Why do the Crusaders win?
-
@mariner4life Not buying that argument. The Blues struggled against the Brumbies; the Crusaders didn't.
-
and lets not overdo that the final was some huge upset. The Crusaders lost 3 times all season. With margins of 3 points, 4 points and 3 points
Their for-and-against was better than the Blues
They are a good team, with skill and experience in the main spots, and they are settled. Conditions on the night helped them more than their opposition, and for all that, the last try was flukey as fuck.
Deserved winners? absolutely? Some sort of mythical approach? Not so sure. Just a bloody good side.
-
@Stargazer said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@mariner4life Not buying that argument. The Blues struggled against the Brumbies; the Crusaders didn't.
with all due respect, your opinion on all things Crusaders is less than neutral.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@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.
-
they definitely put in the work and always have done, there is definitely a certain amount of self propagating now, because crusaders of the past put in the work the organisation as a whole is more attractive for new players....which then gives them a better chance of winning...and building to the dynasty...and so on
i mean how often have we made comments about the saders bench being stronger than a lots of teams starting XV
this could be completely wrong...but it feels like they dont have huge injury crisis', they must look after their player very well
-
@Stargazer said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
you're honestly going to sit here and say the Chiefs were a tougher proposition than the Brumbies in a semi final?
Mod edit: Have removed the response from Stargazer. Less personal abuse please.
-
@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.
