Cornell-Syracuse lacrosse game thread

OK, I will start a thread.

Game is Tuesday at the Dome at 6 PM, broadcast on ESPNU. No Cornell games notes yet.

Last year, Cornell beat Cuse twice, 13-8 in Ithaca in the regular season, and 10-9 in the Dome in round-1 of the NCAA tournament. Cuse led most of the way in the latter, by as many as 3, before Cornell took its first lead in the 4th quarter 9-8. Cuse tied 3 minutes later, but Colton Rupp scored the man-up game winner with 5:35 to play.

JT51 was held to no goals and no assists by Cuse Dman Nick Mellen, who will be back at it tomorrow.

Cornell almost certainly needs to beat at least one of Cuse and ND to have a shot at an at-large NCAA bid.

Also on ESPN3, for those who have access.

CU77,

didn't you used to post the Lacrosse KRACH(L) on Laxpower?

I did not see it on the Fanlax forum...does it exist?

Gotta stop the penalties.

Won 1 out of 5 faceoffs in Q1. Down 3-1 after 1.

nshapiro
CU77,

didn't you used to post the Lacrosse KRACH(L) on Laxpower?

I did not see it on the Fanlax forum...does it exist?

Cornellian Matt Carberry does KRACH for MLAX on his site. For some reason I can't seem to post links; google Matt Carberry Z ratings

Going downhill fast at both ends 2 - 6 mid 2nd. Taking bad shots.

Is there any other sport that allows such lopsided time-of-possession differentials because of a mechanic codified in the rules of that sport? It's immensely frustrating to have such a potentially great team in most other aspects be completely neutered because they don't have a specialist who can keep up with the other specialists.

Down 10-5 midway through the 3rd. Losing the 50/50 GBs which is never a recipe for success.

It just feels like we're underachieving this year.

I hear you on the face-offs, but they are far from the only problem. Ierlan is the only positive. No chance for them to go anywhere this season. Sad to say.

mike1960
It just feels like we're underachieving this year.

Understatement.

mike1960
It just feels like we're underachieving this year.

Quite right. As Carc just said on the broadcast, you can get away with losing so many faceoffs against weaker opponents, but the better teams make you pay. That’s been our Achilles heal all year. And our inability to adequately fill Pulver’s spot has really hurt too

scoop85

mike1960
It just feels like we're underachieving this year.

Quite right. As Carc just said on the broadcast, you can get away with losing so many faceoffs against weaker opponents, but the better teams make you pay. That’s been our Achilles heal all year. And our inability to adequately fill Pulver’s spot has really hurt too

Dowiak's, too.

Al DeFlorio

scoop85

mike1960
It just feels like we're underachieving this year.

Quite right. As Carc just said on the broadcast, you can get away with losing so many faceoffs against weaker opponents, but the better teams make you pay. That’s been our Achilles heal all year. And our inability to adequately fill Pulver’s spot has really hurt too

Dowiak's, too.

True, but the hole on D is a deeper one IMO

scoop85

Al DeFlorio

scoop85

mike1960
It just feels like we're underachieving this year.

Quite right. As Carc just said on the broadcast, you can get away with losing so many faceoffs against weaker opponents, but the better teams make you pay. That’s been our Achilles heal all year. And our inability to adequately fill Pulver’s spot has really hurt too

Dowiak's, too.

True, but the hole on D is a deeper one IMO

Maybe, but to be successful inside you need a middie who will beat a defender and take it to the net. No one is doing it this year. There is no Seibald, Glynn or Buczek...or Dowiak.

Ironically John Desko the SU coach has been a long time proponent of getting rid of the faceoff.

rss77
Ironically John Desko the SU coach has been a long time proponent of getting rid of the faceoff.

Hard to see that as ironic. As long as the faceoff remains, he's doing his job as a coach and recruiter to make sure he has the best guys for the job.

OK, somebody else start the next game thread … I'm 0-1.

CU77
OK, somebody else start the next game thread … I'm 0-1.

we don't need a new game-thread guy we need a FOGO

ugarte

CU77
OK, somebody else start the next game thread … I'm 0-1.

we don't need a new game-thread guy we need a FOGO

No, what this game and we need is a rule change.

First I gave up on football and now I'm giving up on lacrosse.

The fun of the game has been taken away. The rule changes on time are helpful, but Desko was, and hopefully still is, correct. If they don't eliminate the FO, the game is ruined.

Basketball eliminated the jump ball after each score and lacrosse has to do the same.

At least the face off is driven by a game-related skill. Basketball eliminated the jump ball because it reduced basketball to "who is tallest?"

Trotsky
At least the face off is driven by a game-related skill. Basketball eliminated the jump ball because it reduced basketball to "who is tallest?"

While face offs do involve ground balls, running, ball-handling, etc., the main skill for a FOGO is not used anywhere else in the game.

I'm not sure what the basketball analogy is. But perhaps if U.S. American football determined who has possession based on, say, which team's placekicker kicks the ball furthest, this would be an apt analogy.

Swampy

Trotsky
At least the face off is driven by a game-related skill. Basketball eliminated the jump ball because it reduced basketball to "who is tallest?"

While face offs do involve ground balls, running, ball-handling, etc., the main skill for a FOGO is not used anywhere else in the game.

I'm not sure what the basketball analogy is. But perhaps if U.S. American football determined who has possession based on, say, which team's placekicker kicks the ball furthest, this would be an apt analogy.

Given the enormous advantage of possession in lacrosse, I think it would be more like this: In American baseball, you still need to get three outs to end the half-inning, but instead of the teams automatically switching, the two catchers have a wrestling match, and the catcher with the first three-count pin wins the right for his team to be up at bat for a full three-out half-inning, even if they were just at bat. The game still ends after 18 half innings regardless of whether there's been a remotely even split.

(EDIT: And yes, I know wrestling isn't a skill used elsewhere in baseball, but I lean even further away from Trotsky's "at least" statement than Swampy does.)

I agree that the face off should go, but since it's in the rules, we need to recruit and coach better. Bottom line for now.

mike1960
I agree that the face off should go, but since it's in the rules, we need to recruit and coach better. Bottom line for now.

In '79 there weren't any face-offs. What I do remember is after each goal, the fans cheered "one, two, three, four (etc.) We want more...Faceoffs!

I don't remember when they re-instated them. '80 perhaps?

The shot clock should be extended to 90 seconds, with 30 seconds to clear over mid-field. After every goal, opposing team has to take it from the back end line, and the clear begins. Will likely lead to more turnovers/ridings, and thus more goals while also making the game faster. Face offs suck.

Lacrosse needs to stop changing its rules as if they were diapers.

ugarte

CU77
OK, somebody else start the next game thread … I'm 0-1.

we don't need a new game-thread guy we need a FOGO

Do we have any quality fogo recruits due for next year?

abmarks

ugarte

CU77
OK, somebody else start the next game thread … I'm 0-1.

we don't need a new game-thread guy we need a FOGO

Do we have any quality fogo recruits due for next year?

Angelo Petrakis (USA Today preseason 1st team HS AA FOGO).

WARNING: We already have guys on the team whose pre-college press was quite good. So far it hasn’t shown.

What about changing to the women's standing faceoff it seems much harder to be totally dominant

The rules committee has attempted to reduce the importance of a dominant FOGO over the years through rules adjustments. It hasn't worked out as a good FOGO can always make adjustments. To address Cornell's issues their wing play on faceoffs has been a weak point also.

Good FOGOS are quick enough to clamp the ball a high percentage of the time. This could be eliminated by changing the rule to have a starting position where both FOGO stick heads are flat on the ground. The quicker FOGO could get to the ball first, but would rarely be able to clamp it before the other knocks it away. This would turn almost all faceoffs into 50-50 ground balls.

rss77
The rules committee has attempted to reduce the importance of a dominant FOGO over the years through rules adjustments. It hasn't worked out as a good FOGO can always make adjustments. To address Cornell's issues their wing play on faceoffs has been a weak point also.

But this is puzzling. Faceoff wing players use skills that all players, even goalies, need to have. Admittedly goalies less than others, but for the rest there's speed, ground ball play, ball handling, riding, etc. Nothing really unique to faceoff wing play.

Cornell played on a very high level last year and has a roster filled with elite-level players. I don't know what explains the drop in the quality of our faceoff wings.

i think its also a function of where the x puts the ground ball.. if you cant get it you need to move it to where your help is