Why Buckley made coach of Filth and Harvey overlooked by us

bigcarl · Post: # 1164073Post **bigcarl** » Sun 16 Oct 2011 9:45pm

The other thing about Harvs is that he played with many of the current side.

Difficult for someone like him to make the hard decisions that are often necessary in football.

I like what I've seen so far of Watters so far, but let's hope he can make the tough calls when they are necessary.

saintkid · Post: # 1164075Post **saintkid** » Sun 16 Oct 2011 9:45pm

Well I hope Watters goes down in history as our second coach to win a Flag. I just think Harvs would have not let the club down and has a good feel of the list already.

As for the old man, he aint got time for PC's.

ausfatcat · Post: # 1164076Post **ausfatcat** » Sun 16 Oct 2011 9:46pm

Dr Spaceman wrote:
saintkid wrote: Everytime Harvey was interviewed towards the end of his career he was very non committal. Even when he came down to Seaford I never read anything that suggested he was preparing to take over some day. And definitely not as early as 2012.

also don't forget Harvey was only part time for his first year at Carlton

ace · Post: # 1164174Post **ace** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 1:57am

saints66 wrote:The old man said to post this and I agree with him.

Harvey put his hat in the ring, he got an interview, the selection Board listened to him, and then decided that there were better candidates.

This does not mean Harvey is no good, or would not make a good coach or was not a great Saints' player.

It just means that on this occasion, he was not considered, by the Selection Panel, to be the best candidate.

End of story

Harvey would have been stupid NOT to have put his hat in the ring.
His relationship with the St Kilda FC guaranteed him a COURTESY interview, an interview he would not even get elsewhere.

The experience of preparing for and being interviewed for a senior coaching role will be valuable to him when he is eventually ready to be considered seriously.

It is a lesson for all you young hopefulls in all employment situations.
You apply for promotions even when you think you don't have a chance, just so that when your time comes you are ready.
When you were at school, did you ever do a trial exam before the real thing?

meher baba · Mon 17 Oct 2011 2:19am

Harvey would have been an exciting and inspiring choice in many ways, but the club in its wisdom has gone with Watters. There was a time when, if a legend of a club put his hand up for the coaching job he would most likely be given a go and would certainly not have to face a selection panel
featuring people who probably don't know why they call the ball a Sherrin. Perhaps those days were better: I'm not sure.

Some on here seem to be convinced after one press conference that Watters in a coaching genius while Buckley is apparently a total dud.

It's all crap, of course. Nobody has any idea yet how Watters is going to go. He might turn out to be a dud and the OP might end up having a point.

Pwoit · Post: # 1164181Post **Pwoit** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 3:43am

Beekay wrote:..ffs

+1

dragit · Post: # 1164255Post **dragit** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 9:02am

Best person gets the job, Banger continues his apprenticeship and who knows, he might coach the Saints down the trackâ€¦

I hope the media reports of him spitting the dummy about not being short-listed aren't true. When asked if he was applying, he barely looked like he had decided.

InkerSaint · Mon 17 Oct 2011 10:04am

meher baba wrote:Some on here seem to be convinced after one press conference that Watters in a coaching genius while Buckley is apparently a total dud.

It's all crap, of course. Nobody has any idea yet how Watters is going to go. He might turn out to be a dud and the OP might end up having a point.

There's an element missing in this equation: the selection panel.

Contrary to the suggestions of many on here, we have a highly professionally run football club, and from all accounts the selection process was robust and thorough. That alone deserves respect.

One of Ross Lyon's proverbs was "there's no room for sentiment in footy." He may have made unpopular decisions in the name of unsentimentalism but it wasn't just his personal truth. It's an axiom.

oneteam · Post: # 1164331Post **oneteam** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 10:59am

Voss - favorite son but not working out so well.

primus the same.

sometimes works, sometimes not.

got to trust a proper selection process.

Burkey is probably a good mate of Robert harvey , so he would have been given a fair go in the process.

dragit · Post: # 1164343Post **dragit** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 11:07am

Great player ≠ Great Coach.

meher baba · Mon 17 Oct 2011 11:07am

InkerSaint wrote:
meher baba wrote:Some on here seem to be convinced after one press conference that Watters in a coaching genius while Buckley is apparently a total dud.

It's all crap, of course. Nobody has any idea yet how Watters is going to go. He might turn out to be a dud and the OP might end up having a point.
There's an element missing in this equation: the selection panel.

Contrary to the suggestions of many on here, we have a highly professionally run football club, and from all accounts the selection process was robust and thorough. That alone deserves respect.

One of Ross Lyon's proverbs was "there's no room for sentiment in footy." He may have made unpopular decisions in the name of unsentimentalism but it wasn't just his personal truth. It's an axiom.

Yes, the selection panel will have done the best job it can. But there is an old saying: "sit on enough selection panels and you will end up promoting your share of turkeys".

Obviously Watters was the most impressive of all the applicants - and far more impressive to the selection panel than was Harvey - so they went with Watters. Fair enough: I almost certainly would have done the same in that position.

The other option would be to do what other clubs seem to have done and go with a club legend as coach without such a rigorous process. The club chose not to go down that path on this occasion, but I still think it was a viable option. Harvey as coach would have been good for club morale, good for memberships, good for media attention.

Maybe Harvey isn't going to be anywhere near as good an AFL coach as Watters, but I personally have no particular reason to think this and (unless some of them were actually on the selection panel) any of the other posters on here have either. That's why I'm saying that most of what I have read about here over the last 24 hours about how great Watters is going to be is 100% a load of crap.

We will find out how good Watters is when he has had the opportunity to coach for a while.

saintkid · Post: # 1164539Post **saintkid** » Mon 17 Oct 2011 1:40pm

meher baba wrote:Harvey would have been an exciting and inspiring choice in many ways, but the club in its wisdom has gone with Watters. There was a time when, if a legend of a club put his hand up for the coaching job he would most likely be given a go and would certainly not have to face a selection panel
featuring people who probably don't know why they call the ball a Sherrin. Perhaps those days were better: I'm not sure.

Some on here seem to be convinced after one press conference that Watters in a coaching genius while Buckley is apparently a total dud.

It's all crap, of course. Nobody has any idea yet how Watters is going to go. He might turn out to be a dud and the OP might end up having a point.

Nicely put. You certainly have a better way of words than my old man.