More ultimate

Since the comments have been substantive, I thought I'd address/clarify points that were raised. Too much is on drills and the deep cut, which might be too specific for my questionably worded thesis.

"Theory" approach.

As long as the previous post was, I may not have been as specific on the how to get players to think about ultimate theory. Lawrence said “You mentioned discussing very specific situations with players, so that they can generalize from there. But what about the players that want rules - and haven't had this structure free epiphany yet - and just take your specific situation as one more rule they have to remember?”

My point on the specific situations was to go into detail about situations to not only over the what, but the why. If it stops there, then it is just another “rule” to remember. The goal/hope is that by focusing on the why stuff is happening, players will be more reflective about what happened when they’re playing. I concede this may be too much to throw at new league players, and my thinking is this more applicable to the intermediate/new club player. It might work with new players, but you can’t stop a league game or open play and go over the situation.

At a team practice, there’s always been the idea of calling “stop!” during the scrimmage portion, but it rarely ever happens. I may be overselling the “theory” approach as a cure-all. What I mean by it is that a greater emphasis needs to be placed on how players think about space and spacing, rather than the diagram of a play. And the first step is to get people to think and reflect about the situations they're in and how to recognize what the options are (cut, clear, stop, etc). If doing so is a new concept to them, then it is a matter of teaching them to think about situations and then how to do so. I don't have a better way to do this than to trust players to

Drills

I think I came off as anti-drill overall, which isn’t completely the case. I don’t really care for most drills anymore, but I recognize they are important to developing skills. I just really dislike the way drills are run. This is a function of what Lawrence called “thoughtless reps”. Once everyone has the basic routine of the drill, the focus becomes the drill itself, rather than its applicability. In a cutter/defender drill, the defender always sets up in the same spot. In a thrower/cutter drill, the thrower is always set up in the middle of the field or on the line, never anywhere else. In a dump drill the cut is always to the thrower. It could just be the teams I’ve played on that do this, but those are the teams I care about.

Drills become more useful the more they mimic game situations, and the tendency I see is for drills to become less game-like, either as a result of some amount of laziness, inattention, cheating (in the sense of shortcuts the drill allows rather than what the game), sloppiness or terrible rhythm. If players/teams think more about what the point of the drill is, rather than just running it after basic instructions, they can be more effective.

I’ll use the endzone drill as an example. Three common problems I see with it: (1) Back of the stack to the front cone. No, it should be on a line about 5 yards or so inside of the cone, leaving the cutter more room to adjust out. (2) The person who threw for the score gets the disc on the line. Why? That’s just dumb. It reinforces the dump coming to the line, and makes the swing unrealistic, as it either becomes too long of a throw to get across the field, or it leaves the swing on the wrong side of the field. (3) the Swing cutter makes a “C” cut towards the thrower (they cut away, then curl to the thrower)[this is the least common of the three problems, but I still see it], rather than making the fake to the thrower and going away, so that they get more yards laterally across the field. What happens when all 3 of these happen? The person catching the swing is on the wrong half of the field to have a good angle to throw for the score, as it becomes too similar to someone making a flat (perpendicular) cut.

To address the other drills that were commented on--the diamond drill is probably not the square drill (box?), it's the leading go to drill, so that the two lines are two points and the reception points are the other 2 points of the diamond. I think for new players it's fine to always set up the lines directly across from each other, but for club players? Vary it up a bit. Or at least change the angle of the cut--i see it too often become too flat or too close.

As for the three person marker drill. Aside from the bad habits that I think it can reinforce, what aggravates me more is when the marker backs up. This makes the throw straight up much harder because they no longer have to commit as much to a side to take away a throw. In the drill, markers get conditioned to do this because the thrower has a tendency to step forward rather than out on their fakes/pivots. I don't step forward, but my marker invariably still ends up taking a step or two back, killing any throwing angle i might have unless it's a hard outside in. What do I do? I step backwards. This generally makes the marker feel like they are too far away, so they come back into me. As they move in, they're unprepared to go side to side and I break them. It's not as automatic as it used to be. This tells me that people are playing to the drill (dropping back) rather than the focusing on the side to side movement of a tight mark. I think it should be emphasized to throwers to decide what throw you want to make before starting.

These are probably minor issues, but they speak to how drills become too routine and not as beneficial as they could be. Thinking about a the function of a drill makes them more effective and efficient and can minimize flaws in the setup of a drill.

The Deep Cut

Justin commented: I'm still not sold on your deep cut angle preference. I personally like to cut up the sideline as it's harder for the marker to defend and easier for me to box out the defender if I need to. Plus I feel like it forces the thrower to focus on where to put the disc. If I can put the disc to the right or left side of the field I usually have to take an extra split second to decide and I feel like I make a poorer throw.

Justin, I think your preference is wrong. The thrower’s job is to put into the endzone in a way that allows the cutter to be running full speed at the catch. If you get into a position where you need to box out, it was either a bad cut or a bad throw. If you’re not sure which side to throw to, then your prospective receiver is giving you a bad cut, or you’re overthinking it way too much. Jot disagreed as well, but I think that more a case of me oversimplifying (stay to the center as long as possible) [or not].

The ideal deep cut allows the cutter to triangulate to see the throw and decide where they can catch it. In my experience, a cut straight away from the thrower is more likely to lead to a poor throw (particularly on the sideline where it’s much more likely to hook too far to the middle). In my mind, the only time a deep cut is straight away from a thrower is when they have more than half of the field (laterally) to cut out to, ie if the thrower is being forced flick and trapped, the deep cut straight away from them should NOT be expecting a blady flick--they should be expecting a hammer or backhand to the other sideline.

Speed/creating space between you and the defender and giving the thrower a clear area (not spot!) to put the throw are the most important things about a deep cut. Height/boxing out/laying out is there as a back up when there’s a breakdown in the first part.

The diagram below hopefully illustrates my point. The left is a throw to a spot--it's limited in the area the receiver can get it. The middle, by triangulating, the receiver, chooses where they can get the disc. If the throws short, the receiver can adjust. If it's long, the receiver can adjust. If it's blady swill hooking to the middle of the field, the receiver can read it and maybe still make a play on it. The bottom right, is the only expectation a cut straight away from the thrower should have.





Has understanding theory improved your play or is that just hypothesis? Are your team's faring better or worse because you put yourself in less risky/productive situations?

I would assume so, if people think I’m a better player now even though my physical skills are considerably worse. My understanding of spacing and team play is much better than it used to be. I went through a period last year where I felt like I was never in the wrong position (not that I could always do something from the right position), but that’s faded a bit as I adjust to be slower and not able to get in and out of spots as quickly as I think I might. Hard to say about impact during league, but I no longer run into clusters to attempt to save a thrower, and I wait for space to open up--that's a plus, even if the team isn't as "successful."

Structure versus theory

At league draft 2 weeks ago, a small group hung around afterward and talked various things ultimate. In the course of the discussion, two different people noted that they think I've been playing better in the past year than they've ever seen me play. This shocked the hell out of me. I don't run as well. I don't break as well. I don't cut as well. I touch the disc a lot less. I think my hands are worse. My longer forehands have gotten better, but it's not like they scare anyone. So how could anyone possibly think I got better?

While I disagree with that notion, I do believe I've gotten better at understanding my role in an offense. Back in aught six, I drafted a team with the goal of it being as athletic as possible and seeing where that would get us. I tried using a horizontal stack. We won our first couple, but the offense wasn't that pretty. I think i bailed on it by the third game of the season because we didn't have the consistent threat of a deep game to pull it off, so we kept on getting fronted and weren't able to do much. But I remember in those games being the dominant handler on the field, and with the horizontal, sometimes finding myself on the wide side of the play, ie, not involved. My old habit would have been to dive into the play, but I let the offense do the work (partially because I thought my defender would have me covered), and we often able to work it a bit.

This helped me realize that it isn't necessary to always be doing something. Sometimes you're out of the play and you should keep it that way. Sometimes you just need to move (not even a cut) to open up space for a teammate. The common trait I think of the people that I played the most with was that we were all decent athletically, but not great, so we all learned to work and cycle until we got space. Maybe this is what we had to do, but it's not necessarily the best thing to do.

A difference I've noted in the better teams we've played is that they make one cut, and if they make that one cut well, they get the disc. Teams I've been a part of, that's not always the case--it's cut, cut, cut, and maybe you'll get the disc. But you might not because the thrower's already looked you off, or someone else is cutting into the same area.

And this happens over and over again because of what I've believe is an over reliance on a team structure (who cuts where when) and plays rather than a focus on how to just play ultimate--ie an understanding of what is best situationally. The focus is on sticking to the structure (someone needs to cut there; I will cut there) rather than situation (what is the best thing for me to do from here). Ultimate is not football--a playbook is just a guide, it's not set in stone.

This might be closer to an epiphany, but it's been slow. I've long realized I am no good at strategy/overall team strategy, particularly in a reactive sense--I simply do not pick up on what other teams are doing and think of a way to counteract that. The extent of my strategy is "let's force backhand". But what I am good at (or better at as compared to team strategy) is the what to do in a specific instance and why to do that thing. And it took me a long time to get there. I remember being told after I'd been playing for 4-5 years "You run around a lot, but you have no idea where you're going." I didn't expect that, but then again I've rarely been coached individually/directly. So my teaching approach reflects the desire to address that--most comment I might make is based on the situation/individual. Some of it borders on standard "plays", but the basis is "what do I do in this situation."

Watching practices this weekend crystalized this--the emphasis on a team strategy--plays and/or the offensive is not as effective as it can be because there's a gap in understanding what is happening on the field and why. Any offense can work in theory. Until the defense changes up in a way you weren't expecting. Then what?

I see this in drills and how people are taught to throw or cut. It reinforces habits that may not be applicable to a game.

As a thrower, player are told to practice your fakes. You're nothing without fakes. Fakes aren't bad, but the point of a fake is to get the marker out of position, or to open up a throw. But it's not always the most effective way, and too often fakes become reflexive than purposeful. To me, footwork and pivoting is much more important. These get added into faking, but often take a back seat. Even when pivoting is encouraged, it's still treated like a fake--something automatically done, rather than for a purpose. Back when I was a good thrower (ie could and would break anyone), I knew from the moment I picked up the disc if I could break them, and where the throwing lane was. Didn't require any fakes, and it was one hard pivot (with purpose!). I will concede that was a specialized skill that not many people have, but it was the mindsight of being able to recognize what the marker was giving me and what I could take.

As a cutter, the general approach is the checkmark--a hard change of direction. Obviously that is a good skill to practice and have. But I think teaching cutting theory is lacking (or more "movement theory)--when to cut, where to cut, how to cut for throwers, when to just make a clear cut to open up space for teammates, when to just stay out of the way, when to recognize it is your turn because the movement of the disc has put your defender at a disadvantage. I've been in situations in which I'm defending people far, far superior to me athletically that didn't get the disc because they spent more time trying to get me out of position than identifying when it was the best time to make that cut. One case in particular, someone was open on me for 4 passes. Never got the disc even though he was always on the open side and never too far down field. Admittedly, part of this was due to cuts from teammates that perhaps shouldn't have been made, but, to me, it was bad recognition of when to go, and when to hold up for things to clear out.

The other part of cutting is setting up the space for the thrower to throw to. Generally speaking the in cut should be easy/obvious, but not always. One of the two best compliments I ever got as a player was someone telling me (this was 04/05) was that I always made cuts that were easy to throw to. I never thought of myself as doing anything special, but I knew I never made any amazing catches on my in cuts--nothing really great to "save" the thrower from a turn, and maybe that's why. The other part of incuts--to the breakside, is dual recognition from the thrower and cutter to recognize what the marker is giving up, the inside out, or the around throw.

As for long cuts, a lot of players don't set up the angle to make it easier. The deep cut is understood as a vertical cut, when really it isn't. Ideally the cutter stays to the middle (generally) as long as possible, so it is easier to see the thrower, the disc and whether it's smarter to continue the deep cut, or break it off and come underneath. The good deep cut and throw isn't the one where the receiver is running full speed to catch it at a certain spot (ie vertically to the back of the endzone), it's the one where they can choose the angle to get to it the fastest (ie, the intersection of the arc of the flight of the disc and the cut). This may come of as basic skills, but it is rooted in the mental approach to the game--where am i cutting to that allows me to run hard, allows me to see the disc, and makes the throw easy(er). Maybe that isn't teachable, maybe it only comes from experience, but I think going into great detail about what to do in a specific situation can help players create their own mental framework about how to think about situations on their own, including drills.

Too often drills are rote repetition that reinforce not beneficial habits. There are a lot of drills that I used to like that I know longer do because of this. I also get frustrated with drills because they aren't run like a game situation in terms of angles, approach or mindset.

• The three person marker drill overdoes fakes, teaches throws to bad target areas (straight through the marker), and teaches the marker to lunge and over commit. This doesn't even get into the tendency of the marker to back up, to take away the straight throw, which is a mark they'd never do in a game.
• The diamond drill, like many drills starts with the cutter straight away from the thrower cutting out an angle, which pretty much only occurs on a brick. Except it doesn't even happen then because the defense is set. It also emphasizes a 45 degree angle on the cut, which I've decided is dumb. It should be closer to 30 degrees--it make the cut more to the thrower, minimizes the risk of a throw more to the middle, provides plenty of room for the cutter to adjust out and can provide the right flare if it is to the outside to gather momentum into the continuation throw.
• A variation of the diamond drill to the break side--this is actually what turned me against drills 4 years ago--the marker would overcommit to stopping the break, the thrower would throw some swilling outside in pass that would be D'd everytime. This kind of scenario in which the marker is "cheating" provides the cutter the opportunity to recognize what space to cut to.
  
• Dump cut drills are invariably a cut to the thrower. The space behind the dump, past their defender is never utilized. Back in '05 at a tournament, Guy threw me a dump pass like that--out into space to the middle of the field, so I'd catch it going away from him. I don't think I even moved--using that space never occurred to me.
• In a cutter/defender drill, most people have the tendency defensively to always set up in the same spot. Thinking about it more situationally might inspire trying different approaches--out in space, up really tight, trailing just behind.

I may be expecting too much from this theory approach to learning/team building. The adoption of it in practice still requires thought while playing, but instead of thinking "is it my turn to cut?" and the focus because on "what can i do/should i be doing from this position?" and from a team performance perspective, that is more important. Taking a situation and thinking about the outcome, or what effects that outcome is critical to improvement because it maximizes one's contributions. Sometimes that contribution is the good cut. Sometimes it's recognizing the easy dump or swing right away. Sometimes it's just getting out of a teammate's way. But the only way to learn from it is to analyze it individually.