## 4 Discussion  
This study aimed to examine the differences between top-ranked and mid-ranked teams' football players in cardiorespiratory and metabolic parameters. The main findings of the study are as follows: (i) The football players from better teams achieved significantly lower heart rate values at the anaerobic threshold (HR AT and HR AT%), as well as better performance in the second minute of recovery (HR 2\({}^{\prime}\) and %Re 2\({}^{\prime}\)). (ii) In the VO\({}_{2}\)max parameters, the mid-ranked team players achieved significantly higher values, specifically in VO2 max, VO\({}_{2}\)max/v, and VO\({}_{2}\)max/HR. (iii) There were no differences between the groups in Hrmax, V AT, HR 1\({}^{\prime}\), or %Re 1\({}^{\prime}\). (iv) In the lactate parameters, no differences were observed between the groups, except for the Index ME, which was more favorable in the better team. Numerous studies have investigated the physiological profile of football players from various national leagues [4; 11; 37; 52; 53]. The average match intensity of elite-level football ranges between 76.6% and 90.1 \(\pm\) 3.9% VO\({}_{2}\)max during a match [25]. In the Estonian Premium League, physiological comparisons revealed that players from higher-ranked teams had lower maximal heart rates (HRmax: 189.5 \(\pm\) 5.6 bpm) than those from lower-ranked teams (192.2 \(\pm\) 5.2 bpm). Similar trends were observed in the average heart rate values (146.6 \(\pm\) 15.8 bpm vs. 155.0 \(\pm\) 14.5 bpm) and the percentage of HRmax achieved during match play (77.4 \(\pm\) 8.4% vs. 80.6 \(\pm\) 6.5%), indicating enhanced cardiovascular \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & **Top-Ranked** & **Mid-Ranked** & \multirow{2}{*}{_p_**-Value**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cohen’s \(d\)**} \\  & **Team Players** & **Team Players** & & \\ HRmax (bpm) & 192.79 \(\pm\) 9.31 & 191.15 \(\pm\) 7.41 & 0.477 & 0.195 \\ THRmax (bpm) & 209.86 \(\pm\) 4.74 & 198.35 \(\pm\) 3.52 & 0.000 \(\ast\ast\) & 2.758 \\ V AT (km/h) & 17.38 \(\pm\) 1.35 & 16.73 \(\pm\) 1.25 & 0.071 & 0.499 \\ \%HRmax (\%) & 91.67 \(\pm\) 3.75 & 96.48 \(\pm\) 3.26 & 0.000 \(\ast\ast\) & 1.369 \\ HR AT (bpm) & 162.79 \(\pm\) 10.26 & 168.77 \(\pm\) 7.28 & 0.017 \(\ast\) & 0.672 \\ HR AT \% (\%) & 84.90 \(\pm\) 2.45 & 87.96 \(\pm\) 3.14 & 0.000 \(\ast\ast\) & 1.087 \\ HR AT/kg (score) & 9.39 \(\pm\) 0.56 & 10.06 \(\pm\) 0.74 & 0.000 \(\ast\ast\) & 1.009 \\ \% HR AT/kg (\%) & 4.91 \(\pm\) 0.34 & 5.25 \(\pm\) 0.41 & 0.001 \(\ast\) & 0.902 \\ VO\({}_{2}\)max (ml/kg/min) & 60.06 \(\pm\) 3.29 & 62.65 \(\pm\) 4.48 & 0.017 \(\ast\) & 0.660 \\ VO\({}_{2}\)max/v (score) & 2.82 \(\pm\) 0.15 & 3.03 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 0.000 \(\ast\) & 1.190 \\ VO\({}_{2}\)max/HR (score) & 0.31 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.33 \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.011 \(\ast\) & 0.709 \\ HR 1\({}^{\prime}\) (bpm) & 171.17 \(\pm\) 13.50 & 167.08 \(\pm\) 11.45 & 0.233 & 0.327 \\ HR 2\({}^{\prime}\) (bpm) & 116.45 \(\pm\) 10.84 & 142.96 \(\pm\) 13.98 & 0.000 \(\ast\ast\) & 0.119 \\ \%Re 1\({}^{\prime}\) (\%) & 12.98 \(\pm\) 5.44 & 14.69 \(\pm\) 4.87 & 0.226 & 0.332 \\ \%Re 2\({}^{\prime}\) (\%) & 66.62 \(\pm\) 14.08 & 34.53 \(\pm\) 9.13 & 0.000 \(\ast\ast\) & 0.705 \\ RL (mmol/L) & 2.40 \(\pm\) 0.50 & 2.21 \(\pm\) 0.48 & 0.152 & 0.393 \\ LA 4\({}^{\prime}\) (mmol/L) & 9.09 \(\pm\) 1.82 & 9.96 \(\pm\) 1.57 & 0.064 & 0.513 \\ LA 10\({}^{\prime}\) (mmol/L) & 7.00 \(\pm\) 1.67 & 6.84 \(\pm\) 0.87 & 0.653 & 0.124 \\ Index LA (score) & 35.74 \(\pm\) 40.90 & 47.29 \(\pm\) 28.36 & 0.234 & 0.328 \\ Index ME (score) & 2.42 \(\pm\) 0.45 & 2.13 \(\pm\) 0.35 & 0.011 \(\ast\) & 0.713 \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation; _p_—statistical significance; Cohen’s \(d\)—value of effect size; _*_—statistically significant result between the pre- and post-tests, \(p\) < 0.05; _**_—_statistically significant result between the pre- and post-tests, \(p\) < 0.01.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Differences between football players from top- and mid- ranked teams (_t_-test). efficiency among the top-performing teams [37].