## 3 Results
### Performance Indicators Comparison Between Match Outcomes
Similarly, total completed passes were greater in wins (Mdn = 528, IQR = 266; M = 519.69 \(\pm\) 170.6, 95% CI [461.10, 578.28]) compared to losses (Mdn = 323, IQR = 174; M = 344.80 \(\pm\) 132.1, 95% CI [299.41, 390.19]; W = 5.84, \(p<0.001\)), with wins also exceeding draws (Mdn = 386.50, IQR = 157.25; M = 385.00 \(\pm\) 114.5, 95% CI [338.74, 431.26]; \(p=0.006\)). Defensive line breaks differed between wins (Mdn = 12, IQR = 7; M = 13.17 \(\pm\) 5.7, 95% CI [11.20, 15.14]) and losses (Mdn = 8, IQR = 6; M = 9.71 \(\pm\) 4.9, 95% CI [8.03, 11.40]; W = 3.86, \(p=0.017\)), but not between draws and wins (Mdn = 9, IQR = 6.8; M = 10.4 \(\pm\) 5.3, 95% CI [8.24, 12.53]; \(p=0.141\)). Completed line breaks varied also significantly by match result, F(2, 93) = 13.70, \(p<0.001\), \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.227. Winning teams recorded more completed line breaks (M = 118 \(\pm\) 28.6, 95% CI [105.0, 124.7]) than losing (M = 81.0 \(\pm\) 29.1, 95% CI [73.1, 93.1]) and drawing teams (M = 92.0 \(\pm\) 19.2, 95% CI [81.6, 97.1]; both \(p<0.001\)). Total distance covered (Figure 4) was significantly higher in wins (Mdn = 110.4 km, IQR = 10.1; M = 111.56 \(\pm\) 5.5 km, 95% CI [109.68, 113.43]) compared to draws (W = 3.85, \(p=0.018\)) and higher in losses (Mdn = 111.9 km, IQR = 9.35; M = 111.59 \(\pm\) 5.9 km, 95% CI [109.56, 113.63]) than draws (Mdn = 106.3 km, IQR = 5.8; M = 107.55 \(\pm\) 4.9 km, 95% CI [105.56, 109.53]); W = \(-\)3.60, \(p=0.029\)), showing that teams that won or lost covered approximately 4 km more than teams in drawn matches, suggesting that total distance may reflect match intensity but is not a reliable discriminator of match outcome. However, the effect of match outcome on zone 4 sprinting (20-25 km/h) did not reach the threshold of significance (F(2, 93) = 2.91, \(p=0.060\), \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.059, (Win: Mean = 5.49, SD = 0.76, 95% CI = 5.75 to 6.02, Lose: Mean = 5.42, SD = 0.91, 95% CI = 5.73 to 6.04, Draw: Mean = 4.84, SD = 1.02, 95% CI = 5.25 to 5.66)). Receptions in the final third were higher in wins (Mdn = 126, IQR = 117; M = 165.37 \(\pm\) 102.7, 95% CI [130.09, 200.66]) than losses (Mdn = 82, IQR = 46; M = 91.86 \(\pm\) 59.4, 95% CI [71.45, 112.27]; W = 5.57, \(p\) < 0.001), but no significant differences were observed when compared to the drawing teams (Mdn = 108.5, IQR = 75.0; M = 123.73 \(\pm\) 81.9, 95% CI [90.64, 156.83]; \(p\) > 0.05). No significant differences were observed for crosses (\(p\) = 0.237). Teams that lost matches had a median of 14.0 crosses per game (IQR = 10.5), with a mean of 14.54 (SD = 8.11) and a 95% confidence interval ranging from 11.76 to 17.33. Teams that drew recorded a median of 16.0 crosses (IQR = 13.75), a mean of 19.15 (SD = 13.90), and a 95% confidence interval between 13.54 and 24.77. Winning teams had a median of 17.0 crosses (IQR = 9.0), a mean of 18.91 (SD = 11.27), and a confidence interval ranging from 15.05 to 22.78. Regarding second balls, losing teams had a median of 57.0 recoveries with an IQR of 23.5, a mean of 55.67 (SD = 15.44), and a 95% confidence interval from 60.97 to 66.28. Drawing teams had a median of 61.0 with an IQR of 15.0, a mean of 58.74 (SD = 11.60), and a confidence interval between 63.42 and 68.11. Winning teams demonstrated the highest median of 65.0 s ball recoveries with an IQR of 14.5, a mean of 62.01 (SD = 13.60), and a confidence interval ranging from 66.69 to 71.36 (Figure 5). Ball progressions were greater in wins (Mdn = 24, IQR = 8; M = 24.46 \(\pm\) 8.1, 95% CI [21.69, 27.22]) compared to draws (Mdn = 17.5, IQR = 7; M = 19.35 \(\pm\) 6.8, 95% CI [16.58, 22.11]; W = 3.95, \(p\) = 0.014), with marginal differences versus losses (Mdn = 20.0, IQR = 10.5; M = 19.78 \(\pm\) 7.5, 95% CI [17.21, 22.34]; \(p\) = 0.055).