Fitness Testing in Team Sports: Why Some Coaches Hate It and Others Rely on It

Athlete Analyzer
Sep 9
3 min read

Players running a Yo-Yo test on a football field. — Soccer players running a Yo-Yo test

Introduction

Recently, the Athlete Analyzer and Pulses team joined several Reddit and other discussions across different sports communities - soccer, basketball, handball, field hockey, ice hockey, cricket, and other sports. The topic? Fitness testing.

It quickly became clear that coaches and athletes are divided into two camps: some see testing as a waste of time, while others rely on it as a key tool for development. What struck us most is how the same test can be seen as either pointless punishment or a valuable compass — depending on how it’s used.

The Split: Coaches Who Hate Testing vs. Coaches Who Value It

Arguments Against Fitness Testing

Many coaches pushed back against the idea of structured tests:

Takes time away from technical/tactical training – “Every minute not using the ball or stick is wasted.”
Players hate it – Some teams admitted they pressured the coach until testing stopped.
Not relevant to the sport – In stop-and-go games like handball or basketball, VO₂max tests felt disconnected from reality.
Selection misuse – Tests sometimes get misapplied as a shortcut for deciding who plays.
Too short seasons for youth – By the time fitness gains show, the season is already over.
Pointless if unused – If the numbers don’t shape training, then they’re just numbers.
Small clubs don’t care – Sometimes, survival (just fielding a team) matters more than testing.

Arguments in Favor of Fitness Testing

Others emphasized the benefits:

Accountability & standards – Testing sets clear expectations for players.
Objective baseline – Gives both coaches and athletes a concrete starting point.
Tracks progress – Retesting shows improvement, which can be motivating.
Supports long-term development – Prepares players for higher levels with tougher demands.
Quick & efficient – A Beep or Yo-Yo test takes ~15 minutes.
Complements observation – Numbers reinforce what coaches already see on the field.
Flexible testing options – Yo-Yo, 30-15, Bronco, shuttle runs — each suits different needs.
Beyond distance – Heart rate data adds another layer: effort, recovery, and readiness.
Players enjoy progress – Tangible proof that their hard work pays off.

Our Take: Testing as a Development Tool, Not Punishment

For us, the most important point is why you test.

Testing should be about development, not punishment.
It works best as a simple cycle: baseline → goals → training → retest.
Even if technical and tactical skills decide most matches, conditioning underpins performance — being fit enough to execute skills under pressure matters.
Tests don’t need to steal time from training. Done right, they’re quick, simple, and can even be integrated into warm-ups.

When testing becomes about selection or “weeding out,” it often backfires. But when it’s framed as a tool for individual progress, most athletes — and coaches — find value in it.

Conclusion: Useful, but Not Mandatory

From these discussions, it’s clear that fitness testing doesn’t need to be universal. For some clubs, it’s overkill; for others, it’s essential.

The key is purpose. If you test just to tick a box, it’s wasted time. But if you test to guide development, track progress, and help athletes see improvement, it can be one of the simplest, most effective tools in a coach’s kit.