## 4 Discussion  
The purpose of this study was to describe the external load profile of different playing positions in the 1-4-3-3 formation of young football players. Specifically, the central midfielders (CMs) covered the greatest distance, while the forwards (Fs) dominated the distances in high-intensity zones 5 and 6. The wide players (SDs, SMs) showed high  
Figure 4: Positional performance analysis: distribution of physical and tactical metrics—acceleration and deceleration metrics. Note: The boxplots illustrate the distribution of key performance metrics across playing positions: center defender (CD), center midfielder (CM), forward (F), side defender (SD), and side midfielder (SM). (**A**) Total accelerations; (**B**) total decelerations. Dots represent statistical outliers (IQR method) retained for analysis, as they may reflect meaningful individual variability in physical performance. performance in high-speed running distance. The results partially confirm our hypothesis that the wide players of the formation cover the longest distances and also the most meters at high speeds. As mentioned earlier, studies on elite youth football players investigating the effect of formation are limited compared to those concerning professional football players. In one of the first studies [24], among other aspects, they recorded the external load in football matches across a wide range of ages (U13-U18). In this study, no specific formation was mentioned, but the players were divided into the following positions: side defender (SD), central defender (CD), side midfielder (SM), central midfielder (CM), and forward (F). The results showed that midfielders covered the greatest distance, while the CDs covered the smallest. The SM and F covered the greatest distance at high speeds. Although this study used a large sample, the lack of reference to formation as a factor affecting running performance in football represents a significant limitation. In a later study, researchers observed the differences in running performance across playing positions without referencing formation, but by categorizing the players into the aforementioned five positions [32]. The researchers observed that the CM covered the greatest total distance as well as the distance at low speeds compared to all other positions. The CMs and CDs covered the least distance in sprints, while the Fs covered a greater sprint distance than the SMs. Finally, the CDs covered the least high-speed running (HSR) distance compared to all positions. Our findings are generally in agreement with these studies, although this study focuses on a specific formation, and therefore, on specific areas of responsibility for the players. Specifically, the CMs covered the greatest distance, as mentioned earlier in the results appendix, while the Fs and SDs covered the longest distance in zone 5. As we can observe, there are no studies in the literature regarding the running performance profile of specific formations, especially in the 1-4-3-3. This makes it difficult to compare the findings of this study with other research data. However, we will make some references to studies with a similar design concerning professional football players. In one study [18], which examined the running performance of professional football players in the 1-4-3-3 formation, dividing them into five playing positions, it was noted that the CM differed from the other positions, covering greater distances in the first speed zone (6-11.8 km/h). In other studies, this difference was not observed [33; 34], likely because different speed zones were used (walking was included in the first zone). In the current study, the first zone included the distance covered by walking (0-7.1 km/h), where differences were observed between the CMs and SMs. It is incorrect to compare the first zone of the present study with that of [PERSON] et al. (2020) [18] since the first zone in the aforementioned study begins (almost) where the corresponding zone of the present study ends.