Interview most inportant?

[Bird Man]

I would like to see reasoning as to why the interview prosses is so important and is the most important?

Will a recruiter choose a player cause he speaks well and not choose a player becasue he cant?

could this have resulted in us getting Tambling instead of Buddy? poor attitude problems?

I can understand the importance of it but when our recruiters say its the most important thing for them makes me think ... Would like to think that Talent out ways a good mature attitude or mentality.

Mabey its important so we dont find a crack under pressure player like Bling.

BUT if we chose a Player before Kavanagh and he turns out to be a gun i will be very disappointed in our recruiting staff.

 

[1980GFVideo]

I would be suprised if it really carries weight.

We have all bullshitted our way through an interview and landed a job.

I did so badly when I was young that I ended up getting a job that I just wasnt up to and had no right to go for. I guess I was the Tambling at that place but I quit within 3 months.

When you have hard evidence of a blokes ability, its hard to see how the interview process can be more important than that. Perhaps they have some cleverly psychological searing questions that can bring forward any defective charachteristics in a bloke.

 

[Bird Man]

I would be suprised if it really carries weight.

We have all bullshitted our way through an interview and landed a job.

I did so badly when I was young that I ended up getting a job that I just wasnt up to and had no right to go for. I guess I was the Tambling at that place but I quit within 3 months.

When you have hard evidence of a blokes ability, its hard to see how the interview process can be more important than that. Perhaps they have some cleverly psychological searing questions that can bring forward any defective charachteristics in a bloke.

They hold it quite highly
http://www.youtube.com/theafltigers#p/u/3/fRcJpzjpRzk
in this ^^

But i do understand that conca was ranked number one in the physiological test? and i i reckon that's the reason for us choosing him over Heppel

 

[captain blood 17]

Birdman you have have been doing some good work lately, and i've been wondering the same thing. The rating process is an interesting one, what's the weighting system in considering all matters, etc, etc?
What i find interesting is how we take gambles on some players, yet not others. Why is it? Richie T by all accounts was a ripping guy, but, how many supporters really give a **** if the guy is a saint or sinner, when in reality the main job role is getting the pill, and using it properly. Historically, some of the greats would never have got through the door if this stuff was around in the 80's/90's. Think Carey (after reading the book, he never had a chance), Cousins, W. Johnson, G Ablett, sh!t even Plugger, etc, etc.
If we ever miss another guy like Franklin - who is a match winner and superstar, for a spud like Richie, that's where the club will lose me. I just want the best footballer that fills the direct need of the club. There has to be a happy medium in this, surely?? (or am i that nieve).

 

[TheLoungeLizard]

Birdman you have have been doing some good work lately, and i've been wondering the same thing. The rating process is an interesting one, what's the weighting system in considering all matters, etc, etc?
What i find interesting is how we take gambles on some players, yet not others. Why is it? Richie T by all accounts was a ripping guy, but, how many supporters really give a **** if the guy is a saint or sinner, when in reality the main job role is getting the pill, and using it properly. Historically, some of the greats would never have got through the door if this stuff was around in the 80's/90's. Think Carey (after reading the book, he never had a chance), Cousins, W. Johnson, G Ablett, sh!t even Plugger, etc, etc.
If we ever miss another guy like Franklin - who is a match winner and superstar, for a spud like Richie, that's where the club will lose me. I just want the best footballer that fills the direct need of the club. There has to be a happy medium in this, surely?? (or am i that nieve).

As long as he is dedicated to the team rules and his footy, then take him.

 

[Bojangles17]

Im not certain it would carry a whole lot of weight, we have delisted some kids that come across pretty well, just can't play...take richie tambling for example, champion fella but didnt cut it

 

[FootyIcon4]

i think what the're looking for in the interview is more than being a good bloke
they want to gauge a players attitude towards a professional lifestyle and see if he is dedicated to trying to be the best.

'Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard'

 

[tigerdan]

It's easy to forget that these are KIDS that we are interviewing. Sheesh, all kids that age want to do is kick a footy around and pick up girls.

A psych exam is a slightly different kettle of fish. It could tell us whether the kid is a rat bag or not (which may or may not be important).

That thing where North interviewed a kid and said 'Why do you want to play for North Melbourne' or whatever it was, was just an unfair thing to say to a kid that age. Unless he had some attachment to North particularly, i'm sure all he wanted to do was play in the AFL for anyone at all.

 

[Greggy]

When and why did the interview become the priority? Is it because of Dimmas desire to create a family orientated club or is it because we don't want anymore Troy Taylor's? Personally I think we'll take an educated gamble on confident talented kids still, it's just guys with clearly poor drive and leadership we'll be wary of, and the key really is, if it comes down to 2 relatively similar players we'll have done our homework and know who'll fit into the club better. It's a focus now because the footys done.

 

[Spluff]

We chose Tambling before Buddy because as a junior he was a better player and seemed more likely to be a star.

 

[NZ_Tiger]

Geelong seem to have mostly good blokes and with footy ability. St Kilda seem to have mostly not good blokes some with footy ability. Richmonds past culture has been fairly average and this weighting of the interview process is to weed out the colin silvia's, Sam Gilberts etc and find the Cotchin type player, who's a leader on and off the field.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

I don't think we should be putting such a high importance on the interview process , I believe that the interview process was a significant factor in selecting Conca who impressed those who interviewed him , yet I know of others who ain't a fan . There is one thing which remains the most important in football and why I believe the current group have a chance of prolonged success and why I think we've failed in the past and that is leadership within the playing group !
If the kids who enter the system see players ****ing up and in cruise mode I don't think they have much hope , likes if they see players busting their arse and conducting themselves well I think their chances of following suit will be greatly improved !
Of the 2 other developing sides we are often being compared with North and Melbourne have , Brett ' publicly criticize your teammates Harvey and Brad Green ' Vest ' as captains !
Don't touch players who have glowing concerns like ya Taylors or Roberts' otherwise entrust that the culture is good enough to make players want to work their arse off , if they don't piss them off !

 

[Bothe337]

Personally I think the interview is very important, you can not just pick blokes on talent alone, otherwise you end up with a team of Troy Taylors ;-)

 

[CallMeAl]

It's not just the interview process, but the whole process of determining the type and strength of character of the potential draftees.

What is it that stops players with obvious talent from making the grade?

To make it to the top in any field raw talent will only take you so far - I'm sure i have heard/read it quoted that 90% mental and 10 % ability (bradman?).

It's a natural progression to put a high emphasis on quality of character and after the draft when we get the obligatory we should have taken X before Y, this is the one area that the arm chair experts will not be able to give any insight into.

It simply doesn't matter how much raw talent a kid has, they must have the drive, determination, dedication and most importantly the mental strength to make it to the top and compete with the best, otherwise you end up with the Jons, tamblings, petersons and mortons of the football world.

It is what is between the ears that will determine if potential is converted into results.

 

[Bird Man]

It's not just the interview process, but the whole process of determining the type and strength of character of the potential draftees.

What is it that stops players with obvious talent from making the grade?

To make it to the top in any field raw talent will only take you so far - I'm sure i have heard/read it quoted that 90% mental and 10 % ability (bradman?).

It's a natural progression to put a high emphasis on quality of character and after the draft when we get the obligatory we should have taken X before Y, this is the one area that the arm chair experts will not be able to give any insight into.

It simply doesn't matter how much raw talent a kid has, they must have the drive, determination, dedication and most importantly the mental strength to make it to the top and compete with the best, otherwise you end up with the Jons, tamblings, petersons and mortons of the football world.

It is what is between the ears that will determine if potential is converted into results.

i agree hole heartly on this statement.. but i raise the question .. IF a Game winner like buddy was to come along in the draft and we could pick him BUT he has a relaxed attitude and isnt so driven would we still take him?

Isnt it a clubs job to teach players how to become leaders and make them driven? like how hawks did with buddy and rough head?

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Personally I think the interview is very important, you can not just pick blokes on talent alone, otherwise you end up with a team of Troy Taylors ;-)

i agree hole heartly on this statement.. but i raise the question .. IF a Game winner like buddy was to come along in the draft and we could pick him BUT he has a relaxed attitude and isnt so driven would we still take him?

Isnt it a clubs job to teach players how to become leaders and make them driven? like how hawks did with buddy and rough head?

IMO you don't need to conduct interviews pre draft to confirm that guys like TT have issues , most of the young players coming through have been involved , and under the eye of recruiters for 7-8 years !
Recruiters talk regularly to these players coaches , state squad coaches , team managers , general managers etc etc and 90 % of the players would have been viewed in circumstances on field which they aren't comfortable with , sometimes at the request of recruiters !
Most of the young players entering TAC cup or similar state league junior comps would have been through all the life skill education programs and had their various social networks, like FB , twitter and the like regularly scanned and a personal profile well and truly formed well into the mid part of the previous season .
It may be nice to have some one on one time to confirm any doubts which may linger and to confirm with and change of enviroment you may be able to gain the little bit of talent and drive they may need , especially if they pocess some real X factor !

 

[MightyTiger]

i agree hole heartly on this statement.. but i raise the question .. IF a Game winner like buddy was to come along in the draft and we could pick him BUT he has a relaxed attitude and isnt so driven would we still take him?

Isnt it a clubs job to teach players how to become leaders and make them driven? like how hawks did with buddy and rough head?

We took Martin didn't we?

I think you're looking at this to literally, it's more to do with character, drive, ambition and a want to improve and excell rather then a kid with a shady character, some kids after having a good year rest on there laurels and think that's good enough, some kids think to there themselfes that they can improve and want to improve and will give it 120%.

 

[Bird Man]

We took Martin didn't we?

I think you're looking at this to literally, it's more to do with character, drive, ambition and a want to improve and excell rather then a kid with a shady character, some kids after having a good year rest on there laurels and think that's good enough, some kids think to there themselfes that they can improve and want to improve and will give it 120%.

Should not give the recruiters such a rap for this .. i could have chosen Dustin if i had the third pick

I remember it was very hard to decide which of the three would be first two picks it serouisly could of gone either way. we got lucky

AND Pace To Freeze .. i agree in what you are saying its just how is it if we do all this work we have let quality players slip through our fingers?

and i believe if a kid shows richo like ability's and his same attitude we would take him 10 times out of 10

 

[Toadvine]

We chose Tambling before Buddy because as a junior he was a better player and seemed more likely to be a star.

Quoted for truth. Even the majority of Hawks supporters wanted Tambling over Buddy because of his inconsistent champs and questionable attitude.

No doubt we made the wrong decision in hind sight but if we passed on Tambling for franklin at the time fans would have been livid on a much larger scale than the Heppell v Conca situation.

I'm confident the club is now leaving no stone unturned in every aspect to a potential draftees game. I don't think the psych test/interviews are just to find "nice guys who speak well" Martin and Taylor are evidence of that.

 

[Toadvine]

Should not give the recruiters such a rap for this .. i could have chosen Dustin if i had the third pick

MT wasn't saying the recruiters deserve a wrap for picking Dusty, he was pointing out your assumption that we will overlook a match winner for a upstanding citizen is wrong.

 

["The Roar Is Back"]

Should not give the recruiters such a rap for this .. i could have chosen Dustin if i had the third pick

I remember it was very hard to decide which of the three would be first two picks it serouisly could of gone either way. we got lucky

AND Pace To Freeze .. i agree in what you are saying its just how is it if we do all this work we have let quality players slip through our fingers?

and i believe if a kid shows richo like ability's and his same attitude we would take him 10 times out of 10

Recruiters are like everyone else , they have ego's , and some get a rusty trombone, over picking up a kid which no one else rated, as highly, or was prepared to take a risk on !
Has it been our selections at the draft table or the environment they've entered , I am a big fan of the later and strongly oppose the recent thinking , particularly 2010 , of trying to pluck players from obsecurity !
Stay away from players with huge ego's whilst in the early stages of rebuilding and once we have a strong leadership base, then start punting on the egolistic type !
I am a huge fan of Newman and Cotchin's leadership qualities, and think we need to wrap Newman in cotton wool, as such , to extend his career as he holds alot of the keys to our future success , which incidentally may come to fruition beyond his playing days !

 

[El Tigre]

Well i'm pretty sure we wouldn't have picked Dusty if it was down to an interview. He doesn't speak confidently (as the vast majority would at a media session), and probably not the sharpest tool on the block, and IMO doesn't have much leadership characteristics (other than setting an example of his ability).

The case of Conca was brought up shows the us that not just plain ability is in the recruiters minds.

So i would say that we haven't based it on solely the interview, which it shouldn't. The more info you have, the more you can make an "educated guess".

 

[Bird Man]

Recruiters are like everyone else , they have ego's , and some get a rusty trombone, over picking up a kid which no one else rated, as highly, or was prepared to take a risk on !
Has it been our selections at the draft table or the environment they've entered , I am a big fan of the later and strongly oppose the recent thinking , particularly 2010 , of trying to pluck players from obsecurity !
Stay away from players with huge ego's whilst in the early stages of rebuilding and once we have a strong leadership base, then start punting on the egolistic type !
I am a huge fan of Newman and Cotchin's leadership qualities, and think we need to wrap Newman in cotton wool, as such , to extend his career as he holds alot of the keys to our future success , which incidentally may come to fruition beyond his playing days !

i rate this and i would personally rather see newman lift that cup for the tigers if any one he deserves it

 

[folester41]

Considering we picked up Taylor and Macdonald I can't imagine it being the be all and end all of the selection process. Obviously they want good blokes at the club but they have to be talented

 

[Top_4_Tiger]

Well i'm pretty sure we wouldn't have picked Dusty if it was down to an interview. He doesn't speak confidently...

There are a few misconceptions in this thread. The purpose of the interview is not to find people who can talk the talk. Supposedly, they use clever psychological suggestions to reveal underlying traits a person would never talk about (or may not even be aware of himself).

Dustin's interview probably told us that in a team environment he thrives on the feeling of getting acknowledged for good work, then reacts by telling himself "but I'm still no good" so he gets embarassed by the positive feedback and responds by trying even harder. Or something like that.

You want a champion team environment? Great culture of success? Bring in the right people. Not just people who can kick a football.