## 4 Discussion
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Variables**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Group**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Pre**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Post**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**\%\&A**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Student’s**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Cohen’s \&**ANOVA Interaction**} \\  & & & & & & **(\(p\)-Value)** & & **(Group \(\times\) Time)** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Countermovement Jump (cm)} & CST & 29.5 \(\pm\) 6.9 & 32.3 \(\pm\) 7.5 & 8.7 \(\pm\) 4.1 & 0.001 & 0.41 & 1.000 \% \\  & COMB & 33.0 \(\pm\) 2.9 & 35.5 \(\pm\) 3.3 & 7.1 \(\pm\) 2.5 & 0.001 & 0.85 & 0.014\({}^{*}\) \\  & CONT & 29.6 \(\pm\) 4.9 & 30.0 \(\pm\) 4.5 & 1.1 \(\pm\) 8.6 & 0.647 & 0.08 & 0.324 \# \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Squat Jump (cm)} & CST & 29.2 \(\pm\) 6.9 & 31.9 \(\pm\) 7.9 & 8.4 \(\pm\) 3.7 & 0.001 & 0.39 & 1.000 \% \\  & COMB & 31.1 \(\pm\) 3.3 & 33.6 \(\pm\) 3.8 & 7.3 \(\pm\) 4.1 & 0.001 & 0.74 & 0.409 \({}^{*}\) \\  & CONT & 29.5 \(\pm\) 4.1 & 29.9 \(\pm\) 4.5 & 1.17 \(\pm\) 3.6 & 0.168 & 0.10 & 1.000 \# \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{l}{Back Extensor} & CST & 1495 \(\pm\) 287 & 1603 \(\pm\) 273 & 6.81 \(\pm\) 6.36 & 0.003 & 0.40 & 0.117 \% \\ \multicolumn{8}{l}{Isometric} & COMB & 1594 \(\pm\) 217 & 1855 \(\pm\) 259 & 14.0 \(\pm\) 3.82 & 0.001 & 1.14 & 0.107 \({}^{*}\) \\ \multicolumn{8}{l}{Strength (N)} & CONT & 1494 \(\pm\) 332 & 1536 \(\pm\) 304 & 30.8 \(\pm\) 5.58 & 0.076 & 0.14 & 1.000 \# \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{CST: Contrast strength training group; COMB: Combined isometric and plyometric training group; CONT: Control group; ANOVA: Analysis of Variance; %A: percentage difference. Data are presented as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation. F: \(p\)-value between CST and CONT groups; \({}^{*}\): \(p\)-\(v\)-value between CST and COMB groups.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Countermovement jump, squat jump, and lower limb isometric strength in the three groups after the 8-week intervention. improvement in best time could be due to the inclusion of specific change of direction drills, while the CST group doubling up on resistance training movements may have had a beneficial effect on muscular endurance, leading to more consistent times over the six COD repetitions. Based on the training specificity concept, one might have expected the COMB group to outperform the CST group when examining the results of the throwing tests in the present study. However, this was not the case, as the between-group differences were unclear or minimal. While the COMB training program did include explosive movements, it did not have actual throwing or shooting exercises or drills. Therefore, authentic'specific' throw training was not included for either group, suggesting that the large improvements in the COMB (d = 1.11-1.52) and CST (d = 1.08-1.64) groups were predominantly due to improving full-body strength and power. In line with our findings, a 12-week contrast training program effectively improved soccer-specific skills such as vertical jumping, sprinting, and kicking speed in 30 U16 soccer players [21]. Furthermore, tasks involving the stretch-shortening cycle (e.g., plyometrics) use the elastic properties of connective tissue and muscle fibers. During the deceleration or negative phase of the movement, the muscle accumulates elastic energy, which is then released during the acceleration or positive phase to enhance the force and power output of the muscle [39]. This pattern of muscle contractions during the stretch-shortening cycle almost certainly benefits sports performance, such as acceleration, change of direction, throwing, and vertical and horizontal jumping [8; 12]. Finally, throwing was the only category where the CONT group experienced notable improvements (d = 0.08-0.61), suggesting that a learning effect may have contributed to the lack of differences between the COMB and CST groups. Strength is often an important underpinning of improved dynamic and sports performance [37].