Scott Watters Ticks The Right Boxes

[Cairnsman]

The HS leads with the Headline

"St Kilda coach Scott Watters survives performance reviews"

I prefer to look at it a little more positively and say it would appear he has ticked the right boxes during the review.

As is the case with all good and professional reviews the auditor should outline areas for improvement...even coaches need to be continuously improving.

I wonder what areas he's been asked to improve.

[joffaboy]

Mark THompson survived a performance review at Geelong in 2006, with his role "clarified".

The club went OK from then on I seem to remember.

[Cairnsman]

Mark THompson survived a performance review at Geelong in 2006, with his role "clarified".

The club went OK from then on I seem to remember.

Absolutely JB. As you would know, reviews, if performed correctly can be a very useful management tool.

You've probably heard the cliché, "if you can't measure it you can 't manage it"

[kosifantutti]

Tim Watson survived a management review in 1999.

[Cairnsman]

Tim Watson survived a management review in 1999.

So did Mark Thomson in 2007

[saint6709]

Seems to me the saints have got and are implementing a longer term strategic plan( as displayed in the Pelchen email etc ). Also seems pretty obvious that Watters coached to the plan - blooding young blokes - Looks to me as though we are on track - some journos would rather believe we are a basket case - it's easier and makes a better headline and no doubt takes less time to put a story together

[R. Harvey 3 votes!]

I don't know what the big fuss is about someone getting a yearly review in their job? It happens in every single job doesn't it?
Just more sensationalism from the media trying to justify their positions yet again!

[Stillwaiting]

I don't know what the big fuss is about someone getting a yearly review in their job? It happens in every single job doesn't it?
Just more sensationalism from the media trying to justify their positions yet again!

Exactly, the club would be not be doing its due dilligance if didn't have a review, and that's not to say the coach is under pressure either.


Also noted in the article iPelchem they did have a crack at that no 1 draft pick aka Tom Boyd, but he didn't believe GWS were serious about doing a deal

[BigMart]

The board would not have reviewed Lyon, Clarkson, Longmire or Scott this year.... Too busy trying to consolidate their positions

Not a full scale review needed every year.... Perhaps every 3 or 4 years or if there not meeting standards?

They would have targets to meet.... They'd look at the Data to see if an I depth analysis was required to find the problem if. On exists....
More productive is planning the new KPIs and strategic plan to be put in place?

You wouldn't waste resources on a full scale review of depts if not required?!

[HitTheBoundary]

The board would not have reviewed Lyon, Clarkson, Longmire or Scott this year.... Too busy trying to consolidate their positions

Not a full scale review needed every year.... Perhaps every 3 or 4 years or if there not meeting standards?

They would have targets to meet.... They'd look at the Data to see if an I depth analysis was required to find the problem if. On exists....
More productive is planning the new KPIs and strategic plan to be put in place?

You wouldn't waste resources on a full scale review of depts if not required?!

Most multi million dollar businesses have reviews every year - of every Dept.
And Depts. normally have internal ongoing reviews againts KPI's during the year, and per individual.
Do you work in a Milk Bar?

[ShanghaiSaint]

Watters is going ok imo. last few games should the brand he wants us to play and i enjoy that brand vs the garbage we dished up in 2011. time boys give it time.

[Cairnsman]

The board would not have reviewed Lyon, Clarkson, Longmire or Scott this year.... Too busy trying to consolidate their positions

Not a full scale review needed every year.... Perhaps every 3 or 4 years or if there not meeting standards?

They would have targets to meet.... They'd look at the Data to see if an I depth analysis was required to find the problem if. On exists....
More productive is planning the new KPIs and strategic plan to be put in place?

You wouldn't waste resources on a full scale review of depts if not required?!

Maybe stick to schoolboy footy.

[Teflon]

Link?

[Teflon]

I hope Watters assistants change and also hope Choco as Viaching Director type role comes in

[Johnny Member]

The coach, right now, is the least important piece of the puzzle.

If that wasn't obvious to everyone already, surely the words and actions from the club in regards to our playing list over the past 2 weeks would have made it clear.

[Cairnsman]

The coach, right now, is the least important piece of the puzzle.

If that wasn't obvious to everyone already, surely the words and actions from the club in regards to our playing list over the past 2 weeks would have made it clear.

I understand the thinking but not sure I agree entirely. A coach that is good at developing the new list is as equally important as finding players that fit the specification. Hopefully Bains, Pelchin and Watters end up being a formidable team...it's should yield the best outcome if they can.

[Johnny Member]

We don't have the new list yet though!

And we won't for another year or two.

[Cairnsman]

We don't have the new list yet though!

And we won't for another year or two.

You'd think that all of the new players that have debuted in the past 2 years still need development in the mean time.

[Johnny Member]

Of the players that have debuted over the past 2 years, I'd seriously anticipate that probably no more than 5-6 will be in the best 22 in 4-5 years time.

So the coach right now and up until now is really not that relevant.

Stability and patience are key, whilst the list gets built. I'd say that realistically that the coach's role becomes important after next year.

[Cairnsman]

Of the players that have debuted over the past 2 years, I'd seriously anticipate that probably no more than 5-6 will be in the best 22 in 4-5 years time.

So the coach right now and up until now is really not that relevant.

Stability and patience are key, whilst the list gets built. I'd say that realistically that the coach's role becomes important after next year.

Ok.

[Austinnn]

Of the players that have debuted over the past 2 years, I'd seriously anticipate that probably no more than 5-6 will be in the best 22 in 4-5 years time.

So the coach right now and up until now is really not that relevant.

Stability and patience are key, whilst the list gets built. I'd say that realistically that the coach's role becomes important after next year.

I suppose that's reasonable, but I think the way we're headed is to set a blueprint for a St Kilda Way that new players learn off old players and for this the coaching needs to be consistent for as long as possible. If I was the Football Ops Manager, I'd be looking at instilling a style that stays at the club regardless of personnel that we can define ourselves as. The trouble with this game is that rule changes dictate style changes to a certain extent and the AFL keep playing with the rules.

[dragit]

Of the players that have debuted over the past 2 years, I'd seriously anticipate that probably no more than 5-6 will be in the best 22 in 4-5 years time.

So the coach right now and up until now is really not that relevant.

Stability and patience are key, whilst the list gets built. I'd say that realistically that the coach's role becomes important after next year.

The problem is though that if the coach is a moron and the game plan doesn't make sense, then some of our promising young players will leave before the next coach arrives - have a look at Brisbane, even with a new coach coming a handful of first round draft picks are hellbent on leaving.

The coach isn't the least important piece if the puzzle, even if he won't be there in the long run.

[Johnny Member]

Yeah, I agree. You don't want, not can't afford to have a moron coaching the squad.

You need consistency and stability whilst we rebuild.

What I'm more referring to, is the moaning and groaning about Watters' game day and selection performance in 2012, as if it could possibly be seen as a gauge to his abilities and a gauge as to whether he should continue beyond this season.

It's seriously like assessing a jockeys credibility based on whether his horse wins a track work gallop.

2013, and 2014 on a week by week basis is irrelevant.