The paper`s rationale for presenting Attention Control Theory (ACT) to performers integrates empirical findings with practical implications. The paper's strength lies in its incorporation of real-world examples, such as eye-gaze research in climbers (Nieuwenhuys et al., 2008), to translate theory into applied sport psychology practice. The emphasis on attentional systems, processing efficiency, and the dual influence of anxiety is consistent with core ACT principles (Eysenck et al., 2007; Eysenck & Derakshan, 2011).

​

The paper successfully connects ACT to psychological skills training. The demonstration of evidence related to self-talk, imagery, relaxation, and goal-setting (Hayslip et al., 2010; Neil et al., 2006) aligns theory and applied intervention. The paper could benefit from clarifying the limitations of conscious control in anxiety regulation. ACT does not imply conscious control in attentional processes, and the oversimplification may lead to a misconception and increased self-blame related to anxiety symptoms.

​

The paper could improve its theoretical precision by fully explaining how ACT conceptualizes anxiety`s impact on goal-directed versus stimulus-driven attentional systems. Additionally, while the paper offers thoughtful reflections on tailoring theory to client needs, it could expand on cultural, developmental, or contextual factors that influence how athletes interpret anxiety and attentional demands.

​

Overall, the paper demonstrates strong theoretical understanding and appropriately integrates ACT with applied sport psychology skills. A deeper critique of theory limitations—such as its limited attention to emotion regulation beyond cognition, or its applicability across diverse populations—would strengthen the analysis. Even so, the narrative aligns well with contemporary sport psychology perspectives and translates ACT into practical, athlete‑centered guidance.