Re: Womens USA team Who you got?
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:18 pm
Same Party, Different House
https://fanlax.com/forum/
That’s what we like to think here. Don’t think it is really true though. All you need to remember is 2015.
Are there any goals in this sequence that you would consider "physical?"njbill wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:15 pmWe’ll see. You can say there’s no way they aren’t taking her. I can say there’s no way they are. We don’t make the decision.Laxfan500 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:58 amIt doesn’t matter there’s no way they aren’t taking her .njbill wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:54 amHe said we are looking for assisted goals. And, nope, I didn’t whisper in his ear.Can Opener wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:35 amJust googled "Joe Spallina Charlotte North" and nothing popped up. Has he made comments about who has done well?
It’s on the video they put out.
She is only a scorer. This team does not need more scorers.
It is essential that the attackers be excellent feeders and fierce redefenders. That’s why Treanor, Apuzzo, and Tumolo will make the team. North is lacking in those areas.
Ohlmiller gets on because of Joe.
So assuming they take five attackers, who gets the last slot? I say Scane. While granted she is not a top-notch feeder, she is a better redefender than North and an equally good scorer. What tips it for me is her physicality. The international game is a lot more physical than college. I would like to have a Scane-type player on the field in the event the team needs a tough, physical goal.
Do you have something of substance to add? I thought we were all about "talkin' lax." Happy to engage with more facts, because TBH, it is really amusing to watch people publicly soil themselves.
Nothing has changed CO. You have the logical, reasonable perspective on Charlotte. The stats are there, the eye test is there, the clutch play is there. The rest of it's just noise and nonsense.Can Opener wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:54 pm Are there any goals in this sequence that you would consider "physical?"
https://twitter.com/BCEagles/status/139 ... 03872?s=20
In your post you say that "This team does not need more scorers," but you then say that a big advantage for Scane is having her "when the team needs a tough, physical goal." Which is it? Do they need scorers or not need scorers? I will once again ask you to provide similar proof of Scane's ability to score physical goals, but you may be too busy searching for that elusive second TO in the Carolina game.
Because I am feeling generous, I will give you a chance to retract this statement without having me pile on: "She is only a scorer." Hint: Do 174 DCs and a 60%+ team DC winning percentage ring a bell?
Is there anything positive that you can say about this young woman? You are in a tiny minority of women's lacrosse followers who can only hate on CN. I understand you don't like me very much, but it is hard to maintain any credibility when every single comment you make about the #1 college player in the nation is negative.
One thing I've learned on here, CO--once you encounter a mind made up, it's best to let be. Save your keystrokes for more worthy topics.Can Opener wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:54 pm Are there any goals in this sequence that you would consider "physical?"
https://twitter.com/BCEagles/status/139 ... 03872?s=20
In your post you say that "This team does not need more scorers," but you then say that a big advantage for Scane is having her "when the team needs a tough, physical goal." Which is it? Do they need scorers or not need scorers? I will once again ask you to provide similar proof of Scane's ability to score physical goals, but you may be too busy searching for that elusive second TO in the Carolina game.
Because I am feeling generous, I will give you a chance to retract this statement without having me pile on: "She is only a scorer." Hint: Do 174 DCs and a 60%+ team DC winning percentage ring a bell?
Is there anything positive that you can say about this young woman? You are in a tiny minority of women's lacrosse followers who can only hate on CN. I understand you don't like me very much, but it is hard to maintain any credibility when every single comment you make about the #1 college player in the nation is negative.
Pirecca was moved to defense 1st day of tryouts. She is no longer in the middle group.Laxallday wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:32 amSuspect final selections will balance coaching relationships, existing experience, talent, ability to attract fans (social media) and fit with USA fast paced style. I am taking 5 attack, 7 middies, 4 defense and 2 goalies. My selections above balancing all of the factors.njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jun 14, 2021 3:06 pm I’ve sorted the 36 players by position so the forum brainiacs can more easily give Jen Levy et al. advice on whom the final selections should be.
Attack (9)
Apuzzo - yes
Hendrick
McKone
North - yes
Ohlmiller - yes
Ortega
Scane - yes
Treanor - yes
Tumolo
Middie (17)
Arsenault - yes
Cummings - yes
Dirks
Garrett
Huff
Johansen
Kennedy - yes
Kent - yes
Mastroianni - yes
McCool - yes
Miller
Parros
Pirreca - yes
Sabella
Smith
Swart
Warden
Defense (6)
Block - yes
Carr
Douty - yes
Mercer - yes
O’Donnell
Trenchard - yes
Goalie (4)
Hogan - yes
Johns - yes
Moreno
Waters
I'm leaving the DL players out at this point just for the sake of discussion.
Middie heavy is an understatement. So what does that say about the positional make up of the final team? Two goalies obviously. Only four defenders? Seven or eight middies? Four or five attackers?
He didn't start off with attacks, but I can see why he ended up where he did, in a sense though, Bill. (Not that I agree with that, but I can see it.) You just wouldn't give an inch. And CO made several damn good cases. You always seem to be a measured, rational well-written njbill. But you go completely out of character (except for the well-written part) when it comes to North. Anyway--that's some of my perspective for what it's worth.
DC stats not going to factor much when you have Appuzzo Cummings and Treanor .Can Opener wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:54 pmAre there any goals in this sequence that you would consider "physical?"njbill wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:15 pmWe’ll see. You can say there’s no way they aren’t taking her. I can say there’s no way they are. We don’t make the decision.Laxfan500 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:58 amIt doesn’t matter there’s no way they aren’t taking her .njbill wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:54 amHe said we are looking for assisted goals. And, nope, I didn’t whisper in his ear.Can Opener wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:35 amJust googled "Joe Spallina Charlotte North" and nothing popped up. Has he made comments about who has done well?
It’s on the video they put out.
She is only a scorer. This team does not need more scorers.
It is essential that the attackers be excellent feeders and fierce redefenders. That’s why Treanor, Apuzzo, and Tumolo will make the team. North is lacking in those areas.
Ohlmiller gets on because of Joe.
So assuming they take five attackers, who gets the last slot? I say Scane. While granted she is not a top-notch feeder, she is a better redefender than North and an equally good scorer. What tips it for me is her physicality. The international game is a lot more physical than college. I would like to have a Scane-type player on the field in the event the team needs a tough, physical goal.
https://twitter.com/BCEagles/status/139 ... 03872?s=20
In your post you say that "This team does not need more scorers," but you then say that a big advantage for Scane is having her "when the team needs a tough, physical goal." Which is it? Do they need scorers or not need scorers? I will once again ask you to provide similar proof of Scane's ability to score physical goals, but you may be too busy searching for that elusive second TO in the Carolina game.
Because I am feeling generous, I will give you a chance to retract this statement without having me pile on: "She is only a scorer." Hint: Do 174 DCs and a 60%+ team DC winning percentage ring a bell?
Is there anything positive that you can say about this young woman? You are in a tiny minority of women's lacrosse followers who can only hate on CN. I understand you don't like me very much, but it is hard to maintain any credibility when every single comment you make about the #1 college player in the nation is negative.
May 29, 2021
DCs will still matter for North. Below are the stats for each of the four players for their senior years. The numbers are very similar among North, Apuzzo and Treanor. Cummings is significantly behind, but still a force in the draw circle. Will the coaches opt for a current player who has been sharpened by tough competition for the past four months, or a wily veteran who hasn't been playing full time for the past five years? All else being equal, I would take the player with recent experience under fire, although so much will depend on the chemistry of three teammates at the circle. I think it's fair to say that North's historic DC success will help her cause for making this team over Scane. Why wouldn't you want an extra player who can add this dimension to your roster? Even if another woman takes most of the reps, I would mix in North frequently to mess up the plans and rhythms of the opposing team.Laxfan500 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 5:59 pmDC stats not going to factor much when you have Appuzzo Cummings and Treanor .Can Opener wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 2:54 pmAre there any goals in this sequence that you would consider "physical?"njbill wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:15 pmWe’ll see. You can say there’s no way they aren’t taking her. I can say there’s no way they are. We don’t make the decision.Laxfan500 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:58 amIt doesn’t matter there’s no way they aren’t taking her .njbill wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:54 amHe said we are looking for assisted goals. And, nope, I didn’t whisper in his ear.Can Opener wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 11:35 amJust googled "Joe Spallina Charlotte North" and nothing popped up. Has he made comments about who has done well?
It’s on the video they put out.
She is only a scorer. This team does not need more scorers.
It is essential that the attackers be excellent feeders and fierce redefenders. That’s why Treanor, Apuzzo, and Tumolo will make the team. North is lacking in those areas.
Ohlmiller gets on because of Joe.
So assuming they take five attackers, who gets the last slot? I say Scane. While granted she is not a top-notch feeder, she is a better redefender than North and an equally good scorer. What tips it for me is her physicality. The international game is a lot more physical than college. I would like to have a Scane-type player on the field in the event the team needs a tough, physical goal.
https://twitter.com/BCEagles/status/139 ... 03872?s=20
In your post you say that "This team does not need more scorers," but you then say that a big advantage for Scane is having her "when the team needs a tough, physical goal." Which is it? Do they need scorers or not need scorers? I will once again ask you to provide similar proof of Scane's ability to score physical goals, but you may be too busy searching for that elusive second TO in the Carolina game.
Because I am feeling generous, I will give you a chance to retract this statement without having me pile on: "She is only a scorer." Hint: Do 174 DCs and a 60%+ team DC winning percentage ring a bell?
Is there anything positive that you can say about this young woman? You are in a tiny minority of women's lacrosse followers who can only hate on CN. I understand you don't like me very much, but it is hard to maintain any credibility when every single comment you make about the #1 college player in the nation is negative.
Marie McCool helped to coach a team that went 20-1 this year. She entered UNC in the fall of 2014 and went on to win a national championship and be named a Tewaaraton finalist twice. Prior to Carolina, she won three state championships at Moorestown. So that means she has been coaching, playing and observing lacrosse at a very high level for the past 11 years. Mesh pockets were first allowed in 2018 and by all accounts that enabled women to elevate what they could do with their sticks. Perhaps there were women before Charlotte who had greater skills, but given stick technology and North's innovation, McCool's statement is accurate that "She's doing things that nobody has done before with her stickwork." CN has hit 90 MPH on the radar gun. That is something that was simply not possible with the old technology. Of course there is also the increased hold of the mesh sticks that allow for more aggressive dodging and more creative shooting release points. I suppose it's possible that other women that most of us would not know achieved more with less. Would you mind sharing just a few names of those women?LarryGamLax wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 12:45 pmCan Opener wrote: ↑Wed Jun 16, 2021 10:14 am Nice compliment this week for CN from UNC coach and former star Marie McCool.
“What the collegiate players have been able to do for our sport is incredible. Charlotte North specifically, she is so talented,” McCool said. “She’s doing things that nobody has done before with her stickwork. It’s so important for young kids to see those things.“
No mention of assists to shots ratio or excessive cellies so clearly Charlotte is learning from our posters.![]()
Respect Marie and like her very much. That was a nice compliment about Charlotte North, but it really isn't exactly accurate. Marie is young, so she sees CN do things and assumes the things she sees are things "that nobody has done before". I could name a number of players(many of whom most of you would not know) who were stick wizards, but what CN has is TV(streaming incl.) and the big stage.
Always nice when players can respect other player's talent.