Inside College Ultimate: Strategery

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Strategery - ho stack

This was posted at the bottom of the conditioning post, thought I'd move it to its own thread:

Mike Droske said...: i had mentioned in an earlier post about putting some footage up from the michigan indoor tournament from a few weekends ago. i've found a much faster video upload site and have started putting links to clips up on my blog.

heres the url for the test clip... purdue women running the ho stack

http://www.youtube.com/?v=kYkoPrkSRvw

So, this ho stack seems a bit inefficient to me. When a cutter gets the disc, the three handlers stay, so you have a situation with 3 handlers near the disc and 3 cutters downfield. The downfield cutters also didn't seem to move much off of the in cut, so it looked quite stagnant. The person with the disc zeroed in on the handler dump that she wanted to get it to and barely got it off (though she turned early, which was good).

Thoughts? Ideas on a better version of the ho stack (esp. in the women's game, where most cannot huck full field)?

15 Comments:

Gambler said...: This camera angle is great for being able to see cuts develop and how player spacing affects the offensive flow.

The first thing I noticed is that the handlers are positioned very close together width-wise. At one point all three handlers are actually within 10 yards of each other!

Of course, since this game is being played indoors, it's hard to tell what the exact field dimensions are. I think in an rsd post about this tournament, Miriam mentioned the field was only 30 yards wide, which might explain some of why the handlers seem so close together.

As a result, one reason that the downfield cutters never throw an upfield pass during this point is that the handlers' defenders are often in the way enough to cause the thrower pause. With more space between the thrower (whether a handler or receiver) and the handler resets, more options for give-and-gos and upfield strikes would be available. As it is, at least one give-and-go was looked off because of handler crowding.

As evidence for my stress on better spacing, the final scoring sequence (upfield pass, dish to handler, and huck for the score) was only made possible because of the space left between the middle handler and the far right handler that spread the defense thin.

Hopefully Mike will post more footage of the tournament so we can pick apart all these early season offenses...; 12:46 PM
Tarr said...: Due to the poor resolution, I can't figure out who the other team is here. I assume this is not finals, since the game appears to be on a half-width field. Droske or Miriam, help me out.

Obvously, I could talk all day about this offense, as I more or less designed it. (Although I did e-mail you and pick your brain a bit.) I'm going to defend this point as a pretty good (not perfect, but good) execution of that offense.

OK, let's think critically about what we see here. The pass sequence is handler1 -> handler2 -> cutter1 -> handler1 -> cutter2 -> handler2 -> cutter3 -> handler1 -> cutter2 (goal).

Obviously, there is no cutter-to-cutter motion here. Kali and Michelle make 100% of the upfield throws this point. The question I would pose here is, does that make the offense inherently inefficient? The team scores in 8 passes, three of which are dumps. Is this inefficient because you want to score in fewer passes, or with a lower percentage of dumps?

The most reasonable charge of inefficiency in my opinion would be the un-exploted opportunities to throw continuation throws. Indeed, when cutter1 (Marge) gets the disc, she has a good look to throw to cutter3 (Sara) down the line, but she turns so quickly for the dump that she misses it.

To some degree, this is a function of personnel. The three cutters who touch the disc in this video have been playing for 2+, 1+, and 1+ years. The handlers have been playing for 4+ years each. Should Marge have hit Sara on that cut? If she does, a second year player is now trapped on the line. I'm fine with her taking that look, but I'm also fine with her making an early decision to get the disc back to a handler. And I'd dispute the contention that she "barely got it off" - she calmly waited for the handler to get separation, and then put the disc to space where the defender had no play.

When cutter2 (Kami) gets the disc, she never really has a good look downfield (more on that later). And when cutter3 gets the disc, she immediately dishes it to handler1 (Michelle) moving forward. In this offense, that's unquestionably the right decision. by making that quick swing to space, Sara puts Michelle in a power position with no mark, enabling the huck for the goal. That short swing is like a hockey "second assist" here.

In short, I don't think a ton of cutter-to-cutter throw is necessary for a horizontal stack offense to be efficient. You need some to keep the D honest, of course, but the ideal of throwing an "antry pass" to the cutters, and then having them slice up the field while the handlers jog behind, is merely one ideal.

You mention the fact that there are three people back when a cutter gets the disc. This is true, and it is by design. There are offenses out there (the German probably being the most well-known) where there are four handlers back all the time. The key, as always, is just to keep the handlers well-spaced so that the dump option is clear. The narrow field makes this a bit tricky here, but I think they do a good job of it on the main. I'd rather leave handlers as handlers and cutters as cutters than force everyone to cycle through the positions in order to maintain some ideal spacing standard.

At the start, I said that this was a good, but not perfect, execution. I would point out a few things that go wrong. Actually, almost all the significant problems I see are in one sequence, starting with when cutter2 (Kami) gets the centering pass from Michelle. Two things stand out:

1) When Kami gets the disc, the previous cutter, cutter1 (Marge) has not cleared out far enough. As a result, neither Marge nor Sara can make a cut for Kami. Furthermore, the dump handler, handler2 (Kali) is too far upfield, so her defender is encroaching on the lane and preventing any throw in the other direction. As a result Kami has to dump the disc.

2) After Kali gets the disc, the reaction on the far side of the field is too slow. The handler3 does clear back to prevent her defender from taking away the lane, and the far side cutter4 does make an in-cut, but both of these things need to happen faster. Fortunately, Kami did a good job clearing out quickly and Marge has cleared as well at this point, so Sara makes an effective cut and things flow from there.

And you thought I was kidding when I said I could talk all day.; 12:55 PM
meems said...: Mike- You could try adding give and goes. This tends to get people away from being stagnant.
After reading Tarr's exposition however, it seems like that might not fit into the general scheme of the offense.

Do you have and footage of the UM-Purdue games?

Gwen- The field width is 30 yds.

Tarr- I'm pretty sure the other team is Northwestern.

-m; 1:22 PM
Tarr said...: Gwen, with the caveat that this was a narrow field, I agree with you about the handlers crowding the lane. Michelle does a good job avoiding it - she probably heard me hammer this point home more than enough last year. The other handlers on this point weren't main handlers last year, and are probably still adjusting to the role at this point in the season.

As far as give and goes, they are definitely part of the offense, but when I watch this clip I don't see lack of give-and-goes as the problem here (insofar as there is a problem at all). Kami could have continued her give-and-go cut for Kali, but in stead she cleared out, opening the lane for an in-cut (which unfortunately developed a little too late).

By the way, if you want to sink your teeth into some bad hostack offense, check out the other Purdue women's video that Mike posted there.; 1:55 PM
Mccants said...: (i did not read tarr's long post)

This is my first thought after watching the video:

The downfield cutters are not moving enough and only move after the five foot dumb is thrown.

The strongest part of my game (i think) is my running and cutting ability, and that means, I LOVE the ho stack. The ho stack can only be used when you have people down field who are willing to run, run a lot, and run hard. When it is obvious that the thrower is not going to throw up field, the cutter directly in front of her needs to bail her out with a deep cut (or do that as soon as she catches it!). With her clear, a cutter from the break side breaks deep a few strides and takes a sharp angle to disc. That way, the handler can hit her immediately. Then, that cutter can immediately hit the cutter, who was originally in front of the first thrower, who has already begun to turn around after realizing her deep cut was looked off for the 20 yard gainer.

It works everytime because the D needs to guard both in and deep cuts. Deep cuts are real deep cuts. 30 yards at least. and then the cut back is twice as hard. these are sprints! naturally, you need throwers who can put it deep or the D will just front. purdue has that.

i personally prefer having four handlers back because it gives me more room to work and run as a cutter. but, everytime i saw a throw in the air to another handler, all the cutters were standing still. i think that is where the main problem lies. but, i prefer a game with a heck of a lot more running than most would like to do in a lifetime.; 4:47 PM
gcooke said...: I agree with Gwen that this is a great camera angle for Ultimate. CSTV did have a similar camera angle for College Champs, but didn't use that often.

-G; 7:29 PM
Tarr said...: George, Gwen,

Purdue always tries to get a camera up in the crow's nest whenever we play at Michigan's indoor facility. Most of the video has not been digitized, but there is a highlight video from 2003, where the second half of the video is all elevated camera. And I just made Mike D's day, as he's all over the place in that video.; 7:25 AM
meems said...: It seems like more movement, either by the cutter or by the handlers, is what most people are suggesting is needed. I'll take it a step further and say that more movement is what almost any ailing offense needs.

We are running into this issue also. And I'm finding it's kind of a chicken and egg thing that just turns into a nasty feedback loop that makes things worse. Okay, I realize that doesn't make any sense.

Let's say the handlers start deviating from the regular O. Maybe they are adjusting to the D or maybe they are just losing focus. Then the cutters have trouble timing their cuts because they can't predict anymore. So they end up stopping and watching. And then because they aren't moving, they can't get open as easily for the handlers so the handlers deviate even more. Thus the feedback loop. But it could have just as easily started with the cutters deviating. Thus the chicken and egg.

Mike- I didn't know you had problems getting up in that crow's nest to film. Sorry about that.

Lindsey- Ah, I too recall the 4-handler horizontal stack that we played together. So much downfield space. I'm really glad I wasn't a cutter that year. The challenge with that one is to get the D to play honestly on all the handlers instead of sending someone to poach the lane while the marker takes away the dump. Deep Dish and Nemesis were especially good at that I think.; 8:30 AM
d said...: So I guess Miriam is highlighting the main problem I have - I feel like with a more aggressive defense, this offense would have been stopped. I think one of the defenders on a handler (not the closest to the disc but maybe the next closest) could poach off into the lane and make life difficult for the thrower. Then, with an aggressive mark and an aggressive defender on the primary dump, the cutter can't get that throw off.

To expound more: when I said she barely got it off, this is an exaggeration, but suppose the defender played tighter from the beginning - then the dump cutter's move to the sideline is shut down and now the dump has nowhere to go. If she goes back to where she was before to re-set up her cut, she's taking up an awful lot of room. Furthermore, the woman with the disc is turned entirely around and essentially has no one to hit. So the best move is for that dump cutter to get the heck out of the way, probably by moving downfield, and let another dump cutter get into the spot. Now suppose the second dump cutter was poached originally. The defender actually has plenty of time in this sequence to get on the "new" dump cutter.

Mainly I feel that there isn't enough space to make good dump cuts as shown. I imagine spreading out further would help - but, as the field is only 40 yards wide, you're still going to have offensive players within 10 yards of one another and a smart defense will use that to their advantage through poaching.

I don't necessarily think that the odd one out should go downfield, but perhaps they should just stay, and out of the way, and not parallel with the other two handlers and the woman with the disc.

I hope Lindsey reads this far. If so, good! I agree that movement is key; cutters should be moving even if their movement isn't entirely productive, because it WILL be productive eventually. In and out, in and out...; 9:35 AM
Tarr said...: If your primary criticism is that Kali (handler2) is set up too close to Michelle (handler1) when Michelle is the dump, then I agree. If Michelle's defender had been aware of Kali's defender's position, she could have effectively shaded Michelle to cut one way, and the two working together could have shut down the first dump cut. But in general, if Kali backs away to the proper position, then even if Michelle's defender plays tighter, she becomes vulnerable to being beaten the other way, into the middle of the field.

As far as Marge facing up directly to Michelle, this is in my opinion exactly what she should do (and what I taught her to do). By facing up to Michelle, she can throw either a backhand or a forehand dump, and if she is capable of a short break throw, she can effectively take the mark out of the equation. If she only half-turns, then the mark can effectively shut down dumps in one direction, and allow the defender shade the other way.

Could this offense have been defeated by coordinated handler poaching? Well, again, in this case yes, due to the narrow field and somewhat undisciplined handler spacing. But in general, when the handlers space out properly, it is easier said than done. It takes a great game plan, and a lot of very well-coordinated switching. Last year, in my opinion, only two teams achieved significant success by poaching the handlers against Purdue women: Illinois at regionals and NC State at nationals. A lot of other teams tried, and failed. (Texas and Carleton were able to undo our offense at nationals as well, but that was more attributable to strong marking and team fatigue than coordinated poaching.)

Obviously a static offense struggles, but a lot of what puts a defense on its heels is not the constant motion of players, but the movement of the disc and the coordinated movement of the offense to maintain proper spacing relative the disc on the field. A basic premise of this offense is that cutter motion is triggered by handler motion. The result in the ideal is an offense that doesn't have a lot of wasted motion. In this clip, there's only three cuts that don't get the disc, and only one of those three was properly timed and open. The only deep cut is perfectly timed and gets rewarded with the huck.

Contrast that to the other clip Mike D has posted, where there are a bunch of wasted cuts. The basic problem in that clip is clogging. The far handler and cutter never spread near the edge of the field, which is especially important when the team only has 30 yards to work with. Kami looks off a great in-cut to throw the dump, and then clears out right at the cutter. A pass later, two cutters crash into the space near the disc and nearly prevent Michelle from getting the dump. In the end, Michelle and Kali freelance a bit and get the goal, but that clip is pretty much an example of what not to do.; 11:41 AM
Mccants said...: I was not a handler the year Meems and I played the ho stack together, so this is only my perspective on the handling situation:

When we played the 4 handler set, we played it in pairs. When one pair did not have the disc they were way the hell over on a sideline - basically not a part of the offense at all. Therefore, it made it practically impossible for a defender to poach off. I mean, they could, but then any half way competant handler could hit the poached teammate with a single throw (if there is no wind).

Naturally, this offense takes throwers (and hard cutters, as mentioned before). I think the reason clutch was not as successful with this offense against better teams ( think top 8, although our pre quarters loss at nationals that year was due to fatigue in my opinion, not a lack of a cohesive offensive plan) was because of how young the offense was and the fact that we did not have a lot of big bombers on our team.

In general, I do not think anyone can sit here and say "This cutter should have done this, or this thrower should have moved here." That is the beauty of the ho stack, it is not rigid. But, i feel you need people who dont mind running to maintain the spacing necessary for cuts being properly set up - handlers and cutters both.

neva, i read your entire post:); 2:04 PM
Mccants said...: mike

i made up a drill that emphasizes what you are looking for, although many of the girls i have taught it to do not imitate it in a game on a regular basis.

basically, i have a person on O and D in the stack. The O person fakes deep, cuts in, does not get it, and therefore cuts hard deep as if they are going for the deep throw. at that point, an unguarded O player cuts to the disc, gets a 10 yard gainer and turns to look upfield. at that point, the other O player has realized she is not getting it after that 40-50 yard sprint, so turns on a dime and cuts in hard to the disc for a 20-30 yard gainer.

if anything else, it is good conditioning. i have also found that if you play men's ultimate as a woman, and are guarded by men, you have no choice but to learn to cut like this or you will never get open as a cutter.

of note though, it is hard to cut like this if you are a one man show - meaning no one else on your team cuts like this.; 5:48 PM
Mccants said...: i have found that this type of cutting exists at the women's club level on a more regular basis and of course the men's club level from a sideline perspective. i think there is more of it on the top men's college teams as I witnessed a lot of it at nationals last year. It begins to dwindle in women's college ultimate, but still exists from time to time; 5:51 PM
d said...: Tarr: tried leaving a comment on Friday but it got all messed up. I think we agree, essentially; the handlers should be more spread, because otherwise it's hard to get an effective dump off and too easy for a smart defender to poach.

That other clip (the one you posted) is very ugly. The first mistake is the first throw, to the sideline. And again, the handlers being too close in. I look at this and want to say "Get it off the sideline!" One of the cutters came way too far in, then didn't clear strong. And it looks like there's a lot more field that's not being used. Yes, there are wasted cuts, and clogging cuts, and maybe that's a problem, but it seems like the larger problem is not clearing hard and not using the space - i.e. not getting back to the proper position in the offense once it's obvious they're not going to get the disc. And starting out a little out of position too.; 10:06 AM
d said...: Mike:
You have three cutters, essentially, so you could come up with a three letter word ("Cat" or "Dog" or "Owl" or whatever) and then the first letter is the home side cutter, second letter is middle cutter, and third letter is away side cutter. So if the word were "Cat", the handler might say "Coffee" or "Can" or "Crate" to call on the home side cutter to cut. "Apple" would mean middle and "Tank" would be away-side cutter. The nice thing about this method is you can change the word per tournament, or even in the middle of the game if the opposition figures it out.

You can also add in directionals for going away or coming under. Odd numbers away, even numbers under: "Coffee 77".

I don't like always having the same person/position cut, because it's too easy to figure out.; 2:23 PM

Inside College Ultimate

Thursday, January 26, 2006

Strategery - ho stack

15 Comments:

Contributors