After spotting section rival Riverview a three-goal lead at the half, Royals coach Mitch Riehle knew poor marking on corner kicks is what put his squad in a hole.
“We didn't do a good job marking on those corner kicks, and we came out a little flat which was my fear,” Rhiele said. “I told them at the half, let's go out and win the second half. Let's push it to a 3-3 tie and take it to overtime.”
The Royals almost did exactly that before falling, 3-2. Mike Haberman converted on a penalty kick early in the second half, and Alec Costa did a nice job in front of a crowded net to score the Royals' second goal.
Vincentian cranked it up, and although the team had probably two or three good scoring opportunities, Vincentian just could not draw any closer.
“I was hoping to let our fitness take control in the second half,” Riehle said.
Riehle would have preferred a win, but the Royals punched their playoff ticket regardless.
“I wanted to finish strong and get a top-four seed, but now our focus is a strong finish,” Riehle said. “We want to go into the playoffs on a high note.”
The deepest any Royals team has made it in the WPIAL playoffs was the semifinals, so that is the goal Riehle set for his team. To accomplish that feat, the team has to win three games.
“I am proud of how we came back in the second half against Riverview,” Riehle said.
“Close games will help you as a team, and we have six underclassmen starting, so this experience is good for them.”
Jerry Clark is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-779-6979 or email@example.com.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.