Latest news:

Richard Hill
Discussion started by A38 (IP Logged), 06 July, 2019 08:25
A38
A38
06 July, 2019 08:25

Latecomer
Latecomer
06 July, 2019 08:53
Blimey, those grapes are sour !!

Offa
Offa
06 July, 2019 09:07
It just seems like an honest reflection of his lowest ebb to me.
He certainly had his faults, but I liked his ethos (ensuring players knew the names of all staff members).
I think that as a club our fresh start has come with GG and now AS. We have had a lot of mediocrity to shed. I believe that we may be on the cusp of finally moving forward.

MESSAGES->author
TeflonTed
06 July, 2019 09:33
Seems like it could all have been our fault.

“Supporters, the board, the whole thing was difficult,”

Southstand(again)
Southstand(again)
06 July, 2019 09:50
My take on Richard's period in charge is rather different.

Part-time coaches like Vickery and Rourre turning up "now and again" for the odd bit of coaching. Hill trying to run the club with the clueless Charlie Little sticking his oar in along with Corin Palmer (Lord knows what he actually did)

Ultimately Hill losing the team in the dressing room and on the pitch.

All this continuing against the backdrop of local reporter Tom Guest cut and pasting whatever press release the club cooked up for him.

Certainly, not Sixways' finest hour.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2019 09:53 by Southstand(again).

Patgadd
Patgadd
06 July, 2019 09:56
I tend to agree with your every point, Southstand, though I can't help wondering along with Ted what the jibe about supporters was all about.

Southstand(again)
Southstand(again)
06 July, 2019 10:04
I think we did "Savage" him a bit on this site. (Sm14)

Patgadd
Patgadd
06 July, 2019 10:15
Looking back, I suppose we did, SS, and if he was unwise enough to read them it makes his comments understandable.

A38
A38
06 July, 2019 10:24
It's very difficult from the outside to know what happens inside any organisation. Even insiders do not sometimes know the whole picture. All one has is a general impression and the general impression we had of Richard Hill's tenure was that improvement was needed and consequently he became the focus of supporters' discontent.

That is I think the source of Hill's comments about supporters. If memory serves, we, collectively, were not particularly sad to see him go. We certainly welcomed Ryan's arrival and the measures he put in place to put right what he saw as the failings of the previous regime.

It has been said, rightly or wrongly I don't know, that Ryan was given the money to do what he wanted to be done, money which was denied to Hill.

And in that we have, I think, one of the reasons why Worcester has never got itself away from the bottom of the Premiership: money - or perhaps more precisely the ability and willingness of proprietors to put their own cash into an always hungry money-pit.

Because it was their own money, they were the ultimate decision makers and this sort of situation could have led to inconsistent decision making. It was certainly one of Ryan's pre-conditions: that he be in sole charge.

But all that's in the past and what's done is done - except that reputational mud can stick around for a while. Worcester, to the short sighted journalist coven, will always be a bottom feeder and favourite for relegation (if there is any) and articles such as this will only add to their prejudices. We'll just have to live with it.

Warrior7
Warrior7
06 July, 2019 10:33
If you listened to the WN(?) podcast with James Percival, then it gives you a better idea than this. The supporters comment by Hill was a little strange though, as we still turned out in higher numbers (than the last few seasons) during his tenure.

Southstand(again)
Southstand(again)
06 July, 2019 10:33
I'm pretty certain Andy Goode still thinks he's a **** when it comes to coaching but I think I will take the unusual option of saying something in Hill's defence.

His demise was very much pre-empted by Cecil pulling the purse strings extremely tight prior to Dave Allen's funding, but the "Gang of three's" attempts at running a rugby Club remained, at times, shockingly painful.

WorcesterSauce
WorcesterSauce
06 July, 2019 10:40
I dont know, but i get the impression with hindsight that Hill was made a scapegoat.

Wasn’t he in charge at the time when there was a committee that made decisions? It would’ve been this committee that decided to completely abolish the academy and this committee that made some of our most bizarre signings in the premiership era.

NW2
NW2
06 July, 2019 12:14
Well whatever you think of his tenure at Warriors, I've never known a coach / DOR blame the supporters as part of the problem. If you succeed, they will be on you side, if you don't, they won't.

Wah-RE-or
Wah-RE-or
06 July, 2019 12:40
If you look past the Warriors experience at his time in France you can see a thriving league system with promotion and aspiration. Particularly interesting is the comment about mainly French recruitment. Yes it takes some money and perhaps someone could comment on comparative English second tier budgets?

w4rriorz1980
w4rriorz1980
06 July, 2019 12:58
This Richard Hill interview was in TRP weeks ago.



Eats,Shoots And Leaves

MESSAGES->author
Fiver
06 July, 2019 13:04
From what I remember Hill wasn't ever really in charge. A conversation I had with Charlie Little summed that up. The academy going, the part time coaches? That wasn't Hill, that was the club.

Goode was never going to support Hill as they had the opposite ethos regarding training, i.e. Hill has always had a reputation for training hard, whereas Goode has the reputation of hardly training. I still remember watching Goode trotting out for training 20 minutes late, dragging his feet whilst playing with his phone (he wasn't listed as injured at the time).

Also, we got some truly dreadful refereeing decisions which Hill tried to deal with without throwing the toys out in interviews. I seem to remember the fans booing an awful lot, not at the players, but it depends how they perceived it I suppose. The refereeing only improved after Ryan mentioned the 'secret' reports they got.

Most on the forums went for Hill in a fairly unsavoury way. I mainly used the offy forum at the time and felt fairly disgusted by some of the comments.

If I were Hill, I'd have said exactly the same.

MESSAGES->author
West Brom Warrior
06 July, 2019 14:18
Is his view wrong? No coach has done a great job with the club we have never finished in the top 6. We have been praising last season as a good season but we were still in the relegation battle clearly something has not been right at the club for a while.

As for Hill speaking about supporters I remember this board was fairly blunt in there assessment of Hill.

FlipFlop
FlipFlop
06 July, 2019 14:23
In the annual review of how previous DOR’s have performed, Hill’s performance was far from worst and only recently eclipsed by latest versions, and SSA understates it when he says we may have savaged him a bit. Most experts in the stand saw Hill as a rugby bellend due to being dazzled by the aura around Goode’s influence on team performance rather than any credit to Hill. This only worsened once Hill dropped Goode one Friday night at half time. The rest is chip paper.

If he remains bitter, so be it, but some are selective in their memories of his tenure which had more than a full time circus surrounding it, which can’t have helped.

Touchliner
Touchliner
06 July, 2019 14:29
Quote:
WorcesterSauce
I dont know, but i get the impression with hindsight that Hill was made a scapegoat.
Wasn’t he in charge at the time when there was a committee that made decisions? It would’ve been this committee that decided to completely abolish the academy and this committee that made some of our most bizarre signings in the premiership era.

Looking back at the players lists names like these were added during the 3 years he was there:

Ezra Taylor
Alex Crockett
Rob Higgitt
Oriol Ripol
Tom Arscott
Josh Drauniniu
Ravai Fatiaki
Danny Gray
Chris Jones
Jon Clarke
Blair Cowan
Ceri Jones
Euan Murray
Dean Schofield

While some of these were less mediocre (awful?) than others, I find it hard to believe given his significant success at Rouen that this represented his own idea of squad building to transform Warriors rather than the decisions of said "committee"

Interestingly one relatively successful Worcester signing that he repeated at Rouen was David Lemi who played in the promotion final in May

Southstand(again)
Southstand(again)
06 July, 2019 15:25
Can't believe you haven't one Argentinian name in that list ?

Southstand(again)
Southstand(again)
06 July, 2019 15:38
I remember him saying nice things about us in 1999 eye rolling smiley
my old Gloucester prog

On second thoughts, I may have lost that page ...
Still it was a good day out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/07/2019 15:45 by Southstand(again).

Touchliner
Touchliner
06 July, 2019 18:41
Quote:
Southstand(again)
Can't believe you haven't one Argentinian name in that list ?

I wouldn't include any of our Argentinian signings (Creevy, Senatore, Galarza or Mieres) in the mediocre / awful category although Ignacio Mieres wasn't ultimately very fully utilised for reasons unknown to most of us.

MESSAGES->author
Fiver
07 July, 2019 12:51
I believe there was a certain local demographic that made sure Ignacio didn't go underutilised (Sm100)

MESSAGES->author
TeflonTed
07 July, 2019 16:55
Quote:
Fiver
I believe there was a certain local demographic that made sure Ignacio didn't go underutilised (Sm100)

Some part of which, allegedly, was already being taken care of, under contract, by a team colleague.

Was never going to end well.

MESSAGES->author
Fiver
07 July, 2019 19:58
Quote:
TeflonTed
Quote:
Fiver
I believe there was a certain local demographic that made sure Ignacio didn't go underutilised (Sm100)

Some part of which, allegedly, was already being taken care of, under contract, by a team colleague.

Was never going to end well.

I heard that happened whilst with his former employer. Did he do the same at Warriors?

MESSAGES->author
TeflonTed
07 July, 2019 21:00
Quote:
Fiver
Quote:
TeflonTed
Quote:
Fiver
I believe there was a certain local demographic that made sure Ignacio didn't go underutilised (Sm100)

Some part of which, allegedly, was already being taken care of, under contract, by a team colleague.

Was never going to end well.

I heard that happened whilst with his former employer. Did he do the same at Warriors?

Allegedly.

centrethere
centrethere
08 July, 2019 07:11
Never forget watching Fatiaki and Matavesi in a warm up game and thinking 'absolutely no chance of surviving this season' and so it was.

If the committee made the new signings, why didn't Hill say so here, as he just about said everything else

Southstand(again)
Southstand(again)
08 July, 2019 09:17
Quote:
TeflonTed
Quote:
Fiver
Quote:
TeflonTed
Quote:
Fiver
I believe there was a certain local demographic that made sure Ignacio didn't go underutilised (Sm100)

Some part of which, allegedly, was already being taken care of, under contract, by a team colleague.

Was never going to end well.

I heard that happened whilst with his former employer. Did he do the same at Warriors?

Allegedly.

Totally confused over what you two are on about.

I just know our league is poorer for the loss of those talented Argentinians

MESSAGES->author
Fiver
08 July, 2019 11:09
Really Southstand? I thought it was the worst kept secret. Even so, I'm not prepared to give details on a public forum, even if it was where I first found out.


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net