A One-Day Field Test
Battery for the
Assessment of Aerobic
Capacity, Anaerobic
Capacity, Speed, and
Agility of Soccer Players
Scott Walker and Anthony Turner, MSc, CSCS
London Sport Institute, Middlesex University, London, United Kingdom
SUMMARY
THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE
IS TO PROVIDE THE STRENGTH
AND CONDITIONING PROFESSIONAL WITH INFORMATION
TO EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT A
BATTERY OF VALID AND
RELIABLE SOCCER-SPECIFIC
FIELD TESTS FOR AEROBIC
CAPACITY, ANAEROBIC CAPACITY,
SPEED, AND AGILITY. INITIALLY,
THIS ARTICLE WILL DEAL WITH THE
RATIONALE FOR FITNESS TESTING,
SPECIFICALLY FIELD TESTING.
VARIOUS FIELD TESTS, WHICH
ASSESS THE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF FITNESS, WILL BE
DESCRIBED, COMPARED, AND
CONTRASTED. WHAT DATA ARE
GENERATED FROM THESE TESTS
AND HOW TO ANALYZE THESE
DATA WILL BE DISCUSSED. A
RATIONALE FOR THE CHOICE OF
RECOMMENDED TESTS WILL
BE REASONED. AND FINALLY, A
TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION
WILL BE OUTLINED.
52
INTRODUCTION
t is essential that fitness testing be
administered before the athlete
begins a strength and conditioning
program and/or competitive season
(baseline measurements) (17), that is, in
the off or preseason (49,52). Preferably,
these tests are readministered at points
throughout the season to assess progress and make program alterations if
needed (26,36,37). When conducting
testing within a competitive season, do
so on a day which does not fall within
2 days either before or after a match, to
prevent fatigue affecting either the tests
or game performance.
I
WHY TEST?
Fitness testing is performed to generate
data and can be an effective procedure
for a number of reasons including
revealing a detailed and appropriate
evaluation of the athlete’s physical
abilities, health, strengths and weaknesses, as well as assess the effectiveness of the training intervention, and
other procedures expected to improve
game performance (38,49,52). Results
can guide the strength and conditioning
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2009
and technical coaches’ training planning, leading to more successful and
economical objective attainment.
Various physiological parameters have
been shown to have strong correlations
with soccer performance. Castagna
et al. (9) noted that it has been shown
repeatedly, through descriptive (4,5,
31,39,48) cross-sectional (1,19,23,55)
training (12,22,34) studies, that aerobic
fitness (V_ O2max, lactate-anaerobic
threshold, running economy) is positively related to soccer performance
outcomes in terms of an individual’s
match statistics like distance covered,
time on the ball, and number of sprints
in a game (9,12,23,35) as well as the
overall success of the team in terms of
final standing in the league (55), level
within the association the team plays
(fitter athletes play in higher division
teams) (1,48), or whether the player is
a reserve or starter (19). Accordingly,
KEY WORDS:
soccer; field testing; aerobic; anaerobic;
agility; speed; acceleration
Copyright Ó National Strength and Conditioning Association
as stated by Castagna et al. (9), ‘‘the
assessment of aerobic fitness on a regular basis is important for monitoring
the effectiveness of the physical training program and the preparedness of
soccer players to compete.’’
The ability to perform and recover
from periods of intense activity during
a soccer match (anaerobic endurance)
has also been shown to have an influence on soccer performance (14,28).
Players at the highest level perform
twice as many anaerobic bouts of
running during the most intense period
of the match compared with the
average player (30,31), and the ability
to sprint after these intense periods
is reduced (7). A player who is able
to recover and repeat these intense
actions will perform better, especially
in the closing stages of the match
(7,31,43). Training studies have found
that players who improved in highintensity fitness also improved in other
indicators of soccer performance and
experienced decreased match fatigue
(29,50). Thus, assessing that soccer
players’ levels of anaerobic fitness,
and training it, are essential.
It is well documented that soccer is
a sport that requires repeated powerful
movements like kicking, sprinting,
tackling, and jumping (1,4–6,14,
22,24,26,27,33,36,40,47,48,50,51,53,61).
Components and measures of power
generation including sprinting ability
(26,27,33,47,50) and jumping distances
(10,47) have all been shown to be
positively correlated to soccer performance; therefore, it is important to
measure players’ strength and power
generation abilities.
Agility is generally defined as the
ability to change direction of the body
rapidly, without losing balance, using
a combination of strength, power, and
neuromuscular coordination (26,33,
49,59). Although rapid actions constitute a smaller percentage (about 11%)
of player movement (33,38,39,51), on
average, a player will turn 50 times
throughout a match (54). Rapid activity often occurs in the crucial seconds
of the game and can make the
difference between scoring and
conceding a goal (3,14,26,33). Thus,
agility is very important in soccer, and
the ability of soccer players to produce
fast paced variable actions is known to
impact soccer performance (18,33).
Even though related to acceleration
and maximum speed, Little and Williams (33) found that they had weak
coefficients of determination; therefore, separate testing for agility should
be used.
WHY FIELD TEST?
It is very difficult logistically to get
one athlete to a proper physiological
testing laboratory, let alone an entire
squad. Laboratory tests are often expensive (38,52), making them impractical for regular use even for wealthy
professional clubs. While laboratorybased tests often provide more internal
validity and reliability, these inhibitory
factors have lead to the design of valid
and reliable field tests (8).
Usually, coaches have a limited amount
of time in the preseason period, less
than a month in the case of professional
and college teams, before the season
properly begins; therefore, it is important that assessments are administered
in the most time conscious manner
possible without compromising reliability and validity and ensuring each
player has a sufficient amount of
recovery between each test (49).
Sports-specific field tests are better
suited, compared with laboratory tests,
for these goals because of the simplicity
and lack of equipment, making
them popular with both coaches and
players (38).
SEQUENCE OF TESTING
Knowledge of exercise physiology and,
specifically, the body’s energy systems
can help to determine test order and
rest period duration, thereby promoting test reliability (20). Tests that
require tasks, which are highly skillful,
such as those that require coordinated
movements and an attention to ‘‘form,’’
should be conducted before fatiguing
tests so that the latter do not distort the
results (20). The National Strength and
Conditioning Association (NSCA) (20)
suggested the following order of tests:
resting and nonfatiguing, agility, power
and strength, sprints, local muscular
endurance, anaerobic capacity, and
finally aerobic capacity tests. The
author will outline and justify the
chosen sequence of tests later in this
article.
FITNESS TESTS
AEROBIC TESTS
Ninety percent of soccer players’
energy
production
is
aerobic
(4,11,23); thus, incorporating a test
for aerobic fitness within a battery for
soccer players is essential. Several field
tests for aerobic capacity have been
developed. Many field aerobic tests for
V_ O2max require the subject to either
cover a maximal distance in a set time
or cover a set distance in the fastest
time possible. These tests are maximal
from the beginning and require a high
degree of motivation and knowledge of
pacing to achieve a reliable result (44).
In the 1980s, with the growing public
interest in running and athletic performance, field tests for aerobic capacity
underwent a revolution with the introduction of continuous multistage
track tests and maximal multistage
shuttle run tests. These tests all have
growing intensities that necessitate
subjects’ exercise maximally at the
end of the test (44) and are usually
paced by a sound recording (‘‘beep’’
tests). However, each of these is unique
and assesses the fitness of an athlete in
a different manner (49).
The Université de Montréal Track Test
(UMTT) (15) is an example of a continuous multistage test. Participants
run continuously around a track or
field, with marker cones set at 25-m
intervals. The initial pace is set at
10 km/h and increased by 1 km/h
every 2 minutes. Subjects have to be
within 2 m of the subsequent cone at
each beep. Three consecutive failures
to be within 2 m of the following cone
mean that the participant has reached
his/her maximal velocity and the test
is terminated for that subject. If the
subject has completed at least half
of the 25 m distance, the recorded
velocity is increased by 0.5 km/h. This
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
53
One-Day Field Test Battery
velocity is assumed to represent the
maximal aerobic velocity (MAV).
Léger and Boucher, cited in Dupont
et al. (15), found that this test is valid
(r = 0.96, standard error of the estimate [SEE] = 2.81 mlkg21min21) and
reliable (r = 0.97, SEE = 1.92
mlkg21min21) to predict the V_ O2max
of trained and untrained young and
middle-aged women and men, which
is the population more than likely to be
engaging in competitive soccer, thus
giving it the appearance of being an
appropriate test.
Although player activity during a soccer match is constant, making continuous running tests like the UMTT
appropriate, a player’s direction of
movement and pace often changes
between intense running, jogging,
walking, and complete rest (1,5,14,
15,27,30,33,36–38,47–50,53,55).
Ramsbottom et al. (44) compared a
20-m progressive shuttle run test
(running between 2 markers placed
20 m apart at increasingly faster
speeds) with a laboratory treadmill test
that measured V_ O2max directly,
through the collection of expired air.
They found a correlation of r = 0.92
(SEE = 3.5 mlkg21min21) between
the 2 tests. However, Metaxas et al.
(37) compared a similar shuttle protocol with an intermittent shuttle protocol, discussed below, and laboratory
treadmill tests, and found the continuous
shuttle protocol to indicate the lowest
V_ O2max (p # 0.05), specifically 10.5%
(p # 0.05) lower than the intermittent
shuttle run, 11.4% (p # 0.05) lower than
a continuous treadmill protocol, and
13.3% (p # 0.05) lower than an intermittent treadmill protocol.
A soccer-specific 20-m shuttle run test,
called the Yo-Yo intermittent test, was
developed by Bangsbo and published
in 1994. The Yo-Yo intermittent test
is the same as the test discussed by
Ramsbottom et al. (44), but after the
subjects run two 20 m lengths (out and
back), they then have a recovery
period. At the lowest level, the players
have 10 seconds to complete one
length (8,15,25,30,37,49).
54
There are 2 versions of the Yo-Yo
intermittent test. The Yo-Yo Intermittent Endurance (YYIE) test (15,37)
allows a recovery period of 5 seconds,
while the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery
(YYIR) test (25,28) allows 10 seconds.
Two levels of each test have been
developed, one for young or nonelite
(L1) and an advanced one for elite
athletes who have progressed through
all the level 1 stages (L2) (30), making
there, in fact, 4 versions of the test.
All Yo-Yo intermittent tests assess an
athlete’s capacity to continually perform intermittent running with regular
brief rests. The phosphagen and the
glycolytic energy systems are both
stressed by the YYIE/R tests, and they
require the athlete to conduct exercise
intensely and intermittently over a long
period that mimics a soccer match,
therefore validating the similarity and
specificity of the test to the sport
(49,52).
Studies have found that the HRpeak
reached during a YYIR is not significantly different from (even as close as
98-100%) the HRpeak reached during
a graded laboratory assessment (15,28).
Dupont et al. (15) found that the
HRpeak during their YYIR1 was not
significantly different from HRmax obtained during their UMTT, and these
values were significantly related (r =
0.88, p , 0.001). This is a justification
for the use of a YYIR test to establish
HRmax of a soccer player.
Castagna et al. (9) examined V_ O2
during YYIEL1 and found V_ O2peak
not significantly different to a graded
treadmill test. A recent article highlighted the lack of research that
specifically analyzed the V_ O2 during
the YYIR tests (15).
In a contemporary study, Castagna
et al. (8) compared YYIEL2, YYIRL1,
and a treadmill test but did not include
directly measured V_ O2 data. They
found that the levels achieved on the
YYIEL2 and YYIRL1 tests were
significantly related (r = 0.75, p =
0.00002) plus YYIEL2 results were
significantly related to V_ O2max and
both V_ O2 and velocity at ventilatory
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2009
threshold (r = 0.75, 0.76, and 0.83,
respectively; p = 0.00002). MAV on the
treadmill was significantly related to
YYIEL2 and YYIRL1 (r = 0.87 and
0.71, respectively; p = 0.0003).
According to Krustrup et al. (28), the
V_ O2peak estimated from the relationship between heart rate and V_ O2 during
a treadmill test was 97 6 1% consistent
with V_ O2max. Dupont et al. (15) found
no significant difference between
V_ O2peak gathered during the YYIEL1
and V_ O2max determined during the
UMTT, and these values were significantly related (r = 0.92, p , 0.001).
They also found that V_ O2max and the
peak velocity achieved during their
YYIEL1 were significantly related (r =
0.61, p , 0.05).
Researchers have validated both the
YYIE (8,9,37) and the YYIR
(9,15,25,28,30) tests as reliable, sensitive, and reproducible, permitting detailed analysis of the physical capacities
of athlete in sports with the activity
profile of soccer. The level or type of
Yo-Yo chosen would depend on the
athlete. YYIE tests are more aerobic
related, while YYIR tests are aerobic
and anaerobic (9). Younger and amateur athletes would be recommended
to undergo the YYIEL1 test and
progress through to the level 2. Elite
athletes, who run at higher intensities
more often (7,30,31), are recommended to be tested with the YYIR level 1
or level 2.
V_ O2peak for modern soccer players in
the vicinity of 200 mlkg20.75min21
(66 mlkg21min21 have been reported
(9,54)). This will correspond to different
distances covered and levels achieved
on the various fitness tests described.
SPEED AND SPEED ENDURANCE/
ANAEROBIC RECOVERY TESTS
Soccer is characterized, particularly at
the highest levels, by brief periods of
intense activity followed by short
periods of active or passive recovery
(7,30,31). These brief periods can be
the action that decides the winner and
the loser of a match (18,33,41). Sprinting over a short distance, accelerating,
decelerating, changing direction, and
performing technical skills during these
actions have face validity in soccer (38).
Players must be able to perform these
intense tasks repeatedly. When performing repeated sprints, for example,
in an attacking movement immediately
followed by a retreat into a defensive
position, the effectiveness of the player
to restore depleted adenosine triphosphate, the more maximal the subsequent sprint will be (3,49), thus the
ability to recover quickly needs to be
assessed.
Measuring the time taken to cover a
set distance is a valid measure of speed
and sprinting ability. Ideally, electronic
timing gates should be used to conduct
all speed tests (11,14,19,38,49). Stopwatches can be used for these tests, but
human error reduces the reliability and
validity (49) and can lead to times up to
0.24 seconds faster (21).
Sprinting ability is constituted of the
rate of increasing velocity (acceleration) and the maximal velocity achievable by the player (33). Bangsbo (5)
found that players sprint between
1.5 m and the full length of the field,
around 100 m, during a match but
average about 17 m per sprint. This
agrees with literature stating that 96%
of sprints are less than 30 m, with an
average duration of less than 6 seconds,
which occur every 90 seconds, and
almost half are less than 10 m (38,51).
Maximal sprints are often begun when
the player is already in motion, so
maximal velocity is achievable quicker
than time and distance would usually
permit (33,49).
The time taken to complete 5- to 10-m
sprint from a stationary start is well
accepted as a valid and reliable test to
measure acceleration (26,32,33,35,38,
47,49,50,54,58,59) and is specific to
soccer, as stated above. See Tables 1
and 2 for statistical analysis of this test.
Different protocols have been used to
analyze maximal speed, but most involve linear running over a distance
of between 20 and 40 m (11,32,33,38,
49,53,58,59). Those not concerned
with acceleration have been measured
from stationary (59), but that is not
specific to field sport activity, so most
measured maximal speed from a ‘‘rolling’’ start (11,32,33,38,49).
For efficiency, if the equipment is
available, it is best to measure acceleration and maximal speed during the
same trial by taking split times at
10 m and at the end of the sprint
(11,32,38,49). Gates should be placed
at the start, 10 m and end lines.
Alternatively, a pedal switch can be
placed behind the start line, which the
subjects place their rear foot on after
positioning the pedal in-line with their
natural start stance (11). The subjects
voluntarily begin the test when they
either break the start line with any part
of their body or their foot leaves the
switch (11,38,49).
Three repetitions of the sprints (11,
38,49) should be administered, with at
least 5-minute rest between each (14).
The best times for both acceleration
and maximal velocity should be recorded (33). Tables 1 and 2 reproduce
the statistical analysis done by Mirkov
et al. (38) and Jullien et al. (26),
respectively, for their speed tests.
Norms for sprint times, to the authors’
knowledge, have not been established
for elite adult players; however, Jullien
et al. (26) found young, adult, male
soccer players averaged 1.85 seconds
for 10-m sprints (Table 2). le Gall et al.
(32) analyzed 161 male players (14-16
years), grouped according to whether
they achieved international, professional, or amateur status. Average
times for 10-m sprint were between
1.96 6 0.10 seconds and 1.82 6 0.10
and 20-m sprint (moving start) between 2.57 6 0.15 and 2.34 6 0.13 (32).
Refer to le Gall et al. (32) for a full
breakdown of the times achieved for
14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds over 10, 20,
and 40 m and the competitive level
they subsequently achieved.
Speed endurance is usually assessed
using a repetitive sprint test (RST) with
limited recovery duration. Subjects are
asked to run as fast as possible for each
repetition. Different authors have proposed different test distances, ranging
from 20 to 40 m, and number of
repetition, between 6 and 15 (3,14,36).
Balsom et al. (3) found that recovery
Table 1
Reliability statistics calculated from 3 consecutive trials and the corresponding indices of reliability
Test
ICC (CI)
TEM (CI)
n (CI)
CV/% (CI)
10-m sprint, s
0.81 (0.64–0.92)
0.062 (0.050–0.081)
3.2 (2.6–4.3)
21 (13–36)
10- to 30-m sprint, s
0.93 (0.85–0.97)
0.053 (0.042–0.070)
2.1 (1.7–2.8)
9 (5–15)
10 3 5 m, s
0.94 (0.88–0.98)
0.18 (0.15–0.24)
1.2 (0.9–1.5)
3 (2–5)
Zigzag, s
0.84 (0.56–0.89)
0.098 (0.079–0.130)
2.5 (2.0–3.2)
12 (8–21)
Zigzag with the ball, s
0.81 (0.64–0.91)
0.21 (0.17–0.27)
3.3 (2.6–4.3)
21 (14–36)
Skill index
0.89 (0.73–0.96)
0.029 (0.023–0.039)
3.9 (3.1–5.4)
30 (19–56)
Adapted from Mirkov et al. (38).
ICC = intraclass correlation coefficient; CI = 95% confidence interval; TEM = typical error of measurement; n = estimated sample size; CV/% =
coefficient of variation; n = 20.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
55
One-Day Field Test Battery
AGILITY TESTS
Table 2
Mean, ICC, standard error of measurement (MEN), and CV for the
parameters describing the players’ speed and agility
Test
Mean
SEM
CV
ICC
10-m sprint
1.85
0.03
1.76
0.91
Timed circuit
8.76
0.17
1.95
0.88
Adapted from Jullien et al. (26).
SEM = standard error of the mean; CV = coefficient of variation; ICC = intraclass correlation
coefficient.
periods of longer than 30 seconds
decreased the validity of this test to
measure all components of sprint
performance, particularly acceleration.
These tests produce data that can be
analyzed for various measurements
of fatigue including fatigue index (FI)
(49) and performance decrement
(PD) (36).
Fatigue index is best determined by
the difference between the best time of
the first 2 sprints and the slowest time
of the last 2 sprints. A low FI indicates
greater speed endurance ability (49).
PD is calculated by dividing the sum of
the sprinting times for each repetition
by the best possible total score and then
multiplying by 100. The best possible
total score is calculated as the best sprint
times multiplied by the number of
repetitions (Fitzsimons et al., cited in
Meckel et al. (36)). See Table 3 for
hypothetical FI and PD calculations.
The reliability of the RST is 0.942 for
total running time (36). Meckel et al.
(36) found a reliability of 0.75 for the
PD; however, recent opinions have
questioned this, reporting values between 0.11 and 0.50 (42).
Meckel et al. (36) found a significant
correlation (r = 20.602, p , 0.05)
between the PD in a short RST (12 3
20 m, 20-second recovery) and
V_ O2peak but not a longer RST (6 3
40 m, 30-second recovery) (r = 20.322,
p = 0.09). This indicates that the increased number of repetitions increased
the aerobic system involvement.
Bangsbo developed a similar test to the
above, consisting of 7 sprints separated
by 25 seconds, but introduced a change
56
of direction of 5 m to the side between
10 and 20 m (49). Wragg et al. (56)
established this as a reliable test with
a coefficient of variation of 1.8% and
95% confidence intervals. This test
does appear to be a valid test, but the
side movement does incorporate an
element of agility. Young et al. (59)
found that the correlation decreased
and that the common variance increased with number of direction
changes, but because Bangsbo’s test
only has one, not complicated directional change, it is still a valid speed test
(r . 0.92, p , 0.01).
Sayer et al. (49) found an FImean of
0.415 6 0.213 for national level
collegiate athletes, whereas Meckel
et al. (36) found a PD of approximately
5.0 6 2.0 with first division youth
league soccer players.
Agility tests are speed tests that involve
deceleration and changes of direction
(21). The results of these tests in
juxtaposition with linear speed tests
give a comprehensive overview of an
athlete’s speed capacity (33,49). Identical to sprints, the less time taken to
complete a circuit of the agility test, the
better the performance.
There are many field agility tests
including the pro agility, T-Test, and
hexagon test (21). Tasxkin (53) proposed a four-line sprint as a measure
of speed and acceleration. The player
lies prone behind line A; on a verbal
signal, the player stands, then runs
forward 10 m to line B, touching it with
his foot, then turns 180° and runs 20 m
back through line C. The time taken
to travel between lines A and C was
measured with a stopwatch. The
activity pattern replicates soccer, although this is not a valid speed and
acceleration test, as suggested, because
the changes of direction make it
applicable as an agility test. Although
related, agility and speed have weak
coefficients of determination (33).
Mirkov et al. (38) mentioned a speed
test during which participants run 10
repetitions between 2 parallel lines
located by 5 m apart. They are required
to step 1 ft over each line each
Table 3
Hypothetical PD and FI calculations for speed endurance
Trial
30 m sprint time, s
Trial 1
4.15
Trial 2
4.13
Trial 3
4.28
Trial 4
4.34
Trial 5
4.47
Trial 6
4.55
PD
Sum of total times (4.15 + 4.13 + 4.28 + 4.34 + 4.47 + 4.55)
divided by the best possible total time (4.13 3 6) minus 1,
multiplied by 100 = (25.92/24.78 2 1) 3 100 = 4.685%
FI
Worst time of last 2 trials (4.55) minus best trial time of first
2 trials (4.13) = 4.55 2 4.13 = 0.42
PD = performance decrement; FI = fatigue index.
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2009
repetition. The test’s intraclass correlation coefficient is 0.94. See Table 1 for
further statistical analysis of the reliability of this test.
More soccer-specific agility tests have
been developed. A popular one is the
Zigzag test for its simplicity (33,38).
This test involves running a zigzag
course of four 5-m sections, which
requires the subject to turn through
a 100° angle. Mirkov et al. (38) proposed
measuring the time taken to complete
the course with and without dribbling
a ball. The ratio of the time taken with
the ball compared to without the ball
would give a skill index. The higher the
skill index, the more control of the ball
the player justifiably has. Table 1 shows
statistical analysis of Mirkov et al. (38) of
the tests they presented.
Both Balsom, cited in Sayers et al. (49),
and Bangsbo, cited in Julien et al. (26),
produced soccer-specific agility tests.
Balsom’s agility test is a run with
changes in direction over 45 m total
distance (49). Refer to Sayer et al. (49)
for a diagram of this test. Bangsbo’s
circuit involves a 5.5-m sprint, changes
in foot supports, dribbling the ball with
changes in direction and over obstacles,
and ends with a ball strike into a goal,
over a total distance of 31.10 m. Refer to
Jullien et al. (26) for a diagram of this
course. Up to 3 trials of each test can be
performed and the best time used (38).
The author could not source any
specific data on the reliability of the
Balsom test, although it is very similar
to other agility tests, which have been
analyzed for reliability, but with movement patterns most similar to soccer,
thus its use is justified. Bangsbo’s test,
although reliable (see Table 2) and
specific to soccer, would be a less valid
a test of pure agility because of the skill
component involved.
fitness
and
performance
goals
(23,49,52). Strength and agility tests
can be used to identify and address any
asymmetries between these 2 movements, which could contribute to
injury risk (2,13,16).
OTHER TESTS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Discussed within this article is not
a comprehensive list of all the physiological parameters, which should be
assessed with soccer players. This
article is limited to tests for aerobic,
anaerobic, speed, and agility capacities,
which can be conducted outside a laboratory or gymnasium. Other tests that
would normally be carried out either
outdoors or indoors, within a strength
and conditioning setting, would include anthropometric (19,32,45,46,51,
57,60), strength (14,19,21,23,26,27,47,
49,54,55,61), flexibility (1,57), and
power (1,23,27,32,47,49,50) tests.
In general, the most specific valid and
reliable test should be used. For
assessment of aerobic capacity, the
YYIR test best fits this description for
elite athletes.
HOW TO USE THE DATA
Testing allows the coaching staff and
those responsible for player’s, team’s,
or club’s performances to develop
optimal training programs to address
the athletes’ strengths and weaknesses,
making for more efficient training and,
ideally, quicker positive results. Additionally, data can be fed back to the
athletes to give them a greater understanding of why they are required
to perform certain tasks and how they
compare with their peers and norms.
This can motivate them to achieve
Linear speed (both acceleration and
maximal velocity), without any
changes in direction, as well as complex agility circuit tests should be
administered. This will improve discriminant validity (20) because they are
2 different, although related, components of fitness. Linear speed should be
measured over 30 m with times taken
at the 10-m (acceleration) and 30-m
mark (maximal speed is the time
between 10 and 30 m), as these are
the most soccer specific (33,38,49). For
ease and convenience, speed endurance can be measured using an RST
over the last 20 m of the same course,
for 6 repetitions with recovery periods
around 20 seconds, to minimize aerobic involvement.
Agility can be measured with by means
of the Balsom’s soccer-specific course.
Separate trials of this course can be run
with and without dribbling a ball to
produce a skill index (38).
Table 4
Equipment and tester requirements
Test
Agility test
Equipment
No. of testers
Ball
1
10 marker cones or poles
2 timing gates or 1 gate and 1 pedal switch or 1 stopwatch
Sprint test
3 timing gates or 2 gates and 1 pedal switch or 1 stopwatch
with split time capabilities or 2 stopwatches
Aerobic test
6 marker cones or poles
1–2
2
Yo-Yo or beep test recording
Hi-fi system
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
57
One-Day Field Test Battery
The order of tests should go as follows:
agility test with ball, agility test without
ball, linear speed, RST, and YYIR tests.
This follows the recommendations of
NSCA (20) that tests, which require
the most skill should be administered
first, with the most fatiguing tests being
done last, to prevent the fatigue from
affecting the subsequent tests. The
variety of tests taxes various energy
systems, which replenish fuel sources
in different quantities over different
periods, following order from the
shortest to the longest: phosphagen,
glycolytic, and oxidative. It is essential
that adequate intertest intervals be
allowed to achieve complete recovery.
The proposed ordering of tests should
allow this to occur with minimal delays
(49). Table 4 provides a list of the
equipment needed for each test and the
number of assessors required.
CONCLUSION
Strength and conditioning professionals, working with soccer teams, need
to be able to administer efficient, valid,
reliable fitness tests, which are specific
to soccer, with minimal amount of
equipment. This article has outlined
a series of tests that can be administered
on a soccer field and given recommendations for their use. All tests can be
conducted within one day, thus can be
administered repeatedly throughout
a season, without too much disruption
to the usual training schedule. The
resultant data can guide the strength
and conditioner, and technical coaches,
in program and training planning,
leading to more effective and efficient
goal achievement.
Scott Walker is
managing director
and senior strength
and conditioning
consultant of Optimise Performance
and Wellbeing and
a master’s student
at the London
Sports Institute, Middlesex University.
58
Anthony
Turner is
a strength and
conditioning coach
and a senior lecturer and program
leader for the MSc
in Strength and
Conditioning at Middlesex University,
London, England.
REFERENCES
1. Arnason A, Sigurdsson SB, Gudmundsson A,
Holme I, Engebretsen L, and Bahr R.
Physical fitness, injuries, and team
performance in soccer. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 36: 278–285, 2004.
2. Askling C, Karlsson J, and Thorstensson A.
Hamstring injury occurrence in elite soccer
players after preseason strength training
with eccentric overload. Scand J Med Sci
Sports 13: 244–250, 2003.
3. Balsom PD, Seger JY, Sjodin B, and
Ekblom B. Maximal-intensity intermittent
exercise: Effect of recovery duration. Int J
Sports Med 13: 528–533, 1992.
4. Bangsbo J. Energy demands in competitive
soccer. J Sports Sci 12 Spec No: S5–S12,
1994.
5. Bangsbo J. The physiology of soccer—With
special reference to intense intermittent
exercise. Acta Physiol Scand Suppl 619:
1–155, 1994.
6. Bangsbo J, Norregaard L, and Thorso F.
Activity profile of competition soccer. Can J
Sport Sci 16: 110–116, 1991.
7. Bradley PS, Sheldon W, Wooster B, Olsen P,
Boanas P, and Krustrup P. High-intensity
running in English FA Premier League
soccer matches. J Sports Sci 27(2): 159–
168, 2009.
test to assess lower limb explosive power
in soccer players. J Strength Cond Res 22:
944–950, 2008.
11. Chamari K, Hachana Y, Ahmed YB, Galy O,
Sghaier F, Chatard JC, Hue O, and
Wisløff U. Field and laboratory testing in
young elite soccer players. Br J Sports Med
38: 191–196, 2004.
12. Chamari K, Hachana Y, Kaouech F,
Jeddi R, Moussa-Chamari I, and Wisløff U.
Endurance training and testing with the ball
in young elite soccer players. Br J Sports
Med 39: 24–28, 2005.
13. Croisier JL, Ganteaume S, Binet J,
Genty M, and Ferret JM. Strength
imbalances and prevention of hamstring
injury in professional soccer players: A
prospective study. Am J Sports Med
36: 1469–1475, 2008.
14. Dupont G, Akakpo K, and Berthoin S. The
effect of in-season, high-intensity interval
training in soccer players. J Strength Cond
Res 18: 584–589, 2004.
15. Dupont G, Defontaine M, Bosquet L,
Blondel N, Moalla W, and Berthoin S.
Yo-yo intermittent recovery test versus the
Universite de Montreal track test: Relation
with a high-intensity intermittent exercise.
J Sci Med Sport. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.
2008.10.007 [Epub Ahead of Print 2009
Jan 2].
16. Dvorak J and Junge A. Football injuries and
physical symptoms. A review of the
literature. Am J Sports Med 28(5 Suppl):
S3–S9, 2000.
17. Franklin BA, Whaley MH, Howley ET,
and Balady GJ. American College
of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s Guidelines
for Exercise Testing and Prescription
(6th ed). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins, 2000. pp. 57–59.
18. Gambetta V. Speed development for
football. Natl Strength Cond Assoc J
12: 45–46, 1990.
8. Castagna C, Impellizzeri FM, Belardinelli R,
Abt G, Coutts A, Chamari K, and D’Ottavio S.
Cardiorespiratory responses to yo-yo
intermittent endurance test in nonelite
youth soccer players. J Strength Cond Res
20: 326–330, 2006.
19. Gravina L, Gil SM, Ruiz F, Zubero J, Gil J,
and Irazusta J. Anthropometric and
physiological differences between first
team and reserve soccer players aged 1014 years at the beginning and end of the
season. J Strength Cond Res 22: 1308–
1314, 2008.
9. Castagna C, Impellizzeri FM, Chamari K,
Carlomagno D, and Rampinini E. Aerobic
fitness and yo-yo continuous and
intermittent tests performances in soccer
players: A correlation study. J Strength
Cond Res 20: 320–325, 2006.
20. Harman E. Principles of test selection
and administration. In: Essentials of
Strength Training and Conditioning.
Baechle TR and Earle RW, eds.
Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2008.
pp. xiii, 658.
10. Chamari K, Chaouachi A, Hambli M,
Kaouech F, Wisløff U, and Castagna C.
The five-jump test for distance as a field
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2009
21. Harman E and Garhammer J.
Administration, scoring and interpretation
of selected tests. In: Essentials of Strength
Training and Conditioning. Baechle TR
and Earle RW, eds. Champaign, IL: Human
Kinetics, 2008. pp. xiii, 658.
22. Helgerud J, Engen LC, Wisløff U, and Hoff
J. Aerobic endurance training improves
soccer performance. Med Sci Sports Exerc
33: 1925–1931, 2001.
23. Hoff J. Training and testing physical
capacities for elite soccer players. J Sports
Sci 23: 573–582, 2005.
24. Ispirlidis I, Fatouros IG, Jamurtas AZ,
Nikolaidis MG, Michailidis I, Douroudos I,
Margonis K, Chatzinikolaou A, Kalistratos E,
Katrabasas I, Alexiou V, and Taxildaris K.
Time-course of changes in inflammatory
and performance responses following
a soccer game. Clin J Sport Med 18: 423–
431, 2008.
25. Johansen JV, Rysgaard T, Amstrup T,
Mohr M, Krustrup P, Pedersen PK, and
Bangsbo J. A soccer-related interval run
test and its application to professional
soccer players. Med Sci Sports Exerc
34: S27, 2002.
26. Jullien H, Bisch C, Largouet N, Manouvrier C,
Carling CJ, and Amiard V. Does a short
period of lower limb strength training
improve performance in field-based tests of
running and agility in young professional
soccer players? J Strength Cond Res
22: 404–411, 2008.
27. Kotzamanidis C, Chatzopoulos D,
Michailidis C, Papaiakovou G, and Patikas D.
The effect of a combined high-intensity
strength and speed training program on
the running and jumping ability of soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 19: 369–
375, 2005.
28. Krustrup P, Mohr M, Amstrup T,
Rysgaard T, Johansen J, Steensberg A,
Pedersen PK, and Bangsbo J.
The yo-yo intermittent recovery test:
Physiological response, reliability,
and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc
35: 697–705, 2003.
Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 1165–1174,
2006.
32. le Gall F, Carling C, Williams M, and
Reilly T. Anthropometric and fitness
characteristics of international, professional
and amateur male graduate soccer players
from an elite youth academy. J Sci Med
Sport. doi:10.1016/j.jsams.07.004 [Epub
Ahead of Print 2008 Oct 1].
33. Little T and Williams AG. Specificity of
acceleration, maximum speed, and agility in
professional soccer players. J Strength
Cond Res 19(1): 76–78, 2005.
34. McMillan K, Helgerud J, Grant SJ, Newell J,
Wilson J, Macdonald R, and Hoff J.
Lactate threshold responses to
a season of professional British youth
soccer. Br J Sports Med 39: 432–436,
2005.
35. McMillan K, Helgerud J, Macdonald R, and
Hoff J. Physiological adaptations to soccer
specific endurance training in professional
youth soccer players. Br J Sports Med
39: 273–277, 2005.
36. Meckel Y, Machnai O, and Eliakim A.
Relationship among repeated sprint tests,
aerobic fitness, and anaerobic fitness in
elite adolescent soccer players.
J Strength Cond Res 23(1): 163–169,
2009.
37. Metaxas TI, Koutlianos NA, Kouidi EJ,
and Deligiannis AP. Comparative study
of field and laboratory tests for the
evaluation of aerobic capacity in soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 19(1):
79–84, 2005.
38. Mirkov D, Nedeljkovic A, Kukolj M,
Ugarkovic D, and Jaric S. Evaluation of the
reliability of soccer-specific field tests.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 1046–1050,
2008.
39. Mohr M, Krustrup P, Andersson H,
Kirkendal D, and Bangsbo J. Match
activities of elite women soccer players at
different performance levels. J Strength
Cond Res 22: 341–349, 2008.
29. Krustrup P, Mohr M, Ellingsgaard H, and
Bangsbo J. Physical demands during an
elite female soccer game: Importance of
training status. Med Sci Sports Exerc
37: 1242–1248, 2005.
40. Mohr M, Krustrup P, and Bangsbo J. Match
performance of high-standard soccer
players with special reference to
development of fatigue. J Sports Sci
21: 519–528, 2003.
30. Krustrup P, Mohr M, Nybo L, Jensen JM,
Nielsen JJ, and Bangsbo J. The yo-yo ir2
test: Physiological response, reliability, and
application to elite soccer. Med Sci Sports
Exerc 38: 1666–1673, 2006.
41. Oliver J. Is a fatigue index a worthwhile
measure of repeated sprint ability? J Sci
Med Sport 12(1): 20–23, 2009.
31. Krustrup P, Mohr M, Steensberg A,
Bencke J, Kjaer M, and Bangsbo J. Muscle
and blood metabolites during a soccer
game: Implications for sprint performance.
42. Oliver JL, Armstrong N, and Williams CA.
Relationship between brief and prolonged
repeated sprint ability. J Sci Med Sport
12: 238–243, 2009.
43. Rampinini E, Impellizzeri FM, Castagna C,
Coutts AJ, and Wisløff U. Technical
performance during soccer matches of the
Italian Serie A league: Effect of fatigue and
competitive level. J Sci Med Sport
12: 227–233, 2009.
44. Ramsbottom R, Brewer J, and Williams C.
A progressive shuttle run test to estimate
maximal oxygen uptake. Br J Sports Med
22: 141–144, 1988.
45. Reilly T, Bangsbo J, and Franks A.
Anthropometric and physiological
predispositions for elite soccer. J Sports
Sci 18: 669–683, 2000.
46. Rienzi E, Drust B, Reilly T, Carter JE, and
Martin A. Investigation of anthropometric
and work-rate profiles of elite South
American international soccer players.
J Sports Med Phys Fitness 40(2): 162–
169, 2000.
47. Ronnestad BR, Kvamme NH, Sunde A, and
Raastad T. Short-term effects of strength
and plyometric training on sprint and jump
performance in professional soccer
players. J Strength Cond Res 22: 773–
780, 2008.
48. Rostgaard T, Iaia FM, Simonsen DS, and
Bangsbo J. A test to evaluate the physical
impact on technical performance in soccer.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 283–292, 2008.
49. Sayers A, Sayers BE, and Binkley H.
Preseason fitness testing in national
collegiate athletic association
soccer. Strength Cond J 30(2): 70–75,
2008.
50. Siegler J, Gaskill S, and Ruby B. Changes
evaluated in soccer-specific power
endurance either with or without a
10-week, in-season, intermittent,
high-intensity training protocol. J Strength
Cond Res 17: 379–387, 2003.
51. Stolen T, Chamari K, Castagna C, and
Wisløff U. Physiology of soccer: An update.
Sports Med 35: 501–536, 2005.
52. Svensson M and Drust B. Testing soccer
players. J Sports Sci 23: 601–618,
2005.
53. Tasxkin H. Evaluating sprinting ability,
density of acceleration, and speed
dribbling ability of professional soccer
players with respect to their positions.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 1481–1486,
2008.
54. Wisløff U, Castagna C, Helgerud J, Jones R,
and Hoff J. Strong correlation of maximal
squat strength with sprint performance and
vertical jump height in elite soccer players.
Br J Sports Med 38: 285–288, 2004.
55. Wisløff U, Helgerud J, and Hoff J.
Strength and endurance of elite soccer
players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 30: 462–
467, 1998.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-lift.org
59
One-Day Field Test Battery
56. Wragg CB, Maxwell NS, and Doust JH.
Evaluation of the reliability and validity of
a soccer-specific field test of repeated
sprint ability. Eur J Appl Physiol
83: 77–83, 2000.
57. Young WB, McDowell MH, and Scarlett BJ.
Specificity of sprint and agility training
methods. J Strength Cond Res 15: 315–
319, 2001.
58. Young W, Newton R, Doyle T, Chapman D,
Cormack S, Stewart G, and Dawson B.
Physiological and anthropometric
characteristics of starters and non-starters
and playing positions in elite Australian
rules football: A case study. J Sci Med
Sport 8: 333–345, 2005.
59. Young WB and Pryor L. Relationship
between pre-season anthropometric and
fitness measures and indicators of playing
performance in elite junior Australian Rules
football. J Sci Med Sport 10: 110–118,
2007.
60. Young W, Russell A, Burge P, Clarke A,
Cormack S, and Stewart G. The use of
sprint tests for assessment of speed
qualities of elite Australian rules footballers.
Int J Sports Physiol Perform 3(2): 199–
206, 2008.
61. Zebis MK, Bangsbo J, Suetta C,
Crameri R, Kjær M, and Aagaard P.
Effects of heavy resistance training on
muscle profile, strength and soccer
performance in female elite soccer
players. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: S200,
2002.
60
VOLUME 31 | NUMBER 6 | DECEMBER 2009