## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**95\% Confidence Interval**} & & \\  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Mean**} & & \\ \hline  & & **Mean**\(\pm\)**SD** & **Lower** & **Upper** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Test**} & & \\  & & **Mean**\(\pm\)**SD** & **Lower** & **Upper** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Statistic**} & **ES** & \(p\) \\ \hline Distance & 1 st half & 1794.75 \(\pm\) 144.38 & 1749.18 & 1840.32 & t = \(-\)4.26 & \(-\)0.665 & 0.001 * \\ Zone 1 * & 2 nd half & 2145.90 \(\pm\) 517.60 & 1982.52 & 2309.28 & t = \(-\)4.26 & \(-\)0.665 & 0.001 * \\ Distance & 1 st half & 1803.50 \(\pm\) 204.77 & 1738.86 & 1868.13 & & & \\ Zone 2 * & 2 nd half & 1575.59 \(\pm\) 318.09 & 1475.19 & 1675.99 & t = 4.65 & 0.727 & 0.001 * \\ Distance & 1 st half & 1139.43 \(\pm\) 228.40 & 1067.34 & 1211.53 & & & \\ Zone 3 * & 2 nd half & 943.35 \(\pm\) 196.40 & 881.36 & 1005.34 & & & \\ Distance & 1 st half & 2511.11 \(\pm\) 66.54 & 230.11 & 272.11 & & & \\ Zone 4 * & 2 nd half & 1933.33 \(\pm\) 57.22 & 175.27 & 211.39 & t = 5.34 & 0.834 & 0.001 * \\ Distance & 1 st half & 144.09 \(\pm\) 58.30 & 125.69 & 162.50 & & & \\ Zone 5 * & 2 nd half & 109.78 \(\pm\) 50.49 & 93.85 & 125.72 & t = 3.67 & 0.573 & 0.001 * \\ Distance & 1 st half & 104.15 \(\pm\) 53.45 & 87.28 & 121.02 & & & \\ Zone 6 * & 2 nd half & 77.96 \(\pm\) 51.72 & 61.64 & 94.28 & & & \\ Total & 1 st half & 5237.04 \(\pm\) 350.49 & 5126.41 & 5347.66 & & & \\ Distance & 2 nd half & 5046.97 \(\pm\) 823.57 & 4787.02 & 5306.92 & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular} Note: The symbol * indicates significant differences at \(p\) \(<\) 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Descriptive statistics of distance covered per zone and total distance between first and second halves. Figure 3: Positional analysis of movement demands: distribution across speed zones. Note: Zone 1 (0.1–23 6 km/h), Zone 2 (6.1–12 km/h), Zone 3 (12.1–18 km/h), Zone 4 (18.1–21 km/h), Zone 5 (21.1–24 km/h), and Zone 6 (above 24 24.1 km/h). The boxplots (**A–F**) illustrate the distribution of distance covered across different intensity zones across the first and second halves of the matches. The symbol * indicates significant differences at \(p\) \(<\) 0.05. (**A**) Distance Zone 1 *; (**B**) Distance Zone 2 *; (**C**) Distance Zone 3 *; (**D**) Distance Zone 4 *; (**E**) Distance Zone 5 *; (**F**) Distance Zone 6 *. Dots represent statistical outliers (IQR method) retained for analysis, as they may reflect meaningful individual variability in physical performance. Lastly, interestingly, while players covered slightly more TD in the first half (M = 5237.04 \(\pm\) 350.49 m, 95% CI [5126.41, 5347.66]) than in the second half (M = 5046.97 \(\pm\) 823.57 m, 95% CI [4787.02, 5306.92]), no significant differences (t = 1.41, ES = 0.220, \(p\) > 0.05) between halves were indicated (Table 2 and Figure 4). These results may suggest that while the total distance covered remains stable, the intensity and distribution of movement patterns shift considerably as the match progresses and may highlight the need for tailored conditioning programs to maintain performance levels, particularly in high-speed and sprinting activities during the latter stages of a match. For CDs, there was no statistically significant difference in total distance covered, t = \(-\)0.903, \(p\) = 0.384. However, CDs significantly increased their distance in Z1 Distance Zone 1 (t = \(-\)3.785, \(p\) = 0.003) and showed a significant decrease in Z3, (t = 3.400, \(p\) = 0.005), as well as in Z4 (t = 2.751, \(p\) = 0.018). No significant differences were found in Z2, (t = 1.791, \(p\) = 0.098), Z5, (t = 1.293, \(p\) = 0.220) or Z6 (Z = \(-\)1.71, \(p\) = 0.087). These results could suggest that CDs altered their physical output across intensity zones, shifting toward lower-intensity movements in the second half (Table 3 and Figure 5).