Army @ MLax

[redhair34]

I just got back to the game and don't have a lot of time for comments (need to get ready for tonight) but I'll say a few words.  We absolutely dominated the game.  As Delta said I think the faceoff X was our one weakness in the game.  Otherwise, we absolutely outplayed Army in every facet.  I thought Mitchell and Pittard looked great on attack. I don't think either are as dynamic and talented as Greenghal(sp) but they get the job done.  Seibald REALLY impressed me.  I know he was touted as Boulukos Jr. but he seems a step quicker and not quite as physically imposing as Joe.  He scored a couple of nice goals and made two great plays to break up transition scoring opportunities for Army.  McMonagale was there when he need him; I think he had about 2 saves he had no business making.  Boulukos took a ton of shots --all off the mark, I think he only got a couple on net.  Army didn't really show up (plus they were w/out Walker) whereas we were definitely on our game.  This lax team is looking very promising considering all the seniors we lost.

[peterg]

Scores of note

Hofstra 11, Hopkins 6

Notre Dame 9, North Carolina 7

MD 9, Towson (who lost to Binghamton last week) 6

[billhoward]

There was only one post season shutout and Cornell has that.

Army wasn't that bad. If the Friday hockey game wasn't as close as the score, this wasn't as unbelievably one-sided as the score seemed. Just one-sided. Cornell D was awesome. They flattened Army attackers who tried for extra step before the shot. McMonagle seemed to will shots to bounce off him. Attack exploited Army weaknesses. Bouloukos took lots of shots; today's game was more ranging fire for later in the season.

[ugarte]

[quote peterg]Notre Dame 9, North Carolina 7[/quote]Is that a very good sign for us, a really bad sign for NC or both? (Or neither?)

[Al DeFlorio]

[quote ugarte][quote peterg]Notre Dame 9, North Carolina 7[/quote]Is that a very good sign for us, a really bad sign for NC or both? (Or neither?)[/quote]
Navy simply buried UNC last weekend, so I wouldn't read too much into ND's win.

[Jacob '06]

[quote peterg]Scores of note

Hofstra 11, Hopkins 6

Notre Dame 9, North Carolina 7

MD 9, Towson (who lost to Binghamton last week) 6[/quote]

What happened to hopkins this year?

[Chris \'03]

Virginia just won a close game at Princeton.

Of note, the game was played at the football stadium not the lax stadium and Princeton installed field turf there over the winter.

I've always associated H,Y, and P with old football programs and grass football fields. No more I suppose...

[jtwcornell91]

[quote Chris '03]Of note, the game was played at the football stadium not the lax stadium and Princeton installed field turf there over the winter.

I've always associated H,Y, and P with old football programs and grass football fields. No more I suppose...[/quote]

Does anyone who's dealt with FieldTurf want to weigh in on its similarity to natural grass.  I wonder if old-timers like me need to re-think our disdainful image of artificial turf as Astroturf (or Tartan Turf) carpets.

[billhoward]

[quote jtwcornell91][quote Chris '03]Of note, the game was played at the football stadium not the lax stadium and Princeton installed field turf there over the winter.

I've always associated H,Y, and P with old football programs and grass football fields. No more I suppose...[/quote]

Does anyone who's dealt with FieldTurf want to weigh in on its similarity to natural grass.  I wonder if old-timers like me need to re-think our disdainful image of artificial turf as Astroturf (or Tartan Turf) carpets.[/quote]
The new artificial turf is markedly softer than the old AstroTurf or PolyTurf (Cornell's first rug). It's much closer to grass, it burns less, it causes less stress on knees and ankles. What I don't know if less stress is the same as no stress compared to grass.

Artificial turf fields started as a high-end status symbol. Now it may be grass is the status symbol, and turf fields (note how the "artificial" prefix got dropped) make the most sense for high-wear situations, land-locked areas (college campuses), or stadiums that must be used multiple times a week, used further into the colder/muddier months, not just for five home football games and two major spring lax tournament games. Wouldn't be surprised to see more turf fields at Cornell to take the place of the diminishing alumni fields.

Princeton going to artifcial turf for son-of-Palmer Stadium was intriguing because the 4,000-seat (?) Class of 1952 stadium seemed adequate for most every lacrosse match and certainly for every soccer match. Maybe Princeton lacrosse wanted to be able to play the 2-3 biggest games in son-of-Palmer but didn't wanted to have to acclimate themselves, so now they're playing all lax games there?

It also means Princeton can be a good town/gown neighbor and host HS events there, if it wants to, although Rutgers already does, I believe. That's supposed to be one reason Cornell never thought about moving the West Stands to the edge of the field -- by keepng the running track, they can host regional track events. Although I see there were no lane markings there Saturday, so has Cornell given up on track events there?

[Rosey]

[quote billhoward]It also means Princeton can be a good town/gown neighbor and host HS events there, if it wants to, although Rutgers already does, I believe. That's supposed to be one reason Cornell never thought about moving the West Stands to the edge of the field -- by keepng the running track, they can host regional track events. Although I see there were no lane markings there Saturday, so has Cornell given up on track events there?[/quote]
Head up to the far end of alumni field.  Sometime around '97 or '98, Cornell built a real track and field complex.

Kyle

[billhoward]

[quote krose][quote billhoward]It also means Princeton can be a good town/gown neighbor and host HS events there, if it wants to, although Rutgers already does, I believe. That's supposed to be one reason Cornell never thought about moving the West Stands to the edge of the field -- by keepng the running track, they can host regional track events. Although I see there were no lane markings there Saturday, so has Cornell given up on track events there?[/quote]
Head up to the far end of alumni field.  Sometime around '97 or '98, Cornell built a real track and field complex.
Kyle[/quote]
I've seen the track and the soccer pitch inside it. But does that host any regional HS events? It's not a marquee facility. I thought Schoellkopf was still a track facility for big events. Or was it until recently (like last year) but no longer? Is the oval around the Schoellkopf field usable at all for running? Because if not, then next time they redo the field, they should just move it so it's right up against the Crescent. (Don't know what happens to the West Stands, but it's not as if Schoellkopf is full for sports.)

[Liz '05]

[quote billhoward]I've seen the track and the soccer pitch inside it. But does that host any regional HS events? It's not a marquee facility. I thought Schoellkopf was still a track facility for big events. Or was it until recently (like last year) but no longer? Is the oval around the Schoellkopf field usable at all for running? Because if not, then next time they redo the field, they should just move it so it's right up against the Crescent. (Don't know what happens to the West Stands, but it's not as if Schoellkopf is full for sports.)[/quote]

Bill, I know Barton hosts a lot of regional (indoor) track events.  I also know Schoellkopf doesn't quite have a standard-sized track, so while you CAN run around it, it's not a place where you'd want to go to time yourself.

[Winnabago]

[quote jtwcornell91][quote Chris '03]Of note, the game was played at the football stadium not the lax stadium and Princeton installed field turf there over the winter.

I've always associated H,Y, and P with old football programs and grass football fields. No more I suppose...[/quote]

Does anyone who's dealt with FieldTurf want to weigh in on its similarity to natural grass.  I wonder if old-timers like me need to re-think our disdainful image of artificial turf as Astroturf (or Tartan Turf) carpets.[/quote]

I work for an architectural firm that specs Field Turf often.  It is quite an investment, but reps tell us that there is a projected market of 40-50 new fields annually for at least the next 20 years.  I believe there are 2 large suppliers, one of them is A-turf out of Buffalo, and the other I can't quite recall.  Cost is $4-$8 / sf, meaning for a typical 80000 foot field, you are looking at a good six figure investment.  But, maintenaince is virtually zero.

As far a quality goes, if you watched how it goes in, you would understand what makes it superior immediately.  The stuff has a good 8-9 inches of depth to it, with 'blades' of plastic attached at the bottom.  They then fill about 4 inches of little plastic pellets that are designed to look and act like soil.  These are quite soft, and are free to move around, so you don't get rug burn.  It really does feel like grass falling on it, except the pellets stick in your clothes, hair, etc.

Anyway, hope this helps.  I finally got to use the phrase 'rugburn' on elynah, fufulling my goal.

[billhoward]

[quote Liz '05][quote billhoward]I've seen the track and the soccer pitch inside it. But does that host any regional HS events? It's not a marquee facility. I thought Schoellkopf was still a track facility for big events. Or was it until recently (like last year) but no longer? Is the oval around the Schoellkopf field usable at all for running? Because if not, then next time they redo the field, they should just move it so it's right up against the Crescent. (Don't know what happens to the West Stands, but it's not as if Schoellkopf is full for sports.)[/quote]
Bill, I know Barton hosts a lot of regional (indoor) track events.  I also know Schoellkopf doesn't quite have a standard-sized track, so while you CAN run around it, it's not a place where you'd want to go to time yourself.[/quote]
Barton at one point hosted the indoor Heps every year unti Dartmouth and some others cried foul. The Schoellkopf track is four laps to the mile, or 440 yards around. Is the new track 400 meters instead? That might be what makes Schoellkopf non-standard going forward.

[Hillel Hoffmann]

Army isn't a good barometer, especially with Walker hobbled/out, but what's not to like about Cornell?

The offensive middies are scary good. There's still a production drop-off from the first line to the second, but Clayton/Espey/Romero could explode any minute. On the first line, Casey Lewis has been transformed -- like someone flipped his "on" switch. Boulukos is a beast, but he's still scattershot (as Rob noted) and he still runs into doubles too much. Seibald's shooting is all over the place too, but he's born to score. Someone on laxpower wrote that his shot has unorthodox mechanics. It's true -- it's sorta 3/4, which isn't great, but he knows how to use his speed/moves/size to create good shots anyway. He might break Redd's freshman scoring record (31 pts).

I can't remember the last time all three Cornell close defenders had good wheels and good sticks. Much more assertive in loose ball situations and clears; much more aggressive with the body and the stick. Mike Pisco has improved a ton since he was an underclassman. I really like this group, and I feel guilty about saying they'd be a weakness due to lack of depth. We'll see how they hold up against Duke on grass.

Peter already mentioned Schmicker seeming to find himself at the X. Good. He has funky mechanics too, mostly because as a tall guy he doesn't have the classic FOGO bodytype (they usually have their center of gravity about, oh, a foot underground).

I agree with Rob that Pittard is an anchor out there.

I'll say it again:

Cornell.

Is.

Back.