Learning to defend in Ultimate

This is something I had been thinking about last year. I saw so many players that I thought were missing out on huge learning opportunities when they were playing defence that it bugged me sometimes. The issue I'm thinking of is when players give a particular cut for free to the person they're marking (like in a systematic way).

Say for example: at some pick up game or hat tourney - there's a less experienced player defending against some handler who's known for being quite good. And the less experienced player stands like 3 or 4 metres up line of them...thinking the handler is so good that if he gets the disc up the line, he'll definitely throw a score. So instead he gives free back field passes for the entire point. (and this good handler would proceed to do quite a bit for the offence, considering the lack of defensive pressure).

I don't mean to imply an intentional effort to poach off the handler by the way - all I mean is that a defender is giving an offender so much respect that he stops actually trying to defend against him.

(the same thing can happen with marking a recognised good cutter - with players no longer defending properly and just taking away one thing - the deep cut)

Clearly this situation is crazy. And the less experienced player is losing out on a huge learning opportunity. If he marked the other player tightly, he'd possibly get beat a few times, but if he makes an effort to not get beaten with the same move more than once, he should improve his defending hugely and indirectly get to learn some offence moves too.

So my tip for inexperienced players for learning how to defend is.... try defending. As in try to shut down every cut, and remember - if you 'get schooled' - then you should have learned something.

teaching people how to throw a forehand

Teaching people how to throw a forehand is something you'll invariably have to do if you play ultimate with beginners. It's not the most instinctive of throws.

For anyone interested in the topic, I'd recommend a look at this article from the Australian Fyling Disc Association, the book "Essential Ultimate" (amazon link) has some really good stuff about it too. There is even a DVD about perfecting throws - the example footage is about throwing forehands -it's certainly worth a look.

The reason I post about this now, is because of that whole "stick your elbow to your ribcage" approach to teaching forehand throwing. An idea that seems to have some fans. Does anyone know where the concept came from? (possibly it's hinted at in the AFDA article above - but it certainly doesn't say to do this). I really don't like it anyway. As I understand it, people know that it's bad throwing mechanics, but see it as some sort of learning aid to get beginners to focus on using their wrist more.

I think it's of very limited use and what's more it can be troublesome for people to unlearn it as their throwing progresses. Did anyone that reads this learn to throw that way?

To anyone involved in teaching beginners how to throw forehands, I'd urge you to stay away from the elbow-ribcage idea. In my experience, the best way to teach someone how to throw a good forehand, is to teach them how to throw a good forehand. Teach the body position, movements and grip first, encouraging them to focus on throws that spin and stay level.

Teaching your bad arm to throw a forehand can be a useful insight into the process of acquiring such a skill. At first you really have to think about the body mechanics involved, but through enough repetition it almost seems like your arm remembers most of that and your brain can progress onto thinking about the flight of the disc and eventually, just the target. (to reiterate, I really don't think you want your arm to remember the wrong throwing mechanics).

Offence against a poach from an open side dump

In this post I’m going to discuss the open side dump poach. First of all I should clarify what the situation I’m talking about is. I'll try to describe it. Regarding the offence, a player has the disc and a handler team-mate of theirs is set up as a dump (the player with the disc must be far enough away from the ‘forced’ side of the pitch that there is space for this). The defence are basically playing a man-to-man, forcing one sideline approach, apart from one defender. The one with responsibility for covering the dump on the open side is poaching the lane, making upfield passes more difficult, but passes to the dump are free. The intention would be to mark the dump more tightly if they get the disc. The logic would be that this defence wants to force the play towards a particular sideline and get a turnover there. By allowing the offence to go that way, it should help.

I'm sure if you understood what I just said, then you’ve probably seen the situation. It’s a favoured approach of lazy defenders everywhere, perhaps even intelligent defenders, depending on your perspective.

At one stage I was quite a fan of this. When I was playing at a level where players generally didn’t have good break force throws; encouraging them towards the forced sideline meant chances were high they’d just run out of room and turn over. I also liked it as a defender when myself and a DCU team mate of mine (Colin) had a poach-and-switch system going whenever we marked handlers (a defensive sort of rapport – very enjoyable when it worked). As I played higher level ultimate I had sort of decided it wasn’t such a great idea after all. Good handlers didn’t have much trouble throwing breaks away from the forced sideline so it just seemed like a tactic that gives opponents free resets. What’s more, giving good handlers such space allows them time to see the whole field and really take you apart.

I was thinking about what these good handlers do against the situation to really take a team apart. I want to do like them. Thus far, I’ve got 4 offensive approaches that I think a good handler might consider.

1. Ignore it. well be careful, but don't bother making a particular effort to use the poached player in a way you wouldn't do anyway. Look for your usual offence, just don't throw it into the poach. Perhaps a big fake will let you know if they're waiting to lay out. 
2. Move it to the breakside. This could be an opportunity to get an easy break throw off by using the poached player. The poached player moves to the breakside, behind the thrower. The thrower leads them with a pass out to that side and then some easy continuation passes might be available. This will depend on where you are on the pitch and what the offence and defence look like. 
3. A huck from the poached handler. Most throws tend to be easier with no mark, although it might be from a position that's a little too far away from deep cutters. 
4. A give'n'go with the poached player. The forcer is an out of position defender as soon as the the disc is thrown, so the original thrower can go up the line on the open side to get it straight back from the poached player. It's then a really good spot to throw a huck. 

Which of these approaches is best? I don't know! It would depend on the exact situation on the field and the strengths and weaknesses of both teams. The worst approach goes something like the dump going for approach 2 and the player with the disc going for approach 4; a misunderstanding turnover is the likely result. Any approach that doesn't result in a turnover is pretty good for a start. If you can use the opportunity to break down the defence then you're doing really well.

P.S.
I'm still quite unsure of how good an idea it is generally to poach open side dumps as a defensive tactic. I think there are definitely scenarios where it might be useful. Especially if the poach is only early in the stall count and the dump is marked more closely later on. Some of the matches at the world games seemed to have some of that going on (here are some links: 1,2,) and they're all pretty good players!
(although the final point of WUGC-open division has got some closer marking on dumps)

*Update - 5th of March 2010

on field rapport

Rapport is one of the more fun aspects of having a steady team. 

I find certain players I play with that I throw passes to, or recieve passes from, more than anyone else on the pitch. If there were stats on passes I'm involved with that break down the defence then i'm sure that these would connect me to these players with whom I have an 'on-field rapport', even more.


so are these players with whom I have an 'on-field rapport'? or are these just good players with whom everyone thinks they have an 'on-field rapport'?


While I think there are elements of both at work, I do think its often more about player specific rapport, rather than playing on the same team as someone who's just really good.

I've found a drawback though. Here's a situation. I make a grab, and I hit the floor afterwards. My perpheral vision saw the beginning of 2 cuts as I was doing all that.  As i'm getting up, I'm preparing to throw to the cut I saw my rapport buddy (Luan) start. Regardless of whether it was the better one (but lets face it, it probably was).

Maybe the problem is a lack of rapport with the other guy.

passes that break down a defence

I want to rank passes. To define which are the most and least useful passes. Then I can work on throwing and cutting for more of the most useful passes in various situations.

Useful passes are, I think, passes that break down defences. This might not immediately be a clear way to categorise passes. (unlike, say, naming everything 'dump', 'swing', 'undercut', 'leading pass to an away cut', 'break' and so on...or saying useful passes are just the ones that gain the most territory)

I propose this definition:

A pass that results in the next pass (that works towards a score) being an easier one is a pass that breaks down the defence.

The obvious passes that come under this definition are

• passes that get past a cup
• break mark passes
• hucks

But there are also more subtle ones. For instance a backfield dump from a force sideline position: if it leads the receiver towards the sideline, the defence will get a force on quickly and considering the position of the original thrower (now, in the way) the new disc holder is worse off in every respect other than stall count. Whereas a dump that leads the receiver away from the sideline should create the opportunity for a continuation pass. The next pass working towards a score should be easier.

I think the majority of passes that everyone looks for should mean the next one is closer to a score. That is the majority of players look for upfield passes most often. But using the definition you could still say one option is even better than another. Passes can be ranked with how easy they make the next throw progressing towards a score.

Perhaps my definition implies a comparison with the previous throw. I'm not sure if I want to do that.

WUCC bids

For the world ultimate club championships, next summer in Prague. The number of bids for each nation shows that 141 bids have been offered in total across all divisions. The total number of bids per division looks quite odd from a scheduling point of view (53 open, 29 women, 41 mixed and 18 masters). The invitation document said that the "tournament can only host approximately 120 Teams". 


It seems pretty clear that WFDF is relying on not every offered bid being accepted. The wait list bids therefore (to be announced January 10th) are unlikely to be very numerous. 


Presumably, easily scheduled numbers would be preferable, numbers divisible by 4 tend to work well. So I'm guessing maybe 44 open teams, 24 womens teams, 36 mixed teams and 16 masters teams. That would add up to 120.  Although perhaps 'approximately' 120 could mean a few more could squeeze in. 


I'm guessing the smaller divisions - like Masters and Womens won't have too many unaccepted bids - since the offered bids are in the main to very established ultimate nations. Whereas open and mixed might have a few more unaccepted ones because these are the divisions where the smaller, less established and even provisional WFDF member nations were offered bids. 


Whichever division you play in, if you're hoping for a wait list bid, don't set your expectations too high!




UPDATE: http://twitter.com/UKUltimate/statuses/7455341255

The great eurodisc spirit debate

So, the never ending eurodisc spirit debate has kicked off once more.

For those unfamiliar with it, eurodisc is the European ultimate email list. As email lists go, it's really quite good. There's no spam. Just useful information about ultimate tournaments, and ultimate related news. Until, every few months someone says 'spirit' and then it all kicks off.

Spirit is good. Referees are bad

But we are all referees, so referees can't be bad.

Logical fallacy foul! Observers are not referees. Except when playing at the slippery slope tournament.

Why don't you go play MLU and bodycheck everyone. You're not as spirited as me.

 I'll bodycheck your mom. You can be the observer.

There is a chance I may have exaggerated certain elements of the great eurodisc spirit debate (there are generally no references to anyone's mom and the individual posts are usually much longer). But you get the idea.

My main problem with this debate is about the thread system of my email program. Its a fantastic system that means all the emails of a conversation are grouped together. The problem I'm having is that the eurodisc spirit debate seems to often find itself on more than one thread. Sometimes this is because people change the subject line of the email...perhaps sometimes it happens if someone replies to a digest email...but it has happened once or twice without any of that (just yesterday for instance). Can anyone suggest why? It takes much longer to delete than it would otherwise.