Thoughts.

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:
Continue Reading »

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:
Continue Reading »

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.

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.

Learn it, do it, own it.

Want to be an elite ultimate player? Learn how to play good handler defense.

OK, so I’ve said you should be mobile on the mark. I’ve said you should work to stay balanced. Great.

I think it might have been one of Zip’s Tips (though I can’t find it now) to always push beyond your comfort zone in marker drill; if you’re not getting point blocked or turfing every so often, you’re not expanding your repertoire enough. This applies just as much if not more so for the guy on the mark as the guy with the disc. Figure out your thrower. Experiment with baiting. Choose what throw you’re going to make your quarry take, and deny everything else with extra gusto. Learn.

I alluded to the importance of not reaching (by which I mean “over-extending.” Certainly you will use your hands and arms while marking) when I wrote about being mobile. The opposite of reaching is balance.

More on mobility and balance on Thursday.

There’s a time and a place for near and far spacing.

For bonus points, consider employing a marking tactic suggested by Ben Wiggins back in Winter ’06: stagger your feet one slightly forward, one slightly back) to facilitate better motion forwards and backwards, as well as to provide a bit more cushioning on a close mark to shield against the IO. This is hard to explain, and the UCPC site is apparently down now, so I can’t link any original materials either. I’ll try and flesh it out a bit more in a later post.