HS notes: Avonworth girls soccer thinking big
Avonworth girls thinking big
Last Tuesday's 1-0 win over Vincentian at Highmark Stadium gave No. 3 Avonworth a taste of what the WPIAL finals could feel like.
Figure more victories such as Monday's 2-1 defeat of Bishop Canevin, and a trip to Station Square may become more than a dream.
“Playing down there and seeing that as a goal to return there is something the girls realized,” Antelopes coachJ.C. Mahan said.
Avonworth has rebounded from a season-opening loss to Highlands to win six straight, the latest when senior forward Thanna Oddo sunk the Crusaders with two goals, the second with about 15 minutes to go.
“We finished it off strong,” Mahan said. “We didn't allow them to have much possession after they scored their goal.”
Oddo leads Avonworth (6-1, 4-0 Section 3-A) with 10 goals, four of them game-winners. Freshman Emily Paszkiewicz has a team-high three assists.
This year's seniors — defenders Hannah Croft and Mairead McDonagh and forward Amelia Nahum — have a school-record 46 wins.
Two years ago, the Antelopes reached the WPIAL Class A semifinals and PIAA playoffs for the first time.
“It's the work the girls have put in over the years,” Mahan said. “We're building a program, not just a one-year team.”
• Talk about extremes. Entering Tuesday's games, Quaker Valley had scored 46 goals in eight matches, all wins, for an average of 5.75 per contest. Chartiers Valley had allowed just one goal through its first eight games, though the Colts played three-time PIAA Class AAA champion Peters Township on Tuesday.
— Jason Mackey
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 â 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.