Comments on: The Right Way To Play Lacrosse – ALL YOU NEED IS ONE RULE

By: The Recent Syracuse - Johns Hopkins Game Was NOT Boring | Lacrosse All Stars

Wed, 14 Mar 2012 01:29:01 +0000

[...] Hmmm… Hopkins got good chances in transition periods… and Cuse played more of a specialist game… and the game was really close even though everyone knows Cuse is a better team… yeah, I’m definitely still on to something. [...]

By: Connor Wilson

Connor Wilson — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 16:44:00 +0000

I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth but please look at what you’re saying: “if your team isn’t successful, you risk losing kids” you equate winning with success above all else, it seems. Same is true in your first comment. Sentence after sentence illustrates that. It’s why I pick up on it and then go on to rephrase what you’re actually saying. But the point stands that for me, coaching kids is not about winning and losing. That rarely enters the equation. It’s about fun. And if you tie fun to winning and losing, in my HUMBLE opinion, you’re doing the kids a disservice. They already want to win, it’s natural. Do we need to “work” on that?

Maybe I’m still reading what you wrote wrong, but you did write it, and it does come across as winning matters most to me. I could be way off…. totally possible! But it seems that way to me anyway…

I said I wanted well rounded kids ALL OVER THE FIELD, but would take one flashy finisher if they were on the team as an acceptable specialized player. That isn’t contradictory, it’s just detailed. I also allow for exceptions with this clause… I understand every team is different… I’m just talking general philosophy.

I guess my main point is that you seem to be dismissing my play kids all over the field approach because it affects YOUR team, this year. I’m more concerned with improving my players so that they can continue to be successful as their lacrosse careers move along. A kid is better on D than he is on attack? Great, he’s 11. Let’s give him a chance to play both, no? You seem to be focusing on wins and losses and developing specialized players from an early age.

As you say, there are CERTAINLY different philosophies out there and mine certainly isn’t the only right one. There probably isn’t a right one.

I just think youth coaches get so caught up in winning games that they often look past the fact that they might not be doing the best by their kids. Youth teams don’t have to be college teams, it’s why they’re youth teams!

Love the back and forth! It’s been EXTREMELY informative and enjoyable! Thanks for taking the time out to continue this conversation!

By: Matt Rowley

Matt Rowley — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:47:00 +0000

Artjom,
If they are going to expect you to play defense the Germans are in trouble. I’ve seen you play defense. And you sir are no defensemen, but you can score the rock. Good luck.
Matt Rowley

By: Jeff Brunelle

Jeff Brunelle — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 18:41:00 +0000

Hey gb, Connor is traveling right now w/o internet access and he asked me to let you know that he’s planning to reply when he returns. He wants to keep the convo going!

By: Artjom Merjasch

Artjom Merjasch — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:37:00 +0000

In Germany we are trying to get rid of longpoles at the U15 level. They are playing on half-fields, so we are trying to having everybody runs at O and D, inspired by boxla.

By: gb radar

gb radar — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 06:51:00 +0000

You’re putting words in my mouth. I never said my goal as a youth coach is to win as many games as possible. But by not setting your team up to be successful, you’re risking losing kids.

I also highly doubt I’m “holding kids back from becoming all around lacrosse players” by having them play a particular position during a game. (Like I said, we practice all aspects of the game…did you miss that part?) You even contradict your own philosophy by saying you want a “flashy finisher” on attack, despite being “limited”. What a groundbreaking idea! Gifted playmakers and finishers on attack, solid athletes who play hard and smart on defense, and well rounded players on midfield.

Your philosophy is great in theory, but I’m not sure the “play everywhere every game” approach works that well when you actually apply it. All athletes have different strengths and weaknesses, and recognizing these are part of being a good coach. If you don’t try to put players in a position to succeed in games, then what are you trying to do?

I would also throw in that there is more than one way to skin a cat, and there is more than one way to coach a team. Every team is different, and a good coach should try to play to his teams strengths.

By: reg_hartner

reg_hartner — Thu, 10 Mar 2011 00:35:00 +0000

The scary thing is I see specialization at the youth level. I’m not kidding. I’ve played team’s with a 7th grader that was a FOGO and they had a sense of pride about it. “Look, we’re just like the college teams.” Are you kidding me? Enjoy it now because you will NEVER have kids play college ball if you are pigeon holing them as 12 year olds.

Also, these 2 way players are almost always selfless leaders that will do anything for you. Guys like this will make the best coaches at the next level.

By: Josh Schane

Josh Schane — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 19:25:00 +0000

great article Connor. I’ll add that as a HS Varsity Offensive Coach, i have a unique situation this season. After graduating 12 seniors last season, I have to replace our entire offensive unit. A lot of questions about “where are we going to get our goals this season” came about and we have a 3.5 attackmen, and 1.5 lines of solid midfielders on offense. We’re not deep by any means. Looking at the bigger picture, we have to limit the touch’s for players that are lesser threats when we are on offense. These players are still good players, but more suiting for a defensive midfielder role, which I think will be a specialty position that will excel for us this season. It keeps our offensive midfielders fresh and I think we will be strong on both sides of the ball because of it.

By: Connor Wilson

Connor Wilson — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:49:00 +0000

If this were a duh statement, I wouldn’t have to say it, because Coaches would actually be doing it. As evidenced by all the confusion and backlash, a lot of coaches are NOT doing it. So maybe not as “duh” as I would have hoped!
Now…
“If a middie plays great d and can’t clear or shoot there isn’t a whole lot you can do about it.”

I would argue, that as a coach, there is actually a LOT you can do about it. Perhaps coaching the kid would be a good start.
Give him wall ball assignments do to out of practice, ask him to come early to shoot before practice, go over proper mechanics with him, etc. You just did something right there!

Most today would just say ok son, you’re my d-middie! try not to screw up the clear! I’d say you better start playing wall ball because next week you’re playing attack. You’re 12, you’ll be fine!

By: Connor Wilson

Connor Wilson — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:44:00 +0000

“put players in places where they can be successful” at what age?
If you’re doing this before varsity HS lax you may be doing it WAY too early and by “putting players where they can be successful” you actually may be “holding them back from becoming all around lacrosse players” because a coach wants to win a youth or middle school game.

The goal for the youth teams I coach is NOT to win as many games as possible or make the kids feel effective. My goal is to teach the kids to be good lacrosse players and good people. The good people part is another story for another day, but the good lacrosse players part means kids plays attack, D AND middie in every game. I would continue this through the JV level in fact.

By: Connor Wilson

Connor Wilson — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 12:40:00 +0000

I have actually played in a men’s league where each team was limited to 15 players down in Perth, Australia.
The quality of play was still very high, the games were fun to watch ( actually didn’t notice a huge difference) and guys like Matt Schomburg not only took face offs, but they also played a lot of O and D. This style of play probably helped Schomburg become and all-american at Adelphi because he was well rounded. Now the guy teaches fogo camps to HS kids because there is such a specific skill set for taking face offs. But you can bet your bottom dollar he teaches other aspects of the game too, because he knows pure specialists are a liability.

I just don’t see how this would ruin lacrosse as we know it. Not a lot to back that statement up!

By: Artjom Merjasch

Artjom Merjasch — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:52:00 +0000

Teach your attackmen to play solid D and they will be tremendous on the ride.

By: Fish

Fish — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:28:00 +0000

Limit team size to 14 for a game, forcing players to become multiskilled.
This would ruin the game of lax as you know it. It would be more fun to play, less fun to watch.

By: gb radar

gb radar — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 07:25:00 +0000

Here you have it coaches! Teach young players all aspects of the game!

But really, I don’t believe using players where they’re most effective, even at lower levels, is that negative of an approach. You want to put players into situations where they can be successful. If that means letting an inexperienced, athletic kid play a lot of defense, then so be it. Coach kids in practice to be proficient in all aspects of the game, but games can be different.

Why bash Siena? They’ve taken great strides forward over the last 5 years or so.

By: FLax

FLax — Wed, 09 Mar 2011 04:52:00 +0000

I feel like this is a “duh” statement. Every coach wishes every player could do everything well. Fact of the matter is, most players just can’t do everything at a high level. If a middie plays great d and can’t clear or shoot there isn’t a whole lot you can do about it.