Why do the Crusaders win?
-
@MajorRage said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Excellent idea for a thread. What do the Crusaders do that others simply cannot replicate?
I think it's brains myself. I think they are logical in their recruiting to ensure they always have a high level of smart players in their core group.
This. One of the most important attributes for a good rugby player - any sportsperson really - is the ability consistently to make good decisions. The Crusaders currently have more players with this attribute than any other Super Rugby franchise. The clarity around their game plan and their individual roles within it further makes it easy for all of their players to consistently make good decisions.
-
@junior said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@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.
And it’s interesting that during that era we had Brad Thorn who many thought was an undersized lock. But he was surprisingly athletic and mobile given his league background, but more importantly we had superb lifters. Add Whitelock and Kaino and Read and it was a world class lineup of lineout options. Even McCaw would feature in there.
-
Add in Aaron Smith's pass meant we were happy to take 2-ball as we could still attack from it.
-
The Crusaders dynasty was definitely starting to fall away under Blackadder even though they still had an AB laden team. I thought after greats like McCaw and Carter etc retired that they would be way back in the pack for quite a few years. Then Robertson took over and reversed that slide and has extended their dynasty way beyond what it should have gone for despite their weakened roster and their opposition rosters getting much stronger.
I firmly believe that if Robertson didn't take over they wouldn't have had even a quarter of the success they have had recently. He's obviously a really smart coach with deep understanding of the game - that much is self evident. But it's the soft skills that he also brings to the table which make him the complete package. It's one thing to come up with smart game plans to target opposition weaknesses etc, but it's quite another to get the entire squad to so thoroughly buy into those game plans that even when things don't go well, they rarely waver from it. He has every person in that organisation signing from the same song sheet, and that's no mean feat.
I think the ABs really missed a trick not giving him a crack. We actually had nothing to lose, we've been on the slide since 2015 and we needed someone to come in and try to reverse that as soon as possible. But instead we went for "continuity" with a guy that has no proven track record of success at the professional level, which just boggles my mind to this day. And as a result we've continued that same slide with further losses to NH sides as well as bloody Argentina.
Crusaders fans should relish having him in charge, they have one if the best coaches in the world sticking around for an extended run in SR instead of taking big money up north.
-
@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.
That little fella that plays for the Highlanders
-
@Tim said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Another question:
What over the last four years have been the organizational differences between the Crusaders and Canterbury?
The NZ contracting model means that they can stash All Blacks on top of All Blacks (e.g., Moody, Bower; Reece, Bridge, Ennor, Havili, Jordan) without any financial penalty, but I think that's been mentioned, so I'll add:
To what extent has having two integrated NPC sides and one academy helped the Crusaders during the last 8 years?
The Ta$man money XV used to be from all over, but now they are a stashing ground for Saders talent.
I think there are many many factors that make them the benchmark, which they 100% are. Organization, coaching, and talent. Most on here argued at the start of the year that the Saders had the best talent, and they showed that once they had them all healthy and playing at the end of the year - especially as they didn't select a 1st 5 on the bench but loaded up with ABs.
That does indicate that in the next next 18-24 months they'll have to develop some new game drivers or come back to the pack, but as long as they can get most of their minutes in the spine from Taylor, Whitelock, Mo'unga, Havili/Goodhue, Jordan, they will be very very dangerous.
-
-
@FakatavaAllBlack he had a very good season last year but his form like a few others on the fringe has fallen off a cliff in 2022.
-
This post is deleted!
-
@mariner4life said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@nzzp said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
they dynasty will end.
will it though?
25 fucking years of this now.
13 titles. 4 other finals.
5 other times to the postseason.they've just won 5 fucking straight.
They are the Storm but worse!
*6 straight
-
They seem have an amazing team culture with great buy-in to the Head Coach's vision from the players and staff and fantastic support for the coaching staff from the administators and the supporters. Razor does a great job of keeping his playing squad happy and focussed without appeasing egos or letting arrogance creep in.
-
@Tim said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Another question:
What over the last four years have been the organizational differences between the Crusaders and Canterbury?
They initially benefitted from intergrating Canterbury + Crusaders (remember you used to have to play for both to get a contract). Now they are using Ta$man a lot more for that - evolving with the change.
The separation of NPC and Super hurt them, but it's a slow burn; takes time to really play through.
-
This is a fascinating thread.
It’s striking how few coaches and senior management they’ve had over the last quarter century. Just three CEOs and 5 head coaches. I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that all their coaches played for Canterbury/Crusaders: they understand Crusaders rugby.
It’s probably impossible to replicate having Steve Tew as your first CEO or to find another Wayne Smith and Robbie Deans to step in as Head Coach and Manager to help build the culture and systems that will be the foundation of a dynasty.
It’s probably also impossible to replicate the financial/player contracting advantages the Crusader’s seem to have enjoyed under the franchise system.
But even if you could do all that, you’re going to struggle to replace Mehrtens with Carter and then to replace him with Mo’unga.
-
Pretty simple:
Excellent coach
Very good and experienced players in key positions.Sam Whitelock bested farking Victor Matlock in a RWC semifinal, so it was a layup for him to annihilate Goodhue the lesser and someone with red hair.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Sam Whitelock bested farking Victor Matlock in a RWC semifinal, so it was a layup for him to annihilate Goodhue the lesser and someone with red hair.
Whitelock was immense.
I'm still puzzled by how he did so well vs the Bokke (Matfield was a spent force) in 2015, but had the sliding doors moment against 'punchable face' Owen Farrell in 2019. Cost us the chance to get back into the game.
-
@nzzp said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@Rancid-Schnitzel said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Sam Whitelock bested farking Victor Matlock in a RWC semifinal, so it was a layup for him to annihilate Goodhue the lesser and someone with red hair.
Whitelock was immense.
I'm still puzzled by how he did so well vs the Bokke (Matfield was a spent force) in 2015, but had the sliding doors moment against 'punchable face' Owen Farrell in 2019. Cost us the chance to get back into the game.
Yeah, we deserved to lose that game, but that was a very decisive moment.
-
@Rancid-Schnitzel Not the only decisive moment. There were a quite few. For me personally, my hopes went out the window as soon as scatter-brain Jodie Barrett comes on and tries to run it out of the 22 with no support. (He is a vastly different player now before anyone starts bleating).
-
@Smuts said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
It’s striking how few coaches and senior management they’ve had over the last quarter century. Just three CEOs and 5 head coaches. I also don’t think it’s a coincidence that all their coaches played for Canterbury/Crusaders: they understand Crusaders rugby.
Bingo - alignment of the back office right through to selection, coaching, and playing group. "Culture" is the term used, but really it is down to good planning.
Even when they've had guys who are stars and can't seem to be replaced, they don't get wholesale change like some franchises. The organisation as a whole understand that you need to ensure continuity of the team's value, and not just rely on stars. Like the ABs when they could bring in a talented youth player in a safe environment and let them grow into it. There is enough contingency to let the excellence flow.
What is most impressive to me: they don't seem to acquire many duds and then discard them. By the time you've made the bench, they know who you are and whether you're going to make it.
-
@NTA said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Even when they've had guys who are stars and can't seem to be replaced, they don't get wholesale change like some franchises. The organisation as a whole sunderstand that you need to ensure continuity of the team's value, and not just rely on stars. Like the ABs when they could bring in a talented youth player in a safe environment and let them grow into it. There is enough contingency to let the excellence flow.
What is most impressive to me: they don't seem to acquire many duds and then discard them. By the time you've made the bench, they know who you are and whether you're going to make it.
@Smuts post mentioned Mertz -> Carter -> Mo’unga, and those three have been immense. But to your point, during that period we had Aaron Mauger, Cameron McIntyre, Stephen Brett, Tyler Bleyandaal, Ben Volavola, Mitch Hunt, Brett Cameron all play 1st 5 at some point. The system does matter.
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
@NTA said in Why do the Crusaders win?:
Even when they've had guys who are stars and can't seem to be replaced, they don't get wholesale change like some franchises. The organisation as a whole sunderstand that you need to ensure continuity of the team's value, and not just rely on stars. Like the ABs when they could bring in a talented youth player in a safe environment and let them grow into it. There is enough contingency to let the excellence flow.
What is most impressive to me: they don't seem to acquire many duds and then discard them. By the time you've made the bench, they know who you are and whether you're going to make it.
@Smuts post mentioned Mertz -> Carter -> Mo’unga, and those three have been immense. But to your point, during that period we had Aaron Mauger, Cameron McIntyre, Stephen Brett, Tyler Bleyandaal, Ben Volavola, Mitch Hunt, Brett Cameron all play 1st 5 at some point. The system does matter.
oh my heart fucking bleeds...
