## 3 Results
### Performance Indicators Comparison Between Match Outcomes
Defensive pressures were significantly higher in wins (Mdn = 198, IQR = 74; M = 209.86 \(\pm\) 57.5, 95% CI [190.10, 229.61]) compared to losses (Mdn = 271, IQR = 87; M = 283.20 \(\pm\) 66.9, 95% CI [260.23, 306.17]; W = \(-\)5.03, \(p\) = 0.001) and draws (Mdn = 214.0, IQR = 62.0; M = 220.92 \(\pm\) 49.5, 95% CI [200.94, 240.91]; \(p\) < 0.001), with no difference between draws and wins (\(p\) = 0.592). A one-way ANOVA on direct defensive pressures showed a significant effect of match result, F(2, 93) = 4.43, \(p\) = 0.015, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.087. Post hoc comparisons indicated greater direct defensive pressures in wins (M = 43.00\(\pm\), 95% CI [39.19, 46.76]) compared to losses (M = 48.00\(\pm\), 95% CI [46.61, 53.22]; \(p\) = 0.019). Differences between draws and losses (draws: M = 43.70 \(\pm\) 11.1, 95% CI [39.21, 48.19]; \(p\) = 0.064) or draws and wins (\(p\) = 0.962) were not significant. Figure 4: Raincloud plots showing physical performance metrics by match outcome (win, draw, lose). Notes: (**A**) Total distance covered (km): Depicts total distance covered by players during the match. (**B**) Zone 4 sprinting (20–25 km/h): Illustrates frequency of sprints performed in 20–25 km/h speed zone. Symbols indicate statistically significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05): @ Win \(\
eq\) Lose, # Win \(\
eq\) Draw. Regarding the forced turnovers, the ANOVA did not reveal statistically significant differences between match outcome groups (F(2, 93) = 1.66, \(p\) > 0.05). Descriptive statistics revealed that teams that lost had a mean forced turnovers value of 41.66 (SD = 7.38, 95% CI = 39.12, 44.19). Teams that drew recorded a similar mean of 41.54 (SD = 7.79, CI = 38.39, 44.68). Winning teams exhibited a slightly higher mean forced turnovers of 44.40 (SD = 6.62, CI = 42.13, 46.67). Regarding the percentages (%) of phases of play, a one-way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of match outcome on build up opposed, F(2, 93) = 5.58, \(p\) = 0.005, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.107, indicating differences across loss, draw, and win groups (Figure 6). Specifically, the mean values were 14.49 \(\pm\) 3.3 (95% CI [13.37, 15.61]) for losses, 13.62 \(\pm\) 3.5 (95% CI [12.21, 15.02]) for draws, and 16.46 \(\pm\) 3.6 (95% CI [15.21, 17.71]) for wins. Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests indicated significant differences by match outcome for: Build up unopposed (\(\chi^{2}\)(2) = 7.53, \(p\) = 0.023, \(\epsilon^{2}\) = 0.079), with means of 28.29 \(\pm\) 9.4 (95% CI [25.07, 31.50], median = 26, IQR = 16.5) in losses, 33.54 \(\pm\) 8.6 (95% CI [30.99, 36.99], median = 35.5, IQR = 11.25) in draws, and 34.40 \(\pm\) 9.1 (95% CI [31.28, 37.52], median = 36, IQR = 12.5)  
Figure 5: Raincloud plots depicting distribution of defensive and transition performance metrics by match outcome (win, draw, lose). Notes: (**A**) Receptions in final third: Illustrates number of ball receptions in attacking third. (**B**) Crosses: Displays frequency of crosses attempted. (**C**) Ball progressions: Visualizes ball progressions. (**D**) Defensive pressures: Shows total defensive pressures applied. (**E**) Forced turnovers: Depicts turnovers forced by the team. (**F**) Second balls: Represents number of second ball recoveries. Symbols indicate statistically significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05): @ Win \(\
eq\) Lose, # Win \(\
eq\) Draw. in wins. Winning teams had significantly higher build up unopposed than losing teams (W = 3.68, \(p\) = 0.025), but did not differ from drawing teams (\(p\) = 0.883). In contrast, progression did not differ significantly by match outcome, F(Z, 93) = 1.02, \(p\) = 0.363, \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.022, with mean progression scores of 18.34 \(\pm\) 3.4 (95% CI [17.19, 19.50]) for losses, 17.58 \(\pm\) 3.9 (95% CI [15.99, 19.16]) for draws, and 18.91 \(\pm\) 3.6 (95% CI [17.68, 20.15]) for wins. Figure 6: Raincloud plots illustrating distribution of percentages (%) across key in possession phases of play according to match outcome (win, draw, lose). (**A**) Build up unopposed: Number of unopposed build-up plays.