CSCS study materials
CSCS study resources

Ninety Minutes, Four Tests, and a Match in 48 Hours

CSCS · Put your knowledge to work in context.

All case studies

Ninety Minutes, Four Tests, and a Match in 48 Hours

You have 90 minutes, 28 collegiate soccer players, four assistants, and four tests: countermovement jump on a jump mat, 10 m sprint through timing gates, the 505 change-of-direction test, and a 1RM back squat. The team plays a conference match in 48 hours. Last season's team countermovement jump standard deviation was 4.2 cm with a test-retest ICC of 0.91. Athlete A's jump improved from 41.2 cm to 43.3 cm since the last testing block. The head coach wants all four tests run and asks whether Athlete A is "peaking at the right time."

1. Order the tests, assign the assistants, and justify the sequence.

Read the worked answer

Sequence: standardized warm-up (same for everyone, led by one assistant) → countermovement jump → 10 m sprint → 505 → 1RM squat.

Why this order:

  • Jump first. It is the most sensitive to fatigue and the most technically fragile; it must be performed fresh. Three trials, best score recorded, same mat and same hand placement.
  • Sprint second. Maximal but short; negligible fatigue accumulation, still requires a fresh nervous system.
  • 505 third. Requires a sprint and a cut; tolerable after sprint work but degrades if done after squats.
  • 1RM squat last. Highest fatigue cost, longest rest requirement, and the least sensitive to preceding short efforts.

Staffing: one assistant per station with one rota running athletes in fixed groups of seven; a fifth person (you) handles data entry and quality control. Sprint gates and jump mat are set up before athletes arrive. Standardize time of day and tester per station - changing the tester between blocks is a reliability leak that will mimic a real change.

Constraint check: 28 athletes × 4 tests in 90 minutes is tight but achievable with fixed groups and 4–5 minutes per station rotation; the 1RM station needs the longest window, so it runs last and absorbs the overflow.

2. Compute the SEM and MDC95 for the jump test and answer the coach's question about Athlete A.

Read the worked answer

Standard error of measurement: SEM = SD × √(1 − ICC) = 4.2 × √0.09 = 4.2 × 0.30 = 1.26 cm

Minimal detectable change (95%): MDC95 = 1.96 × √2 × SEM = 1.96 × 1.414 × 1.26 ≈ 3.5 cm

Athlete A: change = 43.3 − 41.2 = 2.1 cm.

2.1 cm is larger than the SEM but smaller than the 3.5 cm MDC95. Conclusion: this change cannot be distinguished from measurement noise and normal day-to-day variation. It is not evidence of peaking.

Practical notes:

  • A single test occasion cannot establish a trend; a peak is a pattern across weeks, ideally with a stable or slightly reduced training load and a rising jump.
  • The MDC applies to the individual comparison, so the correct answer to the coach is "possibly improving, not yet demonstrable" - and the useful next step is 2–3 more jump measurements across the taper rather than a stronger claim now.

3. What would you change about the plan given the match is in 48 hours?

Read the worked answer

The 1RM squat is the problem, not the schedule. Maximal squatting 48 hours before a conference match introduces meaningful neuromuscular fatigue and soreness into the final preparation window, and the information gained rarely justifies it in-season.

Changes:

  • Replace the 1RM with a 3RM or a submaximal load-velocity estimate, or move true 1RM testing to a non-match week. Record it as a different metric and do not compare it directly with prior 1RM values.
  • If the coach insists on all four, cap the squat at a heavy single at ~85% with 3–5 minutes rest and no grinding reps.
  • Keep total session time at 90 minutes and finish with a short, low-intensity cooldown; add a 10-minute buffer for the final group.
  • Flag athletes who report soreness or illness on the day and test them later rather than filling in a number.
  • Schedule the next test block at the same time of day, with the same testers and order, so the next comparison is actually interpretable.

The judgment being tested: a test that is not reliable enough to detect the change you care about, or that costs the performance you are trying to measure, is not worth running on that day.