Distance covered is the oldest tracking number in football and the one most often shown on screen. It is also among the least informative things a tracking system produces.
The number is dominated by role
A central midfielder covers substantially more ground than a centre-back in almost every match, regardless of how hard either works. Position sets the range before effort enters the calculation.
Comparing totals across positions therefore measures the shape of the team rather than the application of the player. The same is true of comparisons between formations.
Any use of the number has to be within a role, and even then the range of normal values is wide.
Match state moves it more than effort does
A team chasing a deficit presses higher and covers more ground, while a team protecting a lead sits deeper and covers less. Neither pattern reflects a change in willingness.
A side that dominates possession often records lower distance totals than the side chasing the ball, which inverts the intuitive reading entirely.
Distance is consequently a description of what the match required rather than of what a player contributed to it.
Intensity is where the physical cost sits
The physiological demand of football is concentrated in accelerations, decelerations and changes of direction rather than in steady running. Those actions are brief and account for a small share of total distance.
Two players covering identical distances can experience very different loads depending on how that distance was accumulated. One jogged it and one sprinted it in fragments.
This is why staff work with high-speed running and acceleration counts rather than with the headline total.
Thresholds make the derived numbers hard to compare
High-speed running is defined by a speed threshold, and different systems and clubs set that threshold differently. A player crosses it more or less often depending purely on where the line was drawn.
Some systems set thresholds relative to each individual's maximum speed, which produces more meaningful comparisons within a squad but breaks comparison between squads.
Numbers quoted publicly rarely state which convention was used, which makes most cross-club comparison unreliable.
The number survives because it is easy to explain
Distance requires no context to state and fits a broadcast graphic, which is most of why it persists in coverage.
It also carries a moral reading, since covering ground looks like effort and effort is what audiences want to see rewarded.
That interpretation is the actual problem, because a player who positions himself well and runs less is being penalised by the only physical number most viewers ever see.