## 3 Results
### Performance Indicators Comparison Between Match Outcomes
Mid press (%) did not reach s statistical significance, \(\chi^{2}(2)=4.87\), \(p=0.081\), \(\epsilon^{2}=0.053\). Means were 4.31 [3.73, 4.90] for losses (median = 5.00, IQR = 2.00, SD = 1.69), 4.03 [3.24, 4.83] for draws (median = 4.00, IQR = 2.00, SD = 1.97), and 5.00 [4.40, 5.60] for wins (median = 5.00, IQR = 2.50, SD = 1.75). Low press (%) showed a significant effect, \(\chi^{2}(2)=6.25\), \(p=0.044\), \(\epsilon^{2}=0.066\), with winning teams presenting statistically significant lower values than draws (\(p\leq 0.05\)). Means and 95% CI were 0.54 [0.37, 0.72] for losses (median = 1.00, IQR = 1.00, SD = 0.51), 0.62 [0.42, 0.82] for draws (median = 1.00, IQR = 1.00, SD = 0.50), and 0.31 [0.15, 0.48] for wins (median = 0.00, IQR = 1.00, SD = 0.47). Figure 7: Raincloud plots displaying distribution of percentages (%) across key defensive phases of play (out of possession) in relation to match outcome (win, draw, lose). (**A**) High press: Frequency of intense pressing high up the pitch. (**B**) Mid press: Frequency of moderate pressing in midfield areas. (**C**) Low press: Proportion of low pressing intensity actions. (**D**) High block: Number of defensive blocks executed high on field. (**E**) Mid block: Defensive blocks applied in midfield zone. (**F**) Low block: Defensive blocks implemented deep in defensive third. (**G**) Recovery: Frequency of defensive recovery actions following loss of possession. (**H**) Defensive transition: Number of defensive actions executed during transition from attack to defense. (**I**) Counter-press: Instances of  
immediate pressing after losing possession to regain the ball. Symbols indicate statistically significant differences (\(p<0.05\)): @ Win \(\
eq\) Lose, # Win \(\
eq\) Draw. High block (%) was non-significant, \(\chi^{2}(2)=5.91\), \(p=0.068\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.057\). Means were 4.60 [3.62, 5.58] for losses (median = 4.00, IQR = 2.50, SD = 2.85), 4.92 [3.84, 6.01] for draws (median = 4.50, IQR = 3.00, SD = 2.68), and 6.23 [5.12, 7.34] for wins (median = 7.00, IQR = 5.00, SD = 3.24). Mid block (%) was tested with one-way ANOVA and was not significant, F(2, 93) = 2.24, \(p=0.113\), \(\eta^{2}=0.046\). The means and 95% CI were 20.60 [17.98, 23.22] for losses (median = 21.00, IQR = 9.50, SD = 7.62), 20.15 [17.50, 22.81] for draws (median = 21.00, IQR = 6.75, SD = 6.56), and 17.29 [14.99, 19.58] for wins (median = 17.00, IQR = 8.50, SD = 6.69). Low block (%) varied significantly, \(\chi^{2}(2)=10.65\), \(p=0.005\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.112\). Winning teams had lower low block values compared to losses (\(p=0.004\)). The means with 95% CI were 26.71 [21.17, 32.26] for losses (median = 22.00, IQR = 22.50, SD = 16.14), 22.19 [16.12, 28.26] for draws (median = 19.00, IQR = 20.50, SD = 15.03), and 16.00 [12.22, 19.78] for wins (median = 12.00, IQR = 12.00, SD = 11.01). Non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis tests indicated that recovery (%) did not reach statistical significance among match outcomes (\(p=0.133\)). Descriptive statistics (Figure 7) showed that losing teams had a median recovery of 4.0 (IQR = 3.5), mean = 4.83, 95% CI [4.15, 5.51], SD = 1.98; drawing teams had a median of 4.0 (IQR = 3.0), mean = 4.31, 95% CI [3.58, 5.04], SD = 1.81; and winning teams had a median of 5.0 (IQR = 4.0), mean = 5.54, 95% CI [4.69, 6.39], SD = 2.48. Defensive transition (%) showed significant differences (\(\chi^{2}(2)=7.64\), \(p=0.022\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.080\)), being higher in wins compared to losses (W = 3.79, \(p=0.020\)), but not differing significantly from draws (\(p=0.701\)). The median defensive transition was 11.0 (IQR = 6.5) for losses, mean = 12.57, 95% CI [10.89, 14.25], SD = 4.88; 14.0 (IQR = 7.0) for draws, mean = 14.54, 95% CI [12.49, 16.59], SD = 5.07; and 15.0 (IQR = 8.0) for wins, mean = 15.77, 95% CI [13.98, 17.56], SD = 5.20. Counter-press (%) was significantly \(\chi^{2}(2)=9.19\), \(p=0.010\), \(\varepsilon^{2}=0.097\)) higher in wins compared to losses (W = 4.14, \(p=0.010\)), with no significant difference compared to draws (\(p=0.464\)).