Physical testing in basketball: What are the most appropriate tests?

A solid needs analysis and understanding of the sport we work in (hopefully) leads to a testing battery that helps us understand our athletes better. But there are hundreds of options when it comes to testing the various physical components we want to analyse. So which ones do we choose? Which ones are reliable? Which ones are valid? Matthew Morrison helps us decide which tests are most appropriate for basketball.

Are there any tests in basketball that have been widely accepted but, perhaps due to reliability and validity issues, don’t have a place in a robust testing battery?

Agility and change-of-direction (COD) are essential for basketball players, and the Lane Agility Test and the T-test are two tests that have been widely adopted but I don’t believe have a place in basketball testing.

Coaches and researchers ^[1] commonly use these tests to assess change of direction but, despite their name, these tests do not actually test agility! Furthermore, they lack transfer to basketball and do not reflect the demands of game play. For example, the Lane Agility Test entails distances and durations that far exceed what players experience within a match. In elite male basketball players, shuffling distances are approximately 1.88 – 2.23 m, whereas the Lane Agility Test requires 3.7 m of shuffling ^[2]. Furthermore, the Lane Agility Test is not able to discriminate between playing levels.

The T-test has similar issues, as the test also covers distances that exceed those typically encountered in match play. Moreover, the T-test also favours physical qualities such as 10 meter linear sprint speed and shuffling speed to the right, rather than change of direction speed ⁽³⁾. Consequently, these two COD tests may not be the best methods for determining COD performance in basketball players.

Jumping and repeated jumping are clearly important aspects of basketball performance. Are there any other tests versus the standard bilateral jump that could give practitioners more valuable information?

During basketball game play, players perform many jumping tasks ^[4]. However, there is very little research showing the types of jumps and their in-game frequency. Consequently, how to best measure an athlete’s jump performance is complex.

A cohort of semi-professional adult male players averaged approximately 146 jumps per match ^[5]. They used a stationary approach for 69% of jumps, a running approach for 26% of jumps and a one step approach for 5% of the jumps ^[5]. Furthermore, they employed a double leg take-off for 83% of jumps, and the remaining 17%, then, were single leg take-offs ^[5]. While these data are only reflective of a single cohort, they highlight the different strategies players use and that different speed-strength qualities underpin those strategies. Therefore, assessing more than just the traditional bilateral jump is prudent.

A jump test battery including a countermovement jump to assess long stretch shortening cycle force production, a squat jump to measure concentric-only force production, and drop or repeated jump tests for short-fast stretch shortening cycle production may provide a holistic overview of an athlete’s jumping ability ^[1]. Additionally, practitioners may wish to consider measuring jumps using different approach and take-off strategies. For example, a running vertical jump, as the NBA use in their draft combine. However, it is important to ensure the test is standardised and able to be reliably repeated.

Finally, extensive jump profiling of players may not be feasible, so coaches should select tests that yield valid and reliable data, can inform training and prescription, and enable coaches to rank and discriminate between players.

Strength testing during various sporting combines generates a lot of negativity each year. What strength testing would you recommend based on the needs of the sport?

Tests that require athletes to perform a maximal effort with a pre-determined load, such as a maximal number of repetitions with 185 lb during the bench press, is not a valid test of maximal strength and often lacks relevance to the sport. Furthermore, by using a set load, it’s not clear what physical quality the test is supposed to measure. For instance, if an athlete’s one repetition maximum (1RM) on the bench press is 185 lb, the test will reflect the athlete’s maximal dynamic strength. If another player has a 1RM of 285 lb, the same test is an assessment of muscular endurance.

Combines are often used to rank athletes rather than inform training prescription. Consequently, when practitioners aim to measure a basketball player’s maximal strength to inform training prescription, they should use alternative testing methods.

The explosive nature of basketball requires athletes to generate high levels of muscular power. As strength underpins muscular power, strength is an essential physical quality for basketball players. A 1-3RM test of lower body strength and upper body strength would be valuable for basketball coaches and practitioners. While the anthropometry and biomechanics of taller basketball players may influence their ability to perform some tests of lower body strength such as the back squat or deadlift, assessing the dynamic strength of basketball athletes is still valuable. Additionally, during these dynamic strength tests, it may be beneficial to monitor barbell velocity and develop the athletes’ load-velocity profile, as this can support the monitoring and prescription of training.

Isometric tests are becoming more popular in basketball ^[6-8] due to their ease of implementation, low levels of biomotor competency to perform, and the minimal fatigue induced. The isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTP) has shown promise as an alternate test to maximal dynamic strength testing, with strong correlations observed between peak force in the IMTP and various basketball-specific movements (e.g., sprints and jumps).

However, it is important for practitioners to select outcome variables that are robust, as some variables reported during the IMTP have questionable reliability and limited utility for performance. 

There seems to be a move away from COD speed tests. But do they still have a place in basketball?

Change of direction speed testing is an interesting consideration when assessing the physical qualities of basketball athletes. As mentioned previously, two of the most used tests to assess COD speed, the T-test and the Lane Agility Test, do not reflect the demands of basketball match play. However, several tests have been suggested to be more suited for assessing COD speed in basketball. For instance, the modified T-test requires players to cover half the distances of the traditional T-test, more accurately reflecting the demands of match play ^[9]. Additionally, the modified T-test test appears to be reliable (CV%: 2.6 – 2.7 %) and does not seem to be as strongly influenced by linear speed as the traditional T-test ^[10]. However, we need more specific research on basketball players to assess the utility of the modified T-test for assessing COD speed and determining if the test can discriminate between playing levels.

The use of a 505 change of direction deficit (CODD) test to assess COD performance is another possibility. Evidence is emerging that the CODD may offer novel insight into a basketball athlete’s COD performance ^[11].

The CODD can isolate an athlete’s COD speed from their linear sprint performance, providing insight into the athlete’s ability to change direction independent of their sprint ability. Additionally, the CODD may also be able to detect potential asymmetries in COD performance by assessing an athlete’s ability to change direction to the left and right, respectively. However, once again, research into basketball specifically is lacking so we need more to determine the utility of the 505 CODD in basketball players.

While I believe COD testing has a place in assessing the physical qualities of basketball athletes, I do not believe there is currently a gold standard test for COD speed. Until then, we should continue to develop and refine COD speed tests, and ensure they are valid, reliable, and accurately represent basketball specific situations.

Momentum is a variable that is getting a lot of attention lately. Why could it be important for practitioners to take note of this during speed testing versus just the time?

Sprint momentum is calculated by multiplying running velocity by an athlete’s body mass. In other sports, such as rugby union, sprint momentum has been able to discriminate between playing level and playing groups ^[12]. Whilst the match demands of rugby union and basketball are vastly different, there are periods of play in basketball where the ability to absorb and tolerate physical contact while moving at high speeds is beneficial. For example, a player needs the ability to withstand the physical presence and contact of a defender while driving to the basket and attempting a lay-up.

The anthropometry of basketball players is vastly different between playing positions. For examples, the height and mass of professional guards is 183 – 193 cm and 77 – 90 kg, whereas professional centres range from 198 – 214 cm and 96 – 111 kg ^[1]). Accounting for these differences when assessing speed is prudent.

Sprint momentum can provide a metric of sprint performance relative to body mass and may allow for more appropriate comparison of results between body types.

What are the biggest mistakes you see young practitioners/clinicians make and what advice would you give them to help?

I believe it is essential to select tests that are valid and reliable. It is also important not to test for the sake of testing. Time with athletes is often scarce, so selecting the right tests to gather data that can inform training practice and rank or monitor athletes is essential.

My biggest piece of advice would be to focus on controlling the controllables. There are numerous factors that can influence testing basketball players, such as motivation, fatigue, availability of players and resources required to test. Therefore, standardizing testing protocols as much as possible will help instill confidence that the data are robust.

Finally, it is vital to remember when interpreting fitness testing data that “skills pay the bills” and basketball performance is multifactorial. In settings like combine testing, it is important to remember that basketball players’ physical qualities are only one piece of the puzzle.