Why do the Crusaders win?
-
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 ...
-
@taniwharugby said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
The Bulls/Stormers game had 8 scrums and 29 lineouts
You have to think Ireland will be dying to get us into a set piece battle
-
@nzzp said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
they dynasty will end.
will it though?
25 fucking years of this now.
13 titles. 4 other finals.
5 other times to the postseason.they've just won 5 fucking straight.
They are the Storm but worse!
-
-
@ploughboy said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
while they have a spine of taylor/whitelock/mounga/jordon they are going to be hard to beat in finals
They have always had a strong spine. They will when these guys are gone. Just a fundamentally sound rugby organisation. Dammit
-
@Frank said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Razor is an awesome coach. That's why.
Maybe. But how would he do coaching the Canes. Or even the Chiefs. Likely not as good.
But maybe it does come down to having a very good board who can attract and appoint a great coach and manager. Plus being top dog makes it easier to succeeed as long as a great or VG head coach is found
But I remember Maurice Trapp. Great coach when he took over a strong side but finished 8th when he returned after Auckland's decline. I thought at one stage Auckland would always have a strong side but the decline was sudden. And even a previous great coaches return wasn't enough. But maybe if he had stayed for 5-10 years he would have got them up again
Im sure books have been written on the rise and fall of great teams. And what changed. ManUnited for example. Thye lost a great manager but also the competitors got stronger. And the ownership seemed to have issues. Add in poor recruitment including poorish Management etc
-
@canefan said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@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
Agree about the Storm but I am not so sure players leaving the Saders do not become better. Players that spring to mind - Wainui, Hodgeman, Laulala, Harmon. But none of these were established as starters at the time. Even Romano had a better season than expected. Who left and went downhill? Has there even been a regular starter for the Saders leave in their peak for another Franchise? I can't recall.
-
@mariner4life said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@nzzp said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
they dynasty will end.
will it though?
25 fucking years of this now.
13 titles. 4 other finals.
5 other times to the postseason.they've just won 5 fucking straight.
They are the Storm but worse!
You could have said the same about Auckland. Dynasties end. They went from Mehrts to Carter to Mo'unga. The coaches went Smith Deans (Blackadder who was awful) and Robertson. Blackadder had an all time great side and couldn't get them to win. It doesn't feel like it right now, but that's emotions over rationality. Are you seeing good coaches and tens like that coming through? Anyone?
The contracting model has been a boon as well. Holding stacked sides without having to pay their wages is a massive benefit.
-
@Crazy-Horse that sbw fella went alright at the chiefs
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Who left and went downhill? Has there even been a regular starter for the Saders leave in their peak for another Franchise? I can't recall.
SBW in 2012 to Chiefs is one - he did improve I think but then again he was going from Blackadder to Rennie/Wayne Smith.
-
@mariner4life 6 isn't it
Maurice Walton Trapp (Coach) | New Zealand Rugby History
