I think there are 3 dynamics of athletic-based strength and conditioning that have to be accounted for regardless of the setting, "Physical Fitness, Healthiness, and Readiness."
Physical fitness is somewhat of a transient term because it's always evolving (progressing/maintaining/regressing) during a training cycle. Some qualify baseline fitness using maximum oxygen consumption while others use poundage or expressions of power as a means of determining this.
Heathiness may be a lesser observed strength and conditioning term, but as of late has gained some traction due to the impact of injuries on athletic performance. Here, tools such as the Functional Movement Screen have become popular in helping to sort this out and make injury predictions. Of note it seems that most athletes now are potential physical therapy patients. Why? Because we are not paying enough of the right kind of attention in the weight room.
Readiness, in my mind, has more to do with the cognitive/emotional aspect of sports preparation. This area often takes a back seat to the other two dynamics, but in some ways may be much more important than given credence. In many ways, I could make a good case for elevating the value of readiness in comparison to fitness and healthiness in athletic strength and conditioning. Readiness is a dynamic term in and of itself and represents more than just sports psychology.
The dynamics of physical fitness, healthiness, and readiness represent a paradigm for athletic preparation and competition. The amount of attention paid to each of these dynamics during a training cycle is relevant to the needs of the athlete, but it also affected by both the experience and perceptions of the strength and conditioning coach and amount of innovation a training culture is willing to pursue. One thing is sure, neglecting aspects of this training paradigm will most likely result in a less balanced training program and lower actualizing training outcomes.