## 4 Discussion
### Games' Load Differences  
The only significant difference in accelerations and decelerations was revealed for GDEC2 in MIC7 compared with MIC5 and MIC6. The results for GDEC2 were similar in MIC9 and MIC7 (66.26 \(\pm\) 16.15 and 67.68 \(\pm\) 10.30, respectively), but the analysis did not find a significant difference between MIC9 and the short microcyles. Our results partially agree with the results of other studies where high accelerations and decelerations in short microcyles had lower values than those in regular and long microcyles, and high decelerations were more often in regular microcyles [13; 22]. For running distance, there were no differences for GDIST, GDIS4, GDIS5 and GDIS6. Other studies also did not find any differences in the total distance and the distance covered at a speed \(>\)24 km/h, but the distance covered at a speed \(>\)21 km/h was greater in the long microcyles [13]. For GSPEF, the values were higher in MIC7 and MIC9 compared with MIC5 and MIC6, but there were no differences for GMPWEF. In other studies, no differences were found for actions at speeds \(>\)21 km/h and \(>\)24 km/h [13; 22; 24]. For metabolic power distance, only in MIC7, the GMPW5 had a significantly higher value compared with MIC5 and MIC6. This is associated with the elevated DEC2 in MIC7 [42]. In MIC9, it was higher than in MIC5 and MIC6 but without a significant difference. [PERSON] et al. (2022) [13] found that HMLD was greater in long microcyles, but another study from the same authors did not find any differences [22; 24]. From our results it seems that the training plan that was applied to these different-duration microcyles helped the players to maintain the same performance with only some small increases in MIC7 (GDEC2, GSPEF, GMPW5). Similar findings from another study indicate that the length of the microcycle did not influence the worst-case scenarios on a match day, but contrary results came from another study that found that the matches' workload after long microcyles was greater than after regular and short microcycles [22; 23; 24]. Finally, it is important to mention that weeks with a lower number of training sessions indicate a higher possibility of winning the upcoming match [29].  
There were no differences in the s-RPE values between the games that were played at the end of the different-duration microcyles. This is associated with the external load that seems to have minor differences (and only for MIC7). A rugby league study did not find any differences between matches that were played after different-duration microcyles, but only some differences were found between the playing positions [41]. Additionally, for some correlations found between the s-RPE values and match results, the values were higher when there was a defeat and lower when there was a draw [12].  
Finally, there were no significant differences in GSLEEP, GSORENESS, GFATIGUE and GSTRESS, although for MIC7, the values were lower. These results agree with the results of another study which found no effect of the length of the microcycle on HOOPER responses [24].  
This study has some limitations: (a) only the data from the players that participated in the games were collected, (b) all data belong to one professional team, and comparison with other populations should be made cautiously, (c) changes in the players' performance over the season were not considered, but the purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term effect of the microcycle on the next game.