Thoughts. » Defense

More on Emotional Defense

Mackey — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:58:00 +0000

I wrote on this a good while ago, musing on the effectiveness of playing all-out (emotionally driven, make-a-play-at-all-costs) D vs playing smart (seeking to contain more often than to strike aggressively). ( I find I tend towards containment D more often than not).

The example I offered then was that of the layout attempt; it’s great to try for the layout D, but a missed bid leaves the thrower unmarked for a couple counts (and against a good team, those few seconds can be enough to seal the fate of the point off of a quick give-n-go or break-side huck).

This same aggression vs containment dichotomy plays out more commonly on the mark. Often after some tight play, or in tense circumstances, players try to compensate by ratcheting up intensity on the mark.

I usually see this play out with a few consequences:

The mark tends to foul more often. In any high-level play, this tendency is a liability (allowing free throws); against a weaker (/inexperienced) thrower this may yield the pressure-based turn.

The mark gets close. This ties in to #1 very clearly; again, this can work against weaker throwers, and often will not have dire consequence in the short term, but a close mark is vulnerable to step-through breaks (see Marking Adjustments for a bit more on the trade-offs of various spacings).

The mark jumps back and forth more aggressively, and will try more for point blocks. This is the most frequently exploited tendency in an aggressive mark, and one we all fall victim to from time to time. The desire to do more than just contain and prevent the break throw, to shift over and ramp up pressure to the open side, often creates the extra pressure intended; as a thrower, however, there’s nothing easier to beat than a mark that will shift early and often–without even making a full pivot, a good thrower can deke a mark into giving up an IO or huck angle, or bait an open-side strike to exploit an easy open-side opportunity. (Conversely, it’s the patient marks, who know what the thrower wants and refuse to concede it, that prove the most frustrating).

To be clear, there is a time and place for ramping up the pressure and aggressiveness of your mark. The unexpected strike on an open-side throw, a mark that is right on the border of the disc space call, any shift from a more passive role can and will take a thrower off-guard and may result in the turnover you seek; but don’t forget that it’s establishing a consistent D first–having a baseline to vary from–that makes aggression effective.

Predictable aggression (or passivity) is exploitable. Be unpredictable to your opponent (but predictable to your teammates; that’s the real trick to playing Team Defense).

Related posts:

Defensive Adjustments: The Mark (Dynamic)

Defense!

Marking Thought: The Hole-y Mark

Use Pivot Planes For Better Breaking

Mackey — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Do you think about your step when you’re throwing?

Not just the mechanics of it (more on that in a later post), but WHERE you step to.

Cara Crouch’s post for the Huddle’s Team USA issue alludes to “throw[ing] from a plane that is not parallel to [the mark's]” for better throwing, and I thought it was important enough to flesh out a bit more.

There are two extremes to your pivot planes; In practice, your pivot* will of course wind up somewhere between the two. The planes are relative to your intended throwing direction, e.g. the dump, upfield:

Horizontal–this is the default you see from novice to early-intermediate throwers. Side-to-side motion; staying in this plane allows success in some situations, but marks tend to work primarily in this plane too, so it turns beating the mark into a pivot speed/reach contest. Some can win this contest consistently.

Vertical–this is where the magic happens when a thrower has the disc in her hands. As I said above, marks are primarily horizontally concerned; if you catch a mark too close to you in the vertical plane, it generally becomes a simple feat to step forward, through the mark (or “past” it if you prefer), and make break throws to all sorts of places on the field. Conversely, if a mark is too far off, you gain a wider range of options working in the horizontal plane (I’ve already discussed this a bit talking about adjustments on the mark).

The best break throwers I’ve seen, if perhaps not reliant upon using the vertical plane to create breaks, are at least familiar and comfortable with it. I think this evolved at first as a response to the hack-tastic mark; step through the mark, draw a foul, get a free chance to try the break! But even without the foul factor**, it’s well worth mastering in its own right, a pivotal rung on the ladder climbing from novice to stud.

*Yes, yes, great throwers don’t pivot–when I say “pivot plane” I really mean “step to throw.” Only one of those alliterates nicely for a title.

**Correct me if I’m wrong, but the “nightclub” mark (goal: get in the thrower’s pants) seems to be on the wane.

Related posts:
Absolute and Practical Pivot Ranges

Throwing Thought: Throw Convincing, Effective Fakes

More on Emotional Defense

Defend Smarter, Not Harder

Mackey — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 04:00:00 +0000

In the kuru game at Tajima I was covering a pretty energetic cutter at one point; primary cutter, he cut in after a few stutter steps. Being right with him (didn’t bite on the stutter), and given that I was forcing him under and could see the thrower, I was in a position to

Make a play on a throw to him and

See that there was, in fact, no chance he was going to be thrown to…the thrower had already turned to look dump.

While he hauled ass on his under cut, I cruised, well under control. He followed this cut with a clear to the break side–again, the thrower was not looking here (I believe there was a dump to the open side in fact)–no need to respect the cut. Again he hauled, while I cruised.

Two lessons here.

For defenders, knowing the offense and how it flows (or just recognizing situations–remember, anticipate!) will make you more efficient (and open opportunities to poach).

For cutters, recognize what spaces are threats–and when! Getting open is worthless if you’re not a threat to get the disc–it’s just a glorified clear at best, and at worst you’re wasting your energy. The best cutters not only beat their defenders, they do so at points when they can do real damage.

Related posts:
"Heels," Roles, and Basics (Response to Issue 12, "Endzone Cutting")

Why Cutters Should Read the Mark, Too

Cutting Thought: On Being the Primary Cut, and Not Cutting

Defnsive Adjustments: Downfield

Mackey — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 04:00:00 +0000

Mark (Static) | Mark (Dynamic) | Downfield

Downfield adjustments involve making changes along a few spectra:

Initial positioning
Simply a change in what you’re communicating to the offense. You can communicate “we’re scared of the deep and will give you the under” with a shift to an all-backing D.

Spacing
One adjustment might go from a couple steps off to close and bodying. What might make the O’s job harder? Sometimes big margins are what you want–they can discourage any motion in the first place, and a D that takes up more space (relative to a stack) can look more imposing. Sometimes an imposing-looking D is all you need.

Bite-ability
How hard you chase. Do you respect the break-side cut? (Have they been using the break side at all yet? Are you getting burned on break-side fakes followed by open-side cuts? Not all cutting directions are made equal). Do you concede the deep cut, trusting in your mark or the wind to stop the huck?

Poach-ability
How much you look to help or poach. If you’re getting burned on failed poaches, a recommitment to hard man on JUST your man is in order. If they’re hosing you deep, some extra heads-uppedness on the part of your last back will give you an extra defender there to make a play. Perhaps you need to work some switches against their set play, or get those sideline defenders closer to the middle of the field, where the isos are happening.

These sorts of adjustments can be made simultaneously, but it’s hard to mandate for big shifts in more than one spectrum at a time–keep in mind that these adjustments are made both in the heat of a point or game in a given matchup between defender and cutter as well as on a team-wide basis, and when you mandate the latter you necessarily hinder the former. The team defensive adjustment typically tends to be reactive to shore up your weaknesses rather than to exploit your opponent’s (e.g., you encourage players to play more physical, body D because they’re getting run past easily), but think also about how some of these adjustments can be made proactively to keep an offense off-balance or exploit a weakness (e.g., the opponent hasn’t used the IO break at all, perhaps due to your stellar marking, so you encourage downfield players to cheat an extra step or two into the lane and poach more, punishing the opponent’s reliance on the open side).

As with other adjustments, making them effectively requires preparation and practice. It’s hard to suddenly flip from honest man to poaching if there are no players on the team experienced in such; likewise for bodying up on defense. Think about the kinds of tools you want your team to have in the arsenal–you don’t have to have all of them, but you should have a couple–and refine them into effective weapons come game time.

What other sorts of adjustments do you see made downfield? Would love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

Related posts:
Defensive Adjustments: A Key to High-Level Success

Defensive Adjustments: The Mark (Dynamic)

Defensive Adjustments: The Mark (Static)

Team USA’s Huddle Entries

Mackey — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 04:09:00 +0000

Solid gold! And I’m not just talking about Team USA’s prospects at the World Games.

If you read only one thing about cutting, read Bart Watson’s piece. Concise but full of useful information; re-reading is certain to yield more information than the first glance. His thoughts on cutting not only echo mine, but exceed them. I especially like his notion of “control[ling] your defender;” it’s a nice, succinct way to think about your goals as a cutter, and synergizes nicely with my favorite “create space, attack space.”

Gwen’s assertion that an aspiring deep threat should first focus on top speed is one I disagree with. Top speed is certainly useful, but acceleration comes into play far more often. (Ultimately this might harken back to Bart’s article as far as what kind of cutter you are/want to be–the sort who gets open in 1-2 step moves or one who powers through cutting lanes?) The attributes are tied, such that working one will tend to help the other, but I think that flow still favors training for acceleration.

Additionally, there’s a lot of other good stuff on handling generally. The emphasis on vision is pertinent, and the lack of good coachable points for that is understandable, as it tends to come from experience; I do like Cara Crouch’s point that the best handlers don’t follow cuts with their eyes, but use their peripheral vision well–this is something I’ve seen and tried in limited roles, but never thought to incorporate as a full-time component. I also like her point that a good handler senses the plane of the mark and avoids conforming to it by stepping toward or away from the mark.

I really like the stuff on defensive handlers from Seth Wiggins and Adam Simon from a strategy standpoint, in terms of what to look for from the position. Additionally, I LOVE the notion of D-line offenses as “quarterbacked” by a couple strong handlers vs. the more diverse attacks of O-lines.

What are you waiting for? Go read.

Related posts:
Why Cutters Should Read the Mark, Too

Cutting Thought: On Being the Primary Cut, and Not Cutting

Cutting Thought: Use your Opponent’s Acceleration

Defensive Adjustments: The Mark (Dynamic)

Mackey — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:32:00 +0000

Mark (Static) | Mark (Dynamic) | Downfield

You’ve got the disc on the sideline. The mark is counting, “two, three…”

You think your buddy Charlie is about to get open, but he slips on the plant and you turn to face the dump as the mark reaches “five.”

All season long you’ve practiced looking at the dump on stall five–it’s a quick turn, look, step out and throw, or wait for a cut from the dump and throw. Simple.

This time it’s different though. As you turn, as the mark mouths “five,” he moves with you. All of a sudden that mark that was just in your way as you tried to throw upfield is in your way and completely blocking your throws back. The dump defender is taking away the upline cut. The only option you’ve got is a tough inside-out flick.

This is NOT what you practiced. You turn the disc over.

This is the power of the simple anti-dump adjustment, one of the most prevalent and potent adjustments the mark makes dynamically.

The real power of this adjustment comes when you go from making this a “sometimes” play (as in, sometimes the mark decides to shift over) to an “always” play (as in, the mark ALWAYS shifts over on stall 5 on the sideline [etc]–you even have a call for it so the downfield/dump defender can adjust accordingly).

As you know, the dump is one of the most important components of ultimate strategy, so adjustments you can make on defense to pressure it are always worthwhile (assuming you can actually execute on said adjustments). You can vary the count at which this shift is made–perhaps you shift earlier, on stall 2 or 3, against a weaker thrower, or a team that habitually looks offline earlier, and you can vary the extent to which you move around at other positions as well–I’ve seen it against horizontal offenses where in sideline situations the third, far-side handler defender will flare out into the lane to really discourage early-stall count throws (and then book it back once the thrower commits to the dump–I’m thinking particularly of this year’s Carleton v. Colorado finals video, where the amount on pressure Carleton puts on resets is an unheralded factor in their early lead and eventual win).

Other dynamic adjustments to the mark I’ve seen:

Throwing a flat/straight-up mark for a couple counts early to get in the way and pressure hucks in flow, before shifting to a more conventional mark to pressure breaks/resets. I’ve seen run as an adjustment against just a team’s stud thrower (who presumably is making all these throws) or against a whole team or handler corps if the team as a whole likes to huck.

At one point DoG (and DoG-coached college teams in NE) implemented a truly dynamic mark (as opposed to the planned shifts I’m talking about here); in this case the mark would leap from one side to the other, shifting the force entirely, in order to shut down hucks going one way or the other. This had the downside of making under cuts relatively easier (what with all the shifting downfield defenders had to do), but the goal was of course to shut down the deep game and when the communication worked (it took a lot of work on the sidelines to communicate when to shift back and forth), it met its goal.

The main advantage to making these dynamic adjustments is the shift in control they confer. Typically a defense has to throw a zone, something radically different from the “normal” man D to take control of a game and force the O to respond; even things like changing to a force-middle defense are something the offense reads and adjusts to in a short span (at a high level). With some simple but well-coordinated work on the mark and downfield, the D again gains an upper hand of a sort–just as a cutter has an advantage on her defender because she can choose where and when to cut, a defense that plans on adjusting dynamically gains a second or two of control that the offense must respond to.

It won’t always be the case that those couple seconds will stop the O and get a turn, but barring a psychic offense or a failure to execute, it will slow them down–if not contain them.

There remains a lot of untapped potential in using the extra sideline eyes (or even other players on-field) to guide the mark and the rest of the team’s defense–more on sidelines in a later post, but think about the potential of a well-coordinated defensive line, adjusting on the fly, yet in sync thanks to some outside guidance. The very best defensive lines develop this sort of chemistry over time, but how might we plan and guide this development? How do you institutionalize it?

There remains a TON of room for defensive growth here.

We’ll wrap up (probably) with downfield adjustments next week. Am I missing anything here? Fill in the gaps in the comments.

Related posts:
Defensive Adjustments: The Mark (Static)

Defensive Adjustments: A Key to High-Level Success

Defnsive Adjustments: Downfield

Defensive Adjustments: The Mark (Static)

Mackey — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:00:00 +0000

Mark (Static) | Mark (Dynamic) | Downfield

This is easily the most powerful role on the ultimate field. DO NOT SLACK OFF ON THE MARK!!!

While a mark cannot be expected to take away a whole section of the field with any consistency, a mark can and should be able to make offense difficult in a number of directions by a number of strategies.

Making an adjustment using the mark has two flavors: static and dynamic. The latter involves smart use of the former, so I’ll keep this post limited to static adjustments.

Static adjustments are long-term changes (point to point, perhaps throw to throw).

For example, as referenced in the original post, the mark can make a static adjustment to take away the IO break option if a team is routinely exploiting it. This adjustment can take a couple forms:

The “Flat Mark”

Instead of shuffling on this axis, as you might in a “standard” mark:

The mark moves like this:

This allows the mark to shuffle or set up a bit more in-line with the thrower, almost in a straight-up force. This can be effective against IO breaks that are made with a wide step; however, throwers who break by stepping through the mark are unlikely to be stopped.
The “Stagger”

This is my preferred way to make the adjustment. Taking a cue from Ben Wiggins’ talk on marking at the ’06 UCPC, the mark can stagger with one foot back:

In this instance, the mark’s left foot is further back; this allows the mark to “block back” more, and creates extra space that a step-through break thrower has to penetrate. This still allows for some open-side pressure, but it’s not as imposing as the “flat” mark, applying a bit less pressure.
The “Step Off”

This is perhaps the “best” (read: most consistent) way to take away the IO. Check Force Flick for a bit more on the merits of this (he’s describing something slightly different, but the same idea applies).

Essentially, by stepping off, the extra buffer space you’ve created makes it near impossible for the thrower to step through the mark, or to get a quick release past you (extra space means extra time to react). The big trade-off, of course, is that this mark really concedes the around–perhaps not an attacking around for yards, but a dump cutter can be led pretty easily into the backfield for good horizontal position. You’re trading the certainty of stopping breaks to your specific area for less pressure on throws to other spaces.

Adjustments to take away the around employ similar methods to the “flat” mark, only the mark is angled to take away the backfield while conceding the inside a bit more; a “staggered” mark or a “step off” mark can work too, but unlike the inside, where the mark’s ability to penetrate the mark is essential, an around break goes around the mark (duh), so the crucial thing is less to prevent the throw and more to pressure as many angles as possible–it’s difficult to stop the throw entirely without completely conceding upfield throws, but you can at least force passes into a smaller lane or backwards.

All of these adjustments have their weaknesses, of course. Once a team/player is capable of making static adjustments, the next level is making the mark dynamic, able to shift between states on the fly during the stall count. More on this in a later post. Again, look at Force Flick for ideas on how this should work.

Related posts:
Defensive Adjustments: The Mark (Dynamic)

Defensive Adjustments: A Key to High-Level Success

Defnsive Adjustments: Downfield

Free Play as a Means to Success

Mackey — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 04:00:00 +0000

This is a fairly old article, but one that bears continual revisiting.

Researchers looked at perception and elite performance and found all sorts of clues that the elite see things more clearly and decisively (and can therefore respond earlier) than novices (I’d suggest Blink if you’re looking for a more in-depth treatment of the matter). They also found that things like field sense are absolutely not innate, and suggest that free, unstructured play is key to getting the experience and developing a broad, flexible sense as opposed to a narrow-minded one. Check out this blog post for a bit on the difference between explicit and implicit learning–remove coaching and especially structure from the equation, and you tend towards the implicit–given that something like “field sense” is rarely taught explicitly (if I asked you to explain “field sense” to me–what to look for, when, what leads you to make one decision over another–would you be able to do it? In a way I could understand and apply?), you need to go the other way.

As frustrating as low-level, amoeba play (or loosely organized summer league, etc.) can be, or as much as you might think your disc-using non-ultimate games (I’m thinking of boot in particular, but schtick counts too in its own way) are not going to help you improve, recognize the opportunity inherent in these games. Try throws and strategies you wouldn’t normally. Experiment with new positioning and decision-making processes. Expand your repertoire and your mind.

What sorts of games do you play to grow?

Related posts:
Defensive Adjustments: A Key to High-Level Success

Why I play Ultimate

Field Sense

Defensive Adjustments: A Key to High-Level Success

Mackey — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 05:21:00 +0000

Ultimate, like most sports, appears relatively simple at a glance–you look at your elite, championship-caliber squads, and you see lots of absolutely baller ultimate players–of COURSE they’re an elite team; they’re more talented.

In practice though, talent alone is not enough. Strategy is huge, especially on defense–given the largely offensive-advantaged nature of the sport, generating turns is the name of the game. High-level defense relies not only on good, athletic, experienced players, but also on making strategic adjustments to keep the pressure on.

The amount of nuance involved with making adjustments makes it a continual learning process to execute, though the big-picture ideas behind these adjustments tend to be relatively simple.

Keep in mind that while I’m talking about adjustments as a team-level strategy, you can and should be thinking about similar changes within your own matchup in a given point/game/season.

Adjustments have two main thrusts: Changing strategy completely or Tweaking the strategy you already have.

Changing involves a shift from, for instance, man to zone D, or from one zone set to another.

Usually you do this to take away an opponent’s strength–for example, if you’re finding their downfield cutters relentless against your man, a zone D that forces them to slow down and make more/riskier passes might throw them off their rhythm. Changes are also made to prey on an opponents weakness–if a team’s handlers prove fallable, a zone designed to force lots of handler motion might prove effective.

Tweaking is where the real meat of making adjustments comes;usually when I talk about defensive adjustments this is what I’m talking about. In any D this has two components:

The Mark

Downfield

These two are very closely related, such that altering one will impact the other.

Adjusting on the mark means a conscious decision to take something away that you weren’t before–with an accompanying concession of something you were previously contesting.

For instance, if a team is routinely using its IO breaks for quick, effective strikes, you might make an adjustment on the mark to consciously cheat more to the open side (or perhaps commit to not biting as hard on pivots to the break side), or otherwise adjust the mark’s positioning to stop the break from going off. This has the tradeoff of making the around break easier; generally you make this concession hoping that a team that loves the IO will struggle to adjust and use the OI, or at the very least you’ll have a better idea of what to expect now that you’re dictating.

Adjusting downfield, you change up your positioning and what space you’re actively trying to take away–in the previous example, instead of adjusting with the mark, you can also adjust downfield by instructing your defenders–particularly those close to the disc, who are prime candidates to receive the IO–to play more closely to their man (more even with the mark rather than flared out into the lane), and to respect the break side cut a bit more since it’s been established as viable. In this example that’s not necessarily a good adjustment to make, as it makes the open side more vulnerable…however, it may still prove more effective than simply staying the course.

I’ll be making a few more posts going in more depth on these sorts of adjustments, and try to get at some of the “why” behind it as well, which is the real meat of the strategy. Keep in mind that as defensive adjustments get more complex, you need a correspondingly more capable defensive squad to carry them out effectively. Even minor adjustments like mark positioning require a certain amount of experience; if you’re going to mess around with straight-up transition marks or other fanciness you likely will need to practice and coordinate these adjustments before you get into tournament situations; otherwise you risk a poor defensive set and, worse still, putting your players in a position where they have to think too much in the flow of a game, hindering performance.

Related posts:
Defensive Adjustments: The Mark (Dynamic)

Defnsive Adjustments: Downfield

Defensive Adjustments: The Mark (Static)

Defense: Dictating by Body and Response

Mackey — Mon, 18 May 2009 04:00:00 +0000

Conventional defense generally insists upon “dictating” your man with your body positioning–you want him to go in one direction, so you give yourself a head start and/or position yourself physically in the way of the other. This presumably will force your man to either work very hard to take what you don’t want them to, or to go where you do–in which case, you’re ready and waiting to spring into action and pressure that way too.

However, there are times when your positioning should take a backseat, and you should leverage your response to make a cutter play into your hands. (This applies to marking too–check my notes on Ben Wiggins’ ’06 UCPC presentation) This can be as simple as not biting on a deep fake that isn’t viable–if you know the throw won’t be coming (or will be difficult), you don’t have to respect it. This can apply if, for example, you are playing behind your man for help D reasons–perhaps he’s running deep to set up an under cut (and you, having a view of the field, recognize the guy with the disc is not a thrower); if you ignore the deep cut, you’ll be better primed to take away the ensuing under threat.

A couple weekends ago I was covering a half-decent handler for a Japanese college team, positioned to take away the upline cut (sideline force, near their endzone). He made a fake upline early in the count, which I responded to, aggressively, turning my hips a second early even (strong upwind/downwind dynamic–going upwind, the last thing we wanted was for them to get a power position huck, whether successful or no). Figuring he would try the same tack to get me turning early and then bust back when the time came for his next dump cut, I responded to the upline cut by not responding, merely holding my ground with my hips uncommitted; flustered at the failure of his (planned, mechanical) cut, he danced back and forth for a second before scrambling backwards for the dump–expecting him to cut back, I was poised to intercept the dump pass. (I wound up being an inch or two from the Callahan; instead the disc bounced off my hand, carrying far enough for a sliding save by my man). This speaks a bit to the psychological game and winning the Sicilian reasoning battle of wits*; it also speaks to how two identical positions can lead to decidedly different outcomes based simply on how you choose to respond.

Don’t think purely in terms of what you’re taking away with your positioning. Think also of what expectations you communicate with your response to that first (and ensuing) cut and how you can leverage it in tandem with your body to get the results you’re looking for. Sometimes you can lose the battle to win the war.

*An example of Sicilian reasoning, courtesy of the Princess Bride (my all-time favorite film):

But check this article about RPS for a bit on the limitations of such thinking; ultimate is more complex in many ways than RPS, but the options are nonetheless limited and inclined to some circularity in reasoning. How do you discern a pattern in your opponent’s behavior without getting caught up in overanalysis? Can’t do too much thinking in the moment–you need to develop your expectations and anticipations efficiently, if not instinctively.

Related posts:
Defense!

12/ 15 Lower body

Zone Sets: Junk Defense (Clam, etc)

Links: More Food For Thought

Mackey — Thu, 07 May 2009 16:30:00 +0000

The Huddle’s latest issue gets at a question (defensive matchups) I’d considered a while back; Seth Wiggins rephrases my thoughts far better than I ever could. The answer absolutely depends on a whole host of other factors, which only makes the question itself more important.

It’s especially relevant in the context of teams with very lopsided talent pools (your generic 1- or 2-stud college team); you probably want that stud in the backfield to help deep/with poaching regardless of what the other team’s assets are, for instance.

I also think all the authors neglect one other point in determining defensive matchups: what about on the turn? If your best defender is your best cutter/handler on the turn, and their best cutter/handler turns out to be their best defender, do you really want to hamstring the D’s offense by turning around the matchups like that? There’s also a lot to be said for rotating fresh legs on the other team’s stud and then running that stud into the ground on the turn. Ultimate is always played both ways.

Open Ultimate. You might remember Dan Cogan-Drew as the guy behind the videopapers on ultimate skills–this appears to be a large outgrowth of that.

I haven’t taken the time to investigate fully yet but the idea–creating a space for online “courses” in ultimate–seems worthwhile. I’m a little skeptical of getting a full team to use resources I’d post there, were I a captain or coach, but it might be a nice tool to have in the box, especially if the site has longevity (enhancing institutional memory is, I think, a key to creating an ultimate program instead of the occasional one-hit wonder).

Via Fireworks, a nice bit from Dr. Goldberg about dealing with cheaters. Dr. G gave the keynote at the inaugural Ultimate Coaches and Players Conference, and his lessons then have largely inspired what I believe about performance psychology now–his post alludes very succinctly to these beliefs.

More writing about elite performance, luck, and deliberate practice. My friend Mr. Crew (who is single and has a huge…flick) makes the excellent suggestion that perhaps it’s not so much the inherent advantage of prior experience that lets players with HS experience thrive in college, but simply that their extra background gets them more attention and mentoring from earlier when they get to college, enabling faster/greater progress.
Read, and think about how you might inspire, mentor, and motivate your players/peers to strive for more and work harder.

Relatedly: this is on my to-read list for the near future.

More on how effort trumps talent. I love Gladwell’s stuff–if you haven’t already, I still very heartily endorse Outliers (as well as Blink–I must confess I haven’t read The Tipping Point yet, though I am familiar with the premise).
Where are the inefficiencies in ultimate? DoG seemed to hit on one in the ’90s when they started emphasizing possession, but today’s game seems to have evolved beyond that somewhat. Perhaps we’ll just keep laughing at Frank’s motion offense until, finally, an underdog team embraces it an dominates. But perhaps its glory will be fleeting, written off as a fluke or too much work, and remain as well-used as the full-court press in basketball.

Related posts:
Cutting Thought: On Being the Primary Cut, and Not Cutting

College Defense: Minimize Threat, or Maximize D Opportunities?

More on endzone offense

Zone: Drills

Mackey — Mon, 04 May 2009 16:30:00 +0000

An anonymous commenter calls me out on a lack of drillable/practice-able recommendations. Thanks for catching me, anon–I value actionable info a lot and have been remiss.

To preface: zone, being inherently team-based, is hard to drill and train. It’s not like man D or throwing skills where all you need is a few more people, and I’d even go so far as to say that practicing zone O and D is only useful inasmuch as you’re practicing with the same group you’ll play with–familiarity is a foundation to dependable D and O.

That said, skills like reading a disc and boxing out, marking, and being heads-up as a defender are things you can practice with limited personnel/outside of the context of pure “zone” training, and these are useful for zone situations too.

In terms of drills…there’s something of a “standard” zone drill of running 3 guys in the cup around a circle, forcing the throwers in the circle to repeatedly break through or around the cup in a big convoluted game of monkey in the middle. While this is perhaps useful for the bare basics of how to not get hosed, I think it serves best as a stepping stone to higher-level/more realistic drills–in other words, game situations.

Things like set start and finish points for a scrimmage are perhaps one of the best options for game situation practice. E.g.: start with an offensive line vs. a defensive line in a trap, stop as soon as the trap is broken (or allow a few extra passes for more realism); start with the disc just past the cup, as if on a break through/over it; stop when the defense recovers or is scored on. Reset if the D generates a turnover.

You can impose unique restrictions on this to emphasize certain facets for O or D: for example, you can add/subtract a receiver or defender to work on finding receivers in open space/covering multiple receivers in the backfield or flooding areas to overwhelm a single defender, respectively. I’ve also seen variations where the deeps are removed from the equation, on both O and D, to emphasize side-to-side and short motion to beat the zone.

One thing I haven’t seen, but would love to, is changing the field size–narrowing the field to favor the defense more, or widening it to favor the offense. Creativity is encouraged through restriction, and I’d like to see what kinds of adjustments are made in such situations.

With all of these other adjustments though, the essential thing is to keep getting reps. If you want to, you can scrimmage with limitations, but you’ll keep focus and get more bang for your buck if you emphasize one situation at a time. It’s great that Dorner can bomb a forehand to Sam streaking deep off the turn, but probably a waste of time when you want to quickly reset for the O to try again.

If you want your team to execute on a given strategy repeatedly, give them lots of reps to help recognize situations in which to apply it and experience so they can adjust to what works and what doesn’t. This takes a bit more critical thought on the part of a practice planner, which is why I don’t have too much in the way of specific recommendations.

You might look to ultitalk for some discussion, and I’d also point you to the huddle for some more espousal on the matter of teaching team D (you might also peruse what they have on zone D to inspire your thinking as far as what to focus on).

Any commenters out there have more to add with regards to teaching and drilling zone?

Related posts:
Zone: Flow, Starting and Stopping It

Zone Sets: Transition Zones (and musings on others)

Zone Sets: How to Run a 1-3-3

Zone: Flow, Starting and Stopping It

Mackey — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:30:00 +0000

Flow in zone situations, at its finest, is so beautiful and potent as to completely crush the will of the defensive team, making them completely shift away from zone as a defensive strategy. It is an offense’s best friend and a defense’s worst nightmare.

How does it happen? And how can it be stopped(or perhaps you can only hope to contain it)?

Flow starts when the disc moves past the cup. It may end there if no continuation options are available, but simply breaching the cup puts the defense, well, on the defensive.

Continuing flow takes coordinated movement. If all the downfield receivers rush towards the disc, it’s likely that only one more pass (with perhaps a second quick dish for minimal yards) will go off before crowding prevents further motion. This is still better than no flow, but the best teams will work in turn such that 3-4+ passes are made, quickly moving the disc downfield.

On offense, flow in a zone situation is essentially a series of opportunity cuts.

If you’re deep, the defense is usually flipping out about preventing a quick deep strike–meaning at least one and perhaps two or three defenders are good bets to be behind their men deep. This usually means the cutters who were in the deep/wing positions on offense are perfectly positioned to get a big gainer on a cut back to the disc; 15-20 yards is not too unreasonable an expectation.

Poppers or those close to the disc should look to do one of two things off of the initial move past the cup:

Get a quick dish to keep the disc moving (if the popper in question is immediately open and the thrower is being marked or otherwise has few options)

Haul ass upfield and look for an opportunity to get the disc further down the pass chain–you never know when that deep might get pulled too far to one side, etc.

Above all else, flow demands that you keep the disc moving. It’s almost always a better call to dish it to somebody nearby and keep pushing upfield than to hold the disc waiting for the perfect look. The longer you hold the disc, the more time the defense has to catch up and get comfortable; a constantly moving disc forces the D to constantly adjust, and it can be very demoralizing for a cup to constantly be left behind the action.

If you’re on defense, goal #1 when the disc gets past the cup is to slow disc motion.

A backfield defender‘s main priorities are,

To stop the quick huck for a goal, and

Stall (disc motion) for time while the cup catches up.

Sometimes this means taking your one guy and sticking to him, but more often than not this means letting a small fish go to keep the big fish at bay–you can let them get off those little 3-5 yard squirts for a time if it means the disc remains generally in the same area for your cup to catch.

Again, being able to read space and motion is key–recognizing what spaces are viable for the offense in flow and where the biggest threats are, and then responding to limit them, is the crux of zone D.

If you’re in the cup and the disc gets past you…bust ass to catch up and get in the way again. In much the same way that you don’t want to just blindly sprint from station to station when the disc is swung, though, you have to be cautious to make sure you’re not rushing to your ‘position’ only to let the disc slip right by you and start the chasing cycle all over again. A cup needs to expand and become dynamic as the disc moves to limit threats in flow, much the same way the backfield does.

Related posts:
Zone: Offensive Skills

Zone: O Motion

Zone: Drills

Zone: Defensive Skills

Mackey — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:12:00 +0000

Again, a feel for space and motion is a huge help.

I feel like zone defense is much more prone to specialization than offense, so I’ll try and break it down by role.

Cup/wall/chase

Legs. A tired cup is a beaten one.

Bids. While the backfield is more a question of height, the front is much more about width–you don’t need to bid all over the place, but being able to *threaten* it is often enough (this usually means showing that you can do it so the other team will respect it enough not to test). Alternatively, you can practice baiting the layout D.

Reading the thrower. This is something of an art–knowing when a thrower might try and test you with a pass through the cup (or over), when he’s committed to his dump and you can be a little more aggressive trying to shut it down, etc. If you can recognize the “locked in” look, you can cause a lot of trouble.

Anticipation/reaction time. This is closely tied to the above. Anticipating a throw means you’ll respond that much quicker, and having a short trigger from on your toes to laying out/reaching for the D is always a plus.

Backfield (short)

Legs. Not as much running as the cup, usually, but you need to be there too.

Range. You’re responsible for covering space, and need to be able to make a play on passes into it. It’s also necessary for a zone set that baits a cross-field pass to D–if you can’t cover ground quickly you’re likely not going to get the D.

Knowing one’s range. Perhaps more important than having range is knowing what your range is. It’s one thing to take a rask on a throw that’s right on the edge of your range (really, this is what baiting means), it’s another to think you have somebody covered only to see them get the disc with ease and shred the zone. Knowing your range means recognizing the conditions and the thrower, and falls under that catch-all umbrella of “field sense.”

Communication. A cup can get pretty far without too much talking (short of trap and change to man calls), but dealing with dynamic threats in the backfield means the more you can coordinate with your teammates, the better.

Backfield (deep)

Range. Wings/deeps cover even more space. This is compensated for somewhat by the extra time on throws deep, but don’t forget about blades/quick-breaking hammers.

Knowing one’s range. The consequences for getting burned deep are severe.

Ups/height. Much moreso than other positions, the deep NEEDS to be able to establish air dominance. Whether that’s being tall enough to make handlers think twice, having jaw-dropping ups, or simply showing, time and again, consistent superiority of positioning on deep throws, all zones hinge on the fact that deep throws are hard, and a good deep has to make this so.

Communication. A deep-deep in any zone is a de facto field general, directing the D’s response to threats and managing deep coverage (again, a dominant deep presence helps with this). Wing types have less of a burden to shoulder here, and generally only need to coordinate coverage handoffs with the rest of the backfield.

So, how do you work on these things?

The athletic components are a simple matter of hard work and conditioning.

For sensing space & time / field sense, I refer you to my recommendations in the last post. Naturally, observe the defense more than the offense, but understanding what one side of the disc wants to do will give you a good sense of what the other should want to stop.

Communication and knowing your limits comes with experience. The wider the breadth of situations you get involved with, the better prepared you’ll be, and the more you push your limits and fail, the better you’ll get to know them.

Reading the thrower and anticipation come with experience too, but to some extent you can cultivate both by watching. The “I’m about to huck” gaze down the field is a particularly strong tell in most players.

I can’t think of a whole lot else to say here. Feel free to chime in with your own views/experiences.

Related posts:
Zone: Offensive Skills

Zone: Flow, Starting and Stopping It

Zone Sets: How to Run a 4-person Cup, Courtesy of Gwen Ambler

Zone Sets: Box-and-one, others?

Mackey — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:49:00 +0000

I’ll wrap up my overview of zone defenses with another unorthodox zone set you’ll encounter every so often.

I’ve heard it referred to as box and one, but regardless of name, this is a zone set that runs normally save for one–it places a mark on one player on the field, typically a team’s stud handler, with the goal of forcing a team to rely on its (presumably weaker) others.

This one doesn’t really need a full fleshing out–generally speaking, you’re taking one of your wings in a standard or 3-2-2 arrangement (or one of the 4-p cup/wall in a 1-3-3) to fill this role.

Generally your remaining wings/deeps will need to pick up the slack–again, you’re banking on the fact that the secondary handler(s) don’t have the throws to punish that hole.

It can really throw for a loop any team that really needs a single player to succeed to thrive–every team has its pillars, so this can be a nice extra piece in your toolbox to throw out there when you’re looking for breaks.

Any of you run into zones I haven’t mentioned here? At one point at Dartmouth we toyed around with a 2-3-2 D…and not with the “3″ containing a middle in the cup. 2 points, 3 upfields, 2 deeps; it succeeded (and failed) largely on chaos and the strength of communication in front to control space, but was never exceptional enough to be a feature defense–like many of your unorthodox looks, they succeed because they’re novel and make a good change-of-pace.

This more or less wraps up all I wanted to cover on zone D (turns out March was just zone D month, rather than zone month)–planning to do a bit on zone O, and then I’ll try to tackle the matter from an (individual) development standpoint.

Related posts:
Zone Sets: How to Run a 4-person Cup, Courtesy of Gwen Ambler

Zone Sets: How to Run a 3-2-2

Zone Sets: How to Run a "Standard" 3-3-1 (3-1-3, 3-1-2-3)