# Training Tasks vs. Match Demands: Do Football Drills Replicate Worst-Case Scenarios?
## 4 Discussion  
The present study aimed to identify which training tasks best replicate the WCSs observed during match play, considering playing positions and occurrences within a 1 min period. None of the training tasks fully replicated the peak demands observed during match play, although some approached them depending on the variable and playing position. Tasks TYPE 5 and TYPE 11 were the closest in terms of total distance covered, yet generally remained below 90% of match values, particularly for wide players and forwards. HSR and HMLD showed substantial demands, with TYPE 11 and TYPE 8 standing out for central defenders and midfielders. Accelerations and decelerations were the most accurately replicated variables, exceeding 80% in tasks such as TYPE 9, 10, and 11. However, sprint efforts exhibited the greatest discrepancies, with no task reaching 60% of match demands. TYPE 11 and TYPE 9 were generally the most representative in approximating the WCSs observed in matches, whereas HSR and sprint demands were largely underrepresented across all training scenarios. When comparing playing positions with previous studies [40], it can be observed that wide players and forwards tend to cover the greatest total distance during large-pitch tasks. Additionally, in these tasks, central defenders and central midfielders are the ones who accumulate the highest volumes of HSR. These results contrast with those of the comparative study, in which, on the day large-sided games were performed, the players who generally covered the greatest total distance and HSR were the central defenders. Numerous studies [41; 42; 43; 44] support the notion that match demands are not fully replicated during the microcycle, a finding that aligns with the results of the present study. Furthermore, a recent study [45] not only concluded that none of the training tasks performed during the microcycle replicated the WCSs observed on match day (MD), but also noted--consistent with the findings of the present study--that in certain tasks, acceleration and deceleration metrics may approximate the WCSs of MD. To address the challenge of underestimating WCSs in training tasks, previous research [12] has suggested that, in order to replicate peak match demands, players should cover approximately 190 m/min in total distance and around 60 m/min in HSR during training. However, when compared to the WCSs observed in the present study, these thresholds appear excessively high. This discrepancy may be attributed to differences in physical and technical-tactical profiles between squads, the level of competition (Spanish Smartbank League vs. English Championship) [46], and the tracking technologies used for training monitoring and data collection (WIMU PRO vs. Catapult) [47]. These differences, along with the distinct training methodologies applied by coaching staff across different leagues, could have a direct impact on team performance, the optimisation of players' physical output, or injury prevention. Other studies [48] excluded ball-out-of-play time and rest periods between sets in their analyses. They concluded that the peak physical demands to be replicated in training tasks with ball in play should be approximately 165 m/min for total distance, around 46 m/min for HSR, approximately 3.8 counts/min for accelerations >3 m/s\({}^{2}\), approximately 3.6 counts/min for decelerations <-3 m/s\({}^{2}\), and around 56 m/min for high metabolic load distance (HMLD). In comparison with the present study, which did not exclude ball-out-of-play data, these values are notably higher. This substantial difference may be explained by contextual variations between teams. In contrast to our study and others [49], which employed objective variables to monitor training load, some investigations have utilised subjective measures to assess both training load and fatigue [50].