Skip to main content

Table 3 Descriptive statistics (mean ± SD) of all measures between players’ positions

From: Are acute:chronic workload ratios of perceived exertion and running based variables sensible to detect variations between player positions over the season? A soccer team study

Measures

DF

(Mean ± SD)

MF

(Mean ± SD)

WG

(Mean ± SD)

ST

(Mean ± SD)

p

Hedges’ g (95% CI)

ACWR CPs-RPE (AU)

1.06 ± 0.02

1.06 ± 0.02

1.07 ± 0.03

1.02 ± 0.03

DF vs. MF: 1.000

DF vs. WG: 1.000

DF vs. ST: 0.099

MF vs. WG: 1.000

MF vs. ST: 0.099

WG vs. ST:0.023

1.51 [0.15, 3.11]#

ACWR UCPs-RPE (AU)

1.16 ± 0.03

1.14 ± 0.03

1.16 ± 0.05

1.08 ± 0.03

DF vs. MF: 1.000

DF vs. WG: 1.000

DF vs. ST: 0.010

2.41 [0.84, 4.41]§

MF vs. WG: 1.000

MF vs. ST: 0.085

WG vs. ST: 0.015

1.75 [0.35, 3.46]#

EWMAs-RPE (AU)

1.10 ± 0.71

1.14 ± 0.09

1.16 ± 0.12

0.96 ± 0.05

DF vs. MF: 1.000

DF vs. WG: 1.000

DF vs. ST: 0.116

MF vs. WG: 1.000

MF vs. ST: 0.025

2.23 [0.72, 4.15]§

WG vs. ST: 0.011

1.97 [0.51, 3.76]#

ACWR CPTD (AU)

0.95 ± 0.01

0.95 ± 0.01

0.98 ± 0.02

0.99 ± 0.01

DF vs. MF: 1.000

DF vs. WG: 0.091

DF vs. ST: 0.003

− 3.61 [− 6.25, − 1.68]§

MF vs. WG: 0.029

− 1.71 [− 3.40, − 0.32]#

MF vs. ST: 0.001

− 3.61 [− 6.25, − 1.68]§

WG vs. ST: 0.732

ACWR UCPTD (AU)

0.95 ± 0.12

0.95 ± 0.01

0.99 ± 0.03

1.01 ± 0.01

DF vs. MF: 1.000

DF vs. WG: 0.017

− 0.41 [− 1.70, 0.82]&

DF vs. ST: < 0.01

− 0.64 [− 1.97, 0.60]*

MF vs. WG: 0.011

− 1.62 [− 3.26, − 0.24]#

MF vs. ST: < 0.010

− 5.42 [− 9.11, − 2.84]£

WG vs. ST: 0.243

EWMATD (AU)

0.80 ± 0.02

0.79 ± 0.01

0.78 ± 0.01

0.81 ± 0.22

DF vs. MF: 0.804

DF vs. WG: 0.430

DF vs. ST: 1.000

MF vs. WG: 1.000

MF vs. ST: 0.220

WG vs. ST: 0.109

ACWR CPHSRD (AU)

1.03 ± 0.01

1.05 ± 0.01

1.06 ± 0.03

1.08 ± 0.01

DF vs. MF: 1.000

DF vs. WG: 0.134

DF vs. ST: 0.019

− 4.52 [− 7.67, − 2.27]£

MF vs. WG: 1.000

MF vs. ST: 0.250

WG vs. ST: 1.000

ACWR UCPHSRD (AU)

1.24 ± 0.04

1.27 ± 0.05

1.32 ± 0.09

1.44 ± 0.12

DF vs. MF: 1.000

DF vs. WG: 0.917

DF vs. ST: 0.010

− 2.02 [− 3.84, − 0.56]§

MF vs. WG: 1.000

MF vs. ST: 0.040

− 1.67 [− 3.34, − 0.29]#

WG vs. ST: 0.216

EWMAHSRD (AU)

1.35 ± 0.05

1.41 ± 0.03

1.42 ± 0.15

1.42 ± 0.17

DF vs. MF: 1.000

DF vs. WG: 1.000

DF vs. ST: 1.000

MF vs. WG: 1.000

MF vs. ST: 1.000

WG vs. ST: 1.000

ACWR CPSPRINT (AU)

0.96 ± 0.08

0.97 ± 0.02

0.96 ± 0.02

0.97 ± 0.02

DF vs. MF: 1.000

DF vs. WG: 1.000

DF vs. ST: 0.066

MF vs. WG: 1.000

MF vs. ST: 0.341

WG vs. ST: 0.153

ACWR UCPSPRINT (AU)

1.06 ± 0.02

1.09 ± 0.02

1.12 ± 0.05

1.23 ± 0.10

DF vs. MF: 1.000

DF vs. WG: 0.858

DF vs. ST: 0.002

− 2.13 [− 3.99, − 0.64]§

MF vs. WG: 1.000

MF vs. ST: 0.009

− 1.75 [− 3.46, − 0.35]#

WG vs. ST: 0.038

− 1.26 [− 2.77, 0.05]#

EWMASPRINT (AU)

1.10 ± 0.03

1.16 ± 0.04

1.13 ± 0.11

1.29 ± 0.15

DF vs. MF: 1.000

DF vs. WG: 1.000

DF vs. ST: 0.040

− 1.59 [− 3.22, − 0.22]#

MF vs. WG: 1.000

 

MF vs. ST: 0.308

WG vs. ST: 0.126

  1. Significant differences between player positions are highlighted in bold (p ≤ 0.05)
  2. AU, arbitrary units; DF, defenders; MF, midfielders; WG, wingers; ST, strikers; SD, standard deviation; ACWR, acute: chronic workload ratio; EWMA, exponentially weighted moving averages; CP, coupled; UCP, uncoupled; s-RPE, session rate of perceived exertion; TD, total distance; HSRD, high‐speed running distance
  3. &Small effect; *moderate effect; #large effect; §very large effect; £nearly perfect effect