1.    Introduction
Physical fitness is divided into two categories: health-related and skill-related. It is a measure of an individual's overall capacity to perform physical activities and is crucial for both overall health and athletic success. Components of physical fitness include strength, endurance, speed, flexibility, and coordination (1). Physical fitness is one of the most fundamental human requirements and functions, with a strong relationship between overall health and sporting potential (2). It forms the foundation upon which athletes develop sport-specific skills and tactical understanding. Together, these factors influence overall performance and provide a competitive edge among players (3). There are several aspects that affect how well an athlete performs (4). While emphasizing the development of athletes’ physical attributes during routine training and instruction, sports endurance training should not be overlooked (5, 6). Endurance is a key indicator of an athlete's physical health and reflects muscular resistance to fatigue during prolonged activity (7, 8). Endurance training is commonly divided into two components: anaerobic and aerobic. Aerobic endurance refers to exercise performed in an oxygen-rich state, while anaerobic endurance pertains to sustained activity where energy is generated without sufficient oxygen (9).
The acquisition of physical skills such as speed plays a critical role in athletic development and talent identification. Factors such as genetics, age, gender, and external influences like training and nutrition contribute to the development of speed (10). Speed is a scalar measure of motion that is commonly measured by tracking the distance traveled over time. It describes how quickly an object or person moves in any direction (11). Speed and aerobic endurance are essential components of athletic performance, varying significantly across different sports (12). These qualities develop differently in court-based and field-based sports due to variations in playing environments, movement patterns, and physiological demands (13, 14). Court-based sports include basketball, handball, and volleyball, whereas field-based sports comprise cricket, football (soccer), and athletics. Each category has unique physical and tactical requirements that shape the conditioning and performance profiles of players (15, 16).
Field sports, such as cricket, football, and athletics, involve larger playing areas or longer distances, requiring a mix of prolonged aerobic activity and intermittent high-intensity efforts (17). For instance, football players cover long distances during matches (18), alternating between jogging, sprinting, and walking—demanding a well-developed cardiovascular system to maintain performance throughout the game (19). Athletic events vary in demand but typically require maximal endurance and speed, especially in middle- and long-distance disciplines (20). Although cricket involves less continuous movement, it requires intermittent sprints and explosive actions that utilize both anaerobic and aerobic energy systems (21). In contrast, court sports such as basketball, handball, and volleyball are played on smaller courts, emphasizing short sprints, rapid directional changes, and frequent accelerations and decelerations (22, 23). In these confined spaces, quick reaction time is crucial for effective skill execution (24). These activities demand high anaerobic power and agility, with a comparatively lower continuous aerobic load than field sports (25, 26).
To compare the varying physical demands of field and court sports, this study utilized the 50-meter sprint and shuttle run tests to assess speed, and the beep test (multi-stage fitness test) and Cooper test to evaluate aerobic endurance. The 50-meter sprint is a reliable and widely used indicator of maximal sprint speed and acceleration, reflecting an athlete’s ability to generate force and maintain high velocity over short distances crucial in both field and court sports (27, 28). The 50-meter dash is a reliable and widely used indicator of maximal running speed and acceleration, reflecting an athlete's ability to generate power and maintain high velocity over short distances, which is important in track and field sports (27, 28). As a complement, the shuttle run test assesses not only speed but also agility, focusing specifically on rapid deceleration and changes of direction. Skills that is particularly important in court sports such as handball and basketball (29, 30). For assessing aerobic capacity, the beep test provides a practical and valid estimation of maximal oxygen uptake (VO2 max) through incrementally paced shuttle runs, reflecting cardiovascular endurance for extended intermittent activity (31, 32). The 12-minute continuous run, or Cooper test, is a simple but highly correlated field measure of VO2 max (33, 34).
Together, these tests offer a comprehensive assessment of speed and endurance profiles across various sports. Evidence consistently shows that athletes in field sports like football, cricket, and athletics generally exhibit higher aerobic endurance, due to the extended nature and size of playing fields that necessitate sustained cardiovascular output (35). Conversely, athletes engaged in indoor court sports such as basketball, handball, and volleyball excel in short-distance speed and agility, aligning with the explosive, multi-directional characteristics of these games (36). This distinction highlights the importance of sport-specific testing strategies. Using the 50-meter sprint and shuttle run for speed, and the beep and Cooper tests for endurance, enables accurate profiling of athletes’ physiological attributes (37, 38). The differing physical demands of court versus field sports necessitate tailored evaluation and training protocols. These assessments support coaches and sport scientists in designing optimized training regimens aimed at enhancing performance while minimizing injury risk.
The present study examines how court-based and field-based sports differ in their physical demands, particularly in terms of speed and aerobic endurance. This study aims to address this gap by assessing athletes using the 50-meter sprint, shuttle run, beep test, and Cooper test.
2.    Methods
2.1 Subjects
An a priori power analysis was conducted using G*Power software (version 3.1.9.7; University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany) to determine the minimum required sample size for an independent samples t-test. The analysis was performed with parameters set at an anticipated large effect size of 0.80, a significance level (α) of 0.05, and a desired statistical power (1−β) of 0.80 (39). The calculation indicated that a minimum of 52 participants (26 per group) would be required to achieve adequate statistical power. To safeguard against the possibility of attrition, a total of 72 individuals were initially recruited. After accounting for exclusions and dropouts, the final sample consisted of 60 participants (30 in each group) who completed the study. 
Male athletes, aged 18 to 25 years, were randomly selected from Jashore University of Science and Technology, Jashore, Bangladesh. The sample was evenly divided into two groups: court-based athletes (n = 30) and field-based athletes (n = 30) (Table 1). Court-based athletes typically compete in shorter-duration games within a smaller playing area compared to field-based athletes. The court-based group included players from basketball, handball, and volleyball, while the field-based group consisted of athletes from cricket, football (soccer), and athletics. All participants were actively involved in Inter-University level competitions, representing their respective sports. At this level, players typically follow similar training routines, which results in largely comparable basic fitness.  

Athlete participants were screened using the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PARQ), and only those who were healthy and free from physical or psychological impairments were included. Privacy, confidentiality, and protection from harm were ensured. Athletes who did not meet the criteria were excluded, and all participants provided informed consent to ensure voluntary participation. 
2.2 Variables and Test Procedures
Cardiovascular endurance and speed were the key fitness variables assessed in this study. Cardiovascular endurance was evaluated using the Beep Test and the Cooper Test, while speed was measured through the 4 × 10-meter Shuttle Run and the 50-meter Sprint. Each test was administered using standardized procedures and appropriate equipment.
Two lines spaced ten meters apart and two cones positioned on either side of the starting line make up the Shuttle Run. Every participant ran a designated 4 x 10 m course at a predetermined, increasing pace (40). A 50-meter sprint was used to measure participants’ speed. Starting from a stationary standing position (hands not touching the ground), participants were instructed to run as fast as possible in a straight line. Each participant completed the sprint twice, with a 3-minute rest between trials, and the best time was recorded to the nearest 0.1 second (41). 
The Cooper 12-minute run test measures the distance traveled in 12 minutes by placing markers at certain locations around a track. During this time, participants must walk or run, and the total distance they cover is recorded (33). 
Running repeated 20-meter distances at a rate determined by a recorded audio is part of the FIBA Referees Basic Fitness Test. There are two lines that are 20 meters apart. As directed by the audio, the athlete starts running 20 meters on or behind one of the lines. The participants execute 20-meter runs one after the other until they hit the predetermined thresholds. As the test progresses, the tones increase quicker and faster. Participants were not allowed to leave the 20-meter line until the signal was given, and the goal was to complete 86 laps (42). All participants trained regularly under the guidance of a specific coach, ensuring consistency in their training routines. No formal competitive level was assigned, and all players were included in the study regardless of their prior experience. In terms of positions, all roles were represented: footballers included both defenders and forwards, while basketball players included both guards and centers. Therefore, positional differences were not a criterion for participant selection, and the study encompassed a broad range of playing positions.
2.3 Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 27. Descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation, standard error of the mean, and minimum and maximum values, were calculated for each group. To determine whether there were significant differences between groups, independent samples t-tests were conducted. A significance level of p< 0.05 was set for all statistical analyses. The Shapiro-Wilk test was employed to assess the normality of the data distribution. 
3.    Results
Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of speed and endurance variables for field-sport and court-sport players. Overall, the descriptive statistics indicate that players from field sports performed slightly better in both speed and endurance measures compared to players from court sports.

Independent samples t-tests (Table 3) revealed no significant differences in speed or endurance between field-based and court-based sport athletes. Shuttle run (t(58) = -1.33, p = .188) and 50-meter sprint (t(58) = -1.41, p = .163) results showed no meaningful difference in speed. Similarly, endurance performance in the beep test (t(58) = 0.30, p = .769) and Cooper test (t(58) = 0.63, p = .534) was not significantly different between the groups. However, field sport players performed slightly better in all tests (Fig. 1).

 

4.    Discussion
The results show that there are no significant differences in speed or endurance between athletes who play court sports and those who play field sports. Although field sport players performed slightly better in tests such as the beep test, Cooper test, shuttle run, and 50-meter sprint, these differences were not statistically significant. Both groups likely exhibit similar levels of speed and aerobic fitness, possibly because their sports involve comparable physical demands, such as quick bursts of movement and sustained activity.
Despite some qualitative evidence in the literature suggesting potential subtle differences between sport categories, existing research supports the idea that top performers should build comprehensive physical profiles that go beyond environmental or tactical characteristics (43, 44). These findings reinforce the importance of speed and endurance development training programs across all sports. The similar endurance results observed in both the beep and Cooper tests support previous findings that aerobic function is maintained across different sports due to consistent training regimens and the use of cross-training techniques (45, 46). Comparable sprint performance across various team sports suggests that speed is a universally valued attribute, regardless of playing surface. This study also found no discernible differences in endurance between soccer and basketball players, as measured by the beep and Cooper tests (47). This similarity may result from the adoption of comparable training practices aimed at developing both aerobic and anaerobic fitness (48).
Various studies have shown significant differences in agility, speed, and cardiovascular fitness among athletes from different sports (49, 50). The comparable shuttle run performance highlights the critical role of agility in most team sports and underscores its contribution to speed development (51). Speed, a vital component in many sports, did not vary significantly between field and court players in this study, likely due to the shared need for explosive strength and rapid movement, which drive similar physiological adaptations (52, 53). Endurance, as assessed through the beep and Cooper tests, was also similar across both groups. Although the nature of exercise intensity and duration may differ, both sport types require high levels of aerobic conditioning, resulting in comparable endurance capacities (54, 55). The shuttle run test, which assesses change-of-direction speed and agility, revealed no group differences, reflecting an equally strong emphasis on anaerobic power and multidirectional speed in the training of both athlete groups (56, 36). Similar conclusions can be drawn from the 50-meter sprint results, which reflect a shared emphasis on linear speed and anaerobic capacity (57). This overlap may be due to the multifaceted demands of competitive sports, which require a multi-planar conditioning approach. Future research should consider including variables such as training load, intensity, and sport-specific skill demands to uncover more nuanced performance differences. Moreover, psychological and cognitive factors that may influence athletic performance warrant investigation (58-61).
In summary, this study contributes to the growing body of evidence indicating that elite athletes from both field and court sports exhibit similar speed and endurance characteristics. This reflects aligned physical conditioning demands and training strategies across these disciplines. These findings suggest that conditioning programs aimed at improving speed and endurance may be effectively applied to athletes across both sport types. Future studies should explore additional fitness components, such as agility and muscular strength, to determine whether sport-specific differences exist. Overall, the evidence points to a shared level of physical fitness among court and field athletes in terms of speed and endurance, regardless of playing environment.
5.    Conclusion
This study found no significant differences in speed (shuttle run and 50-meter sprint) or endurance (beep test and Cooper test) between court-based and field-based athletes, indicating that both groups exhibited similar levels of these fitness components. Although field sport athletes showed slightly better performance, these differences were not statistically significant. These findings highlight comparable performance between the groups in the tested variables; however, caution is warranted when generalizing these results to broader populations or other training contexts, as the sample was specific and may not represent all athletes.

Ethical Considerations
Compliance with ethical guidelines
Athletes were screened using the PARQ, and only those who were physically and psychologically fit were included. Privacy and confidentiality were ensured, and all participants provided informed consent.
Funding
This research did not receive any financial support from government, private, or non-profit organizations. 
Authors' contributions
All authors contributed equally to preparing the article.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest associated with this article.