Toast Fremantle's 1st 2018 National Draft Pick: Sam Sturt [Pick #17]

Remove this Banner Ad

Fyfe broke into a much stronger team in 2010* despite being a beanpole and was a fixture in the side from that point onwards. Just keeping in the sprit of the unfair Fyfe comparisons but the point remains the same; if he's good enough he'll get games regardless of his frame.




*Round 5 debut, RS Nom by round 9 (win vs Syd in Syd). 18 games all up including 2 finals. Obviously Sturt has little to no chance of replicating that because Fyfe was a freak from the get-go but 10-12ish games would be a good outcome imo
I hope Sturt does a Stephenson
 
I hope Sturt does a Stephenson
I wonder if he would get the opportunity. There is a bit of a waiting list for a slot in the forward line now; Our established players include Bennell, Ballantyne, Matera and Colyer to partner Walters, as well as McCarthy if he is now going to play as a medium forward, and Banfield.

Switkowski and Schulz would all have more development in them as young-guns looking for a chance, plus Giro and Crowden could be a look in as well.

Put it this way, if Sturt can force the issue and get an opportunity, then he will have been very impressive in the pre-season or at wafl. Happy Days!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

You don't just come in an do what Sturt was able to do without some serious level talent. Having gotten to quite high levels in cricket also assures he has a pretty good all-round work ethic. Multi-sports guys generally have an added understanding and perspective that can set their performances at a different level I reckon.
 
Will need to build his tank to get a gig, surely no chance to play early unless injuries hit.
It's also not Lyon's natural inclination to play youth in early games. he prefers the older boys to take the heat early while the younger ones get into the routine of being an AFL player and learn the game plan. But I hope he gets a debut somewhere along the line. I imagine North, Bewley and Valente are ahead of him in that regard though.
 
You don't just come in an do what Sturt was able to do without some serious level talent. Having gotten to quite high levels in cricket also assures he has a pretty good all-round work ethic. Multi-sports guys generally have an added understanding and perspective that can set their performances at a different level I reckon.

Coniglio is also a cricketer

Look how good he is
 
I thought he was the youngest

That was one of the best gfs I've seen
Geoff Hendriks of WP's '75 flag is apparently the youngest ever. The hype around Andrew Krakouer leading into and after that game was intense. He was so far and above the WAFL.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Which of Pavlich, Mundy, Sandilands, MJ, MacPharlin, sHill etc were great at other sports?
You're screwing up the logic there. It's not saying that exclusively players who excel at multiple sports are the best, or that players who have reached the level in only one sport can't have an added perspective. Just there's a greater likelihood about players that do.
 
You're screwing up the logic there. It's not saying that exclusively players who excel at multiple sports are the best, or that players who have reached the level in only one sport can't have an added perspective. Just there's a greater likelihood about players that do.
I get the logic. I'm just not sure that it has any factual basis behind it. It all sounds and looks anecdotal to me.
 
Anecdotal? You don't say. It wasn't advertised as anything but. It makes intuitive sense though.
Not to me.

Tennis players who are obsessed with tennis seem more likely to succeed at tennis to me than those who also play other sports. Same with most sports imo. My intuitive sense says different to yours, but if there was any factual basis behind it, I'd change my mind.
 
Again your logic's off base.

The idea isn't that it'll make someone more likely to succeed or not, but should they be successful at a relatively high level in multiple sports it indicates a capacity to see things in a different way that helps their game.

You certainly seem to have taken exception to it, but all in all it was essentially a side point/observation and as such not really requiring any particular level of evidence.
 
I get the logic. I'm just not sure that it has any factual basis behind it. It all sounds and looks anecdotal to me.

Somewhat related, there's an ongoing debate in the skill acquisition field about the merits of early diversification vs early specialisation.

Probably the biggest drawback for early specialisation is early burnout, which is why sports that require it (like swimming for example) tend to have quite high early retirement rates. Similarly, it may be a factor in why you sometimes see precocious tennis talents who specialised early lacking intrinsic motivation once they get older (eg Tomic/Kyrgios).

I remember reading somewhere that country areas produce a disproportionate amount of elite sporting talent, which is partly attributed to the fact they traditionally grew up enjoying a lot more unstructured play, as well as a tendency to sample more sports than city kids who often get funnelled in one direction a bit earlier. Similarly, the unstructured play theory could partly explain why countries like England, who put their kids into very structured training environments from a young age, don't seem to produce the same freakish soccer talents as their South American counterparts.

None of this is very concrete of course, because it's difficult to run randomised control trials in a field like this. Maybe England are just crap at everything and Tomic would have been a dick no matter his upbringing.
 
Last edited:
Somewhat related, there's an ongoing debate in the skill acquisition field about the merits of early diversification vs early specialisation.

Probably the biggest drawback for early specialisation is early burnout, which is why sports that require it (like swimming for example) tend to have quite high early retirement rates. Similarly, it may be a factor in why you sometimes see precocious tennis talents who specialised early lacking intrinsic motivation once they get older (eg Tomic/Kyrgios).

I remember reading somewhere that country areas produce a disproportionate amount of elite sporting talent, which is partly attributed to the fact they traditionally grew up enjoying a lot more unstructured play, as well as a tendency to sample more sports than city kids who often get funnelled in one direction a bit earlier. Similarly, the unstructured play theory could partly explain why countries like England, who put their kids into very structured training environments from a young age, don't seem to produce the same freakish soccer talents as their South American counterparts.

None of this is very concrete of course, because it's difficult to run randomised control trials in a field like this. Maybe England are just crap at everything and Tomic would have been a dick no matter his upbringing.
Actually I fully understand that. Most people would do an alternative sports activity in the off season anyway, more as an adjunct to their fitness program.

The other discussion is about if multi sports people are going to be more likely to have their performances set at a 'different level ' as a consequence.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Toast Fremantle's 1st 2018 National Draft Pick: Sam Sturt [Pick #17]

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top