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.
Friday, February 27, 2015
Monday, February 23, 2015
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)