Inside Lacrosse Top 50

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Didn't want to quote because the string was too long. Understand your point about male vs female athlete criticism. Personally, I don't agree with any criticism of athletes that aren't in a pro league. While that line has become blurred in certain sports with NIL, no lacrosse player is making a ton of money playing this sport while also going through the rigors of getting an education, and in terms of what programs are typically discussed here at a highly ranked academic institution. I don't believe I have ever criticized an individual player on this forum. I have voiced my opinions about programs and certain coaches, but never players. I would never do so on the men's board either. I assume many of the people that post here are either parents of current NCAA players, parents of former NCAA players, parents of future NCAA players, or former NCAA players themselves. In all of those cases you are all completely cognizant of the relentless dedication that is required by these kids, call them young adults if you prefer, to both excel on the field and more importantly in the classroom. To criticize someone for their performance at the second biggest priority in their college experience is nonsensical to me. Doc's daughter was an example of what every college athlete should aspire to be in terms of her success on the field but much more importantly her incredible performance in the classroom. These are not NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc players whose sole job is to train their bodies, practice and win games. These are incredibly dedicated and gifted kids that are trying to juggle a full class schedule, studying, training, lifting, practicing, traveling and missing classes, and oh by the way trying to maintain some semblance of a social life so that they don't lose their minds. It's your right to criticize them if you choose, but expect backlash if you do and maybe think about how you would feel if your daughter or son was the one who was being called a quitter.

You make many good points and I understand where you’re coming from but where I can’t stay on the same path with you is not being able to critique athletes who participate in a sport—regardless of whether they’re in college or not. In my mind, talking about a sport always involves talking about the participants—whether that means praise or criticism.

[Can Opener]

I'm so honored. You keep a separate file of all my posts and pore over them from time to time. I'm almost verklempt.

After relentless criticism of a star player over many years, one of our posters has created an arbitrary moral boundary – you can rip into a player all you’d like, but don’t you dare say that a player has “quit.” Exactly. Criticizing a player about play on the field is OK (notwithstanding your 1950s sexist views), but a false claim that she quit is wrong. Of course that is a tough criticism, but I would note that players quit all the time. No, they don't. Give some examples of players "quitting." It’s often not a conscious decision, but when your team falls behind, you are not playing well personally and your shoulders slump, it is quite common that effort level drops. That's not what mom was talking about. She specifically said she was not talking about the end of the games. Go read her posts.

This poster says that: “I don’t recall any defamatory remarks about players’ character.” If you are going to jump into a conversation, read the posts. My comment was about the two instances ONW brought up. You are going off in another direction, confusing or conflating criticisms of play on the field with criticisms of character. Below is a short list of comments that are perfectly fine, according to our new moral rules arbiter. Are any of these critical of a player’s character? You be the judge.

* Accuse a player of “disrespecting your opponent, not to mention showing appalling disrespect for the person who many think is the greatest player of all time. A bad look for BC. A bad look for Smith. A bad look for North.” This was absolutely correct.
Refers to the end of BC Loyola game. The reference was to Jen Adams. Stand by this 100%. Go back and read what other posters wrote about this at the time if you think I'm out to lunch.

* Share unfounded and unsourced scuttlebutt about a player: “There were rumors that at least some of her teammates did not like the way she hogged the ball. Was that just sour grapes or was there some actual truth in there?” Referring to what a poster on this board said. Don't like it? Do your own homework and then take it up with him or her. And BTW, the comment certainly has a ring of truth to it. I've seen a similar thing with other players/teams a number of times. [I heard that guy's business partners hate him, but I don’t know for sure. Just passing that along.]

* Accuse a player of ruining team chemistry through her selfishness: “North fans aren’t going to like this, but team chemistry is critical as is willingness to share the ball. It says here she won’t make the [national] team.”
* Imply that a player would not be a good fit on the team for some cryptic, perhaps sinister, reasons: “She ain’t making the national team. Bank on it. Do you really want me to get into the other reasons? Didn’t think so.” How many times have we been through this? I made the comment before Tumi retired and before Scane got hurt. I stand by my opinion at the time. You disagree. We'll never know what would have happened.

* Fabricate an utterly baseless story about how teammates chastised a player after a goal (https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=388022#p388022) For the umpteenth time, you are referring to the wrong goal.

* Engage in petty name-calling: “How will the Eagles be now that Hurricane Charlotte has blown out of town? She was undeniably a ball hog, but she did put the ball in the back of the net.” “...she went rogue and turned into me-first Charlotte.” Oh, gee. My feelings are hurt. I thought that was a pretty clever name. BTW, you do know some athletes have had the nickname "Hurricane," right? Even you have, more or less, acknowledged she dominates the ball. You even got your stop watch out last summer and proved my point. If we did a twitter poll asking if North hogs the ball at times, I'll bet 75% would vote "yes."

* Fabricate a baseless criticism that crow hops allow opposing defenses to more easily defend a player. https://fanlax.com/forum/viewtopic.php? ... op#p394551 Baseless? Huh. Try "indisputable." The more time a player takes in executing their shot the more time a defender has to get in position. Pretty elementary. And in any event, how is that criticism? It's just an observation.

* Accuse a player of irrational screeching for no reason when clearly she was shouting instructions to her teammates on the draw circle, as mic’ed up broadcasts proved: “What is with North’s screeching when the draw is being set up? … That would explain when she is yelling names, but the screeching is exceedingly odd. Would be quite surprised if that is a play call.” Well, the screeching certainly was irrational. You say "clearly she was shouting instructions." Just what were the instructions? As I said, yelling names made some sense. Screeching made made no sense and was, to me, irrational. I have never heard another player do that.

* Perpetuate petty criticism of celebrations that are meant to denigrate character rather than criticize on-field play: “On the other side of the ledger is the lingering feeling of some that she hogs the ball and celebrates too exuberantly.” “What I think people had problems with was her going nuts when she scored her fourth goal in a blowout win over Podunk U.” [BC does not play Podunk U or their ilk: https://bceagles.com/sports/womens-lacr ... edule/2022] I and about a million other fans think this.
If you enjoyed her excessive celebrations, as you might have since she played for the team you root for, that's fine. As I have said, she definitely toned things down over the past couple of years. I imagine she got spoken to.

* Accuse a player of failing to try hard on rides (AKA dogging it), which is akin to quitting. She is not a strong redefender. Obviously. Not saying she needs to be at the Sam Apuzzo level, but come on. I have said she does not redefend. I have not said she's a quitter. I don't think she is. Disagree that failing to redefend is akin to quitting. That's your conclusion.

So fabrications, name-calling, rumor mongering and improperly accusing someone of “appalling disrespect” are all fair game, but please don’t ever use the word “quit.” Now you are starting to get it, grasshopper.

So let me ask you, CO, are you OK with mom calling Jenner a quitter? Do you think she "quit" in the games in question?

No time to battle with all of the silly straw men above. To simplify this and to highlight a difficult relationship with factual reality when it comes to CN, here is a pretty simple litmus test. You have refused to give a straight answer when challenged multiple times on this statement you made: "Did you notice in the first half of the game the other night when she went rogue and turned into me-first Charlotte? She scored, but her senior teammates, instead of hugging her as normally occurs after a goal, clearly were chastising her for selfish play. And then the coaches took her out shortly thereafter. I hope that doesn't make your head explode since I'm inside it." This did not occur. Full stop. CN scored two goals in the first half. You can watch them at the 11:24 and the 13:20 marks of this video. After each goal her teammates hugged her. Your statement to the contrary was not truthful. While the video proves hugging occurred, technically, I cannot prove the absence of any chastising, but since you launched this allegation, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for the chastising. Did you have access to special audio? Did one of the players or coaches talk about it in a post-game interview? We shall see if you can now finally admit your error or if you will insist on continuing this charade. I will assume that your silence or deflection is an admission of your fabrication, but the more honorable thing to do would be to admit a mistake. We will also see if any members of the Amen Chorus have the courage to acknowledge their friend's error in Chastisegate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BnwrXi9epQ

[DMac]

hmmm wrote
It's your right to criticize them if you choose, but expect backlash if you do and maybe think about how you would feel if your daughter or son was the one who was being called a quitter.

I don't know if I'd call it your right but an option you can exercise for sure.
Indeed expect backlash and spare me the whining and tattling when you get it.
When a player is accused of quitting or choking that is a personal attack on that
player, it's degrading and defamatory. If you can't take like criticisms then don't
put yourself to be the target of such. It is not, and has not been for a long time,
a level playing field at fanlax. There are those who are coddled and protected
(via whining and tattling) and those who are not. If players on the field are fair
game, posters on the forum should be too.

[njbill]

No time to battle with all of the silly straw men above. To simplify this and to highlight a difficult relationship with factual reality when it comes to CN, here is a pretty simple litmus test. You have refused to give a straight answer when challenged multiple times on this statement you made: "Did you notice in the first half of the game the other night when she went rogue and turned into me-first Charlotte? She scored, but her senior teammates, instead of hugging her as normally occurs after a goal, clearly were chastising her for selfish play. And then the coaches took her out shortly thereafter. I hope that doesn't make your head explode since I'm inside it." This did not occur. Full stop. CN scored two goals in the first half. You can watch them at the 11:24 and the 13:20 marks of this video. After each goal her teammates hugged her. Your statement to the contrary was not truthful. While the video proves hugging occurred, technically, I cannot prove the absence of any chastising, but since you launched this allegation, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for the chastising. Did you have access to special audio? Did one of the players or coaches talk about it in a post-game interview? We shall see if you can now finally admit your error or if you will insist on continuing this charade. I will assume that your silence or deflection is an admission of your fabrication, but the more honorable thing to do would be to admit a mistake. We will also see if any members of the Amen Chorus have the courage to acknowledge their friend's error in Chastisegate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BnwrXi9epQ

OK, Can, even though you refuse to respond to my questions, I’ll respond to yours. In fact, I have responded to you about this exhibition game at least a couple of times before. I will do so again – one last time. I looked at your video even though I’m not sure why you are obsessing over an exhibition game from six months ago. Here’s what happened. Instead of passing to a wide open Apuzzo on the doorstep, North, who was closely marked by one defender with a nearby trail defender and a third defender closing from a couple steps away, took a shot. Even though the shot went it, it wasn’t the kind of shot Team USA wants. What did the coaches say? We want assisted goals. They want players to pass to open teammates, certainly when they are wide open right in front of the goal. To my eyes, her teammates were telling North that after her goal. There was not the usual jumping around, leaping into arms celebration you usually see after a goal. And her teammates definitely did NOT hug her after the goal. OK, got it now? That’s my opinion, my interpretation of what I saw. You disagree. Let’s hope the Earth will continue to spin on its axis.

But let’s get to the bigger issue. You stepped into this discussion to pick a fight with me. You don’t care about what mom said about Jenner (I wonder if you even know who she is) or about my response. In your post you spent 90% of your time dredging up old stuff about Charlotte North (like the above) that had nothing to do with the Jenner issue. You have done that many times in the past, rehashing and re-rehashing things ad nauseum, long after the particular game has faded from memory. You even continued to attack me time and time again months and months after I stopped posting. Why?

You disagree with me about North. You think I’m the worst person on the planet because I’ve criticized her. Yeah, we get that. How about saving your vitriol for any future criticism I may have of her down the road, if that were to ever even happen since she doesn’t play college ball anymore. In fact, her next meaningful game won’t be until 2026, that is, if she doesn’t retire and if she makes the next World Cup team.

I disagree with a lot of the comments about Jenner in this thread, but you don’t see me attacking posters calling them “creepy,” “weird,” “absurd,” “wacky,” “hater,” and much worse, as you did with me. I just disagree with their views which they are entitled to have.

And lastly, there is nothing wrong or inconsistent in criticizing one player about certain aspects of her game and then objecting to an entirely different type of criticism about another player. Frankly, that position is nonsensical. Happens all the time in sports discussions.

[Dr. Tact]

You know that I respect your opinion and your contributions to the sport. You have largely avoided taking sides in certain disputes, which I also respect, so I'm puzzled why you'd jump in now to support this new construct of "all criticism of young athletes is fair game -- except the Q Word." Other than one or two of us, most posters here have stood by silently as posters have relentlessly criticized a young female athlete for many years to an extent that has never been seen before on these boards. Many of us coach young women and are deeply committed to growing the sport, so it’s puzzling that so few have spoken up to say: “Hey man, I get it that you think she’s selfish, but we all heard you the 20th time. Time to move on.” Most folks also remained silent when criticism expanded beyond “selfishness” to terms like "appalling disrespect," "bad sportsmanship," "pathetic," "North choked," "rumors," "screeching," and "celebrates too exuberantly." It seems the consensus was: that’s all fair criticism of a player's athletic performance, but alleging that another player dropped her level of intensity is now deemed to be going way too far. Seems like a curious place to make a stand. If you call a borderline cross check early in the game, smart players then avoid cross checking. If you don’t call it, someone could get hurt.

I have no idea if the original "Q" allegation was justified or not, but it is a criticism of her play on the field. It’s charged and personal, but it is based on her on-field performance. I don't like criticizing college athletes, as you know, but saying someone "quit" is not de facto on a lower moral plane than calling another player names, accusing her of appalling disrespect, rumor mongering, and fabricating criticisms out of whole cloth. I would also point out that CN has been accused of dogging it on the ride for years by many posters. Where was the moral outrage when she was accused of not trying hard? Isn’t that what the current allegation is about – indifferent play? No one is saying that MJ walked off the field. She didn’t literally “quit.” Mom thought she stopped giving 100%. We can all differ on our opinions about whether quitting is the ultimate sin, but it is not so clearly more abhorrent than all the highly personal criticism that has been aimed at CN. I mean, what’s worse, a one-time allegation at the DEFCON 1 level or dozens and dozens of allegations at the DEFCON 2, 3 & 4 levels? To be more specific, why all the sudden moral outrage over Mom’s allegation when the anti-CN posters have been doing this stuff for years?

Perhaps we can at least agree on this: the poster who initiated the moral outrage over the Q Word was probably not the best spokesperson for the cause. It's a little like a serial bank robber who leads a movement to never steal from a mom and pop corner grocery. ("Now that's a really terrible crime," he claims.)

I don't always agree with you, CO, but you write so well. I am jealous of your talent. Well argued!

[Dr. Tact]

Doc's daughter was an example of what every college athlete should aspire to be in terms of her success on the field but much more importantly her incredible performance in the classroom. These are not NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc players whose sole job is to train their bodies, practice and win games. These are incredibly dedicated and gifted kids that are trying to juggle a full class schedule, studying, training, lifting, practicing, traveling and missing classes, and oh by the way trying to maintain some semblance of a social life so that they don't lose their minds.

got a case of the sniffles....Thanks.

[DMac]

This place is like posters' fall ball....gettin' warmed up for the upcoming season.

[wlaxphan20]

Doc's daughter was an example of what every college athlete should aspire to be in terms of her success on the field but much more importantly her incredible performance in the classroom. These are not NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc players whose sole job is to train their bodies, practice and win games. These are incredibly dedicated and gifted kids that are trying to juggle a full class schedule, studying, training, lifting, practicing, traveling and missing classes, and oh by the way trying to maintain some semblance of a social life so that they don't lose their minds.

got a case of the sniffles....Thanks.

If you’ve ever seen the ESPN 30 for 30 and other films, there’s a really great scene in the Book of Manninng that I think would hit home for a lot of athletes and their parents. When Cooper, the oldest who was forced to medically retire, talks about what he misses most about playing. He gets visibly choked up when he says “the guys. The locker room, the bus rides home, that’s the good stuff”. Definitely more than just a sport, and it’s something I think Loyola does well

[Seacoaster(1)]

I would rather have 3 Schleichers (or insert your fave circle player here) on circle and dot than one MJ because I think 1 self-drawer should be easier to beat. As draw taker you don't have to win the draw, just get the ball on the ground and make it a 3v3 (oversimplified, of course). This makes what MJ has accomplished perhaps more impressive, but also makes the team more susceptible to her fatigue, a bad match-up, better opposition game planning, etc.

Indeed. Look at the 2021 NCAA tournament matchup between Northwestern and Duke.

Team draws
NU: 21
Duke: 13

Individual draws
NU
Lauren Gilbert: 6
Brennan Dwyer: 5
Jill Girardi: 4
Lindsey McKone: 4
Izzy Scane: 1

Duke
Maddie Jenner: 7
Katie Cosgrove: 3
Olivia Carner: 2
Cubby Biscardi: 1

Before the match up, Shelby Fredericks asked Kelly Amonte-Hiller if they needed a solution for Maddie Jenner on the draw. Amonte-Hiller's response: "I don't need a solution. I have three." During the game, NU made sure that Jenner did not settle into any kind of groove by constantly rotating between Brennan Dwyer, Jill Girardi--both of whom established themselves as among the best draw takers in all of Division I--and Lindsey McKone. Jenner was so flustered that for much of that game she wasn't even taking draws (I'm not saying she quit. I'm guessing Kimel pulled her from the center), and when she wasn't in the center, Duke had a lot of trouble gaining possession.

While I do think Maddie Jenner is great at the draw, I'm not so sure she's THAT much better than everyone else. I think that Duke's schedule has made it easier for her to put up crazy numbers throughout her career as she simply hasn't faced the same level of talent as consistently throughout her career as Northwestern's Dwyer and Girardi had. Still, her height gives her a major advantage on the circle, and she's undeniably an asset to a team.

It's just this sort of analysis and reflection that NJBill would appreciate. I think this whole business boils down to a poster calling a kid a quitter, or someone who "quit" or gave up -- a pretty serious indictment of a player's character. There is a difference, at least for me, between evaluating how a player performs in a team offense and concluding she carries the ball too much or shoots poorly, etc., and saying that a player gave up and tossed in the towel.

You know that I respect your opinion and your contributions to the sport. You have largely avoided taking sides in certain disputes, which I also respect, so I'm puzzled why you'd jump in now to support this new construct of "all criticism of young athletes is fair game -- except the Q Word." Other than one or two of us, most posters here have stood by silently as posters have relentlessly criticized a young female athlete for many years to an extent that has never been seen before on these boards. Many of us coach young women and are deeply committed to growing the sport, so it’s puzzling that so few have spoken up to say: “Hey man, I get it that you think she’s selfish, but we all heard you the 20th time. Time to move on.” Most folks also remained silent when criticism expanded beyond “selfishness” to terms like "appalling disrespect," "bad sportsmanship," "pathetic," "North choked," "rumors," "screeching," and "celebrates too exuberantly." It seems the consensus was: that’s all fair criticism of a player's athletic performance, but alleging that another player dropped her level of intensity is now deemed to be going way too far. Seems like a curious place to make a stand. If you call a borderline cross check early in the game, smart players then avoid cross checking. If you don’t call it, someone could get hurt.

I have no idea if the original "Q" allegation was justified or not, but it is a criticism of her play on the field. It’s charged and personal, but it is based on her on-field performance. I don't like criticizing college athletes, as you know, but saying someone "quit" is not de facto on a lower moral plane than calling another player names, accusing her of appalling disrespect, rumor mongering, and fabricating criticisms out of whole cloth. I would also point out that CN has been accused of dogging it on the ride for years by many posters. Where was the moral outrage when she was accused of not trying hard? Isn’t that what the current allegation is about – indifferent play? No one is saying that MJ walked off the field. She didn’t literally “quit.” Mom thought she stopped giving 100%. We can all differ on our opinions about whether quitting is the ultimate sin, but it is not so clearly more abhorrent than all the highly personal criticism that has been aimed at CN. I mean, what’s worse, a one-time allegation at the DEFCON 1 level or dozens and dozens of allegations at the DEFCON 2, 3 & 4 levels? To be more specific, why all the sudden moral outrage over Mom’s allegation when the anti-CN posters have been doing this stuff for years?

Perhaps we can at least agree on this: the poster who initiated the moral outrage over the Q Word was probably not the best spokesperson for the cause. It's a little like a serial bank robber who leads a movement to never steal from a mom and pop corner grocery. ("Now that's a really terrible crime," he claims.)

I think I pretty much subscribe, personally, to hmmm's viewpoint. I try to avoid picking out an individual player and criticizing their play, largely because they are college players in a sport that is and will remain niche for the foreseeable future, because there are parents on this board and lurking on this board, and because I can never know what lies behind the player's performance, up or down. I actually thought much of Bill's criticism of Charlotte was justified, or at least something about which reasonable people could disagree. And I can believe that and the fact that she was a great player for BC at the same time. You and ONW apparently disagreed with Bill in toto.

For me, saying that a player quit or mailed it in or some other description of giving up is a statement about the person's character -- about which I know absolutely nothing until I have met the person. So I do think that sort of criticism is "de facto on a lower moral plane."

The last time I can remember making the jump to a character judgment because of play on the field was when a North Carolina player decked a BC player (Christina Walsh?) from behind in the ACC playoffs at full speed, after a full field run -- really dangerous, judgment-free decking just before the NCAA tournament was about to start. But other than that, my track record shows that I tend to avoid highlighting an individual's poor play on the field. There is no "sudden moral outrage" here. There's a line that I, anyway, can see pretty clearly and I thought -- again, for me, anyway -- that mom crossed it. These are children we are talking about. They'll get 60 or so years of real adulthood in which to get picked apart after college. But before that, character judgments based on watching a lacrosse game seem small to me.

[Can Opener]

No time to battle with all of the silly straw men above. To simplify this and to highlight a difficult relationship with factual reality when it comes to CN, here is a pretty simple litmus test. You have refused to give a straight answer when challenged multiple times on this statement you made: "Did you notice in the first half of the game the other night when she went rogue and turned into me-first Charlotte? She scored, but her senior teammates, instead of hugging her as normally occurs after a goal, clearly were chastising her for selfish play. And then the coaches took her out shortly thereafter. I hope that doesn't make your head explode since I'm inside it." This did not occur. Full stop. CN scored two goals in the first half. You can watch them at the 11:24 and the 13:20 marks of this video. After each goal her teammates hugged her. Your statement to the contrary was not truthful. While the video proves hugging occurred, technically, I cannot prove the absence of any chastising, but since you launched this allegation, the burden of proof is on you to provide evidence for the chastising. Did you have access to special audio? Did one of the players or coaches talk about it in a post-game interview? We shall see if you can now finally admit your error or if you will insist on continuing this charade. I will assume that your silence or deflection is an admission of your fabrication, but the more honorable thing to do would be to admit a mistake. We will also see if any members of the Amen Chorus have the courage to acknowledge their friend's error in Chastisegate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BnwrXi9epQ

OK, Can, even though you refuse to respond to my questions, I’ll respond to yours. In fact, I have responded to you about this exhibition game at least a couple of times before. I will do so again – one last time. I looked at your video even though I’m not sure why you are obsessing over an exhibition game from six months ago. Here’s what happened. Instead of passing to a wide open Apuzzo on the doorstep, North, who was closely marked by one defender with a nearby trail defender and a third defender closing from a couple steps away, took a shot. Even though the shot went it, it wasn’t the kind of shot Team USA wants. What did the coaches say? We want assisted goals. They want players to pass to open teammates, certainly when they are wide open right in front of the goal. To my eyes, her teammates were telling North that after her goal. There was not the usual jumping around, leaping into arms celebration you usually see after a goal. And her teammates definitely did NOT hug her after the goal. OK, got it now? That’s my opinion, my interpretation of what I saw. You disagree. Let’s hope the Earth will continue to spin on its axis.

Wow. And I thought I was stubborn. This is like deposing Bill Clinton when he famously said: "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." A couple of indisputable facts:
* McCool thrust her arms in the air in celebration when the shot went in and ran down the field to be the first to physically congratulate CN and wrap an arm around her
* Apuzzo was the "aggrieved" player and her first reaction was to thrust her arms in the air in celebration when the shot went in
* She then jogged over to CN to wrap her arm around her along with McCool
* Kayla Treanor then joined the celebration and gave CN a high five
* Other players then joined the circle and exchanged high fives
* Multiple players draped their arms around CN constituting a group hug as defined by the Oxford dictionary: "an act of a number of people putting their arms around each other at the same time, usually to celebrate something or show support for each other"
* You have offered zero evidence that CN's teammates chastised her

CN is not perfect and neither am I. We both make mistakes. It's not really that hard to admit them. Your credibility is not enhanced by continuing to deny what is plain to see.

Watching lacrosse videos is something that this group of posters seems to enjoy. Anyone else willing to invest 30 seconds and weigh in on whether CN was chastised? Bueller? Anyone?

[njbill]

I have a PhD in lip reading.

But you are right about one thing. You are stubborn.

[Can Opener]

I would rather have 3 Schleichers (or insert your fave circle player here) on circle and dot than one MJ because I think 1 self-drawer should be easier to beat. As draw taker you don't have to win the draw, just get the ball on the ground and make it a 3v3 (oversimplified, of course). This makes what MJ has accomplished perhaps more impressive, but also makes the team more susceptible to her fatigue, a bad match-up, better opposition game planning, etc.

Indeed. Look at the 2021 NCAA tournament matchup between Northwestern and Duke.

Team draws
NU: 21
Duke: 13

Individual draws
NU
Lauren Gilbert: 6
Brennan Dwyer: 5
Jill Girardi: 4
Lindsey McKone: 4
Izzy Scane: 1

Duke
Maddie Jenner: 7
Katie Cosgrove: 3
Olivia Carner: 2
Cubby Biscardi: 1

Before the match up, Shelby Fredericks asked Kelly Amonte-Hiller if they needed a solution for Maddie Jenner on the draw. Amonte-Hiller's response: "I don't need a solution. I have three." During the game, NU made sure that Jenner did not settle into any kind of groove by constantly rotating between Brennan Dwyer, Jill Girardi--both of whom established themselves as among the best draw takers in all of Division I--and Lindsey McKone. Jenner was so flustered that for much of that game she wasn't even taking draws (I'm not saying she quit. I'm guessing Kimel pulled her from the center), and when she wasn't in the center, Duke had a lot of trouble gaining possession.

While I do think Maddie Jenner is great at the draw, I'm not so sure she's THAT much better than everyone else. I think that Duke's schedule has made it easier for her to put up crazy numbers throughout her career as she simply hasn't faced the same level of talent as consistently throughout her career as Northwestern's Dwyer and Girardi had. Still, her height gives her a major advantage on the circle, and she's undeniably an asset to a team.

It's just this sort of analysis and reflection that NJBill would appreciate. I think this whole business boils down to a poster calling a kid a quitter, or someone who "quit" or gave up -- a pretty serious indictment of a player's character. There is a difference, at least for me, between evaluating how a player performs in a team offense and concluding she carries the ball too much or shoots poorly, etc., and saying that a player gave up and tossed in the towel.

You know that I respect your opinion and your contributions to the sport. You have largely avoided taking sides in certain disputes, which I also respect, so I'm puzzled why you'd jump in now to support this new construct of "all criticism of young athletes is fair game -- except the Q Word." Other than one or two of us, most posters here have stood by silently as posters have relentlessly criticized a young female athlete for many years to an extent that has never been seen before on these boards. Many of us coach young women and are deeply committed to growing the sport, so it’s puzzling that so few have spoken up to say: “Hey man, I get it that you think she’s selfish, but we all heard you the 20th time. Time to move on.” Most folks also remained silent when criticism expanded beyond “selfishness” to terms like "appalling disrespect," "bad sportsmanship," "pathetic," "North choked," "rumors," "screeching," and "celebrates too exuberantly." It seems the consensus was: that’s all fair criticism of a player's athletic performance, but alleging that another player dropped her level of intensity is now deemed to be going way too far. Seems like a curious place to make a stand. If you call a borderline cross check early in the game, smart players then avoid cross checking. If you don’t call it, someone could get hurt.

I have no idea if the original "Q" allegation was justified or not, but it is a criticism of her play on the field. It’s charged and personal, but it is based on her on-field performance. I don't like criticizing college athletes, as you know, but saying someone "quit" is not de facto on a lower moral plane than calling another player names, accusing her of appalling disrespect, rumor mongering, and fabricating criticisms out of whole cloth. I would also point out that CN has been accused of dogging it on the ride for years by many posters. Where was the moral outrage when she was accused of not trying hard? Isn’t that what the current allegation is about – indifferent play? No one is saying that MJ walked off the field. She didn’t literally “quit.” Mom thought she stopped giving 100%. We can all differ on our opinions about whether quitting is the ultimate sin, but it is not so clearly more abhorrent than all the highly personal criticism that has been aimed at CN. I mean, what’s worse, a one-time allegation at the DEFCON 1 level or dozens and dozens of allegations at the DEFCON 2, 3 & 4 levels? To be more specific, why all the sudden moral outrage over Mom’s allegation when the anti-CN posters have been doing this stuff for years?

Perhaps we can at least agree on this: the poster who initiated the moral outrage over the Q Word was probably not the best spokesperson for the cause. It's a little like a serial bank robber who leads a movement to never steal from a mom and pop corner grocery. ("Now that's a really terrible crime," he claims.)

I think I pretty much subscribe, personally, to hmmm's viewpoint. I try to avoid picking out an individual player and criticizing their play, largely because they are college players in a sport that is and will remain niche for the foreseeable future, because there are parents on this board and lurking on this board, and because I can never know what lies behind the player's performance, up or down. I actually thought much of Bill's criticism of Charlotte was justified, or at least something about which reasonable people could disagree. And I can believe that and the fact that she was a great player for BC at the same time. You and ONW apparently disagreed with Bill in toto.

For me, saying that a player quit or mailed it in or some other description of giving up is a statement about the person's character -- about which I know absolutely nothing until I have met the person. So I do think that sort of criticism is "de facto on a lower moral plane." Do you think that comments like these call into question a person's character in any way? “selfishness,” "appalling disrespect," "bad sportsmanship," "pathetic," "North choked," "screeching," and "celebrates too exuberantly." I am not asking whether they are milder or harsher than "quitting," but whether they could be construed to be critical of a person's character.

The last time I can remember making the jump to a character judgment because of play on the field was when a North Carolina player decked a BC player (Christina Walsh?) from behind in the ACC playoffs at full speed, after a full field run -- really dangerous, judgment-free decking just before the NCAA tournament was about to start. But other than that, my track record shows that I tend to avoid highlighting an individual's poor play on the field. There is no "sudden moral outrage" here. There's a line that I, anyway, can see pretty clearly and I thought -- again, for me, anyway -- that mom crossed it. These are children we are talking about. They'll get 60 or so years of real adulthood in which to get picked apart after college. But before that, character judgments based on watching a lacrosse game seem small to me.

Thank you for the thoughtful response. I am just curious about your answer to my question above in red. (Are you regretting getting into this discussion? )

[njbill]

Can, if you are going to quote me, please do so accurately and in context. If you really are a lawyer, you should know that.

My "appalling disrespect" and "bad sportsmanship" comments applied to BC, the team, not North, the player. I did not say North exhibited appalling disrespect or engaged in bad sportsmanship. I said the play in question was a bad look for her and her teammates.

In retrospect, "pathetic" was the wrong word. Probably should have used another word there, but my point would still have been the same.

You know this, but you are pretending otherwise; my use of "choke" was a play off ONW's constant use of the term.

Even you agree she screeched. What's the beef there?

So that leaves us with "selfishness" and "celebrates too exuberantly." Skin me alive.

BTW, in looking this stuff up, I see you went back over 18 months.

[Can Opener]

Can, if you are going to quote me, please do so accurately and in context. If you really are a lawyer, you should know that.

My "appalling disrespect" and "bad sportsmanship" comments applied to BC, the team, not North, the player. I did not say North exhibited appalling disrespect or engaged in bad sportsmanship. I said the play in question was a bad look for her and her teammates.

In retrospect, "pathetic" was the wrong word. Probably should have used another word there, but my point would still have been the same.

You know this, but you are pretending otherwise; my use of "choke" was a play off ONW's constant use of the term.

Even you agree she screeched. What's the beef there?

So that leaves us with "selfishness" and "celebrates too exuberantly." Skin me alive.

BTW, in looking this stuff up, I see you went back over 18 months.

I am not responding to this until you come clean on Chastisegate. Or if I change my mind. Or if you buy me a pony.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Can, if you are going to quote me, please do so accurately and in context. If you really are a lawyer, you should know that.

My "appalling disrespect" and "bad sportsmanship" comments applied to BC, the team, not North, the player. I did not say North exhibited appalling disrespect or engaged in bad sportsmanship. I said the play in question was a bad look for her and her teammates.

In retrospect, "pathetic" was the wrong word. Probably should have used another word there, but my point would still have been the same.

You know this, but you are pretending otherwise; my use of "choke" was a play off ONW's constant use of the term.

Even you agree she screeched. What's the beef there?

So that leaves us with "selfishness" and "celebrates too exuberantly." Skin me alive.

BTW, in looking this stuff up, I see you went back over 18 months.

I am not responding to this until you come clean on Chastisegate. Or if I change my mind. Or if you buy me a pony.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z3ik4qJBoPk

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

Can, if you are going to quote me, please do so accurately and in context. If you really are a lawyer, you should know that.

My "appalling disrespect" and "bad sportsmanship" comments applied to BC, the team, not North, the player. I did not say North exhibited appalling disrespect or engaged in bad sportsmanship. I said the play in question was a bad look for her and her teammates.

In retrospect, "pathetic" was the wrong word. Probably should have used another word there, but my point would still have been the same.

You know this, but you are pretending otherwise; my use of "choke" was a play off ONW's constant use of the term.

Even you agree she screeched. What's the beef there?

So that leaves us with "selfishness" and "celebrates too exuberantly." Skin me alive.

BTW, in looking this stuff up, I see you went back over 18 months.

I am not responding to this until you come clean on Chastisegate. Or if I change my mind. Or if you buy me a pony.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z3ik4qJBoPk

Don't blame me--sea started it. lol

[Can Opener]

This place is like posters' fall ball....gettin' warmed up for the upcoming season.

Our line skates first, coach?

[njbill]

Can, Paul Simon wrote a song about you:

“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

Here’s a great cover of the song.

https://www.google.com/search?q=paddyha ... A53do-m4Wk

I defy you to listen to this version without tapping your toes.

[OuttaNowhereWregget]

This place is like posters' fall ball....gettin' warmed up for the upcoming season.

Our line skates first, coach?

"That’s right, get out there and stick ‘em!!"

[Sunnylax]

Doc's daughter was an example of what every college athlete should aspire to be in terms of her success on the field but much more importantly her incredible performance in the classroom. These are not NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, etc players whose sole job is to train their bodies, practice and win games. These are incredibly dedicated and gifted kids that are trying to juggle a full class schedule, studying, training, lifting, practicing, traveling and missing classes, and oh by the way trying to maintain some semblance of a social life so that they don't lose their minds.

got a case of the sniffles....Thanks.

If you’ve ever seen the ESPN 30 for 30 and other films, there’s a really great scene in the Book of Manninng that I think would hit home for a lot of athletes and their parents. When Cooper, the oldest who was forced to medically retire, talks about what he misses most about playing. He gets visibly choked up when he says “the guys. The locker room, the bus rides home, that’s the good stuff”. Definitely more than just a sport, and it’s something I think Loyola does well

many programs do well.