## 3 Results
### Time on Court, Distance Covered and Running Face by Playing Positions

Table 3: Total distance covered in different locomotion categories by playing positions. LWs were the players covering a higher distance walking but showed significant differences only with LP (\(p\) = 0.005; ES = 0.32). CB covered the second higher distance showing significant differences with the LP (\(p\) = 0.035; ES = 0.26). In regards to jogging, CB were the players covering a higher distance in this locomotion category showing significant differences with the rest of playing positions (LW, \(p\)! 0.001, ES = 0.37; RW, \(p\) = 0.002, ES = 0.53; Right backs, \(p\)! 0.001, ES = 0.43; LB, \(p\)! 0.001, ES = 0.40;  
Figure 4: Distance covered in different locomotion categories by position. * Significant differences between positions indicated by numbers: 1 Left wing, 2 Left back, 3 Center back, 4 Right back, 5 Right wing, and 6 Line player. LP, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.65). LPs were the ones covering the lowest distance, showing significant differences with the left wings (\(p\) = 0.040, ES = 0.26) and LBs (\(p\) = 0.015, ES = 0.25). LWs covered a significantly higher distance running than the rest of players (Center back, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.71; RBs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.87; LBs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.95; LPs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.81) except for right wings (\(p>0.05\)). RWs also covered a longer total distance respect to the rest of player's positions (CB, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.54; RB, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.69; LB, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.76; LP, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.64). CBs were the third playing position covering higher distance running showing significant differences with LBs (\(p=0.041\); ES = 0.26). LWs covered a significantly higher distance at high intensity running compared to the rest of players (CBs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.58; RBs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.87; LBs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.89; LPs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.87) except for RWs (\(p>0.05\)). Similarly, RWs also covered a longer total distance respect to the rest of playing positions (CB, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.33; RB, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.58; LB, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.60; LP, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.46). Next, CBs covered significantly higher distances than RBs (\(p<0.001\); ES = 0.52) and LBs (\(p<0.001\), ES = 0.41) but not compared to LPs (\(p>0.05\)). LWs covered a significantly higher distance sprinting than the rest of players (CBs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.45; RBs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.54; LBs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.57; LPs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.64) other than the RWs (\(p>0.05\)). Similarly, RWs also covered a longer total distance respect to the rest of player positions (CB, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.22; RB, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.33; LB, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.33; LPs, \(p<0.001\), ES = 1.42). CBs present the third highest covered distance showing significant differences with RBs (\(p<0.014\); ES = 0.30) and LPs (\(p<0.001\), ES = 0.54). Table 4 shows the running pace in the entire game, offense, and defense according to each player position. The ANOVA showed significant differences in the running pace between the different playing positions (F = 11.52; \(p<0.001\)). Post-hoc analysis revealed that the players with a higher running pace were the CBs with significant differences with the rest of the playing positions (LW, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.48; RW, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.39; RB, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.35; LB, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.21; LP, \(p<0.001\), ES = 0.18). LPs were the second playing position with a higher running pace showing significant differences with the LWs and RWs (\(p=0.001\), ES = 0.20; \(p=0.047\), ES = 0.16, respectively), but not with the LBs and RBs (\(p>0.05\)). LBs showed the third highest running pace with significant differences found with the LWs and RWs (\(p=0.001\), ES = 0.23; \(p=0.048\), ES = 0.17, respectively). No significant differences were obtained between the RBs and the wings players (\(p>0.05\)). In offense, significant differences were obtained for the different playing positions (F = 25.26; \(p<0.001\)).