## 3 Results  
### Acute Effects of Virtual Training Sessions  
Firstly, the data showed a reduction in the players' acute muscle capacity associated with fatigue in both virtual training sessions. The height of the third jump performed before and after virtual training (M_Session_1_pre = 32.85 \(\pm\) 3.8 vs. M_Session_1_post = 28.85 \(\pm\) 3.73; \(p<\) 0.01; M_Session_2_pre = 37.00 \(\pm\) 5.98 vs. M_Session_2_post = 34.90 \(\pm\) 5.65; \(p<\) 0.01) and the average total jump (M_Session_1_pre = 31.98 \(\pm\) 3.13 vs. M_Session_1_post = 29.29 \(\pm\) 4.24; \(p<\) 0.05; M_Session_2_pre = 35.99 \(\pm\) 5.56 vs. M_Session_2_post = 34.16 \(\pm\) 5.53; \(p<\) 0.01) showed significant differences in both training sessions, before and after the intervention program. Similarly, significant differences were found in the players' muscle stiffness, decreasing the range of motion of the shoulder in virtual training session 1 (M\({}_{\text{pre}}\) = 170 \(\pm\) 12.51 vs. M\({}_{\text{post}}\) = 161.26 \(\pm\) 10.47; \(p<\) 0.05), as well as concerning the wrist and shoulder in virtual training session 2 (shoulder: M\({}_{\text{pre}}\) = 182.00 \(\pm\) 7.87 vs. M\({}_{\text{post}}\) = 177.60 \(\pm\) 7.27; \(p<\) 0.01; wrist: M\({}_{\text{pre}}\) = 54.60 \(\pm\) 13.05 vs. M\({}_{\text{post}}\) = 50.00 \(\pm\) 13.58; \(p<\) 0.01) (Table 1).  
Secondly, when analyzing the variations in players' perceived fatigue between the first and the last game within each virtual or in-game training day, significant differences (\(p<0.03\)) were observed, except in the physical fatigue perception in the second virtual training session. More specifically, an increase in the effort perception tests was observed, revealing a progressively increased fatigue as the training session progressed, with significant changes in both sessions, but showing lower values in the second one (Table 2). According to the data on the perceived exertion during in-game training session 1, an increase of 76.9% was observed in the physical perception (\(p\) = 0.026; ES = 0.568), an increase of 76.92% in the cognitive one (\(p\) = 0.002; ES = 0.693), and an increase of 166.67% on  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Characteristics**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Pre**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Post**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**t**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**_p_} & **ES** \\  & **M** & & & & & & \\ \hline CM\_S1\_1 & 30.91 & 1.95 & 29.21 & 4.54 & 1.356 & 0.246 & — \\ CM\_S1\_2 & 32.18 & 3.87 & 29.82 & 4.66 & 2.499 & 0.067 & — \\ CM\_S1\_3 & 32.85 & 3.81 & 28.85 & 3.73 & 12.727 & 0.000 ** & — \\ CM\_S1\_M & 31.98 & 3.13 & 29.29 & 4.24 & 3.937 & 0.017 * & 1.761 \\ CM\_S2\_1 & 35.63 & 5.61 & 34.09 & 6.50 & 2.403 & 0.074 & — \\ CM\_S2\_2 & 35.34 & 5.19 & 33.48 & 4.51 & 3.277 & 0.031 * & — \\ CM\_S2\_3 & 37.00 & 5.98 & 34.90 & 5.65 & 9.288 & 0.001 ** & — \\ CM\_S2\_M & 35.99 & 5.56 & 34.16 & 5.53 & 5.438 & 0.006 ** & 2.432 \\ JR\_S1\_Shoulder & 170.00 & 12.51 & 161.26 & 10.47 & 3.270 & 0.031 * & 1.463 \\ JR\_S1\_Wrist & 46.40 & 13.67 & 44.60 & 16.24 & 0.745 & 0.498 & 0.333 \\ JR\_S2\_Shoulder & 182.00 & 7.87 & 177.60 & 7.27 & 6.487 & 0.003 ** & 2.901 \\ JR\_S2\_Wrist & 54.60 & 13.05 & 50.00 & 13.58 & 6.782 & 0.002 ** & 3.033 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: CM\(J\) = counter movement jump test; JR = joint range; S1 = pre-intervention program; S2 = post-intervention program; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. ** = \(p\)-value \(<0.01\); = \(p\)-value \(<0.05\).  
\end{table}
Table 1: Countermovement jump height and joint range loss pre- and post-in-game training session.  
the ROF scale (\(p\) = 0.002; ES = 0.829). In the same line, changes could be observed in the data referring to the second in-game training session, with increases of 47.22% (\(p\) = 0.004; ES = 0.641) and 36.96% (\(p\) = 0.004; ES = 0.800) for physical and cognitive perception, as well as an increase of 166.67% on the ROF scale (\(p\) = 0.004; ES = 0.824).