John Ralph
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 4241
- Joined: Fri 15 Sep 2006 10:35am
- Location: earth
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 1390 times
Re: John Ralph
Denham is trying to keep up his profile by being Greg 'Venom' Denham. He was quite measured when he first went on radio, but now he likes to stick the boots in, more for a bit of theatre, I think.
Patrick Smith has hated us since Grant Thomas's days. Nothing new there. It's to be expected.
Patrick Smith has hated us since Grant Thomas's days. Nothing new there. It's to be expected.
- ctqs
- Club Player
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Tue 20 Apr 2004 12:00am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
Re: John Ralph
Correct. Like any relationship, whether it's domestic or professional, you can go into something with the best of intentions only to find out later that it wasn't quite as it seemed. I'm sure most people have experienced something like that along the way. Nobody attacked the decision to hire him when it happened, so if warning signs were there, nobody saw them.dragit wrote:I think you can have the right process and still end up with the wrong result.magnifisaint wrote:Which begs the question "How the hell did they get the process wrong with selecting the coach? "
It doesn't fill me with mur confidence.
There's no fool proof formula, people can present one way and turn out completely differently.
Scott obviously presented very well, confident, talked up leadership and quality people blah, blah, blah... In the end he shyed away from being a good coach.
Still waiting for closure ... if you get my drift.
- ctqs
- Club Player
- Posts: 1109
- Joined: Tue 20 Apr 2004 12:00am
- Has thanked: 8 times
- Been thanked: 35 times
Re: John Ralph
Denham has guessed, speculated, made things up, and usually got things wrong for years. I don't place any weight on what he writes unless he is recording something that is verified elsewhere. His rant today was an embarrassment. He abused the club and those associated with it, and called it everything under the sun, when the only reason he could come up with was the president didn't articulate the reasons Watters was sacked. KB, to his credit, said there was no point in bagging the coach then and the club was trying to be dignified. It's a matter of opinion, to be honest, and people don't have to agree, but Denham's response was a total overreaction.cwrcyn wrote:Denham is trying to keep up his profile by being Greg 'Venom' Denham. He was quite measured when he first went on radio, but now he likes to stick the boots in, more for a bit of theatre, I think.
Patrick Smith has hated us since Grant Thomas's days. Nothing new there. It's to be expected.
Still waiting for closure ... if you get my drift.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 9370
- Joined: Wed 03 Aug 2005 10:01pm
- Has thanked: 657 times
- Been thanked: 498 times
Re: John Ralph
Patrick Smith?......(yawn) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
St Kilda forever ![🔴](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/1f534.svg)
![⚪️](//cdn.jsdelivr.net/gh/twitter/twemoji@latest/assets/svg/26aa.svg)
( God help me)
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5410
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
Re: John Ralph
ctqs wrote:Correct. Like any relationship, whether it's domestic or professional, you can go into something with the best of intentions only to find out later that it wasn't quite as it seemed. I'm sure most people have experienced something like that along the way. Nobody attacked the decision to hire him when it happened, so if warning signs were there, nobody saw them.dragit wrote:I think you can have the right process and still end up with the wrong result.magnifisaint wrote:Which begs the question "How the hell did they get the process wrong with selecting the coach? "
It doesn't fill me with mur confidence.
There's no fool proof formula, people can present one way and turn out completely differently.
Scott obviously presented very well, confident, talked up leadership and quality people blah, blah, blah... In the end he shyed away from being a good coach.
Wasn't Westerway interested in offering Watters an extension?
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11554
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3523 times
- Been thanked: 2465 times
Re: John Ralph
That was before Watters hurt the senior players' feelings
It's strange that this other stuff about Saad is also coming out now...
And the fact that he seemed to be the best person for the coaching job and that he could think on his feet and actually be a good match day coach is also interesting... Maybe the next coach just needs to be a yes man
It's strange that this other stuff about Saad is also coming out now...
And the fact that he seemed to be the best person for the coaching job and that he could think on his feet and actually be a good match day coach is also interesting... Maybe the next coach just needs to be a yes man
Re: John Ralph
Fits with rumours from other places too... Fine, some B&F posters. Ok, I know none of those sources individually count for much, but put em all together...stinger wrote:that's if you believe ralph....and i might add ..he was spot on with all the scoops...which were later claimed by jaxons as his own.....so...may be something in it.......which makes a change....saintspremiers wrote:In a way we should deride him much more than Lyon.cwrcyn wrote:Just on SEN. Basically said that Watters had lost EVERYONE at the club, and the the decision to move him on HAD to be taken. The only criticism was that it hadn't been done earlier. Ralph stated that the positive was that the players and the club could start pre-season with a coach they could work with.
Watters has cost us players probably sponsors and members as well.
Hird... The unflushable one is now... just a turd...
Re: John Ralph
It's also the reason why the President did the right thing by holding a bland presser last week following the sacking. Whilst it would have been great to have told exactly why SW had to go, that would simply have been seen in footy circles as unnecessarily putting the boots in. All the serious footy journos (?contradiction in terms?) have taken the news of Watters' sacking with a sense of 'we knew he had to go'.Spinner wrote:The reaction in the media was surprisingly as it was the right one.
The delusional article by Robo.
Carolines articles.
Now Ralph.
Sounds like everyone was off side and it was the right decision.
When's the last time this has happened?
Hird... The unflushable one is now... just a turd...
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5062
- Joined: Sun 27 Feb 2005 2:30am
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 125 times
Re: John Ralph
Err, no, WW. Source of a source, no longer as close, but still thereabouts. Interestingly, some months into '12 there were rumblings emerging from another conduit, this time a moneyed 'influential supporter' (where have I heard that before?) who was expressing grave concerns (not just his own, and he wasn't a Wattersphile, nor phobe) about the now outgoing CEO. Because some of those concerns seemed to be based on personality and because we seemed to be going O.K., I didn't give them much consideration. But, beyond the personality criticisms, there was mention of unfulfilled or delayed delivery of commitments (incl, but not just, to Watters), a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities, chaotic communications and authorities inside and from the joint to the outside, various people (not just Watters) feeling they had to bypass higher management to get things done, a lack of board cognisance (a primary CEO responsibility), too many eggs in the Pelchen basket (and with a fear Pelchen may have seen out his capability at the list strategy and build level, with an accompanying message he left Hawthorn because the Dorks saw it that way and wouldn't agree to promote him beyond that role, ever). The 'I.S.' also saw the CEO as central to Lyon leaving and I thought that was a bit harsh but, in hindsight, maybe it was symptomatic of a deeper malaise.White Winmar wrote:Thanks TOT. That actually makes me feel better about the whole thing. It just goes to show that no system is fool proof. I concede that some people are very good at the selection process, and we can't always get it right. You must be on the inside to know all that. You weren't on the panel, were you TOT?The OtherThommo wrote:They seemed to be pretty thorough, WW. For instance, the last 3 were put through various tests. One of those tests involved being shown 15-20 minutes of game vision and having to respond to what they saw as if they were the senior coach in the box. They were observed by around 4 of the selection panel over the 15-20 minutes, including the football director, Thompson, and Pelchen. The candidates were not given any notice of what they were required to do. Following the exercise they were then required to describe the strategic and opportunities side of what they saw (e.g. both sides apparent game plans, structural and personnel strengths and weaknesses, targets for improvement, how to extract more from what was on field, how they would want the game day organisation set up etc).White Winmar wrote:I wonder what sort of objective tests they used to assess him? If they used self report type psychometric tests then he might have fooled them. If he has poor insight and lacks self awareness, which appears, in hindsight, to be the case, then it's a case of rubbish in, rubbish out. If they fell for the trap of hiring him largely on the interview, then the panel should hang their collective heads in game. Up to 85% of hiring decisions are still made on the strength of interviews, which have consistently been proven to be the least reliable measure of future performance.
From what I heard, Richardson was p***ed off at it being sprung on him, Hinkley went OK but took some time to come to grips with the idea and Watters was the standout.
Maybe Watters was just better at thinking and speaking on his feet. Maybe he went better because he was in control and 1 out. Who knows? But, the process was described as the most thorough undertaken and it seems to have been so.
I also felt the CEO was being asked to carry the can for the Seaford discontent, however real and significant that discontent, when the decision was pre-him. I'd hoped the Seaford thing would work, struggled with what else could have been done and thought highly paid, contracted employees should just get on with it. I did wonder why the architects of the move had got stuck at local council level, and not lobbied higher up or used the various planning channels available to over ride the local council. But, at the time, water under the bridge thinking prevailed and little was to be gained by fuelling the jungle drums.
The club heirachy has been quite adept at singling out Watters to carry the can. They may be right to pin him with total responsibility publicly, but I doubt it. And, as I've said elsewhere, any perception of failure to match the Watters was 'it' narrative, with successful action, will result in those who carried the narrative (e.g. Wilson et al) turning on those who fed them the narrative, and going for the 'basket case' jugular. Witness Caro's article today (there's another thread).
They have got very little room to move now.
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021
Re: John Ralph
Scollop wrote:That was before Watters hurt the senior players' feelings
It's strange that this other stuff about Saad is also coming out now...
And the fact that he seemed to be the best person for the coaching job and that he could think on his feet and actually be a good match day coach is also interesting... Maybe the next coach just needs to be a yes man
Completely no proof at all of your last line. His match day coaching always looked poor to me and the way the side was picked looked even worse.
- QuestionOfAccuracy
- Club Player
- Posts: 610
- Joined: Wed 11 Jul 2007 3:00pm
- Contact:
Re: John Ralph
Agreed.The OtherThommo wrote: The club heirachy has been quite adept at singling out Watters to carry the can. They may be right to pin him with total responsibility publicly, but I doubt it.
- Cairnsman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7377
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
- Location: Everywhere
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 276 times
Re: John Ralph
Having to sack someone is fail all round. Any attempt to apportion blame just further highlights the failings of the whole organisation...always messy business.QuestionOfAccuracy wrote:Agreed.The OtherThommo wrote: The club heirachy has been quite adept at singling out Watters to carry the can. They may be right to pin him with total responsibility publicly, but I doubt it.
Re: John Ralph
Dirty business.
Get rid of a guy and leak to the media how you want the body disposed of so as supporters can go along with things.
Get rid of a guy and leak to the media how you want the body disposed of so as supporters can go along with things.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11554
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3523 times
- Been thanked: 2465 times
Re: John Ralph
The media now not only telling us we 'told you so' but claiming they knew what was happening and could see it coming...
Interesting that nowhere below is there any hint of the politics or personality clash between Pelchen and Watters. What exactly was the main issue Pelchen and Watters didn't see eye to eye on? Has that been covered anywhere on any thread?
Lesson #1: Think before you speak
Lesson #2: Respect the history of the club
Lesson #3: Keep the senior players onside
Lesson #4: Don't get ahead of yourself
Lesson #5: Trust the people around you
Lesson #6: Or just win some games
http://www.sportsfan.com.au/lessons-for ... fault.aspx
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
![Rolling Eyes :roll:](./images/smilies/icon_rolleyes.gif)
Interesting that nowhere below is there any hint of the politics or personality clash between Pelchen and Watters. What exactly was the main issue Pelchen and Watters didn't see eye to eye on? Has that been covered anywhere on any thread?
Lesson #1: Think before you speak
Lesson #2: Respect the history of the club
Lesson #3: Keep the senior players onside
Lesson #4: Don't get ahead of yourself
Lesson #5: Trust the people around you
Lesson #6: Or just win some games
http://www.sportsfan.com.au/lessons-for ... fault.aspx
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5062
- Joined: Sun 27 Feb 2005 2:30am
- Has thanked: 15 times
- Been thanked: 125 times
Re: John Ralph
Yeah, I read that yesterday, Scollop. Pretty shallow, I thought.Scollop wrote:The media now not only telling us we 'told you so' but claiming they knew what was happening and could see it coming...![]()
![]()
![]()
Interesting that nowhere below is there any hint of the politics or personality clash between Pelchen and Watters. What exactly was the main issue Pelchen and Watters didn't see eye to eye on? Has that been covered anywhere on any thread?
Lesson #1: Think before you speak
Lesson #2: Respect the history of the club
Lesson #3: Keep the senior players onside
Lesson #4: Don't get ahead of yourself
Lesson #5: Trust the people around you
Lesson #6: Or just win some games
http://www.sportsfan.com.au/lessons-for ... fault.aspx
'I have no new illusions, and I have no old illusions' - Vladimir Putin, Geneva, June 2021
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11554
- Joined: Sun 11 Sep 2011 2:26pm
- Has thanked: 3523 times
- Been thanked: 2465 times
Re: John Ralph
If he's got an editor they may have said you can't just print those reasons...where's the meat and potatoes...where is the real reason the guy got sacked, so Adam said alright; I'll add a reason "Lesson #6"...his editor said; That'll do!!!!
- Eastern
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14357
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:46pm
- Location: 3132
- Been thanked: 1 time
Re: John Ralph
Could it be that Greg Denham is still trying to shake the "Dopey Denham" tag that Grant Thomas bestowed upon him !!cwrcyn wrote:Denham is trying to keep up his profile by being Greg 'Venom' Denham. He was quite measured when he first went on radio, but now he likes to stick the boots in, more for a bit of theatre, I think.
Patrick Smith has hated us since Grant Thomas's days. Nothing new there. It's to be expected.
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
![Image](http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o23/saintbrat/9c94369c.jpg)
![Image](http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o23/saintbrat/9c94369c.jpg)
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 12421
- Joined: Tue 24 Mar 2009 11:05pm
- Location: St Kilda
- Has thanked: 296 times
- Been thanked: 55 times
Re: John Ralph
Cairnsman wrote: So really unless you are selecting an experienced and proven performer it can be hit and miss.
like when we got Blighty? Carlton got Pagan?
- Cairnsman
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7377
- Joined: Thu 16 Jun 2005 10:38pm
- Location: Everywhere
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 276 times
Re: John Ralph
An experienced and proven performer that is not past his prime.gringo wrote:Cairnsman wrote: So really unless you are selecting an experienced and proven performer it can be hit and miss.
like when we got Blighty? Carlton got Pagan?
Re: John Ralph
interesting comments....The OtherThommo wrote: I also felt the CEO was being asked to carry the can for the Seaford discontent, however real and significant that discontent, when the decision was pre-him. I'd hoped the Seaford thing would work, struggled with what else could have been done and thought highly paid, contracted employees should just get on with it. I did wonder why the architects of the move had got stuck at local council level, and not lobbied higher up or used the various planning channels available to over ride the local council. But, at the time, water under the bridge thinking prevailed and little was to be gained by fuelling the jungle drums.
The club heirachy has been quite adept at singling out Watters to carry the can. They may be right to pin him with total responsibility publicly, but I doubt it. And, as I've said elsewhere, any perception of failure to match the Watters was 'it' narrative, with successful action, will result in those who carried the narrative (e.g. Wilson et al) turning on those who fed them the narrative, and going for the 'basket case' jugular. Witness Caro's article today (there's another thread).
They have got very little room to move now.
.everybody still loves lenny....and we always will
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
"Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of a free society,"
However, freedom of expression is not encouraged in certain forums.
- Dave McNamara
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5709
- Joined: Wed 21 Sep 2011 2:44pm
- Location: Slotting another one from 94.5m out. Opposition flood? Bring it on...! Keep the faith Saintas!
- Has thanked: 80 times
- Been thanked: 74 times
Re: John Ralph
Very interesting once again TOT.The OtherThommo wrote:They seemed to be pretty thorough, WW. For instance, the last 3 were put through various tests. One of those tests involved being shown 15-20 minutes of game vision and having to respond to what they saw as if they were the senior coach in the box. They were observed by around 4 of the selection panel over the 15-20 minutes, including the football director, Thompson, and Pelchen. The candidates were not given any notice of what they were required to do. Following the exercise they were then required to describe the strategic and opportunities side of what they saw (e.g. both sides apparent game plans, structural and personnel strengths and weaknesses, targets for improvement, how to extract more from what was on field, how they would want the game day organisation set up etc).
From what I heard, Richardson was p***ed off at it being sprung on him, Hinkley went OK but took some time to come to grips with the idea and Watters was the standout.
Maybe Watters was just better at thinking and speaking on his feet. Maybe he went better because he was in control and 1 out. Who knows? But, the process was described as the most thorough undertaken and it seems to have been so.
I'm clearly (and proudly) not a HR person, but I'm a bit surprised at how someone who blatantly cannot coach..., could somehow manage to not only fake that 'game vision' test... but be the stand-out performer..?
![Confused :?](./images/smilies/icon_confused.gif)
As for Richardson's response...
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
He was applying for the position of senior coach. That sorta thing is going to be a pretty key part of the job. What was he expecting... to be quizzed on best practice placement of the witch's hats at training...? (Or maybe for his session someone had smeared the camera lens with Vasoline... just to make it 'really interesting'...?)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
The OtherThommo wrote:Err, no, WW. Source of a source, no longer as close, but still thereabouts. Interestingly, some months into '12 there were rumblings emerging from another conduit, this time a moneyed 'influential supporter' (where have I heard that before?) who was expressing grave concerns (not just his own, and he wasn't a Wattersphile, nor phobe) about the now outgoing CEO. Because some of those concerns seemed to be based on personality and because we seemed to be going O.K., I didn't give them much consideration. But, beyond the personality criticisms, there was mention of unfulfilled or delayed delivery of commitments (incl, but not just, to Watters), a lack of clarity of roles and responsibilities, chaotic communications and authorities inside and from the joint to the outside, various people (not just Watters) feeling they had to bypass higher management to get things done, a lack of board cognisance (a primary CEO responsibility), too many eggs in the Pelchen basket (and with a fear Pelchen may have seen out his capability at the list strategy and build level, with an accompanying message he left Hawthorn because the Dorks saw it that way and wouldn't agree to promote him beyond that role, ever). The 'I.S.' also saw the CEO as central to Lyon leaving and I thought that was a bit harsh but, in hindsight, maybe it was symptomatic of a deeper malaise.
I also felt the CEO was being asked to carry the can for the Seaford discontent, however real and significant that discontent, when the decision was pre-him. I'd hoped the Seaford thing would work, struggled with what else could have been done and thought highly paid, contracted employees should just get on with it. I did wonder why the architects of the move had got stuck at local council level, and not lobbied higher up or used the various planning channels available to over ride the local council. But, at the time, water under the bridge thinking prevailed and little was to be gained by fuelling the jungle drums.
Ahhhh..., is that the same Netters who raved about how Cuddle's holistic approach to the job was significant in getting him the gig?
Really sounding like the goal posts were later changed... and really sounding like Cuddle's wasn't the only one to not know just where they were subsequently placed...?
My advice to Choco, I mean, uhmmm..., whomsoever our latest panel of HR (Hopeless Rabble?) experts determines to be the best (but least holistic
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
The club heirachy has been quite adept at singling out Watters to carry the can. They may be right to pin him with total responsibility publicly, but I doubt it. And, as I've said elsewhere, any perception of failure to match the Watters was 'it' narrative, with successful action, will result in those who carried the narrative (e.g. Wilson et al) turning on those who fed them the narrative, and going for the 'basket case' jugular. Witness Caro's article today (there's another thread).
The OtherThommo wrote:They have got very little room to move now.
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
I reckon TOT that if they are found to have stuffed up, the press will be the least of their worries... there are a lot of loyal Saintsationalists who have so far been prepared to suspend their disbelief... would get very ugly...
It's Dave, man. Will you open up? I got the stuff with me! -------Who?
Dave, man. Open up ------------------------------------------ -----Dave???
Yeah, Dave. ---------------------------------------------------------Dave's not here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiG1hAr ... detailpage
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
Dave, man. Open up ------------------------------------------ -----Dave???
Yeah, Dave. ---------------------------------------------------------Dave's not here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOiG1hAr ... detailpage
![Mr. Green :mrgreen:](./images/smilies/icon_mrgreen.gif)
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1209
- Joined: Wed 27 Jul 2005 8:11pm
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 4 times
- Contact:
Re: John Ralph
Past Results (indirectly Experience) would be tantamount.Spinner wrote:White Winmar wrote:I wonder what sort of objective tests they used to assess him? If they used self report type psychometric tests then he might have fooled them. If he has poor insight and lacks self awareness, which appears, in hindsight, to be the case, then it's a case of rubbish in, rubbish out. If they fell for the trap of hiring him largely on the interview, then the panel should hang their collective heads in game. Up to 85% of hiring decisions are still made on the strength of interviews, which have consistently been proven to be the least reliable measure of future performance.
Interesting stats!
What are the more reliable?
Experience? Education? Referrals?
I once spent a year in Adelaide, I think it was on a Sunday.