## 3 Results
The following symbols denote significant pairwise differences: CM vs. SM (*),CM vs. CD (#), CM vs. SD (#), CM vs. F (\(\ddagger\)), SM vs. CD (\(\lx@sectionsign\)), CD vs. SD (\(\lx@sectionsign\)), CD vs. F (\(\Delta\)). (**A**) Distance Zone 1 *; (**B**) Distance Zone 2 *; (**C**) Distance Zone 3 *++; (**D**) Distance Zone 4 *08\(\lx@sectionsign\); (**E**) Distance Zone 5 *++08\(\lx@sectionsign\); (**F**) Distance Zone 6 *++08\(\lx@sectionsign\) Dots represent statistical outliers (IQR method) retained for analysis, as they may reflect meaningful individual variability in physical performance. [10,250.51, 10,973.44]]. In contrast, CDs (M = 9919.43 \(\pm\) 685.83 m, 95% CI [9680.13, 10,158.73]) and Fs (M = 9958.11 \(\pm\) 947.26 m, 95% CI [9229.98, 10,686.24]) recorded significantly lower values. The analysis of distance covered across different performance zones revealed significant differences between the first and second halves of the matches (Table 2). Z1 showed a moderate significant increase (t = \(-\)4.26, ES = \(-\)0.665, \(p\) < 0.001) in the second half (M = 2145.90 \(\pm\) 517.60 m, 95% CI [1982.52, 2309.28]) compared to the first half (M = 1794.75 \(\pm\) 144.38 m, 95% CI [1749.18, 1840.32), suggesting that players engaged in more low-intensity movements as the match progressed. In contrast, Z2 displayed a moderate significant reduction in the second half (t = 4.65, ES = 0.727, \(p\) < 0.001,), as players covered significantly less distance in Z2 during the second halves (M = 1575.59 \(\pm\) 318.09 m, 95% CI [1475.19, 1675.99]) compared to the first halves (M = 1803.50 \(\pm\) 204.77 m, 95% CI [1738.86, 1868.13]). A similar trend was observed in Z3, with a large decline in the second half (t = 5.54, ES = 0.865, \(p\) < 0.001), as the first half showed greater distances covered (M = 1139.43 \(\pm\) 228.40 m, 95% CI [1067.34, 1211.53]) compared to the second half (M = 943.346 \(\pm\) 196.396 m, 95% CI [881.356, 1005.337]). Z4 followed the same pattern, with large statistically significant lower distances (t = 5.34, ES = 0.834, \(p\) < 0.001) recorded in the second half (M = 193.33 \(\pm\) 57.22 m, 95% CI [175.27, 211.39]) compared to the first half (M = 251.11 \(\pm\) 66.54 m, 95% CI [230.11, 272.11]). A similar decline was also noted in Z5, where the second half showed significantly moderate reductions (M = 109.78 \(\pm\) 50.49 m, 95% CI [93.85, 125.72]) compared to the first half (M = 144.09 \(\pm\) 58.30 m, 95% CI [125.69, 162.50]),--smaller compared to the previous zones--(t = 3.67, ES = 0.573, \(p\) < 0.001). For Z6, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test revealed a small significant decrease in performance (W = 627, ES = 0.456, \(p\) = 0.01), where the first half displayed greater maximal sprint distances (M = 104.15 \(\pm\) 53.45 m, 95% CI [87.28, 121.02]) compared to the second half (M = 77.96 \(\pm\) 51.72 m, 95% CI [61.64, 94.28]), reinforcing the trend of declining sprint performance over time (Table 2 and Figure 3). Figure 2: Positional analysis of total distance covered: distribution across playing roles. Note: The boxplots illustrate the distribution of Total Distance across playing positions: Center Defender (CD), Center Midfielder (CM), Forward (F), Side Defender (SD), and Side Midfielder (SM). Dots represent statistical outliers (IQR method) retained for analysis, as they may reflect meaningful individual variability in physical performance. Dots represent statistical outliers (IQR method) retained for analysis, as they may reflect meaningful individual variability in physical performance. The following symbols denote significant pairwise differences: CM vs. CD (#), CM vs. F (\(\ddagger\)), SM vs. CD (\(\lx@sectionsign\)), CD vs. SD (\(\lx@sectionsign\)), SM vs. F (\(\lx@paragraphsign\)).