2017 Lacrosse Preview: The Midfield
The countdown continues to the start of the 2017 Men’s Lacrosse season! On Monday, we took a look at the new-look Virginia offense. Tuesday, new Virginia head coach Lars Tiffany held a conference call for “friends of the program” and provided a fascinating look into the working of the Virginia Lacrosse team and what they have been working on in the off season.
You will notice some major changes to the midfield (especially since what was presented Monday) as Coach Tiffany utilizes his inherited players differently and employs a high-speed, fast-paced transition game. Let’s take a look at projected starters, the face off position, and a couple names to know.
The Big Three:
Ryan Lukacovic – As you may have noticed, I included Ryan on the attack preview. Well, he will be playing midfield for the Hoos, acting at times as a fourth attackman. Coach Tiffany said he will be more of a “swing man” out of the box, and really be used to apply pressure to the opposing team’s defense as they have to decide who to short-stick out of Lukacovic, Williams (hint: don’t short-stick Zed), French, and D’Amario/Kraus (with D’Amario being the predicted third starter now on attack).
Ryan Conrad – Get excited about this kid, because you will be seeing him a LOT this season. Conrad is going to function as a two-way middie, even expected to play man-down situations for the Hoos. He’s a great athlete who has a phenomenal shot. After showing up in Charlottesville as the #1 overall and #1 midfielder in Inside Lacrosse’s player rankings (and winning a gold medal with the U.S. U-19 team), Conrad had nine goals and three assists for the Hoos. He saw action in 14 of Virginia’s 15 games. Tiffany described Conrad as a “throwback” middie who will spend a lot of time on the field. Expect to see Conrad on the wings for face-offs, assisting in fast breaks, playing defense, and forcing opponent d-middies to stay on the field longer than they’re comfortable.
Will McNamara – I love McNamara’s story. He came to UVA in 2013 as the #1 midfielder (and #3 overall recruit) according to Inside Lacrosse and redshirted his first season due to a hip injury. McNamara was not enrolled in school in 2014 due to personal issues, but he took care of what he needed to and was re-enrolled in school and earned a spot back on the team in 2015. Since then, he has worked hard and was voted a captain by his teammates as a fourth year this season. He got run as a short-stick defensive midfielder under Coach Starsia, but will function as another multi-faceted two-way midfielder for Coach Tiffany. “He’s actually a pretty good offensive player.” Tiffany said during the Tuesday conference call. “I think he is better defensively, but he has put a few balls in some corners, and he has shot the ball a couple times recently that has made us go, ‘wow’. So, I think his experience on the field is tremendous.”
Watch for These Guys:
Dox Aitken – Another guy named #1 midfielder (#2 overall recruit) by Inside Lacrosse. For those of you keeping track at home, that’s three top-rated midfielders (and Zed Williams was the #2 rated midfielder in his incoming class) that are set to make a major impact on Virginia’s midfield this season. Aitken, a Villanova, PA native (don’t hold that against him…boo Wildcats), was described by Tiffany to be in “phenomenal fitness shape” when the team returned to grounds for spring practice. He is 6-2, 190, so can bring some physicality to the midfield.
AJ Fish – Speaking of physicality, Fish is 6-3, 185. He has a great outside shot, and had 14 goals and eight assists last season. I expect him to get a lot of time on the field, but get used to not using the usual “first line, second line” phrasing with Coach Tiffany as he keeps things more fluid and, as mentioned, utilizes the fast break and transition to create mismatches and keep opponents on their heels. Cory Harris and Matt Emery also got mentioned in the discussion of the midfield.
Jason Murphy – Murphy is going to be ‘the guy’ at the faceoff X this year. He performed well last season, going 123-for-197 (62.4%). He is a redshirt-junior after transferring from Ohio State before his second year (fun fact: he had a 4.0 at Ohio State and has been on the All-ACC Honor Roll at UVA). His reps will be increasing this season as Tiffany plays a high-tempo, high-possession brand of lacrosse (think opposite basketball).
When he doesn’t take the faceoff, you’ll see Jeff Kratky, Dave Smith, or Luke Brugel at the X. Kratky was the #2 guy for the Hoos last year, going 51-for-104 (49%) on the season. Coach Tiffany referred to them as “crash test dummies” as they practice tough, and that he, “loves how hard they’re getting after each other”.
Stay with Streaking the Lawn all week as we continue previewing the 2017 as we get closer to the season opener at Loyola. The game will be streamed on Twitter and starts at 1pm on Saturday in Baltimore.
|[15:00]||Faceoff Jason Murphy vs Ben Williams won by SU (on faceoff violation).|
|[14:29]||8||5||GOAL by SU Nate Solomon, Assist by Matt Lane, goal number 5 for season.|
|[14:29]||Faceoff Jason Murphy vs Ben Williams won by VA, [14:29] Ground ball pickup by VA Zed Williams.|
|[14:09]||Shot by VA Jason Murphy, SAVE Evan Molloy.|
|[14:04]||Ground ball pickup by VA Michael Kraus.|
|[14:01]||Shot by VA Zed Williams WIDE.|
|[13:54]||Ground ball pickup by VA Michael Kraus.|
|[13:48]||GOAL by VA Dox Aitken, goal number 18 for season.||9||5|
|[13:48]||Faceoff Luke Brugel vs Ben Williams won by SU, [13:48] Ground ball pickup by SU Scott Firman.|
|[13:00]||Shot by SU Nick Mariano HIGH.|
|[12:37]||Shot by SU Pat Carlin WIDE.|
|[12:29]||Ground ball pickup by VA Will Railey.|
|[12:25]||Clear attempt by VA good.|
|[12:19]||Shot by VA Ryan Conrad, SAVE Evan Molloy.|
|[12:14]||Ground ball pickup by VA Dave Smith.|
|[11:35]||Shot by VA Ryan Conrad WIDE.|
|[11:15]||Shot by VA Ryan Lukacovic WIDE.|
|[11:06]||GOAL by VA Zed Williams, goal number 12 for season.||10||5|
|[11:06]||Faceoff Jason Murphy vs Ben Williams won by SU, [11:06] Ground ball pickup by SU Ben Williams.|
|[10:58]||Shot by SU Ben Williams WIDE.|
|[10:31]||Shot by SU Matt Lane WIDE.|
|[09:54]||Turnover by SU Brendan Bomberry.|
|[09:43]||Clear attempt by VA good.|
|[09:03]||Shot by VA Milan Murray, SAVE Evan Molloy.|
|[09:01]||Clear attempt by SU good.|
|[08:32]||Penalty on VA Michael Howard (PUSHING/0:30) Extra-man opportunity.|
|[08:13]||Shot by SU Jordan Evans HIT POST.|
|[08:09]||Ground ball pickup by SU Brad Voigt.|
|[07:59]||Ground ball pickup by SU Nick Mariano.|
|[07:20]||Ground ball pickup by SU Sergio Salcido.|
|[07:06]||Shot by SU Sergio Salcido BLOCKED.|
|[06:55]||Ground ball pickup by VA Cooper Fersen.|
|[06:52]||Clear attempt by VA good.|
|[06:43]||Penalty on SU Matt Lane (CROSS-CHECK/1:00) Extra-man opportunity.|
|[06:17]||Shot by VA Mike D’Amario HIGH.|
|[05:50]||Shot by VA Ryan Lukacovic, SAVE Evan Molloy.|
|[05:46]||Ground ball pickup by SU Evan Molloy.|
|[05:34]||Clear attempt by SU good.|
|[05:30]||Shot by SU Jamie Trimboli WIDE.|
|[04:59]||Shot by SU Peter Dearth, SAVE Will Railey.|
|[04:55]||Ground ball pickup by SU Peter Dearth.|
|[04:38]||10||6||GOAL by SU Jamie Trimboli, goal number 2 for season.|
|[04:38]||Faceoff Jason Murphy vs Ben Williams won by VA, [04:38] Ground ball pickup by VA Jason Murphy.|
|[04:24]||Penalty on SU Luke Schwasnick (PUSHING/0:30) Extra-man opportunity.|
|[04:15]||Turnover by VA Zed Williams.|
|[04:10]||Clear attempt by SU good.|
|[03:56]||10||7||GOAL by SU Nate Solomon (MAN-DOWN), Assist by Tyson Bomberry, goal number 6 for season.|
|[03:56]||Faceoff Luke Brugel vs Ben Williams won by SU, [03:56] Ground ball pickup by SU Ben Williams.|
|[03:08]||10||8||GOAL by SU Brendan Bomberry, Assist by Matt Lane, goal number 9 for season.|
|[03:08]||Faceoff Luke Brugel vs Ben Williams won by VA, [03:08] Ground ball pickup by VA Dox Aitken.|
|[02:37]||Turnover by VA Zed Williams (caused by Scott Firman).|
|[02:33]||Ground ball pickup by SU Tyson Bomberry.|
|[02:28]||Clear attempt by SU good.|
|[02:25]||Ground ball pickup by SU Tyson Bomberry.|
|[02:25]||Shot by SU Tyson Bomberry WIDE.|
|[02:24]||Penalty on VA Jared Conners (TRIPPING/1:00) Extra-man opportunity.|
|[02:05]||10||9||GOAL by SU Matt Lane (MAN-UP), Assist by Sergio Salcido, goal number 3 for season.|
|[02:05]||Faceoff Luke Brugel vs Ben Williams won by VA, [02:05] Ground ball pickup by VA Dave Smith.|
|[01:46]||Clear attempt by VA good.|
|[00:59]||GOAL by VA Michael Kraus, goal number 13 for season.||11||9|
|[00:59]||Faceoff Jason Murphy vs Ben Williams won by VA, [00:59] Ground ball pickup by VA Ryan Conrad.|
|[00:15]||Turnover by VA Joe French.|
|[00:03]||Turnover by SU Jamie Trimboli (caused by Ryan Conrad).|
|[00:02]||Ground ball pickup by VA Ryan Conrad.|
Senior scholastic spotlight: Shrewsbury’s Colleen McNamara maximizes her opportunities – News – telegram.com
School is out, other than virtually that is. Colleen McNamara wants back in.
In the time it takes to flick a pass with her lacrosse stick, the Shrewsbury High senior makes it known how much she misses, among other things, taking classes in person, playing sports, writing for the school paper and mentoring freshmen.
“Oh, so much,” McNamara said last week. “I feel like some of my friends were like, ‘Oh yeah, I’m kind of ready to go. I’m ready to leave.’ But I never was. I loved high school and didn’t want it to end, and then it got cut even shorter.”
Suffice to say, this motivated and talented 17-year-old, who has found herself reading more and playing family card games during the coronavirus pandemic, maximized her time academically, athletically and artistically.
McNamara was a member of the indoor track team for four years, captaining the Colonials as a junior and a senior and helping the 1,600-meter relay team earn a medal with a seventh-place finish at the Division 1 state meet in February.
She also ran cross-country for two years before switching to field hockey. The Colonials qualified for the Central Mass. Division 1 Tournament in each of her two seasons, advancing to the semifinals last fall as the inexperienced center forward tallied a team-high 13 points.
“I will say that in field hockey I had a great season, and I was surprised because it was only my second year,” McNamara said. “So it was definitely a blast, and I know I would have regretted missing field hockey because I have four more years of lacrosse ahead of me. I loved the culture of field hockey, all the girls are so, so close.”
So it wasn’t all a lost year for McNamara, although she did miss out on her favorite and best sport. That would be lacrosse, which she began playing in third grade.
The 5-foot-6 midfielder would have entered her fourth and final varsity season as a two-time captain and two-time T&G Super Team selection, with career totals of 187 goals, 55 assists and 232 points. Those impressive numbers were racked up due to a combination of speed, elusiveness, an ability to read a play before it unfolds, and a lightning-quick catch-and-release.
In addition to production, McNamara provided the program with hefty doses of dedication, leadership and optimism as it went 39-24 and earned three postseason invitations during her time on the field.
“Colleen threw herself into everything that she did,” said Caitlin Early, who was to serve as co-coach with Steve Frederick this spring after being an assistant the past two years. “She was probably one of the most coachable on the team. If we saw something, we would call her over, explain exactly what was going on, and she would go out there and do it. So that was really special because a lot of people can’t really grasp that in the moment the way that she could.
“She also had a positive attitude no matter where we were standing-wise,” Early added. “She’d get in the huddle, and you could have a minute left in the game and be down by three, and she would try to get everyone going. So that was another part that was awesome.”
McNamara will continue her lacrosse career as a scholarship athlete at Manhattan College, where she plans to study sports broadcasting. Toward that end, she wrote for the sports section of the school paper and did the morning announcements for the school TV station since her freshman year.
And, not surprisingly, McNamara is also a standout in the classroom with a weighted GPA of 4.2, leading to her induction into the National Honor Society and the National Latin Honor Society. She also served as a mentor to the freshman class and was the MIAA Student Ambassador for Shrewsbury and one of 19 student-athletes from across the state who comprised the MIAA Student Advisory Committee.
“Everything you would want in a high school student, that’s Colleen,” Shrewsbury athletic director Jay Costa said of McNamara, who interned in his office, helping with the day-to-day operations while serving as a liaison to her fellow athletes.
—If you have an idea for a senior scholastic spotlight story, contact Rich Garven at [email protected] Follow him on Twitter @RichGarvenTG.
Syracuse Lacrosse: Previewing the speedy Virginia Cavaliers
Given what we have in store for this uptempo game on Sunday, the most recent edition of Inside Lacrosse Magazine is especially relevant.
The Syracuse Orange and Virginia Cavaliers have played in some thrillers, just look back to the 1997 game. These two programs have played 31 times in their histories with the first meeting in 1938. Since 2006, only once has either of these two teams failed to score fewer than 10 goals in this matchup.
We are talking about two traditionally fast teams, and that will be no exception in 2017, especially with Lars Tiffany on the Virginia sidelines. Tiffany’s teams have been known to be fast paced. In a 2015 article in Lacrosse Magazine by Matt DaSilva, Tiffany, a Lafayette, NY native, referred to his teams’ offensive style of play as “First Nations-Inspired lacrosse.”
If you’ve watched UVA this year, you probably have seen how many goals this team has scored in transition. However that pace goes both ways. Tiffany isn’t afraid of his team making mistakes or allowing opponents to push that same pace which can lead to a number of quality opportunities.
The Cavaliers are 4-1 on the season while the Orange are 2-1. SU and UVA have played, and beaten, one common opponent, Siena. @laxvegaslines has Virginia as a one goal favorite and the over/under set at 28. I’m picking Virginia and the under.
Coach: Lars Tiffany
Location: Charlottesville, VA
Game Location: Carrier Dome
Game Time: NOONER!
Television/Radio: ACC Network Extra (ESPN3)/ TK99/105
Weather: DOME WEATHER!
All-Time Syracuse Record Vs. Opponent: 16-15
Previous Matchup: 14-13 Syracuse Win
Opponent Ranking: #9
Conference Record: N/A
2016 Team Statistics
Total Goals– Shot Attempts: 82-247
Total Opponent Goals– Shot Attempts: 65-194
EMO Goals (Percentage): 10-19 (.526)
EMO Goals Against (Percentage): 6-15 (.400)
Team Shooting Percentage: .332
Opponent Shooting Percentage: .335
Shots on Goal Percentage: .587
Opponent Shots on Goal Percentage: .608
Opponent Groundballs: 188
Caused Turnovers: 55
Faceoffs: 97-166 (.584)
Clearing Percentage: 98-112 (.875)
Opponent Clearing Percentage: 94-120 (.783)
Penalties: 13:30 PIM
The Cavaliers are third in nation for assists per game, and their offense relies on a lot of quick ball movement. Syracuse will need to be ready with the quick slides. While this program has a bunch of shooters with big guns, one thing that is very noticeable is the poor shot selection. Against Penn, we saw UVA shooters put the ball right into Reed Junkin’s stick over and over. The Cavaliers’ take an average of 49.5 shots per game but have just a .587 shots on goal percentage. Compare that to UVA’s opponents who average a .608 shots on goal percentage. Opponent goalies have made an average 12.6 saves per game against UVA including 16 by Penn and an astounding 19 by High Point Panther Tim Troutner Jr.
Another thing to note is the attack’s ability to ride. Virginia’s opponents have failed to clear the ball 22.7% of the time.
Penn threw a lot of zone at UVA in the game on Saturday, really confusing the Virginia offense. However, against High Point, Virginia looked a lot better against the zone defense. It will be interesting to see if Syracuse changes up its defensive packages to try and confound the Cavs.
Zed Williams came to UVA as the number four incoming recruit in his class, as rated by Inside Lacrosse. His high school career was legendary, breaking Casey Powell’s New York high school point scoring record in just his junior year. As a freshman at UVA, Williams struggled to get out of the shadow of the high expectations that came with him to Charlottesville. He broke out in his sophomore year with 37 points but couldn’t match that in his junior year. So far, he has 25 points through five games in 2017, sitting seventh in the country in assists per game.
Man, watch out for Michael Kraus. Six of his seven points against High Point came in the first half. Kraus is just a freshman but has shown his worth thus far in the season, he will be a high impact player for years to come.
Joe French and Mike D’Amario have split time at attack this year. French started the first two games and the last game against High Point. Mike D’Amario has 14 goals and four assists this year.
The midfield is really where the magic happens. Tiffany’s guys have always played a two-way game, the issue with this is that it could create defensive mismatches if Syracuse can’t get its defensive midfield on the turf. The midfielders are really where the speed of Virginia’s game can be seen. They push the ball hard and can create significant transition opportunities, the heart of UVA’s offense.
Don’t think about the Virginia midfield crew in terms of lines, instead see them as more of a fluid group. Dox Aitken has only started two games this year but I would expect him to start on Sunday. He is another impact freshman for UVA and stands at 6’2”. Overall, the Haverford graduate has 16 goals and two assists through five games. Watch him around the net, one-on-one as he can effectively use his size to bully and back down defenders, but he also has a wicked shot. Aitken had a hat trick prior to the end of the first half against Penn on Saturday.
Ryan Conrad started UVA’s first four games, compiling eight points but did not start against High Point, a game where he had just one assist. He is traditionally more of a defensive midfielder, but as I’ve mentioned these guys go both ways.
Will McNamara is another defensive midfielder for UVA but Lars Tiffany has noted that McNamara is not just a one dimensional player. The redshirt senior was rated the number one incoming midfield recruit. He redshirted his freshman year after a hip injury and was not enrolled the year following for personal reasons, so he still has one more year of eligibility after this season. However, McNamara did not play against High Point, not sure if it’s an injury situation or not.
Ryan Lukacovic had a monster sophomore year in 2015 with 22 goals and 27 assists, career highs which he has been unable to match. He has been a longtime starter for UVA but so far he’s managed just seven goals and six assists through five games and four starts.
AJ Fish has two starts on the year including the last game versus High Point. The senior has five goals on only seven shots on net and has a pretty good outside shot.
Good news for Syracuse fans, Ben Williams should be back against Virginia. He will be facing off with primary Virginia faceoff guy Jason Murphy. The redshirt junior is a transfer from Ohio State and has a .611 faceoff winning percentage, good enough for 14th in the country. Backing him up is freshman Luke Brugel who has a .625 faceoff percentage. Expect UVA to throw both these guys at Williams. The Virginia wings include: Dave Smith, Cooper Fersen, and Jared Conners.
There are several reasons to keep an eye on the faceoffs on Sunday. Obviously, Virginia has shown to be a good faceoff team but the Cavs have played against only one faceoff guy who is ranked in the top 54 in faceoff winning percentage in the country. Second, Ben Williams will need to be monitored. In a Syracuse.com article from Lindsay Kramer, Desko noted that the coaching staff is hoping the senior FOGO will be one hundred percent although he did say, “I don’t really want to use him if we feel he could get hurt again.”
The third thing to watch is the potential for instant offense. Penn had some success following the faceoffs, netting two goals right off of the draw including one from Luke Brugel. Williams is not known as a goal scorer, or quite frankly as a ball handler, but he does have one goal on the year and five since arriving at SU.
Given Tiffany’s coaching style, I expect the defense to extend and play the ball deep. The Cavaliers have worked hard to try and close up some of the interior holes on defense. However, UVA has given up an astounding 65 goals against, making the Hoos the 52 best scoring defense in the land by allowing 13 goals per game.
Captain Tanner Scales has been in Charlottesville since the fall of 2012. He is as close to a lock down guy as Virginia has and stands at 6’2” but can certainly move well. Scott Hooper had 23 caused turnovers in 2016 and currently is eighth in the country in caused turnovers with 11. The third defenseman is sophomore Zach Ambrosino who has seven groundballs and an assist on the year. Also watch for the 6’5” Cooper Fersen at the long-stick midfield position. It’s pretty much the same grouping we’ve seen before, a grouping that was never really elite.
Junior Will Railey is the man in the crease, but Tiffany has shown he is not afraid to go to his backup Griffin Thompson who has played sixty minutes on the year. With a .484 save percentage and a 11.98 goals against average, Railey’s stats are nothing to write home about. If I was able to give any advice to the Syracuse shooters it would be this: GO LOW, GO LOW, GO LOW!
The Syracuse Orange and Virginia Cavaliers will faceoff in the Carrier Dome at noon on Sunday. The game can be seen on ESPN3 and heard on TK99/105. Of course you can also follow me @Orangelax for updates.
Meghan McNamara – The Pioneer
By Thomas Scavetta
As the head coach of LIU Post’s women’s lacrosse team, Meghan McNamara has many goals for the upcoming season. She wants her players to focus on the little things and developing good fundamentals. Also, McNamara wants her players to develop strong bonds with one another and improve every game by taking the season day by day, which is essential to winning a national championship. McNamara stated that the first step as they climb the ladder towards another national championship is their first scrimmage against Yale.
McNamara started playing lacrosse in eighth grade with a wooden stick. The wooden stick was given to her because her sister won MVP at a camp. That’s when she first started playing.
McNamara was encouraged to play lacrosse because she loves the competitive nature of the sport and she was surrounded by great teammates. She also loves lacrosse because it’s challenging everyday and it’s fun and enjoyable. Her parents told her to always strive to be the best she can be, which has led her to amazing success.
As the head coach, McNamara wants to make sure that she can be a great role model for her players. Demonstrating leadership, teamwork, and character will help these young women be a positive impact in the world. McNamara will do anything she can to help her players achieve their goals both on and off the field.
Originally, McNamara thought she was going to college to play soccer. She played ACC lacrosse at the University of Maryland where she won four national championships. McNamara played as an attacking midfielder. As a player in college, she only lost four games in all four years. Three of the losses came as a freshman.
McNamara shared with me some of the strengths and weaknesses of the current team. One of the team’s many strengths is that they have a great core group of returning players. In addition, many of the players are experienced in championship play. She factored in that leadership, character, and compassion are second to none. They’re growing as a team, which is every year’s challenge and the team’s biggest weakness.
Academics was always first on McNamara’s list and it kept her in check. Without her education, she wouldn’t be able to play lacrosse. Both academics and lacrosse made her who she is today. She was determined to be the best she can be and academics was a great outlet for her achievements.
McNamara gave an inspirational quote that demonstrates how great of a coach she is, stating: “I have a pleasure to work for a tremendous group of young women and I get to share with the university how special they are.”
Junior Boys’ Black Team wins first D1 championshipThe Park City Junior Boys Black Team poses for a picture. The team members are: Top row, L-R Coach Jamie Meyer, Beau Pederson, Will Harrigan, Justin Pickard, Matt Whipple, Cole Lee, Eli Levine, Jack Mintz, Alec Olsen, Matthew O’Brien, Josh Hales, Lance Jenkins, Coach Jerry French and Coach Mike Acee. Middle, L-R Aiden Shaw, Sam Addicot, Connor French and Kyle Walterson. Bottom, L-R John Luebbers, Ryan Smith, Duncan Halsey, Noah Meyer and Will McNamara. Courtesy Park City Youth Lacrosse Organization
On the other side of the field, the potent Park City offense of Beau Pederson (four assists), Matt O’Brien (one goal, one assist), Will Harrigan (two goals, one assist), Will McNamara (one goal, one assist), Ryan “Rhino” Smith (one goal), and Matt Whipple (one goal) controlled the ball, taking more than twice as many shots as the Juan Diego offense. Many of those chances were generated by the tough defense on clears, getting the ball back from Juan Diego on multiple occasions before it had had a chance to cross midfield. Park City’s advantage in possession time was considerably aided by the dominant faceoff play of Justin Pickard (two goals), who notched 10 wins; including the two gained by John Leubbers, Park City started out on offense twice as many times as Juan Diego.
The win was particularly sweet for Park City since it went into the playoffs as the third seed. To get to the final game, Park City had to face Brighton, a strong team that it had lost to twice in the regular season. It proved yet another adage, “third time’s the charm,” by avenging those losses with a 14-11 win.
During the rough start to a shortened season due to the late Park City spring break, Park City also lost to Juan Diego 6-3, so the win on Thursday was doubly sweet.
“These kids worked really hard this year,” said assistant coach Jamie Meyer. “They started slow but finished strong. I have coached these kids for six or seven years and I am very humbled at how they have improved, and their dedication to becoming better players and better young men.”
Head coach Mike Acee added, “Congratulations to the Juan Diego Junior boys for a very good season and a hard-fought championship game. Thank you to assistants Jamie Meyer, Jerry French, the PCYLO board, and all the families involved, for their contributions to our championship run. I’m very proud of our boys.”
Readers around Park City and Summit County make the Park Record’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.Donate
Haverford stops McDonogh, 12-10 | Varsity Sports Network
McDonogh’s Connor Morgan scored five goals for the Eagles, but his team came up short on Saturday afternoon as Haverford (PA), the number one ranked high school lacrosse team in the country beat the Eagles, 12-10, in Owings Mills.
Haverford goalie Conor Kelly was outstanding in the nets, turning back 16 Eagles shots.
“Conor bailed us out today,” said Fords coach John Nostrant. “Conor made some great saves and started the break for us. It was a great day for him.”
Brendan McGrath and Hup Hupfeldt each scored three times for Haverford, as seven different players creased the net for Nostrant.
Hupfeldt got two big goals in less than two minutes as the Fords overcame a 5-4 halftime deficit to take a 6-5 lead with 8:52 to go in the third quarter. A Hupfeldt goal with 2:42 to go in the third gave Haverford a 9-6 lead, but McDonogh would not quit. Brady Faby scored with a minute to go in the third quarter, and Keegan Michael pulled the Eagles to within one at 9-8 at the 11:40 mark of the fourth. Michael, who finished with three goals, also scored with less than five seconds remaining to set the final score.
Will McNamara, who played a key role in Haverford’s win over St. Paul’s last week, put the Fords up 10-8 at 10:56, but Morgan got the Eagles close again at 10-9 at 9:51.
Zach Rego and McGrath added late goals for the Fords to give them breathing room and the win.
McGrath, who will play at Princeton next season, said it was tough to come down on the road and play another top MIAA team.
“We had a slow start in the first half, but our defense kept us in it the whole time,” said McGrath.
Hupfeldt praised the play of Kelly.
“Conor Kelly did an awesome job. We came out and played our game, and Conor took care of the rest.”
The Notre Dame bound Kelly said it was a real tough game.
“The third quarter was huge. We had a lot of possessions in a row, and I think that swung the momentum.”
Morgan was outstanding for the Eagles. He scored three first half goals that helped give the Eagles a 5-4 lead at the half.
“We gave it our all today,” said Morgan. “We saw them crashing the crease on alley-dodges, and we got the alley-dodge. They were open down low.”
McDonogh’s tough Kyle DeVinney said that everyone on the team fought hard. “When talent’s not working hard, hard work beats talent,” said DeVinney.
DeVinney said that the Ford goalie was a big factor. “Conor Kelly is a great goalie; that’s why it was a close game.”
“We knew that they would be fast, competitive and physical,” said Eagle face-off specialist Keegan Michael. “We learned that we can play with just about anybody in the country.”
Fords coach Stranton said that to come down here and win twice in one week is pretty special.
Haverford’s Hupfeldt will play at Penn, Matt Walters is headed for Syracuse, and Carl Walrath will go to Virginia along with McNamara. At least 15 of Stranton’s players are headed for D-1 programs.
Haverford 12, McDonogh 10
HAV 3 1 5 3 – 12
McD 3 2 2 3 – 10
Goals: HAV-McGrath 3, Hupfeldt 3, McNamara 2, Walters, Walrath, McBride, Rego; McD-Morgan 5, Michael 3, McGee, Faby.
Assists: HAV-Rego, Hupfeldt 2, McGrath, Walters, Rohr; McD-Michael, DeVinney, Faby, Glaser 2, Daly.
Saves: HAV-Kelly 16; McD-Falcone 7.
Adelphi Panthers women’s lacrosse (Adelphi panthers women’s lacrosse) 2021
- Egyptian Arabic
- Norwegian (Bokmål)
- About us
August 13, 2021
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport → Mall of America: 4 ways to get there from RUB 5976
There are 5 ways to get from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America by airplane, train, bus or car
Select an option to see detailed directions and compare ticket prices and durations in Rome2rio’s trip planner.
Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America by bus, train and walking
It will take approximately 19h 13min from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America at a distance of 1134 km. The shortest travel time is usually 18h 10min. Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America operated by Southeast Michigan SMART, Amtrak and Metro Transit departs from Metro Airport Mcnamara Terminal and arrives at Mall of America.Usually there are 7 flights per week, but the schedule for weekends and holidays may change, check in advance.
Average travel time:
Shortest travel time:
Flights per week:
Lowest price:90 073 RUB 7287
62 kg CO 2
First and last flight
First flight departs at:
Last flight departs at:
The schedules shown below are valid for upcoming departures.
Bus, Train and Walking Schedules from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America
What’s the cheapest way to get from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America?
The cheapest way to get from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America is by car and costs RUB 4800 – RUB 7500 and takes 11h 9min.
What’s the fastest way to get from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America?
The fastest way to get from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America is by plane at RUB 5500 – RUB 14000, taking 2h 15min.
Is there a direct bus from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America?
No, there is no direct bus from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America.However, there are flights departing from Detroit Metro Airport and arriving at Mall of America with connections at Ann Arbor, Chicago and Minneapolis. The whole journey, including transfers, takes approximately 16h 6min.
How far is Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport from Mall of America?
The distance between Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport and Mall of America is 849 kilometers.The length of the road is 1087.5 km.
Get directions by car
How can I travel from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America without a car?
The best way to get from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America without a car is by train, the journey takes 15h 19min and costs RUB 7000 – RUB 11000.
How long does it take to get from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America?
It will take approximately 2h 15min to get from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America including transfers.
Where can you catch the bus from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America?
Bus flights from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America, operated by FlixBus-us, depart from Ann Arbor Station.
By train, bus or plane from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America?
The best way to get from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America is by plane, it will take 2h 15min and cost RUB 5500 – RUB 14000…. You can also choose the train, it will cost RUB 7000 – RUB 11000 and take about 15h 19min, you can also take the bus, it will cost and take 16h 6min.
About the type of transport
How long does it take to fly from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America?
The fastest flight from Detroit Airport to Minneapolis Airport is a direct flight that takes 1h 51min.
When does the bus arrive from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America?
Bus flights from Detroit Metropolitan Wayne Airport to Mall of America, operated by FlixBus-us, arrive at Minneapolis Station.
More details90,000 2003 UEFA Cup Final – Russian
When using text, please include a link to this page.
The 2003 UEFA Cup Final took place on May 21, 2003 between Celtic Scottish and Porto Portugal. Porto won the match 3-2 in extra time thanks to a goal from Derlei.It was also the first game to use the silver goal scoring rule, although this did not affect the outcome of the game as Porto scored a goal in the second half of extra time, which meant the game had to continue until the end of extra time.
Prior to this match, no club from Scotland or Portugal had ever won the UEFA Cup.
The game was what UEFA at the time called “the largest travel support collected in a single game” by The Independent on 22 May 2003 – around 80,000 Celtic fans traveled to Sevilla for the final.June 17, 2009 June 20, 2009 FIFA For this turnout and the way they behaved, Celtic fans – nicknamed the “Boys of Seville” – received an award from FIFA and UEFA, winning that year’s FIFA “Fair Play” prize and receiving official recognition from UEFA at home next season.
Route to the final
Date, place and officers
The game took place on May 21 at Estadio Olímpico de Sevilla, starting at 20:45 local time.The team of officials was selected from Slovakia.
Celtic Fans at Stadium
A fast-paced challenge resulted in Celtic’s Jos Valgaeren receiving a yellow card in the eighth minute. After that, it was one hundred percent romance, until the 32nd minute of the first half, when Capucho played Deco, but he could not help but shoot straight at Rab Douglas. In the immediate aftermath of this attack, Celtic made a counter-attack when Henrik Larsson shot Didier Agatha from the right, but his cross was too high for Chris Sutton.Larsson managed to break through 1: 0 in the 35th minute, but failed to establish sufficient contact with the ball. Porto came close in the 41st minute as Deco passed Bobo Balde to pull ahead one on one with Douglas, who saved Deco’s kick with his feet.
Porto found a way out during the break. After Deco’s excellent work, Dmitry Alenichev’s shot was parried by Douglas and Derlei shot the ball to give Porto 1-0. This was his 11th competition goal. Porto did not last long after restarting as Celtic leveled the score after 47 minutes when Larsson faced Agate and sent the ball to the helpless Vita Baja to get his tenth goal in the tournament and his 200th goal against Celtic ”.Within five minutes it was 2: 1 when Deco dodged the tackle and let the ball through to Alenichev, who turned the ball over.
Three minutes later, Celtic leveled off again. Larsson took advantage of poor markings as he headed powerfully into Alan Thompson’s corner. As Deco remained a constant threat, Martin O’Neill brought Jackie McNamara onto the pitch in 76 minutes to nullify Deco’s threat. In the 80th minute, Bobo Balde took a yellow card. A couple of minutes later, McNamara’s errant pass found Alenichev, but he could not find the target and fired.
Normal time ends with a 2-2 game. Overtime will be played according to the silver rule, whereby the team leading at the end of the first half of overtime will win the match.
Celtic dropped to ten in the 96th minute when Balde was sacked after taking his second yellow card. O’Neill changed the configuration of his team, moving McNamara back to fill the defense gap caused by Balde’s firing.
The first half of extra time came without a change in the score, so the silver goal rule did not apply.
In the second half of extra time, Celtic could not hold out on a penalty kick as Derley reacted fastest to Douglas’ block in the 115th minute and rounded McNamara to make it 3-2. Porto sent Nuno Valente at the last minute, but no further goals meant they ended a 16-year wait for another European trophy.
Text on this page is adapted from Wikipedia 2003 UEFA Cup Final
Material used under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike License
90,000 Charlatans and Useful Idiots – VIII.Conservative jaw augmentation methods: healthy_back – LiveJournal Contents: https://healthy-back.livejournal.com/436663.html#Cont (https://healthy-back.dreamwidth.org/424733.html#Cont)
Back: https://healthy-back.livejournal.com/438191.html (https://healthy-back.dreamwidth.org/426004.html)
Forward: https://healthy-back.livejournal.com/438847.html (https://healthy-back.dreamwidth.org/426961.html)
Methods for augmentation of the jaws
Situation with surgical treatment of UARS, snoring and apnea in Russia + neck muscles https: // healthy-back …livejournal.com/410603.html (https://healthy-back.dreamwidth.org/401437.html)
More about distractors for jaw augmentation https://healthy-back.livejournal.com/414692.html (https: / /healthy-back.dreamwidth.org/405390.html)
On the expansion of the palate in adults, conservatively (https://healthy-back.livejournal.com/387453.html, https://healthy-back.dreamwidth.org/379343 .html)
Keywords https://healthy-back.livejournal.com/389586.html (https://healthy-back.dreamwidth.org/381336.html)
What are we talking about now we are talking: we are talking about the expansion of the upper jaw along this middle seam.
This is what the expansion of the nasal cavity can give:
Pictures: http://spina.pro/anatomy/kosti/ kosti-golovy / topografija-cherepa / kostnoe-nebo.php
Methods for expanding the palate are conservative and with the help of surgery. It is “using”, not “surgical”, and I will write below why.
The key to the success of conservative methods is the appropriate age for each device.More precisely, it is not so much about age, but about the degree of ossification of the seams, which depends on age, gender and general metabolism:
– 2-8 years old ALF
– 8-12 years old conservative dilators and “plates”
– 12-15 years old MSE dry
– 15-30 MSE with surgical incision (osteotomy)
– after 30 KLS or MSE with surgical incision (osteotomy).
In men, the sutures ossify later, but faster than in women. In people with hypermobility, they ossify later than in relatively healthy people.The degree of ossification is assessed “by eye” on the basis of age and gender.
Alternative Lightwire Functionals / Advanced Lightwire Functionals (ALF)
The device was developed by Dr. Darick Nordstrom (remember that name) is relatively new. On Pabmed, I don’t see any articles about its effectiveness compared to other devices.
This is a thin wire that exerts pressure on the underside of the teeth.
Markets this device as “Craniosacral orthodontics / using the principles of cranial / craniosacral osteopathy with the ability to align the upper jaw and base of the skull, correct the cranial and upper cervical structural curvatures, extend (and expand) the lower jaw and promote changes in muscle function to achieve long-term physiological results in improved patient spinal alignment, posture, occlusion, TMJ disorders, sensory processing / nervous system dysfunction, arch and palate development, airway changes, and which can lead to dramatic behavioral and lifestyle changes for both adults and for children, biomodulating the autonomic nervous system, making ALF a highly effective therapy and ‘transitional’ treatment for patients and, in particular, children with sensory and nervous system dysfunction such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and ADHD. “
According to the same legend, it “gently stimulates bone growth at any age, in contrast to the brute force of other devices, and thus allows you to enlarge the jaw, again at any age.”
There are many references to this device, but they are all religious. That is, there is NO confirmation to all these high goals and words:
https://naturaldentistrycenter.com/natural-dentistry/advanced-lightwire- functionals-alf /
https: // www.smlglobal.com/alf-alternative-lightwire-functional
Fortunately, they included craniosacral osteopathy in the description of this device. This is exactly what I am well versed in:
– 10-15 years ago, I spent a significant amount of time and money on osteopathy. I changed about 20 therapists and took about 100 sessions in total.
– I read the theory and even laid out books
– I took a course of craniosacral osteopathy and practiced it myself
– I wrote a post Therapist must be healthy! https: // healthy-back.livejournal.com/237923.html (https://healthy-back.dreamwidth.org/221989.html)
The final conclusion about osteopathy is: An unusual pleasant massage / body work. Therapists themselves do not really understand what they are doing. Sometimes they get something , and then the manipulations give a stable result – as a rule, this is the elimination of pain, but there may be other functional problems. And this is great, especially in contrast to high-speed manual therapy with twitching and crunching, after which then everything does not just go back, but becomes even worse than it was.Sometimes osteopaths fail. They CANNOT eliminate structural violations.
What ALF does: It moves the teeth to the edge of the jaw. This gives the illusion of widening the jaw.
Look: the palate itself remains exactly the same width as it was. The middle seam does NOT diverge. In the first photo, the gum is visible from the outside of the teeth, in the second photo this is not.
This pushing the teeth to the edge of the jaw is really capable of slightly increasing the volume of the mouth, comfort for the tongue and, as a result, well-being.The enlargement of the gaps between the teeth really gives the illusion of jaw growth. BUT!
Attributing this movement of teeth to the edge of magical properties and calling it “growth” is pure, unclouded fraud. No, there is no “growth stimulation” there.
Can I install it? No problem, if you give yourself an account of what you are going on. If you are satisfied with pushing your teeth to the edge of the jaw and you are aware that you will need to wear this device for life.Yes. Do you still remember one of the reasons for the emergence of the protocol for the massive removal of healthy teeth? Sure. Instability of correction, relapse, relapse. No, retailers work as long as they are. Since the place on the jaw is really physically gone, the correction then leaves. Sometimes partially, sometimes – completely to the original state.
Should I put it on children? If it is, then at the age of 2-8 years. In general, there are no studies, as has been said.
The fact is that at this age the skull, along with the jaws, grows by itself.Even if after installing this device something has improved, you do not know why it happened – ALF helped or just the child grew up. The process is similar to the “treatment” of influenza: if treated, it takes 7 days, if not treated, then in a week.
Functionally similar to ALF
Hyrex / Hyrax, Derichsweiler, McNamara, Haas, Marco Rosa / palatal dilator
Picture: https: // www.researchgate.net/figure/A-Haas-type-expander-and-B-hyrax-type-expander-at-the-end-of-the-active-phase-of-RME_fig1_51616378
These are all about the same thing. The bottom line is that a certain device is aimed at the teeth and then unwinds with a screw, increasing the width of the upper jaw.
BioBlock, Vivos Appliance / DNA Appliance / DNA Vivos Appliance, plate
Read the article in Russian: http: // orto-info …ru / sistemyi-vyiravnivaniya-zubov / lechebno-profilakticheskie-apparatyi / plastinyi-dlya-osnovnyie-vidyi-i-tsenyi.html
Unlike palatal dilators, these devices have wires or springs to apply pressure to transmit on the expansion of the CROSS sutures and thus to increase the LENGTH of the upper jaw.
Anterior Growth Guided Appliance (AGGA), Forward Growth Guided Appliance (FGGA) / Fixed Anterior Growth Guided Appliance (FAGGA)
Image: https: // ronald-ead.squarespace.com/blog/2018/1/31/the-best-adult-palate-expander
Mandibular Repositioning Nighttime Appliance (mRNA)
Removable mouth guard, only worn at night. But he is also trying to push something apart.
Devices that can theoretically promote the growth of the upper jaw FORWARD
The devices discussed above mainly increase the WIDTH of the upper jaw.There are claims for an increase in LENGTH, but things go badly beyond claims. These devices have little physical capacity to provide the force needed to pull the seams apart. They can only rest on the molars, use them as an anchor and a fulcrum.
What is Newton’s 3rd Law: The force of action is equal to the force of reaction and is opposite to it in direction. Everything. This is taught at school in physics lessons in class 6. Now all this is easily googled and searched.https://fmclass.ru/phys.php?id=485a669e72f58
The force of impact cannot come from anywhere. It has a fulcrum and direction, even if you are not aware of them. An Impact Force always has a Counter Force of .
There are two problems with all masks and devices for extending the upper jaw forward:
2) direction of the Force of influence
1) Picture: https://www.innovativeorthocenters.com/appliances/
There are more similar masks here https: // www.greatlakesdentaltech.com/products/orthodontic-treatment/headgear-face-cribs/protraction-face-masks.html.
As the fulcrum of this mask is the chin, when using it, the lower jaw will go back. This is bad in itself + will injure the TMJ. Well, or she won’t pull the bone with sufficient force.
Below are masks and devices with attempts to bring the fulcrum from the lower jaw anywhere.
2) Collar-heron-faucet. Already better with a fulcrum, but still bad with the direction of force.She pulls her jaw DOWN.
Pictures: http://thecranencrp.com/aboutthecrane.html, http://thecranencrp.com/images/Crane_Brochure_4.11.pdf
Now we look at the list of providers and what we see: Dr. Darick Nordstrom. Yes, this is the same Darick Nordstrom, who is the inventor of the magical ALF. Why does he use this collar when he treats everyone with such wonderful ALF?
This collar is sold at a price close to $ 10 thousand, judging by the reviews in the FB.Therefore, it is quite natural that someone tried to do something similar on their own.
This guy even has a CT / X-ray. I personally do not see any increase in the upper jaw there, but I see that the lower one has moved back anyway.
5) http: // www.forwardontics.com/bow.html
The only well-made professional device. Emphasis on the forehead and chest, the direction of force forward and up. The cost is also about $ 10 thousand, although there is nothing to cost that kind of money.
I don’t know how realistic it is to wear all this. I know that there was such a film called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, where the plot revolves around the childhood trauma of the protagonist due to wearing a bridle to correct a bite in childhood.
Picture: https: // alignortho.ca / 10-celebrities-with-braces-in-famous-movies /
Using these devices at the wrong age
All of the above devices work until about 12 years old, until the stitches become ossified. They actually pull bones, using the teeth as fulcrum. Their effectiveness is regularly and constantly discussed and it is not that the truth has been established even for this age.
Quackery occurs when these devices begin to be used beyond their age, especially on adults.That is, they make unrealistic promises.
– The simplest thing that happens is time and money wasted. They just won’t work, nothing happens in terms of expansion. But in general, it must be said that all these devices are quite voluminous, they interfere with eating, swallowing, talking, injuring the tongue and mucous membranes.
– May cause gum recession. The recession case is just described in the blog https://ronald-ead.squarespace.com/new-blog-1/2018/1/31/the-best-adult-palate-expander (https: // healthy-back.livejournal.com/387453.html, https://healthy-back.dreamwidth.org/379343.html). He had no luck with both the wire-plastic device and the metal AGGA (see below).
– Failed expansion attempts are painful.
– As I wrote earlier, the use of devices such as Hyrex / Hyrax (Hirex) can simply lead to the loss of teeth – in adults, the separation of the middle suture does not occur, and these glands break out the teeth.
– All studies of the use of such devices in children did NOT include airway studies, but only assessed the increase in arch length and opportunities for tooth replacement.Studies with such images (this is CT) are generally a terrible rarity. In short, you can get the fanning of the palate. It does not affect at all or minimally affects the airways and, accordingly, minimally affects posture, sleep and stress levels.
– The most widespread phenomenon is again pushing the teeth to the edge of the jaw and tilting the teeth outward like a fan.
Fan teeth. Specifically in this photo after the braces. This is a fairly standard phenomenon when trying to squeeze teeth into a small jaw:
This is exactly the inclination of the teeth fanned out as ” bone growth “. In this case, the profile really changes and the tilt of the head can change. The worst thing is that the patients themselves do not realize this, and they continue to support this story about “grown jaws” in their reviews.
There is one more important phenomenon, which I already mentioned briefly above and which either do not know about, or are purposefully denied by official orthodontists:
the body reacts so sensitively to the restriction of the airways that ANY increase in the UPPER jaw (both due to the expansion of the palate, and due to the inclination of the teeth with a fan, and due to the pushing of the teeth to the edge of the jaw) contributes to
1) the extension of the LOWER jaw and
2) changes head tilt.
And this is here muscle relaxation around the TMJ (TMJ) is sold as growth of the lower jaw bone, which in fact is not there.
We look at the spine. The man clearly began to tilt his head forward, due to which the airways increased. What happened to the general posture is unknown.
A story specifically about Anterior Growth Guided Appliance (AGGA), Forward Growth Guided Appliance (FGGA) / Fixed Anterior Growth Guided Appliance (FAGGA)
Over the past 20-40 years, many places in the world have legalized gambling, income in Las Vegas fell.To compensate for this decline, they opened a dental institute and began training “progressive dentists” (Las Vegas Institute for Advanced Dental Studies, abbreviation LVI can often be seen). Here they are just preparing those who install these AGGAs. All this is completely open.
The main story is exactly the same as in ALF: “the device stimulates something, maybe a nerve on the palate, maybe the edge of a bone, and it stimulates the growth of bones.”
And in some group in FB, most likely an aunt came to Extraction Orthodontics Reversal, laid out her X-rays , which is generally a rarity.
Result: 2 years in AGGA + braces, $ 12 thousand price issue, result: teeth in a fan. I wanted to save the picture, but when I realized, she had already deleted it.
This is where this very phenomenon happened: the teeth on the UPPER jaw fanned out -> the LOWER jaw moved out. There was no growth of any bone and no.
Now it turned out that with AGGA he moved his teeth very close to the edge of the jaw, and talks about it at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNpNLCgjyE8
Therefore, I always say that you need to watch X-rays, and not photos, especially profile pictures.
I just wanted to write that these gaps between the teeth, which he type-mined with the help of AGGA – there is no bone growth. He just moved his teeth like that. To the edge of the jaw + behind the molars, there is often a place in the back, especially if the 8s have been removed not so long ago.
Whether this device works at any age, whether it is worth installing before 12 years is unknown. There is nothing on Pabmed, there are no X-rays in the public domain.
The secret pyramid in the USA, which did not come in handy “I’m Tired
You’ve probably guessed by now that this is the Missile Site Radar.We also have a radar station “Don-2N” of a similar design in Sofrino. So what is so special about this American radar? There is one interesting feature, and it is not at all technical. $ 6 billion was spent on the construction of this radar in the 70s, and when the construction of this gigantic structure was completed along with a military missile base and put into service, the next day the US Congress decided to stop work on the project. The entire base, including the radar, was dismantled and mothballed.
In 1967, Robert McNamara announced the start of work on the “Sentinel” program, aimed at protecting US territory from a nuclear missile attack. The system was based on the Nike-X program and included two echelons of interception – external, transatmospheric, using long-range Spartan missiles, and internal intra-atmospheric, using Sprint short-range missiles.
It was assumed that the system will provide confident protection of American territory from a limited missile attack.During this period, communist China was considered the most likely potential aggressor: American experts believed that while the Soviet leadership understood the danger of an atomic war and would not risk starting one, the Chinese political elite was much less adequate and could use nuclear blackmail for foreign policy tasks. It was assumed that China, for technical and economic reasons, would not be able to deploy a significant arsenal of long-range missiles, and the missile defense system would be able to defend against a Chinese attack.
In addition, the task of the Sentinel system was to protect strategic facilities in the United States – command centers, ICBM basing areas, strategic aviation airfields and bases of submarine missile carriers – from the threat of a “disarming” strike. The atomic strategy of that time believed that the enemy (the USSR or the PRC) could try to inflict a sudden nuclear strike of limited power using carriers with a short reaction time – submarine ballistic missiles, or orbital atomic charges – in order to cover the American nuclear arsenal at positions before how the launch commands will be sent.These fears were fueled by intelligence data on the creation of its own missile defense systems in the Soviet Union. In the event that most of the American ICBMs were disabled by a disarming strike (which was unlikely, but possible), even existing missile defense systems would be able to neutralize the few remaining missiles.
Finally, the system reduced the likelihood of starting a full-scale war due to an accidental launch of a ballistic missile, or because of a deliberate provocation by a third party (again, this was considered China, which had an incentive to provoke a conflict between the USSR and the United States).A missile defense system could stop such a limited strike and give both sides time to resolve the situation peacefully.
The deployment plans involved the creation of seventeen anti-missile bases in the United States (including Alaska and Hawaii). Four of them were intended to protect the Minuteman ICBM deployment airbases, two to cover naval bases and radar complexes in Alaska and Hawaii, the other eleven to protect the largest population centers, including Washington, New York, Boston, Chicago. Detroit, Albany, Dallas, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Salt Lake City and Seattle: Given the range of the Spartan missiles, this meant that the entire US was de facto receiving anti-missile cover.
The Sentinel program was developed from 1963 to 1964, and during the work, the main architectural solutions of the future Safeguard were created. However, as the program developed, significant problems began to arise:
– The creation of an absolutely reliable missile defense system was still not possible
– The deployment of even a limited global missile defense could spur the USSR into a new round of the arms race, to which the United States would be forced to respond
– Even in the ideal case, the system protected only limited areas (even the largest population centers) from a limited attack
– Although the external (extra-atmospheric) missile defense echelon did not pose a danger to civilians, the detonation of warheads of the internal (intra-atmospheric) defense echelon could be dangerous for the protected areas themselves.
– Finally, the deployment of such a system would in itself stimulate the enemy to launch a preemptive strike in the event of any conflict – since the enemy would fear the threat of a disarming strike from the United States (whose missile defenses would help them neutralize a weakened enemy retaliation).
In 1967, the US Department of Defense announced a revision of its vision of a promising missile defense system. From now on, the concept was based on the protection of exclusively strategic objects of military infrastructure from the threat of a disarming surprise attack.The revised Sentinel program was named Safeguard, a precautionary measure, to reflect its purpose.
It was assumed that the presence of missile defense systems to protect strategic objects would make it impossible for the enemy to destroy these objects with a disarming strike of a small number of warheads (for example, a surprise strike from a submarine that came close to the US coast). The enemy will not be able to prepare a massive strike unnoticed: its preparation will inevitably attract the attention of intelligence and alert the United States.Thus, without violating the strategic balance as such (since the population centers of the United States were open to retaliatory attacks by the enemy), the system guaranteed the survival of the American nuclear arsenal in the event of a sudden enemy disarming strike.
Strategic command centers, ballistic missile basing areas, strategic aviation airfields, and missile-carrying submarine bases were now considered as the main objects to be covered. The task of the system was not to resist massive missile strikes, but to make it impossible to hit these targets with a small number of missiles – which the enemy could quietly deploy near US territory.
The initial deployment plan, adopted in 1968, called for the deployment of missile bases to provide protection for the following Phase I facilities:
– Whiteman AFB, Missouri, on which 150 ICBMs Minuteman
were based – Malmstrom AFB ), Montana, where 150 Minuteman
ICBMs were based – Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota, where 150 Minuteman ICBMs were based
Thus, the Safeguard system protected 450 ICBMs from a disarming strike, which should was enough to guarantee mutual destruction in the event of any aggression.In the future, the possibility of deploying anti-missile bases and to cover other strategic objects was considered. However, at an early stage of preparation, Whitman was dropped from the plan (although a location for the deployment of radars and missiles had already been selected) and construction focused on only the other two bases.
The first phase also considered the deployment of a missile base to protect Washington and (to a limited extent) neighboring population centers.  In the future, the number of anti-missile bases was expected to be increased to twelve.
In 1972, the USA and the USSR signed the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, which limited the creation of strategic missile defense systems.
The main goal of the treaty was to ensure the maintenance of the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, and thus – to reduce international tension and the risk of an atomic war. By pledging not to deploy global missile defense systems (however, the treaty did not prohibit the development and testing of such), both sides ensured a situation in which a surprise attack by one side would always be parried by an enemy nuclear retaliation strike.Thus, the awareness of their own defenselessness should have deterred both sides from the idea of starting a new world war.
The treaty, however, took into account the fears of strategists about the likelihood of a limited disarming strike. Therefore, according to the treaty, each side could deploy no more than one strategic missile defense area to protect its most important strategic targets. Each area was supposed to include no more than 100 interceptor missiles with a range of no more than 1000 km.It was assumed that this would be enough to exclude the threat of a disarming strike, while at the same time not upsetting the strategic balance.
Due to the treaty, work on the Malmstrom missile defense was halted, although major engineering work had already been completed. The US Army Command considered it more important to complete the construction of an anti-missile base in North Dakota, which the United States has chosen as a legal area for missile defense.
In 1975, Stanley Mikelsen Missile Defense Base in North Dakota was put on alert.The base was located on the territory of the Grand Forks airbase, covering all squadrons of ballistic missiles with their anti-missiles.
The central position of the complex included:
– early warning radar
– missile position radar
– 30 located in six rows of five Spartan anti-missile silos
– 16 arranged in four rows of four Sprint anti-missile silos (intended for the defense of the complex itself )
Around the main complex, covering the spaced positions of ballistic missiles, four Remote Missile Positions were located (eng.Remote Missile Sites) of Sprint missiles: positions 1 and 2 each had 12 launchers, position 3 had 16 launchers, and position 4 had 14 launchers. In total, the outer positions had up to 54 Sprint missiles
Such an architecture of the base made it possible to intercept up to 30 warheads at the transatmospheric defense line, and up to 12 – when attacking each separate section of the complex at the atmospheric one. From its position in Grand Forks, the Safeguard complex provided partial missile defense for all of North and South Dakota, Minnesota, most of Wisconsin, and eastern Montana.
The Safegurad system was put on alert in 1975: but the very next day, Congress decided to discontinue work on the project. This was due to a change in the doctrine of ensuring the security of strategic missile forces – the beginning of the rearmament of American submarine missile carriers with UGM-73 Poseidon missiles with MIRVs. The construction of the pyramid cost taxpayers a whopping $ 5.7 billion, and in February 1976, after a year and three months of active work, it was simply decommissioned.
All weapons were removed from the pyramid in El Paso. The interiors were filled with concrete, leaving only an empty shell as a monument to the arms race. For forty years, the pyramid was filled with groundwater, because its drainage pumps were turned off. Today, the US government is unsuccessfully trying to sell the buildings at auction, but so far there are very few people who want to settle in the former military base.
Dispersed in the world’s oceans, the submarine missile carriers were practically invulnerable to disarming strikes.The American navy had forty-one missile-carrying submarines, each with sixteen missile silos, which, provided they were re-equipped with Poseidon missiles, made it possible to base a total of 6,560 warheads on submarines. The significant range of the Poseidons – more than 4600 km – allowed them to avoid areas of dense enemy ASW, launching ballistic missiles from a safe distance. In the future, the appearance of the Trident submarine ballistic missile was expected, possessing an intercontinental range and capable of reaching a target on the territory of the USSR from anywhere in the world ocean.
In light of the prospect of an underwater dispersal of the US nuclear arsenal, the protection from a disarming attack provided by the Safeguard system to just one airbase seemed too expensive. Submarine missile carriers were cheaper, more efficient and more versatile than stationary complexes. In 1976, five months after being put on duty, the North Dakota facility was mothballed.
Currently, the only operational part of the complex is the Perimetric Detection Radar used in the US early warning system.
Unlike most missile defense systems, the Safeguard system was effective enough to fulfill its role. This was due to the fact that the objects protected by it – ballistic missile silos – were dispersed over the area, and well protected from defeat.
The Grand Forks Missile Squadron consisted of three squadrons of ballistic missiles, each of which had five missile regiments, with ten silo-based Minuteman ICBMs each – a total of 15 missile regiments and 150 silo launchers (silos OS).To completely disable the squadron with a sudden disarming attack, the enemy needed at least 15 warheads, just to cover one missile regiment. This was within the framework of the possible – for example, a salvo of one project 667BD submarine consisted of sixteen missiles with nuclear warheads.
However, the Safeguard system interfered with the attacker’s calculations. In theory, the system could neutralize ~ 50 enemy warheads targeting any silo launcher or command post.Even if single warheads were to seep through the defenses, there was no guarantee that they would be sufficient to destroy ALL of the Grand Forks Missile Squadron silos.