"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."
Posts
4 comments:
I still just don't agree that it's the proper cutting angle for a deep cut. I agree that it allows for the receiver to make the most adjustment but I think that it allows the defender to make more adjustments and increase their advantage. If I'm making a deep cut then I have a few steps, hopefully, on my defender. Most of the time if I have to go in and get the disc because it's to short or low then I think the advantage swings toward the defender. I also think that even if it is thrown pretty well then the defender has the opportunity to take a better angle than me to the inside or the outside. Granted, I should know the best angle to take but it happens.
I don't think that a huck up the line has to have a lot if any curve to it. 85% of the time the marker is forcing line making a huck easy with any realistic fake or good footwork. As long as there is not another defender close and on the line then then I like to put it over and ahead of the cutter and let them catch up to it. Even if I'm not on the line I still prefer this type of throw. I concede that there is less room for error as far as where the cutter can catch the disc but, I think that the defender's chances of disrupting this type of throw are so small that it more than compensates. Unless another poach defender is deeper than they will have to run farther and around the cutter to get to the disc.
This might just be preference though. I do not have a forehand huck so all of these comments are how I prefer to throw a backhand huck.
Justin
...and if you do make a poor throw then the cutter can put on the brakes and box out the defender.
In the huddle (http://www.the-huddle.org/), one of the writers wrote this about hucking/cutting: "As a cutter, it is easiest to read and catch a huck when you can approach the disc from a different angle than the flight path of the disc. As such, the teams I've been a part of have emphasized the "rule of thirds" for setting up hucks. Basically, if you divide the field lengthwise into thirds, for any deep shot either the cutting path of the receiver or the flightpath of the disc needs to cross from one third into another third of the field. If you stick to this rule, you will avoid the temptation of throwing a huck down the sideline to an "open" cutter who is also cutting down that sideline with a narrow window of opportunity to complete the pass. You will also throw to space more often and give the receiver the maximum time to read the disc, out-maneuver her defender, and attack the frisbee—especially important if the pass wasn't perfectly thrown."
I think this mostly supports your theory, Keith, although, throwers also have the responsibility of knowing where to throw to (i.e., what 1/3 of the field) to ensure maximum effectiveness.
I agree with Emma and Keith on this point, Justin. The U of A guys have a name for throwing to a straight-away cut down the line, and I can't remember what it is, but it indicates you should never try it. The window is just too small. Caution: long sentence ahead. I do agree with you Justin in the sense that if you think that if the receiver is clearly faster, taller, and/or can jump higher than the defender, the receiver has lots of space beyond them, the receiver is in the middle third of the field, and the wind isn't bad, and you can get the throw off easily, then it's usually worth floating the disc out over their head for them to run to.
Jeff Hale
Post a Comment