Fitness Testing in Soccer
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
Revisited: Developing a
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023
Contemporary Testing
Battery
Jonathan M. Taylor, PhD,1 Jonathan L. Madden, MSc,2 Louis P. Cunningham, MSc,3 and Matthew Wright, PhD1
1
Department of Science, Sport and Exercise, Teesside University, Middlesbrough, United Kingdom; 2Leeds United
Football Club, Academy Physical Development Department, Leeds, United Kingdom; and 3Physical Performance
Department, Norwich City Football Club, Norwich, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
Soccer match play dictates that players
possess well-rounded physical capac-
ities. Therefore, player physical devel-
opment plans must consider developing
several fitness components simulta-
neously. Effective individualization of
training is likely facilitated with appro-
priate player profiling; therefore, devel-
oping a time-efficient and informative
testing battery is highly relevant for
practitioners. Advances in knowledge
and technology over the past decade
have resulted in refinements of the
testing practices used by practitioners
working in professional male and female
soccer. Consequently, a contemporary
approach to test selection and data
analysis has progressively been adop-
ted. Furthermore, the traditional
approach of using a testing battery in a
single day may now be outdated for full-
time players, with a flexible approach to
the scheduling of testing perhaps more
suitable and time efficient. Here, guid-
ance on testing for maximal aerobic,
submaximal aerobic, linear and change
of direction speed, and stretch-
shortening cycle performance (i.e., jump
testing) are presented for male and
female players, with emphasis on time-
Address correspondence to Jonathan M.
Taylor, Jonathan.Taylor@tees.ac.uk.
10 VOLUME 44 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2022
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
efficient tests, while facilitating effective
individualized training prescription. Nor-
mative and meaningful change data are
presented to aid decision making and
provide a reference point for practi-
tioners. Finally, a time-efficient approach
to scheduling fitness testing is pre-
sented, which complements daily train-
ing outcomes of a weekly periodization
approach.
INTRODUCTION
occer match play is characterized
S by high-to-maximal intensity activ-
ity bouts, interspersed with low-
intensity activity (28,89). During match
play, elite male players cover distances of
approximately 10–13 km, with approxi-
mately 800 m at high speed (.19.8
km$h21) and up to 300 m at very high
speed (.25.2 km$h21) (16). Similarly,
elite female players cover distances of
approximately 9–11 km, with .1,000 m
at high speed (.18.0 km$h21) and
approximately 250 m (.25.0 km$h21) at
very high speed (28). Tackling, jumping,
kicking, and changing direction are also
performed regularly during match play
(28,89). Consequently, well-rounded
physical capacities are necessary at the
elite level, and player physical develop-
ment programs must consider the appro-
priate development of multiple fitness
components throughout the season.
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
Fitness testing represents a useful tool
in the physical development of players,
and it allows objective identification of
strengths and weaknesses, data
informed talent identification, objec-
tive assessment of the effectiveness of
training interventions/rehabilitation,
and facilitates the prescription of indi-
vidualized programs (72). Improving
training prescription for individuals is
challenging in team sports, but a shift
toward testing protocols that can pro-
vide a deeper understanding of the fac-
tors that influence performance has
enhanced opportunity for individual-
ized prescription. Traditionally, fitness
testing has included measures of sprint,
jump, agility/change-of-direction, and
aerobic performance (95). However,
advances in knowledge, technology,
and data processing have enabled a
more comprehensive approach to
assess these capacities. Although the
premise of testing is not new (72),
the ability to collect and process data
to quickly inform training practices has
progressed in soccer, highlighting a
need to reconsider how we approach
the fitness testing process.
KEY WORDS:
fitness testing; individualization; soccer;
training prescription
 This article aims to provide strength
and conditioning practitioners work-
ing in male and female soccer with
an overview of existing testing prac-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
tices and a contemporary perspective
on fitness testing that can be used to
monitor physical capacities and facili-
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023
tate an individualized approach
toward training prescription. Further-
more, an alternative perspective on
the scheduling of fitness testing, which
is complementary to player training
schedules, is presented to implement
a time-efficient testing strategy.
AEROBIC FITNESS
Soccer players with superior aerobic fit-
ness exhibit a reduction in fatigue-
related decrements in technical perfor-
mance in the latter part of a match
and have greater robustness (59,79).
The gold standard of aerobic fitness
assessment is the measurement of max-
imal oxygen uptake (V̇ O2max) and an
associated velocity at V̇ O2max (often
termed maximal aerobic speed), which
are generally derived through
laboratory-based graded exercise tests
(GXT). Elite male and female players
are reported to possess a V̇ O2max in
the range of 62–65 and 50–52
mL$kg$min21, respectively (28,97).
However, the use of laboratory-based
assessments is time consuming, and
V̇ O2max might not be a sensitive enough
measure in soccer and may not discrim-
inate between playing standards (3,97).
Therefore, field-based tests are predom-
inantly used by practitioners.
Time trial assessments present another
means of assessing aerobic fitness, with
1,600–2,200 m (;5–8 minutes) time
trials being a time-efficient alternative
to GXT for the prediction of maximal
aerobic speed (MAS) (6). Strong agree-
ment between MAS derived through
GXT and average time trial speed have
been observed (Intraclass correlation
coefficient [ICC] r 5 0.80), with low
typical errors (coefficient of variation
[CV] 1–3%) reported for short duration
time trial performance in well-trained
athletes, indicating good reliability
(20,26). Furthermore, a minimum
detectable change of 1.3% for 1,500-
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
m time trial performance, reported
for young professional players (16–18
years), suggests high sensitivity to
changes in fitness status (35). Alterna-
tively, set-time time trials (e.g., distance
covered in 5 minutes) have been pro-
posed as a means of predicting MAS
via mean running speed achieved;
however, given the importance of pac-
ing in this type of test, given the lack of
a clear end point, it has been suggested
that this method may only be suitable
for trained runners (12). The use of
MAS to prescribe aerobic intervals is
an established practice (30,101), but
using MAS to monitor training loads
is gaining popularity given the poten-
tial benefits of using physiological con-
structs to individualize locomotor
thresholds (35). Despite the utility of
MAS in the training and monitoring
process, using MAS alone is limited
with respect to the prescription of
supramaximal (i.e., performed at an
intensity . MAS) training intensities,
which are a necessity in team sports.
Using MAS in combination with max-
imal sprinting speed, that is, anaerobic
speed reserve (ASR), presents a viable
solution (13). It was recently proposed
that considering MAS and ASR might
allow for individualized prescription of
player programs based on the physio-
logical typology of players, potentially
facilitating enhanced fitness outcomes
(80). However, further research is
needed to provide empirical evidence
for this concept.
Intermittent protocols are popular in
soccer because of their perceived speci-
ficity. Variations of the Yo-Yo intermit-
tent tests are commonly used to assess
aerobic capacity, with Yo-Yo intermittent
recovery test level 1 (YYIR1) and level 2
(YYIR2) perhaps the most popular ver-
sions. Large correlations (r 5 0.70–0.81)
between match high-intensity running
and YYIR1 performance in male and
female players have been reported, sug-
gesting that the YYIR1 has good predic-
tive validity (3). The YYIR1 also has
reasonable reliability with a CV of 8.1%
(3), and elite male and female players are
reported to cover distances of .2,100 m
and approximately 1,500 m, respectively
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
(3). The YYIR2 places greater emphasis
on anaerobic capacities and also has rea-
sonable reliability in male players (CV
10.4%), who are reported to cover
.1,000 m, data for female players, how-
ever, is lacking (3). A key limitation of the
Yo-Yo intermittent tests is the lack of a
usable outcome measure for training pre-
scription. Specifically, the distance cov-
ered/level at volitional exhaustion
provide only an index of aerobic fitness
and not a usable unit for distance/inten-
sity prescription.
Consequently, the 30-15 intermittent fit-
ness test (IFT) has gained popularity.
Performance on the 30-15 IFT correlates
strongly (r 5 0.68) with V̇ O2max, and it
has high construct validity, being reliable
and sensitive to changes in fitness status
(14). Final stage velocity (Vift) and peak
heart rate (the main outcome measures
associated with the 30-15 IFT) have
been demonstrated to have good reliabil-
ity, with ICCs of r . 0.80 and CV of
,5% reported for team sport players
(39). Interestingly, final stage velocity of
the 30-15 IFT is reported to be approx-
imately 115% of MAS (12). Although the
30-15 IFT and the YYIR1 have 50%
shared variance (11), indicating that they
evaluate a similar fitness construct, the
determining factors seem to differ with
the YYIR1 more dependent on aerobic
processes and the 30-15 IFT encompass-
ing aerobic and anaerobic processes (11).
A key strength of the 30-15 IFT is the
utility for prescription, with end-stage
running speed providing an accurate
and effective reference point for stan-
dardizing the cardiorespiratory demand
of interval training (15), for submaximal
and maximal intensity interval train-
ing (13).
In summary, various intermittent tests
are used to assess aerobic fitness in soc-
cer because of their perceived sport
specificity. Although time trial–based
testing provides valuable information,
using time trial–derived MAS alone may
be limited for prescription purposes, and
further research is necessary to support
the use of ASR. Although the YYIR tests
have received more attention in the
scientific literature and normative data
are more prevalent, the 30-15 IFT
11
 Fitness Testing in Soccer Revisited
presents valuable information for training
prescription and monitoring and is
therefore recommended for use. Exam-
ples of how the 30-15 IFT has been used
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
to guide training in team sports are
available in the scientific literature
(12,13,85), and practitioners should refer
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023
to these studies for further guidance on
programming using this test.
SUBMAXIMAL TESTING
Although maximal aerobic testing is
common practice, submaximal proto-
cols and associated heart rate measures
represent a valuable tool for more fre-
quent assessment. This is because of
the ease of scheduling as part of warm-
up protocols and the limited fatigue
experienced following the testing; fur-
thermore, the use of heart-rate measures
presents a noninvasive, time-efficient,
and relatively cheap method (10). Heart
rate measures used during submaximal
protocols include heart rate during exer-
cise (HRex) and heart rate recovery
(HRR) as an absolute or relative value,
both are indicators of cardiovascular fit-
ness that is, generally the lower the heart
rate and perceived intensity of effort, the
better (7,27). To assess HRex, the mean
of the last 30–60 seconds of a 4- to 6-
minute test is recommended (10), and
when expressed in relative terms, this
provides a good indication of relative
exercise intensity (10). Although HRR
is generally assessed 60–120 seconds
after the completion of a submaximal test
(27,69), it may be less sensitive to
changes in training status (10). The use
of HRex and HRR in combination may
provide the best chance of correctly
identifying changes in aerobic fitness.
Submaximal versions of the Yo-Yo inter-
mittent tests are available to assess the
fitness of soccer players. A submaximal
6-minute version of the YYIR1 was
demonstrated to have acceptable reli-
ability with respect to HRex (CV ;1–
3%) and HRR (CV ;6%) in well-trained
players (32,54,69). The submaximal
YYIR1 also has good predictive validity
with respect to YYIR1 performance (r 5
20.81) (3,54), and the smallest worth-
while change in HRex following the sub-
maximal YYIR1 is reported to be 1–4%
12 VOLUME 44 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2022
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
(69,74). Similarly, the submaximal Yo-Yo
intermittent endurance level 2 (YYIE2) is
reported to have good reliability with
low typical errors (CV 1.4%) in profes-
sional players and have good predictive
validity with large correlations with
YYIE2 (r 5 20.75) and match-running
performance (r 5 20.75) (8).
Alternatively, the submaximal warm-up
test proposed by Rabbani et al. (73)
might be of particular use for monitoring
purposes. Rabbani et al. (73) assessed the
reliability and validity of a submaximal 4-
minute shuttle running (standardized at a
running speed of 12.5km$h21 with 100-
m shuttles), which can easily be inte-
grated into an athlete warm-up. In male
professional players, good reliability for
HRex (mean of the last 30 seconds of the
test; CV 1.4%) and HRR (mean heart
rate 60 seconds after completion; CV
2.8%) was reported, in addition to large
inverse relationships with 30-15 IFT per-
formance for HRex (%, r 5 20.5) and
HRR (%, r 5 20.76), suggesting good
concurrent validity. The smallest worth-
while changes of 3 and 6%, respectively,
for HRex and HRR (%) were also re-
ported (73). Given the ease of adminis-
tration and potential benefits of using a
standardized continuous running speed
(10), we recommend the submaximal
warm-up test for use by practitioners in
the field for regular monitoring of play-
ers, for example, on a weekly basis.
SPEED TESTING
Sprinting occurs close to key moments
in match play, and therefore, speed and
acceleration represent key performance
parameters (33). Elite players have
become faster over time, with an
improvement of 2.5% in maximal veloc-
ity over a 20-m sprint reported between
1995 and 1999 and between 2006 and
2010 in male players (46). Furthermore,
the number of sprints (;85%) and vol-
ume of sprinting (35%) completed within
match play has increased over time in
male professional soccer (5). Accelera-
tion and maximal sprint speed can also
distinguish between playing standards,
with elite players reportedly faster than
subelite players (45). Traditionally, short
sprints of 5 to 30-m have been used to
assess speed qualities (acceleration and
maximal sprint speed) of soccer players
(95), with split times measured using
commercially available timing gates (44).
The reliability of assessing short sprint
performance using timing gates (#40 m)
has been examined extensively in the
literature, with good reliability (CV 1–
3%) reported (44).
Although assessing short sprint perfor-
mance using split-times is common-
place, other methods have gained
popularity in practice. This includes
the use of global navigation satellite sys-
tems (GNSS) to assess maximal veloc-
ity (55), which might alleviate
scheduling and practical issues associ-
ated with fitness testing by allowing
maximal velocity to be assessed in train-
ing or competition. The use of 10 Hz
GNSS has been demonstrated to be
valid and reliable for the assessment of
maximal velocity when compared with
radar gun technology (4,76). Low typi-
cal errors (CV ;1.5–2.1%) and high
correlations (;r 5 0.95) with maximal
velocity obtained over a 30-m sprint in
team sport players have been reported
(4,76). This is highly relevant given the
frequent use of maximal velocity
derived from GNSS in the determina-
tion of individualized locomotor thresh-
olds (62). In elite players, GNSS-derived
maximal velocity measures of around
9.6 and 8.0 m$s21 have been reported
for male and female players, respectively
(44,70). Despite this, GNSS technology
may not be suitable for assessing differ-
ent aspects of sprint performance, such
as acceleration. Furthermore, if practi-
tioners choose to assess maximal veloc-
ity using GNSS in game-based training
or match play, it is important to under-
stand that a true maximal velocity may
not be obtained, although there is some
debate around this (9,29,61). If GNSS is
the chosen method, players should
wear the same units to prevent interunit
difference from affecting outcomes (76);
however, it is advised that signal quality
is checked to ensure the accuracy of
data through horizontal dilution of pre-
cision and number of satellites (58).
Recent research has demonstrated that it
is possible to explore the macroscopic
 mechanical properties underpinning
sprint performance using a simple model
(81). Theoretical maximal velocity (V0),
maximal force (F0), and horizontal power
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
(Pmax) can be estimated to produce an
individualized force-velocity-power pro-
file from a player’s speed time curve dur-
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023
ing a 30- to 40-m sprint (64,81). The slope
of the force-velocity curve (sFV), the ratio
of horizontal to vertical force (RF), and
the rate of decrease in RF throughout the
sprint (DRF) are also derived from this
model and are valuable in the understand-
ing of sprint kinetics and kinematics (64).
Therefore, variables that could only pre-
viously be calculated in a laboratory are
now assessed in the field. This method
can be implemented accurately and reli-
ably using photocell timing gates, a radar
gun, or high-speed video using the My-
Sprint iPad application (41,77). The use of
GNSS data to calculate sprint force-
velocity power profiling has recently been
explored (66), but more work is needed to
validate this process. Sprint force-
velocity-power profiling provides a
detailed assessment of sprint capabilities
and can facilitate an individualized
approach to speed development (48).
For example, where horizontal force def-
icits are observed, programming should
focus on horizontal strength work (48).
Furthermore, the growth in available nor-
mative data for soccer players with
respect to F0, V0, sFV, Pmax, and RF
(%) has made this contemporary
approach more viable for practitioners.
Acceptable between-trial reliability has
been reported for the mechanical outputs
in soccer players, with typical errors of
approximately 1.5% for V0, and 3–5%
for F0, Pmax, SFV, and DRF (41), but
practitioners should consider assessing
the short-term (i.e., week-week) reliability
in their population.
In summary, speed is key to soccer per-
formance and the components of speed
(i.e., acceleration and maximal velocity)
should be assessed regularly. Advances
in technology and knowledge have pro-
vided various options with respect to as-
sessing speed, and practitioners can now
perform an in-depth assessment of speed
qualities in the field, potentially aiding
training monitoring and prescription.
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
We recommend the use of short sprint
split times as a benchmarking tool, in
combination with sprint force-velocity-
power assessment to facilitate appropri-
ate individualized training prescription.
STRETCH-SHORTENING CYCLE
PERFORMANCE
Strength is defined as the ability to
exert force, under a variety of biome-
chanical conditions (17). Although
“maximal strength” in isolation may
have limited direct application to soc-
cer performance, the role of maximal
strength in developing “explosive” or
“impulsive” athletes is important
(100). According to Newton’s law,
impulse (force x time) is equal to a
change in momentum of a body and
is a vector quantity, with both direction
and magnitude. The application of
force throughout the duration of
ground contact represents the impulse
applied, which is proportionate to the
change in momentum experienced
(e.g., ground contacts during sprinting,
jumping, and cutting/changing direc-
tion). Maximal neuromuscular efforts
have the goal of maximizing the
impulse, which determines the resul-
tant velocity as per the impulse-
momentum relationship (Ft/m 5 delta
v). For example, when accelerating in a
linear forward direction toward a ball, a
player is required to transmit an
impulse back and downward quickly.
The ability to apply the same total
force in a shorter period or more force
in the same period could thus be
advantageous in reaching the ball
before an opponent (60). Therefore,
assessing stretch-shortening cycle
function through the measurement of
maximal impulse, force, and velocity
are highly relevant.
Jump assessments provide a simple
method to estimate maximal vertical
impulse, with countermovement jump
testing most frequently reported in the
literature (22,43). Jump performance is
generally assessed through jump height
(estimation of center of mass displace-
ment) (65). Jump height is a useful and
reliable metric that describes the out-
come of the vertical reaction force and
resultant impulse in understandable
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
units for players and coaches. Estima-
tion of jump height from take-off
velocity using a force plate is consid-
ered the gold standard method (38);
however, the flight time method has
enabled a variety of different instru-
ments to be developed for the estima-
tion of jump height in the field. Flight
time and/or jump height, calculated
using optical measuring systems such
as Optojump (Microgate) or mobile
applications (MyJump), has shown
strong associations (r 5 0.96 2
0.995) with force platforms
(2,18,36,75). These methods have also
demonstrated strong reliability (ICCs
0.93–0.97; CV 3.3–4.2%). Typical mean
flight time–derived countermovement
jump (no arms) height for elite players
is approximately 30 cm in female
players (31) and approximately 40 cm
in male players (46). Nevertheless,
there seems to be value in moving
beyond this metric to gain a better
understanding of jump strategy and/or
force-velocity profile.
Jump height is a result of the magni-
tude of vertical force applied into the
ground and the duration for which the
force is applied, that is, vertical propul-
sive impulse (63). Thus, an athlete can
achieve the same jump height either by
applying a greater force over a shorter
time or vice versa, with the former
being potentially advantageous in soc-
cer (94). Furthermore, higher jump
heights will be achieved when a coun-
termovement is permitted, in compar-
ison to jumps without a
countermovement (e.g., squat jumps),
which is a result of increased propul-
sive forces (96). Force-time analysis
using force plates (63) could be bene-
ficial for identifying these strategies and
quantifying the stretch-shortening
cycle, such as countermovement (un-
weighting and breaking) and propul-
sive phase force, time, or impulse.
This allows practitioners to understand
more about a player’s neuromuscular
or stretch-shortening cycle function
(63) and provides valuable insight into
individualizing training programs. For
example, a coach may use such infor-
mation to identify players who require
13
 Fitness Testing in Soccer Revisited
a greater eccentric or concentric focus
within their physical development pro-
gram or those who may benefit from
focusing on increasing absolute force
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
production or the rate of force produc-
tion. However, there is an array of
potential metrics ranging in their val-
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023
idity and reliability (98), and it is
beyond the scope of this article to pro-
vide an in-depth overview. We recom-
mend that practitioners consider the
key variables of interest beforehand
rather than taking a blanket approach
to the analysis and follow published
guidelines, for example, McMahon
et al. (63). For practitioners without
force plates, slow-motion video analy-
sis could be an alternative to under-
stand the period in which forces are
applied and thus move beyond jump
height.
If push-off distance is controlled in a
jump, power is equal to force multi-
plied by velocity, and a player’s jump
force-velocity-power profile can be
derived using similar principles to
those outlined for sprinting (64). This
requires the player to perform squat
jumps or countermovement jumps
using a range of loading conditions.
Like sprint force-velocity-power test-
ing, theoretical maximum force, veloc-
ity, and maximum power can be
estimated. It is suggested that an opti-
mal force-velocity profile is one in
which an athlete’s maximum power is
achieved at a load equal to body weight
and that deviations from this profile
have implications for training prescrip-
tion (64). These methods are reliable
and valid (53,83,84) and can be per-
formed using photocell devices or
mobile applications (i.e., MyJump 2)
without the need for expensive force
platforms (2,24,65,87). When applied
to the countermovement jump, high
between-trial reliability has been re-
ported in athletes, with high reproduc-
ibility of rank order (ICCs .0.95) and
low standard error of the estimates
(CV ,1.0%) for jump height, force,
velocity, and power (53), but the
short-term (i.e., week-week) reliability
has recently been questioned. It was
recently reported that there is a high
14 VOLUME 44 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2022
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
standard error of the estimates across
devices (force plate, encoder, and flight
time) with high errors and low ICCs
for velocity (countermovement jump:
CV, 11.8–17.5%; ICC, 0.19–0.69; squat
jump: CV, 8.6–17.4%; ICC, 0.54–0.79)
and the slope of the force-velocity pro-
file (countermovement jump: CV,
15.5–26.7%; ICC, 0.40–0.78: squat
jump: CV, 13.9–29.3%; ICC, 0.36–
0.76) using a countermovement jump
(56). Given the disparity in the litera-
ture and that differences in methodol-
ogies are likely to influence reliability
(50), we recommend practitioners
choosing to use force-velocity profiling
follow the procedures outlined by
Morin and Samozino (64) carefully
and consider assessing the short-term
(i.e., week-week) reliability in their
population.
A final consideration is the measure-
ment of “reactive strength” through
drop or repeated jumps to assess
stretch-shortening cycle function
and/or vertical stiffness in the sagittal
plane (36,60). The reactive strength
index (jump height or flight time/
ground contact time) provides practi-
tioners with important information
about a player’s ability to transmit a
given impulse in a short period
(36,60). A recent meta-analysis
describes moderate associations
between the reactive strength index
and acceleration and top speed and
large associations with change-of-
direction performance (51). Drop ver-
tical jumps from a 30-cm box are com-
monly used to measure reactive
strength index (23,90). Furthermore, a
simple measure of reactive strength is
the 10 to 5 repeated jumps test (40),
which can be performed using photo-
cell devices or mobile applications like
the jump force-velocity profile. Jump
height, ground contact time, and reac-
tive strength index derived from the
10 to 5 repeated jumps test are
reliable metrics in team sport athletes
(ICCs .0.89 for a CV; between 4 and
10%) (23,90). These metrics are useful
for tracking at least “moderate”
changes in performance, and repeated
jumping provides reactive-strength
indexes comparable to those from a
30-cm drop jump (23,90). Although
the countermovement jump provides
an opportunity to evaluate “slow
stretch-shortening cycle activity”
(;.250 milliseconds [ms]), a drop or
repeated jump test allows an estima-
tion of “fast stretch-shortening cycle”
activity (;,250 ms) (23,96). There-
fore, we recommend including both
tests to assess stretch-shortening
cycle–related physical qualities of soc-
cer players. This is given the assump-
tion that the athlete executes the tests
with correct technique and maximal
intensity. For example, heel contact
during drop or repeated jumping
would alter the reaction force curve
and the assumption of a fast stretch-
shortening cycle activity (60). Practi-
tioners may also consider using jump
force-velocity-power profiling (Figure).
Jump testing variables also have poten-
tial as proxy measures for neuromus-
cular fatigue in soccer players (34).
These data can be collected quickly
as part of a regular gym-based strength
and conditioning session. However,
countermovement jump height alone
appears to lack sensitivity to identify
fatigue (93) probably because of play-
ers altering their strategy to achieve the
same outcome. For example, it has
been shown that the countermove-
ment jump takes longer to perform
and with a reduced eccentric compo-
nent (38). In contrast, force plate–
derived flight time to contraction
time ratio for the countermovement
jump (25) or drop jump reactive
strength index is a sensitive measure of
fatigue status (36).
In summary, the evaluation of players’
ability to apply force and specifically
the impulse that can be transmitted
over relatively short periods is impor-
tant. We recommend practitioners to
consider countermovement jump and
drop or repeated jump tests to estimate
fast and slow-stretch shortening cycle
function. We would also recommend
the addition of jump force-velocity-
power profiling and/or force time
analysis to identify individual charac-
teristics as detailed in the Figure.
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023

Figure. Our recommended jump testing approach. The green spine represents core tests that can be administered quickly/
efficiently. The amber tests demonstrate opportunities to undertake additional testing, for a more detailed
understanding of players.

AGILITY/CHANGE OF DIRECTION Change of direction ability (COD) has reporting high reliability with low typ-
PERFORMANCE traditionally been viewed within the ical CVs for the Illinois agility test (r 5
Agility, “a rapid whole-body move- context of total time to complete a 0.89; CV 2.0%), L-Run (0.94; 2.0%),
ment with change in velocity or direc- specific course. Previously, Stewart Pro-agility test (0.90; 2.2%), and t test
tion in response to a stimulus” (86) has et al. (88) assessed the between-trial (0.95; 2.0%). Perhaps, the most popular
been identified as a key fitness compo- reliability and factorial validity of 5 test in soccer, the 505 test, also pos-
nent in soccer. However, the assess- commonly used COD tests in team sessed good reliability (0.88; 2.4%)
ment of agility is complicated, with sport (male and female) players, (88). A modified version of the 505 test
perceptual and change in direction
abilities underpinning performance
(71). To effectively assess agility, distin- Table 1
guishing between perceptual perfor- Proposed testing schedule for professional soccer players*
mance (i.e., reaction time) and Test Pre-season Start-season Mid-season End-season
movement time (or total time) is criti-
cal (67). Yet, doing so in an ecologically Sprint (10–30 m) X X X
valid and reliable manner is problem- CMJ X X X X
atic, limiting the usage of agility assess-
ments in soccer (71,95). No consensus RSI X X X X
on the most appropriate agility test 30:15 test X X X X
exists, and the methods that have been
used, such as reaction to lights or audi- Sprint FVP X X X
ble cues, are suboptimal (67,71). Con- Jump FVP X X
sequently, practitioners generally opt
to assess movement time through the Submaximal warm-up test Weekly testing†
means of assessing change of direction *CMJ 5 countermovement jump; FVP 5 force-velocity-power; RSI 5 reactive strength index.
ability (i.e., changing direction in a pre-
planned task). †Weekly when no maximal testing.

15
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Fitness Testing in Soccer Revisited

Table 2 greater depth of information, but further

Normative fitness testing data for elite male soccer players* work is needed with respect to reliability
in senior players, given the unsatisfactory
Defenders Midfielders Attackers CV (%) SWC reliability reported in youth soccer play-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

Speed ers and the limited data available on

senior players (91). Subsequently, the
10-m (s) (46) 1.53 6 0.05 1.55 6 0.06 1.50 6 0.06 1.6 0.01 component parts of COD performance
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023

30-m (s) (46) 3.93 6 0.04 3.96 6 0.04 3.86 6 0.05 1.6 0.03 were further explored with deceleration
deficit (i.e., ability to decelerate while
40-m (s) (46) 5.06 6 0.04 5.11 6 0.04 4.98 6 0.05 0.7 0.03 accounting for linear speed capacity)
21 being identified as a strategy to deter-
F0 (N$kg ) (42) 8.4 6 0.6 8.3 6 0.5 8.6 6 0.6 3.0 0.1
21
mine when deceleration ability may limit
V0 (m$s ) (42) 9.3 6 0.4 9.2 6 0.4 9.3 6 0.4 1.5 0.1 COD performance (21); however, simi-
21 larly to COD deficit, data for soccer play-
Pmax (W$kg ) (42) 19.4 6 1.6 19.1 6 1.5 20.1 6 1.6 2.7 0.3
ers are limited.
RF (%) (42) 47.2 6 1.5 47.0 6 1.4 47.9 6 1.5 0.3
Assessment of technical COD per-
Aerobic fitness formance using kinematic and kinetic
MAS (km$h21) (98) 16.3 6 0.8 16.4 6 0.9 16.2 6 1.0 1–3 0.3 analysis techniques (i.e., 2-
dimensional and 3-dimensional anal-
Strength/power yses) may present additional useful
CMJ (no arms) cm (46) 39.5 6 5.0 37.5 6 3.7 40.0 6 4.9 3.1 1.0 information for practitioners (67).
21
Technical information obtained from
RSI (m$s ) (36) .2.0 .2.0 .2.0 6–7 ;0.06 video analysis such as contact times
21
F0 (N$kg ) (52) 36.7 6 5.7† 36.7 6 5.7† 36.7 6 5.7† 1.1 or joint angles/positions allows more
21 detailed training prescription with
V0 (m$s ) (52) 3.2 6 0.6† 3.2 6 0.6† 3.2 6 0.6† 0.1
respect to performance and injury
Pmax (W$kg21) (52) 28.9 6 3.2† 28.9 6 3.2† 28.9 6 3.2† 0.6 risk factors in soccer players.
Although such analysis has histori-
*F0 5 maximal theoretical force; V0 5 maximal theoretical velocity; Pmax 5 maximal power;
RF 5 ratio of force; MAS 5 maximal aerobic speed; CMJ 5 countermovement jump height; RSI cally been time consuming and
5 reactive strength index; 30-15 5 30-15 intermittent fitness test; SWC 5 smallest worthwhile required specialist expensive soft-
change (calculated as 0.2 3 between subject standard deviations); CV 5 coefficient of var- ware, the development of mobile
iation.
applications that use high-speed
†Position-specific data were not available. cameras embedded within modern
mobile phones and tablets, such as
CODTimer (1) or Dartfish Express,
has streamlined this process by al-
(within which players do not complete given course may not be effective at iso- lowing slow-motion video to be ana-
a 10-m lead-in sprint) is often used to lating COD ability and are influenced by lyzed in the field while reducing cost.
assess the COD ability of soccer play- linear sprinting ability (67). The impor- Furthermore, the CODTimer App
ers; however, the reliability of this test tance of measuring COD ability using a has been demonstrated to have good
requires further exploration in senior valid measure of the COD component between-trial reliability for total time
players (91). Importantly, it has been has been emphasized, and failure to taken (CV 2.6–3.5%) and validity in
demonstrated that the determinants assess true COD ability may result in comparison to timing gates (r 5 0.96;
of COD ability are test specific inappropriate training prescription (67). SEE 0.03s) in soccer players (1). The
(19,78), and this should be considered One proposed solution to isolate COD use of App technology presents a
by practitioners when selecting a COD capacity is the COD deficit. The COD contemporary option for the assess-
test. Starting position, COD angle, and deficit is calculated as the time differen- ment of COD ability; however, it may
entry speed have a marked impact on tial between a 10-m linear sprint and a be prioritized with special cases
performance and the underlying kine- 10-m 505 time (68). It has been demon- where in-depth analysis is needed to
matic and kinetic mechanisms (67); strated that although players with greater avoid unnecessary time costs.
consequently, there is a lack of consen- linear sprint capabilities display greater As summarized by Nimphius et al.
sus on the most suitable COD test in COD performance, they are likely to (67), given the nuanced requirements
soccer. elicit a great COD deficit, which is indic- of changing direction in different cir-
It has been suggested that COD tests ative of lower efficiency (57). These data cumstances (e.g., angle of turns, entry
that assess time taken to complete a suggest that COD deficit provides a velocity, starting position), a single

16 VOLUME 44 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2022

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Table 3 enhance training prescription or pro-
Normative fitness testing data for elite female soccer players* file players is critical. For example,
where a practitioner desires insight
Defenders Midfielders Attackers CV (%) SWC on a player’s deceleration capacity,
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

Speed using a shuttle-based test (such as

the 505-test or a 5-m shuttle sprint)
10m (s) (47) 1.69 6 0.07 1.70 6 0.07 1.68 6 0.09 2.9 0.02 may be more appropriate than a test
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023

30m (s) (47) 4.40 6 0.06 4.44 6 0.06 4.34 6 0.08 2.6 0.03 focusing more on maneuverability.
There is evidence to suggest that
40-m (s) (47) 5.71 6 0.06 5.76 6 0.06 5.62 6 0.08 3.0 0.03 much of the variance in COD perfor-
F0 (N$kg 21
) (42) 7.6 6 0.4 7.6 6 0.4 7.6 6 0.5 0.1 mance can be determined through
linear regression of other capacities,
21
V0 (m$s ) (42) 8.0 6 0.4 7.9 6 0.4 8.1 6 0.5 0.1 such as short sprint and reactive
Pmax (W$kg 21
) (42) 15.1 6 1.3 15.1 6 1.4 15.5 6 1.4 0.3 strength performance (31); however,
further work in this area is needed.
RF (%) (42) 42.8 6 1.4 42.7 6 1.6 43.2 6 1.6 0.3 Based on current evidence, practi-
Aerobic fitness tioners are advised to use tests that
are short to isolate COD perfor-
30-15 IFT (km$hr21) (84) 18.7 6 0.4 19.5 6 0.5 19.3 6 0.4 , 3.0 1.0 mance but must be aware of the lim-
21 itations of their chosen tests.
MAS (km$h ) (49) 15.0 6 0.9 14.4 6 0.9 14.4 6 1.2 1–3 0.2
Strength/power
CMJ (no arms) cm (47) 29.6 6 4.0 28.4 6 3.9 30.5 6 4.5 3.3 1.0 SCHEDULING OF TESTING
21 Table 1 displays a proposed season test-
RSI (m$s ) (28) .1.2 .1.2 .1.2 10 0.09
ing schedule for elite male and female
F0 (N$kg21) (52) 32.9 6 3.6† 32.9 6 3.6† 32.9 6 3.6† 0.7 soccer players, with reference to which
V0 (m$s21) (52) 3.0 6 0.3† 3.0 6 0.3† 3.0 6 0.3† 0.1 tests we recommend using and at which
points of the season. While considering
21
Pmax (W$kg ) (52) 24.7 6 0.9† 24.7 6 0.9† 24.7 6 0.9† 0.2 the testing schedule, practitioners should
*F0 5 maximal theoretical force; V0 5 maximal theoretical velocity; pmax 5 maximal power; adopt a cost-benefit approach. There-
RF 5 ratio of force; MAS 5 maximal aerobic speed; CMJ 5 countermovement jump height; fore, we have suggested the scheduling
RSI 5 reactive strength index; 30-15 5 30-15 intermittent fitness test; SWC 5 smallest worth- of tests (i.e., sprint and FVP) only when
while change (calculated as 0.2 3 between subject standard deviations); CV 5 coefficient of data would inform the training prescrip-
variation.
tion process, thus justifying the time-cost
†Position-specific data were not available. and additional loading. For example, we
chose not to include FVP testing at the
comprehensively valid and reliable understanding the strengths and lim- end of the season where it is unlikely to
test of COD ability for team sport itations of selected tests and how the influence prescription in off-season pro-
players is not available. Therefore, practitioner intends to use the data to grams, which are often unsupervised and

Table 4
Example of traditional testing battery with suggested testing order and rest periods*
Test Rest duration

Anthropometry assessments None

CMJ or jump FVP 3–5 min between reps/tests
RSI (e.g., 30-cm drop jump)
Sprint FVP or 30-m sprints (10 and 30-m splits) 3–5 min between reps/tests
Change of direction test (if selected) for example 505 test 3–5 min between reps/tests
30-15 intermittent fitness test NA
*CMJ 5 countermovement jump; FVP 5 force-velocity-power; RSI 5 reactive strength index test; reps 5 repetitions.

17
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Fitness Testing in Soccer Revisited

Table 5
Example integration of testing into a weekly schedule for professional soccer players (1-game week)*

Time MD+2 MD+3 MD-3 MD-2 MD-1 MD MD+1

Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC

AM Submaximal WUT technical Jump FVP/RSI Extensive Sprint FVP Tactical/Reactivity Game Recovery
Intensive Speed/Power
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023

PM Recovery Strength Tactical Strength Recovery

*FVP 5 force-velocity-power; RSI 5 reactive strength index test; MD 5 Matchday; WUT 5 warm-up test.

favor general preparation (including aer-
obic conditioning).
Position-specific normative data for out-
field players, along with test-retest reli-
ability (coefficient of variation CV%)
and smallest worthwhile changes scores
(where available) for the proposed tests
are presented for male and female play-
ers, respectively, in Tables 2 and 3.
Although it is beyond the scope of this
review to discuss data interpretation in
detail, we encourage practitioners to con-
sider the minimal detectable change for
groups and individuals with respect to
the test error and the minimal practically
important difference or smallest worth-
while change. Practical examples of using
these approaches in combination are pre-
sented by Turner et al. (93) and Weakley
et al. (99).
The traditional approach to testing in soc-
cer has been to complete a battery of tests,
which are scheduled based on the physi-
ological demands of each. As summarized
by Turner et al. (95), this approach would
often lead to practitioners using the follow-
ing order: resting and nonfatiguing tests
(resting heart rate, body composition, flex-
ibility, and jump tests) followed by agility
tests, power/strength tests, sprint tests,
anaerobic capacity tests, and finishing with
an aerobic capacity test. Furthermore, it is
recommended that the recovery interval
between tests is based on the time-
course recovery of key metabolic sub-
strates, with a minimum of 3 minutes rec-
ommended (95).
Guidance on this traditional approach
using the recommended tests is displayed
in Table 4. We have also provided guid-
ance on a more flexible approach to sched-
uling testing across a training week, which
compliments player training schedules
without occupying a full training day.
Using this approach, practitioners may
be able to use testing to complement daily
training outcomes according to the peri-
odization of a given microcycle. Tables 5
and 6 display examples of how testing can
be integrated across an “in-season” and
“pre-season” training week, to compliment
player training schedules and allow for
more regular assessments. It is important
to emphasize that the integration of this
approach to testing should only be used
during a 1-game week, given the additional
focus on recovery and tactical preparation
needed in a multigame week.
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
In summary, this article aimed to pro-
vide practitioners with a contemporary
overview of fitness testing practices for
professional/well-trained soccer players.
While adhering to the basic testing
principles of reliability, validity, and
practicality are key, we propose that
the key aims of fitness testing in soc-
cer should be to enhance training pre-
scription on a squad/individual level
and have therefore suggested the
most practical tests to do this. The
testing protocols outlined present
evidence-based practices that might
allow practitioners to take advantage
of theoretical and technological
advances that have occurred over
the past decade in sport science. Each
of the tests recommended can facili-
tate the development of individual-
ized training programs and enhance
the physical profile of well-trained
male and female soccer players. We
also highlighted an alternative
approach to the scheduling of testing
in a full-time training environment.
Although traditional practice has
been to schedule a “testing day” that
may be necessitated in some environ-
ments, the use of a multiday “micro-
dosing” approach might allow for a
time-efficient and complimentary
testing battery that can be integrated

Table 6
Example Integration of testing into a weekly schedule for professional soccer players (pre-season)*
Time Mon Tues Weds Thurs Fri Sat Sun

AM CMJ + 30-15 RSI Extensive Technical 30-m Sprint Extensive Recovery

Technical Intensive Intensive
PM Strength Technical Strength Recovery Strength Recovery
Bolded text denotes fitness test.

*CMJ 5 countermovement jump; RSI 5 reactive strength index test; 30-15, 30-15 5 intermittent fitness test.

18 VOLUME 44 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2022

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 into player programs while limiting
interference with training practices.
Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
direction performance. J Sports Sci 37: 2420–
2424, 2019.
2. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Glaister M, Lockey RA.
The validity and reliability of an iPhone app for
measuring vertical jump performance. J Sports
method to quantify deceleration during
change of direction performance. J Strength
Cond Res, 2020. doi: 10.1519/
JSC.0000000000003856.
22. Claudino JG, Cronin J, Mezêncio B, et al. The

The authors report no conflicts of interest Sci 33: 1574–1579, 2014.
3. Bangsbo J, Iaia FM, Krustrup P. The Yo-Yo
and no source of funding. intermittent recovery test. Sports Med 38: 37–51,
2008.
4. Barbero-Álvarez JC, Coutts A, Granda J,
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023
countermovement jump to monitor
neuromuscular status: A meta-analysis. J Sci
Med Sport 20: 397–402, 2017.
23. Comyns TM, Flanagan EP, Fleming S, Fitzgerald
E, Harper DJ. Interday reliability and usefulness of

Barbero-Álvarez V, Castagna C. The validity
Jonathan M. and reliability of a global positioning satellite
Taylor is a lec- system device to assess speed and repeated
sprint ability (RSA) in athletes. J Sci Med Sport
turer in Sport 13: 232–235, 2010.
and Exercise at 5. Barnes C, Archer D, Bush M, Hogg R, Bradley
P. The evolution of physical and technical
Teesside performance parameters in the English
University. Premier League. Int J Sports Med 35: 1–6,
2014.
6. Bellenger CR, Fuller JT, Nelson MJ, et al.
Predicting maximal aerobic speed through set
distance time-trials. Eur J Appl Physiol 115:
2593–2598, 2015.
7. Borresen J, Lambert MI. Autonomic control of
heart rate during and after exercise. Sports Med
38: 633–646, 2008.
Jonathan L. 8. Bradley PS, Mohr M, Bendiksen M, et al. Sub-
Madden is head maximal and maximal yo–yo intermittent
endurance test level 2: Heart rate response,
of Academy Ath- reproducibility and application to elite soccer. Eur
letic Develop- J Appl Physiol 111: 969–978, 2011.
9. Buchheit M, Simpson BM, Hader K, Lacome M.
ment at Leeds Occurrences of near-to-maximal speed-running
United Foot- bouts in elite soccer: Insights for training
prescription and injury mitigation. Sci Med
ball Club. Football: 1–6, 2020.
10. Buchheit M. Monitoring training status with HR
measures: Do all roads lead to rome?. Front
Physiol 5, 2014. doi: 10.3389/
fphys.2014.00073.:
11. Buchheit M, Rabbani A. The 30–15 intermittent
fitness test versus the yo-yo intermittent recovery
Louis P. test level 1: Relationship and sensitivity to
Cunningham is training. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 9: 522–524,
2014.
first team 12. Buchheit M, Laursen PB. High-intensity interval
strength and training, solutions to the programming puzzle.
Sports Med 43: 313–338, 2013.
conditioning
13. Buchheit M. Individualizing High-Intensity
coach at Norwich Interval Training in Intermittent Sport Athletes
City Foot- with the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test. NSCA
Hot Topic Series [online], 2011.
ball Club. 14. Buchheit M. The 30–15 intermittent fitness test:
10 year review. Myorobie J 1: 146–154, 2010.
15. Buchheit M. The 30-15 intermittent fitness test:
Accuracy for individualizing interval training of
young intermittent sport players. J Strength Cond
Res 22: 365–374, 2008.
Matthew
16. Carling C, Bradley P, McCall A, Dupont G.
Wright in a lec- Match-to-match variability in high-speed running
turer in Biome- activity in a professional soccer team. J Sports
Sci 34: 2215–2223, 2016.
chanics and 17. Carroll TJ, Riek S, Carson RG. Neural
Strength and adaptations to resistance training. Sports Med
31: 829–840, 2001.
Conditioning at 18. Castagna C, Ganzetti M, Ditroilo M, et al.
Teesside Concurrent validity of vertical jump performance
assessment systems. J Strength Cond Res 27:
University. 761–768, 2013.
19. Chaouachi A, Manzi V, Chaalali A, et al.
Determinants analysis of change-of-direction
ability in elite soccer players. J Strength Cond
Res 26: 2667–2676, 2012.
20. Clancy C, Green P, Curnyn S, Donaldson E, Ring
N. The concurrent validity and between-session
reliability of a 1000m time trial for the assessment
REFERENCES of aerobic fitness in elite development soccer
1. Balsalobre-Fernández C, Bishop C, Beltrán- players. Sports Perf Sci Rep, 92: 1–3, 2019.
Garrido JV, et al. The validity and reliability of a 21. Clarke R, Read PJ, De Ste Croix M, Hughes J.
novel app for the measurement of change of The deceleration deficit: A novel field-based
a reactive strength index derived from 2 maximal
rebound jump tests. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 14:
1200–1204, 2019.
24. Contreras-Diaz G, Jerez-Mayorga D, Delgado-
Floody P, Arias-Poblete L. Methods of evaluating
the force-velocity profile through the vertical jump
in athletes: A systematic review. Archivos de
Medi Dep: 333–339, 2018.
25. Cormack SJ, Newton RU, McGuigan MR, Doyle
TL. Reliability of measures obtained during single
and repeated countermovement jumps. Int J
Sports Physiol Perf 3: 131–144, 2008.
26. Currell K, Jeukendrup AE. Validity, reliability and
sensitivity of measures of sporting performance.
Sports Med 38: 297–316, 2008.
27. Daanen HA, Lamberts RP, Kallen VL, Jin A, Van
Meeteren NL. A systematic review on heart-rate
recovery to monitor changes in training status in
athletes. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 7: 251–260,
2012.
28. Datson N, Hulton A, Andersson H, et al. Applied
physiology of female soccer: An update. Sports
Med 44: 1225–1240, 2014.
29. Djaoui L, Chamari K, Owen A, Dellal A. Maximal
sprinting speed of elite soccer players during
training and matches. J Strength Cond Res 31:
1509–1517, 2017.
30. Dupont G, Akakpo K, Berthoin S. The effect of in-
season, high-intensity interval training in soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 18: 584–589,
2004.
31. Emmonds S, Nicholson G, Begg C, Jones B,
Bissas A. Importance of physical qualities for
speed and change of direction ability in elite
female soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 33:
1669–1677, 2019.
32. Fanchini M, Castagna C, Coutts AJ, et al. Are the
yo-yo intermittent recovery test levels 1 and 2
both useful? Reliability, responsiveness and
interchangeability in young soccer players.
J Sports Sci 32: 1950–1957, 2014.
33. Faude O, Koch T, Meyer T. Straight sprinting is
the most frequent action in goal situations in
professional football. J Sports Sci 30: 625–631,
2012.
34. Fitzpatrick JF, Akenhead R, Russell M, Hicks KM,
Hayes PR. Sensitivity and reproducibility of a
fatigue response in elite youth football players.
Sci Med Football 3: 214–220, 2019.
35. Fitzpatrick JF, Hicks KM, Hayes PR. Dose–
response relationship between training load and
changes in aerobic fitness in professional youth
soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 13:
1365–1370, 2018.
36. Flanagan EP, Comyns TM. The use of contact
time and the reactive strength index to optimize
fast stretch-shortening cycle training. Strength
Cond J 30: 32–38, 2008.
37. Gathercole RJ, Sporer BC, Stellingwerff T,
Sleivert GG. Comparison of the capacity of
different jump and sprint field tests to detect
neuromuscular fatigue. J Strength Cond Res 29:
2522–2531, 2015.
38. Glatthorn JF, Gouge S, Nussbaumer, et al.
Validity and reliability of Optojump photoelectric
cells for estimating vertical jump height.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 556–560, 2011.
39. Grgic J, Lazinica B, Pedisic Z. Test-retest
reliability of the 30–15 intermittent fitness test
(IFT): A systematic review. J Sport Health Sci 10:
413–418, 2020.

19
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com

Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
 Fitness Testing in Soccer Revisited
40. Harper D, Hobbs S, Moore J. The 10 to 5
Repeated Jump Test. A New Test for Evaluating
Reactive Strength. Chester, United Kingdom:
BASES Student Conference, 2011.
41. Haugen TA, Breitschädel F, Samozino P. Power-
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
force-velocity profiling of sprinting athletes:
Methodological and practical considerations
when using timing gates. J Strength Cond Res
34: 1769–1773, 2020.
42. Haugen TA, Breitschädel F, Seiler S. Sprint
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023
mechanical properties in soccer players
according to playing standard, position, age
and sex. J Sports Sci 38: 1070–1076, 2020.
43. Haugen TA, Breitschädel F, Wiig H, Seiler S.
Countermovement jump height in national-team
Athletes of various sports: A framework for
practitioners and scientists. Int J Sports Physiol
Perf 1: 1–6, 2020.
44. Haugen T, Buchheit M. Sprint running
performance monitoring: Methodological and
practical considerations. Sports Med 46: 641–
656, 2016.
45. Haugen TA, Tønnessen E, Hisdal J, Seiler S. The
role and development of sprinting speed in
soccer. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 9: 432–441,
2014.
46. Haugen TA, Tonnessen E, Seiler S. Anaerobic
performance testing of professional soccer
players 1995-2010. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 8:
148–156, 2013.
47. Haugen TA, Tønnessen E, Seiler S. Speed and
countermovement-jump characteristics of elite
female soccer players, 1995–2010. Int J Sports
Physiol Perf 7: 340–349, 2012.
48. Hicks DS, Schuster JG, Samozino P, Morin JB.
Improving mechanical effectiveness during sprint
acceleration: Practical recommendations and
guidelines. Strength Cond J 42: 45–62, 2020.
49. Ingebrigtsen J, Dillern T, Shalfawi S. Aerobic
capacities and anthropometric characteristics of
elite female soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
25: 3352–3357, 2011.
50. Janicijevic D, Knezevic OM, Mirkov DM, et al.
Assessment of the force-velocity relationship
during vertical jumps: Influence of the
starting position, analysis procedures and
number of loads. Eur J Sport Sci 20: 614–
623, 2020.
51. Jarvis P, Turner A, Read P, Bishop C. Reactive
strength index and its associations with measures
of physical and sports performance: A systematic
review with meta-analysis. Sports Med, 2021.
doi: 10.1007/s40279-021-01566-y.
52. Jiménez-Reyes P, Samozino P, Garcı́a-Ramos A,
et al. Relationship between vertical and horizontal
force-velocity-power profiles in various sports
and levels of practice. Peer J 6: 1–18, 2018. doi:
10.7717/peerj.5937.
53. Jiménez-Reyes P, Samozino P, Pareja-Blanco F,
et al. Validity of a simple method for measuring
force-velocity-power profile in countermovement
jump. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 12: 36–43, 2017.
54. Krustrup P, Mohr M, Amstrup T, et al. The yo-yo
intermittent recovery test: Physiological
response, reliability, and validity. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 35: 697–705, 2003.
55. Kyprianou E, Lolli L, Haddad HA, Di Salvo V, et al.
A novel approach to assessing validity in sports
performance research: Integrating expert
practitioner opinion into the statistical analysis.
Sci Med Football 3: 333–338, 2019.
56. Lindberg K, Solberg P, Bjørnsen T, et al. Force-
velocity profiling in athletes: Reliability and
agreement across methods. PLoS One 16: 1–
20, 2021.
57. Loturco I, Pereira L, Freitas TE. Maximum
acceleration performance of professional soccer
players in linear sprints: Is there a direct
connection with change-of-direction ability?
PLoS one 14: e0216806, 2019.
58. Malone JJ, Lovell R, Varley MC, Coutts AJ.
Unpacking the black box: Applications and
20 VOLUME 44 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2022
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
considerations for using GPS devices in sport. Int
J Sports Physiol Perf 12: S2–S18, 2017.
59. Malone S, Owen A, Mendes B, et al. High-speed
running and sprinting as an injury risk factor in
soccer: Can well-developed physical qualities
reduce the risk? J Sci Med Sport 21: 257–262,
2018.
60. Maloney SJ, Fletcher IM. Lower limb stiffness
testing in athletic performance: A critical review.
Sports Biomech, 2018.
61. Massard T, Eggers T, Lovell R. Peak speed
determination in football: Is sprint testing
necessary? Sci Med Football 2: 123–126,
2018.
62. McCall A, Pruna R, Van der Horst N, et al.
Exercise-based strategies to prevent muscle
injury in male elite footballers: An expert-led
delphi survey of 21 practitioners belonging to 18
teams from the big-5 European leagues. Sports
Med 50: 1667–1681, 2020.
63. McMahon JJ, Suchomel TJ, Lake JP, Comfort P.
Understanding the key phases of the
countermovement jump force-time curve.
Strength Cond J 40: 96–106, 2018.
64. Morin JB, Samozino P. Interpreting power-force-
velocity profiles for individualized and specific
training. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 11: 267–272,
2016.
65. Morin JB, Jiménez-Reyes P, Brughelli M,
Samozino P. When jump height is not a good
indicator of lower limb maximal power output:
Theoretical demonstration, experimental
evidence and practical solutions. Sports Med 49:
999–1006, 2019.
66. Morin JB, Le Mat Y, Osgnach C, et al. Individual
acceleration-speed profile in-situ: A proof of
concept in professional football players.
J Biomech 123: 110524, 2021. doi: 10.1016/
j.jbiomech.2021.110524.
67. Nimphius S, Callaghan SJ, Bezodis NE, Lockie
RG. Change of direction and agility tests:
Challenging our current measures of
performance. Strength Cond J 40: 26–38, 2018.
68. Nimphius S, Geib G, Spiteri T, Carlisle D.
Change of direction” deficit measurement in
Division I American football players. J Aust
Strength Cond 21: 115–117, 2013.
69. Owen C, Jones P, Comfort P. The reliability of the
submaximal version of the Yo-Yo intermittent
recovery test in elite youth soccer. J Trainology 6:
31–34, 2017.
70. Park LA, Scott D, Lovell R. Velocity zone
classification in elite women’s football: Where do
we draw the lines? Sci Med Football 3: 21–28,
2019.
71. Paul DJ, Gabbett TJ, Nassis GP. Agility in team
sports: Testing, training and factors affecting
performance. Sports Med 46: 421–442, 2016.
72. Pyne DB, Spencer M, Mujika I. Improving the
value of fitness testing for football. Int J Sports
Physiol Perf 9: 511–514, 2014.
73. Rabbani A, Kargarfard M, Twist C. Reliability and
validity of a submaximal warm-up test for
monitoring training status in professional soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 32: 326–333,
2018.
74. Rago V, Krustrup P, Martı́n-Acero R, Rebelo A,
Mohr M. Training load and submaximal heart rate
testing throughout a competitive period in a top-
level male football team. J Sports Sci 38: 1408–
1415, 2020.
75. Rago V, Brito J, Figueiredo P, et al.
Countermovement jump analysis using different
portable devices: Implications for field testing.
Sports 6: 91, 2018.
76. Roe G, Darrall-Jones J, Black C, et al. Validity of
10-HZ GPS and timing gates for assessing
maximum velocity in professional rugby union
players. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 12: 836–839,
2017.
77. Romero-Franco N, Jiménez-Reyes P,
Castaño-Zambudio A, et al. Sprint
performance and mechanical outputs
computed with an iPhone app: Comparison
with existing reference methods. Eur J Sport
Sci 17: 386–392, 2017.
78. Rouissi M, Chtara M, Owen A, Burnett A,
Chamari K. Change of direction ability in young
elite soccer players: Determining factors vary
with angle variation. J Sports Med Phys Fitness
57: 960–968, 2017.
79. Russell M, Kingsley M. Influence of exercise on
skill proficiency in soccer. Sports Med 41: 523–
539, 2011.
80. Sandford GN, Laursen PB, Buchheit M.
Anaerobic speed/power reserve and sport
performance: Scientific basis, current
applications and future directions. Sports Med:
51: 2017–2028, 2021.
81. Samozino P, Rabita G, Dorel S, et al. A simple
method for measuring power, force, velocity
properties, and mechanical effectiveness in sprint
running. Scand J Med Sci Sports 26: 648–658,
2016.
82. Samozino P, Rejc E, Di Prampero PE, Belli A,
Morin JB. Optimal force–velocity profile in bal-
listic movements—Altius. Med Sci Sports Exerc
44: 313–322, 2012.
83. Samozino P, Morin JB, Hintzy F, Belli A. A simple
method for measuring force, velocity and power
output during squat jump. J Biomech 41: 2940–
2945, 2008.
84. Scott D, Haigh J, Lovell R. Physical
characteristics and match performances in
women’s international versus domestic-level
football players: A 2-year, league-wide study. Sci
Med Football 4: 211–215, 2020.
85. Scott TJ. Testing, prescribing and monitoring
training in team sports: The efficiency and
versatility of the 30-15 Intermittent Fitness Test.
Sport Perf Sci Rep, 2018: 1–5.
86. Sheppard JM, Young WB. Agility literature
review: Classifications, training and testing.
J Sports Sci 24: 919–932, 2006.
87. Stanton R, Wintour SA, Kean CO. Validity and
intra-rater reliability of MyJump app on iPhone 6s
in jump performance. J Sci Med Sport 20: 518–
523, 2017.
88. Stewart PF, Turner AN, Miller SC. Reliability,
factorial validity, and interrelationships of five
commonly used change of direction speed
tests. Scand J Med Sci Sports 24: 500–506,
2014.
89. Stølen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, Wisløff U.
Physiology of soccer. Sports Med 35: 501–536,
2005.
90. Stratford C, Dos-Santos T, McMahon JJ. A
comparison between the drop jump and 10/5
repeated jumps test to measure the reactive
strength index. Prof Strength Cond J 57: 23–28,
2020.
91. Taylor JM, Cunningham L, Hood P, Thorne B, Irvin
G, Weston M. The reliability of a modified 505
test and change-of-direction deficit time in elite
youth football players. Sci Med Football 3: 157–
162, 2019.
92. Thorpe RT, Strudwick AJ, Buchheit M. Monitoring
fatigue during the in-season competitive phase in
elite soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perf 10:
958–964, 2015.
93. Turner AN, Parmar N, Jovanovski A, Hearne G.
Assessing group-based changes in high-
performance sport. Part 2: Effect sizes and
embracing uncertainty through confidence
intervals. Strength Cond J 43: 68–77, 2021.
94. Turner AN, Comfort P, McMahon J, et al.
Developing powerful athletes, Part 1: Mechanical
underpinnings. Strength Cond J 42: 30–39,
2020.
95. Turner A, Walker S, Stembridge M. A testing
battery for the assessment of fitness in soccer
players. Strength Cond J 33: 29–39, 2011.
 96. Turner AN, Jeffreys I. The stretch-shortening cycle:
Proposed mechanisms and methods for
enhancement. Strength Cond J 32: 87–99, 2010.
97. Tønnessen E, Hem E, Leirstein S, Haugen T,
Seiler S. Maximal aerobic power
Downloaded from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-scj by BhDMf5ePHKav1zEoum1tQfN4a+kJLhEZgbsIHo4XMi0hCywC
characteristics of male professional soccer
players, 1989–2012. Int J Sports Physiol Perf
8: 323–329, 2013.
X1AWnYQp/IlQrHD3i3D0OdRyi7TvSFl4Cf3VC4/OAVpDDa8K2+Ya6H515kE= on 07/05/2023
Copyright © National Strength and Conditioning Association. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
98. Warr DM, Pablos C, Sánchez-Alarcos JV, et al.
Reliability of measurements during
countermovement jump assessments: Analysis of
performance across subphases. Cogent Soc Sci
6: 843–835, 2020.
99. Weakley J, Mann B, Banyard H, et al. Velocity-
based training: From theory to application.
Strength Cond J 43: 31–49, 2021.
21
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
100. Winter EM, Abt G, Brookes FC, et al. Misuse of
“power” and other mechanical terms in sport and
exercise science research. J Strength Cond Res 30:
292–300, 2016.
101. Wong PL, Chaouachi A, Chamari K, Dellal A, Wisloff U.
Effect of preseason concurrent muscular strength and
high-intensity interval training in professional soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 24: 653–6601, 2010.