Authors: Zeliha Nur Sarıkurt, Gökmen Özen
Categories: Research, Anaerobic, Aquatic, Basketball, Performance, Plyometric Training, Young Athletes
Source: BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation
Authors: Zeliha Nur Sarıkurt, Gökmen Özen
Basketball is a high-intensity sport that often results in lower extremity muscle and tendon injuries due to its rapid tempo and complex movement mechanics. Consequently, plyometric exercises are widely implemented in basketball training programs to enhance athletic performance and reduce the risk of injury. Recently, however, the benefits and drawbacks of plyometrics performed in various conditions have been widely debated. The aim of this study was to examine the effects of land- and aquatic-based plyometric training on lower-limb performance parameters including jumping, sprinting, agility, and flexibility in young male basketball players.
A total of 32 male basketball players aged 15.15 ± 0.807 years participated in the study. Participants were assigned to one of four aquatic vertical plyometric (AVP, n = 8), land-based vertical plyometric (LVP, n = 8), land-based horizontal plyometric (LHP, n = 8), and a control group (CG, n = 8). The training program was conducted three days per week for eight weeks, with each session lasting approximately 90 min in total, including warm-up, plyometric exercises, and cool-down phases. The sit-and-reach, standing long jump, vertical jump, 30 m sprint, RAST, agility T-test, and lane agility tests were administered before and after the intervention.
Significant improvements were found in flexibility performance in the aquatic vertical plyometric group (+ 1.62 cm, + 4.8%; p = 0.001). The land-based horizontal plyometric group showed a significant increase in standing long jump performance (+ 0.05 m, + 2.3%; p = 0.006). In the land-based vertical plyometric group, agility performance improved significantly, as evidenced by reductions in both lane agility test time (− 0.07 s, − 0.6%; p = 0.035) and agility T-test time (− 0.62 s, − 6.1%; p = 0.015). No statistically significant improvement was detected in vertical jump performance in the aquatic group (+ 0.71 cm, + 1.8%; p > 0.05). Between-group analysis revealed a significant post-test difference in RAST fatigue index values (ANCOVA, p = 0.021), indicating differential training responses among the intervention groups.
The study demonstrated that plyometric training can effectively improve specific anaerobic performance parameters in young basketball players. Among the examined methods, aquatic plyometric training produced more favorable outcomes in flexibility and fatigue-related parameters and may represent a potentially lower-impact training alternative for young athletes.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13102-026-01731-8.
Basketball is a high-intensity sport that requires frequent jumping, sprinting, and rapid changes of direction, which place substantial stress on the lower extremity muscles and tendons. These repetitive explosive movements during training and competition may cause fatigue-related performance loss and increase the risk of injuries. Therefore, improving anaerobic performance and minimizing injury risk have become important objectives for coaches and sports scientists [1–3]. Plyometric exercises play a central role in achieving these goals, as they develop neuromuscular coordination, rate of force development, and stretch–shortening cycle efficiency, which together improve muscular power, acceleration, deceleration, and agility. In addition, plyometric exercises help maintain tendon elasticity and muscle balance, supporting musculoskeletal health during periods of intense physical activity [4–5]. For these reasons, plyometric training is widely used in basketball conditioning programs to enhance anaerobic performance parameters such as power, speed, and agility, which directly affect individual and team performance [6–8].
In recent years, aquatic-based plyometrics have also been included in plyometrics, which are commonly performed on land. Traditional land-based plyometric training is performed on hard ground and includes many high-intensity exercises [9, 10]. Aquatic plyometric training consists of low-intensity exercises performed in water. Aquatic plyometric exercises have been planned to reduce the effects of gravity during exercise. With this structure, aquatic plyometrics offer a safer working environment [11]. Scientific findings showing that plyometrics improve athletes’ power output, explosive power and vertical jumping abilities can be frequently seen in the literature. However, the plyometric system implemented on different surfaces has both advantages and disadvantages. Plyometric exercises adapted to water environments form the basis of aquatic plyometric training. To reduce the impacts that occur on land, in plyometric exercises performed in water, the buoyancy of water comes into play and helps reduce the risk of serious joint injuries in athletes [12].
Researchers in scientific studies emphasise the consistent role of land-based plyometric training in increasing horizontal and vertical muscle strength, agility and balance performance [13]. In horizontal and vertical axis movements performed on land, horizontal and vertical plyometric training protocols are implemented to improve performance [14, 15]. However, regarding the disadvantages of land-based plyometric techniques, complaints arising from bones, muscles and joints, which are in constant use, reduce compliance with the training programme. This condition increases daily pain and inhibits movement activation. Land-based plyometric exercises cause high force generation due to friction, joint compression and ground reaction force. For this reason, they place significant stress on the knees, ankles and lower extremity muscles [16]. However, aquatic environments reduce load-bearing and ground-reaction forces, which alters the mechanical stimulus during jump and landing phases and may influence neuromuscular adaptations [10, 11].
Previous studies in the literature have mostly focused on land-based forms of plyometric training. However, only a few have examined the potential benefits or limitations of aquatic plyometric exercises. While aquatic plyometric training offers certain mechanical and safety advantages, it should not be considered inherently superior to land-based methods. Instead, both environments provide distinct neuromuscular adaptations that may complement each other in athletic development. In particular, studies examining the effects of aquatic plyometric exercises on anaerobic performance parameters in young basketball players are scarce [17–19], indicating the need for further investigation.
Although plyometric training has been widely examined in different sports, there are very few scientific studies that have directly compared the effects of aquatic and land-based plyometric exercises within the same experimental design. In addition, research involving young basketball players is more limited, and there is a need for experimental evidence to explain how different training environments affect anaerobic performance. In this context, the present study aims to fill this gap in the literature by comparing three different plyometric training models, land-based vertical, land-based horizontal, and aquatic vertical, under controlled conditions to determine which approach is more effective in improving lower-limb power and flexibility performance in young male basketball players.
Ethical approval was received for the research from Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Scientific Research and Publication Ethics Committee of the Graduate Education Institute (Approval No: 13/16, dated 12 September 2024). The study participants were 32 young male basketball players, aged 14 to 16, who had been playing competitive basketball for at least three years. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups using a computer-generated random number sequence to ensure unbiased and equal group allocation. The groups were as control group (CG, n = 8), aquatic vertical plyometric training group (AVP, n = 8), land-based vertical plyometric training group (LVP, n = 8), and land-based horizontal plyometric training group (LHP, n = 8). Gpower 3.1 (GPower Version 3.1.0, Franz Faul, Düsseldorf, Germany) analysis program was used to calculate the sample size in the study; it was calculated that the sample size should be at least 32 people for 85% power, effect size f^2^ = 0.35 and 95% confidence interval. Inclusion criteria included being male, aged between 14 and 16 years, having at least three years of basketball training experience, and being free from any medical conditions or musculoskeletal injuries that could affect performance. Exclusion criteria were the presence of acute or chronic injuries, recent surgery, or participation in other structured training programs during the study period. Participants were required to have no health barriers to doing sports, have their parents sign the consent form, have no visual or sensory disorders or symptoms of dizziness, and use no medication known to affect the central nervous system or balance.
The study performed standardized testing protocols utilizing validated instruments, including a Seca stadiometer (201 cm), a Tanita BC 418 body composition analyzer (Tanita, Japan; 0.1 kg precision), a Medwelt CMS50D pulse oximeter (Medwelt, Turkey), a POLAR H10 heart rate monitor, a vertical jump mat, a sit-and-reach test box, a 5-meter measuring tape, a photocell timing system (Newtest Powertimer 300-Series, Oy, Finland), and plastic cones for agility assessments.
Body height was measured using a Seca stadiometer (201 cm). Participants stood barefoot and upright, without shoes or socks, in accordance with standardized procedures [20].
A Tanita BC 418 body composition analyzer (Tanita, Japan; 0.1 kg precision) was used to assess body composition. Participants stood barefoot on the device and were instructed to fast prior to measurement. This procedure, which lasted approximately 30 s, recorded values including body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), body heat, and body fat percentage (BFP) [21].
Flexibility was assessed using a sit-and-reach box. Participants sat with the soles of their feet flat against the box and reached forward without bending their knees. The maximum distance reached was recorded, with two trials conducted and the best result retained [22, 23].
The vertical jump test was used to evaluate lower limb explosive power. Participants performed countermovement jumps (CMJ) with free arm movement. During each attempt, they began from an upright standing position, executed a rapid downward movement followed by an immediate upward jump, and landed on the same spot with both feet. The best result of three trials was recorded, with a 2-minute rest between attempts [24].
Lower extremity explosive power was evaluated using the standing long jump. The test was performed on a standard gymnastics mat, and the jump distance was measured from the starting line to the heel of the landing foot using a calibrated measuring tape. Three trials were conducted with a two-minute rest between attempts, and the best result was recorded [25].
Participants began from an upright start position, 50 cm behind a photocell gate, with their toes aligned with ground tape. The sprint was performed over 30 m using a Newtest Powertimer 300-Series photocell system (Oy, Finland). Two trials were conducted with three-minute rest intervals, and the fastest time was recorded [26].
Two different agility tests were applied to assess both general and basketball-specific agility performance. The T-test was used to evaluate overall change-of-direction speed and multidirectional agility, while the Lane Agility Test was selected to measure sport-specific movement patterns involving lateral, diagonal, and backward motions frequently performed in basketball [27, 28].
This test evaluated speed, directional change ability, and body control. Participants ran from point A to B, side-shuffled to C, backpedaled to D, side-shuffled to A, touched the free-throw line corner, continued to D, sprinted to C, shuffled to B, and backpedaled to the starting point (A). The full test sequence emphasized agility and coordination [27].
This test consists of 4 contact points formed in a T shape in an area with a length of 10 m and a width of 10 m. The aim is for the subject to complete a series that requires him/her to move in different directions and in different ways between these contact points in the shortest time possible. This test differs from other agility tests in that the subject always faces the same direction. He/she changes direction by shuffling to the right and left or by running backwards. This test requires two 90-degree and two 180-degree turns, as well as moving 10 m forwards, 10 m to the right, 10 m to the left and 10 m backwards, for a total distance of 40 m [28].
RAST comprised six maximal 35 m sprints with 10 s of passive rest between sprints. Timing was captured using a Newtest Powertimer 300-Series photocell system. Test outputs included peak power (Pmax), minimum power (Pmin), mean power (MP), anaerobic capacity, and fatigue index (FI), calculated via Powertimer software [29].
The reliability of the performance measurements was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and coefficients of variation (CV) based on repeated trials performed under standardized testing conditions. The 30 m sprint test demonstrated good to excellent reliability (ICC = 0.88–0.92; CV = 2.5–3.2%). Vertical jump performance showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.90–0.94; CV = 3.0–4.1%), while the standing long jump test also exhibited high reliability (ICC = 0.89–0.93; CV = 2.8–3.6%). Agility assessments, including the lane agility test and the agility T-test, demonstrated good reliability with ICC values ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 and CV values between 2.9% and 4.0%. Overall, these findings indicate good to excellent measurement reliability for all performance tests used in this study.
All tests were administered on a single day between 00 AM and 00 PM, with five-minute rest intervals between test stations and standardized 5–10 min warm-up and stretching routines before testing. The test sequence was carefully arranged to minimize fatigue and interference between sit-and-reach, vertical jump, standing long jump, 30 m sprint, lane agility, agility T-test, and RAST (Table 1). Training interventions were conducted three days per week for eight weeks (Table 2).
Table 1Demonstration of implementation order of performance tests and rest periods between sets(1) Control Group(2) AVP(3) LVP(4) LHPAnthropometric MeasurementsImplementation of Warm-Up Protocol(5 min rest)Sit-and-Reach Test(5 min rest)Vertical Jump Test(5 min rest)Standing Long Jump Test(5 min rest)30 m Sprint Test(5 min rest)Lane Agility Test(5 min rest)Agility T-Test(5 min rest)RAST Test
Table 2Aquatic-based and land-based plyometric training programmesTraining GroupMain FocusEnvironmentDurationProgression SummayAquatic Vertical Plyometric (AVP)1. Squat Jump2. Split Squat Jump3. Drop Jump4. Countermovement Jump5. Tuck JumpIndoor pool (75 cm water depth), 65 cm plyometric box8 weeks (3 sessions per week, 90 min each)Sets × reps increased progressively from 1 × 8 in Week 1 to 4 × 10 in Week 8Land-Based Vertical Plyometric (LVP)1. Squat Jump2. Split Squat Jump3. Drop Jump4. Countermovement Jump5. Tuck JumpHard surface (standard basketball court)8 weeks (3 sessions per week)Sets × reps increased progressively from 1 × 8 in Week 1 to 4 × 10 in Week 8Land-Based Horizontal Plyometric (LHP)1. Broad Jump2. Heiden Jump3. Continuous Hopping4. Bounding5. Straight Leg BoundHard surface (standard basketball court)8 weeks (3 sessions per week)Sets × reps increased progressively from 1 × 8 in Week 1 to 4 × 10 in Week 8
Participants completed a 10-minute jog followed by 5 min of multidirectional jumps (forward, backward, lateral), replicating plyometric movements. The warm-up concluded with dynamic stretching of the lower and upper extremities [30].
Training programme
The training program was conducted three days per week (on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays) over a period of eight weeks, and each session lasted approximately 90 min including warm-up and cool-down periods. At least 48 h of rest were provided between training sessions to allow sufficient recovery and prevent fatigue accumulation. Participants were allowed rest intervals of 2–3 min between sets. Land-based training was performed on a standard basketball court. For the aquatic plyometric training, a 65 cm wooden plyometric box was placed on the pool floor inside an indoor pool with a total water depth of approximately 140 cm. The water level was adjusted to approximately 75 cm above the surface of the box, corresponding to the waist-to-lower-chest level of the participants. All jump exercises were performed from the top of the box into the water, ensuring sufficient buoyancy and water resistance during both take-off and landing phases.
Plyometric training was integrated into the regular team training session and replaced a specific conditioning segment; therefore, total session duration was comparable across groups (approximately 90 min per session, three sessions per week). The control group followed the same training schedule without additional plyometric or strength content.
Each program (aquatic vertical, land-based vertical, and land-based horizontal) followed a progressive structure in which the number of sets and repetitions increased weekly. The program intentionally started with a low initial volume (1 × 8) to prioritize movement technique and safe landing mechanics in adolescent athletes and to allow gradual neuromuscular adaptation. Training load was progressively increased each week (up to 4 × 10) to provide sufficient overload while minimizing excessive soreness and fatigue during the early phase of the intervention. A concise overview of the training models is presented in Table 2, which summarizes the main focus, environment, and progression of the 8-week plyometric programs. The control group (CG) continued their regular basketball training routines during the 8-week intervention period. Their training consisted of fundamental basketball skills such as dribbling, passing, shooting, and tactical drills, performed three times per week for approximately 90 min per session under the supervision of their coaches. No additional plyometric or strength exercises were included in their training program.
Data analysis was performed using SPSS 29.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Normality was confirmed by the Shapiro–Wilk test and skewness/kurtosis evaluation. Descriptive statistics were presented as mean ± standard deviation. Paired-samples t-tests were used to compare pre- and post-test values within each group, and ANCOVA was applied to examine between-group differences using pre-test values as covariates. In addition, effect size indicators (Cohen’s d for within-group comparisons and partial eta squared for ANCOVA) were calculated to provide a clearer interpretation of the magnitude of observed effects. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
Detailed within-group pre–post comparisons are provided in the Supplementary Material (Tables S1–S15). Only the ANCOVA-based between-group results are presented below.
Descriptive statistics regarding the general anthropometric characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 3. Baseline intergroup comparisons for age, height, weight, BMI, and body fat percentage were performed using one-way ANOVA. No significant differences were observed among the four groups (p > 0.05), confirming homogeneity at baseline.
Table 3Descriptive statistics of participant’s physical characteristics and performance parametersVariablesGroups n MSDf p Age (years)Control Group814.751.0350.470.61Aquatic-Based Plyometrics815.370.744Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics815.370.744Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics815.120.640Total3215.150.807BH (cm)Control Group8177.374.7790.870.47Aquatic-Based Plyometrics8182.128.724Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics8179.257.166Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics8180.254.773Total32179.756.490BW (kg)Control Group867.516.5270.720.55Aquatic-Based Plyometrics872.107.927Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics866.777.219Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics868.808.026Total3268.797.377BMI (kg/m^2^)Control Group821.522.5470.490.72Aquatic-Based Plyometrics821.802.483Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics820.802.129Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics821.121.766Total3221.312.176BFP (%)Control Group815.962.6231.020.38Aquatic-Based Plyometrics818.212.773Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics816.603.484Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics816.662.410Total3216.852.837n Number, M Mean, Sd Standard deviation, BH Body height, BW Body weight, BMI Body mass index, BFP Body Fat Percentage
According to the ANCOVA analysis presented in Table 4, with pre-test mean scores treated as covariates, a statistically significant between-group difference was observed in post-test agility T-test performance (p < 0.05, partial η² = 0.07), indicating a moderate effect size. No significant between-group differences were found for post-test 30 m sprint (p > 0.05, partial η² = 0.02) and lane agility performances (p > 0.05, partial η² = 0.03), both reflecting small effect sizes.
Table 4Comparison of participants’ speed and agility parameters between groupsVariables n MSDf P ESPost Hoc30 m Sprint Test (sec)Control Group84.210.2882.0550.1300.186-Aquatic-Based Plyometrics84.130.232Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics84.180.410Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics84.020.162Total324.130.283Lane Agility Test (sec)Control Group812.230.9092.7230.0640.232-Aquatic-Based Plyometrics812.100.533Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics812.080.654Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics811.920.711Total3212.080.688Agility T-Test (sec)Control Group89.871.0485.786 0.003* 0.391LHP < CGLVP < CGLHP < ABPLVP < ABPAquatic-Based Plyometrics810.440.950Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics89.630.427Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics89.480.435Total329.860.821n Number, M Mean, Sd Standard deviation, ES Effect Size, * p<0.05
According to the ANCOVA analysis in Table 5, with pre-test mean scores treated as covariates, statistically significant differences were found between groups in the post-test mean scores for the standing long jump (p < 0.05, partial η² = 0.09) and sit-and-reach tests (p < 0.05, partial η² = 0.08), indicating moderate effect sizes. However, no significant difference was observed between groups in the post-test mean scores for the vertical jump test (p > 0.05, partial η² = 0.02), corresponding to a small effect size.
Table 5Comparison of participants’ anaerobic power and flexibility parameters between groupsVariables n MSDF P ESPost HocVertical Jump (cm)Control Group845.777.7120.9820.4160.098-Aquatic-Based Plyometrics841.237.158Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics841.4713.125Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics846.676.595Total3243.798.647Standing Long Jump (cm)Control Group82.120.15913.1160.0000.593AVP < CGCG < LHPCG < LVPAVP < LVPAVP < LHPAquatic-Based Plyometrics82.010.209Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics82.260.276Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics82.160.263Total322.140.238Sit-and-Reach Test (cm)Control Group832.566.2368.1610.0010.485CG < AVPCG < LHPCG < LVPAquatic-Based Plyometrics835.625.724Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics834.422.129Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics835.186.146Total3134.455.282
According to the ANCOVA analysis in Table 6, with pre-test mean scores treated as covariates, a statistically significant difference was found between groups in the post-test mean scores for fatigue index (p < 0.05, partial η² = 0.10), indicating a moderate effect size. However,. However, no significant between-group differences were found for maximum power (p > 0.05, partial η² = 0.02), minimum power (p > 0.05, partial η² = 0.03), or mean power outputs (p > 0.05, partial η² = 0.03), all reflecting small effect sizes.
Table 6Comparison of participants’ RAST test parameters between groupsVariables n MSDF P ESPost HocMaximumPower (w)Control Group8816.62123.5482.4790.0830.216-Aquatic-Based Plyometrics8812.2546.333Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics8782.62142.772Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics8774.37102.965Total32796.46106.173Minimum Power (w)Control Group8715.12117.6421.9890.1390.181-Aquatic-Based Plyometrics8655.7551.762Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics8695.12129.766Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics8667.50125.354Total32683.37107.882Average Power (w)Control Group8768.62116.4932.1070.1230.190-Aquatic-Based Plyometrics8721.2554.073Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics8736.00134.724Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics8721.00111.786Total32736.71105.039Fatigue IndexControl Group83.491.1653.8020.021*0.297CG < AVPLVP < AVPAquatic-Based Plyometrics85.301.315Land-Based Vertical Plyometrics82.951.582Land-Based Horizontal Plyometrics83.621.122Total323.841.532
In this study, when the pre- and post-training anaerobic performance test measurements of the aquatic plyometric training group were compared, significant improvements were observed in the 30 m sprint test, lane agility test, agility T-test, standing long jump test, sit-and-reach flexibility test, and RAST anaerobic performance test. However, no statistically significant change was found in the vertical jump performance. Additionally, our review of the literature indicated that studies focusing specifically on aquatic plyometric training are limited, thus highlighting the contribution of the present study to the field.
This result may be explained by the biomechanical characteristics of the aquatic environment. The buoyant force of water reduces the athlete’s effective body weight and consequently lowers the ground reaction forces during take-off and landing. Although this reduces the stress on the joints and provides a safer training medium, it also diminishes the eccentric loading stimulus that is critical for improving the stretch–shortening cycle and developing explosive power [11]. Additionally, the viscosity of water increases resistance, which slows down movement velocity and may limit the rate of force development required for maximal vertical jump performance. Similar results have been reported in previous studies, indicating that aquatic training, while beneficial for enhancing lower-limb strength and fatigue resistance, may be less effective for improving explosive vertical power compared to land-based methods [12, 19]. Therefore, aquatic plyometric training may serve as a supplementary approach rather than a primary method for developing vertical jump performance in young basketball players.
When the findings of this study were compared with previous research, Kamalakkannan et al. [31], in their study conducted on young volleyball players, found that aquatic plyometric training resulted in a positive increase in participants’ speed and vertical jump performance. Kobak et al. [32] found a statistically significant difference in young athletes’ vertical jump performance following a 10-week aquatic plyometric training programme. Shiran et al. [33] determined that, as a result of aquatic plyometric training conducted on young wrestlers, there was a significant increase in the wrestlers’ agility and 20 m sprint performances compared to before the training programme. Stemm and Jacobson [12] had 21 active college athletes perform aquatic plyometric training for 6 weeks and examined the change in their vertical jump performance. As a result of the study, they found a statistically significant difference in vertical jump performance in the aquatic plyometric training group. Sporri et al. [10] found similar results to those obtained by Stemm and Jacobson in their study on young male athletes. Arazi et al. [16] had young basketball players perform 8-week aquatic plyometric training and examined the change in sprint performance. As a result of the study, they found a significant increase in participants’ sprint performance. Ploeg et al. [34], in their study examining the vertical jump performance of young athletes who performed aquatic plyometric training for 6 weeks, found a statistically significant difference in participants’ vertical jump performance. The findings of other studies in the literature are parallel to our results, apart from the vertical jump finding. It is thought that the reason why the vertical jump performance of the aquatic plyometric training group did not improve was because the participants were young and performed the jump training in water rather than on land.
The study included both horizontal and vertical land-based plyometric training modalities. As these two methods are rarely examined together in the literature, the current research is expected to make a valuable contribution. However, this dual-method approach also presents a challenge due to the limited number of comparative studies. For example, Markovic and Mikulic [35] highlighted that horizontal and vertical plyometric training may influence different neuromuscular adaptations, with horizontal training favoring sprint and agility improvements, while vertical training tends to enhance jump performance. Similarly, Ramírez-Campillo et al. [36] suggested that combining both modalities may offer a more comprehensive development of explosive strength and movement efficiency. Despite these insights, few studies have directly compared both approaches within the same experimental design. Therefore, the data for each training protocol are discussed under separate performance test categories in this study.
In our study, no significant difference in vertical jump performance was observed in the land-based horizontal plyometric training group, whereas a significant improvement was found in the land-based vertical plyometric training group. A review of previous studies indicates that plyometric training generally leads to positive improvements in vertical jump performance. For example, Shaji and Isha [37] reported that plyometric training resulted in enhanced vertical jump performance among college basketball players. Similarly, Huang et al. [38] found statistically significant improvements in vertical jump ability following 12 weeks of training in young college athletes. Yáñez-García et al. [39] observed comparable results across U13, U15, and U17 basketball players. Furthermore, studies by Khlifa et al. [40] and Pechlivanos et al. [41] also reported improvements in vertical jump performance in their respective cohorts. While the outcomes from the land-based vertical training group in our study are consistent with these findings, the lack of improvement in the horizontal training group may be attributed to the direction-specific characteristics of the training, which primarily enhance horizontal force production and sprinting ability rather than vertical power output.
Significant improvements were observed in both the agility T-test and the lane agility test in the land-based horizontal and vertical plyometric training groups. Kryeziu et al. [42] reported similar enhancements in agility after four weeks of plyometric training among young basketball players. Likewise, Usgu and Yüksel [43] and Singh [44] found statistically significant improvements in agility T-test performance in their respective studies. These findings reinforce the conclusion that plyometric training, regardless of movement direction, is effective in enhancing agility in youth athletes.
The sit-and-reach flexibility test was used to assess flexibility performance in this study. Statistically significant improvements in flexibility were observed in both the land-based horizontal and vertical plyometric training groups. When our findings are compared with previous studies, Rajan and Faiz [45], in their research involving 30 young basketball players, implemented a 12-week plyometric training program and evaluated flexibility using the sit-and-reach test. Their results showed a positive improvement in participants’ flexibility. Similarly, Kumar Patel and Phulkar [46] reported comparable outcomes in their study on young basketball players. Furthermore, studies conducted on badminton players [47], college athletes [48], and volleyball players [49] also demonstrated statistically significant improvements in flexibility following plyometric training protocols. These results align with the findings of our study.
In this study, statistically significant improvements were observed in several RAST performance parameters, including peak power, mean power, and fatigue index, in both land-based plyometric training groups. These findings indicate enhanced anaerobic capacity and better fatigue resistance following training. However, a review of the existing literature reveals that few studies have simultaneously examined the effects of plyometric training and the RAST anaerobic performance test. This suggests that the present study provides meaningful evidence in this context. When compared with the limited number of existing studies, Cigerci and Genc [50] implemented an 8-week plyometric training program for basketball players aged 15–16 and reported significant improvements in peak and mean power values. Similarly, Sarkar et al. [51] conducted a 4-week plyometric training intervention for young athletes and found enhanced anaerobic power and reduced fatigue index values. The findings of these studies are consistent with the results obtained in our research.
No statistically significant improvements were observed in the 30 m sprint performance in either land-based plyometric training group. Anversha et al. [52] had young basketball players aged between 12 and 18 perform an 8-week plyometric training program and evaluated their 30 m sprint performance. At the end of the intervention, a statistically significant improvement was noted. Similarly, Paes et al. [53] reported comparable findings in their study involving young basketball players. However, these results contrast with those of our study. The discrepancy may be attributed to individual differences in participants’ muscle fiber composition, genetic predispositions, or the specificity of the training protocols applied. In our study, the exercises primarily targeted vertical force production and jump-related mechanics rather than linear sprint acceleration. According to the principle of training specificity, performance adaptations are greatest when training closely matches the movement pattern, muscle activation, and velocity of the target skill. Since sprinting requires rapid horizontal force generation and coordination of hip extensors and plantar flexors, the vertical-oriented plyometric movements may have provided insufficient neuromuscular stimulus for short-distance acceleration. Moreover, individual variability in fast-twitch muscle fiber distribution among adolescent athletes could also have influenced the responsiveness to explosive sprint training stimuli [14, 35]. These factors collectively may explain why the 30 m sprint improvements did not reach statistical significance in the present study.
Additionally, the absence of significant sprint improvement in the land-based horizontal plyometric group may be related to the relatively short intervention duration and the conservative initial training volume adopted in the present study. Although horizontal plyometric exercises are designed to enhance horizontal force application, previous research indicates that meaningful sprint performance adaptations, particularly over distances such as 30 m, may require longer training periods or higher cumulative loading to elicit detectable neuromuscular changes [13, 14]. Furthermore, while horizontal plyometric movements emphasize horizontal propulsion, the transfer of these adaptations to sprint performance is influenced by movement specificity, sprint technique, and intermuscular coordination, which may not be fully optimized through plyometric exercises alone [35, 36]. Therefore, the lack of statistically significant improvement in sprint performance may reflect an insufficient stimulus magnitude rather than a limitation of horizontal plyometric training itself.
A significant improvement in standing long jump performance was observed in both the land-based horizontal and vertical plyometric training groups after 8 weeks of training. When compared with previous studies, Ozen et al. [54] reported a significant enhancement in standing long jump performance among young basketball players following a 6-week plyometric training program. Similarly, El-Ashker et al. [55], in a study involving young athletes, and Benzidane et al. [56], in research conducted with college students, found comparable improvements. These results are consistent with the findings of the present study.
This study presents an innovative experimental design that compared three different plyometric training land-based vertical, land-based horizontal, and aquatic vertical, within a controlled environment among young basketball players. To our knowledge, this is one of the few studies to examine how training surface and movement orientation can distinctly influence anaerobic performance in this age group. These findings contribute valuable insight into the role of environmental and biomechanical factors in optimizing training outcomes. However, certain limitations should be acknowledged. The relatively small sample size may have limited the statistical power to detect minor between-group differences. Additionally, the study examined only short-term effects after eight weeks of training, so long-term adaptations remain uncertain. All participants were adolescent male basketball players, which restricts the generalizability of the findings to other populations such as female or older athletes. Moreover, indicators of skeletal or muscular injury were not directly assessed; therefore, conclusions regarding potential injury prevention effects should be interpreted with caution. Future research with larger and more diverse samples, longer intervention periods, inclusion of injury-related indicators, and follow-up assessments is recommended to confirm and expand upon these results.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated that land-based horizontal, land-based vertical, and aquatic plyometric training can effectively enhance lower-limb power and flexibility in young male basketball players. While all three training approaches led to meaningful performance improvements, aquatic plyometric training showed favourable outcomes particularly in flexibility and fatigue-related parameters. Given the biomechanical properties of the aquatic environment, including buoyancy and water resistance, aquatic plyometric exercises may help reduce mechanical loading during jump and landing phases. However, as impact forces and injury incidence were not directly measured in the present study, these findings should be interpreted as indicating a potentially lower-impact training alternative rather than definitive evidence of increased safety. Overall, diversified plyometric training strategies may contribute to the development of key physical performance qualities in youth basketball players.
The inclusion of both land-based and aquatic plyometric methods provides coaches with flexible training options that can be adapted to different phases of youth athletic development. Aquatic plyometric training, in particular, may serve as a complementary method during rehabilitation periods or pre-season conditioning due to reduced impact forces in the water. Implementing these varying plyometric approaches may help coaches optimise training load, support injury prevention, and maintain performance progression throughout the training cycle.
Supplementary Material Table S1. Comparison of anthropometric measurements of aquatic plyometric group. Table S2. Comparison of speed and agility parameters of aquatic plyometric group. Table S3. Comparison of anaerobic power and flexibility parameters of aquatic plyometric group. Table S4. Comparison of RAST test parameters of aquatic plyometric group. Table S5. Comparison of anthropometric measurements of land-based horizontal plyometric group. Table S6. Comparison of speed and agility parameters of land-based horizontal plyometric group. Table S7. Comparison of anaerobic power and flexibility parameters of land-based horizontal plyometric group. Table S8. Comparison of RAST test parameters of land-based horizontal plyometric group. Table S9. Comparison of anthropometric measurements of land-based vertical plyometric group. Table S10. Comparison of speed and agility parameters of land-based vertical plyometric group. Table S11. Comparison of anaerobic power and flexibility parameters of land-based vertical plyometric group. Table S12. Comparison of RAST test parameters of land-based vertical plyometric group. Table S13. Comparison of speed and agility parameters of control group. Table S14. Comparison of anaerobic power and flexibility parameters of control group. Table S15. Comparison of RAST test parameters of control group.