## 4 Discussion  
Our findings revealed that both DM and NHC had similar acute effects on football players concerning KE and KF maximal strength, average strength, and maximal impulse. The results showed no significant difference between the two interventions. However, within-group analysis indicated that players exposed to DM demonstrated significant improvements in all KE outcomes after the intervention, as well as significant enhancements in maximal force and average force. Conversely, within-NHC comparisons did not reveal any significant changes from pre- to post-intervention. Our analysis revealed that, while not differing significantly from NHC, the DM cohort exhibited marked improvements in both maximal and average strength for both KE and KF. Additionally, a noteworthy increase in maximal impulse was observed in KE. Intriguingly, the NHC group displayed no significant changes within the group, a deviation from our initial expectations. These findings regarding the DM group echo previous research, such as the study by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [13], focusing on improving KE muscle strength through knee joint mobilization. Their findings indicated an 18.7% increase in KE muscle strength from pre- to post-intervention assessments, which further surged to 23.6% after a 30 min interval [13]. Similarly, another study [19] examining various low-velocity hip mobilization techniques in healthy individuals reported positive effects on gluteal muscle strength immediately post-mobilization, albeit with varying degrees of change. Subjects demonstrated a significant average increase in eccentric iliac muscle strength by 7.73% [19]. Furthermore, research targeting hip joint mobilization in knee injury patients demonstrated a 15.3% improvement in gluteus maximus muscle strength [20]. Regarding NHC, our findings partially align with studies employing a similar warm-up regimen, suggesting that the lack of significant impacts may be attributed to exercise-induced fatigue [14]. Neurophysiologically, both DM and NHC likely engage mechanisms of neural facilitation. DM techniques involve manual manipulation of muscle tissue and joints, which can stimulate mechanoreceptors and proprioceptive feedback mechanisms [21]. This sensory input can modulate neural excitability, leading to increased motor unit recruitment and synchronization, as well as improved intermuscular coordination [22]. Such neural adaptations facilitate the generation of higher force outputs during subsequent strength testing protocols. Conversely, NHC primarily challenges the hamstrings eccentrically, inducing neuromuscular adaptations specific to eccentric loading, such as increased motor unit recruitment and firing rates, as well as improved muscle spindle sensitivity [23]. However, the specificity of these adaptations to the hamstring muscles may limit their transferability to knee extension strength, explaining the lack of significant changes in KE outcomes following NHC intervention. Biomechanically, it is expected that DM and NHC influence muscle function and joint mechanics in distinct manners due to their differing approaches and effects on muscle architecture and force transmission. DM techniques often involve dynamic stretches and specific mobilization exercises that enhance the muscle length-tension relationship and fascicle architecture. This optimization of muscle length-tension relationships can improve the ability to generate force across various joint angles, which is beneficial for tasks involving multiple muscle groups. Additionally, DM interventions are known to enhance joint mobility and alignment, leading to more efficient force transmission during strength tasks [24]. The improved joint mechanics and muscle alignment associated with DM can facilitate immediate performance gains and more effective fatigue management due to the less intense nature of the exercises compared to more targeted strength training methods [25].