USA U-20 National Team Roster

[Womenslaxxfan]

All tournament team:

Lydia Colasante
Shea Dolce
Kori Edmondson
Maddie Epke
Emma LoPinto
Jami Macdonald
Avery Morton
Negai Nakazawa
Miriam Suares-Jury
Madison Taylor

C Teamers.

First of all, i said there were top players. and all of these players are top players. The fact that they made the all tourny team does nothing against my argument.

The rest of the roster is interchangeable. and there are better players that werent selected. why aren't you understanding that? This U20 dominating international competition against inferior opponents is proof of the USA depth of talent. I discussed that.

This roster also had Emma Muchnick. Reagan Obrien. Hannah Rudolph. Haven Dora. You're telling me this is the best america has to offer in this age group? That's the point im making. These names are all C tier level players.

Using alogic, if you know there are better players out there compared to some on this roster, can you not conclude that this wasn't the strongest possible roster selected?

I usually agree with what you write. But not here. Until anyone gets to college, they are all unproven. Its. O accident that the all star team members for the us and all of the biggest contributors were college players.
Madison Taylor in high school? Unproven and not top 40. Izzy scane. Not top 20. Devon Russell may be a great college player….or she may not be.
I assume you weren’t at tryouts.
So to say that any high school player is an “a team” player versus names you mentioned who are “c-team” is pure speculation. Until they prove themself in college, they are all “b listers”. And think we got most of the a list college players who were eligible and uninjuerwd.

And of course now I have to correct my own mistake. Devon Russell is already an accomplished college player and I have no idea why she wasn’t on the roster….

[SpartansRule]

Standing up for a : Haven Dora was top 25 in country in assists, and top soph in country in that category. Fair to guess all the players above her are >20.

[wgdsr]

All tournament team:

Lydia Colasante
Shea Dolce
Kori Edmondson
Maddie Epke
Emma LoPinto
Jami Macdonald
Avery Morton
Negai Nakazawa
Miriam Suares-Jury
Madison Taylor

C Teamers.

First of all, i said there were top players. and all of these players are top players. The fact that they made the all tourny team does nothing against my argument.

The rest of the roster is interchangeable. and there are better players that werent selected. why aren't you understanding that? This U20 dominating international competition against inferior opponents is proof of the USA depth of talent. I discussed that.

This roster also had Emma Muchnick. Reagan Obrien. Hannah Rudolph. Haven Dora. You're telling me this is the best america has to offer in this age group? That's the point im making. These names are all C tier level players.

Using alogic, if you know there are better players out there compared to some on this roster, can you not conclude that this wasn't the strongest possible roster selected?

I usually agree with what you write. But not here. Until anyone gets to college, they are all unproven. Its. O accident that the all star team members for the us and all of the biggest contributors were college players.
Madison Taylor in high school? Unproven and not top 40. Izzy scane. Not top 20. Devon Russell may be a great college player….or she may not be.
I assume you weren’t at tryouts.
So to say that any high school player is an “a team” player versus names you mentioned who are “c-team” is pure speculation. Until they prove themself in college, they are all “b listers”. And think we got most of the a list college players who were eligible and uninjuerwd.

And of course now I have to correct my own mistake. Devon Russell is already an accomplished college player and I have no idea why she wasn’t on the roster….

you were correct the 1st time. kleiz's a team players all just finished dominating high schoolers. russell made the 42 cuts, along with 4 or so other '24's, while kleiz's other 2 picks didn't. it can be tough to stand out even over 3 days with 90+ players around. this was probably also the '24's first extensive taste of high college level players all over the field. probably a disadvantage for that group coming up against more experienced and/or older players in that setting.

at the 32 cut, all 4 of the other '24's made it i think but russell didn't. then 2 made the final roster. kleiz also had a number of other collegiate freshman "not getting a sniff" from the a squad, but we don't know who those folks are.

used to be, tryouts were just the one extended weekend. now they take quite a bit more investment in time and energy to pit players against each other multiple times to see who wins out on the field.

[Sunnylax]

This was the only game I watched, but even putting aside the change from U19 to U20, allowing the US team to have college players is a huge help. It seems to me that the core of the team has played two years in college, which is very significant. The team did not have any high school underclassmen as they have had in the past, and only two players who have not played in college.

I’m wondering if the tournament will go back to U19 after this year. My understanding is that they went to U20 this year because they moved the tournament back a year and didn’t want to prevent players who otherwise would’ve been eligible from playing on the team.

Don’t know if this game was officiated differently than other games in the tournament, but I thought the game was called quite closely, almost like a high school game. Certainly not as a college game would be officiated. That benefited the USA because Canada got 6 yellows (US had two). Didn’t keep track of how many goals the US scored when they were player up, but I’ll bet it was least 1/3. The announcer said that one yellow Canada got was a non-releasable five minute penalty. (I’m not sure what the international yellow card rules are.)

Congrats to the USA team. They put in a lot of time and hard work to get to this point. We in this country take for granted that our teams will win world titles. It ain’t that easy.

Judging from the scores of games, it definitely looked that easy.

[Lax101]

Same is true of the U19 Gold medal team 4 years ago. Go back and look at that roster. Many of the player had average to below average college careers and were not AA caliber players. The selection process is always flawed. It is unfortunate for players most deserving. Both times Amonte was at the helm. USA is so much better that it does not even remotely matter from a winning standpoint.

[njbill]

Not sure I would say many. Some perhaps. And some had stellar college careers.

https://www.usalacrosse.com/roster/2019 ... s-u19-team

[McLax9777]

This was the only game I watched, but even putting aside the change from U19 to U20, allowing the US team to have college players is a huge help. It seems to me that the core of the team has played two years in college, which is very significant. The team did not have any high school underclassmen as they have had in the past, and only two players who have not played in college.

I’m wondering if the tournament will go back to U19 after this year. My understanding is that they went to U20 this year because they moved the tournament back a year and didn’t want to prevent players who otherwise would’ve been eligible from playing on the team.

Don’t know if this game was officiated differently than other games in the tournament, but I thought the game was called quite closely, almost like a high school game. Certainly not as a college game would be officiated. That benefited the USA because Canada got 6 yellows (US had two). Didn’t keep track of how many goals the US scored when they were player up, but I’ll bet it was least 1/3. The announcer said that one yellow Canada got was a non-releasable five minute penalty. (I’m not sure what the international yellow card rules are.)

Congrats to the USA team. They put in a lot of time and hard work to get to this point. We in this country take for granted that our teams will win world titles. It ain’t that easy.

Judging from the scores of games, it definitely looked that easy.

Agree here, seems a long way to go to win by 30 points most games. Seems like most US High School teams might have had the same outcome.

[njbill]

I have to say, I am quite surprised by all this negativity. Maybe it’s only a small minority who are being vocal, but, to me, it’s a really bad look. My two cents.

[lacrossemwj]

All tournament team:

Lydia Colasante
Shea Dolce
Kori Edmondson
Maddie Epke
Emma LoPinto
Jami Macdonald
Avery Morton
Negai Nakazawa
Miriam Suares-Jury
Madison Taylor

C Teamers.

First of all, i said there were top players. and all of these players are top players. The fact that they made the all tourny team does nothing against my argument.

The rest of the roster is interchangeable. and there are better players that werent selected. why aren't you understanding that? This U20 dominating international competition against inferior opponents is proof of the USA depth of talent. I discussed that.

This roster also had Emma Muchnick. Reagan Obrien. Hannah Rudolph. Haven Dora. You're telling me this is the best america has to offer in this age group? That's the point im making. These names are all C tier level players.

Using alogic, if you know there are better players out there compared to some on this roster, can you not conclude that this wasn't the strongest possible roster selected?

I usually agree with what you write. But not here. Until anyone gets to college, they are all unproven. Its. O accident that the all star team members for the us and all of the biggest contributors were college players.
Madison Taylor in high school? Unproven and not top 40. Izzy scane. Not top 20. Devon Russell may be a great college player….or she may not be.
I assume you weren’t at tryouts.
So to say that any high school player is an “a team” player versus names you mentioned who are “c-team” is pure speculation. Until they prove themself in college, they are all “b listers”. And think we got most of the a list college players who were eligible and uninjuerwd.

And of course now I have to correct my own mistake. Devon Russell is already an accomplished college player and I have no idea why she wasn’t on the roster….

Devon Russell is an incoming first year to Boston College tihs fall . . . has not yet played in college.

[Lax101]

Not sure I would say many. Some perhaps. And some had stellar college careers.

https://www.usalacrosse.com/roster/2019 ... s-u19-team

There was certainly star power on the last U19 team but 8 out of 18 were not elite or AA talent kids. That is a lot. Almost 1/2 the team! Sounds similar to the current team.

[njbill]

I would say 12. Opinions differ.

[Sunnylax]

I have to say, I am quite surprised by all this negativity. Maybe it’s only a small minority who are being vocal, but, to me, it’s a really bad look. My two cents.

Bad look? I would say beating an inferior team by 30 goals is a bad look. I don't see the need for all of this U-insert age group personally.

[McLax9777]

I have to say, I am quite surprised by all this negativity. Maybe it’s only a small minority who are being vocal, but, to me, it’s a really bad look. My two cents.

Bad look? I would say beating an inferior team by 30 goals is a bad look. I don't see the need for all of this U-insert age group personally.

That’s my point. Add in the over-glorified social media posts, the clips of btb’s and trick shots when winning by 30, it’s a little much. It’s doesn’t seem sportsmanlike what so ever, in our youth leagues doing trick shots when you’re shellacking a team is considered poor sportsmanship. Young kids watch this, and then try to do this. Just not classy and a poor example. That’s my two cents. The hardest part of that event was the plane ride from the states.

[cdb]

I do not have any idea how talented the girls are versus the girls who did not play on the team. That is for you experts to discuss. But the coaches pick the teams and the coach that picked this team has won a lot of championships -- so I tend to trust those coaches. Everyone is entitled to an opine on talent. But if these were third stringers and they still won by so many goals, why would we b complaining about who went. Folks are already embarrassed by the scores. Imagine if we sent a more talented team!!

Second point I note is that this is an opinion board and everyone is entitled to an opinion. We all have opinions. I don't understand why folks get so defensive if folks disagree with their opinions. When someone makes a strong opinion like the team that went was third stringers -- it it surprising that someone else might disagree? -- especially if the other person is a parent or friend of one of the girls selected. So many times folks here get so involved with defending and building a case for their opinion. And then we get arguments -- it is a waste of time -- they are just opinions.

I know there are folks who believe there should be mercy rules or play when a team is so much better than its opponent -- when I was on a poor team -- I hated mercy rules -- they were the worst indictment ever -- they said that my team sucked so badly that the other team stopped trying or we ended the game early so I wouldn't be embarrassed any more than I already was. I hope they can determine a seeding system that will allow the better teams to have a more competitive tournament.

Concerning the talent issue, in football, many highly rated players do not work out -- sometimes it is because of talent, but frequently it relates to fit and the fact that the athlete does not have the support system they had at home. Other times it is because they are so talented that they have not had to put forth the effort they have to put forth in college just to get a little bit better and there are folks around them that are just as talented. That happens in football a lot. I don't know the same thing happens in WLAX. But I do note that the most talented girls all seem to be players that give everything they have the entire game -- they don't take plays off or relax -- they give all they have. And they seem to be great students and leaders. That is the main aspect of this game that has attracted me to it.

But there is the hope that what happened in men's basketball will happen in WLAX. When the Dream Team went to the Olympics in the early nineties, it trounced everyone -- and that encouraged many nations to improve their play -- now many of those players are stars in the NBA. The difference was that they could earn a wonderful life as an NBA player if they were sufficiently talented. I think that opportunity is coming in WLAX and when it does, watch out for countries like China, many Europeans, etc. With the athletes they have developed in other sports, it will only be a matter of time before they are more than competitive.

[njbill]

I didn’t see clips of BTBs or trick shots when the team was up by 30, but if that did occur, I would agree with you. Not good.

But what do you want the US team and players to do? World Lacrosse holds the event. It is not a US event or an NCAA event. Do you want the US to not send a team? Do you want them to send somebody’s C team?

I’m guessing that the responses would be that, yes, we should participate and that, yes, we should send our best team, but that we should not run up the score to the extent we did. Is that right?

The debate about running up the score has been going on forever, not just in this event, of course. It is not the US‘s fault that most of the other teams are not as good as we are. The other teams enter the tournament knowing that the US is the best team and that the US will crush them if they play. Knowing that, they don’t have to enter the tournament if they don’t want to. And, of course, the US was not the only team running up lopsided results.

I think that once you have cleared the bench, the bench players should be permitted to play. They shouldn’t just be forced to play keep away. In the U20 tournament, rosters are limited so you really only have two teams effectively. Once the first team has gotten a big lead, yes, you should put in the subs. But I don’t have a problem with the subs playing hard. That is particularly so given the amount of time and effort all of the team members put in to make this team. I really don’t think it is appropriate to ask the 22nd player on the roster to play keep away if she has traveled all the way to Hong Kong for this tournament.

When I say I don’t think it’s a good look, I mean I don’t think it’s a good look to be so critical of these young players who sacrificed to make this team (which in and of itself is a great honor) and were probably only doing the coach’s bidding.

[DMac]

I have to say, I am quite surprised by all this negativity. Maybe it’s only a small minority who are being vocal, but, to me, it’s a really bad look. My two cents.

I'm actually not surprised by the negativity. I'll preface this by saying I hope everyone who went had the time of their lives and enjoyed every minute of it. A group of teenage girls flying to Hong Kong to play lacrosse does much to perpetuate the perception of lacrosse being a game for the privileged. Had to be a nice chunk of change to send these gals to and from and put 'em up and feed 'em for however long they were there. Seems to me as if that money could have been spent much more wisely to grow the game (am confident that's what I'm going to be told here as the bigger reason for the trip) and based on the scores it certainly doesn't warrant the trip to play that level of competition. I wouldn't make that trip for all the tea in China (sorry, just too irresistible).

[forthelaxofit]

First congratulations to the team - well done. Some other random thoughts

1) Roster – Is Derrick White one of the top 10-15 players in the NBA? He made the US Olympic team. The B or C player thing is a joke and insulting to players who made it. Coach should pick the squad. That simple. (I do think picking your goalie who didn’t play a minute this year either because she was 3rd string on your team or sat out for redshirt reason doesn’t have the best look – but I sticking with coach gets to pick the team.)
2) Scores – if my daughter was selected for the team, I would want her to play hard. Many began tryouts over a year in advance and travelled around the world to play. And you want them to do what – go into 4 corner stall and end the game 7-1? No place for showboating plays to be sure, but they earned the right to play. I wrote before they should change rules for this tournament and provide mercy rule draw controls. Or maybe something else they could do? Are International rules running clock?
3) I don’t know if this event “grows” the game. Clearly other countries have talented women team athletes in sports interest to them. Look at field hockey in the Olympics - Quarterfinals were 5 European teams, Argentina, China and Australia. Soccer much the same. Even the “international” teams in this tournament had US born players on their teams through the rules established. It just is not popular enough in 90% of the world. And a question – how many of these countries other than US and Canada have a lacrosse federation that paid for 100% of the team expenses versus players/families footing some or all the bill? Maybe the cost, on top of little interest, is also a deterrent for some athletes outside the US.
4) My opinion – If Olympics looks anything like this, women’s lacrosse should not be in the 2028 Olympics. You just can’t have an Olympic sport that would have results like we just saw. Softball had a TOTAL of 6 teams in the 2020 Olympics before being excluded from 2024 Olympics. Not every sport has to be in the Olympics to validate it.
5) Does winning coach pick All Tournament team? Looking at some stats Dolce had 7 saves for the tournament out of 20 shots (35% save percentage). Even if all 7 of those saves were goals, US still wins every game by huge margins. I like Dolce, but 7 saves All Tournament is a head scratcher.

[DMac]

4) My opinion – If Olympics looks anything like this, women’s lacrosse should not be in the 2028 Olympics. You just can’t have an Olympic sport that would have results like we just saw. Softball had a TOTAL of 6 teams in the 2020 Olympics before being excluded from 2024 Olympics. Not every sport has to be in the Olympics to validate it.

This is (pretty much) what Olympic lacrosse would look like which is a real big part of the reason (roster size too) it's not going to be in the 2028 Olympics either. Sixes is not lacrosse, it's a bastardized version which eliminates most of the game in order squeeze it into the Olympics. They've been ridiculously (because it WOULD "look like this") hell bent on getting lacrosse in the Olympics and have completely sold out the game in order to do so. This tourney is a pretty good indication (for both M and W lacrosse) of why it hasn't been in the Olympics and still shouldn't be. In my lifetime I've never seen the world ready for Olympic lacrosse and still don't.

[njbill]

I have to say, I am quite surprised by all this negativity. Maybe it’s only a small minority who are being vocal, but, to me, it’s a really bad look. My two cents.

I'm actually not surprised by the negativity. I'll preface this by saying I hope everyone who went had the time of their lives and enjoyed every minute of it. A group of teenage girls flying to Hong Kong to play lacrosse does much to perpetuate the perception of lacrosse being a game for the privileged. Had to be a nice chunk of change to send these gals to and from and put 'em up and feed 'em for however long they were there. Seems to me as if that money could have been spent much more wisely to grow the game (am confident that's what I'm going to be told here as the bigger reason for the trip) and based on the scores it certainly doesn't warrant the trip to play that level of competition. I wouldn't make that trip for all the tea in China (sorry, just too irresistible).

As a world championship, the location of the event moves around. I’m sure the Chinese lobbied for it. It has been in the United States twice, although not for 20 years. Last time it was in Canada. The time before that, Scotland. Sometimes the US team has to travel long distances, sometimes not. Just like the Olympics.

I do recall negative posts in years past about who should’ve been on the roster, blah blah blah. But I don’t recall such negativity about the event itself, or the US’s performance (except when we lost in 2015). Maybe it happened and I have forgotten.

Yes, lacrosse is perceived to be a sport of the privileged, but I don’t think flying the team to Hong Kong perpetuates that impression. Just a guess, but I’ll bet all US national teams in all sports are flown to the site of the world championships on their sports’ federations dime.

In saying the scores don’t warrant the trip, you seem to be saying the US team shouldn’t have attended. I don’t agree with that. I think they definitely should’ve gone.

[user1020]

First congratulations to the team - well done. Some other random thoughts

1) Roster – Is Derrick White one of the top 10-15 players in the NBA? He made the US Olympic team. The B or C player thing is a joke and insulting to players who made it. Coach should pick the squad. That simple. (I do think picking your goalie who didn’t play a minute this year either because she was 3rd string on your team or sat out for redshirt reason doesn’t have the best look – but I sticking with coach gets to pick the team.)
2) Scores – if my daughter was selected for the team, I would want her to play hard. Many began tryouts over a year in advance and travelled around the world to play. And you want them to do what – go into 4 corner stall and end the game 7-1? No place for showboating plays to be sure, but they earned the right to play. I wrote before they should change rules for this tournament and provide mercy rule draw controls. Or maybe something else they could do? Are International rules running clock?
3) I don’t know if this event “grows” the game. Clearly other countries have talented women team athletes in sports interest to them. Look at field hockey in the Olympics - Quarterfinals were 5 European teams, Argentina, China and Australia. Soccer much the same. Even the “international” teams in this tournament had US born players on their teams through the rules established. It just is not popular enough in 90% of the world. And a question – how many of these countries other than US and Canada have a lacrosse federation that paid for 100% of the team expenses versus players/families footing some or all the bill? Maybe the cost, on top of little interest, is also a deterrent for some athletes outside the US.
4) My opinion – If Olympics looks anything like this, women’s lacrosse should not be in the 2028 Olympics. You just can’t have an Olympic sport that would have results like we just saw. Softball had a TOTAL of 6 teams in the 2020 Olympics before being excluded from 2024 Olympics. Not every sport has to be in the Olympics to validate it.
5) Does winning coach pick All Tournament team? Looking at some stats Dolce had 7 saves for the tournament out of 20 shots (35% save percentage). Even if all 7 of those saves were goals, US still wins every game by huge margins. I like Dolce, but 7 saves All Tournament is a head scratcher.

I completely agree with 4 & 5. I’d rather never see lacrosse in the Olympics in my life than see sixes. People need to stay true to the sport they love and have some respect for it. I don’t agree with this sixes nonsense. It’s a practice drill that is now in the Olympics. It’s like putting indoor soccer in the Olympics. In my opinion it’s a bad look for the sport and doesn’t show the true value and beauty of the game.

What is with the hype with Dolce? All tournament team. Listed at #2 I believe on IL Women Tewaaraton watch list. She’s a good goalie and makes some clutch saves, but she’s not even the best goalie in college lacrosse right now. It seems like the people who have control over lacrosse and its growth and publications do not have the right mindset. They’re clouded by lacrosse
politics and don’t do the sport any justice. I wish they would have some integrity and loyalty to the sport because the college game right now is near perfection.