## 4 Discussion
### Offensive and Defensive Performance Indicators and Physical and Transition Metrics
Our findings thus emphasized the need to align physical output with tactical execution, particularly within offensive phases. Supporting this, [PERSON] et al. [55] demonstrated that running performance in elite youth players varied significantly by position within a 1-4-3-3 formation, highlighting the importance of tactical specificity in training. Likewise, [PERSON] et al. [56] observed strong correlations between external load and physiological adaptation markers (e.g., VO\({}_{2}\)max, metabolic zones), irrespective of positional physical capacity. [PERSON] et al. [57] further cautioned against non-functional overload in congested microcycles, where increased high-speed and deceleration loads failed to enhance match output. Finally, [PERSON] et al. [58] emphasized that while total distance is positively associated with match outcome, high-intensity metrics (e.g., sprints, accelerations) must be calibrated with training-to-match ratios to ensure competitive transfer. These insights are further supported by recent findings from [PERSON] et al. [59], who emphasized that match-running performance is shaped by the interaction between possession status and possession percentage, rather than by physical metrics alone. Higher possession negatively affected running output during in-possession phases but enhanced it during out-of-possession play. Thresholds were identified (e.g., 36% for total distance) beyond which in-possession values surpassed out-of-possession outputs, with positional differences, such as forwards requiring over 60% possession to observe this shift. These findings reinforce the need to interpret physical performance within tactical and contextual frameworks. This is further corroborated by [PERSON] et al. [60] who found that players, especially attackers, in teams with higher possession percentages covered less total distance, particularly at low and medium speeds. This supports the notion that greater ball retention may reduce running demands, depending on positional roles and tactical approach. In further support of this view [PERSON] al. [61] observed significant declines in running performance across 15 min periods during UEFA Champions League matches, attributing the reduction not solely to fatigue but potentially to pacing strategies or tactical decisions. Furthermore, tactical formation significantly influenced positional demands, with players operating in systems with three defensive players showing higher acceleration and deceleration loads, particularly among midfielders [62]. This reinforced the importance of tailoring physical preparation to specific tactical configurations. Similarly, [PERSON] et al. [63] highlighted that contextual factors such as match location and outcome influenced match running performance, yet team and opponent quality did not significantly alter external load metrics, underscoring the primacy of situational over structural determinants. Lastly, recent findings by [PERSON] et al. [64] suggested that the most elite levels of soccer play are characterized by greater running efforts during the defensive phase, especially among players from top-tier leagues, with reduced efforts in offensive phases. These patterns further emphasized that total distance or high-intensity output alone do not guarantee success unless integrated with strategic match dynamics. Accordingly, training and match analysis should incorporate not only volume and intensity metrics, but also contextualized performance indicators aligned with tactical objectives. Analysis of in-possession phases revealed that winning teams performed more build-up plays under opposition pressure (M = 16.46, SD = 3.6, 95% CI [15; 21; 17.71]) and relied less on long ball tactics (M = 2.60, SD = 2.55, 95% CI [1.73, 3.48]) compared to losing teams (build-up plays: M = 14.49, SD = 3.3, 95% CI [13; 37; 15.61]; long balls: M = 4.43, SD = 3.30, 95% CI [3; 5.56]).