Billy Hartung

[maverick]

I know we were interested in Billy Hartung. If Acres was taken, and one other... He'd be a saint

We certainly would have taken him third round

Well thank god we didn't, he can't kick and gives it away in a contest, no good for me.

[saintsRrising]

As for psyc tests... they are meaningless.. just no basis to them... modern mythology

Well there are probably psych tests, and then their are psych tests... My belief is that if you pay for the proper ones, which are not cheap, they are useful in particular for identifying any bad eggs or negative traits that may be their but do not come out in a normal interview process.

Due to the cost the practice of the company I was at would only get the testing done (which took most of a day) once a preferred candidate was identified and about to be offered the position.

I never read a report that had me improve a candidates ranking (typically by that stage they had had 3 interviews with a range of people), but I had a number that it knocked out due an identified character flaw or trait. Sometimes following the report you would explore the red flag identified and it was confirmed. Sometimes it was just a straight reason to exclude.

Out of interest with a number that were knocked back in later years when I either just ran across them again, or even randomly checked on their career progress, the reports were all pretty much spot on.

[BigMart]

I'd recruit guys who can play footy, and are not complete d*ckheads

If we need a psych test to find a flaw in an 18yo undeveloped immature kid... Isn't that a bit silly

Gary Ablett, Greg Williams, Wayne Carey, John Nichols, Jason Alermanis, Stevie Milne just to name a few legends may have done poorly on a psych test at 18

[Impatient Sainter]

Would be exactly what we are looking for with his run on the wing!

Perhaps he is another we could swap for Longer (how many Longer's do we have) ?

[ace]

Would be exactly what we are looking for with his run on the wing!

Perhaps he is another we could swap for Longer (how many Longer's do we have) ?

Wait a bit Longer and I will find out.

[SuperDuper]

As for psyc tests... they are meaningless.. just no basis to them... modern mythology

Well there are probably psych tests, and then their are psych tests... My belief is that if you pay for the proper ones, which are not cheap, they are useful in particular for identifying any bad eggs or negative traits that may be their but do not come out in a normal interview process.

Due to the cost the practice of the company I was at would only get the testing done (which took most of a day) once a preferred candidate was identified and about to be offered the position.

I never read a report that had me improve a candidates ranking (typically by that stage they had had 3 interviews with a range of people), but I had a number that it knocked out due an identified character flaw or trait. Sometimes following the report you would explore the red flag identified and it was confirmed. Sometimes it was just a straight reason to exclude.

Out of interest with a number that were knocked back in later years when I either just ran across them again, or even randomly checked on their career progress, the reports were all pretty much spot on.

an anecdote here, an anecdote there,.. that is the lifeblood of mythology

confirmation bias.. you remember the ones they got right

[saintspremiers]

My workplace runs psych tests on all new potential candidates but then selects those they want regardless.

[White Winmar]

As for psyc tests... they are meaningless.. just no basis to them... modern mythology

Well there are probably psych tests, and then their are psych tests... My belief is that if you pay for the proper ones, which are not cheap, they are useful in particular for identifying any bad eggs or negative traits that may be their but do not come out in a normal interview process.

Due to the cost the practice of the company I was at would only get the testing done (which took most of a day) once a preferred candidate was identified and about to be offered the position.

I never read a report that had me improve a candidates ranking (typically by that stage they had had 3 interviews with a range of people), but I had a number that it knocked out due an identified character flaw or trait. Sometimes following the report you would explore the red flag identified and it was confirmed. Sometimes it was just a straight reason to exclude.

Out of interest with a number that were knocked back in later years when I either just ran across them again, or even randomly checked on their career progress, the reports were all pretty much spot on.

an anecdote here, an anecdote there,.. that is the lifeblood of mythology

confirmation bias.. you remember the ones they got right

There are plenty that we get wrong. Just as in any science, you don't always get it right. The test of their value is the market. If they didn't provide value, they wouldn't be used. Plenty hit the market and quickly disappear, because they are not effective nor valid. What of your own confirmation bias, SuperDuper? As I asked in my previous post on this, what is your evidence to support your contention? My own position is based on six years of formal study, seventeen years of practice, fourteen years of assisting the AFL and my club. As I stated before, give trout and Bevo a call if you don't believe me. They'll set you straight. Confirmation bias exists in the absence of evidence. If you have the evidence, shown to be valid time and again, it can't be considered confirmation bias.

[saintsRrising]

As for psyc tests... they are meaningless.. just no basis to them... modern mythology

Well there are probably psych tests, and then their are psych tests... My belief is that if you pay for the proper ones, which are not cheap, they are useful in particular for identifying any bad eggs or negative traits that may be their but do not come out in a normal interview process.

Due to the cost the practice of the company I was at would only get the testing done (which took most of a day) once a preferred candidate was identified and about to be offered the position.

I never read a report that had me improve a candidates ranking (typically by that stage they had had 3 interviews with a range of people), but I had a number that it knocked out due an identified character flaw or trait. Sometimes following the report you would explore the red flag identified and it was confirmed. Sometimes it was just a straight reason to exclude.

Out of interest with a number that were knocked back in later years when I either just ran across them again, or even randomly checked on their career progress, the reports were all pretty much spot on.

an anecdote here, an anecdote there,.. that is the lifeblood of mythology

confirmation bias.. you remember the ones they got right

No as It was only for very senior roles and so we are not talking about vast numbers of tests and the negatives were only a small number of the overall tests.

Remember that we had already gone through a lengthy process before the psych test was used. Rather than as an initial screening tool it was only done when we were about to offer the position to the preferred candidate and most people were given the ok.

It was a two stage test. Stage one was almost a day of testing. Stage two was a follow up one on one interview with a psychologist after they had analysed the tests about a week later.

As mentioned it was more of a negative test as it would exclude some candidates but was not used to decide between candidates as an initial screen like some companies do today (typically much shorter versions of what we employed and no doubt no where near as accurate and possibly of the type that you are sceptical about). It did pick up on occasion some traits that had not surfaced in the earlier application and interview process.

[Con Gorozidis]

If we wanted Hartung we shouldnt have got Freeman. Similar style players. If we get Hartung it would be admitting Freeman is a write off.

[SaintPav]

NO

[Impatient Sainter]

Gees thats tough the kid just wants an opportunity to play at the highest level and get the best outcome $$$ he can. If you apply the above Hickey, Bruce, Savage and Membrey must be all selfish ordinary individuals?

[Hemi Baxter]

I know we were interested in Billy Hartung. If Acres was taken, and one other... He'd be a saint

We certainly would have taken him third round

Well thank god we didn't, he can't kick and gives it away in a contest, no good for me.

His kicking has improved vastly this year. I can see why he'd be frustrated as he's clearly instructed to just work up and down one side of the ground. I would imagine that the big question marks for our coach would be his tackling and his on-field attitude. His running would surely value him still at around an early to mid second round draft pick. With Hawthorn looking to try and land both Mitchell and JOM it's not too hard to see him being on the market.

[Con Gorozidis]

Wont Hartung get more opportunity with Brad Hill gone next year?

[desertsaint]

Interesting regarding personality testing. i think critics of using personality testing for the workplace are both correct in their mistrust, but also overestimating their use. By itself the standard tests aren't that effective, but organisations nowadays are using (or should be) multi-measure tests. Then of course some personality tests (hello Meyers-Briggs) aren't worth paying money for, let alone using as a tool for deciding employment.

[Hemi Baxter]

Wont Hartung get more opportunity with Brad Hill gone next year?

To play finals or to play in the middle. Either way adding Mitchell and JOM is likely to result in less opportunity if anything.

[Con Gorozidis]

Wont Hartung get more opportunity with Brad Hill gone next year?

To play finals or to play in the middle. Either way adding Mitchell and JOM is likely to result in less opportunity if anything.

True. But there might be an 'outside mid' role he can fill. Hill covers a lot of ground so I see Hartung playing that role. I doubt the Hawks will get both Mitchell and JOM.

[SuperDuper]

Interesting regarding personality testing. i think critics of using personality testing for the workplace are both correct in their mistrust, but also overestimating their use. By itself the standard tests aren't that effective, but organisations nowadays are using (or should be) multi-measure tests. Then of course some personality tests (hello Meyers-Briggs) aren't worth paying money for, let alone using as a tool for deciding employment.

totally dominated by cognitive ability test... which is not a psyc test

[Devilhead]

Would be exactly what we are looking for with his run on the wing!

Perhaps he is another we could swap for Longer (how many Longer's do we have) ?

Ha what a joke!

One minute you are calling for Billings head and calling him a squib and next minute you want Hartung

Well just so you know Billings averages more contested possessions, more contested marks and more tackles than Hartung

So you want to get rid of a squib for a bigger squib - just laughable