Abstract
A notable amount of research in Australian Football describes what separates drafted from non-drafted athletes, however there is limited understanding of how Australian Football League (AFL) listed athletes, progress into the weekly AFL team. This study aimed to understand the perceptions of club staff and elite athletes on what attributes are needed for an athlete to be considered ‘ready’ for selection in the AFL. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 staff members and nine athletes from one AFL club. The specific attributes required by athletes depend on their playing position. Staff generally agreed on the importance of physical and physiological, and technical and tactical attributes, while psychological and performance attributes were also considered in the assesment of readiness. Athletes indicated they needed to possess the psychological, physical, technical, and tactical skills required before they were considered ready. Staff and athletes suggested that to achieve these attributes, athletes needed to be healthy and injury free. Findings suggest that two categories of attributes may exist in the assessment of readiness, the first consisting of attributes considered essential and possessed by a larger portion of athletes, while the second consists of attributes seen as less essential but more impactful to performance. These novel insights provide agreement across the football department about what determines player readiness, in order provide an aligned interdisciplinary approach to developing athletes. Findings also have the potential to benefit playing groups across the league, giving athletes greater clarity of what is expected of them to be considered ready for selection into an AFL team.
Introduction
The transition from sub-elite to elite sport is a significant milestone for athletes striving for a professional career, including in Australian Football (AF). Currently athletes need to be drafted by one of the 18 Australian Football League (AFL) clubs. For athletes to be drafted onto a club list, they will have progressed through talent pathways. These sporting pathways normally involve a talent identification (TID) process, which identifies athletes with sporting potential and provides a talent development (TD) program to continue development. 1 The talent identification process is often reliant upon objective physiological, technical, and tactical attributes, in addition to subjective coach assessments. 2 The psychological attributes of athletes, such as mental toughness, have also been shown to contribute to athletic performance.3,4 Higher level athletes typically possess greater technical, tactical, and physical skill than those at lower levels.5–7 However, research has shown some inconsistencies, particularly in relation to physical attributes. 8
Talent development programs are designed to assist athletes in reaching their potential and progress into elite competition. 8 The Foundations, Talent, Elite and Mastery (FTEM) framework developed by the Australian Institute of Sport is designed to capture the different pathways in sport and focuses on skill and performance development rather than soley TID. 9 The FTEM model is one of the few that acknowledges performance at the elite and mastery levels and thus provides the best model to position the current proposed body of work. Currently, once athletes reach the higher echelons of their sport, it is unclear how they are considered ‘ready’ to be selected into the first team from a broader squad of athletes. Skill and age comparisons begin to provide an understanding of the requirements for athletes who want to achieve success in the AFL, however, getting drafted does not guarantee success in getting regularly selected for AFL matches. 10 To the best of our knowledge, there are no models outlining what attributes athletes need to be ready for selection into a team from a broader squad, and what they need to achieve to be regularly selected in the playing team. Team selection in professional AF may be shaped by a variety of subjective factors, such as coaching staff preferences, team needs, opposition tactics, competition context, and match demands. Comparisons between AFL starters and non-starters have revealed that starters were significantly faster, performed better on the Yo-Yo Intermittent Recovery Test and countermovement jump, and exhibited greater hamstring flexibility. 11 While comparisons between starters and non-starters demonstrate objective differences between elite levels of performance, it is evident there is still a lack of research distinguishing levels of performance within professional AF.
The decision-making processes and perceptions of AFL recruiters have been explored in several qualitative studies, offering valuable insight into how athletes are evaluated prior to entering the elite environment (i.e., during the talent phase of the FTEM model 9 ).12–14 Larkin et al. (2022) found that recruiters assess talent based upon athletes’ game performance, psychological profile, and their intent (i.e., “giving 100%”) during physical testing sessions, rather than the outcomes of those tests themselves. 14 MacMahon et al. highlighted four contextual factors shaping recruiter decision-making: recruiter background, individual attributes (e.g., passion), understanding of team needs, and the recruiter–coach relationship. 13 Notably, the nature of this relationship was shown to influence whether recruiters rely more on intuitive judgments or systematic deliberation. 13 Larkin et al. (2020) further demonstrated that recruiters consider a range of interdependent attributes, such as technical, tactical, physiological, psychological, perceptual-cognitive, and game related performance when making talent identification decisions. 12 These decisions are also shaped by prior recruitment outcomes, personal talent identification philosophies, and club-specific needs and values. 12 Collectively, these studies demonstrate the complexity of AFL talent identification and the contribution of subjective judgment in recruitment decisions. However, less is known about how internal stakeholders, such as AFL staff and coaches, assess whether a player is ready for elite competition once within a professional squad (i.e., the elite phase of the FTEM model 9 ). This study builds upon the existing talent identification research by shifting attention towards selection readiness, offering novel insights into how readiness is defined and interpreted by those operating within the elite club environment.
For the purposes of this study, it is important to distinguish between the concepts of ‘readiness for selection’ and ‘regular selection’. Readiness for selection in this paper is the holistic assessment of an athlete's preparedness to consistently meet the demands and criteria required for inclusion in AFL competition. This concept extends beyond the immediate performance metrics that define regular selection, encompassing not only physical attributes but also psychological, tactical, and interpersonal factors. Ultimately, while regular selection focuses on an athlete's ability to immediately contribute to an upcoming game, readiness for selection is a broader assessment of an athlete's potential to grow, adapt, and contribute over a sustained period. It requires a deeper consideration of an athlete's long-term development and ability to meet future demands. While this study primarily focuses on exploring the perceptions of athletes and staff regarding what makes an athlete ready for selection, it does not delve deeply into the subsequent process of match selection. This distinction is important because, although an athlete may be considered ready for selection, the criteria that determine who plays in the next game may vary, incorporating more immediate or situational factors (e.g., opposition match-ups). Furthermore, an athlete may be considered ready for selection but not selected (e.g., due to opposition match-ups or not being amongst the best players in their position).
As previously highlighted, the identification of talented athletes relies partly upon the assessment of objective data; however, when determining if athletes are ready to be selected into a club's AFL match-day team from the broader squad, it is unclear exactly what attributes are considered in these decisions. Athletes in elite AFL squads are, for the most part, all highly skilled, possess excellent physical attributes and tactical nous, so it is unclear what enables some athletes to be considered ready for selection and others not. What coaches and staff perceive to be important in these decisions is also unclear and to date, has not been explored within AF. Furthermore, it is unclear if athletes, especially those who have been recently drafted, understand which attributes contribute to them being ready for selection. Of 205 players who were drafted over 3 consecutive years, 166 (81%) eventually made their AFL debut, playing an average of 27 games (range 1–90). 15 Whilst this highlights that most draftees eventually do make their AFL debut, there is no indication of how long this typically takes and whether their debut means that they are ready for consistent (i.e., every week) selection in the AFL team. Knowing what makes an athlete equipped for this transition will give athletes a clear and comprehensive understanding of what is required of them to be considered ready for selection into an AFL side.
This study aims to map and describe the perceptions of club personnel and athletes regarding the attributes that contribute to an athlete's readiness for selection into the weekly AFL team. The focus is on identifying and documenting these perceptions, rather than exploring the underlying reasons behind them, in order to provide a broad understanding of how readiness is assessed within the context of team selection. This approach allows for a pragmatic exploration of the selection criteria, offering insight into current practices and expectations without delving into the complexities of individual motivations or biases. By focusing on mapping perceptions, this study ensures that the data remains grounded in the lived experiences of participants, which can be used to inform development opportunities for athletes who are not yet considered ready for selection. This methodological choice aligns with the study's aim to provide actionable insights for sports organisations, rather than an in-depth examination of the psychological or sociocultural factors influencing perceptions.
Methods
Participants and recruitment
Participants were recruited using a purposive sampling procedure. Twelve current staff members and nine male athletes from one AFL club were recruited to participate in individual semi-structured interviews. Staff members were recruited from the men's program and invited to participate if actively involved in team selection and/or preparation of athletes for performance. This included coaches (n = 4), physical preparation staff (such as strength and conditioning coaches and physiotherapists) (n = 3) and other football department staff (such as list managers and player development managers) (n = 5). Staff members had worked in their role at the club for an average of 5.6 years (SD = 3.8), The nine athletes came from three career stages, early (n = 3, age = 19 ± 0 years, 1.3 ± 0.9 AFL games and < 3 years on an AFL list), mid (n = 3, age = 27.6 ± 2.1 years, 120.0 ± 46.7 AFL games and 6–12 years on an AFL list), and later (n = 3, age = 31.7 ± 1.7 years, 238.3 ± 14.0 AFL games and >12 years on an AFL list). Ethical approval was obtained from the University Human Research Ethics Committee. Prior to the commencement of each interview, participants provided written informed consent.
Procedure
This study was exploratory in nature and aimed to understand staff and athlete's perceptions of the attributes that contribute to an athlete being ready for weekly match selection through semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews were employed to allow for flexibility during interviews, enabling participants to share their personal experiences and perceptions, resulting in strong, descriptive data. 16
Separate semi-structured interview schedules were created for both staff and athletes to reflect the differing roles and experiences of each group. Staff interviews were conducted by the first author (CT), and athlete interviews were conducted by the third author (LD). Each interview guide was pilot tested; and following the pilot interviews, minor changes were made to both original interview schedules, with prompts and questions modified through member checking before use. The final interview guide was designed to conduct structured questioning and informal discussion, however depending on the breadth and depth of responses provided, the prompts were not always utilised or asked verbatim. 17
The interview guide contained three sections and was designed to elicit responses that provide insights into the perceptions of what attributes make an athlete ready for regular weekly selection at the AFL level. To establish a rapport with the staff member or athlete, the interview guide began with explanatory information on consent, comfort, and purpose of the interview, followed by demographic questions pertaining to the staff member's current and past role/s (staff) or the athlete's background (athletes). The second section focused on the concept of readiness for selection, where participants were asked to describe what they think makes a player ready to play at AFL level (e.g., Can you describe what you think makes a player ready to play at AFL level? Which, if any, attributes do you believe are the most important when determining whether a player is ready to compete at AFL level?). Section three focused on participants understanding of the selection process (e.g., Can you talk me through who is involved in the selection process and the decision making about whether a player is ready? Do you have benchmarks values that determine a player's readiness?).
Interviews were conducted in person for all except one of the participants (one athlete, whereby the interview was conducted via video conferencing (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, CA)). Two interviewers were used to conduct the interviews, with each only interviewing one group of participants (i.e., staff or athletes). This was to ensure there was no bias or leading of the interviewees based on the responses from the other group. Interviews were digitally recorded with the participant's permission. All interviews were conducted during the pre-season or early in-season period to ensure consistency in the timing of data collection relative to the competitive calendar. Open-ended questions, empathetic listening and prompting, when appropriate, were utilised to allow for an inductive analysis of the dialogue. 16 The total volume of data generation for athlete interviews was 4 h, 10 min, 23 s (4:10:23), with a mean duration of 0:27:51 (min = 0:16:49, max = 0:40:07). Staff interviews generated a total volume of 7 h, 52 min, 50 s (7:52:50), with a mean duration of 0:39:24 (min = 0:25:38, max = 1:00:36). Following data collection, each recording was transcribed verbatim by the interviewer or SmartDocs (SmartDocs Transcription Services, Glen Iris, VIC) with identification codes assigned to each participant to provide anonymity. Final transcripts were imported into NVivo software (Version 11.7.1) where transcripts were analysed and coded. All potentially identifiable comments about the club, participants, or other athletes at the club, were removed or replaced with unidentifiable codes.
Data analysis
The primary purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of club personnel and athletes regarding the attributes that contribute to an athlete's readiness for selection into the weekly AFL team; thus, an inductive thematic analysis was adopted to analyse the data. This approach prioritises deriving understanding directly from the data itself, enabling meaningful patterns to emerge organically. 18 Its flexibility and data-driven nature allows for comprehensive exploration of participants’ perceptions without the limitations of predefined theories or hypotheses. Data from staff interviews were coded and thematically analysed by the first author (CT), while data from athlete interviews were coded and analysed by the third author (LD). The decision to keep the interview and coding processes separate between researchers was made to preserve the integrity of each participant group's unique perspectives and to avoid the imposition of cross-group assumptions during theme development. Both researchers used the same coding framework to maintain methodological consistency.
The process began with a period of familiarisation where the interviewers immersed themselves within the data, reading the transcripts several times, to re-familiarise themselves with the interviews and take notes on potential themes. Initial codes were then generated through a systematic process of labelling raw data responses (direct quotes or paraphrased quotes) and organising them into patterns of similar ideas that represented lower-order themes. Lower-order themes which represented shared meaning were then grouped together to form higher-order themes. The themes were reviewed and refined in an iterative process, ensuring they accurately reflected the content of the data and the participants’ views. This iterative approach allowed for a deeper understanding of the various attributes participants associated with athlete readiness for selection. The final themes were defined and named, capturing the essence of the perceptions described by the participants. During the review of themes, the interviewers engaged in regular discussions with the other authors who were not present during the interviews to review findings and ensure clarity in the interpretation of group-specific themes. Any discrepancies or uncertainties in theme development were resolved through discussion and consensus. Where necessary, the researchers revisited the original transcripts to ensure interpretations were grounded in the data and accurately reflected participant meaning and context.
Trustworthiness and Rigor
To ensure the trustworthiness of the data and analysis, strategies aligned with Guba and Lincoln's criteria 19 were implemented. Credibility was enhanced through interviewer expertise and member checking, whereby participants were given the opportunity to review and clarify their interview transcripts. Transferability was supported by providing rich, contextual descriptions of participants and settings, enabling readers to determine the applicability of findings to other contexts. Dependability was addressed by using NVivo software to manage and code the data systematically, providing a transparent and traceable record of the analytic process. A consistent coding framework was developed and iteratively refined throughout the analysis. Confirmability was strengthened through the maintenance of an audit trail, which included records of inductively derived codes and reflective memos, helping to reduce the influence of researcher bias. Together, these procedures contributed to the rigor and transparency of the qualitative approach adopted in this study.
Results
Staff
A total of four higher-order themes and thirteen lower-order themes were identified related to the individual athlete attributes as described by staff (see Table 1). Participants noted that both the range of attributes an athlete possess, and their individual performance contributed to their level of readiness. A dominant concept across participant responses was that the attributes required by players are heavily dependent on an athlete's playing position. This position-specific perspective was consistently referenced, indicating a shared understanding among participants that different roles demand different readiness criteria: Because there's so many varying positions in the AFL, you need different physical attributes for the different positions; So being physically ready. So as a midfielder, do they have a decent aerobic capacity, do they have good lactic tolerance, are they strong enough to be able to do the job that they’re asked to do? But that's also different to a key position player, so it will be different for different players. (C4)
Thematic map for staff.
Physical and physiological
Staff referred to the need for athletes to be ‘healthy’ (i.e., not be injured or ill) and be able to perform before any other attribute is considered, “…[readiness] should be concentrated on physical performance and physical health, and quite clearly, one thing that a player would need to do to be ready to play AFL would be, sounds silly but, would be healthy” (PP1).
The running capability of athletes, which included specific mention of aerobic and anaerobic capacity, as well as general fitness and an athlete's ability to run, was also noted by staff: Um, if a player can run, well enough at VFL, and their GPS data backs up in comparison to an AFL game or an AFL player in a similar position, that's probably, that ticks majority. It makes it easier to transfer across. So, I’d say running capabilities is the prime. (C4)
Technical and tactical
Technical and tactical attributes considered to impact an athlete's readiness included skill execution, decision making, and footy IQ, “…skill would be number one. So, they’d need to be adequately skilled. You’ll get exposed at the next level up if – no matter how hard you compete or how powerful you are, if you lack skill, you’ll be exposed” (PP2).
Staff highlighted the importance of an athlete's ability to make good decisions: …that you have a clear, um, decision-making framework; like, you can make good decisions on the field. quite often things will get labelled as skill errors, but I think quite often that they’re decision-making errors, like in terms of where you kick, or when you handball. They’re decision errors, which comes with experience. (PP2) Um, people might not be as great as their physical capabilities but be excellent where to read the ball, where's it going, um, and be a part in that. Ah, yeah, so a skill, there's a physical element and then there's, I reckon um, a footy smarts element that is something that really separates the good to great type scenarios for players. (FDS4)
Psychological
Psychological attributes considered by staff members to impact an athlete's readiness included resilience and temperament. Resilience was described as a player's “stress tolerance” and “ability to player under duress, under some type of injury or play with pain” (FDS2).
In addition to resilience, temperament was also noted by staff and referred to an athlete's ability to cope and perform under pressure and have the mental strength to deal with factors such as pressure, reviews, and large crowds, “…have they got the temperament to – to implement, um, the game style and the way the team needs to play under extreme pressure” (C2).
Performance
The final higher-order theme of performance encapsulates an athlete's pre-season and VFL performance (i.e., game statistics, coaches’ assessment of pre-season and match performance, GPS metrics), understanding of role, competitiveness and how they cope with physical demands. Coping with physical demands was described by staff as an athlete's ability to withstand the rigours of an AFL game and being physically ready for the heightened demands of AFL level, “…I would say being able to cope with the physical demands of the game is the number one marker in my opinion that would allow an athlete to be ready to play at AFL level” (PP1).
Understanding of role focused on the need for athletes to understand their role relative to their position and within the team, “…how developed um his understanding of the game um and the role that he’d be required to play at senior level” (C3). Athletes’ performance during pre-season and in VFL matches are also used in determining readiness. Staff noted that observation of pre-season and VFL performance allows comparisons to be made between players, for example, “…how well they’ve done at preseason with the new recruits, plus how they’ve done it with our more senior players” (C1). Finally, competitiveness – “having a competitive streak in you” as well as “fighting for football, fighting for position” (PP2) – was also used to determine an athlete's readiness.
Athletes
Four higher-order themes were developed through the inductive analysis process; Australian Football Capability, Teamwork, Psychological Attributes and Being Healthy. Each of the first three higher order themes also had lower order themes and these can be seen in Table 2. Athletes highlighted the importance of physical attributes (e.g., running capacity, power, strength) and knowing and being able to play within the team structure.
Thematic map for athletes.
Australian football capability
Athletes thought they needed to possess the physical, technical, and tactical attributes for competing in the AFL before thinking they were ready for selection into the senior team. However, it was not just a matter of having these requirements, they needed to be able to display consistent training and VFL match performances. Athletes spoke about the need for players to have the physical attributes required for their position and that these are a “foundation” and without them “you can’t go out there and do everything else” (E1). Key attributes mentioned were aerobic fitness, speed, and strength. Athletes spoke about needing to increase their physical capacity as when entering the system as a young draftee there is a substantial increase in expectations and requirements, “I couldn't run out games early on, so I just didn't play” (M1); “I don't think my body was quite ready for AFL senior level and I'm still, I think, I've still got a way to go and developing my body as well” (M2).
Athletes referred to and implied that being “good enough to play” (L1) could indicate success and poor skill may be why athletes are not ready for match selection, “if you want to be a player that plays for a long time, you need to be able to kick the ball well” (M2). However, if a player is inconsistent with their skills they are less likely to be selected “making the same mistakes [and] not improving they just won’t play you” (M1). Athlete responses in this study favoured tactical performance over technical in terms of athletes being ready to be selected for matches. Athletes acknowledged that talent alone will not get you selected, “everyone on the list is quite talented” (L1) indicating this may not be the most decisive factor in a player being ready for selection.
Athletes particularly spoke about a player's ability to be adaptable in a situation and being able to respond quickly, “being a good decision maker and be able to think on the fly” (M3). In addition to needing the physical, technical, and tactical attributes, the more experienced athletes also mentioned their ability to perform consistently, “I'd say that the consistency of the training or the games they've been playing and then that builds trust that knowing they can do that role and that output for an AFL game” (L1). One athlete acknowledged that being “strong (…) or a really good kick doesn’t mean [they will] play” (L1), while another alluded to other attributes: First and foremost is a physical attribute and then do you have the mental capability to withstand the rigours of AFL footy and a lot of people don't, and you see a lot of people spat out of the system because mentally they can't handle it. (L3)
Teamwork
A common response from athletes related to the player's capacity to play their positional roles and apply the team structure. This required athletes to have good communication on the field with teammates, but also coaches and support staff, and allowed them to be trusted by teammates. Athlete's spoke about how important knowing the team structure/gameplan was, “Yeah, I'd say confidence and your knowledge around the game plan and your own role in the team” (E2). A player who did not know the game plan was not considered to be ready for selection. Trust was common amongst the more experienced athletes, “Trust, I reckon trust is huge. Trustworthy probably the number one, knowing that I trust them to play their role and knowing that they're going to be able to do that on game day” (L1). Inexperienced athletes spoke about needing to know team structure, but the more experienced athletes also linked this to being trustworthy, “…knowing or be across the game plan and well enough that you can go out and they can trust you to implement” (M1).Whilst the athletes in this study did not elaborate on their gameplan or the style to which they play, one athlete did stress that “if there's a couple of players [to choose between], [the one who] knows the way we want to play, they’re more knowledgeable, then they’re probably playing” (L1).
Communication was also an important attribute that contributed to a player being ready for selection and involved being both a listener as well as telling a teammate what they needed to do: …they're telling me what to do on the field because I can't see what's behind me. They're telling me go left, go left or whatever, and then I'm telling them to go left, they need to be able to hear that (L1)
Psychological attributes
Several psychological attributes were considered important in determining a player's readiness; confidence, competitiveness and being mentally tough. Athletes acknowledge that confidence could take time to build: …Once you come into a new AFL system, it can be like a bit daunting at times and you probably at times don't feel like you're quite up to the level in a way and you probably (…) doubt yourself (M2) Like push yourself, like through uncomfortable situations like you need to be able to put that aside and realise that to achieve what you want to achieve, you're going to have those moments that you got to forget about them and push on. (L2)
Athletes highlighted that confidence was a key factor in being considered ready for selection, as greater confidence enabled them to perform successfully, “confidence brings out your ability to be able to perform to the highest level that you can” (M2). Inexperienced athletes spoke about being determined, whereas the more experienced athletes were able to link this into a desire to see competitive teammates, and thus, indicating they were ready for selection.
Being healthy
A common reoccurring theme mentioned by athletes was that athletes need to be healthy otherwise they would not be able to be ready for selection. This was discussed in terms of both physical and mental health. For example, “making sure you're sort of in the best sort of place possible physically and mentally to go out there and execute your role, I guess game day ready” (M3). One athlete highlighted the importance of being “physically healthy…strong…, [without] injuries and playing better than someone in the VFL” (E1).
Discussion
The aim of this research was to provide insights into the attributes that determine whether an athlete is considered ready for selection in a club's AFL team. A key finding was that perceptions of athlete readiness for AFL selection are strongly position-dependent. Staff and athletes highlighted that the specific attributes required by an athlete ultimately depend on which position they play. This finding is particularly significant as it highlights the importance of adopting a more tailored, role specific approach to evaluating readiness, rather than applying uniform criteria across the playing group. These perspectives are reinforced by existing research on the positional demands of AFL, which highlights variation in physical outputs across positional groups.5,20,21 For instance, midfielders have been shown to have the highest work-rate, while key position players have the lowest.5,20 Moreover, key position players engage in more position-specific actions such as spoils, marks, and hit outs than mid-wing and half-line players, whereas half-line players perform more tackles. 21 These objective differences validate participants’ perspectives and reinforce the idea that athlete readiness is not a fixed concept, but one shaped by the unique demands of each position. This finding highlights the complexity of the T4 to E1 transition within the FTEM framework, where athletes must not only demonstrate overall readiness but also meet the specific demands associated with their playing position.
Both staff and athletes emphasised physical and physiological attributes in their responses. Running capabilities emerged as a baseline requirement, meaning athletes will not be considered ready until this requirement is met. The physical demands of AF have been well established and are characterised by large volumes of running with intermittent bouts of high-speed running combined with frequent collisions and tackling.5,22,23 It should be considered how confirmation bias may have influenced this outcome in the current study. Since staff were involved in either the preparation or selection of athletes, they may be stating these attributes to be important simply because this is the norm within their workplace. Further, staff and athletes may have mentioned these attributes most frequently during interviews as these attributes are easily measured and may be more frequently measured in comparison to other attributes.
The focus on physical attributes by participants in the interviews may be influenced by athletes being continually measured on physical performance throughout their career. 5 Physical attributes are tested during their draft year, likely earlier in development squads, and as they continue in the AFL system. Whilst some technical skill may be assessed (e.g., kicking and handball performance 24 ), these are assessed less frequently relative to physical tests. Additionally, the use of GPS units across all training and matches resulting in measurable physical performance data may mean staff and athletes’ default to physical aspects of performance due to their ease of measurability relative to other factors such as technical and tactical skill performance, which often have increased levels of subjectivity. It is important to note that the emphasis on physical attributes does not appear to have been influenced by the interview script. Interview questions were deliberately kept open-ended to allow participants to speak freely about the attributes they believed contributed to readiness for AFL selection. Where prompts were used to encourage elaboration, no specific examples of attributes (e.g., physical, technical, or tactical) were provided that could have led participants toward particular responses.
The emphasis on physical attributes from staff and athletes may reflect shared beliefs or values within the club's environment, potentially influenced by deeper organisational norms. This may be an avenue for future investigation through the application of theoretical frameworks, such as organisational culture theory. Organisational culture theory, which examines the shared values, beliefs, and practices that influence behaviour within an organisation, 25 offers a useful framework for exploring these dynamics. Future research applying this theory could investigate how the club's collective culture impacts staff members’ individual perspectives on player readiness. Specifically, this approach would allow for a detailed examination of how organisational norms shape attitudes and decision-making processes regarding athlete readiness within a professional sporting context. Given that the present study was conducted within a singular AFL club, such an approach could provide valuable insights into the interplay between organisational culture and individual perspectives.
Technical and tactical attributes were mentioned by both athletes and staff. A focus was placed on having a certain level of skill to perform in the AFL and it was suggested that if you did not have the ‘right skills’, athletes are unlikely to be ready. This finding is consistent with existing research within professional AF, which found that coaches considered skill performance more important than increased physical activity when evaluating player performance. 26 Previously, technical attributes have shown to differ between sub-elite and elite junior AF athletes across various technical performance indicators including kicks, effective disposals, contested possession and contested marks. 27 The importance of skill execution in determining athlete selection has also been demonstrated in junior levels of AF, where differences have been shown between sub-elite and elite athletes in all measures of kicking ability. 24 Therefore, it appears athletes require a minimum level of skill to be ready for selection. Bonney et al. 28 found a small-sided kicking assessment to be effective in distinguishing between age and skill groups in junior AF athletes. While such assessments alone may not determine readiness or selection outcomes, they may serve as a valuable tool for coaches and staff within the multifactorial decision-making process of team selection, offering insights into players’ performance under conditions that simulate the demands of AFL match play. 28 Future research should aim to identify the specific technical attributes unique to each position, given the emphasis on playing position in this study.
Tactical elements of performance in the context of AF were mentioned by both groups, with experienced athletes appearing to place the greatest emphasis on tactical nous and team trust. This is consistent with previous research showing that decision-making skill distinguishes talent-identified from non-talent-identified junior AFL athletes, with the former demonstrating greater decision-making accuracy and skill in game-based contexts. 24 These findings suggest that advancement through the talent pathway may be partially attributable to the development of advanced tactical capabilities, supporting the perspectives expressed by experienced players in the present study. The emphasis on tactical awareness in our findings may reflect the increased importance of these skills at the elite level, particularly among more experienced players. Within the FTEM framework, this highlights the shift from general decision-making competencies to the advanced tactical understanding needed at the elite (E1) level, where athletes are expected to execute team strategies effectively and build trust through consistent on-field performance. Findings from Berry et al. 29 have highlighted that by the time expert decision makers enter the AFL, they have spent more time in both structured and deliberate play activities in all invasion sports than less skilled decision makers. This supports our finding that tactical readiness, particularly among experienced players, is viewed as a critical component of selection readiness, and may develop through long-term exposure to complex game-like scenarios. As such, deliberate use of invasion activities may help enhance the tactical qualities valued by both staff and athletes, and could be a useful tool in athlete development programs.
Slightly different psychological attributes were presented by the two participant groups. Staff mentioned resilience and temperament, whilst athletes highlighted confidence, being competitive and mentally tough. Although these attributes differed slightly in emphasis, they all reflect the characteristics of mental toughness identified by Gucciardi et al., 3 suggesting some alignment between staff and athlete perceptions and established conceptual frameworks. These findings demonstrate that psychological resilience and mental toughness are likely to play a key role in the transition from T4 to E1 within the FTEM model, as athletes must navigate the mental and emotional demands of elite sport, including limited selection opportunities and the expectation of consistent high-level performance.
The variation between groups may reflect different roles and perspectives, with staff perhaps focusing on observable behavioural responses under pressure (e.g., temperament), and athletes reflecting on internal experiences (e.g., confidence and toughness). This highlights a potential gap in shared language or understanding around psychological readiness, which may impact readiness and selection conversations. Given Gucciardi et al.'s 3 recommendation for psychological skills training and mental toughness workshops, our findings suggest practical value in aligning staff and athlete perspectives through structured education, particularly in clarifying how psychological readiness may be evaluated and developed.
Both staff and athletes acknowledged that whilst athletes can possess all other attributes, if they become injured or ill, they can no longer be considered ready for selection. Over the 2021 AFL season the overall injury incidence was 33.6 injuries per club, with hamstring strains, concussions, and calf strains being the three most common injuries resulting in missed matches. 30 Injuries have been associated with inferior team performance,31,32 which suggests that those who are injured or physically unhealthy are not ready for selection, as their selection could be detrimental to the team's performance. This demonstrates the importance for athletes to stay healthy and keep their body durable to avoid missing extended periods of training and/or games where their readiness for AFL could be impacted.
Throughout these findings it has been shown that physical and physiological attributes are important and may even be viewed as a baseline requirement for athlete readiness. A similar suggestion has been made within the technical and tactical attributes, where these skills also seem to be considered before psychological and performance attributes. This raises questions about whether the attributes within the physical and physiological and technical and tactical are seen as baseline attributes which athletes must achieve before their level of readiness will be considered. If this is the case, it is thought that athletes may then be required to develop the psychological attributes and have a record of performance to be considered ready. This separation between baseline attributes and those considered once they have been achieved has led to the idea that two categories of attributes may exist. The first category consists of a range of attributes that are considered essential, such as running capabilities. These attributes are thought to be possessed by a large portion of athletes, and it could be thought that once you are capable in these, there may be no significant performance benefit in improving this attribute further. The second category consists of other attributes that are considered once the baseline attributes have been achieved, such as footy IQ. These attributes could also be possessed by several athletes; however, these attributes may be more impactful to performance, and continued improvement in these will produce significant performance benefits. In other words, improved ability in attributes from this category may be what distinguishes ‘not ready’ from ‘ready’ athletes.
Given that the present findings have shown the assessment of readiness to be position-dependent, the specific attributes that fall into each category may differ depending on the athlete's playing position. For example, excellent aerobic capacity may be an essential baseline for midfielders but less important for key position players, who may instead be expected to excel in strength-based attributes such as contested marking. These considerations highlight that readiness is multifactorial and there is no single attribute (or set group of attributes) that can determine if an athlete is ready; however, further investigation is required to better understand the second category which relates heavily to the professional environment and is thought to hold a higher level of subjectivity in assessment (e.g., footy IQ). This idea has been developed through the analysis of one club within one culture; therefore, comprehensive understanding of this concept is limited. Further investigation of this concept across the league is needed to refine and better understand these categories of attributes.
The differences in beliefs about readiness observed between staff and athletes are important to acknowledge as they may provide insight to the communication between these two groups. Common attributes were identified by both staff and athletes, namely, physical, technical, tactical, psychological and performance, as well as ‘being healthy’. Athletes had a larger focus on teamwork and psychological attributes compared to staff. The common attributes identified by both staff and athletes suggest that football staff are mostly effective in communicating to athletes what is required of them to be considered ready for selection and demonstrates sound understanding from the athletes receiving this information. The differences in perceived readiness likely reflect individual values, experiences, and social influences, rather than a failure in communication. The variation in responses may also reflect the position-specific focus of individual athletes, suggesting that perceptions of readiness may be driven by the demands of the athlete's position within the team. These variations suggest that perceptions of athlete readiness are shaped by personal and contextual factors, which may warrant further exploration in future research guided by appropriate theoretical frameworks.
The limitations of this research must be considered when interpreting the findings. Participants were recruited from a single AFL club, thus it is possible that staff and athletes from another club may have different perspectives based on their experiences (for example, if the head coach at another club has a greater focus on technical skill, the staff and athletes may place a greater emphasis on this). Future research could expand on these findings by including staff and athletes from multiple or all AFL clubs to explore how organisational, cultural, and leadership differences shape perceptions of player readiness across the league. Further, there may be a potential disconnect between what staff say they do in their responses and what they do in practice. This could be caused by expectancy bias and/or imperfect recall.
Given that all interviews were conducted during the pre-season or early in-season period, it is possible that the timing of interviews may have influenced participants’ responses. Perceptions of player readiness and performance criteria may vary at different points throughout the season, such as during finals. Future research may benefit from exploring how these perspectives evolve across the season to capture a more dynamic understanding of readiness assessments. Finally, while the findings of this study describe the attributes that staff and athletes consider important in determining readiness, they do not clarify the quantifiable standard athletes need to achieve in these attributes. Given that the findings of this study confirm that selection is very much a subjective assessment through the differing opinions of participants, question is raised around whether it is possible to create standards for team selection, when the actual process is subjective in nature. If quantifiable standards could be established for each of these attributes, they will likely provide valuable insight; however, the extent to which these will inform the selection process for coaches is unclear given how subjective this process is proven to be. While the present findings outline the attributes perceived to determine a player's readiness for AFL selection, it is important to acknowledge that final team selection decisions are likely influenced by a range of contextual, real-world factors beyond individual readiness. Team selection factors such as game context, team requirements, season timing, and tactical considerations may significantly shape selection outcomes. Given their potential impact, these factors warrant further investigation, particularly in relation to how they interact with player readiness and influence selection decisions in elite sporting environments.
The findings from this study offer practical guidance for coaches, selectors, and development staff by highlighting the importance of clearly communicating position-specific expectations to athletes. Although direct research linking transparency of selection criteria to on-field performance is scarce, insights from an organisational context have found that transparency in selection criteria can help some individuals perform better, but may negatively affect others, particularly if it induces anxiety. 33 It is plausible that similar principles may apply in the sport domain. For example, openly communicating what attributes are evaluated in the assessment of readiness may help athletes better understand performance expectations, allowing them to focus their training and development to the required areas. This may be particularly beneficial for newly drafted players still learning what is valued at the elite level. However, too much transparency could potentially narrow an athlete's focus at the expense of broader development and increase psychological pressure. Therefore, it may be important to strike a balance between providing athletes with clear expectations whilst ensuring that development-focused conversations remain adaptive to individual roles, progression rates, and team needs. These findings may also enable agreement across the different football department disciplines about what determines player readiness for selection. Establishing shared understandings of readiness criteria across development and selection staff may support targeted athlete development and ultimately improve individual and team performance outcomes.
Conclusions
Athletes require physical, technical, tactical, and psychological attributes to reach a certain level before they will be considered ready for team selection. However, the specific attributes required by a player depend on what position they play. Supplementing this is a consistent period of performance, which could be training, competition or both. This consistent performance period allows athletes to trust that their teammate knows and can play their role within the team. Injury or illness can interrupt training and performance, so it was emphasised that athletes need to be healthy to be considered ready for selection.
Attributes do differ by playing position which creates complexity for staff in determining readiness, and complexity for athletes in understanding how they are being evaluated and what their training goals are. The relatively small amount of diversity between staff around readiness for selection attributes is understandable. Ethically and pragmatically, athletes should know how staff think about readiness and selection. Athletes should have a clear understanding of how to achieve selection. If this was achieved, the effectiveness of training might improve, leading to improvements in team performance.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the club involved in this study and the participants for giving up their time to contribute their perspectives on this matter.
Ethical considerations
The Human Ethics Advisory Group at Deakin University approved our interviews (approval: HEAG-H 189_2022) on December 14, 2022.
Consent to participate
All participants provided written informed consent prior to participating.
Consent for publication
The authors obtained written informed consent for publication by all participants.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
The data used in this work are protected by confidentiality clauses from ethics approval and cannot be shared publicly.