## 3 Results  
Regarding Table 1, the height and weight showed significant differences (_p_ < 0.05) between groups. For the soccer group, significant differences were observed for the right ankle [F (2,32) = 7.558; \(p\) = 0.002 (0.321)] and left ankle [F (2,32) = 9.813; \(p\) = 0.001 (0.380)], but no differences for the asymmetry variable. The basketball group reported significant differences for the right ankle [F (2,36) = 17.687; \(p\) = 0.001 (0.496)], the left ankle [F (2,36) = 35.204; \(p\) = 0.001 (0.662)] and the symmetry [F (2, 36); \(p\) = 0.001 (0.247)]. (Table 2) The Bonferroni corrections showed significant differences (_p_ < 0.05) in the soccer group's right and left ankle between the baseline and pre-training and between the baseline and post-training moments for the right ankle whereas for the basketball group significant differences (_p_ < 0.05) were shown for the right and left ankle between baseline and pre-training and in the right and left ankle between pre-training and post-training (Table 3). The statistical analysis to assess the comparison of the ankle taping between soccer and basketball players reported significant differences in all variables for the time: right ankle [F (2, 68) = 19.022; \(p\) = 0.001 (0.359)]; left ankle [F (2, 68) = 34.339; \(p\) = 0.001 (0.503)] and asymmetry [F (2,68) = 7.842; \(p\) = 0.001 (0.187)]. In addition, the interaction time x group showed significant differences for the asymmetry [F (2, 68) = 0.415; \(p\) = 0.002 (0.012)]. (Figures 1-3) The Bonferroni corrections for the interaction between groups reported significant differences (_p_ < 0.05) for the right ankle, the left ankle and the asymmetry variables between baseline and pre-training moments and the left ankle as well as the asymmetry between pre-training and post-training moments (Table 4). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Data**} & **Soccer Group** & **Basketball Group** & **Total Sample** & **\multirow{2}{*}{**\(p\) Value**} \\  & **(n = 17)** & **(n = 19)** & **(n = 38)** & \\ \hline Age, years & 16.00 \(\pm\) 1.0 \({}^{\ddagger}\) & 15.00 \(\pm\) 1.00 \({}^{\ddagger}\) & 16.00 \(\pm\) 2.00 \({}^{\ddagger}\) & 0.005 \({}^{\ddagger}\) \\ Height, m & 1.73 \(\pm\) 0.1 \({}^{\ast}\) & 1.92 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\ddagger}\) & 1.83 \(\pm\) 0.12 \({}^{\ast}\) & 0.001 \({}^{\ddagger}\) \\ Weight, kg & 68.45 \(\pm\) 6.75 \({}^{\ast}\) & 82.04 \(\pm\) 11.06 \({}^{\ast}\) & 75.62 \(\pm\) 11.45 \({}^{\ast}\) & 0.001 \({}^{\ast\ast}\) \\ BMI (kg/m\({}^{2}\)) & 22.61 \(\pm\) 1.63 \({}^{\ast}\) & 21.93 \(\pm\) 2.53 \({}^{\ddagger}\) & 22.29 \(\pm\) 1.83 \({}^{\ddagger}\) & 0.332 \({}^{\ddagger}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Abbreviations: BMI, body mass index. \({}^{\ast}\) Mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (SD) was applied. \({}^{\ast\ast}\) The Student T-test was performed for independent samples. \({}^{\ddagger}\) Median \(\pm\) interquartile range (IR) was used. \({}^{\ddagger}\) The Mann-Whitney U-test was performed.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Sociodemographic data of the sample. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{_Two-Way ANOVA Values_} \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Time x Group**} \\ \multicolumn{3}{c}{**F (Df): \(p\) (Eta2)**} \\ \hline Right ankle & F (2,68) = 19.022; \(p=0.001\) (0.359) & F (2,68) = 2.585; \(p=0.083\) (0.071) \\ \hline Left ankle & F (2,68) = 34.393; \(p=0.001\) (0.503) & F (2,68) = 0.316; \(p=0.730\) (0.009) \\ \hline Asymmetry & F (2,68) = 7.842; \(p=0.001\) (0.187) & F (2,68) = 0.415; \(p=0.002\) (0.012) \\ \hline \multicolumn{3}{c}{_Bonferroni correction values_} \\ \hline
**Measure** & **Right ankle \(p\) value** & **Left ankle \(p\) value** & **Asymmetry \(p\) value** \\ Baseline & & \\ Pre-training & 0.001 & 0.001 & 0.001 \\ Post-training & 0.009 & 0.206 & 1.000 \\ Pre-training & & \\ Post-training & 0.009 & 0.001 & 0.032 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: One-way ANOVA for the ankle ROM and asymmetry variables.