Jeff Eastham-Anderson
It’s too bad you can’t put the World’s Greatest Defender on this person,
because they sound like they are the World’s Best Offensive Player.
I would probably get two defenders to alternate defensive points with the
intention of solely guarding this person. Ideally, one defender would be the
quick/squirrelly type with a good mark to challenge him around the disc and
apply pressure on the mark. The second defender would be fast and preferably
able to out-jump this person, with the intention of continuing to push him
deep (but maybe not quite as much as in the first half). The idea behind two
defenders with two different objectives is to keep this offensive person off
balance. Requiring a person to constantly switch roles in order to be
effective is preferable to letting them stay in whatever zone they are in.
Starting the second half, have the quick marker start out (because the
offender is already in a groove going deep), and unless they are wildly
successful (i.e. handblock), switch defenders the next O point. If a couple
cycles of that doesn’t work, there’s always zone until half-field.
Matt Dufort
A player like this, who clearly has multiple offensive weapons, presents a
serious match up challenge. Individual defensive match ups are an odd thing,
and it can be difficult to predict which defender would be most effective.
Given the past experience of this player being most effective as a deep
thrower, I would continue to push them away from the disc. I would try
different defenders on them until finding a player who could be successful in
keeping the player away from the disc, and in containing their deep game.
As a second possibility, if my team had a strong zone defense, and this player
was the opposing offense’s primary weapon, I would consider playing a “box-
and-one” zone. Match up someone individually on the skilled deep thrower, and
play zone with the other six defenders. This makes it difficult for that one
player to get the disc, and limits his/her throwing options after receiving
the disc.
Above all, a defense’s best weapon is to be unpredictable. Throwing different
looks at this player, and at the opposing team’s offense in general, forces
them to constantly adjust, and to do things differently than they’re
accustomed to. This often leads to small mistakes or miscues that the defense
can capitalize on.
Mike Whitaker
The best strategy for containing good deep throwers depends in part on the
type of handler position they are playing. If the thrower is frequently in a
dump reset position, the number one priority must be that he does not get the
disc moving up field. A good thrower with momentum and a trailing mark is
deadly. You will often find a defender guard this player well for the first
two or three resets and then the defender will get impatient. They’ll start to
overplay the dump in an effort to get the block and will get beat upline or
they’ll get lazy with body position and fail to take away the upline cut with
their body. The number one priority for defending a dangerous deep thrower
lined up near or behind the disc is that they must catch the disc with their
momentum moving away from the attacking endzone.
If the thrower is playing upfield, I would try to have our defender play more
honest D if they were beaten consistently in the first half. To make the
thrower’s life more difficult, I would instruct our dump defenders to “sponge”
or poach the dumps when the dangerous thrower has the disc. Basically, for the
first two seconds the thrower has the disc, the dump defenders should jump
into the throwing lane. Again, this strategy is designed to disrupt the rhythm
of the thrower and prevent the easy momentum huck. It is also designed to get
the disc out of the most dangerous player’s hands and to see if the team’s
other throwers can beat us in a pressure situation.
As for they type of defender, I would first try putting my team’s best marker
on the thrower. By best marker, I mean the player who is always active on the
mark and best understands what the hucker wants to throw. The best way for a
marker to limit the damage from a hucker is to make the hucker uncomfortable
at release. This can mean making the hucker take an extra pivot, causing him
to extend an extra couple inches beyond the normal release point, causing the
release to be rushed, or the follow through to be shortened. Good huckers have
favorite release points and normal rhythms of throwing where they are most
dangerous. Disrupt these by taking huckers out of their comfort zones and you
greatly increase the odds of your defender having a shot at blocking the huck.
In the end, with a good thrower, all you can really ask your defense to do is
to increase the odds of a throw that isn’t perfect and can be D’ed.
I would try the revised strategy for the first three to four D points of the
second half and make their thrower adjust to the different defensive look. If
it doesn’t work, I’d likely go back to the force the thrower deep strategy at
that point and shift one of my top receiver defenders to covering him.
Kirk Savage
Well…the answer to a situation like this (defending a handler in the lanes)
is going to be dependant on a number of factors and variables that are unknown
in this scenario (athletic ability, height, speed, etc.). However, in a
general sense, if you have one of the main players on the opposing team
drastically altering their game due to your defensive strategy then your
defensive strategy is effective. Forcing a “main handler” to strike and cut
downfield is a great situation for the defensive team. This means that the
handler is not quarterbacking the offence, and they are potentially getting in
the way of the primary lane cutters.
As such, I would not be concerned at all if the handler was in the lanes and
has made a couple of lucky catches. Can they continue to do it for the rest of
the game? Can the offence continue to convert at a high rate with secondary
players running the show and making the big throws? I doubt it and odds are
good that a comeback will be on in the second half.
As far as defender choice—I would always choose a taller more athletic
defender on a strong handler. On our team we have had very good success with
Andrew Lugsdin marking up against all-star handlers. His agility allows him to
be able to stay with the short quick cuts and his size helps him to play
underneath and “push the handler away from the disc.”
Ben Van Heuvelen
On defense, your goal isn’t to shut down all options , because that’s
impossible against a good offense. Rather, your goal is to dictate to the
offense those options it can take. So, the first thing to realize here is: if
Big Thrower hasn’t been able to make big throws, you’ve done something
successful.
The question to ask yourself now: Is Big Thrower hurting us more now as a deep
receiver than he/she usually does as a thrower?
A few successful deep goals shouldn’t automatically make you change your
tactics. If, for example, you’ve also gotten a few turnovers on the other
team’s handlers because they aren’t used to running their handler set without
Big Thrower, then maybe those turnovers offset the damage of Big Thrower
running deep. I.e., maybe having Big Thrower go deep is a good tradeoff, given
the other disruptions it’s causing to their offense.
But then let’s assume that their offense is running pretty smoothly, or that
the errors in their offense have little to do with the way you’re covering Big
Thrower. In that case, the most important thing is to keep Big Thrower off
balance. Even great throwers have a hard time switching from a deep receiver
mentality to a deep thrower mentality mid-game — so force Big Thrower to (try
to) make that switch, and make the switch as hard as possible. A few ways to
do this:
A. Defend Big Thrower by preventing him from going deep — physically
prevent him: defender should keep keep his body between Big Thrower and the
endzone.
B. If the defender commits himself to superior positioning, then speed and
quickness are probably more important here than height.
C. Defender should be an excellent marker. Stay close enough to Big
Thrower so that you can put a mark on him as soon as he catches it. Don’t go
for a layout D on an in-cut unless you’re reasonably sure you can get it.
D. A vast majority of the best hucks are released in flow, before stall
three. So put a “no huck”/flat mark on Big Thrower for stalls one and two.
(Most throwers, especially huckers, don’t look to break the mark until stall
3, anyway.) To do this, marker should focus on mirroring his shoulders with
the thrower’s shoulders, staying on toes, eyes on thrower’s chest, arms wide.
Being a great player, Big Thrower is going to get the disc, and is probably
going to get off a couple of good hucks. So: measure your defensive success
here not by asking “did you shut him down?” but by asking “did you
successfully dictate his options?” Specifically, two questions:
1. Did you prevent him from getting open deep?
2. Did you prevent him from hucking on stall 1-2?
If yes, then you’ve done as well as you’re going to do. At least in the
context of a person-to-person defense. Zone/junk defense options are also
worth considering, but that’s a different story.
Gwen Ambler
This week’s question is essentially asking what do you do if your original
game plan and strategy for how to play a certain player doesn’t seem to be
working. In this case, I would consider coming up with multiple different
strategies for minimizing that players’ apparent strengths. Here are four
possible strategies (and in the order I would attempt them) for dealing with a
player with dominant throws:
1. Front her to try and deny her the disc on any easy pass, forcing her to
make plays in a way that is not her preference (i.e. going deep to try and
catch goals instead of throw them). This strategy is what I would always try
first, but in the scenario outlined, it didn’t seem to be working. While you
might abandon this strategy for awhile, don’t forget to try it again later in
the game.
2. Guard her on her inside hip so that you can always see both your woman
and the disc and try and push her out wide to the open side. This is a
containment-type defense where you concede certain passes but try to take away
the player’s most damaging un-marked throws. This positioning should make a
handler stay near the disc because she would seem more open cutting in than
away, but the defender is close enough to make a play on a bad pass, or put on
a mark if she does catch it. A good marker is vital for this defense. By
positioning yourself in the inside-out space, you ensure that she is less
likely to catch a pass on the break-side and get off a huck. When she catches
the disc, the sideline should yell, “Thrower!” to alert the downfield D that a
huck might be coming. The defense’s priority is to only have her throw open
side hucks so that the downfield D can anticipate where the deep looks are
coming from.
3. If the downfield defense is still getting burned by her long throws, I
would then set up a clam defense where the player in question and the other
two handlers are marked person-on, while the four remaining players play more
of a zone downfield, covering players only when they cut into their space.
This should ensure that there is always a defender last back ready to defend
any deep pass that gets put up. Even if this defense is only used as a
transition D, forcing the offense to adjust to multiple defensive looks during
a point can be effective.
4. The last specific defense I would consider is a box-and-one. Even if it
is not windy, this defense can be effective if your opponent is used to
relying on its main thrower to run its zone offense. Set up a 3-2-1 zone where
the extra person guards the target handler person-on, fronting her and trying
to deny any easy reset. If the handler goes deep, the defense will have help
from the zone’s deep deep defender.
How many different defensive looks your team will need to use in a game to
shut down a specific player really depends on how good she is and how much her
team relies on her. The better the player and the more well-rounded the team,
the more quickly they will adjust to a specific defense. That’s why it’s
important to have numerous defenses to alternate between so you keep your
opponent guessing and you can narrow down what sort of defensive options seem
most effective.
Ryan Morgan
This is a very interesting scenario because there are so many adjustments that
could be made to respond to this player. You could assign a speedy defender to
outrun him on the deep cuts, you could assign a tall defender to pull down
floaty passes, you could assign a physical defender to disrupt the flow of his
cuts, you could keep playing the same defense on him but put a straight-up
mark on everyone else, you could go zone, you could play last back, or you
could even throw your scouting report out the window and let him hang around
the disc.
In my opinion, it doesn’t matter what adjustment you make as long as you make
one. This player, who is used to hanging around the disc, has clearly gotten
comfortable playing downfield against your defense. The absolute worst thing
you can do is to not do anything. It doesn’t matter if your best defender was
guarding him in the first half, you can’t just say “try harder” or “don’t get
beat deep anymore.” At this point in an elimination game you have to make an
adjustment to get him out of his rhythm. You have to throw a hurdle in his way
to show him a different look.
Once you disrupt his rhythm he is going to want to go back to his comfort zone
— near the disc. At that point, I would return to my scouting report and
continue to push him downfield. A different defender should be put on him
though, so he doesn’t get comfortable again. Since most handlers don’t want to
work hard, I would put a fast, physical player on him. That way he will have
to work to get open knowing the whole time that on a long pass the faster
defender will be able to run past him. But that decision just reflects my
personal preference on how to guard handlers downfield without knowing more
about the teams involved. So there could be a better choice considering the
totality of the circumstances. But again, the most important adjustment to
make is to make an adjustment.
Ben Wiggins
They say that coaching is the art of making decisions without statistical
significance in the data. Ok, they don’t say that…I say that. We have 6
minutes left in halftime, and our captains are getting together to decide if
Big Thrower is just having a great half, or if this is a tactical change. To
any reasonable statistical measure, we are flipping a coin here. The data just
doesn’t exist to tell us for sure whether or not this might happen in the
second half, and it’s gonna be a gut call if we want to switch tactics. Is
this their new playing style, or will our scouting report come around before
that 15th goal?
My gut usually sticks with the scouting report; I have a lot of faith in how I
scout teams, and if I was sure 50 minutes ago that this guy is a better
thrower than cutter, well, 50 minutes and some lost sweat shouldn’t change
that. In fact, nothing in the first half has contradicted our report…heck,
if we had been pushing him towards the disc, maybe we are already down 8-5 or
8-4. This might just be his day.
If my team is a pressure-D kind of team, then that gives me another reason to
stick with the ‘push him out’ strategy. I don’t want to let up on their
offense as a unit, giving them a free reset to their best player, just because
of a couple of goals. This is, to me, just too reactionary. If the situation
were reversed, and we had a player that was typically big/fast that we liked
to push under…but he threw 3 good hucks in the first half…I would be more
likely to switch now, since we would be amping up our own pressure on those
hucking to him. Now we are trying to play our game better, rather than worry
about what THEY do…all that matters is us once that first pull goes up. Any
adjustment we make should be secondary towards improving what WE do, not just
trying to not lose to them.
So, I’m reluctant to change thoroughly and start forcing toward the disc.
How can we steal some blocks from a gifted player?
First off, I am likely to change some of our other matchups. I’ll put my
smartest/biggest defender on their worst downfield thrower, and let them know
to keep their head up and bust deep to go for double-covers on hucks to Big
Thrower. We might give up an under-cut to their worst thrower, but we might
catch them going back to the well once too often. I might put my
smartest/quickest defender on their worst handler, and have them poaching into
the lanes to block hucks from that flat region about 5 yards downfield of the
disc. In either case, I am looking to my experienced off-ball defenders to
make this a team game instead of a series of 1-v-1 matchups while their best
player has the NBA Jam flying disc. Why do you think great D-teams always have
at least 2 guys over 30 years old out there? Experienced defenders can make
the kind of adjustments that don’t force you to abandon your game plan.
(I cannot fully express my outrage at the opposite; inexperienced defender
with the “at least my guy didn’t do anything, so I did MY job”…what,
guarding the end-zone isn’t your job? Guarding the disc isn’t? What good are
you if you care more about the guy standing in the stack than you do about the
plastic they keep catching. Can you imagine someone feeling vindicated that
they were a great defender because they successfully stood in the corner with
Derek Fisher while Kobe scored 60? Go get in the game, or get off the line and
let someone who isn’t scared to be in a poster make us a better team).
I like rotating different defenders on this player, especially since this lets
me do some gambling against their pull play. If I smell a huck play, I’m
putting in a bigger defender and fronting…let’s get aggressive and ask them
to huck against someone that, before this half, they would not have wanted to
go deep on. If I feel like a throw is coming, I’m obviously coming with my
marker.
I’m telling my team at halftime that their offense is going through one player
right now; he’s scored half of their goals and they are relying on him for
everything from deep cuts to throws to their primary decoy. We start shutting
him down, and we can bring their house of cards tumbling down. This reliance
on one player is our opportunity. Sure, they are a great team, and sometimes a
great team wins with a 2-point halftime lead…but let’s grind out some yards
on offense and start playing 21-on-1 against their star, and see who breaks
first. We have the team to do it, the offense to take care of what it needs to
take care of, and it’s on us to prove that what we have done in practice this
year, and on the track, and in the weight room is worth it. Get on that guy,
mess with him game. Get your teammates back, fly to the ball when it hits the
air. Let’s enforce our game on this patch of grass, and win or lose we are
going to show them a level of defense they aren’t ready for.
Nancy Sun
Adjustments made before during a game can win…or lose a game. Pre-game
scouting reports or prior encounters can give clues for how each team’s
offense and defense should come out of the gate. However, there is no
substitute for actually playing the game and making real-time evaluations.
There is a fine line to walk between jumping the gun on an adjustment and not
acting soon enough and I think that one of the hardest jobs of a team
strategist is this evaluation and subsequent decision for adjustment or non-
adjustment.
In the given situation, it sounds like the defense tried to take away the
opponents first option (banking on a low likelihood of being beat on the
opponent’s second or subsequent option), but the opponent made an effective
pre-game adjustment, and kudos to them. Halftime is a natural time for
adjustments to be made to happen and in this particular situation, I would
absolutely change up the defensive plan.
In close games, teams trade points, teams take turns going on runs, and at the
most basic level, teams settle into a rhythm. One of the goals of a defense
should be to make the offense uncomfortable, and clearly the opposing team is
feeling pretty at ease with their star thrower being forced away from the
disc. The decision for whether the defensive adjustment is a zone, clam, a
straight up mark, backing man defense, etc., should be made with your team’s
strengths (and other external factors, like weather) in consideration. If the
decision is to stay with man defense, the other factor to consider is the type
of defender to put on the thrower. For example, on other team’s big throwers,
there can be much success to be had with rotating smaller-in-stature handler
defenders who specialize in challenging the dump pass with more physical
defenders who cover and hold lots of ground on D and provide a huge mark.
Whichever method ends up being chosen, the goal with the defensive adjustement
should be to disrupt the offense’s rhythm enough to get a couple turns (and
defensive scores) and shift the momentum of the game.
Miranda Roth
As a wise woman once said (props to those who get the joke), never lose a game
without playing zone. I think this thought answers the question but taken to a
broader sense: never get beat over and over again without changing something.
So your scouting report was wrong or the team has adjusted to all their
opponents having the same scouting report on their strong player. This happens
very often with great, specialized players. If an amazing receiver gets forced
under enough she will become a great thrower. Now what do you do in this
situation in real-time?
First, play zone. If you are worried about a one on one match up, the best way
to increase your chances is to allow more defenders to contribute to the match
up’s offensive obstacles. Lots of zones would work, but particularly difficult
for many all-star players are box and one zones or transition zones. If you
play box and one then you are guaranteed to have at least a 2 on 1 situation
in all deep looks (your deep-deep and your player on vs. the other team’s
star) AND if she goes back to being a throwing threat, you have your player on
(maybe with a straight up mark) and a wall of three close behind making her
life miserable as a thrower. One thing to be cautious of with a transition
zone is to make sure you transition a strong defender onto their main
player—sometimes it is worth taking a little extra time or giving up a few
free-ish passes to get your match ups straight.
Second, take note of who has been throwing it to the player in question. Would
a straight up mark help, either in discouraging the throws or pushing throws
out of bounds? Do the throwers have equally good forehand and backhand hucks
(maybe try forcing a different direction)? Maybe getting closer and more
aggressive on the mark would really help keep those long throws from going up.
I have also known some teams to foul on the mark in this situation. Though I
do not encourage this as a strategy (at least not until we have foul limits
for individual players), you may want to encourage your marks to be so
aggressive that they MIGHT foul.
Third, ditch the scouting report. Back the heck out of the player in question.
Who cares what she’s done earlier in the season, the way she’s beating you in
this game is what you need to deal with at the moment. This can also be used
in conjunction with a change in marking strategy.
One other thing I’d like to mention is an interesting strategy I’ve heard for
how to get match ups to work. It’s all good and well to put your best defender
on the other team’s best player, but if the other team is deeper and generally
has more strong players on the field than your team does, you can think about
doing what I call the “Tennis Shift.”
In tennis team matches, there are positions 1 through 5 with 1 being the
highest (best) players and 5 being the lowest (weakest) players. Sometimes, to
win more of these match ups within a match, a team will shift its 5 spot
player to the 1 spot and shift the rest of their match ups down. This
basically concedes the 1 spot to the opponent, but you have a way better
chance at winning the other match ups and maybe the match as a whole. The way
this can be applied to ultimate is that you have 1 through 7 defenders to mark
1 through 7 offenders. If you don’t think their #1 is guardable by your #1
defender, try putting your #7 on their #1 and try to win all your other match
ups in such a way that the impact their #1 makes is greatly reduced by the
players around her being shut down.
Now, to be fair, I haven’t actually tried the Tennis Shift. My thought is that
it could work, but you might not necessarily put #7 on #1 it might be a
relative shift. It is very important to think about match ups. Some other
things to think about might be putting your tallest defender on the player in
question if she is beating you based on height or use your fastest defender if
she is beating you on speed.
VY Chow
There seems to be two diverging philosophies on how to defend against a very
skilled deep thrower that has also hurt you going deep. The first philosophy
is perhaps considered old school, focusing on team defense and changing the
team’s defensive strategy. The second, new school, philosophy is what I like
to call the “hack-a-Shaq” tactic, and although not exactly the same as its
namesake, the results are comparable. The hack-a-Shaq consists of
intentionally fouling the thrower to significantly disrupt the offensive flow
(and deep shot) without consequence to the defending team and, I hate to say,
is indelibly efficacious.
Currently, I still prefer the so-called old school strategy of changing up the
team D. I somehow feel the second is a violation of SOTG but will freely admit
that it is increasingly tough to play against teams that use the hack-a-Shaq
approach. The old school philosophy begins with recognizing that the very
skilled deep thrower does the most damage to your team when they have the disc
on the front half of the field - the ability to open up their team’s offense
with seemingly unstoppable long throws makes lane cutters difficult to defend.
There are a few things your team can do to limit the damage this handler does
against your team.
Likely this handler is adept at getting open and thus getting the disc.
Pushing them deep is still killing you. One approach is to acknowledge that
you can’t stop the thrower from either getting the disc (in or out) or putting
it deep. To limit the damage, you want to herd and “allow” the thrower to get
the disc on the open side with the defender close enough to put on a mark that
will only give up the huck on the open side. Too often, the handler-defender
attempts to totally deny this handler from getting the disc and this often
backfires with the handler getting the disc in a position without a mark and
the whole field in which to throw. This approach relies heavily on downfield
D, and this might still be ineffectual even if you try and help deep or do a
lot of switching. So what next?
The next strategy is to play some sort of zone or poachy, junky D for a few
passes or until half field and then switch to man. The basic idea of the
junk/zone is to reduce the ability for the O to isolate lane cutters deep,
push them into help, and once you’ve shortened the field and taken away the
dangerous deep threat, switch back to man. A further move is to play zone/junk
D with man D on that handler. The goal of this is to make it more difficult to
get the disc to the handler, neutralize the deep threat with the zone/junk D,
and to encourage the O to get the disc to less dangerous players - this is
obviously a combination of two basketball tactics (1) variations of the box
and one with your zone/junk D and (2) making it easier to put the ball in the
hands of someone who ain’t the best shooter and let them shoot.
The hack-a-Shaq philosophy is extremely effective and used in both the men’s
and women’s games. This strategy is implemented a couple different ways. One
method is to constantly bump and foul the thrower in the first 5-6 seconds and
then step back as the count gets higher to avoid the foul call and to avoid
resetting the stall to zero. Teams generally don’t want to call fouls in the
first few seconds because this stops the flow of the offense and the D gains a
tremendous advantage to survey the field with the stoppage in play. However,
if you don’t call the foul, then your O has missed the first and/or second
shot because you couldn’t get the throw off and often your O is onto your 3rd
or 4th option. So, do you call a foul and stop play or do you hope that your O
is running on all cylinders that day?
Another hack-a-Shaq method is to intentionally foul the thrower only when they
attempt to throw (open/break, it doesn’t matter) and the marker doesn’t
contest the foul call. Obviously this approach is also very effective as the
deep throw, or any throw, is unlikely to be completed and even when it is, the
thrower is always being hit and hacked when they throw. In the women’s game,
this approach of “intentional fouling during the throw” seems to be more
prevalent than the the first type of hack-a-Shaq strategy I described. It
feels like this type of hack-a-Shaq is becoming more and more common in the
women’s game over the last couple of years.
There isn’t anything in the rules against either of these hack-a-Shack
defensive strategies. They are overwhelmingly effective not only in taking
away the offensive flow but can cause even a seasoned handler to lose their
composure under the constant physical duress. I have to say that as more and
more teams move towards either version of the hack-a-Shaq philosophy, it
becomes harder and harder for me to cling to SOTG and stay with the old school
approach. Perhaps it has nothing to do with SOTG, but is simply a further
evolution of the game. The efficacy of the hack-a-Shaq tactic is certainly
persuasive but before it becomes systemic, I wonder and perhaps hope there
will be some change in the rules to even the playing field for the offense
(not to mention, the constant stoppages of play is unfriendly to viewers). One
thought is to tally uncontested marking fouls and after a certain number of
uncontested marking fouls, the O gets to advance the disc 10-15yards
thereafter for each additional uncontested marking foul. But that is straying
into a whole different issue. For now, we will be sticking with the old school
D.
Chris Ashbrook
I like to look at the bigger picture before making adjustments for just one
player. (This is assuming you have used the same strategy in previous meetings
and have been successful).
Assumptions
1. The third goal was scored in the normal flow of the O (whether Man or
Zone).
2. Two goals were scored while the D was in a straight man D, ie no zone
transition.
3. The game is not determined by the wind, ie a windy upwind/downwind game.
1. How has the D squad performed in the first half?
A. Did the D squad generate turnovers during the first half at a higher
rate than if the O player was handling, but the D squad did not convert those
turnovers into goals? If the D is generating turnovers, pull play excepted,
then this probably indicates that the D is playing well and you may only want
to make small tweaks to the D and not worry so much about that one player. A
small tweak could be to insert a strong O player (one who is very good on D)
onto the D line in certain situations to improve the D team scoring
efficiency.
B. Did the O squad not turn the disc over at all? If this is the case,
then it might be time to adjust your overall strategy. This could involve
playing a zone, a zone transition, or a different type of man D based upon the
conditions.
2. What type of hucks did the player catch, including the pull play huck.
A. Were they hucks off of a break mark? This indicates a breakdown in team
defensive strategy or in executing the team defensive strategy.
B. Were the hucks made by players you want to make hucks? That is, was the
player who hucked it a weak thrower, but just happened to make a great throw?
(It happens). This should not necessarily indicate that the strategy for the
one player needs to change.
C. Was the defensive player in a position to make a play on each of the
hucks, including the pull play? If he is playing good D and is in a position
to make plays, unless you have a player who matches up better against that
player, you would probably want to keep your best defensive matchup player
against him. (Note that I did not indicate your best defensive player overall,
as this might not necessarily generate the best results defensively).
By answering these questions you can best identify if your current strategy is
working and make adjustments as necessary as a team, and on an individual
player level. Secondly, if you do make adjustments, I feel the adjustments
must stay within the framework of your defensive strategy.
Lou Burruss
“You take away a team’s strength and make them beat you with their weakness.
If they do, you make them do it again, because it’s their f***ing weakness!”
— Jon Gewirtz
This situation is so similar to what Jam did with Damien Scott in the 04
finals that I almost think that “The Huddle” ripped it right off of the video.
All season long, Damien had handled. He wasn’t a great hucker, but he could
always get open for a reset and hand a very nice forehand inside out. (Want to
see it? Watch the ‘04 videos).
Until the finals, Alex Nord had been covering Damien and really destroying
him. Nord is big, quick and tenacious, but doesn’t have Damien’s out-and-out
foot speed in the open field. In the final, Damien ran deep, Idris Nolan
ripped it to him, and Jam got easy scores. We made an adjustment by putting
Blaine Robbins on Damien. Blaine was much less experienced, but fast enough to
keep pace with Damien and we got two blocks out of it. But mostly we followed
Jonny’s advice and worked to limit Damien’s reset and throwing opportunities
and shrugged our shoulders when he went deep.
Kirk Savage of Furious used deep cuts successfully throughout his entire
career. The best defense we used against him were flexible, experienced
defenders. Typically, if a handler runs downfield from the area right around
the disc, defenders will let them go. Why bother chasing them when you know
they’re coming back to the disc? But if you let Kirk go, he’d be gone and
you’d be postered. So the experienced defender would pursue immediately when
he made a move to go downfield.
Jeff Graham
In ultimate, good offense beats good defense. Defense becomes especially
difficult when the opponent has a dynamic player that is both a threat with
the disc and down field. Down 8-6 at the half our defensive goal is to make
the opponents offense, and most importantly this dynamic player,
uncomfortable. We can do this with both team and individual defensive tactics.
Suggested Team Tactics
- Zone Defense: Makes the offense complete many throws to score.
- Box-and-One Defense: A great way to get an offense that relies heavily on one player off-balance. Also does a good job of frustrating a player that likes to touch the disc often.
- Sandwich Star Player On Stop Disc: Force a secondary player to get the disc underneath to start their offense.
Suggested Individual Tactics
- Switch Match Ups On Star Player: Alternate a tall player that encourages the player to cut under and provides a wide, intimidating mark with the quickest, fastest, high energy defender to pester the player.
- Make The Star Player Work On Defense: Some offensive studs don’t enjoy playing defense. Make sure once you get the turn that you run him ragged.
- Push The Star Under: Since the star player has scored deep a couple times force him under, but mark him straight up to force him to settle for the little throws.
Tully Beatty
I’ll go ahead and assume we’re pulling, so that will give our guy what we hope
to be two chances to make up for the first half, even the score, and allow us
to see if what was said at halftime served any purpose; or was the guy simply
standing there nodding his head like a boxer, in one ear and out the other,
all the while wondering if he should’ve run off to the Honey Bucket or maybe
he should put on a different wrist band, maybe someone has some tape he can
borrow, maybe some Gu will help, maybe some Red Bull, maybe he should go mess
around in his bag and look for something he knows isn’t there—the things they
didn’t carry.
There are times when, despite your effort, you have to tip your hat and take
70. And of course there are other times when you have to say, f*** all that
s***, enough is enough. My feeling is that if this troublemaker is a handler,
then make him handle. I’m not against fronting him in order to push him away
from the disc, so I’d only buy in to half of that scouting report. It’s
important to keep in mind that he’s not a handler by himself. That is, he’s
has someone to complete the chemistry and that guy may be the one to really
clamp down on. Someone else has to step in and step up and place tremendous
pressure on the other handler. And hopefully that defender isn’t addressed
directly and instructed to step up. Simply, they know the drill and what’s at
stake and their game becomes something that it wasn’t before, because
obviously that is what our opponent has done with his game. And perhaps some
gamesmanship is in order: during a stoppage you whisper under your breath,
“Whatcha you gonna do, fluffy? You taking me deep? You gonna go deep?”
And then again maybe not.
Above all else, I’m looking at two defenders who know how to play an off-man
high count; I’m lucky if I can get one. So other than me, I’m looking for
someone a little more than half-witted. Immune to exhaustion with an overall
toughness about them and smart enough to know that once you’ve earned the
turn, you have to score, and while doing that, tire this guy out as much as
you can to make him twice the liability on the next point. If the right
adjustments have been made, then this stud will get more points in the 2nd
half than he did in the first. Maybe that proves to be the difference and he
gets extended and maybe a bit frustrated because the O isn’t clicking like
they did in the first half. And maybe, just maybe, he finds his place in the
sun in the second half and then you and your team, but probably just you, walk
off seemingly content in knowing that the reward is in the effort, and
sometimes that’s all there is.
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.
Chris Talarico
This one is pretty straightforward: as with any player, you have to determine
what you want to give up and what you want to take away (or try to, anyway).
You’re going to want to deny any player’s greatest strength or whatever facet
of his game is capable of hurting you most. If this guy has beaten you
repeatedly with his throws, it doesn’t seem like a very good idea to allow him
to get the disc underneath - even if he has caught a couple hucks today.
You’re forcing him to do something he’s not as good at, which is preferable to
allowing him to do what he’s best at.
So, without allowing him to come under (which, again, is a BAD idea), you have
a couple options:
1. Continue to use the same defender(s) you’ve been using. Make it very
clear to your team that this guy now wants the deep pass, so expect the huck
and stay in a position that will give you a shot at it if it goes up. Also,
make sure your other downfield defenders are looking to help on a deep shot.
Still deny the underneath cut first, but don’t give as big a cushion (stay 1
or 2 yards underneath him if you had been farther off). This is the least
strategic option, but if you’re confident in the guy(s) who you’ve had
guarding him, this might be enough.
2. You’re probably going to need to guard this guy with someone who is
faster than he is. Put your best, fastest deep defender on him and continue
forcing him out. He’s still going to have looks deep, but now he has to beat
your best guy if he’s going to be successful. Clearly he has been a top option
for the other team - your best deep defender will hopefully make them think
twice about jacking one to him.
NOTE: If your best deep defender is not noticeably faster than this guy, you
may have to go to someone who is not as great in the air, but can beat the guy
with speed to gain position (i.e. beat him to the spot).
3. If you don’t have anyone who can both deny the under and contest the
deep throws, you’ve got to make more drastic changes. Throw a zone. Play a
switching man that keeps at least one defender deep. Play any other defense
you have, because clearly you don’t have a one-man answer for this guy.
Or, if you don’t like these options, you can go back to shutting down the deep
and allow him the underneath…and kick yourself after you lose for allowing
the same guy to beat you the same way. Again.