Getting Inside Lacrosse - Analysis of a Successful Power Play

As per my earlier post, I'm going to breakdown one successful power play. I'm going to do this for two reasons. First, I want to learn about the game, and I know there are other fans out there who are similarly interested in lacrosse strategy. Second, I'm hoping that someone who actually knows something about lacrosse will take this idea and turn it into something awesome. With access to HD TV footage, and proper production equipment, the NLL could probably put together some really informative videos to help explain the game.


Okay, so full disclosure. I've never played lacrosse. I played football, basketball and fastpitch. I currently play slopitch. I kind of, sort of, understand lacrosse, because there are so many similarities in the positioning, rotations and scoring areas as basketball. If you talk to any of my old basketball coaches they'll tell you that I always grasped the theory, the problem was my execution (except my picks which were so bone-crushingly good that I never needed to roll). I saw a couple of Toronto Rock games from the 2004 season on Rogers Sportsnet, moved to Toronto and bought season tickets for the 2005 season. I've been there ever since and I'm hooked.

Without further excuses, here's what I see when I watch a powerplay happening in full speed. They almost all start off with slow passing around the outside, then there's a flurry of motion, a couple of quick passes and a goal. If I try to watch what is happening off-ball, I usually miss the goal.

From watching lots of games, I've learned that goals usually come in one of three areas. Pardon the horribly drawn picture - the black area is the crease and goal, the coloured and number areas are the scoring zones. This is obviously not to any kind of scale.

1. In basketball this would be the key or the paint, and is with basketball, a lacrosse player with time and space will convert shots from this area most of the time.
2. In basketball this would be the low post. I think it's called the crease in lacrosse. The difference is that lacrosse players tend to score here on quicksticks (like one-timers in hockey). There's very little angle to hit net, so an offence has to have the goalie moving to score from this zone.
3. Beyond the arc (or as Scott Campbell called it during an online broadcast "Lewis Ratcliff's office"). Goals scored here sometimes deflect off a defender, sometimes they are screens and sometimes they've just got the goalie moving/guessing/napping and they're able to snipe a corner.

The reason I'm starting with powerplays is because they're simple. The offence has an extra guy, the defence is playing zones to protect as many lanes as they can. The offence just wants to move the ball and their feet and get someone into one of the scoring zones with time and space (and a moving goalie) to bury a shot. The theory is simple, but actually executing a play sophisticated enough to get a man open is a whole other matter.

Now, here's what I see when I watch gametape of a powerplay. Specifically, the powerplay from :39 of the third quarter (when Stephen Hoar took a penalty) until :54 (when Tracey Kelusky scored) of the 14 January 2012 game in Buffalo between the Rock and Bandits (1:38:51 of the game tape). I picked this, because it took the Bandits 15 seconds to score, which makes this a very short analysis, and the powerplay very precise. (I also couldn't find the archive of Friday night's Rochester at Toronto game, sorry Paul Stewart!)

The ball starts at the top (or the point) in Kelusky's stick. The Bandits have three players in what I've called "scoring area number three." I'm going to call the guys on each wing up high shooters (I think that's right) and the two guys in zone 2 the creasemen; Kelusky is at the point. The Rock are set up in a box (rather than a diamond). The top two defenders have their sticks ready to harass Kelusky if he tries to shoot, and their positioning prevents a quick pass from the point spot to either of the crease spots. The bottom two defenders are ready to react to a pass or movement, and the goalie is set to challenge a shot from the point. The only options open to Kelusky are Tavares to his right and Wiles(?) to his left in the shooter positions. He chooses to pass to Tavares, which is what's happening in the screenshot above. They toss the ball back and forth, presumably to get the goalie and the defence moving.

After Kelusky and Tavares finish playing hot potato, three things happen. Kelusky starts back-peddling, Wiles moves in to set a pick on the top defender (Greer?), and Tavares slides towards the point to keep the passing lane open.
Greer fights to slide under the screen and the other top defender (Marshall?) slides over to help Greer and to close the lane to the player in crease scoring zone 2L (Culp?).

While Kelusky is using the screen, Culp pushes towards the crease which forces Sanderson to cover him closely on the crease. The other low defender (Merrill?) is forced to move up to help Greer. Merrill has to challenge the shot and clog up the lane to the player (Giles?) in crease 2R, which is why Merrill is running at Kelusky with his hands spread out widely.
Kelusky now has 4 options. He can dump to Wiles who just set a pick for him and is now at the point, but with Greer in the way this would be a poor choice. He can fire a pass to Giles on the crease, but with Roik already on this side there isn't going to be enough motion to free up any space for Giles to sneak one in. With Culp covered by Sanderson there's only two good options. One is to pass across to Tavares who would have two options - he might be able to sneak a shot in before Roik gets over, or he can immediately pass the ball diagonally across the box to Giles who would have an "empty" net.
Instead, Kelusky opts to use the shooting lane that is opened up, knowing that if he misses the net completely the rebound will probably bounce to Tavares with another 15 seconds to run a second play, and if he hits the goalie that Culp is on the doorstep for a potential rebound.

With the smaller padding, and the little bit of motion, Kelusky is able to sneak the ball over Roik's left shoulder. Goal for the Bandits.

If I'm the Rock, I see three things that went wrong. This is where I demonstrate my ignorance in the hopes of attaining enlightenment from those who know. First, Roik would probably like to have that shot back, or that inch of extra padding like last season. Second, Greer probably should've slid around the pick rather than going through it (the risk is allowing Wiles to step into the middle of the box untouched). Third, Merrill, Marshall and Sanderson were maybe a split second too slow in rotating from the box to a diamond. If Merrill steps up to challenge Kelusky, and Sanderson and Marshall remove the cross-floor lanes, then Kelusky has to pass to Giles who won't have much of a shot opportunity. He'll have a second before Merrill returns to harass him and a very challenging pass through Sanderson to Culp. It's not ideal for the Rock to face a 2 on 1 down low, but probably better than letting Kelusky have a few seconds to roll around a pick and wind up for a shot. At least, that's what I'd be thinking ...

What we haven't looked at is whether Hoar took a good or bad penalty, and whether there is such a thing in lacrosse. Paul Stewart should enlighten us in a future edition of the mailbag on the wisdom of applying the logic that there's such a thing as a good foul in basketball to lacrosse.

So that's what I see when I watch in slow motion. A relatively simple pick to free up a shooter. Is that what a coach or player saw?

Now, by posting this, I hope I've shown two things. First, that I'm clueless and have a lot to learn. Second, that in the hands of an expert, with proper production facilities, there could be the possibility for educational, telestrated videos from lacrosse colour commentators.

Crisp explanatory videos, would go a long way to increasing credibility of the sport. It would be a way to explain the details of the game to all fans, and to give those of us interested in Xs and Os strategy a better understanding of what is going on out on the floor. It would be a useful chance to pinpoint the pivotal pick or pass that leads to a scoring chance or a penalty, which would give us a better appreciation for what is happening on the floor. I'm not saying that fancy stickwork, high scores, crease dives and cheerleaders aren't enough excitement, just that increased understanding of the game would give it credibility. The kind of serious credibility that television and insightful colour commentators have given the big sports (football, basketball, baseball and hockey - even soccer and rugby have reliably informative commentary).

In the future, I hope to post analysis of other scenarios - penalty kills, power play defence, short-handed offence, set five on five, transitions, a good press, a bad press, etc. I'd love to get some feedback on both this post, and future prospects for this type of commentary.