## 3 Results
Conversely, no significant differences were observed in the sprint count (\(p\) = 0.156), total sprint distance (\(p\) = 0.728), or top speed (\(p\) = 0.881), reflecting consistent sprinting capacity and peak velocity between the halves. In Wide Defensive Fielders (WDFs), paired-sample analyses indicated not statistically significant differences in mean values for accelerations that decreased from 82.91 \(\pm\) 13.93 to 74.64 \(\pm\) 17.40 and decelerations that declined from 83.73 \(\pm\) 9.38 to 73.36 \(\pm\) 15.27 (\(p\) = 0.155 and \(p\) = 0.056, respectively). Among the distance zones, only Distance Zone 1 showed a statistically significant reduction in the second half (Z = \(-\)2.845, \(p\) = 0.004), while no significant changes were observed in Zone 2, Zone 3, or Zone 4 as all corresponding \(p\)-values exceeded 0.35. The total distance exhibited a numerical decrease but did not reach statistical significance (\(p\) = 0.091). In contrast, a significant reduction was found in relative \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**95\% Confidence**} \\  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Interval Mean**} \\ \hline  & & **Mean** & **Upper** & **Lower** &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Std.** \\ **Deviation** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Maximum Speed (km/h) —2 nd half} & CDF & 27.3024 & 28.2299 & 26.3748 & 2.0377 \\  & FWD & 29.4475 & 30.6047 & 28.2903 & 1.3842 \\  & CMF & 29.2283 & 30.0485 & 28.4082 & 1.9423 \\  & WDF & 28.9373 & 30.3877 & 27.4869 & 2.1589 \\  & WMF & 29.0933 & 31.1626 & 27.0241 & 3.7365 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Accelerations (\(\geq\)2.0 m/s\({}^{2}\))—1 st half} & CDF & 82.0000 & 87.3725 & 76.6275 & 11.8025 \\  & FWD & 65.0000 & 70.4730 & 59.5270 & 6.5465 \\  & CMF & 95.8750 & 102.7690 & 88.9810 & 16.3263 \\  & WDF & 82.9091 & 92.2685 & 73.5497 & 13.9317 \\  & WMF & 80.9333 & 95.4007 & 66.4660 & 26.1246 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Accelerations (\(\geq\)2.0 m/s\({}^{2}\))—2 nd half} & CDF & 74.0000 & 79.0504 & 68.9496 & 11.0950 \\  & FWD & 58.2500 & 67.0382 & 49.4618 & 10.5119 \\  & CMF & 88.7083 & 95.4513 & 81.9654 & 15.9687 \\  & WDF & 74.6364 & 86.3238 & 62.9489 & 17.3970 \\  & WMF & 67.4667 & 85.2541 & 49.6792 & 32.1200 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Decelerations (\(\leq\)\(-\)2.0 m/s\({}^{2}\)) —2 nd half} & CDF & 79.3810 & 86.4774 & 72.2845 & 15.5900 \\  & FWD & 64.5000 & 76.2384 & 52.7616 & 14.0408 \\ \cline{1-1}  & CMF & 102.6250 & 108.4452 & 96.8048 & 13.7835 \\ \cline{1-1}  & WDF & 83.7273 & 90.0301 & 77.4245 & 9.3818 \\ \cline{1-1}  & WMF & 77.8667 & 90.2776 & 65.4557 & 22.4113 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Decelerations (\(\leq\)\(-\)2.0 m/s\({}^{2}\))—2 nd half} & CDF & 73.5714 & 78.2437 & 68.8991 & 10.2644 \\ \cline{1-1}  & FWD & 54.2500 & 60.2413 & 48.2587 & 7.1664 \\ \cline{1-1}  & CMF & 92.5000 & 100.8826 & 84.1174 & 19.8516 \\ \cline{1-1}  & WDF & 73.3636 & 83.6196 & 63.1077 & 15.2661 \\ \cline{1-1}  & WMF & 64.0000 & 79.4719 & 48.5281 & 27.9387 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: _Cont._distance per minute, decreasing from the first to the second half (\(Z=-2.845\), \(p=0.004\)), indicating an overall decline in match intensity rather than in absolute distance. Metrics related to the number of sprints, total sprint distance, and maximum speed showed no statistically significant differences across the halves (\(p>0.35\)), indicating that sprint-specific demands were relatively maintained. Figure 5: An intra-positional comparison of the distance covered between the match halves. Note: The boxplots (**A–F**) depict the distribution of the distance covered across intensity zones and the total distance between halves, highlighting within-position differences in physical performance during the match. In Central Midfielders (CMFs), analyses revealed a statistically significant reduction in the number of accelerations during the second half compared to the first (first half: 95.88 \(\pm\) 16.33; second half: 88.71 \(\pm\) 15.97; t = 2.34, \(p\) = 0.029).