International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, (Ahead of Print)

https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2023-0444
© 2024 Human Kinetics, Inc. ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION
First Published Online: Feb. 24, 2024

Predicting Soccer Players’ Fitness Status

Through a Machine-Learning Approach
Mauro Mandorino,1,2 Jo Clubb,3 and Mathieu Lacome1,4
1
Performance and Analytics Department, Parma Calcio 1913, Parma, Italy; 2Department of Movement, Human and Health Sciences,
University of Rome “Foro Italico,” Rome, Italy; 3Global Performance Insights Ltd, London, United Kingdom;
4
Laboratory of Sport, Expertise and Performance (EA 7370), French Institute of Sport (INSEP), Paris, France

Purpose: The study had 3 purposes: (1) to develop an index using machine-learning techniques to predict the fitness status of soccer
players, (2) to explore the index’s validity and its relationship with a submaximal run test (SMFT), and (3) to analyze the impact of
weekly training load on the index and SMFT outcomes. Methods: The study involved 50 players from an Italian professional soccer
club. External and internal loads were collected during training sessions. Various machine-learning algorithms were assessed for their
ability to predict heart-rate responses during the training drills based on external load data. The fitness index, calculated as the
difference between actual and predicted heart rates, was correlated with SMFT outcomes. Results: Random forest regression (mean
absolute error = 3.8 [0.05]) outperformed the other machine-learning algorithms (extreme gradient boosting and linear regression).
Average speed, minutes from the start of the training session, and the work:rest ratio were identified as the most important features. The
fitness index displayed a very large correlation (r = .70) with SMFT outcomes, with the highest result observed during possession
games and physical conditioning exercises. The study revealed that heart-rate responses from SMFT and the fitness index could
diverge throughout the season, suggesting different aspects of fitness. Conclusions: This study introduces an “invisible monitoring”
approach to assess soccer player fitness in the training environment. The developed fitness index, in conjunction with traditional fitness
tests, provides a comprehensive understanding of player readiness. This research paves the way for practical applications in soccer,
enabling personalized training adjustments and injury prevention.

Keywords: football, heart rate, training load, prediction, test

It is now commonplace to use technology in the soccer environ-
ment to gain insight into player training status. Tracking technologies
such as global positioning systems (GPS) quantify the external load,
which is the work completed by the athlete.1 Meanwhile, internal
load, the physiological cost associated with such work,1 is often
captured through heart-rate (HR) monitoring. The relationship
between external and internal load has been widely used to evaluate
the fitness status of the players.2–4 Most simply, ratios between
internal and external load have been used as a representation of work
efficiency.2 Linear models have been developed but so far, either
using only one external load metric2,3 or multiple one but not
accounting for nonlinear relationships5 and could represent simplistic
approaches. Indeed, the ability of external load metrics to predict
internal load is likely player-specific, and as such, models that
integrate individual combinations of external load variables are
thought to be superior.5
Another approach is to integrate a submaximal fitness test
(SMFT) into the training plan, which enables a physiological state
assessment via the internal load response to a fixed external load, that
is, a standardized physical stimulus.6 SMFT is generally performed
with a short duration (3–15 min) and variable protocol (eg, continuous
or intermittent). A recent convergent validity meta-analysis of 20
studies indicated an inverse, large relationship between HR measured
at the end of the SMFT and endurance test performance.7 Such an
approach has become increasingly popular, as it negates the need for
Clubb https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6509-7531
Lacome https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1082-0200
Mandorino (mmandorino@parmacalcio1923.com) is corresponding
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5858-2758
maximal fitness testing, which can be time-consuming, fatiguing, and
therefore disruptive to the training needs of the players.8 Therefore,
SMFT may enable player monitoring, thereby mitigating the physical
and mental burdens associated with the classic longer maximal test.6
Conversely, SMFT has also been criticized for requiring additional
training time and may be limited by coach willingness to include
them,8 especially during congested period.9
For this reason, noninvasive monitoring strategies that utilize
data already collected within the training environment, without the
need for any additional testing, are particularly appealing. This
approach is widely referred to as “invisible monitoring.”10 One
example was proposed by Lacome et al,5 in which the authors
adopted a linear regression (LR) approach to predict HR response
during small-sided games from external load data. The difference
between the actual HR and predicted HR was used as a fitness index
(FI). However, there were several limitations to this study; namely,
the analysis was limited to 10 players, simple LR models were built
for each player, thus preventing the generalizability of prediction,
and the models were fit on the entire data set thereby increasing the
risk of overfitting.5
Therefore, the current study aims to improve the approach
proposed in Lacome et al5 to further explore the feasibility of using
machine learning (ML) techniques to assess the fitness status of
soccer players within their training environment. To date, ML has
been employed for numerous purposes in soccer such as injury
prevention,11,12 performance analysis,13,14 or technical/tactical
analysis.15 This widespread use is closely linked to its ability to
model complex and nonlinear interactions inside high-dimensional
author, data.11 Therefore, the study presents 4 objectives: (1) building a FI
based on a ML approach, (2) analyzing the validity of the index,
1
2 Mandorino, Clubb, and Lacome

(3) assessing the impact of weekly workload on the FI variation,
and (4) compare the FI to SMFT outcomes.
Methods
Subjects
The study has been conducted during the 2022/2023 soccer season.
Fifty players from a men’s first team (n: 22, age: 24.1 [4.7] y, body
mass: 80.5 [6.1] kg, height: 185.1 [5.2] cm), U19 team (n: 18, age:
18.4 [0.6] y, body mass: 76 [8.5] kg, height: 181.4 [6.8] cm), and
U18 team (n: 10, age: 17.7 [0.3] y, body mass: 69.1 [4.6] kg, height:
179.5 [8.9] cm) competing in an Italian professional soccer club
were recruited for the current study. The data collection was
obtained from the club as the players were routinely monitored
throughout the season. Therefore, the usual procedure for ethics
committee clearance was not required.16 However, all data were
anonymized before the analysis to guarantee team and players’
confidentiality, and the study was conducted following the Decla-
ration of Helsinki.
Internal load data (HR) was recorded with a sampling frequency
of 4 Hz using a Garmin HR band (Garmin Ltd) and synchronized
using a telemetry system (WIMU PRO RealTrack Systems).21 The
physiological intensity of the training sessions was expressed as the
percentage of individual maximum HR (HRmax). Players’ HRmax
was collected at the beginning of the season through an incremental
treadmill protocol. The test started with an initial speed at 8 km per
hour and increments 2 km per hour every 2 minutes, until exhaus-
tion.22 External and internal load data were collected during 3
different type of training drills which were classified in:
• Game simulations (GS): games performed with 2 regular goals
and goalkeepers.
• Possession games (PO): possession drills performed without
the goals.
• Physical conditioning exercises (PH): exercises performed
without the ball with the aim to improve fitness status of the
players.
The different formats utilized for GS and PO were presented in
Supplementary Table S1 (available online).

Design
Players’ external and internal load data were recorded during 261
training sessions (first team, n: 124, duration: 67.9 [11.2] min; U19,
n: 77, 84.8 [17.1] min; U18, n: 60, 84.5 [13.5] min). An average of
213 (85) sessions per player was recorded. Players who took part in
<60% of training sessions were excluded from the study to remove
the subjects who had poor training continuity due to injuries or
absence.17 External training load was collected using the WIMU
Pro system (RealTrack Systems) whose validity and reliability
have been previously tested.18–20 Twelve different parameters were
considered (Table 1).
Methodology
Evaluation of Fitness Status Through Submaximal Run Test
HR responses during a submaximal run test (HRex) were used to
evaluate the fitness status of the players. Previous studies identified
the HRex as a good marker to monitor positive aerobic-oriented
training adaptations.23,24 The test consisted of 2 bouts of 3-minute
running at 10 km per hour and 12 km per hour interspersed with
1 minute of recovery during which the players totally stopped on
the pitch. The last 30 seconds of each bout were considered, and the
average was calculated and expressed as a percentage of HRmax
(HRex). The submaximal run test was performed periodically

Table 1 Variables Inserted in the Machine-Learning Model as Predictors

Predictor Metric Unit
External load data Work:rest ratio (ratio between work period [distance covered with a speed n/a
above 4 km/h] and rest period [distance covered at a speed 0–3.9 km/h])
Drill duration min
Total distance m
Distance covered with a speed above 7.2 km/h m
Distance covered with a speed above 14.4 km/h m
Distance covered with a speed above 19.8 km/h m
Distance covered with a speed above 25.2 km/h m
Max speed km/h
Average speed km/h
Number of accelerations above 3 m/s2 Count
Number of decelerations below 3 m/s2 Count
PlayerLoad™13 AU
Additional information Player’s playing position: center back, fullback, midfielder, winger, forward n/a
Type of the drill during which heart rate was collected: game simulations, n/a
possession games, physical conditioning exercises
Player’s team: First team, U19, U18 n/a
Ambient temperature °C
Ambient humidity %
Time since the start of the training session min

(Ahead of Print)

(every 1–4 wk) and always 3 days after the previous match. No
warm-up was performed before the test.24
Evaluation of Fitness Status Through ML Models
Multiple ML models were built using a training data set consisting
of a vector of features which described the players’ external load.
Additional information (Table 1) that could improve ML models’
ability to predict HR responses was inserted in the vector:
• Player’s playing position.
• Type of the drill during which HR was collected.
• Player’s team.
• Ambient temperature.
• Ambient humidity.
• Minutes since the start of the training session
Ambient temperature and humidity were collected at the
beginning of each training session (heat index, Weather Tracker,
Kestrel 146 4500 NV, Kestrel Weather Instrument). The average
HR registered during the different training drills was expressed as a
percentage of HRmax (HRdrill), and it was considered in the ML
models as our target variable.
Algorithm Selection
Different ML algorithms were considered in the current study:
• Extreme gradient boosting (XGBoost)
• Random Forest Regression (RF)
• LR
XGBoost (boosting algorithm) and RF (bagging algorithm)
were chosen for their efficiency in regression problems and ability
to detect nonlinear relationships in high-dimensional data.11,13,25
Differently, LR was selected for its simplicity in identifying the
linear relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
Data Preprocessing
When a player for each drill registered an average HR outside the
1.5 ± interquartile range, the respective observation was removed
from the data set to exclude outliers determined by malfunction or
incorrect use of the HR chest strap. In addition, data dropping was
employed to handle missing data. Categorial predictors (player’s
playing position, type of drill, and player’s team) were subjected
to 1-hot encoding before being included in the ML models. One-hot
encoding is a process of converting categorial data variables that can
be used in ML algorithms to improve predictive ability. Moreover,
before LR training, all features were normalized using Min Max
Scaler. The features were scaled between 0 and 1. This technique is
useful when the data have varying scales or outliers that could alter the
predictive ability of the ML models. Instead, XGBoost and RF do not
require normalization being tree-based algorithms.26
Feature Elimination, Hyperparameters Tuning, and Cross-
Validation
The Recursive Feature Elimination (RFE) algorithm was per-
formed to remove features that could increase the risk of over-
fitting.12 After this initial step, a Randomized Search was
implemented to tune hyperparameters in XGBoost and RF. Con-
versely, LR does not require this process. A 3-fold cross-validation
was used to tune hyperparameters whose optimal combination
returned the best performance across each fold (lowest mean
(Ahead of Print)
Fitness-Status Evaluation Through Machine Learning 3
absolute error [MAE]) was used to build the different ML models.
Therefore, RFE and Randomized Search allowed us to select the
most important features and the optimal hyperparameters to maxi-
mize the algorithm’s predictive ability.
RFE and Randomized Search were performed on 20% of the
data set, while the remaining 80% was employed to test the
predictive ability of the ML models adopting a 5-fold cross-
validation. All the analyses were performed using Anaconda
(version 3.9.12, Anaconda Inc) and Python libraries.
Evaluation of ML Models
The predictive ability of the models was evaluated adopting the
MAE and root mean squared error (RMSE). The lower the MAE
and root mean squared error values, the better the goodness of the
models. The performance of the models was compared with 2
baselines, that is, dummy classifiers which make predictions based
simple rules: baseline B1 returned the most frequent value observed
in the training set; baseline B2 generated predictions uniformly at
random from the values observed in the training set. The model
which exhibited the best predictive ability was subjected to feature
importance analysis.
Calculation of the FI
The FI was calculated as the difference between the real HRdrill value
and the HRdrill predicted by the ML model. We expected that if the
real HRdrill was lower than the value predicted by the model (FI < 0),
the players showed an ability to minimize the HR response compared
with that expected based on the external load collected (good fitness
status). In contrast, a positive FI was interpreted as a condition where
the player exhibited a higher HR response than predicted (bad fitness
status). The average of the different indices obtained during a week
was calculated and used as the final FI. The FI was calculated:
(1) using the data collected during all the different type of drills
(FIGS-PO-PH), (2) considering the combination of 2 types of drills
(FIGS-PO, FIGS-PH, and FIPO-PH), and (3) using 1 single drill in
isolation (FIGS, FIPO, and FIPH). A summary of the steps performed
to calculate the FI is presented in Figure 1.
Analysis of the Impact of Weekly Training Load
on HRex and FI
One of the aims was to understand whether HRex, evaluated
through SMFT, and FI, calculated through the ML approach, were
sensitive to the variation of the weekly training load. For this
purpose, the weekly training load was calculated as the rolling sum
of the previous 7 days for the following external load metrics: total
distance, distance >19.8 km per hour, distance >25.2 km per hour,
and mechanical load (number of accelerations >3 m/s2 + number of
decelerations < −3 m/s2).
Statistical Analysis
Considering that the training and weekly load management chan-
ged in relation to the team’s/coach philosophy, we used the entire
data set to build the ML models, and then, we limited the subse-
quent analyses to the first team only.
Validity of FI
To test the concurrent validity of the FI, Pearson product–moment
correlation coefficient (r) was calculated to establish the strength
and direction of the relationship between the FI and HRex values.
The following criteria were used to determine the magnitude of the
4 Mandorino, Clubb, and Lacome

Figure 1 — Summary of the steps performed to calculate the fitness index. GS indicates game simulations; MAPE, mean absolute percentage error; PH,
physical conditioning exercises; PO, possession games; RMSE, root-mean-square error.

relationship: ≤.1 (trivial), .1 to .3 (small), .3 to .5 (moderate), .5 to .7 Analysis of the Trend of FI and HRex
(large), .7 to .9 (very large), and ≥.9 (nearly perfect).27 To better Throughout the Season
understand the optimal combination of drills which contribute to A Dynamic Time Warping (DTW) algorithm was used for mea-
increase the relationship between FI and HRex values, the Pearson suring similarity and to calculate the distance between the 2 curves
correlation analysis was performed for all the indexes previously (FI and HRex) throughout the season. DTW algorithm calculates
described. the Euclidean distance between the points of the 2 series data, adds
(Ahead of Print)

up all the minimum distances that were stored, and the final value
represents the similarity between the 2 curves.28 Lower values were
interpreted as higher similarity in the trend of the 2 curves. The
similarity of the 2 series data was evaluated in 3 different moments
of the season: (1) preseason (week 1–week 7), (2) mid-season
(week 8–week 27), and (3) end-season (week 28–week 46) to
understand the behavior of the 2 curves over the course of the
season. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used to
analyze mean differences in the similarity in the 3 periods of the
season. When significant differences were found, the least signifi-
cant difference post hoc test was performed. The size of the
differences was also calculated adopting partial eta squared (η2).
η2 values of .01, .06, and .14 were interpreted as small, moderate,
and large effect, respectively.29 The significance level was set
to P ≤ .05.
Impact of Weekly Training Load on HRex and FI
The impact of weekly training load on HRex and FI was evaluated
through stepwise multiple LR models. The training load data were
used as independent variables, while HRex and FI were inserted in the
model as dependent variables. Two different regression models were
fit in the 3 different periods of the season. The F probability for variable
entry was set at 0.05 and that for variable removal was set at 0.10. The
Table 2 Performance of the Machine-Learning
Models
Machine-learning model MAE RMSE
Random forest regression 3.80 (0.05) 5.11 (0.11)
Extreme gradient boosting 4.04 (0.02) 5.38 (0.06)
Linear regression 5.02 (0.09) 7.03 (0.19)
B1 7.46 (0.06) 9.93 (0.13)
B2 11.01 (0.08) 11.02 (0.10)
Abbreviations: B1, first baseline model; B2, second baseline model; MAE, mean
absolute error; RMSE, root-mean-squared error. Note: Bold values indicate the
model that showed the best predictive ability.
Figure 2 — Feature importance analysis.
(Ahead of Print)
Fitness-Status Evaluation Through Machine Learning 5
significance level was set to P ≤ .05. All the analysis were performed
using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (version 28.0).
Results
RF showed the best predictive ability (MAE = 3.8 [0.05]; RMSE =
5.11 [0.11]) compared with the other ML algorithms (Table 2), and
it was selected to be used for further analyses. After RFE process, 7
external load metrics were selected and subjected to feature
importance analysis (Figure 2). Only the features presented in
Figure 2 were inserted in the ML models. Investigating the validity
of the FI, the index FIPO-PH exhibited the highest correlation
(r = .70, P < .01) with HRex values (Figure 3). After DTW analysis,
the trend of the 2 curves (FIPO-PH and HRex) appeared significantly
different throughout the 3 different periods of the season (P < .01;
η2 = .200). Particularly, the 2 curves showed a significant higher
similarity in the preseason compared with the mid-season and end-
season (Figure 4). The results of the stepwise LR are presented in
Table 3.
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to develop and analyze an in situ
FI adapted to soccer based on a ML approach. The key findings
were as follows: (1) RF outperformed baseline and LR models;
(2) average speed, minutes since start of the training session, and
the work:rest ratio were the most important features to predict HR
response; and (3) the FI was highly correlated with HRex from the
SMFT, but this trend changed across the season.
Model Construction
External load data were used to predict HR responses during
training drills. From the different models used, the RF technique
showed the best predictive ability of the ML techniques (Table 2)
and, therefore, was chosen for further analysis. Our findings are in
line with recent work that used ML to develop a new locomotor
Figure 3 — Pearson correlation between the FI and HRex values. FI indicates fitness index; GS, game simulations; HRex, heart-rate responses during a
submaximal run test; PH, physical conditioning exercises; PO, possession games.

6 (Ahead of Print)
Figure 4 — (a) Analysis of the trend (average value of the team) of the fitness index calculated through machine-learning model, HRex, and
(b) similarity of the 2 curves calculated for each player throughout the course of the season. Significant difference versus midseason (P < .05). #Significant
difference versus end-season. HRex indicates heart-rate responses during a submaximal run test.

(Ahead of Print) 7
8 Mandorino, Clubb, and Lacome

Table 3 Summary of Stepwise Linear Regression Performed in the 3 Periods of the Season (Preseason,
Midseason, and End-Season) Between the Weekly Training Load Parameters (Total Distance, Distance
>19.8 km/h, Distance >25.2 km/h, and Mechanical Load) and Target Values (FIPO-PH and HRex)
HRex FIPO-PH
Preseason B SE B β P B SE B β P
Total distance 0 0 −0.240 .021 — — — —
Distance >19.8 km/h — — — — — — — —
Distance >25.2 km/h — — — — — — — —
Mechanical load — — — — — — — —
HRex FIPO-PH
Midseason B SE B β P B SE B β P
Total distance — — — — 0 0 −0.380 .001
Distance >19.8 km/h — — — — — — — —
Distance >25.2 km/h — — — — 0.005 0.002 0.328 .001
Mechanical load — — — — — — — —
HRex FIPO-PH
End-season B SE B β P B SE B β P
Total distance — — — — — — — —
Distance >19.8 km/h — — — — −0.003 0.001 −0.541 .006
Distance >25.2 km/h — — — — 0.011 0.003 0.670 .001
Mechanical load — — — — — — — —
Abbreviations: β, standardized beta coefficient; B, unstandardized beta coefficient; FIPO-PH, fitness index calculated through machine-learning model; HRex, heart-rate
response during submaximal run test; SE, standard error.

efficiency index, which also found RF outperformed baseline
models.30 This highlights that this type of more complex model
built using RF, which is capable of capturing nonlinear relation-
ships in high-dimensional data,25 is more suitable for this type of
analysis. Previous work has demonstrated a nonlinear dose–
response relationship between training load and stress markers,31
and injury.32 Our findings support the application of more complex
techniques, such as RF, to better capture these relationships
compared with more traditional approaches.
Among the different variables, average speed, and minutes
since the start of the training session were recognized as the most
important features to predict HR responses during training drills
(Figure 2). In addition, work: rest ratio, distance covered above
7.2 km per hour and maximum speed, and mechanical parameters,
namely PlayerLoad™ and number of decelerations (<−3 m/s2),
were also identified as important features to predict HR. This is
perhaps not surprising given the need to use a multivariate
approach to measure training load.33 Studies have previously
shown that a single training load variable is unable to capture a
meaningful proportion of the variance provided by multiple inter-
nal and external load measures.34,35 This adds further weight to the
findings by Lacome et al5 that HR during specific soccer drills can
be affected by the mechanical demand, and should therefore be
considered both when assessing and planning training load. There-
fore, PlayerLoad18 together with the number of decelerations can
be used to quantify the load imposed on players.36 Conversely, it is
worth noting that PlayerLoad has recently been criticized due to
several limitations: confusion with its calculation, high correlation
with the total distance covered by the players, and inability to
quantify the magnitude of accelerations.37 However, Mandorino
et al30 found similar training load variables to be important to their
(Ahead of Print)
ML model of locomotor efficiency. Taken together, these findings
reinforce that a focus on total distance alone is too reductive to
reflect the mechanical demands of soccer and support a multivariate
approach. Finally, these results also prove the importance of taking
into account the minutes since the beginning of the session, as HR
responses at the end of the training session may be influenced by
the phenomenon known as “cardiovascular drift.”38,39 To the best
of our knowledge, this is the first study integrating this parameter in
the construction of the models.
Relationship Between FI and HRex
Research suggests that a disassociation between internal and external
load can indicate an athlete’s adaptation to training.1,2 Therefore, a
FI may highlight when there is a difference in an athlete’s expected
internal load response to their respective external load. In other
words, a higher or lower physiological cost than expected for their
training load.1 The FI was calculated as the difference between the
real HRdrill value and the HRdrill predicted by the ML model, with a
decrease in FI interpreted as an improvement in fitness status, and
conversely. Our results reported a large correlation (r = .7) existing
between the FI and the HRex measured during a SMFT. Given a
recent systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated SMFT
HRex to be a valid and reliable proxy indicator of endurance
performance in team sport athletes,6 the high correlation in our
study supports the use of a FI calculated using ML techniques to
estimate fitness status. Particularly, PO and PH were identified as
the most suitable drills to calculate the FI, as combined they
exhibited the highest correlation (r = .70, P < .01) with HRex values
(Figure 3). This is perhaps not surprising given GS drills likely
require the greatest levels of soccer-specific mechanical demands.
Figure 5 — Relationship between FI and HRex throughout the season. FI indicates fitness index estimated through machine learning; HRex, heart rate
responses collected during a submaximal run test.

(Ahead of Print) 9
10 Mandorino, Clubb, and Lacome
After DTW analysis, the 2 curves appeared very similar in the
first period of the season (preseason), while they tended to
dissociate in the mid- and end-season (Figure 4). Therefore, HRex
could describe a general fitness status while FI a soccer-specific
one. Such a demarcation has previously been described, with
a general component mostly related to cardiopulmonary perfor-
mance during generic types of exercise bouts, as with the
SMFT, versus a soccer-specific fitness with a greater neuro-
muscular component, which relates to the ability to perform
and repeat specific types of locomotor actions during soccer
drills.5,40 This is further confirmed by the impact of weekly load
on the 2 variables. Notably, HRex is influenced by cumulated total
distance only at the beginning of the season, during which the
higher gain in fitness is registered. The preseason training period
exposes soccer players to sudden and severe increases in training
load, at a time when their physical conditions are commonly
lower than the remainder of the season following a period of
detraining over the off-season.30,41 Conversely, FI continues to be
influenced by the weekly training load over the course of the
season except for the preseason period. This distinction between
general and soccer-specific fitness was also hypothesized by
Lacome et al.5
The correlation magnitude in the present study (moderate to
large) was similar to that found by Lacome et al between a similar
in situ FI and a standardized submaximal run HRex (r = .56–.70 vs
r = .66, respectively). The authors suggest that a lack of perfect
correlation is not a limitation but, in fact, a reflection that the 2
metrics represent distinct fitness qualities of general and soccer-
specific fitness. Consequently, the authors propose these measures
be visualized across 2 axes to create 4 quadrants.5 Starting from the
top left quadrant and moving in a clockwise direction, these
quadrants can represent (a) generic unfit and specific fit, (b) generic
unfit and specific unfit, (c) generic fit and specific unfit, (d) generic
fit and specific fit (Figure 5). Such analysis can guide practitioners
as to whether conditioning for individual players should focus on
generic running or more soccer-specific fitness. Furthermore,
similarly to Lacome et al,5 this analysis can also be used to assess
changes in fitness across different times of the season, most notably
with the preseason conditioning period as players most commonly,
in theory, shift from an unfit quadrant (b), to general fitness
quadrant (c), to specific fitness quadrant (d). It is worth noting
that this analysis remains hypothetical and may be limited as
a simplified approach to understanding fitness but may offer a
pragmatic approach to understanding player fitness with minimal
additional testing.
Limitations
First, our FI was not corroborated against a soccer-specific fitness
measure. As discussed, HRex is a proxy for aerobic fitness, rather than
the intermittent and varied physical demands required in soccer, and
therefore, our analysis could have benefitted from comparison to an
intermittent fitness test, such as the 30 to 15 intermittent fitness test or
Yo-Yo test. Second, while HR measures are important measures for
internal load, erroneous data collection is common during team sport
training due to compliance issues and errors caused by contact and/or
the belts slipping. Moreover, the HR recorded during training drills
may be influenced by additional confounding factors not accounted
for in the current study. These factors, such as the noise resulting from
the presence or absence of the ball during training activities and the
overall stress levels of the players, have the potential to impact the
assessment of the players’ fitness status.
(Ahead of Print)
Practical Applications
Such analysis enables practitioners to combine HRex and the FI to
pragmatically group athletes into quadrants of fitness that relate to
generic (from the SMFT) and specific (from the FI), thereby
inferring conditioning needs on an individual player basis. Fur-
thermore, given the limitations associated with a SMFT, such as
time demands and coach/athlete buy-in,8 consideration should be
given as to whether an in situ FI alone is sufficient to track soccer-
specific fitness via an invisible monitoring approach. This approach
benefits from not requiring any formal testing, plus can be assessed
at much higher frequency.
Conclusions
The present study aimed to develop a fitness index (FI) based on the
combination of internal and external load measures. We demon-
strated that machine-learning techniques, which account for non-
linear relationships and can combine multiple variables, had better
predictive ability than traditional linear metrics. The index devel-
oped is related to outcome measures from the submaximal fitness
test (SMFT) (ie, heart-rate responses during the SMFT) and allows
practitioners to gain insight into the fitness of their players in a less
invasive manner than additional testing. However, we recommend
using them in combination if possible, as they appear to provide
slightly different information, specifically, soccer-specific fitness
(FI) and more general fitness (SMST).
References
1. Halson SL. Monitoring training load to understand fatigue in athletes.
Sports Med. 2014;44(2):139–147. doi:10.1007/s40279-014-0253-z
2. Delaney JA, Duthie GM, Thornton HR, Pyne DB. Quantifying the
relationship between internal and external work in team sports:
development of a novel training efficiency index. Sci Med Footb.
2018;2(2):149–156. doi:10.1080/24733938.2018.1432885
3. Buchheit M, Cholley Y, Lambert P. Psychometric and physiological
responses to a preseason competitive camp in the heat with a 6-hour time
difference in elite soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2016;
11(2):176–181. PubMed ID: 26182437 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2015-0135
4. Akubat I, Barrett S, Abt G. Integrating the internal and external
training loads in soccer. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2014;9(3):457–
462. PubMed ID: 23475154 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2012-0347
5. Lacome M, Simpson B, Broad N, Buchheit M. Monitoring players’
readiness using predicted heart-rate responses to soccer drills. Int J
Sports Physiol Perform. 2018;13(10):1273–1280. PubMed ID:
29688115 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2018-0026
6. Shushan T, McLaren SJ, Buchheit M, Scott TJ, Barrett S, Lovell R.
Submaximal fitness tests in team sports: a theoretical framework for
evaluating physiological state. Sports Med. 2022;52(11):2605–2626.
PubMed ID: 35817993 doi:10.1007/s40279-022-01712-0
7. Shushan T, Lovell R, Buchheit M, et al. Submaximal fitness test in
team sports: a systematic review and meta-analysis of exercise heart
rate measurement properties. Sports Med Open. 2023;9(1):21.
PubMed ID: 36964427 doi:10.1186/s40798-023-00564-w
8. Shushan T, Norris D, McLaren SJ, et al. A worldwide survey on the
practices and perceptions of submaximal fitness tests in team sports.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2023;18(7):765–779. doi:10.1123/
ijspp.2023-0004
9. Carling C, Lacome M, McCall A, et al. Monitoring of post-match
fatigue in professional soccer: welcome to the real world. Sports Med.

2018;48(12):2695–2702. PubMed ID: 29740792 doi:10.1007/
s40279-018-0935-z
10. West SW, Clubb J, Torres-Ronda L, et al. More than a metric: how
training load is used in elite sport for athlete management. Int J Sports
Med. 2021;42(04):300–306. doi:10.1055/a-1268-8791
11. Mandorino M, Figueiredo AJ, Cima G, Tessitore A. Predictive
analytic techniques to identify hidden relationships between
training load, fatigue and muscle strains in young soccer players.
Sports. 2021;10(1):3. PubMed ID: 35050968 doi:10.3390/sports
10010003
12. Rossi A, Pappalardo L, Cintia P, Iaia FM, Fernández J, Medina D.
Effective injury forecasting in soccer with GPS training data and
machine learning. PLoS One. 2018;13(7):e0201264. PubMed ID:
30044858 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0201264
13. Mandorino M, Figueiredo AJ, Cima G, Tessitore A. Analysis of
relationship between training load and recovery status in adult soccer
players: a machine learning approach. Int J Comput Sci Sport. 2022;
21(2):1–16. doi:10.2478/ijcss-2022-0007
14. Rossi A, Perri E, Pappalardo L, Cintia P, Iaia FM. Relationship
between external and internal workloads in elite soccer players:
comparison between rate of perceived exertion and training load.
Appl Sci. 2019;9(23):5174. doi:10.3390/app9235174
15. Rico-González M, Pino-Ortega J, Méndez A, Clemente F, Baca A.
Machine learning application in soccer: a systematic review. Biol
Sport. 2023;40(1):249–263. PubMed ID: 36636183 doi:10.5114/
biolsport.2023.112970
16. Winter EM, Maughan RJ. Requirements for ethics approvals. J Sports
Sci. 2009;27(10):985. doi:10.1080/02640410903178344
17. Helgerud J, Høydal K, Wang E, et al. Aerobic high-intensity intervals
improve VO2max more than moderate training. Med Sci Sports Exerc.
2007;39(4):665–671. PubMed ID: 17414804 doi:10.1249/mss.
0b013e3180304570
18. Gómez-Carmona CD, Pino-Ortega J, Sánchez-Ureña B, Ibáñez SJ,
Rojas-Valverde D. Accelerometry-based external load indicators in
sport: too many options, same practical outcome? Int J Environ Res
Public Health. 2019;16(24):5101. PubMed ID: 31847248 doi:10.
3390/ijerph16245101
19. Gómez-Carmona CD, Bastida-Castillo A, García-Rubio J, Ibáñez SJ,
Pino-Ortega J. Static and dynamic reliability of WIMU PRO™
accelerometers according to anatomical placement. Proc Inst Mech
Eng Part P J Sports Eng Technol. 2019;233(2):238–248. doi:10.
1177/1754337118816922
20. Muñoz-López A, Granero-Gil P, Pino-Ortega J, De Hoyo M. The
validity and reliability of a 5-hz GPS device for quantifying athletes’
sprints and movement demands specific to team sports. J Hum Sport
Exerc. 2017;12(1):156–166. doi:10.14198/jhse.2017.121.13
21. Gomez-Carmona CD, Bastida-Castillo A, Gonzalez-Custodio A,
Olcina G, Pino-Ortega J. Using an inertial device (WIMU PRO)
to quantify neuromuscular load in running: reliability, convergent
validity, and influence of type of surface and device location. J
Strength Cond Res. 2020;34(2):365–373. PubMed ID: 31985715
doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000003106
22. Buchheit M, Simpson BM, Lacome M. Monitoring cardiorespiratory
fitness in professional soccer players: is it worth the prick? Int J Sports
Physiol Perform. 2020;15(10):1437–1441. PubMed ID: 33004681
doi:10.1123/ijspp.2019-0911
23. Buchheit M. Monitoring training status with HR measures: do all
roads lead to Rome? Front Physiol. 2014;5:73. PubMed ID:
24578692 doi:10.3389/fphys.2014.00073
24. Buchheit M, Simpson MB, Al Haddad H, Bourdon PC, Mendez-
Villanueva A. Monitoring changes in physical performance with
heart rate measures in young soccer players. Eur J Appl Physiol.
(Ahead of Print)
Fitness-Status Evaluation Through Machine Learning 11
2012;112:711–723. PubMed ID: 21656232 doi:10.1007/s00421-
011-2014-0
25. Kensert A, Alvarsson J, Norinder U, Spjuth O. Evaluating parameters
for ligand-based modeling with random forest on sparse data sets. J
Cheminformatics. 2018;10(1):1–10. doi:10.1186/s13321-018-0304-9
26. Mandorino M, Figueiredo AJ, Cima G, Tessitore A. A data mining
approach to predict non-contact injuries in young soccer players. Int J
Comput Sci Sport. 2021;20(2):147–163. doi:10.2478/ijcss-2021-
0009
27. Hopkins W, Marshall S, Batterham A, Hanin J. Progressive statistics
for studies in sports medicine and exercise science. Med Sci Sports
Exerc. 2009;41(1):3. PubMed ID: 19092709 doi:10.1249/MSS.
0b013e31818cb278
28. Keogh EJ, Pazzani MJ. Scaling up dynamic time warping to massive
datasets. In: Principles of Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery:
Third European Conference, PKDD’99, Prague, Czech Republic,
September 15–18, 1999. Proceedings 3. Springer; 1999:1–11.
29. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences.
Academic Press; 2013.
30. Mandorino M, Tessitore A, Coustou S, Riboli A, Lacome M. A new
approach to comparing small-sided games and soccer matches de-
mands. Bio Sport. 2024;41(3):15–28. doi:10.5114/biolsport.2024.
132989
31. Milanez VF, Ramos SP, Okuno NM, Boullosa DA, Nakamura FY.
Evidence of a non-linear dose-response relationship between training
load and stress markers in elite female futsal players. J Sports Sci
Med. 2014;13(1):22–29. PubMed ID: 24570601
32. Bache-Mathiesen LK, Andersen TE, Dalen-Lorentsen T, Clarsen B,
Fagerland MW. Not straightforward: modelling non-linearity in
training load and injury research. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med.
2021;7(3):e001119. PubMed ID: 34422292 doi:10.1136/bmjsem-
2021-001119
33. Weaving D, Jones B, Till K, Abt G, Beggs C. The case for adopting a
multivariate approach to optimize training load quantification in team
sports. Front Physiol. 2017;8:1024. PubMed ID: 29311959 doi:10.
3389/fphys.2017.01024
34. Vallance E, Sutton-Charani N, Imoussaten A, Montmain J, Perrey S.
Combining internal and external-training-loads to predict non-contact
injuries in soccer. Appl Sci. 2020;10(15):5261. doi:10.3390/app10155261
35. Weaving D, Jones B, Marshall P, Till K, Abt G. Multiple measures
are needed to quantify training loads in professional rugby league. Int
J Sports Med. 2017;38(10):735–740. PubMed ID: 28783849 doi:10.
1055/s-0043-114007
36. Randers MB, Nielsen JJ, Bangsbo J, Krustrup P. Physiological
response and activity profile in recreational small‐sided football:
no effect of the number of players. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2014;
24:130–137. PubMed ID: 24944137 doi:10.1111/sms.12232
37. Bredt SGT, Chagas MH, Peixoto GH, Menzel HJ, de Andrade AGP.
Understanding player load: meanings and limitations. J Hum Kinet.
2020;71:5. PubMed ID: 32148568
38. Coyle EF, Gonzalez-Alonso J. Cardiovascular drift during prolonged
exercise: new perspectives. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2001;29(2):88–92.
PubMed ID: 11337829
39. Zuccarelli L, Porcelli S, Rasica L, Marzorati M, Grassi B. Compari-
son between slow components of HR and VO2 kinetics: functional
significance. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018;50(8):1649–1657. PubMed
ID: 29570539 doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000001612
40. Verheijen R. Football periodisation. World Football Academy; 2014.
41. Malone JJ, Di Michele R, Morgans R, Burgess D, Morton JP, Drust B.
Seasonal training-load quantification in elite English premier league
soccer players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2015;10(4):489–497.
PubMed ID: 25393111 doi:10.1123/ijspp.2014-0352