## 3 Results
### Distances covered According to Intensity and Playing Position  
Regarding the total distance covered, statistically significant differences were determined considering the field position (F(4,752) = 10.471; \(p\) < 0.001) with a small effect size (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.053). Specifically, post hoc analysis showed that midfielders covered a significantly greater distance compared to center backs (\(p\) < 0.05), lateral backs (\(p\) < 0.001), and forwards (\(p\) < 0.001). Regarding the distances covered at moderate intensity, the results showed statistically significant differences between the different positions (F(4,320.316) = 17.407; \(p\) < 0.001) with a mean effect size of \(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.093. In particular, post hoc analysis revealed that midfielders covered significantly greater distances at moderate intensity than those covered by players in all other positions (\(p\) < 0.001 for all comparisons). Likewise, lateral midfielders covered significantly greater distances at moderate intensity compared to lateral defenders (\(p\) < 0.001). Regarding the distance covered at high intensity, the results showed statistically significant differences between the different positions (F(4,750) = 4.339; \(p\) < 0.01) with a small effect size (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.023), showing an increase in the distance covered between midfielders compared to fullbacks (\(p\) < 0.05). Regarding the distances covered in sprinting, the results showed statistically significant differences between the different positions (F(4,662) = 2.629; \(p\) < 0.05) with a small effect size (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.016). In particular, post hoc analysis showed that central defenders covered a significantly greater distance in sprinting than midfielders (\(p\) < 0.05) (Table 2). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline
**Distance** **Covered** **(m)** & **Central** **Defender** **(CD)** & **Fullback** **(FB)** & **Midfielder (MF)** & **Forward** **(FW)** & **One-Way ANOVA (F/D\(\acute{e}\), \(p\)-Value)** **(\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\))** \\ \hline Total & 5199.9 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) (4934.10; 4819.47; 5482.76) & 4988.8 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) (5623.41; 6053.40) & 5432.5 (5188.00; 5675.44) & 5046.6 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) (F(4,752.9; 5482.76) & (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\) < 0.001) \\ Moderate intensity & 822.0 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) (80.5\%) (758.9; 890.2) (691.37; 774.46) & 1065.3 \({}^{\mathrm{abde}}\) (82.6\%) (989.69; 1146.56) & 856.0 \({}^{\mathrm{bc}}\) (79.4\%) (794.51; 922.35) & 738.2 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) (79.0\%) (667.57; 174.07; \(p\) < 0.001) \\ High intensity & 156,0 (15.3\%) (134.8; 180.7) (137.08; 167.88) & 196.3 \({}^{\mathrm{b}}\) (15.2\%) (176.60; 217.77) & 193.1 (17.9\%) (169.82; 219.28) & 162.1 (17.4\%) (139.31; 188.79) & (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.012) \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Sprint} & 42.7 \({}^{\mathrm{c}}\) (4.1\%) & 36.4 (3.9\%) & 28.5 \({}^{\mathrm{a}}\) (2.2\%) & 29.7 (2.6\%) & 32.9 (3.5\%) (2.6\%) (2.5\%) (2.6\%; 41.8) & 3.7 \(\pm\) 0.2 \\  & (34.0; 53.5) & (31.0; 42.8) & (24.2; 33.6) & (24.4; 36.2) & (25.8; 41.8) & (\(\eta_{\mathrm{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.016) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Distances covered according to intensity and playing position. Distance covered is expressed as a percentage of the total distance in the three analyzed zones according to the playing position.