What is the 5-0-5 test?

The 5-0-5 is a short, single-turn change of direction test built around one 180° turn. In its traditional form (Nimphius et al., 2016):

• The athlete starts 15 m from a turning line, with a timing gate 5 m before that line.
• They sprint 10 m to the gate, then a further 5 m to the turning line.
• They plant one foot on or behind the line, turn 180°, and sprint 5 m back through the gate.

Coaches like the 5-0-5 for good reasons. It takes about 2–3 seconds, so fatigue and anaerobic capacity matter far less than in longer tests such as the T-test (around 8–12 s) or the Illinois agility test (around 14–18 s) (Nimphius et al., 2016; Cuthbert et al., 2019). It isolates a single, demanding turn, has been shown to be reliable, and lets you compare limbs.

The COD deficit: one subtraction

The COD deficit is the extra time a single change of direction costs compared with a straight sprint over the same distance (Nimphius et al., 2016). For the 5-0-5, both efforts cover 10 m, so the calculation is simple:

Nimphius et al. (2013) introduced the idea in 66 Division I American football players. They subtracted a 10-yard sprint split from the first 10 yards of the pro-agility shuttle, which contains one 180° turn. The average deficit was 0.72 s. It was not meaningfully related to sprint time (r = 0.19), but it was related to pro-agility time (r = 0.54–0.61). With sprint time controlled for, that relationship rose to r = 0.89.

The deficit has since been applied to the 5-0-5 and to a 90° cut test (Nimphius et al., 2016; Cuthbert et al., 2019). Most coaches already test 10 m sprint speed, so it needs no extra equipment or new tests.

For context, these are the group averages reported in the studies discussed here:

Ranges cover the left and right (or preferred and non-preferred) sides.

Why total time can mislead

Most of the time in a short COD test is spent running in a straight line. The often-quoted figure is that about 31% of the time goes on changing direction and 69% on linear running. It comes from the pro-agility study: the 0.72 s deficit was about 31% of the 2.29 s split over the first 10 yards (Nimphius et al., 2013). Later papers apply the same figure to the 5-0-5 (Nimphius et al., 2016; Cuthbert et al., 2019).

The 5-0-5 averages in the table above suggest a similar or smaller share for the turn. In the cricketers, the 0.62 s deficit was about a quarter of the 2.44 s 5-0-5 time. Either way, total time is largely a measure of acceleration, and a quick athlete can mask a poor turn with straight-line speed.

The correlations show this clearly. In 17 experienced cricketers (Nimphius et al., 2016):

Cuthbert et al. (2019) found the same pattern in 36 rugby and soccer players. Sprint times correlated moderately to largely with 5-0-5 times (r ≥ 0.42) but mostly trivially to small with the 5-0-5 deficit (one moderate exception, r = −0.38). The same held for a 90° cut test (sprint vs cut time r ≥ 0.47; sprint vs cut deficit trivial to small, r ≤ 0.32).

The deficit changes who looks good

Switching from total time to the COD deficit moves athletes across the “above average” and “below average” line. Both studies compared each athlete’s standardised score (z-score) for total time against their score for the deficit.

Note that the 12 of 36 figure comes from a 90° cut test, not the 5-0-5. That makes the point broader: the deficit works for cutting tasks as well as 180° turns.

Even where athletes did not switch sides of the average, the two measures rarely agreed. Total time overestimated some athletes’ turning ability and underestimated others’ (Nimphius et al., 2016).

The reclassifications were also side-specific. In the cricketers, they only occurred on the non-preferred side. In Cuthbert et al. (2019), 7 athletes were reclassified on right-leg cuts only and 3 on left-leg cuts only. Test and report both sides.

Faster athletes, bigger deficits

In 38 adolescent male basketball players (about 15 years old), the faster sprinters had larger COD deficits on the pro-agility test (Lazić et al., 2022). When players were split into faster and slower groups by sprint time, the differences in pro-agility deficit were moderate to large (effect sizes 0.58–1.21). Faster 5, 10 and 20 m sprint times were associated with larger pro-agility deficits (r = −0.46 to −0.55).

In plain terms, the quickest players were not converting their straight-line speed into faster changes of direction. The authors linked this to similar findings in soccer, rugby and handball players, and suggested that team-sport training often favours linear speed while COD ability gets less attention (Lazić et al., 2022).

Two details keep this finding in proportion:

• This study used the pro-agility and zig-zag tests, not the 5-0-5, and calculated the deficit against a 20 m sprint.
• The pattern was test-specific. On the zig-zag test, which involves shuffling and shallower angles of around 100°, the faster-versus-slower differences were small to moderate and not statistically significant (effect sizes 0.21–0.40).

Where the deficit falls short

The COD deficit is useful, but it is not a perfect measure. Three limitations deserve attention.

1. It can be unreliable in young athletes

In 89 prepubertal male soccer players (average age 11.7), the 5-0-5 itself was reliable but the COD deficit was not (Sammoud et al., 2021):

The deficit’s typical error was three times larger than the smallest change worth detecting. A one-week change in a child’s deficit could easily be noise. The authors advised practitioners not to use the deficit to assess prepubertal male soccer players. They also cited Taylor et al. (2019), who reported similarly low to moderate deficit reliability in elite youth players.

One likely reason, though the study did not test it: the deficit is the difference between two timed efforts, so measurement error from both tests ends up in one, much smaller, number. Note that this study calculated the deficit using a 10–20 m sprint split rather than 0–10 m.

2. Athletes may slow down before the turn

The deficit assumes the only difference between the two efforts is the turn. Alves et al. (2022) tested that assumption in 16 professional under-17 soccer players, using an adapted 5-0-5 (5 m out, 5 m back from a standing start) and a 10 m sprint, both with timing gates every 2.5 m.

• Players were already slower over the first 2.5 m of the 5-0-5 than the first 2.5 m of the straight sprint. Knowing a 180° turn was coming, they accelerated less.
• Between 2.5 m and 7.5 m, players decelerated in the 5-0-5 while they kept accelerating in the sprint.
• The COD deficit was significantly smaller than the directly measured time around the turn (2.5–7.5 m), on both sides.

The authors concluded that the deficit may not precisely reflect turning time when the starting acceleration differs between tests. They recommended recording split times where possible.

3. It tells you how much, not why

A large deficit says an athlete loses time in the turn. It does not say whether the cause is braking strategy, foot placement, body position, strength or the re-acceleration. Nimphius et al. (2016) suggested pairing the deficit with video analysis or other practical measures, and called for more research on technique. Cuthbert et al. (2019) also called for research into the technical determinants of the deficit.

Results may also be specific to the population and the angle of the turn. Most of the supporting studies used male athletes in a single sport or a small group of sports (Nimphius et al., 2016; Cuthbert et al., 2019; Lazić et al., 2022).

Practical takeaways

• Report the deficit alongside 5-0-5 time. If you already test 10 m sprint speed, the deficit costs you one subtraction (Nimphius et al., 2016). Keep total time too: it still reflects overall performance on the task.
• Use the deficit to target training. A fast athlete with a large deficit likely needs braking, turning and re-acceleration work, not more linear speed. An athlete with a small deficit and a slow 5-0-5 time may benefit most from acceleration work.
• Test and compare both sides. Reclassifications in the research were often specific to one limb (Nimphius et al., 2016; Cuthbert et al., 2019).
• Match the test to the sport. The deficit also works on a 90° cut test, which may suit sports where cuts of 45–90° are more common than 180° turns (Cuthbert et al., 2019).
• Standardise your timing. Use the same start position, distances and gate height every time. Cuthbert et al. (2019) recommended dual-beam timing gates after finding only moderate reliability with single-beam gates.
• Be cautious with young athletes. In prepubertal players, deficit scores were too noisy to track small changes (Sammoud et al., 2021). Treat individual changes with care and lean on 5-0-5 time, which was more reliable.
• Watch the turn, not just the clock. Film trials or record split times. Athletes may slow early when they know a turn is coming, which the deficit cannot show on its own (Alves et al., 2022; Nimphius et al., 2016).