MLax: Princeton 7 @ Cornell 10 (Final)

[Robb]

[quote CUontheslopes]If the article accounts the game correctly, Princeton possessed the ball for 65 seconds in the 4th quarter. That's incredible - GO RED and way to beat Princeton by playing like Princeton. It was fun to watch.[/quote]And according to one writeup (don't remember which), only about 15 seconds of P's possession in the 4th was on hour half.  Of course, they scored on it, which shows just how dangerous P's attack is - seems like Tambroni made the right call to me.  Maintaining possession is your first line of defense, and if that fails then your dominant face-off man is still there as your second.

[billhoward]

I understand the part about "if they don't have the ball they can't score." Does Tambroni understand the part about, "Desperate teams may mess up your carefully laid plans"? (See recent NYT article about odds sometimes favoring the team behind by just a little bit.) What I mean is, is Cornell's strategy based on the conventional wisdom or has someone actually made a determination that the odds are with you? So we've got one example where Maryland shot, missed, and let Princeton come back; there are two examples where three years ago at Princetone we almost coughed up a one-goal game because Princeton eventually got the ball away but couldn't score (I think that was the game where the hotshot Princeton defender's head came off in the last half minute) and then this year where we gave it up and gave up a goal but one goal wasn't enough to make a difference.

In baseball, the statistical wizards say bunting is not the right percentage move even if conventional wisdom favor sthe bunt.

I think most times when you're shooting at a truly open net -- not every time, but most every time -- you're going to score. And with Glynn winning 2/3 of the faceoffs, odds are with your getting the ball back. Even if Princeton wins the FO and scores, odds are again two out of three you'll get the ball back next time.

But like we both said, it was freaking amazing how much we controlled the ball in the fourth Q. It would been tidier in my mind if we could have said, " ... so much so that Princeton got off no shots on goal."

And it's hard to argue with Tambroni when he's got the winningest record in D1 the last four or five years.

[semsox]

This whole argument reminds me of the Eagles game this past season (or maybe it was the year before?) where the Eagles were up late in the 4th, and Westbrook caught a ball with a wide open field in front of him, and he got down to the goal line and took a knee, thus essentially sealing the win.  The Eagles could just take a knee to run out the clock.  The alternative was to take the 7 points, but then there's always the chance of on-side kicks, yadda yadda yadda.  Most people I remember commenting on it called it a very intelligent and selfless play.

[CUontheslopes]

It's absolutely the right strategy. You can score so quickly in lacrosse off faceoffs that the right play is to run the clock. No doubt about it. The Maryland incident isn't anecdotal. Running out the clock up a couple goals is the safer play. No guarantee of course, but a much smarter play.

[BCrespi]

[quote semsox]This whole argument reminds me of the Eagles game this past season (or maybe it was the year before?) where the Eagles were up late in the 4th, and Westbrook caught a ball with a wide open field in front of him, and he got down to the goal line and took a knee, thus essentially sealing the win.  The Eagles could just take a knee to run out the clock.  The alternative was to take the 7 points, but then there's always the chance of on-side kicks, yadda yadda yadda.  Most people I remember commenting on it called it a very intelligent and selfless play.[/quote]

Except that Westbrook's play guaranteed the win.  Unless there was a botched snap there was no chance the Eagles could lose (99.9% unlikely).  In the lacrosse situation, a desperate defense causing a turnover is a far more likely scenario.  I would also contend that that team scoring, winning the faceoff, scoring again, winning the faceoff and scoring again would still be more likely than the Westbrook play coming back to bite the Eagles.  In no way am I saying I don't agree with the stall strategy here, just pointing out that I don't really agree with the analogy.

[billhoward]

The Princeton site mentions that Princeton's time of possession in the Cornell zone was :06 in the fourth qaurter. Wonder how calmly Bill Tierney took the final quarter?

The site also notes what an upbeat omen the Cornell loss is. It is likely to lead to a national champsionship. See if you can follow the logic:

[KP '06]

[quote billhoward]The Princeton site mentions that Princeton's time of possession in the Cornell zone was :06 in the fourth qaurter. Wonder how calmly Bill Tierney took the final quarter?[/quote]

http://www.lax.com/bimages.phtml?story=2302&iid=62

He needs a hug.

Or, he's a zombie.

[billhoward]

I didn't realize how much this thing ran in streaks. Quick count of the series:

Princeton 22-1-2 and 18 in a row until Vietnmam war got going
Cornell 23-1 including the last 21 in a row until 1989
Princeton 13-14 inclding the last 8 until 2003
Cornell 5-1 the last six years

It feels so good to have broken Princeton's Bush I-Clinton years stranglehold on the Ivy League.

[CUontheslopes]

Not sure if anyone's seen this on youtube, but it really shows a few difference between the pton game. The close in defense looked MUCH better against pton. The defense seems to be coming together nicely...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY4w--3QbWk&feature=related