## 3 Results  
All the results are shown in Table 3 as means \(\pm\) standard deviation. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Experimental Group**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Control Group**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Significance**} \\ \cline{2-9}  & **Pre** & **Post** & \(\Delta\) & **Pre** & **Post** & \(\Delta\) & \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Arm curl** \\ **test** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\(24.85\pm 3.67\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(31.15\pm 8.30\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(+6.30\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(27.93\pm 5.16\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(29.36\pm 7.41\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(+1.43\)} & **Time factor: F(1,25) = 13.09;** & & **\(p\) = 0.001** \\  & & & & & & & **\(p\) = 0.031** \\  & & & & & & & Groups factor: F(1,25) = 0.084; \(p\) = 0.775 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **MBT** \\ **forehand** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{\(9.27\pm 1.25\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(10.09\pm 1.24\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(+0.82\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(9.31\pm 1.67\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(9.67\pm 1.55\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(+0.36\)} & **Time factor: F(1,25) = 8.92;** & & **\(p\) = 0.006** \\  & & & & & & & Interaction: F(1,25) = 1.40; & \(p\) = 0.248 \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & & & & & Groups factor: F(1,25) = 0.13; & \(p\) = 0.716 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Physical performance variables. Data are reported as means \(\pm\) standard deviations. Figure 2: Precision shooting test with score assignment. The RM-ANOVA performed on the arm curl test showed a significant effect of time (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 13.09; \(p\) = 0.001; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) = 0.344); in addition, a significant interaction for time * group was found (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 5.21; \(p\) = 0.031; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) = 0.172). No significant difference was found between groups (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 0.084; \(p\) = 0.775; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) = 0.003). The paired t-test performed on the two groups separately showed that the EG significantly improved the number of repetitions in comparison with the-intervention (\(p\) < 0.001). The RM-ANOVA performed on the MBT test forehand shot showed a significant effect of time (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 8.92; \(p\) = 0.006; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) = 0.263). No significant results were found for time interaction (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 1.40; \(p\) = 0.248; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) = 0.053) and between groups (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 0.13; \(p\) = 0.716; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) = 0.005). The RM-ANOVA performed on the MBT test backhand shot showed a significant effect of time (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 15.35; \(p\) = 0.001; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) = 0.380). No significant results were found for time interaction (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 2.97; \(p\) = 0.097; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) = 0.106) and between groups (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 0.002; \(p\) = 0.965; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) < 0.001). The RM-ANOVA performed on the MBT test overhead shot showed no significant effect of intervention, time, or interaction effects (all \(p\)-values > 0.05). The RM-ANOVA performed on the forehand shot of the SP test showed a significant effect of time (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 7.27; \(p\) = 0.012; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) = 0.225). In addition, a significant interaction for time * group was found (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 8.35; \(p\) = 0.008; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) = 0.250). Finally, a significant difference was found between groups (F\({}_{(1,25)}\) = 8.70; \(p\) = 0.007; \(\eta^{2}_{\text{P}}\) = 0.258), where the EG achieved better scores in comparison with the control group. The paired t-test performed on the two groups separately showed that the EG significantly improved precision scores in the SP test for forehand in comparison to pre- vs. post-intervention scores (\(p\) < 0.001).