## 3 Results  
The ICC, used to establish the reliability of the tests, were 0.91 and 0.89 for CMJ and IAT, respectively. The ICC of the A, PM, PL, and composite YBT scores varied between 0.83 and 0.90. The results demonstrate significant improvements in the F11+ Group following the eight-week FIFA 11+ program. In the CMJ (Figure 4), the F11+ Group showed a significant increase in performance (F = 7.26, \(p\) = 0.013, \(\eta\)p\({}^{2}\) = 0.248, power = 0.73), whereas no significant changes were observed in the Control Group (\(p\) = 0.939). Similarly, the IAT (Figure 5) revealed a notable reduction in completion time for the F11+ Group (F = 15.98, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta\)p\({}^{2}\) = 0.421, power = 0.97), while the Control Group exhibited no significant improvements (\(p\) = 0.218) (Table 3). Regarding dynamic balance, the YBT showed significant enhancements in the F11+ Group across multiple parameters, with a marked increase in the composite score (F = 20.46, \(p\) \(\leq\) 0.01, \(\eta\)p\({}^{2}\) = 0.630, power = 0.98). Finally, the total score was significantly improved in the F11+ Group (F = 20.73, \(p\) < 0.001, \(\eta\)p\({}^{2}\) = 0.633, power = 0.98), while the control group showed no significant improvements (\(p\) = 0.431). The test involves maximal reaching distances in AT, PL, and PM directions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c} \hline
**Exercise** & **Duration (min)** \\ \hline Hamstring exercises & \\ Beginner: 3–5 reps, 1 set; Intermediate: 7–10 reps, 1 set; \\ Advanced: 12–15 reps, 1 set (3 exercises) \\ \hline Single-leg stance & \\ Holding a ball, passing it with a partner, testing your \\ partner’s responses (3 exercises, each performed in 2 sets) \\ \hline Squats & \\ Squats with toe raises, walking lungs, single-leg squats (3 \\ exercises, each performed in 2 sets) \\ \hline Jumping & \\ Vertical jumps, lateral jumps, box jumps (3 exercises, each \\ performed in 2 sets) \\ \hline Part 3: Running Drills & \\ Running across the field, bounding, planting and cutting (3 \\ exercises, each performed in 2 sets) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._Figure 4: Descriptive effects for the mean vertical jump (VJ: (Mean \(\pm\) SD) performance following the FIFA11+ protocols training in the F11+ Group and Control Group. * \(p\) < 0.05. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**F11+ Group**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Control**} \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**(\(\mathbf{n}\) = 13)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Group**} \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Group**} \\  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**(\(\mathbf{n}\) = 11)**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Group**} \\ \hline  & **Pre-Test** & **Post-Test** & **F** & \(\mathbf{p}\) & **np\({}^{2}\)** & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Observed** \\ **Power** \\ \end{tabular} & **Pre-Test** & **Post-Test** & \(\mathbf{p}\) \\ \hline VJ (cm) & 46.15\(\pm\) 3.36 & 51.38 \(\pm\) 5.17 & 7.26 * & 0.013 & 0.248 & 0.73 & 47.09\(\pm\) 3.78 & 47.00 \(\pm\) 4.56 & 0.939 \\ \hline IAT (s) & 19.76 \(\pm\) 1.30 & 18.80 \(\pm\) 1.31 & 15.98 ** & 0.001 & 0.421 & 0.97 & 19.46 \(\pm\) 1.89 & 19.36 \(\pm\) 1.72 & 0.218 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c} VJ: vertical jump; IAT: Illinois Agility Test; np\({}^{2}\): Partial Eta Squared; Mean difference: Post-Test–Pre-Test Note *: significantly different from Pre-Test (*: \(p\) < 0.05; **: \(p\) < 0.01).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: Descriptive statistics (Mean \(\pm\) SD) for the mean vertical jump (VJ), and Illinois Agility Test (IAT) performances following the FIFA11+ protocols training in the F11+ Group and Control Group. Figure 5: Descriptive effects for the mean Illinois Agility Test (IAT: (Mean \(\pm\) SD) performance following the FIFA11+ protocols training in the F11+ Group and Control Group. ** \(p\) < 0.01. Additionally, postural stability improved significantly in the PL and PM directions within the F11+ Group (F = 6.92-20.23, \(p\): 0.022-0.001, \(\eta\)p\({}^{2}\) = 0.366-0.628, power = 0.68-0.98), whereas the Control Group displayed no significant changes (\(p\) = 0.369-0.662).