Why do the Crusaders win?
-
@mariner4life There's no respect in your post at all, trying to discredit my opinion with that bs.
-
One thing I've noticed is that well coached teams give clarity to the players who aren't superstars what their job is and how to do it effectively. The result of this attention to detail is that when teams are under the pump, those players know what to do rather than trying too hard and this helps them stay in pattern, defensively and offensively. The longer they can do that, the less opportunities they give the opposition.
Two other teams that do this well like the Crusaders do are the Brumbies and the Melbourne Storm.
-
Okay, I'm taking myself out of this conversation if everything I post is responded to in this way.
Apparently I'm not allowed to have an opinion on anything related to the Crusaders or Crusaders players, because then it's bias. But if anyone, including the most biased Blues supporter here comment on the Blues it's neutral? What joke this place is
sometimes.Great way of silencing different opinions. No wonder that so many posters stay away from discussions like these.
-
@antipodean makes sense, first player springs to mind with what you're saying is Tom Christie🙂
-
@antipodean said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
One thing I've noticed is that well coached teams give clarity to the players who aren't superstars what their job is and how to do it effectively. The result of this attention to detail is that when teams are under the pump, those players know what to do rather than trying too hard and this helps them stay in pattern, defensively and offensively. The longer they can do that, the less opportunities they give the opposition.
Two other teams that do this well like the Crusaders do are the Brumbies and the Melbourne Storm.
Craig Bellamy is the fucking master at this
-
@Stargazer said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Okay, I'm taking myself out of this conversation if everything I post is responded to in this way.
Apparently I'm not allowed to have an opinion on anything related to the Crusaders or Crusaders players, because then it's bias. But if anyone, including the most biased Blues supporter here comment on the Blues it's neutral? What joke this place is
sometimes.I guess the difference is I (I assume your dig was directed at me) can admit my bias - you keep insisting you aren't biased. You make me look like a neutral at times.
Plenty of biased posters on the board, you aren't alone there. Point of a discussion forum is to have a.....discussion.
-
@Stargazer said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Okay, I'm taking myself out of this conversation if everything I post is responded to in this way.
Apparently I'm not allowed to have an opinion on anything related to the Crusaders or Crusaders players, because then it's bias. But if anyone, including the most biased Blues supporter here comment on the Blues it's neutral? What joke this place is
sometimes.Great way of silencing different opinions. No wonder that so many posters stay away from discussions like these.
Brush it aside. I'm interested in your take. That comment was true but irrelevant. We all come from different angles.
Do you think that the competition approach from the Crusaders due to their underlying strengths and advantages (recruitment etc) differs from those trying to catch them? Does that different approach mean that they have a better chance in the final?
-
@Stargazer said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@mariner4life There's no respect in your post at all, trying to discredit my opinion with that bs.
for all your hissy fit, i don't even know what your opinion is, and you haven't answered my question.
This thread is universal Crusader praise, i don't get what the friggen issue is
-
@antipodean said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
One thing I've noticed is that well coached teams give clarity to the players who aren't superstars what their job is and how to do it effectively. The result of this attention to detail is that when teams are under the pump, those players know what to do rather than trying too hard and this helps them stay in pattern, defensively and offensively. The longer they can do that, the less opportunities they give the opposition.
Two other teams that do this well like the Crusaders do are the Brumbies and the Melbourne Storm.
The Storm and the Crusaders are two teams who make all of their players look the best versions of themselves. A huge part of this is the coaching and the systems as you say. When players leave Melbourne or the Saders almost none of them go on to be better players at their next stops
-
I think it's quite simple, preparation.
Crusaders clearly saw the lineout as a way to disrupt alot of the Blues good attacking ball, which it was, and they did.
Blues didnt adapt, Crusaders kept piling on the pressure.
What I do hope though, is for the AB coaches to take note of this game, see how effective a simple gameplan can be, not saying they should replicate it, but this game and patches of other games last year showed if you keep it simple, good things happen.
I am still of the belief we have enough world class players, sure not half a dozen or more of the best in thier position we have had at times previously, but enough that if they are singing from the same team sheet, they should beat any other team unless they totally rip shit up and are all on fire.
-
Quality adminstration. No infighting with stakeholders/partners. This has been the bedrock.
Best 10 in the comp (at Super level)
Best coach in the comp
Longevity of the playing group and cultureI don't think there's more mysticism than that. People over-analyse this at times; the weekend was an experienced group that knew how to get them and their team mates up for the finals. The Blues showed the opposite; looked sluggish, like they'd played their final during the week (mentally).
Historically, the best players too. Not so much any more, but the tight 5 for a few years was off the charts good. In past years their squad depth was exceptional- players would sit on the bench or on the fringe wiht a shot at the ABs.
Hot take: they dynasty will end. Take out Robertson and Mo'unga and that side probably doesn't make the final. They are more fragile than they used to be, but still a very very good side.
-
@Kirwan said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@Stargazer said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@mariner4life Not buying that argument. The Blues struggled against the Brumbies; the Crusaders didn't.
Not much analysis in that comment. The Crusaders struggled with the Tahs, the Blues B team didn't.
Brumbies game was played in terrible conditions, which suited them more than us. Best maul in the comp and we had to work our arses off to repel it.
If the Blues want to win the competition we need a stronger set piece in the wet, that's all the last two weeks in the comp told us.
I could say the same about the Canes. We are losing the battle up front when it matters. From there the rest of your team can play out of their minds from time to time and win in spite of them. But at the end of the day rugby is a very difficult game to win when you can't at least get parity up front and have solid set pieces
-
I have long been of the opinion that the lineout is the most important set piece. If you can dominate that area, you go a long way to winning games, because the territory battle is yours. Doubly so in shit weather.
-
A hypothetical side of the Chiefs semi-final forward pack, and the Blues final backline might have had a chance of winning the final.
Otherwise (sweeping generalisations time), the Crusaders won because they were able to easily beat a Chiefs team with decent forwards, but with headless chooks in the backs. And then in the final the Crusaders easily beat a team whose tight five collectively went AWOL on the big stage, if against a much better backline than the Chiefs.
Alongside the technical skills, it does suggest a belief that they can win in all conditions and against all game plans, and the collective talent to do so. Or as my Crusaders supporting mate parroted about a dozen times on Saturday night "A champion team will always beat a team of champions". Maybe Razor is a pretty good coach after all...
-
@Donsteppa said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Maybe Razor is a pretty good coach after all...
aaahhh ya think?
-
@mariner4life yep, in the final there was 30 lineouts vs 16 scrums....Crusaders won 20 of the 30 lineouts (all 11 of thier own) - unsure where this sits vs other games with an almost 2:1 ratio.
IIRC the 2 scrum losses were after the game was lost and the entire front rows replaced?
-
@mariner4life said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@Donsteppa said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Maybe Razor is a pretty good coach after all...
aaahhh ya think?
The NZRU sadly don't think...
-
The Bulls/Stormers game had 8 scrums and 29 lineouts
-
@Donsteppa said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@mariner4life said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@Donsteppa said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Maybe Razor is a pretty good coach after all...
aaahhh ya think?
The NZRU sadly don't think...
derailing the thread, but the first Foster appointment wasn't grossly unreasonable. The Robertson body of work was less, the potential for continuity was there ... I may not have agreed with it, but I could understand the decision.
Since then, Foster's stocks have dropped, and Robertson's have risen.
And yet, despite all that, he would benefit from replicating his success away from Canterbury. Coaching internationals and coaching domestic are very different; differnet challenges, times with players, etc.
I'd still have him in a heartbeat over Foster. Or even any of Rennie, or Joseph, or McCullum ...
