## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l} \hline  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Full Match**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**First Half**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Second Half**} \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**\% HRmax**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**TRIMP\({}_{\text{Edw}}\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**\% HRmax**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**TRIMP\({}_{\text{Edw}}\)**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**\% HRmax**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**TRIMP\({}_{\text{Edw}}\)**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Acc2} & r = \(-\)0.103 & r = 0.223 & r = 0.230 & r = \(-\)0.069 & r = 0.266 & r = 0.642 * \\  & \(p\) = 0.501 & \(p\) = 0.141 & \(p\) = 0.124 & \(p\) = 0.651 & \(p\) = 0.074 & \(p\) < 0.001 \\  & r = 0.216 & r = 0.083 & r = 0.140 & r = 0.191 & r = 0.085 & r = 0.290 \\  & \(p\) = 0.155 & \(p\) = 0.588 & \(p\) = 0.354 & \(p\) = 0.205 & \(p\) = 0.575 & \(p\) = 0.051 \\  & r = 0.005 & r = 0.447 & r = 0.365 * & r = 0.220 & r = 0.378 * & \(r\) = 0.654 * \\  & \(p\) = 0.975 & \(p\) = 0.002 & \(p\) = 0.013 & \(p\) = 0.143 & \(p\) = 0.010 & \(p\) < 0.001 \\  & r = 0.204 & r = 0.060 & r = 0.146 & r = 0.186 & r = 0.144 & r = 0.384 * \\  & \(p\) = 0.180 & \(p\) = 0.694 & \(p\) = 0.344 & \(p\) = 0.216 & \(p\) = 0.339 & \(p\) = 0.008 \\ \hline \end{tabular}  
* Denotes a significant difference (\(p<0.05\)). % HRmax: percentage of maximum heart rate; TRIMPEdw: [PERSON] training impulse for internal load; TD: total distance; D/min: distance (m) per minute; speed zones: z1: 0.10–7.19 km/h, z2: 7.20–14.39 km/h, z3: 14.0–19.79 km/h, z4: 19.80–25.19 km/h, z5: 25.20 km/h; Acc2: 2.00–2.99, Acc3: \(>\)3.00 m/s\({}^{2}\), Dec2: \(-\)2.99—2.00 m/s\({}^{2}\), Dec3: \(<\)\(-\)3.00.  
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._discussed below, the same was not observed in the internal load. This observation reinforces coaches' understanding of specialized training (external load) regarding playing positions. Regarding the external load in full matches, no differences were observed in TD and running speed (m/min). In z1, no differences were observed between positions. Our findings are in agreement with those of [PERSON] et al. (2007) [35]. However, in a previous study with the same formation in professional soccer players, differences were observed [4]. It should be noted here that different speed zones were used, making comparisons difficult. In the z2, the CD covered the least distance, and the CM covered the most. Similar findings are reported in previous studies, although they used different speed zones [4; 35]. In z3, the CD covered the least distance, and the CM covered the most. Similar findings were also reported by [PERSON] et al. (2020) [4]. In the z4, again, the CD covered the least distance, with the SD and CM covering the most. These findings are in agreement with [PERSON] et al. (2020) [4]. Finally, in the z5, the SM covered the most distance, with the CD and CM covering the least. This finding is consistent with [PERSON] et al. (2007) [35] and [PERSON] et al. (2020) [4]. Formations and playing positions can influence the running performance of soccer players [10]. The tactical role that each player must serve according to their position on the field, as well as the available space on the field, can affect their running performance [4]. Another point to note in the findings of this study is that differences were observed between positions in the first half but not in the second half. According to the results of this study, we can explain this by observing that most differences were found between the CD and the CM and SM, covering the longest distances. Perhaps fatigue or tactical reasons affected the CM and SM, and as seen from the comparison of the two halves, they significantly reduced the distances covered in all zones (overall: CM 20.4% and SM 21%). In other positions, the performance decrease was smaller (CD 10.3%, SD 14.3%, F 13.3%). This resulted in no differences between positions in the second half.