Testing isn't successful when it merely describes a player accurately. It's successful when it changes his next practice — and later, his performance in the game.
Author: Martin Cibák, 2004 Stanley Cup Champion (Tampa Bay Lightning), CibakHockeyIQ, co-founder & Chief Hockey Officer.
Location and date: Vierumäki, Finland, July 21, 2026.
Translating the Test into Training: how measurement results become specific priorities, exercises, and measurable changes.
"Measurement shows position. Training must create movement."
The Gap Where Value Is Lost
In the introductory text to this series, I identified the question I want to explore in Vierumäki: whether the test result will show up in subsequent training. Now we need to go a step deeper. A test does not give the coach an answer. It gives him a signal. And that signal can be interpreted correctly, incorrectly, or not at all.
A stopwatch can be precise. A force plate can measure a jump to the nearest tenth. Video can capture every angle. Yet the entire process can fail if no clear decision is made between the result and the training session: what the problem is, how it manifests in hockey, what intervention we'll choose, and how we'll recognize a change.
Vierumäki, as part of the Finnhockey High Performance program, publicly links the measurement of key indicators to thematically focused training blocks and a personalized program for further preparation. The center itself emphasizes regular monitoring of progress during sports testing as the basis for planning and adjusting training. This is the right direction. However, what will be decisive is exactly how this promise plays out for each individual player.
"A test result is not a training plan. It's a hypothesis that must be confirmed on the ice."
Same Number, Three Different Problems
Let's imagine three players with the same time over the first few meters. They look the same in the table. In reality, they may need three completely different solutions.
| The same signal | What could be the cause | What to check | What action may follow |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weaker first few meters | The player does not generate enough power in a short amount of time. | Relative strength, explosive takeoff, lateral balance, and starting technique. | Appropriate strength and explosiveness training and short starts with full recovery. |
| Weak first few meters | The player has power but loses it due to a high stance, a short stride, or incorrect direction of force. | Video of the first three steps, torso position, completion of the stride, and leg return. | Technical correction of the start and exercises with restrictions to emphasize the correct movement. |
| Weaker first few meters | Performance is limited by asymmetry, movement control, or temporary fatigue. | Right and left sides, current load, growth period, and consistency of results. | One-sided training, adjusting the workload, or postponing intervention until the cause is clear. |
This is the most common mistake in interpretation: the test name automatically becomes the training name. A weaker jump means more jumps. A poorer sprint means more sprints. Lower mobility means more stretching. This approach ignores the cause, the context, and the transfer to the game.
Research shows that well-chosen tests can be reliable, and several off-ice indicators may be related to speed, acceleration, or agility on the ice. At the same time, however, no single result encompasses the entirety of hockey performance, and the relationship varies depending on ability, age, and the type of task.
"The same number can have three causes. Therefore, there cannot be a single universal answer."
Five Steps from Signal to Action
A high-quality system must create a closed decision-making chain between testing and training. Not a longer report — a more precise sequence of questions.
| Step | Key question | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Signal | What has changed compared to your own previous result and the relevant standard? | A precisely identified deviation — not a general label. |
| 2. Context | Was the test conducted under comparable conditions? What role did fatigue, growth, equipment, or prior training play? | A result that can be trusted under the given conditions. |
| 3. Confirmation | Does the same problem appear on video, on the ice, or in a game situation? | A working hypothesis supported by at least two sources. |
| 4. Intervention | What specifically will we change in the drill, the workload, the technical instruction, or the order of the training session? | One priority, a clear task, and a coach in charge. |
| 5. Follow-up | When will we repeat the measurement, and how will we verify that the change has carried over to the game? | The decision to continue, adjust, or discontinue the intervention. |
It is precisely the third step that is often decisive. An off-ice test can reveal physical potential, but only when combined with technique and on-ice performance can we determine whether this represents the player's true limit. One study of young players found several correlations between off-ice tests and on-ice performance, but it involved only eleven participants. This is useful evidence for linking data — not a license for automatic prescribing.
Similarly, even a reliable test can be misused. Reliability means that we measure consistently. It does not mean that we are measuring the right thing for a specific decision.
The Lowest Score May Not Be the Top Priority
A player may be below average in some area, yet that may not be their biggest obstacle. A development program should not chase every weak percentile. It should identify the issue with the greatest impact on performance, for which we have a sufficiently certain cause and a realistic possibility of change.
| Priority filter | Question | If the answer isn't clear |
|---|---|---|
| Impact on the game | Does this factor limit a specific, repeatable action — such as a start, a stop, a duel, a shot, or a decision? | It's not the top priority, even though the number is low. |
| Certainty of the cause | Do the test, video, and on-ice observations confirm the problem? | First, gather more evidence; don't change the program. |
| Feasibility | Given the available time, age, and training conditions, can a meaningful change be expected? | Maintain the current approach or plan for a longer-term intervention. |
| Safety and timing | Is the intervention appropriate for the player's development and does it fit within the current training load? | Adjust the method, intensity, or timing. |
This filter protects the player from two extremes. The first is a program that tries to fix everything at once. The second is an attractive exercise chosen based on technology rather than the problem. In both cases, the priority is lost.
"The weakest number isn't automatically the biggest problem. The priority is the limitation that changes the game the most."
One Page That the Player Understands
After testing, a 14-year-old player doesn't need twenty pages of graphs. He needs a brief report that he can explain in his own words and use without the coach standing over him the whole time.
A practical summary can be just five lines:
| 1 top priority | One skill or technical detail with the greatest impact on performance. |
|---|---|
| 1 game example | A specific situation in which the player recognizes the problem on the ice or in a video. |
| 2 interventions | One off-ice task and one on-ice task that address the same mechanism. |
| 1 common instruction | A short phrase used by both fitness and hockey coaches. |
| 1 assessment date | The same test, the same conditions, and verification of transfer to the game. |
This approach also fosters accountability. The player knows what he's working on. The parent understands what to expect — and what not to expect. The club coach knows how to build on it. And during the next assessment, the analyst evaluates not only the new number but also whether the original intervention was actually carried out.
"A player doesn't need to own the entire report. They need to own their next task."
Model Example: The First Three Steps
The following example explains the decision-making process. It is not the result or diagnosis of a specific camp participant.
| Phase | Model output |
|---|---|
| Signal | The time on the initial section deteriorated beyond the normal measurement variability, while the maximum speed remained stable. |
| Context | Same protocol, equipment, and warm-up; no pain; previous exercise recorded. |
| Confirmation | The video shows a high torso position and an incomplete stride during the first steps. The force profile did not change significantly. |
| Intervention | On the ice, short starts with full rest and precise technical execution. Off the ice, appropriate unilateral exercises focused on direction and speed of force generation. |
| Instruction | "Push the ice backward and complete the stroke." The same instruction applies both on dry land and on the ice. |
| Check | After 4–6 weeks, repeat the same test and review the initial steps in game footage. |
If the test results improve but the in-game technique remains the same, the intervention is not yet successful. If the technique improves but the player cannot apply it under pressure, the training environment must be changed. And if nothing changes, a high-quality system does not look for excuses in the player — it reevaluates the original hypothesis, the intensity, and the coaching method.
This is the difference between a program that merely assigns exercises and a program that guides learning.
Five Signs That Testing Has Been Integrated into Training
1. The program has actually changed.
The result is reflected in the written plan, the order of exercises, the training load, or the technical instructions — not just in conversation.
2. Different causes received different solutions.
Players with similar stats do not automatically have identical programs.
3. Off-ice training and on-ice training speak the same language.
Both components address the same mechanism and follow the same main guideline.
4. The player can explain the what, why, and how.
If they cannot repeat the priority without a coach, the feedback has not yet been internalized.
5. The review is scheduled in advance.
A date, protocol, and criteria are set, according to which the intervention will be maintained or modified.
When selecting players, tests are often expected to provide more than they can deliver. For example, a historical analysis of NHL Combine results found that individual tests were not able to reliably distinguish between draft rounds. Another study showed that while off-ice anaerobic performance may be related to acceleration and top speed, it did not predict repeated performance during simulated shifts. Therefore, the test should not determine what kind of player a player is. It should help determine what we will train him to do.
"Data should reduce the number of poor training decisions — not create a more convincing label."
The Minimum We Can Implement at Home
A closed loop doesn't start with buying more equipment. It starts with discipline in five simple things:
- One consistent protocol. The same warm-up, order, equipment, surface, and measurement method.
- The player's own history before the rankings. First, we track progress relative to ourselves; the group benchmark is only the second layer.
- One short video clip as proof. We associate the number with a situation in which the skill is demonstrated on the ice.
- One decision-maker. A specific coach is responsible for turning the result into a task.
- A one-page card and a follow-up deadline. Without them, the process after testing breaks down into memory, impressions, and good intentions.
A phone, a stopwatch, a simple spreadsheet, and a single sheet of paper can create a better development process than expensive testing without a designated owner. Technology increases accuracy. The process determines whether that accuracy becomes meaningful.
What I'll Be Evaluating in Vierumäki
In future training sessions, I won't just be evaluating the quality of the equipment or the appearance of the report. I'll be looking for specific evidence:
- whether the results are interpreted in conjunction with the video and on-ice performance;
- whether the player is given one clear priority instead of a list of all weaknesses;
- whether the individual program changes the content, intensity, or technical instructions;
- whether the same concept is shared between the strength and conditioning coach and the on-ice coach;
- whether it is clear from the start when and how the effectiveness of the intervention will be assessed.
At the highest level, no one cares how impressive a player's profile looked on Monday. What matters is whether, on Friday, he creates more space with his first steps, maintains his technique while in contact, and repeats the correct solution at game speed.
When I played in the NHL, the test didn't win a single faceoff for me. What mattered was the change I was able to bring to the game. That's why, for me, this installment of the series is most important in one specific aspect: the gap between the number and the next repetition. That's where it's decided whether the system merely recognizes the player or actually develops him.
"The test doesn't end with the result. It ends only when the change appears on the ice."
Martin Cibák
2004 Stanley Cup Champion (Tampa Bay Lightning)
CibakHockeyIQ, co-founder & Chief Hockey Officer
Sources and Verification
This text builds on the introductory article in the series but does not repeat its content. It distinguishes between publicly verifiable data, scientific findings, and Martin Cibák's proprietary analytical framework. The model example is not based on an individual participant's results and does not constitute a medical diagnosis or a universal training regimen.
- Vierumäki, Finnhockey High Performance Camp – Summer 2026. Measurement of key indicators, eight targeted training blocks, more than ten hours on the ice, and a personalized program. https://vierumaki.fi/en/finnhockey-performance (accessed July 21, 2026)
- Vierumäki, Sports Testing. Regular monitoring of progress as a basis for training planning and corrective measures. https://vierumaki.fi/en/sports-services-main-page/sports-testing (accessed July 21, 2026)
- Bond, C. W., Bennett, T. W., Noonan, B. C. Evaluation of Skating Top Speed, Acceleration, and Multiple Repeated Sprint Speed in Ice Hockey Performance Tests. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2018, 32(8), 2273–2283. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000002644.
- Rice, M. S. et al. The relationship between off-ice testing and on-ice performance in male youth ice hockey players. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 2024, 6:1418713. doi:10.3389/fspor.2024.1418713. Small sample size n = 11 — results should be interpreted accordingly.
- Vescovi, J. D., Murray, T. M., Fiala, K. A., VanHeest, J. L. Off-Ice Performance and Draft Status of Elite Ice Hockey Players. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2006, 1(3), 207–221. doi:10.1123/ijspp.1.3.207.
- Peterson, B. J. et al. Off-Ice Anaerobic Power Does Not Predict On-Ice Repeated Shift Performance in Hockey. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2016, 30(9), 2375–2381. doi:10.1519/JSC.0000000000001341.