2024 Girls Lax WCAC ISL Outlook

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GC beat SJC 16-7

Yet SJC beat the following teams

Ireton 18-6
Cicero 19-8
Bullis 19-7
Seton 19-8
Holy Cross 17-6

What are we even talking about here?

Sadly for SJC those teams r not even in the same ball park as GC. Good for Seton to score 8.

I think the OP was trying to make a point on running up the score which didn't land.

Either way, what that post also shows is that SJC is really good, and GC is still playing at a different level.

SJC will give GC a game in WCAC tournament. Guaranteed. Write it down.

You all spent the whole season whining about your coach and now your going to give GC a game?

I guess you're all back on your meds. [/quote

No whining here. I believe SJC thrives in playoffs. Should be a great game vs GC in finals.

Thrives in the playoffs? Last year in the semi-final SJC lost, at home, to a team you had already beat by 4. Then backed out of the DC championship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??

Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.

Here we go again with this nonsense…

[Anonymous]

Hard to beat a team twice.PVI wrote in an article that they studied SJC. Good for them. SJC underestimated and the outcome was not great for them. That game was a lot of things but poor coaching was one of them. They were so outmatched on the draw and adjusted way too late on everything. That was probably SJCs most talented team, you had new D1 commits and NU, Harvard, Gettysburg.

There is a post about SJC parents and kids talking a “good game.” Of all the teams, they seem to talk the least. Seems everyone else talks more about what they are not. That should motivate them but regardless GC will require more from SJC than they may have. One poster is spot on, you can’t win off 8 meters. SJC has to connect in the run of play and be aggressive to the cage.

But they need to get past BI because they will come with a different game. Look to playoff not the championship.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??

Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.

Here we go again with this nonsense…

Not sure why it’s nonsense? The end game is college—with or without lacrosse and even with lacrosse these girls will have careers. So if GC is the best academic fit and the girl is ok not playing as much as at another school then great, but otherwise why wouldn’t girls choose schools where they’d play more and perhaps have stronger academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??

Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.

Here we go again with this nonsense…

Not sure why it’s nonsense? The end game is college—with or without lacrosse and even with lacrosse these girls will have careers. So if GC is the best academic fit and the girl is ok not playing as much as at another school then great, but otherwise why wouldn’t girls choose schools where they’d play more and perhaps have stronger academics.

Oh I don’t know…maybe $50,000+ over 4 years? You have no sense of reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??

Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.

Here we go again with this nonsense…

Not sure why it’s nonsense? The end game is college—with or without lacrosse and even with lacrosse these girls will have careers. So if GC is the best academic fit and the girl is ok not playing as much as at another school then great, but otherwise why wouldn’t girls choose schools where they’d play more and perhaps have stronger academics.

What a stupid, elitist comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GC beat SJC 16-7

Yet SJC beat the following teams

Ireton 18-6
Cicero 19-8
Bullis 19-7
Seton 19-8
Holy Cross 17-6

What are we even talking about here?

Sadly for SJC those teams r not even in the same ball park as GC. Good for Seton to score 8.

I think the OP was trying to make a point on running up the score which didn't land.

Either way, what that post also shows is that SJC is really good, and GC is still playing at a different level.

really good is not what the SJC wants to be remembered and I don’t believe for a second SJC coach would say stop scoring on 19-8, and 8 is a lot of goals to give up for a really good team. SJC number of club players compared to Seton on paper would not give up 8, 19 is all SJC could get to. The SJC families definitely wanted/and expected closer scores between GC and SR, more like the Visi game, thus the other scores does not indicate not running up the score.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??

Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.

Here we go again with this nonsense…

Not sure why it’s nonsense? The end game is college—with or without lacrosse and even with lacrosse these girls will have careers. So if GC is the best academic fit and the girl is ok not playing as much as at another school then great, but otherwise why wouldn’t girls choose schools where they’d play more and perhaps have stronger academics.

What a stupid, elitist comment.

Different strokes for different folks. The end game is life. It is a fallacy to assume a player does not have a meaningful role on a team and/or experience if they do not play in a game. Some reasons why a girl would not pursue a school with perceived stronger academics and a less competitive lacrosse program could include but not be limited to the following: cost, friends, life goals, distance, siblings, community, values/faith, and the desire to improve by practicing with and against better players, not to mention better coaching. You can also certainly attend a more competitive academic school for a similar set of reasons and it is completely valid if a player wants to attend a school that is a more appropriate fit for their athletic ability. Again, different strokes for different folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??

Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.

Here we go again with this nonsense…

Not sure why it’s nonsense? The end game is college—with or without lacrosse and even with lacrosse these girls will have careers. So if GC is the best academic fit and the girl is ok not playing as much as at another school then great, but otherwise why wouldn’t girls choose schools where they’d play more and perhaps have stronger academics.

What a stupid, elitist comment.

Different strokes for different folks. The end game is life. It is a fallacy to assume a player does not have a meaningful role on a team and/or experience if they do not play in a game. Some reasons why a girl would not pursue a school with perceived stronger academics and a less competitive lacrosse program could include but not be limited to the following: cost, friends, life goals, distance, siblings, community, values/faith, and the desire to improve by practicing with and against better players, not to mention better coaching. You can also certainly attend a more competitive academic school for a similar set of reasons and it is completely valid if a player wants to attend a school that is a more appropriate fit for their athletic ability. Again, different strokes for different folks.

I'm not sure why you're so concerned about the GC girls lacrosse team. They aren't your daughters. You must have issue with the school or the coach or their recent success.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are correct. They also had fast breaks but then would slow the play down to turn over the ball. Not sure what the strategy is, but it does not work for them. And none of them were aggressive on the goal. GC has 20+ girls that would start on any team. sJC has at most 8. They were no match for GC, but who is in this area??

Why would anyone choose a team that deep? Good for the program but there are other schools with better academic reputations and where talented players would actually play. It’s one thing to choose a college program knowing you might not play but care more about winning a championship but for high school I would think most players would rather just play on a competitive team.

Here we go again with this nonsense…

Not sure why it’s nonsense? The end game is college—with or without lacrosse and even with lacrosse these girls will have careers. So if GC is the best academic fit and the girl is ok not playing as much as at another school then great, but otherwise why wouldn’t girls choose schools where they’d play more and perhaps have stronger academics.

What a stupid, elitist comment.

Not sure about elitist, but man is it a stupid comment. Clueless sports parents who chase their own dreams to impress their friends at the expense of their kids needs and mental health.

[Anonymous]

In the battle for Alexandria bragging rights, SSAS 9 - BI 6.

[Anonymous]

WaPo Top 10 (behind paywall) -

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/04/29/girls-lacrosse-midseason-ten/

[Anonymous]

1
Good Counsel (17-0)
The Falcons, led by senior Hannah Rudolph, are looking to three-peat as Washington Catholic Athletic Conference champions and become the first undefeated team in program history. LR: 1

2
Archbishop Spalding (11-3)
The Cavaliers, near the top of the always-elite Interscholastic Athletic Association of Maryland, have an impressive win over No. 4 Severna Park. Their only losses are to the No. 2, No. 7 and No. 15 teams in USA Lacrosse’s national high school ranking. LR: 2

3
Stone Ridge (11-4)
Junior Sophia Stoltz, an All-Met Second Team attacker last season, has 80 goals to pace the defending ISL AA champions. LR: 5

4
Severna Park (11-1)
Alyssa Chung, Maria Bragg and Erin Hussey each have at least 25 goals for the defending Maryland 3A champions. LR: 7

5
Yorktown (11-1)
The Patriots, winners of the Virginia Class 6 championship in 2022, took a step back last season but are poised to make another postseason run. LR: 10

6
Georgetown Visitation (9-6)
The Cubs have had a grueling schedule in coach Jude Collins’ first year. Games against teams like McDonogh (Md.) and Good Counsel could prepare Visitation for the ISL AA tournament. LR: 4

7
Glenelg (12-1)
The Gladiators, hunting their first Maryland state title since 2018, have won their last three games by an average of 13 goals. LR: 8

8
St. Stephen’s/St. Agnes (15-5)
The Saints seem to have found a rhythm in the home stretch of this regular season, winning five straight. LR: NR

9
Bishop Ireton (11-4)
The Cardinals have wins over No. 6 Visitation and No. 10 Potomac in coach Erin Hellmold’s first year. LR: NR

10
Potomac School (11-5)
The Panthers have lost just one game by more than two goals and are looking to build off last year’s semifinal appearances in the ISL AA and Virginia Independent Schools Athletic Association tournaments. LR: NR

On the bubble: Robinson, Madison, Broadneck, Chesapeake, St. John’s

[Anonymous]

It shows what a joke the Washington Post is. BI gets torched by SJC and BI is #9 and SJC is outside the top ten. Zero credibility.

[Anonymous]

SJC beat SSSA by 4 too. SJC should be #8 at least.