John Ralph

[cwrcyn]

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.

[ctqs]

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.

I think you can have the right process and still end up with the wrong result.

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.

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.

[ctqs]

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.

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.

[thejiggingsaint]

Patrick Smith?......(yawn) zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[saintly]

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.

I think you can have the right process and still end up with the wrong result.

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.

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.

Wasn't Westerway interested in offering Watters an extension?

[Scollop]

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

[Richter]

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.

In a way we should deride him much more than Lyon.

Watters has cost us players probably sponsors and members as well.

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....

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...

[Richter]

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?

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'.

[The OtherThommo]

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

[plugger66]

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]

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.

Agreed.

[Cairnsman]

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.

Agreed.

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.

[St Igmata]

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.

[Scollop]

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

[The OtherThommo]

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

Yeah, I read that yesterday, Scollop. Pretty shallow, I thought.

[Scollop]

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]

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.

Could it be that Greg Denham is still trying to shake the "Dopey Denham" tag that Grant Thomas bestowed upon him !!

[gringo]

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]

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?

An experienced and proven performer that is not past his prime.

[stinger]

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.

interesting comments....

[Dave McNamara]

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.

Very interesting once again TOT.

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..?

As for Richardson's response...

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'...?)

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 ) man or woman for the gig... once you're at Seaford..., camera out... and take photos of just where those goals posts (currently) are... gps coordinates as well wouldn't hurt...

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 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...

[linz]

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?

Past Results (indirectly Experience) would be tantamount.