Defense wins games...
Maybe on paper a good offense should win every game, especially in college where a team will often get the disc back even without generating blocks. However, it seems to me that it is much easier to rally a team around defense, defensive fire, and defensive strategy.
As background, a couple other ultimate blogs (specifically, Jim Parinella's and The PuPs' sites) have been recently discussing the relative value of offense and defense. Most of the comments have been coming from the perspective of the open club division where teams have specialized offense and defensive lines and players.
The O and D team splits don't really apply to college ultimate where there are few teams with deep enough and talented enough rosters to play with strictly O and D lines. If a team only has four handlers period, three out of those four are likely to be in on every point, regardless of whether the team starts out pulling or receiving. That means that every player is expected to play both good offense and defense, and no one is off the hook after a turnover. So teamwide, there can be a unified focus on defense with everyone buying into the idea that they have to contribute to the team D.
Additionally, in college there is such a huge range in skill level that there are often rookies without confident disc skills. Learning to throw an effortless forehand takes time and practice, and it can be incredibly frustrating to not have a solid flick all through winter quarter. However, from the first day of practice in the fall, new players can work on their defense and instantly see improvements and results. As a result, rookies often get playing time based on how hard they are working on defense.
College ultimate is also a game of energy and emotion. Younger players don't calculate scoring percentages or efficiency ratings, they get fired up to play well after big plays and sideline noise. Relying on emotion like this can be a double-edged sword because with the big upswings also follows downswings and a team can struggle to perform consistently when it depends on a huge sky or lay-out goal to generate its energy. Nonetheless, each individual is alway in control of the amount of defensive energy she puts out. Playing defense is hard work and a team can create its own intensity simply by playing hard D. Think about it, which scenario has a team feeling more excited about playing ultimate: (1) when the offense scores with no turnovers after catching the pull or (2) when the defense gets a block and then scores with no turnovers? It seems way more effective to rallying behind number (2).
Plus, there's always the bonus of having good defense give a struggling offense extra chances to score...
As background, a couple other ultimate blogs (specifically, Jim Parinella's and The PuPs' sites) have been recently discussing the relative value of offense and defense. Most of the comments have been coming from the perspective of the open club division where teams have specialized offense and defensive lines and players.
The O and D team splits don't really apply to college ultimate where there are few teams with deep enough and talented enough rosters to play with strictly O and D lines. If a team only has four handlers period, three out of those four are likely to be in on every point, regardless of whether the team starts out pulling or receiving. That means that every player is expected to play both good offense and defense, and no one is off the hook after a turnover. So teamwide, there can be a unified focus on defense with everyone buying into the idea that they have to contribute to the team D.
Additionally, in college there is such a huge range in skill level that there are often rookies without confident disc skills. Learning to throw an effortless forehand takes time and practice, and it can be incredibly frustrating to not have a solid flick all through winter quarter. However, from the first day of practice in the fall, new players can work on their defense and instantly see improvements and results. As a result, rookies often get playing time based on how hard they are working on defense.
College ultimate is also a game of energy and emotion. Younger players don't calculate scoring percentages or efficiency ratings, they get fired up to play well after big plays and sideline noise. Relying on emotion like this can be a double-edged sword because with the big upswings also follows downswings and a team can struggle to perform consistently when it depends on a huge sky or lay-out goal to generate its energy. Nonetheless, each individual is alway in control of the amount of defensive energy she puts out. Playing defense is hard work and a team can create its own intensity simply by playing hard D. Think about it, which scenario has a team feeling more excited about playing ultimate: (1) when the offense scores with no turnovers after catching the pull or (2) when the defense gets a block and then scores with no turnovers? It seems way more effective to rallying behind number (2).
Plus, there's always the bonus of having good defense give a struggling offense extra chances to score...
posted by Gambler at 4:38 PM
13 Comments:
It is true that great defensive plays do have a psychological effect that is not valued in all the stats talk of Jim et al. Good point there.
Although I do think that open college is more like the open club level in terms of the O/D split. Even the mid-level teams...
Gwen,
Great post. I don't have much to add. Great perspective.
-G
defense wins games...
and offense wins championships? ;)
seriosly, seems most have missed the main point being made, i think you just argued jim's point... that o skills are more valued on a team/player.
you're point about college kids being generally unskilled is yet another point about how o skills are that much more valued at that level.
in college especially. because good O skilled players are hard to find. another reason why those teams have much structure in their O's.. to make up for this difficiency.
how often do you worry about another team's "top defender"?
why is it in college one amazing player who has great throws and can cut well can single handedly beat a team who over all is better than his/hers?
podcast #2.. corey takes issue with all the O value talk, he's a D player... yet in podcast #1, when asked why the condors did so poorly at nationals... he said a big part was missing greg on the D team... because of his big throws after the turn. yes.. it was the D team's succuss (or lack of) that made the difference, but it was the D team's O specifically that struggled and felt the pain of missing one of their big players. with greg gone.. they got just as many blocks... but couldn't score [his value to the team showed itself when the D team played O].
it's not O team vs D team, offense vs defense... is O skills vs D skills and what they contribute to a team scoring a higher percentage... their value.
there are several great points in that post... but none of them point away from the value of O... at any level.
also, let's not separate college and club too much on the point of emotion and fire.
club players get excited by the same stuff you mentioned... their skill simply creates a higher awareness. they don't huck into triple teams as often not because they are not as excited and pumped, but rather they just know better now.
i'm not trying to discount defense... its what i stress with the college kids too. for many of the reasons cited.
but think about this... you have a rookie who want to give PT to... do you put them in to play O or D.. why?
ok.. enough.
I actually completely agree with Idris and Jim about the value of offense vs defense, but my main thought here is that focusing on defense as a rallying point for a team can have a huge psychological benefit for the team. For teams that win, the mental intensity that playing hard D creates can then get transfered into offense and scoring.
It seems a lot harder for a team, especially in college, to rely on offensive performance to sustain it mentally. How many times have you seen a team give up a lead or lose a game because it started to doubt itself when a couple hucks went awry or someone had an untimely drop? The "get it back on D" mentality allows teams to get past turnovers.
rallying point.. yeah. actually. right after i responded i reread and thought... hmm.. she probbaly wasn't trying to counter Jim's points. probably just stressing the value of denfense as a starting point of sorts. oh well.
anyway... so yeah, agree.
though i still say in general, most people still haven't grabbed on to the value of O idea.
i guess its sort of a wierd thing... to sort of know the value of O, but to also know how much stressing D will help your team.
Would it be incorrect that it is easier to play D than O in College? Or maybe it is better to say that you want your team on D (and to get the breaks).
I have been thinking about the "take the other team's strength away" idea in this book I am reading about Belichick. I think a lot of College team's strength is in their D, maybe because the overall level of O skills is widely varied and not as high as club.
Now the perspective of Belichick is primarily defensive. In college women's Ultimate, many times it becomes a huck and play D scenario because teams do not have confidence in their O. I would say that some women's teams expect to get the disc back just because of the inabilities of their opponents O. So, this kind of shifts the whole "take away their strength" thing on its head. Maybe a team could do this by being able to effectively possess the disc and score.
-G
I know that gwen is arguing that defense can really fire up a team, and be a rallying point, but I want to add my two cents about offense - at all levels.
To get a D, someone on O had to throw a risky throw. If you play SMART offense, offense will always win. The more pressure a D puts on, the more and more a player's field of vision narrows, and suddenly they do not see the defensive threats. If you have a offensive player (or line) who can maintain a large field of vision despite a considerable amount of defensive pressure, they will convert. If you have an offensive line that works so well together that the D looks worthless, there is no amount of rallying that can help that D team. I find myself thinking about football and ultimate a lot lately. and, the best QBs are the ones that can still make the textbook completion (or run in VY's case) despite being rushed at from about 10 different angles.
On another note (which actually relates to gwen's original comment), there is nothing that fires me up more than someone on my team getting a layout D, a sky D, or a handblock/footblock. It is just sick. You are expected to catch everything that is thrown at you on O. You are expected to make good throws. Sick Ds are a whole different ball game.
I guess the whole O vs. D thing comes down to what my first ultimate coach once said to my MSU college team. He said something along the lines of "You play offense with your head and you play defense with your heart." Now, naturally there are times when you have to play offense with your heart and D with your head, but you get the point. A team playing with a whole lot of heart (which you see more on D) fires me up and inspires me way more than any flawless, effortless offense.
So, the moral of the story is such: if you need something to switch the momentum of a game, start getting some crazy Ds. It is demoralizing to any offensive team.
Second thought (more related to Gwen's first paragraph):
Can the concept of O and D lines apply to women's college ultimate? They apply to men's college ultimate, and both divisions at the club level. I have not heard of it being applied to women's college ultimate though. I do agree that you are going to have a few players playing both ways, but for the most part I think it can be done - especially with any program that has an A and B team.
I really value the idea of fitting into O and D teams for various reasons - and I think once a college team has enough handlers - it can be done. It focuses a group of players that are already part of a rather large roster given that only 7 players are on the field at a time. You take the field with a sense of purpose and one goal in mind - D: you give that O line hell, you make them work hard, you make them not want to take the field ever again, you make that team so tired that when your O comes out, they can score pretty effortlessly. Notice that I did not say that the Ds line purpose was to score - although it should be expected that they do score from time to time. And, naturally, the Os line purpose is to score. period. I dont know, it just makes things much more simple and you learn to really play with people on your line.
Now, obviously, I think it really applies to women's club ultimate. So, i guess the next step is getting it integrated into college ultimate. would it ever be possible? i think so. this year? we will see.
I just want to make sure that we all know that the historical quote is:
"Offense wins games, defense wins championships."
Re: Lindsey's comments about O and D line splits in women's college ultimate.
Because there are so many turnovers in women's college ultimate, every line has to be pretty balanced in terms of offense and defense as most lines will have to play both. Also since getting breaks is pretty common, it would seem to do a disservice to your team if you put out defensive lines that weren't also designed to score.
But really, I think it really comes down to depth. In order to take advantage of the benefits of O and D lines, you have to have enough top players to not be watering down your talent too much on any one line.
I have seen women's teams sub along the lines of offense and defense (often as a way of resting key players), but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.
I like this topic. Lots of interesting ideas. I'll just touch on a few.
1: O & D line in college women's ultimate:
We tried this last year at Michigan with mixed results. We figured we had a really deep team and enough good players to spread between the two. The tough part was figuring out who goes on which team. And Gwen hit the nail on the head when she said that with so many turnovers in the college women's game, no line is ever playing purely O or D anyway.
However, it did have a few good unintended consequences. Because we split the team roughly in two for practices and games, those mini teams had a chance to develop cohesion. This had been a difficulty on the team the year before. Also, the splits were useful for upwind-downwind games.
When the team was going upwind, which normally means you're playing D because you just scored the downwinder, we would instead play a strong O line in the hope of getting that one upwinder that would win the game. Then, when going downwind, we'd put in a strong D line to make it as difficult as possible to score upwind.
However, I did learn that wholesale subbing each point in an upwind downwind is not a great idea. Players need a few points together to gel. It was much better to put in lines for 3 in a row. Up,down,up for the O line and down,up,down for the D line.
#2: O vs D winning games
One of my favorite lines has always been, "the best defense is good offense." The converse might also be true. Not sure if it adds anything to the debate though.
Interesting to hear about Michigan's experience with O/D subbing. Is the team planning on repeating the experiment this season?
One observation:
I did learn that wholesale subbing each point in an upwind downwind is not a great idea. Players need a few points together to gel.
I think the idea of players needing to "gel" or "get in a groove" is often overstated on many teams. If players mentally prepare themselves ahead of time by staying warm on the sideline, anticipating that they might only go in for a point at a time, and keeping engaged with the flow and pace of the game, players can still play really well even if they go in only every other point in an upwind downwind game.
In fact, then the benefits Miriam mentioned of having great chemistry with your fellow O-team or D-team players is another type of "gelling."
Has anyone ever experimented with a hockey style substitution pattern with ultimate? In other words, you identify three or four people who always go in and out together - people who have been statistically identified as having offensive or defensive chemistry? This is something I have speculated about, but haven't actually tried myself.
Post a Comment
<< Home