## 3 Results  
Regarding the various speed zones and total distance, the statistical analysis revealed significant differences across playing positions (Table 1). Specifically, in Z1, the Kruskal-Wallis test identified a moderate statistically significant difference between player positions (H = 13.1, ES = 0.132, \(p\) = 0.011), while Z2 demonstrated a large significant variation among positions (F = 4.627, ES = 0.163, \(p\) = 0.002,). Likewise, in Z3, notable large significant differences across players' positions were observed (H = 40.8, ES = 0.412, \(p<\) 0.001) as well as in Z4 (F = 18.856, ES = 0.443, \(p<\) 0.001). Similarly, Z5 exhibited one of the largest effect sizes recorded (F = 28.811, ES = 0.548, \(p<\) 0.001), with large significant differences across nearly all positional roles. In Z6, large significant differences were noted after the implementation of the Kruskal-Wallis test (H = 51.1, ES = 0.516, \(p<\) 0.001). Finally, in total distance covered, also, a large significant difference was indicated among playing positions (F = 8.761, ES = 0.269, \(p<\) 0.001). The post-hoc analysis (Table 1 and Figure 1) indicated significant position-specific differences in distance covered across all zones. In Z1 CDs covered significantly more distance (M = 3944.37 \(\pm\) 492.66 m, 95% CI [3772.47, 4116.27]) than CMs (M = 3591.30 \(\pm\) 406.79 m, 95% CI [3427.00, 3755.61]), indicating greater low-intensity movement among defenders. In Z2 CMs (M = 3683.81 \(\pm\) 326.68 m, 95% CI [3551.86, 3815.76]) showed significantly higher values compared to Fs with an average of 3148.77 \(\pm\) 324.19 m, 95% CI [2899.58, 3397.96] and CDs (M = 3403.56 \(\pm\) 351.23 m, 95% CI [3281.01, 3526.11]). In Z3 CMs covered significantly the greatest distance (M = 2643.15 \(\pm\) 467.15 m, 95% CI [2454.47, 2831.84]) compared to CDs (M = 1877.18 \(\pm\) 281.63 m, 95% CI [1778.91, 1975.44]), Fs (M = 2103.14 \(\pm\) 258.11 m, 95% CI [1904.74, 2301.55]) and SDs with an average of 2054.43 \(\pm\) 262.88 m, 95% CI [1908.85, 2200.01]. In ZASMs recorded the highest values (M = 570.18 \(\pm\) 118.31 m, 95% CI [507.14, 633.23]), followed by SDs (M = 517.89 \(\pm\) 83.12 m, 95% CI [471.87, 563.92]) and FS (M = 508.34 \(\pm\) 90.35 m, 95% CI [438.89, 577.80]), all of whom outperformed CDs (M = 357.62 \(\pm\) 74.74 m, 95% CI [331.54, 383.70]). This underscores the greater demands on wide and attacking roles in this speed zone. In Z5 was indicated that SDs (M = 358.11 \(\pm\) 37.89 m, 95% CI [337.13, 379.09]) and SMs (M = 351.45 \(\pm\) 67.61 m, 95% CI [315.42, 387.48]) significantly outpaced CDs (M = 195.11 \(\pm\) 62.32 m, 95% CI [173.37, 216.85]) and CMs (M = 225.00 \(\pm\) 74.23 m, 95% CI [195.01, 254.98]), where F (M = 305.59 \(\pm\) 65.23 m, 95% CI [255.45, 355.73]) also covered more distance. In Z6, SDs (M = 291.13 \(\pm\) 106.67 m, 95% CI [232.06, 350.21] and SMs (M = 286.77 \(\pm\) 75.79 m, 95% CI [246.38, 327.16]), respectively, again showed significantly higher values, while CMs (M = 112.62 \(\pm\) 68.40 m, 95% CI [84.99, 140.24]) and CDs (M = 141.59 \(\pm\) 73.35 m,  
167.19]) recorded the lowest distances. Forwards (M = 213.22 \(\pm\) 70.44 m, 95% CI [159.08, 267.37]) also demonstrated high values. In terms of TD covered (Table 1 & Figure 2), SMs recorded the highest values (M = 10,932.63 \(\pm\) 790.58 m, 95% CI [10,511.36, 11,353.89]), followed by CMs (M = 10,732.83 \(\pm\) 630.91 m, 95% CI [10,478.00, 10,987.66]) and SDs (M = 10611.97 \(\pm\) 652.72 m, 95% CI  
Figure 1: Positional analysis of movement demands across distance zones. Note: Zone 1 (0.1–23 6 km/h), Zone 2 (6.1–12 km/h), Zone 3 (12.1–18 km/h), Zone 4 (18.1–21 km/h), Zone 5 (21.1–24 km/h), and Zone 6 (above 24 24.1 km/h). The boxplots (**A–F**) illustrate the distribution of key performance metrics across playing positions: Center Defender (CD), Center Midfielder (CM), Forward (F), Side Defender (SD), and Side Midfielder (SM).