Cornell 2019

[laxjuris]

New 2019 commit-- Ben Reilly, A, previously committed to Rutgers.

http://www.maxpreps.com/athlete/ben-rei ... a08a9f5580

He certainly has nice size and shows some good skills. Looks like a kid who can contribute at some point.

[BigRedBlueJay]

Seems to me the shutoff is the #1 issue facing the Big Red. I certainly can’t think of anything that comes close. Teat is such a talent. He takes us from very good to great. The shutoff – full or partial—dramatically and negatively affected our results. Straight up we defeated and outplayed the 2019 National Championship team. I certainly don’t have the answer but I do know that ignoring it is not a strategy. We should probably work on it most every day in practice. We should become very good at it as a team….and perhaps use it selectively against other teams. I guess there are 5 or 6 strategies that have been employed to combat it. Let’s practice against all of those and come up with some new shut off strategies and work against those as well.

[DMac]

Playing the face/shut off game is a chickens**t way to play lacrosse, IMO. I get it that coaches objective is the W, but I don't like that the W outweighs the spirit of the game, and the way it is intended to be played. D men need to up their game v Teat...who is indeed a talent and a force. Mellen covered Teat in their first meeting v Cuse last year and Teat went 2-3...and all assists are not created equal, some are nothing more than a regular, ordinary, every day, pass.
It their second meeting Desko played the chickens**t game and had Mellen face guard him. Was completely unnecessary as was evident when Teat was able to touch the ball. Teat was 0-1 on that day and I believe Mellen could have played him straight up and not taken himself out of the game....was a one goal game. If Mellen is more involved in the game maybe he comes up with one more strip, one more ground ball. I don't think it's a smart move to take take your best D man out the game like that. We'll see what coaches opt to do v Teat this year, but I hope they stop playing the c.........t game.

[MDlaxfan76]

Playing the face/shut off game is a chickens**t way to play lacrosse, IMO. I get it that coaches objective is the W, but I don't like that the W outweighs the spirit of the game, and the way it is intended to be played. D men need to up their game v Teat...who is indeed a talent and a force. Mellen covered Teat in their first meeting v Cuse last year and Teat went 2-3...and all assists are not created equal, some are nothing more than a regular, ordinary, every day, pass.
It their second meeting Desko played the chickens**t game and had Mellen face guard him. Was completely unnecessary as was evident when Teat was able to touch the ball. Teat was 0-1 on that day and I believe Mellen could have played him straight up and not taken himself out of the game....was a one goal game. If Mellen is more involved in the game maybe he comes up with one more strip, one more ground ball. I don't think it's a smart move to take take your best D man out the game like that. We'll see what coaches opt to do v Teat this year, but I hope they stop playing the c.........t game.

Regardless of what we may think of a particular strategy and how it impacts the overall flow of a game (I agree with you), absent a rule change that prevents face guarding, teams should always be expected to employ whatever tactics give them the best chance of winning...within the rules.

It may tick us off when a team that is otherwise not likely or is incapable of winning without a particular strategy employs an unusual tactic, but take it to the Rules Committee.

Here's an example of such. Back in the 1970's Calvert Hall had a massive attack man Franz Wittlesberger who held the ball to his chest an entire game against a better Gilman team, winning a 2-1 upset as result. Hopkins employed the same strategy a couple of years later with the same attack man against a superior UVA team, and won. I guarantee you that the same word you were suggesting was used in both instances. The Rules were changed to prevent this tactic, after the Hopkins-UVA spectacle.

Face guarding has been attempted by lots of teams against the #1 player of an opponent, usually to limited success. Sometimes teams moved that player out of the way, except on inbounds plays, playing 5 on 5 with more space to maneuver. But that has limited appeal if the 5vs5 match-up isn't still in favor of the offense. That seems likely for CU, absent another player or two being dominating in their match-ups.

Others worked multiple pick situations that freed up the #1 player.

As the Rules Committee is unlikely to act right now on this issue, and unlikely will do so unless this threatens to be a widespread tactic, I think CU needs to expect to see this tactic every single game until they prove they can reliably defeat it.

As a lax fan, I sure hope we get to see Teat in full form!

[DMac]

Mellen too, that's a very nice match up. Both shifty, nifty, and effective with their sticks and feet. Taking those two out of the game is like going to the movie to see Sophia Loren but getting Moms Mabley instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4nc5GXC0Is

[FannOLax]

I agree fully with BigRedBlueJay. In my honest opinion, the eventual National Champions were flat that Sunday in Manhattan, with only Reeves and Warner playing up to their lofty standards... but full credit to the Big Red for playing a terrific game... and for giving Yale the slap in the face they needed.

[Gobigred]

In my honest opinion, the eventual National Champions were flat that Sunday in Manhattan, with only Reeves and Warner playing up to their lofty standards

This feeble excuse is pure nonsense...

[FannOLax]

Yes, you're absolutely right. Thank you for pointing out how my eyes so completely deceived me.

[CU77]

As a Cornell fan of 4+ decades, I agree that Yale was flat in the ILT title game. And IMO Shay didn't bother to faceguard JT51 because he was more interested in having his D play their usual style as further practice for the NCAAs.

Also IMO, this takes absolutely nothing away from Cornell's win. Yale's coaches made their decisions, and their players played as well as they were able for that game on that day.

[soristian]

Seems you're giving a little too much credit to Yale. Were they a little overconfident? Sure. Arrogant even? perhaps. Were they humbled? You bet.
That game did show in dramatic fashion that we were/are two very different teams with and without the shutoff.
The question now is how are we going to handle that reality.

[Ivyman]

The shutoff ...ignoring it is not a strategy.

What makes you think it's being ignored?

But that has limited appeal if the 5vs5 match-up isn't still in favor of the offense..

Right. As in:

I think a lot of those problems solve themselves if Connor Fletcher can improve his shot accuracy and force the defense to slide or come out of their zone (or other junk defense) to defend him. He's gottta be a beast and play the Dowiak role (or better yet Connor Buczek.) McCulloch up top with either either Licciardi or Lombardi and our ball movement with Colton Rupp and Petterson down low - who's gonna want to play 5 on 5 against THAT? Or 6 on 5 if we work some magic with the substitution box? I'm not at all worried. We got this.

[another fan]

The shutoff ...ignoring it is not a strategy.

What makes you think it's being ignored?

But that has limited appeal if the 5vs5 match-up isn't still in favor of the offense..

Right. As in:

I think a lot of those problems solve themselves if Connor Fletcher can improve his shot accuracy and force the defense to slide or come out of their zone (or other junk defense) to defend him. He's gottta be a beast and play the Dowiak role (or better yet Connor Buczek.) McCulloch up top with either either Licciardi or Lombardi and our ball movement with Colton Rupp and Petterson down low - who's gonna want to play 5 on 5 against THAT? Or 6 on 5 if we work some magic with the substitution box? I'm not at all worried. We got this.

I cannot really speak for BigRedBlueJay, but perhaps he was both looking back to last year's unsuccessful efforts to cope with the shut off, and looking forward, hoping we have new and different approaches. Last year, my recollection is that we began by essentially ignoring it, moving Teat (and his defender) out of play, and believing that our 5 would beat their 5-- that was a pretty unsuccessful strategy as we were a shadow of the team we had been with Teat completely involved. We did move on to trying to keep Teat more involved, but again with pretty limited success, and with the coach expressing the view that perhaps we were working too hard to force things to Teat. I think all of us are hoping that there will be multiple new approaches to keeping Teat involved, and otherwise taking advantage of defenses that employ face guarding, junk defenses, etc. Some of that is coaching, and a lot of it is also having the personnel to deal out the punishment for those defensive strategies or force the defenses out of those sets. Ivyman has named some candidates who he believes can create opportunities for themselves and others, create mismatches, cause slides and doubles, etc. Fletcher is obviously one, as he was one of our few who could consistently run by a defender. McCulloch is a great shooter, and based on the scrimmage highlights and the broadening of his game over the years, I also think his dodging has greatly improved. Petterson is a great player, but has been primarily a finisher and great complement to Teat. His carrying his Jr. A team in the Minto Cup in Teat's absence raises the possibility that he also can be a more diversified threat. I also think Telesco has the potential to become a major threat. Ward finally seems to have made the transition to midfield and brings lots of quickness and feeding ability. Donville has the speed, shot,and passing ability, but is somewhat limited by his one handedness. I've said this before, and it's unfair to expect too much from freshmen, but both Lombardi and Coyle have the speed and quickness to get separation and score themselves or feed. Anyway, we all seem to agree with our major challenge, and we all hope that our coaching and personnel are better able to overcome it than last year-- justifying Ivyman's confidence that we have it!

On a completely different note, here is a guy to look forward to-- see the Andrew Dalton highlight on the Edge twitter feed. His left hand is his dominant hand, but here's a game winning, one handed righty score:

https://twitter.com/EdgeLacrosse

[DMac]

That's a sweet shot. Have been saying for quite a few years now that I'm surprised lacrosse hasn't turned into more one of handed game. With the weight and balance of sticks these days (to say nothing of the "sick hold") passing and shooting with one hand is actually pretty easy.
On another note, I'd bet that kid is another righty (bet he throws a baseball and writes righty) who does everything else right handed except for lacrosse (am sure he can go right if needed but he's clearly lefty dominant) which I find to be quite odd. Typically righties can't do jack with their left, yet they do something that requires quite a bit of skill left handed. Pretty crazy...Gaits are right handed boys, but certainly lefty laxers. Never really been able to figure out why so many righties play lax, and hockey, left handed.
Anybody?

[faircornell]

That's a sweet shot. Have been saying for quite a few years now that I'm surprised lacrosse hasn't turned into more one of handed game. With the weight and balance of sticks these days (to say nothing of the "sick hold") passing and shooting with one hand is actually pretty easy.
On another note, I'd bet that kid is another righty (bet he throws a baseball and writes righty) who does everything else right handed except for lacrosse (am sure he can go right if needed but he's clearly lefty dominant) which I find to be quite odd. Typically righties can't do jack with their left, yet they do something that requires quite a bit of skill left handed. Pretty crazy...Gaits are right handed boys, but certainly lefty laxers. Never really been able to figure out why so many righties play lax, and hockey, left handed.
Anybody?

I'm a righty, and right handed in both hockey and lacrosse. My best guess has always been that some people like their dominant hand to control the close end of the stick, and some like to use their non-dominant hand as a "lever" and use their dominant hand as a guide at the far end of the stick. We'd need to hear from a right handed person who's a lefty. I've also noted that it is more common in Canadian players. My assumption with that has been the most US players are initially trained as baseball hitters, and, thus, approach the lacrosse stick right handed. All of the thoughts noted are pure speculation .

[MDlaxfan76]

I'll take a swing at that.

My son was clearly right handed out of the crib.

However, when he picked up a stick at age 3-4, he happened to do so left handedly.
Of course I recognized that was the case, but also knowing that players can learn to be strong both hands, and knowing the advantage that provides, I didn't 'correct' him. I also knew that most of us are right handed naturally, so a strong left hand is an advantage to getting on the field for a youngster who can do so. I suspect other parents who are former players have done the same.

In baseball and basketball, etc, he played as a righty, but lax he started out left and was comfortable thereafter.

So, he grew up predominantly with the stick in his left hand, though the right hand came relatively easy as well along the way. But stronger left. His stick work overall was superior to most kids and he played mostly midfield. When he picked up a pole, his strong left gave him an advantage in playing time as well. Fewer lefties.

When he switched to the goal in 8th grade, it became apparent that being a tall, left hander in the goal, was an advantage versus shooters more used to smaller right handers. Shooters groove particular shots whether space and room rips to off stick high, or off a dodge to off stick low. While that didn't give him more PT necessarily (given only one tender), I think it did present an issue to shooters, given that most face righties each day in practice and in most games. At the highest level, this dissipates to some degree as shooters have worked more against lefties and have more control, but could still be an advantage versus lesser shooters.

We talked about actually switching hands in the net during games so as to further confuse shooters, but he never got quite that confident. I think that if he hadn't been injured so much in his college years, he might well have played around with that tactic during an off-season, but he had only one healthy summer over those 4 years and he used that just to get back his sharpness, earning the #1 slot that next spring.

Out of the goal, his ability to switch hands pretty seamlessly was a big boost in clearing and GB's. I had encouraged him to incorporate shifting hands the same way an attack man would in all the practice drills, every day, to keep up the comfort level. And since so few tenders can do so comfortably, that also separated him in various showcases, tryouts etc in high school days. Hard not to notice the tender catching with either hand on the run, switching hands and whipping it with the other hand on the money. Come game time, it was a big advantage to be able to dodge either way against a riding attack man and use whatever free space available, rather than being forced one direction. The same would be true of any pole.

So, I think you can extrapolate the two-hand advantage to any position, even goal.

That said, clearly the exceptional athlete can indeed develop skill sets and tactics that are almost solely one hand dominant and excel nevertheless. But I don't think I'd ever encourage one handedness, either side. On the other hand, I think the tactics used by really good one handed O players to get their hands to space should be studied and used by all players. The intentionality is really valuable.

[ctbagataway]

I'm a righty who started playing hockey before I started playing lacrosse. I feel like in hockey, the dominant hand is the top hand, as it is always on the stick, so it was just natural to play hockey lefty. That translated to me in lacrosse in that I was always more comfortable playing lefty, especially playing defense and picking up gb's. But catching and throwing righty was always easier with the dominant hand up at the head of the stick.

[sholokov2]

There are many ways to counteract face guarding. Hugging the ball to the player's chest was obviously cheating. Had to be changed. Face guarding is not cheating. Has its advantages and disadvantages. I think Cornell decided to play five on five when to me that put them at a disadvantage last year. Teat stood almost passively away from the play, when face guarding could have been neutralized by quick movement around intricate screens near the crease. The big Red took their ace in the hole out of the game. Even when he did not get the ball his presence around the crease caused the opposition defense to distort spacing, to confuse sliding patterns and create chaos. Please, no rules. Constant rule changing has made basketball unwatchable.

[faircornell]

In both the World Games and the Minto Cup, JT51 was often "quiet" off ball as you note. I think that this is more of a deliberate tactic. The great Cornell #10 sometimes did the same.

[OCanada]

I would add face guarding isn’t new either. To me one trajectory in rule changes pushed by fans is, either deliberately or as a by product, is to reduce the possibility of upsets.

[MDlaxfan76]

There are many ways to counteract face guarding. Hugging the ball to the player's chest was obviously cheating. Had to be changed. Face guarding is not cheating. Has its advantages and disadvantages. I think Cornell decided to play five on five when to me that put them at a disadvantage last year. Teat stood almost passively away from the play, when face guarding could have been neutralized by quick movement around intricate screens near the crease. The big Red took their ace in the hole out of the game. Even when he did not get the ball his presence around the crease caused the opposition defense to distort spacing, to confuse sliding patterns and create chaos. Please, no rules. Constant rule changing has made basketball unwatchable.

I wasn't arguing for a rule change, I was just saying that absent a rule change, expect coaches to employ whatever tactic works best for their team versus a given opponent. Don't whine about them doing whatever is best for their team, within the rules.

But if it's truly bad for the sport, then take it to the Rules Committee.

Note that my example of holding the ball to the chest was NOT "cheating".
It was fully within the rules, and, thus, a legitimate tactic to nullify an opponent's otherwise superiority.

But the Rules Committee came to the determination that it was bad for the sport and created a rule. After that, to do so would be "cheating", but not before the rule was passed. Most everyone agreed with creating the new rule!

Note also that it wasn't a 100% brand new tactic, as some players had previously pressed their stick to their chest to prevent the ball from being dislodged. Jim Brown had rather infamously employed this tactic has he would bull through players on his way toward the net, only exposing his stick when ready to shoot or pass. I understand that Brown's stick work was not his best asset, to say the least, yet he used the gifts he had to dominate play. Others had used this tactic as well.

The only 'new' aspect of the tactic, as performed by Wittlesberger at Calvert Hall then Hopkins, was to use it to simply shut down all play for long periods at a time.