Why did the Team USA lose ? [Archive]

#15Roadies

07-28-2006, 10:26 PM

Methinks that the author, in his "What went wrong" piece used his media fueled bias to divine a truth. No doubt his "picks" in talent have more to do with his proximity and access to the hype about American field players than anything else. That is, far more information is available about how good those US guys are compared to the Canadian guys, with the exception of a few.

Maybe "JamesLand" should visit his nearest NLL game and take a clue.

I think he blows his credibility when he wraps up his article by saying, "...but I am saying it looks like Canada tried much harder."

They "tried much harder??!!" :dummy: LOFL!

mfLax03

07-28-2006, 10:29 PM

gary gait duh

BClax17

07-28-2006, 10:50 PM

So according to this guy, Canada won because the US lost.

Makes sense but blaming every little aspect of the game really isn't a good thing. Let it go, USA lost, it's allowed to happen. Suck it up and get ready for next time cause now Canada is defending champs and well, we want to keep it.

TheCanaidan

07-28-2006, 10:53 PM

You have to admit, it was a good game, To be honest, team USA ( being the defending champions) got kinda cocky, and i guess Canada Just wanted it more, i felt like they played with more heart, and No im not just saying that becuase im canadian

Laxfan22

07-28-2006, 10:59 PM

Laxfan22

07-28-2006, 11:00 PM

I agree--Canada wanted the game more. How else would they have such awesome ground ball numbers ?

Laxfan22

07-28-2006, 11:05 PM

By "this guy" do you mean Kevin Fixler or James Land ?

The article by J. Land covering the game clearly gives Canada credit when he writes:

"And let’s give Canada some credit here. It is not just that Team USA lost the game. It is that Canada won the game.

Canada did it by managing a close game for three quarters and by pulling away in the fourth, ending the USA's winning streak at 38 games."

Hackstall

07-28-2006, 11:14 PM

When the US got the scare against Australia, everyone said that they would come out flying against Canada and possibly blow them out. It was to the point where I almost had myself convinced of this after hearing and reading it.

Canada was just better. I can identify with what people in the US are feeling. Hockey is/was supposed to be Canada's game. Every time Canada doesn't win gold in a world hockey event, the country has a total meltdown. We didn't want it enough. We selected the wrong players. Bad coaching strategies. Everything gets put under a microscope to come up with the answer as to why we lost at OUR game.

The truth is, Canada is good at lacrosse. Other countries are good at lacrosse and are rapidly getting even better. Field lacrosse may no longer be America's game. Sure, the US will always be a favourite to win but in 2010, maybe 4 or 5 teams will have a good shot to win. In 20-30 years it may be anybody's guess as to who will win.

Americans are in a grieving process and, as I said, I can relate. Fingers will be pointed, players will be questioned, but maybe, just maybe, Canada was a better team. The US only beat Canada 13-12 in the round robin so it wasn't like they should have won the final in a cakewalk.

Having Gary Gait on your team is only going to help. His body may have slowed a bit, but the guy knows as much or more about lacrosse than anybody on this planet. He commands respect. When he speaks, guys are going to listen and listen well. They know that he knows what he is talking about. So aside from the 4 goals, even if he was just there as a calming influence or to give the right words at the right time, it is only going to benefit the team.

As for James Land, I never read anything by him before, but is it clear to me that he is both arrogant and ignorant. His entire argument is essentially, "This is Team USA we are talking about after all", which he says several times. Sorry James but maybe Team USA is only invincible in your world.

Captain Cool

07-28-2006, 11:25 PM

How else would they have such awesome ground ball numbers ?

Brodie Merril.

Laxfan22

07-28-2006, 11:32 PM

I have to tell you that I read your post over about 5 times trying to understand what the heck you are trying to say.

What does "picks in talent have more to do with his proximity and access to the hype about American field players than anything else.... Far more info is available about how good the USA guys are..." mean ?

What "picks in talent" ? I do not see where J. Land even mentioned "picks in talent."

I liked Land's article because he is saying that the USA lost due to 4 areas where Canada dominated play--Face Offs, Goaltending, etc.

The killer is in ground balls where Canada seems to have outworked the USA...or "tried much harder"....or wanted the game more....

Land also wrote in another article "Let’s give Canada some credit here. It is not just that Team USA lost the game. It is that Canada won the game. Canada did that by managing a close game for three quarters and by pulling away in the fourth, ending the USA's winning streak at 38 games."

TigersLaxer3

07-28-2006, 11:35 PM

ithink canada out played them the whole tourney

Laxfan22

07-28-2006, 11:39 PM

Yes--Brodie Merrill had 6 ground balls, clearly a great game.

However, Team Canada had 37 total ground balls for the game which means that 31 were by other Team Canada players. Brodie did not do it all himself.

And team USA had only 18 ground balls in the game.

Does anyone else see the problem there for Team USA ? Canada nearly had double the ground balls that USA did...a huge difference.

Laxfan22

07-28-2006, 11:41 PM

The whole tourney being two games ????

Ivo

07-29-2006, 12:18 AM

I think some of you need to realise that you cant keep winning FOREVER. The americans of the last almost 30 years have been a lacrosse dynasty that will never be matched. Through that time they have destroyed their oppostion most of the time. Though in the last 2 worlds Canada has given them good games that if they got a bounce or 2 could have won. I think that it was just a matter of time. Both games they played this year were good games just like in the last 2 worlds.
Like someone else here said us Canadians can relate to the yanks right now. When Canada loses in Hockey we freak out and try to figure out what went wrong or how we lost or whatever, but lest face it you cant win them all. This comparison is good for another reason. Canada hockey team should beat the american hockey team most of the time but they should be good games. But if you took Canada 2nd best team and put it agaisnt the US 2nd best team it wouldnt be close. The same goes for lacrosse, Canada has nowhere near the depth that the US does but Canadas best can play with the best the US has to offer and as you all witnessed CAN beat them.

I think that though this games is a sore point in the US, its a great thing for lacrosse in general. Nothing like a great rivalry to create more interest.

Who will be the favorite in 2010, that will be interesting

AttackSniper#12

07-29-2006, 12:41 AM

cause canada OWNS

Hackstall

07-29-2006, 01:07 AM

Canada hockey team should beat the american hockey team most of the time but they should be good games. But if you took Canada 2nd best team and put it agaisnt the US 2nd best team it wouldnt be close. The same goes for lacrosse, Canada has nowhere near the depth that the US does but Canadas best can play with the best the US has to offer and as you all witnessed CAN beat them.

Excellent point, Ivo. That may be post of the month material. I didn't even consider that similarity and nowhere has anyone else mentioned this. As you said, in hockey, Canada has the depth to field 3 teams and do very well. The same can be said for US lacrosse. They could field 3 teams and probably take 2 of the 3 medals and maybe even 3 of the top 4-5 spots.

Canada has decent lacrosse depth as well though, there are a number of great players who didn't make this team. Zack Greer, Tracy Kelusky, Kaleb Toth, Dan Dawson, etc, etc.

Storm21

07-29-2006, 01:28 AM

cause canada OWNS

I will have to agree with that

KnightsLAXDad

07-29-2006, 08:00 AM

#15Roadies

07-29-2006, 08:27 AM

Laxfan22 - let me try and clear up the confusion. In his article, "World Games Final Wrap-up" Land compares the teams and ends up with this conclusion, "So where does that leave us? – 3-1 U.S. for talent." There is a huge bias here for his countrymen because he probably has no clue about half of Team Canada and what they are capable of. Had he had equal, or even a decent level of, access to the same information about Canadian players, his analysis might be tempered with some common sense.

In his article, "What went wrong" he concludes that "Canada worked harder." Gimme a break.

While American lacrosse magazines, websites, adverts, etc. all have been focussed and hyped on American talent in college or MLL (with the odd Canadian or Australian aberration here and there) Land relies on this information to divine his truth about "talent." And he blows his credibility in the process.

Talent? The plain and simple truth that some of you guys are going to have to get used to is that Canada matched up and exceeded American "talent" in some departments, including the coaching department. Who the heck is Jeff Zywicki? Phair and Moss? Where did Snyder come from??

I expected the USA coaching staff to have recognized the team they were facing, but for Land it was a complete shock because he had no idea who these Canadian guys really are. Quite frankly, even though I had some wavering nervous moments during the game, I knew that this Canadian team could beat the US. Why? Because I know the "talent" on both teams, more or less equally (and I am not a very knowledgeable field guy) and I knew that the Canadian "talent" was equal to the task, if not better.

So it was no shock to me that the US lost, nor was it a shock that Canada won. (Actually, the biggest and most pleasant surprise was that the US was out-coached)

Hard work, team play, hustle - yeah they are big aspects of the game, but give credit where credit is due. That Canadian team was far more talented than Land is capable of recognizing.

i live 4 lax

07-29-2006, 09:33 AM

they lost at the face off x said and done.

Laxfan22

07-29-2006, 01:06 PM

15 Roadies--Part of the problem is you are talking about two different articles and they were not both written by James Land.

You are writing about Kevin Fixler's article "World Games Final Wrap-up" and also about James Land's article "Team USA--what went wrong."

I happen to agree that there is a bias for USA talent, and I do not agree with all of what Kevin Fixler wrote--meaning that you, 15 roadies, are on to something.

However, I also think that James Land is onto something. He refers to Canada having nearly twice as many ground balls as the USA and to him this means Canada worked harder or wanted it more. On some level, that makes sense to me as well...This does not necessarily mean that Land thinks that Canada has limited talent. In fact, I think Land would agree that Canada has loads of talent.

And Land was not "shocked" by the Canadian Talent. In fact, I follow the LAXnews site and know that Land covered UMass in the past, so he happens to know Zywicki well. Knowing UMass means he prob saw G-town a lot too and that would mean he knows Merrill.

Another thing that indicates Land was not shocked by Canadian talent is the line of Land's that I quoted in the posts above. Land wrote:

"And let’s give Canada some credit here. It is not just that Team USA lost the game. It is that Canada won the game."

Again, I think the problem is that you did not read the line closely that shows the author is Kevin Fixler for the "World Games Final Wrap-up" article and you have the two opinions (that are different opinions from different writers but on the same site) mixed up.

The mix up made your criticism of James Land hard to understand. I think, in fact, that you actually intended a good part of your criticism for Kevin Fixler. He is the one saying USA had more talent--which may or may not be the case.

Check it out again closely if you do not believe me:

www.laxnews.com

And by the way, I happen to agree that Canada matched USA's talents in some (if not most) spots--otherwise they would not have won.

Also (as IVO says above) it is good that Canada won it. It makes the next World Games much more interesting when two (or maybe even more) teams have a legitimate chance to win in 2010.

Laxfan22

07-29-2006, 01:12 PM

i live 4 lax--

You are right that the face-offs were a huge part of determining the winner...

I do not, however, think they were the ONLY thing.

As James Land says, goaltending and ground balls mattered too. Of course, a lot of those ground balls came on face offs...right ?

Laxfan22

07-29-2006, 01:44 PM

Hackstall--where does Land say this is Team USA we are talking about after all several times ? I think it was in there once....And I think it means he is saying USA could have picked another Face off guy...they had lots to choose from--as inthis is Team USA not a high school or club team.

Land also says: "The key to the victory for Canada was getting great performances from great players. Canada got great goaltending from Chris Sanderson, great shooting from Jeff Zywicki and from Gary Gait, and most importantly, great face-off play from Geoff Snider."

And now you write that Land is Ignorant ? That is a heck of a compliment to Team Canada and shows Land's knowledge of who won the game for Team Canada and why.

BrineLacrosse45

07-29-2006, 01:46 PM

you could definatly see a difference in the us's game in the second half..they seemed sluggish, tired and werent hussling much. which showed in possesion time and gb's. I have the game on tape and i watch it a few tmes a week and you can easlily see the drive canada had. the us was making foolish mistakes too, they were missing easy passes and shots and just werent performing up to par. I think the game was best summed up in a line from one of the recent articles..."Canada wanted to win, while the US wanted not to lose..." but your bound to see a change is US's gameplay in 2010, they will focus on fundametals and have great teamwork and will take back there title.
GO USA!!!

PBlax

07-29-2006, 02:05 PM

i dont trust laxnews.com they kinda freak me out. Everytime i go2 a princeton lacrosse game ill come back to have one of their business cards on my windsheild. Any buisness that needs to advertise that way is cheap in my opinoin.

asian_invasion

07-29-2006, 02:14 PM

i just want to point out that there is a reason for all this hype about Team USA's loss. It's because Team USA was hyped. It was the favorite and American lacrosse media was playing it up as something like a "dream team". Now when a "dream team" loses, even if it's not really a "dream team", people will freak out. So stop bashing this James Land fellow for spazing out a little with a US bias. He expected them to win and probably can't bring himself to fully admit that it was Canadian skill that won the game. Like some people said before, the same happens in hockey. So leave the guy alone.

All of that aside, I don't think people consider momentum enough. Sure, Geoff Snider won a huge amount of faceoffs, but besides possession and GB numbers there's still momentum. Lacrosse, like basketball, is a game of momentum. The game can swing from one team's house to another's in seconds. Canada had that momentum, that hustle. Sure, possession helps that momentum but it's different. It's a mood thing. It's kind of hard to explain.

Anyway congratulations to Canada, but we'll be back. See you in 2010.

#15Roadies

07-29-2006, 02:31 PM

Laxfann22, you are absolutely right, I did not read the by-lines and figured it was James Land blog page or something. My mistake.

Fixler has that bias too, but Land is coming from the same place. I know he is writing about 'what went wrong' with the US but the same criticism applies.

How can you analyze what went wrong without analyzing what went right for the other guys? All I see from Land is some self-indulgent naval gazing.

To lay it out to experience, goaltending face-offs and desire is way too over-simplistic. The comments about the goaltending, which was spectacular given the circumstances, and desire is almost insulting to those US boys. Hey, anyone wants to question the desire of a Jalbet or a Polanco I suggest they do it to their faces.

The comments on the GB stat kind of sums up that viewpoint: That gaining a gb ignores the well timed force, the positioning, the athleticism or anticipation and reduces it down to desire or working harder. Hustle isn't everything and from what I saw of the US, they certainly did not lack hustle at any point in the game. It is not that the Canadians worked harder, it is that they played better.

Laxfan22

07-30-2006, 10:07 AM

I think the issue is that LAXnews is an American site, so it is natural for their writers to take a look at things from an "American" viewpoint. Further, with the USA having won 8 out of the 9 world titles coming into 2006, it was natural for American writers to expect another win for the USA.

And in actuality, LAXnews had an interview of Mike French before the games and predicted that Canada would win. So I think to some degree they were showing the other side and that Canada could win.

While you may be right that LAXnews does not have a completely evenhanded approach to their coverage, do not forget that all news is biased. And I am talking about all news, not just sports writing. Even the BBC, ABC and CNN are biased to some degree.

By the way, are there any Canadian owned sites that are writing about the World Games ? Any particular Canadian coverage that you thought did a good job of explaining how Canada won ? I would like to see their angle.

RockStar

07-30-2006, 10:20 AM

.......
By the way, are there any Canadian owned sites that are writing about the World Games ? Any particular Canadian coverage that you thought did a good job of explaining how Canada won ? I would like to see their angle.

Start with Canoe.ca. It's owned by Sun Media, and the Toronto Sun is the most lacrosse-friendly major Toronto daily. There are a couple sports reporters that know the NLL game fairly well anyway.

TSN and CBC's websites may also have some written commentary.

Following that, check the London daily - ?Free Press? I read a few articles in the weeks leading up to the tourney. The WLC may have been the largest event in London for the week it was running, so it doubtless made the sports pages and possibly the main paper.

moondog

07-30-2006, 03:34 PM

Canada has been (very) close to the US before. Not so long ago, in 1998, the US team beat Canada in overtime, in (arguably) one of the most classical and historical games ever played.

What if Canada scored and won in '98? We probably wouldn't be having this kind of discussion.

MACDADDY

07-30-2006, 04:59 PM

dam i think its cuz they u.s got confused in the rain. i wish U.S won.......i had $50 riding on them. but then agian..........canadas got gary gait. if only team U.S got garry gait. then the team would have been undefeated

nikewarrior5

07-30-2006, 05:27 PM

Brodie Merril.

hey dont forget the new god of face-offs Geoff Snider

#15Roadies

07-30-2006, 06:07 PM

Laxfan22 - of course news stories are biased to one degree or another, but when that bias is so inward looking without a reasonable recognition of the more imporant outward factors, the writer loses credibility in attempting any sort of useful, balanced view. It is not just about the Worlds - there is plenty of information about Canadian players all over the web.

The NLL sites for one - NLL, Insiders Guide, etc. Gawd, there are guys here who could tell you all about North American lacrosse talent and their observations would probably be more valuable that Land or what is on canoe.ca or the London Free Press.

dougm

07-30-2006, 07:04 PM

The NLL sites for one - NLL, Insiders Guide, etc. Gawd, there are guys here who could tell you all about North American lacrosse talent and their observations would probably be more valuable that Land or what is on canoe.ca or the London Free Press.

yep - american fans of the nll/cla know all about cdn talent which is why i think most of that article was absurd.

mullengoal141

07-30-2006, 08:09 PM

land's article, the part where he talk's about greg cattrano... he was really really mistaken... Greg actually didn't try out because he was hurt, its because he wanted to stay healthy for the MLL championship last year... so he may have been partially right... but still, another reason for non credible information...

laxcanada

07-30-2006, 08:34 PM

the rain brings us canucks good luck

Warriors26

07-30-2006, 08:37 PM

MFlax03- Do you really think Gary Gait was the difference ? Do you mean as a player or as a leader ? As a player, I am really not sure Gary was the difference in that game. While he did have 4 goals, they all came after Canada had a lead in the fourth quarter. There is no doubt the goals helped seal the victory for Canada, but if Gary did not score they could very well have still have won--11 to 10.

I think James Land is right that face-offs, ground balls and goaltending were huge in that game.

Gary Gait was( seeing he isnt playing internationally now) the best player going round he scored 4 goals one to take the lead and the rest to kill the spirits of the usa. he occupied a key defender all game and was almost like a coach on the field telling people what to do and where to go. also goes back to the old saying a team of champions will never beat a champion team

CTLaxer

07-31-2006, 02:10 AM

I formed my own opinions as to why the US lost to Canada. I then stumbled across Quint Kessenich's write up. Much to my surprise, he came away with the same reasons I did.

The canadian team practiced together, and practiced longer.
The canadians exploited their main advantages, mainly in close stick work/shooting and face-offs with a pinched indoor head.
The canadians made up for their deficiencies and overcame them, mainly their defense with long sticks. They minimized the powell's.
The canadians managed the game better, combining the coaching staff with gary gate, it shouldn't surprise anyone.
Most importantly...The canadians played as a team!

Meanwhile...

The americans played as individuals for the most part.
The americans didn't play any serious pre tourney games besides the all-star game (which they looked terrible).
The americans main strength, their defense, came up extremely short, with the exception of their goal tending. They couldn't stop the inside moves and shots, which the canadians are so good at coming from the indoor game.
The americans didn't adjust enough during the game to compensate for canada's strengths and their own weaknesses.

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that desko admitted to being outcoached.

The canadians deserved their win, and they outplayed the americans in every way. It's not that the americans lost the game, or the canadians worked harder, or any other one thing. It's the combination of a number of things that clicked for one team and didn't for the other, and vice versa. My hat's off to Canada and their well earned win.

As an aside, how cool was this years tourney. Team from Bermuda? Scottland's crazy old goalie (he actually was making saves!)? Lots of awesome stuff this year, 2010 will be even better, with the theme being.....revenge :nahya:

CanuckLax

07-31-2006, 11:30 AM

Let's look at Land's articule point by point and I think there is a common theme I will summerize at the end.

1) He blames the lack of quality exhibition game opponents. Land says that, "The USA has had close games, but they had never been down by three or more goals in the fourth quarter and had to come back. So that hurt them. They did not know, as a group, how to handle adversity. And being down in the fourth by three goals (and then more) was a problem they could not solve.

This is a tough weakness to fix. Team USA gets together and plays some warm up games before the tournament, but they never get behind in those games. In fact, Team USA pounded all the teams they played in the warm up games."

This is a non starter, it only makes sense if on the flip side, Team Canada had quality pre-tourney opponents and therefore good exhibition games that allowed them to practice different scenarios, but they DIDN'T so the point it moot.

2) The next point is the FOGO arguement with respect the Snider, which I agree is accurate and it WAS a factor, the relevance of which I will point out at the end.

3) Land touches on the goaltending, not entertaining Cattrano after he was healthy and the constant switching of Garrity and Tierney, all relevant and contributing factors...

4) Last bullet point was desire and while hard to quantify, could also be considered as a logical contributing factor...

The big issue however is the common denominator between all these "issues" and I believe it to be RESPECT or better yet, lack there of for Canada. No hear me out before you get all excited, I am not painting the country with a wide brush, i will limit my criticism to the powers that be on USA Lax BUT....

1) If they respected Canada they would have practiced more together, had more exhibition games that mattered, but the didn't because they didn't believe they needed to.

2) If they respected Canada they would have used a roster spot for a FOGO to match up the Snider, but they didn't because the didn't believe they needed to.

3) If they respected Canada they would have given Cattrano a second look as everyone says he's the "best' goalie out there. If they respected Canada they would have given up the ridiculous practice of switching out their goalies mid-game, even though they must have known like everyone does that in doing so you don't optimize the goalies mental focus, you break their rhythm but they didn't because the didn't believe they needed to.

4) And the last point was desire.... If they respected Canada they would have not acted like the tourney was a forgone conclusion, If they respected Canada they would have not have had players be quoted as saying the MLL all-stars were the 2nd best team in the world, but they didn't because the didn't believe they needed to.

The team, the management, the coaches did not have the requisite respect for a formidable opponent and THAT opened the door for these other errors to be exposed and exploited. One may have thought that they might have learned to be humble after similar experiences with Dream Team basketball... but alas, hindsight is indeed 20/20....

WHEELAX2

07-31-2006, 11:38 AM

as I've said earlier.. (many times in fact)

this was not a team.. it was a talent show.. if you were there, and saw what I saw, you would have seen a bunch of individuals just trying to look good..

USA lacrosse did not get beat: the individuals selected for team USA beat themselves with their egos..

I can think of at least 20 players who would have made a better TEAM.. not all star roster..

superstars need complementary players, not other all stars who are trying to pad their stats and look good for the crowd

#15Roadies

07-31-2006, 12:03 PM

In 1972, the best of pro hockey, all Canadians, took on a little regarded Soviet team for a super series. The Soviets were wearing crappy old equipment and the Canadians made fun of them and how easily they were going to roll over them in all 8 games. The Canadians got hammered in the first game and eeked out a series win by the slimmest of margins on a last minute goal by Paul Henderson.

That changed Canadian hockey forever. The rest of the world had caught up and the game began to change. So it will be with lacrosse.

I remember the Toronto Rock chirping up about the Wings a few years ago, saying how Americans don't know how to play box, etc. and how they were going to teach them a lesson. Wings won the game and the Cup.

I remember a few years ago a dream team Canadian box team was compiled to smoke the Americans in the Heritage Cup and were completely out-coached and thoroughly spanked by our cousins from the south. As much as that hurt is as much good it did for Canadian lacrosse.

I tend agree with Wheelax to a point, but would add that the USA was out-coached by a fairly large margin. Sure Canadian players played very well, but they have been doing that for the past few worlds, so what was the difference this time?

It has to come down to tactics and that is part execution and part design. It doesn't matter if you are playing a good "team" or a good bunch of individuals. What was successful up until that game no longer necessarily applies with new tactics being introduced at this level.

With Canadian hockey, not all the "best" players make the team, but by and large the best "team" is assembled. I think we'll start seeing that with US lacrosse at the major level. And from what I saw a week ago, it would be a wise change in course...

WHEELAX2

07-31-2006, 12:06 PM

another thing that hit me was the fact that I had a very strong "feeling" that the USA defenders simply could not stop the Canadian Attackmen.. our poles are used to playing against guys who try a one on one, and dish it off or take a shot.. not the case with the canadians.. they seem to be able to run through anyone, and make impossible passes/catches on the crease.. I felt like our defense was just not prepared for this at all.

dougm

07-31-2006, 01:05 PM

they seem to be able to run through anyone, and make impossible passes/catches on the crease.. I felt like our defense was just not prepared for this at all.

one more reason why it takes more skill for box. face it fellow yanks, the skill lies w/ canada, the grit lies w/ canada, now they have the strategy from their college playing experience. yeah our guys can run a marathon but in the wind-sprint box leagues where only 25-yards matter, they even win that one as well.
wise up, wake up or shake-out!

TAT@YOU

08-02-2006, 12:02 PM

The truth is that Johny D is a horrible coach, has never been good this proves it!!!

WHEELAX2

08-03-2006, 12:27 AM

The truth is that Johny D is a horrible coach, has never been good this proves it!!!

ok.. sure.. you might not like syracuse, but you can't dis his resume or his reputation..

anyway.. i was just watching the game and I think I figured it out...

the in game problems were:

poor shot selection
poor shot placement
dropped passes
horrible man to man defense
terrible off ball defense..
poor/lazy ground ball play..

and..

I believe these three had horrible games and should have been pulled accordingly..

Shanahan (I felt he had a bad tourney in general)
Walters (dropped many passes and took many bad shots)
Harrison (simply made bad decisions all over the field.. at one point, he was completely lost on defense)

dougm

08-03-2006, 08:06 AM

Harrison (simply made bad decisions all over the field.. at one point, he was completely lost on defense)

if he's lost on the field then he has practically zero chance making it in the nll if the wings pursue him. coach lindsay sanderson will be less forgiving than desko.

WHEELAX2

08-03-2006, 08:24 AM

if he's lost on the field then he has practically zero chance making it in the nll if the wings pursue him. coach lindsay sanderson will be less forgiving than desko.

yeah.. he didn't make the team eh??

dougm

08-03-2006, 09:14 AM

yeah.. he didn't make the team eh??
wings have his rights from last summer's entry draft. i know that peter jacobs is his coach in the mll and i'm pretty certain given the apparent stature that peter has within the organization, his opinion will mean alot. as you and i agree, it takes alot more iq to play box than field - less space and quicker reaction time - and if you think kyle isn't a master of his game in the mll, then how does he expect to make the transition to the nll.
coach sanderson, is one who suffers no nonesense, but the organization has a history of grooming young field players, perhaps to their own detriment, provided that the player is willing to learn.

middie8

08-03-2006, 10:19 AM

WHEELAX2

08-03-2006, 10:25 AM

i was just watching the game. USA looked soooo tired. the defense was playing with their sticks and not taking the body or getting top side and CAN ran right through them. did anyone see that play where casey powell got in a scrap and nobody ran over except for CAN players. they were just flat footed the whole game.

yeah.. that's how they looked throughout the whole week.. like they "knew" they were going to win.. so why try?

another thing I just picked up.. USA shot horribly as well.. I'd venture a guess that USA outshot Canada 2 to 1.. Canada just finished most of their shots..

IHS'76

08-03-2006, 01:35 PM

Easy guys. Don't let this thread start into more chirping. If it does I'll have to clear some posts out.

BTW, one win does not constitute "owning", as much as my Canadian pride would like to say so. Given the USA's record I think they still own the field, but only just for now ;) This is a lot like when the US won the Olympic Hockey in 1980.

KLD.
I don't agree with the comparision to 1980. If Japan or England beat the USA maybe. Canada is a great team with great players and coaches. It is their National Sport for Pete's sake! I'm American, so you know it hurts to admit this.

jlax7

08-03-2006, 08:38 PM

CANADAS THE BEST THE CHAMPS

Ivo

08-05-2006, 10:00 PM

Anyone who has watched these 2 teams play over the last 10 years really shouldnt be THAT surprised by the 2 games they played this year. The first was as 1 goal game that was as close as u can get. The 2nd was a 5 goal game but really was alot closer than the score suggests. I still feel that every time these 2 teams play it will be a great close game, the only thing that changed was Canada proved that the US can be beat, but i think we all can agree that it will never be an easy game for either team either way.

So people blaming Desko, arrogance, or whatever for the US loss should really examine the top players for both teams. These are just my opinions but i think they are sound.....

Canada had the best 2 attackmen in Gait and Grant
Canada had the best FO middie in Snider
US had the best all around middie in Jalbert
Canada had the best pole in Merrill
Goaltending is even i think

So Canada had the top players at most positions i think. US definately has better depth at each but Canadas guns stepped up.

So in hindsight why shoulndt Canada win???

BelliesLax

08-05-2006, 10:14 PM

i wouldnt say that the usa lost at all id say canada won....the usa has very good players but not all of the are excellent..the difference was that canada took the usa superstars out of play and the usa did the same to canada the difference was that the rest of team canada stepped it up unlike the rest of team usa...

dougm

08-06-2006, 10:04 PM

ryan boyle explains all...
http://www.majorleaguelacrosse.com/news/?id=4907

TAT@YOU

08-09-2006, 01:00 PM

i am huge cuse fan.......going way back......they should never have lost simople as that and by 6 goals??

kmanlax4

08-09-2006, 04:11 PM

Hey my dad is the asst. gm of team usa and he told me that wen the were picking the team they didnt pick a face off guy and not having paul cantabene on the field hurts plus how come josh sims didnt get picked

mattlax43

08-09-2006, 05:12 PM

i just now watched the game from the links provided on e-lacrosse and id have to say i saw alot more team work and ball movement with the canadian team, and the US team was more of a 1 or 2 pass then iso type of deal.

BlueWave

08-09-2006, 05:13 PM

Talent? The plain and simple truth that some of you guys are going to have to get used to is that Canada matched up and exceeded American "talent" in some departments, including the coaching department. Who the heck is Jeff Zywicki? Phair and Moss? Where did Snyder come from??
I know the "talent" on both teams, more or less equally (and I am not a very knowledgeable field guy) and I knew that the Canadian "talent" was equal to the task, if not better.

i definetly agree that canada has tons of talent and they are very comprable to the US talentwise or else they wouldn't have won the game, but i still believe that the USA had more talent than Canada. These guys play toghether in the MLL and most of the players on the US do better in the MLL than players on team Canada. As micheal jordan once said,"talent wins games but teamwork and intelligence wins championships." the groundball stats just show that Canada out hustled the US and that is why they won.

I also think this is great for Canada and for lacrosse because now that the US's grip on field lacrosse is loosing there will be more and more competionon as Canada and other teams like Australia get better.

bpercival

08-09-2006, 05:41 PM

i think USA got cocky and didnt think about loosing so the took it for granted and my guess is next world games we mont make the same mistake.

RockStar

08-10-2006, 08:53 AM

.............i still believe that the USA had more talent than Canada. These guys play toghether in the MLL and most of the players on the US do better in the MLL than players on team Canada..........

Here's a couple crackpot theories - Maybe, just maybe, the lacrosse in the MLL is different enough from international that it doesn't matter who's good at MLL. Maybe MLL with it's offense first/defense=afterthought attitude ain't all that great at preparing attackmen for a mobile and brutally aggressive d-corps like Team Canada's.

Hell, I don't even really know about "better in the MLL"...Defense is almost irrelevant there, and on the other end, the Canadians who played were up there with the better players. Gait and Marechek were a lethal combo, guys like Prout and Grant always put up good numbers.....

regulate34

08-10-2006, 07:07 PM

why?
do you really need to ask look who we have:
gary gait= nuff said
grant jr= faked the camra guy out
jeff snider= the best face off guy in the game

also we have boxlacrosse on our side
it makes us more aggressive and tuffer

Veno89

08-11-2006, 08:12 AM

i've watched some of the highlights of the Canada vs USA final, and i thought Canada deserved to win. they played a much better game then the USA, and they deserved to win. USA have a very talented team, but just wasnt there day, bad luck on the loss, and its good to see another team win the world championships. im an aussie and i reli wanted the aussies to win but as long as another team wins it(not the USA), its all good coz USA win everything.

SwRLaX10D

08-25-2006, 06:20 PM

who was their face-off guy? The US shouldve picked Cantabene or maybe even Vlahakis. Also, I agree with the guy who wrote the article that the US houldve kept one goalie in the game (preferably Trevor Tierney) and shouldn't have switched goalies unless they were killing Canada...which they definatly wouldnt have. Not only that, I think the US players were a little cocky because theyve won the World Championship every year since 78(?) and they were just expecting to win, and I think Canada just wanted it more

spenny

08-25-2006, 07:59 PM

my understanding of the selection rules prohibits them from taking players that werent at the tryouts. so even if they had begged cattrano to come play, they couldnt have taken him, because he wasnt at the tryouts.

b-boy_laxman

08-25-2006, 08:14 PM

cause canada OWNS

thas wat i was going to say :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

they lost cuz canada beat them, u.s.a just didnt play as well as the canadiens, that or we( canada ) got all the lucky breaks either one we just won.

berger1227

08-26-2006, 12:44 AM

the replay is on now...its depressing

bendover

08-26-2006, 01:13 PM

From interviews after Team USA beat the MLL All Stars ....

Quote #1: "I’m very happy," said U.S. head coach John Desko. "I thought there was a lot of unselfish play out there. We played more as a team than we did in our previous two [exhibition] games."

My take: Given the individual and selfish play of Team USA at the Worlds, how bad were they before the MLL All Star Game?

Quote #2: "We think the MLL All-Stars are probably the second-best team in the world, so it builds some confidence," said U.S. attackman Casey Powell.

My take: So Casey, where does that leave Team USA? In third?

Team Canada was the BEST TEAM this year, although they may not have the TEAM with the BEST PLAYERS.

Given that Desko and Casey will never be on Team USA again :bye: , I guess these quotes won't come back to haunt them

i live 4 lax

08-26-2006, 06:53 PM

i didnt know it was possible to lose with kyle harrison on your team

-calattack5-

08-31-2006, 11:39 AM

i agree with lsnds switching goalies was not a good idea

RockStar

08-31-2006, 12:08 PM

i didnt know it was possible to lose with kyle harrison on your team
Kyle Who?

He looked lost at times playing ILF field against the big boys.

He didn't even crack an NLL gameday roster on a team that missed the playoffs.

spenny

08-31-2006, 12:21 PM

he seems to be doing ok in the outdoor MLL game, and i thought that the world games had been played outdoors. its possible that i am wrong. since i dont get the CBC, i didnt see any world games

RockStar

08-31-2006, 01:38 PM

he seems to be doing ok in the outdoor MLL game, and i thought that the world games had been played outdoors......

World Championships were certainly outdoor, complete with rain. Should have been fairly familiar territory (Other than intricacies, the only substantial differences between ILF and NCAA appeared to be no counts, lack of an offensive zone box, and 4" min stick width allowed.)

I really don't mean to be that critical of Harrison. I really just found the following post odd.

i didnt know it was possible to lose with kyle harrison on your team

He truly did not stand out during any of the World Championship games I saw, and I note that he didn't crack the game day roster of a pro team that finished fifth of five.