tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-87802486473628520892024-02-15T20:35:03.406-08:00Win The FieldsThe view from the end of the dayLouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-28885755339780825512015-08-01T06:27:00.001-07:002015-08-01T06:27:52.489-07:00Rocky Mountain Highs and LowsMost of what happened in the The All-Stars loss to Molly Brown I should have seen coming. Four games in five days with a short roster, 1800 miles of travel, the altitude - I knew all that was happening. I knew that Molly Brown was quite good as well. But how did I not know that Alicia White was playing for MB? That's not fair.<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
The most damaging of The All-Stars' fatigue manifested itself in the lack of secondary cutting. The primary cutting was still decisive and aggressive - but it's always easy to find the will to cut when you're on stage. What was missing (and necessary on a night where there was a lot of poaching off of the handlers) was the secondary cut. Those cuts came, but because of the fatigue, they came a beat late. The mark was on, the poach was settled and consequently, the fifteen yard reverse flow cuts into the middle of the field that killed Riot, weren't there against Brown.<br />
<br />
The altitude was responsible for the windedness and lack of defensive pressure throughout the game, but it was also responsible for several turnovers on leading passes. Playing at altitude has a profound effect on what you can throw and how you can throw it. You can throw the disc so far, it's unreal. Just look at Qxhna's pulls in that game compared to the sea-level games. But you can't hang the disc. The thin air means that the disc will run out and away from itself. There a number of The All-Stars' turnovers that came on away passes that never slowed down and set up like you'd expect.<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
Having watched U-23 Japan, Riot and now Molly Brown play use it, it seems likely that the sag-off-the-handlers defense will be the It-Defense of the year in the women's division. (A key component of this defense is to sag in the middle and then aggressively trap the disc on the sideline. It is a bend and then break strategy.) One of the really cool things about seven players is that it is actually too many. Just dropping down to six greatly reduces the poaching potential because you can put everyone in an aggressive, active, damaging spot. The cool problem with sevens is that some offensive player is always in a bad spot which means that you have to work to put them in a good place. Against smart help defense, there is always a free defender. How do you negotiate this problem? Three-handler spread offenses put their extra person around the disc, but that allows a poach to sit in the lane. You can hit them, but all you've done is throw the disc into the trap on the sideline.<br />
<br />
There are two good solutions. The first is to run your handlers and play high tempo. The shifting angles and constant motion reduce the efficacy of the poaching. The second is to take the swings and be patient. (This is Fury's strategy.) The All-Stars don't have a defined strategy yet and maybe they won't get one, but they need something better than the pie-cut resets they are currently using - it costs yards and runs them right into the poach on the other side of the field. (This was a huge problem in the U-23 finals.)<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
I loved getting to watch Molly Brown's offense. It is still a bit embryonic, but it looks capable of being nasty efficient. They did a really nice job spreading the field, moving the disc laterally and then attacking once they'd gotten an opening. The spacing was really pretty - but something I'd expect from a team with such an infusion of Scandal players. Quality spacing is a hallmark of the Rev-Scandal system. The other thing about Molly Brown is how deep they are. You take a team that is on a slow rise, a team that has a really good base established and then you add four or five really talented players? That's a recipe for a national title.<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
Notes: the defense was boring. I understand why MB played vanilla (they're deeper, they're on film) but TASU should have played some weird stuff. Why not? Maybe you settle on something they can't solve and even if not, you learn something about your team....Kate Scarth is underutilized...in general, I think a bunch of The All-Stars are underutilized....it's interesting to see TASU settle into a very O-line, D-line system....Ozone will be a tough game; they are better than people think and the pace of the tour will really begin to take it's toll.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-19989208060534639692015-07-30T07:32:00.000-07:002015-07-30T07:32:33.221-07:00DevelopmentIn putting a 15-8 beat down on Schwa, The All-Stars revealed exactly where each team is. The All-Stars are shaping up into the team they will be; in fact they are very close to being fully formed. Schwa has much further to go until they are the team they want to be. The positive for both teams was the defense. I know the wind gets the big assist, but the D was excellent.<br />
<br />
One of the cool things about The All-Stars is that they are all excellent defenders. Against Schwa they were particularly good around the disc, stifling Portland's resets and containing their arounds. Again and again, Schwa was driven down into the trap and not let out. The All-Stars got some big blocks, but nothing out of the ordinary. I remember as a young player marveling at someone's ability to get blocks and wishing I could play like that, when one of my older teammates said no, you want to play defense like Al because his man never even gets thrown to. That's how The All-Stars were able to play last night.<br />
<br />
Portland's defense wasn't so shabby either. They didn't do any one piece of defense particularly well, but they hung in and played with grit and desire the whole way through the game. This may seem like a small thing, but it isn't. Teams have to build around an identity - that identity gives them strength and purpose and allows them to push through and weather difficult stretches. (Those stretches can be points or years - I spent five years in one.) On a night where their offense fell apart, their defense held together and that's the kind of thing that you can build around.<br />
<br />
There was a telling moment on offense that defined the game for me. (It's at 1:19:00.) Franklin gets the disc on the backhand third and has nothing. Erin Schroeder is checking down on the far side of the field and is a step open. Which is to say - she isn't very open. She is twenty-five yards away and coming straight down the field, leaving a block angle wide open. With no hesitation, Franklin puts it in exactly the right spot - a boring, routine play. This is the throw that The All-Stars were making, that Schwa wasn't. It's the throw with tempo to someone who is open, but just. It requires trust. It requires placement. These are the throws that keep an offense alive against good defense.<br />
<br />
I'll end with scrapple. Kelly Hansen's block on Jaclyn (21:45) was the play of the game...Schwa's offense didn't play wide enough downfield and didn't play back enough when challenged at the disc....Stert was instrumental on two big upwind goals - throwing one and skying for another. That's upwind offense - get in a good spot and take your chances.....Speaking of hucks, that might have been the difference in the game. Schwa missed too many that they should have hit....Where's the Traffic game?...The line versus Molly Brown is The All-Stars -1/2.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-19940871382235697242015-07-28T05:22:00.002-07:002015-07-28T06:53:19.529-07:00Wrong AgainI remember discussing the then-nascent Nexgen tour with founder Fresh and telling him he'd be lucky if they won three games. Clearly I was wrong. My prediction for the All-Star Ultimate tour was also three wins. Looks awfully wrong at this point.<br />
<br />
One of the amazing things to me was how much the All-Stars looked like Nexgen. It was eerie. Like Nexgen, they didn't do anything fancy, they just went out and played ultimate and won because they individually won their matchup. <br />
<br />
It wasn't a terribly well played game on either side. The All-Stars looked like a new team and made new-team mistakes. Riot looked disinterested for most of the game, particularly on defense. It didn't really occur to them that they might lose until very, very late in the game. <br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
This is the second time I've seen Riot play a sagging, no-mark style defense. It wasn't exactly the same as what they did at the US Open, but similar enough in not putting any pressure on the thrower. I really don't like it. I'm not sure if it's the strategy or the tactics (the plan or the implementation) that isn't working, but it isn't challenging the thrower at all. The days where you could get a turn by making a team swing the disc ten times are over - the throwers are just too good.<br />
<br />
I can't help but compare this to the brilliant sagging defense the Japanese play. There are two major tactical differences. First, they are covering multiple areas simultaneously by constantly moving, moving, moving. It may not seem like a two yard shuffle here and a jab step there make a difference, but they do. They create ever shifting force lines on the field and those lines and the motion associated with them control much more space than a static poach. (Which is what Riot was doing.) Secondly, the Japanese are connected to all the other players on the field - Riot is overly connected to the thrower. As specific examples, look at how often ASU got a ten yard gainer to the sideline with the opportunity to throw anything downfield. Look at how often the ten yards right in front of the disc was wide open for a comeback cut. That ten yard gainer can be trimmed down to no gain with some deft footwork. That comeback cut can be turned into a swing to the sideline by your connection to what is happening behind you.<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
Of all the early 90s strategies to make a comeback, dominator is the most surprising. Riot ran it as their endzone offense (the distinction from a standard endzone offense is the space to the front of the stack and the emphasis on getting the handlers running in space), but also as a developmental system in the early part of several possessions. Kelly Johnson was notable running in front of the disc.<br />
<br />
The problems that lead to the demise of dominator as a high-level strategy where on display both yesterday and in the college championship game where Stanford used it as upwind offense in the second half. First problem is that it is incredibly physically demanding of the players who are running it. Second problem is that it routinely asks for demanding mid-range away throws. Coupled the physical demands means that dominator often ends on an execution error on an away throw. Johnson's turnover to lose the game was a classic example. And brings us to the final problem - the join between the dominator and the other cutters in very weak. A well run dominator should put you in power position but it is hard for the cutters to know when to engage because their primary directive is to make space for the dominator, leaving them constantly wondering when to stop clearing and start making space.<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~<br />
I'm excited to see the development of ASU over the next month. Right now, they are all raw talent and only a little bit of knit - what will they look like when they are a team? They need an endzone offense, but I'm not sure there's much else they are missing. Like Nexgen, they may be able to do it on simplicity and talent. Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-30600868955572945902015-07-09T08:04:00.000-07:002015-07-09T08:04:21.979-07:00Natural EnemyWashington may be our natural rival, but British Colombia is our natural enemy. Over the years, they always seem to hand us the worst of our defeats; this year was no different. When we met at Northwest Challenge there was a lot on the line - both the tournament title and the #1 ranking would swing on the balance of the game. Now there is a difference between losing and getting beat; in the NWC finals, UBC beat our asses. The final score, 9-12, belies how out of sorts we were, how rattled we got, how much we struggled, how painful a game it was. We walked away from that game and spent an hour getting our heads screwed back on - then we set to work making sure it wouldn't happen again.<br />
<br />
It's impossible to talk about UBC without talking about the border. I think it's hard for people outside the Pacific NW to really understand the push-pull relationship between the Canadians and the Americans. On the one hand, they are an integral part of our community - we play them multiple times a year, we know their players, they know us. When people bring up the inevitable "Why are the Canadians participating in our Nationals" argument, I always want to respond with "Why is Kansas in our Nationals? We haven't played them ever." But on the other hand, they feel different and because they feel different, they act different. When they come down across the border, they make sure to stop and pick up their chip-on-the-shoulder. Have you ever noticed how often Canadian teams put maple leaves on their jerseys? They want to remind us that they are Canadian because they are always reminded of it themselves. There is a Twilight Zone quality to crossing the border - things are the same, but not the same. Tim Horton's is 7-11. Clamato is tomato juice. And things aren't quite fair either. You can spend a greenback in Abbotsford, but you can't spend a Loonie in Bellingham. Canadians play in the USAU series, but when has a States team ever tried to play in CUPA's series? The thing is, the resentment really is defined by the border. When I've traveled into Canada to play Canadian tournaments with Canadians, the feel is so, so, so different. The faint edge of discomfort and resentment is gone, replaced by the general good feeling and good spirit that is the <i>lingua franca</i> of ultimate communities everywhere. <br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
The primary characteristic of the Thunderbirds is replace-ability. Their cutters are expected to be equally effective going away from the disc as they are going toward it. They should be good throwers - as capable of delivering the disc down the field as they are at receiving it. Their handlers should be balanced as well - they can all make 20-yard pass, they can all break the mark, they can all get open against set defense. Their offense doesn't demand anything especially difficult from anyone, so when things are working well it is a series of comeback cuts to the open side with an occasional break throw mixed in. Every now and again, someone will be wide open going deep and they catch an easy goal. The prototypical T-bird is Lisa Wong. She's fast, but not blindingly so. She's quick, but not stunningly so. Her throws are good, but not shocking. She's a good receiver, but she's small so is dependent on being open and getting a good throw. She's a good defender, but she won't break the game with a string of layout blocks. <br />
<br />
The strength of this system is that it is very hard to key in on anyone player. Time and again, I've watched us get destroyed by someone and decided that we'll focus on taking that player away only to get destroyed by someone else the next game. For most teams they play, UBC's best player may not be the best player on the field, but their sixth and seventh best players are far better than the other team's sixth and seventh best players. They are certainly more well-rounded than their matchups and therefore capable of exploiting whatever advantage they have. The weakness of this system is that it is very dependent on everyone playing well. If everyone plays only okay, you've got a big problem. In a lot of ways, UBC's system is the exact opposite of Stanford's or UCF's. Instead of consolidating offensive responsibility, they've spread it out as evenly as possible. If everyone on UBC has an okay game, that's a turnover apiece for a total of twenty. If everyone on UCF has an okay game, three players have five each and no one else has any (because they aren't allowed to.) So often watching UBC play, I see beautiful play interrupted by a drop or throwaway. This is a danger of asking a lot of people to do work. The problems this kind of system presents are compounded by the fact that UBC is temperamentally a small ball team, which provides more opportunity for costly mistakes. <br />
<br />
That isn't to say that the Thunderbirds don't have some excellent individual talent. The trio of Lam, Chan and Chung formed a consistent and unflappable handling core. Downfield, the exceptionally fast duo of Ellen Au-Yeung and Victoria McCann provide complimentary threats. Better under than away, Au-Yeung is all backhand; better away than under, McCann is all forehand. And then of course, you've got Mira Donaldson. There is no question that she is the most talented player on the team - she's super long and possesses deft touch going down the field on either side. Her step-through backhand is particularly nasty (a major problem for a force-middle team), but the biggest difficulty she presents is that she can huck against the mark. While a number of other T-birds have nice deep throws when unmarked, Mira is (almost) the only player who can huck while marked. Her years of experience with Traffic and UBC make her unrattleable against the zone and many of our strategies changed and shifted based on when she had the disc. Her length made her an excellent target going away from the disc as well. Really, though, it was the hucks - every good team needs easy points and the string of Someone to Mira to Victoria deep was worth two or three quick goals per game.<br />
<br />
Defensively, T-birds 2015 was a bit different from previous years. Historically, UBC has relied on a variety of okay-not-great defenses to generate turnovers through confusion more than brute force. Unlike a lot of women's teams that play only force flick and maybe a zone, UBC will play several different makes and several different zones augmented by some transitions. This year, however, they played very, very vanilla up until Nationals. We saw few zones and no transitions. I think in part they were working on developing younger players and didn't want to overload them too early, but the paranoid part of me thinks they were holding back for Nationals because when we saw them in the semifinals they hit us hard with the transition for numbers. But for the most part, they were a team characterized by speed and stick-to-your-girl grit; freshman Naomi Morcilla and graduate Erin Bussin led the way. <br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
Our response to UBC's threat was to bring intense psychological warfare (or at least the ultimate frisbee version of it). All good teams do this - you cannot be successful if you cannot insulate yourself from the psychological pressure exerted by other teams. Simultaneously, you exert your own pressure on the other team. There are a million ways to do this, ways that range from Riot's intense positivity to Revolver's stonewalling IHD. Your method has to suit your team and we chose a method that suited ours - to go on the offensive. So out came the "U-S-A" chant, out came the red-white-and-blue outfits, the Star Spangled Banner to lead off the game. We had fun, we were loud, we were excited and we were annoying.<br />
<br />
There is a broader question here of what constitutes good SotG. Is it okay to put psychological pressure on your opponent? We do this all the time inadvertently, but is it okay to do this intentionally? It is okay to put physical pressure on your opponent - is mental pressure also okay? <br />
To be clear on definitions, physical pressure means all the defensive and offensive strategies that teams use: marking, zones, positioning, boxing out. There are limits to what is acceptable and what is not. The line between acceptable and not acceptable is not clear and shifts from game to game, team to team, level to level. The kind of physical defense you see at club Nationals isn't ok at Eugene city league. That's fine. Psychological pressure is no different. Do you rush the field? Do you have a special chant you use after a big break? Do you have a go-to cheer? Is it annoying? Do you chat up the other team during games? Do you ignore them? You are exerting psychological pressure on the other team. <br />
<br />
Over the years, we've worked hard on our relationship with the Thunderbirds (as have they) and together, we've slowly moved to a place where we can play crazy, intense, enemy-ultimate and then have a real conversation about what happened. It helps that we play each other four or five times every year (six times this season!), but what's really made the difference is each team's leadership being willing to approach the other when they had a problem. They had a problem with some of what we did this season and told us so. Some things we changed (because we agreed), some things we didn't (because we didn't agree) - that's how it should be.<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
By now of course, you know that going into the semifinals, Mira's shoulder was wrecked. Instead of staying on the high road, they'd stumbled against Carleton - I had multiple reports that they completely collapsed following Mira's injury. But in one of the most impressive pieces of coaching of the tournament, they managed to right the ship and build a new identity as a team. <br />
<br />
I watched all of their game against Ohio State and it was impressive to see the shift happen. First, Ellen Au-Yeung moved from a traditional 3 spot into a 2-3 hybird - a lot like what Shofner and Ode do for us. Secondly, their tempo picked up a notch. No longer were there pauses in the offense as they waited for Mira to get open or deliver a throw. Playing without ego and without intention, the T-birds just moved the disc to the next open person. As their adjusted offense began to crystallize, their depth slowly took over and they blew OSU out down the stretch, finishing on a 13-2 run. Their Virgina game was similar (although I only saw the final five or six points). They traded early and then walked away down the stretch outscoring Hydra 10-3. I know UVA had the food poisoning problem, but UBC was an exceptionally bad match up for them. UBC's strengths - speed and depth - perfectly match UVA's strengths - speed and depth. I like UBC in this match, even against a healthy UVA.<br />
<br />
There is a weirdness in Mira's injury that even though it made UBC less good, it made them a better team. This is a team that is built around equality of roles and interchangeability of players - where, then, do you fit one exceptional, transcendent talent? Any time Mira was on the field, she was an immediate threat to throw or catch a goal, but at the same time this introduced an inconsistency into their offense. Or a hitch or a disconnect - a seam appeared where things should be seamless. I wasn't really aware it was there until I saw them play without her and saw how quickly they came into a more cohesive identity. <br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
Going into the semifinals, our strategy was unchanged from the base strategy we'd used throughout the weekend: apply pressure with our zones, but test various defenses to see what was going to be effective.<br />
<br />
They won the opening stage of the game. We weren't prepared for their transition defense and we weren't prepared for their increased tempo. Really, we were prepared for the team we'd already played five times this year, not the team they'd become.<br />
<br />
I saw the transition right away and began making adjustments, but they took a few points to take hold. The first adjustment was to adjust our pull plays away from sidestack and into some of our spread formation plays. These are more flexible against a variety of defenses - they'll work against person just fine, but they also slide easily into zone offense. I also tried to get Weaver and Wah to play two-person-quick to throw off the zone-for-numbers. This is a complex idea, so let me run it out. A traditional transition is to play a conservative zone for a certain number of passes. You might play a 1-3-3 for 3 passes or a 2-3-2fm for 2 passes. It is unusual to go over five passes on a zone-for-numbers; it's just too easy to lose count. If you want to play a zone longer than that, but still transition, it is typical to use an audible. The idea behind two-person-quick is to have your two opening handlers throw a bunch of passes really quick before the defense gets down. What this does to a transition-for-numbers is push the defense through their count before they are really ready. If they are playing zone for three passes and you throw those three passes while they are still running down, you've forced them into a terrible situation - they are in person, but not matched up at all. We hadn't faced a true transition all year, so we hadn't practiced this method at all. Consequently, we didn't really pull it off as I wanted - Weaver and Wah were too far apart. But we did manage to do three things as a result of trying to adjust. As mentioned, our shape was better for the defense. In trying to throw early swings, we shifted away from a play mentality to a just play ultimate mentality. This is a key shift when facing any kind of junk defense. Finally, just the recognition of what they were doing settled the offense and eliminated the confusion transition defenses can generate.<br />
<br />
Our zones, which had been devastating earlier in the season, struggled to gain traction in the first half. Through our previous meetings, we had settled on a breathe-out-squeeze-in strategy to deal with Mira's throws and UBC seemed content to let her do all the heavy lifting. The breathe-out when she had the disc meant that she could move it, just not for advantage. The squeeze-in when she didn't meant that we could pressure the weaker throwers into making a mistake. Additionally, the let-Mira-throw it strategy was slow tempo which was a real boon to the kind of aggressive, trapping zones we run. Without Mira on the field, the T-birds played simpler zone offense. They moved it quickly to the first open person and used the width of the field. We weren't ever able to really get set.<br />
<br />
The consequence of these two strategic shifts was that we were down a break late in the first half. At 5-6, Nij "pushed-in" which is coaching slang (from poker) for stacking the line up. We loaded up on offensive firepower and went goal, goal, goal, halftime. I had several outside observers tell me later they thought the game was over after those breaks. It probably was, but only because we were going to make sure it was over. UBC was a team that we knew could beat us and that we wanted to make sure we gave the full weight of our attention and respect to. They had a couple of chances early in the second half, but our O-line continued to bring defensive pressure and we kept them from getting a break. Meanwhile, our D-line was getting chances and we began pulling away, first to 12-8 and then shutting the door with back-to-back breaks.<br />
<br />
There are all different kinds of loses and this looks like one that will make UBC much better. Don't ask me to explain why this is - it just feels like that to me. Sometimes it takes the pain of losing a huge game to drive you onward to the next step. I think it part it's because the next step is often a difficult one or a painful one in its own way or requires much, much work to achieve. Or perhaps it's that you don't realize what it takes to reach the next step until it's too late to take that step or that you were willing to pay the price. However it breaks, when you look at UBC 2016, you'll be looking at a team that is an extension of 2015. Same team, same project. Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-79731977052456411992015-06-30T08:04:00.003-07:002015-06-30T08:04:54.121-07:00ConfidenceThis is from a free write I did as a part of the leadership camp I helped run two summers ago in Seattle. I went back this summer to do more leadership work and was reminded of it through conversations with coaches.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>Confidence and the challenge of being confident</i>. <i>Confidence comes naturally, but it also comes from familiarity and comfort. It is easy to tell someone to be more confident; it is far more difficult to be told to be confident and then actually be confident. What then, is the path to confidence? First, fake it til you make it. Act like a confident person. Speak loudly and clearly; expect and demand people's attention; take initiative; say few words. Through the practice of confidence, confidence will grow. Second, continue to gain experience and knowledge in your area. You want to be a confident leader in ultimate? Then learn ultimate. </i> </blockquote>
Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-45098699298720447002015-06-18T14:00:00.003-07:002015-06-26T06:40:53.629-07:00"I Always Root Against Stanford"By the end of the season, I know our major opponents almost better than I know my own team. Through playing against a team, live scouting, video work and social media work I get to the point where I know names, numbers, tendencies, strategies, tactics, strengths, weaknesses and I have a clearer view of other teams than my own because I only know them as ultimate players. In a pinch, I can push away all the emotion and squeeze out a truly unbiased evaluation of my own team, but not very well.<br />
<br />
For a long time, I've disparaged Stanford's style of play as too dogmatic, too rigid, too boring, too old-fashioned. A lot of this is just philosophical differences; as a proponent of the individualistest, wildest, openest, strangest strategies I am opposed on principle to any particularly structured system. Back me in a corner and I'll grudgingly admit that strict structure is a valid way to run a team. I've certainly lost to a lot of teams that are very structured. And a certain part of my dislike for Stanford is just sour grapes. In my years coaching Carleton I went 1-4 against Superfly, but two of those were National title games. It doesn't really matter how nice you are or spirited or anything, if you win that much people are going to dislike you for it.<br />
<br />
Along with my grudging respect for their continued success, I've begun adding admiration for their strategic flexibility. The last really traditional Stanford team was the 2011 team that refused to huck against the Skirts and lost the possession game to Finney. Since that time, Stanford has pushed and changed their offensive playing style, slowly moving away from their traditional dump, swing, attack offense and employing less graceful and more brutally efficient methods. This was a smart switch. Stanford's traditional dominance was built on twin pillars of athleticism built through grad students (see Gegg, Courtney) and disc skills built on the opportunities the mild California winter provided. But the rise of youth ultimate (and its comparatively slow rise in Cali) means that the bar has been raised on what 'good disc skills' means and the path to develop skills is different as well. Far from being the most talented throwing team, Stanford and the rest of the Southwest teams now lag behind the rest of the country. For a team with an expectation of winning and a goal of a national title, a change of strategy becomes a necessity.<br />
<br />
Stanford 2015 had two really distinct groups of players - the handlers and the cutters. This isn't particularly unusual for ultimate teams, but the distinction between the two groups was stark. The handlers (Michaela, Slim, Mo, Thompson and Rempel) were all experienced and equipped with good disc skills. The cutters (Gegg, Hoster, Olguin, Cruz, FM, Harris, Sandino) were all very athletic but lacking in disc skills. The one exception to this dichotomy was Caitlin Go. (More on her later.) Running the traditional Stanford offense wasn't really going to work with this group because they didn't have the top-to-bottom disc skills to run a mid-range game. Instead what you got was a lot of long throws (typically courtesy of White or Rempel), mid-range from the handlers and short resets from the cutters.<br />
<br />
I think the best way to describe this offense is as a combination of the traditional Stanford offense with some Central Florida's consolidation-of-throws ideas. Long a staple of Florida offenses, the consolidation-of-throws theory has the most talented handful of throwers carry 99% of the throwing weight of the team; it lets your athletes run and catch but never lets them throw. What this looked like for Stanford is their traditional dump-swing set working into a vertical stack that generated multiple comeback cut looks. Because their cutters weren't able/permitted to move the disc downfield, they struggled to get multiple comeback cuts in sequence, often running dump-swing-comeback-dump. Different from Central Florida was the way Stanford manufactured hucks. While some portion were fast break hucks in transition, the larger portion came off of break throws to the handler at the front of the stack. Rempel in particular was masterful at this. In addition to excellent size and timing, she had a weird knack for bewildering the defender while creating clarity for the thrower. The goal was to get her (or another handler) catching the disc in space, unmarked and 10-15 yards downfield of the original disc - in other words, an ideal situation to huck from. So many of Stanford's easy goals came off of this set.<br />
Every good offense has a pressure valve of some kind - some sort of unpredictability. For Stanford, this was Caitlin Go. Here is a cutter who can throw and because of this unique (to Superfly) skill set, Go generated a lot of goals just because no defender was really prepared to defend downfield off of the comeback cut. This was really difficult to account for because it wasn't Go's defender who had to adjust - she correctly played Go like any other cutter - but the other six defenders who had to react - a difficult task.<br />
<br />
Stanford's Achilles' heel was their zone offense. It was a traditional dump-swing paired with crazy micropasses between the poppers and handlers once the disc broke through the cup. When first unveiled in 2014, this offense was a revelation and forced us to put our zone away when we met them in pool play. But a year is a long time to adjust and we learned to just jam a million people around the disc once they started running the micros. (There are some frame stops from our NWC matchup with ten players within ten feet of the disc.) The final result of their offense and our defensive adjustments was they were in a position where they had to throw a lot of contested passes to score - not a good plan. <br />
<br />
All this talk of offense obscures the strength of this team - defense. There are some basic requirements to be a great defensive team - speed, size, fitness - Stanford had all of those. Whatever intangible pieces you need to play great defense - hustle, heart, grit - they had all of those as well. A lot of the credit here needs to go to the faceless army of cutters - Harris is probably the purest example of what this team was about defensively - not a lot of flash, but a lot of work, always right there, just making it difficult. Like a lot of defensive teams, they fool the eye test because they look worse than they actually are. Their defense is making the other teams offense look bad - their own offense is struggling...<br />
<br />
So far in this discussion I've been in agreement with what Stanford has done. I'd probably have done it differently, but their strategic and tactical framework make total sense. But there is one aspect of how Knowler ran the team that I completely disagree with - playing time. Throughout the season and throughout Nationals, the trio of Monisha, Slim and Michaela almost never left the field. Maybe this helps you beat Middlebury 15-1, but is that really your goal? I have four major problems with this strategy.<br />
There are reasons to play your best people every point - having your best people on the field means that you are putting yourself in the best position to score that point. But I'm not interested in scoring that point - I'm interested in scoring 15 points. Playing your best people every point means that while you are more likely to score any individual point, you are less likely to score 15 points as the top of your roster yields to inevitable fatigue. <br />
Secondly, playing your best players every point robs your team of head room. Ever notice how really great teams are able to 'turn it on' at the end of a game? Part of that is experience, part of that is having great players who can step up in a key moment, but part of is building head room into your team structure. Just as a frame of reference, we probably played our top seven players together less than 10 times all season - so infrequently in fact, I'm not actually sure who those seven would be.<br />
Then there is the problem of who is left on the bench. In Superfly's case that was Jennifer Thompson and Annee Rempel. Thompson played her role as supporting handler well and probably got her warranted minutes, but Rempel spent way too much time on the bench particularly considering she was one of the only players who could consistently move the disc downfield in big chunks. <br />
My final issue is player development. You can learn a lot from the sidelines, particularly the sidelines at Nationals, but you learn nothing like what you learn when you play. Let's do some math. Stanford's typical game was 24ish points (15-9) and 40ish games is about 960 points. If your primary handler is playing 90% of those, that leaves not even 100 points for the bench, a paltry 2.5 points per game. But if you bring that primary handler's playing time down to two out of three, you've got 320 points for the bench. That's more than three times as much - eight points per game! That's real minutes and real opportunity for learning. <br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
But on the day of the finals, much of this will matter not at all as the wind will take center stage. It was an awkward wind for us - not so bad that we couldn't play ultimate, but easily ten mph stronger than anything we'd seen all season and quite likely the strongest wind we'd seen since Boulder 2012. I still felt that we had the technical skill to handle the wind and the experience to play a sophisticated, opportunity driven strategy. I still think that - even though we didn't manage to do either. <br />
<br />
Having watched Stanford's negative ultimate against Washington in pool play I was quite sure that Stanford would huck and play d. I was also pretty confident that they wouldn't be able to move the disc against our zone - they hadn't been able to do so in low wind - how could they in 20-30 mph winds? I also knew that they weren't going to be able to play their touch pass game off of the front of the stack because you can't throw those passes in a high wind - I even told Ashley (who'd been covering Rempel since Stanford Invite) not to bother prepping.<br />
<br />
I had a lot of uncertainty about what zone or zones to play and in what circumstances. I had a lot of uncertainty about how we were going to need to play offense - I wasn't sure about the wind and I wasn't sure about how their defense would intersect with it - what would be problematic and what would still be available.<br />
<br />
There is so much going on in this game that it is hard to know exactly what to write or explain about - I could pretty easily write 10,000 words. To make it a little easier to organize and understand I am going to break the game 4 ways and then 2 ways. The first break will be into offense and defense upwind and downwind. The second break will be first half and second half.<br />
<br />
Stanford Offense downwind and Oregon defense against it<br />
This was pretty simple - if you are upwind of the downwind brick then huck it into the endzone and hope something good happens. Kudos to Monisha for carrying this burden without flinching - in a game culture that ridicules turnovers it can be difficult to turn it over again and again. As I've said before, consistency in a high wind situation isn't about not turning it over, it's about not making defensive mistakes.<br />
A note about huck and play defense as a strategy: done properly, you should send five people deep. You should be playing the front side and the back side of the catch - just up your chances of catching it. There isn't any real point in setting up a traditional zone offense structure if you know you're going to punt anyway. To that end, the one really good punt Monisha threw was the crazy inside-out flick that Caitlin caught off of the tip that took them to half.<br />
<br />
We tried to play a number of our different zones, which was dumb because they weren't running zone offense, they were just punting. In retrospect, we should have done a couple exotic zones. First, a 2-0-2-2 with a defender (probably Gabby) fronting Gegg. That means we play a 2 person cup to prevent an easy up gainer, but then play no wings, 2 deeps at the five yard line and 2 deeps 5 yards into the endzone. The other exotic zone would be to play a 1-3-3 with a no huck mark (standing directly behind the thrower and forcing straight up) and the 3 dropped all the way to the endzone. <br />
But I didn't think of these things until I was on the airplane. Sigh.<br />
<br />
Stanford Offense upwind and Oregon defense against it<br />
Our zone defenses were not effective - at least not as suffocatingly effective as defense needed to be on a day where multiple chances were necessary to score. Like UBC, they did a really nice job of adjusting their zone offense to be more effective. They picked up their tempo and moved the disc laterally around the edges of the zone, never really allowing us to get set.<br />
I don't usually like to play zone when the other team is going upwind because it allows them throw their favored throws and throw to uncovered stationary receivers. We did in the early going of the finals because our zone had been so successful against them across the span of the season - it had been the decisive feature in each of our previous matchups.<br />
After our lack of success with the zone we went with our traditional FM the rest of the way. <br />
<br />
Oregon Downwind Offense and Stanford's defense against it<br />
For much of the game, Stanford played a zone with a 4-person cup that employed a force middle trap. This defense downwind was vulnerable to two spaces in particular. The first vulnerability was the pop-over straight downwind which we used pretty successfully, but should have used more. The second vulnerability was the slow crash into the cup, which we used occasionally but nowhere near enough.<br />
Our biggest problem was that our zone offense wasn't a good fit for the conditions. This season we had switched structures to fit our personnel better (<i>donde esta Sophie?</i>) and it really changed how we approached zones. We employed two wide handlers running a 2-4-1 and we ended up making most of our money going around, attacking quickly down the sidelines and then back into the middle. Credit Stanford's FM trap for pushing the swing back and making it uncomfortable enough that we never really got this aspect of our game going. Really, we needed to commit a bit more to swinging the disc to the high side of the field - when we did, we usually made hay coming back down the other way. <br />
The other place we needed an adjustment was on the goal line. Stanford stayed in zone the whole way and the pop-over space was gone was the field had compacted. Then we really needed to crash into the cup more.<br />
<br />
Oregon Offense Upwind and Stanford's defense against it<br />
The biggest defensive move Stanford made was to huck every downwind possession - we never got a short field - we always had to go 70 yards to score. We managed to score four upwinders. Two were against the zone and we chipped and putted our way through. These possessions were very comfortable for us. After they put the zone away and started playing person, things got a lot trickier. The two goals we got against their person were on hucks to Loo and were both very similar. First Beth and then Ode got free about midfield and had unmarked backhands (a defensive no-no on a windy day). <br />
<br />
First Half<br />
The opening 15 points of the game were a long stretch of feeling out the conditions and each other to see what was going to work. Both teams tried to play zone against upwind offense and both teams yielded upwinders; upwind zone disappeared quickly. The crucial point was the one that took the score from 2-3 to 3-3. Stanford played their 4-person cup here and it caused a lot of problems for us. We still looked calm and poised and unrattled by the wind, but we had so many turnovers and gave them so many good chances to score. On our end, we began to realize that the game would come down to our ability to play person defense when they were going upwind.<br />
We didn't do a great job of seizing the opportunities we created. We scored three upwinders in the first half and every time we immediately gave up an upwinder in reply.<br />
<br />
Second Half<br />
At half time I realized several things - that we weren't going to be able to figure out how to play ultimate in the wind that day, that they couldn't go 70 yards upwind against our force middle and that we might lose the game.<br />
When I talked strategy with the team, I didn't really say much - just that we needed to keep fighting. I have no idea what they said to each other in the final huddle, but it was enough. We came out bang, bang, bang and scored three quick goals to take the lead and seize control of the game. That put us at 10-8.<br />
The final six point of the game were insane. They put on an incredible push to score an upwinder and reclaim control. The points where they were going upwind were long, turnover filled and stressful. The points where we were going upwind were unfortunately short. On our end of things, we were resting a lot of our top offensive players to play downwind defense and were offensively short-staffed going upwind. But we weren't scoring easily downwind and so we never felt like we could double up on points.<br />
The coaching move of the game was Robin's decision to play dominator. In some ways it makes a ton of sense - put the disc in the hands of your best players and let them make plays. Don't make it about team versus team, just make it about our best three versus your best three. In some ways it is a crazy decision. Had they practiced or run it before? Not that I'd seen. You're going to run a high volume of throws offense on a windy day? You're going to run your best players into the ground when you are already short on players? The craziest thing is that it almost worked. Just one pass short....but that's the problem with high volume offenses - when they come up one pass short it is seen as execution and not scheme, but execution is scheme. Still, it was way, way, way more effective than I thought it was going to be.<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~<br />
<br />
Building a team is climbing a mountain. The mountain isn't winning a championship, but developing a team to it's fullest potential. Because every team's potential is different, every team's mountain is different. So you can take a team that doesn't win a title or a team that doesn't even make Nationals and feel absolutely wonderful because they climbed to the top of their mountain. The 2012 team that got pasted in the finals by Washington was a like this. I suspect the Ego boys feel pretty much the same way about their season and their loss to UNC. When a team does everything it possibly can, when a team climbs as high up the mountain as it possibly can, you are a fool to feel anything but joyous about what you did.<br />
<br />
So how far did Stanford climb up their mountain? Pretty damn far. Much farther than I thought they were capable of and relatively further than I thought we climbed up our mountain. (But our mountain was different - our season was about something different than what their season was about.) Much kudos to the coaching staff for building a great team and putting together a great game plan. Much kudos to Michaela for saving her best ultimate for the most important tournament and most important game. In the finals, she took a step forward as a player, finally stepping into the promise that has accompanied her career. Finally, the most respect to Slim. She'll go on and be great elsewhere, but her greatest strength - her boundless energy - won't matter as much in the club game. She literally dragged Stanford to where they are - arms up in that silly positive body-language woo-woo business yelling "Warhorse" or "Our house" or whatever it is she yells every damn point. Every point. This is a team that collapsed at Nationals last year and she never relented and collapsed at Northwest Challenge and she never relented and just kept going and going. Slim is why.<br />
<br />
~~~~~~~~~~ <br />
<br />
In 1998, I was coaching a team on the way up. The year before in 1997, we'd thought we'd had the pieces to win and claimed our goal was to win. Then we got to Nationals and stumbled. Bruised, we came back in 1998 and we knew we had the pieces: depth, experience, talent, drive, athleticism. The only problem was that there was a monstrous team sitting on top of women's ultimate destroying everyone; a team that was midway through a 101 game win streak. So with that team in our sights, we worked and worked and worked. We met that team in the finals and they slowly took control of the game - an upwind-downwind affair. They stretched their lead all the way out to 18-14, game to 19. Then we got 13 blocks in a row and tied the game at 18s. Then we got another block. Then we turned it over. Then we lost. The team I was coaching? Carleton. The team we lost to? Stanford.<br />
<br />
There is some kind of weird, circular irony that brought me back to that game but on the other sideline. I understand those 90s Stanford teams a little more and hate them a little less. I understand this year's Stanford, too and I'll understand when they root against Oregon always. Maybe in twenty years one of them will be standing on the sideline coaching as this game happens again...<br />
<br />
<br />Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-17865647822177633152015-06-18T13:25:00.004-07:002015-06-18T13:25:59.913-07:00BackI'm going to start posting here again. I'm not really sure how many of yall are going to read this, but reach isn't really my point for this. I've got words that want out, so I'm going to let them free. Where they fly is up to them. Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-15537836988428246902011-12-22T05:16:00.000-08:002011-12-22T05:17:34.353-08:00Another Week OffIt's another week off for me; leaving for Galveston to see my grandma. (93 years old!) I'll be back next week.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-74662282712178697122011-12-07T05:58:00.000-08:002011-12-07T05:59:17.954-08:00Week OffI am not posting this week on the Skyd WtF - I am making room for something else. I will be back next week.<br /><br />LouLouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-13823075776475978042011-11-08T20:10:00.000-08:002011-11-08T20:11:19.097-08:00Zone OI did not write this! I think Jim Parinella wrote it for the UPA newsletter. He sent it to me unreferenced, but I assume it is his work.<br /><br /><div><span>Also found this in the article "Offensive Thoughts" which appeared in UPA Newsletter in August 1999:</span></div> <span><span style="font-size:85%;"><span style="color:#000099;"><strong>ZONE O:</strong> <var></var><br /><br />Take advantage of temporary 2 on 1 or 3 on 2 mismatches. Unless you’re playing against an extremely focused and practiced defense, you will have many short-lived opportunities to exploit this power play. Anticipation and immediate reaction, as with man to man offense, are important. It’s a rare defense that will simultaneously have one player making a bid for a block while another adjusts to cover. For example, if two poppers are on either side of the middle middle, who bites on a fake left, the other popper is open UNLESS the wing or point adjusts at the same time. If the offense doesn’t know this, then the defense will be able to recover in time to prevent the pass. Just about any 2 nearby O players have a potential mismatch situation. The poppers exploit the middle middle. A popper and a wing work on the side middle. A wing and a deep work on the deep. The off-handler and a wing or popper split the off-point. A good defense will constantly be making adjustments to prevent someone from being open for too long, but it takes a great one to make that time window almost non-existent.<br /><br />I think most downfield O players run too hard when the disc is still in the cup. When the cup gets broken, that is the time for an all-out fast break. But when the disc is stationary, too much movement merely alerts the defenders as to their whereabouts.<br /><br />And use the overhead to spread out the cup and side middles. </span></span></span>Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-72935500239607310062011-11-07T05:28:00.000-08:002011-11-07T05:33:49.854-08:00Sports IllustratedOregon ultimate in <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1191780/index.htm">SI this month</a>. It makes me a little nervous; I'm not sure its ever good to draw the scrutiny of a giant. Still, Nij (Weatherhead) does a nice job of representing the positives of club sports without at all bashing the varsity athletic department.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-71917871284233998522011-09-30T05:07:00.000-07:002011-09-30T05:36:33.587-07:00Going to RegionalsI am off to NW Regionals this weekend and here is the short explanation of what I am going to be watching. I'm still not exactly sure because the schedule is a bit...hm, how to say this graciously...<span style="font-style: italic;">unfriendly </span>to spectators. Also, Mizu and I are going together and since we have three little kids we don't actually get to talk to each other about what we are doing. We know we are getting in the car after work on Friday and driving back on Sunday, but that's about it. On to the games.<br /><br />Saturday<br />1. The two good open games are Revolver-Rhino and Sockeye-Furious (classic!). They are scheduled simultaneously (<span style="font-style: italic;">are you kidding me!?</span>) at 9AM (<span style="font-style: italic;">are you kidding me?!?</span>) Ugh. I am not really sure what I will do about these. I had really hoped to spend Saturday morning in Seattle hitting the old breakfast haunts, but damn, Sockeye-Furious. <br /><br />2. Zeitgeist-Further. Further has never beaten Zeitgeist and if they want to make Nationals, they would do well to win here. The top two teams in each pool are guaranteed two shots at making the Show, while everyone else must battle it out for the game-to-go. A big chunk of Further played for<a href="http://pages.uoregon.edu/fugue/"> a team I know pretty well</a>, so I am a bit partial. <br /><br />3. If I skip the men's games in the morning, I will probably stay and watch the last round on the women's side which will feature Riot-Zeitgeist and Traffic-Underground.<br /><br />Sunday<br />1. Round 1: Men's semis. This should feature some combination of Sockeye, Furious, Rhino and Revolver. The chalk has Sockeye over Rhino and Revolver over Furious. Mandatory watching.<br /><br />2. Round 2: Women's final. Should be Riot-Fury. Adjacent fields sport the 3-4 (winner to Natties) and 5-6 games (loser goes home). <br /><br />3. Round 3: This is the tough one. It is the men's final. It is also the men's 3-4 game with the loser going home. It is the women's game-to-go. I will watch Sockeye wherever they are and Further if they are in the game-to-go (otherwise they are finished). Fortunately, all these games are scheduled onto the same quadrant of fields. <br /><br />4. Round 4: Men's game to go. There is no feeling in the world like watching the game-to-go after you've already qualified.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-20145726617315874632011-09-22T21:58:00.000-07:002011-09-22T22:15:38.333-07:00Why Mini?So big thanks to everyone who helped with the nerdy challenge. You all saved me a ton of time. In thanks, I'd like to explain the frisbee reasons I was curious.<br /><br />Mini is an awesome tool for development of individual skills. Unlike 7s, where a young player might touch the disc only 4 or 5 times a practice, Mini affords them a countless touches in a very short period of time. Touches, marking, defending, reading...every essential skill is practiced at game speed in a game like setting at a rate you can't match in a full-sided scrimmage. <br /><br />I was interested in using it as a tool at the team level. In particular, I wondered if it would be possible to set a possession goal and use mini scores as a way to evaluate this goal. What I mean is, could you record the scores to a whole bunch of mini games and then go back and figure out what the possession rate was? Actually, I knew you could do this work, but I needed the algorithm to figure out the rates. That was the reason for the nerdy challenge. <br /><br />Using Alpha Chen's probability generator, I cranked out possibilities established expected values and was able to come up with an expected value number for each possession probability. (The spreadsheet is <a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?pli=1&key=0AuEVttBS2-ADdDJPR0NBdk9INWdWRjJsYjAtajlpSEE&hl=en_US#gid=0">here</a>.) There is a bit of inaccuracy because Alpha Chen's simulator is a Monte Carlo generator and comes up with different values on each run, but from a frisbee standpoint, it doesn't need to be exact. <br /><br />Here's how it would work: You play mini. Everyone keeps a running total of their score for all their games and how many games they played. (Golden Goal scenarios still 'score' as -1, -2.) When you are done, you add them all up and divide by how many games where played. Compare this number to the chart and voila! You know how you did on possession percentage. <br />10% = -1.4<br />20% = -1.2<br />30% = -1.0<br />40% = -0.5<br />50% = 0.1<br />60% = 0.7<br />70% = 1.2<br />80% = 1.4<br /><br />Last thought. Some of the direction for this thinking came from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anson_Dorrance">Anson Dorrance's</a> Vision of a Champion. In particular, Ch 12 and 13. <br /><br />I think my reasoning is solid, but please, if I messed up, let me know. Thanks!Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-2865757325616867762011-09-08T05:02:00.000-07:002011-09-08T05:17:36.050-07:00Skyd + Nerdy ChallengeIf you haven't seen already, I have moved over to <a href="http://skydmagazine.com/">Skyd</a>. I am going to keep this space open for little odds and ends and things that don't quite fit or are a bit less formal than I intend the Skyd writing to be. <br /><br />Here is the nerdy challenge: I am looking for a function where the input is the chance of a possession ending in a score (p). Obviously, 1 - p is the chance that a possession ends in a turnover. Then output is the probability of each of the six possible endings to a game of mini. The three 'wins' being: 3~1, 3~0, 3~-1 and the three 'losses': 1~-2, 0~-2 and -1~-2. Please ignore the Golden Goal variation for right now.<br /><br />I brute forced it for p=0.5. This had the nice property that 1-p=0.5 as well, so the outcome tree was essentially symmetric and the probabilities easier to manage because I just used negative powers of 2. I quit after 5 generations and then estimated the remaining 20% of the probability based on the observed trends. Here is what I got:<br />3~1: 4.4%<br />3~0: 23.6%<br />3~-1: 18.2%<br />Winning: 46.2%<br />1~-2: 9.2%<br />0~-2: 18.6%<br />-1~-2: 25.6%<br />Losing: 53.4%<br />This was a bit surprising. I expected the chance of losing to be much higher. My intuition told me that it was two steps to lose and three steps to win, so it should divide out on a two-thirds, one-third ratio. But it turns out that you <span style="font-style: italic;">always</span> have a chance to win, but you don't always have a chance to lose. <br /><br />Help? Ideas? There has to be an easier way.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-2273067994565135882011-07-26T06:27:00.000-07:002011-07-26T07:25:59.220-07:00D Positioning Off-ManI want to wrap up my general discussion of defensive positioning with some comments on how to play defense off-man. By off-man, I mean with a large cushion of 4 or more steps. I am not talking about scared or lazy defense where you back your player to avoid being beat deep, but a hungry aggressive defense that is looking to cover one-and-a-half. (One-and-a-half meaning your player and help on others.)<br /><br />1. The foundation is anticipation and energy. You <span style="font-style: italic;">anticipate </span>the action and use <span style="font-style: italic;">energy </span>to bring yourself to the play. You must constantly watch the run of play looking for openings. You recognize the space when your offensive player does and break into it simultaneously.<br /><br />2. You need <span style="font-style: italic;">protection</span> to play off. Because you are allowing separation, you are vulnerable to a one-pass shot to your player. That's why playing off of the front player in a vertical stack is usually pretty dumb - the thrower just beats you. There are different kinds of protection but most fit into three categories: traffic, distance and value. The classic off-man position is last back. This works because there is usually a lot of <span style="font-style: italic;">traffic</span> underneath that prevents the thrower from hitting your player with one throw. (Incidentally, this defense was a big motivator for the expansion of the flat stack which moves the traffic out of the way.) <span style="font-style: italic;">Distance</span> is another big help. If your player is far from the thrower, it is easier to play off. The throw is tougher and is in the air longer, giving more time for recovery. An example of this is when you are covering a sideline cutter in a flat stack and the disc swings away from you to the far sideline. That shot, some 50 yards across and up the field, is ridiculously hard and allows you the luxury of dropping off of your player and helping to the middle of the field. The last kind of protection is <span style="font-style: italic;">value</span>. Teams poach off of the swings in horizontal offense all the time because the swing to the sideline has little value to the offense. <br /><br />3. If you are going to play off, be prepared to <span style="font-style: italic;">switch</span>. You can see the whole field. There will come an situation where you or a teammate is beaten and need to help each other out. The key is to close out the separation immediately after the switch. That is the energy piece. Anticipation sees and makes the switch, energy closes it out so that you don't give up an easy shot. <br /><br />Done properly, playing off-man is very effective, but it really requires smart play and a lot of mental work. The advantage is less physical work and an increased likelihood of a help d. The disadvantage is that when it doesn't work, it looks really, really bad.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-79649340284052191172011-07-18T05:46:00.000-07:002011-07-18T10:44:18.157-07:00Kung Fu ThrowingKung Fu throwing or Ninja throwing is a system developed by <a href="http://www.seattlesockeye.org/team/michael-caldwell/">Mike Caldwell</a> and I in 2005. I wanted to come up with a structured throwing plan to help developing throwers. As the only two Fish who lived on Capitol Hill at the time, Mike and I would meet often to throw. I solicited him to help me with this and to our surprise we found that it was an excellent system for established throwers. (We were in our 7th and 9th years on Sockeye.) We did KFT once a week the entire season and my throws were more consistently on than any other year.<br /><br />The philosophy of the KFT seeks to improve a thrower in three ways. First and simplest, repetition. The entire program takes about an hour and features ~450 throws. Second, it seeks to challenge the limitations of a thrower by pushing them to throw beyond their comfort. Not so much in terms of distance, but in range of release. Lastly, the central portion of the program tries to articulate the different components of a throw. It separates the wrist from the arm from the shoulder from the hips from the feet. Young throwers are often limited to a single forehand where the handwristarmshouldertorsohipsfeet have to all be doing the same motion every time. What if a defender takes it away? What if you need to get around a marker? Really great throwers make adjustments large and small to their footwork and release points in order to beat defenders.<br /><br />A warning about KFT: it is very physically rigorous. Mike and I felt taxed by it and we were in incredible shape and our bodies in ultimate frisbee conditioning for years. KFT should be treated like a workout and you should pay attention to your body. Pay attention to the upper hamstring on your step leg (not your pivot leg) because that is where most of the stress of this workout goes. Also consider a partial workout to begin. Cut the 25s down to 15s or even 10s to start.<br /><br />Here's the workout:<br /><br />Part I Warm Up w/ 25s<br />Throw 25 forehands, backhands and hammers at distances of 10, 20 and 30 yards<br />Throw 25 full lefty forehands, backhands and hammers at comfort distance (usually ~15 yards)<br />Stretch 5-10 minutes<br />Comments<br />Be disciplined about distance. The 10 yarder will feel way too short. You may not be able to throw hammers at the full 30. Try. When Mike and I developed it, my shoulders were wrecked and I couldn't throw a 30 yard hammer and so I just threw a mix of weird forehands and backhands. Throw the lefties. It is tempting to leave them out, but this workout really exacerbates the blacksmith syndrome inherent in training for ultimate and the lefty work will help balance you out.<br /><br />Part II The Kung Fu<br />At comfort distance, throw 10 forehands and backhands...<br />1. As low as you can release<br />2. As far as you can release from your body<br />3. As high as you can release<br />4. Compass throwing. Imagine a compass with your pivot foot at the center. Pivot N and throw. Pivot NE and throw. Pivot E and throw and so on around the compass. Go four times around, twice throwing forehands and twice throwing backhands.<br />5. Rinky-dink. Throw 100 throws at a distance of 2-yards. The goal is rapid catch and release. Aim your throws to be easily catchable, but placed in such a way as to allow your partner to practice a variety of catches. <span style="font-style: italic;">Don't regrip!</span> However you catch, you should throw. If pancake, throw hamburger. If you claw-catch over your head, upside-down backhand.<br />6. <span style="font-style: italic;">Optional</span> Throw 10s at comfort outside in and inside out.<br />Comments<br />Completion rates should drop in this section. Mike and I had a focus goal of no turnovers the entire workout, but we never counted this section. The point is to challenge your technical and physical limitations, not to be perfect. Your throws in this section <span style="font-style: italic;">should </span>feel awkward. The optional piece is there if you want. It makes the entire workout a bit long, but it is a nice extra piece of work.<br /><br />Part III Hucking<br />Huck for 10 minutes.<br />Comment<br />Skip this part if you and your throwing partner are very unbalanced in power.<br /><br />Part IV Pivoting and Focus<br />25s with pivot at comfort<br />Comment<br />Fake, pivot, throw. You are working on a snap fake and quick grip transition. Forehand to backhand should be one handed. Backhand to forehand should be a small off hand check. If you are working on a particular move, now is the time to practice it.<br /><br />Part V Stretch again.<br />Do it. All the recent press about in ineffectiveness of stretching has to do with the effects of stretching <span style="font-style: italic;">before</span> working out. The science on stretching after is still solidly pro-stretching.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com43tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-48418659967731206662011-07-12T05:53:00.001-07:002011-07-12T05:55:38.120-07:00It's not just Ultimate........<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/sports/soccer/at-the-womens-world-cup-drama-without-all-the-dramatics.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp">where the men cheat worse than the women</a>.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-77374189280626868692011-07-08T07:43:00.000-07:002011-07-08T08:05:05.701-07:00Your Hard Work is not My Hard WorkI went to Eugene yesterday hoping to play some mini, even though I'd been told it wasn't going to happen. Thinking it would start at 530, I got to Roosevelt around 545 only to find out it wasn't due to start until 630. I threw with a couple of guys for twenty or thirty minutes and no one else had shown up yet. Irritated and bored, I went over to South to run repeat 800s on the track. For fun. Because I was bored. Your hard work is not my hard work.<br /><br />A few years ago, a friend of mine asked me if I'd offer some advice to a young, up-and-coming team she'd been doing work with. I said sure and began an email correspondence. I found out their leaders were very gung-ho and motivated, but the rank-and-file of the team less so. They had a big meeting at the beginning of the fall laying out team goals and everyone said they were in. Yet attendance at track practice was woeful. It turned out their captain (like me) had run track in high school and <span style="font-style: italic;">liked</span> running track workouts. He was both more motivated <span style="font-style: italic;">and</span> enjoyed running. <br /><br />My advice to him fell into three parts. First, recognize the situation and the difficulties it entailed. Second, structure opportunities for people to do hard work that they enjoy. Does half the team hate running? Set up a mini game instead. Schedule a structured throwing program like Kung-Fu Throwing. Lastly, expect to build buy-in slowly over the course of the year. The advantage that a program like Carleton or Stanford Superfly enjoys is that when you sign up, you are signing up for a ton of hard work. A developing team will struggle with this because many of the players didn't sign up for a ton of work. They signed up to run around, throw the frisbee and drink beer. Sprints? Uh-uh. AM throwing sessions? Nope. Weight room? Not interested. It takes time to convert individuals and teams to a new mindset. Often, this process extends across seasons as the personnel on the team change over. The less motivated graduate or retire and are replaced by the more motivated. <br /><br />Leaders, it is important that you understand what it is you are asking of your team. Make sure that you have built the motivational foundation that will support the work you are asking to be done.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-53044917257069611002011-07-07T06:14:00.000-07:002011-07-07T06:52:44.825-07:00Dip DThis is part 2 in a series on defensive positioning, part 1 is <a href="http://winthefields.blogspot.com/2011/06/defensive-positioning.html">here</a>. <br /><br />The essential difference between classic (fronting) positioning and dip d positioning is that instead of standing between your player and the disc, you stand behind them. Over the years, I have known a number of teams to use this defense successfully. The first I encountered was the 96 Pie Queens led by Arlie Stern (of Fury.) She called the defense 'contain' and they played it as their standard man-to-man. Sockeye 1.0 (95-98) played this defense in conjunction with a straight up mark, typically for the first 2-4 passes. The goal was to prevent a quick score off of the pull play by overloading the deep throw with both the defender (Dip) and the mark (straight up.) Just as with a zone transition, the defense reverted to classic positioning after the first few passes. The short CUT teams (05-08) played it as a way avoid getting hucked on. <br /><br />Dip D is a more conservative defense than classic fronting. In classic fronting you are taking the under (the easier throw) and giving the out (the harder throw.) You are more likely to get a turnover on any particular pass, but you are also more likely to get scored on. The decision of which defense to use hinges on percentages. The more skilled a team, the less effective Dip D will be. Playing Dip will force a team to throw ~10 passes to go 70 yards. Playing classic will force a team to throw ~5, but at least one of them will be low percentage. A skilled team (like an elite club team) will have no trouble hitting the half-step-open cuts that Dip yields. A college team? Depends on the team. A high school team? Unlikely. A city league team? Probably not.<br /><br />As an individual defender, you may want to play Dip from time to time. Are you on an island? Against a more athletic receiver? Great thrower with the disc? Offense going downwind? All these question pertain to the likelihood of getting beat deep. As that likelihood increases, you should consider playing Dip for a portion of the stall count. As those things change, your positioning changes.<br /><br />Finally, a little technique. This defense can be played more or less aggressively. The bad-defense technique is to give a full step (or more) under, wait for the cutter to move and then follow them to put on the mark. I would only recommend this in two circumstances: you are <span style="font-style: italic;">way</span> over-matched athletically or the cutter can't throw at all and you are baiting the throwaway. <br />Better is to play closer to your player. This will require you to be alert, to anticipate and to reposition a lot more as your player moves and sets up for their cut. In the version of Dip D I learned with Sockeye, you were close enough to touch your player's back with your chest. If they tried to go deep on you, you held your position and forced them underneath. This method requires a fair bit of technical footwork to be effective (it's easy to get turned) and legal (its easy to commit a foul) and I <span style="font-style: italic;">would not recommend <span style="font-style: italic;">it</span></span> for non-competitive situations like city league. <br />There is a middle ground between totally passive and totally aggressive. The cushion will be a half step. The trick is anticipation and tenacity. Know when your player is going to cut; if you pay attention, they'll tell you. Begin moving with them. Once they commit to their cut (usually ~4-6 steps in), commit to defending it and fly to the point of the catch. If it is a bad throw, recognize and block it. If it is a good throw, recognize and get the mark on. <br /><br />To recap: This is a good team d if you are playing in a situation that is pretty low percentage. This is a good individual d if you think you are going to get beat deep. Like any defense, it is best if executed with anticipation and energy.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-86865339622606746792011-07-05T07:29:00.000-07:002011-07-05T08:01:58.293-07:00PotlatchI've always been ambivalent about Potlatch. It's fun, sure, and silly and ridiculous but all too often the ultimate is frustrating and unpleasant. So it was with great dread that I traveled up to Seattle with the family to hang out while Mizu played Muck-a-muck. (If there is one thing that is certainly true - Potlatch is awful if you're not playing. Don't do it.) Here's what I learned:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Potlatch is a great tournament for kids.</span><br />Unlike a college tournament or Regionals or ECC, there are a zillion adults looking to tap into their inner kid. I can't count the number of people my daughters suckered into playing one ridiculous game after another. Add in costumes, props and giant blow-up toys and you have Disney-land without the $250 a day price tag. I spent two days supervising, but not entertaining. Big thanks especially to Trish, Nij and Captain Crunch. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Until Tom Crawford goes to Potlatch and Poultry Days, he won't understand ultimate. </span><br />Ultimate has always had two faces: absurd and serious. This contradiction is built into the very fabric of the sport. Don't believe it? Take a half step back and watch a man spend all his disposable income to scream like a blood-encrusted Viking beserker about<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>touching a round little piece of plastic.<br />Crawford and Deaver are working as hard as they can to move ultimate away from its ridiculous, silly, hippie roots. I don't always agree with what they are doing, but at least in Deaver's case I know he understands what he is doing. Crawford? No. Until he has tried to throw a forehand while wearing a cardboard box decorated like a box of Wheaties or catch a breath on the Smoke Field, I won't trust him.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">People need to step up.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span></span></span>An ongoing complaint of mine is that people don't bring it like they should. A potlatch is about over-the-top and wasteful extravagance. A trip to Value Village and Archie McFee's doesn't cut it. Get real costumes. Get some sweet props. Build a giant structure. Here are some unused themes:<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Cars</span>. Build a couple (or more) wheeled cars to push around the field. I'm not really sure how this would work, but imagine a having vehicles to race or joust on or throw water balloons from and all it takes is a couple sets of knobby wheels and plywood.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Tricycle velodrome.</span> The name says it all. Just keep Damien Scott and Mike Grant away from it.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">The Duelists. </span>Wrestling. Foam swords. Paint ball guns. You don't like my foul call? I want satisfaction.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Success in Muckamuck depended on your shirts.</span><br />CUT had spray-painted tees. Texas had ugly tie-dyes. UW and Oregon had mismatched old jerseys. Ho-dangs and the Tweeties? Full uniforms. On the women's side, the robotically identical Stanford beat Carleton in the final. While Mizu Kinney and Kate Clark played valiantly for Syzygy, their plain white t-shirts didn't match and ruined the Northfielders' chances. <br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Congrats to Frankus.</span><br />Frankus Flores of Downtown Brown made it 20 straight Potlatches this year. That's all but the first two. Nice work!<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span><br /></span>Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-42341629003915547472011-06-24T06:16:00.000-07:002011-06-24T06:33:57.219-07:00Defensive PositioningI had a question come in from an old Fuguer (who bytheway need a good, dumb name like Geezergy.) She asked a series of questions related to defensive positioning:<br />1. DIP D - can you tell me when this is ideal?<div>2. Having a cushion - also, when to use verses DIP?</div> <div>3. Poaching on the dump for the first few seconds, then getting right back on</div><div>4. Switches and dump D, too.<br />I'm going to get to all of it, but it is a lot, so it may take a bit.<br /><br />Before talking about dip and cushions and switching, I'd like to cover basic, fundamental face-guarding positioning. The classic position is:<br />1. Between your player and the disc....<br />2. shifted half a step to the open lane. (Not the open side, the open lane.)<br />Take a look at <a href="http://www.the-huddle.org/features/2007-open-finals/2-2/">this clip from the 07 Sockeye-Bravo final</a>. Once the disc moves to Moses on the sideline, there are a series of Sockeye out cuts running down that sideline. The Bravo positioning is perfect - giving a half step deep and shading slightly to the open lane. Well, until Beau gets caught napping. <br />Something to consider about this standard club-ultimate defense: it is high risk, high reward. Championship caliber ultimate teams are completing 95% of their passes and 60% of their possessions. A turnover is a BIG deal. All the players are constantly making decisions about the percentages. It's not a question of open or covered. Offensively, it's a question of can I hit this throw (because the receiver is open for something.) Defensively, it's a question of limiting options to what the thrower doesn't want to throw (because you can't stop everything.) In this clip, the defenders are limiting the thrower to a straight-away 40 yard touch throw downwind. Not an easy throw and it doesn't come until Chase has a 5-step cushion. <br /><br />If you are playing college ultimate or co-ed or city league or something where the completion and conversion percentages are lower, you might want to use something other than classic positioning and I'll talk about those next time.<br /></div>Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-61410871200789488782011-06-20T06:07:00.000-07:002011-06-20T07:01:49.183-07:00SolsticeI went to watch Solstice Sunday, when the weather was lovely (unlikely Saturday's deluge) and was rewarded by a number of interesting games and a Sockeye over Furious final. All in all, things look about like they did last year in terms of relative position and strength of teams.<br /><br />Sockeye<br />They looked very impressive in the final after a very lackluster semi over little brother Voodoo. The semifinal had all the markings of a disinterested bully letting some frustrated nerd kick him in the shins for a while, knowing he could pound skinny-four-eyes when he felt like it. (I didn't really follow it, instead focusing on the Rhino-Furious semi.) <br />Sockeye looks good, athletic and deep. They are very young and what experience (Moses, MC, Talbot, Bestock, Fleming) they have is mostly playing offense. They played a good mix of junk and man-to-man in the final. Furious lacks a great thrower and that made all the junk that much more effective. When it worked, it looked brilliant. When it didn't, it looked like crap. That's junk for ya. Offensively, Furious couldn't manage Sockeye's long double cuts which led to a number of wide open huck goals. It is also a testament to Sockeye's stack discipline that these cuts stayed open since they are so long to develop. <br />There is a lot of upside for this team. Their young talent is really yet to find a place on the team. Julian CW played great and had a consistent role on offense, but Chris CK, DSky and Simon are still looking for a spot to contribute. Sockeye also went through the tournament without most of their bigs: Nord was AWOL, Rehder and the Dutchman on the bench with injuries. <br /><br />Fury<br />Same shit, different year. They still look more composed, athletic, conditioned and confident than everyone else. For the most part, they play the same game they always have, but I do have a few comments.<br />1. They are a very cutter dominated team. Their handlers are very good, but it is the cutters that drive the engine. Their cutters are fast and well conditioned, so they move and move and move. They are very good at using shiftiness to get open. Shiftiness meaning they slide a half-lane one direction or another away from their defender to create separation. The thrower is then responsible for a little break, usually a slight inside-out.<br />2. As they have gotten younger in the last few years, they are more and more a man-to-man team and less and less of the zone dominated team they were.<br />3. They threw four or five goals into space past face guarding defenders <span style="font-style: italic;">when the cutter was on the run</span>. From a defensive perspective, this is really scary. From an offensive perspective, beautiful and startling.<br />4. The scariest thing about this team is that there is no sign they will falter. The great DoG teams of the 90s finally fell down because the bulk of the team was over 35, so they lost to a younger, hungrier and more athletic Condors. Fury just reloads and gets younger and stays as good. <br /><br />Furious<br />This is a solid team that is lacking any A+ players and relying on defenders, role players and supporting players to carry the entire load. Facing a man-to-man situation, they weren't able to create easy openings, allowing defenders to stay home and not help. As I mentioned earlier, they are lacking a great thrower so they aren't able to consistently challenge the outside of a junk defense either. They are quite good defensively, but don't have the depth (or won't play it) to sustain a push across two games. They came from 4-8 down in the semis to win 15-12 over Rhino and that really limited their ability to make a push against the Fish in the final. <br /><br />Riot<br />This team is <span style="font-style: italic;">very </span>young. A huge portion of this team graduated from college in the last three years (if they went at all) and almost all of the players they are using as handlers. They are working on some new things offensively and struggled with it. They weren't able to generate consistent movement up front and when they did, it didn't connect with the cutters downfield. In general, they were lacking deep cuts. In the final, they got rattled and frustrated and then Fury just rolled over them. The positive for Riot is that they are still way on the bottom of the learning curve. With the youth and speed they have, they should be able to get better and better. <br /><br />Rhino<br />Ugh. Up 8-4 at halftime in the Semis against Furious, they choked it away. First they let Furious sneak back in and make it a game. Then they let Furious score 4 in a row to win 12-15. Ouch. The crazy part is that <span style="font-style: italic;">Rhino</span> willed it to happen. In the years before Jam's 2008 title, Double Happy/Jam had a rep for coughing it up when it mattered. At Worlds in 2002, after Sockeye came back from 10-14 to beat them 15-14, a gleeful Condor came up to me and said, "It's not you, you just have to be there when it happens." (Thanks for the complement.) This game felt exactly the same. A good team like Furious is going to make a push. They won't roll over at halftime. A good team responds. You take the punches, you sag on the ropes and then you come out swinging. As soon as Rhino felt the push, they started thinking, "Not again." They talked more on the line. Their body language was defeated. And this was while they still had the lead!<br />Give some credit to Furious. Led by Morgan Hibbert, they played great defense refusing to give up a comeback cut and challenging the Rhino players to go deep. When they did, the markers forced bad throws and bad timing. When Furious got the turn, Rhino's defense was lackluster and Furious banked everyone. <br />The good news for Rhino is that the talent is there to beat Furious. (They did on Saturday.) The question is can they beat Furious while fighting with themselves.<br /><br />All the other teams<br />Didn't see them. Talked to Kira a bit about UBC and Traffic. They were pleased to have hung with Riot in the showcase game, but sad to have been crushed by Fury. Voodoo looked surprisingly good against the Fish in the semis. Underground looked surprisingly good against Riot in the semis.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-54488142713515026082011-06-03T05:22:00.000-07:002011-06-03T05:30:02.419-07:00StrugglesI'm still having a pretty rough time with how our Nationals went. <br /><br />We built a team identity that was incredibly volatile. When we played well, we were unbeatable. When we played poorly, like in the semis, we lost and lost badly. <br /><br />I can't escape the feeling that this is a coaching mistake. Meaning my mistake. To build a team that you know contains a flaw seems foolish. It was a team built to be great, not good. If we'd played great the whole way through Nationals, I would be feeling vindicated right now. <br /><br />I want another month with this team. Come back to Eugene. Back to practice. Iron out the kinks. Be great.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-68176883148956321732011-05-24T04:56:00.000-07:002011-05-24T05:28:02.348-07:00Spirit of the Game CommitteeI have been crazy swamped lately trying to get ready for Nationals. I have been watching video obsessively and trying to tie up the loose ends in the other parts of my life so I can go with a clear conscience. I'm going to avoid predictions and speculations about Nationals beyond saying that there is a ton of parity. A ton. When the dust settles on Monday, we'll anoint a champ and anoint the 'good' teams and the 'bad' ones, but if we've learned anything this year, it's that one tournament doesn't mean much.<br /><br />However, I do have something totally unrelated that I want to talk about <span style="font-style: italic;">before</span> I leave for Boulder on Thursday morning. USA Ultimate has decided to revive the Spirit of the Game Committee and I was asked (by Meredith Tosta) to serve on it and I agreed to do so. Here are the other members:<br /><br />Meredith Tosta<br />Will Deaver<span></span><span></span><span><br />David Barka</span>n<br />Jim <span>Schoettle</span><span></span>r<br />Leila Tunnel<br />Catherine Greenwald<br /><br />I am posting now because I'd like to solicit feedback on what people's thoughts are. Nationals is a great place to network and talk about stuff because it's one of the few places where we are all together. I am a little unclear on our mandate. Will and Meredith are swamped organizing D-III Nationals, D-I Nationals, Easterns and Westerns so there hasn't been much work or discussion yet, but I imagine it will pick up post-Nationals. I am beginning to work on ideas and thoughts about what can and/or should be done. I am trying to keep my ideas pretty general at this stage. There's no point getting detailed before there is any overarching vision.<br /><br />Here are the two main ideas I am mulling over:<br />1. We need practice to back up theory. I teach middle school and we use the PBIS (<a href="http://www.pbis.org/">here</a>) model to instruct behavior. People need specific directions to learn behavior. Right now, <a href="http://www.usaultimate.org/about/ultimate/spirit_of_the_game.aspx">the USAU's Ten Things You Should Know About Spirit</a> are the most specific instructions in existence and they are still very general. What would more specific instructions look like in ultimate? How could it be delivered? <br />2. Focus on coaches. More and more college teams are driven by their coaches. As our sport matures and coaches begin to outlast players we will see more and more programs like the Stanford women where two and half generations of women have passed through with the same coach. Those coaches have a profound impact on their team's culture.<br /><br />What are your ideas? You can comment them here, email me directly (louburruss@gmail.com) or find me in Boulder. I am not sure how much down time I will have, but I'll have some and I'd love to talk shop.<br /><br />PS - I am quite aware of the irony involved in my membership on this committee. I'm not quite sure what else to say about it, but I thought I'd better mention it.Louhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8780248647362852089.post-88440485194264480622011-05-15T06:34:00.001-07:002011-05-15T06:35:30.388-07:00Heat and Sideline SafetyHere is the text of a letter I sent USAU regarding heat, sun and player safety. I will add this: if you are playing in Boulder Memorial day, you should have a plan to deal with the heat.<br /><br />Will, Beth and Jeff,<br /><br />I am writing you all in an official capacity because I have concerns about athlete and coach safety at Nationals in Boulder. This will be my third trip to Boulder as a coach for college Nationals. (99 and 08 were the other two.) In each of those years, my team had a player suffer from serious heat and/or altitude sickness. The player in 99 was sick to the point of vomiting and should have been hospitalized. (I wasn't informed until well after the fact.) The player in 08 was hospitalized and missed the last day of play. Although I don't know the details of hospitalizations and missed games throughout the tournament, I know that heat stroke was a major concern last year as well. I banished my own team to the tent during play to get them off of the sidelines and out of the heat and sun, but ended up suffering heat stroke myself and spent three hours in bed under cold towels on Saturday after pool play. <br /><br />There are two policies I would like you to adjust and reconsider. <br /><br />The first is the limit to two sideline support staff. With most teams at 20+ players and at least one coach, it is unrealistic to expect that 2 people can support 21 throughout a full day, let alone four full days. While it is important to keep foolish alumni under control (I am a CUT alum after all...) I think that this could be accomplished in a way that still allowed an appropriate and safe level of support for the teams. Please consider raising this limit to 4 non-players.<br /><br />The second is the shade tent policy. It is unrealistic to fit 20+ people into a single tent, unless you squeeze them in, which defeats the purpose of cooling shade. Each team should have the opportunity to access two tents. <br /><br />Thank you,<br />Lou Burruss<br />Oregon FugueLouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13365249342438107816noreply@blogger.com5