## 3 Results  
Descriptive statistics and reliability measures for all tests are shown in Table 1. Almost all the tests showed good within-session ICC values (\(\geq\)0.9) and had acceptable consistency with CV values \(<\) 10%.  
Figure 3 shows the comparisons of shooting velocity (expressed in Km/h) according to the techniques used (\(F_{(3,64)}\) = 23.7 \(p<\) 0.01, \(\eta_{\text{p}}\)\({}^{2}\) = 0.56). The static drive shot reported a slower shot velocity than the static slap shot (\(p<\) 0.01; \(d=-1.57\)), a slower velocity than the dynamic drive shot (\(p<\) 0.13; \(d=-1.18\)), and a slower velocity than the dynamic slap shot (\(p=0.13\); \(d=-3.05\)). The dynamic slap shot showed a higher shot velocity than the static slap shot (\(p<\) 0.01; \(d=1.48\)) and than the dynamic drive shot (\(p<\) 0.01; \(d=1.87\)).  
Pearson r correlations (with its confidence intervals) between shooting velocity and bench press test scores are shown in Table 2. The results showed a significant positive correlation with a large magnitude between 1 RM and static slap shot (r = 0.62 (0.03 to 0.89); \(p\) = 0.04); and a significant positive correlation with a very large magnitude between 1 RM and dynamic slap shot (r = 0.86 (0.58 to 9.97; \(p\) < 0.01). Moreover, dynamic slap shot and peak power showed a significant correlation with a large magnitude (r = 0.63 (0.05 to 0.89); \(p\) = 0.03).  
Table 3 displays the correlation matrix between the different shooting velocities according to the techniques used. All the variables correlated except the static drive shot velocity and the dynamic slap shot velocity.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Test** & **1 RM** & **Mean Power** & **Peak Power** \\ \hline Static drive shot & 0.23 (\(-\)0.43\(-\)0.73) & 0.26 (\(-\)0.41\(-\)0.74) & 0.35 (\(-\)0.32\(-\)0.79) \\ Static slap shot & **0.62 \({}^{*}\)** (0.03\(-\)0.89) & 0.37 (\(-\)0.29\(-\)0.8) & 0.52 (\(-\)0.11\(-\)0.85) \\ Dynamic drive shot & 0.60 (0.02\(-\)0.88) & 0.58 (\(-\)0.03\(-\)0.88) & 0.59 (\(-\)0.02\(-\)0.88) \\ Dynamic slap shot & **0.86 \({}^{**}\)** (0.58\(-\)0.97) & 0.41 (0.21\(-\)0.81) & **0.63 \({}^{*}\)** (0.05\(-\)0.89) \\ \hline Key: \({}^{*}\) (\(p\) < 0.05); \({}^{**}\) (\(p\) < 0.01). & & & \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Pearson r correlations (r) between shooting velocity and bench press test scores.  
Figure 3: Individual comparison between the slap and drive techniques.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Mean \(\pm\) SD** & **ICC** & **95\% CI** & **CV (\%)** \\ \hline Static drive shot (Km/h) & 84.4 \(\pm\) 8.78 & 0.90 & 0.74\(-\)0.96 & 10.4 \\ Static slap shot (Km/h) & 97.4 \(\pm\) 8.51 \({}^{*}\) & 0.85 & 0.59\(-\)0.94 & 8.74 \\ Dynamic drive shot (Km/h) & 94.1 \(\pm\) 7.10 \({}^{*}\) & 0.85 & 0.59\(-\)0.94 & 7.54 \\ Dynamic slap shot (Km/h) & 110 \(\pm\) 8.58 \({}^{**}\)\(\sharp\) & 0.88 & 0.67\(-\)0.95 & 7.83 \\ \hline
1 RM Bench press (Kg) & 79.1 \(\pm\) 12.6 & & 10.88 \\ Mean Power Bench press (N) & 490 \(\pm\) 99.1 & & 15.86 \\ Peak Power Bench press (N) & 746 \(\pm\) 159 & & 19.44 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\begin{tabular}{c} Key: ICC = intradas correlation coefficient; CI = confidence intervals; CV = coefficient of variation. \({}^{**}\)\(\!\!