Thoughts.

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.

• 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.

More often than not, I find myself completely agreeing with what she says, and there are some great gems in her bit on subbing:

Divide your handlers up into groups of those who generate offense with their throws (big breaks and/or big hucks) and those who generate offense with their legs (effectively get the disc up-the-line and are always open for resets). You’ll want some players from each category on every line.

Divide your downfielders into groups of those who can get open with jukes off of a stopped-disc and those who are great at getting open in flow with timing and filling spaces. Again, you’ll want some players from each category on every line.

The whole issue on subbing is a great opportunity to apply a new lens to yourself as a player: how would somebody in charge of subbing view your abilities? Gwen’s bit here touches on it the most explicitly, I think…what kind of player are you? Do you create offense or augment offense? Are you a big playmaker or a solid contributor? How versatile are you, offensively, defensively? What are some flaws that might lead to you getting less play time (e.g., lack of height/athleticism/conditioning, inconsistent throws in the wind, an inclination towards high-risk shots, etc)?

What kind of player do you want to be? If you’re a coach or a mentor for other players, what kind of player do you see them becoming/what kind of player would make them the most useful? The notion of subbing also harkens to making cuts and forming your team’s identity and strategy in the first place. Lot of good stuff to consider for anybody who fancies themself a team leader/decision maker.