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.
Posts
4 comments:
Yea, epiphany!
I would definitely agree with your overall point that structure is mostly meaningless. The good teams I've played for (and been cut from) rarely had more than 1 or 2 plays, which they would run on stopped discs. The rest of the time it was ____ stack and flow. They talked about matchups, open space, and resets. Interestingly, there was a lot more complexity on defense.
However, I disagree with some of your points about drills. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what the diamond drill is (is it like a square drill?), so I'll just have to talk about the other stuff.
I think drills are meant to work on fundamental pieces of the game, and when you do the drill, you have to emphasize this point beforehand. Yeah, the 3 person mark drill does those bad things you say. But, to me, it is more about having confidence with the disc when you have an aggressive mark. Remember Daweena in 04 with Sprawl, when we played Sack Lunch? They owned us mostly with their marks. They were super aggressive, even on the open side, and I certainly was not ready for that. I think this mark drill directly applies - you just have to say, "this is an awful throw in a game, but we want you to not freak out against a good marker."
It was only in the last few years of my coaching (which are a few years over!) that I came to like the horizontal stack as a teaching tool. The best part about the h-stack is that any of the 4 cutters are viable options when the disc is in the middle of the field. So who cuts? The four cutters know each other, they have an idea of who can beat their defender, but they also can see what position all of the defenders are in, and therefore, who has the best cut right now. In a scrimmage, I like to stop play, and talk to the cutters about these issues.
But as for a drill for this, the only one I've ever done is a thrower and marker, with two cutters and defenders downfield. The cutters have to work out who cuts where - without prior arrangement - based on their skills and the defender lineup. But as a precursor to this, I would do really rote drills of, "out fake, in cut," "in fake, out cut", singly, then in pairs with continuation, before adding defense.
The last point I would make is that regardless of the approach, nothing is a sure thing. 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?
I guess, in the end, the problem is the thoughtless reps in the drills, and not enough teaching and learning (do I sound like a coach, or what?!)
Later
Lawrence
I agree on several points.
First: The key to good teams is knowing your role on the team. That then defines the team strategy (where I define a strategy to be an overarching plan on how you hope to achieve victory). From there, you get to individual tactics.
Too often in league games, you don't want to pigeonhole new players into the roles of "least damage" (typically either a mid, or one of the longs).
Tactics are then how the individual players apply their role to the point in the game and their matchup.
No one would ever claim I'm a paragon of athleticism. In league games I find myself in one of two scenarios (normally) that I can succeed in:
1) I'm matched up on an experienced player who is less athletic
2) I'm matched up against an inexperienced player who is more athletic
3) (I'll touch on this later)
In each of those scenarios I need to apply my individual tactics to how we plan to win as a team. My typical role in a team is a mid or possesion handler (different from a scoring handler who has better hucks). Depending on the situations I need to either switch to a bigger handle or more to providing open cuts. If I'm not doing one of those then my tactics make the team less effective.
I do disagree on the long cut. It may be made from the center of the field, but in my mind it normally has two components:
1) The setup
From the middle of the field the cut needs to put the defender on the opposite side of the way you want to go and has to be away from the middle.
2) Execution
The cut then comes back to the other side going towards the other "third" of a field. This gives the thrower a much better chance of success.
Of course this is because unlike any respectable deep I can't normally run away from my defender.
Now, back to #3:
3) I'm matched up on an experienced player who is more athletic.
In this case it depends, but if they are a real deep threat I like to keep them moving towards the front of the stack. I probably won't get a cut against them, but I have to prevent the poach and keep them from taking me deep on the turn.
If they're looking more to be handler I like to keep them towards the back of the stack and honest, so hopefully someone else will get the disk on a turn.
If it's someone who is faster than I am but I suspect less aerobically fit I like to keep them running to a lot to make them less energetic on the offensive end.
That is all tactics.
I think too often people don't think like that, and as a result you have one or two people who do, and 5 or 6 who don't, and suddenly any hope of a strategy is gone.
I also think drills are over-rated. If you have a throw you need to work on, you're better just going and working on it alone. Pickup is when you add the mark.
On defense, it's almost always about footwork and position. Those are mental things that you need to have the basics of, but you refine in games.
And for really competitive teams I think there are two things that are often a huge difference maker that people don't do because it requires 50% more engergy for 10% more gain (not really, but it's close):
1) Everyone hauls down on the pull. Stop those free 10-20+ yards on the first few throws.
2) High energy marks.
But what do I know. I suck.
-Jot
And you claim *I* write long posts!?
As far as it goes, based on the breadth and depth and intellectual analysis and all other sorts of goodies -- I can see this sort of post gaining you even more national disc exposure than you presently have. Glad to see you're putting that analytical mind to good use!
I'm still waiting to write my "Structure of Shikaku versus Theory" exegesis, but the ten people in the world who know what that is shouldn't hold their breath...
That was such a comprehensive post that it's hard to know what to comment on.
In general I agree with your comments about offensive flow. I agree that it's of much more value to know why you should be cutting and when then to know how to make a good cut. This makes the offense much more efficient and wastes less energy. Sprawl, has been running a drill/play all summer which is basically a string play. It has reinforced the idea of making the right cuts when the disc moves. But for newer players I think that they need the structure first as a foundation. For instance if you coached a league team and only used theory I think that only the experienced players would know what to do and the newbies would have a frustrating season.
I think that I might have been on that aught six team that you are referrencing. Being a new "athletic" player I did get lost in the game. The times when I felt the most confident was when I was making the first cut, I didn't feel as confident working off other cuts. I don't know that theory would have helped me at the time. I'm sorry we let you down.
Drills, I like them. You can't ever forget that it's a drill and that you are trying to work on one thing as opposed to many things. The repetitiveness helps ingrain in you the things that do not work and the things that do. It' often a good way to bring out strengths and weaknesses too. You can't hide that you have a weak flick in the three man drill or that you don't have a huck on a deep cut drill. Besides, even if you wanted to you can't just teach theory, it would be too boring.
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.
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?
Justin
Post a Comment