Dan Heijmen
I was in a unique position at the championships last season: being employed by
the UPA to follow the action and write daily recaps on the website’s results
page for the Open Division. In this capacity I witnessed part of each game
Chain was involved in, and as they progressed through the tournament I got to
watch how they were able to attack so effectively against the other top teams.
First of all, they like to huck it. Obvious right? Each team I spoke with
talked about trying (and failing) to stop their hucks and force them to work
the disc underneath. The players I spoke with said things like, “We’re gonna
make ’em play small ball,” or, “We’re going to look to poach deep off the weak
side cutters,” or, “We’re going to stop hucks with our straight up marks,” or,
as one captain said, “We’re just going to back ’em, plain and simple.” The
problem with all of these strategies was in the assumption that Chain would be
“worse” at working it underneath.
Teams seemed to start out forcing Chain back toward the disc, or “making them
throw a lot of passes” in the beginning of the game. Chain handled this style
of defense without batting an eye, and was content to take under cuts all the
way up to the sideline. When you are throwing to players like Zip, Dylan, AJ,
Wooten, Wilson, Cricket, etc., they are not going to be beaten back to this
disc if they’re being played honest (forget about it if you’re backing them).
Once Chain had gotten to within 10 or 15 yards of the goal line the defense
would have to play honest, allowing Chain to dump, swing and score on
consecutive throws just like that. I rarely witnessed them struggle on the end
zone line, and Chain scored quickly with frightening efficiency.
So the Chain offense has now shown that it can score without issue if the
defense plays against the huck. This becomes demoralizing. At some point
during the game the defense would have to try something different, i.e.
fronting down field, or changing your mark strategy. Now all of a sudden the
deep space opens up, and hucks are being launched by experienced, strong
throwers to some of the best receivers in Ultimate.
Chain’s offense proved to be incredibly adaptable. They could score in a
number of ways, and intelligently took advantage of teams that tried to take
away the huck from the beginning. Chain played it cool at first, and proved
that they could score without throwing long. Then, when the opportunity
presented itself, they unleashed the beast.
On top of this, Chain’s defense was incredible after the turn. The O unit’s
defense shown during the weekend, consistently forcing turnovers and giving
themselves more opportunities to score. Credit their grit, and refusal to give
up any break.
Dan Heijmen
Whenever lining up against a gifted opponent I have always found it helpful to
ask myself: what does this player want to do? In this case, this player is
most comfortable and probably most confident in a handler role, staying behind
the disc and throwing goals rather than receiving them. When playing against
teams that have a player like this, someone who excels in many aspects, always
make them beat you with their Plan B or Plan C, never Plan A.
When playing Brown in 2005 (the year they ended up winning nationals) we knew
what they wanted to do. They wanted to isolate Zip (Josh Ziperstein), and
allow him to do what he does best: fake someone silly and bust deep. This
would usually happen when their best thrower that year (Vandenberg) had the
disc. This was an incredibly effective strategy for them. They had the best
player in college ultimate that year (maybe ever) and one of the best pure
throwers. This was their Plan A: Zip go deep, Vandenberg throw deep. When
playing Brown that year in quarterfinals of Centex (the last game they lost!)
we wanted to make sure that if they beat us, it would not be because we
couldn’t stop Zip going deep. So, we put one of our best defenders on him
(Gigo Valdivia) with instructions to back Zip and let him get the disc
underneath. We wanted to force Brown out of their comfort zone, which I
believe we did. We ended winning an epic game on universe point.
In this above described situation, I think you need to go into the second half
feeling confident number one. You are down a break to a team that isn’t
beating you the way they want. Sure they are happy to be up, but as this game
wears on they will unconsciously (or consciously) want to return to what got
them there: their thrower throwing, not receiving, deep discs. Here’s what I
tell my team going into the second half: so far we are executing our strategy,
but the results aren’t there. What we need to do is ratchet up the intensity
on their throwers. Make it so they don’t want the disc in their hands. I would
try putting a straight up mark on the players that have been hucking, with the
hopes of disrupting or deterring their chances. You don’t need to stop every
huck; you just need to do whatever you can to make the throw less than
perfect. Downfield I would put one of, if not our best deep defender on the
player beating us deep. I woud continue to front him, but maybe not by as
much. I would also instruct the players on the weak side of the field, to look
for opportunities to help deep if an uncontested huck does go up. I would also
make sure to remind my players that we are doing what we are supposed to do,
have confidence in the game plan and make your opponent feel the pressure of
playing outside their comfort zone.
In the end, if a team is able to beat you going outside their game
plan…well, hats off to them. But allowing them to beat you how they want to
beat you is unacceptable. And if the strategy you went into the game with
still isn’t working late in the second half, maybe you just want to jump ship.
Try force middle, even going zone or switching the matchup you have on their
stud. Throw the kitchen sink at them. Make them play how you want them to
play, force them to dig into their pockets for Plans C, D and E.