March Zone Madness
(No Ratings Yet. Click to Rate!)
Loading ...It’s getting to that point in the season where teams really start to hammer out their zone D sets (and correspondingly ramp up their zone O), so in that spirit, I’m going to tackle the zone issue this month.
Here’s what I’m planning, in a very general sense (I’ve only got a general trajectory right now–filling in the details over the next day or two):
- Several posts dedicated to various zone D sets (including 1-3-3, 3-2-2, junk (clam) sets, transition zones, and maybe another odd set or two): general overview of strategy, pros, cons
- A few posts dedicated to various zone O sets, touching on general strategy/goals and roles
- More posts thereafter from more of a personal development standpoint (i.e., what a good zone cutter needs, what a good zone handler needs)
This will, in all likelihood, run into April, depending on how much content I write. Let’s call it a seasonal focus, perhaps, rather than a monthly one?
In the meantime I want to hear from you about what you’d like me to see tackled. Have information you want to contribute on a given topic (esp. zone sets I haven’t mentioned above and have little expertise on)?
Also, anyone have good recommendations for making diagrams/schematics? Zone is a topic that absolutely begs to be diagrammed. Otherwise I’ll probably default to my MS paint ways…
Shoot me an email or leave a comment.
Also, this is the blog’s 251st post. That’s far too many words I’ve written.
Id be interested in your thoughts about man-to-zone transitions.
Zone when it swings to the trapped side – setting up Zone during a stoppage in play – setting up to look like man on a OB pull but going into the zone when the thrower ground checks it (or presents the disc for a check for throwers that don’t know the rules).
All of these will certainly throw the O a surprise and like you said in a recent article, some defensive sets just work because they succeed in making the throwers and receivers think.
download visio.
it is awesome. then, after your free 60 day try-out is over, you can get it by hook or crook via the internet. a word of advice, don’t be a really geeky engineer and try to scale everything in visio, just make it close (your free time will thank you).
zones are a weird topic because a bad zone can be very effective if the other teams zone offense does not attack it well, and a great zone will get scored on a lot if the team has a good zone offense (just like a good man d will get score on a lot against a good team), but sometimes, without immediate success people will be quick to put zone away.
for instance metal played a very aggressive 1-3-3 and some teams we saw just destroy other teams normal cup zones just could not move the disc well against the 1-3-3 and would constantly throw to our defenders. other teams would blow it up in 3 passes. it all really is about pattern recognition on both O and D and seeing where the available spots to throw and be are.
i think it is no secret that boston uses a lot of different types of zones every game to dictate the pace at which the game is played and to make the offensive players get thrown off rhythm.
the zone itself might not generate a block, but it makes the o play for longer, rests your o players, and then makes the o have to get back in regular man D the next point.
-josh
A four person cup (trapping or FM) is also something that you might want to cover. It’s not as prevalent in the upper levels of open division, but has been extensively and effectively used in the women’s game. It’s a good option against teams that like to swing against a zone D and that don’t look over the top. Additionally, it can serve as a base from which to make further adjustments (like moving one cup player to man-on guard the zone O hub).
Stephen,
Definitely going to talk a bit about the trap set–the setup questions are ones I hadn’t thought about though.
Re: selling the man on an OB throw, we got to a point last year where we’d sort of do it by default, rather than ever having explicitly discussed it, which was kind of cool (and on the off chance we had a rookie who didn’t get it it’d serve to confuse a bit more even (one guy thinks he’s poached, etc).
Josh,
I’ll give visio a look, thanks! Zones are strange in that they’re generally very deliberate about what they give and what they take away (and how they get D’s). I’ll try and flesh that out as I talk about each set, but feel free to chip in what you see–Dartmouth’s always been a man D first school so I’m sure I’ll miss things.
Gwen,
Is a 4-person cup fundamentally different from a 1-3-3? I’ve always sort of had the 4-p-c as a slightly adjusted 1-3 in my mind. If it is, mind sharing your views? I’d be happy to post it here under whatever conditions you might like.
Please discuss the zone to clam transition we ran in ’06.
Seigs,
As I recall, that set genuinely worked (we got to doing the transition, and the other team was confused) maybe once. Most of the other times we either got the D before the clam set or the disc got so deep that we skipped it entirely, isn’t that right?
You can do a guest post on it if you’ve still got that blogging itch…never hurts to scratch it every now and then.
I’ve no idea what it’s called, but we’ve been working on a man-on-man on the handlers and zone upfield. It’s not expected and for one or two points a game it nearly always causes confusion.
I’d love to hear more thoughts about this.
R/D,
In general terms you’re describing what’s commonly known as a “clam” or “junk” D set–will definitely be getting to that one eventually.
It’s a really fun D set to run, especially if you know your teammates well and have good lines of communication to respond to threats on the fly.
Thanks Mackay. In the UK, ‘junk’ is 1-3-3 (or 1-3-2-1 really).
I wish they were called the same – makes it a lot easier!
Gwen,
Why do you think the 4 person cup is so effective in women’s ultimate? It really isn’t clear to me as a spectator why it should be.
if anything, it seems like it would be more effective in the mens game due to the fact that men can generally cover more ground in the same amount of time, so the wings would be able to get more d’s even when double teamed, but this isn’t the case.
However, it just looks smothering when you watch a team just swing, swing, get trapped, and then have to make a difficult throw to get out of it.
I don’t see too many women’s teams (both at club and college levels, although, i must confess, I don’t see too many games) playing a zone O with a two handler set of any kind. Maybe three or so that i can think of.
but, i do see sometimes a 4 handler offense trying to beat a 4 person cup, and it makes me wonder why you would want to do that to create a 3 vs 3 matchup downfield instead of a 5 vs 3 or a 4 vs 3. if the downfield people are just playing man to man at that point, the 4 players are going to have to work it up inch by inch.
and, if a 4 person cup is anything like a 1-3-3, the zone really, really wants to get the disc to the sideline where it can clamp down and limit throwing options.
However, when it is in the middle of the field, it really can’t pressure the thrower anymore than a 3 man cup can, if anything, there will be a double team for the offense normally in the middle of the field.
Thoughts?
-josh
Josh–
I sent Mackey some additional clarifications on the 4 person cup zone, which I think he’s posting next week. In response to your specific question about why I think it has worked so well in the women’s game, it’s partly because women’s teams seem to look over the top of a zone less frequently than open teams (not entirely sure why that is, though). There are often holes in the zone behind the 4-p cup in the middle of the field which quick hammers, scoobers, and blades can expose. Instead, if your zone O relies much more on swinging, it can be hard to swing around a 4-person cup that curls and tries to make the offense lose yards on all dump and swings.
With regard to how many handlers women’s team play zone O with, I think you’re right that fewer women’s teams play with a true 2-handler set. A lot of teams still use the old standard 3 person swing, but that is becoming less common the more the 4-p cup has been used. In fact, Riot changed its zone O and completely embraced the 2-handler set after the 2003 finals when they struggled against Fury’s 4-p cup. Now Riot’s zone O is quite effective against a traditional 4-person cup. Other teams seem to use a hybrid handler set that oscillates between having 2 and 4 handlers. 2 main throwers in the middle of the field and two people out wide that look to push upfield when necessary, but also get involved to offer swings and help get the team out a trap.
Obviously, if you can get away with just 2 handlers working the disc, you have a major advantage downfield against a 4 person cup. But usually you have to be willing to go over the top. If you aren’t willing to do that (which many women’s teams seem loathe to do), they you need to get more handlers involved.