# Global Position Analysis during Official Elite Female Beach Volleyball Competition: A Pilot Study
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Variables** & **Position** & \(x\pm\) SD & **IC 95\%** & **ES** & **Z** & \(p\)** \\ \hline Distance Covered (m) & Defender & 543.1 \(\pm\) 195.6 & 529.3–556.7 & \(-\)0.02 & \(-\)1.470 & 0.142 \\ Blocker & 539.2 \(\pm\) 201.5 & 524.9–553.5 & & \(-\)0.02 & \(-\)1.470 & 0.142 \\ \hline Player Load (AU) & Defender & 75.5 \(\pm\) 28.8 & 73.5–77.6 & & & & \\ Blocker & 76.3 \(\pm\) 29.7 & 74.2–78.4 & & & & \\ \hline Peak Player Load (min) & Defender & 6.6 \(\pm\) 3.1 & 6.4–6.8 & & & & \\ Blocker & 5.9 \(\pm\) 3.3 & 5.6–6.1 & & \(-\)0.20 & \(-\)6.130 & 0.000 * \\ \hline Meterage per Min (m.min\({}^{-1}\)) & Defender & 32.9 \(\pm\) 6.6 & 32.3–33.3 & & \(-\)0.06 & \(-\)0.998 & 0.318 \\ Blocker & 32.5 \(\pm\) 6.4 & 32.0–33.0 & & & & \\ \hline Maximum Velocity (m.s\({}^{-2}\)) & Defender & 10.4 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 10.2–10.5 & & & & \\ Blocker & 10.5 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 10.3–10.6 & & & & \\ \hline Velocity Low: Walking (\%) & Defender & 85.4 \(\pm\) 21.6 & 83.8–86.9 & & & & \\ Blocker & 95.4 \(\pm\) 4.1 & 95.1–95.7 & & & & \\ \hline Velocity Medium: Jogging (\%) & Defender & 13.1 \(\pm\) 18.7 & 11.8–14.4 & & & & \\ Blocker & 4.4 \(\pm\) 3.8 & 4.1–4.7 & & & & \\ \hline Velocity High: Quick running (\%) & Defender & 1.4 \(\pm\) 3.1 & 1.2–1.6 & & & & \\ Blocker & 0.1 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 0.04–0.12 & & \(-\)0.54 & \(-\)10.995 & 0.000 * \\ \hline Acceleration Low (\%) & Defender & 61.7 \(\pm\) 17.1 & 60.5–63.0 & & & & \\ Blocker & 61.6 \(\pm\) 16.0 & 60.4–62.7 & & \(-\)0.01 & \(-\)1.058 & 0.290 \\ \hline Acceleration Medium (\%) & Defender & 21.3 \(\pm\) 10.4 & 20.5–22.0 & & & & \\ Blocker & 22.5 \(\pm\) 10.5 & 21.8–23.3 & & & & \\ \hline Acceleration High (\%) & Defender & 16.9 \(\pm\) 13.1 & 16.0–17.8 & & & & \\ Blocker & 15.8 \(\pm\) 12.5 & 14.9–16.6 & & & & \\ \hline Deceleration Low (\%) & Defender & 57.9 \(\pm\) 15.0 & 56.9–59.0 & & & & \\ Blocker & 62.4 \(\pm\) 13.6 & 61.4–63.3 & & & & \\ \hline Deceleration Medium (\%) & Defender & 27.7 \(\pm\) 12.1 & 26.9–28.6 & & & & \\ Blocker & 25.2 \(\pm\) 9.8 & 24.6–26.0 & & \(-\)0.21 & \(-\)4.801 & 0.000 * \\ \hline Deceleration High (\%) & Defender & 14.2 \(\pm\) 13.3 & 13.2–15.1 & & & & \\ Blocker & 12.2 \(\pm\) 11.3 & 11.4–13.0 & & \(-\)0.15 & \(-\)2.048 & 0.041 * \\ \hline Jump Low (\textless{}20\) cm (\%) & Defender & 17.0 \(\pm\) 15.6 & 15.9–18.1 & & & & \\ Blocker & 16.6 \(\pm\) 14.4 & 15.6–17.7 & & & & \\ \hline Jump Medium (20–40 cm) (\%) & Defender & 53.2 \(\pm\) 22.1 & 51.7–54.8 & & & & \\ Blocker & 47.7 \(\pm\) 22.0 & 46.1–49.2 & & & & \\ \hline Jump High (\textgreater{}40\) cm (\%) & Defender & 29.7 \(\pm\) 21.6 & 28.1–31.2 & & & & \\ Blocker & 35.6 \(\pm\) 24.5 & 33.8–37.3 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Descriptive statistics (\(x\pm\) SD) and comparison of GPS variables according to the specific position (Defender and Blocker) in female beach volleyball. Regarding the distance covered at different intensities, Defenders increased their percentage of meters spent walking and decreased their jogging during the match, though significant differences were only observed between the second and the third set (\(p\) = 0.005 in walking, and \(p\) = 0.004 in jogging). Blockers increased their distance walking and decreased their distance jogging between the second and the third set (\(p\) = 0.000 in walking, and \(p\) = 0.000 in jogging). Concerning acceleration variations during the match, Defenders decreased their percentage of acceleration at low intensity and increased this at high intensity between the first and the second set (\(p\) = 0.013 at low, and \(p\) = 0.000 at high intensity).