## 3 Results
### Independent Samples T test
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{**Agility Test**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Groups**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Test**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Levene’s Test**} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{**\(t\)-Test for Equality of Means**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & & & **F** & \(p\) & \(t\) & **df** & \(p\) & **Mean Diff.** & **SED** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**95\% CI**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & & & & & & & & **Lower** & **Upper** \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{T agility test} & GE-GC & It & 0.68 & 0.42 & \(-\)2.64 & 34.00 & 0.01 & \(-\)0.97 & 0.37 & \(-\)1.72 & \(-\)0.22 \\ \cline{2-10}  & GE-GC & Ft & 8.10 & 0.01 & \(-\)7.67 & 34.00 & 0.00 & \(-\)2.12 & 0.28 & \(-\)2.68 & \(-\)1.56 \\ \cline{2-10}  & GE-GC & It & 0.01 & 0.92 & \(-\)2.15 & 34.00 & 0.04 & \(-\)1.48 & 0.69 & \(-\)2.89 & \(-\)0.08 \\ \cline{2-10}  & GE-GC & Ft & 4.48 & 0.04 & \(-\)8.56 & 34.00 & 0.00 & \(-\)4.48 & 0.52 & \(-\)5.54 & \(-\)3.41 \\ \cline{2-10}  & GE-GC & It & 5.07 & 0.03 & \(-\)1.99 & 34.00 & 0.06 & \(-\)0.89 & 0.45 & \(-\)1.80 & 0.02 \\ \cline{2-10}  & GE-GC & Ft & 0.40 & 0.53 & \(-\)8.39 & 34.00 & 0.00 & \(-\)2.61 & 0.31 & \(-\)3.24 & \(-\)1.98 \\ \cline{2-10}  & GE-GC & It & 0.68 & 0.41 & \(-\)2.51 & 34.00 & 0.02 & \(-\)1.88 & 0.75 & \(-\)3.41 & \(-\)0.36 \\ \cline{2-10}  & GE-GC & Ft & 4.22 & 0.05 & \(-\)7.87 & 34.00 & 0.00 & \(-\)5.26 & 0.67 & \(-\)6.62 & \(-\)3.90 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Illinois agility test} & GE-GC & It & 0.80 & 0.38 & \(-\)2.46 & 34.00 & 0.02 & \(-\)1.17 & 0.48 & \(-\)2.13 & \(-\)0.20 \\ \cline{2-10}  & GE-GC & Ft & 5.24 & 0.03 & \(-\)8.41 & 34.00 & 0.00 & \(-\)2.65 & 0.32 & \(-\)3.30 & \(-\)2.01 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Illinois agility test} & GE-GC & It & 2.99 & 0.09 & \(-\)1.02 & 34.00 & 0.31 & \(-\)0.68 & 0.67 & \(-\)2.04 & 0.68 \\ \cline{2-10}  & GE-GC & Ft & 8.80 & 0.01 & \(-\)9.44 & 34.00 & 0.00 & \(-\)3.62 & 0.38 & \(-\)4.39 & \(-\)2.84 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Independent samples \(t\)-test of agility tests for the U14 control and experimental groups in the (It) and (Ft). For the U14 category, the experimental group consistently showed significant improvements over the control group in both initial and final phases of the agility tests (Table 6). This trend was evident across various tests, such as the T agility test and the Illinois agility test, with the experimental group not only starting with better performances but also gaining more from the training or interventions. The results suggest a uniform and effective impact of the training program on the U14 experimental group, leading to significant improvements in agility and performance. In contrast, the U16 category presented a different scenario. Initially, the control group was significantly better prepared, as evidenced by their higher qualifications in the national championship. This initial superiority was reflected in the agility tests, where the control group had better performances in the initial phases. However, as the training progressed, the experimental group made substantial gains, effectively catching up to the control group by the final testing. For example, in the T agility test with a ball, the experimental group initially lagged behind but demonstrated significant improvements, reducing the performance gap by the final phase. This catch-up indicates the effectiveness of the training program in enhancing the agility skills of the U16 experimental group, despite the control group's initial advantage. Both age groups illustrate the positive impact of targeted training programs on agility and performance. While the U14 experimental group showed consistent superiority over the control group, the U16 experimental group's ability to catch up despite an initially better-prepared control group highlights the effectiveness of the training in leveling the playing field and enhancing performance competencies (Table 6).