Defensive Thought: Mind the Gap

Posted February 22nd, 2009 by Mackey and filed in Defense, Strategy
Tags:
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet. Click to Rate!)
Loading ... Loading ...

Man D is hard. There’s more than one way to dictate, and the utility of each depends on the situation and your opponent. A good defender needs to be conscious of when it is appropriate to use which kind of style–here, I’ve phrased it in terms of spacing (and I’ve mused on spacing a bit before), but there’s certainly a lot more depth to it.

My views on the utility of various spacings (please chime in with your own):

Playing close (>I’m talking one step away at most–more like a half-step or right up on your man):

  • Pros: you’re in a position to use your body to dictate your man in the direction you want him to go. By planting yourself so close, you block one immediate option–I can set up right behind you deep, for example, and in so doing prevent you from any quick continuation cuts running there–as soon as you turn to go I’m right there, and you have to go around or go the other way to get anything. In many ways, this simplifies your man’s initial set of options, making it a little easier to read and respond to the field situation.
  • Cons: close range is easy to deke. If you commit as a defender to taking away the one direction you’re bodying, you can do it, but more commonly a defender is also to pounce on a cut in the other direction, and a good cutter can use your acceleration against you with a one- or two-step cut there. Alternatively, the chop-step-at-you-go-the-other-way cut tends to get defenders in this position on their heels.

Be wary of biting too hard and really hold your ground here–the real trick to success at this distance is learning when to gear up for the D going the other way and when to hold your position and keep dictating instead. Incidentally, this is the sort of man D I think you see a lot of high-level teams preach–good, intense body D.

Playing mid-range (2-3 steps off):

  • Pros: you put yourself in a position to easily respond to motion in your direction. If your woman is faster than you, the extra time to respond can be key in shutting her down in at least one direction. This also puts you in a good position, relatively speaking, to clog the lane/be in a position to help on D. If a team has no breakside flow and a suspect deep game, playing mid-range on the open-side in is a sure way to force your opponent to work hard to move the disc. Generally speaking, playing at this distance makes you far less susceptible to getting juked and deked (but be wary of letting her get to close-range on you).
  • Cons: you put yourself at an immediate disadvantage in all directions other than the one you choose to take away. If a team uses the break side, you’re likely to only have a shot at setting a mark on the continue, or d’ing up longer, risker breaks. If a team can huck and you’re fronting by this margin (and have no deep help) you’ll want to be a good bit faster than your man to catch up to the long stuff.

This can work pretty well in the context of an intelligent team defense, especially if it uses switches with a last back to maintain pressure on both long and short throws. The main duty in ensuring a setup like that works, however, falls on the mark and handler D to keep the disc from moving to the break side.

It’s also worth noting that this style of D is probably your best bet in muddy/slippery conditions, as a smaller margin tends to force quick responses and slips. In such conditions intelligence and good team D tends to win out over athleticism.

Playing long-range (more than 3ish steps off):

  • Pros: This is basically poaching range. Lending your presence to help your teammates–as deep help, looking for opportunities to poach the lane, or otherwise getting in the way of players that are making a play–can do a lot to frustrate an offense.
  • Cons: This is basically poaching range. If your man can actually do something, or you’re playing a team that has learned to recognize and exploit poaches, you’re more likely to wind up getting burned than rewarded for this kind of play. A single easy move to the break side of the field (or worse, a wide-open huck) can break down an entire defense, so be wary of how your opponent responds to you here.

This is really only advisable either when your opponent is so far out of the play as to be generally irrelevant to scoring, enough of a liability with the disc as to be a better potential D for your side, or when your opponent is so dominating in one way (generally deep) that you’re willing to completely concede anything else to stop it.

Incidentally, if you wind up at this range during a point chasing your man, it’s worth looking around to see if you can help elsewhere for a second, instead of blindly following (alternatively, beeline to where you can stop them next). Assessing where the real threats are and responding to them is the essence of good team D.

Short-mid range (~1-2 steps):

  • Pros: this is a range in which I’d say most high-level defenders stay, especially in horizontal/spread offenses where there’s less assurance of help and clearer indications of your woman’s priority. Generally speaking, you’re attempting to combine the capability to dictate with your body of short range with some of the cushion to respond of mid-range. All it takes is one step in your direction to turn this into short range, and within the span of that extra step you can generally shift to continue dictating in your preferred direction using your body as an obstacle. (be wary of fouling).
  • Cons: it’s very difficult to consistently play D at this range–you have a little more time to respond to your man, but as soon as this becomes a short-range situation you’re susceptible to the jukes and dekes (if you’re really on edge you’re susceptible to jukes and dekes before it even gets that close). Keeping this sort of margin is likely the most tiring way to play D, as you have to constantly adjust as your man moves.

For success here, it’s essential to a) know your goal, as far as where you want to dictate and b) be constantly moving under control, remaining conscious of your body position, so you can continue to work towards a). Typically this is a margin you take when you know your woman is a primary cut and she’s moving to set up, potentially relaxing into a larger margin when she’s out of harm’s way (or attempting to establish a more stagnant close-up body).

As a defender, you want to be capable of playing D at all of these ranges as the situation varies within a given point, between points, between games. Learn when you need to ratchet up the intensity, when you can back off to conserve, when you can look to help. Learn how your cutter responds to different spacing in different situations, and don’t let him get comfortable.

I know there are readers with more to say about this, so please leave comments!

Related posts:

  1. Defensive Thought: Spacing
  2. Defensive Thought: the Hips
  3. Cutting Thought: A Mind for Adjustments
  4. Defensive Thought: Peripheral Vision
  5. Defensive Thought: Outside Shoulder!

5 Responses to “Defensive Thought: Mind the Gap”

  1. Bill Mill says:

    In basketball, when playing man D, should you go over or under a pick?

    The answer, of course, is “yes”.

    Talking about positioning in a man D like this without talking about team D to a zen master would get you thwacked with a branch.

    I agree with some of the “good” and “bad” of the first three, but you shouldn’t judge the value of any of this outside the context of a particular defense.

  2. dusty.rhodes says:

    you know, we could have used someone thinking about defense *at all* in kaimana…

    talking about team d without talking about man d… blah blah blah.

    the answer is neither yes nor no nor not either nor neither.

  3. Mackey says:

    Bill,

    My target audience isn’t a zen master, but feel free to thwack me.

    These are things I’ve noticed, in a vacuum–yes, context is important, and I try to lay out some of that, but given that you’re likely to see myriad contexts as a defender I think it behooves one to put some thought into relative strengths and weaknesses.

    Dusty,

    *thinking* about D and *playing* D are different beasts entirely for me right now–though I’d daresay I’m not in as terrible shape as I once thought. Perhaps enough to outdo the old, creaky Rhodes bones, but we’ll leave that for another day. Someday we WILL play together.

  4. Bill Mill says:

    Mackey,

    what I meant to say is that it’s the *value judgements* that I disagree with, not the thoughts. The thoughts about spacing are absolutely essential, I just think it should be in terms of “pros and cons”, not “good and bad”.

    Which is to say, that, situationally, any of those spacings can be good and any of them can be bad.

  5. Mackey says:

    Bill, fair enough. “good” and “bad” is a rather strong choice of words–like you said, each has its utility.

    I’ll give it a look later and change it if it makes sense in the context of the post. Thanks.

Leave a Reply

Page 1 of 11