Trigg in Coaches Box

[Stiffy_18]

This is what happens when we believe everything we read in the tiser. Phil Harper was on 5AA before the game and got asked the question about this by Chris Dittmar and he basically said its a load of crap. Steven Trigg always sits in the Stats box. He was going to do the same thing tonight so teh story is basically a load of ****.

Media can really clutch at sraws sometimes.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
This is what happens when we believe everything we read in the tiser. Phil Harper was on 5AA before the game and got asked the question about this by Chris Dittmar and he basically said its a load of crap. Steven Trigg always sits in the Stats box. He was going to do the same thing tonight so teh story is basically a load of ****.

Media can really clutch at sraws sometimes.

You believe half of what you hear and then divide it by 4

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
Macca, do you ever have the opportunity to observe someone in the job?
- do you seek references?
- do you have people undergo polymetric and other pyschological testing?
- how many interviews do they go through before offered the job.
- have you ever turned down the opportunity to learn more about a candidate?

all of which is designed to learn as much about the candidate as possible in an artificial way. the least artificial way is actual on the job observation. the rest is guesswork.

For one executive position (group treasurer for a FTSE 250 company) we filled, we had a guy in for probably a total of 2 weeks over a 3 month period. We had him do everything we could, except put him on the hot seat, or hop while rubbing his tummy and patting his head. you do not give people serious jobs without doing everything possible to learn about them.
if you do, the job is not that important, and certainly doesn't pay big money.

Hey, we do all that crap too at times. It depends on the position as to the stance that you take. But when it comes to the most senior positions in our organization, which is a very large one, we often identify someone externally as the best man for the job and go head-hunt them.

As you'd know the process is flexible, depending on which approach you take.

When it come to footy coaches at AFL level there just aren't a million of them waiting out there. they're as scarce as rockin horse manure. Collingwood did it correctly. Identified Malthouse as the man they wanted and went after him - head-hunted him. I bet he didn't do psyche tests etc.

Blind Freddie knows that the best available coach out there with true AFL experience behind him is Wallace. Adelaide had a huge head start on every other team, and should have just gone out and signed him up while they were the only club in the market.

On the other hand if the position were to be Chief Executive of a footy club, IMO that position could potentially be filled by many many applicants and the process you're talking about applies. Port Adelaide did that in a professional manner. Adelaide took the soft way out and appointed one of their own.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
.
4. I don't. I was responding to speculation offered by others.

A question for you.

What do you think Trigg learned in there tonight? Or would what happened on the field and his preparation of the team be more relevant?

before you go - remember to close the door on your way out - you say you're responding to speculation, yet you want to nail down the exact purpose of him being there.

I can't know what he got out it - though I know what I hope he did - because I don't know what he went in there to observe.

I will just say I am surprised that you don't think match day performance is relevant to his job candidacy.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by macca23
Hey, we do all that crap too at times. It depends on the position as to the stance that you take. But when it comes to the most senior positions in our organization, which is a very large one, we often identify someone externally as the best man for the job and go head-hunt them.

As you'd know the process is flexible, depending on which approach you take.

When it come to footy coaches at AFL level there just aren't a million of them waiting out there. they're as scarce as rockin horse manure. Collingwood did it correctly. Identified Malthouse as the man they wanted and went after him - head-hunted him. I bet he didn't do psyche tests etc.

Blind Freddie knows that the best available coach out there with true AFL experience behind him is Wallace. Adelaide had a huge head start on every other team, and should have just gone out and signed him up while they were the only club in the market.

On the other hand if the position were to be Chief Executive of a footy club, IMO that position could potentially be filled by many many applicants and the process you're talking about applies. Port Adelaide did that in a professional manner. Adelaide took the soft way out and appointed one of their own.

Macca,
my point wasn't what you do, it's that you do everything you can.
Often there are limitations to what information you have available, but I can't think you'd turn your nose up if the opportunity arose to get a real look at someone. You can't easily tell how someone reacts under pressure, but against Brisbane they got a good chance to look at one of the candidates really under the pump.

 

[Crow-mosone]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
Don't look at me, I'm just trolling .. apparently that's shorthand for having an alternative viewpoint ...

squeal piggy

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
You can't easily tell how someone reacts under pressure, but against Brisbane they got a good chance to look at one of the candidates really under the pump.

Well you're right about that one!!

I wonder if Trigg liked what he saw??

I doubt it!!

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by Crow-mosone
before you go - remember to close the door on your way out - you say you're responding to speculation, yet you want to nail down the exact purpose of him being there.

I can't know what he got out it - though I know what I hope he did - because I don't know what he went in there to observe.

I will just say I am surprised that you don't think match day performance is relevant to his job candidacy.

I might close it, but I won't lock it ... I'll be back (in my best Arnold typing).

Of course match day performance is important, and if there is something he will gain by sitting in the box, then good luck to him. My concern was more that what he observes is really not comparable in any job comparison with other candidates because he hasn't seen what they would do in a coach's box. When you interview a shortlist you wouldn't pick and choose different criteria for judging them would you? Sure you might have a preferred candidate that you would bring on site to test out (as per your example), but that's really a final step. So it begs the question, is Craig the preferred candidate already? It seems to be the opinion of a few posters here already (hence my use of the word posturing - although that was probably harsh, seeing as I don't know what their decision is or what Trigg was looking for, or indeed if it was even why he was there). And again he's come out in the press today and said the Brisbane result is not a critical factor, they are looking at bigger issues outside of only results.

 

[Tyson20]

Originally posted by macca23
Well you're right about that one!!

I wonder if Trigg liked what he saw??

I doubt it!!

funny u should ask if Trigg liked what he saw...he was on 5AA this arvo saying he sat in the coaches box for the best part of a qtr...and he was impressed

however he did say for the latter part of the third qtr on wards we weren't competitive and that isn't good enough...

bit of a mixed bag!

 

[Fergus]

He's being very defensive under Cornesy's questioning.

He just stated that Neil Craig is doing a very impressive job regardless of results. It was almost an effort to say that they will look at other candidates that may be as good a fit. I'm very concerned!!

 

[Scott_1971]

He's preparing the public for the appointment of Craig.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Scott_1971
He's preparing the public for the appointment of Craig.

... & signing his death warrant as CEO of AFC.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Originally posted by Kane McGoodwin
... & signing his death warrant as CEO of AFC.

Not a chance ... it's a Board decision and the AFC Board is virtually immune to its members' opinions.

Besides the media hype on Craig has brainwashed a lot of callers to talkback radio ... even the PM uses that as a guide to policy!

 

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Tyson20
funny u should ask if Trigg liked what he saw...he was on 5AA this arvo saying he sat in the coaches box for the best part of a qtr...and he was impressed

however he did say for the latter part of the third qtr on wards we weren't competitive and that isn't good enough...

bit of a mixed bag!

That's just him being consistently inconsistent. It appears to be his natural state. I mean, we would'nt want Craig's Crows to be bloody competitive would we?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Originally posted by Ford Fairlane
Not a chance ... it's a Board decision and the AFC Board is virtually immune to its members' opinions.

Besides the media hype on Craig has brainwashed a lot of callers to talkback radio ... even the PM uses that as a guide to policy!

If AFC appoint Craig & it proves to be a disaster, then the CEO & Chairman will be under pressure to keep their jobs.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

If Craig is appointed and it all goes pear shaped who's going to put them under pressure? If they're not mates with the media (KG, Aiston) then the media has slavishly supported the appointment of Craig. Attack the decision to appoint Craig they're just attacking themselves. There'll be a wealth of blame shifting, mutterings of it being a good idea at the time, it just went wrong because of refurbishing or renovating and we'll all move on.

There'll be dark mutterings from supporters, but they'll still turn up in droves to games and watch on TV ... and really it's the only way you can show your displeasure. You can't get at the Board and the CE and Chair are Board appointments as such I'd guess ... you'd really need the Board to spontaneously fragment and they're as culpable as the guys at the top of the tree.