Thoughts. » Strategy

Subbing: When to Push, When to Hold (But Change), and When to Fold

Mackey — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 13:11:00 +0000

Some quality content on the Atlanta Ultimate blog in the wake of South Regionals, namely two pieces on Using Your Top Seven (and when you should ease up) and When Losing is the Way to Go. (Relatedly, a bit on Changing It Up On Offense corroborating Jim P’s original post on the matter).

Good food for thought for those of us who’ve yet to play in Regionals–from my experience playing in New England College Regionals, at least, aside from the rare case (Brown ’05) where one team was clearly the class of the region, ultimately who emerged from the muddle victorious depended as much on smart subbing and use of depth as it did on whose “top seven” or whatever comparison you want to make was better on paper.

Related posts:

My take on the UPA’s restructuring proposals

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

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: 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)

Zone O, Huddle-Style

Mackey — Thu, 14 May 2009 12:00:00 +0000

The Huddle has an issue on Zone O.

My favorites (Ryan Morgan’s assertion that wings are not just a throwaway position for rookies is worth repeating, too); again, they put things a lot more succinctly than I.

I don’t see a ton of revolutionary (compared with my experience) information there, apart from the number of endorsements of the two-handler set; this says to me that zone O really comes down to a good, solid fundamental approach/understanding.

On the skill spectrum, a quick catch-throw turnaround and composure with the disc in your hand are great for any zone handler (and by extension, all players) to have–the former can be worked on pretty much anytime, while the latter would come with more throwing experience/confidence, both under pressure (ratchet it up in practice/drills) and in conditions (find it, and do it).

Knowledge goes hand in hand with skill. Recognizing what kind of zone you’re facing and where the weak points are, along with knowing what your own team’s assets are, likewise will do a lot to prepare for success. Insert Sun Tzu quote about knowing your enemy and yourself.

Related posts:
Zone Offense: The Basics

Zone: Drills

Zone: Offensive Skills

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: Offensive Skills

Mackey — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 11:00:00 +0000

First and foremost, you have to:

Recognize SPACE and MOTION. Any zone player worth his salt needs to be able to do this. Being able to attack a defense necessitates recognizing where and when holes form. By “motion,” I mean motion of the defense, but I especially mean disc motion and player motion (anticipation, in other words)–recognizing When positions will change and you might have an open angle of attack is just as important as Where–both are necessary (though perhaps not sufficient–you have to be able to act on this information too).

How do you cultivate such recognition? Unfortunately I don’t have a good (easy) answer for this. (I know zone, and can play zone, but it tends to be more of an inexact, hard-to-explain “art” and less of a precise “science” for me).

Experience goes a long way; sometimes you have to screw up royally before you’ll remember well enough to get it right. To that end, constantly evaluating your performance–after a point is over, looking back and seeing what worked, what didn’t, if there were opportunities missed–can help accelerate this learning process (obviously this applies beyond zone).

You can also gain this experience through observation. Watch high-level ultimate teams and see what kind of throws they take and avoid–what surprises you? Try to get back to the source of their decision-making, figure out WHY they do what they do.

Finally, visualization can help here too. If you can remember an opportunity you missed, replay it in your head and act on it this time–key in on what stands out most (you spot them with nobody in a 10yd radius? He’s moving deep and the wing is in front of him staring at you?), as you want your in-game recognition to be quick.

What else?

Communication. This is of extreme importance in zone D, but it has its role in O as well. It doesn’t necessarily need to be out-loud “look here” “go there,” but subtler forms–faking, looks–can communicate a lot in terms of “there’s a hole here” or “you’re covered there.” This tends to fall under the umbrella of experience & chemistry, but I think any team could institutionalize a system without too much extra effort. It’s particularly important for your handlers, who need to be able to adjust within the span of 1-2 stall counts to ensure continued resets against a novel defense (of course, this all depends on how dynamic you want your offensive set to be).

Mobility. Handlers, poppers, and wings all need to be able to move when the time is right–a quick backfield is a backfield that can quickly flow up the field once the disc gets past the cup. Quick handlers can frustrate even the best cups with motion and crashes from behind the disc, forcing the defense to adjust to you rather than the other way around.

Judgment. In short, don’t make bad decisions. It’s important to distinguish “bad decision” from “bad execution” or “unlucky.” (It’s also important to realize when “bad execution” or “unlucky” are symptomatic of a larger trend (i.e. lack of skill or an opponent who outclasses you), and are therefore “bad decisions” in the context of a given offense, game, or player’s role/skillset).
That cross-field hammer that would’ve broken it wide open, but slipped through the wing’s fingers? Likely bad luck/bad execution. That high-release backhand for five yards that got D’d by the lurking middle-middle? Maybe a bad decision, depending on what your offense is trying to do. Generally speaking, value the disc, and if you’re going to take a risk, make it one for significant yards or position.

Again, evaluating yourself after each point can go a long way towards improving your decision-making. It’s almost mandatory in fact; if you’re not holding yourself accountable, who is?

Throwing and catching. These skills in a zone context are not fundamentally different from a man D situation, but your “riskier” throws (over-the-tops) become more necessary; extra work in being able to throw, read, and receive them will help to make “risk” into a strength.

What sticks out in your mind as essential skills for zone O? I’m no expert and I’d love to hear more in the comments.

Related posts:
Zone: Defensive Skills

Zone O, Huddle-Style

Zone: Flow, Starting and Stopping It

Zone: O Motion

Mackey — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:30:00 +0000

I should first disclaim by saying that I’m presupposing a 3-handler set–the same general tenets for motion apply to other sets as well, but be aware of the differences in spacing they bring.

Generally speaking, you have two sources of motion in a zone O: the poppers or the handlers. Wing motion tends to synergize with popper motion, but by itself does not do a lot, due to the large swath of space a deep can cover.

If your primary source of motion is the handlers–weaving and the like–the poppers will wind up doing a bit less to break the cup, and the converse is also true–if poppers are your primary source of motion, your handlers will generally have to move less. This does not mean they aren’t working and moving. Great zone defenses, will likely pressure you into moving with both units at varying intervals, just like the handlers and cutters will take turns taking responsibility to move the disc in man defense. Having a range of capabilities will make your offense more versatile, and harder to stop.

The number one consideration with zone O, as with any O, is simple:
Create space. Find space.

You are always doing one of the two, regardless of role. Motion is a means to these ends. A lack of motion can also enable these same ends in the right situations.

How do the poppers, and by extension the wings, make space and find space? Conventional wisdom says the poppers/backfield look to do one of a few things:

Get the swing continuation. This requires some teamwork–either with the wing on that side or the other popper or both–to split the defender on that side of the field before the cup is set (or if the cup is conceding the up-the-line). Usually this means one wide cut to the line and one “gut” cut more straight to the disc.

See left. With three receivers it can get a little crowded, but the wing cuts to pull her defender to the sideline while the two poppers work different angles, the assumption being that if the cup gets over in time the point will only be able to stop one, leaving a hole for the other. More on this (flooding an area) below.

Crash the cup. This is either a move to bail out the handler at a high stall or a feint to create a hole to enable a pass elsewhere (#3). A good tool to have, able to take advantage an over or under-zealous cup. (NB: handlers can crash the cup too, from behind. The forward momentum you can get coming this way puts the cup slightly out of position = more potential holes)

Get the pass through the cup (“find holes”). Probably the most punishing of the three conventional popper options, as this tends to result in a popper with a disc in mid-field, ahead of the cup. When you get to this position you’re off to the races! Short, qick passes to the other downfield receivers (who are hopefully finding space coming towards the disc) can result in some quick yard gains, or potentially free up a deep strike for a quick finish. It can be difficult to get this sort of look against disciplined cups or against a team that continues to throw zone and makes adjustments, however.

The other option a popper should always be aware of (and the primary one a wing should be looking for):

Get an over-the-top to space–typicaly, this has similar results to #3 above (depending on the speed of the throw and the location of the popper).

The last smatters of 2-handler set, I know, but in appropriate situations this can become an option for a team with a good thrower in a 3-handler set, and experienced poppers are on the lookout for these situations.

See to the left for a rough idea–with the two wings occupying the deep defenders (one coming in for what could look like a blade; the other moving across–not a terribly threatening cut with the deep there but hopefully enough to make the wing look), one of the poppers can drop back 5 yards and find herself in a good spot to get a quick, short hammer/scoober/lefty blade. (You’ll note I didn’t suggest a high-release backhand).

How do you consistently create any of the above situations? Each one requires the popper to be ready, in a particular position at a particular time–cutting for the swing too late means the cup is there to stop it; too early usually means a throw for short yards (or to a stopped receiver–D bait), usually not significant enough to break the zone. Crashing the cup to create a hole is only useful when the other popper is in position to fill said hole, and the handler is prepared to throw to her. An over-the-top needs a capable thrower and a popper finding space before the defense adjusts to take it away–all are delicate acts.

Even great offensive teams fail to capitalize on every opening. The two keys to generating more openings:

Disc motion. It doesn’t necessarily need to move far and fast, but one of the two is usually necessary to keep the D on its toes and hopefully catch it with its pants down. Don’t underestimate the power of the quick, easy reset.

Equally important to moving the disc is knowing where the disc is/will be moving to. This falls under the umbrella of “anticipation,” an offense’s biggest asset.

Backfield motion. In contrast to cutting in a man D situation, zone O is less about hard fakes and dekes and much more about forcing defenders to make choices until they are overmatched or out of position (typically it’s at these junctures that you “cut” hard in the sense that you’re running quickly to space–analagous to opportunity cuts in man D sets)
Poppers and wings can rotate positions as the point goes on, forcing the defense to dynamically adjust to cover their respective zones, and can selectively “flood” an area, sending 2 or 3 receivers into a particular area with the knowledge that one defender cannot cover them all, given they’re far enough apart and the thrower can make the pass to that area.

The concept of flooding an area is a basic tenet of zone offense, whether it’s a conventional standard set or a junk D–the defense will either concede an option or shift coverage to take it away, and in either case, you’re creating openings.

It’s essential that you trust your teammates in these situations–if you’re helping to flood an area, trust that your teammates will find the open space you’re creating. Likewise, if you see a teammate moving to flood an area, be on the lookout for the defense to shift their priorities and give you an opening. Not every opening is viable, so strive to learn what kind of motion in what situations make holes your offense is looking for.

Anticipation is the best weapon an offense can wield against high-level defenses–given that well-practiced teams will be prepared to quickly recognize and fill gaps in coverage, an offense needs to be well-practiced enough to know that, for example, when Sam gets the disc on a reset he’ll look for a quick hammer strike; the poppers are on their toes as soon as they see somebody looking to throw to him, looking for holes. Synergy between poppers makes creating and finding holes more predictable, and synergy between handlers can go a long way to reducing miscues on the reset.

This is true for any offensive set, but whereas this tends to be more structured in man D situations, with set plays and the like, the wide variety of zones out there tends to force players to lean more strongly on experience. I suspect it’s for this very reason that you see today’s O line/D line splits; chemistry must be cultivated. Get a small group constantly practicing together against a myriad of zones, arm them with a basic understanding of the offensive priorities, and you’ll develop a capable offense.

Next post (or two) I’ll try and break zone down a bit more in terms of individual skills. Is there anything else you think needs to be said about zone (offense or defense)? Leave a comment or let me know if you’d like me to write about it (or write about it yourself–I’m happy to make guest posts).

Related posts:
Zone: Flow, Starting and Stopping It

Zone: Offensive Skills

Zone Offense: The Basics

Zone Offense: The Basics

Mackey — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:30:00 +0000

Goal #1 is, of course, to score (You can argue that “keeping posession” is a more relevant, process-oriented goal, but sometimes you need to embrace (or at least flirt) with the turnover to get where you want).

How you get it there is where you see splits in philosophy, and to some extent this will vary with conditions, personnel, and what kind of zone you’re faced with.

Big split #1 in zone O strategy:
How Many Handlers?

This makes the biggest fundamental difference in zone strategy. The two typical sets:

3 handlers

Your traditional set. The general tack is to work the side-to-side dump-swing motion of the three handlers, tiring out the cup and hopefully leveraging the poppers coming from around or through the cup to work the disc upfield.

Generally, zone defenses are structured with this offensive set in mind (witness my diagrams on the prior zone defense posts), and in bad conditions the last thing you might want to do is work the disc back and forth horizontally, risking the short turnover. However, you can leverage a 3-handler set in a number of ways to beat various D sets–running handler weaves, for instance–and having two dumps at most every instance provides some extra security. This remains a go-to set, with the right mentality.

2 handlers

Another strategic innovation I think can be attributed to DoG (check this article for a better explanation than I could ever offer). Dropping down to 2 handlers lets you move an extra body downfield, letting you split any backfield defense that uses 3 or more in the cup. Tends to eschew dump and swing action for over-the-top strikes–there’s more risk, but in the big picture, a high risk/high reward look can often be a better option than multiple moderate-to-low risk/low reward ones (and with practice, those high risks are lessened).

Obviously this set relies more upon a strong handler or two to make those risky looks. You’re usually not going to be relying on the dump as anything more than a bailout, so in addition to shifting more pressure on the handlers to make throws, there is more pressure on the backfield receivers to get open NOW. Poppers behind the cup tend to stay in the backfield and look for open space, rather than attempting to create openings by crashing into the cup.

You can reduce some of the pressure to make high-risk throws by allowing a popper or two to be a fill handler, coming around or crashing on high counts, but this generally defeats the point of the set (you’re mitigating the numbers advantage) and isn’t always the most effective strategy. I haven’t actually seen this used too commonly of late (’07-’08)–at least, not in New England ultimate. This set tends to do best in better conditions where those over the tops are more certain, so the mercurial New England weather might have something to do with this. Anyone have observations to offer here?

With either set, your mileage will vary depending on your personnel and the team you’re playing against. Either set, particularly the 3-handler, is flexible enough that you can incorporate parts of one into the other (having a handler push up more in a 3-handler set to make it play more like a 2-handler one), so in terms of strategy I’d say to pick one set and make adjustments within it, rather than flipping between the two.

I’ve heard of 4-handler sets, but generally these tend to be 2- or 3-handler sets with flex wings coming back as fill handlers. Generally speaking, the more players you have downfield (or with the option of being downfield), open for a gain yards, the better your O’s chances of scoring.

The next split in zone O strategy (a bit subtler perhaps):
Who are your playmakers?

Your handlers will carry a large part of the load in any set (esp. 2-handler), and everyone has to work to make zone O work, but typically you’re going to have an ideal play that you’re looking to make–what is it? Is it your primary handler throwing a big cross-field hammer/blade to a wing? Is it your poppers working together to get the continue off of a swing and weaving it up for 20 yards? Is it getting any handler open enough that he can jack it to your 6’8″ monster deep?

Think about what your strengths are and how you can best leverage them. If you’re looking to make that cross-field look, make sure your wing is really staying on the far sideline and that your other players in the backfield are pulling defenders away. If it’s cutter motion, make sure you’ve really rehearsed timing the cuts and set up your swings so that they’re ahead of the cup. If it’s jacking it deep, work on a good handler weave or other motion to try for an open shot (and go hard to recruit that giant freshman you’ve been eyeing). This is the sort of evaluation you need to do in order to develop a consistent, effective system–be prepared to improvise within (and outside of) it, adjusting as the D adjusts, but having that framework sets up the rest.

I’ll try and get more into specifics next week (backfield motion in particular). A little behind on writing–ironically I find myself writing less on spring break–down time with few options at work becomes down time with myriad other options (like cleaning my shithole of a house, finishing my taxes and applying for financial aid next year–anybody out there have opinions/experiences with Army/Navy/Air Force scholarships?).

Related posts:
Zone: O Motion

Zone: Flow, Starting and Stopping It

Zone: Offensive Skills

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)