# The Effect of Pitch Surface on Match Running Performance in Women's Soccer
## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CD**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**FB**} \\ \hline Fixed effect & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) \\ \hline Intercept & 36 (7.29) & \(-\)34.03–106.5 & 4.98 (1.13) & 36 (2.5) & 29.64–41.53 & 14.22 (6.85) \\ Pitch: AT & 2 (3.32) & \(-\)4.9–8.66 & 0.57 (30.03) & 0 (3.23) & \(-\)6.51–6.57 & 0.01 (37.96) \\ \hline Random effect & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) \\ \hline Residuals & 90 (23) & 3.87 (<0.01) & 103 (24) & 4.26 (<0.01) \\ Player & 94 (141) & 0.67 (0.5) & 2 (9) & 0.17 (0.87) \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**CM**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**OF**} \\ \hline Fixed effect & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) \\ \hline Intercept & 34 (2.79) & 25.11–42.02 & 12.02 (3.29) & 47 (6.29) & 27.89–65.16 & 7.4 (3.44) \\ Pitch: AT & 2 (2.56) & \(-\)3.61–6.76 & 0.62 (35.98) & 1 (2.86) & \(-\)4.88–6.57 & 0.3 (57.17) \\ \hline Random effect & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) \\ \hline Residuals & 65 (16) & 4.17 (<0.01) & 123 (23) & 5.34 (<0.01) \\ Player & 17 (24) & 0.69 (0.49) & 139 (121) & 1.15 (0.25) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: The effect of different pitch surfaces on high-intensity accelerations in women’s soccer. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CD**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**FB**} \\ \hline Fixed effect & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) \\ \hline Intercept & 150 (43) & \(-\)214–515 & 3.47 (1.22) & 254 (44) & 94–415 & 5.83 (2.41) \\ Pitch: AT & \(-\)40 (25) & \(-\)90–10 & \(-\)1.62 (30.04) & \(-\)14 (23) & \(-\)61–33 & \(-\)0.62 (36.36) \\ \hline Random effect & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) \\ \hline Residuals & 4894 (1264) & 3.87 (<0.01) & 5041 (1188) & 4.24 (<0.01) \\ Player & 3107 (4817) & 0.65 (0.52) & 4826 (5205) & 0.93 (0.35) \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**CM**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**OF**} \\ \hline Fixed effect & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) \\ \hline Intercept & 36 (7.29) & \(-\)34.03–106.5 & 4.98 (1.13) & 36 (2.5) & 29.64–41.53 & 14.22 (6.85) \\ Pitch: AT & 2 (3.32) & \(-\)4.9–8.66 & 0.57 (30.03) & 0 (3.23) & \(-\)6.51–6.57 & 0.01 (37.96) \\ \hline Random effect & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) \\ \hline Residuals & 90 (23) & 3.87 (<0.01) & 103 (24) & 4.26 (<0.01) \\ Player & 94 (141) & 0.67 (0.5) & 2 (9) & 0.17 (0.87) \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**CM**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**OF**} \\ \hline Fixed effect & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) & Coef (SE) & 95\% CI & t (df) \\ \hline Intercept & 34 (2.79) & 25.11–42.02 & 12.02 (3.29) & 47 (6.29) & 27.89–65.16 & 7.4 (3.44) \\ Pitch: AT & 2 (2.56) & \(-\)3.61–6.76 & 0.62 (35.98) & 1 (2.86) & \(-\)4.88–6.57 & 0.3 (57.17) \\ \hline Random effect & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Coef (SE)} & z (\(p\)) \\ \hline Residuals & 65 (16) & 4.17 (<0.01) & 123 (23) & 5.34 (<0.01) \\ Player & 17 (24) & 0.69 (0.49) & 139 (121) & 1.15 (0.25) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: The effect of different pitch surfaces on high-intensity decelerations in women’s soccer. Also, no significant differences in HIR were observed among players across all playing positions, regardless of playing on AT or NG (CDs: 111 vs. 150 m, respectively; FBs: 240 vs. 254 m, respectively; CMs: 180 vs. 214 m, respectively; OFs: 269 and 257 m, respectively). A similar number of HIA were found, irrespective of the playing on AT or NG, for players on all playing positions (CDs: 38 vs. 36, respectively; FBs: 36 vs. 36, respectively; CMs: 35 vs. 34, respectively; OFs: 47 vs. 47, respectively).