# The Effect of Pitch Surface on Match Running Performance in Women's Soccer
## 3 Results  
Tables 1-5 present descriptive statistics and differences in MRP when playing on AT versus NG. CDs covered significantly greater TD on AT than on NG (9303 vs. 8326 m, respectively; Cohen's d (d) = 0.93, statistical power = 0.9). Additionally, significantly greater TD on AT compared to the NG was covered by CMs (10,164 vs. 9455 m, respectively; d = 1.07, statistical power = 0.95). No significant differences in TD were found, irrespective of the playing on AT or NG, for FBs (10,307 vs. 10,088 m, respectively) and OFs (10,062 vs. 9759 m, respectively). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CD**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FB**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CM**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**OF**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & **AT** & **NG** & **AT** & **NG** & **AT** & **NG** & **AT** & **NG** \\ \hline TD (m) & 9303 \(\pm\) 535 & 8326 \(\pm\) 547 & 10,307 \(\pm\) 511 & 10,088 \(\pm\) 519 & **10,164 \(\pm\) 513** & **9455 \(\pm\) 514** & 10,062 \(\pm\) 382 & 9759 \(\pm\) 391 \\ HIR (m) & 111 \(\pm\) 43 & 150 \(\pm\) 43 & 240 \(\pm\) 43 & 254 \(\pm\) 44 & 180 \(\pm\) 63 & 214 \(\pm\) 63 & 269 \(\pm\) 33 & 257 \(\pm\) 34 \\ HIA (\#) & 38 \(\pm\) 7 & 36 \(\pm\) 7 & 36 \(\pm\) 2 & 36 \(\pm\) 3 & 35 \(\pm\) 3 & 34 \(\pm\) 3 & 47 \(\pm\) 6 & 47 \(\pm\) 6 \\ HID (\#) & 45 \(\pm\) 5 & 45 \(\pm\) 5 & 48 \(\pm\) 5 & 50 \(\pm\) 5 & 48 \(\pm\) 4 & 49 \(\pm\) 4 & 52 \(\pm\) 3 & 53 \(\pm\) 3 \\ \hline \end{tabular} CD—central defensive players, FB—wide defensive players, CM—midfield players, OF—offensive players, AT—artificial turf, NG—natural grass; TD—total distance, HIR—high-intensity running, HIA—high-intensity accelerations, HID—high-intensity accelerations; bold text denotes significant differences at \(p<0.05\) tested by \(t\)-test for independent samples.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics and differences for match running performances when playing on AT and NG (data are given as mean \(\pm\) SE). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CD**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**FB**} \\ \hline Fixed effect & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) \\ \hline Intercept & 8326 (547) & 4538–12,114 & 15.22 (1.37) & 10,088 (519) & 8129–12,047 & 19.43 (2.33) \\ Pitch: AT & 977 (383) & 195–1760 & 2.55 (30.07) & 219 (269) & \(-\)326–765 & 0.82 (36.3) \\ \hline Random effect & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) & Coef (SE) & z (\(p\)) \\ \hline Residuals & 1,194,232 (308,349) & 3.87 (\(<\)0.01) & 678,154 (159,913) & 4.24 (\(<\)0.01) \\ Player & 438,893 (724,196) & 0.60 (0.54) & 689,117 (749,595) & 0.92 (0.36) \\ \hline \end{tabular} \
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline Fixed effect & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) \\ \hline Intercept & 9455 (514) & 7857–11,052 & 18.39 (3.13) & 9759 (391) & 8658–10,861 & 24.99 (3.85) \\ Pitch: AT & 709 (220) & 263–1156 & 3.22 (36.04) & 302 (256) & \(-\)210–815 & 1.18 (57.24) \\ \hline Random effect & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) & Coef (SE) & z (\(p\)) \\ \hline Residuals & 479,676 (113,320) & 4.23 (\(<\)0.01) & 987,530 (185,084) & 5.33 (\(<\)0.01) \\ Player & 947,485 (844,530) & 1.12 (0.26) & 455,275 (438,499) & 1.03 (0.23) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \multicolumn{4}{c}{Coef—coefficient, SE—standard error, CI—confidence interval, AT—artificial turf, CD—central defensive players, FB—wide defensive players, CM—midfield players, OF—offensive players, OF—offensive players.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: The effect of different pitch surfaces on total distance covered in women’s soccer.