Originally Posted by Anonymous
I actually have seen this defense at SB work really well against duke and Maryland multiple times but struggle vs Florida so your theory s off to some regard. Didn't see yesterday's game but sounds like the whole purpose of playing that style D worked perfectly. I think it's great a school like SB beats USC especially if you remember where SB was four years ago
I don't know how you could say it worked when you weren't there. I am telling you that USC was able to get past the double that occurs with the backer D, there problem was in there own offensive scheme. If you go back to my original post I stated that USC played a hockey type of attack where the planted an attacker, sometimes 2, in front of the crease which also planted a defender in front of the crease. When the attacker was able to break the double and have a clear path to goal they ran into the crease defender. IMO, if the crease attacker was to clear out beyond the 8 and leave the arc clear there shooters would have had better chances. I will say that YJU's backer was able to cause bad cross field passes that got picked multiple times. only on 1 occasion was USC able to achieve the desired effect of that type of attack ( a quick stick shot from a feed down low) but the crease girl missed the feed. I don't know when Mr. Carol Rose clone was ever successful against Duke (a 8-9 home loss in his first year) or Maryland ( a 21-7 loss his first year and a 8-3 home loss and a 11-3 loss in his second) but in college lacrosse that is not successful.