## 1 Introduction  
Football is one of the most popular sports in the world [1; 2], continuously evolving. Performance in football depends on factors such as technique, tactics, physical condition, and the mental and psychological abilities of the players [3; 4; 5; 6; 7]. Previous studies have observed significant changes in game load [8], such as an increase in the distance covered at high speed (\(\sim\)30%), sprinting distance (\(\sim\)35%), and the number of sprints (\(\sim\)80%). These changes were observed over a period of 6 years in the English Premier League, illustrating the increased intensity of the sport. Furthermore, recent studies suggest that intensity will continue to rise in the coming decades [9; 10]. The development of technology has helped coaching staff perform their duties more effectively. Regarding physical condition, the development of Global Positioning Systems (GPSs) has aided in monitoring match and training loads, contributing to better player training and injury prevention [11]. This technology has enabled the tracking of load during matches, allowing for a better understanding of the running demands on players. Additionally, the use of this equipment allows for performance evaluation between halves [12; 13], with the goal of improving performance. Existing literature shows that load varies depending on the formation the team plays in [14], as well as the player's position [15; 16]. In the Chinese football league, it has been observed that Side Defenders in the 1-3-5-2 formation cover greater distances at high intensity compared to the 1-4-4-2 formation [17]. It has also been reported that Central Defenders in formations with three defenders cover more distance than those in formations with two Central Defenders [17; 18; 19]. Furthermore, Central Midfielders cover less sprinting distance in the 1-4-4-2 formation compared to the 1-4-2-3-1 formation [17]. High-intensity actions also appear to be more frequent in the 1-4-3-3 formation compared to the 1-4-4-2 formation [20; 21]. As for Forwards, it has been reported that in formations with a single central Forward (1-4-3-3), less distance is covered at high speeds compared to formations with two central Forwards (1-3-5-2) [22; 23], although some studies do not support this finding [24]. Regarding positions, Central Midfielders cover greater distances compared to all other positions [16; 20; 25; 26]. Side positions in the 1-4-3-3 formation are observed to perform more intense actions [12]. Concerning halftime changes, a previous study on the 1-4-3-3 formation in professional football players found a decrease in the distance covered by all playing positions in the second half. Monitoring speed zones, a reduction in distance in the first two zones (0 to \(\sim\)14 km/h) was also reported by other researchers [13; 27]. In the high-speed running zone (\(\sim\)-19 km/h), the findings are unclear, as a decline in performance has been reported [12], but some studies indicate the maintenance of performance [27; 28]. Similar (unclear) observations have been made for sprints, regardless of formation [12; 29; 30]. The existing literature clearly shows that the overwhelming majority of research on the effect of formations on the running profile of players focuses on professional players, not amateurs or younger players [31; 32]. A previous study involving younger players observed the effect of age on the running profile [32]. In one of the first studies [33] that investigatedthe load during matches of youth football players (U12-U16), differences were observed between age groups, and it is advisable to use both relative and absolute measurement values. However, it should be noted that this study did not distinguish between playing positions nor did it reference the tactical formation. As previously mentioned, these two factors have been shown to influence running performance.