ArticleFrontiers in physiology2026
Intra-positional technical performance under different physical demands in elite football: a comparison between most demanding passage and extremely demanding passage.
Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study investigated positional differences in technical performance between the Most Demanding Passage (MDP) and the Extremely Demanding Passage (EDP) in elite football. EDP was defined as the top 5% of match phases based on position-specific high-intensity running (HIR) distributions. Methods: A total of 4,102 outfield player observations from 176 Chinese Super League matches were analysed, including 3,664 MDP and 438 EDP observations. Technical indicators were compared between MDP and EDP using both bivariate statistical analysis and a Random Forest classifier combined with SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) to identify the most influential variables contributing to differences between conditions. Results: Significant intra-positional differences were found. Central defenders increased short-pass accuracy (p < .001, ES = 0.62) and ball-carrying distance (p = .01, ES = 0.52), while reducing long passes (p < .001, ES = -0.44). Full-backs exhibited lower long-pass volume (p < .001, ES = 0.57) and forward pass length (p < .001, ES = 0.48). Central midfielders recorded fewer successful long passes (p < .001, ES = 0.34) and more ball losses (p = .03, ES = 0.30). Forwards showed declines in lateral passing (p = .02, ES = 0.37) and individual possession time (p = .002, ES = 0.36). Wide midfielders exhibited minimal changes between conditions. The Random Forest and SHAP analysis further indicated that passing actions (e.g., short passes, long passes) and ball progression behaviours (e.g., ball carrying) were the primary contributors to distinguishing EDP from MDP across playing positions. Discussion: Overall, these results suggest that technical performance varies in a position-dependent manner under extreme physical demands, highlighting the importance of role-specific training strategies that replicate high-intensity match conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.