Scand J Med Sci Sports 2011: 21: 170–183
doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01256.x
Review
Measuring soccer skill performance: a review
A. Ali
Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand
Corresponding author: Ajmol Ali, Institute of Food, Nutrition and Human Health, Massey University, Albany, Auckland, New
Zealand. Tel: 164 (0)9 4140 800 ext. 41184, Fax:164 (0)9 4439 640, E-mail: a.ali@massey.ac.nz
Accepted for publication 5 October 2010
The ability to execute skilled movement patterns efficiently
and effectively is the most important aspect of soccer
performance and players must apply cognitive, perceptual
and motor skills to rapidly changing situations. There have
been attempts to measure these parameters for talent
identification (or development) purposes and skill acquisi-
tion and intervention research; the aim of this review is to
examine the strengths and limitations of these tests. High
levels of perceptual and cognitive skill are characteristics of
those players who are able look in the right places for
information and process this information efficiently before
Soccer (Association Football) is the premier partici-
pation and spectator sport in the world. FIFA, the
world governing body, estimates that there are 265
million active players globally (FIFA, 2006a) while a
cumulative television audience of 32 billion watched
the 2006 World Cup Finals tournament held in
Germany (FIFA, 2006b). Thus, due to its increasing
popularity, as well as the amount of financial interest
in the game, soccer is one of the most extensively
researched intermittent team sports. Indeed, there
are plenty of subject areas that have benefitted from
scientific knowledge gained from soccer including the
natural and physical sciences, medicine and social
sciences (Reilly, 1996a).
Within the domain of exercise science, much of the
soccer research has been based on gathering match
analysis data (Reilly & Thomas, 1976) or evaluating
the physiological demands on players during training
and match play (Bangsbo, 1994). Soccer is a complex
sport, requiring the repetition of many disparate
actions, and several tests are currently being used
to assess the physical prowess of players (Rampinini
et al., 2007). For example, aerobic capacity can be
assessed using the Yo-Yo test (Krustrup et al., 2003),
simple running tests can be used to monitor speed,
agility and repeated sprint performance, and coun-
termovement jumps can be used to assess leg power.
As a full discussion of these ‘‘fitness’’ tests is beyond
the scope of this paper, the reader is referred to
170
& 2011 John Wiley & Sons A/S
deciding on a suitable course of action. The motor skills
required to successfully control, pass, dribble and shoot the
ball at goal are fundamental skills of the soccer player and a
variety of methods have been used to measure these aspects.
The tests mentioned in this review vary in their complexity
and the type of skill(s) they purport to measure. The
assessment of choice must come down to a number of factors
including cost, available time and space, number of athletes
in the cohort and experience of researchers. Furthermore,
consideration must be given to the aim(s) of the research/
assessment and issues relating to validity and reliability.
comprehensive reviews by Reilly and Doran, (2003);
Chamari et al., (2004), Stölen et al., (2005), Svensson
and Drust (2005) and Bangsbo et al. (2008). The
assessment of skill is rarely included when the fitness
of players is monitored. There is a dearth of studies
on skill performance within the research literature,
which seems remarkable when it is readily acknowl-
edged that the successful execution of skill is the most
important aspect of soccer play.
Definition of skill
Bate (1996) suggested that all sports, to varying
extents, involve the application of cognitive, percep-
tual or motor skill. As it is performed under a rapidly
changing environment, Bate (1996) claimed that
soccer involves all three types of skill. The classical
definition of skill is ‘‘the learned ability to bring
about pre-determined results with maximum cer-
tainty often with the minimum outlay of time or
energy or both’’ (Knapp, 1977). Soccer is categorized
as a free-flowing game requiring the execution of
many aspects of skill in a dynamic context. There-
fore, although there are some ‘‘closed skills’’ (e.g.
taking a free kick), soccer is predominantly an ‘‘open
skill’’ game (Knapp, 1977). In other words, a player
might have good patterns of movement (technique)
but if he does not perform the right action at the right

time (skill) then he becomes an almost ‘‘useless
player’’ (Knapp, 1977). Furthermore, another impact
on skill is the player’s ability to maintain their
technique as fatigue sets in during various phases
of the game (Mohr et al., 2003). Therefore, isolating
one aspect of the game, for example passing or
shooting from a static situation (and typically in a
rested stated), may make it an execution of ‘‘techni-
que’’ rather than ‘‘skill’’ per se. The skill aspect is
where the player has a learnt ability to select and
perform the correct technique as determined by
demands of the situation. The essence of this view
is that the cognitive component, in the form of
decision making, is a fundamental element of the
skill. In addition, having players perform sequences
of movements better resembles a game situation and
thus increases the ecological validity of the test.
Furthermore, it is important that the skill test allows
the researcher to gain consistent or reliable measure-
ments from the test.
Validity, reliability and sensitivity
To determine the validity of a test the researcher
seeks to answer the questions, ‘‘does the test tell the
truth and does it measure what it sets out to
measure?’’ Indeed, Baumgarter and Jackson (1987)
suggest that unless a test is valid, it serves no
function. In this review, the studies that have exam-
ined validity typically report ‘‘construct’’ validity;
that is, if a test score is to have real meaning then the
person(s) who is believed to possess a lot of the
characteristic being investigated should logically re-
ceive the higher score. Therefore, a skills test with
good construct validity will be able to easily discri-
minate between different levels of players. ‘‘Ecologi-
cal’’ (or ‘‘external’’) validity, on the other hand,
relates to whether the intricacies of the test reflect
what happens in the ‘‘real world’’ situation. There-
fore, a skills test with high ecological validity would
attempt to measure aspects of soccer skill that would
be typically found during actual match play. Relia-
bility or test–retest repeatability is the degree to
which a measurement instrument consistently mea-
sures whatever it measures (Barrow et al., 1989). A
reliable skills test would therefore give comparable
results for a player over repeated trials (on the same
day) or over many testing sessions (different days) –
providing of course the same physical and environ-
mental conditions were being met. Finally, a sensitive
test is one that can detect small but important
changes in performance (Currell & Jeukendrup,
2008). Therefore, a skills test with a low within-
subject coefficient of variation will be able to detect
smaller changes in soccer skill between groups or
over time. For a more detailed discussion of validity,
Review of soccer skill measurement
reliability and sensitivity when measuring sporting
performance, the interested reader is referred to a
comprehensive review by Currell and Jeukendrup
(2008).
Measurement of soccer skill
So, why measure soccer skill in the first place? The
answer to this question lies in a number of areas:
identification of talent, strategies for acquisition of
skill and interventions to maintain skill performance
during or following match play. However, due to the
difficulties in replicating the complex nature of soccer
skill in a way that can be controlled within a
laboratory context, there has been limited experi-
mental research carried out in this area. There have
been some recent attempts to examine specific as-
pects of soccer performance, including skills related
to cognition, perception and motor performance.
Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide an
overview and to discuss the strengths and limitations
of these tests in more detail. Initially, cognitive and
perceptual tests primarily used within a skill acquisi-
tion/movement science domain will be examined.
Secondly, motor skill tasks used for talent identifica-
tion (or discrimination) as well as for intervention
studies, such as the influence of training or diet on
skill performance, will be presented. Finally, the
suitability of these tests within various contexts,
and future directions for research in soccer skill,
will be discussed.
Cognitive tests
During soccer, as players are confronted with a
complex and rapidly changing environment, cogni-
tive and perceptual skills are important determinants
of playing ability (Williams, 2000). For example,
players must quickly assess information about the
ball, in relation to their team mates and opponents
and location on the field, before considering an
appropriate action based on their abilities, instruc-
tions from the coach and the current match situation
(Williams, 2000). Therefore, it is imperative for
players to possess an appropriate level of cognitive
skill so as to be able to ‘‘read the game.’’ There are a
number of ways, from simple to very complex tests,
in which cognitive psychologists and exercise phy-
siologists have tried to monitor this aspect of soccer
skill (see Table 1 for detailed methodology).
Mental concentration tests
Concentration tests are typically simple pen-and-
paper assessments, devised by psychologists to ex-
amine certain aspects of cognitive function, and used
171
Ali
Table 1. Details of various mental concentration, perceptual, anticipation and psychomotor tests as applied to soccer

Reference Test Instructions for test Participants Reliability/validity

Mental concentration tests

Stroop (1935) Stroop Color and Word
Test
Gopinathan et al. Trail-making test
(1988) (attention, visuomotor
skills and visual acuity)
Serial addition test
(working memory and
information processing
speed)
Word recognition (short-
term memory)
Hardy and Fazey Number identification
(1990)
Perceptual and anticipation tests
McMorris and Decision making in
Graydon (1996) soccer
McMorris and Recall of player positions
Beazeley (1997a)
McMorris and Speed of ball detection
Graydon (1997a)
Williams and Video simulation tests
David (1998)
Read as many words, colors or
colored words as possible in
45 s
Participants have 60 s to trace a
trail through 48 symbols in
correct order (alternating
between number and letter)
without lifting the pen from the
paper
Participants write down the total
sum of five numbers read to
them. They were given 5 s to
write down their answer before
the next strand was read out
Fifteen words (from a 52-word
list) are read out to participant
at a rate of one word every 2 s.
Participants are required to
recall as many words as
possible with percentage of
correct answers as the
performance score
Identification of numbers
ascending from 1 to 100 from a
randomized grid. Participants
have to identify as many
numbers as possible within
1 min
Slides of typical attacking
situations shown to
participants. The participants
decide whether best option will
be to shoot, pass dribble or run
with ball
Participants were shown six
typical and six atypical soccer
situations Each slide shown for
5 s and participants had further
5 s to recall positions of all
players
Participants were shown slides
where the ball may or may not
be present in typical and atypical
game situations. Participants
had to state whether the ball
was present or not
Players were presented with 6 s
film clips of attacking plays
involving ‘‘3-on-3’’ or ‘‘1-on-1’’
situations. The participants were
required to imagine themselves
as the ‘‘covering’’ defender.
Performance was assessed via
measurement of choice reaction
tine, initiation time, movement
time, response time and
response accuracy (RA)
Exp. 1: 70 students Tests are not overly
Exp. 2: 100 students reliable
Exp. 3: 32 students Reliability improves with
practice
11 young healthy No systematic check for
soldiers aged 20–25 reliability or validity
years
Not specified Not specified
18 male experienced Intra-class test of
(university) players reliability via analysis of
variance (ANOVA)
showed R 5 0.94 for
accuracy and R 5 0.79
for speed
Experienced coaches
validated attacking plays
Experienced players
showed better ability
(Po0.01)
10 male university Spearman Brown
players were compared Prophecy r of 0.83
with 10 male novice (Po0.01) for typical and
players 0.80 (Po0.01) for
atypical game situations
Experienced players
showed better ability
(Po0.01)
12 male university Intra-class test of
players reliability via ANOVA
R 5 0.94 for the typical
game situation R 5 0.79
for atypical game
situation
12 experienced and 12 Experienced coaches
less experienced players were used to determine
the ‘‘correct’’ decision
the participant should
have made
No systematic check for
reliability
Experienced players were
found to have superior
anticipatory skills

172
 Review of soccer skill measurement
Table 1. (continued)
Reference Test Instructions for test Participants Reliability/validity

Psychomotor tests
Helsen and Video Participants view life-size clips
Pauwels (1992, simulation1movement of 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4 situations.
1993) When video is stopped
participants decide on whether
to pass to a teammate, shoot at
goal or dribble past opponent.
Performance measures include
movement initiation time, ball
contact time, response time and
accuracy of decision
McMorris et al. Psychomotor Soccer Part (A) Participants shown
(2000) Skill Test video clips of 3 attackers vs 3
defenders game situations.
When video stopped
participants required to say
which attacker had escaped his
marker. Test measures voice
reaction time and motor
response time (stepping off
pressure pad).
Part (B) Participant has three
balls and three targets; pass is
made to the target representing
the previously stated (Part A)
attacker who has escaped his
marker
Experienced coaches
were used to determine
the ‘‘correct’’ decision
the participant should
have made
12 male university Intra-class test of
players reliability via ANOVA
R 5 0.96 for voice
reaction time
R 5 0.96 for whole body
reaction time
R 5 0.97 for absolute
error
R 5 0.92 for constant
error
R 5 0.92 for variable
error

by other researchers to explore cognition of soccer
players. For example, a ‘‘mental concentration test’’
developed by Hardy and Fazey (1990) was used to
study cognitive skill in dehydrated soccer players
(McGregor et al., 1999b; Edwards et al., 2007). The
test itself requires subjects to identify numbers as-
cending from 1 to 100 in a randomized grid; partici-
pants have to identify as many numbers as possible
within 1 min as a measure of cognitive function. In
both studies, there was no difference in performance
from pre- to post-exercise or between fluid and no-
fluid conditions. However, this test lacks ecological
validity and may not have been sensitive enough to
engage aspects of cognition specific to soccer.
The Stroop Colour and Word Test (Golden, 1978)
has also been used as a measure of cognitive function
in games players (Winnick et al., 2005). This test
requires participants to read as fast as possible
randomly ordered words denoting a color (e.g. red,
blue or green), name as fast as possible randomly
ordered colors (red, blue or green) and identify and
name the same three colors printed as conflicting
color words. Furthermore, an often cited study
examining the role of dehydration on mental perfor-
mance also uses a number of tests (word recognition,
serial addition and trail-making) to examine cogni-
tive function (Gopinathan et al., 1988). However, as
there has been no validation of these tests using
soccer players of different levels, then they have
limited use for examining cognitive skill in soccer
players.
Although these tests are relatively simple, inexpen-
sive and easy to administer, the application to soccer
can be questioned. They may possess a high degree of
internal validity but the poor ecological validity
renders them of limited use when trying to quantify
the complex cognitive processes during soccer. With
technological advancements, researchers may be able
to devise more soccer-specific cognitive tests but
whether they can quantify the cognitive skill required
of truly gifted players remain to be seen.
Perceptual and anticipation tests
Perceptual skill is a very important aspect of soccer
performance and has been shown to discriminate
between elite and sub-elite performers (Williams
2000). The basic premise of these types of tests is
for the participant to view certain actions or move-
ments within their display and then to react to the
stimulus using memory or pre-determined move-
ments.
Chmura and Jusiak (1994) investigated metabolic
acidosis and ‘‘psychomotor’’ performance (PMP) in
elite soccer players. Participants had to react or not
react to different colors presented on a computer

173
Ali
screen; PMP was measured from number of correct
decisions, speed of decision and maintenance of
reaction time during each trial. They reported that
the best PMP was attained pre-exercise and that the
worst performance occurred 1–2 min following an
anaerobic shuttle-running exercise. Although this
study used a large cohort of subjects (n 5 125), and
higher caliber players (Polish First Division) than
most other studies mentioned in this review, their
perceptual test is non-soccer specific and the use of
simple reaction tests may not be overly relevant
either.
In a series of experiments McMorris and collea-
gues utilized model football players (6.4 cm high) to
create typical attacking plays in soccer with the
subjects having to make appropriate decisions based
on the situation (McMorris & Graydon, 1996, 1997a;
McMorris & Beazeley, 1997; McMorris et al., 1999).
The soccer simulations were put together following a
review of the coaching literature and consultation
with experienced Football Association coaches (see
McMorris & Graydon, 1997b for a review on similar
decision-making skill tests in team games). However,
these are static displays and are based on subjective
opinion of what is the most ‘‘appropriate’’ decision.
A different experiment required participants to
view the screen from the perspective of the player
in possession of the ball and decide upon the best
attacking option (i.e. whether to pass, shoot, run or
dribble with the ball; McMorris & Graydon, 1996,
1997a; McMorris et al., 1999). McMorris and Gray-
don (1996) tested the reliability of the three versions
of the tests via intra-class reliability analysis and
reported correlation coefficients of r 5 0.94 for accu-
racy and r 5 0.79 for speed; however, this method of
assessing reliability does not show systematic and
random error and can be affected by sample hetero-
geneity (Atkinson & Nevill, 1998). McMorris and
Beazeley (1997) also examined participants on their
ability to recall players’ positions on the grid within
structured (typical of soccer) and unstructured (aty-
pical of soccer) situations. The researchers reported
that experienced players were better than novices in
the structured simulations only, possibly because it
was easier for them to remember ‘‘true’’ game situa-
tions. However, the ecological validity of using
models can be questioned, i.e. would players give
similar responses if they were in a similar position
during actual match play?
Williams and Davids (1998) required participants
to imagine themselves as a covering defender or
sweeper while watching life-size ‘‘3 vs 3’’ video
simulations of attacking plays. The video sequences
were stopped at a specified time and the participant
had to make a decision regarding the most appro-
priate defensive maneuver. Whereas, the methodol-
ogy used by McMorris and Graydon, (1996, 1997a)
174
and McMorris et al., (1999) considered attacking
options to beat the defence, the focus of this study
was on the defender’s ability to ‘‘read the game.’’
They concluded that experienced soccer players were
better able at anticipating the direction of the pass in
these simulations and had faster response times;
inexperienced players were still able to make the
correct decision but did so at a slower pace (i.e. the
participant traded speed for accuracy; Fitts & Pos-
ner, 1967). Furthermore, Williams and Davids (1998)
utilized occlusion techniques to mask various areas
of the screen to see which part of the display the
participant used to gain information from which to
make their decision. They showed that experienced
players were better able to extract information under
both occluded and full vision conditions and that
they focussed on areas other than the player on the
ball to make their decision. Williams and Davids
(1998) and Helsen and Starkes (1999) further exam-
ined visual search data monitoring where subjects
look on the display (fixations), how many fixations
they have and foveal (central) vs peripheral (off the
ball) vision. However, a full discussion of these
studies is beyond the scope of this review.
Perceptual tests enable researchers to examine
various decision-making processes for both attacking
and defensive play. Some of the tests can be criticized
for being too ‘‘static,’’ being too removed from actual
soccer play or isolating only one aspect of skill.
However, a number of these problems can be alle-
viated by utilizing a dynamic display (video). Further-
more, the more complicated the test the more
expensive the methodology becomes and the longer
it can take to set up the test (e.g. photographing/
filming scenes, determining correct decision(s) and
assessing reliability). Because of time and fiscal con-
straints, only a limited number of scenarios are
usually assembled therefore; for repeat testing,
players may become habituated to these tests. How-
ever, this can be overcome by producing different
versions of the test (McMorris & Graydon, 1997b).
The tests also rely on the subjectivity of the coaches
opinions, i.e. although the consensus opinion is used
as the ‘‘correct’’ decision an elite player may actually
choose to perform a unique (and ‘‘incorrect’’ accord-
ing to the test) movement instead. Nevertheless, using
such tests can enable scientists to carefully examine
the core aspects of perceptual skill performance in
soccer players; for example, helping goalkeepers im-
prove their ability to save penalty kicks by looking at
the most appropriate places (on the body of the
penalty taker) and for sufficient durations of time.
Psychomotor tests
As mentioned previously, skill performance requires
perception, cognition and an appropriate motor

response. Psychomotor tests, as the name suggests,
incorporate aspects of perception and cognition
followed by soccer-specific motor response(s). There-
fore, these tests are holistic in nature and more
ecologically valid than solely perceptual or cognitive
assessments. Moreover, they all tend to incorporate
dynamic (video) rather than a static display.
Helsen and Pauwels (1992, 1993) required partici-
pants to view life-size video clips of attacking plays,
and when the ball appeared to be played to the
participant, he had to perform one of three actions
(shoot, pass or dribble). As with other tests, the
‘‘correct’’ decision was based on coaches’ opinions
and so may not be appropriate for unique move-
ments. Nevertheless, using eye movement methodol-
ogy it was also possible to examine eye fixations and
foveal and peripheral vision of elite vs non-elite
players (Helsen & Starkes, 1999). Following on
from their use of static displays McMorris et al.
(2000) devised a methodology to merge a ‘‘percep-
tual’’ test, incorporating a dynamic display, with a
‘‘motor’’ control test. Participants, who were deemed
to be in possession of the ball, were shown various
life-size simulations of attackers breaking free from
(or ‘‘losing’’) their markers. For the psychological
aspect of the test participants had to state which
player had broken away from his defender whereas
the ‘‘motor’’ phase of the test required them to pass a
ball to an appropriate target. As with the aforemen-
tioned perceptual/cognitive tests, psychomotor tests
are also expensive to assemble, require extensive
equipment and considerable time to produce the
soccer simulations, and rely on subjective opinions
on what constitutes ‘‘correct’’ decisions. Neverthe-
less, they offer scientists the ability to examine the
complex interactions between CNS and motor skill,
which are very important aspects of skilful move-
ments in open-skill games such as soccer.
Motor skill tests
The actual motor tasks of passing, controlling,
dribbling and shooting the ball are fundamental
aspects to the game of soccer. There have been a
number of different ways in which researchers and
practitioners have attempted to measure such motor
skills during soccer (see Table 2 for detailed metho-
dology).
Zeederberg et al. (1996) examined skill proficiency
in tackling opponents and controlling, passing, drib-
bling, heading and shooting the ball during actual
match play. The match was recorded via two video
recorders and the investigators retrospectively
watched the game and scored players’ performances
as successful or unsuccessful. This approach does not
assess skill per se and lacks experimental control due
Review of soccer skill measurement
to the live match situation as well as the subjective
judgements in deciding success and failure. There-
fore, different motor skill tasks have been devised as
a way of assessing skill performance. Some of these
tests are part of a battery of measures designed for
talent identification (Reilly & Holmes, 1983; Hoare
& Warr, 2000; Reilly et al., 2000; Rösch et al., 2000;
Haaland & Hoff, 2003) but for the purposes of this
review they will be grouped together depending on
the specific skill being examined.
Juggling tests
Although the task of juggling a ball occurs infre-
quently during actual match play, juggling tests have
been used as a test of soccer coordination (Hoare &
Warr, 2000; Rösch et al., 2000; Vanderford et al.,
2004). The tests typically involve tapping the ball
with various body parts, while keeping the ball in the
air, within a set time limit (see Table 2 for detailed
methodology). Regardless of the method of assessing
performance, such tests lack ecological validity as
such movements are rarely performed within compe-
tition, and as elite players do not necessarily have to
possess good juggling ability, they may show poor
construct validity as well.
Heading tests
The act of heading a ball is an important ability
within soccer, whether for defensive clearances or
direct attempts at scoring a goal. Only one study to
date has attempted to quantify heading ability
(Rösch et al., 2000; Table 2). A difficulty with this
test is the consistency of the examiner’s passes to the
participant; poor or inconsistent throws will certainly
add random error to the test. Furthermore, these
tests are relatively static and so may be more repre-
sentative of technique rather than skill per se.
Wall-volley tests
These tests require players to pass the ball through
the air against a wall, control the rebound and make
further air-borne passes against the wall, typically
with a set time limit and toward specific target areas
on the wall (Reilly & Holmes, 1983; McMorris et al.,
1994; Vanderford et al., 2004;Table 2). Although a
number of attributes are being assessed (including
passing accuracy and control), this type of repeated
wall-volley passing lacks ecological validity.
Dribbling tests
The ability to dribble the ball past opposing players
is a hallmark of gifted players and hence is an oft-
measured element of soccer skill (Reilly & Holmes,
175
Ali
Table 2. Details of various motor skill tests measuring soccer skill

Reference Instructions for test Participants Reliability/validity

Skill performance based on match play

Zeederberg et al. Skill proficiency in tackling Two U-19 first Division teams from Coefficients of variation (CV):
(1996) opponents and controlling, passing, South Africa Tackling 5 4.5%; controlling 5 4.9%;
dribbling, heading and shooting the passing 5 4.5%; dribbling 5 4.5%;
ball recorded via two video heading 5 0%; shooting 5 0%
recorders placed diagonally
opposite each other on the field of
play
Rampinini et al. Assessed successful completion of Data obtained from 186 players No systematic check for reliability
(2007) various technical skills during during 416 individual matches from Players from successful teams had
match play including short the Italian Serie A league better technical performance than
(o37 m) and long (437 m) players from unsuccessful teams
passes, crosses, headers, tackles,
dribbles and shots on goal.
Compared successful (top 5
placing in the league table) vs
unsuccessful (bottom five
placing in the league table) teams/
players
Juggling tests
Hoare and Warr Participants allowed 30 min to ‘‘free 59 females aged 15–19 years No objective measures of reliability
(2000) juggle’’ with the ball using feet,
knees, thighs and heel of the foot.
Experienced coaches observed
players and provided subjective
ratings
Juggling (foot): Player juggles ball 588 players from Germany, France No systematic check for reliability
as many times as possible with and Czech Republic aged 14–41 Novice players significantly worse than
foot. If participant manages 25 years (elite and novice players); 3 top-level players (Po 0.05) for right
attempts no further attempts are separate age groups: adult, youth foot only (in all age groups)
required. Examiner measures best (16–18 years) and youth (14–16
of three attempts on each foot (1 years)
point per ball contact)
Rösch et al. (2000) Juggling (body): Examiner throws No systematic check for reliability
ball to participant who tries to play Novice youth players significantly
ball in three different orders: (i) worse than elite youth players
chest–foot–head, (ii) head–left (Po0.05); no difference between adult
foot–right foot, (iii) foot–chest– groups
head. Examiner measures best of
three attempts at each task (1 point
per successful attempt)
Vanderford et al. Participant drops ball on to knee No systematic check for reliability
(2004) or foot and taps the ball in the air No validity data reported
as many times within 30-s
period
Heading tests
Rösch et al. (2000) Standing jump: Ball thrown to 588 players aged 14–41 years No systematic check for reliability
participant by examiner who is No validity data reported
standing 3 m in front of goal. The
participant, who is standing on the
penalty spot, heads ball into goal
which is divided into six segments;
points awarded for accuracy
Running jump: Examiner stands No systematic check for reliability
3 m from right goal post and lobs No validity data reported
ball toward penalty spot. Participant
runs up from 3 m behind penalty
spot to head ball into the goal.
Same points scoring system as
mentioned above
Wall-volley tests
Reilly and Holmes Players pass the ball as many 40 players aged 12–13 years Reliability coefficient 5 0.98 and 0.97
(1983) times as possible from a Validity coefficient 5 0.61–0.66
passing zone 4.5 m away to an (relative to other tests)
area measuring 3.6  2.4 m
inside 30 s; points awarded for
accuracy

176
 Review of soccer skill measurement
Table 2. (continued)
Reference Instructions for test Participants Reliability/validity

McMorris et al. Modified version of ‘‘McDonald’s 11 amateur players (minimum of 10 Intra-Class Correlation Coefficients:
(1994) wall-volley test.’’ Players kick ball years experience) Total points scored 5 0.79
toward target 7.6 m away as many Number of passes 5 0.84
times as possible within 90-s Variable error (consistency) 5 0.86
period; points awarded for accuracy Constant error (accuracy) 5 0.85
Vanderford et al. ‘‘Johnson wall-volley test’’ requires Reliability coefficient 5 0.92
(2004) players to kick ball from 4.57 m into Validity coefficient 5 0.85
a regulation-sized goal and then
trap or kick ball on the rebound as
many times within 30-s period
Dribbling tests
Reilly and Holmes Slalom dribble: player runs with the 40 players aged 12–13 years Reliability coefficient 5 0.92 and 0.95
(1983) ball in a zig-zag fashion around five Validity coefficient 5 0.24 to 0.60
cones placed 4.5 m away from one (relative to other tests)
another; aggregate time of four
trials taken as performance score
Straight dribble: players dribble Reliability coefficient 5 0.94 and 0.95
around five cones placed 4.5 m Validity coefficient 5 0.38 to 0.69
away from each other; aggregate (relative to other tests)
time of four trials taken as
performance score
McGregor et al. Player dribbles ball between a line 67 male university players r 5 0.78 (Po0.01)
(1999b) of six cones 3 m apart as fast as 95% CI 5 0.08–6.43 s (mean score
possible 148.26 s)
Straight dribble: Participants 59 females aged 15–19 years No systematic check for reliability
instructed to dribble around 12
marker cones in a continuous
vertical line (with a 1 m gap
between cones) for a minimum of
10 times over a 30-min period.
Experienced coaches observed
players and provided subjective
rating of performance
Hoare and Warr Slalom dribble: Players dribbled ball
(2000) through four markers placed in a
reverse T position (each cone 5 m
apart) using preferred foot as fast
as possible (although no formal
time was recorded). Experienced
coaches observed players and
provided subjective rating of
performance
Rösch et al. (2000) Participant dribbles as fast as 588 players aged 14–41 years No systematic check for reliability
possible around a number of Top-level players were significantly
obstacles (posts and boxes) spread faster than novice players (Po0.05)
over 20 m in all age groups
Haaland and Hoff Player dribbles ball between five 47 male competitive players CV 5 4.3%
(2003) cones marked 1 m apart, using one
foot only, as fast as possible
Shooting tests
Reilly and Holmes Shoot the ball from 8.1 m away to a 40 players aged 12–13 years Reliability coefficient 5 0.65 and 0.81
(1983) target measuring 3.6  2.4 m using Validity coefficient 5 0.24 to 0.66
left foot (from the left side), right (relative to other tests)
foot (from the right side) or either
foot (from a position in the middle);
points awarded for accuracy
Rösch et al. (2000) Shooting (dead ball): Participant 588 players aged 14–41 years No systematic check for reliability
shoots at targets within a full-sized No validity data reported
goal from 16 m; points awarded for
accuracy
Shooting from a pass: A 20 m
ground pass is played by examiner
from the side of the goalkeeper’s
area toward penalty spot. After a
short run up, participant shoots ball
toward the goal which is divided
into six segments; points awarded
for accuracy of shot

177
Ali
Table 2. (continued)
Reference Instructions for test Participants Reliability/validity

Haaland and Hoff Player receives ball at chest height 47 male competitive players CV 5 11.5%
(2003) in front of goal, with his side facing
the goal, at a distance of 10 m.
Player controls the ball and then
volleys ball toward goal which is
segmented into different scoring
zones
Passing tests
Hoare and Warr Athletes placed 5 m apart and were 59 females aged 15–19 years No systematic check for reliability
(2000) instructed to pass the ball between
themselves for 15 min
Short passing: Player dribbles ball No systematic check for reliability
into marked rectangular area and Elite players were significantly better
then passes into a hockey goal than novice players (Po0.05) in all age
11 m away. Points awarded for groups
accuracy of passing
Rösch et al. (2000) Long passing: Participant passes 588 players aged 14–41 years No systematic check for reliability
the ball from its dead position on Elite youth (14–16 years) were
the line into a circle (2 m radius, significantly better than age-matched
36 m away) marked in the middle of novice group (Po0.05); no differences
a square target area in performance for other age groups
(10 m  10 m). Points awarded for
accuracy of passing
Haaland and Hoff The examiner passes the ball from 47 male competitive players CV 5 11.3%
(2003) the side and participant attempts to
pass the rolling ball into a target
measuring 0.4  1 m
(height  width). Fifteen passes
were attempted using each foot
with one point awarded per
successful attempt
Rostgaard et al. Participants attempt 10 long (30 m) 21 male youth elite players aged CV 5 16.0%
(2008) passes in the air to a target area 16–20 years CV 5 11.7% (when exercise was
measuring 10  5 m; points are 7 male sub-elite players aged 22– performed beforehand)
awarded (3, 2 and 1) for precision 33 years Youth players performed better than
of the pass into this target area sub-elite players under both exercise
and non-exercise conditions
(Po0.05)
Multi-faceted tests
Zelenka et al. (1967) Sprinting, jumping, slalom dribbling 12 males (17–18-year old) from No systematic check for reliability
and passing the ball over 123 m Polish Leagues No validity data reported
circuit
Northcott et al. 2  45 min circuits of variable- 10 male university players No systematic check for reliability
(1999) intensity exercise. Every 15 min No validity data reported
soccer skill was determined using
2  10 m, 1  20 m and 1  30 m
passes and a 15 m shooting task.
For each skill element error was
dependent on the distance from the
specified target
Ali et al. (2007a, Loughborough Soccer Passing 48 male University players (24 Reliability measures for whole group:
2008) Test: Participants required to ‘‘elite’’ and 24 ‘‘non-elite’’) Ratio limits of agreement (RLOA) for
complete 16 passes against four performance time: 0.92 (  /  1.32)
different colored target areas as Pearson’s correlation (r) 5 0.64
quickly as possible. Penalty time Intraclass coefficient (ICC) 5 0.64
added for inaccurate passing, poor Standard error of measurement
control and taking too long to (SEM) 5  5.0 s
complete circuit 95 confidence interval
(CI) 5  10.0 s
Coefficient of variation
(CV) 5 14.4%
Validity measures (elite vs non-elite)
20% better performance by elite
(Po0.01) (construct validity)
Median split table analysis shows
better performance by elite (criterion
validity)

178
 Review of soccer skill measurement
Table 2. (continued)
Reference Instructions for test Participants Reliability/validity

Ali et al. (2007a) Loughborough Soccer Shooting
Test: Participant sprints to a cone,
turns and sprints back to start,
passes a ball against a bench and
then shoots at a full-sized goal
16.5 m away (minimum shot speed
of 64 km/h). After the shot player
sprints past the 6-yard (4.5 m) line
to complete each shot sequence.
Ten shots performed per trial with
points awarded for mean time taken
for each sequence, speed of shot
and accuracy of shot (points
scored)
35 female players (19 ‘‘elite’’ and 16
‘‘non-elite’’)
48 male University players (24
‘‘elite’’ and 24 ‘‘non-elite’’)
Reliability measures for whole group:
RLOA for performance time: 0.96
(  /  1.42)
r 5 0.73
CV 5 17%
Validity measures (elite vs non-elite)
26% better performance by elite
(Po0.01) (construct validity)
Median split table analysis shows
better performance by elite (criterion
validity)
Reliability measures for whole group:
RLOA for time taken, shot speed and
points scored: 0.98 (  /  1.09), 1.01
(  /  1.21), 1.06 (  /  4.29)
r 5 0.58, 0.35 and 0.26
ICC 5 0.58, 0.33 and 0.26
SEM 5  0.25 s,  5.1 km/h, 
0.54 points
95 CI 5  10.0 s,  10.2 km/h,
 1.07 points
CV 5 4.4%, 9.5% and 57.8%
Validity measures (elite vs non-elite)
No difference in points scored
between elite vs non-elite
Elite players had faster shot speed
and performed each sequence quicker

1983; McGregor et al., 1999a; Rösch et al, 2000;
Hoare & Warr, 2000; Haaland & Hoff, 2003;Table
2). Most of the tests draw upon traditional coaching
techniques of dribbling around cones placed 2–4 m
away from each other in a figure-of-eight fashion
(Reilly & Holmes, 1983; McGregor et al., 1999a;
Haaland & Hoff, 2003). Using University players of
differing abilities, McGregor et al. (1999a) reported
validity coefficients of r 5 0.78 (Po0.01) and 95%
confidence intervals of 0.08  6.43 s (mean score
148.26 s); thus suggesting this type of test to be a
valid and reliable indicator of soccer skill. Never-
theless, due to the nature of such tests they can be
critiqued for assessing the ‘‘technique’’ of dribbling
rather than ‘‘skill’’ performance per se. Furthermore,
there is a greater reliance on sprinting ability rather
than facets of perceptual, cognitive and motor skill
that make up soccer skill (Bate, 1996).
Shooting tests
The clear aim of a soccer match is to score more
goals than the opposing team. Therefore, one of the
most highly valued and important skill elements
within the game is the ability to score goals (Jinshen
et al., 1991). Goal-shooting tests are usually part of a
battery of skill tests designed to assess overall soccer
playing performance (Reilly & Holmes, 1983; Rösch
et al., 2000; Haaland & Hoff, 2003;Table 2). All of
these tests require multiple attempts (using both feet)
and aggregate points scored determine overall per-
formance. Furthermore, points are awarded for hit-
ting various target areas, i.e. more for hitting the
corners and less for the middle of the goal (more
difficult for the goal keepers to defend). However, as
shots are taken from a static position, it can be
argued that they are assessing technique rather than
skill. In addition, there was no information on the
speed of the shot, thus players could have hit the ball
at speeds slower than those typical of match play.
Furthermore, some of the tests required participants
to shoot from relatively short distances (o10 m)
from the goal so they may have resembled more of
a pass than a shot.
Passing tests
Accurately passing the ball to a team mate is an
essential ability required by soccer players and many
researchers have devised tests to examine this aspect
(Rösch, et al., 2000, Haaland & Hoff, 2003, Rost-
gaard et al., 2008;Table 2). Hoare and Warr (2000)
instructed players to pass the ball over distances of
5 m for 15 min; experienced coaches would then
decide on performance ability. This type of approach
has many inherent errors including the subjective
opinions of coaches and the availability of the same
coaches over repeat testing dates; Franks et al. (1986)
go as far as saying that this method of assessment by
experts is totally unreliable. Moreover, it should be

179
Ali
noted that whether passing short or long distances
this type of test may be too simplistic to assess soccer
‘‘skill,’’ i.e. they are more likely to assess passing
technique rather than the dynamic aspects of skill.
The skill element requires players to demonstrate
passing ability under constraints of time and oppos-
ing defenders, as well as knowing who to pass to, and
with an appreciation for not only the accuracy but
also the ‘‘weight’’ of the pass. Furthermore, many of
the tests are performed on a flat surface within a
sports hall; however, match analysis data suggest
players perform more short passes on artificial sur-
faces relative to playing on grass (Andersson et al.,
2008). Whether the players’ passing skill changes as a
result of the surface conditions certainly warrants
further investigation.
Multi-faceted tests
During soccer, players are usually required to per-
form a number of skilful actions in a sequential
manner. For example, they may receive a ball,
control it with various parts of their body and dribble
past an opponent before shooting at the goal. Re-
cognizing this fact, some researchers have incorpo-
rated various elements of soccer within their skill
tests. Zelenka et al. (1967) used twelve 17–18-year-
old players to validate such a ‘‘holistic’’ test, which
has since been used by others (Abt et al., 1998;
Vanderford et al., 2004). The test consisted of sprint-
ing, changes of direction, jumping and crawling
under a 90 cm athletic obstacle, slalom dribbling of
the ball and passing the ball (using the left or right
foot where indicated) into target areas. However, the
investigators performed no statistical analysis on the
data to illustrate whether it was a valid and reliable
test and the applicability to soccer can be questioned
due to players having to crawl under netting.
More recently, two new tests of soccer skill, the
Loughborough Soccer Passing Test (LSPT) and
Loughborough Soccer Shooting Test (LSST), have
been developed (Ali et al., 2007a). Both tests were
validated using semi-professional and elite Univer-
sity soccer players (Ali et al., 2007a) and since been
used for various intervention studies (Lyons et al.,
2006; Ali et al., 2007b; Foskett et al., 2009; Stone &
Oliver, 2009; Gant et al., 2010). Furthermore, the
LSPT is the first soccer skill test to be validated for
use with female players (Ali et al., 2008) and a
modified version has also been developed for adoles-
cent players (O’Regan et al., 2006).
For the LSPT players have to perform 16 passes
against colored target areas as quickly as possible and
the penalty time is accrued for inaccurate passing and
poor control of the ball. The order of passes is called
out by one of the examiners while the other investi-
gator records the time taken and penalty time accrued,
180
the sum of which makes up total performance time.
When performing the LSPT participants need to
display a high competency in a number of soccer
techniques, including passing, dribbling and control of
the ball, to achieve a good performance time. As it can
be performed relatively quickly, the LSPT has been
used to examine skill performance at regular intervals
during exercise (Ali & Williams, 2009, Foskett et al.,
2009, Gant et al., 2010); this allows the impact of
fatigue on skill performance to be assessed. Further-
more, cognitive and perceptual aspects are also ex-
amined, as players have to decide on future actions
and use peripheral vision. Nevertheless, the order of
passes is decided a priori, and so the participant does
not decide where to pass, and the length and weighting
of each pass remain relatively constant. Although
there are strict guidelines the investigator is respon-
sible for deciding the accuracy of the pass and thus
performance. Therefore, different investigators may
award slightly different scores to the same participant.
The LSST requires participants to shoot at target
areas within a full-sized goal. To make it a test of
skill rather than technique, players are required to
utilize other aspects of soccer play (e.g. passing,
control, decision making), shoot at the goal at
‘‘realistic’’ ball speeds, within the shooting zone
and avoiding the stationary, life-size goalkeeper. To
improve the ecological validity of the test further,
players are imposed with a time limit to perform each
shot to simulate pressurizing defenders within a game
situation. As with the LSPT, the investigator decides
on exactly where the ball lands in the goal; if the ball
lands at the junctions between scoring zones, differ-
ent investigators may award points differently.
Because of the dynamic nature of the tests, while
completing the LSPT and LSST, players have to
constantly decide upon how best to control the ball,
how to position themselves for the subsequent pass or
shot, where the next target lies and so on. Knapp
(1977) has suggested that skill is synonymous with the
minimum outlay of time and energy. Accordingly, the
more skilful the player the quicker they are able to
perform the skill test. Data gathered from elite players
performing the LSPT test have revealed improved
movement time, reduced penalty time and better
overall performance (Ali et al., 2007a, 2008). There-
fore, the LSPT is able to distinguish between gross
(i.e. movement time) and fine (i.e. penalty time) motor
performance during soccer-type activity. Further-
more, although there were no differences in shooting
performance, elite players were able to perform each
shot sequence quicker and strike the ball faster (Ali
et al., 2007a). However, these tests require a lengthy
familiarization period for players to become accus-
tomed to them. Moreover, researchers have been
recommended to use highly skilled players when using
these tests for intervention studies (Ali et al., 2007a).

Practical applications
Soccer is a complex sport and therefore it is difficult
to fully assess the various component parts. Never-
theless, there are tests available that purport to
examine perceptual, cognitive and/or motor skill
performance of players. The assessment of choice
must come down to a number of factors including
cost, available time and space, number of athletes in
the cohort and experience of researchers. Further-
more, consideration must be given to the aim(s) of
the research/assessment and issues relating to validity
and reliability.
Talent identification
Most studies that use skill assessments do so as part
of a battery of tests examining other parameters of
fitness components important for soccer perfor-
mance (Reilly et al., 2000; Rösch et al., 2000). These
are relatively simple tests and aim to examine specific
skill components in isolation. However, as the prin-
ciple objective is to discriminate between weaker and
better-able players, there is a need to consider valid-
ity, reliability and sensitivity of the test(s). Reilly
et al. (2000) reported that the dribbling test was the
only statistically significant discriminator of soccer
skill out of the battery of tests they used. Players also
need to become familiar with the test very quickly so
as to avoid trial order or habituation effects if repeat
testing is required. The method of allowing players to
perform basic skills and quantify performance via
subjective ratings by experienced coaches might
alleviate some of these issues (Hoare & Warr,
2000). However, this method has its own inherent
problems; for instance, it is time consuming and
requires availability of experienced coaches who
may not be present for repeat testing. Williams and
David (1998) showed that elite players possessed
superior perceptual skill relative to non-elite players.
Although this is an important finding and useful
information for coaches, the cost (monetary and
time) of the procedures might be an issue when
many athletes have to be tested at once. Indeed, the
FIFA Medical Assessment and Research Centre’s
(F-MARC) Testing Battery was developed for uni-
versal (and international) use (Rösch et al., 2000). As
they incorporate many aspects of soccer skill within a
dynamic context, and are relatively easy to assemble,
the LSPT and LSST may be useful for talent identi-
fication purposes. However, practitioners must be
aware that athletes require multiple attempts to
familiarize themselves with the procedures before
habituation occurs (Ali et al., 2007a). Furthermore,
validation studies need to be performed before these
tests can be used for talent identification purposes.
Review of soccer skill measurement
Intervention studies
During soccer, most goals are scored toward the end
of a game (Jinshen et al., 1991). This is possibly due
to fatigue causing an increase in playing errors, and
also a debilitating effect from ‘‘mental fatigue’’ lead-
ing to lapses in concentration associated with poor
decision making (Reilly, 1996b). Moreover, the abil-
ity to ‘‘read the game’’ has been shown to distinguish
elite from non-elite soccer players (Williams & Da-
vids, 1998; Williams, 2000). Tests developed to assess
perceptual and cognitive skill appear to be the most
appropriate methodologies to examine these aspects
of soccer performance (Williams & Davids, 1998;
Helsen & Starkes, 1999; McMorris et al., 1999).
Furthermore, adding a motor component to the
test seems to make it an application of all three skill
types (Bate, 1996), thus more closely resembling
game activities (Helsen & Pauwels, 1992, 1993;
McMorris et al., 2000). However, one should be
aware that these tests require sufficient time and
financial commitment to develop. With technological
advances, and cheaper manufacture of the appara-
tus, it may be that such methodologies are available
for a wider user group in the future.
An easier way to assess, for example nutritional,
pharmacological or other ergogenic aids, or effects of
training, on soccer skill performance may be to use
simpler, less-complicated tests. However, these assess-
ments have been critiqued for being too one-dimen-
sional and for monitoring technique rather than skill per
se (Ali et al., 2007a). Tests that incorporate a number of
facets of soccer, within a dynamic context, would appear
to be superior in the determination of soccer skill.
Therefore, for intervention studies where ‘‘holistic’’
measurement of soccer skill is required, tests that
address many facets may be the most appropriate to
use. If suitable tests are unavailable then the researcher/
practitioner, to enhance ecological validity, needs to
examine patterns of play within soccer, liaise with
players and coaches and consider practical issues (in-
cluding financial cost, time and availability of facilities)
before devising a skill(s) test. In addition, the examiner
will need access to players of differing abilities, on
repeated occasions, to be able to assess construct validity
and reliability, respectively. Without adequate validity
and reliability information the results of the intervention
on skill performance should be treated with caution.
Perspectives
Soccer requires the application of cognitive, percep-
tual and motor skill within a rapidly changing
environment (Bate, 1996). There are a number of
methods by which various aspects of soccer skill
performance can be evaluated – some are specific to
a particular technique(s) whereas others are more
181
Ali
holistic in nature. When deciding on which test(s) to
utilize, whether for talent identification or labora-
tory-based intervention studies, the practitioner
needs to be aware of issues related to the cost,
time-effectiveness and practicality of use, as well as
reliability, validity and sensitivity of the test(s).
Furthermore, when utilizing such tests, the practi-
tioner should be aware of the distinction between
‘‘technique’’ and ‘‘skill’’ and report their findings
appropriately. On a final note, it may simply be
that the notion of ‘‘skill’’ is too difficult to measure
at this moment in time and we may not have any-
thing better than expert opinion as an overall pre-
dictor of ability – even if this method suffers from its
own reliability problems.
Key words: skill test, talent identification, cognitive,
perceptual, motor, technique, validity, reliability.

References
Abt G, Zhou S, Weatherby R. The
effect of a high-carbohydrate diet on
the skill performance of midfield soccer
players after intermittent treadmill
exercise. J Sci Med Sport 1998: 1:
203–212.
Ali A, Foskett F, Gant N. Validation of a
soccer skill test for use with female
players. Int J Sports Med 2008: 29:
191–197.
Ali A, Williams C. Carbohydrate
ingestion and soccer skill during
prolonged intermittent exercise.
J Sports Sci 2009: 27: 1499–1508.
Ali A, Williams C, Hulse MA, Strudwick
A, Reddin J, Howarth L, Eldred JE,
Hirst M, McGregor SJ. Reliability and
validity of two tests of soccer skill.
J Sports Sci 2007a: 25: 1461–1470.
Ali A, Williams C, Nicholas CW, Foskett
A. The influence of carbohydrate-
electrolyte ingestion on soccer skill
performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc
2007b: 39: 1969–1976.
Andersson H, Ekblom B, Krustrup P. Elite
football on artificial turf versus natural
grass: movement patterns, technical
standards, and player impressions.
J Sports Sci 2008: 26: 113–122.
Atkinson G, Nevill AM. Statistical
methods for assessing measurement
error (reliability) in variables relevant
to sports medicine. Sports Med 1998:
26: 217–238.
Bangsbo J. The Physiology of Soccer.
Acta Physiol Scand 1994: 151(Suppl.):
1–155.
Bangsbo J, Iaia FM, Krustrup P. The Yo-
Yo intermittent recovery test – A useful
tool for evaluation of physical
performance in intermittent sports.
Sports Med 2008: 38: 37–51.
Barrow HM, McKee R, Tritschler T. A
practical approach to measurement in
physical education. Dubuque: WmC
Brown Publishers, 1989: 80–125.
Bate D. Soccer skills practice. In: Reilly
T, ed. Science and soccer. London: E &
FN Spon, 1996: 227–241.
Baumgarter TA, Jackson SA.
Measurement for evaluation in
physical education and exercise science.
Dubuque: WmC Brown Publishers,
1987: 22–53.
Chamari K, Hachana Y, Ahmed YB,
Galy O, Sghaier F, Chatard JC, Hue O,
Wisloff U. Field and laboratory testing
in young elite soccer players. Br J
Sports Med 2004: 38: 191–196.
Chmura J, Jusiak R. Changes in
psychomotor performance of soccer
players subjected to an exercise test.
Biol Sport 1994: 11: 197–203.
Currell K, Jeukendrup AE. Validity,
reliability and sensitivity of measures of
sporting performance. Sports Med
2008: 38: 297–316.
Edwards AM, Mann ME, Marfell-Jones
MJ, Rankin DM Noakes TD,
Shillington DP. Influence of moderate
dehydration on soccer performance:
physiological responses to 45 min of
outdoor match-play and the immediate
subsequent performance of sport-
specific and mental concentration tests.
Brit J Sports Med 2007: 41: 385–391.
FIFA. 2006a. FIFA Big Count: 270
million people active in football.
Available at http://www.fifa.com/
aboutfifa/media/newsid=529882.html
(accessed July 6, 2010).
FIFA. 2006b. Viewing figures for World
Cup. Available at http://www.fifa.com/
worldcup/archive/germany2006/news/
newsid=13449.html (accessed July 6,
2010).
Fitts PM, Posner MI. Human
performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/
Cole, 1967: 109–112.
Foskett A, Ali A, Gant N. Caffeine
enhances cognitive function and skill
performance during simulated soccer
activity. Int J Sport Nut Exerc Metab
2009: 19: 410–423.
Franks IM, Goodman D, Paterson G. The
real time analysis of sport: an overview.
Can J Appl Sport Sci 1986: 11: 55–57.
Gant N, Ali A, Foskett A. The influence
of caffeine and carbohydrate
co-ingestion on simulated soccer
performance. Int J Sport Nut Exerc
Metab 2010: 20: 191–197.
Golden CJ. The Stroop Colour and Word
Test: A manual for clinical and
experimental uses. Chicago, Illinois:
Stoelting, 1978: 1–46.
Gopinathan PM, Pichan G, Sherma VN.
Role of dehydration in heat
stress-induced variations in mental
performance. Arch Environ Health
1988: 43: 15–17.
Haaland E, Hoff J. Non-dominant leg
training improves the bilateral motor
performance of soccer players. Scand J
Med Sci Sports 2003: 13: 179–184.
Hardy L, Fazey J. Concentration
training. In: Mental training
programme: a guide for sports
performers. Leeds: National Coaching
Foundation, 1990: 1–23.
Helsen WF, Pauwels JM. A cognitive
approach to visual search in sport. In:
Brogan D, Carr K, eds. Visual search
II. London: Taylor and Francis, 1992:
177–184.
Helsen WF, Pauwels JM. The
relationship between expertise and
visual information processing in sport.
In: Starkes JL, Allard F, eds. Cognitive
issues in motor expertise. Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 1993: 109–134.
Helsen WF, Starkes JL. A
multidimensional approach to skilled
perception and performance in sport.
Appl Cog Psychol 1999: 13: 1–27.
Hoare DG, Warr CR. Talent
identification and women’s soccer: an
Australian experience. J Sports Sci
2000: 18: 751–758.
Jinshen AX, Xioke C, Yamonakak K,
Matsumoto M. Analysis of the goals in
the 14th World Cup. In: Reilly T,
Leeds A, Davids K, Murphy WJ, eds.
Science and football. London: E & FN
Spon, 1991: 203–205.
Knapp B. Skill in sport: the attainment of
proficiency. London: Routledge, 1977:
1–6.
Krustrup P, Mohr M, Amstrup T,
Rysgaard T, Johansen J, Steensberg A,
Pedersen PK, Bangsbo J. The Yo-Yo
intermittent recovery test:
physiological response, reliability, and
validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003:
35: 697–705.
Lyons M, Al-Nakeeb Y, Nevill A.
Performance of soccer passing skills

182

under moderate and high-intensity
localized muscle fatigue. J Strength
Cond Res 2006: 20: 197–202.
McGregor SJ, Hulse M, Strudwick A,
Williams C. The reliability and validity
of two tests of soccer skill. J Sports Sci
1999a: 17: 815.
McGregor SJ, Nicholas CW, Lakomy
HKA, Williams C. The influence of
intermittent high-intensity shuttle
running and fluid ingestion on the
performance of a soccer skill. J Sports
Sci 1999b: 17: 895–903.
McMorris T, Beazeley A. Performance of
experienced and inexperienced soccer
players on soccer specific tests of recall,
visual search and decision making.
J Hum Movement Stud 1997: 33:
1–13.
McMorris T, Gibbs C, Palmer J, Payne
A, Torpey N. Exercise and
performance of a motor skill. Res
Suppl Exeter 1994: 15: 23–27.
McMorris T, Graydon J. Effect of
exercise on the decision-making
performance of experienced and
inexperienced soccer players. Res Q
Exer Sport 1996: 67: 109–114.
McMorris T, Graydon J. Effect of
exercise on cognitive performance in
soccer-specific tests. J Sports Sci 1997a:
15: 459–468.
McMorris T, Graydon J. The
contribution of the research literature
to the understanding of decision
making in team games. J Hum
Movement Stud 1997b: 33: 69–90.
McMorris T, Myers S, MacGillivary W,
Sexsmith JR, Fallowfield J, Graydon J,
Forster D. Exercise, plasma
catecholamine concentrations and
decision-making performance of soccer
players on a soccer-specific test. J
Sports Sci 1999: 17: 667–676.
McMorris T, Sproule J, Draper S, Child
R. Performance of a psychomotor skill
following rest, exercise at the plasma
epinephrine threshold and maximal
intensity exercise. Percept Motor Skills
2000: 91: 553–562.
Review of soccer skill measurement
Mohr M, Krustrup P, Bangsbo J. Match
performance of high-standard soccer
players with special reference to
development of fatigue. J Sports Sci
2003: 21: 519–528.
Northcott S, Kenward M, Purnell K,
McMorris T. Effect of a carbohydrate
solution on motor skill proficiency
during simulated soccer performance.
Appl Res Coaching Athletics Ann
1999: 14: 105–118.
O’Regan S, Ali A, Wilson F. The
influence of playing level on the skill
performance of early pubescent Irish
soccer players. J Sports Sci Med 2006:
10(Suppl.): 188–189.
Rampinini E, Bishop D, Marcora SM,
Bravo DF, Sassil R, Impellizzeri FM.
Validity of simple field tests as
indicators of match-related physical
performance in top-level professional
soccer players. Int J Sports Med 2007:
28: 228–235.
Reilly T. Introduction to science and
soccer. In: Reilly T, ed. Science and
soccer. London: E & FN Spon, 1996a:
1–7.
Reilly T. Motion analysis and
physiological demands. In Reilly T, ed.
Science and soccer. London: E & FN
Spon, 1996b: 65–83.
Reilly T, Doran D. Fitness assessment.
In: Reilly T, Williams AM, eds. Science
and soccer, 2nd edn. London:
Routledge, 2003: 21–46.
Reilly T, Holmes M. A preliminary
analysis of selected soccer skills.
Physical Ed Rev 1983: 6: 64–71.
Reilly T, Thomas V. A motion analysis of
work-rate in different positional roles
in professional football match-play.
J Hum Movement Stud 1976: 2:
87–97.
Reilly T, Williams AM, Nevill A, Franks
A. A multidisciplinary approach to
talent identification in soccer. J Sports
Sci 2000: 18: 695–702.
Rösch D, Hodgson R, Peterson L, Graf-
Baumann T, Junge A, Chomiak J,
Dvorak J. Assessment and evaluation
of football performance. Am J Sports
Med 2000: 28: S29–S39.
Rostgaard T, Iaia FM, Simonsen DS,
Bangsbo J. A test to evaluate the
physical impact on technical
performance in soccer. J Strength Cond
Res 2008: 22: 283–292.
Stölen T, Chamari K, Castagna C,
Wisloff U. Physiology of soccer: an
exercise science update. Sports Med
2005: 35: 501–536.
Stone KJ, Oliver JL. The effect of
45 minutes of soccer-specific exercise on
the performance of soccer skills. Int J
Sports Physiol Perf 2009: 4: 163–175.
Stroop JR. Studies of interference in serial
verbal reactions. J Exp Psychol 1935:
18: 643–662.
Svensson M, Drust B. Testing soccer
players. J Sports Sci 2005: 23: 601–618.
Vanderford ML, Meyers MC, Skelly WA,
Stewart CC, Hamilton KL.
Physiological and sport-specific skill
response of Olympic youth soccer
athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2004: 18:
334–342.
Williams AM. Perceptual skill in soccer:
implications for talent identification
and development. J Sports Sci 2000: 18:
737–750.
Williams AM, Davids K. Visual search
strategy, selective attention, and
expertise in soccer. Res Q Exerc Sport
1998: 69: 111–128.
Winnick JJ, Davis JM, Welsh RS,
Carmichael MD, Murphy EA,
Blackmon JA. Carbohydrate feedings
during team sport exercise preserve
physical and CNS function. Med Sci
Sports Exerc 2005: 37: 306–315.
Zeederberg C, Leach L, Lambert EV,
Noakes TD, Dennis SC, Hawley JA.
The effect of carbohydrate ingestion on
the motor skill proficiency of soccer
players. Int J Sports Nut 1996: 6: 348–
355.
Zelenka V, Seliger V, Ondrej O. Specific
function testing of young football
players. J Sports Med Physical Fit
1967: 7: 143–147.
183