# Global Position Analysis during Official Elite Female Beach Volleyball Competition: A Pilot Study
## 3 Results
Defenders also decreased the percentage of acceleration at medium intensity between the second and  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Position** & **Set 1 (\(\mathbf{\pi\pm SD}\))** & **Set 2 (\(\mathbf{\pi\pm SD}\))** & **Set 3 (\(\mathbf{\pi\pm SD}\))** \\ \hline Distance covered (m) & Defender & 556.1 \(\pm\) 201.2 & 569.6 \(\pm\) 161.7 & 442.7 \(\pm\) 231.82  \\  & Blocker & 559.4 \(\pm\) 206.5 & 546.8 \(\pm\) 160.3 & 460.5 \(\pm\) 254.42  \\ \hline Player Load (AU) & Defender & 75.4 \(\pm\) 26.6 & 80.7 \(\pm\) 25.7 & 62.1 \(\pm\) 36.32  \\  & Blocker & 77.8 \(\pm\) 28.9 & 78.5 \(\pm\) 25.8 & 65.0 \(\pm\) 39.42  \\ \hline Peak Player Load (AU) & Defender & 6.4 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 6.8 \(\pm\) 3.1 & 6.3 \(\pm\) 3.02  \\  & Blocker & 5.6 \(\pm\) 1.9 & 6.3 \(\pm\) 3.6 & 6.4 \(\pm\) 2.6 \\ \hline Meterage per Min (m/min) & Defender & 33.6 \(\pm\) 5.9 & 32.0 \(\pm\) 5.62  & 33.3 \(\pm\) 9.9 \\  & Blocker & 33.7 \(\pm\) 6.6 & 31.1 \(\pm\) 5.22  & 33.7 \(\pm\) 8.5 \\ \hline Maximum Velocity (m.s2) & Defender & 10.6 \(\pm\) 2.3 & 10.2 \(\pm\) 2.42  & 10.2 \(\pm\) 3.22  \\  & Blocker & 10.4 \(\pm\) 2.1 & 10.4 \(\pm\) 2.42  & 10.2 \(\pm\) 3.22  \\ \hline Velocity Low: Walking (\%) & Defender & 84.0 \(\pm\) 23.0 & 85.3 \(\pm\) 21.6 & 88.5 \(\pm\) 17.92  \\  & Blocker & 95.0 \(\pm\) 5.1 & 96.0 \(\pm\) 2.92  & 95.1 \(\pm\) 4.3 \\ \hline Velocity Medium: Jogging (\%) & Defender & 14.2 \(\pm\) 19.7 & 13.2 \(\pm\) 18.6 & 10.6 \(\pm\) 16.52  \\  & Blocker & 4.8 \(\pm\) 4.5 & 3.9 \(\pm\) 2.92  & 4.7 \(\pm\) 4.1  \\ \hline Velocity High: Quick running (\%) & Defender & 1.7 \(\pm\) 3.5 & 1.5 \(\pm\) 3.2 & 0.7 \(\pm\) 1.5 \\  & Blocker & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.7 & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 0.2 \(\pm\) 0.5 \\ \hline Acceleration Low (\%) & Defender & 62.7 \(\pm\) 17.3 & 60.2 \(\pm\) 15.02  & 63.4 \(\pm\) 21.2 \\  & Blocker & 61.2 \(\pm\) 16.9 & 61.7 \(\pm\) 14.8 & 62.0 \(\pm\) 17.4 \\ \hline Acceleration Medium (\%) & Defender & 21.5 \(\pm\) 10.3 & 21.5 \(\pm\) 7.8 & 20.0 \(\pm\) 15.52  \\  & Blocker & 23.6 \(\pm\) 10.9 & 22.0 \(\pm\) 9.12  & 21.3 \(\pm\) 13.2 \\ \hline Acceleration High (\%) & Defender & 15.6 \(\pm\) 13.5 & 18.1 \(\pm\) 12.82  & 16.5 \(\pm\) 12.9 \\  & Blocker & 15.1 \(\pm\) 13.1 & 16.1 \(\pm\) 11.9 & 16.5 \(\pm\) 12.7 \\ \hline Deceleration Low (\%) & Defender & 58.4 \(\pm\) 15.7 & 56.7 \(\pm\) 14.12  & 60.2 \(\pm\) 15.5 \\  & Blocker & 60.6 \(\pm\) 13.9 & 64.2 \(\pm\) 13.02  & 61.5 \(\pm\) 14.02  \\ \hline Deceleration Medium (\%) & Defender & 27.8 \(\pm\) 12.9 & 28.0 \(\pm\) 10.6 & 27.1 \(\pm\) 14.0 \\  & Blocker & 25.9 \(\pm\) 10.9 & 24.4 \(\pm\) 8.7 & 26.1 \(\pm\) 9.6 \\ \hline Deceleration High (\%) & Defender & 13.7 \(\pm\) 13.0 & 15.2 \(\pm\) 14.3 & 12.5 \(\pm\) 11.3 \\  & Blocker & 13.4 \(\pm\) 11.5 & 11.2 \(\pm\) 10.82  & 12.3 \(\pm\) 12.1 \\ \hline Jump Low (<20 cm) (\%) & Defender & 19.6 \(\pm\) 18.5 & 15.7 \(\pm\) 12.02  & 14.2 \(\pm\) 16.32  \\  & Blocker & 17.8 \(\pm\) 15.5 & 15.0 \(\pm\) 12.22  & 18.6 \(\pm\) 17.0 \\ \hline Jump Medium (20–40 cm) (\%) & Defender & 51.6 \(\pm\) 22.0 & 53.5 \(\pm\) 20.6 &the third set (\(p\) = 0.012). Blockers decreased their percentage of acceleration at medium intensity between the first and the second set (\(p\) = 0.003). Defenders decreased their percentage of deceleration at low intensity between the first and the second set (\(p\) = 0.048). Blockers increased the percentage of decelerated at low intensity (\(p\) = 0.001) and decreased this at high intensity (0.001) between the first and the second set. Deceleration at low intensity decreased between the second and the third set (\(p\) = 0.044). Regarding jumps, only those performed with a lower elevation varied significantly during the match: Defenders decreased jumps' high from the first to second set (\(p\) = 0.042), and also from second to the third set (\(p\) = 0.004); Blockers also decreased elevation significantly between the first and the second set (\(p\) = 0.049).