Crimson Publishers Publish With Us Reprints e-Books Video articles

Full Text

Research & Investigations in Sports Medicine

The NFL Combine: A Scientific-Based Analysis and Critical Review

Bruno Nascimento Carvalho1,2*, Miguel Angel Condori Mayta1, Oscar Albuquerque de Moraes2, Adriano dos Santos1, Erico Chagas Caperuto1, Katia Bilhar Scapini1, Bruno Nascimento Lopes1, André Rinaldi Fukushima3,4 and Iris Callado Sanches1

1Human Movement Lab, Universidade São Judas Tadeu (USJT), Brazil

2Hypertension Unit, Heart Institute (InCor), University of Sao Paulo Medical School, Brazil

3Department of Pathology, School of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of São Paulo, Brazil

4Department of research and extension, Igesp Health Sciences College, Brazil

*Corresponding author: Bruno Nascimento-Carvalho,Human Movement Lab, Universidade São Judas Tadeu (USJT), Brazil

Submission: August 01, 2019;Published: September 19, 2019

DOI: 10.31031/RISM.2019.05.000612

ISSN 2578-0271
Volume5 Issue3


The NFL combine has been created with the intent of assessing American football players’ physical, cognitive and psychological qualities, in order to understand their future value and on-field performance. The literature showed that American football players’ playing ability is highly correlated with maximal strength and power (both upper and lower body), agility, reactive strength and sprinting performance. Due to abundant literature regarding physical tests, the NFL combine, in author’s opinion, should slightly modify the actual testing battery, implementing new tests such as an isometric mid-tight pull, medicine ball put and drop jump; in the interest of creating a more complete and valid assessment. An upgrade in technology, regarding the jump tests, is also advised to increase tests’ validity and reliability, replacing the Vertec device with an electronic jump mat. However, has been shown that past on-field performance can better detect players’ future NFL performance, while physical tests can only partially predict it. These findings suggest an analysis on how much a single physical assessment event can detect about future NFL career.


American football is one of the most popular and competitive team sports in the United States of America and probably in the world. The National Football League (NFL) is the American most important league and being a player in this league requires extraordinary physical and playing capabilities [1]. Every year, a week-long event is held in Indianapolis (IN), which is known worldwide as the NFL combine. During this week, a battery of off-field and on-field tests are the core of this event, coupled with other activities. Coaches and scouts from all the 32 NFL franchises use this event to evaluate the aspirant prospects, who wish to be selected to play in the NFL. The combine is an invitation only event where only around 330 players are invited from almost 10,000 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)’s players [2,3]. The NFL combine evaluation procedure is composed of anthropometric measurements, cognitive tests, physical tests, injury and drug screening and finally extensive interviews [3]. Mental, off-field and positional tests are an essential part of this evaluation process and have a high impact on on-field performance. However, they are not the focus of this paper, which will only analyse the physical characteristics. The physical tests performed by the college players are the 40-yard dash, 225-lb bench press test, vertical jump, broad jump, pro-agility shuttle, 3-cone drill [1].

The purpose of this article is to provide an evidence-based needs analysis of the sport of American football from the physical performance characteristics standpoint. Once highlighted the most important physical characteristics that correlate with a better performance on the field, a critical analysis of the NFL combine testing battery will be realized using the first part of the article as a guideline, with the goal to suggest implementation and/or changes to the actual assessment procedure. The final objective is to propose a better screening system, more scientific based, which can detect better, the most important characteristics of an American football player.


Strength is the maximal force that can be generated by a muscle; or, the neuromuscular system’s capacity to create force facing an opposing resistance [4]. High level of strength is a discriminant factor of successful performance, in various sports [5]. There is also a high correlation between the ability to attain a high level of maximum force and the better performance of power related activities like counter movement jump, broad jump and sprinting action [6-10]. Various studies showed significantly higher strength measures, both in upper and lower body, in American football players from higher divisions or levels, when compared to lower categories ones [11-13]. Iguchi et al. [13] and Schmidt [14] also found that starters players have better strength performances if compared to non-starters, in the same team. Sawyer et al. [15] only found similar results in defensive players; while Fry & Kraemer [11] found starters significantly better in the performance of both bench press and back squat exercises’ 1-Repetition Maximum (1-RM), in all positions, excluded the quarterback and running back ones. It is therefore important to assess American football players’ strength, through the implementation of upper and lower body tests, because of its high correlation with playing status and supposedly on-field performance.


Force and velocity are the two underpinning variables of power, which can be described as the application of the highest force, in the shortest amount of time [4,16,17]. Power is relevant in a sport because of the limited amount of time to apply force, typical of most sport’s movements and skills [16]. The vertical jump, more precisely, the counter movement jump (CMJ), has been utilised commonly in the strength and conditioning field to evaluate lower limbs power and explosive qualities [18-21]. However, Verkhoshansky [22] differentiates areas of the force-velocity curve, into speed-strength and strength-speed. The CMJ assesses the speed-strength portion, while the strength-speed assessment could be completed utilising an Olympic weightlifting exercise, as suggested by Turner et al. [23].

Different lower-limbs power tests (CMJ, standing long jump and standing triple jump) showed a positive correlation with acceleration performance at 9.1-m; while scores from 1-RM power clean, relative to body mass, were positively correlated with acceleration, velocity and sprint time at 9.1-m and 36.6-m [10]. CMJ height and peak power output along with standing long jump distance seems to be very highly related to muscular strength, agility and sprinting performance [8]. Robbins and Young [24] found similar correlations comparing both vertical and horizontal jumping performance with sprints; however, the study highlighted a stronger correlation with maximum speed rather than with acceleration. Jumping height, measured through the CMJ test, has been shown to be correlated with American football level of play since players from higher divisions have significantly better scores [11-13]. It is also positively correlated with the player status on the team, with starters having significantly better performance compared with reserve players [11,15]. Teramoto et al. [25] found the CMJ test the best predictor of NFL future success for the wide receiver position. Regarding the strength-speed portion of the force-velocity curve, similar results have been found using the power clean exercise, with starters and player from higher division performing significantly better than non-starters and lower divisions’ players [11,12].

Unfortunately, to our knowledge, the literature investigating power in the upper body is lacking; only Schmidt [14] assessed and compared American football players using a seated medicine ball put test. Results showed a significantly better performance by the starters when compared to reserve players [14]. In a similar sport like rugby, Baker [5] found higher power scores in the bench throw exercise, by professional players, in comparison to college and high-school athletes. Thus, a better ability to produce a high level of force, in a short amount of time, can be safely correlated with athlete’s playing ability and therefore, must be assessed in both upper and lower body.


Sprinting speed can be described as the capacity to cover a determined distance, in a specific time [26]. Straight-line sprinting is determined by acceleration, attainment of maximal speed and maintenance of maximal speed [23]. In team sports, like American football, only a few positions cover long distances at high speed [27], and it is rare that sprints are in a straight line, while the majority, are multi-directional, with the athlete responding to an ever-changing scenario, utilising changes of direction combined with re-accelerations and maximal velocity reaching [28]. The 40-yard sprint test is the most implemented to assess speed in American football players, with both acceleration and attainment of maximal speed tested [29]. These are probably the two most important characteristics for team sports player, while maintenance of maximal speed is more related to track and field events [28]. Between different divisions of NCAA football, the sprint times in the 40-yard dash test were significantly better for higher divisions athletes, with the only exception for the tight end position [11,12]. The 40-yard dash test has been also a pretty common indicator of playing ability in American football players comparing starters and non-starters; Fry & Kraemer [11] found that all defensive starters, combined with wide receiver and tight end starters, were significantly superior than reserves. Similarly, Black & Roundy [30] detected better sprinting performance for starters, in 10 out of 20 positions. Sawyer et al. [15] utilising a 20-yard sprint test, found significant differences only in the wide receiver, corner back, running back, tight end and line backer positions. Due to all the positive correlations between 40-yard sprint time and playing ability, assessing both acceleration and attainment of maximal speed appears of significant importance in American football players.


Agility has been described as a rapid, whole-body movement, with a change of direction or velocity in response to a stimulus [31]. As a matter of fact, field and court sports combine both preplanned and reactive changes of direction [28]. So, it appears that agility is composed of two elements. The physical component relies on the ability to change direction through technique, lower body strength, reactive strength and power [31,32]. While the cognitive element depends on anticipation and visual-scanning techniques and speed [31]. The physical ability to change direction has been investigated through the years utilising change-of-direction speed (CODS) tests, while recently, a few tests have been implemented to assess the cognitive ability, or also named reactive agility [32]. In American football both qualities are important because of the wide variety of roles; wide receivers, for example, run following pre-planned routes, so CODS test appears to be a valid assessment, while defensive players, need to react and respond to visual stimulus through the whole game, so they rely more on reactive agility [28,32,33]. Unfortunately, in American football, agility has been generally confined to tests of CODS and only one study by Sawyer et al. [15] analysed differences in CODS, between coaches’ high and low ranked players, found that only for the running back, tight end and line backer positions, higher ranked players performed significantly better in the pro agility shuttle. Different studies investigated both CODS and reactive agility, in Australian football and rugby players [34-49]. The findings were interesting because reactive strength tests could discriminate between higher and lower level players, while CODS tests did not [32,34-39]. These findings could be questioning the validity of pre-planned CODS tests, for assessing players’ skill level [32,35-39]. They also highlight the importance of perceptual skills in a high level of sports performance [32,36,40]. It would be interesting having data about American football players’ reactive agility to compare the different positions and levels of play.

Reactive Strength

It has been demonstrated that body’s musculoskeletal elements like muscles, tendons, and ligaments work together as a “spring” system, which function is fundamental during physical activities that require initial eccentric action and a subsequent concentric contraction [41-43]. This basic human locomotion complex is known as the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) [41-43]. The functionality of the SSC can be measured during rebound jumping, though the reactive strength index (RSI) and leg stiffness [44]. The RSI is calculated dividing jump height with ground contact time and it reveals the rebound efficiency of the musculotendinous unit during activities that require the use of the SSC [44-47]. The assessment of the RSI provides an indicator of the ability to generate force through the SSC by an athlete [17,48,49]. Various studies found that an augmented reactive strength ability translated to better jumping and hopping height [41,50] coupled with quicker ground contact time during sprinting [50,51] and boosted rate of force development [52,53]. Reactive strength also seems to be highly correlated with the change of direction ability [40,54,55] and straight sprinting speed [54]. Lockie et al. [51] found a significantly greater RSI in faster athletes compared to slower in short distance sprints (0-10m). To the author’s knowledge there is no literature investigating reactive strength in American football players, however, considering the above-cited studies, it appears to be a relevant factor in athletic performance.

What should be tested?

In the first part, a need analysis of the sport of American football has been completed, highlighting the main biomotor abilities which, in accordance with the actual literature, appears to be more correlated with great physical performance in broad terms and, on-field American football playing ability. In the following part, a scientific-based critical analysis of the NFL Combine will evaluate the various testing procedures utilised and modifications or implementations will be suggested if necessary, in author’s opinion.

Strength tests

During the NFL combine the only strength assessment is the NFL 225-lb bench press test, which requires the performance of as many repetitions as possible, without any rest, with 225-lb (102.3- kg) [56]. Every position at the NFL combine performs this test [56]. Literature investigated the validity and accuracy of this test in the past years with multiple studies finding a high correlation between the estimated 1-RM from the NFL 225-lb bench press test, and the actual bench press 1-RM [56-64]. It should be highlighted that the performance of more than 10 repetitions increases the prediction bias [57,59,60,62,65]. Regarding the reliability of this sub-maximal test, Mann et al. [56] found a reliable consistency over multiple trials, with a variation of ±2 repetitions between test-retest. It can be safely considered a reliable test because the smallest worthwhile difference (SWD) is three repetitions [56]. To author’s opinion, the NFL 225-lb bench press test, utilised at the NFL combine, can be considered adequate for the circumstances, due to the high reliability and satisfactory validity to assess upper body maximal strength, which appears to have a good correlation with American football on-field performance [11-15]. The employment of a 1-RM bench press test would be unpractical, given the extensive timeconsuming procedure [66], so the NFL 225-lb bench press test is an excellent alternative considering the high number of athletes to be tested at the NFL combine.

Literature has also found a positive correlation between lower body strength and player’s performance level within the sport of American football [11-14]. Author’s suggestion is the addition of a strength assessment for the lower body, in future NFL players. As for the upper body, maximal testing, in terms of a 1-RM test, is too problematic [66]. A possible solution is the utilisation of the isometric mid-thigh pull (IMTPf) test. This test, commonly used to quantify maximal strength [6,65-68], replicate the position held during the second pull phase of a clean, with the athlete in an upright position with a slight hip and knee flexion [69]. The IMTPf test records the peak isometric force while the athlete exerts its maximal force from that position to an immovable barbell [70]. The peak isometric force has shown perfect correlations with multiple athletic performances such as weightlifting [6,67,70,71], change of direction [72] and jumping [6,67,70,71]. Most importantly, isometric peak force showed a positive correlation with 1-RM back squat performance in American football players [73], rugby union players [74] and in college level wrestler [75]. Due to its proven test-retest reliability [70,71] and easy administration and minimal skill requirement [76], the isometric mid-thigh pull test could be a practical solution to generate a complete strength assessment of both upper and lower body, during the NFL combine.

Power tests

Lower limbs power assessment, both vertically and horizontally, is important due to its high correlation with American football playing ability [11-15]. During the NFL combine this assessment is accomplished utilising a counter movement jump (CMJ) and a broad jump [1]. Both tests are easy to administer and non-fatiguing [59]. The CMJ height is recorded utilising a Vertec device, which measures the difference between the fully extended standing reach height, arms comprised, of the athlete and its maximal vertical jump-and-reach height, recorded on plastic swivel vanes [15,60]. The athlete uses its hand to displace the vanes during the overhead swinging motion at the top of the vertical jump [15,60]. Nuzzo et al. [21] recommend a separate familiarization session and the completion of more than three trials using the Vertec device because of its not high test-retest reliability. Comparing the scores obtained using Vertec with others devices like the 3-camera motion analysis system, considered the “gold standard” method [61] and a jump mat with micro switches embedded [62], showed a good correlation between the 3-camera motion analysis system and the jump mat, while the Vertec had significant differences [63]. This could encourage the NFL to utilise a jump mat with micro switches embedded, due to its better accuracy in recording jumping height and quicker administration time, without the possibility of a human error, due to the computer system jump height calculation [63]. The Vertec device appears to rely on individual skills like shoulders range of motion and ability to hit the vanes at the maximum height by the athlete, combined with the test administrator accuracy on the count of the vanes displaced and the determination of the starting position [63]. It should be highlighted, that literature employed only physically active individuals, so it would be interesting testing validity e reliability of the various measuring devices utilising elite athletes. Regarding the broad jump utilised during the NFL combine, in the author’s opinion, it appears to be a valid test of horizontal lower body power, frequently used in the strength and conditioning practice [64]. Unfortunately, to author’s knowledge, no studies investigated its reliability with athletic population or elite athletes, but only with youth individuals, finding good reliability in adolescents [65]. The strength-speed portion of the force-velocity curve can be assessed utilising the isometric midthigh pull test, described in the previous paragraph, because of its perfect correlation with weightlifting maximal efforts tests [6,66- 68].

Even with limited literature to support the utilisation of upper body power assessments, significant differences have been reported in upper body power in players from higher ranks compared to lower [14,77]. The NFL combine does not implement any test in this regard. It could be argued that literature regarding upper body power relationship to on-field performance is lacking, however, NFL personnel could consider the addition of a medicine ball put (MBP) test, which it is considered easy to administer and also specific to functional movement typical of various sports [78]. The test detailed procedure is described by the NSCA [64], and Clemons et al. [79] confirmed its validity and reliability.

Speed tests

Examined the high importance of sprinting speed in the sport of American football and its value on differentiating players’ rank [11,15,31], the 40-yard dash test occurs to be a valid and reliable assessment [80]. The NFL utilises electronic timing to record the data, which can be considered the “gold standard” method [81]. However, the author would like to suggest the addition of the 10- yard split time, because of peculiar American football positions such as offensive and defensive line, which rarely exceed this distance during games [24]. These data on shorter and more specific distances would be a better insight into pure acceleration for players who merely rely on these short bouts of sprinting performance [24].

Agility Tests

Testing agility in American football players should include both change of direction speed (CODS) and reactive agility drills because literature showed that both can differentiate playing ability, especially reactive agility tests, when high-level athletes are tested [29,32,34,36-41]. However, the NFL combine only employs two CODS tests: pro-agility shuttle test and 3-cone drill. Both tests have been widely investigated, finding great test-retest reliability and validity [29,73-75]. However at least two trials are necessary in order to record valid data [82]. In various sports, agility tests that require the athlete to change direction in reaction to a not preplanned stimulus, in sport-specific movement patterns, have been created [34,83-86]. It would be interesting, if the NFL would invest, with the intent to create a reactive agility test specific to the sport of American football. However, even considering the high validity of these type of tests in differentiating between skilled and less skilled athletes [29,33-40,87,88], a lot of issues arise with these open-skills assessments, such as standardization, familiarization, and reliability [23]. It could also be argued that players’ reactive agility in a sport-specific scenario is already evaluated during the positional drills, performed after the physical tests at the NFL combine. In author’s opinion, the agility assessment implemented at the NFL combine utilising CODS tests, summated with positional drills, allows an exhaustive evaluation of athlete’s agility. The creation of a specific reactive agility test for American football and its various positions would be time and resources consuming.

Reactive Strength Tests

NFL combine does not contemplate the implementation of a reactive strength evaluation. As analysed previously, an enhanced reactive strength is correlated with the superior performance of various physical abilities such as jumping, sprinting and change of direction [41,32,50-54]. A simple test that could be added is the drop jump (DJ). It only requires a contact mat which provides a recording of height jumped and ground contact time, that will be utilised to calculate the reactive strength index (RSI) [48]. DJ test can be implemented with different heights (30, 45, 60 and 75cm) [46]. Due to time constraint and a high number of subjects participating at the NFL combine venue, the utilisation of a 30-cm DJ test could be optimal, mostly because of its high reliability from trial-to-trial [46].

Sequence of testing

To guarantee tests reliability, the order in which tests are implemented and the duration of rest periods in-between are of fundamental importance [89]. The principle behind sequencing of testing is that one test should not affect, in any manner, the execution of the subsequent ones, guaranteeing valid and reliable results [89]. Considering the National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) guidelines [89], the NFL combine assessment procedure, including the suggested modifications in this article, will test the athletes in the 225-lb bench press test, the first testing day, separated from the other tests, as commonly implemented during the NFL combine (see NFL combine website at The second day of testing will start with “not-fatiguing tests” (counter movement jump, broad jump, drop jump), followed by “agility/CODS tests” (pro-agility shuttle, 3-cones drill), “maximum power tests” (medicine ball put, isometric mid-thigh pull) and finally “sprint tests” (40-yd dash) [89]. Rest periods should also be accurately determined, following the key metabolic substrates’ restoration time course [23]. The phosphagen energy system fully restores in around 3-5 minutes [90-92]. All the NFL combine tests require energy bouts of around 5-6 seconds, so three to five minutes rest periods are required through the various testing exercises [23].


Testing physical qualities, in a large number of National Football League’s prospects, with the intent to evaluate and detect future playing ability, could be a really hard duty. This article outlined the various biomotor abilities, that accordingly to the present literature, can discriminate playing ability in American football players. With these guidelines, the NFL combine testing procedure has been evaluated for its validity and reliability and some modifications or additions have been suggested following the literature findings, with the intent to create a more useful and precise assessment of American football players’ playing ability, utilising only physical tests. However, has been demonstrated that past on-field performance can better detect future NFL performance, compared to physical tests [93]. It also appears that only 50% of American football on-field performance can be predicted through lower body power, change of direction and sprinting speed tests’ data [94]. These findings should invite the American football scouts and strength and conditioning coaches to reflect on how much a single physical assessment event can detect the future American football player’s on-field performance [95-103].


  1. Vitale JA, Caumo A, Roveda E, Montaruli A, La Torre A, et al. (2016) Physical attributes and NFL combine performance tests between Italian national league and American football players: a comparative study. J Strength Cond Res 30(10): 2802-2808.
  2. Kuzmits FE, Adams AJ (2008) The NFL combine: does it predict performance in the national football league? J Strength Cond Res 22(6): 1721-1727.
  3. Savelsbergh GJ, Williams AM, Van der Kamp J, Ward P (2002) Visual search, anticipation and expertise in soccer goalkeepers. J Sports Sci 20(3): 279-287.
  4. Bompa TO, Haff GG (2009) Periodization: Theory and methodology of training. (5th edn), Human Kinetics, Champaign, Illinois, USA.
  5. Baker D (2014) Using strength platforms for explosive performance. In: Joyce D & Lewindon D (Eds.), High-performance training for Human Kinetics, Champaign, Illinois, USA.
  6. Stone MH, O’Bryant HS, McCoy L, Coglianese R, Lehkkuhl M (2003) Power and maximum strength relationships during performance of dynamic and static weighted jumps. J Strength Cond Res 17(1): 140-147.
  7. Stone MH, Sanborn K, O’Bryant HS, Hartman M, Stone ME, et al. (2003) Maximum strength-power performance relationships in collegiate throwers. J Strength Cond Res 17(4): 739-745.
  8. Peterson MD, Alvar BA, Rhea MR (2006) The contribution of maximal force production to explosive movement among young collegiate athletes. J Strength Cond Res 20(4): 867-873.
  9. Nuzzo JL, McBride JM, Cormi P, McCaulley GO (2008) Relationship between countermovement jump performance and multijoint isometric and dynamic tests of strength. J Strength Cond Res 22(3): 699-707.
  10. Brechue WF, Mayhew JL, Piper FC (2010) Characteristics of sprint performance in college football players. J Strength Cond Res 24(5): 1169-1178.
  11. Fry AC, Kraemer WJ (1991) Physical performance characteristics of American collegiate football players. J Strength Cond Res 5(3): 126-138.
  12. Garstecki MA, Latin RW, Cuppett MM (2004) Comparison of selected physical fitness and performance variables between NCAA Division I and II football players. J Strength Cond Res 18(2): 292-297.
  13. Iguchi J, Yamada Y, Ando S, Fujisawa Y, Hojo T, et al. (2011) Physical and performance characteristics of Japanese division 1 collegiate football players. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 3368-3377.
  14. Schmidt WD (1999) Strength and physiological characteristics of NCAA division III American football players. J Strength Cond Res 13(3): 210-213.
  15. Sawyer DT, Ostarello JZ, Suess EA, Dempsey M (2002) Relationship between football playing ability and selected performance measures. J Strength Cond Res 16(4): 611-616.
  16. Bompa T, Buzzichelli CA (2015) Periodization training for sports. (3rd edn), Human Kinetics, Champaign, Illinois, USA.
  17. McBride, Jeffery M (2016) Biomechanics of Resistance Exercise. In: Haff GG & Triplett NT (Eds.), Essentials of strength training and conditioning/National Strength and Conditioning Association. (4th edn), Human Kinetics, Champaign, Illinois, USA.
  18. Bosco C, Komi PV (1979) Potentiation of the mechanical behaviour of the human skeletal muscle through prestretching. Acta Physiol Scand 106(4): 467-472.
  19. Bosco C, Komi PV (1980) Influence of aging on the mechanical behaviour of leg extensor muscles. Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol 45(2-3): 209-219.
  20. Bosco C, Viitasalo JT (1982) Potentiation of myoelectrical activity of human muscles in vertical jumps. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol 22(7): 549-562.
  21. Nuzzo JL, Anning JH, Scharfenberg JM (2011) The reliability of three devices used for measuring vertical jump height. J Strength Cond Res 25(9): 2580-2590.
  22. Verkhoshansky YU (1996) Quickness and velocity in sports movements. IAAF Q New Studies in Athletic 11: 29-37.
  23. Turner A, Walker S, Stembridge M, Coneyworth P, Reed G, et al. (2011) A testing battery for the assessment of fitness in soccer players. Strength and Conditioning Journal 33(5): 29-39.
  24. Robbins DW, Young WB (2012) Positional relationships between various sprint and jump abilities in elite American football players. J Strength Cond Res 26(2): 388-397.
  25. Teramoto M, Cross CL, Willick SE (2016) Predictive value of national football league scouting combine on future performance of running backs and wide receivers. J Strength Cond Res 30(5): 1379-1390.
  26. Hoffman JR, Graham JF (2012) Speed training. In: Hoffman JR (Ed.), NSCA’s guide to program design/national Strength and conditioning association. Human Kinetics, Champaign, Illinois,
  27. Wellman AD, Coad SC, Goulet GC, McLellan CP (2016) Quantification of competitive game demands of NCAA Division I college football players using global positioning systems. J Strength Cond Res 30(1): 11-19.
  28. DeWeese BH, Nimphius S (2016) Program design and technique for speed and agility training. In: Haff GG & Triplett NT (Eds.), Essentials of strength training and conditioning / national strength and conditioning association. (4th edn), Human Kinetics, Champaign, Illinois, USA.
  29. Young W, Russell A, Burge P, Clarke A, Cormack S, et al. (2008) The use of sprint tests for assessment of speed qualities of elite Australian rules footballers. Int J Sports Physiol Perform 3(2): 199-206.
  30. Black W, Roundy E (1994) Comparisons of size, strength, speed, and power in NCAA Division 1-A football players. J Strength Cond Res 8(2): 80-85.
  31. Sheppard JM, Young WB (2006) Agility literature review: classifications, training and testing. J Sports Sci 24(9): 919-932.
  32. Young WB, Miller IR, Talpey SW (2015) Physical qualities predict change-of-direction speed but not defensive agility in Australian rules football. J Strength Cond Res 29(1): 206-212.
  33. Gleason BH, Kramer JB, Stone MH (2015) Agility training for American football. Strength and Conditioning Journal 37(6): 65-71.
  34. Sheppard JM, Young WB, Doyle TL, Sheppard TA, Newton RU (2006) An evaluation of a new test of reactive agility and its relationship to sprint speed and change of direction speed. J Sci Med Sport 9(4): 342-349.
  35. Gabbett TJ, Kelly JN, Sheppard JM (2008) Speed, change of direction speed, and reactive agility of rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res 22(1): 174-181.
  36. Gabbett T, Benton D (2009) Reactive agility of rugby league players. J Sci Med Sport 12(1): 212-214.
  37. Serpell BG, Ford M, Young WB (2010) The development of a new test of agility for rugby league. J Strength Cond Res 24(12): 3270-3277.
  38. Henry G, Dawson B, Lay B, Young W (2011) Validity of a reactive agility test for Australian football. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 6(4): 534-545.
  39. Young W, Farrow D, Pyne D, McGregor W, Handke T (2011) Validity and reliability of agility tests in junior Australian football players. J Strength Cond Res 25(12): 3399-3403.
  40. Young WB, B Dawson GJ Henry (2015) Agility and change-of-direction speed are independent skills: implications for training for agility in invasion sports. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching 10(1): 159-169.
  41. Farley CT, DC Morgenroth (1999) Leg stiffness primarily depends on ankle stiffness during human hopping. Journal of Biomechanics 32(3): 267-273.
  42. Komi PV (2000) Stretch-shortening cycle: A powerful model to study normal and fatigued muscle. Journal of Biomechanics 33(10): 1197-1206.
  43. Nicol C, J Avela, PV Komi (2006) The stretch-shortening cycle: a model to study naturally occurring neuromuscular fatigue. Sports Medicine 36(11): 977-999.
  44. Lloyd RS, JL Oliver, MG Hughes, CA Williams (2009) Reliability and validity of field-based measures of leg stiffness and reactive strength index in youths. Journal of Sports Sciences 27(14): 1565-1573.
  45. McClymont D (2005) Use of the Reactive Strength Index (RSI) as an indicator of plyometric training conditions. Science and football 5th World Congress, Lisbon, Portugal, Routledge, London, UK, 5: 408-417.
  46. Flanagan EP, TM Comyns (2008) The use of contact time and the reactive strength index to optimize fast stretch-shortening cycle training. Strength and Conditioning Journal 30(5): 32-38.
  47. Ebben WP, EJ Petushek (2010) Using the reactive strength index modified to evaluate plyometric performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 24(8): 1983-1987.
  48. Newton RU, E Dugan (2002) Application of strength diagnosis. Strength and Conditioning Journal 24(5): 50-59.
  49. Flanagan EP, AJ Harrison (2007) Muscle dynamics differences between legs in healthy adults. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 21(1): 67-72.
  50. Arampatzis A, Schade F, Walsh M, Bruggeman GP (2001) Influence of leg stiffness and its effect on myodynamic jumping performance. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 11(5): 355-364.
  51. Lockie RG, Murphy AJ, Knight TJ, Janse de Jonge XA (2011) Factors that differentiate acceleration ability in field sport athletes. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 25(10): 2704-2714.
  52. Wilson GJ, Murphy AJ, Pryor JF (1994) Musculotendinous stiffness: Its relationship to eccentric, isometric, and concentric performance. Journal of Applied Physiology 76(6): 2714-2719.
  53. Bojsen Moller J, Magnnusson SP, Rasmussen LR, Kjaer M, Aagaard P (2005) Muscle performance during maximal isometric and dynamic contractions is influenced by the stiffness of tendinous structures. Journal of Applied Physiology 99(3): 986-994.
  54. Young WB, R James, I Montgomery (2002) Is muscle power related to running speed with changes of direction? The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 42(3): 282-288.
  55. Gravina L, Gil SM, Ruiz F, Zubero J, Gil J, et al. (2008) Anthropometric and physiological differences between first team and reserve soccer players aged 10-14 years at the beginning and end of the season. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 22(4): 1308-1314.
  56. Mann JB, Ivey PJ, Brechue WF, Mayhew JL (2014) Reliability and smallest worthwhile difference of the NFL-225 test in NCAA Division I football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 28(5): 1427-1432.
  57. Chapman PP, Whitehead JR, Binkert RH (1998) The 225-lb reps-to-fatigue test as a submaximal estimate of 1RM bench press performance in college football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 12(4): 258-261.
  58. Mayhew JL, Ware JS, Bemben MG, Wilt B, Ward TE, et al. (1999) The NFL-225 test as a measure of bench press strength in college football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 13(2): 130-134.
  59. Mayhew JL, Ware JS, Cannon K, Corbett S, Chapman PP, et al. (2002) Validation of the NFL-225 test for predicting 1-RM bench press performance in college football players. The Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 42(3): 304-308.
  60. Whisenant MJ, Panton LB, East WB, Broeder CE (2003) Validation of submaximal prediction equations for the 1 repetition maximum bench press on a group of collegiate football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 17: 221-227.
  61. Mayhew JL, Jacques JA, Ware JA, Chapman PP, Bemben MG, et al. (2004) Anthropometric dimensions do not enhance 1-RM prediction from the NFL-225 test in college football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 18(3): 572-578.
  62. Hetzler RK, Schroeder BL, Wages JJ, Stickley CD, Kimura IF (2010) Anthropometry increases 1 repetition maximum predictive ability of NFL-225 test for division IA college football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 24(6): 1429-1439.
  63. Mayhew JL, Srnka S, Getty C, Ball A, Jacques JA (2010) Evaluation of the NFL-225 test for predicting one repetition maximum bench press in small-college football players. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 20: 67-76.
  64. Mann JB, Stoner JB, Mayhew JL (2012) NFL-225 test to predict 1RM bench press in NCAA division I football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 26(10): 2623-2631.
  65. Brown BR, T Williams, KL Randolph, JL Mayhew (2013) Relationship of anthropometric dimensions to 1-RM bench press and NFL-225 test in college football players. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance 23: 36-45.
  66. Niewiadomski W, Laskowska D, Gąsiorowska A, Cybulski G, Strasz A et al. (2008) Determination and prediction of one repetition maximum (1RM): safety considerations. Journal of Human Kinetics 19(1): 109-120.
  67. Haff GG, Carlock JM, Hartman MJ, Kilgore JL, Kawamori N, et al. (2005) Force-time curve characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions of elite women Olympic weightlifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19(4): 741-748.
  68. Haff GG, Ruben RP, Lider J, Twine C, Cormie P (2015) A comparison of methods for determining the rate of force development during isometric midthigh clean pulls. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 29(2): 386-395.
  69. Haff GG, Stone M, Bryant HS, Harman E, Dinan C, et al. (1997) Force-time dependent characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 11(4): 269-272.
  70. James LP, Roberts LA, Haff GG, Kelly VG, Beckman EM (2017) Validity and reliability of a portable isometric mid-thigh clean pull. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 31(5): 1378-1386.
  71. Kawamori N, Rossi SJ, Justice BD, Haff EE, Pistilli EE, et al. (2006) Peak force and rate of force development during isometric and dynamic mid-thigh clean pulls performed at various intensities. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 20(3): 483-491.
  72. Thomas C, Comfort C, Chiang CY, Jones PA (2015) Relationship between isometric mid-thigh pull variables and sprint and change of direction performance in collegiate athletes. Journal of Trainology 4(1): 6-10.
  73. McGuigan MR, Winchester JB (2008) The relationship between isometric and dynamic strength in college football players. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 7(1): 101-105.
  74. Wang R, Hoffman JR, Tanigawa S, Miramonti AA, La Monica MB, et al. (2016) Isometric mid-thigh pull correlates with strength, sprint, and agility performance in collegiate rugby union players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 30(11): 3051-3056.
  75. McGuigan MR, Winchester JB, Erickson T (2006) The importance of isometric maximum strength in college wrestlers. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine 5(CSSI): 108-113.
  76. Moir GL (2012) Muscular strength. In: Miller T (Ed.), NSCA’s guide to tests and assessments/ National Strength and Conditioning Association. Human Kinetics, Illinois, Champaign, USA.
  77. Baker D (2002) Differences in strength and power among junior-high, senior-high, college-aged, and elite professional rugby league players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 16(4): 581-585.
  78. Peterson MD (2012) Power. In: Miller T (Ed.), NSCA’s guide to tests and assessments/ National Strength and Conditioning Association. Human Kinetics, Illinois, Champaign, USA.
  79. Clemons JM, Campbell B, Jeansonne C (2010) Validity and reliability of a new test of upper body power. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 24(6): 1559-1565.
  80. Triplett T (2012) Speed and agility. In: Miller T (Ed.), NSCA’s guide to tests and assessments/ National Strength and Conditioning Association. Human Kinetics, Illinois, Champaign, USA.
  81. Mayhew JL, Houser JJ, Briney BB, Williams TB, Piper FC, et al. (2010) Comparison between hand and electronic timing of 40-yd dash performance in college football players. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 24(2): 447-451.
  82. Stewart PF, Turner AN, Miller SC (2014) Reliability, factorial validity, and interrelationships of five commonly used change of direction speed tests. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 24(3): 500-506.
  83. Hertel J, Denegar CJ, Johnson PD, Hale SA, Buckley WE (1999) Reliability of the Cybex reactor in the assessment of an agility task. Journal of Sport Rehabilitation 8(1): 24-31.
  84. Farrow D, Young W, Bruce L (2005) The development of a test of reactive agility for netball: a new methodology. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport 8(1): 52-60.
  85. Yong WB, Farrow D (2006) A review of agility: Practical applications for strength and conditioning. Strength and Conditioning Journal 28(5): 24-29.
  86. Besier TF, Lloyd DG, Cochrane JL, Ackland TR (2010) External loading of the knee joint during running and cutting maneuvers. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 33(7): 1168-1175.
  87. Williams AM, Davids K (1998) Visual search strategy, selective attention and expertise in soccer. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 69(2): 111-128.
  88. Savelsbergh GJ, Williams AM, Van der Kamp J, Ward P (2002) Visual search, anticipation and expertise in soccer goalkeepers. Journal of Sports Sciences 20(3): 279-287.
  89. McGuigan M (2016) Principles of Test Selection and Administration. In: Haff GG & Triplett NT (Eds.), Essentials of strength training and conditioning/National Strength and Conditioning Association. (4th edn), Human Kinetics, Illinois, Champaign, USA.
  90. Hultman E, Bergström J, Anderson NM (1967) Breakdown and resynthesis of phosphorylcreatine and adenosine triphosphate in connection with muscular work in man. Scandinavian Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Investigation 19(1): 56-66.
  91. Bogdanis GC, Nevill ME, Boobis LH, Lakomy HK, Nevill AM (1995) Recovery of power output and muscle metabolites following 30-s of maximal sprint cycling in man. The Journal of Physiology 482(Pt2): 467-480.
  92. Dawson B, Goodman C, Lawrence S, Preen D, Polglaze T, et al. (1997) Muscle phosphocreatine repletion following single and repeated short sprint efforts. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports 7: 206-213.
  93. Lyons BD, Hoffman BJ, Michel JW, Williams KJ (2011) On the predictive efficiency of past performance and physical ability: The case of the national football league. Human Performance 24: 158-172.
  94. Newsom J, Probst M (2016) Relationship between performance tests and yards per carry average in collegiate running backs. Kahperd Journal 53(2): 39-44.
  95. Almuzaini KS, Fleck SJ (2008) Modification of the standing long jump test enhances ability to predict anaerobic performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 22(4): 1265-1272.
  96. Klavora P (2000) Vertical-jump test: A critical review. Strength and Conditioning Journal 22(5): 70-74.
  97. Aragon vargas LF (2000) Evaluation of four vertical jump tests: Methodology, reliability, validity, and accuracy. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 4: 215-228.
  98. Isaacs LD (1998) Comparison of the vertec and just jump systems for measuring height of vertical jump by young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills 86(2): 659-663.
  99. Leard JS, Cirillo MA, Katsnelson E, Kimiatek DA, Miller TW et al. (2007) Validity of two alternative systems for measuring vertical jump height. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 21(4): 1296-1299.
  100. Espana Romero V, Artero EG, Jimenez Pavon D, Cuenca Garcia M, Ortega FB, et al. (2010) Assessing health-related fitness tests in the school setting: Reliability, feasibility and safety; the ALPHA study. International Journal of Sports Medicine 31(7): 490-497.
  101. Haff GG, Carlock JM, Hartman MJ, Kilgore JL, Kawamori N, et al. (2005) Force-time curve characteristics of dynamic and isometric muscle actions of elite women Olympic weightlifters. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 19(4): 741-748.
  102. Sekulic D, Spasic M, Mirkov D, Cavar M, Sattler T (2013) Gender-specific influences of balance, speed, and power on agility performance. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 27(3): 802-811.
  103. Eriksson A, Johansson FR, Bäck M (2015) Reliability and criterion-related validity of the 20-yard shuttle test in competitive junior tennis players. Open Access Journal of Sports Medicine 14(6): 269-276.

© 2019 Jacopo Terenzi. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and build upon your work non-commercially.