## 4 Discussion
### Time on Court, Distance Covered, and Running Pace in Offense and Defense  
The absolute data concerning total distance covered and total time played in our study show lower values than previously reported by [PERSON] et al. (2013) (15% less played time and 22% less covered distance), although the same LPS technology has been used and top-level European players are analyzed. The difference can be due to the number of matches and the type of competition. In their study, these researchers analyzed the VELUX EHF FINAL4 2019 for clubs, in which few matches were played. In the present study a longer tournament for National Teams, played in a very short period of time, is analyzed. It is therefore a more demanding competition, as a result coaches tended to make more substitutions to maintain performance. The data from our study in this regard are also 28% lower in played time and 19% lower in covered distance from the average values reported by [PERSON] et al. (2011), in its analysis of the World Championship 2015 (36.48 \(\pm\) 20.27 min and 2607.5 m). Although high-level National Teams were analyzed as well, a different system was used (automatic tracking with cameras). In addition, a better performance level of players from European teams, will probably favor a better dosage of the minutes of play between them. These two facts may account for the differences. Other studies in European handball players carried out throughout a national league championship, reported data even more different from ours, above 40 min ([PERSON] et al., 2011; [PERSON] et al., 2012). The explanation, in this case, may be due to the type of instruments used (video tracking) and the kind of competition (clubs). A recent review by [PERSON] et al. (2014) on the use of technologies in external load control in team sports concluded that LPS systems are more accurate than video tracking, which may explain some of the differences found. The results, focusing on the analyzed locomotion categories, are consistent with most of the handball time-motion studies, indicating during a significant duration of the game (over 70%), players perform low-intensity activities [7; 9; 13; 21; 23], walking, jogging, running, and only about 10% of the locomotion is done at high speed, which confirms that handball is an intermittent sport in which high intensity activities are the key to performance [8; 25; 26; 27] and that high percentage of low intensity loads enable an athlete profile with medium values in aerobic capacity [28]. This should be considered by coaches for adequate training plans. One of the main findings of the study is the significant differences found between offense and defense in the distances covered. The total covered distance in offense was 16% higher than in defense. However, the data indicate that players in defense covered a greater distance in high-intensity zones (23% in high intensity running and 30% in sprinting) than in offense. This implies from a physical point of view, that the game demands are different depending on whether the player takes on an offense or defense role. These data are even more relevant if players remain on the court for similar time in both phases of the game, with no significant differences in total played time (50.6% of the played time in offense vs. 49.4% in defense). These results are consistent with those obtained by [PERSON] et al. [13], who also showed significant differences between offense and defense, with greater high intensity values for the defense. Thus, this fact should be taken into account by coaches when planning their programs. [PERSON] et al. [7] showed similar global percentages than those obtained by our study in high intensity zones. The differences appear when analyzing both phases of the game. Compared with the present study, a higher percentage of high intensity activities (HI running+ sprinting) was reported in offense (8.8% vs. 6.1%) and a lower percentage in the defense (7.0% vs. 10.73%).