Playmakers make plays

Someone whose opinion I hold in high stead once told me that you can only teach so much about ultimate. After a certain point, the student has to figure the rest out; otherwise, the student will be just that: a student, and not an ultimate player. Students of the game can do really well, but they can also flounder, because there's not an exact comparison to every aspect of the game that they can utilize. Playmakers are the ones who can take into account what is happening and has happened, and they are the ones who take advantage of that situation.

A coach or two at the elite level right now is putting some of those thoughts into practice. Without a set structure on offense, the players can find space and abuse defenders too used to predictable patterns. If you govern by ideas (clear hard, cut to space, look out for others) rather than plays, the plays become usable but not stale. If the in-cut around which the "play" is designed is guarded, there is somewhere else to go.

At the top, there are five or so teams that use it best, and it is no surprise that they succeed at the highest levels of the game. They read the defense, see where their defenders want them to go, and go in the opposite direction. As they are human, they err in both execution and decision; however, they are putting themselves in the position to win. They let their playmakers make plays, and, when you have some of the top playmakers in the world, that leads to wins.

What this means for the average team, however, is that you can only teach so much. One cannot answer every "what if," nor prepare their protégés for every situation; players have to use their instincts. If their instincts are not there, fear not, because that's where drills and scrimmages come in. Instead of having everyone follow a routine, set them up to succeed by letting their instincts do the thinking. In that split second when the opponent is indecisive, anyone can abuse.

David or Goliath

When important parts of one's life happen, the little things are the ones which fall by the wayside. In my case, it was writing about ultimate. I don't claim to be a great writer, nor do I have great insight on ultimate, but it's a good way to get my thoughts down, and they may be helpful for someone down the road. Anyway, without further ado...

Having recently finished Malcolm Gladwell's David and Goliath, I was interested to consider how it applied to ultimate. The visionaries are often considered odd when they first express ideas, but time or advanced metrics judge them the victor. The horizontal stack, the clam defense, the handler weave: all were absurd at first look, but through practice and perfection, other teams couldn't stop them, so they were spread into ultimate commonplace. Ultimate teams simply copy what they think they know. When teams below the elite level saw the best club team warming up for 90 minutes before each game, they tried too. Without realizing that each and every decision that a team makes should be shaped by the team's identity, too often teams lose themselves in imitation. It's the reason why so many teams do the endzone drill to warm up for games.

On the other side of the spectrum, not all of those who are odd are visionaries. You don't hear about the failed ideas, as they fade into the annals of history without so much as a cursory mention. While the German offense was nigh on unbeatable when executed properly, it was shown to be a mess if teams couldn't complete the middle range throws. And in the middle, some of the more noteable ones - Mexican offense for example - have yet to be proven in an elite setting, while there are a whole host of ideas being tried out all over the world.

As of right now, I believe the idea of dribbling to be a visionary idea hijacked by someone with some unknown motive rather than tested by those working towards a goal of improvement. To be clear, the concept of using your opponent's momentum against themselves is genius. There's a reason that judo is more form than fitness, because people took time to think about strategies to elicit beating a physically superior opponent. While I cannot condone repeatedly passing straight backwards or motion offense until I've seen it in practice, I know that adjusting the angle of attack theoretically could be a viable strategy, though it is just not considered in ultimate. I sit, hopeful of a time when an elite group of athletes and throwers can test it out, either to prove that components are as genius as I think, or that it's just a waste of time.

In the meantime, I've said it before, and I'll likely say it again: there is more thinking to be done regarding ultimate. I know there may be Goliaths at the top right now, but somewhere, a David is lurking.

Evolve or die

Post-Nationals edit:
I should have said that there are a few teams that try to evolve. I knew GOaT was one of them, and if I heard someone was to knock off Revolver, GOaT would have been on my short list of teams to guess. They are extremely good at adjusting to what other teams are doing, have an extremely strong coach, don't rely too much on one thing, and have a bundle of top level talent. Additionally, their mental strength (especially against my team) is something I envy every time we play.

------------------

According to most who follow elite ultimate, there are 4-5 teams who have a shot at a National title in October. In reality, they do all have a shot, but despite some middling results, one stands above the others. Unsurprisingly, it's the defending World and National champion. They have some great players, including the best player in the world (BPitW), and I mean to take nothing away from them when I say this: when it counts, they don't lose, because they've evolved.

Their only 2 big losses over the past 6 years have been to Doublewide in the 2012 National finals and to Chain Lightning in the 2009 National finals. They have had losses in the meantime, but at Nationals, it has just been those two over a 5 year span. One loss was not realizing their complete strategy yet, while the other was a combination of a bit of a too-much-winning hangover along with having not yet been challenged in that tournament.*

* - While most Nationals-level teams don't have a problem with this, the top teams don't get challenged as much as they should, because many teams know that they likely won't beat a top team, so they don't even try. They still put 7 on the line and they still run their game, but they are not surprised when they get broken, nor is their heart fully in the game in case of a loss. That same thing happened to Revolver in finals, except their competitor had to go through the road of adversity to the finals and was more mentally ready.

Adversity - namely losing in 2009 and being filled with a team of guys who (for the most part) didn't win it all until joining Revolver - leads to evolution, and that's why Revolver is good. It was why DoG was good in the 90's, Condors in the early 00's, and after a string of championships from teams who just had the best players in the game, it's back today. They keep that attitude of adversity, and it helps shape them into an evolved beast.

The strategy right now is simple enough: their offense "doesn't have rules," which lets the BPitW do his thing. Their team trusts everyone to make every throw and cut (nearly other top teams have guys whose hands they don't want the disc in/guys who they are afraid of covering someone). They are hyper aggressive in their man-to-man defense (both in terms of how much they play it and how they play it). Probably most importantly, they are mentally stronger than every other team. That's pretty much it. They still throw forehands and backhands, still have a mark, and still only have 7 guys playing. They just know how to evolve, how to change up their opponents' game while still playing to their strengths, and that's why they'll keep winning. Other teams (without necessarily evolving past Revolver) may steal a championship or two, but until those other teams (including my own) evolve, it's Revolver's crown to take.

It's time for the rest of us to evolve or die.

The "If Only"

The "If Only" is the reason you lost the game. Similar to the Loser's Lament, the only thing standing between you and a win is whatever if only your team has. The "if only" is not changing an uncontrollable aspect of the game. It doesn't mean weather (we beat them 3 times earlier in the year, if only it wasn't raining at Regionals) or wind (we crush them when they have to play man, but their 4 man cup is unbeatable). Instead, it's either a strategic decision (if only we didn't play man all game and mixed it up instead) or a person/set of players playing poorly (if only he didn't throw 3 turns close to his own endzone).

The "If Only" doesn't exist in games where the talent level is dramatically different. Some worse teams will try to ponder an if only, but if they really came to terms with it, they'd realize that they just need to improve. In reality, the if only is what separates most elite teams from each other, changing on a game-to-game basis.

A final note: being the "if only" for your team's loss, especially a "big" loss, sucks.

Getting (much) better

There is always time to get better. There is time to make the jump from B-team to A-team, from bench to playing, from roleplayer to stud.

Too late for you to start playing? Trey Katzenbach started at age 30 and has won both masters and grand masters titles since, as well as still playing elite open.
Too hard to make the jump from having fun to doing well? Jack Hatchett wasn't even on his B-team's universe line his freshman year of college and now is one of the top defenders in the game.
Too old for it anymore? Josh Markette was a good player when he was young, a great player when he was older, and now that he's in his mid-30s, is as good as he ever was, if not better.

There are plenty of examples of people who think they hit a wall only to realize that they had more in the tank and could keep improving. If everyone went as hard as possible, it'd be impossible to get better by working harder than others; however, that's just not the case. People rest, people get lazy, and people stop training. All of which opens up the opportunity for you to make a jump.

Influences

Sometimes, you get writer's block, and posting things seems more like work than just putting down your thoughts. Other times, you get inspiration, but it's at the wrong times, and when the right time comes, it's gone. And there are even times when you have nothing more to say. There are a lot of reasons for not posting frequently on a blog, but the main one I have for taking a 1+ month leave of absence is that if I kept writing at the same pace, I'd run out of stuff to say. I'm neither a prolific writer nor a prolific ultimate player, and while it occupies a lot of my thoughts, I'm still at the level where playing and how to get better take most of my time. So I'll cut back, posting less frequently until I'm out of season. Maybe when I'm older and wiser I can focus on looking back, but for now, I don't have a lot to look back on...

With that in mind, I'm going to look back on my 7+ years playing and thank those who have helped guide me on my career path:

ZM - Thank you for teaching me that ultimate could be a competitive game and not just conditioning
SL - Thank you for teaching me that goaltimate is more fun than ultimate
AF - Thank you for teaching me how to read hammers by consistently throwing them to me
AG - Thank you for pushing me to be better by being faster, quicker, better at jumping, etc. than I was
AL - Thank you for being my first Russian Wrestler, before I even knew what that was
BX and BB - Thank you for teaching me that deep throws end points a lot more efficiently than short ones, but when you have to keep it short, use scoobers
IR - Thank you for teaching me that some things aren't teachable, but rather you have to figure them out as you go along
TB - Thank you for teaching me what mental toughness means, even if I didn't learn how to use it until years later
BD - Thank you for teaching me how a handler can dominate as much as a cutter
AH - Thank you for teaching me than leadership and everyone liking you are not the same, and if you have to choose one, choose leadership
BL - Thank you for teaching me to use what I had
AB - Thank you for teaching me to get what I didn't have
JC - Thank you for teaching me that I can't teach everything
EG - Thank you for teaching me that champions come to play when it matters
LH - Thank you for teaching me to love to play
JB - Thank you for teaching me to love to win
MZ - Thank you for teaching me to love it all
DF - Thank you for teaching me that IO > OI, but OIIO trumps
WW and SD - Thank you for teaching me that leaders inspire
BM - Thank you for teaching me that I should always be striving to improve
JM - Thank you for teaching me that I'll always be learning
JH - Thank you for teaching me that complacency only means others will be getting better than I am

There are lots of others who taught me important lessons that are their own entries. There are countless others who taught me smaller things, either in person or in videos. I could never thank them all, because nearly everyone doesn't know how much they've impacted me to become the player I am today. But I am grateful for all of them.

Giving 100%

*Important note* This is only for players who are at or moving towards an elite level and have been playing for a while. Most of what in this post does not apply to nearly all youth players and even most college players.

I'm a big fan of mental toughness preparation for games, especially from sources like Tiina Booth or Alan Goldberg. I love the idea that you should only think of what you can do to help your team rather than uncontrollables. I have fought tooth and nail to focus only on myself and my teammates in game and practice situations. But at a certain point in most great ultimate players' (or any athletes') career, they realize that the idea that each game is the same is a myth. When you are winning nearly every game and/or on top, it is sometimes possible to say that you go in with no expectations; however, everyone else has expectations and needs to acknowledge them to get to the next level. Simply put, there are big games and there are not big games, and you should acknowledge that there is a difference.

No one can give 100% all of the time. As much as people hate to admit it, everyone needs to know when to conserve and when to sprint. This leads to the fallacy of people always being into a game - if everyone was 100% focused on the game at all times, the team would be tremendously better, but since that's 100% impossible, it's a moot point. So the questions become: 1. how does a team improve its collective effort and focus? 2. how can players increase their effort and focus? and 3. how can players recognize that it is the time to utilize that increased effort and focus?

Interesting questions that I will try to (theoretically) answer in a future post.