## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Variable** & **Testing** & **Group** & **N** & **Median \(\pm\) SD** &
\begin{tabular}{l} **CV** \\ **(\%)** \\ \end{tabular} & **Coef. \(\omega^{2}\)** & **SD** & **d** & \(t\) & \(p\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Short Dribbling} & Initial & Experiment & 20 & \(11.86\pm 0.46\) & 3.94 & \(-0.025\) & \multirow{2}{*}{0.487} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-0.053\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.169} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(>\)0.05} \\  & testing & Control & 20 & \(11.89\pm 0.47\) & 3.94 & 2.5\% & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-10} Test (s) & Final & Experiment & 20 & \(11.30\pm 0.55\) & 4.84 & 0.217 & \multirow{2}{*}{0.529} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(-1.10\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{3.480} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(<\)0.005} \\  & testing & Control & 20 & \(11.88\pm 0.51\) & 4.29 & 21.7\% & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Short Dribbling Test (s)} & \multicolumn{6}{l}{N—number, CV—coefficient of variability, M—mean, SD—standard deviation, \(t\)—Student T-dependent test, \(p\)\(\sim\)—statistically significant, d—[PERSON]’s effect size, \(\omega^{2}\)—estimation of the cause importance, and \(p\)\(\gtrsim\)–statistically insignificant.} \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-10}  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: _Cont._the two groups (\(p>0.05\)). However, the difference between the two groups at the final test was small (\(p>0.05\)) and the estimated cause importance to the effect was \(-0.8\%\). The last test for the 20 m sprint revealed significant differences between the two groups (\(p=0.005\)), with the cause's impact being \(7.7\%\). Initially, the experimental group recorded lower values at certain parameters, compared to the control group. However, the players in the experimental group improved their sprint and VO2 max performance, and in the final test they recorded higher values than did the control group. In our paper, we have shown that the two training methods (SSGs and traditional training) are equally effective in the physical training of junior football players, but the SSG method brings more technical-tactical advantages. Our findings are consistent with those of previous research that examined the impact of small-sided games on improving physical fitness [40; 41], technical-tactical skills [42; 43; 44], functional capacity [27; 45; 46], psychological and behavioral characteristics of players [47; 48] and the monitoring of football performances [49; 50]. Our findings correlate with those of previous research that examined the impact of small-sided games on improving physical fitness [40; 41], technical-tactical skills [42; 43; 44], functional capacity [27; 45; 46], psychological and behavioral characteristics of players [47; 48] and the monitoring of football players' performances [49; 50]. For football players, the ability to quickly change direction depending on different stimuli (visual, kinesthetic or auditory) is often the difference between success and failure. Football, through its specific techniques, requires players to accelerate, decelerate or change direction quickly and instantly in response to game situations. which has shown that in most team sports, the ability to change quickly the direction with agility is more important than is the maximum sprint speed in a straight line [49]. For this reason, many coaches and athletes are interested in finding effective ways to improve agility and speed. In terms of agility without the ball, the differences between the two groups at the final tests were statistically significant, the experimental group having significantly better results. The impact of the experimental SSG program on agility without the ball was significant, having an increased effect on the ability to change direction and on agility with and without the ball.