Thoughts.

• Stephen Hubbard has a good post up on some more zone O skills.
• For those who’ve yet to notice, the Ultiverse is a worth checking out–get the podcasts and pop it on during the drive to work or just hanging around home. I’ve only listened to the latest (an interview with Fury, including Gwen Ambler), but it was pretty great to hear about (and from) such a high-level women’s team, especially given I might be coaching women’s next year.
• If you haven’t seen it yet, Match bemoans the lack of coverage in ultimate this year–seems the hype machine has died down a bit indeed. I’m very likely to taper off in posting once I’m back to the full-time student life again next year, but I’ll definitely be doing my part to add to the results/discussion.  You’re on your own this year though.
• Speaking of…not to put any undue pressure on him, but homeboy Dr. Cockbloctopus made the team at Dartmouth, and does a much better job of recapping than his teammates. Which is to say, he recaps at all. The NE power struggle will be a lot more clear-cut after Brown this weekend (not that NE is ever truly clear-cut; short of Brown in ’05, there haven’t been a lot of sure things without surprises). I’m looking forward to hearing what James has to say.
• Along the same lines, The Shubbard has put out a season recap, West-coast style.
• The Huddle is now in Spanish (well, some of it is). Cool.
• Lastly, my favorite magazine has a nice, scientific look at choking (and how to avoid it). This jives with what I’ve tried to say here, and Parinella’s notion of “swing thoughts” (and Tarr’s related post on being “swing-neutral” when throwing, though that’s more fodder for WHAT to think rather than about simplifying the thinking itself).

In addition to having a great name, Matt Ellsworth has been very busy compiling resources, doing interviews, and generally putting together a solid blog all about Ultimate Training over the past month or so.

He’s taken/taking the same route to fitness I’ve taken, drawing upon a lot of the same resources, and gets a hearty endorsement from this corner–especially in light of my lack of fitness writing of late (but who knows, perhaps I’ll get more inspiration now that I’m back to training proper again).

It’s been a good long while since I’ve written about training, but here’s a peek at the sort of stuff I’m doing for training this month and have been doing, albeit more sparsely, over the previous couple months. I have a tourney to look forward to again (end of the month)!, and the prospect of playing competitively! at a few more thereafter too, so it’s high time I got my ass back in gear!

Conditioning: Tabata hill sprints. Started off with more generous intervals (10 seconds on/20 seconds off) earlier in the winter, finally got to the actual 20/10 interval today for only 4 reps, which was a struggle (it was–brace for it–an uphill battle). Lots of room for progress to be made there still; I might downgrade to flat running to shoot for a full set, but I like the extra intensity the hill offers.

General Physical Preparedness (conditioning pt. 2): Burpees. Simple and damn effective, bang ‘em out and then bang ‘em out some more.

Strength: Circuits, using my weight set at home (no convenient gym in rural Japan). Don’t have a ton of weight to load, so this usually means deadlift to bent-over rows to hang power clean to front squat to push press/OH press (to back squat) circuits until I get a burn (usually 8-10 reps, depending on how much weight I’m using), and usually a bit more focus on the squats/deadlifts to work the legs a bit more. I’m in poor shape strength-wise so it doesn’t take much right now.

Power: One-arm DB snatches and/or swings (when I want to work a bit more conditioning). My de facto workout of choice, as I keep the DBs in my bedroom–easy to grab and bang out a set or two in the mornings or evenings before/after work.

Speed: Hill sprints–both going up (there’s a less-steep stretch on the nearby mountain–I go for about 8-10 seconds hard, rest for a couple minutes, repeat) and down (occasionally overspeed work going downhill on the same stretch, with similar rest interval).

Flexibility: Goblet squats, Samson stretch, and recently more dedicated stretching and yoga (just your typical sun salutation, plus a warrior pose or two).

Game-readiness: Don’t get much in terms of disc practice (occasional tossing with a buddy in town and occasional pickup in nearby prefectures for something like two days a month), but I do visualization with the disc in my hand and fakes to go with, play around with flat objects in my idle time/in front of students while I tell them to “repeat after me.” Generally, I’ve practiced enough in my college crucible that my disc skills (outside of flick hucks) haven’t gotten too rusty to jump back in and handle (at least, not at the level of ultimate I’ve seen around me so far). Having spent a lot of time debugging my throws and developing a checklist to sort them out helps a lot too.

I’ve also been practicing what I preach–been paying a lot of attention to my footwork going down stairs at school, and especially running down the mountain (not as hardcore as it sounds–it’s a paved road); lots of hard turns that I accelerate, chop-step into and explode out of. (A thought on footwork: Always aim for 2 steps to turn [facing and moving in your new direction] on <90 degree turns, and 3 steps for >90 degrees–you might need to chop step more to slow down, but one step to stop your momentum [or at least control it] and one inside step to redirect for short turns or one inside turn with an outside plant for big turns is ideal. Focus on limiting the step number and your body will likely sort out the rest).

Lacking: Pullups (you might recall, one of my favorite exercises). Not doing a whole lot for my back lately, but I’m not doing too much pushing (I’m not, for instance, benching) so it’s an acceptable imbalance for now.

Plyos. I’m a pretty explosive guy already; my ups will be fine with sufficient strength/power work and all the hill running. I’m not at a level of fitness currently where I can or need to do dedicated plyos. Injury risk and all that.

Also, foam rolling (Self-Myofascial Release)–don’t have a roller here. I think I might order one though, amazon.co.jp is ludicrously quick (case in point: ordered two books night before last–they came in this morning. That’s standard shipping in something like 36 hours; I love this country!). The utility of foam rolling increases as your training frequency and volume does–recovery becomes even more important.

Schedule: I don’t have a regimented one right now–things like running hinge on the weather. Generally speaking, I’m of the opinion for now that as long as I’m getting a good, hard workout in at least 1-2 times a week, I’m at the very least maintaining my fitness. I’ll be ramping up my workout intensity and frequency over the coming months, but I value recovery a ton and am happy to back off when my body requests such from me.

Note that after a few years of more or less planning and regimenting my own training (including lots of reading), I’m pretty comfortable doing my programming on the fly, including scheduling (granted, if I had more serious training goals, I’d have a more serious approach to programming). If you don’t have a ton of experience with the matter and are interested in going into it with more gusto, check out the guide to program creation I wrote a while back.

So much for “peek.” Hopefully this gives a nice snapshot of where I’m at in terms of my own understanding of fitness and training–I went through and linked some stuff I’ve already written and stuff others have written (along with some videos for exercises).

For the non-RSSers or those who presumed it dead, Ultimate Frisbee Strategy/Coaching is apparently back in action.

Hopefully it lasts. I’ve been thinking more and more about coaching as I’ve solidified going back to Dartmouth for med school next year; I might deign to make some posts on the topic, but I might just keep those cards close to the vest lest competition catch wind.

Super-Regional | video overview
Conference | video overview
Both videos didn’t work for me, but perhaps they will for you.

First reaction: wow. Talk about big changes! Division II and III nationals/regionals will make for a ton of opportunities for teams to succeed.

I’ll try and summarize first (I know I’m not the only one who’s put off reading about the changes for worry of length), then add my thoughts:

Regular-Season Tiers

• In either plan, you’ll have a 20-team DI natties, and 16-team DII and DIII tourneys.
• There will be a “Tier 1″ distinction for the most competitive teams–in the SRP (Super-Regional Plan)teams who want to be T1 can opt-in, but in the CP (Conference Plan) the tier is made up of the top teams from last year + 12 who play in at the season’s start.
• Tier 2 is all the teams that don’t opt in Tier 1 (SRP) or teams that register to play competitively but didn’t do well enough to make T1 (CP). The CP additionally has a tier 3 for non-registrants.
• Teams in their respective tiers contribute to UPA rankings by playing in official UPA events. In the SRP only Tier 1 games count; in the CP, T1 and T2 games count, but T1 teams get automatic bids to regionals.
• Rankings are used for seeding and for determining regional/national bids.

Super-Regionals

• You have sectionals, but some teams get a bye to super-regionals (based off of reg. season rankings).
• Sectional winners advance to super-regionals; based on size, the next X teams go to regular regionals.
• There are 4 super-regions.
• Super-regionals is a 12-team tourney, top 4/each advance to nationals.

• Top 4 non-qualifiers also get bids, to make 20 teams at nationals.
• There are 8 regions.
• Regionals have more or less the same deal as this year’s format–16 teams, but a flat 2 bids/region, 16 teams at DII nationals.
• Small colleges and developing teams can opt-in to DIII nationals, which has its own sectional and regional tourney. Only in the open division to start.

Conferences

• You have teams in each of 6 regions sorted into conferences based on proximity/willingness to travel/success. There are no sectionals.
• Bids to regionals are based off of season performance, though all tier 1 teams will play at regionals.
• Regionals do not directly decide who goes to nationals–winning a bid simply adds said bid to your conference championship.
• Bids to DI, DII, and DIII nationals are at stake in each regional tournament, with a DII regionals also occuring with bids to DII and DIII nationals at stake.
• Following regionals, teams have their conference championships to determine who goes where.
• No DIII regionals–bids to DIII nationals are won through the other regionals.

My Thoughts
I LOVE the idea of conferences. Think of the rivalry! Think of the camaraderie as you and your conference mates battle through regionals for that DI nationals bid! I think it’s a huge step forward for the excitement level of the sport.

However, I dislike the idea of having to play for nationals twice. Why should a team that didn’t even make DI regionals have a shot at stealing a bid to DI nationals? If a team wins DI regionals should they really have to play again to secure their bid?

There has to be a better way to work the conference angle while not applying a double-dose of pressure to make nationals–basing bids to regionals off of conference championships, and making DI/DII regionals elimination again…or making the DI nationals bid elimination, with DII/DIII bids going back to conference championships.

I worry that the inherently unbalanced nature of the conferences will make for issues similar to what you see in New England and the Metro East–there are so many teams around the same level that, compared to areas where talent is more sparse, the road to nationals is much tougher. Perhaps that is simply the way it has to be though–in baseball, the Tampa Bay Rays stuck with it in the AL East hellhole with the Yanks and Sox and had a magical season last year despite it.

That said, leaving it as is would make for an interesting, unique quirk to ultimate, and there IS a lot of potential to excite there–and what’s more, a team that misses a bid to DI nationals would very likely wind up at DII nationals, so it’s not a win or go home proposition so much as a win or go elsewhere.

The super-regional plan is obviously a more conservative route–I like the intimate, intense nature of a 12-team tournament for 4 bids to nationals, and I think those events would showcase the sport just as much as nationals itself. I also think the increased focus on current-season results, rather than grandfathering last year’s teams in to regionals, would make for a more meaningful regular season (at the upper level at least).

If I had to choose now, I would definitely opt for the conference plan, though I would like to see the tournament structure reworked there to prevent potential complaints when teams that “win” the bid to DI nationals are usurped by another in their conference championship. Both plans have their advantages, and I’m eager to see how they are developed going forward.

---

What are your thoughts? I’m looking at this from the lens of a former (on the bubble) elite team player and potential coach of the same (with a heavy New England bias), and as such am primarily concerned with the top-tier formats, but I’d love to hear the small-mid college perspective or from other regions.

Really, though, your thoughts should go here, where the UPA is looking for feedback. Get in by the 31st, before they close comments!

Legend goes that the original junk D was run by DoG or perhaps one of its predecessors with one Mr. Parinella and a skeleton crew numbering in the single digits–in order to conserve energy, they shirked away from man D (too much running) and zone D (too much running for the cup), opting for something a little more efficient–akin to a man D with well-coordinated switches. A little research shows that you can credit them for popularizing the D, but perhaps not the creation.

Above all else, it’s important to remember that any junk defense is NOT a true zone, and that players should almost never be just covering an area. Find a (wo)man and stick to ‘em until you find a new (bigger) threat to switch on to.

This is true to some extent of all zones (you want to avoid defensive tunnel vision), but it’s particularly important here (especially if you plan to run the junk set persistently rather than for only a few throws).

I’ll disclaim all of this by saying that this set is meant to be run against a straight stack; I’ll try to touch upon ways to do this with a ho-stack (Dartmouth developed one for natties last year and ran it with good success against Arizona for a couple points), but I don’t have a ton of insight to offer there–it’s harder to coordinate switches against spread defenses.

Personnel

Generally speaking (there are many variations–remember, this set’s strength is its flexibility):

• Three handler defenders (“0,1,2″–that’s “zero,” “one,” and “two.”). These guys basically wind up playing man defense on the three players closest to the disc (this likely will include whomever is first in the stack in a 2-handler set), but they don’t chase them terribly far downfield.

• Two open-side defenders (“3,4″). A clam set typically forces in one direction. Depending on the set, They’ll either be open-side ins, with one taking a wide cut to the sideline and one taking more of the “gut” cut straight to the disc, or one taking ins and one taking deeps.
• One “hammer stop” or break side guard (“5″). Again, pretty self explanatory. Generally this position looks to stop over the tops, but if you have a breakside deep this position can play in more and look to stop flat breaks to the front of the stack too.
• One deep/breakside deep (“6″). Pretty self-explanatory; either works with the open-side deep or is the deep with highest priority to stop deep shots (ie, plays deeper than the open-side deep).

Setup

The two most common clam variations I’ve seen run either a box or a diamond shape.

It’s worth noting that the shape is simply a guideline of where people are looking to cover–a clam set, at its finest, looks exactly like a man up until a player moves*. The 0-6 distinction refers to the fact that the clam set is a man D first, adds a bit of deception if any opposing sidelines are listening (sometimes we’ve loudly counted for a clam, hoping the receiving team would take the bait), and designates where players should ‘default’ to in a man-like setup, especially off of a stopped disc (OB pull or turnover or the like), with the 0-2 taking the first three and the 6 playing last back. It’s also good to have this guideline in case the O is running a set you don’t want to clam against–for instance, if they run a horizontal stack and you only run a clam against a straight stack.

That said, here are a couple diagrams for a ‘box’ style clam (also note the Ultimate Handbook has a [more] useful clam explanation with diagrams, too):

The first image shows a general clam setup off of a dead disc–the first three are more or less playing honest man D to start, while the back four have the directions they’re looking to pick up a switch in marked with arrows.

Note that the break-side defender is already cheating to the break side. Also note that she, more than any other position (except perhaps the deep), is playing more of a “zone” role, always on the lookout for passes into her area and feeling a little more freedom to pinch off to ensure the break side is well-covered.

Once players start to move you might see the clam respond like this. Players cutting in on the open side from deep will get picked up by the 3 or 4–having been poached off of, her cutter will likely head deep–where the 6 is waiting for her (or perhaps the 5, given the cut is on the break side). This is the clam in a…clamshell.

Should you choose to persist with the clam after the first throw/cuts, you might see the 2 switching onto the cutter in the lane if she moves for the dump, the 3 move to pressure a quick break up the middle…myriad adjustments can and must be made to accommodate cutter movement. A quick, dynamic offense can be hard to contain, but teams that are very systematic are easy pickings.

Other things to note:

Alternative setups I’ve seen involve using the third handler guard as a sort of cup-like upfield on the disc, or otherwise leveraging the flexibility of the three–perhaps man D in mid-field but cup-trapping on the sideline, etc. There is a TON of room for creativity with these sorts of sets (Harvard seemingly had a new junk or zone-ish look for us every time we met), so don’t be afraid to experiment and take some time thinking through how you might structure a junk set.

It’s not uncommon (at least, amongst my classmates during classwars–perhaps you won’t see it at nationals) to throw a junk set with no specifications–”do what feels right” in my circle, but I’ve heard the terms “zen zone” (where you are is where you should be) and “junkyard” used too. Relying on player savvy can be a powerful thing in the right situations–chaos, in appropriate quantity, will topple rigid order.

Goals

1. Confusion. Especially if this set goes off of a stopped disc (I’ve known teams to pull OB on purpose to ensure this), a sudden break from what looks like a normal man D to something that clearly is NOT a man D can create a window of confusion for enterprising defenders to capitalize on, especially against a team accustomed to you throwing man already (clam/junk sets are a GREAT halftime adjustment).
2. Dictating the offense’s pace. Again, with the confusion that a junk D creates, you’re almost guaranteed to stifle, if not stop entirely, the opponent’s set play. Zones dictate an offense’s pace as well, but they are more readable and quickly adjusted to–at its best, junk D is much harder to read the holes in and really makes THEM play to YOU.
3. Quick turns. As the clam’s primary strength is the element of surprise, this set is most likely to get the disc quickly. It’s very common to see a junk or clam set run for the first few throws to stop a set play and hopefully get a D, then returning to an honest man D before the offense can figure out how to beat it.
4. Sideline punishment. The clam is at its best on the (force) sideline, where the open-side defenders have an easier time denying their side of the field. Throwing this set starting on the sideline (off a turn mid-point for example) can be devastating, as the lack of space combines with confusion (#1) to force a tough decision (and hopefully #3).

Risks

All of the main risks associated with the typical clam revolve around the disc moving quickly from one side of the field to another:

1. Disc on the non-force sideline. Conversely to #4 in the goals, a disc all the way on the far side is very tough to defend–the open side becomes so expansive as to make effective coordination of switching a challenge at best. Typically if the disc gets this far over the offense is soon to find an upfield cutter, setting the wheels in motion for this set’s demise.

Control by: There are a couple ways to control for this. The first and easiest is to simply transition to man D. You might also consider switching the force at this juncture–it might backfire, however, if downfield (especially deep) defenders are far out of position. You could switch the force and maintain the clam if your players are versatile enough, but that takes a lot of practice and communication and might not be worth it in the big picture of this set’s purpose.

2. Quick breaks to midfield. Similar to the disc on the far side, this opens up a lot of space and renders several defenders out of position–a formula for quick shredding.
3. Long breaks to the far side. This enables #1.
4. Big break throws (cross-field hammers/blades for yards). These throws can kill your generic clam, for the same reasons as above.

Control by: Being diligent with your 3, 5, and third handler defender to take away the quick IO up the middle for #2, and with your 5 and potentially 6 for #3 and #4. You can also leverage the mark–shading to take away the quick inside break/long around, putting up a hand(s) against the hammer, etc.

As for the Horizontal Stack Clam…

…It’s a bit more difficult to run a good clam against a ho-stack simply because the cutters use more space and are more likely to be moving simultaneously–generally speaking I think we only ran this set for the first handful of passes, rather than persistently, as continued switching became too taxing (note, we had only practiced the set for about a week before using it).

The same general ideas apply vs. a ho as against a vert–switching to cover the open side threats, one to cover the open-side deep, one guy breakside hammer stop.

I think the real difference in running against a ho-stack, though, is how you leverage your handler defense.

Generally speaking, ho-stacks suck on the sideline, and generally speaking, clams become much more effective in the same position.

The idea, then, is to leverage your handler D–have them poach into the lane and encourage disc movement to the sideline–before applying an aggressive clam look. From the sideline the extra spacing of the cutters becomes less relevant, as the viable throwing lanes narrow, making it far easier to leverage the switching that a clam requires.

If a team refuses to make passes to the sideline, then you can maintain an extra upfield defender who can make open-side passes difficult, and (depending on how you choose to use the break-side handler defender) an upfield defender to discourage easy (around) break passes. Have your mark shade to take away inside-out passes and you can frustrate a horizontal stack.

You can leverage your handler guards in similar manner against a horizontal stack regardless of defensive set, by the way–if you’re not already doing so in man D, you’re putting yourself at the mercy of the other team’s O.

A clam is little more than coordinated poaching. This sort of action doesn’t have to happen purely within the confines of a junk “set,” but can (and should) occur naturally mid-point as the situation dictates. Strategically, think of the clam as a tool to free your players’ mindsets and encourage more awareness–develop their field sense, and encourage creative use in other situations.

*this is the sort of thing I’d love to rig up in a flash animation–hoping to get around to that over the next two weeks during my spring break.

UPDATE: You might also check out this thread on ultitalk for some regional differences in what a “clam” is. I’m talking about the American version.

What’s on my radar lately:

• For those who are unfamiliar, ultimatehandbook.com is a solid resource for the beginner ultimate player (I remember reading it during my frosh year in ’04-’05). Their flash plays are a cool and innovative way to teach, and they’ve finally opened up the resources for public use!

I’ve no experience with flash, but I’ve been wanting to play with this for a while and plan to try my hand at creating some plays over the coming months.

• For those who were unaware (i.e.,don’t use RSS), Dartmouth’s Mr. Kim (no, not the new president–he’s a Dr., after all*) appears to have repaired his ego enough to sustain a blog again.

• Stephen Hubbard on trusting your teammates. It’s hard to describe, but important to understand.
• The US Worlds Team has been announced. Congrats Gwen! (Don’t think there are any other team members who read this…) Incidentally, you can find some recountings of the West and East tryouts on the blogosphere.
• The UPA recently revealed new proposals for the College Series, and are looking for feedback. I haven’t checked any of it out yet but I’ll likely write up my thoughts when I do.

*Have I mentioned this is where I’m going for medical school? Really excited. Exclamation point. !

Been updating the other blog, so I don’t have anything new today–but check out this RSD convo about rules quizzes. A good resource for anyone–you might also combine it with the UPA rules blog for further 11th edition fun.