Northwestern v. Maryland 4/23/2022 at 11:30 AM

[watcherinthewoods]

Brutal game by NU...solid all-around game by Maryland. They deserved to win.

NO ONE, absolutely, NO ONE better tell me anything about Goalie play and what it is or isn't! Emily Sterling was simply outstanding! Great patience, sighted the ball well, solid fundamentals and techniques. SHE was the difference and the turnovers by NU. Not a good game by the group from Evanston, but they will bounce back.

And KAH? No adjustments? Nothing? Cathy take it to her?

Great questions. I'm very interested to hear the response. While waiting, what adjustments would you have made?

First, I think Reese had a better game plan; she understood the need to move the ball very quickly. My guess is that during film sessions they as much as told May should we be a big option. The doubles to Cordingly (when she got the ball) and Leubecker (whenever she got the ball) were going to create space and open players in the middle and on the weak side.

Second, NU ran an offense that could be called "give the ball eventually to Lauren or Jill, set some picks and hope they can get their hands free." For all the talk about Kuykendall's passing acumen -- and she is an excellent distributor -- there was rarely anyone open in the middle to whom she could move the ball. A nice shot from No. 24 or 29, and a nice shot from No. 10 -- at tough angles -- were pretty much all the supporting cast gave NU. Maryland's on-ball defense was really good, and Bosco in particular was excellent. Behind by five at the half, NU came out and kept trying the same thing, over and over. They needed to move the ball faster and better, create overloads, provide lanes for Gilbert's extraordinary first step and speed, and didn't. Just not great offense, and really not using the talents of the five other players in the offensive zone very well, in my stupid opinion.

Third, in the end, Maryland had more good players and played as a unit on both ends much better than NU. In my view, this is a product of recruiting for sure, but also of coaching and game planning.

And fourth, Sterling was sterling.

For the record (here at FL), I was not a Maryland rejuvenation believer. Now I am. They played absolutely beautiful offense yesterday, and terrific "whole-unit" defense, backed up by a skilled and confident keeper. Those are the ingredients for a date in late May. I still think UNC and BC are better. But I am pretty sure Maryland could play with Cuse, Loyola and Stony Brook.

+1 on #2 above. Since I have been following closely, circa 2015 or so, KAH has had a single strategy on attack and you described it perfectly above. You can just change the names. That, plus a bunch of athletic burners and a stunning lack of attention to defense sums it up.

[laxagainsthumanity]

they play smart, sound fundamental lacrosse and they keep their mistakes and mental errors to a minimum.

I wouldn't call myself a huge Maryland fan, but this is one of the main reasons I find it hard to hate them. I have always respected their discipline & their brand of lacrosse.

MD has always played a very disciplined brand of lacrosse, but what makes it difficult for myself and others to root for them is how respectably they play that disciplined brand of lacrosse. IMO flopping is very poor sportsmanship, but it is something MD is consistently willing to employ, and there have been Terp teams and careers (one in particular) that would not have been nearly as successful without it. I recognize how clean and pretty their lacrosse is year-in and year-out, and there are certainly individual Terps players that don't fall into this category, but broadly speaking, I just can't respect how this program plays.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

they play smart, sound fundamental lacrosse and they keep their mistakes and mental errors to a minimum.

I wouldn't call myself a huge Maryland fan, but this is one of the main reasons I find it hard to hate them. I have always respected their discipline & their brand of lacrosse.

MD has always played a very disciplined brand of lacrosse, but what makes it difficult for myself and others to root for them is how respectably they play that disciplined brand of lacrosse. IMO flopping is very poor sportsmanship, but it is something MD is consistently willing to employ, and there have been Terp teams and careers (one in particular) that would not have been nearly as successful without it. I recognize how clean and pretty their lacrosse is year-in and year-out, and there are certainly individual Terps players that don't fall into this category, but broadly speaking, I just can't respect how this program plays.

I know exactly who you're referring to but I haven't noticed anyone like Flopsy since she hopped away in '18. Have you noticed any the last couple/few years--this year in particular?

[wlaxphan20]

they play smart, sound fundamental lacrosse and they keep their mistakes and mental errors to a minimum.

I wouldn't call myself a huge Maryland fan, but this is one of the main reasons I find it hard to hate them. I have always respected their discipline & their brand of lacrosse.

MD has always played a very disciplined brand of lacrosse, but what makes it difficult for myself and others to root for them is how respectably they play that disciplined brand of lacrosse. IMO flopping is very poor sportsmanship, but it is something MD is consistently willing to employ, and there have been Terp teams and careers (one in particular) that would not have been nearly as successful without it. I recognize how clean and pretty their lacrosse is year-in and year-out, and there are certainly individual Terps players that don't fall into this category, but broadly speaking, I just can't respect how this program plays.

I hear what you are saying and agree, the flopping by that one particular player was excessive and frustrating. I was never a huge fan of that specific player in general and, for whatever reason, it bothered me that she wore her eye gear up on her forehead. I haven't particularly noticed it to be a program-wide thing (just specific to definitely one, maybe a few others) which is why I've been willing to look past it and haven't held it against them as a program, but perhaps I haven't been watching closely enough.

Beyond the pretty lacrosse, it's also their discipline and ability to execute - more a testament to Cathy than anything else. It's not a style that suits all players and not a style that appeals to all fans, though.

[Essexfenwick]

Woman’s lacrosse is more like basketball since you can’t physically check like the men’s game. The defense is positioning so you can’t charge. If a defensive player is good at getting position on a charging offensive player and the player runs into them hard enough to sell a flop then that is terrific defense. Woman’s lacrosse awards speed more than bulling to the goal due to the inability of the defense to forcefully stick check.

[wlaxphan20]

Woman’s lacrosse is more like basketball since you can’t physically check like the men’s game. The defense is positioning so you can’t charge. If a defensive player is good at getting position on a charging offensive player and the player runs into them hard enough to sell a flop then that is terrific defense. Woman’s lacrosse awards speed more than bulling to the goal due to the inability of the defense to forcefully stick check.

I agree, basketball and women's lacrosse have a lot of similarities. I'm not sure if your post is in response to the player mentioned above, but when I think of that player I usually think of flopping to get "stick check to the head" calls more than blocking calls.

I'd also say that while all charges are "taken" by a defender, not all charges are "sold". And with the rate that charges are called to being with, I don't think it gives defenders a distinct advantage anyway.

[laxagainsthumanity]

Woman’s lacrosse is more like basketball since you can’t physically check like the men’s game. The defense is positioning so you can’t charge. If a defensive player is good at getting position on a charging offensive player and the player runs into them hard enough to sell a flop then that is terrific defense. Woman’s lacrosse awards speed more than bulling to the goal due to the inability of the defense to forcefully stick check.

I agree, basketball and women's lacrosse have a lot of similarities. I'm not sure if your post is in response to the player mentioned above, but when I think of that player I usually think of flopping to get "stick check to the head" calls more than blocking calls.

I'd also say that while all charges are "taken" by a defender, not all charges are "sold". And with the rate that charges are called to being with, I don't think it gives defenders a distinct advantage anyway.

It's hard to sell an offensive foul (charge, stick to the head/body after a shot, etc) that didn't happen, although it does happen occasionally. It is not hard to make a defensive foul appear out of thin air, especially for certain teams that seem to be officiated more favorably, particularly in certain venues (MD in College Park is not the only example). Is MD the only team that likes to sell fouls? Of course not. Very far from it. This is something that makes me lose respect for a lot of teams/players. But it's particularly off-putting when it's a program with so much past success and that plays such a beautiful, disciplined, classic version of the game that I want to enjoy. I understand those who are pointing out one particularly egregious player as opposed to a broader pattern, but the fact that said player was not only allowed but presumably encouraged to play the way she did is a stain on the program. At the end of the day, maybe the problem is the officiating and I should be hating the game, not the players (i.e. MD etc.). Just something I really struggle to overlook.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I understand those who are pointing out one particularly egregious player as opposed to a broader pattern, but the fact that said player was not only allowed but presumably encouraged to play the way she did is a stain on the program.

Vedddddy intedesting

And as long as we keep referring to her, let's take a look at one of her all-timers, shall we?

[wlaxphan20]

I understand those who are pointing out one particularly egregious player as opposed to a broader pattern, but the fact that said player was not only allowed but presumably encouraged to play the way she did is a stain on the program.

Vedddddy intedesting

And as long as we keep referring to her, let's take a look at one of her all-timers, shall we?

Honestly, to me, it's not worth speculating on.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I understand those who are pointing out one particularly egregious player as opposed to a broader pattern, but the fact that said player was not only allowed but presumably encouraged to play the way she did is a stain on the program.

Vedddddy intedesting

And as long as we keep referring to her, let's take a look at one of her all-timers, shall we?

Honestly, to me, it's not worth speculating on.

How come? You don't think some coaches encourage or at least wink at some of their players who flop to get an advantage?

[wlaxphan20]

Woman’s lacrosse is more like basketball since you can’t physically check like the men’s game. The defense is positioning so you can’t charge. If a defensive player is good at getting position on a charging offensive player and the player runs into them hard enough to sell a flop then that is terrific defense. Woman’s lacrosse awards speed more than bulling to the goal due to the inability of the defense to forcefully stick check.

I agree, basketball and women's lacrosse have a lot of similarities. I'm not sure if your post is in response to the player mentioned above, but when I think of that player I usually think of flopping to get "stick check to the head" calls more than blocking calls.

I'd also say that while all charges are "taken" by a defender, not all charges are "sold". And with the rate that charges are called to being with, I don't think it gives defenders a distinct advantage anyway.

It's hard to sell an offensive foul (charge, stick to the head/body after a shot, etc) that didn't happen, although it does happen occasionally. It is not hard to make a defensive foul appear out of thin air, especially for certain teams that seem to be officiated more favorably, particularly in certain venues (MD in College Park is not the only example). Is MD the only team that likes to sell fouls? Of course not. Very far from it. This is something that makes me lose respect for a lot of teams/players. But it's particularly off-putting when it's a program with so much past success and that plays such a beautiful, disciplined, classic version of the game that I want to enjoy. I understand those who are pointing out one particularly egregious player as opposed to a broader pattern, but the fact that said player was not only allowed but presumably encouraged to play the way she did is a stain on the program. At the end of the day, maybe the problem is the officiating and I should be hating the game, not the players (i.e. MD etc.). Just something I really struggle to overlook.

Yes, I hadn't thought of it from that perspective before, and when you put it like that, I see your point and can understand why that would be hard to look over. I don't think you need to hate officiating or the game though, haha. Personally I think it goes deeper than officiating. I think it goes back to rules - how they are written, how they are enforced, etc. I think cleaning a lot of that up makes calls clearer for officials and there's less of a gray area. This could all just be one of the down sides of the growth of the game: that it will take officiating some time to catch up.

[tothedraw]

As for a stain on MD, is it a stain on NU that-IMO-they were coached to consistently be in 3 seconds and commit shooting space violations- which is dangerous- and instead of playing to the intent of the rules looked to force the officials to make them ?

Every coach worth their salt is looking to gain an advantage for their team. Within and on the boundaries of the rules. As Wlaxphan20 just said officiating will have to constantly keep up with growth - all while coaches, fans and sometimes players give them a hard time. I don't envy them one bit.

[wlaxphan20]

I understand those who are pointing out one particularly egregious player as opposed to a broader pattern, but the fact that said player was not only allowed but presumably encouraged to play the way she did is a stain on the program.

Vedddddy intedesting

And as long as we keep referring to her, let's take a look at one of her all-timers, shall we?

Honestly, to me, it's not worth speculating on.

How come? You don't think some coaches encourage or at least wink at some of their players who flop to get an advantage?

If you want to speculate about coaches on all teams encouraging players to sell fouls, sure. FTR, I believe coaches telling players to sell fouls happens on every single team in all of sports.

I don't think it's worth speculating specifically about Meghan Whittle mostly because it was already covered thoroughly, during her actual career, on this forum. I'm not really interested in a discussion based entirely on speculation that quite honestly comes across like an excuse to shame Meghan Whittle.

[tothedraw]

I understand those who are pointing out one particularly egregious player as opposed to a broader pattern, but the fact that said player was not only allowed but presumably encouraged to play the way she did is a stain on the program.

Vedddddy intedesting

And as long as we keep referring to her, let's take a look at one of her all-timers, shall we?

Honestly, to me, it's not worth speculating on.

How come? You don't think some coaches encourage or at least wink at some of their players who flop to get an advantage?

If you want to speculate about coaches on all teams encouraging players to sell fouls, sure. FTR, I believe coaches telling players to sell fouls happens on every single team in all of sports.

I don't think it's worth speculating specifically about Meghan Whittle mostly because it was already covered thoroughly, during her actual career, on this forum. I'm not really interested in a discussion based entirely on speculation that quite honestly comes across like an excuse to shame Meghan Whittle.

+1
There is some deceased equine thrashing going on. But you always say it so much better than I could!

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

I understand those who are pointing out one particularly egregious player as opposed to a broader pattern, but the fact that said player was not only allowed but presumably encouraged to play the way she did is a stain on the program.

Vedddddy intedesting

And as long as we keep referring to her, let's take a look at one of her all-timers, shall we?

Honestly, to me, it's not worth speculating on.

How come? You don't think some coaches encourage or at least wink at some of their players who flop to get an advantage?

If you want to speculate about coaches on all teams encouraging players to sell fouls, sure. FTR, I believe coaches telling players to sell fouls happens on every single team in all of sports.

I don't think it's worth speculating specifically about Meghan Whittle mostly because it was already covered thoroughly, during her actual career, on this forum. I'm not really interested in a discussion based entirely on speculation that quite honestly comes across like an excuse to shame Meghan Whittle.

Nah--just thought I'd display what some alluded to earlier in the thread. This is, after all, a textbook example of what a flop looks like. Megan is long gone from her D1 playing days; and after the cryptic comments about her undignified departure from Stanford and the aftermath on social media that was mentioned on these boards a few days ago--maybe for good, who knows. As to my ulterior motives--please. Maybe your crystal ball needs tuning.

[Seacoaster(1)]

I understand those who are pointing out one particularly egregious player as opposed to a broader pattern, but the fact that said player was not only allowed but presumably encouraged to play the way she did is a stain on the program.

Vedddddy intedesting

And as long as we keep referring to her, let's take a look at one of her all-timers, shall we?

Honestly, to me, it's not worth speculating on.

How come? You don't think some coaches encourage or at least wink at some of their players who flop to get an advantage?

If you want to speculate about coaches on all teams encouraging players to sell fouls, sure. FTR, I believe coaches telling players to sell fouls happens on every single team in all of sports.

I don't think it's worth speculating specifically about Meghan Whittle mostly because it was already covered thoroughly, during her actual career, on this forum. I'm not really interested in a discussion based entirely on speculation that quite honestly comes across like an excuse to shame Meghan Whittle.

+1

[watcherinthewoods]

Not sure who first used the nickname, Flopsy, but it makes me grin. And the situation out in Palo Alto is far from resolved, so both the pro and anti camps will have plenty to discuss once the story starts to play out. Did someone on this forum mention popcorn?

[wlaxphan20]

I understand those who are pointing out one particularly egregious player as opposed to a broader pattern, but the fact that said player was not only allowed but presumably encouraged to play the way she did is a stain on the program.

Vedddddy intedesting

And as long as we keep referring to her, let's take a look at one of her all-timers, shall we?

Honestly, to me, it's not worth speculating on.

How come? You don't think some coaches encourage or at least wink at some of their players who flop to get an advantage?

If you want to speculate about coaches on all teams encouraging players to sell fouls, sure. FTR, I believe coaches telling players to sell fouls happens on every single team in all of sports.

I don't think it's worth speculating specifically about Meghan Whittle mostly because it was already covered thoroughly, during her actual career, on this forum. I'm not really interested in a discussion based entirely on speculation that quite honestly comes across like an excuse to shame Meghan Whittle.

Nah--just thought I'd display what some alluded to earlier in the thread. This is, after all, a textbook example of what a flop looks like. Megan is long gone from her D1 playing days; and after the cryptic comments about her undignified departure from Stanford and the aftermath on social media that was mentioned on these boards a few days ago--maybe for good, who knows. As to my ulterior motives--please. Maybe your crystal ball needs tuning.

It works just fine, but thanks for your concern.

[laxagainsthumanity]

As for a stain on MD, is it a stain on NU that-IMO-they were coached to consistently be in 3 seconds and commit shooting space violations- which is dangerous- and instead of playing to the intent of the rules looked to force the officials to make them ?

Sure, teams taking advantage of poorly written rules can be frustrating - look at stalling, or that one season that 3 seconds was a minor penalty. IMO flopping/diving/etc. is just very poor sportsmanship, in all sports. But again, the players aren't the ones blowing the whistle, and as of now there is no rule in women's lacrosse to discourage these antics.

If you want to speculate about coaches on all teams encouraging players to sell fouls, sure. FTR, I believe coaches telling players to sell fouls happens on every single team in all of sports.

Ha. No, it most certainly does not. You can't possibly believe that.

The MW horse is indeed long dead and my intention wasn't to bring it back to the surface (I was specifically hoping that video would NOT come up when I wrote the post). My point was more generally about pervasive flopping. MD is not the only offender but it is one of the worst.

[Testudo98]

Why is it when Coach K teaches flopping as part of his defense, it’s good strategy, but when they do it in women’s lacrosse it’s so awful?