## 3 Results  
Table 1 shows that the CODD in the Pro-agility 0-10 m test was higher than the Y-shaped pre-planned agility test when controlling for the same running distance and number of cuts, indicating that CODD increases with cut angle. Additionally, when comparing similar running types and angles, the CODD in the Pro-agility test was higher than in the Pro-agility 0-10 m test, suggesting that CODD increases with the number of cuts. Table 2 shows a moderate to highly significant correlation between CODTT in the Y-shaped pre-planned agility test on both left and right sides and sprint times at 0-5 m, 0-10 m, and 0-30 m. The CODD on both sides is mildly to moderately correlated with the 30 m sprint times. The CODD and CODTT in Y-shaped pre-planned agility had a significantly moderate to large correlation, with CODD explaining 14-35% of the CODTT variable. Table 3 presents the Pro-agility 0-10 m CODTT on both the left and right sides, which were moderately to highly positively correlated with the 0-5 m, 0-10 m, and 0-30 m sprint times. The CODD on both sides during the Pro-agility 0-10 m slightly correlated with the 0-5 m, 0-10 m, and 0-30 m sprint times. There was a very high positive correlation between the Pro-agility 0-10 m CODD and CODTT, with the CODD explaining 63% of the CODTT variable. Table 4 shows that the Pro-agility CODTT on both the left and right sides was positively correlated with the 0-5 m, 0-10 m, and 0-30 m sprint times. The CODD of Pro-agility on \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Test**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Result (s)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**95\%CI**} \\ \cline{3-5}  & & & **Lower (s)** & **Upper (s)** \\ \hline Pro-agility & CODTT-left & 2.70 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 2.42 & 3.05 \\
0–10 m & CODD-left & 0.95 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.71 & 1.21 \\  & CODTT-right & 2.70 \(\pm\) 0.13 & 2.41 & 3.02 \\ Pro-agility & CODD-right & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 0.75 & 1.18 \\  & CODTT-left & 5.22 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 4.75 & 5.68 \\  & CODD-left & 2.62 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 2.19 & 3.12 \\  & CODTT-right & 5.23 \(\pm\) 0.21 & 4.79 & 5.69 \\  & CODD-right & 2.63 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 2.29 & 3.03 \\ Y pre-planned agility & CODTT-left & 1.83 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 1.67 & 2.14 \\  & CODD-left & 0.08 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.05 & 0.29 \\  & CODTT-right & 1.83 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 1.66 & 2.04 \\  & CODD-right & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.04 & 0.27 \\
30 m sprint & 0–5 m & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.05 & 0.89 & 1.15 \\  & 0–10 m & 1.74 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 1.61 & 1.94 \\  & 0–30 m & 4.34 \(\pm\) 0.23 & 3.90 & 4.91 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptive for change of direction and linear sprint test results with 95% CI. both sides weakly correlated with 30 m sprint time. The CODD of Pro-agility was positively correlated with the CODTT, with the CODD explaining 49-52% of the CODTT variable. A comparison of the CODD Z-score and CODTT Z-score of the left side of the Pro-agility 0-10 m revealed that among the 44 participants, 12 participants (numbered 6, 8, 17, 19, 23, 30, 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, and 41) showed opposite classification results for their COD ability (Figure 2A,B). The Z-score changed from positive (slower than the average level of the team) to negative (faster than the average level of the group) and vice versa, with a ratio of 27%. In comparing the COD ability of the right side, 6 out of 44 participants (numbered 4, 6, 14, 20, 30, and 39) showed different classifications, with a ratio of 13%. Table 5 indicates no significant differences in COD ability between the left and right sides when using CODTT and CODD as measurement indices. However, the asymmetry index was lower on the left than on the right. Additionally, all participants had a relatively