Page 54 - TGfU & Mini Game Flip Book

38 TGfU & MINI GAME

Table 4.1: Analyses of covariance summary for ball
control

Source Sum of Square df Mean Square F Sig
Group 316.75 1 316.75 7.98 0.10

Table 4.2: Estimated marginal means for ball control

95% Confidence Interval
Model Mean SE Lower Bound Upper Bound

TGFU 9.375 a 1.65 5990 12.759
TM 2.692 a 1.65 –.693 6.072

As for overall decision making (passing, dribbling,
tackling and scoring), ANOVA indicated no significant
difference between TGfU and TM training model at
pretest, F(1,28)=5.63, p<0.05 (TGfU, M/SD: 4.43±4.13,
n = 15 and Technical (TM), M/SD : 2.72±1.92, n=15).
However overall posttests, result for decision making
indicated the was significant difference between TGfU,
(M/SD: 7.35±6.47,n=15) and Technical model (M/SD:
2.97±3.06), n = 15 F(1,28)=5.63, p<0.05. Figure 4.3 and
4.4 indicated the mean and SD for decision making at
pretest and posttest level, TGfU seems to be significantly
better training model after training intervention based
on mean score. This result was confirmed using analysis
covariate (ANCOVA) too indicated significant difference
between these two models in for overall decision making,
F(2,27) =2.31, p<0.05. The results of ANCOVA presented
in Table 4.3 and the estimated marginal means for
posttest decision making presented in Table 4.4