduction

L68: please, replace soccer by football. This is the term you have used throughout the manuscript.

L12-14: Please, add a citation to this sentence. Also, I suggest taking a look at a systematic review which was recently published and related to your study (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35173369/) for your introduction

L26-L28: You are introducing the concept of variability here and this term is very important. Can you please add any information explaining what you mean by variability? If you decide to introduce concepts like entropy, please make sure that everyone understands what you are talking about.

L46, L54: Please, remove this abbreviation (RPs). You only mention it twice.

L47: Please, remove this abbreviation (RQA). You only mention it once.

L62: Explain what you mean by technical performance. This is a very important topic in your study.

L67: Please, avoid the recurrent use of “we” when writing a scientific document. Please, correct throughout.

L67-L73: In my opinion, this information is part of the methods. You may add a section in the methods section in which you talk about the study design or experimental approach to the problem.

L78: Based on my previous comment, I think that you may leave only the information related to the participants and remove the “data collection” as this could be part of the study design.

L81: data provided by (8)? Please, explain.

L81: How were the data collected?

L86: Please, correct the mistake (the the).

L103: Remove the abbreviation MFD from here and from the equation.

L111: defined as the following equation. Please, correct.

L175, L177: I suggest adding “technical” to …performance indicators…

L227: you talk about performance indicators here but this could be understood as tactical as well. I guess it would be “technical performance indicators”

L364-L365: Please, expand the practical applications section. This is a poor way to end such an interesting article. You are basically saying what we may already know. Please, think about how your results can have an impact on the field.

References: I found a few mistakes (e.g., avoid mixing uppercase/lowercase in all words, if you choose to add DOI, add all of them when it is possible, etc.) so please, review and follow journal’s guidelines.

Reviewer #2: The main focus of the present study was to explore the variability of surface area shapes of football teams on the pitch from recurrence plots and recurrence quantitative analysis, and the association with the performance indicators during the matches,' presents a well-written and innovative investigation. The literature background provides a strong foundation, and the application of recurrence analysis to football matches is a fresh approach.

However, to strengthen the paper for publication, a few areas require further clarification. The methods section would benefit from more technical details, and the discussion could be expanded on how these findings translate into actionable insights for coaches and analysts.

Indroduction

The indroduction section is well written. No comments to add.

Methods

1. L79: Concerning the 14 matches, did you apply any criteria in order to choose them? (red cards for example)

2. L80: The 366 players were outfield players? Have you excluded goalkeepers?

3. L85: Please provide the Ethics committee number

4. L88-90: Its not clear if the The DVideo software was used manually or automatically identified the actions.

5. L93-44: If there was manual registration (actions, success/no success and responsible player) why you provided the inter- and intra-rater agreement for the system and you didn't conduct new reliability tests?

6. L168-170: You should provide this information in a different paragraph titled "Technical Performance Indicators" or something similar. Its irrelevant to the statistical analysis. Moreover, the first sentence "The technical performance during attacking and defending phases were defined by the nine indicators" needs clarification. You need to provide definitions for the indicators chosen. How you define the "wrong pass", "correct pass", "tackles performed" etc

7. L169: Replace "right pass" with "correct pass" throughout the manuscript.

8. L177: Why you included the "opponent wrong pass"indicator to defending phase? There could be numerous reasons for the wrong pass, that don't concern the behavior of the defending team.

Results

The results section is well presented. No comments to add.

Discussion

1.L274-275: The attacking phase includes right passes. I think this sentence needs re-writing.

2.L345-348: Is it possible at the moment to have this fast feedback live during matches at the bench? I believe the last word “performance” should be modified because its an overwhelming statement. You took into account specific performance indicators that maybe are not representative of the performance as a “whole”. Moreover, you should try to enrich your practical implication section, in order to provide coaches and analysts specific “take-home” messages that I am afraid that are not present in this version.

3.L349-356: Based on the comments before concerning Methods section, you should add more limitations.

4.L364-365: Again be careful with your statement considering recurrence plot as a tool during football matches. Can you use it live?

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Exploring the recurrent states of football teams' tactical organization on the pitch during Brazilian official matches

PONE-D-23-37093R1

Dear Dr. Torres,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Haroldo V. Ribeiro

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

The original editor of your manuscript was no longer available, so I have been assigned to step in. I observed that two experts had previously reviewed your manuscript and offered a series of suggestions, which you have addressed in your revised submission. This revised version was returned to these two experts; however, only one responded, recommending publication as is. I then conducted my own review of your manuscript and your responses to the comments from the initial submission. My assessment aligns with that of both reviewers. I commend you on your excellent work and am pleased to accept your manuscript in its current form.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Based on the overall quality of the research and the authors' thorough response to the reviewers' comments, I recommend acceptance of this manuscript for publication in PLOS.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Vasilis Armatas

**********