The Crusaders and their success
-
@bones said in The Crusaders and their success:
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
@bones said in The Crusaders and their success:
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
@bones said in The Crusaders and their success:
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
@bones said in The Crusaders and their success:
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
@bones said in The Crusaders and their success:
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
@bones said in The Crusaders and their success:
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
@bones said in The Crusaders and their success:
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
astonishing talent (McCaw, Carter and Mauger)
Mauger was shit hot at Super level and certainly had his moments at test level as well. To claim otherwise would be utterly absurd.
Questioning Mauger as an astonishing talent alongside McCaw & Carter is utterly absurd? Thought about applying for TMO school bro?
My bad. Mauger was shit and played no part in the success of that team.
Noooo way! He's an astonishing talent! Right up there with McCaw & Carter! And Ellis! And Blackadder! And Broomhall! And Ralph! ASTONISHING
He was an astonishing talent.
Now feel free to contribute to the topic of the thread.
He wasn't. There you go.
I think he was. Unfortunately he didn’t consistently realise that potential at test level but when on song he was a phenomenal player. So we’ll just agree to disagree. At no stage did I say he was as good as McCaw or Carte. But along with those 2 he was a massive reason for their “second coming” around 2002 onwards.
You listed 3 players as astonishing, I posted a puzzled gif in return and you immediately knew who was the puzzling player...I never named him. But yeah, "astonishing" isn't even questionable let alone absurd.
Can't wait to hear about phenomenal Ralph.
Yeah whatever Bones. I stand by what I said. He was an astonishing talent and deserves to be grouped together with the other two for his contribution to the Saders success from 2002 onwards. Now feel free to do something out of character and actually contribute to the topic of the thread.
You don't need to make stuff up to try and support a point. Now feel free to PM me again with more attempted abuse if you like.
Making what up?
You ok?I'm astonishing.
What was I making up?
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
astonishing talent (McCaw, Carter and Mauger)
-
@bones said in The Crusaders and their success:
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
astonishing talent (McCaw, Carter and Mauger)
That’s simply my opinion. Sorry if that offends you so much.
Now do you have anything to actually contribute to the topic of the thread?
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
@bones said in The Crusaders and their success:
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
astonishing talent (McCaw, Carter and Mauger)
That’s simply my opinion. Sorry if that offends you so much.
Now do you have anything to actually contribute to the topic of the thread?
I'm not offended. I'm offering my opinion, I would imagine it's shared by many others too. Only one person here is offended, even enough to PM me!
-
@toddy said in The Crusaders and their success:
They've been lucky enough to have some absolute gun 1st 5's through their times as champions (Mehrts, Carter and now Mo'unga). You still need a good team to win a title but a world class 1st five is probably your first wish as a coach.
Quality attacking 1st 5s have been pretty integral in getting super rugby success
-
@bones said in The Crusaders and their success:
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
@bones said in The Crusaders and their success:
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
astonishing talent (McCaw, Carter and Mauger)
That’s simply my opinion. Sorry if that offends you so much.
Now do you have anything to actually contribute to the topic of the thread?
I'm not offended. I'm offering my opinion, I would imagine it's shared by many others too. Only one person here is offended, even enough to PM me!
That’s lovely.
So moving on, what are your views on why the Crusaders are so good. -
@mariner4life I often think there must be some sort of intangible around it. The whole “succeed breeds success” philosophy. Yes talent and ability are important, but there’s is something that turns that switch within and pushes an expectation level because of what has been achieved previously.
Again imagine walking into the hallway of Christchurch HQ and seeing cups and trophies donning the shelves and then doing the same walk in Welly or Dunners.
Now such ‘inspiration’ is a two edged sword where a player comes in and just expects it to happen because they have the red n black on and that’s not good.
But I think the evidence of success suggests that many a player (not all) has bought into it. Now this stuff can’t be proved or may not make much logical sense, but having spoken to past players and coaches, they have talked about these intangibles.
-
@rancid-schnitzel won lots, innit.
-
I'm not saying this is the whole story at all, because they clearly have excellent management, great coaching (and pathways for good coaches), and a fantastic culture, but the NZRFU and the system within which they work also essentially keeps them clear of the field, because there is no effective salary cap operating which prevents them from gaining, and then keeping the best talent. At one point they had probably the five best players in the country (Carter, McCaw, Read, Whitelock, Franks) plus a bunch of others (Dagg, Romano, Ellis, Crotty, Crockett) and there was no financial pressure that then prevented them from being able to sign up the younger talent to play behind them (Slade, Taylor, Moody, Todd, Laulala). Some of these they did develop of course, but my point is only that the current system allows teams to store talent. The only time that another team was on top was when the blues had their past talent (same story) and for a couple of years when the Chiefs and Canes got lucky enough to have some battlers and a few Superstars to be able to compete.
Again, I don't think it's the whole story at all, but because they don't have to really make hard choices about keeping high paid players or developing/bringing in new ones, they are now naturally advantaged. NZ rugby will foot the bill, and I'm fine with that as I'll choose the ABs winning over the Chiefs (luckily), but its worth noting that the game is ever so slightly rigged.
It is now turning the Blues way as they've developed some talent and are now becoming a destination - Laulala is a great example of this, as he's essentially signed to be the back-up there, but because most of his salary comes from the NZRFU, it doesn't matter, and we would rather he switch out with Ofa than go overseas. -
@mariner4life said in The Crusaders and their success:
@toddy said in The Crusaders and their success:
They've been lucky enough to have some absolute gun 1st 5's through their times as champions (Mehrts, Carter and now Mo'unga). You still need a good team to win a title but a world class 1st five is probably your first wish as a coach.
There's a bit in that. As a country we don't produce too many really good ones, and thr other sides have lost theirs early every bloody time. Right back to Nick Evans.
Define “really good”? Because since about 95 we’ve been consistently decent in that position.
-
The clear theme from this thread is that quality administration and organisational health is the key to success.
Yet people focus completely on the short term, sugar hits of a star signing. That usually doesn't deliver what you think ... but keeps fans happy and the coach from being sacked for another year.
-
There are more than a few examples in different sports where teams have had similar success parlaying an initial golden era (or recruitment advantage) in a competition with a highly restrictive transfer system; the Montreal Canadiens of the 1950-1970s, the Auckland teams of the 1980s, Brisbane Broncos first two decades, many college programs in various sports etc.
@gt12 hit the nail on the head re: stockpiling talent. Having Tew as CEO for so long was certainly helpful, sabbaticals were always offered to Crusaders talent when needed and they allowed Ta$man to be run as an effective halfway house for Crusaders contracts under the catchment system.
All the positive things that have been said are true - but it's hardly been a jungle out there either. You almost have to give them credit though when you have had the other four franchises giving them demonstrations on new and novel ways to shoot yourself in the foot they have always just kept going about their business.
-
I have mentioned the same point as @gt12 in the threads about SR parity and how a proper salary cap could work but obviously NZR aren't interested. As long as NZR have different tiers to a players contract (international, SR, provincial) nothing will change. I'd prefer to increase the salary cap for the SR rugby teams so that becomes the majority of a player's salary, like the NRL, football, etc, and what you are paid is reflective of your quality and importance to your team. At the moment the maximum salary for a SR player is $195K but an established AB won't be too bothered taking a lower SR contract if they are receiving $500K+ extra as an AB (refer to the Laulala example). NZR prefers the top down approach which is designed to keep the best players in NZ, but makes the SR team salary cap largely irrelevant.
-
@gt12 said in The Crusaders and their success:
I'm not saying this is the whole story at all, because they clearly have excellent management, great coaching (and pathways for good coaches), and a fantastic culture, but the NZRFU and the system within which they work also essentially keeps them clear of the field, because there is no effective salary cap operating which prevents them from gaining, and then keeping the best talent. At one point they had probably the five best players in the country (Carter, McCaw, Read, Whitelock, Franks) plus a bunch of others (Dagg, Romano, Ellis, Crotty, Crockett) and there was no financial pressure that then prevented them from being able to sign up the younger talent to play behind them (Slade, Taylor, Moody, Todd, Laulala). Some of these they did develop of course, but my point is only that the current system allows teams to store talent.
I think they developed all of these players? Weren't they all in the Crusaders academy?
Anyway, I think there's a major difference between some star teams in the NH or other codes, and the Crusaders, which justifies the difference in salary cap IMO.
If you look at NH teams, they buy stars. The Crusaders don't recruit stars, they recruit potential and the majority of their stars have come through their academy and have been developed into stars by the Crusaders. I may be misinterpreting comments, but calling it "stockpiling" talent sounds a bit cynical. Most talent has come through their system, are loyal and want to stay. If you would change a team's salary cap, you'd "punish" a franchise for good talent identification and development. They'd have to part ways with talent that they've made into stars. That would be ridiculous and discourage all that investment in talent and development, and that in itself would in the end hurt NZ rugby. You'd also force players to play somewhere else, at a franchise where they don't want to play. That might be a reason for them to go overseas instead, and achieve the total opposite of what was intended.
Ask yourself how many players have the Crusaders recruited that were already successful at SR level the last few years? How many All Blacks? They don't have a Tyrel Lomax, who was already an AB when he moved to the Canes. No Nepo Laulala, who first moved from the Crusaders to the Chiefs (as an AB) and then to the Blues. They definitely didn't recruit a Beauden Barrett. To the contrary, Michael Ala'alatoa got one cap in two years at the Tahs; Bryn Hall got more caps, but wasn't that successful at the Blues; Whetu Douglas and Sevu Reece (for different reasons) weren't even wanted by the Chiefs. George Bower and Andrew Makalio didn't even make a SR team before they were signed by the Crusaders. Alaalatoa is now a test player, Reece an AB, Bower in the AB frame, Hall got close.
@rotated said in The Crusaders and their success:
@gt12 hit the nail on the head re: stockpiling talent. Having Tew as CEO for so long was certainly helpful, sabbaticals were always offered to Crusaders talent when needed and they allowed Ta$man to be run as an effective halfway house for Crusaders contracts under the catchment system.
Sabbaticals are also offered to talent at other franchises.
The Crusaders have been smart enough to establish part of their academy in Ta$man. I'd hardly call Ta$man a halfway house for Crusaders. The Hurricanes could have established a second academy in Hawke's Bay, but considering they hardly recognise the players in their catchment but from outside Wellington, it's no surprise they haven't thought about that. The Canes could be way more successful than they are, especially with Wellington rugby on the decline the last few years. The Chiefs could have a second academy in BOP or Taranaki. The Blues may not need a second academy, because they're based in a much more densely populated catchment and have the talent right at their doorstep. The Highlanders' player pool is probably too small for 2 academies.
I guess the point I'm trying to make - in far too many words - is that IMO the current salary cap and NZR system isn't responsible for the Crusaders gaining or holding on to their talent. I'd say, it's exactly their excellent management, great coaching and culture.
-
-
@dogmeat said in The Crusaders and their success:
Is everyone overlooking feral support and lack of anything else to do in Christchurch?
i lived in chch for a long time and hardly never met people outside the ground that were active supporters, it was really weird, you'd go all week and not hear anyone talk about a game and then rock up to the ground and there they were
in saying that there were plenty of time the ground had very few people there
@nzzp said in The Crusaders and their success:
The clear theme from this thread is that quality administration and organisational health is the key to success.
Yet people focus completely on the short term, sugar hits of a star signing. That usually doesn't deliver what you think ... but keeps fans happy and the coach from being sacked for another year.
i think for me its because these seasons seem so short, lots of people dont see there is time to rebuilt, even in the super15 days you lose 4-5 and your written off, even more so now, its not like football with 40 games in a season plus club comps
-
@stargazer said in The Crusaders and their success:
I guess the point I'm trying to make - in far too many words - is that IMO the current salary cap and NZR system isn't responsible for the Crusaders gaining or holding on to their talent. I'd say, it's exactly their excellent management, great coaching and culture.
There's a big difference between developing talent and holding on to talent.
The salary cap/NZR system has allowed Crusaders to have All Blacks coming off the bench - the same is now happening for the Blues.
-
Exactly.
It's a credit to them that they are a destination for players, and it seems that the blues are now on their way to being the second destination for talent, which is a testament to some good coach/back office recruiting. For the competition, it is a bit of a weakness though, as the current system does allow teams to stockpile talent without any penalty.
