|
Post by rivers2 on Feb 19, 2005 10:19:12 GMT -6
D-3, you mentioned good food....what was cooking?
Back to business, last week you asked for my prediction on Mandy/Lafayette and BRHS/MC. I declined as I had not seen Mandy or MC play. I have seen both Lafayette and MC play as I watched MC methodically take out BRHS last night. Frankly, Mount Carmel was the best team I've seen all year. Does that mean Lafayette has no chance? No, Lafayette, like BRHS, plays a great defense and a great defense will keep you in every game. MC, however is relentless on offense and to add to that they have a bench that they substitute frequently with no noticeable drop in talent thus giving them fresh legs. The key to a Lafayette win would be to score often and more importantly early and let your defense win you the game. It should be a classic game. I wish I had seen both MC and Lafayette more but based on what I did see I must go with Mount Carmel in New Orleans in a low scoring affair.
|
|
|
Post by PumasFC on Feb 19, 2005 11:36:22 GMT -6
Here are some Johnny come lately thoughts on the MCA-BRHS game. I started out before the game standing along the fence so not until about ten minutes into the game when i adjourned to the stands did I realize just how many people were in attendance. A wonderful boisterouis crowd who cheered passionately for there team. Wish every game had that many fans. I have to disagree with one point by brhsoccer14. The most of the 1st half MCA laid siege tothe BRHS goal. Only a strong game by the Sweper (Mallory ?) & and several outstanding plays by the Keeper kept the game at 1-0. Seemed as though MCA won almost every 50-50 ball during this time. I was sitting around several coaches and referees, during the intermission, the general consensus was that if BRHS was going to have to score from a free kick because a long ball over the top to Benson WASN'T going to get the job done. MCA's 4 defenders (they always seemed to have 5,6, or 7 players behind the ball) in the back proved that strategy not not allowing it to work in the 1st stanza (perhaps that is why BRhsoccer14 thought the game was played evenly). Second half BRHS seemed to come out with a new purpose, playing for the fist 20 minutes or so between the middle and attacking third of the field, but once again a stout defense ruled the day. BRSH had several chances with free kicks but could find the back of the net. As was stated earlier BRHS' lack of depth finally came into play with late goals by MCA when BRHS players started to run out of gas a little. Those 11 girls laid it ALL on the line last night and their school and rest of the BR area teams should be proud of the effort shown tonight. Will MCA win next weekend I'm not sure. I do expect a whale of a game with very little scoring.
|
|
jman
Bench Warmer
Posts: 11
|
Post by jman on Feb 19, 2005 14:52:49 GMT -6
I also went to the MCA/BRHS game, and pretty much agree with what everyone else said. MCA dominated the 1st half and finally put a goal in in the 36th minute. In the 2nd half BRHS came out and from about the 50th-70th minute, I'd say they dominated. BRHS just didn't have any more gas while MCA had a strong full bench. MCA put in 3 more goals in the last 10 minutes. I was very impressed with every player on MCA. They passed so well and were quick to every ball. I heard an MCA player comment that this was their best game all season. If they play the same way in the finals, I just cannot see them losing. They aren't weak anywhere on the field. They did not allow any offense attack through. I also agree with PumasFC that BRHS's best chance of scoring was with a free kick. Benson was sent only one through ball during the entire game, but it was along the side line, where she was fouled near the box. Gambrell had a nice free kick to Carter who just missed the goal on a header. BRHS tried to play their usual finesse game, but couldn't because MCA plays the same, but does the job a lot better. BRHS should have abandoned that style, and realized they had to play long ball. I can't wait to see the LHS/MCA game.
|
|
|
Post by brhsoccer14 on Feb 20, 2005 0:06:24 GMT -6
What do I know puma, I am only a ball-boy ;D jman is correct, Sarah Benson got one, maybe two through ball chances the entire night, neither of them towards goal. MCA's defense was basically a wall that was not getting broken through. The only way I thought BRHS was going to score was with someone dribbling up the middle catching the defense off-guard and shooting from 25 out. A lot of if's in that equation. As others said, the other way would have been playing long ball. BRHS was getting shut down time after time in the middle and should have kicked out to Keli on the right or Allison on the left and put in crosses. Both of these players could have shot or crossed from their positions since both are excellent soccer players. I also did say that it was MCA's control in the first half, but I do remember running up and down the field a lot more in the first half.
|
|
|
Post by PumasFC on Feb 22, 2005 15:02:14 GMT -6
I apologize for the mistake. Using the wings would have been another option. It just became clear pretty early on that "Down the Middle" wasn't going to work against that defense. Hindsight is always better than the present and it's a heck of a lot easier to play and coach from the stands than to put those same ideas into play when the opposition is swarming around you, as you well know, brhsoccer14. Please take my criticism for what it is - hindsight AS I said "Both teams laid it all out on the line" including the 'Ball-Girls' who always had another ball ready for the players when a thrown-in or corner kick was ready to be taken. I hope your on the field next year, instead of the sidelines.
|
|
|
Post by rivers2 on Feb 22, 2005 16:02:22 GMT -6
Hey PUMAS
BRHSSOCCER14 hopefully will remain on the sidelines for all the girls games this year and next as she is a HE!
|
|
|
Post by brhsoccer14 on Feb 22, 2005 16:19:39 GMT -6
I hope you guys do know that I am a male figure. No matter, though, I think Pumas was trying to make fun of me because there were no ball-girls even at that game. I think he meant that I will be on the pitch for the boys' games instead of watching the girls in the semis. I do wish that we could make it that far, but it all depends. Personally, I think we will be better the coming school year, but I don't think we will win state since I still don't think we compare to Jesuit or Lafayette. Our district is going to be tough next year with Dutchtown, Catholic, us, St. Amant, and Woodlawn. I think it will be: Dutchtown BRHS Catholic (wont be as good next year, IMO!!) St. Amant Woodlawn
Anyway, back to GIRLS soccer. Running the line wasn't all that bad, and if you were at the game, you saw that I got it to the girls as quickly as possible. The only bad thing was that I couldn't cheer or coach.
|
|
|
Post by PumasFC on Feb 25, 2005 17:30:48 GMT -6
My mistake, my eyes aren't good enough to see that far across the field. I'm not sure I was even at the same game as everyone else. BE IT KNOWN: I don't check gender when replying to others comments. We're all soccer players/fans
|
|
|
Post by brhsoccer14 on Feb 25, 2005 17:47:24 GMT -6
I was on the side closest to you, as I said in the PM. I am, indeed, a male soccer player to let it be known.
|
|
|
Post by D3Fanatic on Feb 25, 2005 20:58:27 GMT -6
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|