## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**L2**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Between-Groups Differences**} \\ \hline  & **MB1** & **MB2** & **MB3** & **MB4** & **MB5** & **MB1** & **MB2** & **MB3** & **MB4** & **MB5** \\ \hline TD (m) & 108,538 & 107,673 & 107,606 & 107,606 & 107,995 & b,c,d & a & a & a & \\ TDWP (m) & 37,692 & 37,248 & 37,340 & 37,146 & 37,457 & & & & & \\ TDWOP (m) & 40,990 & 40,235 & 40,381 & 40,255 & 40,436 & b & a & & & \\ TD < 21 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) (m) & 5622 & 5505 & 5529 & 5436 & 5490 & b,c,d,e & a & a,d & a,c & a \\ TDWP < 21 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) (m) & 2605 & 2505 & 2470 & 2394 & 2370 & b,c,d,e & a,d,e & a,d,e & a,b,c & a,b,c & a,b,c \\ TDWOP < 21 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) (m) & 2869 & 2852 & 2902 & 2900 & 2979 & e & e & e & e & a,b,c,d \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note.: L1 = LaLiga Santander; MB1 = Match balance 1; MB2 = Match balance 2; MB3 = Match balance 3; MB4 = Match balance 4; MB5 = Match balance 5; TD = total distance; TDWP = total distance with ball possession; TDWOP = total distance without ball possession; a = significant differences compared to Group 1; b = significant differences compared to Group 2; c = significant differences compared to Group 2; c = significant differences compared to Group 3; d = significant differences compared to Group 4; d = significant differences compared to Group 5.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Movement profiles based on quality of the opponent in LaLiga Smartbank. (\(p<0.05\)). Similarly, the TDWP > 21 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) was greater during MB1 in L2 (2605 m), showing significant differences with respect to MB2, MB3, MB4, and MB5 (\(p<0.05\)). In contrast, the TDWOP > 21 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) was greater during MB5 in L1 (3360 m), showing significant differences with respect to MB1, MB2, MB3, and MB4 (\(p<0.05\)). In L2, the TDWOP > 21 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) was greater during MB5 (2979 m), showing significant differences with respect to MB1, MB2, MB3, and MB4 (\(p<0.05\)). Differences between leagues (L1 vs. L2) on match running performance are presented in Figures 1 and 2. Firstly, the TD was significantly greater in L1 with respect to L2 in MB2 (\(p<0.001\)), MB3 (\(p<0.01\)), M4 (\(p<0.001\)), and MB5 (\(p<0.001\)). Concerning the TD with and without ball possession, the TDWP was significantly greater in L1 with respect to L2 in MB1 (\(p<0.001\)), MB2 (\(p<0.001\)), MB3 (\(p<0.001\)), and MB4 (\(p<0.01\)). Conversely, the TDWOP was significantly greater in L2 with respect to L1 in MB1 (\(p<0.001\)), while significantly greater values were obtained in L1 with respect to L2 in MB3 (\(p<0.001\)), MB4 (\(p<0.001\)), and MB5 (\(p<0.001\)). Secondly, the TD > 21 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) was significantly higher in L1 with respect to L2 in MB1 (\(p<0.001\)), MB2 (\(p<0.001\)), MB3 (\(p<0.001\)), MB4 (\(p<0.001\)), and MB5 (\(p<0.001\)). Concerning the TD > 21 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) with and without ball possession, the TDWP > 21 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) was significantly higher in L1 with respect to L2 in MB1 (\(p<0.001\)), MB2 (\(p<0.001\)), MB3 (\(p<0.001\)), and MB4 (\(p<0.001\)). Similarly, the TDWOP > 21 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) was significantly  
Figure 1: The total distance (in meters) with and without ball possession. ** \(p<0.01\). *** \(p<0.001\). Figure 2: The total distance covered at < 21 km\(\cdot\)h\({}^{-1}\) (in meters) with and without ball possession. ** \(p<0.01\). *** \(p<0.001\). higher in L1 with respect to L2 in MB2 (_p_ < 0.001), MB3 (_p_ < 0.001), MB4 (_p_ < 0.001), and MB5 (_p_ < 0.001).