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!
-
-
@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
-
@nzzp said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
The contracting model has been a boon as well. Holding stacked sides without having to pay their wages is a massive benefit
This helps a lot. And will do more so in the future. Blues have the most ABs at present but this will likley chnage unless they win it next year. Winners usually have more ABs that makes it easier to attract quality young players. And much easier to keep their top players.
-
@Crazy-Horse said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@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.
Ron Cribb went to Chch and won a title and a black jersey. I don't remember him being the same when he went home to Auckland. Happy to be corrected. I can't think of too many players who left in their prime. I don't count bench or fringe players who end up starting elsewhere
-
-
@canefan said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@Crazy-Horse said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@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.
Ron Cribb went to Chch and won a title and a black jersey.
... and cost us a Bledisloe
-
@mariner4life said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
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.
Way too much emphasis is put on the scrum relatively speaking. You have way more lineouts in any given footy match and each lineout is much more of a 50/50 contest. Having a properly functioning lineout was key to our success between 2010 and 2016.
-
@nzzp said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Historically, the best players too. Not so much any more, but the tight 5 for a few years was off the charts good.
Their tight 5 is always good. They lacked a bit of depth at hooker this year with Makalio not there but apart from that.
It's also worth noting Mounga's incredible durability at the Crusaders - he must have started 95% of the Crusaders games since 2017.
One thing I think Razor does a wonderful job of is playing to the team's strengths (and player's strengths). They allow Mo'unga a free reign to use his brilliant running game, they allow Sevu Reece to pop up all over the field, they give Leicester opportunities to show his power - they use their good tight 5 to scrum and maul well etc. They don't ask players to do things that don't suit them (i.e. square peg + round hole).
-
Tangibles - experienced players in key positions; quality 1st 5 and serviceable halfbacks; enough instinctual backs to take advantage of poor opposition kicks; forward focused ruck work; targeting opposition lineout (not just the Blues 😉)
Intangibles - belief within the organisation; tradition; a coach that the team seem to want to play for;
I do not underestimate that to win stuff in sport there is also luck involved. The luck I refer to is that sometimes the stars align a certain way e.g. the way a draw plays out or another result goes in your favour, less injuries to key players (or an injury that forces a selection change that works out) etc. That ‘luck’ will help along with those tangibles and intangibles.
-
I understand all the self belief , winning culture and all that stuff which is real ,
But I also think when the big games come around , year after year more often that not , they have the fewer weak links in their lineup ,
Their side always seems to look the closest to what you might want from a test team ,particularly a good pack and a 10, but i really thought the Blues were catching them in this area this year
-
@kiwiinmelb said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
I understand all the self belief , winning culture and all that stuff which is real ,
But I also think when the big games come around , year after year more often that not , they have the fewer weak links in their lineup ,
Their side always seems to look the closest to what you might want from a test team ,particularly a good pack and a 10, but i really thought the Blues were catching them in this area this year
They can make Scott Hamiltons and George Bridges amd countless others look like a world beaters at SR level. NZs best team by some distance
Maurice Walton Trapp (Coach) | New Zealand Rugby History
