The Crusaders and their success
-
This will be more in thr nature of a philosophical discussion, because none of us will have the real answers but
The Crusaders are the benchmark of super rugby. And they have been for more than 20 years. Their excellence in this competition will never be matched. Their side consistently turns put competitive to dominant. We are up to now what, the 4th iteration of a good Crusaders side?
In that times the other kiwi sides have had their fleeting time in the sun, but the road to the title still normally goes through Christchurch, and the status quo normally reverts in year or so.
We can all guess what their competitive advantage really is, but my main question is
Why can the other sides not replicate it? Why are they consistently behind every bloody year?
The Crusaders don't have more budget (the usual road to dominance), they don't have more players to choose from, it's not down to a core of generational talent. So it must be able to be replicated. Why is it not?
The NZ rugby community is too small for the process to remain a secret. Crusaders players end up.coaches everywhere. So why do the other 3 sides never develop consistent levels of performance and talent?
One thought that crossed my kind is, the difference looks less stark when you get to spend half the season beating up on Aus and SA teams, and still play finals. Where organisations blinded to what was really required by perceived success?
-
Similar to the All Blacks? It is a champion team, not a team of champions.
-
@old-samurai-jack said in The Crusaders and their success:
Similar to the All Blacks? It is a champion team, not a team of champions.
Well actually the ABs are generally a tram of champions who also play like a champion team. The last couple of years not so much.
But the AB success actually adds to the question. Our national set up is geared to making the ABs great. So why is one part in a national strategy so much better?
-
@mariner4life said in The Crusaders and their success:
The NZ rugby community is too small for the process to remain a secret. Crusaders players end up.coaches everywhere. So why do the other 3 sides never develop consistent levels of performance and talent?
My short take on this is quality administration and structures, a longer view of success and a single focus (historically only one major feeder union). Having generational talents didn't hurt either (Dan, Richie).
Wayne Smith got them there initially, and set some foundations for the organisation. That's just been polished and refined over the years I reckon.
Personally, I don't think the stars are that much better than elsewhere. What you have is clarity of purpose in the coaching and roles people play, and then (and this is the key edge I think) a cast of support players that are better than elsewhere. Players will follow possible success - so being squad members ranked 26-35 in Chc has way more upside than doing that in Wellington or Auckland.
One of the reasons I"m so bullish about the medium term success of the Blues is that we've put in place a competent administration (tick) that has reasonable talent scouting (tick) and has aligned and invested in the component unions (tick). None of that was there 4 years ago. Now you can see a future with a stream of talent coming out, and players wanting to play there. What you shouldn't see is players like Benji signed for the Blues as a 'hope for a miracle'.
So, to me, the whole thing starts and finishes with competent off field activities. All teh good stuff on the field rolls out of that. Although I'm hoping for a blue dynasty soon ...
-
@mariner4life said in The Crusaders and their success:
The Crusaders don't have more budget (the usual road to dominance), they don't have more players to choose from, it's not down to a core of generational talent. So it must be able to be replicated. Why is it not?
i think originally it was, or at least partially, apart from the first year chch just had this great team early on and then success begets success, people want to go and play for the best team, so when they couldn't develop a player in a certain position they could bring one in
and the once they had that sorted they built a great development system including working more with tasman to blood new players
-
i think its got a bit of the Americas Cup about it, the Saders have so many facets to their success now i think we'll need them to make a mistake to really be able to catch up
-
I think the early Crusaders success was built on their advantage of being a one team super franchise that sucked up players due to this as @nzzp notes.
However, I think that advantage has largely gone now (witness players like DMac and ALB leaving the region) and the current success is mostly down to the coaching staff. Robertson has done what Rennie did in that he's elevated the performances of players who aren't superstars.
To @mariner4life's question about replication, we know it's not fully the "culture" B/S, there are too many Crusader style coaches out there that have been abysmal failures, in fact Rangi and Razor are the two that seem to be the exception. You need the class players to build that "culture" around.
I also think that the way Super rugby goes in NZ there's always one shit team (currently Chiefs, has been Highlanders/Blues, previously Chiefs etc), two good teams, and two better than the rest - the Crusaders are always in that top two while the other spot changes around - and you have to give them credit for that. I still hate them like they're a red headed step son though.
-
Don't forget Crusaders went nine years without a title, so they still show that everything has to align on and off the pitch to enjoy success.
Good players, depth, coaching, administration. Fail in any area and you are pretty much fucked.
-
@dogmeat they still weren't bottom of the pack though...just joined the rest of us
-
@dogmeat how many GFs did they play and lose by a whisker? As many as thr Chiefs have made in their history probably.
-
@kiwiwomble coz they only failed in one area. All the other Kiwi franchises usually aspire to only fail in one area....
-
There has always been overlap between Crusaders coaches.
It's essentially one system that has been alterered/improved over time.
Set up by Wayne Smith, taken over by Robbie Deans (who was assistant under Wayne Smith), taken over by Todd Blackadder (who played under both), taken over by Razor (who played under the first 2 and alongside Toddy).
Ditto for the assistant coaches (too many to name).
Of course even with a system you have a range of coaches - Blackadder is not at the same level of the other three coaches (though still made 2 finals and almost won both) and Razor is a serious step up from Toddy by being arguably the most impressive Super coach of all time.
You saw a mini version of this sort of overlap with the Brumbies - Rod Macqueen set up the system (final 97) and Eddie Jones (01 Super title) and Nucifora (04 Super title) carried this on but that was different as it was essentially the same era of players the whole time (Gregan, Larkham, Roff etc) and there was that whole falling out with Nucifora.
Of course the Crusaders is bigger than just coaching - it's a whole system - whoever is coach knows the type of game they want to play and recruits accordingly. All the players learn the system and they all fit in seamlessly.
-
I think we have been lucky in our coaching talent good timing we had Wayne Smith and Robbie Deans who was a staunch believer and enforcer of what the Crusaders were born from.
Now Razor is able to motivate players year after year to keep wanting to add the Crusader legacy.
That fall off during Todd Blackadder reign was due to the players lacking motivation.
There are a lot of smart things the Crusaders ethos is built on which Razor keeps adding too.
Rangi has brought some of it to the Blues and wrapped it within the Culture that suits them.
Blues are doing a hell of a lot of things right now.They will win a few titles over the next few years and we will see a massive new rivalry between these 2 teams.
As a Crusaders fan that prospect really excites me going forward.
A lack of depth is a problem for the other 3 teams as we have dropped off in producing players in certain positions. -
i know Blackadder isn;t the same level as the others...but i did feel a bit sorry for him, got to the final in that 2011 season, after the earthquakes and basically having the whole season away from home, i now he was given a good run after that and all but we'd have a bronze statue for a coach that got us to two finals
-
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.
-
@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.
-
they also seems to keep hold of players and those players have long careers
they have 17 players with over 100 caps, we only have 7, blues have 6, couldn't see the others easily
-
@kiwiwomble said in The Crusaders and their success:
they also seems to keep hold of players and those players have long careers
they have 17 players with over 100 caps, we only have 7, blues have 6, couldn't see the others easily
The only way you can do that is to produce core AB players because they make enough to stick around
-
@mariner4life and how do you make AB's other than the odd freak of tallent, have a champion team, success beget success
-
@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.
Crusaders have earned the time to develop them, too. Carter started at 12. Mo'unga served an apprenticeship.
others at other franchisees (Nick Evans) got asked to rescue a failing franchise, and just got thrown in the deep end
-
@nzzp Evans also wanted to play 10 at all costs, even if it meant trying to overtake DC, where we were most in need was at 15, i honestly think if he'd concentrated at 15 and covered 10 he could have had a long career in NZ
-
@kiwiwomble said in The Crusaders and their success:
@nzzp Evans also wanted to play 10 at all costs, even if it meant trying to overtake DC, where we were most in need was at 15, i honestly think if he'd concentrated at 15 and covered 10 he could have had a long career in NZ
ha ha, Blues wound up playing him at 15.
/shakes head
We had no clue. Tried Toeava at 10, everyone got a go. You don't get quality 10s by chopping and changing.
-
@nzzp thats after him concentrating on 10 in duners for 3-4 years, too late then. I always rated his boot and running game over his distribution so felt early on he looked better at 15
-
@nzzp said in The Crusaders and their success:
ha ha, Blues wound up playing him at 15.
I don't have a problem with that. Evans wasn't playing well for the Blues but Nacewa was. The problem was that both decided to leave leave NZ rugby at the same time.
That left the Blues with players like Lachie Munro who wasn't good enough for SR -
@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.
they still showed ability and discernment to pick and refine these gun 10s (looks sideways at Blues)..
-
@nzzp said in The Crusaders and their success:
Tried Toeava at 10,
I thought Ice played well at 10 overseas?
-
@nzzp said in The Crusaders and their success:
@kiwiwomble said in The Crusaders and their success:
@nzzp Evans also wanted to play 10 at all costs, even if it meant trying to overtake DC, where we were most in need was at 15, i honestly think if he'd concentrated at 15 and covered 10 he could have had a long career in NZ
ha ha, Blues wound up playing him at 15.
/shakes head
We had no clue. Tried Toeava at 10, everyone got a go. You don't get quality 10s by chopping and changing.
What, not even by chopping and changing ... and poaching? (New Blues management strategy)..
-
@nostrildamus said in The Crusaders and their success:
What, not even by chopping and changing ... and poaching? (New Blues management strategy)..
Poaching in NZR is having a better environment. The Crusaders have been doing it for years. Just now the success is showing in teh Blues at last - picking up players who want to go there, rather than have no option but to go there.
Darry
Hunt
Laulalathose a big offseason signings. It's like I said above - getting quality into the players ranked 25-35 in the squad makes a difference. How often have the Crusaders and ABs won games in the last 20 minutes? Depth of squad, quality of bench.
-
Just to clarify the Blues 2008 season
Evans played 12 out of 13 games.
8 were at 10, 4 were at fullback. He had a decent shot at the 10 jersey but did not play well.Nacewa had injuries and only played 8 games.
4 at 10, 4 at fullbackToeava played every game usually starting in the midfield. He played a game at 10 (his only SR game in that position) Probably when Nacewa was injured?
-
I've been watching and occasionally interacting with Ben Darwin on twitter on this sort of thing. He runs an outfit (Gain Line Analytics) that does organisation-based statistics, and this is his pinned tweet:
This stuck with me in reference to the wider level of an organisation, with relation to a discussion a couple of weeks back on the demise of the Tahs:
There is also a significant correlation between success and squad time together on the park according to some of his other stuff.
I think all these things point to why the Crusaders continue to succeed, along with my own belief that they resemble the Brumbies to a degree in that their feeder pathways are narrow. Contrast that to the Blues or Tahs who, despite being the big boys in the room in terms of numbers, continue to underperform.
Their successful teams over the years have changed glacially; long termers in key positions with a few parts swapped out here and there. No dickheads policy seems to rule the roost, while their back office are focused on success.
And when you're successful, you've got your pick of the players who aspire to play through to the highest level.
-
This is early days, but we can see the difference in the Blues, with the off field staff getting sorted out.
New board, new CEO, new coaches (that do the talent spotting), better facilities to train, effort put into club relationships with the franchise.
When the Blues were a basketcase in all those areas, it filtered down to the players, and effected the ability to attract new talent. Poor selections at coach (Kirwan and Tana) by a starstruck fanboy board just set the ceiling really low.
So it's not one answer for the Cantabs, but they clearly have the off field side of things very organised.
-
I mentioned a couple of times that I've been reading a series of Terry McLean's books. I'm currently reading about the 1959 Lions tour. McLean writes:
"What a remarkable record Canterbury has against overseas teams! The Lions were the 20th of 30 overseas visiting teams to be beaten by the province."
In another book he wrote about Canterbury being a maverick province, which didn't get anyone on the AB selection panel for more than a decade.
I was going to say (as I've said before) that a decent chunk of the road leads back to Grizz Wyllie and the Glenmark Club. But, probably some of the philosophy pre-dates Wyllie. But, it's somewhat around hard, abrasive rugby - especially having a dominant forward pack.
Toddy Blackadder took this to an extreme where he barely seemed to bother with having decent backs outside No. 10. At least he didn't allocate much budget to it.
-
@chris-b said in The Crusaders and their success:
But, it's somewhat around hard, abrasive rugby - especially having a dominant forward pack.
pffft, just sign an aging fly half from league. Guaranteed title success
-
@nzzp I think that's a notable part of Leon's strategy. He didn't think, "Good enough" - he went out and signed Nepo Laulala to give the Blues four test props.
Still some chinks in the locks and hookers - and further in the inside backs, but the Blues are clearly a strong team now and can match the Crusaders.
-
It’s interesting to note that their first 3 wins were upsets and all played away from home. They weren’t the best team in any of those years but that established a winning culture that continued on from there. It also helped that some astonishing talent (McCaw, Carter and Mauger)came in at the perfect time after the miserable 2001 season. Now it’s just an unstoppable machine. I’m in absolute awe of what they have achieved. It seems everything from
recruitment to culture is absolutely world class.It also helps that they sabotage other teams with their coaching rejects 🎣
-
@rancid-schnitzel said in The Crusaders and their success:
It’s interesting to note that their first 3 wins were upsets and all played away from home.
Blues were robbed in 98; ref swallowed his whistle for a PT in the scrum
-
One of the biggest factors in the recent success is the academy program. The fact these guys get to train as almost professional athletes. Unless they are an absolute superstar like Cullen Grace then they are not rushed. These kids train so hard in their first 2-3 years in the system that their fitness levels are crazy. Aaron Webb is one of the most important people at the crusaders.
Be interesting to see who goes further out of Aidan Morgan or Ollie Lewis. Both the nz schools 10s from 2019. One already played mitre 10 cup and in hurricanes. The other played colts for Sumner and a few games of div 1. -
@nzzp it was tongue in cheek.
Basically, the Blues IMO have hired a better coach and improved their board. They always had sizzling backs and big forwards. Still a little weak at 9 and 10 imo. -
@chris-b said in The Crusaders and their success:
I mentioned a couple of times that I've been reading a series of Terry McLean's books. I'm currently reading about the 1959 Lions tour. McLean writes:
"What a remarkable record Canterbury has against overseas teams! The Lions were the 20th of 30 overseas visiting teams to be beaten by the province."
In another book he wrote about Canterbury being a maverick province, which didn't get anyone on the AB selection panel for more than a decade.
I was going to say (as I've said before) that a decent chunk of the road leads back to Grizz Wyllie and the Glenmark Club. But, probably some of the philosophy pre-dates Wyllie. But, it's somewhat around hard, abrasive rugby - especially having a dominant forward pack.
Toddy Blackadder took this to an extreme where he barely seemed to bother with having decent backs outside No. 10. At least he didn't allocate much budget to it.
So SBW was crap AND cheap?
-
@nostrildamus said in The Crusaders and their success:
@nzzp it was tongue in cheek.
Basically, the Blues IMO have hired a better coach and improved their board. They always had sizzling backs and big forwards. Still a little weak at 9 and 10 imo.I'm banging the same drum as ever ... the board led all the good changes.
In hindsight, Pat Lam was a decent enough coach. JK adn Tana - poor choices by a poor board. Fantastic human beings, but not great coaches. Kind of the example - hoping for a miracle, not expecting solid performance.
Leon can't do what he's done with a dysfunctional organisation. The front of house enables the team to perfrom to their potential
