## 4 Discussion
### Microcycles Load Differences
This confirms the target of our intervention program for long microcyles to have specific performance training with a focus on reaching the max speed and accumulate HSR. Similarly, for metabolic power distance, MIC5 had the lowest value for MPW5 compared with the other microcyles, and MIC6 had the lowest MPW6 compared with MIC7 and MIC9. Interestingly, MIC7 had a higher MPW4 value than that in all the other microcyles, even than that in MIC9. The results from other studies partially support our findings. There were differences in the total HSR and HML distances on all training days (except MD + 1 for HSR and HML), with lower values in short microcyles [13]. Similarly, the length of the microcycle had a significant effect on HMLD but not on the sprint distance (>24 km/h) [13]. In this study, HMLD was longer in the regular microcycle (7 days) compared with long microcyles on MD\(-\)5 but shorter on MD \(-\) 2. In short microcyles, HMLD was longer on MD\(-\)2 compared with the regular microcycle but shorter on MD\(-\)1 compared with long and regular microcyles. Finally, another study showed that the values for total running distance (14-19.9 km/h) and HSR distance (20-24.9 km/h) were elevated in longer microcyles [28]. Unfortunately, the different methodologies used in these studies did not allow for further comparisons. For SPEFF and MPWEF, the load was lower in MIC5 compared with MIC6 and lower in both of them than that in MIC7 and MIC9. The results obtained by [PERSON] et al. (2022) [13] revealed that there was no systematic difference between the different-duration microcyles but rather between specific days. In one study, during short microcyles, the number of high-speed actions (>21 km/h) was less on the most demanding days (MD \(-\) 4, MD \(-\) 3) [13], but in another study, the high-speed actions (>24 km/h) were fewer on MD \(-\) 2, during the regular microcyles [22]. Likewise, in the external load variables of MIC5, the s-RPE value was lower compared with the other microcyles, and MIC9 had a higher load than that of MIC6 and MIC7. This is contrary to the results of another study where s-RPE and external TL variables did not follow the same pattern [12]. The values from our study varied between 228.85 \(\pm\) 59.39 and 334.35 \(\pm\) 36.20 and were similar to the data from the literature [17; 39]. Between the mesocycles, different s-RPE values may occur according to the results of one study where they found that in the first mesocycle, the s-RPE value was 331 \(\pm\) 21.6 with a subsequent decrease in the 10 th mesocycle to 239.3 \(\pm\) 26.7, but that study did not examine the different weeks' length [40]. To our knowledge, the only study that compared s-RPE values in different-duration microcyles was conducted in rugby league. There, the authors found that short microcyles had a lower load than the medium and long microcyles (209 \(\pm\) 63, 235 \(\pm\) 46 and 242 \(\pm\) 40, respectively) for all playing positions [41]. In football, [PERSON] et al. (2017) [11] found that the s-RPE value was higher in the weeks with one match that in the two-match weeks. This is because the coaches schedule low-intensity training sessions between congestive matches to let the players recover from game fatigue [27]. For wellness responses, MIC9 had a lower load in STRESS, FATIGUE and SORENESS compared with MIC5. In MIC6 and MIC7, STRESS and SORENESS, respectively, were lower than in MIC5. Our results contradict the results obtained by [PERSON] et al. (2022) [13] showing no effect of the length of the microcycle on the HOOPER responses. Another study revealed that games' frequency can affect the players' responses. They found that in the two-match week, the score increased for FATIGUE and SORENESS and in a one-match week for STRESS [11]. Manipulating the volume and the intensity in long weeks (by decreasing the load between high-demand days) can be beneficial for the players.