INTRODUCTION This study examines the physiological attributes of badminton players. Research analyze the various test previously conducted to assess flexibility, agility, speed, and strength. Agility, essential for quick directional shifts and effective shuttlecock retrieval, depends on lower body strength for power and dynamic balance to reduce injury risks. A thorough understanding and enhancement of these characteristics are vital for excelling in badminton, emphasizing the importance of physical conditioning in achieving optimal performance. OBJECTIVE This review aimed to synthesize and evaluate the physiological characteristics of badminton players and provide evidence-based insights for training and performance optimization. METHODOLOGY This review followed a systematic review framework registered on OSF. Literature searches were expanded to PubMed, Scopus, Google Scholar, SPORTDiscus, Web of Science, and Embase without language restrictions. (2014–2024), supplemented by grey literature. Risk of bias was appraised using ROB2, ROBINS-I, NOS, and AMSTAR2 as appropriate. Results: From 45 records, 5 duplicates were removed, leaving 40 studies screened and all included in the final synthesis. The review found badminton players’ VO2max ranged 45-65 ml·kg−1·min−1, peak heart rate 170–190 bpm, and blood lactate 4-8 mmol·L−1. Repeated sprint ability dropped 5-10% across sets. Agility (505 and BSAT tests) improved significantly after plyometric and core stability training (effect sizes 0.4–0.7). Dynamic balance (Y-Balance tests) correlated strongly with injury prevention. Evidence certainty was moderate-to-high for agility and plyometric, but low for flexibility and anthropometric predictors. CONCLUSIONS This review shows agility, plyometric power, dynamic balance, and aerobic-anaerobic fitness are key for badminton performance, while flexibility and anthropometrics have limited predictive value. Sport-specific conditioning that mimics match demands is advised. Coaches should focus on agility, plyometric, and core stability, customizing flexibility and recovery individually. Future longitudinal and meta-analytic studies are needed for stronger evidence and improved training guidelines.
Afzal et al. (Sat,) studied this question.