Lindsey Hack
Not everyone can be great at everything and some become very good at a few
things. There are times where we have a few players who are very, very good at
a particular position - whether defensive or offensive. For example, I have
been on teams where we have a few players who sole purpose in life is to give
the handlers on the other team h***. That is their job, and is why they are on
the team. Now, I do not think these players should not be allowed to work on
their offensive game or guarding downfield players. But, when it is go time,
those players should be excited that they have a special gift to give to their
team. The role player is important because it allows players to focus, when it
matters, on individual tasks.
Should teams look for new players that fit certain roles? Personally, I think
it depends on the player. I have met and/or played with a few special players
who can be more versatile and should never be limited to a constrained role.
Usually those players are the “no-brainers” to make the team. After a team has
solidified those recruits, then I think it is necessary to find players that
can fill certain roles well that currently are unfullfilled on the team.
The physical defensive player and the athletic receiver are roles that I see
becoming more important in the next 5 years at the top levels of the game.
In a way, I see very skilled throwers becoming less of an emphasis as the game
grows. The crowd appears to be more enthralled by fantastic layout grabs and
skies rather than pretty, perfect, no drama throws. That does not mean I
necessarily agree with it, but I think we are in for more turnover ultimate
than ever before in the next four years.
I absolutely think there is hope for the all-around player. But, instead of
being 1 in 10 like the last twenty years, it may be more like 1 in 50 or 1 in
100 in the next five to twenty years.
Seth Wiggins
I started playing for Seattle’s Sockeye in the Spring of 2007. Among the great
athletes and throwers and minds one thing stood out the most—an almost
singular obsession on beating their main rival, Vancouver’s Furious George.
Throwers needed to have five options because at nationals, against Furious,
you could be sure four would not be open. Three-step separations were not
enough, because Oscar and Alex could make it one. Running trap zone? With
Savage and Cruickshank with the disc? Not likely. Any man-to-man against a
cutter like MG would need a lot of help on the mark.
Cool story Hansel, but what’s the point? That Seattle team had players who
using solely what they do best could walk to semis at nationals. Disc to Ben
to CK x 15 x 5. But what would happen when they got there? What happens when
that team comes up against another that can stop their best option?
If you can beat a team going to your number one option over and over again
then that team, relative to yours, is bad. Either they don’t have the
personnel to match your athleticism, experience, or whatever it is you are
beating them with, or they are not smart enough to make that necessary
adjustment to stop getting beat. Either way; they’re bad. So bad, in fact,
that you probably would be able to beat that team using any strategy you
choose—what’s winning the game isn’t just your one play or move, rather it’s
your ‘specialty’ combined with the threat of everything else you could do.
Think about elimination games between two close teams—how many times does one
team actually use their ‘specialty’? The top handler throwing long to the best
receiver works, if they are both playing great, maybe three times.
Significant, yes, but they still need 12 other ways to score. Deeps will be
backed (defender positioned between the player and the endzone), and throwers
will be faced straight-up. The best one-on-one defenders, who already get beat
plenty, can stop only their assignment; there are six others. This applies
just as well to team’s specializing in using players solely to their
strengths: Teams that live on breaking the mark find non-mark defenders
adjusting to the dead side. A team’s best defensive line playing their best
defense will generate maybe two or three additional blocks a game - which
probably isn’t enough as it is, and they only have those seven players to
score.
During those games, being a ‘specialist’ in this sport really means that other
parts of you game will be proportionally easier. The better your specialty,
the more your opponent will give up to stop it, but remember—good teams always
will be able to. Then what? The backed deep threat will be given cuts back to
the disc. But to be effective, first their cut has to be well-timed, and then
they have to be able to throw the disc somewhere. Being able to make well-
timed cuts either away or back to the disc, and being able to throw
afterwards? Sounds fairly all-around to me. A great zone defensive team will
soon find the opposing team’s best throwers making the majority of the throws,
and be forced to defend person-to-person, necessitating the ability to do
both. The best mark-breaker will be countered not only with better marks, but
also more effort preventing them from catching the disc, either by greater
athleticism in their defender, poaching, or both. Again, both the players and
teams involved are all dependent on both their relative strengths and
weaknesses. Against a good team, neither the team nor individual is good
enough to rely on their specialty alone.
Of course conversely, the better your opponent, the less they will need to
sacrifice in order to take away your strength. Further, its easier for your
opponent to focus on stopping your strength than your next options. Seattle
knew that while relying on their best option would work early in tournaments,
in those last two games, there would be teams with players that could stop it.
What led to their successes was their singular focus on beating teams with
players able to stop what they otherwise would do. Or, in other words,
becoming an all-around team, filled with all-around players.
Greg Husak
Role players are valuable to any successful team. More than valuable, they may
be essential. This is typically because they have the ability to throw their
whole effort into a part of the game that the stars don’t have the effort for.
An obvious example of this is a marker in the zone. Marking takes a lot of
effort, and is very tiring both because of chasing the disc around, but also
because working hard on the mark takes a lot of energy. However, a zone can
fall apart if the marks are not sprinting to the disc or being aggressive on
the mark. Marking in zone is one of the more obvious examples of a specific
role player, but almost any zone position can have a specialist, and even some
offensive positions can be limited to the point of being a specific role.
I think it is a great benefit for someone to fill specific roles, but this is
also very dependent on the needs of the team and the expectations of an
individual. I think it is wise for players to continuously expand their
toolbox of tricks to make themselves more diverse. However, as a full season
progresses, it benefits the team (and the individual) to start to focus on
what has become their niche on the team. In other words, it would make no
sense for a college player in January to decide that he is going to be the
marker in the zone when he should be improving all aspects of his game
(throwing, man defense, etc). But maybe by the time Sectionals comes around he
should realize where his strengths lie and how he can best help the team
succeed. By keeping up all his skills early in the season he might realize
that there are others that are better suited to marking, or the captains can
give more direction about what each individual should rely on. When picking a
team, I think most teams would prefer the all-around player who can then fit
into the teams needs as the season progresses. Certainly if someone is
absolutely exceptional at a particular thing, they should play towards that
strength, but I think that teams would generally prefer well-rounded players
over specialists.
In the next five years I see the role of someone who can shut down the other
team’s handler being very important. Good handlers know how to juke, get you
off-footed, use space and keep you on your heels well enough to make guarding
them tough. Also, teams rely on their handlers to be available for easy resets
and to push the disc up the field. A person who can limit the effectiveness of
the other team’s top handler can create a few breaks for their defense. This
may mean that each team has a stable of two or three of these guys who,
depending on the opponent, fill that role of primary defender.
In terms of less important roles, I think the deep receiver is going to become
a thing of the past. Now so many strong athletes are playing defense that
having the one guy who is tall, fast and jumps really well isn’t enough for
you to just jack it to him without pause. More and more that guy is being
guarded by an equally tall, fast and great jumper. Knowing how to set up cuts
in flow, exploit a poach, or create space for teammates are going to be more
valued skills than raw athleticism.
Jeff Eastham-Anderson
Apart from specific match-ups on defense that require certain roles (being
tall and fast, or short and quick), there are lots of roles in zone defenses
and in some offensive sets. The best example I can think of is the marker on a
trap-side zone defense. This is the position that anchors the zone when it is
within 5 yards of the sideline, and can make or break the scheme. This person
has the opportunity to take away more options that any other defensive player
on the field. As the mark applies more pressure, there is a cascade behind
them that allows the defense to take away other opportunities. For example, if
the mark is able to remove cross-field hammers, the far-side defender(s) can
play more to the middle of the field, allowing the players in the middle of
the field to push closer to the open side threats.
Should players train to be more versatile? I don’t think there is an absolute
answer here. In a vacuum of information I would argue that as a player looking
to make a team, you should invest in improving at all aspects of the game.
Simply put; offensive lines still need to play defense, and defensive lines
need to score after they get a turn in order to be successful. The world’s
best thrower would be hard pressed to make the roster of an elite team if they
couldn’t play decent match-up defense. You can argue that offensive lines
don’t need to be great at defense, especially if they don’t turn the disc
over, but you’d have to seriously question the wisdom of a defensive line with
seven people unable to throw the disc.
If you are a player trying to make it onto a team that generally lacks a
skill, or you are in charge of recruiting for a team that lacks a certain
skill, by all means, train or recruit to address that weakness. As a team this
means figuring out, before you pick your team, how you want to play the game.
As a player this means trying to figure out, or asking the team leaders, what
the team needs in a player.
Regarding important roles, I don’t really know if any trends will emerge.
However, I think there is a real opportunity for teams to improve by
recruiting or training players to be smarter about their decisions, and to
recognize opportunities earlier. There are some pretty significant hurdles to
training athletes to make better decisions, but it is even harder to recruit
smart players. For example, teaching the concept of creating space for a
teammate to take advantage of is a fundamentally good thing. However, it is
very hard to teach, is rarely recognized on a team as being important, and
even more rarely rewarded when a teams is picking their roster.
I think the newly instituted roster limits gives increased hope for all-around
players, especially if the limit drops much further. With fewer spots on the
roster, the argument for filling those spots with players that are proficient
at both offense and defense becomes stronger. In an extreme example, if the
roster limit was 14 and your roster was evenly split between defensive and
offensive specialists, you’d be pretty hosed if somebody got hurt, or was off
their game that day. A roster with a couple people that could fit into any
hole would be more desirable.
Kirk Savage
This is an interesting topic as the need for specialized roles has been born
more out of necessity than out of desire in Vancouver.
Historically, the top players on Furious have been the players who excel at
multiple aspects of the game. These players have been able to fulfill multiple
roles, and truly have a very strong all-around game. Ultimate’s fast pace of
play combined with multiple turnovers and unforeseen situations, calls for
players on the field to be able to adapt and excel regardless of the
circumstances.
However, it is impossible to field a team of 7 “Al-Bobs”* every O or D line.
Over the years, as the top players on Furious have retired, our team has been
forced to move to specialized positions in order to continue to compete with
the other top teams. This is a short term and problematic fix. I am sure that
other teams have faced a situation where a player who is tall and who plays
good defense is inserted into the lineup as a starting line defensive lane
cutter—even if they are a poor thrower. We try to hide their weaknesses by
surrounding them with more all-around players who can shoulder the offensive
load on a turnover.
The same holds true on the other side of the disc. Teams are forced to play
offensive players who are talented throwers—at the expense of athleticism and
defensive ability. However, unless more high-level games go the route of the
2002 Semis with DoG and Furious (5 turnovers combined)—teams that rely on
highly specialized personnel will eventually be exposed and struggle to
compete for the UPA Championship.
In short, it is very important to work to become an all-around player. If you
are relying on one part of your game to make a team, or to be on a starting
lineup, or to win championships then you are not giving yourself the best
chance for success. It is too easy for one part of your game to escape you on
the big day, and you may need to rely on some of your other skills to get the
job done.
Peri Kurshan
I believe that what makes a team successful is its ability to use all of its
players. Most good teams have a few superstars- those players that are game-
changers and whose absence can really hurt the team’s chances. However, the
difference between good teams and great teams, I believe, lies in how the team
utilizes its role players. Ultimate is truly a team sport, and if the top
players on a team aren’t supported by a solid and confident group of role
players, the team will have many exploitable weaknesses.
For clarity, I’m defining a role player as someone who doesn’t have top-notch
skills in every facet of their game (although hopefully they have top-notch
skills in at least one part of their game, or else they’re unlikely to get on
the field much!).
So how do you use and build up your role players? First of all, everyone on
the team must be given a role that plays to their strengths. Secondly,
everyone must know exactly what their role is (and isn’t!). If everyone on the
team is asked to do the same things, and expected to achieve to the same
degree, then some people are being set up to fail- you’ll be asking them to do
things that they’re not able to do. And with failure comes lack of confidence,
which causes more failure, etc. Instead, the team strategy should be designed
to maximize the number of times players are put in situations in which they
are likely to succeed. This means the strategy should depend on which players
are on the field, and conversely, which players are on the field should depend
on your strategy for that point. If your strength is being a great receiver,
you should be expected to cut deep a lot, but then the team should make sure
you have a high-percentage option to throw to. If your strength is as a big
thrower, you might be expected to take more risks with your throws than other
team members. If everyone is clear as to what they are and aren’t expected to
do, people will be able to set themselves up to succeed as much as possible.
So how do players ever improve, if they’re only asked to do the things they’re
already good at? This is a very important question to address, since pigeon-
holing players into very specific roles can lead to them getting frustrated
and bored, or at the very least to slowing their improvement. On our team, we
divide the season into two halves. In the first half of the season, everyone
is encouraged to work on expanding their game. We focus a lot on fundamentals,
and teach the same things to everyone. This doesn’t mean that everyone has a
green light to go crazy. Rather, people are encouraged to work on things that
are just outside their comfort zones, so that they push the envelope and work
on expanding their repertoire. In the second half of the season, we ask people
to take stock of where they are. The team leadership works with individuals to
clearly outline roles and expectations that will enable the team and the
individuals to maximize their rate of success.
Miranda Roth
The best example of a role player on Riot is Michelle Bowlen. Michelle is very
tall (5'11"), well-trained in fundamentals and particularly smart (Fulbright
Scholar!). She doesn’t have the best break-mark throws in the game and can’t
guard every quick little handler. However, she is the scariest mark I’ve ever
seen in a 1-3-3. Luckily, we play in bad weather conditions at Sectionals,
Regionals and Nationals (usually) so we can run a lot of zone. We will often
put Michelle in just to run the 1 in the 1-3-3 for one point and then do it
again the next time we’re on defense.
I believe that the best players all start with a superpower. Michelle’s is her
zone mark. Surge is really fast. Vivian can throw anywhere on the field at
anytime. This is a great starting point for each player, but that doesn’t mean
that they shouldn’t all also continue to work on reading the disc, downfield
defense or dump cuts. In a game, we will always use a player’s specialty, but
the more well-rounded they are around that, the better they will be able to
perform in multiple situations.
In the next 5 years at the level of elite women’s ultimate, I see the most use
for the combination of two roles within one player. For example, someone who
can throw anywhere at will, but is also a very athletic defender. Right now
there are lots of athletes and lots of throwers, but rarely are these combined
(Deb Cussen is the prototype). I think that there will always be roles for
all-around players. I would still suggest that all-around players work on
something that they want to be their superpower—playing defense on the other
teams tallest player, winning every disc in the air, or being able to make 10
cuts at top speed during one point—but then also developing other parts of
their game to make themselves the best all-around defender as possible and to
be as difficult to guard as possible.
Charlie Reznikoff
We’ve all seen certain players take over games, throwing hucks, getting lay
out Ds, or getting open against good defenders. These players are revered.
What is a role player? Everyone else.
I avoid using the term “role player” because it implies a value judgment on
those players who don’t get the glory. The player who throws hucks isn’t a
role player. The player who uses his mark to stop the hucks is a role player.
You might not notice the second guy but he’s why his team wins games (instead
you think the thrower “just had a bad game”).
The year Sub Zero went to semifinals their offense featured a slow player with
bad throws whose job it was to set the stack and burn poaches. He played every
O point and most points he didn’t touch the disc. Because of him the primary
cutter had a cutting lane. Sub Zero acknowledged this guy’s contribution in
the huddle, even though to other teams he was a joke. Had he not gotten credit
for his role, he might have gotten greedy for the cutting lane. On every team,
a few players will garner the attention and draw the cameras. The rest of us
need to find ways to contribute quietly. How a team treats the players who
don’t get the glory affects the team’s performance.
Players should not be fitted to roles for strategic purposes. The role should
be fitted to the player. Strategy in Ultimate and especially in college
Ultimate is reactionary. In the 1990s almost all college teams played a
vertical stack with two handlers. In the 2000s the Hodags brought the split-
stack with three handlers and dominated. Today split-stack or some variant is
widely used. People saw what worked and copied it. The thing is, split stack
worked for the Hodags because it played to their strengths and because they
understood it. As a strategy it is not in itself better than the vertical. As
defenses adjust to the split and horizontal stacks, the vertical will come
back. Every year 90% of college teams run approximately the same zone. A few
teams did not get the memo, and they dream up their own zone. If these novel
zones use the strengths of their players, they can surprise other teams. In
Ultimate, roles are not platonic forms; they can be molded to the situation
and to the player. A successful team uses whatever strategy best fits its
players.
One of my first captains saw me working tirelessly to fix my weaknesses.
“Don’t do that,” he said. “Spend 70% of your energy improving your strengths.”
He was right. I’ll never win a game jumping. But I might win a game marking.
Every player needs to excel in something, even if it’s something subtle. When
the player deploys that skill, his confidence grows, he’ll relax, he’ll play
within himself, and the team will benefit. What he does won’t get him on Clip
of the Day. But he has developed a strength that he can count on in big
moments. To develop a player, make him focus on his strengths. Then create a
role for those strengths. As a team, celebrate his strengths. When he gets
called a “role player,” he’ll just laugh. He knows what he’s contributing.