## 4 Discussion
### Considerations for Use of Workload Measures  
When considering the statistical differences between workloads across match characteristics, it is apparent that sRPE had more differences compared to the SDC model and mechanical work. The observed differences for all four key match characteristics investigated were associated with sRPE, three of the four were associated with the SDC model, and only two were associated with mechanical work.  
This investigation demonstrated that an athlete's perception of their performance effort, through sRPE, is moderated by match characteristics. This suggests that the SDC model may represent an objective alternative to relying on athlete-reported values for the calculation of sRPE alone [13]. The value of objective data in place of athlete-reported values means that the usual problem of missing data when using survey-based measures is avoided, ensuring continuity and completeness of data over time [28].  
Despite this study being the first to investigate the associations between mechanical work and key match characteristics in women's rugby sevens, mechanical work was only influenced by the key match characteristics of player experience and game category. This may be due to an athlete's participation in the match stemming from their skills, knowledge, and effortful actions [4; 27]. This is a reasonable conclusion, as no matter the opponent or match outcome, an athlete is still exerting themselves physically on the field to make the most optimal plays for the team in the moment. However, it is also entirely possible that since mechanical work is a biomechanical expression of the physical output of a player, representative of external load, and is determined by inferring internal forces that cannot be measured in situ, it is not fully representative of all stresses experienced by players, accounting for some differences in its relationship with match characteristics. Whenconsidering rugby-specific stresses, the physical contacts experienced in matches, already known to influence sRPE, may also influence general physical output [13, 16, 23]. The SDC model identified both contact and deceleration as variables that influence workload, and as such, it is possible that contacts and decelerations are drivers of the differences in the workload model by match characteristic. For instance, [PERSON] et al. (2024) found periods of higher physical output by winning teams, suggesting that teams may be moving more and, as such, more exposed to a wider variety of physical movements, including contact in tackles and carries, as well as changes in direction that require deceleration [26]. Irrespective of outcome, mechanical work, as a workload measure, quantifies the physical effort of an athlete more similarly to the SDC model than sRPE.  
Interestingly, the type of game being played may have an effect on workload irrespective of opponent and opponent rank differential. This suggests that the level of the game, i.e., quarterfinal, medal vs. ranking final, etc., is more impactful on athlete workload than the opponent the athlete is facing. This points to some interaction between the match category, outcome, and opponent. While the current investigation leveraged ANOVA tests to evaluate the presence of any significant interactions between these categorical variables, future research should consider means of quantifying the effects of these particular interactions. This is an important consideration in team sports given the bracketed nature of knockout or playoff rounds, whereby teams often want to achieve a certain standing in pool play to avoid facing certain highly-ranked or similarly ranked opponents in early playoff rounds [29].