Athletes Unlimited Summer ‘24

[Can Opener]

Sam Apuzzo is very deserving of winning the overall award, although this individual point system is for the birds in my book. Among other things, it can lead to selfish play. Example one is she who shall not be named who took scads and scads of shots (many poor quality) in the last couple of weeks.

Charlotte North had the best shooting percentage in the league when you factor in her success with 2-point goals. I am curious why you would single her out for criticism.

[njbill]

My criticism is the same as always. She is a ball hog. She took way, way more shots than anybody in the league. For someone who handles the ball as much as she does, she should have a lot more assists than she had (4). If you exclude goalies and defenders and focus only on attackers and midfielders, I’ll bet she was in the bottom half of the league (maybe lower) in terms of assists. More often than not when she has the ball, she does not look to feed.

In the last game, she shot three for nine. She had a similar game in the last week or two (very low shooting percentage). She did have one game (I think last week) where she made a high percentage of her shots. In general, though, she takes too many low quality shots.

You are playing around with the statistics to try to make a case for her. A two point goal counts as one shot in calculating shooting percentage. Her shooting percentage this year was middle of the pack, maybe a little bit above middle of the pack, for attackers and midfielders.

Let’s not forget, this is basically pick up lacrosse. In the full scheme of things, it is meaningless who wins the games. By hogging the ball so much, she prevents other equally talented or nearly equally talented players from shooting. She’s like the guy in the pick up basketball game who takes all the shots. Maybe he is the best scorer in the pick up game, but everybody else wants to play as well.

My view on her is the same as it has always been. She is a great shooter. Has a hard and accurate shot. Very good dodger. Tenacious. Strong. But she holds onto the ball way too much in a game with a 60 second shot clock. That stagnates the offense. She infrequently looks to feed. She does not redefend. I know you are a big fan. I’m not.

[cdb]

It would seem to me prudent for the rules to be changed to take away more points for missed shots. I not, the present system rewards more than punishes athletes who shoot frequently. I blame the system not the athlete. This whole system is unattractive to me because it rewards invidivual play over team play -- wy blame highly competitive athletes for trying to achieve the goals offered.Change the rules and the play will change -- This fact is main reason I haven't really gotten into this play.

[Can Opener]

My criticism is the same as always. She is a ball hog. She took way, way more shots than anybody in the league. For someone who handles the ball as much as she does, she should have a lot more assists than she had (4). If you exclude goalies and defenders and focus only on attackers and midfielders, I’ll bet she was in the bottom half of the league (maybe lower) in terms of assists. More often than not when she has the ball, she does not look to feed.
If you are one of the best dodgers, shooters and scorers in the history of the game, it makes sense to do that rather than look to feed to someone else. Her role has never been to assist other players, so it is inappropriate to measure North on this metric. It's like criticizing Tom Brady for poor rushing stats. Furthermore, the math really doesn't pencil out to have North be a feeder. If you are the best in the league at scoring percentage, then it is better to have you shoot than to pass to a teammate like Marie McCool who converts at roughly half the rate that North does.

In the last game, she shot three for nine. She had a similar game in the last week or two (very low shooting percentage). She did have one game (I think last week) where she made a high percentage of her shots. In general, though, she takes too many low quality shots.
3 for 9 is exactly the average shooting percentage for the league overall, so even the bad performance you are citing is not a "very low shooting percentage."

You are playing around with the statistics to try to make a case for her. A two point goal counts as one shot in calculating shooting percentage. Her shooting percentage this year was middle of the pack, maybe a little bit above middle of the pack, for attackers and midfielders.
Among the 29 players who took 10 or more shots, North ranks #4 in shooting percentage with 42%. That is not near the middle of the pack. If you factor in that North led the league in two-point goals with 5, her "scoring percentage" climbs to 46% which is the best in the league. That isn't playing around with statistics -- just a rational analysis. Of course you are less likely to score from beyond the 2-point line, but the reward is double, so it's worth the risk when you are a good outside shooter. That's why 3-point shooters are so valued in the NBA even though they convert at a lower level. Outside shooters in both sports are also valued because they spread the defense and force opponents to play further out, away from the goal.

Let’s not forget, this is basically pick up lacrosse. In the full scheme of things, it is meaningless who wins the games. By hogging the ball so much, she prevents other equally talented or nearly equally talented players from shooting. She’s like the guy in the pick up basketball game who takes all the shots. Maybe he is the best scorer in the pick up game, but everybody else wants to play as well.

My view on her is the same as it has always been. She is a great shooter. Has a hard and accurate shot. Very good dodger. Tenacious. Strong. But she holds onto the ball way too much in a game with a 60 second shot clock. That stagnates the offense. She infrequently looks to feed. She does not redefend. I know you are a big fan. I’m not.
These may be the kindest words you have ever written about Charlotte North. Someone's coming around.

[DMac]

Yup, same discussion and same opinions from both of you. You are on the other end of the spectrum, re North, from njb, CO.
Anything other than high praise for North doesn't sit well with you and you're very quick to defend her.
The eye test from this person (spare me the stats) who watched nearly every game is that she absolutely tends to hold on to the ball way too long and the result is as njb describes. This is nothing new with Charlotte and I'd go as far as to say it's perfectly understandable as she is an absolute force and terrific shooter. As I've always said though, she comes with a price and that is being a little too hoggish. There is no question that she was playing much more for herself than for her team as the season went on....she wanted that gold and was going to shoot her way to it. Apuzzo, on the other hand, did it all and was the one who ended up with the Gold. Charlotte is a fantastic player but to see her as faultless is watching her with blinders on. I like Charlotte (was not always the case), think she's good for the game, and she's a pretty darn good commentator who really knows the game too.

[njbill]

This will come as no surprise to you, but I disagree with your comments. You are the World's Greatest Charlotte North fan. You probably have a coffee mug that says that. You either are blind to her shortcomings or you are unwilling to acknowledge them on a public forum.

The best attackers in the history of the game were (and are) also good feeders so your argument doesn't get out of the starting gate. It is completely appropriate to include her failure to feed in a discussion of her game. I imagine she was by far the best scorer on her teams as a youth which is how her game developed into "shoot always, pass never." As she progressed up the ladder, her game never fully developed.

Your Brady point would have been more compelling if you had referred to his dropped passes stats.

North tied for 18th in assists in AU this summer. The league had 33 A/Ms so she was in the bottom half of the league in assists. Yet she handled the ball on offense way more than anyone else. Case closed.

Again, which team wins the game and who scores the goals is meaningless. By hogging the ball in these pickup games, she's depriving others who no doubt want to shoot the ball, too, of the opportunity to do so. I assume you agree with my pickup basketball analogy since you did not try to refute it.

3 for 9 is a lot different than 1 for 3. I think you know that. If she is missing the large majority of her shots, maybe the team would score more goals if she fed her teammates. Here's the problem, though. Not only doesn't she look to feed, but she is a mediocre feeder even when she tries to do so. Towards the end of the season, she would draw a double at times. When one player is being doubled in a 6 on 6 game, that very likely means someone is open for a good look. Yet North almost always failed to look to feed, or to feed, in those situations.

Again, you are playing with the stats ("among the 29 players who took 10 or more shots"). What about the other players? Why are their stats irrelevant? I believe my initial comment was accurate. Basketball has had a 3 point shot at all levels for years. AU is the only lacrosse game with it. It is a gimmick. A bad idea. In baseball, they have slugging percentage and batting average. You are, in effect, conflating the two.

I have been objective in my comments about North from whenever we first started arguing about her. I have included positive comments about certain aspects of her game from the very beginning.

Oh, and as for your cheap shot about McCool, I'll leave you with two stats: 3-3 and 2-9. I think you know the players and game I am referring to.

[Can Opener]

NJB,

You are of course entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. In years of refuting your anti-North rants, I have learned that the only thing you dislike more than North is admitting a mistake. Let’s see if you can turn over a new leaf.

Your original statement was: “Her shooting percentage this year was middle of the pack, maybe a little above middle of the pack, for attackers and midfielders.” That was a lie. Even when presented with objective evidence, you doubled down on this falsehood in your subsequent post and said: “I believe my initial comment was accurate.” That is why the “L Word” is appropriate here, since you were corrected with dispositive evidence to the contrary, checked out the stats yourself, and still knowingly reiterated an untrue statement.

I used a cutoff of 10 or more shots to eliminate the statistically insignificant folks who went 1 for 1 or 0 for 2. That is common practice in every sport for which these types of percentage stats are kept. (MLB doesn’t award the batting title to a September call-up who goes 4 for 10.) The NCAA has a minimum number of shots to be considered among the statistical leaders for shooting percentage. https://www.ncaa.com/stats/lacrosse-wom ... idual/1159
Among those who had 10 or more shots, North ranked 4th among 29 players (top 14%). You were not truthful when you said this was middle of the pack or maybe a little above.

If you insist on including the statistical outliers, North ranked 9th among 41 players who took a shot (top 22%). Among the 8 players ranked ahead of her by this measure, one player took 7 shots, three players took 2 shots and one player took 1 shot. BTW, the combined shooting percentage of everyone not named North was 32.9% for AU this season. That is the middle of the pack and North is well above that mark.

xoxoxo

CO

[njbill]

Oh, Can, you are back at it. When you can't win an argument, you revert to personal attacks. Some things never change. 9 of 33 is a little above middle of the pack (second quartile).

No, my original statement (not directed at you) was she took "scads and scads of shots (many poor quality) in the last couple of weeks." Completely true. You then had to jump in and start picking a fight.

Last year you even trashed Sam Apuzzo, who is the best player ever to play at Boston College. I'm sure that went over well in Newton.

Apuzzo never picked North for her team which could be because she knows that North would limit her ability to rack up points.

Your MO seems to be to defend North at all costs no matter who gets thrown under the bus. A couple of years ago it was Ortega, then Scane. And last year Apuzzo.

North is a good player and a good scorer. But she has key weaknesses in her game even if in your blind fandom you fail to recognize them. I have acknowledged North's strengths. Why can't you ever acknowledge her weaknesses?

[Bart]

This will come as no surprise to you, but I disagree with your comments. You are the World's Greatest Charlotte North fan. You probably have a coffee mug that says that. You either are blind to her shortcomings or you are unwilling to acknowledge them on a public forum.

The best attackers in the history of the game were (and are) also good feeders so your argument doesn't get out of the starting gate. It is completely appropriate to include her failure to feed in a discussion of her game. I imagine she was by far the best scorer on her teams as a youth which is how her game developed into "shoot always, pass never." As she progressed up the ladder, her game never fully developed.

Your Brady point would have been more compelling if you had referred to his dropped passes stats.

North tied for 18th in assists in AU this summer. The league had 33 A/Ms so she was in the bottom half of the league in assists. Yet she handled the ball on offense way more than anyone else. Case closed.

Again, which team wins the game and who scores the goals is meaningless. By hogging the ball in these pickup games, she's depriving others who no doubt want to shoot the ball, too, of the opportunity to do so. I assume you agree with my pickup basketball analogy since you did not try to refute it.

3 for 9 is a lot different than 1 for 3. I think you know that. If she is missing the large majority of her shots, maybe the team would score more goals if she fed her teammates. Here's the problem, though. Not only doesn't she look to feed, but she is a mediocre feeder even when she tries to do so. Towards the end of the season, she would draw a double at times. When one player is being doubled in a 6 on 6 game, that very likely means someone is open for a good look. Yet North almost always failed to look to feed, or to feed, in those situations.

Again, you are playing with the stats ("among the 29 players who took 10 or more shots"). What about the other players? Why are their stats irrelevant? I believe my initial comment was accurate. Basketball has had a 3 point shot at all levels for years. AU is the only lacrosse game with it. It is a gimmick. A bad idea. In baseball, they have slugging percentage and batting average. You are, in effect, conflating the two.

I have been objective in my comments about North from whenever we first started arguing about her. I have included positive comments about certain aspects of her game from the very beginning.

Oh, and as for your cheap shot about McCool, I'll leave you with two stats: 3-3 and 2-9. I think you know the players and game I am referring to.

In your opinion is there a difference between a scorer and an attacker?

Imo an attacker scores, assists and redefends. A scorer does just that, scores. Both are important to their team, one is just more well rounded. Much like a midfielder plays both ends of the field and not just one half.

[njbill]

I pretty much agree with your definitions.

In my view, any attacker who handles the ball for any appreciable amount of time should also be able to feed, should look to feed, and should feed. Some attackers don’t have the ball much, such as a crease attacker who works herself open for a close-in shot. She has the ball in her stick for maybe a second or two at most and then shoots.

But if you play on attack and have the ball, say, on the outside or behind while your teammates are cutting through the 8 or coming off picks, you should look to feed your teammates. There is a time and place to be sure for one on one play, but it should not predominate in my opinion.

Anybody who plays on attack, whether they are a scorer, feeder, or whatever should redefend.

For my money, Sam Apuzzo is currently the best attacker playing the game. She does it all.

[laxdadpat]

Sam Apuzzo makes everybody better around her. If the defense slides a double towards her, she finds the open player. Charlotte North is a sniper. If the defense slides a double to her, she backs out and tries another angle. A great conversation on how there is not one way to play attack. I lean into liking to watch Apuzzo's style of play. If you need a goal at the end of a game, it's great to have North that just needs the ball in her stick.

[Bart]

I pretty much agree with your definitions.

In my view, any attacker who handles the ball for any appreciable amount of time should also be able to feed, should look to feed, and should feed. Some attackers don’t have the ball much, such as a crease attacker who works herself open for a close-in shot. She has the ball in her stick for maybe a second or two at most and then shoots.

But if you play on attack and have the ball, say, on the outside or behind while your teammates are cutting through the 8 or coming off picks, you should look to feed your teammates. There is a time and place to be sure for one on one play, but it should not predominate in my opinion.

Anybody who plays on attack, whether they are a scorer, feeder, or whatever should redefend.

For my money, Sam Apuzzo is currently the best attacker playing the game. She does it all.

Thanks for the reply. I agree, Sam Apuzzo is currently the best attacker out there right now.

[DMac]

If CO is picking teams (in AU), CN is his first pick, anyone else, not so much. She was chosen first in the first draft of her first year. I could be wrong but I don't think she ever was chosen first again, unlike the Mastroianni types who unselfishly do it all.
CN comes with a price, always has. She's a shooter and a scorer....and a real good one at that.
As far as having the ball in your stick in a needed goal situation, Apuzzo didn't do real bad with that in her back to back OT game winners.
CO, you never got back to me on my test (spare me stats, I know what I see).

[Can Opener]

Oh, Can, you are back at it. When you can't win an argument, you revert to personal attacks. Some things never change. 9 of 33 is a little above middle of the pack (second quartile).

No, my original statement (not directed at you) was she took "scads and scads of shots (many poor quality) in the last couple of weeks." Completely true. You then had to jump in and start picking a fight.

Last year you even trashed Sam Apuzzo, who is the best player ever to play at Boston College. I'm sure that went over well in Newton.

Apuzzo never picked North for her team which could be because she knows that North would limit her ability to rack up points.

Your MO seems to be to defend North at all costs no matter who gets thrown under the bus. A couple of years ago it was Ortega, then Scane. And last year Apuzzo.

North is a good player and a good scorer. But she has key weaknesses in her game even if in your blind fandom you fail to recognize them. I have acknowledged North's strengths. Why can't you ever acknowledge her weaknesses?

There's a lot to unpack here, but I will focus on your doubling down on an untruth. You are indeed correct that 9 of 33 would be in the second quartile (top 27.2%), but that would still be well above the middle of the pack. There's a bigger problem, however, in that those numbers don't relate to Charlotte North's shooting percentages. I have no idea what they represent. North was ranked 4th of 29 players with 10 or more shots and first in scoring percentage among those 29 players when you factor in her 2-pointers. If you drop the line to players with at least 5 shots, North would rank 5th out of 30 players -- Sierra Cockerille's 3 for 7 performance would edge North 42.8% to 42.0%. If you insist on ignoring standard statistical ranking protocols by including even players who took just one shot, North ranked 9th of 41 players (top quartile). I have no idea why you cite 9 of 33. The denominator does not appear to correspond to any relevant AU stat. I suppose your numbers are just ingredients in a word salad that attempts to cover up your knowing untruthfulness. I am happy to be corrected here. Otherwise, please acknowledge your error and we can move on.

I have never trashed Apuzzo and am in fact a huge fan. As a BC homer, I have enjoyed my interactions with her over the years and have always found her to be a wonderful person and player. I doubt anyone would read the quote you include from me as trashing Apuzzo. I was merely pointing out that if Apuzzo was chasing the individual title (in this wacky AU format), it would make sense not to have North on her team, as she would likely eat up scoring chances that would otherwise go to Apuzzo. We are basically saying the same thing here -- North takes up a lot of the oxygen and shooting opportunities for any team. If I were Apuzzo, I wouldn't pick North either. Nothing personal -- just a logical business decision.

[Can Opener]

If CO is picking teams (in AU), CN is his first pick, anyone else, not so much. She was chosen first in the first draft of her first year. I could be wrong but I don't think she ever was chosen first again, unlike the Mastroianni types who unselfishly do it all.
CN comes with a price, always has. She's a shooter and a scorer....and a real good one at that.
As far as having the ball in your stick in a needed goal situation, Apuzzo didn't do real bad with that in her back to back OT game winners.
CO, you never got back to me on my test (spare me stats, I know what I see).

Sorry, DMac. I may have misunderstood your question. You and I did have a positive exchange on the eye test on page 5.

I said: "As far as the eye test goes, she has never looked fitter or stronger. I am always happy when good things happen to good people."

And you responded: "Agree, CO, North has never looked better, this league is made for her."

Happy to weigh in with more thoughts if you'd like. I have never said that CN is the best player or attacker ever. I have never said that she is flawless. She is not. I don't have a great answer, for instance, about why she doesn't redefend with more zeal. My best guess is that (a) she isn't anywhere near as strong in the category as someone like Apuzzo, so (b) she doesn't want to risk getting cards that would take her out of the game. The risk/reward equation is out of whack in her mind.

[DMac]

No disagreement there, CO, but her looking better than ever doesn't mean she doesn't tend to hold on to the ball too long too often. She unquestionably does that by the eye test...unless you're seeing what you want to see. We had a mlaxer at Cuse like this, Carc anointed him as the best middie in "all of college lacrosse". That was nonsense, he took more shots than any other player in the ACC and choked the offense with his selfish play (as does North sometimes). His team went 4-10 his senior year...'nuff said.
As for Apuuzo not choosing North....Keep your friends close and your enemies (a real stretch of the word here) closer. She could choose her and play a bit keep away not giving her too many opportunities too. So there's that.

[Can Opener]

No disagreement there, CO, but her looking better than ever doesn't mean she doesn't tend to hold on to the ball too long too often. She unquestionably does that by the eye test...unless you're seeing what you want to see. We had a mlaxer at Cuse like this, Carc anointed him as the best middie in "all of college lacrosse". That was nonsense, he took more shots than any other player in the ACC and choked the offense with his selfish play (as does North sometimes). His team went 4-10 his senior year...'nuff said.
As for Apuuzo not choosing North....Keep your friends close and your enemies (a real stretch of the word here) closer. She could choose her and play a bit keep away not giving her too many opportunities too. So there's that.

The big difference is that your Cuse middie's team went 4-10 his senior year. In North's two full seasons at BC, the team went 37-7 with a National Championship and a one-goal loss in another championship game. During her '22 stint on the US Team, they went 8-0 with North leading the team in scoring. After the championship game, Taylor Cummings said: “It was our selflessness. It would be hard to imagine that an offense of Apuzzo, Treanor, North, Molly [Hendrick], Kylie [Ohlmiller], all of the middies — there’s a lot of alphas but we all just shared the ball and celebrated each other’s successes.” I get that North controls the ball more than anyone else, but it's been working for her teams.

It is still a mystery to me why North takes so much heat compared to other players. I have nothing but respect and admiration for Scane, but she and North had remarkably similar stats and team outcomes while Scane took almost zero heat for what anti-North folks would call ball hogging. (I am not calling it that.) In their last two years of college lax, North had 194 G, 35 A, 58% SH & 70 TO. Scane had 187 G, 56 A, 47% SH and 72 TO. North missed 142 of her shots while Scane missed 208 of hers. North, of course, was also a very successful draw taker during those two years while Scane rarely participated on the circle. BTW, in their senior years, Apuzzo had 30 assists, North had 23 and Scane had 21. In AU, Apuzzo had 8 assists in 12 games while North had 4 assists. I don't know ... are these numbers really enough to label one person a selfish ball hog and others wonderful team players? Again, I am a big fan of both Apuzzo and Scane, so I'm not trashing them. Just wondering why the judgments of a small minority of fans are so different.

[njbill]

Can, you sure can be tedious. You injected shooting percentage into this discussion, not me. I initially said North took “scads and scads” of shots, implying she took too many. I said nothing about her shooting percentage. Against my better judgment, I went down that rabbit hole with you. You slice and dice the stats to suit your narrative. You include numbers that help your case and omit those that hurt it. I’m a liar because I don’t agree with the way you manipulate the stats? Yeah, OK. BTW, I told you where I got “33” from. Look it up.

Putting aside shooting percentage, North took too many shots in AU. She took 119 shots this summer. The next player took 75. Here is a stat for you. North took 59% more shots than the player who took the second most. That is astounding.

Since you haven’t responded to my “pickup game” analogy, I assume you either agree with it or can’t refute it. The AU games are essentially meaningless pickup games. Who wins and who scores doesn’t mean a hill of beans. AU is great for the players who get to play the game they love, but who cares who wins or who scores? By holding the ball for much of the shot clock and then taking all the shots, North deprives the other players of the opportunity to shoot, which I can guarantee you they love to do just as much as North does. It is a fair criticism which any reasonable person would agree with.

No, North did not lead the US team in scoring at the World Cup in 2022. Should I call you a liar for saying that and then repeating it? The final game against Canada is the most important game North has ever played in. She shot 2-9. Took more shots than anyone on the team. In contrast, McCool was 3-3. Cummings 2-2. The final score was 11-8. Needless to say, possessions were critical. Missed shots can result in loss of possession. North hurt the team that day by taking and missing a lot of shots. It is one thing to take all the shots in an AU game. It is quite another to do so in the finals of the World Cup. The US beat Canada in the finals in spite of North’s performance that day, not because of it.

Your post wasn’t being critical of Apuzzo? So were you complimenting her? You must be a politician the way you try to spin a negative into a “positive” after the fact. Nice try, though. Next time you chat with Sam, why don’t you read your post to her and ask if she considers it to be a compliment.

North doesn’t redefend because she’s afraid of getting a card? Huh? Come on, Can, you can come up with something better than that. If that were the case, why would she ever shoot for fear of getting a DP or DF card?

[DMac]

Wasn't it Treanor who stole the show in the '22 World Games? I remember thinking her players at Cuse have got to be in awe of her and damn glad she's their coach. She was incredible.
CN will undoubtedly go down in the annals of wlax as a superstar who excelled at the game. She'll be listed with the greats and there will be pages of accolades, including a list of individual and team awards she's won. She's a force and I don't think there's anyone disagreeing with that. The only real issue here is, CO, IMO your defense system goes off at max volume with intermittent high shrill and low bass blasts if anything other than high praise is said about CN's game. In my mlax example it doesn't matter about how many titles were won, it's how he played the game. Double teamed, triple teamed, didn't matter he was going to get a shot off. It was his style of play and that came with a price, as does CN's.

[Can Opener]

Can, you sure can be tedious. You injected shooting percentage into this discussion, not me. I initially said North took “scads and scads” of shots, implying she took too many. I said nothing about her shooting percentage. Against my better judgment, I went down that rabbit hole with you. You slice and dice the stats to suit your narrative. You include numbers that help your case and omit those that hurt it. I’m a liar because I don’t agree with the way you manipulate the stats? Yeah, OK. BTW, I told you where I got “33” from. Look it up.
The only time you mentioned the number 33 was when you said that was the number of attackers and midfielders in AU. I haven't checked that fact, but I suppose that is what you mean. It is not accurate to then say North was 9th among those 33 players, because three players ahead of her were defenders. So if you are trying to describe North's ranking among A/M players, she would be 6th among 33 players. That is not second quartile, as you alleged, but top 18%. So you were not truthful to repeatedly describe her as near the middle of the pack in shooting percentage. I make mistakes every day. It is not that hard to admit them. I have no earthly idea why this is so difficult for you,

No, North did not lead the US team in scoring at the World Cup in 2022. Should I call you a liar for saying that and then repeating it?
Sure, you could call me a liar for saying North led the team in scoring, but that would not in fact make me a liar. This is from her AU bio: "North represented Team USA at the World Lacrosse 2022 Women's World Championship. She tied for second on the team with 28 points in eight games and led the team with 23 goals, ranking ninth in the tournament. North had five hat tricks, including four games with four or more goals. She scored five goals against Scotland and England during pool play. North is one of eight players in Team USA history to register 20 or more goals in a single Women's World Championship."

The rest of your comments do not merit a response.