2005 NCAA CHAMPIONSHIP NU vs. UVA

[wlaxphan20]

I attended the 2006 Semifinal at Nickerson with NU and Duke; it was a spectacular game, and a nail-biter. I do think neither of those teams would beat BC this year or Maryland in 2019. This issue to me is depth, stick skills, and the use of and breakdown of the zone defenses. Today, the number of superfast, superskilled players now dwarfs the number then. And the coaching and strategizing has ticked up a few notches. And it's going to get even better.

I agree! I don't think the would beat today's top teams either, they're just great games. For me at least, it's just entertainment, appreciation, and nostalgia. It's especially fun to see some of today's collegiate, high school, and club coaches, who have a huge impact on today's game, on the field as players. I know several women who played in the early-mid 2000s era who now have young daughters who are 11, 12, 13, 14 years old etc. and are playing today's game on the club circuit and in high school. Lacrosse, particularly women's lacrosse, is a very small world and making those connections reminds me what a great community it can be.

[LarryGamLax]

You make a couple of interesting points DMac. Let's address them :

"Another interesting tidbit Joe B dispensed was K. A. Hiller's recruiting athletic looking girls on campus to come and give lacrosse a try....the landscape is just a little different today, that aint gonna happen at the D1 level. This used to happen in the days of yore in mlax too when coaches recruited the football boys to come and play lacrosse."

Here's the answer in a nutshell : The teaching and learning aspect of the game is something in the past! As Metallica sang "Sad, but True". I was talking to a friend of mine a few days ago and we were discussing some players who are the HS level. He's telling what this one can do and can't do. I then say, "that stuff can be taught and learned, with the caveat that the person wants to learn and is willing to work." It's never that simple, but OH...it really is.
Too many coaches these days go shopping at Wal-Mart(the Summer and Fall Tournament Circuit) instead of really searching for the right ingredients. Others have the talent delivered to them like Amazon...and still can't grab the Brass Ring.


"I am very thankful to keepers of the game for making the rule changes to the game that they did. It's an absolutely gorgeous game (I love the sticks and the way they make you play the game...unlike the bagged sticks in the mlax game) played by superb athletes and today's game much more resembles what this broadcast makes the '05 wlax game look like. It weren't quite like that and you know it, hence major rule changes....thankfully."

I tend to stay away from the aesthetics of a sport. And then you went sexist with your comment(Bagged sticks? )! How dare you! And the athletes on the Men's side are outstanding as well and the skill level is quite high. The checking on the Men's side is different and quite physical...thus the bag. Maybe the women don't have a bag, but it's definitely a Purse!

[LarryGamLax]

I attended the 2006 Semifinal at Nickerson with NU and Duke; it was a spectacular game, and a nail-biter. I do think neither of those teams would beat BC this year or Maryland in 2019. This issue to me is depth, stick skills, and the use of and breakdown of the zone defenses. Today, the number of superfast, superskilled players now dwarfs the number then. And the coaching and strategizing has ticked up a few notches. And it's going to get even better.

I agree! I don't think the would beat today's top teams either, they're just great games. For me at least, it's just entertainment, appreciation, and nostalgia. It's especially fun to see some of today's collegiate, high school, and club coaches, who have a huge impact on today's game, on the field as players. I know several women who played in the early-mid 2000s era who now have young daughters who are 11, 12, 13, 14 years old etc. and are playing today's game on the club circuit and in high school. Lacrosse, particularly women's lacrosse, is a very small world and making those connections reminds me what a great community it can be.

And I disagree with BOTH of you. Stop with the annoying "all the athletes and teams are better than those from the past. Those players could not hang with these athletes today." Nothing burns my tuchas more than that nonsense. I'm not going to compare and contrast, but Great is great in any era. And I believe that Great could adapt to any situation in any Era.

[wlaxphan20]

I attended the 2006 Semifinal at Nickerson with NU and Duke; it was a spectacular game, and a nail-biter. I do think neither of those teams would beat BC this year or Maryland in 2019. This issue to me is depth, stick skills, and the use of and breakdown of the zone defenses. Today, the number of superfast, superskilled players now dwarfs the number then. And the coaching and strategizing has ticked up a few notches. And it's going to get even better.

I agree! I don't think the would beat today's top teams either, they're just great games. For me at least, it's just entertainment, appreciation, and nostalgia. It's especially fun to see some of today's collegiate, high school, and club coaches, who have a huge impact on today's game, on the field as players. I know several women who played in the early-mid 2000s era who now have young daughters who are 11, 12, 13, 14 years old etc. and are playing today's game on the club circuit and in high school. Lacrosse, particularly women's lacrosse, is a very small world and making those connections reminds me what a great community it can be.

And I disagree with BOTH of you. Stop with the annoying "all the athletes and teams are better than those from the past. Those players could not hang with these athletes today." Nothing burns my tuchas more than that nonsense. I'm not going to compare and contrast, but Great is great in any era. And I believe that Great could adapt to any situation in any Era.

My apologies LGL if it came off that way, it's not what I meant. The players from that era were excellent and would be excellent in todays game. The athleticism and stick skills are all there, and with sticks that are not nearly as advanced as the ones today - and I hope I had made that clear with my earlier comments. When I say "I don't think either team would have beaten the 2021 BC team today" I mean, quite literally, if you time traveled the entire roster of the 2005 NU team to 2021 and stuck them right on a field with BC as they were in 2005, no, I don't think they'd win. Rule changes aside, the tactics have become a lot more elaborate with teams having dozens of offensive and defensive schemes and sets for every situation. That's where I think the advantage would be, and NOT with the talent, stick skills, ability, passion, etc.

Given, the chance to adapt to the 2021 game? Given the same resources? (facilities, strength and conditioning coaching, nutrition education/free meals, new sticks, advances in sports medicine & rehabilitation, etc.). And given the time to apply them? Yes, they absolutely WOULD compete and win games against the likes of 2019 UMD & 2021 BC. That's obviously not a possibility.

The point of letting those on this forum know about the game, was in fact, to bring appreciation to that era of women's lacrosse, especially because (1) many from that era have a great deal of influence on today's game & (2) there are newer fans to the sport here. Those women tore it up. I was not bringing attention to this game in order to turn it in to some kind of Jordan vs. LeBron debate, and I don't speak for him, but I don't think seacoaster meant that either. That argument drives me nuts as well. Athletics, especially women's athletics, have made huge advances in strength & conditioning and sports performance training. The funding and support they receive has increased as well (still a ways to go, however). The women in this game were a part of a group that laid that foundation. I mentioned it on another topic in this forum, we don't get todays game without the Northwestern from the mid-2000s. I think it's possible to discuss the improvements/changes to the game since the 2000s without disrespecting the players & programs from that time period, but perhaps I went about it the wrong way.

Edit: But thank you for allowing me to clarify, because what you're suggesting is not the direction I was trying to steer this thread in.

[DMac]

I don't disagree with what you're saying, Larry, but there is no denying that the level of competition, collectively, is stiffer today than it ever has been. It would be a little tougher for those great ones from the past to be great today as they'd just be facing tougher competition across the board. That's not to say they still wouldn't excel, but for sure some of those AA D gals didn't face the number of girls who can handle a stick and have the arsenal of shots that a whole lot of the girls in the game today have. Today's game is also a very different game than yesteryear's which is an element you have to take into consideration too. My HS team was pretty good and I always fancied myself as a pretty good stickhandler and no easy out for a D man. No one on my team saw a lacrosse stick before the age of twelve or so. Then we went down to LaFayette and played those guys (went undefeated and won the state title)...the Hills, Doctors, Jacques and we found out just how good we really were. Those guys grew up with sticks in their hands, just like many of the girls who are entering the college game as freshman, it just aint the same as it was in the past. You've got to be better today to be great. The Gaits blew the lacrosse world away with their btb passing and arsenal of shots. Today a ton of people can play that way, the Gaits would have to be even greater today than they were in the past in order to have the reputation they have as a couple of the greatest to have ever played, and maybe even the GOAT.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I attended the 2006 Semifinal at Nickerson with NU and Duke; it was a spectacular game, and a nail-biter. I do think neither of those teams would beat BC this year or Maryland in 2019. This issue to me is depth, stick skills, and the use of and breakdown of the zone defenses. Today, the number of superfast, superskilled players now dwarfs the number then. And the coaching and strategizing has ticked up a few notches. And it's going to get even better.

I agree! I don't think the would beat today's top teams either, they're just great games. For me at least, it's just entertainment, appreciation, and nostalgia. It's especially fun to see some of today's collegiate, high school, and club coaches, who have a huge impact on today's game, on the field as players. I know several women who played in the early-mid 2000s era who now have young daughters who are 11, 12, 13, 14 years old etc. and are playing today's game on the club circuit and in high school. Lacrosse, particularly women's lacrosse, is a very small world and making those connections reminds me what a great community it can be.

And I disagree with BOTH of you. Stop with the annoying "all the athletes and teams are better than those from the past. Those players could not hang with these athletes today." Nothing burns my tuchas more than that nonsense. I'm not going to compare and contrast, but Great is great in any era. And I believe that Great could adapt to any situation in any Era.

Maybe you should invest in some asbestos drawers, Larry. You and your oft fried tuchas. And who died and made you Women's Lacrosse Talk Chief anyway? People like to suppose things that cannot ever be proven. Would the '21 BC Eagles beat the '05 NU Wildcats? Impossible to know--but it's fun to think about and discuss. Would it have been possible for Ali to fight Marciano or Tyson when they were all in their prime? Of course not--but it's still fun to talk about and debate, until you come in the room and want all the "nonsense" to stop. Folks are entitled to their opinion without being browbeaten. How about you stop--and let people have their opinions, whether they are based in fact, or your reality or whatever. We're just talking here. Don't be such an annoying bossypants, huh?

[LarryGamLax]

OuttaNowhereWregget,

I will push back on any opinion any damn time I want to. I don't have to clear anything with you. You're not the Boss of me...or anyone else! State your opinion and keep it moving.

I'm going to show you the respect that you didn't show to others...and end this discussion with you right now.

[DMac]

Oh my, someone needs to be reported to Admin for bullying and name calling too.

[LarryGamLax]

I don't disagree with what you're saying, Larry, but there is no denying that the level of competition, collectively, is stiffer today than it ever has been. It would be a little tougher for those great ones from the past to be great today as they'd just be facing tougher competition across the board. That's not to say they still wouldn't excel, but for sure some of those AA D gals didn't face the number of girls who can handle a stick and have the arsenal of shots that a whole lot of the girls in the game today have. Today's game is also a very different game than yesteryear's which is an element you have to take into consideration too. My HS team was pretty good and I always fancied myself as a pretty good stickhandler and no easy out for a D man. No one on my team saw a lacrosse stick before the age of twelve or so. Then we went down to LaFayette and played those guys (went undefeated and won the state title)...the Hills, Doctors, Jacques and we found out just how good we really were. Those guys grew up with sticks in their hands, just like many of the girls who are entering the college game as freshman, it just aint the same as it was in the past. You've got to be better today to be great. The Gaits blew the lacrosse world away with their btb passing and arsenal of shots. Today a ton of people can play that way, the Gaits would have to be even greater today than they were in the past in order to have the reputation they have as a couple of the greatest to have ever played, and maybe even the GOAT.

My point with this discussion has always been this: if you gave the greats from the past(recent or beyond) the same technology, training, rules changes and other things that are prevalent today, I believe they would continue to be great. As I said before Jim Brown, Gail Cummings, Margie Anderson, Kelly Amonte, Jen Adams, Sue Mellis would still be great in today's game.

[8meterPA]

Oh my, someone needs to be reported to Admin for bullying and name calling too.

getting my popcorn!

[LarryGamLax]

Oh my, someone needs to be reported to Admin for bullying and name calling too.

Stop it...troublemaker. Rabble Rouser!

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

OuttaNowhereWregget,

I will push back on any opinion any damn time I want to. I don't have to clear anything with you. You're not the Boss of me...or anyone else! State your opinion and keep it moving.

I'm going to show you the respect that you didn't show to others...and end this discussion with you right now.

As was said to you before bears repeating...

[LarryGamLax]

Oh my, someone needs to be reported to Admin for bullying and name calling too.

getting my popcorn!

Did you just use a Terrell Owens(TO) quote?

[DMac]

As I said, I don't disagree, Larry, those greats from the past would still be real good given all the same training, etc.
Who wins the 100M, Jesse Owens or Usain Bolt?

[LarryGamLax]

I attended the 2006 Semifinal at Nickerson with NU and Duke; it was a spectacular game, and a nail-biter. I do think neither of those teams would beat BC this year or Maryland in 2019. This issue to me is depth, stick skills, and the use of and breakdown of the zone defenses. Today, the number of superfast, superskilled players now dwarfs the number then. And the coaching and strategizing has ticked up a few notches. And it's going to get even better.

I agree! I don't think the would beat today's top teams either, they're just great games. For me at least, it's just entertainment, appreciation, and nostalgia. It's especially fun to see some of today's collegiate, high school, and club coaches, who have a huge impact on today's game, on the field as players. I know several women who played in the early-mid 2000s era who now have young daughters who are 11, 12, 13, 14 years old etc. and are playing today's game on the club circuit and in high school. Lacrosse, particularly women's lacrosse, is a very small world and making those connections reminds me what a great community it can be.

And I disagree with BOTH of you. Stop with the annoying "all the athletes and teams are better than those from the past. Those players could not hang with these athletes today." Nothing burns my tuchas more than that nonsense. I'm not going to compare and contrast, but Great is great in any era. And I believe that Great could adapt to any situation in any Era.

My apologies LGL if it came off that way, it's not what I meant. The players from that era were excellent and would be excellent in todays game. The athleticism and stick skills are all there, and with sticks that are not nearly as advanced as the ones today - and I hope I had made that clear with my earlier comments. When I say "I don't think either team would have beaten the 2021 BC team today" I mean, quite literally, if you time traveled the entire roster of the 2005 NU team to 2021 and stuck them right on a field with BC as they were in 2005, no, I don't think they'd win. Rule changes aside, the tactics have become a lot more elaborate with teams having dozens of offensive and defensive schemes and sets for every situation. That's where I think the advantage would be, and NOT with the talent, stick skills, ability, passion, etc.

Given, the chance to adapt to the 2021 game? Given the same resources? (facilities, strength and conditioning coaching, nutrition education/free meals, new sticks, advances in sports medicine & rehabilitation, etc.). And given the time to apply them? Yes, they absolutely WOULD compete and win games against the likes of 2019 UMD & 2021 BC. That's obviously not a possibility.

The point of letting those on this forum know about the game, was in fact, to bring appreciation to that era of women's lacrosse, especially because (1) many from that era have a great deal of influence on today's game & (2) there are newer fans to the sport here. Those women tore it up. I was not bringing attention to this game in order to turn it in to some kind of Jordan vs. LeBron debate, and I don't speak for him, but I don't think seacoaster meant that either. That argument drives me nuts as well. Athletics, especially women's athletics, have made huge advances in strength & conditioning and sports performance training. The funding and support they receive has increased as well (still a ways to go, however). The women in this game were a part of a group that laid that foundation. I mentioned it on another topic in this forum, we don't get todays game without the Northwestern from the mid-2000s. I think it's possible to discuss the improvements/changes to the game since the 2000s without disrespecting the players & programs from that time period, but perhaps I went about it the wrong way.

Edit: But thank you for allowing me to clarify, because what you're suggesting is not the direction I was trying to steer this thread in.

You owe me ZERO apologies. I always read your posts with interest.

[Bart]

As I said, I don't disagree, Larry, those greats from the past would still be real good given all the same training, etc.
Who wins the 100M, Jesse Owens or Usain Bolt?

Owens the 100M, Bolt the 200M

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

And now, back to where we were--the game itself--before the Bully Brigade interrupted ( They're so TOUGH! )

As the 2nd half wore on and the Wildcats took a chokehold on the game, which was really a chokehold back then because of the absence of a shot clock, but also no boundaries so more room for passing, running and keepaway in the offensive zone. The Wildcats did indeed slow the game down and chewed some good clock once they had the comfortable cushion of 3-5 goals with less than a quarter left in the game. Where the game seemed run and gun up till that point, the play slowed down after the lead increased. I imagine the Cavs would have done the same thing had they gained the lead. It also seemed like the Cats kind of earned the right to play keepaway and burn clock because they got the lead and extended it when the game was still up for grabs early in the 2nd half. There was some great intensity in the final minutes. The ladies were going full out pretty much all game, but most especially in the last few minutes.

Very special feeling to see a team win their first national title. A couple months ago with the Boston College Eagles, and now I got to see this first for Northwestern thanks to wlaxphan and the Big Ten Network. Well worth watching.

[DMac]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78LiJnPqsDw

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

This seemed to be a production of the B1G Ten Network, and I hope they make more. Specifically some of the games I'd like to see again are:

2006 - NU vs. Duke in the NCAA semi-finals, game went into OT
2007 - NU vs. UNC in the season opener (UNC won 9-8 in OT so I doubt the B1G Network will air that...)
2009 - NU vs. Penn in the NCAA semi-finals, game went in to double OT - I wonder if anyone remembers who scored the game winner and how she scored it
2010 - NU vs. Maryland in the National Championship

Trying to find highlights of these games you mentioned.

As far as who scored the game winner over Penn in 2009, that was Meredith Frank--her 28th at 1:31. Can't find any highlights. I'm with you--I hope BTN shows more games this offseason--hopefully some on your list.