Why do the Crusaders win?
After making a comment in the final match thread about the Crusaders way of approaching the comp I thought about it a bit and it might deserve further discussion.
While it is all very well stating the obvious things about talent in players and coaches and finals experience, those things are often self perpetuating and simply support the overall setup and plan.
I believe that the Crusaders 'dynasty' continues because they go into each season with a plan different to the teams trying to overcome them. While others seem to also recruit, get good coaches, plan a style, cover for injuries etc etc they also seem to take each game as it comes and try their best as a series of single games.
The Crusaders however run the season with unfailing confidence that they will be there at the pointy end. Winning streaks don't matter nor do pool game rivalries (except when used for confidence boosters). They simply know that with their underlying strengths they will be around for the couple of games that matter and everything leading up to those games is 'training'.
They went into the weekend's final knowing that they had been analysing and coming up with plans for a number of weeks once the likely opposition had been whittled down. I would say they had plans sketched up for Blues, Brumbies, Chiefs and Canes and had been fine tuning and discarding them as necessary. None of this 'we are glad to be here and will do our best' stuff. Every player and their understudy would have had their lines written for them and their skills fine-tuned from weeks out.
They slowly built into their defensive structures, only going full tilt at the semi then added another dimension for the final.
It's a full season strategy with tactics that build to an end point. There's no risk of running out of steam or being surprised and can be built on year by year as other teams keep trying to find new players, gel new teams, work on last seasons exploited weakness etc.
It would be really interesting to see if and how this would translate to the very different world of test rugby.
@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.
@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 culture
I 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
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...
@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
Maurice Walton Trapp (Coach) | New Zealand Rugby History
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 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.
@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.