VHSL 2026 Girls Lacrosse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yorktown 13 wakefield 0
Meridian 19 west po 9
Westfield 10 chantilly 8

That Westfield Chantilly game was a lot closer than I thought it would have been

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yorktown 13 wakefield 0
Meridian 19 west po 9
Westfield 10 chantilly 8

That Westfield Chantilly game was a lot closer than I thought it would have been

Would love to get recap on this one as I agree, did not think this game was going to be that close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lost one on the 2nd day of tryouts. The 2nd one was with 5 seconds left in the Langley win.

Both Seniors and returning all state players.

Huge losses on the field and off but Lightridge is still going to compete as evidenced by Friday's battle against Madison.

Surprising how close LR played Madison. Did LR's backer defense confuse Madison?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lost one on the 2nd day of tryouts. The 2nd one was with 5 seconds left in the Langley win.

Both Seniors and returning all state players.

Huge losses on the field and off but Lightridge is still going to compete as evidenced by Friday's battle against Madison.

Surprising how close LR played Madison. Did LR's backer defense confuse Madison?

Why is it surprising? LR is still a great team even with the two all state girls out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lost one on the 2nd day of tryouts. The 2nd one was with 5 seconds left in the Langley win.

Both Seniors and returning all state players.

Huge losses on the field and off but Lightridge is still going to compete as evidenced by Friday's battle against Madison.

I
Surprising how close LR played Madison. Did LR's backer defense confuse Madison?

Why is it surprising? LR is still a great team even with the two all state girls out.

I think it was surprising because they lost to PVI 13-3 and battlefield 17-5

[Anonymous]

Against battlefield they didn’t play backer at all. Was the first game of the year and they did not play well. They also got into serious card trouble early. Battlefield was way better that night. It would be a better game today.

Madison wasn’t confused by the backer but Lightridge played much better overall. They are working in a lot of new defenders and midfielders. It was 4-4 at the half and 9-9 after the third. They had a 7-4 lead halfway through the third.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Against battlefield they didn’t play backer at all. Was the first game of the year and they did not play well. They also got into serious card trouble early. Battlefield was way better that night. It would be a better game today.

Madison wasn’t confused by the backer but Lightridge played much better overall. They are working in a lot of new defenders and midfielders. It was 4-4 at the half and 9-9 after the third. They had a 7-4 lead halfway through the third.

Thanks Lightridge Dad

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Against battlefield they didn’t play backer at all. Was the first game of the year and they did not play well. They also got into serious card trouble early. Battlefield was way better that night. It would be a better game today.

Madison wasn’t confused by the backer but Lightridge played much better overall. They are working in a lot of new defenders and midfielders. It was 4-4 at the half and 9-9 after the third. They had a 7-4 lead halfway through the third.

Thanks Lightridge Dad

I'm a Madison dad, but I don't think anything he said about Madison v LR was wrong, except that I do think it took Madison time to adjust to the zone, so very glad the team got to see it in the regular season.

We've played BF and LR and both were close games and both are good teams, so I'm surprised the game between them was so lopsided, but the explanation makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Against battlefield they didn’t play backer at all. Was the first game of the year and they did not play well. They also got into serious card trouble early. Battlefield was way better that night. It would be a better game today.

Madison wasn’t confused by the backer but Lightridge played much better overall. They are working in a lot of new defenders and midfielders. It was 4-4 at the half and 9-9 after the third. They had a 7-4 lead halfway through the third.

Thanks Lightridge Dad

I'm a Madison dad, but I don't think anything he said about Madison v LR was wrong, except that I do think it took Madison time to adjust to the zone, so very glad the team got to see it in the regular season.

We've played BF and LR and both were close games and both are good teams, so I'm surprised the game between them was so lopsided, but the explanation makes sense.

Lightridge did play a zone vs battlefield. And it was the 1st game for both teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Against battlefield they didn’t play backer at all. Was the first game of the year and they did not play well. They also got into serious card trouble early. Battlefield was way better that night. It would be a better game today.

Madison wasn’t confused by the backer but Lightridge played much better overall. They are working in a lot of new defenders and midfielders. It was 4-4 at the half and 9-9 after the third. They had a 7-4 lead halfway through the third.

Thanks Lightridge Dad

I'm a Madison dad, but I don't think anything he said about Madison v LR was wrong, except that I do think it took Madison time to adjust to the zone, so very glad the team got to see it in the regular season.

We've played BF and LR and both were close games and both are good teams, so I'm surprised the game between them was so lopsided, but the explanation makes sense.

BF dad here. I agree. I’m not sure what to make of all of it either. None of it makes sense. But just like in all sports, anyone can win on any given day. No team is perfect. Some just play better than others on different days

The BF LR game was lopsided, but it was an up day for BF and a down one for LR. That’s ok. It’s a regular season game. The only games that matter is the one at the end

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Against battlefield they didn’t play backer at all. Was the first game of the year and they did not play well. They also got into serious card trouble early. Battlefield was way better that night. It would be a better game today.

Madison wasn’t confused by the backer but Lightridge played much better overall. They are working in a lot of new defenders and midfielders. It was 4-4 at the half and 9-9 after the third. They had a 7-4 lead halfway through the third.

Thanks Lightridge Dad

I'm a Madison dad, but I don't think anything he said about Madison v LR was wrong, except that I do think it took Madison time to adjust to the zone, so very glad the team got to see it in the regular season.

We've played BF and LR and both were close games and both are good teams, so I'm surprised the game between them was so lopsided, but the explanation makes sense.

Lightridge did play a zone vs battlefield. And it was the 1st game for both teams.

Second half of game was zone, not all of it. New defenders were learning in first game.

[Anonymous]

Zero zone against battlefield.

Their backer got two cards in the first half and didn’t play the second half.

[Anonymous]

Who cares about beginning of season. Everyone tries new things and shifts around. how teams change through season matter. Any team can win on any given day for any school based on lack of depth after starting line, as long as kids can stay healthy. If starters get hurt, how quick can second line pick up and play against a first string.

[Anonymous]

Does LR want a rematch with BF?

[Anonymous]

Madison vs Potomac tonight? Any predictions from this group? Potomac isn't quite the powerhouse it has been the past couple of seasons, and will probably finish fourth in the ISL. A Madison win would still be an upset, however. Either way, good scheduling by Coach Counts in terms of looking for competitive games leading into playoffs.