Athlete testing: evaluation of more than just athletes

It is likely that all coaches have heard the phrase “there are a million ways to skin a cat” when discussing training methods implemented. Pick up any social media platform these days and you are certain to see multiple “new” variants to training methods scroll across your screen. In some instances, this can become overwhelming with the goal of attempting to fit every one of these variations into a training program. We, as coaches, must consistently take a step back and weigh what our athletes need in order to improve on-field performance or reduce their likelihood of injury.

This is where the creation and implementation of an athlete evaluation system can serve as a foundation and assistant in guiding athlete training. However, prior to the creation and implementation of any athlete assessment or profiling system, every coach must consider many aspects. These include understanding what they (as an individual or organisation) value, the sport and individual demands of practice and competition must be well understood, and, most importantly, there must be consistent, systematic communication between all parties involved in athlete training, monitoring, and preparation.

What do you value?

The end goal of all training and monitoring should consistently revolve to some extent around increased performance on the field/rink/court while reducing the likelihood of that athlete sustaining an injury. This is a good start but is an overall meaningless statement without a system to back up these words. Coaches and organisations must consistently ask the deeper questions regarding what each individual athlete needs in order to accomplish this overarching goal. When applied effectively, this can all be achieved through some form of athlete assessment. However, prior to ever placing any athlete into a position to be tested or evaluated, every individual or organisation must consider the purpose of each individual test being implemented.

This process can be started with a few simple questions:

• What are the most common injuries in our sport?
• What are the physical requirements of our sport or position?
• What do we feel our limiting factors are from a physical standpoint?
• What do our coaches (if applicable in your scenario) feel our limiting factors are in competition?
• Which of these qualities are we capable of testing?
• Which aspects of these do we feel are trainable?
• What do we value?

This is just a list to get the wheels turning in your own mind, but without having some firm understanding to the answers to these questions, consistent and reliable athlete evaluation becomes increasingly difficult. The importance of understanding the sport the athlete is competing in, the resources available for the athlete testing, and the aspects that are understood to be “trainable” from multiple viewpoints are all important pieces to consider.

However, the last question asked, “What do we value?” is the primary one I return to whenever we are considering altering our athlete testing and monitoring protocols. We must ultimately consider if we value the output of the test, if we can create change within that parameter, and then how it fits within the system we have already implemented.

Determining what is valued, whether as an individual or sports performance staff, is no simple undertaking. With the amount of data and training methods currently available, it is critical that foundational principles are applied that can be built from, i.e.  keeping the end goal of increasing performance while reducing injury likelihood. In order to apply this practically in training and sport, the breakdown of athlete requirements and important variables becomes vital.

There are many options available when it comes to the breakdown of these skills. Two that have been implemented previously include the “6 Physical Performance Qualities” and the “Performance Pillars” methods. Each of these achieves the similar outcome of increasing context of “what is valued” but do so in slightly different manners.

Figure 1. 6 physical performance qualities

These 6 physical performance qualities represent the three energy systems (Oxidative, Glycolytic, and ATP/Cr-P) and the three qualities revolving around force production (Strength, Repeat-Power, and Speed). These are each demonstrated above in Figure 1, along with a brief description. Although there are many other skills involved in performance, they can be fit into these six categories.

Skills such as change of direction and agility fall within the strength and speed physical performance qualities. The more force an athlete can absorb and re-direct, or “load and explode,” the quicker they will be able to change direction on the playing field. Another primary example is the repeated sprint ability (RSA). Depending on the duration, intensity, and frequency each of these physical performance qualities will be required. These will not be covered in-depth in this article, but merely serve as an example of how a coach or organisation can break down the physiological aspects involved in performance.

The 6 Physical Performance Qualities allow the differentiation between individual sports, such as a marathon runner (Figure 2), a shot-put thrower (Figure 3), and an elite RSA athlete (Figure 4). There are clear distinctions in the requirements of these athletes, thus there should be significant differences in the evaluations that are considered throughout the training and performance process.

Figure 2. Marathon runner and 6 physical performance qualities

Figure 3. Shot-put thrower and 6 physical performance qualities

Figure 4. Elite RSA and 6 physical performance qualities

These concepts should be generally well comprehended, and we understand this is an over-simplified model of the requirements of sport. However, this continues to serve as a framework to begin evaluating where an athlete’s strong and weak points of physical development are relative to their sport requirements. It is critical to recall that these 6 physical performance qualities will not appear in this specific, trained state throughout the entire annual process. 

Performance Pillars

Taking the evaluation process one step further, the addition of a “pillars system” serves to continue to unite coaches and organisation as to “what we value”. As with any new system being implemented, it should be discussed and revised heavily by all parties involved, particularly the sports performance team in this scenario prior to being presented to management and coaching staffs.

These pillars could include any aspects that are valued by the team in performance and reduction in injury. An example of these pillars can be seen below in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Example of Performance Pillars

Regardless of the method applied, whether it be a process that resembles the 6 Physical Performance Qualities or the Performance Pillars, the end goal is achieved. These merely serve to demonstrate what is valued by the organisation and allow increased specificity when creating athlete assessments. As depicted, the athlete testing and monitoring pieces serve as the foundation for the pillars, but it should also be noted athlete evaluation should not occur without all pillars in place. In order for this to be applied at the highest level, everyone must understand the demands of both the sport and individual position group (if applicable) within the competitive event.

Considering Sport/Positional Demands

The same principles can be applied to create an understanding of both sport and positional demands within a sport. If evaluations are being applied within an individual based sport, the performance pillars would already be created with this specificity in mind. However, as team sports have much greater diversity in requirements across a single team, the performance pillars can be created for every positional group.

Understanding the demands of each position can and should be achieved from multiple aspects. Three of these include conversations with coaches, consistent athlete testing and monitoring, and the understanding of injury trends. With coaches serving as the experts for their position group in the technical and tactical components of the sport, they serve as a vital resource to aid in the development of on-field performance.

Having these consistent conversations with the coaching staff revolving around player performance and then pairing that with the data collected in training, practice, and competition can allow an increased understanding in creating and training athletes for specific roles within a team. Finally, injury trends based on each position group can continue to serve as a refinement system for what an athlete requires and must be prepared for.

Although this article has placed a heavy emphasis on the physical aspects of athlete assessment and evaluation, we must consider the ability on the field and the skills required there. These include the technical, tactical, and even psychological aspects of performance as well. In team sports, athletes must consistently adapt to their ever-changing environment which requires repeated decision making. As the athlete evaluation serves to provide insight to all areas of performance, these decisions (technical and tactical) should also be considered and discussed with all coaching staff members. “The Process” by Cam Josse and Fergus Connolly serves as an excellent resource on these topics.

Returning to the performance pillars concept above, both an offensive lineman and wide receiver both require each of these aspects. However, the extent each are required are drastically different. The strength required of the offensive lineman to repeatedly strike another 300-pound man and attempt to violently move him is different than the repeated maximal acceleration, deceleration, and high-volume/high-velocity running required by the wide receiver. Both require the pillars mentioned, but the standard for what increases the odds of on-field performance should be different for each of these athletes.

Figure 6 below demonstrates each position group’s jump height for a squat jump (SJ) and countermovement jump (CMJ) from an American football team post-season. With the understanding that a SJ requires increased starting strength and a CMJ requires more reactive strength, it makes sense the athletes who utilise this skill consistently (OL and DL) would excel at the SJ. A depth-drop jump could also be added to the test to increase the specificity of athlete testing to the reactive ability required in sprinting. This example also serves as a primary example of athlete effort and consistency of data collection as the Safety (S) and Line Backer (LB) groups did not fit the expected trend.

Figure 6. Comparison of CMJ (blue) and SJ (grey) based on position group from an American football team post-season

As increased data is collected within the annual cycle, the time of year also becomes important in the evaluation process. With the understanding of athlete progression from general to specific throughout the annual process, it should be accepted they will not perform at the highest level on all testing metrics throughout the entire year. Rather, there should be key milestones within the annual training process that an athlete should aim for based on their individual results from the previous year and the positional baseline requirements.

This data can also be applied to create ideal athlete profiles for different positions. With clear distinctions between positions enough testing points can allow coaches to ask the question “what makes this athlete an elite _______?” (fill in the blank). Clearly there are many pieces of the puzzle to this when the technical, tactical, and psychological aspects are considered, but it is a starting point for potential target metrics for each athlete in a position group.

Below in Figure 7, an annual representation of the comparison of the SJ and CMJ throughout an annual training plan for a volleyball team. This considers only the athletes that are asked to jump for maximal height consistently in practice and competition. This represents how methods can be applied to achieve specific desired outcomes within each training block. As strength is emphasised, the gap between these two jumps is decreased. However, when the reactive and power components are trained to a greater extent, the athlete increases their CMJ to a greater extent than the SJ.

Figure 7. Comparison of CMJ (blue) and SJ (orange) based on training phase within annual plan for volleyball team

As monitoring and assessments become increasingly more available, coaches must constantly evaluate their program based on an individual’s or team’s goals. Having a clear goal for the annual cycle, and smaller goals (or milestones) within each phase of that cycle allow for consistent progress to be made and measured. This process also improves the ability of a coach to be adaptable with their training program should an individual athlete or group not respond in the expected or desired manner.

It is critical for all groups to maintain a holistic view of the athlete and how many aspects must be considered in the adaptation process as we prepare them for each step within their athletic and annual training process. Communication between all parties continues to be a necessary component, particularly for the explanation of athlete assessments. As a strength coach, I understood that every athlete was placed under the greatest amount of stress throughout the “Post-Summer Muscle Action” training block. I knew exactly the stressors placed on the athletes and that they were in a state of overreaching. However, if I did not take the time to explain this to our coaching staff, this information could be misconstrued as the athletes were moving in the wrong direction prior to pre-season beginning. For this reason, there must be constant, consistent communication between all parties.

Team of Teams

With so many data points available from the many different teams or groups found within an athletic organisation, communication must remain a high priority. Creating and utilising consistent language across each “team” will allow an increased understanding of what is valued, along with how it is being measured and changed when appropriate. This is not to say that a coaching staff must understand the specific adaptations or interventions that will occur with each athlete assessment, but there should be clarity about an individual’s results, progress, and next steps that are easily comprehended by all.

This returns to the concept above on progress throughout the annual cycle. If each group has a different goal for an athlete that does not work in synchronisation, the athlete will not experience the full benefits of the program being implemented. This misalignment could happen anywhere in the organisation and create a situation that could have easily been avoiding with communication.

This becomes particularly important in transition periods within the annual cycle. All groups must understand the goal and outputs required of athletes when a new phase begins. The example in Figure 8 below represents those phases and how the consistent building for “what is next?” is critical for athlete performance and reduced injury risk. When this pattern is understood by everyone involved, athlete assessments and progress become increasingly important as the ultimate question is asked “is this athlete prepared to tolerate this new training/practice/competition phase?”

Figure 8. Example annual plan with phases

Assessments allow for all members of the group to create common ground based on the organisation’s values, which then increases athlete interaction and progress. Athlete assessments and profiles allow for this to occur. We are ultimately a team of teams, all striving to serve each athlete to the best of our ability. This is only possible when clear and concise language is utilised across each department and the values are consistent for all.

Conclusion

Athlete profiling and assessing has become an increasingly valuable tool for coaches and organisations but not only due to the data collected and interpreted on the athlete. Athlete assessments require a systematic approach, the understanding and creation of “values” across an organisation, as well as drive consistent communication between all parties. Once these values are created and understood, the assessments applied should fit into the value system, be practical from an athlete testing standpoint, and trainable. The specifics of these values, which are demonstrated in the performance pillars section, will be expanded upon in upcoming articles.

Once this system has been created and implemented, sport, positional, and individual norms throughout the annual plan can be created. Ultimately allowing goals or milestones to be achieved throughout the progressive annual plan and increasing the effectiveness of communication between every group, as the goals are understood with each new phase implemented.

Athlete assessments ultimately allow us to answer, “what are we good at?” “what are our weaknesses?” and eventually, “which of these weaknesses likely matter most in performance for this individual?” Profiling allows for systematic and objective training to be completed. We can consistently evaluate what a training program did for an athlete in terms of results and then understand when we see this as a limiting factor, we can apply those training methods. Answering these questions should create clear action items for every individual that completes the assessment. If there is no action being created from the assessment, then it is not worth completing. This allows everyone to “keep the goal the goal”, which is commonly lost amidst the ever increasingly amount of information available to all in this present day.