Optimizing Readiness Testing in Pro Football: What Matters, What Doesn’t, and What Comes Next

By Dr James Malone
Director, Malone Performance | Educator & Consultant in Football Science

‍

In modern football, we love to measure everything.

‍

Heart rate variability. Countermovement jump height. Sleep quality. Resting heart rate. Hormone markers. The list goes on.

But as clubs adopt increasingly sophisticated monitoring systems, we need to ask the big question:

‍

Are these readiness tests actually helping us make better decisions?

In elite football environments — where fixture congestion, travel, and recovery pressures dominate the calendar — a smarter, more practical approach to readiness is essential.

Here’s how I think we can do better.

‍

What Is 'Readiness' — and Why Should We Care?

Readiness refers to a player’s physical and mental preparedness to perform on a given day. It reflects a range of internal and external factors:

- Training load and fatigue
- Sleep and nutrition
- Psychological stress
- Recovery status
- Travel and match context

In theory, assessing readiness helps coaches and performance staff:

- Avoid non-functional overreaching
- Prevent injuries and burnout
- Tailor training to the individual
- Support consistent high-level performance

‍

But in practice, the challenge lies in how we assess it — and what we do with the information.

‍

The Reality of Football Schedules

Let’s be honest: most readiness testing protocols are designed for stable, controlled environments.

Football isn’t like that.

Take Real Madrid’s February 2025 fixture list:

- 9 matches
- 5 instances with just 2 days between games
- Multiple competitions, travel demands, and late kick-offs

Even well-run clubs struggle to implement readiness testing consistently and meaningfully in this context.

That’s why any solution needs to be:

- Quick to implement
- Low burden for players
- Sensitive to meaningful change
- Directly linked to action (not just data for the sake of data)

The 3 Pillars of Readiness Testing

For readiness testing to be effective, it must satisfy three key criteria:

1. Reliability

Can we trust the measure over time? e.g. Is your CMJ output stable when the athlete is fully recovered?

Use coefficient of variation (CV%) to determine individual test reliability. Look for <10% CV for high-confidence use.

‍

2. Sensitivity

Does the test pick up meaningful changes? e.g. Does a drop in drop-jump RSI reflect post-match fatigue?

Use real match-day comparisons to assess responsiveness. Several studies highlight jump testing as a viable option when properly interpreted.

‍

3. Player Burden

How much effort or time does the test require? e.g. 30-second subjective wellness scores vs. multi-sensor lab protocols

In the real world, the best test is the one you can actually run consistently.

‍

What Should We Actually Measure?

Let’s break down the most commonly used options, with a quick take on each:

‍

Subjective Wellness (e.g. Modified Hooper Index)

- Quick, cost-free, sensitive
- Can be biased by mood or external factors
- Still highly effective when used consistently in conjunction with other measures

‍

Heart Rate Measures (HRV, RHR, Recovery HR)

- Mixed reliability and sensitivity in football contexts
- HRV shows some promise but needs careful interpretation
- Often less practical in congested fixture periods

‍

Jump Testing (CMJ, Drop Jump, RSI)

- Good reliability and sensitivity
- Can be done in <5 minutes with tools like Output
- Must account for day-to-day variability and learning effects

‍

Sprint Testing (Max velocity, 10m/30m times)

- Emerging method with GPS data to collect max speed data
- Not widely used yet for readiness — more research needed

‍

Biomarkers (CK, testosterone:cortisol)

- High cost, invasive, inconsistent
- Match-to-match variability can exceed 30%
- May offer insight in specific cases

‍

Readiness in Context: When and Why to Test

Not every day needs testing. But some days absolutely do.

Use readiness testing when:

- You suspect accumulated fatigue (e.g. after double sessions)
- You’re entering a congested fixture period
- A player is returning from injury
- You’ve noticed performance dips without clear load increases

During pre-season, you may test more frequently to monitor adaptation and load tolerance. In-season, testing should be selective and strategic — especially when turnaround times are tight.

‍

From Data to Decision

The most important readiness metric?

The action it drives.

In our environment, we use individual CV% ranges and smallest worthwhile change thresholds to flag red or amber readiness.

But what happens next matters more:

- A player reports fatigue + reduced RSI? → Modify their training
- A player’s subjective wellness is low? → Start a conversation
- Two or more systems flag concern? → Consider pulling/modifying certain drills

Readiness testing isn’t a replacement for coaching instinct — it’s a conversation starter.

‍

Final Thoughts

Keep it simple, make It useful

‍

If you work in football, you’re not short on data.

But unless that data informs action, it’s just clutter.

When it comes to readiness:

- Prioritise tools that are reliable, sensitive, and practical
- Use them to spot trends, not micromanage players
- Focus on progress, not perfection

Because ultimately, readiness testing should serve the player — not just the protocol.

‍

Want to learn more from Dr. James Malone?

Check out his most recent Output Sports Webinar Here 🔗