180° Cut Testing: A Superior Standard for Change of Direction

For decades, the standards in agility testing at combine events, in college S&C, and at the high school level have been the 5-10-5 Pro Shuttle, the T Test, and the 3 Cone Test.¹ Through years of working in the private sport performance space, we coached thousands of football players to set up as precisely as possible, choreograph the footwork like a dance, and maximize every cutting angle based on athlete limb length, flexibility, and strength in order to minimize time in the cut and maximize explosion out of the cut. By this description alone, it becomes clear that this is not agility and barely even feels like a change of direction measurement—instead, it more resembles a dance performance.

Agility requires reaction to a stimulus as well as an understanding of space, speed, and strategy. The term agility is falsely thrown around too often to describe change of direction. If a pattern is being timed, it can’t truly be agility but is rather Complex Reactive Change of Direction, because there is a start and an end to a pattern.

In June of 2023, by chance I was contacted by Anto Siric, the CEO of Sportreact, through social media. Eventually, we were able to connect on Zoom—like so many tech demos, it was impressive in concept and looked solid over Zoom…but I needed to get my hands on it to really know. Fast-forward three months later and Anto and his team came through Chicago and agreed to stop by our facility to show the system in person—they set up pods, ran through a barrage of drills and timing options, and took tons of videos. At the time, our facility was already utilizing a pair of timing systems and it didn’t make sense to add another, despite Sportreact looking even more impressive in person than on video. Once I had the chance to begin coaching at a different facility, the decision was a no brainer: I called Anto!

In my 20 years of coaching athlete development, I’ve found the Sportreact system to be in a class of its own with the ability to design and execute complex and creative setups—multiple combinations of pods utilizing colors, numbers and symbols, as well as timing gates in order to challenge athletes. As the standards that athletes are compared to become less repeatable, the closer the drill is to true agility.

In my 20 years of coaching athlete development, I’ve found the @Sportreact22549 system to be in a class of its own with the ability to design and execute complex and creative setups, says @SteveBstein. Share on X

These conflicts of Agility vs. Change of Direction, Athleticism vs. Choreography, and Standards vs. Worthless Numbers led us to reflect as a staff and ask three important questions.

1. Why Was the 5-10-5 Pro Shuttle Failing Us at Our Training Facility?

The primary issue was whether it was truly testing an athlete’s ability to change direction like in sport; and, equally problematic, was then attempting to test groups of athletes. Here are a few common challenges:

1. Typically hand-timed – Accuracy, validity and consistency issues.
2. Athlete error – Starting in the wrong direction, rolling start, no hand touch, wrong hand touch, slips.
3. Timer error – Electronic gates can have issues because the athlete starts in beam, causing missed reps.
4. Time consuming – Challenging to test large groups of athletes.

Does performing a good 5-10-5 actually indicate an athlete will have dynamic change of direction on the field or court? Personally, I haven’t seen a great carryover. I worked with a high school football Defensive End that got down to an electronic 4.3 second 5-10-5. We worked 100’s of reps with countless slips, half reps, and restarts. His speed did not match that time, but he was long-limbed and together we created the best footwork pattern and angles to allow him to perform at a combine event—ultimately, though, his ability to play his position was what got him the opportunity to play at the next level.

Does performing a good 5-10-5 actually indicate an athlete will have dynamic change of direction on the field or court? Personally, I haven’t seen a great carryover says @SteveBstein. Share on X

2. Where Was the T Test Failing Us at Our Training Facility?

This was largely due to the exact same reasons as the 5-10-5…but adding to it were the injuries that occurred when athletes were competing on the backpedal. Surprising at first, but we saw multiple wrist injuries from falling back and catching with the hands—and for those who failed to catch themselves, concussions from hitting the back of their head.

Again, if we are spending valuable coaching time working athletes through a test—instead of coaching the underlying athleticism—it just doesn’t make sense! Space is always going to be a restriction in training and the requirement of the T Test would dampen our ability to efficiently train.

3. Where Was the 3 Cone Test Failing Us at Our Training Facility?

Again, the reasons boiled down to athlete error, inability to laser time, and large group sizes. It just doesn’t make sense as a standard to measure change of direction and does not even come close to measuring agility. This is an extremely choreographed pattern for those who run it well! As a drill, this moved from a timed metric of performance to an opportunity for athletes to be challenged in a variety of cone patterns and competition races. The rapid change of direction and variety of angles throughout the drill are a great stimulus in training, but not the standard for change of direction or agility.

The rapid change of direction and variety of angles throughout the 3 Cone Drill are a great stimulus in training, but not the standard for change of direction or agility says @SteveBstein. Share on X

In 2015, I had the opportunity to visit with the Milwaukee Bucks of the NBA and spend a few hours with Coach Mike Davie. Along with Suki Hobson, Coach Davie was doing great work with ACL return to play and patellar pain management. The topic of data collection around linear speed and change of direction came up and I shared the frustrations I had felt with the 5-10-5, especially for basketball players. Davie shared with me a test they were using for performance, but also as a gauge for return to play.

The Setup:

• Athlete starts 5 yards from a laser gate, with a line 5 yards beyond the gate.
• Athlete sprints through gate, touches foot to line, performs 180° cut, and sprints back through the gate.
• Repeat for the other foot.

Finding the athlete’s best times on each foot can highlight:

1. Athlete’s ability to use speed in and out of a cut.
2. A difference in cutting side—indication of imbalance and future injury risk.
3. Return to play—how close are they to previous best and/or opposite side (ankle and knee injuries)?

I brought this idea back to our facility and we beta tested it for a couple months, then mixed it in with 5-10-5.  Immediately we were impressed with how quickly we could set up the 180 Cut Test and have athletes running it with minimal instruction. As a staff, our focus was back on coaching the skill of change of direction vs. coaching an athlete to perform a test. Overall athlete engagement improved, as there was less time standing waiting and less frustration about the repeated errors they experienced executing the 5-10-5.

We were impressed with how quickly we could set up the 180 Cut Test and have athletes running it with minimal instruction—our focus was back on coaching the skill of COD vs. coaching an athlete to perform a test, says @SteveBstein. Share on X

Fast forward 5 years, and the only athletes we now had training 5-10-5 were preparing for a football combine event—instead, our athletes were running 100’s of 180° cut tests each week. Often at the professional and college level, coaches track numbers every 4-12 weeks, and early in our group training business, we followed suit. There wasn’t enough control in the private setting to actually capture prime performance numbers. A few factors were the number of games played over the weekend, fatigue, and soreness from other training as well as overall fatigue from school and life. We moved to a system of daily data captures, so that over the course of 8-12 weeks, a pattern of performance was identified compared to one-off testing days.

From over 10,000 tested reps, we realized that the test wasn’t just a test, but a fantastic training stimulus—the ease with which we could repeatedly time the movement drove high intent on each rep. The simplicity of the setup allowed it to be quick and portable, with all ages of athletes picking it up within 1 or 2 reps—meaning we weren’t coaching how to perform the drill, but rather coaching how to sprint and cut better! Athletes were challenged to incorporate strategy to maximize performance, meaning pace, angles and projection. With only a foot touch to the line vs a hand touch, athletes were creating shapes that we would see in sport and allowed a better connection of training to competition!

Video 1. 180° Cut Test.

Video 2 180° Cut shown in a team setting.

Performing a team athletic assessment with the Sportreact 2-gate setup, 16 athletes were able to get 3 reps each side in 6 minutes, in addition to Linear Speed testing, Vertical Jump, 10-5 RSI Test, and Broad Jump. Together this creates a great picture of athleticism in addition to sport coach feedback on how they apply it in competition.

Simple Standards to Get Started

After timing and recording over 10,000 reps of middle school, high school, and college athletes we were able to categorize data into average, above average, and excellent for male and female athletes. Having these standards is highly valuable to give a vision on Day 1 of where an athlete is compared to where they need to be. Instead of just saying a specific number, it becomes a range that athletes move into and out of—which is important for those returning from injury or those with a low initial training age.

Table 1. 180° Cut Test Benchmarks (5 yard lead-in and 5 yard touch and return).

Records were also regularly posted and competed for, but these standards stayed true year after year for the demographic of athletes we were working with across multiple team and individual court, field, and ice sports.

Return to Play

In a field focused on maximizing performance and athleticism, utilizing the 180° cut as a precursor for injury and return to sport is crucial. The desirable ratio side-to-side is similar to that in order to be cleared for return to play from an ACL: 95% of the healthy side.³ Even in a “healthy” athlete, if there is a significant discrepancy, that should be addressed. The issue could be a mobility, strength, or technical issue—and just like a muscular imbalance side to side, or a significant difference in the ability to hop and stick, there is an increased likelihood of injury.

“The ankle is the most common site of injury in 24 of 70 sports. Ankle sprain accounted for 76.7% of injuries, followed by fractures at 16.3%. Basketball and soccer have a higher proportion of ankle injuries. In soccer, the risk of injury during match play is 4 to 6 times greater than during training.

Once an ankle sprain occurs, up to 80% will suffer recurrent sprains, and up to 72% develop recurrent symptoms or chronic instability. Basketball athletes are 5 times more likely to injure an ankle after a prior ankle injury, with a recurrence rate of 73%. Recurrence most strongly correlates with premature return to sport and a prior ankle injury.”²

Utilizing the 180° Cut to assess prior to injury—and then add value to the discussion whether an athlete is ready to be on “no restrictions” status or not post-injury—is an invaluable addition to training. When data such as speed, jumping height, and ability is presented to athletes, the story becomes clearer.

Utilizing the 180° Cut to assess prior to injury—and then add value to the discussion whether an athlete is ready to be on ‘no restrictions’ status or not post-injury—is an invaluable addition to training. Share on X

Final Thoughts

In the end, the 180° Cut Assessment allows a consistent, reliable, and quick way to standardize change of direction. This approach falls into the mindset of “Let the test be the training and the training be the test,” utilizing a quality and adaptable timing system to drive intent every single rep.

Creative Utilizations of the 180° Cut Assessment in Training:

1. Changing the lead-in distance and/or the distance after the gate—not standardized, but a great training stimuli.
2. Having athletes compete in races—one athlete is timed and the other is not. This may or may not capture the athletes best, but poses question do they abandon technique in competition?
3. Varying locomotions—not standardized, but changing it before a rep or during a rep based on visual or audio cue (examples: shuffle to start, sprint at the gate, shuffle back from the line touch to the gate).
4. Incorporate sport skill into the cut (examples: dribble a basketball or soccer ball or cradle a lacrosse stick).

Setting the foundation of change of direction with the 180 Cut has allowed for extreme creativity in training, where the Sportreact system allows for an open, unpredictable pattern of movement while driving intent with a high standard of timing feedback. While the purest form of agility is competing in sport, the Sportreact system is providing the closest way to facilitate and measure it in training!

Since you’re here…
…we have a small favor to ask. More people are reading SimpliFaster than ever, and each week we bring you compelling content from coaches, sport scientists, and physiotherapists who are devoted to building better athletes. Please take a moment to share the articles on social media, engage the authors with questions and comments below, and link to articles when appropriate if you have a blog or participate on forums of related topics. — SF