Share This Page

Shaler girls volleyball stopped by Upper St. Clair

| Wednesday, Oct. 31, 2012, 8:58 p.m.
Louis Raggiunti
Louis Raggiunti | Pine Creek Journal Shaler's Nicole Pilewski is one of several undercalssemn who are helping Shlaer grow into a powerhouse once again.

Shaler has a young, exciting girls volleyball squad, but the inexperience caught up with the team in the opening round of the WPIAL playoffs in a 3-2 loss to Upper St. Clair.

Shaler jumped out to a 1-0 lead with a 25-16 decision sparked by a four-point run by sophomore Annie Bozzo that pushed the score to 13-6 in Shaler's favor.

Upper St. Clair took the next two sets, 25-20, 25-21.

“We are a very young team and inconsistent at times,” Bozzo said. “We play well at times, but we can get down, too. I learned that I have to do a better job of keeping the team up.”

Shaler refused to quit in the fourth set after trailing, 3-0, and rallied for a 25-23 win. The key to the late surge was the furious play of Lizzy Kline, who seemed to be everywhere. Bozzo, Kline, Nicole and Natalie Pilewski, Liz Rhodes, Sydney Golden, among others, played a role in the rally.

“We just got caught with a couple of breaks in Game 5, and we didn't serve/receive well (against USC),” Shaler coach Kris Ruppert said. “We are usually much better than that, and when you can't serve/receive, you are in trouble.”

She's confident in the team, and with almost all of the players returning, the personal is there to make a deep run next year.

But she added: “We are running out of next years. We have to put up or shut up.”

Seniors Sydney Golden, Angie LaMonica and Lexi Schwartz will graduate, leaving the core of the team intact.

“We will miss them,” Ruppert said. “But we will have almost everyone back, so we have to make a deeper run.”

Jerry Clark is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 724-779-6979 or jeclark@tribweb.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.