Aaron Cruden
-
One question that is worth considering in this discussion is whether Cruden was ever really seen as first choice 10?
And other than the first two Wales games in 2016 you would have to say no. He was always filling in while DC was injured. Then BB went past him.
Of course that doesn't disqualify him from being tge second best in the pro era.
-
@pukunui I think for a period before and leading into the 2015 RWC Cruden was seen as the #1 10, many had written DC off and were annoyed at the coaching teams insistence at selecting when he got a window of fitness, lest we forget Twattue's opinion on DC as well, cos it carries such great weight.
-
@Kirwan said in Aaron Cruden:
@Donsteppa said in Aaron Cruden:
@Kirwan said in Aaron Cruden:
The shock at Chiefs fans overrating Crudan!
The shock at someone rating Tony Brown ahead of him...
Better kicker (goal kicker and directing the team around the field), better tackler, and didn't hide from running the backline.
You can't be included in these great ten lists if you won't run the backline.
Cruden didn't hide from running a backline at any level. If he did Hansen and co wouldn't have selected him.
-
@Nepia said in Aaron Cruden:
@Kirwan said in Aaron Cruden:
@Donsteppa said in Aaron Cruden:
@Kirwan said in Aaron Cruden:
The shock at Chiefs fans overrating Crudan!
The shock at someone rating Tony Brown ahead of him...
Better kicker (goal kicker and directing the team around the field), better tackler, and didn't hide from running the backline.
You can't be included in these great ten lists if you won't run the backline.
Cruden didn't hide from running a backline at any level. If he did Hansen and co wouldn't have selected him.
Every player has his flaws, this was just his. Hansen covered it by using Dagg as a first receiver.
That and his short kicking length.
-
@Kirwan said in Aaron Cruden:
@Nepia said in Aaron Cruden:
@Kirwan said in Aaron Cruden:
@Donsteppa said in Aaron Cruden:
@Kirwan said in Aaron Cruden:
The shock at Chiefs fans overrating Crudan!
The shock at someone rating Tony Brown ahead of him...
Better kicker (goal kicker and directing the team around the field), better tackler, and didn't hide from running the backline.
You can't be included in these great ten lists if you won't run the backline.
Cruden didn't hide from running a backline at any level. If he did Hansen and co wouldn't have selected him.
Every player has his flaws, this was just his. Hansen covered it by using Dagg as a first receiver.
That and his short kicking length.
It wasn't hiding from running the backline, it was just the style that developed with him - it was a style that the Chiefs used effectively and Hansen was happy to carry on (clearly it's a style you don't prefer) ... and I don't think Dagg took the ball at first receiver quite as much as you're making out.
Yes, he often wouldn't take the ball of the first ruck, because the opportunities open up on the second but quite frankly if you watch any modern rugby team this is the style that is played.
-
@Kirwan I'll certainly give you the short kicking - that has been a glaring weakness of his game from day 1.
Not entirely sure what you mean by running a backline honestly. He had the chiefs backline absolutely humming for a couple of years, and at international level, I actually thought he was more often guilty of trying to overplay his hand than anything.
-
Both Super and test rugby is a different game now than it was in the mid-90s as defensive patterns are so much better in today's rugby. As much as I liked Mehrts and Spencer in their time they would need to change their style with less time and space to operate.
It's good that the ABs have had a number of quality 1st 5s over the years so we can have this debtate. You could throw Culhane into the mix based on the 1996 SA tour.
-
I think the strength of Cruden's play was always his option taking and how he linked up with those around him. When he took the ball to the line, he was dangerous because he always found a good pass to someone like SBW. I don't really think he had glaring weaknesses - he just lacked the out and and out x-factor of someone like Barrett (even though he was a great attacking player in his own right).
-
The missed opportunity (from injuries, availability and incumbent players) was the Cruden/SBW partnership in tests.
It never happened enough but the cameos we had were awesome.For the same reasons it never happened enough at the Chiefs either.
That injury wrecked half an hour against Ireland in the 60-0 thrashing had the makings of being Cruden's highlight game to end them all. He was simply on fire that night and the combo of him making halfbreaks with SBW steaming in off his shoulder was the stuff that has you wondering how someone can be that good.
-
Excellent at Super Rugby level.
Very good at AB level.
Always felt he struggled a bit if the pack wasn't on top, which differentiates the greats from the goods.
Goal-kicking was acceptable, but not world-class.
Decent defender, and developed some nice kicks out of hand.I've been watching since '87. Carter, Mehrts, Spencer on his day are probably all better. I'd most definitely have him ahead of Tony Browne though, as much as I like Tony we are talking a bit journeyman at AB level.
-
He's started a World Cup final and won 2 Super Rugby competitions, so I absolutely don't blame him for taking the sure thing. Guaranteed millions or fighting for a place in history... I'd probably take the money too.
That said, there's still way more he could have achieved, and even though he should be in the prime of his career he is not sticking around to fight for his jersey. I think ranking him alongside our all time greats would be based on potential, because he never actually nailed down the starting position for a decent length of time. Rattue put out an article the other day... obviously I didn't click on it but the headline called Cruden the nearly man of NZ rugby, which I think is about right.
Personally, I haven't seen a better first five at playing at the line, and his ability to bring his backline into the game is up there with the very best (better than Carter IMO). @Kirwan mentioned not playing at first receiver enough, which isn't really a problem for me because the results came either as a result of his positioning or in spite of it, but either way the results were good so we won't know. But yes, long kicking game and goal kicking were an issue. Sometimes he overplayed the chipkick, but even Carter had that issue... sometimes I think it's a Kiwi thing.
Probably about equal with Spencer for me, ahead of Brown and Evans, but behind Carter, Merhts, Fox.
I wish he was sticking around, I'd love to see him and Barrett pushing each other for that spot.
-
Slightly off topic,
For a country who has been so good at rugby , with the exception of carter , I'm not so sure we have produced the quality of 10s that you would expect from us , considering how dominant we have been overall
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Aaron Cruden:
Slightly off topic,
For a country who has been so good at rugby , with the exception of carter , I'm not so sure we have produced the quality of 10s that you would expect from us , considering how dominant we have been overall
Well, our best 10s tend to own the position for nearly 10 years at a time, so it makes it tough to generate lots of greats at that rate. Fox, Mehrts, Carter pretty much took care of the 80s, 90s, 00s.
-
@kiwiinmelb that's a completely fair point, however only at certain times, and really only because we are used to having 2 brilliant players in every position. The progression of Fox-Mehrts-Spencer-Carter is not a bad run (give or take a year here or there) but there was rarely a guy behind him really pushing for the spot.
Do we credit big Steve again for building a level of depth that allows us to lose Carter and Cruden in a relatively short space of time, and not have anyone even blink?
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Aaron Cruden:
Slightly off topic,
For a country who has been so good at rugby , with the exception of carter , I'm not so sure we have produced the quality of 10s that you would expect from us , considering how dominant we have been overall
The great thing about rugby is that it's truly a team sport. With 15 guys on the field and the continuity of the game, it's not an easy sport to be an outstanding 'individual'. Yes there are the occasional moments of individual brilliance, but even then most of those have had lead up or finishing moments involving others.
My expectation with the ABs is that they perform as a team rather than looking for say the 1st 5 to be the standout dominant player.
-
@mariner4life said in Aaron Cruden:
@kiwiinmelb that's a completely fair point, however only at certain times, and really only because we are used to having 2 brilliant players in every position. The progression of Fox-Mehrts-Spencer-Carter is not a bad run (give or take a year here or there) but there was rarely a guy behind him really pushing for the spot.
Has any team had a better run in modern times? I think other countries tend to have much lower lows than us
-
@Duluth no, they haven't. It's like our run at 7, it's fucking ridiculous, and must piss other countries off no end.
"Not a bad run" was tongue in cheek.
But according to my memory, the 2IC was usually solid rather than spectacular. Unlike 7, or wing, or fullback, or even hooker.
-
@mariner4life Yeah I knew you were deliberately understating things
I was asking the question in relation to the @kiwiinmelb post. If we really aren't producing as many quality 10's as we should be.. has someone else done better?
There's some good 10's that have come out of Australia, England, SA & France etc, but theres plenty of crap in between
-
@Duluth look, that's a good point, and from a certain perspective, it's very true.
However if you avoid judging us against lessor nations, i don't think we've produced quality 10s in the same numbers as other positions. I'm judging us against ourselves (in an effort to find our equal...
).We've been blessed with unreal starters though.
