## 3 Results
Significant pairwise differences were observed as follows: In panel (**A**)—Total distance: CM vs. SM, CM vs. CD, CM vs. SD, and CM vs. F; in panel (**B**)—High metabolic load distance (HMLD): no significant differences were observed; in panel (**C**)—Total distance per minute: CM vs. SM, CM vs. CD, CM vs. SD, and CM vs. F. Dots represent statistical outliers (IQR method) retained for analysis, as they may reflect meaningful individual variability in physical performance. ferences in maximum speed were noted between CMs and SDs, CMs and Fs, and CDs and SMs. Figure 2: Positional performance analysis: distribution of physical and tactical metrics-detailed distance Zones. Note: The boxplots (**A–F**) illustrate the distribution of key performance metrics across playing positions: center defender (CD), center midfielder ([PERSON]), forward ([PERSON]), side defender ([PERSON]) and side midfielder ([PERSON]). Significant pairwise differences were observed as follows: In panel (**A**)—Distance Zone 1: [PERSON] vs. [PERSON]; in panels (**B–D**)—Distance Zones 2, 3, and 4: [PERSON] vs. [PERSON], [PERSON] vs. CD, CM vs. SD, and CM vs. F; in panel (**E**)—Distance Zone 5: [PERSON] vs. CD, and [PERSON] vs. SD; in panel (**F**)—Distance Zone 6: [PERSON] vs. [PERSON], [PERSON] vs. SD, CM vs. F, and [PERSON] vs. CD. Dots represent statistical outliers (IQR method) retained for analysis, as they may reflect meaningful individual variability in physical performance. Although the Kruskal-Wallis test for the number of sprints was statistically significant (H = 11.90, \(p\) = 0.018), the post-hoc analysis did not reveal significant pairwise  
Figure 3: Positional performance analysis: distribution of physical and tactical metrics—speed and sprint metrics. Note: The boxplots (**A–E**) illustrate the distribution of key performance metrics across playing positions: center defender ([PERSON]), center midfielder ([PERSON]), forward ([PERSON]), side defender ([PERSON]) and side midfielder ([PERSON]). Significant pairwise differences were observed as follows: In panel (**A**)—High-speed running (HSR): [PERSON] vs. [PERSON], [PERSON] vs. [PERSON], [PERSON] vs. [PERSON], and [PERSON] vs. SD; in panel (**B**)—Average speed: [PERSON] vs. [PERSON], [PERSON] vs. CD, [PERSON] vs. SD, and [PERSON] vs. F; in panel (**C**)—Maximum speed: [PERSON] vs. [PERSON], [PERSON] vs. [PERSON], and [PERSON] vs. [PERSON]; in panel (**D**)—Number of sprints: no significant differences were observed; in panel (**E**)—HSR per minute: [PERSON] vs. [PERSON], [PERSON] vs. SD, [PERSON] vs. CD, and [PERSON] vs. SD. Dots represent statistical outliers (IQR method) retained for analysis, as they may reflect meaningful individual variability in physical performance. differences between player positions, likely due to high variability within groups and overlapping distributions. Forwards recorded the highest number of sprints (mean = 32.92, 95% CI: 21.00-44.85), followed by side midfielders (SMs) with a mean of 29.30 (95% CI: 23.42-35.17) and side defenders (SDs) with a mean of 25.61 (95% CI: 17.65-33.57). In contrast, central players, including central midfielders (CMs) and central defenders (CDs), exhibited fewer sprints, with means of 20.10 (95% CI: 13.13-27.08) and 20.62 (95% CI: 15.09-26.15), respectively. Lastly, HSR per minute followed a similar pattern, with forwards (mean = 7.79, 95% CI: 6.21-9.36) and side defenders (mean = 7.76, 95% CI: 6.67-8.86) leading the metrics. Significant pairwise differences in HSR per minute were observed between CDs and SMs, CDs and SDs, CMs and SDs, and CMs vs. SMs. These results emphasize the distinct physical demands across playing positions, particularly the dynamic roles of side players and forwards in high-speed activities. Total accelerations and total decelerations did not demonstrate statistically significant differences among player positions (Tables 1 and 5 and Figure 4). While no significant differences were identified, the descriptive data provide valuable insights into positional tendencies.