## 3 Results
Note: The boxplots (**A**–**F**) illustrate the distribution of key performance metrics (Distance Zones 1–4 and the total distance in km; relative distance covered in m/min) across playing positions: Central Defensive Fielders (CDFs), Central Midfielders (CMFs), Forwards (FWDs), Wide Defensive Fielders (WDFs) and Wide Midfielders (WMFs). The following symbols denote significant pairwise differences: CDF vs. CMF (*), CDF vs. FWD (#), CDF vs. WDF (\(\dagger\)), CDF vs. WMF (\(\ddagger\)), CMF vs. FWD (\(\dagger\)), CMF vs. WMF (\(\lx@sectionsign\)), CMF vs. WMF (\(\lx@sectionsign\)), CMF vs. WMF (\(\lx@sectionsign\)), CMF vs. WDF (\(\emptyset\)), FWD vs. WDF (\(\Delta\)). Dots indicate statistical outliers identified using the IQR method, which were retained in the analysis due to their potential to represent meaningful individual differences in physical performance. Dots represent statistical outliers (IQR method) retained for analysis, as they may reflect meaningful individual variability in physical performance. Table 3. Specifically, moderate significant differences between first and second halves were noted in the total distance covered (U = 1756, ES = \(-\)0.437, \(p\) = 0.001) and relative distance covered per minute (U = 1110, ES = \(-\)0.644, \(p\) = 0.001), with players decreasing their performance during the second half. Distances covered in lower-intensity zones also showed a decline, with small significant differences observed in Distance Zone 1 (U = 1477, ES = \(-\)0.526, \(p\) = 0.001) and Distance Zone 2 (U = 2158, ES = \(-\)0.308, \(p\) = 0.001). Although a decrease was noted in Distance Zone 3 (\(p\) = 0.093) and Distance Zone 4 (\(p\) = 0.454), these did not reach statistical significance. Sprint-related variables followed a similar trend; a small significant decline in the number of sprints was observed (U = 2325, ES = \(-\)0.255, \(p\) = 0.006), whereas the reduction in the total sprint distance only approached but did not meet statistical significance (U = 2565, \(p\) = 0.053). In addition, small significant declines for accelerations (t = 2.76, ES = 0.438, \(p\) = 0.007) and decelerations (t = 2.93, ES = 0.465, \(p\) = 0.004) were noted during the second halves compared to the first ones. Maximum speed achieved did not differ significantly between halves (\(p\) = 0.390). A consistent decline in physical performance was observed in the second halves across most variables (Tables 3 and 4 and Figures 3 and 4). Specifically, in Distance Zone 1, a significant decrease was indicated from a mean of 2.42 km in the first half to 2.20 km in the second half, while Distance Zone 2 followed a similar pattern, decreasing from 1.40 km to 1.19 km (\(p\) < 0.05). Although Distance Zones 3 and 4 also showed slight reductions, these changes were not statistically significant. However, the total distance covered significantly decreased from 4.61 km to 4.18 km between the halves (\(p\) < 0.05), as did the relative distance covered per minute, which declined from 98.14 to 84.07 m/min (\(p\) < 0.05), indicating a reduction in running output over time. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multirow{2}{*}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**95\% Confidence**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Std.**} \\  & & & **Interval Mean** & \\  & & & **Upper** & **Lower** & \\ \hline Distance Zone 1 (km) * & 1 st half & 2.421 & 2.457 & 2.385 & 0.160 \\  & 2 nd half & 2.202 & 2.265 & 2.138 & 0.284 \\ Distance Zone 2 (km) * & 1 st half & 1.401 & 1.487 & 1.315 & 0.384 \\  & 2 nd half & 1.191 & 1.273 & 1.110 & 0.364 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: The symbol * indicates significant differences at \(p\) < 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Descriptive statistics of the distance covered across zones, the total distance, and speed metrics between the first and second halves.