INTRODUCTION

Plyometrics have been used for many decades in the Russian and eastern
European training of track and field athletes.1,2,3 A well known track and field
coach in Russia, began the concept that he referred to as shock training or jump
training. However, former Purdue University women’s track coach Fred Wilt first
coined the actual term plyometrics in 1975.

The word plyometrics is actually a derivation from the Greek words plythein or
plyo- which means to increase and metric, which means to measure3.
Consequently, the purpose of plyometrics may be thought of as “to increase the
measurement.” Typically the measurement is sports performance outcomes
demonstrated in testing or competition such as throwing, serving velocity, jump
height or sprint speed6,7. Plyometric drills involve starting, stopping, and change of
movement directions which contribute to agility development.

THEORETICAL TRAINING BENEFITS OF PLYOMETRIC EXERCISES5

The potential and theoretical training benefits of plyometric exercises for the upper
and lower extremities include, but are not limited to the following concepts: ability
to increase average power and velocity; increased peak force and velocity of
acceleration; increased time for force development energy storage in the SEC; the
ability for heightened levels of muscle activation; and the ability to evoke stretch
reflexes7,8 By desensitizing the GTO, plyometric exercises allow muscles to
generate force by having the musculoskeletal system tolerate increased workloads
without the GTO firing.

Plyometrics increase neuromuscular coordination by training the nervous system

and making movements more automatic during activity (training effect).This is
known as reinforcing a motor pattern and creating automation of activity, which
improves neural efficiency and increases neuromuscular performance.

The increase in performance often occurs without a concomitant increase in

morphological changes within the muscle8. This training effect of the neural
system predominates in the first six to eight weeks of any training program9, and
then after several additional weeks, hypertrophic changes of the muscles begin to
occur.
CLINICAL GUIDELINES WHEN BEGINNING A PLYOMETRIC
PROGRAM

As a plyometric training program is initiated, there are some general considerations

and guidelines that should be considered:1-4. The age of the patient or participant,
the injury history, the type of injury, appropriate warm ups before beginning the
actual plyometric drills, foundational strength, and resistance training experience.
Although there are some empirically based guidelines for initiating plyometrics in
the LE, there are no scientific or evidence-based guidelines that serve as criteria for
beginning an UE plyometric training program in a rehabilitation setting7.

Specific recommendations will be made for a testing hierarchy for initiating both
UE and LE plyometrics in the following sections. The authors of this manuscript
believe that each specific movement pattern involved in the activity should be
trained initially in isolation to work each kinematic chain link, allowing the sports
activity to be dissected into smaller components and trained with isolated
movements first.

Then, smaller components can be integrated back into a total coordinated

movement pattern. If a muscle cannot function normally in an isolated pattern, then
it cannot function normally in an integrated pattern. The authors of this manuscript
feel that plyometric training should be preceded by and coincide with other forms
of resistance and flexibility training until an adequate base (foundation) of strength
and flexibility has been established. Plyometric exercises need to be integrated into
the totality of the rehabilitation or conditioning program.

CONTRAINDICATIONS FOR PERFORMING PLYOMETRIC EXERCISES8

probably the most significant is when the athlete does not have the foundational
strength or training base upon which a plyometric program can be built. If an
athlete does not meet the minimum criteria in regards to foundational strength or
training base that have been delineated, then the coordination and motor control
may not be present to progress the subject or patient to high demand plyometric
exercises.
Example of plyometric exercises:

Agility9 The ability to quickly change body position or direction of the body.
Agility is also influenced by body balance, coordination, the position of the center
of gravity, as well as running speed and skill. Agility can be improved with agility
training drills but also by improving the specific individual fitness elements of
speed, balance, power and co-ordination.

Agility is one of the key components of fitness and is valuable in many sports and
physical activities. Think of the sports where you have to use agility. In team
sports such as football, soccer, basketball, hockey, volleyball and badminton. You
must quickly respond to movements of the other players and of the ball.

Agility Tests9: - Shuttle runs are often done as an agility test as well as a drill to
build sports agility. Markers are set up and you sprint from one marker to the other,
do a quick turn and sprint back. `The US Military Academy uses a shuttle run test.
The National Football League uses a 5-10-5 shuttle run as an agility test and drill.

The Illinois Agility Run Test is often used by schools and law enforcement as a
test of agility. It uses a running course and involves not only a shuttle run, but also
weaving between four cones. Because it has been used for many years, there are
norms and a grading system that can be applied.
The SPARQ rating combines testing for speed, power, agility, reaction and
quickness. It is sport-specific as well as a test for general athleticism. The general
assessment tests include the agility shuttle 5-10-5 to measure agility. For sport-
specific agility, they use a lane agility drill for basketball, a shuttle cross pick-up
for hockey, and the arrowhead drill for soccer. The SPARQ rating is used by many
sports training companies and certified SPARQ trainers.

KEYWORDS

 Plyometrics, agility, speed, quickness, training and badminton.

NEED OF THE STUDY

Studies have proved that plyometrics is effective in increasing agility. Some of the
resources suggested that the plyometrics helps in increasing flexibility and
endurance. But there is lack of evidence suggesting efficacy of plyometrics on the
agility, so there is need to do these research.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Makaruk H.1, Czaplicki A.2, Sacewicz T.2, Sadowski J.1 2014. The study was
done to examine the chronic effects of single and repeated jumps training on
vertical landing force (VGRF) and jump height in untrained men. Thirty-six
untrained physical education students with a plyometric training background were
randomly assigned to a single jump group (SJG, n =12), repeated jumps group
(RJG, n =12), and control group (CON, n =12). The SJG performed only single
jumps, the RJG executed repeated (consecutive) jumps, whereas the control group
did not perform any exercises at all. The results suggested that repeated jumps are
beneficial for simultaneous landing force reduction and jumping performance
enhancement.

BLOOMFIELD, JONATHAN; POLMAN, REMCO; O'DONOGHUE,

PETER; McNAUGHTON, LARS.2007.

Different coaching methods are often used to improve performance. This study
compared the effectiveness of 2 methodologies for speed and agility conditioning
for random, intermittent, and dynamic activity sports (e.g., soccer, tennis, hockey,
basketball, rugby, and netball) and the necessity for specialized coaching
equipment. Two groups were delivered either a programmed method (PC) or a
random method (RC) of conditioning with a third group receiving no conditioning
(NC). PC participants used the speed, agility, quickness (SAQ) conditioning
method, and RC participants played supervised small-sided soccer games. PC was
also subdivided into 2 groups where participants either used specialized SAQ
equipment or no equipment. A total of 46 (25 males and 21 females) untrained
participants received (mean +/- SD) 12.2 +/- 2.1 hours of physical conditioning
over 6 weeks between a battery of speed and agility parameter field tests. Two-way
analysis of variance results indicated that both conditioning groups showed a
significant decrease in body mass and body mass index, although PC achieved
significantly greater improvements on acceleration, deceleration, leg power,
dynamic balance. Further research is required to establish whether these benefits
transfer to sport-specific tasks as well as to the underlying mechanisms resulting in
improved performance.

Mr. Cabello, Faculty of Education, University of Granada, Campus

Universitario de La Cartuja, 18071 Granada, Spain.

The study describes the characteristics of badminton in order to determine the

energy requirements, temporal structure, and movements in the game that indicate
performance level. Eleven badminton players (mean (SD) age 21.8 (3.26) years)
with international experience from different countries were studied. Two of the
Spanish players were monitored in several matches, giving a total of 14 samples.
Blood lactate concentration was measured with a reflective photometer. Maximum
and average heart rates were recorded with a heart rate monitor. Temporal structure
and actions during the matches were determined from video recordings. All
variables were measured during and after the game and later analyzed using a
descriptive study. The results suggest that badminton is characterized by repetitive
efforts of alactic nature and great intensity which are continuously performed
throughout the match. An awareness of these characteristics, together with data on
the correlations between certain actions such as unforced errors and winning shots
and the final result of the match, will aid in more appropriate planning and
monitoring of specific training.

Chtara, M, Chaouachi, A, Levin, GT, Chaouachi, M, Chamari, K, Amri, M,

Laursen, PB.

The effect of concurrent endurance and circuit resistance-training sequence on

muscular strength and power development. The purpose of this study was to
examine the influence of the sequence order of high-intensity endurance training
and circuit training on changes in muscular strength and anaerobic power. Forty-
eight physical education students (ages, 21.4 ± 1.3 years) were assigned to 1 of 5
groups: no training controls (C, n = 9), endurance training (E, n = 10), circuit
training (S, n = 9), endurance before circuit training in the same session, (E+S, n =
10), and circuit before endurance training in the same session (S+E, n = 10).
Subjects performed 2 sessions per week for 12 weeks. Resistance-type circuit
training targeted strength endurance (weeks 1-6) and explosive strength and power
(weeks 7-12). Endurance training sessions included 5 repetitions run at the velocity
associated with V̇o2max (V̇o2max) for duration equal to 50% of the time to
exhaustion at V̇o2max; recovery was for an equal period at 60% V̇o2max. Maximal
strength in the half squat, strength endurance in the 1-leg half squat and hip
extension, and explosive strength and power in a 5-jump test and counter
movement jump were measured pre- and post-testing. Circuit training alone
induced strength and power improvements that were significantly greater than
when resistance and endurance training were combined, irrespective of the
intrasession sequencing.

Jullien H, Bisch C, Largouet N, Manouvrier C, Carling CJ, Amiard V.

The present study assessed the effects of specific leg strength training (as part of a
broader exercise program) on running speed and agility in young professional
soccer players. Twenty-six male players (ages 17 to 19 years) were divided into 3
groups. The reference group (Re) performed individual technical work only, the
coordination group (Co) performed a circuit designed to promote agility,
coordination, and balance control (together with some technical work) and the
Squat group (Sq) underwent 3 series of 3 squat repetitions (at 90% of the
individual maximum value) and a sprint, before competition of the agility circuit
and some technical work. These specific training programs were performed 5 times
a week for 3 weeks. Before the experimental session and at the end of each week,
all players were assessed using 4 types of tests, (agility, a shuttle test with changes
of direction, and 2 sprints over 10 and 7.32 meters, respectively), with completion
time being the only performance parameter recorded. Our results indicate that in
the short sprints or shuttle sprint with changes in direction, lower limb
strengthening did not improve performance. Performance improved in all 3 groups
in the agility test but more so in the reference and coordination groups. It appears
that soccer-specific training composed of exercise circuits specifically adapted to
the different types of effort actually used in match play can enhance agility and
coordination.
METHODOLOGY

Aims of study: To determine the effect of plyometric training on the agility of

badminton players.

Objective of the study:

 To assess the baseline observation of the experimental and control group

before the treatment.
 To assess the post baseline observation for experimental and control group.
 To assess the efficacy of plyometric and conventional treatment.
 To compare the efficacy of plyometric with conventional and conventional
alone.

Hypothesis:

 Null hypothesis: There is no significant effect of plyometric training on

agility of badminton players.
 Alternate hypothesis- There is significant effect of plyometric training on
agility of badminton players.

Study design:

 Quasi experimental study.

Study population:

 The study was done on 30 players in camps and academy.

Study duration:

 Study was done over a period of 4 months.

Sampling technique:

 Purposive sampling.

Selection criteria:

 INCLUSION CRITERIA
 Age group between 17 to 30 yrs.
 Both male and female players.
 Subjects playing badminton since 6 months or more.

 EXCLUSION CRITERIA
 Any neurological, auditory, visual defect.
 Subjects not willing to participate in training programme.
 Pregnancy.
 Acute injury (1st day to 2 weeks).

Outcome measures:

• Illinois agility test- It is a fitness test designed to test one’s sports agility. It’s
a simple test which is easy to administer and require little equipment. It tests
the ability to turn in different directions and different angles.

Figure1: appendix 2
Procedure:

Before data collection the purpose and procedure was fully explained and informed
consent was obtained from each player. 30 players were identified as potential
participants for this study, undergoing training in camps and academy. After
studied various agility test like shuttle run test, diagonal cone test, SPARQ rating ;
Illinois agility test was used to obtain information related to agility of the
badminton players.

Before data collection height, weight, age of the participants was taken. Height was
measured by bodymeter measuring scale and weight was measured by digital
weighing machine. Test was performed before the players for better understanding.
Thirty screened badminton players were participated in the study and later divided
equally into two groups of equal size 15 by using a simple random sampling
(lottery method) technique that constituted two groups and further designated as
“control group” and “experimental group”.

Baseline observation was taken among all the participants for both the control
group and the experimental group. Group I(control) was given conventional
treatment while group II(experimental) receives plyometric program along with
conventional treatment.

Conventional treatment comprises of Foot work- side step, cross step, forward and
backward. Service- forehand long service and backhand short service. Match play,
forehand lob, Clear/lift, Drive, Net.

Plyometric program comprises of Side to side ankle hop, Standing jump and reach,
Front cone hops, Lateral jump over barrier, Double leg hops, Diagonal cone hops,
Standing long jump with lateral sprint, Lateral cone hops, Cone hops with180
degree turn, Single leg bounding, Lateral jump single leg.

Agility assesses the participant’s flexibility, speed, power and quickness. Data is
analyzed to know the effect of Plyometrics on the agility of badminton players.
Conventional treatment was given for six weeks and one day in a week for both the
groups. Group II along with conventional treatment receives Plyometric program
for six weeks and one day in a week. After intervention in groups, the data had re-
collected at 6th week and for further statistical analysis utilized as post-intervention
observations.

Table : conventional treatment

Training Co-curriculum programme Duration(in

week min).

Week 1 Foot work- side step, cross step, forward and 45

backward.
45
Service- forehand long service and backhand
30
short service.

Match play

Week 2 Forehand lob 90

Match play 30

Week 3 Forehand drop 90

Match play 30

Week 4 Clear / lift 30

Drive 30

Net 30

Match play 30

Week 5 Cross lob 45

Cross drop 45
 Match play 30

Week 6 Forehand smash 90

Match play 30

Table : Plyometric program

Training Training Plyometric drills Sets x Training

week volume (foot Reps intensity
contact )

Week 1 90 1.Side to side ankle 2x15 Low

hop.
2x15 Low
2.Standing jump and
5x6 Low
reach.

3.Front cone hops.

Week 2 120 1.Side to side ankle 2x15 Low

hop.
5x6 Low
2.Standing long jump.
2x15 Medium
3.Lateral jump over
5x6 Medium
barrier.

4.Double leg hops.

Week 3 120 1.Side to side ankle 2x12 Low
hop.
4x6 Low
2.Standing long jump.
2x12 Medium
3.Lateral jump over
3x8 Medium
barrier.
2x12 Medium
4.Double leg hops.

5.Lateral cone hops.

Week 4 140 1.Diagonal cone hops. 4x8 Low

2.Standing long jump 4x8 Medium

with lateral sprint.
2x12 Medium
3.Lateral cone hops.
4x7 High
4.Single leg bounding.
4x6 High
5.Lateral jump single
leg.

Week 5 140 1.Diagonal cone hops. 2x7 Low

2.Standing long jump 4x7 Medium

with lateral sprint.
4x7 Medium
3.Lateral cone hops.
4x7 Medium
4. Cone hops with180
4x7 High
degree turn.
2x7 High
5. Single leg bounding.

6.Lateral jump single

leg.
Week 6 120 1.Diagonal cone hops. 2x12 Low

2.Hexagonal drills. 2x12 Low

3.Cone hops with 4x6 Medium

cahnge in direction
3x8 Medium
sprint.
4x6 High
4.Double leg hops.

5.Lateral jump single

leg.

Special test:-

Illinois agility test:

o The Illinois Agility Test (Getchell, 1979) is a commonly used test of agility
in sports.

o Equipment required: Flat non-slip surface, marking

cones, stopwatch, measuring tape.

o Procedure: The length of the course is 10 meters and the width (distance
between the start and finish points) is 5 meters. Four cones are used to mark
the start, finish and the two turning points. Another four cones are placed
down the center an equal distance apart. Each cone in the center is spaced
3.3 meters apart. Subjects should lie on their front (head to the start line) and
hands by their shoulders. On the 'Go' command the stopwatch is started, and
the athlete gets up as quickly as possible and runs around the course in the
direction indicated, without knocking the cones over, to the finish line, at
which the timing is stopped.

o Results: An excellent score is under 15.2 seconds for a male, less than 17
seconds for a female.
 o Advantages: This is a simple test to administer, requiring little equipment.
Also, the player’s ability to turn in different directions and different angles is
tested.

o Disadvantages: Choice of footwear and surface of area can effect times

greatly. Cannot distinguish between left and right turning ability.

o Variations: the starting and finishing sides can be swapped, so that turning
direction is reversed.

Statistical method:

1. Parametric test titled paired t-test used to identify the significance of mean
differences of timings measured on Illinois agility test.
2. Independent sample t-test is used.

Statistical analysis-

x
i 1
i
Mean  ,
n

 x  X
n
2
i
S. D.  i 1
(If n<30)
n 1

n
Where x
i 1
i =Sum of all observations and

n=Number of subjects included for study according to inclusion criteria

 x  X  = Sum of squares of the deviations from the mean

n
2
i
i 1
The probability value, t-value for paired t-test had calculated by the given formula:

X
t (Degree of freedom=n-1).
S. E. ( X)

Wherever, the standard error of difference between means of paired samples

calculated by-

S. E. X )  
S. D.
n

DATA ANALYSIS:

Table 1:-

FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS IN

GROUPS ACCORDING TO AGE

Control group Experimental group

Age
Frequency Percent Frequency Percent
(year)
(n1) (%) (n2) (%)

18-20 8 53.3 4 26.7

20-22 4 26.7 6 40.0

 22-24 2 13.3 4 26.7

24-26 1 6.7 1 6.7

Total 15 100.0 15 100.0

Table one highlight the distribution of age of studied badminton players of both the
groups.
 Distribution of age of badminton player

Control group
60.0
53.3
Experimental
Percentage (%)

50.0
group
40.0
40.0

30.0 26.7
26.7
26.7
20.0
13.3
10.0 6.7 6.7

0.0
18-20 20-22 22-24 24-26
Age (years)

Figure 1–Bar diagram showing the age distribution of studied badminton players of
control group and experimental group.
 Table 2:-

FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS IN

GROUPS ACCORDING TO GENDER

Control group Experimental group

Gender Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

(n1) (%) (n2) (%)

Male 10 66.7 10 66.7

Female 5 33.3 5 33.3

Total 15 100.0 15 100.0

The gender wise distribution of studied badminton players highlights in table two.
 Distribution of sex of badminton player

70.0 66.7 66.7

60.0 Male Female
Percentage (%)

50.0

40.0
33.3
33.3
30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
Control group Experimental group

Figure 2–Bar diagram showing the gender distribution of selected badminton

players of control group and experimental group.
 Table 3:-

COMPARISON OF AGE, HEIGHT AND WEIGHT OF BADMINTON

PLAYERS BETWEEN CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS AT
THE TIME OF RECRUITMENT OF SAMPLES

Var 95% CI of the t-

Group & Scatter
iabl Mean statisti LOS
e Diff. c
Mean ± SD LB UB

Control 20.00±1.69 19.06 20.94

Age (year)

Exp. 20.80±1.74 19.84 21.76 1.28 p>0.05 

Mean
0.80 year 
Difference

Control 159.67±4.50 157.18 162.16

(centimeter)
Height

Exp. 158.09±4.53 155.58 160.60 0.95 p>0.05 

Mean
5.09 centimeter 
Difference

Control 54.58±3.34 52.73 56.43

(kilogram)
Weight

Exp. 52.95±2.29 51.68 54.21 1.56 p>0.05 

Mean
1.63 kilogram 
Difference

The mean difference is not significant (insignificant) at the 0.05 level of
significance. [Degrees of freedom is 28; CI-Confidence Interval; UB-Upper
 Bound; LB-Lower Bound; LOS-Level of Significance; Diff.-Difference; Exp.-
Experimental]

Table three highlights the distribution of age, height and weight of badminton
players included in the control group and experimental group.

Distribution of mean age, height and weight

Mean and Standard Deviation

Control group

160.0 159.7 158.1 Experimental group

140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0 54.6 53.0

40.0
20.0
20.0
20.8 1.7 4.5 4.5 3.3 2.3
0.0 1.7
Mean SD of Mean SD of Mean SD of
age age height height weight weight
Figure 3-Bar diagram depicting the distribution and comparison of the mean and
standard deviation of age, height and weight of selected badminton
players of control and experimental groups.

TABLE 4:-

MEASUREMENT OF CHANGE IN AGILITY STATUSES IN GROUPS

BETWEEN BASELINE AND POST INTERVENTION

Sampling Stage Time on IAT Mean t-

LOS
& group Mean ± SD Diff statistic

Control group (Conventional treatment alone)

Pre-intervention 25.88±2.12 0.72

5.96 p<0.001 #
25.16±2.23 second
Post-intervention

Experimental group (Plyometric training with conventional treatment)

Pre-intervention 24.63±1.80 1.23

9.15 p<0.001 #
second
Post-intervention 23.39±1.94
#
The mean difference is highly significant at the 0.001 level of significance. [Mean
Diff-Mean Difference; IAT-Illinois Agility Test; LOS-Level of Significance]

Table four reports that the conventional treatment alone and plyometric training
with conventional treatment programs found to be the effective treatment protocols
for improving the agility statuses among badminton players.
 TABLE 5:-

COMPARISON OF AGILTY OF BADMINTON PLAYERS BETWEEN

CONTROL GROUP AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP AT BASELINE
SAMPLING STAGE

Scatter of time
Group and (second) t-
Sampling LOS
Differences statistic
stage Mean ± SD

Control 25.88±2.12
Baseline

Experimental 24.63±1.80 1.75 p>0.05 

Mean Difference 1.25 second 


The mean difference is not significant (insignificant) at the 0.05 level of
significance. [Mean Diff-Mean Difference; SD-Standard Deviation; LOS-Level
of Significance]

The significance of comparison of agility statuses before administration of

therapies between the badminton players of two groups can be easily sees in table
five.
 Figure 4–Box-and-Whisker diagram presented the distribution of time on IAT and
comparison at pretreatment stage between selected badminton players of
control group and experimental group.

Figure 4–Box-and-Whisker diagram presented the distribution of time on IAT and

comparison at pretreatment stage between selected badminton players of
control group and experimental group.

30
Groups
Control
29 Experimental

28

27
Time (second)

26

25

24

23

22

21
Pre IAT
Time measured on Illionis agility test (IAT) at baseline in groups
Figure 4–Box-and-Whisker diagram presented the distribution of time on IAT and
comparison at pretreatment stage between selected badminton players of
control group and experimental group.

TABLE 6:-

COMPARISON OF AGILTY BETWEEN CONTROL GROUP AND

EXPERIMENTAL GROUP AT POST INTERVENTION
SAMPLING STAGES

Scatter of time
Group and (second) t-
Sampling LOS
Differences statistic
stage Mean ± SD

Control 25.16±2.23
intervention
Post-

Experimental 23.39±1.94 2.32 p<0.03 

Mean Difference 1.77 second 


The mean difference is significant at the 0.03 level of significance. [Mean Diff-
Mean Difference; SD-Standard Deviation; LOS-Level of Significance]

Table 6 reports the significance of comparison of agility statuses of badminton

players after administration of treatment modalities between the two groups,
control and experimental.
 30
Groups
Control
Experimental

28

26
Time (second)

24

22

20
Post IAT
Time measured on Illionis agility test (IAT) at post intervention stage in groups

Figure 5–Box-and-Whisker diagram presented the distribution of time on IAT and

comparison at post treatment stage between selected badminton players
of control group and experimental group.
RESULTS: After analyzing the data, the results are interpreted and

efficacy was found on the basis of agility of the badminton players by conventional
treatment alone and plyometrics along with conventional treatment.

Table no.1

Reports the distribution of age of studied badminton players of both the groups
(experimental and control) found with little variation when the age of players of
the control group compared with experimental group.

Control group- First (18-20yrs) lower age group shows 53.3% of the badminton
players with the frequency of 8 in numbers. While the second (20-22yrs) age
groups shows 40% of the badminton players with the frequency of 4 in numbers.
Third (22-24yrs) age group shows 13.3% of the badminton players with the
frequency of 2 in numbers. Fourth (24-26yrs) age group shows 6.7% of the
badminton players with the frequency of 1 in number.

Experimental group- First (18-20yrs) lower age group shows 26.7% of the
badminton players with the frequency of 4 in numbers. While the second (20-
22yrs) age groups shows 40% of the badminton players with the frequency of 6 in
numbers. Third (22-24yrs) age group shows 26.7% of the badminton players with
the frequency of 4 in numbers. Fourth (24-26yrs) age group shows 6.7% of the
badminton players with the frequency of 1 in number.

Table no.2

Reports the distribution of gender of badminton players participated in the study.

Control group- First (male) shows 66.7% with the frequency of 10 in numbers.
Second (female) shows 33.3% with the frequency of 5 in numbers.
Experimental group- First (male) shows 66.7% with the frequency of 10 in
numbers. Second (female) shows 33.3% with the frequency of 5 in numbers.

This was easily sees in table that the distribution of gender found to be similar and
thus the sex matched controls indicated the removal of biasness regarding the
distribution of gender of studied badminton players documented similar for the two
groups.

Table no.3

Reports the distribution of age, height and weight of badminton players included in
the control group and the experimental group.

Age:

Mean (Mean ± SD) age of badminton players of control group (20.00±1.69 years)
found to be little smaller as compared to mean age of badminton players of
experimental group (20.80±1.74 years).

Height:

The height (159.67±4.50 centimeter) of badminton players of control group found

to be little greater than height (158.09±4.53 centimeter) of badminton players of
experimental group.

Weight:

The weight (54.58±3.34 kilogram) of badminton players of control group found to

be little greater than weight of (52.95±2.29 kilogram) of badminton players of
experimental group.

Results indicated that the differences in mean age, height and weight were not
statistically significant between the two groups and hence the study indicated the
removal of biasness regarding the distributions for age, height and weight of
studied badminton players and were reported similar for the two groups.
The statistical agreement indicated that the distribution of age, height and weight
of studied badminton players at the time of admission for inclusion of subjects in
the control and experimental groups found to be similar.

Table no.4

Reports show that the conventional treatment alone and Plyometric training with
conventional treatment program found to be effective. Statuses of agility of
badminton players of control group improved after intervention of conventional
treatment alone. At post intervention the average (Mean ± SD) time on IAT
(25.16±2.23 second) among badminton players of control group found with little
reduction as compared to average time on IAT (25.88±2.12 second) at baseline
sampling stage one. These mean difference in time on IAT (0.72 second) between
baseline and post intervention among badminton players of control group were
strongly significant (p<0.001) was concreted on statistical ground.

More improvement noted among badminton players of experimental group than

control group at post intervention stage. After intervention of Plyometric training
with conventional treatment among badminton players of experimental group, the
average (Mean ± SD) time (23.39±1.94 second) at post intervention sampling stage
found to be significantly smaller as compared to average time (24.63±1.80 second)
at pre-intervention sampling stage. These mean difference between baseline and
post intervention in time (1.23 second) noted on IAT among badminton players of
experimental group were statistically strongly significant (p<0.001).

Table no.5

Reports the comparison of agility status at baseline observation between the

badminton players of both the groups.
Before administration of conventional treatment alone among badminton players of
control group, the mean time (mean ± SD) measured on IAT (25.88±2.12 second)
at baseline stage found to be little greater as compared to mean time of badminton
players of experimental group (24.63±1.80 second). Statistically, these differences
in time of 1.25 second at pre-intervention stage between control group and
experimental group weren’t significant (p>0.05).

Table no.6

Reports the significance of comparison of agility statuses of badminton players

after administration of treatment modalities between the two groups, control and
experimental. After administration of treatment, the mean time (mean ± SD) of
badminton players of experimental group (23.39±1.94 second) found to be
significantly lowered and improved as compared to the mean time of badminton
players of control group (25.16±2.23 second) at post-intervention stage.
Henceforth, these differences in time of 2.32 second between control group and
experimental group at post-intervention stage could satisfy the limit of statistical
significance (p<0.03).

The statistical results of present research indicated that the Plyometric training
when used as an adjunct to conventional treatment observed as an effective
conservative treatment for improving agility among badminton players.
DISCUSSION: