July 30, 2006
Closure and I are like oil and water. Ask any woman I've dated over the last two years. I'm a fade-away kind of guy -- the Hakeem Olajuwon of relationships, if you will.
My 12-day courtship with the U.S. men's national team in London, Ontario, during the 2006 International Lacrosse Federation (ILF) World Championships ended seven days ago, when Team USA lost to host Canada, 15-10, in the gold medal game. My return here to Baltimore was met with "what went wrong" musings and platitudes like "it's good for the game."
It's not you, it's me. Let's be friends.
But as criticism of Team USA mounts -- including some anonymous yahoos calling for a complete overhaul at US Lacrosse on LaxPower.com (click here to read the knee-jerk reactions of the woefully uninformed) -- it seems I can't just fade away, because people need perspective.
And closure.
I had a dream the other night that I was in a war camp, where the combating countries share adjoining tent villages by night and bombard each other by day. There was so much pomp and circumstance surrounding us, the U.S. military. Nicky Polanco was a commander in my unit.
I need a vacation.
To specialize, or not to specialize? That is, in fact, the question after Canadian specialist Geoff Snider worked the U.S. for 20 of 28 faceoffs in the final, and 41 of 55 including the preliminary game -- while Paul Cantabene stood on the sideline with a clipboard as a U.S. team alternate.
The decision not to use one of 23 roster spots on a full-time faceoff guy came 13 months ago, when the U.S. team selection committee -- comprised of some of the most respected names in the game -- and the coaching staff stressed versatility. You could say they lacked foresight, that they should have seen someone like Snider coming. But you can't blame them for feeling content with Doug Shanahan, Kyle Harrison and Kevin Cassese facing off, considering everything else those guys bring to the table. Excluding the Canada games, they were a combined 105-of-155, or 67.7 percent.
In 2002, Team USA did bring a specialist to Perth, Australia, Scott Bross from Duke. He seldom played, and when it came to the final against Canada, Shanahan took the bulk of faceoffs. He went on to win an MVP award.
Cantabene called London the "best worst time of my life." Last summer, he was outward in his criticism of the selectors. And in hindsight, the U.S. should have taken him.
Long has it been since college coaches conceded the need to have pure faceoff specialists to handle the increasing demands of that position, and it appears the international game will follow suit. And with the slower pace of the ILF, outgoing U.S. general manager Chris Hupfeldt said, "you don't need nine middies."
This was not earth-shattering. Seriously, Canada's good. Lacrosse is the national summer sport of Canada, and the influx of Canadian talent migrating to NCAA programs and matriculating into the professional leagues meant the U.S. was bound to fall sometime. Mind you, this is a team that cut Kevin Huntley of Johns Hopkins and Zack Greer of Duke, two rising juniors and projected All-Americans for 2007.
Some have made ill-conceived comparisons to USA basketball and its downfall. But there have been plenty of close calls in the 28 years since the U.S. last lost a lacrosse championship in 1978, including an overtime final here in Baltimore in 1998 and an 18-15 affair in Perth four years ago. It's never been complete hegemony, which only makes it more impressive that the Americans were able to win 38 consecutive games and six consecutive ILF championships.
Yes, U.S. participation in lacrosse is nearly eight times than that of Canada. But when you shake it down to the best 23 players from each country -- and I do believe the U.S. selected the nation's 23 best players, but not necessarily the best team -- the difference is negligible.
Other questions concerning the final revolved around Ryan Boyle's absence, the fourth-quarter goalie switch back to Trevor Tierney, and the supposed permeability of a vaunted U.S. defense.
A decision was made by the coaching staff not to play Boyle in the championship because, playing with a separated shoulder, he was deemed a liability. Still, his ability to generate offense should have at least been considered when the U.S. could not. (Faceoffs played into the lack of offensive rhythm, as well.) Boyle had nine points (5g, 4a) Thursday in his return to the Philadelphia Barrage.
Secondly, Tierney -- who started the game and was splitting halves with Chris Garrity throughout the entire tournament -- was reinserted in the fourth quarter. From a sideline standpoint, he was simply seeing the ball better. Both goalies were graceful about split duties. In fact, when Tierney was told during the fourth quarter to get his equipment ready, he shielded it with his jacket. "Don't let Chris see this," he said. In fairness to both, goalkeeping was not the issue, considering the high-percentage shots the Canadians were getting.
Which brings us to the third question, that of the defense. I'm of the minority opinion, I guess, but I thought the U.S. defense played outstanding considering the circumstances -- especially Polanco, who kept Gary Gait quiet until the fourth quarter and during one third-quarter sequence forced three consecutive turnovers. But harkening back to the faceoffs, John Gagliardi said the defense was exhausted from playing so much in its own end. The fourth quarter was not so much a letdown as it was a result of overextending to make something happen when the offense could not.
What needs to change going forth? Not all that much, really. There could be some tweaking, for sure, but the national teams program is in responsible hands.
Hupfeldt suggested that the selection process allow for greater flexibility as the team gets closer to the 2010 championships (in Manchester, England), as opposed to predetermining 23 players in June of the previous year. That would allow the committee to give further consideration to the performance of the current college players, adjust to some roster trends of opposing teams, and observe the roles those and other players take on with their professional teams. I like that the emphasis is placed almost solely on a four-day tryout. It's a very democratic process. But the dynamic of these teams begs further consideration.
"There's no way to have a crystal ball and know a year ahead of time the 23 players that best fit together," Hupfeldt said.
Hupfeldt also thought the selection process should be pared down to fewer selectors (there is currently a committee of 24) and fewer players invited to try out (currently 120), with more emphasis given to the coaching staff.
Another valid suggestion I've heard is altering the exhibition schedule to allow mini-camps for the team to become better acclimated beforehand. Instead of a few solitary exhibitions and a weeklong training camp the month before the competition, do some team-building in three- or four-day installments throughout the year. What advantage is there to picking the team a year in advance, otherwise? Players' professional obligations could be a factor, but the players you want with you in Manchester will be the ones dedicated to the cause.
In reference to that point, Kyle Harrison approached me after the Australia semifinal, a foreboding 13-10 win in which flaws were evident. "Let me ask you something," he said, "what do you think went wrong today?" I gave him my spiel, about there being too much one-on-one offense and too many homerun checks being thrown by the defense. Then, he asked, "Do you think we have a chemistry problem?" If there was a chemistry issue with this U.S. team, it wasn't so much reflected in its off-the-field activity. These guys were affable and good with each other. But Harrison said he was still getting to know the tendencies of midfield line mates Jay Jalbert and Matt Striebel.
That conversation took place two days before the championship. Clearly, the players need to be afforded more familiarity.
And finally, considering the professional influence on these teams, it would behoove the national team to include more MLL and NLL people -- people who are familiar with what players are doing now -- in its administrative process and perhaps on its coaching staff.
Otherwise, it's OK. You need not reinvent the wheel. Accept the loss, give the Canadians credit, realize that the U.S. had to lose sometime, and be happy having won eight of 10 all-time ILF championships.
Besides, it's good for the game.
NOTE: A full feature and photo section will be in the upcoming issue of Lacrosse magazine, a member benefit of US Lacrosse. Also, check back to Lacrosse Magazine Online this week for a behind-the-scenes Team USA photo gallery from London.
