Looks like Penn has a very respectable team.
Can our gang rebound from a tough Yale loss?
I say........
(http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t147/Coelacanth64/CU%20vs%20UPenn%20Laxtoon_4ELF.jpg) (http://s159.photobucket.com/user/Coelacanth64/media/CU%20vs%20UPenn%20Laxtoon_4ELF.jpg.html)
And, "LGR"!! ::cheer::
Pretty much a must win for a shot at the Ivy tournament. It will take at least 3 wins to get in. We've already lost to Yale, and Brown looks very good. That leaves Dartmouth, Princeton, Penn, and Harvard. Harvard looks the strongest of those four, so we'd better beat Penn.
LGR!
Penn taking it to Cornell after the first quarter: 4-0 Penn. We could mount a comeback charge today. If not, this is sobering. Penn appears to be less than Brown or Harvard and we've already lost to Yale. You can't lose to four teams and make the Ivy playoff.
Q2: We won't be shut out in the first half. 6-1 with 2:14 left, goal by Emmy Poccia. Half ends Penn 6, Cornell 1. Donville 5 saves for Cornell on 11 shots, Penn 4 saves on 5 shots. Shots at goal, Penn 22-14.
Q3: Cornell on a roll. Colton Rupp with 4:32 to play in the the third, now 6-2. More possession time for Cornell. Fast break goal by Grant Mahler with 3:41 to play makes it 6-3, Penn takes 10 seconds to get the goal back. Ends 7-3.
Q4: Cornell cuts the lead to 9-5 then 9-6 with 1:48 to play. Game ends 9-6 Penn.
Not an embarrassing loss but Cornell needed a W to look like one of the four Ivy playoff teams. 0-2 in the Ivies with Brown and Harvard left among the serious teams. Also Dartmouth to play.
Way too many unforced errors.
::bang::
Mediocre coach, mediocre program. Athletics is a mess.
And, Tambroni's new team takes down #1 Denver.
::help::
Quote from: Johnny 5And, Tambroni's new team takes down #1 Denver.
::help::
Penn State 15, Denver 10, March 26
Penn State 8, Cornell 7, February 20
Was about to say had we beaten Penn State, that would have been a quality win. Except Penn State like Cornell is only among "teams receiving votes." Good for Tambroni. Not so good for Cornell that he saw his calling elsewhere. We're supposed to have a solid entering Cornell class of 2020 and maybe that, Matt Kerwick's second full class, will make up for the soft recruiting year (Class of 2018) following Ben DeLuca's dismissal fall 2013.
I went to the game and I saw a Big Red team that looked horrible. The first period was maybe the worst period of lacrosse by Cornell that I've witnessed in decades. They lost faceoffs, didn't win any ground balls, gave the ball away, and the score could easily have been much worse. They actually did start to play better in the 2nd period, but even so, they were just holding their own. Penn may be ranked in the top 20, but they were certainly beatable.
To my eyes, the goalie play was the only real highlight of the day for the Red. Without some excellent saves in net, the game would have been a rout.
I'm inclined to agree with those who suggested the team did not arrive prepared to play. As someone suggested upthread, perhaps a coaching change is appropriate. The team looked bad. Right now, Cornell is not an elite lacrosse program. Not even close.
"Och, Robbie Pannell, we hardly knew ye!!" ~Robert Burns
::help::
Quote from: billhowardWe're supposed to have a solid entering Cornell class of 2020 and maybe that, Matt Kerwick's second full class, will make up for the soft recruiting year (Class of 2018) following Ben DeLuca's dismissal fall 2013.
The classes of 2016 and 2017 are the weakest classes in terms of contributions to offense that I can remember. What was the excuse for that? If those classes had any offensive talent we wouldn't be starting two freshmen at attack and two at offensive midfield. That's where the problem is.
In those two classes there are no Siebalds, Glynns, Mitchells, Hurleys, Buczeks, Mocks, Pannells, Van Bourgondiens, Cooks, Pittards, Langs, Paolettas, Donovans, or Lintners. The well went dry recruiting 2016s and 2017s. That's where the problem is.
That's where one of the problems is. The other problem is that the current players appear to be poorly coached in terms of game prep, in-game adjustments, etc. The same problems were visible last year (and, in hindsight, the year before that) when the talent level did include several of the players on your list.
The previous coaching regime did poorly at recruiting. The current coaching regime does poorly on game prep and player development.
High-level recruiting is important, but so is high-level coaching. See UNC for a good example of what happens when the staff is good at the first and not so much at the second.
Quote from: CU77That's where one of the problems is. The other problem is that the current players appear to be poorly coached in terms of game prep, in-game adjustments, etc. The same problems were visible last year (and, in hindsight, the year before that) when the talent level did include several of the players on your list.
Yes, and with those players the current coach made the NCAA tournament twice {once even getting a seed), something his predecessor was unable to do the year he was without Rob Pannell. And in the 2014 tournament the current coach's team happened to be beaten in overtime on a goal by a player who at one time was a very highly-rated Cornell recruit who for some reason felt the need to transfer elsewhere. Ever wonder why?
QuoteThe previous coaching regime did poorly at recruiting. The current coaching regime does poorly on game prep and player development.
I'd be interested in learning your extensive background in lacrosse coaching and/or playing such that you are able to tell the difference between poor player development and a player who doesn't have the requisite skills, speed, etc., to become an effective Division I offensive player, or to spot where in-game adjustments should have been made but were not. The latter, for example, might be in a situation where the opposition scores nine straight goals and twelve of thirteen against you even though your team has the highest scorer in the history of Division I (at the time). Reasonable example of an adjustment being required, wouldn't you say?
QuoteHigh-level recruiting is important, but so is high-level coaching.
Without the former, you're pretty much lunchmeat in Division I, no matter how good a coach you are. Can a poor coach screw up good talent? Sure. But even a good coach needs to get his larder filled or his team is going nowhere.
Quote from: Al DeFlorioto spot where in-game adjustments should have been made but were not. The latter, for example, might be in a situation where the opposition scores nine straight goals and twelve of thirteen against you even though your team has the highest scorer in the history of Division I (at the time). Reasonable example of an adjustment being required, wouldn't you say?
Absolutely! And the guy running the offense that day was not head coach Ben DeLuca (whose expertise is defense), but rather assistant coach Matt Kerwick. The Cornell offense was stymied that day by Duke's strategy of faceguarding Mock. The defense was overwhelmed by Duke's talent, as was Syracuse in the final.
Quote from: CU77Absolutely! And the guy running the offense that day was not head coach Ben DeLuca (whose expertise is defense), but rather assistant coach Matt Kerwick. The Cornell offense was stymied that day by Duke's strategy of faceguarding Mock.
So the head coach just stood around and watched, doing nothing? Interesting.