Continued from page 54


Canada dominated the ball. On a team with lacrosse legends Gary Gait, John Grant Jr. and Brodie Merrill, Canada’s faceoff specialist Geoff Snider proved to be the most outstanding player and the difference in the championship game. Now, I truly believe the U.S. and Canada


are evenly-matched. While Team USA’s historical dominance of the sport speaks for itself, Canada has won three of the last four matchups (2006 championship, 2010 round robin, and 2012 Duel in Denver). In the past, their roster featured fish out of water — box players doing their best within the field parameters. Now they have significantly more depth with legitimate NCAA and MLL experience. The rivalry seeps off the field as well.


Outside of the games themselves, teams typically stay in nearby dorms and live a campus lifestyle, including meals at the cafeteria. Your most hated rival could belly up at the next table over. Canadians Patrick Merrill, Jordan Hall


and Matt Vinc were my teammates on the New York/Orlando Titans of the National Lacrosse League. For years, we battled in extremely physical games, made deep playoff runs and enjoyed lighter times off the field. Balancing these friendships and the competitive tension prove challenging. Cliques of players walk around campus


within their national affiliations. Friends from opposing countries can try to share a few words outside of the glaring eye of their teammates. Otherwise, a respectful nod or shoulder shrug recognizing the rivalry’s competitive


nature is the understood social norm. Even the games themselves are


Now, I truly believe the U.S. and Canada are evenly- matched.


weird, in part due to the rare scenarios that emerge in the international game. Lacking the athletes to defensively cover the opposition’s perimeter dodgers, Japan utilizes a tightly packed zone defense that typically creates an outside shot. They keenly recognize this offensive reaction and instruct the defender closest to the goal to sprint to the endline on every single shot. The first time we played against Japan in 2010, I got beat to a missed shot on several occasions, resulting


in a


turnover. I got an earful from coach Mike


despite


Pressler my


intention of staying involved in the half- field offensive set. Arguably


strangest,


the and


most critical, on- field


sequence


occurred at the end of the 2002 title game. Pulling ahead of Canada, their staff boldly called a stick check on Mikey Powell to change the momentum. Powell’s stopper prevented the ball from falling out when rotated upside down, which we did not believe was illegal in international play. The referees interpreted the rules differently, and suddenly Canada had a man-advantage for three non-releasable minutes. Naturally, they mounted a comeback.


After a Canadian man-up goal cut the lead to one, a distraught coach Jack Emmer turned toward assistant general manager Jimmy Butler looking for a rebuttal. Butler uttered one word, “Tavares,” as in John Tavares, who had just scored Canada’s last goal. Coach Emmer quickly called for a stick check of his own. Tavares’ stick was also illegal, disallowing his last goal and reversing the man-up situation. If you’ve ever spent time with Emmer,


you’ve probably heard the rest: We quickly retook momentum, Doug Shanahan dominated the game and Team USA rode into the sunset. What most people don’t know is that


Canada actually then called another stick check — on your humble narrator. Up in the stands, Bill Tierney, my coach at Princeton, whose son Trevor won best goalie in the tournament, turned to the spectator next to him and confidently declared, “They picked the wrong guy.” What Coach T didn’t know was that after Powell’s penalty, I removed anything from my head, shaft, helmet, shoes and socks that might raise an eyebrow, including a similar ball stopper. After my stick passed the test, the dust of the stick check tailspin finally settled, and coach Emmer’s tale proves true despite his best Irish intentions. Because of this atmosphere and stories


like these, I am forever grateful for my three tours with Team USA. This summer, Commerce City, Colo., Dick’s Sporting Goods Park and the FIL World Lacrosse Championship will have an opportunity to create their own saga. Let the weirdness begin. LM


PIVOT POINTS OF THE U.S.-CANADA RIVALRY


1978 — Canada 17, United States 16 (OT) Canada beat the U.S. in England, in the third world championship contest, just four days after the U.S. blew out the Canadians 28-4 in a round-robin game. Dubbed the “Miracle in the Mud,” the group of box-trained north-of-the-border natives like Mike French, Stan


Cockerton and Dave Huntley knocked off their experienced field lacrosse foes.


56 LACROSSE MAGAZINE July 2014>>


1998 — United States 15, Canada 14 (OT)


The last men’s world championship game played on U.S. soil was a historic one. The U.S. led 13-4 after a Mark Millon goal early in the fourth quarter. But Canada scored nine answered, the last with fewer than 30 seconds left, to force overtime. In the non-sudden death period, the U.S outscored Canada 2-1 with goals from Millon and Darren Lowe coming first.


2006 — Canada 15, United States 10 The U.S. edged Canada 13-12 in the preliminary round, but on their home soil and in front of 7,735 fans during a rainy title game, Canada defeated the U.S. for the first time since 1978. Faceoff man Geoff Snider was named tournament MVP, Brodie Merrill was named best defenseman and Jeff Zywicki top attackman.


— Corey McLaughlin A Publication of US Lacrosse


©US LACROSSE (ALL)


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84