Distance covered in different work Intensities CD 14.1 – 19 km/h 7 080 ± 420 m 1 380 ± 232 m* 225 1 257 ± 244 m* 11.1 – 14 km/h 14.1 – 19 km/h n. s. 1st half > 2nd half p < 0.05 n. s. n. s. n. s. n. s. 2nd half > 1st half p < 0.001 1st half > 2nd half p < 0.001 1st half > 2nd half p < 0.01 2nd half > 1st half p < 0.05 1st half > 2nd half p < 0.05 n. s. n. s. 1st half > 2nd half p < 0.05 n. s. + + ED 7 012 ± 377 m 1 590 ± 257 m 1 730 ± 262 m CM 7 061 ± 272 m 1 965 ± 288 m# 2 116 ± 369 m† EM 6 960 ± 601 m 1 743 ± 309 mº 1 987 ± 412 m† 6 958 ± 438 m + F cant differences 11.1 – 14 km/h Vpliv pozicije na zahteve erences between the first versus the second half according to positional roles 0 – 11 km/h 0 – 11 km/h 19.1 – 23 km/h 1 562 ± 295 m > 23 km/h + 1 683 ± 413 m + 11.1 – 19 km/h: * significantly smaller than any other subgroup; significantly different from CD, CM, EM different from CD, ED, CM, F; † significantly Fig. 1 Techno-tactical assignment todifferent posi- from CD, ED, F. 19.1 – 23 km/h: * significantly smaller # significantly greater than any other subgroup. > 23 km/h: * significantly smaller than any other subgr EM; tional roles based on match-analyses. n. s. n. s. n. s. n. s. n. s. n. s. n. s. Distancen. s. Table 3 Total distance covered (meters and %) in possession of the positional roles n.ball s. by players of different n. s. Table 4 Distanc work in % 119 ± 67 m 1.2 ± 0.6% ED 220 ± 99 m 1.9 ± 0.9% Total CM 230 ± 92 m 1.9 ± 0.8% 0 – 11 km/h EM 286 ± 114 m 2.4 ± 1.1% 11.1 – 14 km/h F 212 ± 92 m 1.9 ± 0.8% 14.1 – 19 km/h Training & Testing CD iew see [11, 31]) for the distance covered by players covered by the CD. To date, there have been only a few compara19.1 – 23 km/h > 23 km/h tches, our results are in accordance with recent in- ble studies [4, 6,11,16, 20, 22, 29], to our knowledge, that have inWith the ball Table 2 Assessment of positional differences in distance covered at different work using sophisticated measurement technologies, vestigated the influence ofintensities positional role on the distance covthat the mean distance covered by male elite out- ered during a game. However, recent data confirm the results of Distance covered in different work Intensities A major limitation previous match-analyses the numpositions and quantify demands placed on the players in each of is about 11000 m [3]. Also, ofthe highest distancesis that these earlier, above-mentioned studies showing that distance Table 5 Differences between the first versus the second half according to positional roles ber of subjects analyzed was very small. The purpose of this inthe individual positions. 0 – 11 km/h 11.1 – 14 km/h 14.1 – 19 km/h 19.1 – 23 km/h > 23 km/h n individual player, about 14 km, are comparable to covered during the match appears to be related to the position vestigation, therefore, was to provide a large-scale study of top 0 – 11 km/h 11.1 – 14 km/h 14.1 – 19 km exerBased upon video analyses by the same experienced observer, aa siged in literature class [11].soccer players and examine the work rate profile, onand the team. In these studies, midfield players also covered CD 7 080 ± 420 m 1 380 ± 232 m* 1 257 ± 244 m* 397 ± 114 m* 215 ± 100 m* cise patterns according to positional role during 20 Spanish Pre- techno-tactical profile of each player has been defined. This pronificantly greater distance per+ game than n.defenders CD s. 1st half > 2nd half †p < 0.05 n. s. + + or forwards ED 7 012and ± 377 590 ± 257 m a file is based 1 730 ± 262 m 179 mand the pri402 ± 165 m mier League matches 10 m Champions League1 games, using on the different activity on 652 the ±pitch, ED n. s. n. s. n. s. aring differentCM positional it could be demon-1 965system. [4,11,16, 20]. The distances reported forcarried midfield players in these + Outfield new developedroles, computerized mary area in which this was out (Fig. 1). † 7 061 ± 272 mtime-motion analysis ± 288 m# 2 116 ± 369 mactivity 627half ± 184 248 116half m*p < 0.001 CM 2nd > 1st m half p < 0.001 1st half ± > 2nd 1st half > 2 players this investigation were to and one of11.4, five posiboth midfield EM team formations (CM, EM), probably1 743earlier studies byin [4,11, 22] (9.9 km, assigned 10.62nd km † # p < 0.05 respecEM half > 1st m half 1st half ± > 2nd n. s. 6 960 ± 601 m ± 309 mº 1 987 ± 412 m 738 ± 174 446 161half m†p < 0.05 tional groups: central defenders (CD), external defenders (ED), + + heir linking role in the team,6covered a significantly1 562tively) markedly shorter, tomidfield F s. data of+ this current 1st half > 2nd half †p < 0.05 n. s. midfield (CM), externaln.621 players (EM) FMethods 958 ± 438 m ± 295 m are central 1 683 ±players 413 m compared ± 161 m 404 ± 140 m and forwards resulting in following numbers of subjects n. s.the = nonsignificant differences nce (p < 0.0001) than both defender groups, as well study. However, our (F) results are comparable to the study per+ # 11.1 – 19 km/h: * significantly any other significantly from subgroups: CD, CM, EM;CD significantly greater thanCM any(nother subgroup; º significantly Twenty Spanish Premiersmaller Leaguethan matches andsubgroup; ten Champions in different the different (n = 63); ED (n = 60); = 67); p of forwards.different The shortest however, was formed by [20], analyzed Premier League +and 3 Chamfrom CD, ED,distance, CM, F; † significantly different from CD, ED, F. 19.1 – 23 km/h: who * significantly smaller18 than any other subgroup; significantly different from CD and Training & League games were monitored in the 2002/2003 and 2003/ EM (n = 58); F (n = 52). 223 EM; # significantly greater than any other subgroup. > 23 km/h: * significantly smaller than any other subgroup; † significantly different from CD, CM 2004 seasons, using a multiple-camera match analyses system data (for review see [11, 31]) for the distance covered by players (Amisco Pro®, version 1.0.2, Nice, Movements ofCharacteristics all 20 Statistical analyses Di France). Salvo V et al. Motion in Elite Level Soccer … Int J Sports Med 2007; 28: 222 – 227 in soccer matches, our results are in accordance with recent inoutfield players (goalkeepers were excluded) of the two compet- Statistical analyses were performed using the STATISTICA for vestigations using sophisticated measurement technologies, ing teams were observed during the whole game duration by Windows version 6.0 (StatSoft, Inc., Tulsa, OK, USA) software which show that the mean distance covered by male elite outmeans of 8 stable, synchronized cameras positioned at the top package for IBM-compatible computers. Data were analyzed us- covered by the ble studies [4, 6 vestigated the ered during a g