4.6 Article

Physical testing characteristics better explain draft outcome than in-game movement profile in junior elite Australian rules football players

Journal

JOURNAL OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE IN SPORT
Volume 24, Issue 12, Pages 1284-1289

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsams.2021.07.005

Keywords

Talent identification; Team sports; Selection; Performance; Draft

Categories

Funding

  1. Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship
  2. AFL Victoria
  3. La Trobe University Bendigo Pioneers

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study aimed to investigate the association between AFL draft outcomes and physical performance, as well as in-game movement profiles. The results showed that physical testing-related factors had the most influence on draft outcomes, with larger and more agile players being desirable picks. Additionally, game involvement and sprinting activities were also associated with positive draft outcomes.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which Australian Football League (AFL) draft outcome is associated with physical performance and/or in-game movement profile. Design: Observational cohort design. Methods: Physical testing results and in-game global positioning system (GPS) data were collated from Victorian based, draft-eligible participants in the under 18 boys NAB League competition (n = 450; age = 17.1 +/- 0.3 y). Players were grouped by position as nomadic, fixed-position or fixed&ruck. Results: Individually, variables that best distinguish drafted and non-drafted players were: estimated VO2 max (all position, nomadic, fixed&ruck: d = 0.60, 0.64, 0.53), standing vertical jump (d = 0.57, 0.58, 0.53), running vertical jump (d = 0.52, 0.51, 0.56), AFL agility (d = 0.49, 0.44, 0.67) and 20-m speed (all-position, nomadic: d = 0.50, 0.61). Factor analysis prior to binary logistic regression assessed the probability of factors influencing position-specific draft outcome. AFL agility (all-position, fixed&ruck: OR = 4.58, 15.86), anthropometry (all-position, nomadic, fixed, fixed&ruck: OR = 2.55, 2.06, 11.41, 7.99), and jumping (all-position, nomadic, fixed&ruck: OR = 1.75, 1.69, 2.68) were the factors most associated with positive draft outcome. More game involvement (fixed&ruck: OR = 2.22), sprinting (all-position, fixed&ruck: OR = 1.45, 2.06) and less non-sprinting activities (all-position, nomadic: OR = 0.64, 0.61) were associated with positive draft outcome. The fixed&ruck model was the best performing (chi(2)(115) = 30.59, p < 0.001, AUC = 84.7%). Conclusions: Physical testing-related factors were most likely to influence draft outcome, where larger and more agile players were desirable draft picks. In-game movement profile had some bearing on draft outcome in all positional groups with the exception of fixed. (C) 2021 Sports Medicine Australia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available