tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post110789937402890771..comments2023-10-07T07:14:01.772-04:00Comments on Ultimate Strategy & Coaching: Thoughts on Man D by NoahUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-1107954028078268532005-02-09T08:00:00.000-05:002005-02-09T08:00:00.000-05:00I think in a sense you’re always trying to play sh...I think in a sense you’re always trying to play shut-down d most of the time. There are just particular times during a point when you have opportunities to take risks. If you know your opponent going into the game you’ll have a decent idea of when these risks make good sense. For instance if I’m covering a teams number 3 cutter I’m going to be peaking into the lane a whole heck of a lot more than if I’m covering their primary cutter who always wants to get the disc. <br /><br />There are other times to look to be aggressive as well. The one that comes to mind specifically is when you’re covering the first person in the stack and they’re not moving. A lot of times this happens off a stopped disc, a team will just have their initial cut come off the back of the stack. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been hit in the gut with the frisbee because I rolled into the cutting lane from number one in the stack when I saw a guy getting open off the back. The thing is that in cases like that your risk is not really super high anyway. If I roll into the throwing lane and they don’t throw I just need to bust my tail to get back to my guy. I feel like that’s how most poaches should be. It’s 1 or 2 seconds in the lane and then I’m back on my guy. I think these kinds of poaches fit easily into the framework of good shut-down man D. Of course most of my PT comes on offense these days, which means I find myself playing "aggressive" d a lot more than I used to.AJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04232789723776100948noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9720759.post-1107903091141540442005-02-08T17:51:00.000-05:002005-02-08T17:51:00.000-05:00I usually describe this argument as conservative v...I usually describe this argument as conservative vs risky defense. Ideally, I'll always be able to play conservative or 'team defense'. I say 'team defense' because I'm doing my job and trusting that my teammates will do their jobs. I shut my man down to the open side, and trust that my marker won't get broken. I don't poach, instead trusting that my teammates will shut their men down. Ideally, this will force the other team to make a mistake or a bad throw and lead to a turnover. While there probably wasn't a block, it was a team d. I say ideally because several things have to fall in place for this to work. First, everyone on the team must be committed to playing team defense. If someone is going for the handblock instead of just making sure they don't get broken, I'm going to get abused to the breakside when I'm shutting my man down on the open side. Secondly, everyone on my team must be capable of doing their jobs. If these criteria aren't met, team defense won't work against good teams (bad teams or adverse weather conditions can still create turnovers).<br /><br />In less than ideal situations, it is necessary to play a more risky defense. This may mean poaching, going for handblocks, baiting, etc. The reason is that the defense must generate turnovers, rather than forcing the opponent into mistakes by shutting down all the easy choices.<br /><br />In general, I'll try to play 'team defense' most of the time. I think it makes a team better if it can play team defense, as opposed to always having to play a risk-taking defense. A risk-taking defense, by definition, is going to leave weaknesses that a patient team will take advantage of. I'll switch to a risk-taking defense when it is clear a win is improbable with conservative defense. Even then, it may be better to continue with the conservative defense, so that your team can improve it's team defense. Maybe someone can make the argument that risky defense is the best option, or maybe there is a compromise that will work best. Likely it depends on the personnel.<br /><br />Ironically, I often find myself playing risky defense most often when I'm playing zone. I guess this is because when there is no wind, risky defense is necessary to generate turnovers when playing zone defense against a good team with no wind. Perhaps that is the subject for a future article.<br /><br />One comment I would make, Noah, regarding going into a point with a certain mindset. It can be dangerous to enter a point with a certain mindset if the rest of your team is unaware of it. It can be very irritating to have six guys playing solid team defense, and one guy poaching.woodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02092132397193139652noreply@blogger.com