## 4 Discussion
Regarding performance in running speed, differences were detected between playing positions (\(p\) < 0.001) in T10 (ES = 0.422), T30 (ES = 0.580), and AGI (ES = 0.500). Gs obtained significantly worse results than the rest of the playing positions. Similarly, Fs obtained the best performance in all the displacement variables, suggesting that they are the fastest players. These findings are similar to those found in selected players from Norway [19]. Regarding the analysis by playing position, the forwards showed better times in 10 m (2.16 \(\pm\) 0.07 s) compared to the defenders (2.19 \(\pm\) 0.06 s), midfielders (2.19 \(\pm\) 0.07 s), and goalkeepers (2.22 \(\pm\) 0.06 s). These results are not in agreement with those reported by [PERSON] et al. [46], who found no differences between playing positions in T10, T30, or AGI. These differences between studies could be due to the fact that the mentioned study analyzed a sample of division I collegiate female soccer players, thus there would not be excessive specialization in the performance demands by playing positions at that competition level [15]. That is, the findings presented in this study could be explained by the fact that, at a high competition level, there are differences in the specific demands by playing positions, such as scoring goals (Fs) and preventing goals (Ds), which usually require high-intensity displacement actions at maximum speed, in order to anticipate to the opponents in very fast actions that take place in short distances [48]. CMJ showed no statistically significant differences between playing positions (\(p\) = 0.076) (Table 2). The scientific literature shows contradicting findings. The study of [PERSON] et al. [20] on selected South African elite players did not find significant differences between playing positions for CMJ height (\(p\) > 0.05). Something similar was also reported by [PERSON] and colleagues [49], who did not detect differences in the CMJ test in female football players (\(p\) = 0.848). However, [PERSON] et al. [50] did show differences between positions (\(p\) < 0.05), probably due to the fact that their participants were non-elite players, something similar was seen in the study by [PERSON] et al. [11] with Tunisian players, showing differences in CMJ between outfield players (\(p\) < 0.05). Therefore, it is possible that the value of this variable does not seem to distinguish between playing positions in elite football players. Lastly, the study of [PERSON] et al. [22] suggests that a CMJ value above 34.4 cm could be considered as superior jumping capacity, and a CMJ value above 29.8 cm could be considered as a threshold measure to discriminate between competitive levels among elite players. Regarding MYYR1 (which allows estimating VO2 max), there were differences between positions (\(p\) < 0.001) (ES = 0.362) (Table 2). In this test, Gs showed a significantly lower performance than the rest of the players. Ms obtained the best values, although these were not statistically better than those of the other field players (Fs and Ds). These results are similar to those of [PERSON] et al. [11]. In this study, the goalkeepers covered less distance in the MYYR1 than other position players (\(p<0.001\)). However, no significant differences were found between the other field positions. These results are not in line with those reported by [PERSON] et al. [46] and [PERSON] et al. [15], who found no differences between playing positions (\(p>0.05\)) in this variable. These differences could be since their participants were collegiate players, as well as due to the small number of Gs (3). Similarly, the level of specialization in the competitive requirements may not be as high in the collegiate category [15]. However, in the elite category, physical skills and aptitudes must respond to a specific pattern of demands in competition [8].