## 3 Results  
Descriptive statistics of the participants are shown in Table 1.  
When Table 2 was analysed, there was no significant difference when the pre-test results of the footballers were compared (\(p\) > 0.05; Figure 3). When Table 3 was examined, it was determined that the CT and MAS groups were significant compared to the NT group in terms of training load, running distance and VO2 max value among the football players (\(p\) = 0.001; Figure 4). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**CT Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**MAS Group**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**NT Group**} \\ \cline{2-7}  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**n:20**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**n:20**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**n:20**} \\ \hline
**Variable** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** & **Mean** & **SD** \\ \hline Sport Age & 10.60 & 3.15 & 12.60 & 6.76 & 11.75 & 5.30 \\ Age (year) & 23.40 & 2.92 & 23.93 & 2.46 & 24.80 & 5.84 \\ BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 23.67 & 1.59 & 23.32 & 1.42 & 22.87 & 1.67 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* CT = Combined Training; MAS = Maximal Aerobic Speed; NT = Normal Training.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of subjects. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Distance Travelled (m)**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**n**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pre-Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cohen’s d**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean \(\pm\) SD**} & & & \\ \hline CT Group & 20 & 1618.66 \(\pm\) 483.05 & & & \\ MAS Group & 20 & 1560.00 \(\pm\) 479.52 & & & \\ NT Group & 20 & 1485.33 \(\pm\) 332.56 & & & \\ \hline \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**VO2 max**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**n**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pre-Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cohen’s d**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean \(\pm\) SD**} & & & \\ \hline CT Group & 20 & 50.00 \(\pm\) 4.05 & & & \\ MAS Group & 20 & 49.51 \(\pm\) 4.02 & 0.355 & 0.703 & 0.037 \\ NT Group & 20 & 48.88 \(\pm\) 2.78 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* CT = Combined Training; MAS = Maximal Aerobic Speed; NT = Normal Training.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Intergroup comparison of participants’ pre-test Yo-Yo IR1 endurance test values. Figure 4: Pre-test and post-test of VO2 max levels of the groups. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Running Distance (m)**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**n**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pre-Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Post-Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**_P_} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cohen’s d**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & & & & & \\ \hline CT Group & 20 & \(1618.66\) \(\pm\) 483.05 & \(2677.33\)\(\pm\) 756.15 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & & & & \\ MAS Group & 20 & \(1560.00\)\(\pm\) 479.52 & \(2674.66\)\(\pm\) 762.23 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.920 & **0.001** & 0.004 \\ NT Group & 20 & \(1485.33\)\(\pm\) 332.56 & \(1746.66\)\(\pm\) 547.33 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{**VO2 max**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**n**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pre-Test**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Post-Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**F**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**_p_} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cohen’s d**} \\ \cline{3-3} \cline{5-6}  & & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & & & & \\ \hline CT Group & 20 & \(50.00\)\(\pm\) 4.05 & \(58.88\)\(\pm\) 6.36 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & & & \\ MAS Group & 20 & \(49.51\)\(\pm\) 4.02 & \(58.86\)\(\pm\) 6.40 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 8.865 & **0.001** & 0.068 \\ NT Group & 20 & \(48.88\)\(\pm\) 2.78 & \(51.08\)\(\pm\) 4.60 \({}^{\text{b}}\) & & & \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{CT-MAS \(>\) NT; CT = Combined Training; MAS = Maximal Aerobic Speed; NT = Normal Training.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Intergroup comparison of participants’ pre-test and post-test Yo-Yo IR1 endurance test values.