## 3 Results
### Physical Performance Data
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Playing** & **Leg Muscle** & **Thigh Muscle** & **Cross-Sectional Area** & **Maximal thigh** & **Upper Limb** \\
**Positions** & **Volume [L]** & **Volume [L]** & **[cm\({}^{2}\)]** & **Section Area [cm\({}^{2}\)]** & **Muscle Volume [L]** \\ \cline{2-5}  & & & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD (95\% CI)** & & \\ \hline Pivots & **13.4 \(\pm\) 2.04** & **10.5 \(\pm\) 1.31** & **229 \(\pm\) 20.5** & 277 \(\pm\) 31.5 & 3.67 \(\pm\) 0.31 \\ (n = 14) & (12.3–14.4) & (9.70–11.3) & (209–249) & (259–2.95) & (3.29–4.06) \\ Wings & 12.1 \(\pm\) 1.72 & 8.70 \(\pm\) 1.61 & 214 \(\pm\) 29.7 & **284 \(\pm\) 43.7** & 3.41 \(\pm\) 0.97 \\ (n = 14) & (11.1–13.2) & (7.68–95.52) & (195–234) & (265–302) & (3.03–3.79) \\ Backs & 11.9 \(\pm\) 2.42 & 8.28 \(\pm\) 2.06 & 180 \(\pm\) 62.8 & 265 \(\pm\) 36.3 & **3.86 \(\pm\) 0.94** \\ (n = 12) & (10.8–13.0) & (7.40–9.16) & (158–201) & (245–285) & (3.44–4.27) \\ Goalkeepers & 11.9 \(\pm\) 1.03 & 9.98 \(\pm\) 0.63 & 218 \(\pm\) 8.85 & 239 \(\pm\) 10.1 & 3.19 \(\pm\) 0.07 \\ (GK; n = 10) & (10.7–13.1) & (9.01–11.0) & (195–241) & (217–261) & (2.74–3.64) \\ \hline \hline \(p\) & 0.169 & **<0.001** & **0.010** & **0.016** & 0.141 \\ \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) & 0.10 & **0.29** & **0.22** & **0.20** & 0.11 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Muscle volumes in relation to playing positions. CI = confidence interval. Relevant mean differences (dependent variable: positions) and maxima are marked in bold. Regarding endurance and throwing performance, for all parameters/tests, the relevant position effects were calculated (Table 5). The position effects differed from \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.23 (medicine ball throw) to \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.41 (T-Half test) and were also generated by the markedly lower performance of goalkeepers. When compared with sprinting performance, smaller position-specific differences were calculated for strength performance (Table 6). The partial eta squared (\(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\)) ranged from 0.05 (bench press) to 0.35 (half squat). Whereas Wings were the strongest players in these tests, Goalkeepers consistently showed the lowest strength performance (Table 6). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Playing**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**One-Repetition Maximum (1-RM) Test**} \\ \cline{2-4}  & **Bench Press** & **Pull Over** & **Half Squat** \\  & **[kg/kg]** & **[kg/kg]** & **[kg/kg]** \\ \cline{2-4}  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean \(\pm\) SD (95\% CI)**} \\ \hline Pivots & 1.27 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 0.53 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 2.34 \(\pm\) 0.53 \\ (n = 14) & (1.13–1.40) & (0.48–0.59) & (2.12–2.56) \\ Wings & **1.35 \(\pm\) 0.26** & **0.55 \(\pm\) 0.10** & **2.69 \(\pm\) 0.41** \\ (n = 14) & (1.22–1.48) & (0.50–0.61) & (2.47–2.91) \\ Backs & 1.29 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 0.52 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 2.28 \(\pm\) 0.29 \\ (n = 12) & (1.15–1.44) & (0.46–0.58) & (2.05–2.52) \\ Goalkeepers & 1.19 \(\pm\) 0.26 & 0.48 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 1.87 \(\pm\) 0.32 \\ (GK; n = 10) & (1.03–1.35) & (0.42–0.55) & (1.61–2.13) \\ \hline \hline \(p\) & 0.467 & 0.439 & **<0.001** \\ \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) & 0.05 & 0.06 & **0.35** \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{4}{l}{ Partial effects (\(p\))} & - & - & GK vs. Wings: \textless{}0.001 \\ \multicolumn{4}{l}{} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: One-repetition maximum performances depending on playing positions and normalized by body mass. CI = confidence interval. Relevant mean differences (dependent variable: positions) and performance maxima are marked in bold.