Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Friday, July 8, 2011
Your Hard Work is not My Hard Work
I 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.
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 liked running track workouts. He was both more motivated and enjoyed running.
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.
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.
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 liked running track workouts. He was both more motivated and enjoyed running.
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.
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.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Dip D
This is part 2 in a series on defensive positioning, part 1 is here.
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.
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.
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.
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 way over-matched athletically or the cutter can't throw at all and you are baiting the throwaway.
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 would not recommend it for non-competitive situations like city league.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 way over-matched athletically or the cutter can't throw at all and you are baiting the throwaway.
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 would not recommend it for non-competitive situations like city league.
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.
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.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Potlatch
I'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:
Potlatch is a great tournament for kids.
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.
Until Tom Crawford goes to Potlatch and Poultry Days, he won't understand ultimate.
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 touching a round little piece of plastic.
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.
People need to step up.
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:
Cars. 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.
Tricycle velodrome. The name says it all. Just keep Damien Scott and Mike Grant away from it.
The Duelists. Wrestling. Foam swords. Paint ball guns. You don't like my foul call? I want satisfaction.
Success in Muckamuck depended on your shirts.
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.
Congrats to Frankus.
Frankus Flores of Downtown Brown made it 20 straight Potlatches this year. That's all but the first two. Nice work!
Potlatch is a great tournament for kids.
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.
Until Tom Crawford goes to Potlatch and Poultry Days, he won't understand ultimate.
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 touching a round little piece of plastic.
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.
People need to step up.
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:
Cars. 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.
Tricycle velodrome. The name says it all. Just keep Damien Scott and Mike Grant away from it.
The Duelists. Wrestling. Foam swords. Paint ball guns. You don't like my foul call? I want satisfaction.
Success in Muckamuck depended on your shirts.
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.
Congrats to Frankus.
Frankus Flores of Downtown Brown made it 20 straight Potlatches this year. That's all but the first two. Nice work!
Friday, June 24, 2011
Defensive Positioning
I 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:
1. DIP D - can you tell me when this is ideal?
1. DIP D - can you tell me when this is ideal?
2. Having a cushion - also, when to use verses DIP?
3. Poaching on the dump for the first few seconds, then getting right back on
4. Switches and dump D, too.
I'm going to get to all of it, but it is a lot, so it may take a bit.
Before talking about dip and cushions and switching, I'd like to cover basic, fundamental face-guarding positioning. The classic position is:
1. Between your player and the disc....
2. shifted half a step to the open lane. (Not the open side, the open lane.)
Take a look at this clip from the 07 Sockeye-Bravo final. 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.
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.
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.
I'm going to get to all of it, but it is a lot, so it may take a bit.
Before talking about dip and cushions and switching, I'd like to cover basic, fundamental face-guarding positioning. The classic position is:
1. Between your player and the disc....
2. shifted half a step to the open lane. (Not the open side, the open lane.)
Take a look at this clip from the 07 Sockeye-Bravo final. 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.
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.
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.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Solstice
I 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.
Sockeye
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.)
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.
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.
Fury
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.
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.
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.
3. They threw four or five goals into space past face guarding defenders when the cutter was on the run. From a defensive perspective, this is really scary. From an offensive perspective, beautiful and startling.
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.
Furious
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.
Riot
This team is very 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.
Rhino
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 Rhino 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!
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.
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.
All the other teams
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.
Sockeye
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.)
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.
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.
Fury
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.
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.
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.
3. They threw four or five goals into space past face guarding defenders when the cutter was on the run. From a defensive perspective, this is really scary. From an offensive perspective, beautiful and startling.
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.
Furious
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.
Riot
This team is very 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.
Rhino
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 Rhino 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!
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.
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.
All the other teams
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.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Struggles
I'm still having a pretty rough time with how our Nationals went.
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.
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.
I want another month with this team. Come back to Eugene. Back to practice. Iron out the kinks. Be great.
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.
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.
I want another month with this team. Come back to Eugene. Back to practice. Iron out the kinks. Be great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)