Soccer-Specific
Performance Testing of
Fitness and Athleticism:
The Development of a
Comprehensive Player
Profile
John R. Cone, PhD, CSCS
Athletes Research Institute, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
SUMMARY
THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE IS
TO ADDRESS THE USE OF FIELD
TESTS OF PHYSICAL PERFOR-
MANCE AND ATHLETICISM IN ELITE
OUTFIELD SOCCER PLAYERS (E.G.,
COLLEGIATE, PROFESSIONAL, AND
INTERNATIONAL) THROUGH THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAYER PROFILING SYS-
TEM. A SECONDARY PURPOSE IS
TO ADDRESS THE USE OF DATA TO
QUANTIFY A PLAYERS PHYSICAL
ATTRIBUTES, LIMB ASYMMETRY,
TIME-RELATED CHANGES, AND
RETURN TO PLAY AFTER INJURY.
INTRODUCTION
he development of sport per-
T formance testing assessing an
athletes physical abilities pres-
ents a unique challenge for the sports
scientist, strength and conditioning
coach, athletic trainer, and sport-
specific coach. This challenge increases
with sport complexity, where perhaps
the greatest challenge is presented by
highly dynamic, field-based sports,
such as soccer, requiring a diverse
Copyright National Strength and Conditioning Association
mixture of skill, athleticism, and fitness. physical therapist, and sports scientist).
In particular, the need to gather suffi- To thoroughly address the aforemen-
cient information to effectively charac- tioned, a systematic approach to test-
terize physical performance with the ing may be proposed regardless of the
amount of time allotted for testing is sport: (a) test selection, (b) test admin-
istration, (c) use of testing information,
inherently challenging. A key compo-
(d) retesting for the assessment of
nent to achieving this balance requires
performance increases resulting from
limiting the redundancy of information
training, (e) testing for return-to-play
between tests. Additionally, physical
assessment, and (f ) data presentation
testing has been proposed to serve
(Table). The purpose of this article is to
multiple purposes (5); these are as
use this approach to develop a soccer-
follows:
specific player profiling system that
1. Examine training effects
allows for a more complete assessment,
2. Athlete motivation
comparison, and diagnosis of players
3. Objective feedback for the athlete
physical attributes.
4. Increase an athletes awareness of
training goals
5. Evaluation of an athletes ability or PERFORMANCE TEST SELECTION:
GENERALIZABILITY AND VALIDITY
readiness to compete
Test selection begins with an assessment
6. Evaluation of an athlete during and
returning from rehabilitation
7. Development and planning of
programs
of sport-specific demands (physiological
and biomechanical), followed by selec-
tion of tests. Matching of demands with
testing begins with an understanding of
8. Exercise prescription and identifica-
tion of potential weaknesses.
KEY WORDS:
Observationally, the above purposes
performance testing; lower extremity
are prioritized differently according
rehabilitation; limb asymmetry; return
to an individuals role within a team
from injury; return to play; return to
(e.g., strength and conditioning coach,
competition; field-based testing
sport-specific coach, athletic trainer,
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com 11
Soccer-Specific Performance Testing

Table
Proposed systematic approach to performance testing

1 Test selection
2 Test administration
3 Use of testing information
4 Retesting for performance increases
5 Testing for return to play
6 Data presentation
Assess validity and reliability of testing to optimize testing battery
Maximize test-retest reliability via consistent application of testing
Maximize data collected to ensure that all purposes of testing are
addressed, and needs of staff are met
Maximize data collected to monitor training response and exercise
prescription
Maximize data collection to monitor progression from rehabilitation
to return to training and competition
Maximize data analysis and exhibit information in a usable manner for
all staff members

the available tests and their associated
validity and reliability. Specifically, how
well the test reflects component(s)
related to actual sport performance
(20), how accurately the test assesses
the physical attribute it is intended to
measure (20), and finally, the reliability,
or reproducibility, of the test must be
considered (26). Ultimately, test reliability
is highly dependent on the consistency of
test administration. A short list of the
primary factors that must be controlled
for are as follows: environment (e.g.,
ambient temperature, testing surface, and
motivation), time of day, warm-up,
exercise sequence, and athletes condition
at the time of testing (e.g., maximal
recovery from the previous training,
hydration, and nutritional status) (14).
Based on its metabolic demands, soccer
has been characterized as an intermit-
tent endurance sport (3) where fatigue is
observed in primarily 2 manners. The
first is in the middle of a match after
bouts of sprint and high-intensity work.
This is reflected in the observation that
sprints greater than 30 m result in
greater recovery time than those of
shorter duration (4) and that the 5-
minute interval containing the greatest
amount of high-intensity work was
followed by a 5-minute segment at
a lower than match average intensity
(4,42). The second is as a function of
soccer match duration. This is reflected
in the observation that players cover
less total distance and perform less
sprinting in the second half compared
with the first half (42) and that both
running distance and intensity
are decreased in the final 15 minutes
relative to all previous intervals (43).
The result is that physiological fitness
testing must integrate 2 components.
The first is the intermittent anaerobic
endurance targeting the assessment of
the ability to resist and recover from
transient fatigue. The second is the
aerobic endurance targeting the assess-
ment of the ability to resist fatigue as
a function of match duration.
Soccers multidirectional and dynamic
nature, incorporating as many as
1,346 changes (43), speculatively re-
quires an individual to possess diverse
characteristics of athleticism. For this
reason, multiple characteristics are con-
sidered in test selection. Foremost, focus
is placed on the physical attributes:
sprinting, agility, power, and balance
that characterize the actions most fre-
quently contributing to noncontact in-
jury in soccer (i.e., running, twisting or
turning, jumping, and landing (24)).
Because of moderate-to-high correla-
tions between tests of strength, power,
and sprint speed (52), limiting test
redundancy is an important consider-
ation. As these relationships have been
linked to both movement specificity (37)
and the duration of an action (52), great
emphasis is placed on selecting ecolog-
ically valid tasks. Finally, unilateral
testing is prioritized for the following
reasons: (a) the highly unilateral nature
in which soccer is played (12); (b) the
dominant versus nondominant limb
imbalances observed to increase with
soccer playing experience (27,29,51); (c)
the observation that limb asymmetry
greater than 15% is associated with
lower extremity injury (33,44); (d) the
majority of injuries in sport affect a single
limb; (e) finally, unilateral testing allows
for the more effective development of
return-to-play criteria via either compar-
ison of injured and noninjured limbs,
and/or comparison of preinjury to
postrehabilitative performance.
Combined the outlined components of
fitness and athleticism result in priority
being placed on the following physical
characteristics: intermittent endurance
capacity, and where applicable unilat-
eral testing of lower extremity strength,
power, agility, and sprint speed.
PERFORMANCE TESTING:
FITNESS
There are a number of tests that char-
acterize anaerobic and aerobic capacity
or power. The inclusion of an inter-
mittent component simultaneously lim-
its the available tests and is problematic
because of the interplay between the
aerobic and anaerobic systems. Specifi-
cally, the large contribution of the
aerobic system to recovery from inter-
mittent high-intensity bouts (21) makes
isolation of aerobic and anaerobic
characteristics difficult. The result is that
emphasis is placed on selecting tests
related to match performance where
emphasis is placed on repeated high-
intensity and/or sprint performance.
A primary means for analyzing
the intermittent high-intensity

12 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2012

performance has been tests of repeated
sprint ability. These tests are appealing
because they provide 2 quantitative
indicators of performance: (a) total
sprint time (i.e., the cumulative time
required to complete all sprints) and (b)
fatigue index (i.e., the decrement in
performance from the first to last sprint)
(2). However, these tests are accompa-
nied by practical difficulties that make
their use problematic. First, the decre-
ment in repeated sprint performance is
seldom linear with an increase or plateau
observed with the increasing sprint trials
(53). Second, reliability and validity of
the test are at times challenged by the
player. Specifically, where a maximal
effort during each subsequent sprint
interval is required, players also un-
derstand that they are being assessed on
their performance decrement. This may
result in greater inconsistency as players
pace themselves. Third, regardless of the
test selection (dependent on the test
selected, either running distance or
sprint time is measured), test adminis-
tration may be logistically challenging in
a team setting. Thus, where distance
is the primary measure, a large number
of testers are required to score perfor-
mance, and when sprint time is mea-
sured, the number of players who
may be effectively tested at one time is
limited.
The majority of these shortcomings and
practical problems are circumvented by
the Yo-Yo intermittent recovery level 1
(YYIR1) and level 2 (YYIR2) tests.
These tests consist of 20-m shuttle
running performed at progressive run-
ning speeds, integrating a 10-second
active recovery period between each
consecutive shuttle run, with the pace
controlled by a digital metronome (34).
This allows for the effective application
of testing in a team setting with relative
ease and time efficiency. Additionally,
research has confirmed the strength of
the YYIR tests reliability and validity.
Specifically, the distance run in the
YYIR1 and YYIR2 tests have demon-
strated a coefficient of variation of 4.9%
(34) and 9.6% (36), respectively. Com-
pared with maximal graded treadmill
tests, they have been shown to elicit
maximal heart rates (HR) of 99 6 1% in
YYIR1 (34) and 98 6 1% in YYIR2 (36).
This is a key element in the develop-
ment and use of HR as a means for
quantifying training load and exercise
prescription. The YYIR1 has been
correlated with physical match perfor-
mance. In male professionals, it highly
correlated with high-intensity running
distance (r = 0.71), moderately corre-
lated with combined high-intensity and
sprint running distance (r = 0.58), and
total distance run (r = 0.53) (34). In
female professionals, it highly corre-
lated with high-intensity running dis-
tance (r = 0.76) and high-intensity
running distance during the final 15
minutes of each half (r = 0.83), and
moderately correlated with total dis-
tance run (r = 0.56) (35). Finally, both
tests are sensitive enough to detect
differences between professional play-
ers of different levels and positions (42),
as well as seasonal changes in fitness
level corresponding to physical match
performance (36). As the YYIR2 is
formatted in a manner identical to the
YYIR1, but uses a more rapid increase
in running speeds, it is speculated that
strong correlations to match perfor-
mance would persist. Additionally, this
difference allows for a maximal effort
to be achieved by highly fit players
more rapidly during the YYIR2, in line
with the suggestions for maximal
testing (7). For these reasons, the
YYIR1 and YYIR2 tests are currently
the most effective tests for assessing
soccer-specific metabolic performance.
PERFORMANCE TESTING:
ATHLETICISM
Prioritization of testing in soccer is
placed on the lower extremity, with
emphasis on characterizing the afore-
mentioned components of athleticism:
strength, power, agility, and sprint
speed. Refinement of testing focuses
on the following: (a) ecological validity,
(b) limited redundancy among tests, (c)
ability to assess return to play after injury
or time off, and (d) ability to detect
lower limb performance asymmetry.
Beginning with lower extremity
strength, greatest emphasis is placed
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
on selecting a test that is both relevant
to soccer and unilateral in nature. The
star excursion balance test (SEBT) is
proposed for the following reasons.
First, a large number of the technical
movements in soccer involve multi-
planer movements performed in a sin-
gle-limb stance (i.e., passing, receiving,
shooting). The finding that different
SEBT reach directions result in differ-
ences in movement (47) and muscle
activation of the hip and thigh (17)
increases its appeal. Second, the SEBT
has been shown to be sensitive to
previous ankle injury (25), which is an
important attribute as injury to the ankle
in soccer contributes to 1724% (1,24)
of time loss injuries. Third, it is capable
of detecting asymmetries that may
contribute to future injury (44). Finally,
the SEBT has demonstrated an intra-
class correlation coefficient (ICC) as
high as 0.95 when scoring is averaged
across the 3 best performances (32).
The SEBT consists of the player stand-
ing in a single-leg stance at the center of
an 8-pointed star (see Figure 1) with
performance measured by the reach
distance of the contralateral limb in the
respective directions (32). Analyses of
the SEBT have determined that perfor-
mance is most effectively quantified by
measuring reach distance in 3 directions:
(a) anteromedial, (b) posteromedial, and
(c) medial, with the hands placed on the
hips, and following 4 practice trials in
each direction (46). Although the SEBT
may be categorized as a test of dynamic
balance, observationally, the test is an
amalgamation of balance, unilateral
strength, coordination, and flexibility.
Selection of power tests is similarly
focused, with emphasis placed on uni-
lateral high-velocity movements. This
leads to the possible selection of single-
leg hop tests grouped as follows: (a)
single-leg hop for distance, (b) timed
single-leg hops, and (c) timed multi-
planer single-leg hops. Although it may
be suggested that vertical tests of power
are more applicable in a sport involving
jumping, this suggestion may be coun-
tered by findings that the number of
jumping actions during a match is
relatively small (3,6). Additionally, given
13
Soccer-Specific Performance Testing
Figure 1. Star excursion balance test. Modified with permission from Hertel et al (25).
the moderate-high correlation between
tests of horizontal and vertical power
(r2 = 0.695) (23), the tests appear to
examine similar characteristics of lower
extremity power. Power may be seen as
being expressed specific to muscle
action: (a) those incorporating stretch-
shortening cycle (SSC) work (often
termed reactive power), and (b) those
incorporating concentric work (18). The
ability to test both types of power
provides insight into an athletes ability
to express power (39) and assists in
training design by allowing for a more
tailored approach (18).
Two unilateral tests of power are
proposed. For reactive power, the
triple hop for horizontal distance
(Figure 2) is proposed because of its
high test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.97;
standard error of the mean [SEM] =
11.17 cm) relative to crossover hop-
ping for distance (ICC = 0.93; SEM =
17.74) and 6-m hopping for time (ICC
= 0.92; SEM = 0.06 seconds) (47). For
concentric power, a single-leg hop for
distance performed in a concentric
manner, as outlined by Booher et al.
(9), is proposed (ICC = 0.97; SEM =
5.93 cm). Specifically, the athlete
begins in a static single-leg squat
Figure 2. Triple-hop test of unilateral power. Data attained from Hamilton et al. (23).
14 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2012
position and performs a single max-
imal horizontal hop.
Sprinting comprises a relatively small
amount of a soccer match. This is
reflected by a number of observations
that sprinting contributes to less than
2.5% of the total distance run (15). Less
than 1% of the total match duration is
spent sprinting (6). The total number of
sprints is relatively small and ranges
from 3 to 40 bouts (15). Although
sprinting reflects a relatively small
amount of the work performed, obser-
vationally, sprinting is frequently in-
corporated in the most decisive action
of a match and is therefore of para-
mount importance. As the majority of
sprints in soccer are relatively short in
duration and distance (1.7 to 2.1 seconds
(6) and 19.3 63.2 m (15), respectively),
this should be reflected in testing.
Additionally, given the aforementioned
number of changes that occur during
a match, emphasis is placed on the
capacity for testing to discriminate
between the different qualities of speed.
Thus, if possible, testing should allow for
the assessment of (a) starting speed (0
10 m), (b) acceleration speed (1020 m),
and (c) composite speed (020 m)
(Figure 3) (22).
The role of agility in soccer is evident
in the 608 to 822 changes in direction
that are observed in a match (8).
Recently defined as a rapid whole-
body movement with change of veloc-
ity or direction in response to a stimulus
(48), the addition of cognitive compo-
nents may be problematic when trying
to assess the purely physical compo-
nents. For the purpose of the current
article, agility will be defined exclusive
of the proposed cognitive components.
The existence of agility as a discrete
athletic attribute is evident in consistent
low correlations with performance tests
of speed, strength, and power
(11,19,38,48). Examination of multiple
agility tests resulted in the observation
that agility persists as a complex motor
ability (49). Furthermore, the incorpo-
ration of complex changes in movement
is demonstrated by the finding that
a general agility factor (49) is charac-
terized most highly in tests requiring the
largest changes in direction. The iso-
lation of agility performance is sug-
gested to decrease when a large number
of changes in direction are included
(16). This is demonstrated through
increasing correlation among tests in-
corporating multiple cutting actions
with sprint performance: 1) the Illinois
agility test, which incorporates 7 cutting
actions and covers a total distance of
36.6 m (9.1 m: r = 0.61; 18.3 m: r = 0.68;
27.4 m: r = 0.71; 36.6 m: r = 0.59), 2) the
proagility test, which incorporates 2 cut-
ting movements and covers a total
distance of 18.3 m (9.1 m: r = 0.59;
18.3 m: r = 0.65; 27.4 m: r = 0.66; 36.6 m:
r = 0.59) (50), and 3) L-run, which

Figure 3. Sprint performance testing. Data attained from Gore (22).
incorporates 3 cutting actions and
covers a distance of 20 m (5 m: r =
0.57; 10 m: r = 0.64; 20 m: r = 0.73) (19).
In contrast, the 505 test, which incor-
porates a single unilateral cutting
action performed in 15-m shuttle run
fashion (Figure 4), has demonstrated
no correlation (16) to low correlations
with sprint speed (5 m: r = 0.52; 10 m =
0.57; 20 m = 0.58) (19). Consistent with
tests of strength and power, the
unilateral nature of the 505 allows for
the more effective assessment of return
to play and existence of limb asymme-
try. This is of particular importance
given the aforementioned contribution
of turning and twisting actions to
noncontact injury in soccer (24).
The final component of the testing
battery is the use of qualitative assess-
ments of movement. Bridging the gap
between subjective (qualitative) and
objective (quantitative) testing is the
functional movement screen (FMS).
Proposed as an assessment of funda-
mental movement abilities (41), the
FMS consists of 7 tests: 1) deep squat,
2) hurdle step, 3) in-line lunge, 4)
shoulder mobility, 5) active straight leg
raise, 6) push-up, and 7) rotary stabil-
ity; it uses a 3-point scoring system
(41). Although discussion of the testing
Figure 4. 505 test of horizontal agility. Data attained from Draper and Lancaster (16).
protocol and corresponding basis for
the point system is beyond the scope of
the current article, it is clear that the
scoring criteria allows for the develop-
ment of an objective measure of
movement ability. In this regard,
FMS scoring has shown strong inter-
rater reliability, with agreement be-
tween novice and expert raters Analysis of team performance begins
excellent in 14 of the 17 criteria
examined during testing (41).
The FMS has demonstrated an ability to
predict potential injury in football, where
a preseason score of less than 14 was
associated with an 11-fold increase in
the likelihood of injury (31), as well as its
sensitivity to training intervention (30).
Although research is limited to the deep
squat assessment, the FMS scoring
system appears to effectively capture
the biomechanical differences that exist
between scoring groups in comparison
with 3-dimensional analyses (10). The
unilateral nature of 5 of the 7 tests and
subsequent ability to capture limb asym-
metry further enhances the appeal of the
FMS. An additional strength of the
testing is the potential subjective analyses
that, when combined with an under-
standing of the anatomical relationships
to movement, may allow for potential
tailoring of exercise prescription.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
DATA ANALYSIS AND
PRESENTATION
This section will address maximizing
the use of data to better inform potential
decisions of the sports scientist, strength
and conditioning coach, athletic trainer,
and sport-specific coach. The primary
purpose is to discuss how to use and
display data to characterize the indivi-
dual player within the team and by
position, to identify potential limb
asymmetry, and to monitor changes
over time. For this reason theoretical
data was developed to illustrate the
different manners that information may
be displayed to exemplify potential
differences within an individual, group
of players, and a team.
with the tabling of results, general
analysis, and, if possible, comparison
of test results with research. Thereafter,
analysis within the team continues via
calculation of standardized scores both
within the team and/or positional
groups. This allows for the following
group comparisons to be made: (a)
overall performance or ranking of the
individual within the team (Figure 5)
and (b) comparison of individual play-
ers by position (Figure 6). In the first,
a players position relative to their
teammates is immediately evident. In
the second, comparison by position
may highlight physical characteristics
between players, which may otherwise
go unnoticed.
A theoretical comparison of central
midfielders available on a team (see
Figure 6) shows that player 13 is the
most highly fit but has diminished
speed, SSC power, and agility relative
to players 9 and 10. A comparison of
players 9 and 10 reveals that player 9
performed more highly in acceleration
and total sprint performance (sprint
and maximal), and SSC power. How-
ever, player 10 demonstrated the great-
est starting speed, agility, and unilateral
strength and balance. In this manner,
analysis of the individual by team or
position may highlight a players weak-
nesses and strengths relative to their
teammates. Although these interpreta-
tions must be made in light of a players
15
Soccer-Specific Performance Testing
Figure 5. Theoretical comparison of player performance using a standardized score.
other soccer-specific qualities, they
may have implications for personnel
selection and potentially team tactics.
Ultimately, the use of test results in this
manner provides an objective measure
to what may otherwise remain sub-
jective observation(s).
Analysis of the individual player focuses
on 1) examining limb asymmetry, 2)
information to more effectively pre-
scribe training, and 3) examining longi-
tudinal change. Calculation of limb
Figure 6. Theoretical comparison of players by position (central midfielders).
16 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2012
asymmetry may be done via the
following equation:
limb asymmetry
stronger  weaker=stronger3100;
followed by the assignment of a nega-
tive sign to the value if the players
nondominant limb is stronger and
a positive sign if the dominant limb is
stronger (28). The result is that limb
asymmetries in strength, power, agility,
and FMS score are expressed as
percentage difference and readily ex-
pressed graphically (see Figure 7). The
diagnosis of differences in this manner
allows for a more discriminating look
at a players physical attributes. For
instance, specific to Figure 7, the player
demonstrates a consistent, low-level,
dominant limb asymmetry, except for
in triple-hop performance (SSC_
POWER_asymm) where the nondom-
inant limb performed to a higher level.
This type of discrepancy may highlight
the need for further examination via
medical personnel to determine if
a potential problem exists.
Several tests allow for more discri-
minative analyses that potentially
enhance exercise prescription and
more effective monitoring of training
effects. Regarding the metabolic test-
ing, YYIR1/YYIR2 may be used to
establish maximal HR via the use of
HR monitors, allowing for refined
monitoring and prescription of training
load. Additionally, maximal running
speed may be effectively used to pre-
scribe running intensities relative to
soccer match performance (13). Two
tests of unilateral power were pro-
posed, each focusing on the expression
of power relative to specific muscle
actions (SSC versus concentric).
Although the field basis of these tests
does not allow for the direct calcula-
tion of reactive strength index (39), the
difference between SSC and concentric
power may be estimated as follows:
percentage difference
triple hop=3  single leg hop=
triple hop=33100
Calculations of reactive strength index
testing may be compared with previous
research, where the mean difference
observed is 12.1% (40). Additionally,
comparison over time may provide
insight into training adaptation(s) and
enhance training prescription abilities
and diagnosis. Finally, although discus-
sion of the FMS has thus far pertained
mainly to its use as a scoring system, the
subjective observations made when
testing may be used to further tailor

Figure 7. Theoretical asymmetry score for an individual player.
movement training. The effective use of
the FMS in this manner is reflected by
the effectiveness of a standardized
program in increasing FMS score (30).
A discriminative approach to return
to play after injury is inherent in
the proposed player profiling system.
Specifically, the following traits are
addressed to allow for the progressive
assessment of recovery during the latter
stages of injury rehabilitation: 1) muscle
action, 2) movement plane, and 3)
movement velocity. A phasic approach
to the assessment of player recovery
may thus be proposed. Initial applica-
tion of testing is performed as a player
recovers and consists of movement
Figure 8. Theoretical data showing return to play after unilateral ankle injury.
(FMS) and balance (SEBT) tests. Sim-
ilarly, each of these tests may be
progressed across the lower extremity;
FMS testing progressing from bilateral
(deep squat) to split (in-line lunge) to
single-leg (hurdle step), and SEBT by
movement plane (injury-dependent)
from anteromedial to medial and post-
eromedial. Increasing recovery is ac-
companied by increasing test demand.
This progression may begin with the
integration of the single-leg hop test for
distance, followed by sprint and triple-
hop testing, and finally 505 agility
testing as it incorporates multiplanar
movement performed at maximal ve-
locity. A theoretical model of this
progressive approach may be seen in
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
Figure 8, where tests of increasing
demand are incorporated as the in-
dividual recovers. Ultimately, the pro-
gression and timing of testing relative to
injury is dependent on the individual
injury and must be addressed by and in
cooperation with the medical staff.
The ability to capture and analyze
longitudinal change at the individual
level and team level is of paramount
importance: first, to assess return to
play after injury and second, to assess
the effects of training. Longitudinal
change may be expressed as the
percent change relative to any testing
interval (e.g., baseline, peak). Applying
this to the development of return-to-
play criteria, physical performance
during the rehabilitation phase may
be quantified relative to a players
performance at any previous testing
interval. The theoretical model pre-
sented in Figure 8 allows for a quanti-
tative and progressive assessment of
the players recovery from injury. For
instance, there is a progressive increase
in the performance in selected meas-
ures from weeks 6 through 10, with the
final phase of testing (week 11) being
characterized by performance values in
excess of 90% of baseline. Ultimately,
what is an acceptable level of perfor-
mance for return to play is unknown
17
Soccer-Specific Performance Testing
and likely needs to be judged on an
individual basis. A benefit of the pro-
posed testing profile is the ability to
track a spectrum of physical character-
istics of increasing demand (i.e., muscle
action, movement plane, movement
velocity) allowing for a more educated
assessment of player function and
therein the likelihood of reinjury.
Finally, as a key element of testing is
to assess training effects, longitudinal
performance may be displayed as
percentage change between the testing
periods:
percentage difference


time2  time1 time1 3100
Alternately, longitudinal change may
be expressed graphically in the same
manner, as previously discussed in
Figure 6 or Figure 8.
CONCLUSION
The primary purpose of this article was
to develop a comprehensive testing
system for soccer. Strong emphasis has
been placed on selecting discriminative
and progressive tests focusing on
physical performance, exercise pre-
scription, limb asymmetry, and re-
turn-to-play criteria. A secondary
focus has been on maximizing testing
information and subsequent use of
information to effectively integrate
the disciplines within sports science.
Specifically, the varying roles of
a teams staff (coach, strength and
conditioning coach, athletic trainer,
and physical therapist) have been
addressed. The level of integration
proposed addressed the following key
factors relative to each persons role:
(a) player comparison(s), (b) time-
related changes in performance, (c)
exercise prescription, (d) potentially
problematic limb asymmetries, and
(e) return-to-play criteria after injury.
John R. Cone
owns and runs
Athletes Research
Institute Inc, a per-
formance fitness
and consulting
company.
18 VOLUME 34 | NUMBER 5 | OCTOBER 2012
REFERENCES
1. Agel J, Evans TA, Dick R, Putukian M, and
Marshall SW. Descriptive epidemiology of
collegiate mens soccer injuries: National
Collegiate Athletic Association Injury
Surveillance System, 1988-1989 through
2002-2003. J Athletic Train 42: 270277,
2007.
2. Bangsbo J. Fitness Training in FootballA
Scientific Approach. Bagsvaerd, Denmark:
HO+Storm, 1994.
3. Bangsbo J. The physiology of soccer with
special reference to intense intermittent
exercise. Acta Physiol Scand 619: 1155,
1994.
4. Bangsbo J, Mohr M, and Krustrup P.
Physical and metabolic demands of training
and match-play in the elite football player.
J Sports Sci 24: 665674, 2006.
5. Bangsbo J, Mohr M, Poulsen A, Perez-
Gomez J, and Krustrup P. Training and
testing the elite athlete. J Exerc Sci Fitness
4: 114, 2006.
6. Bangsbo J, Norregaard L, and Thorso F.
Activity profile of competition soccer. Can J
Sport Sci 16: 110116, 1991.
7. Bentley DJ, Newell J, and Bishop D.
Incremental exercise test design and
analysisImplications for performance
diagnostics in endurance athletes.
Sports Med 37: 575586, 2007.
8. Bloomfield J, Polman R, and
ODonoghue P. Physical demands of
different positions in FA Premier League
soccer. J Sports Sci Med 6: 6370, 2007.
9. Booher LD, Hench KM, Worrell TW, and
Stikeleather J. Reliability of three single-leg
hop tests. J Sport Rehabil 2: 165170, 1993.
10. Butler RJ, Plisky PJ, Southers C, Scoma C,
and Kiesel KB. Biomechanical analysis of
the different classifications of the functional
movement screen deep squat test. Sports
Biomech 9: 270279, 2010.
11. Buttifant D, Graham K, and Cross K.
Science and Football IV, in: World
Congress of Science and Football 4th
edition. A Murphy, Reilly, T., and Spinks,
W., ed. London: Routledge, 2002. pp
329332.
12. Carey DP, Smith G, Smith DT, Shepherd JW,
Skriver J, Ord L, and Rutland A. Footedness
in world soccer: An analysis of France 98.
J Sports Sci 19: 855864, 2001.
13. Cone JR, Berry NT, Goldfarb A, Henson R,
Schmitz R, Wideman L, and Shultz SJ.
Effects of an Individualized Soccer Match
Simulation on Vertical Stiffness and
Impedance. J Strength Cond Res 26:
20272036, 2012.
14. Currell K and Jeukendrup AE. Validity,
reliability and sensitivity of measures of
sporting performance. Sports Med 38:
297316, 2008.
15. Di Salvo V, Baron R, Tschan H,
Calderon Montero FJ, Bachl N, and
Pigozzi F. Performance characteristics
according to playing position in elite soccer.
Int J Sports Med 3: 222227, 2007.
16. Draper JA and Lancaster MG. The 505
test: A test for agility in the horizontal plane.
Aust J Sci Med Sport 17: 1518, 1985.
17. Earl JE and Hertel J. Lower-extremity
muscle activation during the star excursion
balance tests. J Sport Rehabil 10: 93104,
2001.
18. Flanagan EP and Comyns TM. The use
of contact time and the reactive strength
index to optimize fast stretch-shortening
cycle training. Strength Cond J 30: 3238,
2008.
19. Gabbett TJ, Kelly JN, and Sheppard JM.
Speed, change of direction speed, and
reactive agility of rugby league players.
J Strength Cond Res 22: 174181, 2008.
20. George K, Batterham A, and Sullivan I.
Validity in clinical research: a review of
basic concepts and definitions. Phys Ther
Sport 1: 1927, 2000.
21. Girard O, Mendez-Villanueva A, and
Bishop D. Repeated-sprint abilityPart I:
Factors contributing to fatigue. Sports Med
41: 673694, 2011.
22. Gore CJ. Physiological tests for elite
athletes. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics,
2000.
23. Hamilton RT, Shultz SJ, Schmitz RJ, and
Perrin DH. Triple-hop distance as a valid
predictor of lower limb strength and power.
J Athletic Train 43: 144151, 2008.
24. Hawkins RD, Hulse MA, Wilkinson C,
Hodson A, and Gibson M. The association
football medical research programme: An
audit of injuries in professional football. Br J
Sports Med 35: 4347, 2001.
25. Hertel J, Braham RA, Hale SA, and
Olmsted-Kramer LC. Simplifying the star
excursion balance test: Analyses of
subjects with and without chronic ankle
instability. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 36:
131137, 2006.
26. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in
sports medicine and science. Sports Med
30: 115, 2000.
27. Iga J, George K, Lees A, and Reilly T.
Cross-sectional investigation of indices of
isokinetic leg strength in youth soccer
players and untrained individuals.
 Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and
Science in Sports 19: 5, 2008.
28. Impellizzeri FM, Rampinini E, Maffiuletti N,
and Marcora SM. A vertical jump force test
for assessing bilateral strength asymmetry
in athletes. Med Sci Sports Exerc 39:
20442050, 2007.
29. Kearns CF, Isokawa M, and Abe T.
Architectural characteristics of dominant
leg muscles in junior soccer players. Eur J
Appl Physiol 85: 4, 2001.
30. Kiesel K, Plisky P, and Butler R. Functional
movement test scores improve following a
standardized off-season intervention pro-
gram in professional football players. Scand J
Med Sci Sports 21: 287292, 2011.
31. Kiesel K, Plisky PJ, and Voight ML. Can
serious injury in professional football be
predicted by a preseason functional
movement screen? N Am J Sports Phys
Ther 2: 147158, 2007.
32. Kinzey SJ and Armstrong CW. The
reliability of the star-excursion test in
assessing dynamic balance. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther 27: 356360, 1998.
33. Knapik JJ, Bauman CL, Jones BH, Harris JM,
and Vaughan L. Preseason strength and
flexibility imbalances associated with athletic
injuries in female collegiate athletes. Am J
Sports Med 19: 7681, 1991.
34. 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: 697705, 2003.
35. 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:
12421248, 2005.
36. 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: 16661673, 2006.
37. Liebermann DG and Katz L. On the
assessment of lower-limb muscular power
capability. Isokinet Exerc Sci 11: 8794,
2003.
38. Little T and Williams AG. Specificity of
acceleration, maximum speed, and agility
in professional soccer players. J Strength
Cond Res 19: 7678, 2005.
39. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Knight TJ, and de
Jonge X. Factors that differentiate
acceleration ability in field sport athletes.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 27042714, 2011.
40. Maulder P and Cronin J. Horizontal and
vertical jump assessment: Reliability,
symmetry, discriminative and predictive
ability. Phys Ther Sport 6: 7482, 2005.
41. Minick KI, Kiesel KB, Burton L, Taylor A,
Plisky P, and Butler RJ. Interrater reliability
of the functional movement screen.
J Strength Cond Res 24: 479486, 2010.
42. 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:
519528, 2003.
43. Nadler SF, Malanga GA, Feinberg JH,
Prybicien M, Stitik TP, and DePrince M.
Relationship between hip muscle
imbalance and occurrence of low back pain
in collegiate athletes: A prospective study.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil 80: 572577,
2001.
44. Plisky PJ, Rauh MJ, Kaminski TW, and
Underwood FB. Star excursion balance
test as a predictor of lower extremity injury
in high school basketball players. J Orthop
Sports Phys Ther 36: 911919, 2006.
Strength and Conditioning Journal | www.nsca-scj.com
45. Robinson R and Gribble P. Kinematic
predictors of performance on the star
excursion balance test. J Sport Rehabil 17:
347, 2008.
46. Robinson RH and Gribble PA. Support
for a reduction in the number of trials
needed for the star excursion balance
test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89:
364370, 2008.
47. Ross MD, Langford B, and Whelan PJ.
Test-retest reliability of 4 single-leg
horizontal hop tests. J Strength Cond Res
16: 617622, 2002.
48. Sheppard J and Young W. Agility literature
review: Classifications, training and testing.
J Sports Sci 24: 919, 2006.
49. Sporis G, Vucetic V, Jovanovic M, Jukic I,
and Omrcen D. Reliabilty and factorial
validity of flexibility tests for team sports.
J Strength Cond Res 25: 11681176,
2011.
50. Vescovi JD and McGuigan MR.
Relationships between sprinting, agility,
and jump ability in female athletes.
J Sports Sci 26: 97107, 2008.
51. Voutselas V, Papanikolaou Z, Soulas D,
and Famisis K. Years of training and
hamstring-quadriceps ratio of soccer
players. Psychol Rep 101: 899906,
2007.
52. Wisloff 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:
285288, 2004.
53. 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: 7783,
2000.
19