Testing. I understand why and don’t disagree with testing per se but at some point the debate should become are you trying to get better test scores or are you trying to improve the “end”? The end being the run, jump, throw; any particular test and the run, jump, throw result are not necessarily one and the same.
I don’t mean to hijack this thread but I think it relates to the general topic. If one is training a runner in the 200m (as a random choice) one of the things you will likely be training is the ability for that athlete to recover. So now you have them recovering well, in whatever terms you use to describe it, and their competition times improve. Now this cycle repeats itself a number of times and then you notice the runner is continuing to improve their abilities at recovery but their competition times have flat lined. Does one continue to try and improve their ability to recover?
My point being exactly the same as davan’s, I am not trying to get someone who is “best” at taking tests, or recovering quickly to do another repeat (within reason) as a coach I am trying to help an athlete perform their best when it “counts” to them in the sport or event they have decided upon.