## 4 Discussion  
### Microcycles Load Differences  
Our results demonstrate the differences in the training load between the microcycles. It was expected to have a greater load with high-intensity parameters in the long microcycles. Specifically, MIC5 had lower ACC2 and DEC2 numbers than MIC6, and both had lower numbers than MIC7 and MIC9. MIC7 and MIC9 had higher AAC3 numbers compared with  
Figure 8: Wellness score average values after the games that were played at the end of the microcycles. GSLEEP = sleep responses, GSORENESS = muscle soreness responses, GFATIGUE = fatigue responses, GSTRESS = stress responses; MIC5 = five-day microcycle, MIC6 = six-day microcycle, MIC7 = seven-day microcycle, MIC9 = nine-day microcycle. Error bars are 95% confidence limits. Figure 7: Average values for MPW4, MPW5 and MPW6 during the games that were played at the end of the microcycles. GMPW4 = distance covered with a metabolic power of 15.5–25.5 w/kg, GMPW5 = distance covered with a metabolic power of 25.5–50 w/kg, GMPW6 = distance covered with a metabolic power >50 w/kg; MIC5 = five-day microcycle, MIC6 = six-day microcycle, MIC7 = seven-day microcycle, MIC9 = nine-day microcycle; * difference from MIC5, \(p\) < 0.05; # difference from MIC6, \(p\) < 0.05. Error bars are 95% confidence limits. MIC5, and MIC6 had lower numbers only compared with MIC9. For DEC3, differences were found only between MIC5 and MIC9, while contrary results were obtained in another study with a higher number of decelerations \(<\)\(-\)3 m/s\({}^{2}\) in regular microcyles [13]. This reflects our training protocol according to which in the long weeks, the performance training on the middle days contained small- and large-sided games where the players could accumulate accelerations and decelerations [32]. The maximal sprint training applied to long microcyles, where the players had more days to recover [38], can explain the increased number of ACC3 in MIC9. We were expecting the same results for MIC7, but because of the two consecutive trainings with high loads and intensity (MD \(-\) 4, MD \(-\) 3), the load was usually decreased on the following day. The same strategy was used in a previous study [2]. This could result in a similar ACC3 load in MIC7, MIC6 and MIC5. In other studies, there were no differences in accelerations > 3 m/s\({}^{2}\) between the short, regular and long microcyles, but only between specific days of the week [13]. This can be explained by the different microcycle formats (3, 4 and 5 days for short, 6 and 7 days for regular, 8 and 9 days for long microcyles in one study and 5 or 6 days for short, 7 days for regular and 8 or 9 days for long in the other) and our intervention program that targeted the maximal sprint speed in MIC7 and MIC9. Another study by [PERSON] et al. (2019) [28] found similar results with ACC and DEC values higher in the microcyles with five training days compared with microcyles with four and three training days. From our results, it seems that accelerations and decelerations can discriminate the short- and long-duration weeks. Football players can cope with a high, relative to the game, load with respect to these parameters [28,29], but we suggest reaching a higher load in long microcyles. Total distance was shorter in MIC5 than in all the other microcyles, and in MIC9, it was longer than in MIC6. Similar results were found in another study where the five-day training week had a longer total distance than shorter microcyles [28]. Moreover, other studies found that the length of the microcycle affects the workload both in volume and intensity between the training days with short microcyles having a shorter total distance on MD \(-\) 4 and MD \(-\) 3 [13]. For running thresholds, DIST, DIS4 and DIS5 were shorter in MIC5. The other microcyles seems to have a similar load except MIC9 compared with MIC6 that had a higher load for DIS4. For DIS6, both MIC7 and MIC9 had a higher load compared with MIC5 and MIC6.