## 3 Results  
Significant differences were evidence among playing positions for all RP variables in both the AP and DP of the game (all \(p\) < 0.01). Specifically, in the AP, the CM covered the greatest total distance, while the FW covered the lowest total distance (4643 m and 3333 m, respectively). The CW and FW also covered the highest and lowest high-speed distance (467 m and 283 m, respectively) and running zone distance (1309 m and 662 m, respectively), respectively. The sprinting distance in the AP was the greatest among the FB (72 m) and lowest among the FW (27 m). On the other hand, in the DP, the CD covered the lowest total distance, while the FW covered the greatest total distance (3311 m and 3977 m, respectively). The high-speed running and sprinting distance in the DP were highest among the WM (411 m and 96 m respectively) and lowest among the CD (131 m and 14 m, respectively) (Table 1). Discriminant canonical analysis demonstrated multivariate differences among playing positions for the RPs in the AP and DP of the game (Table 2). In the calculation, the discriminant function variables that were intercorrelated/derived from other variables were excluded (e.g., the total distance covered and high-intensity distance covered). Three discriminant roots reached statistical significance. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Running** \\ **Performance** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{2}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} **Phase of** \\ **Game** \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Playing Positions**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**ANOVA**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & & **CD** & **FB** & **CM** & **WM** & **FW** & **F Test** & \(p\) & \(\mathbf{n^{2}}\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} Total \\ distance (m) \\ \end{tabular}  } & AP & 3846 \(\pm\) 909 * & 3916 \(\pm\) 960 & 4643 \(\pm\) 1060 * & 4037 \(\pm\) 1191 & 3333 \(\pm\) 1014 & 8.12 & 0.01 & 0.12 \\  & DP & 3311 \(\pm\) 862 & 3603 \(\pm\) 975 & 3850 \(\pm\) 1028 & 3780 \(\pm\) 863 & 3977 \(\pm\) 828 & 3.85 & 0.01 & 0.06 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} Walking \\ \end{tabular}  } & AP & 906 \(\pm\) 329 & 846 \(\pm\) 276 * & 679 \(\pm\) 232 * & 874 \(\pm\) 294 & 840 \(\pm\) 280 & 5.41 & 0.01 & 0.08 \\  & DP & 1021 \(\pm\) 350 & 985 \(\pm\) 323 & 820 \(\pm\) 285 & 1022 \(\pm\) 378 & 1045 \(\pm\) 392 & 3.61 & 0.01 & 0.05 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} Jogging \\ \end{tabular}  } & AP & 1822 \(\pm\) 561 * & 1766 \(\pm\) 563 * & 2138 \(\pm\) 626 & 1806 \(\pm\) 631 & 1521 \(\pm\) 584 & 5.07 & 0.01 & 0.08 \\  & DP & 1600 \(\pm\) 453 & 531 \(\pm\) 453 & 1872 \(\pm\) 566 & 1516 \(\pm\) 424 & 1670 \(\pm\) 422 & 4.73 & 0.01 & 0.07 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Running} & AP & 728 \(\pm\) 180 * & 827 \(\pm\) 186 * & 1309 \(\pm\) 341 * & 897 \(\pm\) 295 * & 662 \(\pm\) 243 & 53.67 & 0.01 & 0.47 \\  & DP & 545 \(\pm\) 176 & 681 \(\pm\) 240 & 873 \(\pm\) 261 & 736 \(\pm\) 185 & 780 \(\pm\) 177 & 19.71 & 0.01 & 0.25 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} High speed \\ running \\ \end{tabular}  } & AP & 323 \(\pm\) 86 * & 400 \(\pm\) 93 * & 467 \(\pm\) 114 * & 404 \(\pm\) 120 & 283 \(\pm\) 123 * & 21.12 & 0.01 & 0.26 \\  & DP & 131 \(\pm\) 86 & 313 \(\pm\) 125 & 256 \(\pm\) 169 & 411 \(\pm\) 127 & 391 \(\pm\) 121 & 38.42 & 0.01 & 0.39 \\ \hlineThe first discriminant root (Wilk's Lambda 0.17, \(p<0.001\)) explained the differences between the CM, and the CD and FW. Specifically, the CM outperformed the CD and FW in the running zone distance covered in the AP (correlations with a discriminant root of 0.73). The second discriminant root (Wilk's Lambda 0.45, \(p<0.001\)) explained the differences between the FW and WM, and the CD, evidencing that the FW and WM were superior in the high-speed running and sprinting distances in the DP.