## 3 Results
### Field Test  
In the first part of the field test, during the movement from point 1 to point 2, peak RP failed to correlate with force and power during the 1 RM (\(p\) > 0.05), regardless of whether the SQs, BPs, or DLs were tested. However, peak RP during the second part of the course was correlated with mean RF (\(p\) = 0.0022, r = 0.376) and mean RP (\(p\) = 0.0119, r = 0.312). Similar results were observed regarding maximum RF (\(p\) = 0.0214, r = 0.287) during the DLs, which correlated with maximum RP in the second measuring stage. Both mean RF (\(p\) = 0.0305, r = \(-\)0.270) and mean RP (\(p\) = 0.0366, r = \(-\)0.261), along with maximum RP (\(p\) = 0.0315, r = \(-\)0.269), were correlated with peak RP during the second part of the course. Similar results were recorded for the BPs, where maximum RF (\(p\) = 0.0006, r = 0.417) and maximum RP (\(p\) = 0.0131, r = 0.308) correlated with peak RP. By contrast, DL maximum RP did not correlate (\(p\) > 0.05), while maximum RF was correlated (\(p\) = 0.0031, r = 0.364). Overall, the best lap during the course test was analyzed alongside the strength results. While overall peak RP failed to correlate with SQ performance, upper body strength showed a significant correlation. Both RF (\(p\) = 0.0006, r = 0.415) and RP (\(p\) = 0.0029, r = 0.366) during the BPs correlated with peak RP, similar to force (\(p\) = 0.0470, r = 0.249), while the power (\(p\) > 0.05) monitored during the DLs failed to correlate, as further detailed in Table 3.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**STUDY PARAMETERS**} \\ \cline{4-6}  & & & **Weight, kg/kg** & **Force, N/kg** & **Work, J/kg** & **Power, W/kg** \\ \hline
**SQ** & & & 0.70 (0.58 to 0.93) & 10.69 & 3.75 & 1.8 \\  & & & (4.46 to 14.93) & (1.74 to 4.84) & (0.63 to 2.73) \\ \hline
**BP** & & & 0.31 (0.22 to 0.35) & 3.80 (1.20 to 5.30) & 1.41 & 0.62 \\  & & & & (0.59 to 1.92) & (0.17 to 0.86) \\ \hline
**DL** & & & 0.66 (0.47 to 0.76) & 8.36 (1.48 to 14.15) & 4.250 & 1.92 \\  & & & & (0.89 to 6.23) & (0.28 to 3.48) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* SQ—squat, BP—bench press, DL—deadlift, kg—kilograms, N—Newton, J—Joule, W—watt.  
\end{table}
Table 1: Extensive descriptive data regarding the 1 RM protocol results.  
Gameplay and in-game performance were analyzed in relation to strength. In this analysis, we assessed attack and defense separately, focusing on athletes involved in scoring during attacks and all athletes participating in defensive plays. The total points scored correlated with the maximum RF during the SQs (\(p\) = 0.040, r = 0.285). However, no significant correlations were found with other parameters (\(p\) > 0.05). Upper body strength, measured by bench press RF (\(p\) = 0.0001, r = 0.690) and RP (\(p\) = 0.0001, r = 0.587), demonstrated a strong correlation with the number of points scored during a game. A similar correlation was observed for deadlift RP (\(p\) = 0.0010, r = 0.444) and game points. Additionally, serve percentage was correlated with maximum power during the BPs (\(p\) = 0.0164, r = 0.3315), while no correlation was found regarding DLs (\(p\) > 0.05) and serves. Attack performance was strongly correlated with the average RF developed during the SQs (\(p\) = 0.0001, r = 0.563), as well as the maximum RF (\(p\) = 0.0001, r = 0.544) and maximum RP (\(p\) = 0.0023, r = 0.413) generated during the BPs. Both RF (\(p\) = 0.0007, r = 0.453) and RP during the DLs (\(p\) = 0.0027, r = 0.408) showed a significant correlation.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multirow{2}{*}{EXEXEXEX} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ISO} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ISO} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ISO} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ISO} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ISO} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ISO} \\ \cline{3-14}  & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & &