## 3 Results
Then, another \(t\)-test with the centre-back defender data from the physical load variables revealed significant differences between halves in DC, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.75\); WR, \(p<0.01\), \(d=0.88\); SZDC2, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.41\); SZDC3, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.71\); SZDC4, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.34\); SZDC5, \(p<0.04\), \(d=0.23\); HACC2, \(p<0.04\), \(d=0.75\); HACC3, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.69\); HDCC2, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.69\); HDCC3, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.83\); HDCC4, \(p<0.01\), \(d=0.76\); HACCDC2, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.78\); HACCDC3, \(p<0.01\), \(d=0.52\); HDCCDC2, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.88\), and HDCCDC3, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.72\) [Supplementary Materials (Table S3)]. Similarly, new \(t\)-tests with the left- and right-back defenders' data from the technical variables revealed significant differences between halves in TT, \(p<0.04\), \(d=0.56\); R, \(p<0.02\), \(d=0.61\); RPM, \(p<0.05\), \(d=0.52\), and TP, \(p<0.03\), \(d=0.55\). Regarding physical load variables, another \(t\)-test revealed significant differences between halves in DC, \(p<0.02\), \(d=0.76\); WR, \(p<0.04\), \(d=0.70\); SZDC2, \(p<0.03\), \(d=0.35\), SZDC3, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.71\); HACC1, \(p<0.01\), \(d=0.88\); HACC2, \(p<0.04\), \(d=0.55\); HACCDC1, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.81\), and HDCCDC, \(p<0.001\), \(d=0.89\) [Supplementary Materials (Table S4)]. Afterwards, the data analysis relative to defensive midfielders and the technical variables revealed significant differences between halves in PPT, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.35\), TT, \(p<0.02\), \(d=1.10\), R, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.13\), RVM, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.06\), RIB, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.18\), RHI, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.32\), TP, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.32\), and TTOB, \(p<0.01\), \(d=0.91\). Subsequently, the analysis for physical load variables showed significant differences between halves in DC, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.54\); SZDC1, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.53\); SZDC2, \(p<0.03\), \(d=1.41\); SZDC3, \(p<0.05\), \(d=1.02\); SZDC4, \(p<0.05\), \(d=0.89\); SZDC5, \(p<0.02\), \(d=1.31\); ISCAD, \(p<0.02\), \(d=1.50\); HACC1, \(p<0.001\), \(d=1.96\); HACC2, \(p<0.04\), \(d=1.96\); HACC3, \(p<0.04\), \(d=1.18\), HACC4, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.48\); ACCHI, \(p<0.01\), \(d=0.84\); HDCC1, \(p<0.001\), \(d=1.56\); HDCC2; \(p<0.001\), \(d=2.47\), HACCDC1, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.82\); HACCDC2, \(p<0.03\), \(d=1.30\); HACCDC3, \(p<0.001\), \(d=1.50\); HACC4, \(p<0.02\), \(d=0.63\); DACCHI, \(p<0.001\), \(d=1.47\); HDCCDC1, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.16\), and HDCCDC2, \(p<0.001\), \(d=2.30\) [Supplementary Materials (Table S5)]. Along the same line, a new \(t\)-test with the centre midfielder position concerning technical variables revealed significant differences between halves in PPT, \(p<0.04\), \(d=0.84\), and RHI, \(p<0.05\), \(d=0.70\). A subsequent \(t\)-test with data from physical load variables showed significant differences between halves in DC, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.28\); SZDC1, \(p<0.02\), \(d=1.04\); SZDC2, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.14\); SZDC3, \(p<0.03\), \(d=0.87\); HACC1, \(p<0.001\), \(d=1.26\); HACC2, \(p<0.001\), \(d=1.17\); HACC3, \(p<0.02\), \(d=0.89\); ACCHI, \(p<0.04\), \(d=0.81\); HDCC1, \(p<0.001\), \(d=1.31\); HDCC2, \(p<0.001\), \(d=1.20\); HACCDC1, \(p<0.001\), \(d=1.09\); HACCDC2, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.29\); HDCCDC1, \(p<0.01\), \(d=1.13\), and HDCCDC2, \(p<0.001\), \(d=1.09\) [Supplementary Materials (Table S6)]. Similar \(t\)-tests were performed with the forward data from the technical variables and did not reveal significant differences between halves.