## 3 Results  
A group \(\times\) time interaction was observed between the COMB and CONT groups in sprint performance over distances of 20 m (\(p\) = 0.002; d = 1.93) and 30 m (\(p\) < 0.001; d = 1.00 (Table 5). A second group \(\times\) time interaction was found between the COMB and CST groups for the 20 m (\(p\) = 0.042; d = 0.19) and 30 m (\(p\) = 0.039; d = 0.13) sprints. However, the CST group showed no significant difference from the COMB and CONT groups for all evaluated sprint distances. The modified T-test displayed only one group \(\times\) time interaction (\(p\) = 0.021; d = 1.75; Table 5) between the COMB and CONT groups, suggesting that the COMB group presented the greatest improvement (7.6%). Data from the repeated change of direction test showed that both the COMB and CST groups enhanced their RCOD-Total Time and RCOD-Mean compared to the control group. Indeed, a significant group \(\times\) time interaction was found in RCOD-Total Time and RCOD-Mean for the COMB and CST groups vs. the CONT group (\(p\) = 0.001 for both; Table 5). However, no significant group \(\times\) time interactions were found in RCOD-Best and RCOD-Fatigue Index. For the change of direction deficit (RCOD-Deficit), there were no significant interactions, suggesting that RCOD-Deficit remained unchangeable over time regardless of the moderate changes (\(-\)1.46% to 0.64%). The ball throwing velocities showed a group \(\times\) time interaction for the COMB vs. CST and CONT groups (3 step running throw: \(p\) = 0.003, d = 0.08 and \(p\) < 0.001, d = 1.18; running throw: \(p\) = 0.02, d = 0.24 and \(p\) = 0.031, d = 1.22; jumping throw: \(p\) = 0.001, d = 0.61 and \(p\) < 0.001, d = 1.11; Table 6). The handgrip strength displayed a group \(\times\) time interaction between the COMB and CONT groups for right and left hands (\(p\) = 0.004, d = 0.86 and \(p\) = 0.032, d = 0.45, respectively). However, the results for the CST group remained statistically unchanged for the ball throwing velocities and handgrip strength. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Pre**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Post**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\%A**} & **Student’s** & **ANOVA** \\  & & & & **t-Test** & **Group’s** \(d\) \\  & & & & **(\(p\)-Value)** & **Interaction** \\ \hline \multicolumn{5}{c}{Sprint (s)} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{5 m} & CST & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.14 & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 3.16 \(\pm\) 5.82 & 0.075 & 0.32 & 1.000 \(\times\) \\  & COMB & 0.96 \(\pm\) 0.08 & 0.91 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 5.51 \(\pm\) 6.01 & 0.014 & 0.95 & 0.150 \(\times\) \\  & CONT & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 0.99 \(\pm\) 0.07 & \(-\)0.39 \(\pm\) 2.14 & 0.508 & \(-\)0.01 & 0.580 \(\times\) \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{20 m} & CST & 3.13 \(\pm\) 0.28 & 3.04 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 2.51 \(\pm\) 2.87 & 0.013 & 0.44 & 1.000 \(\times\) \\  & COMB & 3.00 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 2.89 \(\pm\) 0.06 & 3.73 \(\pm\) 3.52 & 0.005 & 1.93 & 0.002 \(\times\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & CONT & 3.12 \(\pm\) 0.18 & 3.15 \(\pm\) 0.22 & \(-\)1.22 \(\pm\) 5.53 & 0.465 & \(-\)0.19 & 0.042 \(\times\) \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Sprinting, agility, and repeated change of direction performance of the three groups after the 8-week intervention. Only the CMJ displayed a group \(\times\) time interaction effect (\(p\) = 0.014, d = 0.85; Table 7). Our data suggested that the COMB training group improved its CMJ performance more than the CST and CONT groups. However, the SJ and lower limbic strength results between the three groups remained similar.