LaxForums

Prem 1 Stockport to win

Prem 2 Sheffield to win

Prem 3 Cheadle Hulme to win

Nemla 1 Mersey A to win

UKLF where's the picture from? just curious.

UKLaxfan wrote:Go back to 10-a-side and wooden sticks

from http://network.laxpower.com/laxforum/vi ... a&start=20

chitown wrote:In the black & white picture of Joe Cowan:

1. That is the 1967 game at Homewood, before 12,000 standing room only crowd

2. He is being guarded by Carl Tamulevich, 1st team AA, and Navy football player

3. Joe's right leg is tightly taped because of a seriously thigh bruise in the Syracuse game the week before, and he did not practice at all the entire week before the Navy game, spend most of the week in bed, and received treatment from the trainers for the Baltimore Colts.

4. He had to "skip" in that game because he couldn't run, and he still had (I believe) 1 goal and 3 or 4 assists with Tamulevich guarding him. Probably one of the most heroic and courageous lacrosse performances that I have witnessed.

Gloves: yes, almost everybody cut out the palms of the gloves so you could "feel" the stick better.

Wood sticks: Of course the pockets were not like today, but everybody worked on your stick to try and get the pocket "softer". The ball on a pass or shot came out a lot faster. Almost a flick of the wrists could get a sharp fast accurate pass going, and the good attackmen, like Cowan, Heim, Lewis, could hit a cutter with a feed, right in the stick at ear level, on a dead run, with accuracy and consistency. An accurate pass (ear level, even to a running player) for 20-40 yards was not only the norm, but expected by the coaches.
I believe Dom Starsia said that lacrosse players of "by-gone" days who played with wood sticks learned to play with "soft wrists". I'm not sure how to explain it, except that Starsia is correct. You also had to protect the ball and stick in a very different fashion than todays' players, because a good check caused the ball to come out of the stick.

The change in sticks has changed the # of assisted goals. Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopk ... s_lacrosse and see the list of all-time assist record holders. Most are from decades ago. That fact alone shows how The Game has changed. More one-on-one now.

No one is really advocating a return to the "good old days", rather a recognition that the game has slowed down because of specialists, subs on the fly, and stick technology. Most "good" teams today have a difficult time passing the ball crisply around the Horn, because most passes are at knee or ankle level. Great individual defensive skills are a thing of the past, because nobody can check the ball out of a stick.

Eliminate subs on the fly, and the game will open up some. Open up the head of the stick, and who knows? But I think the game would rediscover the Transition game, and attackmen would have to become more skillful, like Joe Cowan.

And I don't care if kids play on my lawn.

UKLaxfan wrote:chitown wrote:
In the black & white picture of Joe Cowan:

Great reply and I agree. The passing-cutting-feeding game seems to have become a "Canadian" thing like a dirty word. Bearing in mind this strand is about the NCAA game and not about NEMLA, I think we can maintain some of the true traditions of the game in the UK.
The facial make-up told me the picture was not of an English game, but the sprightly young official looks just like the best home-grown referee I've ever known.

UKLaxfan wrote:

dmiddie wrote:

Mitchlax wrote:

dmiddie wrote:

Sour37 wrote:Be interesting to see how shef uni get on playing with 15 in prem 1 this year against the 13 man squads of all the other teams...And to see how coaches at other clubs react

Sheffield Uni will lose, so not an issue.

Didn't realise it was that straight forward. I must not be reading the same script.

No need to read the book, saw the film. They did a remake, but the result was the same.

Stockport & Cheadle will be favourites (Tom Gosnay & Ade Bennett should both be dominant) but I would love to see Sheffield University rock the boat.

So dmiddie: you seem to know everything

Who will win each Prem Division?

Apologies to go further off the thread but I am curious about 'dmiddie's' certain statement. If he was out for a catch then I’ve bitten, chewed and swallowed, however I’m sure the ‘film’ he was talking about was the old black and white version where all the players that got the team into the prem then graduated and left the team a shadow of its former self. However I assure you this situation is far from what the 2010/11 Sheff Uni squad will experience.

Only 2 regular starters left and the squad has been strengthened by a number of premiership quality players.

These lads have worked (& played ) very hard to get there, they will not be the ‘whipping boys’ this seasons top flight as the other South Yorkshire club was last season.

I’d even go as far as predicting wins Vs. Mellor and Brooklands, with close games against WACs and Wilmslow. (expecting response to that )

So.......Mr 'dmiddie' fancy a pint in the Huntsman.... say, I dunno..... Fri/Sat night to join the tanger army and discuss the matter further over a few socialable games and a pint of the black stuff.

Good work gaz he questions your team’s ability to play lax in the prem and you challenge him to a drinking game.

sheffield are bound to be good due to their ability to neck the black stuff

KebabLax05 wrote:....they will not be the ‘whipping boys’ this seasons top flight as the other South Yorkshire club was last season.

I’d even go as far as predicting wins Vs. Mellor and Brooklands, with close games against WACs and Wilmslow. (expecting response to that )

Its good to start confident, otherwise you've lost before the whistle's blown, but I think the so-called 'whipping boys' of last season - the other South Yorkshire club, would not have had many problems with Sheffield Uni last season. Let's see what the season brings.

Having played (and got beaten by ) the tanger army twice last year i would say that they will be tough in the prem this year. Obviously a jump in standard but if they are getting a few more good players in then they should be ok. The Loss of Leahy will be tough to fill. Gaz will be a big loss to however with Chris Lloyd, chris Ockleton and Tim Blower to replace him i thing they should manage! Good luck to them!

the pom wrote:Good work gaz he questions your team’s ability to play lax in the prem and you challenge him to a drinking game.

sheffield are bound to be good due to their ability to neck the black stuff

Congrats John on picking up on the comment that attempted to make the post a little light hearted and then making it sound like I believe SUMLC will win the prem on a boat race. Far from it. My point was made before that was wrote - Its not as simple as 'dmiddie' believes, SUMLC will not be ran over.

dmiddie wrote:

KebabLax05 wrote:....they will not be the ‘whipping boys’ this seasons top flight as the other South Yorkshire club was last season.

I’d even go as far as predicting wins Vs. Mellor and Brooklands, with close games against WACs and Wilmslow. (expecting response to that )

Its good to start confident, otherwise you've lost before the whistle's blown, but I think the so-called 'whipping boys' of last season - the other South Yorkshire club, would not have had many problems with Sheffield Uni last season. Let's see what the season brings.

Yorkshire Cup SUMLC vs. Steelers 1st - 7-1 victory, along side many offers for a friendly that were turned down by steelers, looks like they didn't want to lose face.

'Whipping boys' carrys as much value as your statement 'Will lose, not an issue' Mr W. & was included to get a reaction and prove no one likes hearing that about a club they are connected with.

Assuming the team being promoted from Div2 to the Prem will get stuffed may cause embarassment. Did Rochdale fluke their 6th position and Flags Final spot in 2009/10? Like all years you have no idea about a Uni team until they turn up, best not to pre-judge. And yes they would have beaten my old club Steelers who in turn picked up points off Rochdale so you never know.

Pulling Lacrosse Out of Its Niche:

A follow up article by Leif Elsmo:

Pulling Lacrosse Out of Its Niche
http://laxnews.com/modules.php?name=New ... le&sid=453

Leif and I agree, we must be about the same age.
As an occasional ref, if I see a stick check swinging more than 180 degrees, a flag flies and a penalty follows. At a properly-officiated tournament early this summer I saw good players putting massive arc & effort into accurate but unsuccessful clanging stick checks. Lesser players will do damage to opponents if this is copied down the leagues, and I hope refs have the guts to enforce the rules.
Am I out of line?

The 3 things Leif outlines as being needed to 'fix' the game are:

Leif wrote:Make all sticks 40-46 inches long--no more 6 foot poles.

Widen the pocket and make it lees deep so that an accurate and athletic check dislodges the ball.

The initial face off move must be away from the “X” and knee’s can’t touch the ground.

I whole heartedly agree with the 'widen the heads' point, as a long pole I shouldn't have to nearly kill the attacker with a feet firmly planted, lumberjack style swing that breaks my stick and his stick to dislodge the ball (even then it didn't work). I also shouldn't be able to dodge through traffic with the same pole and completely legal pocket, confident in the knowledge that unless somebody connects with the ball in the pocket from below its staying in there.

Is the face-off really broken? Changing it to a loose ball as he suggests does 'de-specialise' the position from a FOGO to anybody who can box out and do a good ground ball, but it is one of the unique parts of the game. remove this and the start of any period of play becomes more like ice/field hockey. what happens to the wingmen? are they allowed to just run in and flatten the opposition guy whose trying to get the ball, or would it be the same as currently, where you have to let them play until the ball comes out and how would a ref keep track of this? I might make the game more TV friendly, but at the cost of something that makes the sport more unique.

I don't like the idea of everybody having the same size stick, I enjoy playing pole far too much. also changing the head reduces many of the disadvantages(or advantages, depending on where you play) associated with them: easier to remove the ball from an opponents stick means less incentive to throw wild/dangerous checks, wider heads will make it more difficult to do accurate full field clears and swim through traffic with a stick that will leave keepers crapping themselves as it arcs through the air towards them (no disrespect intended to any keepers out there but would you rather face a shot from a short stick or a pole?).
Does removing them completely really create the kind of game we want to play? every player would have a 'match up' meaning that the best dodger on the team becomes the go to man for the offence, as he can just run round/through anybody he pleases, so nobody passes to anybody but him when he is on the field. Good for creating an 'all-star' team, bad for developing players skills/awareness and retaining them in what is very much still a minority sport. throw in a pole or 3 and then the offence has to work a bit harder, move the ball around as the best dodgers on the team have to either switch defenders or get shut down. I personally think that the quick passing game is the best kind of team game to play and watch, removing the poles doesn't really promote this kind of play.

I have not had the opportunity to play against/with a 6 pole defence, fun as it sounds from a D mans point of view. Also has the face off ever had a different format? I scanned the article again but couldn't see where/if I had seen it.

I do quite comfortably fit into his bracket of players with 6 years of playing experience who are resistant to change, but if as a group we ( the 'young-uns') are to help 'fix' the game as we have learnt to play it, move back towards the game as it was, we will need to understand exactly why the format we are progressing to is better, both for us as players and for the game as a whole.

just previewed that and realised I've written an essay, sorry.

Mort rotu wrote:I do quite comfortably fit into his bracket of players with 6 years of playing experience who are resistant to change, but if as a group we ( the 'young-uns') are to help 'fix' the game as we have learnt to play it, move back towards the game as it was, we will need to understand exactly why the format we are progressing to is better, both for us as players and for the game as a whole.

Mort,
Leif is referring to the NCAA game of the 1980-90s, when transition was a huge part of the game and entertaining part.

Attack players dominated the scoring & initiating, midfielders worked between restrainers and cutting was their main chance of scoring.

There was a lot more end to end play and action, defenders were more aggressive throwing checks to cause turnovers and create transition.
Attacks were more aggressive to create a chance before get the ball turned over.

There was a much better Risk/Reward ratio

ultimately it was a players game not a coaches game

As an example, most teams now average approx 30 shots/game in NCAA DI, where in 80s 50+ shot/game was common place.

Top 25 Teams NCAA Div 1 2010
Shots/Game = 35.3
GroundBalls/Game = 33.8
Source: http://web1.ncaa.org/stats/StatsSrv/rankings

As an example from 1990 Syracuse vs Opponents
Shots/Game = SU 55 - Opp 42
GroundBalls/Game = SU 57 Opp 44
Source: http://www.suathletics.com/sports/2007/ ... stats.aspx

likewise from 1983 Syracuse vs Opponents
Shots/Game = SU 37 - Opp 37
GroundBalls/Game = SU 61 Opp 49 - That's 110 GBs in 60 minutes average over season!
Source: http://www.suathletics.com/sports/2007/ ... stats.aspx


While most sports have increased in tempo with development of BFS athletes DI lacrosse is an anomaly as it is slower now than it used to be.

Mort rotu wrote:I agree with the 'widen the heads' point

In readiness, I've switched back to my 1990 STX and given my 1986 Brine M1 to a mate at Canterbury. Trouble is, we've recruited a beginner this summer; he's bought a pinched head and just cannot be dispossessed.

Mort rotu wrote:Is the face-off really broken? Changing it to a loose ball as he suggests does 'de-specialise' the position

UKLF is/was a FO but I think he preferred to stay on the field rather than GO. I'm bored by the cheats at re-start. ESPN close-ups of the glove action reveal the specialisms of players like Sneider and Smith, but we rarely get to see their other abilities. If the intention is to improve the flow, then a more vertical style of face-off would bring wingers into the action with possibility of quick ground-ball and fast-breaks.

Mort rotu wrote:if as a group we ( the 'young-uns') are to help 'fix' the game as we have learnt to play it, move back towards the game as it was, we will need to understand exactly why the format we are progressing to is better, both for us as players and for the game as a whole.

Understood. I don't think these ideas are aimed at the UK scene, but at the set-piece nature of some NCAA game-plans, where the coach is king and the game is constantly stalled to alter the chess-board. Trouble is, it worked for some outfits in the Spring of 2010. I love College grid-iron football on TV, but free-flowing it is not, and lacrosse should want to bring speedy transition through multi-functional midfield players back into the top flight. UKLF is qualified to talk about fast transition because his 1982 SU team game-plan was all about speed from goal to goal.

UKLaxfan wrote: Leif is referring to the NCAA game of the 1980-90s, when transition was a huge part of the game and entertaining part.

Attack players dominated the scoring & initiating, midfielders worked between restrainers and cutting was their main chance of scoring.

There was a lot more end to end play and action, defenders were more aggressive throwing checks to cause turnovers and create transition.
Attacks were more aggressive to create a chance before get the ball turned over.

There was a much better Risk/Reward ratio

ultimately it was a players game not a coaches game

While most sports have increased in tempo with development of BFS athletes DI lacrosse is an anomaly as it is slower now than it used to be.

I understand, thank you. A few more questions:

is this transition dominated era something that we are i) yet to experience, ii) are experiencing or iii) have experienced and is now fading away in the english game?

if:
i) how can we bring it about faster
ii) how can we preserve it
iii) how can we resurrect it/prevent its continuing decline?

what rule changes (if any) would you suggest to achieve the above? I'd suggest the wider heads one straight off.

I love playing aggressive D, throwing checks and stripping the ball from attackers and creating turnovers, but as UKLF has said 'Risk/Reward ratio' has tipped very much in the favour of the attackers with the narrower sticks, making the more conservative, less aggressive (read 'fun') kind of D a safer bet.

The coaching aspect I think needs to be rebalanced (not really a problem down south), the game should not develop into or towards American football with sticks. whether altering the substitution process would change this I don't know.

dmiddie wrote:

Sour37 wrote:Be interesting to see how shef uni get on playing with 15 in prem 1 this year against the 13 man squads of all the other teams...And to see how coaches at other clubs react

Sheffield Uni will lose, so not an issue.

Who'd have thought, Sheff Uni 5th in the prem and 4 wins up in mid November.....

Mort rotu wrote:

UKLaxfan wrote:

what rule changes (if any) would you suggest to achieve the above? I'd suggest the wider heads one straight off.

I love playing aggressive D, throwing checks and stripping the ball from attackers and creating turnovers, but as UKLF has said 'Risk/Reward ratio' has tipped very much in the favour of the attackers with the narrower sticks, making the more conservative, less aggressive (read 'fun') kind of D a safer bet.

The coaching aspect I think needs to be rebalanced (not really a problem down south), the game should not develop into or towards American football with sticks. whether altering the substitution process would change this I don't know.

Would wider heads actually make much of a difference though? Considering the head rule changes in the NCAA leagues, I found there was very little, if any difference to players being dispossessed by stick checks...Fair enough the heads arnt AS wide as they were but you can string them with a tighter channel so it acts like a pinched head...I dont think defenders should expect the ball just to pop out the stick, a well timed check will strip someone regardless of a pinched head.

kiddo wrote:Would wider heads actually make much of a difference though? Considering the head rule changes in the NCAA leagues, I found there was very little, if any difference to players being dispossessed by stick checks...Fair enough the heads arnt AS wide as they were but you can string them with a tighter channel so it acts like a pinched head...I dont think defenders should expect the ball just to pop out the stick, a well timed check will strip someone regardless of a pinched head.

wider heads make a big difference, think about the amount of effort/force/timing you have to put into removing the ball from a well strung beginners stick (eg a Brine Alias) verses a well strung clutch/evo/proton power? yes you can string a narrow channel in, but its only a percentage narrower than the head its strung into. a wider head to start with would mean a wider pocket.

I agree that I shouldn't just be able to tickle people to remove the ball from them, conversely I shouldn't have to land 3 bone breaking checks to their hand's to make the ball even stand a chance of coming out of the stick, its dangerous and will discourage people from playing. Also the NCAA ruling isn't in effect here (yet) and may not be adopted at all so makes no difference. Didn't some people(warrior?) claim that the new specs actually made it more difficult to remove the ball from the stick?

I think that 'wider heads' should keep the same dimensions at the throat and scoop of the head but make the side walls straighter(increase the minimum width allowed at the middle), The way it looks from photos of NCAA vs normal heads is that the throat and middle have been made 'slightly' wider and the top has been made much narrower, although it is difficult to see without a scale bar( have a look: normal clutch http://www.uklacrosse.com/image-browser.do?item=180, Clutch X6(NCAA spec) http://www.uklacrosse.com/image-browser.do?item=2228). Please correct me if I'm wrong wrt the dimensions.

The NCAA specification is approx 3/8" wider at the throat than the 'international spec', however that measurement extends far higher up the head than previously, which effectively negates the benefit of the increase in width.
The NCAA spec strangely has the width of the scoop as minimum 6-6.5" compared with the previous 6.5". This seems crazy as anyone technical would suggest that a minimum is a fixed point, not a range? This loophole has been mischievously exploited by Warrior with the Warrior and Brine X6 models. These are much closer to a 'box' head that anything else c.f. the Penetrator.

It is true that Warrior spent some effort trying to lobby the NCAA with arguments against the new specs, arguing that as written they would not achieve what the NCAA were seeking. The NCAA then switched their argument and focused on the problems of face-off, where the ball was being withheld in the stick. Again, Warrior sought to assist with this by offering to develop 'face-off heads' but the NCAA considered that this offer of advice was purely a self-interested manufacturer seeking to influence the rules of the game! The face-off issue still bewilders me since the rules have always had a clause which says that 'withholding the ball in the head illegally is a turnover of possession'.