Punting to play zone
This past weekend at the Stanford Invite, the strong winds on Sunday meant that a lot of teams hucked going downwind and then played zone to try and force the upwind turnover. This is quite effective strategy in the college game, although it made for a number of ugly points to watch. Of course, there were exceptions to the high-turnover rule of thumb. For instance, in the finals a third of the points were scored with no turnovers (including the very first point when Stanford worked the disc upwind, taking almost 25 passes to get through Colorado's zone). Still, there were some horrific points during the day with over 20 turnovers before someone scored.
In high winds, more turnovers are bound to happen than in perfect weather conditions. However, punting to play zone just doesn't quite feel right as a team strategy when you think about trying to improve players skills and teach them good fundamentals. It makes a great deal of sense to avoid turning the disc over near the upwind goal, but is there any other way to do this besides exclusively looking to huck? It doesn't exude a ton of confidence in your own team's offensive abilities if the only strategy is to huck right off the pull. As someone on rsd pointed out, it's also not an offensive strategy that teams practice outside of a tournament setting. It's not exactly good ultimate.
The other thing is, even if a team wants to try and work it down (perhaps focusing on hitting in-cuts that would be wide-open since the defense is afraid of the huck), if its opponent is bent on punting when it goes downwind, the risk of turning it over and giving up an upwinder becomes greater for the team that would like to play more of a possession-based downwind O. Thus, upwind-downwind games become prime examples of the "Turnover Compact" (see the 08/14/06 post by Zaz) where teams often don't care about how many times they turn it going downwind (just as long as they do score the downwind in the end), but instead focus on trying to get those upwind breaks. Scoring upwind is how teams win windy games, but the constant turnovers make for very ugly ultimate that's not all that exciting.
Maybe the only real solution for most college teams is to try and maximize the completion percentages of their downwind looks. Oftentimes, throwers seemed to be hucking into oblivion without a target in sight or were so bent on jacking the disc that it would sail out the back of the endzone. If teams are going to utilize a huck-and-zone strategy to win games at tournaments, maybe they should be practicing the necessary skills in practice: putting touch on those downwind hucks, reading the wind to place hucks where a receiver has a chance at the disc, reading the disc to be able to track it in high winds, and catching passes in a pack of people. Also, I wonder if teams should significantly change their offensive set-up when going downwind to try and overload receivers in the endzone or isolate players in various spots on the field. Maybe other teams already do that... What other alternatives are there to catching the pull, jacking it, and then setting a zone to get the turnover?
In high winds, more turnovers are bound to happen than in perfect weather conditions. However, punting to play zone just doesn't quite feel right as a team strategy when you think about trying to improve players skills and teach them good fundamentals. It makes a great deal of sense to avoid turning the disc over near the upwind goal, but is there any other way to do this besides exclusively looking to huck? It doesn't exude a ton of confidence in your own team's offensive abilities if the only strategy is to huck right off the pull. As someone on rsd pointed out, it's also not an offensive strategy that teams practice outside of a tournament setting. It's not exactly good ultimate.
The other thing is, even if a team wants to try and work it down (perhaps focusing on hitting in-cuts that would be wide-open since the defense is afraid of the huck), if its opponent is bent on punting when it goes downwind, the risk of turning it over and giving up an upwinder becomes greater for the team that would like to play more of a possession-based downwind O. Thus, upwind-downwind games become prime examples of the "Turnover Compact" (see the 08/14/06 post by Zaz) where teams often don't care about how many times they turn it going downwind (just as long as they do score the downwind in the end), but instead focus on trying to get those upwind breaks. Scoring upwind is how teams win windy games, but the constant turnovers make for very ugly ultimate that's not all that exciting.
Maybe the only real solution for most college teams is to try and maximize the completion percentages of their downwind looks. Oftentimes, throwers seemed to be hucking into oblivion without a target in sight or were so bent on jacking the disc that it would sail out the back of the endzone. If teams are going to utilize a huck-and-zone strategy to win games at tournaments, maybe they should be practicing the necessary skills in practice: putting touch on those downwind hucks, reading the wind to place hucks where a receiver has a chance at the disc, reading the disc to be able to track it in high winds, and catching passes in a pack of people. Also, I wonder if teams should significantly change their offensive set-up when going downwind to try and overload receivers in the endzone or isolate players in various spots on the field. Maybe other teams already do that... What other alternatives are there to catching the pull, jacking it, and then setting a zone to get the turnover?
posted by Gambler at 3:22 PM
13 Comments:
The huck and punt strategy is perfectly valid because the goal of Ultimate games is not to look pretty but to win.
I saw a decent amount of the women's finals. A lot of it was ugly as the team's struggled to score upwind and the team going downwind couldn't get it in the goal. It was not what I would choose to watch if I had a choice.
It's the same as in other sports though. Are those games in Seattle where it is pouring down rain and they throw the ball ten times and then run it the rest and fumble it like eight times enjoyable? No, they're not at all.
For tournaments and whatever, I have no problem with having a lot of wind and turnovers. The point of Ultimate is to compete, not to compete prettily. For the sport to go forward and become more attractive (if that is what you want it to do) I would suggest that semis/finals of tournaments like nationals be played in an actual stadium. Not like a football stadium, but a HS football stadium. Those at least tend to block out a certain amount of wind. Or don't have it in Sarasota, either way.
Looks like I missed Ben Wiggins' post to rsd before I posted here. He has some interesting things to say about how to practice for a punt and zone strategy.
In some sense, this strategy is like using cheat codes in video games. You might win, but you're not really accomplishing anything.
Someone on rsd said as long as it gets you to the next round, that helps your team. Ok, that's true, but only if in that next round you use your normal strategy. If you're going to use cheat codes to get through every level including the final one, how are you going to get better?
Wiggins, if you're reading this, get to work on a modified punt strategy that incorporates just enough of first-pass jacking to reduce the chances of losing on a fluke.
It’s not often that I completely disagree with Jim, but I gotta say I’m on the total opposite side on this one. I think it’s a pretty straight-forward application of The Rule – given the conditions and the level of play, picking up the pull and throwing the frisbee out the back consistently leads to the highest percentage chance of scoring the downwind goal. For the teams playing this weekend, trying to work the disc downwind against a zone is worse than bad strategy – it’s bad math.
The obvious objection is – how do you expect to improve working it downwind if you never practice working it downwind? I would argue that the teams I saw will never improve to such an extent that The Rule would not dictate punting it downwind in those conditions.
The question is not dissimilar to one of your earlier posts (I’m too lazy to find it now) – assume it’s 0-0 game to 1 – at what point/position on the field would you rather be on defense than be on offense. Back when I used to post we talked a little bit about this as well.
Well for starters, here in NC, we hardly ever get enough wind to practice the touch throws downwind (or upwind throws for that matter).
Secondly, if you catch the pull and huck it, it is just a good pull. play D. you want to start out on D anyway, right? get your matchups, set your zone. just gotta get that huck over the deep/deep's head (usually the best handler).
In the quarters of stanford, the wind was so bad that the pull didnt go much further than 30-40yards anyway in our game. so, we worked it.
one of the two upwinders that colorado scored on us was because we tried a dump way too close to our endzone. should have just jacked it.
no, it does not make for very "good" ultimate, but the strategy certainly can win college ultimate games.
being aggressive both directions really helps as well. the reason why colorado probably scored both of those up winders on us was because they worked it to the upwind side where snyder was and she could jack a 30-40 yard backhand. either it was completed, or not. and if it wasnt, we turned it once right there, out of stupidity.
so, being aggressive helps. but, there are times to just plain work it.
any stanford writeup for icultimate?
Especially in the college women's game, huck and D can be a winning strategy. No, it's not pretty. But yes, it is practiced, in that setting the zone off a turn in a high wind situation is practiced.
As for the comments on rsd that this doesn't happen in elite ultimate, I can only point to Sarasota in 2001. I played on BRU; we never had any wind all season in VA and had a great spread offense that we ran exactly 0 times in Sarasota. Instead, we put our best defenders in when receiving going downwind (to prevent the downwind score), our best offensive players in when on defense going upwind (so that if they jacked it, we had a decent chance of working it), and we made it to the finals. If I remember correctly, we won the semis on the flip (ended the game on a downwinder).
Fury's win in 2003 was also based on hucking and playing D. And it worked, because their zone was really impossible to move against.
In the college women's game, you have less people on your team that are comfortable with the disc in high wind, so it makes sense to play the percentages - the opposing team is unlikely to be able to work it 70 yards for the same reason.
I think I agree with AJ here. Some thoughts:
- There are lots of sports where the conditions or the situation will lead a team to play "boring" or "ugly".
In football, many teams don't pass the ball if they are afraid of turning it over. (i.e. deep in their own territory, in crappy conditions, if their defense is better than their offense...or the other team's offense). In soccer, teams will play most of their players back on defense in certain situations. In basketball, some teams look to score a lot, and other teams simply look to prevent their opponent from scoring. In tennis, some players are backboards while others attack.
Bottom line is, playing defense is oftentimes a team's strength, whether b/c their offense sucks, their opponent's offense sucks, or the conditions exist that lead to both of the above conditions existing. And smart teams play to their strengths.
- That doesn't mean that a team should just forget about offense though. But offenses can be adjusted for a defensive/field position strategy without resorting to blind hucking.
When I coached the Georgia girls, we had specific offensive plays or sets we'd run, with specific people, to maximize our chances of scoring when we felt it was advantageous to play a primarily defensive strategy.
Setting up break mark throws to a big thrower who could then huck unmarked to a fast/mismatched receiver is a lot different than having someone pick up the disc and jack it as far as possible. Having your hucker also be your deep-deep in your zone, and having your receiver also be a point in the cup are specific strategic decisions as well.
If you can put all your best handlers on a line, then it makes more sense to try to work the disc than if you are resting those players for the upwinder and have your less-disc-skilled players playing the downwind points (and taking fewer chances near the upwind goalline).
Looking "pretty" is probably going to result in wins b/c that means you are completing passes and are probably better than the other team. And that is something you should strive for as a team and expands the number of strategies you can use to win. But strategy is about weighing pros and cons, strengths and weaknesses, and playing the odds. Maybe a QB is good enough to throw from his own endzone. But if a coach decides it isn't worth the risk and decides to run the ball 3 times up the middle, punt, and play D, that's not bad football or bad strategy...unless of course your lose doing it. ;-)
Will D
And it's not that often that I completely agree with Mike G, but why are you playing these games?
There are two reasons to hate the punt strategy:
1. It's aesthetically barf-inducing.
2. It doesn't help you get any better at ultimate.
Stanford Invite and whatnot are all pre-season tournaments, even though you're trying to win and winning improves your team also, if only mentally. But your goal is to be the best you can at the end of the season, and punting doesn't get you there.
Even if punting allows you to win and advance, all you're doing is logging more time on a patch of grass. You'll be playing less "ultimate" even if you win the tournament than if you have tried to work it a little bit and lost in the quarters.
Two caveats:
1. This doesn't apply for the UPA series.
2. My team has probably never followed my advice in this matter, probably because I never gave it.
I propose two tournament level solutions:
1. Orient the fields to be crosswind, so there's no strongly preferable side. It's standard practice at Nationals, but probably not at regular tournaments, which might be more constrained by geography. But if a tournament is held on a big open field with a strong prevailing wind, why not do this?
2. Cap a point at 10 turnovers. If neither team can score in five tries, switch sides and start a new point. At the very least, this will eliminate the flip as a deciding factor in determining the winner.
There are two reasons to hate the punt strategy:
1. It's aesthetically barf-inducing.
2. It doesn't help you get any better at ultimate.
I’ll concede point number 1. I think I disagree with point number 2. The windy conditions provide an ideal time to work on the strategies that you will employ in the same conditions in UPA Series Tournaments. I would agree with you if I believed that practicing working it downwind at the Stanford Invite (and other preseason tournies) would allow teams to improve enough that working it downwind later in the season would be the correct choice. As I stated in my previous post, I don’t believe that’s possible – so I think practicing punting (and catching punts) makes good sense.
Just so we’re on the same page – I’m only advocating (mindless) punting downwind.
I propose two tournament level solutions:
1. Orient the fields to be crosswind, so there's no strongly preferable side. It's standard practice at Nationals, but probably not at regular tournaments, which might be more constrained by geography. But if a tournament is held on a big open field with a strong prevailing wind, why not do this?
I wish more tournaments would do this.
2. Cap a point at 10 turnovers. If neither team can score in five tries, switch sides and start a new point. At the very least, this will eliminate the flip as a deciding factor in determining the winner.
This would radically alter the women’s college game. It would be interesting to cap a competitive men’s game at 4 turnovers per point. The games would be less wide open and teams would probably become considerably better over the long run.
I agree with AJ that playing in such games can make you better. For instance, advancing through a tournament in huck-and-zone conditions gives your team lots of practice at playing zone defense and in working the disc upwind. Both of those are really important skills that your team will invariably need to use if the conditions are at all windy during the UPA Series.
As far as limiting points to a certain number of turnovers, this would drastically change things. One of the huge advantages of having a deep roster in women's ultimate is that after a marathon point, you want to be able to put in fresh players who are able to get the job done. Limiting the length of such points would give an advantage to teams with small rosters that rely on only a few players.
In the regions that I grew up in, punt and play zone is often a strategery employed at sectionals + regionals. So, if you have the chance in the middle of the season, isn't it good preparation to punt and play zone then?
What is more beneficial, losing more often while "getting better" at ultimate? Or playing more games, learning to win games, and playing with some strategy?
I don't understand the overwhelming belief in these comments that after you've punted, you're not getting any better at ultimate. Is running zone D not considered playing ultimate?
Post a Comment
<< Home