The ability to effectively and consistently unearth future Olympic-, Paralympic- and Professional-level athletic talent through talent identification and development (TID) is the prized ‘holy grail’ of any sporting nation. However, criticism in the literature persists regarding apparent conceptual, methodological and operational shortfalls in TID practice (Bergeron et al., 2015; Suppiah, Low, & Chia, 2015). The recently published International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) consensus statement on Youth Athlete Development (Bergeron et al., 2015) and aligned commentary highlight several limitations. These include, a lack of consensus regarding a viable overarching framework to inform TID ‘best practice’; a heavy emphasis on non-inclusive, uni-dimensional, low-predictive identification strategies in lieu of effective, individualised, long-term development; a lack of role clarity and expectations between stakeholders; inconsistency in aligned strategy, practice and support and questionable cost effectiveness and success (see also: Abbott & Collins, 2004; Abbott, Button, Pepping, & Collins, 2005; Ackerman, 2013; Buekers, Borry, & Rowe, 2015; Cobley, Schorer, & Baker, 2012; McCarthy & Collins, 2014; Malina, Rogol, Cumming, Coelho-e-Silva, & Figueiredo, 2015; Miller, Cronin, & Baker, 2015; Pinder, Renshaw, & Davids, 2013; Suppiah et al., 2015; Tucker & Collins, 2012; Vaeyens, Lenoir, Williams, & Philippaerts, 2008).