## 3 Results  
A total of 15 participants were included in the final analysis (age: 20.80 \(\pm\) 1.42 years; height: 1.75 \(\pm\) 0.06 m; body mass: 71.69 \(\pm\) 13.58 kg). The summary data and individual data points for peak landing forces, TTS, and isokinetic peak torques are highlighted in Figure 2.  
Figure 2: Summary data for peak landing force (panel **(A)**), TTS (panel **(B)**) and isokinetic peak torques (panel **(C)**). DI = diagonal inside; DO = diagonal outside; LI = lateral inside; LO = lateral outside; SJ = straight jump; Con = concentric; Ecc = eccentric; Ext = extension; Flex = flexion. The two-way repeated measures ANOVA results for the isokinetic knee torques are shown in Table 1.  
Follow-up analysis using Tukey correction showed that significant unilateral leg strength differences were present in favour of the dominant leg (M\({}_{\rm diff}\) = 0.19 N\(\cdot\)m\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\), t(14) = 2.84, P\({}_{\rm Tukey}\) = 0.013). Similarly, significant differences were present between CON and ECC contraction types in favour of ECC (M\({}_{\rm diff}\) = 0.19 N\(\cdot\)m\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\), t(14) = 2.88, P\({}_{\rm Tukey}\) = 0.012). The two-way repeated measures ANOVA results for both peak landing forces and TTS are shown in Table 2. Of the leg * muscle interactions, significant differences were specifically noted between left and right flexors (M\({}_{\rm diff}\) = 0.18 N\(\cdot\)m\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\), t(14) = 3.49, P\({}_{\rm Tukey}\) = 0.017) in favour of the non-dominant leg. In terms of peak landing forces, post hoc Tukey correction was employed for follow-up analyses, showing that statistically significant differences were evident between DI and LO directions (M\({}_{\rm diff}\) = 0.25 BWs, t(14) = 3.16, P\({}_{\rm Tukey}\) = 0.046), as well as between DO and LO directions (M\({}_{\rm diff}\) = 0.32 BWs, t(14) = 4.29, P\({}_{\rm Tukey}\) = 0.006), but not for the other directions (see Supplementary Tables S1-S4). Similarly, follow-up evaluation of the leg * direction interaction revealed significant differences between the right leg in the DI and LO directions (M\({}_{\rm diff}\) = 0.41 BWs, t(14) = 2.77, P\({}_{\rm Tukey}\) = 0.010) but not for the other interactions (see Supplementary Tables S1-S4). Significant directional differences were repeatedly observed for TTS, specifically between the DI and LI directions (M\({}_{\rm diff}\) = \(-\)0.37 s, t(14) = \(-\)3.14, P\({}_{\rm Tukey}\) = 0.048). Comparable mean differences were also observed between DO and SJ (M\({}_{\rm diff}\) = 0.39 BWs, t(14) = 2.34, P\({}_{\rm Tukey}\) = 0.191), as well as between the LI and SJ directions (M\({}_{\rm diff}\) = 0.53 BWs, t(14) = 3.05, P\({}_{\rm Tukey}\) = 0.052), although these differences did not reach statistical significance (see Supplementary Tables S1-S4). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Peak Landing Force** & **Sum of Squares** & **df** & **Mean Square** & **F** & **p** & \(\mathbf{\eta^{2}_{p}}\) \\ \hline Leg & 0.72 & 1 & 0.72 & 3.49 & 0.083 & 0.20 \\ Residual & 2.89 & 14 & 0.21 & & & \\ Direction & 1.89 & 4 & 0.47 & 3.14 & 0.021 & 0.18 \\ Residual & 8.39 & 56 & 0.15 & & & \\ Leg * Direction & 0.38 & 4 & 0.09 & 2.99 & 0.026 & 0.18 \\ Residual & 1.76 & 56 & 0.03 & & & \\ \hline
**Time to Stabilisation** & **Sum of Squares** & **df** & **Mean Square** & **F** & **p** & \(\mathbf{\eta^{2}_{p}}\) \\ \hline Leg & 0.00 & 1 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.966 & \(<\)0.01 \\ Residual & 6.27 & 14 & 0.45 & & & \\ Direction & 5.26 & 4 & 1.31 & 3.33 & 0.016 & 0.19 \\ Residual & 22.08 & 56 & 0.39 & & & \\ Leg * Direction & 1.17 & 4 & 0.29 & 1.11 & 0.363 & 0.07 \\ Residual & 14.87 & 56 & 0.27 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Two-way repeated measures ANOVA for peak landing force and TTS.