Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Nov 19;16(11):e0260363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260363

A GNSS-based method to define athlete manoeuvrability in field-based team sports

Grant Malcolm Duthie 1,*, Sam Robertson 2, Heidi Rose Thornton 3
Editor: Daniel Boullosa4
PMCID: PMC8604331  PMID: 34797902

Abstract

This study presented a method of quantifying the manoeuvrability of two field-based team sport athletes and investigated its relationship with running velocity during competition. Across a season, 10 Hz Global navigation satellite system (GNSS) devices were worn during matches by 62 athletes (Australian Football League [AFL]; n = 36, 17 matches, National Rugby League [NRL]; n = 26, 21 matches). To quantify manoeuvrability, tortuosity was calculated from the X and Y coordinates from match GNSS files (converted from latitude and longitude). Tortuosity was calculated as 100 x natural logarithm of the chord distance (distance travelled between X and Y coordinates), divided by the straight-line distance. The maximal tortuosity was then quantified for each 0.5 m∙s-1 speed increment, ranging from 0 to the highest value for each game file. A quadratic model was fitted for each match file, controlling for the curvilinear relationship between tortuosity and velocity. A comparison of the quadratic coefficients between sports, and within sport between positions was investigated using linear mixed models. Resulting standard deviations (SDs) and mean differences were then assessed to establish standardized effect sizes (ES) and 90% confidence intervals (CI). A curvilinear relationship exists between maximal tortuosity and running speed, reflecting that as speed increases, athletes’ ability to deviate from a linear path is compromised (i.e., run in a more linear path). Compared to AFL, NRL had a greater negative quadratic coefficient (a) (ES = 0.70; 0.47 to 0.93) for the 5 second analysis, meaning that as speed increased, NRL athletes’ manoeuvrability reduced at a faster rate than when compared to AFL. There were no positional differences within each sport. GNSS derived information can be used to provide a measure of manoeuvrability tortuosity during NRL and AFL matches. The curvilinear relationship between tortuosity and speed demonstrated that as speed increased, manoeuvrability was compromised.

Introduction

The running demands of professional team sports are commonly quantified using variables derived from electronic player tracking systems such as global navigation satellite systems (GNSS). These devices include a GNSS chip that provides the position of the unit in space, permitting the calculation of many movement variables including distance, speed, acceleration and metabolic power [13]. Additionally, some devices also include a tri-axial accelerometer, magnetometer and a gyroscope, permitting measurement of alternative non-running related variables such as PlayerLoad™, collisions and tackling [4,5], and more recently, change of direction angles [6]. Using GNSS devices, practitioners can quantify the external load of competition as it provides understanding of the required individual and positional demands of the sport, thus being useful in the prescription of training volume and intensity. Despite the value of this information, many GNSS systems only quantify running in one dimension (i.e., total distance, speed, acceleration, high speed efforts), which has limitations. Presently, there is a lack of information regarding how running in team sports is performed within two-dimensional space, comprising a large proportion of movements in team sports.

Team sports such as Australian rules football and rugby league are typically intermittent in nature, involving high intensity, high speed movements such as sprinting, rapid accelerations/decelerations and changes of direction (COD) [710]. Anecdotally, these movements are used to evade opponents in attempts to score, or alternatively capture opponents, both often occurring at pivotal moments of the game. These actions are reactionary to the opposition’s movements or position on the field, frequently occurring whilst running at a high velocity, or alternatively rapidly accelerating or decelerating [11]. Similarly to prey avoiding predators in the animal environment [12], these movements can require athletes to adopt a non-linear path (two dimensional), whilst maintaining speed and without jeopardizing control, also known as manoeuvrability [12]. Manoeuvrability has been extensively researched in other contexts including animal behaviour [13], aerodynamics [14] and vehicle design [15], but its applicability to sport is yet to be investigated.

Compared to straight-line running, changing direction whilst running at speed involves high magnitudes of vertical, mediolateral, and anterior-posterior impulses [16,17], placing higher mechanical load on lower limbs [18]. As highlighted in previous research [19], the ability to change velocity and/or direction in response to a stimulus is termed agility [20]. Since the reactive component cannot be measured using GNSS devices [19], only the physical component is applicable in this context. Therefore, a measure of manoeuvrability is differentiated from agility both in its definition and practical utility, which will be explored. Despite their large application in team sports for load monitoring and prescription, GNSS devices have not been used to quantify these non-linear movements in research, despite their extensive potential to do so. Potentially, the ability to accurately quantify such movements may result in practitioners implementing these into training programs more frequently and specific to the demands of competition.

Recently, a novel method to accurately identify and measure predetermined COD angles was established [6], using a multistage algorithm that incorporates triaxial inertial sensor inputs. Inertial sensor inputs included roll (mediolateral), pitch (anterior-posterior) and yaw (superior-inferior), providing information to detect precise COD movements for predetermined movements [6]. This algorithm provides scope to quantify rapid COD movements, however the signal processing methods required to utilise this approach would be difficult in applied settings as accelerometer data is more complex than GNSS X and Y coordinates. Alternatively, the manoeuvrability or diversity of animal movements has been quantified via the calculation of tortuosity [21]. In this context, manoeuvrability can be defined as a departure from a straight path, thus a random path being more tortuous than a straight line [21]. Practically, the same principles apply to team sports, where athletes manipulate their running depending on spatial constraints (i.e., needing to evade opposition), adopting a more tortuous route where necessary. Currently there is no research pertaining to the assessment of tortuosity in team sport athletes. It could be proposed that an athletes’ ability to display tortuosity at higher speeds may be a measure of their manoeuvrability, which would on first observation appear a highly advantageous physical capacity. Manoeuvrability can be considered an important physical capacity, as athletes frequently need to adopt a non-linear running path to evade or catch their opposition without jeopardizing their running speed or control. Potentially if manoeuvrability was appropriately targeted in training, it may be improvable and performance advantages may result.

In professional soccer, using GNSS devices, the relationship between athletes’ maximum velocity attained and heading change (the difference in horizontal heading angle between two consecutive points in time) were measured, demonstrating trade-off between velocity and heading angles [19]. This research provides preliminary evidence of the use of GNSS devices to measure more complex movements athletes frequently undertake. However, investigating an athletes’ manoeuvrability using tortuosity in a team sport environment may have important applications for individual program design and potentially even in assessing performance.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to propose a measure of manoeuvrability known as tortuosity, and to investigate its relationship with running speed. A comparison between sports is presented, as well as some practical examples of the applications of tortuosity within team sports, such as demonstrating tortuosity between early and late-stage rehab compared to a match. It was hypothesized, based on previous studies regarding animal behaviors [21], that the tortuosity of team sport athletes would decrease as running speed increased.

Materials and methods

Design and subjects

Physical activity profiles were measured during the 2020 professional National Rugby League (NRL) and the 2020 professional Australian Football League (AFL) seasons using GNSS devices. Both the NRL and AFL seasons comprise of weekly games over a 24- to 26-week duration. From GNSS devices, raw 10 Hz data were exported using manufacturer provided software (detailed below) and longitude and latitude were converted to X and Y coordinates.

Twenty-six male rugby league (age = 25.4 ± 4.1 years; stature = 187.4 ± 6.4 cm; body mass = 100.4 ± 9.8 kg) and 36 male Australian football (age = 23.9 ± 3.7 years; stature = 187.2 ± 7.7 cm; body mass = 85.9 ± 7.7 kg) athletes took part in this study from two clubs playing in the NRL and AFL competitions, respectively. For both teams, athletes from all positional groups were included (despite no positional analyses conducted). The AFL squad included; midfielders (n = 11), mobile backs (n = 4), mobile forwards (n = 9), ruck (n = 1), tall back (n = 4) and tall forwards (n = 3). For NRL, the squad comprised of edge forwards (n = 4), fullback (n = 1), halves and hookers (n = 6), middle forwards (n = 9) and outside backs (n = 6). Athletes were included in the study if they played a game for their respective team, and completed the match (i.e., were uninjured). Prior to and during the competitive season, athletes from both teams participated in a full-time professional training program. This entailed up to four field-based training sessions per week, undergoing specific skill-based training, as well as speed and conditioning training. Additionally, up to four resistance-based sessions were completed, with a primary focus on strength and power development. All data were collected as part of the routine monitoring processes of the club with athletes volunteering to provide their data for research purposes and data were deidentified prior to analysis. Prior to commencement of the study, ethical approval was sought by the Australian Catholic University Ethics Committee (2018-290E).

Global navigation satellite systems and data analysis

GNSS devices were used to measure the physical activity profiles of players during 21 NRL (12 losses, 9 wins) and 17 AFL matches (11 losses, 5 wins, 1 draw) across the 2020 season. For analysis, there were a total of 372 individual match files for AFL (2 were removed due to injury) and 342 for NRL, corresponding to a total of 714 match files for the sports combined. Matches were played weekly during the competition, with match recovery periods ranging from 4 to 10 days in AFL and 5 to 9 days for NRL. For AFL, the mean number of match files per player was 12 ± 6 (range; 1 to 17) and for NRL was 7 ± 6 (1 to 18). The same microtechnology units were used for both sports (Vector, Catapult Sports, VIC, Australia) which comprise a 10 Hz GNSS chip. The same device was worn by each athlete for both sports across the season, as to minimize interunit variability [22] and was fitted in a secure pouch sewn within the playing jersey. For both sports, jerseys were tight fitting to minimize measurement noise but is also common practice for devices to be worn in jerseys during matches rather than manufacturer provided vests.

Devices were switched on prior to the warm-up (~20 minutes) allowing adequate time for satellite lock to be achieved. If an athlete was unable to complete the match due to injury, their respective match file was removed prior to analysis. Following the completion of matches, devices were downloaded using proprietary software (Openfield, Catapult Sports, VIC, Australia) and individual player match file was exported in raw form (10 Hz) into a comma delimited file (csv.). These files provide a range of information including speed, acceleration, latitude, longitude, satellite count and data quality (horizontal dilution of position [HDOP]). For AFL games, there was an average HDOP of 0.61 ± 0.05 and 13.12 ± 0.83 satellites. For NRL games, there was an average HDOP of 0.78 ± 0.15 and 13.79 ± 1.64 satellites.

For each match file, latitude and longitude were converted to X and Y coordinates using the geospatial package within the RStudio program (V 1.3.1056). The X and Y coordinates were filtered using a 4th order, 1 Hz low pass Butterworth filter. A 1 Hz cut-off filter was employed following a visual inspection of the residual analysis of cut off frequencies between 0.1 to 10 Hz, as previously described [23]. The “rolling” distance travelled by the athlete between X and Y coordinates over a one, two, five and 10 second duration was established and was termed ‘chord distance’. The rolling method involves including the current X and Y coordinates, and then rolls through the length of the file. To investigate the effect of duration on tortuosity values, a one, two, five, and 10 second period was adopted, as it was expected that these time frames were long enough to allow players to reach a high speed but was also long enough to negate the effect of any short, low speed movements. The mean running speed over the examined duration was also established. A rolling ‘straight distance’ was established by calculating the straight line distance between the current X and Y coordinate and the X and Y coordinate at the beginning of the assessment period. Tortuosity was then calculated as 100 x natural logarithm of the chord distance divided by the straight line distance. A tortuosity value of 0 represents moving in a straight line (i.e., linear) while any value greater than 0 occurred when an athlete deviates from a linear path, expressed as a percentage. The maximal tortuosity was then quantified for each speed from 0 to the highest value for match file in 0.5 m∙s-1 increments. Fig 1 is an example of an athletes’ tortuosity over a five second duration during a low speed (~2.5 m∙s-1) run involving a change of direction. Fig 2 is an example of an individual athletes’ tortuosity values over the entire duration of a single game, with the maximal values at each 0.5 m∙s-1 interval displayed.

Fig 1. An example of the tortuosity of a 5 second movement (50 data points) for a single athlete, with the speed and acceleration of the movement also shown.

Fig 1

In this example, the athlete covered 9 metres in total, with 3 metres between the X and Y coordinate. This resulted in a tortuosity value of 111%.

Fig 2. An example of the raw tortuosity (10 Hz) for a single athletes’ match file established over a 5 second duration.

Fig 2

The blue dots represent the maximal tortuosity value observed in each 0.5 m∙s-1 interval, while the blue line represents the quadratic model fitted to the data.

Statistical analysis

Visual inspection of the natural logarithm of maximal tortuosity (i.e., log[100 x log(chord distance/linear distance)]) for each running speed revealed a quadratic relationship (curvelinear). Subsequently, a quadratic model was fitted to the data points for each individual player for each game, controlling for the curvilinear relationship between tortuosity and speed. The quadratic models included a fixed effect (the intercept; natural log of tortuosity), the predictor (running speed) and the square of the predictor, which together estimate the mean quadratic effect. The mean ± SD R2 value for the models was 0.96 ± 0.04. For each athletes’ individual game file, the quadratic coefficient (a), linear coefficient (b), and intercept (c) were established. Specifically, a represents the overall position of the curve up and down the y axis (i.e., wide or narrow), b reflects the upward or downward linear trend in y values along the x axis, and c is a constant (intercept), representing where the relationship sits on the y axis. To examine the ability of the model to distinguish between sports, a linear mixed model using a random intercept design were used. In this model, athlete identification was included as a random effect, the fixed effect was the sport, and the predictor was either the quadratic coefficient (a), the linear coefficient (b), or the intercept (c) obtained from the quadratic model. The least squares mean test was used to compare between sports and resulting SDs and mean differences were then assessed to establish standardized effect sizes (ES) and 90% confidence intervals (CI). Standardized effect sizes were described using the magnitudes; <0.20 trivial; 0.21–0.60 small; 0.61–1.20 moderate; 1.21–2.0 large and > 2.01 very large [24]. Effects were deemed to be real if they were 75% greater than the moderate worthwhile difference (calculated as 0.6 x the between-athlete SD) for reasons previously described [25,26]. All statistical analysis was performed in R Studio software (version 1.3.1093, RStudio Inc.)

Results

Table 1 depicts the quadratic model summary, providing the mean ± SD quadratic coefficient (a), the linear coefficient (b) and the intercept (c) from the models for each duration. Between sports, there was a substantial difference in the quadratic coefficient (a) (ES = 0.70; 0.47 to 0.93) for the 5 second duration analysis, with no other differences were evident. Fig 3 demonstrates the curvilinear relationship between running speed and tortuosity by sport (AFL vs NRL) as well as the duration of the analysis (a one, two, five, and 10 second periods).

Table 1. Depicts the quadratic model summary, providing the mean ± SD quadratic coefficient (a), the linear coefficient (b) and the intercept (c) from the models for each duration.

Sport Duration (s) Quadratic coefficient (a) Linear coefficient (b) Intercept (c)
AFL (n = 124) 1 -0.09 ± 0.06 -0.17 ± 0.46 5.99 ± 0.53
2 -0.09 ± 0.05 -0.02 ± 0.35 6.04 ± 0.39
5 -0.14 ± 0.06 0.46 ± 0.38 5.75 ± 0.40
10 -0.17 ± 0.07 0.65 ± 0.38 5.66 ± 0.39
NRL (n = 171) 1 -0.11 ± 0.09 -0.25 ± 0.55 6.18 ± 0.58
2 -0.13 ± 0.08 -0.02 ± 0.47 6.15 ± 0.50
5 -0.20 ± 0.09* 0.59 ± 0.45 5.72 ± 0.45
10 -0.20 ± 0.12 0.67 ± 0.55 5.65 ± 0.47

*depicts a difference greater than 0.6 SD compared to AFL for the same duration.

Fig 3. A demonstration of the curvilinear relationship between running speed and tortuosity separated by sport and the duration of analysis.

Fig 3

Data represents the mean tortuosity.

Discussion

This study presented a novel method of measuring the manoeuvrability of two field-based team sport athletes. Manoeuvrability can be considered an important physical capacity, as athletes frequently need to adopt a non-linear running path to evade or catch their opposition without jeopardizing their running speed or control. The primary finding of this study was that the measurement of tortuosity presents as a practical method to assess the manoeuvrability of athletes that can be calculated using commonly collected GNSS data. Our hypothesis was partially supported whereby there was a decrease in tortuosity as running speed increased. This finding has implications for training prescription and rehabilitation and although not examined here, potentially performance evaluation in some sports. The relationship between manoeuvrability and running speed was investigated across multiple durations. These durations included one, two, five and ten seconds, where a curvilinear relationship was identified between the maximal tortuosity and increased increments in running speed. It was demonstrated that NRL and AFL athletes typically complete non-linear movements peaking at a speed of 2 m∙s-1, decreasing thereafter to approximately 5 m∙s-1 where tortuosity plateaus, and a linear running path is adopted (Fig 3). An advantage of the methods proposed in this paper are that tortuosity can be calculated simply using the X and Y coordinates derived from GNSS data.

Although this is the first study to investigate tortuosity in team sports, this concept has been investigated extensively in other fields, particularly regarding animal behaviours regarding catching prey [21]. Whilst there are alternate ways to quantify tortuosity (i.e., fractal dimensions, sinuosity index etc.) [27,28], the method presented in this study represents a analysis for those with appropriate expertise that could be implemented using GNSS data. In the context of AFL and NRL, tortuosity can be used to quantify a large range of movements, such as complex accelerations, decelerations and rapid changes of direction. These movements require athletes to deviate from running in a linear path (as shown in Fig 1). There is a known trade-off between tortuosity and speed in other animal species [27], a relationship that can be referred to as manoeuvrability which is a favourable physical ability of athletes to possess. This novel study investigated the relationship between manoeuvrability and running speed, where Fig 1 demonstrates that there is a large proportion of low manoeuvrability events within competition across the speed spectrum. As seen in Figs 2 to 4, there was a curvilinear relationship between running speed and manoeuvrability for both AFL and NRL. This reflects that as running speed increases, manoeuvrability decreases, requiring athletes to adopt a more linear path at higher running speeds. This is a comparable finding to other research within professional soccer [19]. Achieving higher manoeuvrability at lower speeds is an expected finding, as within both sports athletes often have two feet in contact with the ground and are in close proximity to an opponent or are trying to evade opponents when the ball is in dispute. At lower speeds, sharper COD movements (greater heading angle) are likely to occur, therefore a higher tortuosity will be evident.

Fig 4. A demonstration of the tortuosity at each speed using a five second duration to compare an early and late stage NRL rehab run compared to a game.

Fig 4

Table 1 depicts the model coefficients for both AFL and NRL which together represent the relationship between running speed and tortuosity. Specifically, the a (quadratic) coefficient reflects the shape or position of the relationship. In this study NRL athletes demonstrated a substantially greater negative a coefficient, representing that as speed increased, NRL athletes’ manoeuvrability reduced at a faster rate than when compared to AFL (also depicted in Fig 3). This finding may simply reflect differences in the objectives each game, where in NRL higher speeds are often associated with break in play (i.e., attackers breaking the defensive line). Once this occurs, athletes are generally attempting to reach the try line as quickly as possible, which where possible, a straight line run will be performed as defending players will be behind them [29]. In contrast, AFL is played on a large oval field resulting in a more free-flowing game, generally with players dispersed across the entire ground as teams attempt to implement zone or full-ground team defence [30]. Given this spread of athletes across the field, when athletes perform high velocity movements, anecdotally, there is a greater opportunity to run in curved paths to evade the opposition. This allows time for other attacking players to move into free space.

Despite the known differences in the purpose and aims of each sport, in the context of manoeuvrability, both sports demonstrated a sharp decline following the peak manoeuvrability at 2 m∙s-1. This speed is where humans generally transition from walking to running [31]. As this movement involves a flight time, this decreases the ability to change direction due to a period involving no contact with the ground. This finding reflects that although there is an unavoidable trade-off between manoeuvrability and running speed, the upper bounds of this measure were not examined here, and potentially if this physical attribute was appropriately trained, this may be improvable. In Table 1, the b coefficient represents the position of the relationship across the x axis, where the shorter duration analysis had a negative b coefficient and the higher duration have a positive coefficient. As also depicted in Fig 3, this means that for shorter durations (one and two sec), as speed increases, tortuosity decreases faster than that of the longer analyses (five and 10 sec). These findings are logical, as longer time frame allows a higher speed to be ran, as well as an increased opportunity to deviate from a linear path, therefore shifting the relationship further right on the x axis. To the authors best knowledge, no research has provided data demonstrating the duration of individual high-speed running efforts in either AFL or NRL. As such, this study selected these varied durations (one, two, five and ten seconds) in an attempt to encompass true high speed efforts (longer durations) as well as shorter efforts (shorter durations) reflecting rapid changes of direction.

As depicted in Fig 3, the tortuosity of the short duration efforts (one and two seconds) was lower than that of the longer durations (five and ten seconds) decreasing in an almost linear manner as speed increased. In Table 1, the c coefficient also represents this finding, as a higher c shows that tortuosity is higher at a lower velocity, which was evident for the shorter duration analyses, compared to the longer durations. As a longer duration is needed to accelerate to attain a higher speed, this finding was expected. For the longer durations (five and ten seconds), the relationship depicted a true curvilinear relationship, where tortuosity peaked at around 2.5 m∙s-1, decreasing thereafter. Similarly, within Fig 3 evident differences can be seen between sports for the same duration. Notably, at shorter durations, the tortuosity within NRL at lower speeds was higher, likely reflecting that shorter, rapid accelerations are undertaken when compared to AFL. Conversely, within AFL at longer durations, tortuosity was higher along the speed spectrum, which was an expected finding given that within AFL there is a greater opportunity to run at higher speeds for longer given the free-flowing nature of the sport. For future analysis, it could be suggested that an adaptive duration is employed, whereby tortuosity is quantified over short durations when acceleration is high, but over longer durations when speed is high. This method may account for the varying physical components of team sports.

Rapid and frequent changes in speed (i.e., acceleration and deceleration) are common in team sports [2], therefore, it is crucial athletes are appropriately prepared for this in terms of physical capacity. This study presented a novel method to quantify changes in direction relative to running speed in two different professional team sport populations. It was identified that quantifying deviations from linear running are important when quantifying the mechanical loading on the body. This information can be utilized in the prescription of training, ensuring that training adequately prepares athletes for competition, but is also important in the return to play process. Anecdotally, athletes are exposed to a gradual increase in running intensity during the return to play phase [32] where GNSS variables such as speed, acceleration and PlayerLoad™ are commonly used. However, within the research there is typically an emphasis placed on linear running metrics [33]. Conversely, quantifying the manoeuvrability of players during this phase would assist in exposing them to the loadings that may be experienced during competition. Subsequently, Fig 4 depicts the tortuosity at each speed using a five second duration to compare an early and late stage NRL rehab run compared to a game. This figure provides a clear example of the direct application of determining tortuosity particularly in the context of returning to play. In the early stage rehab, tortuosity peaks at the lowest speed, demonstrating that as speed increased, a straighter path is adopted. Conversely, the late stage rehab run demonstrates that a higher tortuosity was attained at a faster speed. Although the quantification of high speed running is important, stabilising forces enhance speed during linear movement, but turning or changing direction requires destabilising forces [13]. From an applied perspective, using the coefficients depicted in Table 1, practitioners can determine the maximal tortuosity displayed in competition for a given running speed, calculated as:

Tortuosity=(ax2+bx+c)e

This maximal tortuosity value could be used by practitioners as a return to play key performance indicator, by returning to pre-injury manoeuvrability without compromising speed (see Fig 4). From an injury prevention perspective, training for maximal manoeuvrability could also be implemented into training programs, alike other physical capacities. Given that high speed efforts that deviate away from a linear path result in greater joint loading [18], these repeated high forces are likely to trigger mechanobiological tissue responses of the muscles, tendons, ligaments, bones and cartilage [17]. As per other physiological responses to exercise, athletes need to be prepared, perhaps so far as being exposed to a particular level of tortuosity at a range of running speeds. It may be that by using specific training modalities (i.e., agility training, small-sided games, etc) that higher manoeuvrability may be achieved for a given speed in comparison to what was observed during competition. If athletes were to improve this ability, then perhaps they could display this physical trait during competition. Given GNSS is regularly used in training, a similar tortuosity versus speed analysis could be implemented for each player for each individual drill. It may be suggested that incorporating subtle changes of direction to increase tortuosity would then have direct application to the running patterns that occur in a game.

While the validity of GNSS devices for quantifying the speed of team sport athletes has been established [34], a known limitation of the present study is the limited information regarding the validity of using X and Y positional data from GNSS devices. One study [35] identified that there was a mean difference between GPS determined geodetic point of 1.08 ± 0.34m. The small standard deviation evident here demonstrated that there was a biased error, however it was quite stable. This finding provides confidence in the methods used within the present study, although more research could be conducted using more recent GNSS devices, which record at higher frequencies compared to that used within other research [35].

In conclusion, the method presented in this study provides a novel assessment of the manoeuvrability of athletes from two team sports with data commonly collected from GNSS devices. The use of GNSS devices is widespread within both professional and semi-professional team sports, however, most variables provided by these devices are derived from speed-based metrics (i.e., high speed running distance, acceleration counts, metabolic power). When quantifying the demands of competition, assessing the training performed by athletes, or monitoring the rehabilitation process; the evaluation of tortuosity may provide another aspect regarding the training and assessment of the athletes.

Acknowledgments

The authors of this research wish to thank Professor Will Hopkins for his guidance in selecting an appropriate statistical analysis and also Professor David Martin for his assistance in developing this concept.

Data Availability

The data underlying the results presented in the study are available directly from Kaggle: https://www.kaggle.com/duthieg/afl-nrl-tortuosity-data.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Cummins C, Orr R, O’Connor H, West C. Global positioning systems (GPS) and microtechnology sensors in team sports: A systematic review. Sports Med. 2013;43(10):1025–42. doi: 10.1007/s40279-013-0069-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Delaney J, Cummins C, Thornton H, Duthie G. Importance, reliability and usefulness of acceleration measures in team sports. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;32(12):3485–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Osgnach C, Poser S, Bernardini R, Rinaldo R, di Prampero PE. Energy cost and metabolic power in elite soccer: a new match analysis approach. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010;42(1):170–8. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ae5cfd [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hulin BT, Gabbett TJ, Johnston RD, Jenkins DG. Wearable microtechnology can accurately identify collision events during professional rugby league match-play. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20(7):638–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gastin PB, McLean O, Spittle M, Breed RV. Quantification of tackling demands in professional Australian football using integrated wearable athlete tracking technology. J Sci Med Sport. 2013;16(6):589–93. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2013.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Balloch AS, Meghji M, Newton RU, Hart NH, Weber JA, Ahmad I, et al. Assessment of a novel algorithm to determine change-of-direction angles while running using inertial sensors. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(1):134–44. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Delaney J, Thornton H, Burgess D, Dascombe B, Duthie G. Duration-specific running intensities of Australian Football match-play. J Sci Med Sport. 2017;20(7):689–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2016.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Whitehead S, Till K, Weaving D, Jones B. The use of microtechnology to quantify the peak match demands of the football codes: A systematic review. Sports Med. 2018;48(11):2549–75. doi: 10.1007/s40279-018-0965-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Johnston RD, Devlin P, Wade JA, Duthie GM. There Is little difference in the peak movement demands of professional and semi-professional rugby league competition. Front Physiol. 2019;10(1285). doi: 10.3389/fphys.2019.01285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Delaney J, Thornton H, Pryor J, Stewart A, Dascombe B, Duthie G. Peak running intensity of international rugby: Implications for training prescription. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2017;12(8):1039–45. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2016-0469 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Jeffreys I, Huggins S, Davies N. Delivering a gamespeed-focused speed and agility development program in an English Premier League Soccer Academy. Strength Cond J. 2018;40(3):23–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Howland HC. Optimal strategies for predator avoidance: the relative importance of speed and manoeuvrability. J Theor Biol. 1974;47(2):333–50. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(74)90202-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Fish FE. Balancing requirements for stability and maneuverability in cetaceans. Integrative and Comparative Biology. 2002;42(1):85–93. doi: 10.1093/icb/42.1.85 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Atesoglu Ö, Özgören MK. High-alpha flight maneuverability enhancement of a fighter aircraft using thrust-vectoring control. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics. 2007;30(5):1480–93. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Kang X, Namgung M, Fujiwara A, Kim W, Wang W. Analysis of vehicle maneuverability and driving characteristics on a curved road condition. J Civ Eng. 2019;23(1):420–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Brughelli M, Cronin J, Levin G, Chaouachi A. Understanding change of direction ability in sport. Sports Med. 2008;38(12):1045–63. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200838120-00007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Verheul J, Nedergaard NJ, Vanrenterghem J, Robinson MA. Measuring biomechanical loads in team sports–from lab to field. Sci Med Football. 2020;4(3):246–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Besier TF, Lloyd DG, Cochrance JL, Ackland TR. External loading of the knee joint during running and cutting maneuvers. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33(7):1168–75. doi: 10.1097/00005768-200107000-00014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Merks BM, Frencken WG, den Otter A, Brink MS. Quantifying change of direction load using positional data from small-sided games in soccer. Sci Med Football. 2021;Ahead of Print. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sheppard JM, Young WB. Agility literature review: Classifications, training and testing. J Sports Sci. 2006;24(9):919–32. doi: 10.1080/02640410500457109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Miller C, Christman MC, Estevez I. Movement in a confined space: Estimating path tortuosity. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 2011;135(1–2):13–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Buchheit M, Al Haddad H, Simpson BM, Palazzi D, Bourdon PC, Di Salvo V, et al. Monitoring accelerations with GPS in football: time to slow down? Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9(3):442–5. doi: 10.1123/ijspp.2013-0187 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Winter DA, Sidwall HG, Hobson DA. Measurement and reduction of noise in kinematics of locomotion. J Biomech. 1974;7(2):157–9. doi: 10.1016/0021-9290(74)90056-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hopkins W. A spreadsheet for deriving a confidence interval, mechanistic inference and clinical inference from a p value 2007 [16–20]. Available from: sportsci.org/2007/wghinf.htm.
  • 25.Duthie GM, Thomas EJ, Bahnisch J, Thornton HR, Ball K. Using small-sided games in field hockey: can they be used to reach match intensity? J Strength Cond Res. 2019;Ahead of Print. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003445 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Johnston R, Thornton H, Wade J, Devlin P, Duthie G. The distribution of match activities relative to the maximal mean intensities in professional rugby league and Australian football. J Strength Cond Res. 2020;Ahead of Print. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0000000000003613 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Angilletta M Jr, Roth T, Wilson R, Niehaus A, Ribeiro P. The fast and the fractalous: speed and tortuosity trade off in running ants. Funct Ecol. 2008:78–83. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Benhamou S. How to reliably estimate the tortuosity of an animal’s path: straightness, sinuosity, or fractal dimension? J Theor Biol. 2004;229(2):209–20. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.03.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Gabbett T. Science of rugby league football: a review. J Sports Sci. 2005;23(9):961–76. doi: 10.1080/02640410400023381 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Woods CT, Robertson S, Collier NF. Evolution of game-play in the Australian Football League from 2001 to 2015. J Sports Sci. 2017;35(19):1879–87. doi: 10.1080/02640414.2016.1240879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Diedrich FJ, Warren WH Jr. Why change gaits? Dynamics of the walk-run transition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1995;21(1):183. doi: 10.1037//0096-1523.21.1.183 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Hickey JT, Timmins RG, Maniar N, Williams MD, Opar DA. Criteria for progressing rehabilitation and determining return-to-play clearance following hamstring strain injury: a systematic review. Sports Med. 2017;47(7):1375–87. doi: 10.1007/s40279-016-0667-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Stares J, Dawson B, Peeling P, Drew M, Heasman J, Rogalski B, et al. How much is enough in rehabilitation? High running workloads following lower limb muscle injury delay return to play but protect against subsequent injury. J Sci Med Sport. 2018;21(10):1019–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2018.03.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Linke D, Link D, Lames M. Validation of electronic performance and tracking systems EPTS under field conditions. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0199519. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199519 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Townshend AD, Worringham CJ, Stewart IB. Assessment of speed and position during human locomotion using nondifferential GPS. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(1):124–32. doi: 10.1249/mss.0b013e3181590bc2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Daniel Boullosa

14 Jul 2021

PONE-D-21-13310

A method to define athlete manoeuvrability in team sports

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Duthie,

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 Aug 28 2021 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: http://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,

Daniel Boullosa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

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

1. 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. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: The study is interesting and provides important and new information around the studied subject. It is very well designed, and the methods are quite clearly presented. However, it is important to provide more details about the variables/metrics analyzed since they are not usual in sport science studies. The outcomes become clearer in the discussion section, which was well constructed, but the results section should better explore and detail the data analyzed. A final paragraph with a brief summary of the conclusive statements and possible implications is required at the end of the study.

Abstract

The abstract was well developed and provides a good summary of the study. However, instead of explaining how each variable was calculated, it is important to describe “what” the variables represent. For example, the authors showed that “Compared to AFL, NRL had a greater negative quadratic coefficient…” but it is not clear what represents a “negative quadratic coefficient.” Is it related to good or bad manoeuvrability? This is essential to provide readers with a basic view of the rationale behind the study.

It is also important to briefly describe how many matches of each sport were analyzed.

Introduction

Lines 18-19? It is important to provide a reference to support this statement.

Lines 19-21: The “gamespeed” concept of Prof. Ian Jeffreys could be helpful to better support this idea (please, see some references below).

Jeffreys, I., Huggins, S., & Davies, N. (2018). Delivering a gamespeed-focused speed and agility development program in an English Premier League Soccer Academy. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 40(3), 23-32.

Jeffreys, I. (2010). Gamespeed: Movement training for superior sports performance. Coaches Choice.

Lines 22-24: This comparison is interesting, but maybe it would be better to use a reference more related to the sport science context. The “gamespeed” concept can also be used in this regard.

The introduction section was well designed, but before describing the purpose and objectives of the study, it is important to better emphasize the importance of assessing manoeuvrability in team sports and the practical relevance of this study to increase the body of knowledge on this topic.

Methods

It is important to better characterize the subjects/teams analyzed, including more information regarding them. Were they from the first division? How many games did they participate during the analyzed season?

Line 105: Please, delete “has been”.

Results

It is not completely clear what represents the “quadratic coefficient (a), the linear coefficient (b), or the intercept (c)” in relation to the manoeuvrability capacity. These analyses are not widespread and easy to understand (especially in sport science). Therefore, authors should better explain how these results are related to the study purposes. This is also essential to improve the impact and usefulness of the study for researchers and practitioners.

In the abstract section authors state that “A curvilinear relationship exists between maximal tortuosity and running speed, reflecting that as speed increases, athletes’ ability to deviate from a linear path is compromised.” However, this information is not clearly presented in the results section. It is important to provide more practical information for readers given the complexity of your analyses.

Figure 3: Does this figure show data from a representative athlete or mean values? Please, clarify.

Figure 4: It is not clear why authors presented this figure. It is not related to the study purposes. Please consider removing it.

Since the outcomes presented here are not usual in sport science studies, it is important to provide some information about the reliability of the variables presented.

Discussion

Line 182: It is not simple and practical and requires great experience in data analysis.

Lines 183-185: “This has implications for training prescription and rehabilitation and although not examined here, potentially performance evaluation in some sports.” Based on the results, it is not possible to affirm this. Please consider reformulating this statement.

Lines 188-190: “It was demonstrated that team sport athletes typically complete non-linear movements peaking at a speed of 2 m.s-1, decreasing thereafter to approximately 5 m.s-1 where tortuosity plateaus, and a linear running path is adopted.” This information should be presented in the results section. It is not clear how authors obtained this outcome.

Line 197: Again, this is not simple and practical. Please consider reformulating this.

Lines 206-208: This sentence is difficult to follow. Please, consider rephrasing this.

Lines 260-262: Please provide a reference for this statement.

Line 265: I understand the importance of the discussion around the rehab process, but it is beyond the study purposes and the match analysis performed. As suggested for figure 4, consider removing this part.

A conclusion is required to summarize the main outcomes found and reinforce the practical relevance of the study.

Reviewer #2: Review manuscript number: PONE-D-21-13310

Title: A method to define athlete maneuverability in team sports

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

-The article “A method to define athlete maneuverability in team sports” aimed to presented a method of quantifying the maneuverability of team sport athletes and investigated its relationship with running velocity during competition in team sports. I acknowledge the authors on their commitment to conduction such a difficulty study since working with athletes it is always hard. Also, I am pretty sure this topic is interesting and, indeed, more studies are required. However, I have major concerns regarding your study design and manuscript (listed below) which I think you should address thoroughly. I would be happy to review an updated version of your manuscript. following my comments and suggestions.

1) In general, with respect to the authors (effort and choices) the manuscript lacks methodological depth. Moreover, while reading your manuscript I feel a little lost (there is a lot of unhelpful information) ... Sometimes you were talking about differences in tracking systems…After you spoke about team sports physical demands… Change of direction/ reactive. What is your main objective???It is hard to follow…. Lot of information in the introduction

2) I really want to know the main purpose of using Global navigation satellite system (GNSS)? is your study the first to use this kind of material? If yes (please give information about validity and reliability...); If no (What is the novelty of your study….)

3) I noticed you used the term” team sports” in the title but you used only (football and rugby)?? No other disciplines?? … I think that the title is very general and do not reflect your methodology.

4) Physical and physiological demands of team sports vary from one discipline to another and it is very hard and not logical to give a general conclusion only by relying on two disciplines… Perhaps you could orient your study objective to compare only the requirements of Football and Rugby… it will be more relevant in my opinion.

5) You did not give additional information about the state of health of the participants during the whole sports season (injuries, illnesses ... which can stop sports practice) and of course it will influence your results.

6) You did not give additional information about the sports calendar of the participants during the whole sports season (congested game phase…Playoff... Covid19 lockdown) each phase has its own physical requirements and of course it will influence your results.

Specific comments

Introduction

1)The authors needed to provide a much more robust justification for this study based on the importance of (using such materiel); (why only) and finally what is new in your work (differences with previous studies investigating).

2)I suggest to add a clear hypothesis at the end based on what was previously reported (in the literature).

Methods

1) Did you proceed with a priori power analysis?

2) Please add BMI and BF%

3) Please add players training program/ History…

4)Please add the players position (it is important!!)

5)Please add inclusion criteria…

Results

-The results of the manuscript are well presented (Nothing to address)

Discussion

1)By following my suggestions (concerning adding a clear hypothesis) the authors may support or reject this hypothesis in the first part of the discussion…

2) The authors provide the most relevant information about the topic in this part (good work). However, I advise the authors to avoid using long sentences… I suggest to reduce the length of this topic (please try to be selective) …

Conclusion

1)The most important question here is what is the novelty that your study gives to the field??

2) Please add a practical applications part in which you may clearly explain how does the present study affect the field.

**********

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.

PLoS One. 2021 Nov 19;16(11):e0260363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260363.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


23 Aug 2021

Manuscript ID: PONE-D-21-13310

Title: A method to define athlete manoeuvrability in team sports

Comments to the editor

The authors wish to thank the editorial team for the thorough review of this manuscript. All the comments provided were extremely helpful, and as such we believe the amendments made have increased the quality of this manuscript.

Reviewer 1

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The study is interesting and provides important and new information around the studied subject. It is very well designed, and the methods are quite clearly presented. However, it is important to provide more details about the variables/metrics analyzed since they are not usual in sport science studies. The outcomes become clearer in the discussion section, which was well constructed, but the results section should better explore and detail the data analyzed. A final paragraph with a brief summary of the conclusive statements and possible implications is required at the end of the study.

Response: The authors wish to thank you for your time in reviewing this manuscript, it is greatly appreciated. All comments were helpful, and the suggested amendments have improved the quality of this manuscript. We have addressed the main points you have stated. Thank you again.

Abstract

The abstract was well developed and provides a good summary of the study. However, instead of explaining how each variable was calculated, it is important to describe “what” the variables represent. For example, the authors showed that “Compared to AFL, NRL had a greater negative quadratic coefficient…” but it is not clear what represents a “negative quadratic coefficient.” Is it related to good or bad manoeuvrability? This is essential to provide readers with a basic view of the rationale behind the study.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this with us. As we have tried to summarise a novel concept, we have had to include more detail regarding the methods as possible. However, we agree that insufficient information was included about what our findings mean. Some information about the calculation has been removed, and additional text has been included about what tortuosity represents, as well as in the results what a negative quadratic coefficient means. We hope these changes meet your expectations.

It is also important to briefly describe how many matches of each sport were analyzed.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this to us. This information has now been included; “62 athletes (Australian Football League [AFL]; n = 36, 17 matches, National Rugby League [NRL]; n= 26, 21 matches).”

Introduction

Lines 18-19? It is important to provide a reference to support this statement.

Response: The authors have added the word ‘anecdotally’ here, as what we are discussing is more of a conceptual background of the movements that we are attempting to quantify. Further, we can’t find any research which specifically prove this statement, however our statement is logical in this context.

Response:

Lines 19-21: The “gamespeed” concept of Prof. Ian Jeffreys could be helpful to better support this idea (please, see some references below).

Jeffreys, I., Huggins, S., & Davies, N. (2018). Delivering a gamespeed-focused speed and agility development program in an English Premier League Soccer Academy. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 40(3), 23-32.

Jeffreys, I. (2010). Gamespeed: Movement training for superior sports performance. Coaches Choice.

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. Based on the contents of each article, we have included the first one as a reference for our statement regarding movements in the game as we thought this was most relevant here.

Lines 22-24: This comparison is interesting, but maybe it would be better to use a reference more related to the sport science context. The “gamespeed” concept can also be used in this regard.

Response: We appreciate this suggestion, however as we are linking to the calculation of tortuosity and its application in other contexts (outside of sport) we believe it is most appropriate as It currently stands. As tortuosity has been researched in other context, we have emphasized this more, therefore have included an additional sentence; “Manoeuvrability has been extensively researched in other contexts including animal behaviour (13), aerodynamics (14) and vehicle design (15) but is also applicable in a sporting context.” We hope this will suffice.

The introduction section was well designed, but before describing the purpose and objectives of the study, it is important to better emphasize the importance of assessing manoeuvrability in team sports and the practical relevance of this study to increase the body of knowledge on this topic.

Response: Whilst we agree with your statement here, throughout the introduction we have stated the practical relevance of manoeuvrability in team sports in small parts, therefore it may not have stood out. However, based on the suggestions of yourself and reviewer 2, we have attempted to increase this by including additional sentences throughout. We hope this has improved the introduction. Two of these sentences read;

“Perhaps, the ability to accurately quantify such movements may result in practitioners implementing these into training programs more frequently and specific to the demands of competition.”

“Potentially if this physical attribute was appropriately trained, this may be improvable and performance advantages may result.”

Methods

It is important to better characterize the subjects/teams analyzed, including more information regarding them. Were they from the first division? How many games did they participate during the analyzed season?

Response: Whilst we thank you for this suggestion. Based on your suggestion as well as reviewer 2, we have added considerable detail here. Specifically, the competitions (AFL/NRL) are the names of the respective competitions (i.e., the division) of the respective sports, therefore the terminology of the division isn’t applicable here. Regarding the number of games, this information is detailed in the ‘Global Navigation Satellite Systems and Data Analysis’ section, as we deem this the most appropriate spot. We have also provided additional information relating to the athletes’ positions and their training programs. We hope this clears up your concern.

Line 105: Please, delete “has been”.

Response: Thank you, this is deleted now.

Results

It is not completely clear what represents the “quadratic coefficient (a), the linear coefficient (b), or the intercept (c)” in relation to the manoeuvrability capacity. These analyses are not widespread and easy to understand (especially in sport science). Therefore, authors should better explain how these results are related to the study purposes. This is also essential to improve the impact and usefulness of the study for researchers and practitioners.

Response: We thank you for your comment here and we do understand your point. However, as results sections are simply for stating results and the discussion is intended to explain such results, we don’t believe here is appropriate to add any explanation. To help explain the findings, we have included a short explanation of what the quadratic coefficients mean, which has assisted in some explanation in the discussion section. This reads as “Specifically, a represents the overall position of the curve up and down the y axis (i.e., wide or narrow), b reflects the upward or downward linear trend in y values along the x axis, and c is a constant (intercept), representing where the relationship sits on the y axis.” We have discussed the applied nature of these findings in greater detail in the Discussion, where typical convention would dictate.

In the abstract section authors state that “A curvilinear relationship exists between maximal tortuosity and running speed, reflecting that as speed increases, athletes’ ability to deviate from a linear path is compromised.” However, this information is not clearly presented in the results section. It is important to provide more practical information for readers given the complexity of your analyses.

Response: Thank you for your comment here. We have included this information and further explanation of the findings in the discussion rather than the results. As per the journal guidelines, we have selected to have ‘separate’ results/discussion/conclusions, therefore any results explanation is situated within the discussion. As we understand your overall point, we have made substantial changes to the discussion to better link the findings to a practical interpretation. We hope these changes suffice.

Figure 3: Does this figure show data from a representative athlete or mean values? Please, clarify.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this to us. This data is the mean by sport and duration - this is now included in the figure caption.

Figure 4: It is not clear why authors presented this figure. It is not related to the study purposes. Please consider removing it.

Response: Although this figure is not depicting an actual result as such of our study, this figure helps present the practical application of the use of tortuosity. As we are presenting a new concept (manoeuvrability) in this study, we have attempted to provide as many practical applications as possible, therefore we feel that including an example of a rehab session versus a game is important. We hope you understand our reasoning here.

Since the outcomes presented here are not usual in sport science studies, it is important to provide some information about the reliability of the variables presented.

Response: Thank you for your comment here. The authors don’t fully understand what you’re referring to when you say ‘outcomes’. However, we assume you may be referring to the “validity” (i.e., accuracy) of GPS for monitoring players speed and position. As such, we have mentioned the validity of GPS for establishing XY position (line 311) and have also included a reference for the validity of GPS for monitoring speed. Please let us know if this is not what was being referred to.

Discussion

Line 182: It is not simple and practical and requires great experience in data analysis.

Response: The authors partially disagree with this statement, however, we have removed the word ‘simple’ from this sentence. The process involved is relatively straight forward for those involved or have experience using GNSS in applied settings. We agree that a degree of data analysis expertise is required, however this is a given within this applied cohort of practitioners.

Lines 183-185: “This has implications for training prescription and rehabilitation and although not examined here, potentially performance evaluation in some sports.” Based on the results, it is not possible to affirm this. Please consider reformulating this statement.

Response: Thank you for this comment. Whilst we take this comment on board, respectively we disagree, in that we are simply suggesting how tortuosity can be used beyond this paper in applied settings. As applied practitioners ourselves, this concept is one which we have already begun to implement within our programs, and tortuosity has provided us with an objective measure to quantify such movements.

Lines 188-190: “It was demonstrated that team sport athletes typically complete non-linear movements peaking at a speed of 2 m�s-1, decreasing thereafter to approximately 5 m�s-1 where tortuosity plateaus, and a linear running path is adopted.” This information should be presented in the results section. It is not clear how authors obtained this outcome.

Response: Whilst we understand your point here, we have provided adequate information surrounding the curve-linear relationship between speed and tortuosity and have presented our findings of this in multiple ways (Table 1, Figure 2, 3 and 4). As we have presented a new concept here, we tried not to fixate over the statistical findings (i.e., differences between sports), rather by presenting and explaining the data in a practical way. As such, we have taken this comment on board and have added additional text within the discussion on the interpretation of the relationship coefficients in table 1. We believe these additions have strengthened this section, so we thank you again for this contribution.

Line 197: Again, this is not simple and practical. Please consider reformulating this.

Response: We understand your perspective here, however as stated previously those working with GNSS data in professional settings require a standard of data analysis skills. To reflect this, we have included the wording “for those with appropriate expertise” into this sentence. We hope this addition is adequate.

Lines 206-208: This sentence is difficult to follow. Please, consider rephrasing this.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue with us. We agree it was worded poorly and has since been reworded to be clearer. Thank you.

Lines 260-262: Please provide a reference for this statement.

Response: Thank you, in support of the statement we have added the following reference:

Hickey, J. T., Timmins, R. G., Maniar, N., Williams, M. D., & Opar, D. A. (2017). Criteria for progressing rehabilitation and determining return-to-play clearance following hamstring strain injury: a systematic review. Sports medicine, 47(7), 1375-1387.

Line 265: I understand the importance of the discussion around the rehab process, but it is beyond the study purposes and the match analysis performed. As suggested for figure 4, consider removing this part.

Response: Thank you for the comment. While we agree quantifying the rehabilitation process was not a purpose of the study, we feel that the example of using tortuosity in relation to speed provides a practical context of quantifying manoeuvrability in team sports when developing a return to play program. We wanted to highlight the ability of GNSS devices to quantify more than just speed, high speed running, and acceleration. As such, the authors have added some of this to the conclusion requested in the next comment.

A conclusion is required to summarize the main outcomes found and reinforce the practical relevance of the study.

Response: Yes, we agree that there should be a concluding statement here. As such, between lines 338 and 345 is a concluding paragraph. Thank you for this suggestion.

Reviewer #2: Review manuscript number: PONE-D-21-13310

Title: A method to define athlete maneuverability in team sports

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The article “A method to define athlete maneuverability in team sports” aimed to presented a method of quantifying the maneuverability of team sport athletes and investigated its relationship with running velocity during competition in team sports. I acknowledge the authors on their commitment to conduction such a difficulty study since working with athletes it is always hard. Also, I am pretty sure this topic is interesting and, indeed, more studies are required. However, I have major concerns regarding your study design and manuscript (listed below) which I think you should address thoroughly. I would be happy to review an updated version of your manuscript. following my comments and suggestions.

Response: The authors wish to thank you for your time in reviewing this manuscript, it is greatly appreciated. All comments were helpful, and the suggested amendments have improved the quality of this manuscript. We have addressed the main points you have stated and hope that this meets your requirements. Thank you again.

1) In general, with respect to the authors (effort and choices) the manuscript lacks methodological depth. Moreover, while reading your manuscript I feel a little lost (there is a lot of unhelpful information) ... Sometimes you were talking about differences in tracking systems…After you spoke about team sports physical demands… Change of direction/ reactive. What is your main objective???It is hard to follow…. Lot of information in the introduction

Response: Thank you for this comment. Based on this suggestion and that of reviewer 1, we have added some more content to the introduction to add clarity, in particular brief summarising sentences at the end of each paragraph. Each paragraph has a specific focus, and a purpose in relation to the new concept we are introducing in this manuscript. Regarding the differences in tracking systems, the introduction focuses solely on GNSS devices and no other tracking systems such as smart cameras and Local Position Systems, so we can’t provide any explanation for this point. Although there is a lot of information in the introduction, we feel that this is necessary as we are introducing a novel concept to team sports. In summary, our introduction includes a summary on; GNSS devices, movements within team sports, measuring these movements with GNSS,

2) I really want to know the main purpose of using Global navigation satellite system (GNSS)? is your study the first to use this kind of material? If yes (please give information about validity and reliability...); If no (What is the novelty of your study….)

Response: GNSS devices are used extensively within team sports, both in a professional and research setting. As discussed in the manuscript, the validity of GNSS devices has been previously quantified. The novelty of the study is the quantification of manoeuvrability, which has not been done before in a team sport setting

3) I noticed you used the term” team sports” in the title but you used only (football and rugby)?? No other disciplines?? … I think that the title is very general and do not reflect your methodology.

Response: Thank you, yes we agree that team sports is quite general and as such have changed the title to “A method to define athlete manoeuvrability in field based team sports”? Further to this, we have changed parts of the discussion which refer to team sports and have changed this to ‘two field based team sports’.

4) Physical and physiological demands of team sports vary from one discipline to another and it is very hard and not logical to give a general conclusion only by relying on two disciplines… Perhaps you could orient your study objective to compare only the requirements of Football and Rugby… it will be more relevant in my opinion.

Response: Thank you, and yes we agree that the demands of team sport vary, in particular between field and court based sports. Subsequently, and aligning with the title modification you suggested in your comment above, we have provided clarity throughout the paper in specifying that we were assessing two field based sports. We believe this has increased the quality of the manuscript.

5) You did not give additional information about the state of health of the participants during the whole sports season (injuries, illnesses ... which can stop sports practice) and of course it will influence your results.

Response: We have clarified that the players were monitored over the standard competition phase which consists of weekly games. As we only monitored competition games, players that were deemed fit to play were only included in the analysis. We hope this clarifies your concern.

6) You did not give additional information about the sports calendar of the participants during the whole sports season (congested game phase…Playoff... Covid19 lockdown) each phase has its own physical requirements and of course it will influence your results.

Response: While we agree that changes to the competition schedule may modify the physical requirements of players, during this study we were lucky enough in Australia to continue with regular weekly competition games in the AFL and NRL. Subsequently, we have highlighted that games were on a weekly basis for the collection of data for this research project. Additional text relating to the match recovery periods (turn around length) has also been added, reading; ”Matches were played weekly during the competition, with match recovery periods ranging from 4 to 10 days in AFL and 5 to 9 days for NRL.”

Specific comments

Introduction

1)The authors needed to provide a much more robust justification for this study based on the importance of (using such materiel); (why only) and finally what is new in your work (differences with previous studies investigating).

Response: Thank you for this comment. Throughout the introduction, the authors believe there is sufficient detail relating to the importance of quantifying manoeuvrability. We have attempted to highlight the gap in research as much as possible. Specifically, we believe lines 25-27, 37-39, 51, 57-58 and lines 63-66 now include such information you have suggested.

2) I suggest to add a clear hypothesis at the end based on what was previously reported (in the literature).

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. This has been included now.

Methods

1) Did you proceed with a priori power analysis?

Response: In this context, a priori power analysis is not relevant as we are limited by the number of athletes within each squad, a factor in which we can’t control. Further, as we aren’t using inferential statistics to explain differences between the quadratic equation coefficients, this priori analysis again is not applicable. As our total dataset is comprised of 714 match files (372 for AFL and 342 for NRL), we are confident that our sample size is adequate. We hope you understand our reasoning here.

2) Please add BMI and BF%

Response: In the context of both AFL and NRL, both BMI and BF% aren’t relevant anthropometric measures, and therefore not included in this study. Given the high muscle mass of these athletes compared to the general population, their BMI is typically categorised as ‘obese’ which is simply incorrect, and a limitation of this measure regarding extreme spectrums of muscle mass. Further, BF% is also non-applicable here as this cannot be measured reliability across the two sports, using the same tool (i.e., DEXA). Further, given the constraints applied to these athletes during the 2020 season and the restricted living and training environment, athletes weren’t able to have DXA scans or have skinfolds taken as this required additional staff or environments which weren’t permitted. As such, body mass and height are the most reliable metrics we have available which are included in this study.

3) Please add players training program/ History…

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have included a section regarding their training programs, reading; “Prior to and during the competitive season, athletes from both teams participated in a full-time professional training program. This entailed up to 4 field-based training sessions per week, undergoing specific skills-based training, as well as speed and conditioning training. Additionally, up to 4 resistance based sessions were completed, with a primary focus on strength and power development.” Nevertheless, it is important to note that we are showing this method as an exemplar, and the actual position differences and sport differences are somewhat secondary (specifically because we haven’t looked at the performance side here or tried to predict tortuosity from a feature set (i.e., using BMI, training history, etc). We hope this explanation addresses the concerns of the reviewer.

4)Please add the players position (it is important!!)

Response: Thank you raising this oversight with us. Positions have bene included, reading; “For both teams, athletes from all positional groups were included (despite no positional analyses conducted). The AFL squad included; midfielders (n=11), mobile backs (n=4), mobile forwards (n=9), ruck (n=1), tall back (n=4) and tall forwards (n=3). For NRL, the squad comprised of edge forwards (n=4), fullback (n=1), halves and hookers (n=6), middle forwards (n=9) and outside backs (n=6).”

5)Please add inclusion criteria…

Response: As we have conducted this within a professional setting, there was no set inclusion criteria’ as this is simply if they completed game. However, we have included some text to clarify this, which reads “Athletes were included in the study if they played a game for their respective team, and completed the match (i.e., were uninjured).”

Results

-The results of the manuscript are well presented (Nothing to address)

Response: Thank you kindly for the positive feedback on this section of the manuscript

Discussion

1)By following my suggestions (concerning adding a clear hypothesis) the authors may support or reject this hypothesis in the first part of the discussion…

Response: Thank you. We have since included the statement; “Our hypothesis was partially supported whereby there was a decrease in tortuosity as running speed increased.”

2) The authors provide the most relevant information about the topic in this part (good work). However, I advise the authors to avoid using long sentences… I suggest to reduce the length of this topic (please try to be selective) …

Response: Thank you for this suggestion. We have made this amendment throughout the discussion.

Conclusion

1) The most important question here is what is the novelty that your study gives to the field??

Response: The authors believe we have added sufficient information relating to the novelty of this study, not only in the discussion but throughout the entire manuscript. Specifically, in the introduction, lines 25-27, 37-39, 210-212, 221 to 223, 296-297,303 -306, and throughout the concluding paragraph. Overall, we believe these sections (some of which are new to this revision) provide this information. Thank you again.

2) Please add a practical applications part in which you may clearly explain how does the present study affect the field.”

Response: Thank you for this comment. Reviewer 1 had the same suggestion, and as such between lines 320 and 327 is a concluding paragraph.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Daniel Boullosa

8 Oct 2021

PONE-D-21-13310R1A method to define athlete manoeuvrability in field-based team sportsPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Duthie,

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, address the last reviewers' suggestions ASAP before acceptance.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 22 2021 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,

Daniel Boullosa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

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

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 #1: (No Response)

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Overall, the authors performed a good work after the first round of revision. There are still minor (but important) issues that must be addressed before the final acceptance of the study.

Lines 57-58: This sentence is not clear. What would be improvable? The running speed or the control? Please restructure the sentence for the sake of clarity.

The authors stated that they followed the journal guidelines to organize/divide the manuscript into results, discussion, and conclusions. Under this rationale, following the journal guidelines, the results section “should describe the results of the experiments”. Since figure 4 is not a “result” of the experiment, it should be removed from the study.

Accordingly, as figure 4 is not part of the results of the study, the discussion regarding this respective figure should also be deleted.

Reviewer #2: Review manuscript number: PONE-D-21-13310

Title: A method to define athlete maneuverability in team sports

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

first of all, I would like to congratulate the authors for their quality of response indeed the manuscript has been well checked according to my comments and suggestions ... However, I have three suggestions that I consider interesting and can give more originality and clarity in your work.

**Title

1) The title is very general in my opinion and do not show the originality of your work... I suggest to use this "Using GNSS as a valid tool to quantify maneuverability in australian football and rugby leagues"

** Objective

1)I suggest directing your objective to compare football and rugby in terms of maneuverability recorded by (GNSS) and the relation with physical requirements of each sporting discipline (maybe reported with time motions analysis)...

**Discussion

1) Suggest to discuss differences between football and rugby ( maneuverability GNSS) and compare your results with other using different method...

**********

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 #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.

PLoS One. 2021 Nov 19;16(11):e0260363. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260363.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


20 Oct 2021

Response to Reviewers Comments

Lines 57-58: This sentence is not clear. What would be improvable? The running speed or the control? Please restructure the sentence for the sake of clarity.

Response: We have now restructured this sentence to read ‘Potentially if manoeuvrability was appropriately targeted in training, it may be improvable and performance advantages may result’

The authors stated that they followed the journal guidelines to organize/divide the manuscript into results, discussion, and conclusions. Under this rationale, following the journal guidelines, the results section “should describe the results of the experiments”. Since figure 4 is not a “result” of the experiment, it should be removed from the study.

Response: We understand your point as Figure 4 is not a direct ‘result’ from a specific hypothesis/experiment, however it is a crucial element in demonstrating the practical application of the findings. As PLOS One is an applied journal that is highly relevant to practitioners working with athletes, we have decided to present figure 4 in the discussion (line 301) to provide an exemplar of the method and provide direction for future research.

Accordingly, as figure 4 is not part of the results of the study, the discussion regarding this respective figure should also be deleted.

Response: As mentioned above, we have moved figure 4 to the discussion and still believe that the associated discussion is relevant for the applied nature of PlosOne.

Reviewer #2: Review manuscript number: PONE-D-21-13310

The title is very general in my opinion and do not show the originality of your work... I suggest to use this "Using GNSS as a valid tool to quantify maneuverability in australian football and rugby leagues"

Response: We have considered the title and added the term ‘GNSS-based’ as we believe that this distinction further assists with the description of the paper. We do however see the potential for the method to be used in any running-based, outdoor team sports so would prefer that we did not delimit to the two exemplar sports on this occasion, so as to not limit its appeal, potential application and ability for citation elsewhere.

I suggest directing your objective to compare football and rugby in terms of maneuverability recorded by (GNSS) and the relation with physical requirements of each sporting discipline (maybe reported with time motions analysis)...

Response: We respectfully disagree as we believe that this is a secondary objective to the broader, more generalisable current aim. We use these two sports here to highlight the applicability of the method in two team sports, however the primary emphasis is on promotion of the method itself. Considering there is not a commonly reported (or from our practical experience, utilised) method similar to tortuosity we would maintain that it is justified that scope be broadly maintained as in the manuscript’s current format.

Suggest to discuss differences between football and rugby (maneuverability GNSS) and compare your results with other using different method...

Response: We believe that we have already directly compared the two sports on lines 245-259 and again at lines 286-293. We are not entirely clear on what the reviewer is requesting in the second part of this comment, however if they would be willing to clarify then we will be happy to address.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 2

Daniel Boullosa

9 Nov 2021

A GNSS-based method to define athlete manoeuvrability in field-based team sports

PONE-D-21-13310R2

Dear Dr. Duthie,

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 for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, 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,

Daniel Boullosa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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 #1: All comments have been addressed

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 #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: Yes

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 #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Thank you for addressing my raised questions. Overall from my point of view, the paper is now clearer . Therefore, my recommendation to the editor is to accept this paper for publication.

**********

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 #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Daniel Boullosa

11 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-13310R2

A GNSS-based method to define athlete manoeuvrability in field-based team sports

Dear Dr. Duthie:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Daniel Boullosa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Responses to Reviewers.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The data underlying the results presented in the study are available directly from Kaggle: https://www.kaggle.com/duthieg/afl-nrl-tortuosity-data.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES