## 2 Materials and Methods
### Instruments  
To record injuries sustained by the players, specific ad hoc injury report forms were used, documenting the number of injuries, severity, type of injury, and other aspects of the athlete's time off [29]. In this study, an \"injury\" was defined as any physical complaint sustained during training or competition that resulted in the player being unable to participate fully in the next planned session or match, following the time-loss definition commonly used in sports injury research [30]. Injury recording was carried out jointly by the strength and conditioning coach and the physiotherapist of each team as part of their professional duties. Injuries were not self-reported; all diagnoses were made and documented by the teams' medical staff based on clinical evaluation and follow-up. Only injuries resulting in more than 10 days off were considered; minor injuries (less than 10 days off) were excluded [31].  
For mood assessment, the Spanish abbreviated version [32] of the Profile of Mood States (POMS) by [PERSON] et al. [33] was used. This version has 29 items on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely), assessing five factors: tension, depression, anger, vigor, and fatigue. The dimensions showed good psychometric quality with [PERSON]'s alpha values of 0.86 for tension (T; 6 items), 0.92 for depression (D; 7 items), 0.86 for anger (A; 5 items), 0.80 for vigor (V; 6 items), and 0.83 for fatigue (F; 5 items).  
Additionally, the Total Mood Disturbance (TMD) index was included [34; 35; 36; 37]. According to [PERSON] and [PERSON] [37], the TMD index provides a holistic and comprehensive estimate of an athlete's mood and affective state. The index is calculated as TMD = 100 + T + D + A + F - V [38; 39]. Due to the version of the POMS used in this study, the Confusion factor is not included in the formula. To facilitate interpretation and graphical representation in this study, the constant + 100 was omitted so that the numerical TMD values approximate zero.  
To assess competitive anxiety, the Spanish version [40] of the Competitive State Anxiety Inventory-2 (CSAI-2), originally developed by [PERSON] et al. [17], was used. This test consists of 16 items grouped into three subscales: somatic anxiety (5 items), cognitive anxiety (6 items), and self-confidence (5 items). Athletes respond according to their current competitive state on a 4-point Likert scale, where 1 represents \"Not at all\" and 4 represents \"Very much.\" The questionnaire shows good psychometric properties, with reliability coefficients of \(\alpha\) = 0.79 for cognitive anxiety, \(\alpha\) = 0.77 for somatic anxiety, and \(\alpha\) = 0.82 for self-confidence.  
The CSAI-2 total value was also included, which is calculated by summing the scores for cognitive anxiety and somatic anxiety and subtracting the self-confidence score (CSAI-2 Total = Cognitive Anxiety + Somatic Anxiety \(-\) Self-Confidence). This composite indicator is based on both theoretical and statistical grounds. The designation stems from the fact that two of the three factors are directly related to anxiety (cognitive and somatic anxiety), while the third factor (self-confidence) is not a direct measure of anxiety but rather acts as a protective or antagonistic factor to the other two. This conceptualization has been supported by previous studies [41], which highlight the negative correlation between self-confidence and both cognitive and somatic anxiety. The CSAI-2 consists of 27 items divided into three subscales with 9 items each: somatic anxiety, cognitive anxiety, and self-confidence. In this questionnaire, athletes respond using a 4-point Likert scale, where 1 represents \"Not at all\" and 4 represents \"Very much so.\" Furthermore, the instrument shows good psychometric properties, with reliability coefficients of \(\alpha\) = 0.79 for cognitive anxiety, \(\alpha\) = 0.77 for somatic anxiety, and \(\alpha\) = 0.82 for self-confidence.