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 Ta$man 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.
-
-
@dogmeat they still weren't bottom of the pack though...just joined the rest of us
-
@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
-
-
@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
