Maryland just flat out kicked our butt - I am in shock at how easily they scored the whole game.
"This is the best of all possible worlds."
Dr. Pangloss - Candide
MD executed their offense very, very well. As a Duke fan, it was difficult to watch that efficiency. On the other hand, as a Duke fan, it was very good to watch us winning face-offs and making a run in the second half. As a Duke alum and fan, I'm proud of this team and this coaching staff! Already looking forward to next year.
No soup for you!
A dominating performance by the Hounds, who shut out Maryland for the last 40:40 to win 9-3.
Eric Lusby broke Zac Greer's tournament goal-scoring record with 17.
As I said on another site, it's so typical of Murlund to spend all its emotion against Duke and not show up for the championship game.
When does next season start?
This does none of the three justice--not Duke for having gotten there on shakey legs, not Maryland for its daring strategy of taking on Duke and beating it at Duke's own game, and certainly not Loyola, clearly and by far the best team in the nation, which chose to play Maryland's game and beat it decisively.
After that first quarter, Loyola's defense was insane. I have been learning the game as my sons have picked it up and we were marveling at how well the Loyola defenders moved their feet to stay in front of their men, and helped on defense. Lacrosse defense is remarkably similar to basketball and Loyola were not getting beaten "off the dribble". Maryland, on the other hand, gave Loyola way too many open looks. Had Maryland not dominated the face-offs, Loyola may have won by more. It really was a dominant performance.
Yes, I think a lot of people weren't sure what to make of Loyola this year because, coming into the season, the prognosticators didn't think they would be a top team. But it appears, looking back on their excellent season, that they really were the best team in college lacrosse this year. Good for them!
I've enjoyed following Coach Danowski's stellar program, and enjoyed the commentary from those who follow the sport closely.
I find it interesting to see the variation in results...how strange it seems to have Maryland score 16 vs Duke and then 3 vs Loyola, or how Duke is able to dominate Virginia and struggle with Maryland.
Variables seem to include goal tending and just overall team matchups. Plus a single elimination format, which we certainly see in NCAA hoops upsets.
I'm sure there are commenters here who can speak more knowledgeably than I on this subject, but certainly all the factors you mention are part of it. Goaltending is complicated by the way the defense is playing. Certainly Duke's goalie, Dan Wigrizer, looked a lot better in the first two tournament games than he did against Maryland--but he also faced a lot more point-blank shots against Maryland than he did in the other two games. Whenever a Duke slide left someone open, Maryland found the open man with a quick, accurate pass, and that man took an accurate shot before a Duke defender could pick him up. Sometimes if a goaltender is seeing the ball really well and having an excellent day, he can stop a larger percentage of those wide-open, accurate shots than Wigrizer did on Saturday. But forcing teams to take difficult shots is, overall, a better way to reduce opponents' scoring than relying on a defenseless goaltender to come up with a heroic performance. Interestingly, the Loyola goalie commented that his defense made sure that he saw mostly high, stick-side shots this weekend--which are the kind he feels best able to handle.
In the end, it was apparently an advantage for Maryland to know Duke so well (and to have a bit of a psychological edge based on its winning record against Duke recently--even the ACC tournament game Duke won was close to the last second). They seemed to know just how to counter Duke's strengths and exploit its weaknesses, but didn't have the same experience against Loyola.
Oddly enough, Maryland head coach John Tillman saw the same things I saw.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...at-they-had-d/Exhausted and emotionally spent, there wasn’t much the Terps could do to prove otherwise in the second half against Loyola.
“I told them at halftime, ‘Who is this group and who replaced the guys from the other day?’ ” Tillman said. “We just didn’t have our A-game. We just didn’t. We got away from what got us here. Part of that was us, but part of that, you have to give Loyola all the credit.”
Sometimes it's the dynamics of a series of sporting contests. I harken back to the easy win over Colgate. Trailing 4-2, Duke thoroughly dominated and demoralized a good Colgate team to win 17-6. How many times in hoops and other sports does an easy win lead to a huge letdown? And it is hard for coaches to talk sense to teams in such circumstances.
sagegrouse
I'm sure there is some truth to this--but Maryland was a known opponent, and not in a confidence-inspiring way. On the one hand, the team may have perceived themselves to be peaking and thus better than they were in previous games against Maryland; on the other hand, I wouldn't think it would take a lot of sense-talking from the coaches to remind the players of how close their previous game against Maryland--only a couple of weeks earlier--was. For whatever reason, the team did not play its best; overconfidence may have been part of that, but it shouldn't have been, under the circumstances.
Your logic does, though, possibly apply to Maryland, who perhaps couldn't recover enough energy in a 2-day turnaround to match Loyola after level of excellence and energy they sustained in beating Duke.