Ultimate Strategy & Coaching

Revolver 15 - Chain 6

2011-09-09T22:26:00.002-04:00

I was very excited to watch the Labor Day footage Rob took, especially this game. With a win over Revolver on Saturday (14-11) where credit was given to Chain's pressure, I was curious to see what happened to make the result 15-6 for the Moons. With a loss like 15-14 to Furious you can envision a close game where one mistake just happened to fall the opponents way. Even the win over Revolver the previous day, while a bit more decisive at 14-11, still felt like a close game between elite teams. But seeing a score like 15-6 makes me think one team was outmatched. I was excited that Rob put this game up first because I wanted to see the strategic shifts that made the difference. The big question I had was how Revolver's defense would stifle Chain's offense so they could only score 6 points.

Watching the tape a few times it looks like it was less a case of Revolver shutting down Chain's O and more a case of Chain completely giving the game away to an efficient Revolver team. Of the significant turns that I saw Chain give up most boiled down to chemistry. Kind of surprising that chemistry would be an issue in a final, but I guess that is what happens when Chesapeake gets rained out. All of the other teams had been to an elite tournament before Labor Day, and while it didn't show during Saturday (still eagerly waiting for that tape Rob), maybe that was the difference.

Here is a quick breakdown of the turns I thought were most significant:
-Reset miscommunication between Asa and Swanson
-Reset miscommunication between Grant and Swanson
-Huck from Swanson that was too far for Dylan
-Huck from Nick Lance that was too far for Dylan
-Swanson throws a swing pass behind a cutting Asa
-Poole throws and inside break behind Asa
-Miscommunication when Spiva breaks off a cut as CK is releasing
-Reset toss to CK from Dylan is caught for a callahan
-Miscommunication huck from Nick Lance to Grant as he turned under

Chain looked in control of this game early, getting a quick break off of a Revolver errant throw. But after that it looked like Chain players didn't know what each other were doing. Between the resets and the miscommunications Chain players were often caught changing direction right at the point of release. The hucks felt like desperation throws (although early in the count) because they were typically right of the pull and from a stand still. Great throws for distance, but no flow or good angle. I can't recall a single time that a Revolver player got a clean D on a Chain player. Even the throws behind Asa weren't blocked by Revoler. Asa was wide open, but Chain couldn't get the disc in front of him. From Greg is was particularly terrible because Asa was wide open cutting to the open side from an unmarked Greg. Poole's misthrow was a little better because it was an inside break, but that throw also felt like a desperation throw. Also, when did Dylan become a handler for Chain. I can think of two places Dylan is not one of the best players in the game: at the reset and as a distribution handler.

I guess the lesson to learn here is how important it is to have your players on the same page. To know where the next cut is coming from, and to know where the reset is going. One of the big differences I've noticed watching Revolver is that they are very good at knowing where the next look is and having a person there. In contrast to Chain looking a little frazzled on the reset, Revolver almost always looked effortless. They typically threw a quick pass to a particular spot before the mark or reset defender was prepared (I'm starting to call this the Thrower's Option). Even when that was shut down it was clear that the game plan was either to run the reset behind the thrower (in the middle of the field) or run the reset down the line and pull another person backfield (trapped on the line). I would have been hard pressed to believe that small chemistry issues could result in a 15-6 game, but that is what it felt like watching the tape. After Rob puts up more video I'll spend a little looking at the rest and seeing what is there.

One last note: I think part of Revolver's victory was determination by Robbie Cahill. He caught more deep shots than I have even seen him catch for Revolver, and independent of who was on him. I don't know if the Saturday loss stuck in his craw, but after his first goal he threw an uncharacteristic spike that made me think this game was a little personal. Great game Revolver. We'll get 'em next time, Chain.

Thoughts on all of the ultivillage footage

2011-09-08T10:55:00.001-04:00

Quite simply, it has been a great summer to be an out of touch ultimate fan. For those of us who aren't traveling to these great tournaments/exhibitions, it is wonderful to see the footage shot from a steady camera at a good angle. Even waiting a few days/weeks to see the games is fine since I'm not really in it for the final score. It is all about watching the technique and strategy.

So here are a few of my unorganized thoughts about the video. Kyle is going through the NexGen videos one by one if you want to check that out for more detail.

NexGen: They looked real good. I was surprised by their wins, even if they were against early season/understaffed versions of elite teams. It made me feel like the separation between elite college players and elite club players isn't as wide as I would like. Especially when you look at those members of NexGen that are getting starting O-line roles on the big club teams. Their style seemed a little erratic at times, and maybe a little huck happy, but they were good at moving the disc and seeing the whole field. I saw a lot of high release throws, especially for short breaks. The big thing that I didn't like was all of the spiking. I understand that these are excitable kids playing in big games against (in many cases) their idols. But the amount of spiking, and the intensity makes the video hard to show middle/high school kids since they are so impressionable. Shame, because there are some great gems in there about breaking the mark, seeing the field and hustle. Unfortunately our middle school kids will mimic anything they see and while some of the more team-oriented spikes were fine (George doing the bus for example), the kicking and elbow spiking is too much.

ETP: This is much more my style. Teams are gearing up for the season, strategy can be seen and trends detected. It has been a few years since I have been to or really watched Nationals, but in that time it seems like everyone has adopted the sideline stack iso pull play. Even Sockeye seems to pull everyone to the line immediately after the pull. I'd figured this was going to happen for a while, as defenses get used to playing against horizontal stack it makes sense that offenses shift to be fresh. In football we go from cover 2 to press ever few years, why not in ultimate. Since the 00's were a decade of mostly horizontal and defenders tend to be young, todays crop of elite open defenders don't have a lot of vert stack experience and it shows.

Watching the games it looks like most teams can't really hold a mark and defenders are constantly caught on the wrong side of their guy. The marking makes sense. Teams were afraid of the long ball and the center under cut from years of H, so the adjustment was to go flat and poach off of the side handlers. Great strategy for horizontal stack ends up being terrible for vert. Reset defense seems poor, and like I said marks aren't stopping anything. Typically the breaks are coming around the mark, but I'll get to that later. Right now it looks like the marks are going for frustration rather than containment. Hoping that by getting the thrower to go with their 4th option they can get a misread or miscommunication turn. That sounds like great defense, and often is, but unlike and H, there are multiple lanes in a vert stack and often defenders are getting caught on the wrong side by an overly mobile mark. I'm sure defenses will adjust, but that may be a big difference maker at Nationals this year. Not at the top of the heap, but which 8 teams get into quarters may depend on who can run a good vertical defense and actually contain the disc. Right now it looks like Revolver is the best at it, but I haven't seen any footage of Chain.

Revolver also seems to be running this offense the best. They move the disc laterally well, in part because they know how to set up the swing cut well (just like Jam did in '08) and seem to have a knack for being where the thrower is looking. Most of the offenses I see (particularly out of the mid-atlantic) aren't on the same page yet. The thrower is flipping through lanes quickly, but cutters aren't in those lanes fast enough. The difference that I see out of Revolver, Sockeye, Ironside and hopefully Chain is a commitment to stack management so that they consistently get the swing when the window is available. One other note about offense is that most of the breaks I am seeing by 2nd tier teams are around and high. Revolver, Mark Sherwood and Mac Taylor in particular, is well utilizing the quick inside break. This gets the disc upfield and typically leaves the thrower with a longer time to throw before the mark gets there. Those are big differences, especially as teams ty to get flow downfield.

There is plenty more to say, but I want to watch the Labor Day footage first.

On a more coaching note, Middle School season is here and off to a good start yesterday. Having Jess Cofrin (new Women's Head Coach) helping is a great asset, especially for the 50 kids we had yesterday. I've got some good ideas for how to teach these new players space and flow. I'll comment on those after I get a chance to try them out.

Moving over to Facebook.

2011-05-20T20:13:00.005-04:00

So, I've decided to amp up my written contributions to the sport and move over to facebook. I have three new articles up on the Facebook page. Come check them out!

Reponse to Win The Fields

2011-04-08T23:51:00.002-04:00

This is a response to Lou Burruss' post on his blog Win The Fields regarding Women's Centex, Bid Allocation, Parity, and Oregon's injuries.

On Bid Allocation: There was overwhelming feedback from players to “make the regular season meaningful” and to “stop determining bid allocation from the previous year’s nationals.” Those are two of the big driving forces behind the structure this year. I can imagine coaches challenge now of having duel, oft-conflicting goals (help earn your conference/region bids and develop the lower half of your roster), but this was a very known trade-off and I have a hard time imagining this fundamental part of the structure changing in future years.

Also on Bid Allocation: It has got to be better than having to play consolation games at Nationals to earn bids the following year both for the teams playing and the teams dependent on that strength bid (who are often not the same).

On ‘messed up’ rosters: While I’m too lazy to look back at the actual USAU rules, I believe that there was some sort of threat of penalty to intentionally “mess up” rosters. That said, it would not be too difficult. Add one unique non-playing but eligible student to your roster above and beyond your actual roster for each regular season tournament. For the events that help bolster your rating keep that player on your series roster. I do believe that this is highly unethical and am surprised to see you question whether it is or not. I like the idea that someone mentioned on the USAU board that, for teams with ineligible rosters at some events, only the games from that event that improved that teams overall season rating be dropped (any games that hurt their rating with ineligible players be dropped).

On parity: I agree with you that coaching is a factor, but the other big factor impacting that is the growth of HS Ultimate. You mentioned Flywheel. On that ’09 team they had three HS experienced freshman (Annie Fisher, Paula Seville, and Vicki Chang). Those three added depth to that team and have helped with long term continuity of the program.

In Lindsay’s response she mentioned the Tufts sophomores, Hailey and Claudia, both former HS players. Having them in addition to a solid coach and a solid groups of Juniors and Seniors makes Tufts competitive with top teams (albeit after an easier road to the top bracket).

And Lindsay’s own UNC is led by former HS player Leila Tunnel and bolstered by a solid young crop of former HS players from the work that Lindsay and others have done building the youth scene in NC (How she has time for it all, I will never understand)

On Oregon’s Injuries: I realize now that wasn’t a very fair question to ask. I know the difficulties of trying to impartially comment on a topic I have a vested interest in. I should have expected one of those stock coaching answers. That said, based on all the scores I’ve seen and all the commentaries I’ve read it seems pretty clear that the second tier of teams is large, but if Oregon is healthy they stand alone in the top tier. If Oregon is banged up, the field is wide open. At least that’s the story I’m going in to the series with.

Throwing or running: Which will benefit you more?

2010-07-26T21:39:00.001-04:00

This past weekend, I had the pleasure of getting a ride to and from (not to mention playing) Wildwood with Josh Markette. This was the most we’d hung out in a few years, so there was a lot of chatter about ultimate-related and non-ultimate-related things. At one point, Josh mentioned that he’s not as comfortable with his throws as he used to be, because he never throws regularly anymore—outside of practice, all his workout time is dedicated to the track or gym.

This really struck me—this is Cricket we’re talking about; when have his throws not been there?—but it’s something faced by a lot of players. After a certain point (likely post-college), for those continuing to play at a high level, all of one’s discretionary workout time becomes focused on getting stronger and faster, and less on disc skills. It’s a lot easier to hit the gym for an hour than it is to find someone to throw with in the middle of the day.

Despite working out hard all winter, a friend of mine did not, as she hoped to, make BENT this year. She came to tryouts in great condition, but she’d hardly touched a disc in the preceding months. And this player is a capable handler with a monster forehand, so I can’t imagine her throws had seriously degraded since last club season. Regardless, they were not as practiced as the BENT captains would have liked to see.

Many players, looking to get to the next tier, have found themselves in situations similar to the above examples. Whether it’s the offseason and staring down tryouts, or the months of preparation leading up to the club or college series, there’s never enough time to do everything one wants to do to feel prepared. So ask yourself what’s going to benefit you the most in coming weeks: hitting the gym or track for a few more reps, or finding someone with whom you can fine-tune your throws? To further complicate things, it’s likely the answer will change over the course of the year.

Physically, I felt better at Wildwood than I have at a tournament all year, but I had some gruesome turnovers on throws I used to be able to make, so I have an idea what I could be focusing on in August.

USUA Nationals

2010-06-03T15:25:00.006-04:00

Wow.

Coaching a college team has come and gone for me (for now). What a blur. On one hand, I'm thinking a ton about what I would have done differently, what I could do better, suggestions for the team next year, etc. On the other hand, I'm enthusiastic about just being a player again.

Competition:

I can't help but think that this was a down year for college ultimate, talent-wise. I never saw a team dominate a la mid-2000s Hodags or Tim Gehret's Florida. It seemed like in a group of 6-7 elite teams, and the team that had the best few days any given weekend could win that tournament. The weekend of Nationals it was definitely Florida. Top to bottom, it seemed like they rallied around Brodie extremely well. Also, props to Chris Gibson for being the workhorse of that team, guy was always guarding the other team's best player.

My coaching performance:

Overall, I was pretty happy with it. I had a couple of players tell me that I seemed to grow into the role more at this tournament than at any other. I feel like in a couple of our wins I suggested some strategic adjustments that contributed to our success in those games.

One interesting idea that I came away from the games with was the unique way in which the overall amount of time on the field associated with ultimate affects coaching performance. As a player, the way that muscle fatigue over the length of a day, then the length of the weekend affects your ability to sprint, cut, and throw is pretty obvious.

What became clearer to me this weekend is the toll that playing 2 games a day for 3 days takes on your mind and on your voice. As a more vocal coach, I was unable to speak above a squeak on Sunday. More importantly, following an emotional and high-adrenaline win over Oregon on Saturday, I had trouble staying zeroed in on what was going on against Cornell later that day. As players, we tend to eat well, drink, stay in the shade, etc. to keep our bodies prepared for more exertion. I'm curious whether there are good ways to fight mental fatigue over the course of the tournament (this is of course relevant to both coaches and players.

The tournament itself:

The layout, schedule, format, facilities, and amenities were top-notch this year. I was impressed with how observers handled games, Player packs were actually full of stuff people wanted, which I'm sad I can't say is true of my only opportunity to attending natties as a player last year. I thought this year's nationals represented an awesome step forward for the sport and that Madison, which is full of ultimate enthusiasts who were fantastic as volunteers all weekend, was a great venue. I think future championship sites based in ultimate 'hubs' (ATL, Pacific Northwest, Minneapolis, Boston) would be wise choices.

Coaching certification:

Travis and I attended the required clinic for coaches who wanted sideline access during semi-finals (a credential we wouldn't end up needing, sadly). Overall, I thought that the most useful aspect of the meeting was an opportunity to get to know the other coaches that were at nationals and to learn a bit from the ones with more experience. We were generally in agreement on most subjects and I think having met some of the other coaches sets a good precedent for cordial interactions when teams meet in tournaments.

The material we covered wasn't all that interesting, mostly common sense stuff. I understand the necessity from a liability perspective, but I wasn't floored by the amount of depth that the USUA (still weird) was able to present in a shortened session.

What bothered me most about the presentation of the coaching clinic was the guy responsible for presenting and what appeared to be a "one-size-fits-all" approach to coaching. What we were presented with was clearly geared toward high school coaches and I don't believe our presenter had ever actually coached any level but high school. The presenter had this obsession with the "soccer parents of the future," an assumed demographic of moms and dads who are hyper-controlling and obsessed with their kids' well-being, even after they have left the nest and started up with college ultimate. I have yet to see one of these parents in an ultimate program I have been associated with. Moreover, I haven't seen many infringe on college activities generally.

To me, there are some obvious differences between age groups in question including, but not limited to: a) athletic ability, b) competitiveness, c) capacity for rational thought. What resulted was a program that was less geared toward players on clubs that have a lot more autonomy. The bulk of responsibility for both Georgia and Minnesota fell on the captains. I'm not totally sure that the University of Georgia's administrative folks even had an awareness that Trav and I were involved with the team, aside from spillover from when Trav dealt with them as a player/captain. I think presenting as though we have some kind of liability/responsibility related to the University proper is a bit silly, honestly.

On a related note, the whole thing was presented in terms of some kind of idealized world, what I assume to be the USUA's vision of the future. This vision projects a lot more control onto coaches than we are actually shouldered with. The requirements of coaches under this rubric such as full attendance at every practice and tournament and responsibility for good facilities were better suited to paid employees of university sponsored athletic teams. As of right now, we are volunteers (consultants really), whose role on the team is subject to decisions made by captains and officers of sports clubs that are on the periphery of a school's interest. In my opinion, it would be a lot more helpful for the USUA to provide coaches useful information based on the realities of ultimate (i.e. where we should hope to b with regard to responsibilities/administrative stuff/shaping our teams' behaviors) today than to prepare them for what they believe the future might look like (this isn't to say that investment in training ideas for this future is necessarily a bad thing...)

The UPA's new "brand"

I can see the appeal of the name/image change, but I think there are more than a few problems. Some of these are unfounded fears and opinions about what we might lose by abandoning the upa. One of my favorite aspects of the old organization was how much they talked about it being a "grassroots" organization. Admittedly, this cliche is pretty devoid of meaning, but in reading about the USUA, I haven't heard any of the old democratic rhetoric being thrown around. Of course, I didn't seen a ton of anyone's suggestions taken up visibly by the upa, but I least there was some indication that the intention was there. Second, and this one's a little more silly, I'm not sure if the creating a United States Ultimate Association will mean that Canada can't play with us any more. It just seems like they've got such a strong base of interest in the game (Canadians seem to love weird sports) and their teams have provided a lot of history to our competitive Series. Who knows if these changes will actually happen, but it all seems like reasonable speculation at this point.

Probably my biggest concrete concern with these new developments is the hiring of the new "CEO of ultimate" (his words, not mine), Tom Crawford. Of course, the discursive suggestion associated with that self-given title should raise some eyebrows, given that he also told us he doesn't know much about our sport. Given his admitted lack of knowledge of the game, I wish he'd be more up front with the fact that he's more in charge of changing the public image ultimate than ultimate itself. I wouldn't want anyone with such an obvious expertise deficit to presume that he has a role to play in changing the essential mechanics of how we play, but it seems like that could be a possibility.

I saw the new CEO a couple of times over the course of the weekend. What struck me the most was his interest in telling people about the 10's of 1000's of coaches he's worked with, rather than taking an interest in our community. Despite his 'deep interest' in coaching development, he left the clinic before the coaches started talking about their concerns, leaving little chance that we could glean much useful knowledge from his experiences with the olympic committee, nfl, mlb, nasa and whoever else he's worked with. He seemed to spend a lot of time driving around in a golf cart and not much time watching the game. During finals, he tossed out hats with his new brand on them rather than actually watching Florida win the thing.

Suffice it to say, I wasn't really impressed with the UPA's choice of a fresh take on leadership.

Finals:

Really the worst ultimate I saw all weekend, with bad calls on both ends. Of course, this is a shame given the amount of talent on both teams. Chippy calls, long delays, and some less than sportsmanlike conduct made a lot of the vocal displeasure coming out of the crowd reasonable. I had watched both teams all weekend and they were playing with less unreasonable calls and unnecessary physicality in every other game. The problem of lesser sportsmanship in games of greater importance in ultimate remains one of the toughest things for me about the game.

I've been on teams with rivalries with both of these teams, so it was weird to be rooting for Carleton. I've never had much respect for the style of modern Florida ultimate and this year was much the same. Their calls and physicality really bothered me less than what I perceived to be their disinterest in the game. Brodie and a few other key players never seemed to put their full effort into working for the win (note that this is totally different than making the game seem effortless) and to me this connotes a general disrespect for opponents as well as the sport. Couple this with (limited) media exposure from CBS College Sports and I think their win was not great for the game.

From a spectating perspective, despite being able to relate to their feelings about the outcome of the game, I thought that the crowd booing Florida after their win was totally bush league. For everyone who is unfamiliar with ultimate, it makes the players who make up the majority of live audience seem like petty folks and sore losers. I honestly would have preferred crickets.

The big finish:

I don't think I'll post much more on this blog. Honestly, I meant to write more over the course of the season. If I get time, I may do a few small things on some stuff that occurred to me while we prepped for natties, but we'll see.

Thanks for reading. Good luck in club.

CUT vs. Florida

2010-05-31T18:03:00.003-04:00

First, congratulations to Florida. I went into watching this game the same way that I went into the 2006 Final against Wisconsin. I felt like there was no way that Kurt, Tim and company could stop an army of solid ultimate players. Again, I was wrong.

I feel like I should give a nod to Florida's strategy. Say what you will about their tactics, fouls and calls, they have reminded us all that a 3 man show can still win high level games (at least in college). They run very shallow and their big three are just hard to stop. They continually got the hucks they wanted to offenders that were (50% of the time) behind all of the defense.

Which leads me to the reason I wanted to post this here. From a coaching standpoint, I felt that I understood Florida's game plan, and was confused by CUTs. Florida slowed down the game with calls and TOs, relied on their athletic prowess to get Ds and avoided having long points. All smart with their team. Carelton moved the disc quickly, reversing the field well and forced backhand most of the game.

I was hoping someone could explain why Carelton continued to force backhand trough the end of the game. I think I understand it as an initial strategy: backhand hucks take longer to develop, Brodie has a monster flick, maybe the wind was a factor? But after watching the way that Cole and Brodie work with the disc it seemed like a losing battle.

Both Brodie and Cole would throw and try to get the disc back immediately. That's much easier to do off of backhand, where you are basically taking your first step, than off of a flick. That can easily be stopped by having your mark get the first step and stop the flow continuation, but Brodie and Cole made that difficult. Not only are they long pivots, but they continually squared their shoulders to the middle of the field. This forced the mark to shift over (more parallel to the sideline), or allow quick flick resets. Not to mention the added pressure this put on the CUT reset defenders who, despite getting some decent covers and a turn were often out of position to stop the down the line cut.

So, my question to all of you coaches out there. Is there something that I am missing behind CUT's strategy? I can understand starting backhand, but it seemed like CUT never adjusted to the way Florida was playing it. Someone please show me what I am missing?

The UPA Unofficial Ombudsman

2010-05-16T14:19:00.001-04:00

I'm starting a new recurring "feature" where I talk about timely UPA issues and give my opinion and, where appropriate, offer suggestions. I know there will be some that say "Oh that Kyle Weisbrod, he IS the UPA." Yeah, I spent 4 1/2 years employed there and another 3 years on the Board. I still occasionally contribute to the magazine. But I work with the UPA because I care about the sport of Ultimate and felt the UPA was (and still believe it is) the best way for players to effect change in the sport. There are plenty of times when I've been frustrated by the UPA - both Board and Staff decisions and policies. There are also times when I've been proud of the UPA and what they are doing for the sport.

I also still have plenty of connections to the UPA - people on both board and staff, so hopefully I can actually get some of the inside reasoning behind some of the UPA's less popular decisions and give my subjective opinion on it.

So, here goes. The Ombudsman is open for business. What do you want me to opine on?

Summing up AC Regionals

2010-05-10T13:03:00.004-04:00

I've been meaning to put some other thoughts up about team/coaching preparation for crucial tournaments, especially the series, but they're all still kind of half-baked. Hopefully, they'll be good fodder for later.

As for now, the fact that Jojah barely gritted out a qualifying spot at nationals seems more relevant.

A couple of observations:

-I think in Ultimate generally, but especially college, mental state has as much to do with a team's success as talent. I think it had something to do with Florida's failing to qualify last year, and we definitely had problems with it at Minnesota (as a team we were always terrified to play CUT and the Hodags when it mattered). This weekend, Florida was ready to play and play well, whupping us and everyone else they ran up against. Minnesota also seemed to get the monkey off its back with a couple of wins against Wisconsin and a close game with Carleton (this after losing to Carleton GOP at sectionals).

We brought the fire at weird times this weekend and in the end it came during our most critical points. Our game-to-go never got out of hand and the guys rallied admirably when we were down unexpectedly in an elimination game. While a couple of timeouts where Travis and I spoke (I usually yelled) about waking up generated a point or two of intensity, this usually fizzled pretty quickly. It was ultimately up to them to decide how bad they wanted it. This weekend, they wanted it just enough.

-My AC all-region based on what I've seen in the regular season and at regionals:

Rusty Ingold-Smith (UNCW)
Tyler Conger (UVA)
Nick Lance (GA Tech)
Brodie Smith (UF)
Chris Mullinix (UT)
Taylor "Tree" Goforth (Kennesaw)
Peter Dempsey (UGA)

FOTY: Fletcher Hartline (UGA). Clearly I'm biased by the fact that I coach him and by the fact that nobody from other teams has really mentioned their freshmen to me. Still, I'm confident that Fletcher played more crucial D points for us than any other frosh in the region. On the field, it's impossible to distinguish him from our best deeps.

-If I were to seed Nationals without much understanding of the rules beyond that you can't seed lower regionals finishers ahead at nationals:

1/ Oregon
2/ Carleton
3/ Colorado
4/ Florida
5/ Minnesota
6/ Wisconsin
7/ Cornell
8/ Cal
9/ Pitt
10/ Harvard
11/ UNCW
12/ Georgia
13/ Illinois
14/ Middlebury
15/ Michigan
16/ UCSB
17/ UCSD
18/ Tx State
19/ Iowa
20/ Kansas

I'm sure that some of the results I haven't looked over say different, but this is just where I would put them if I had to seed subjectively.

-Finally, damn it's exciting to get to coach for 3 more weeks.

Paideia Cup Finals

2010-04-19T20:09:00.004-04:00

This past Sunday we (Paideia Men's Varisty) played Amherst in the finals of the Paideia Cup. We had played them on the last game of Saturday, losing 4-15. It was a solid drubbing where we failed to successfully deal with their 1-3-3. After a tough start to a semi-final against Columbia, we rallied in the 2nd half to win decisively (13-9). We had good momentum, and although a little banged up we felt prepared to face Amherst again.

The lone bright point from the previous day was that we knew we could play solid defense against them and get some blocks. We we're hoping to get a few of those breaks and stay in it this time. The game felt completely different than the one the previous day. We stopped their 1-3-3 and forced them to go man. We certainly made them work on offense. But, while we got a few blocks, we only mustered one break and lost 15-7.

This was my first time coaching against Amherst. What surprised me (although according to Mike this is normal) is that in a final that they had won handily they played only 9 deep. Don't get me wrong, I am no stranger to riding your horses when the time is right, and maybe it was out of respect for our team, but subbing only 9 deep felt strange. They didn't play as many points on the weekend as we did, so maybe that factored in, but Tiina told me (and I completely believe it) that her boys could run a few more like that if they had to. While our boys ran their legs off and did a great job against 5A athletes, I could see the struggle on their faces at the end of each point.

As Amherst went tight with their rotation we were "forced" to do the same. Only they have stronger horses and ours were destined to get tired in an ever losing battle. I don't normally call subs, but the times that I have my goal has been to use my bench to fill in space (on D) and run my best players hard in key moments to get breaks. Instead we ran just as tight, scored a few when things worked well, gave up breaks when they didn't, and aside from some spectacular single plays could never get those breaks back. I feel like I could have tried to sacrifice our defensive points with weaker lines in hopes of being more consistent on offense, but I don't know if it would have mattered much

Hats off to Amherst for a great tournament. I wont be there, but I will be incredibly impressed if any team can beat them at Easterns this year. If they win it will make 2 years in a row that Paideia has lost to an eventual "National" champion in the finals of our own tourney. If only we could find a way to play ourselves in the final.

'Teachable Moments'

2010-04-14T12:22:00.005-04:00

This is a question/thought that has been brewing since before I got permission to post. I'm pretty sure it's been addressed before, but I think giving a specific scenario will clarify things. At present, I'm working with a team whose talent distribution is clustered at the top and the bottom tails. We've had a TON of development, so this question is unlikely to come up much as the series draws nearer. Still, it's worth discussing.

Earlier in the season, we brought a raw set of rookies to their first spring tournament. As to be expected, when they got out there, they looked like puppies in roller-skates on a linoleum floor. Between games, one of our rawest rookies was throwing with an older teammate, and the vet was really loading him up with tips. Everything from how to dictate on defense to cutting break on the endzone line to where to put his knee in order to throw an IO break.

For me, it was too much. I asked the vet to lay off him, expressing that I'd given the rookie 2 things to work on all tournament and we'd get to other stuff in the future. We had an argument about how to teach rookies, and I played the "I'm the coach do it" trump card, game over.

The questions here are:

What is the best way to go about teaching a rookie who has little to no experience playing Ultimate the whole of the game over the course of a season? What times are best to offer advice?

The veteran in my story seemed to be employing a sort of inundation method for teaching the kid. Tell him everything he might ever need to know all at once and then hope that the stuff that doesn't stick immediately remains tucked away, set to emerge once the player finds him/herself in the appropriate situation. This kind of teaching might also involve telling a player ten things he or she did wrong after any given point. I guess doing this also means a coach/mentor rarely has to worry about forgetting what s/he wanted to tell the player at any given moment.

For me, early tournaments are an opportunity to for young players to play the game without necessarily having someone hold their hand. This year, I tried to give rookies two or three things to think about over the course of the tournament (lanes to cut into, look upfield then dump at 6, etc) and then remind them about those things, point to point. I think a lot of what new players need to learn are (relatively) intuitive, they'll learn them as they watch good players do them or as their fellow new players do them wrong. Additionally, overthinking every little aspect of the game and then being nagged about what you've done wrong makes the game less fun, jeopardizing player retention.

At practice, however, the training wheels are on. I'll comment on pretty much everything I see them doing wrong and I'll make a point of reminding them about it if I see it again or praising them for changing their habits. Still, I try not to ever give more than one criticism at a time as I feel like a player acknowledging one fault and applying themselves to changing it is preferable to them forgetting two.

Additional paths to player improvement?

The Paideia Phenomenon

2010-04-10T11:20:00.003-04:00

In a comment from a previous blog post "Mike" wrote "How did you (or your team more specifically) build up the ultimate culture to get where it is now at Padeia?"

It's a tough question to answer because I think there is a large confluence of factors - some of them controllable but many that happened by chance or circumstance. I'm guessing that's true for the other great Ultimate programs - Amherst, Northwest School, Hopkins, to name a few. I'll try to break down what I think are the main factors and other folks familiar with the program can add anything in the comments that they want. I'd also encourage those familiar with other top HS programs to chime in on how they became successful.

To begin with, it really is a strange phenomenon. Paideia, a school with under 400 students in the HS, has regularly been one of the top HS Ultimate teams. More impressively, the alums have consistently performed at the top level of College and Club Ultimate, winning championships and awards. Several alums have been named to the US World Games team including Dylan Tunnel ('02), Jolian Dahl ('03), Adam Simon ('01), and Miranda Roth ('00). The team started in spring of 1993 and has been at or near the top of HS Ultimate since 1996.

So, on to the factors, I'll try to go by timeline:

Paideia
It would be impossible to explain how Ultimate grew at Paideia without talking a little about Paideia. Paideia is a small, private school founded by parents in 1971. It grew out of the same roots that the sport of Ultimate did: Informal, skeptical of tradition and authority, based in mutual respect. At Paideia, kids call their teachers by their first name. Few classrooms have desks in them. Students are given a good deal of latitude in terms of their class choices, dress, and behavior. It isn't uncommon to see barefoot students or a student wandering around the classroom while the teacher is lecturing (I'm looking at you, Will Arnold).

The school is supportive of student endeavors and it is easy to start new clubs and get official school sanctioning for them. While in HS, Moses Rifkin started a "Simpsons" Club (for watching the Simpsons) while a couple of us started a group called "Comemos Montanas" ("we eat mountains" a group dedicated to gluttony). While I worked at the UPA I heard from a lot of students and parents who had faced apathy, skepticism, or even serious pushback from their schools when trying to start an Ultimate team. I faced a great deal of apathy from the school I coached in Colorado. At Paideia there are no such issues. In fact, many of the players on the team are children of teachers at the school.

Also important to note, Paideia has no football team. I think this is both representative of the culture but also a serious advantage. When the Ultimate team started, soccer was in the fall at Paideia and so the only other spring team sport was baseball. If you liked to run, Ultimate was your sport.

Alexis Revilock-Frost
The player that probably had the biggest impact on the program is one most outsiders have probably heard nothing about. Alexis was Paideia's first stand-out player and he set the bar in terms of talent. He was 5'6" and incredibly quick and explosive. At the very first practice I attended in fall of 1993, Alexis, a sophomore, had a lay-out greatest. Imagine that? Moses Rifkin, Josh Markette and I had just joined the team and we thought that was the type of thing that was normal and expected. He was also relentless - always moving and running and working hard. But beyond his talent, Alexis set the stage for the culture of the team. Quick-witted, smart, fun, and positive, he had a personality that drew people in. Because he was a dominant player and we looked to him as our leader, those personality traits pervaded the team.

Atlanta Summer League/Ultimate Community
All of the most serious Ultimate players began playing in Atlanta's summer league early on and got a great deal out of it. The community loved the Paideia kids, we split up and played on a bunch of different teams and we were treated like the community's little brothers and sisters. The community was competitive but fun and very close knit and I think it made all of us even more committed to the sport. It's different now - the summer league is much larger, there are a lot more HS players, and the Paideia kids typically put together their own team. Players who play in the summer league can still get a lot out of it, but I don't think they get the same feeling of being "special" because they are the kids.

The US Juniors Team
In the summer of 1994, three players from the team Roxanne Reighard, Alexis, and myself played on the US Juniors Team. We competed in Colchester, England and finished 2nd to Sweden. That year all 20 people who applied for the team made it. While there may have been a lack of rigorous standards for making the team, it had a huge impact on the team back at Paideia. It exposed us to other HS players playing around the country (including Fortunat and Mattias at Scarsdale, Marlowe at Amherst HS, and Ben Worthen and Sam Rosenthal at Newton North) and made everyone realize how far we could go with the sport. We saw NYNY play toward the end of their dynasty and were inspired. And the attitude of worlds - the level of fun, competition, and respect resonated with us and reinforced our passion for the game. For those that didn't go, they realized that this was something to aspire to. I believe Paideia has put at least 2 players on every US Juniors/U-20 team since then including 4 girls and 3 boys on this years' teams.

Michael Baccarini
It's hard to put in to words the impact Michael has had. The first thing to note is that Michael wasn't Paideia's original coach. Jamie Epstein and Fred Peruvier were the initial coaches in spring of 1993. Jamie coached the team in 1993-1994. Michael began coaching the team in fall of 1994. Before he began coaching he worked in Paideia's after school program and began throwing with Josh Markette and Jason Simpson. Michael has a true coach's mind for the game. He is great at breaking down fundamentals and giving feedback. I guess, even before that, he is one of the best at identifying fundamentals, something that was generally missing from the sport through most of the 90's.

But beyond his skills as a coach, Michael has brought two other big attributes. Michael is a great storyteller. He has a keen memory for events and can take players that have graduated and make them heroes. He can make plays that you haven't seen (and even some that you have seen) legendary. Most of his stories involve a dramatic piece of flying, as if the player briefly defied the laws of gravity to make an incredible play. This sets players expectations for themselves high and makes them want to be in one of Michael's stories. (Unfortunately, Michael's favorite story to tell about me is a cautionary tale about me "losing my psyche").

The other huge factor that Michael brings is that he is the PE teacher at Paideia. Remember that Paideia is K-12, so Michael is teaching kids long before HS. He can get discs in their hand at an early age and get good athletes interested in the sport. I'll leave it to your imagination what that means.

Moses Rifkin and the 1996 Amherst Invite
Moses was a remarkably mature HS kid. Moses took it upon himself in the spring of 1996 to call up Tiina Booth and tell her that we were interested in playing at the Amherst Invite. We didn't really know what we were getting ourselves in to or what to expect. Michael didn't even have a credit card. I have no idea how we got up there, but Moses made it happen. It was our first HS tournament and we expected to get crushed. Instead, we (a very scrappy co-ed team of 12 players) found ourselves in an intense game with Amherst (a varsity team of great athletes - all boys) in the semifinals. We lost 14-11 but it fanned the flames and that game and tournament was a watershed moment for the team. We finished 3rd and won the spirit award (we were exceedingly proud of both) Alexis graduated a few weeks later but that event made it clear that the team would continue long after him.

Parents
Early on in the Ultimate program, the parents of the Ultimate players recognized that this was something that their kids loved to do. Several of the parents got involved with Paideia's Sports Booster club. I remember many nights where my dad, Jason's Mom, Harper Alexander's parents and others would sell beer at the Georgia Dome for sporting events or concerts to raise money for the sports booster program. Once they'd established some clout they were able to make a case for the Ultimate team to get greater recognition, status, and access to resources. In 1999 Paideia gave the Ultimate team varsity status.

Brown
Ok, this is probably a Kyle-centric view of history. If so, I apologize. Several of the early Ultimate grads (Moses, Pauline, Harper, and me) ended up at Brown during the late 90's. At that point, Brown was at the top of the college sport. In addition, Brown was being directly influenced by DoG who was at the end of their championship run and the thought leaders in the sport for most of the 90's. We took ideas and concepts directly back to Michael and he incorporated them in what he taught the HS team.

Tony Carter ('00) and Miranda Roth ('00)
Another Paideia Ultimate alum you certainly haven't heard of is Tony Carter. The team had had other varsity athletes, some that excelled at those sports, but Tony was a bonafide opinion driver in the high school. A varsity basketball player who was universally well-liked, Tony started playing Ultimate his senior year. Younger athletes saw Tony make the jump to Ultimate and realized that is was a legitimate sport.

You've probably heard of Miranda. Miranda began playing Ultimate in the summer after her Sophomore year I believe. Girls soccer was a spring sport and Miranda was a captain of the Girls soccer team starting her sophomore year. Her senior year, Miranda quit the soccer team for the Ultimate team.

I would say that 2000 was another watershed moment for the program (along with 1996) - it was when the team evolved into full-fledged legitimacy because we got legitimate athletes. This year ('10) the Paideia girls have 7 players that are also on the girls basketball team (which finished 2nd in their division in the state).

End?
I feel like that's a pretty solid synopsis of how Paideia got the way it is. I'd say you can get a pretty good feel from this how players like Rebbecca Simon ('01), Paul Vandenberg ('01), Adam Simon ('01), Dylan Tunnel ('02), Jolian Dahl ('03), Nate Segal ('03), Brad Cochi ('04), Eldon Creer ('04), Mike Vandenberg ('05), Leila Tunnel ('06), Maisie Richards ('06), George Stubbs ('07), Grant Lindsley ('07), Ollie Honderd ('07), Michael and John Terry ('08), Alisha Kramer ('08), Paula Seville ('08), Joe Reidel ('09), Julia Fuster ('09), Chris Kocher ('10), Sophie Darch ('10), Lane Seidor ('10), India Stubbs ('11), and Jericho Barbour ('11). I think that's all of the Paideia players named to the US Juniors team in the 00's.

At some level this is definitely a little self-indulgent. But hopefully this is also helpful to those of you out there hoping to create a successful Ultimate culture at your school.

On Carts and Horses

2010-04-01T14:01:00.004-04:00

During my rookie season at UMN, I saw a teammate throw a high-release flick, the first I had ever witnessed. Being the young, bright-eyed frisbee enthusiast I was, my I was soaked in admiration. Naturally, I asked said teammate to show me how he did it.

He laughed at me and said something smug about how I probably shouldn't add another bad throw to the ugly set I already had. I was insulted and dejected and I gave up on the throw at the time. The guy in question was arguably our best offensive handler that year, a presently dying breed of frail, slow and huck-less, but with incredible finesse on both sides. I really wanted his skillset. Ultimately, he didn't really teach me much that season, but that memory has stuck with me.

Now, I find myself playing the opposite role in that situation pretty frequently, both as a coach and as a more veteran player. Lots of times, I'll catch guys with atrocious forehands or backhands trying to summon a big hammer, a thumber, a scoober, or any number of other "special" throws while we're warming up or at throwing practice. I'm pretty inconsistent about how I respond. For some guys, I react pretty much in the way that the condescending handler did in my story. Sometimes I comment on the inadequacy of their other throws, sometimes I don't. For other guys, I'll give them tips about how to throw that "special" throw better.

Jim Parinella has a decent discussion of "junk throws" and whether or not they should be used here. What I'm interested in discussing here, though, is when and whether they should be taught.

To return to the personal anecdote: The following year, my flick was coming along nicely, my backhand had plateaued at mediocre. So I started throwing some hammers, taking a ton of advice from Charlie. Needless to say, I very quickly developed an addiction that haunts me to this day. From the push pass to the behind-the-backhand, I love 'em all. For me, having a very good scoober and a variety of release points and speeds on my backhand is a necessary thing. While my flick is excellent, my step out mid-to-low release ~20 yard backhand just stopped getting better, despite hours and hours of drilling and asking for help. Hence, I compensate for it by throwing weird, but 95% completed stuff.

So,"special throws" have become a very important supplement to my game. For others? Hard to say. Thus far, my opinion is as follows regarding how I approach my players who are experimenting with drugs...I mean unconventional throws:

-Special throws are vaguely tiered, with some (Hammers, scoobers, high-release backhand) sitting at generally nice to have but dumb to use all the time, others that are cool to know how to use but do you really have to? (lefty, push-pass, thumber) and finally absolutelynotImeanNO (corker chicken wing and friends). I encourage a healthy knowledge of upside-down throws SO LONG AS...

-The player can consistently complete a forehand or a backhand to a moving target 15 yards away. This is usually assumed at higher levels of Ultimate, but sometimes that kid was REALLY fast at tryouts.

-Finally, if I feel like there's a lot of room for growth in the basic throws, I'm more likely to encourage experimentation with angle, io/oi, and release point than I am to teach the finer points of the blade.

Still, I lean more toward teaching kids how to throw weird stuff better than chastising them for doing it at all. The jury's still out, though.

Thoughts?

A quick introduction

2010-03-31T09:37:00.007-04:00

So, my name is Kevin and I suppose I'm the latest addition to the blogging/coaching consortium that posts here at ultifris. Although it's likely to read poorly (see that first sentence), I thought I'd do this just to make it clear who I am and why I asked aj to start posting on the blog (many thanks to him for so graciously allowing me to do so).

About me:

I played four years of college frisbee at the University of Minnesota, which was a really unique experience where I got to see a team improve dramatically over the course of 4 seasons, starting as a High Tide attendance-type team and ending as a consistent top-20 team. It was also fun to take 3rd in a 2 bid region 4 years in a row. Last year, I had the privilege to play for Jojah during my first year of grad school at UGA. Finally got that national appearance under my belt, enjoyed playing with a team that thrived so much on camaraderie.

This year, suffering from massive college ultimate withdrawal, I asked to help coach the team. Initially, my role was a once a week throwing coach for a class of unusually uncoordinated rookies. I planned on attending half the tournaments and focusing heavily on school, but instead got promoted a week after Classic City Classic to co-coaching the team with Travis Smith, another guy fresh off his fifth year. Our age by itself has been a bit of a challenge, alongside all of the other stuff you'd expect to be rough about a first 'big time' coaching gig.

Why I'm writing:

I think like a lot of folks who write any kind of blog, it's because I have a bunch of unresolved questions about the game that I'd like to get down on paper (not paper). My college frisbee experience was awesome in that I got to play under three coaches who I believe to be among the best in the biz and who all go about coaching in dramatically different ways. At UMN, Charlie Reznikoff was a super-intense, passionate guy who could basically put the fire in an unmotivated team using his own will to win. He's also a patient teacher and a very smart guy. Our assistant, CY, had his own quiet intensity, but came off as a bit more cerebral and reserved. With Jojah I got to play under aj. He was more "hands-off" with us and seemed to focus most on the strategic side of coaching. Simply put, I believe that he has best mind for the game that I've ever come into contact with. I think that playing under these guys, along with my own idiosyncrasies has left me with a perspective about Ultimate that I'm still trying to refine. I'm hoping blogging will help some with that.

The second reason is less pressing. I feel like writing about Ultimate has sort of lagged for folks about my age. Aside from Muffin's limitless wisdom and folks like Mackey, who writes really well about the minutiae of the game, writing about how to play ultimate by up and coming players is pretty sparse.

Beyond the mid-20s void, there also isn't very much written about the pedagogical aspects of coaching frisbee. I've liked Hector's recent work, but you'll notice that there's only 2 posts tagged "coaching." AJ doesn't write any more. Kyle Weisbrod writes some about high school coaching, as does Luke, which is handy. The Huddle seems generally based around playing.

In short, coaching Ultimate as its an independent pursuit is an activity that's in its infancy, with the explosion of coaches at the college level coming within the last 5 years or so (yes?). I think that the more publicly accessible writing there is about how different people go about it, the better. If I missed anyone else who's writing, please comment. It'd be great to know more places to go and learn.

So...less quick than I'd hoped. I'll likely post something more substantive tomorrow, it just felt weird to launch into it all of the sudden.

Week 1 in the Books

2010-02-06T13:38:00.007-05:00

The Padeia Girls began the 2010 season this week. Here was the schedule:

Monday - 3:45-5:45
Tuesday - 3:45-5:45
Wednesday - 3:45-5:45
Thursday - 3:45-5:45

Monday

Monday we had 10 girls out. 8 are still in the basketball season (4 JV, who we get back in week 3, and 4 on Varsity, who could be out until mid-march depending on how well the team does in the state tournament. They are highly ranked in AA and could make the finals). We had three that weren't there due to other reasons.

The first practice is always about teaching practice protocol. I like to have them run and stretch (led by captains) and then immediately break in to a drill. The drill should get someone a lot of touches and get them sweating. I usually start with the pendulum drill and then once we have some better skills move to the three-person marking drill. So, before warming up I taught them the drill. It's also important to set the tone of minimizing downtime between drills/talking etc. so that we can make the most of our time.

Once we warmed up we focused on the most important skill in Ultimate: Catching. I maintain that you can excel at Ultimate even without good throws. And in most situations you can't throw until you've caught the disc. We did a few drills to focus on catching with two hands, keeping your eye on the disc, and attacking it. We did some work on going deep as well. While we didn't spend much time on cutting or angles of attack all of the drills were set-up to encourage the right habits in these areas (sharp cuts, cutting off outside food, 45 degree angles). We finished with some 3v3 - which I love early in the season, not just because I don't have a lot of players out yet but because everybody gets a lot of touches and you don't have to touch on strategy at all.

Tuesday

As will happen frequently in February in March we were rained out. So we had a team meeting. I've got 5 or 6 team discussion topics up my sleeve for this type of occurrence. This time we talked about team goals. I started by having each of them say why they were playing Ultimate and I wrote the answers up on the white board. There were a lot of them that ranged from working hard to being challenged to being a part of a team with great dynamics to winning.

From there we tried to identify a tangible "goal" that we could use to symbolize as many of the reasons for playing as possible. We came up with "Win Paideia Cup and win whatever our end of season event is." (We don't currently have an end of year event finalized as we aren't able to compete at Amherst Invite or HS Easterns due to scheduling conflicts). The goal is in this first picture in green on the bottom right. The idea is that we need to achieve many of the "reasons" in order to achieve the goal and the goal will keep us directed.

From there we moved in to a discussion to start laying out "what we would need" in order to achieve our goal. This was a sort of tree structured brainstorming of skills and sub-skills, both team and individual, physical and mental that we would need to win Paideia Cup and win the end of season event. This conversation was a little more dominated by the returning players on the team who had been through this a couple times before and knew what we needed to do.

For example, under "Cutting" we have the sub-skills: spacing, timing, reset cutting, downfield cutting, and acceleration. This was only the beginning of this list and I plan to work with the captains on the next rained out practice to work go in to more detail. The point of this exercise is to:
a. To help the team "buy-in" to what we are doing at practice and give them a reason to learn what's being taught and work hard/push through challenges
b. Help guide the captains and I on what we need to cover over the course of the season.

From here I'll be sitting down and breaking down sub-goals and week-by-week schedule of what I'm teaching.

One interesting discussion developed in the middle of the "what we need" discussion. The players suggested that we would need to know the H-stack and/or the vertical stack. I said, let's hold off on that because I was interested in working on a new offense. I didn't want to flesh out man-O strategy beyond "Spacing" and "Timing" at this point. One of my senior captains asked, "what if this new strategy gets in the way of us achieving our goal?" I loved this question. It gets to the heart of why this process is important. It was her telling me that "the team has goals and everything we do should fit in to those goals." I told her that whatever we end up doing with our offense it will have the same fundamental concepts (after all "spacing" and "timing" are parts of Horizontal and Vertical) and we can reevaluate as get further in to it if we need to scrap the new offense. I also said that we've learned a lot of new things over the past two years (horizontal offense, two handler zone o, clam, trap-zone, etc.) and achieved our goals. But it is an important reminder to me that I can't let my desire to try something new trump what the players want out of their season.

Wednesday

We were back out on the fields on Wednesday. We had 10 again and we spent the whole of practice working on throwing. We broke down the backhand and the forehand from grip, through all of the mechanics (wrist, arm, shoulders, torso, hips) and practiced at each level by isolating areas and slowly adding them. We did: throwing while sitting, kneeling, standing but not pivoting, and then pivoting. There was noticeable improvement in almost all of the players throws (including some of the more experienced throwers). We finished with a quick three holes of disc golf.

Thursday

Rained out again. I was hoping to get to the school to do some individual goal setting but I was slammed at work and at 3:20 when one of my captains called I told her to just let everyone leave. I ended up being at work until 8:30. I'm sure we'll get plenty more rainy days. But I've got to remind them to bring running shoes just in case we get rained out and we want to do a work out instead of talk.

So, week one is in the books. Week two we're going to spend some more time on throwing. Start getting some marking and pivoting and faking in. If we don't get rained out I hope to start focusing on cutting by the end of the week.

On the eve of the 2010 spring season...

2010-01-31T14:13:00.003-05:00

Tomorrow starts another year of Paideia Ultimate. It marks the beginning of the 18th year of Ultimate at Paideia. I believe this is the 9th year that the school has had a girls team. It is my seventh season coaching HS Ultimate. My fourth coaching at Paideia. And my third coaching the Paideia Girls.

This year will be a very different year than last year. In 2009, we had a very strong returning group and only a small number of new players. We graduated eight players last year, all of them knowledgeable and contributing members of the team.

This year we only have four players who have played for more than one season. We've got a handful of second year players and a large number of first year players.

The four players with experience, however, are very experienced. Two of them (both seniors) have played with Ozone (one for one season and one for two). The other two (a senior and a junior) played with Rival last season.

There will be a much higher level of focus on fundamentals this season - particularly throwing. The team will be expected to work on throwing outside of practice - and all of this work will need to be outside of their comfort zone - extending the distance on their throws and extending the release points away from their body. It is easy to casually throw in your comfort zone, not subject yourself to mistakes, complete the throws that you know you can make. But your progress will be much slower. We'll spend more time doing throwing "clinics" at practice and I'll be expecting my four most experienced players to contribute a great deal to teaching to allow for more personalized feedback.

We will be jumping into a high level of competition at practice very early on. One area where the team has been very successful in recent years has been their mental game. They consistently bring game/tournament like attitude to practice. With such a new team it will be critical to instill that culture early on. We will break drills in to multiple groups and have them compete. We will set goals for scrimmage teams that align with skills we are building (marks broken, # of players that throw scores for goals, extra points for goals from over a certain distance) and keep stats to meet those goals. Most of these stats will be offensively focused at the beginning of the season since possession is the most critical part of the game at this level (how valuable is a d, if there are 14 turnovers in a point?). As we gain offensive consistency we will start working on the defensive side of the game at a higher level and adding those to the scrimmages. I will work to split teams for scrimmages in ways that aren't equal so that players don't expect that games/match-ups should be even. I want them to understand how to focus on their own game regardless of whether they are winning by a lot or losing by a lot (because I'm sure we'll be in both of these positions a lot this season and it will be important for us to continue to improve regardless of how much better/worse we are then our opponents).

Along with this, I will be working with the captains early on to instill a culture of positivity. We will recognize small gains in improvement of newer players. There will be a ban on communication which is divisive and fosters negativity (sarcasm, put-downs - even joking ones, side comments about people, complaining). We'll work to identify and promote language that is constructive and positive (e.g. change "We can't keep turning the disc over" to "We're going to improve possession of the disc.")

Teaching strategy will be very limited the first few weeks. Where there is strategy discussion it will be about the space that we are looking to create and move the disc to. I'll let the players explore those ideas for a while before creating further definition around specific movement.

Our first tournament is scheduled for March 6-7th. If by then we 70-80% of the players with basic throwing and catching skills, a basic understanding of space, and have created a culture of competition and positivity we'll be where we need to be.

Top 10 Games of the Decade

2010-01-03T15:11:00.004-05:00

What makes a game one of the best? Some combination of the history of the teams or players involved, exceptional play, and the meaningfulness of the game within a season or the sports history. Of course all of this is subjective. And on top of that the lack of media, especially at the beginning of the decade and at non-championship events makes comparing games difficult. I've had the good fortune to be at almost all of the HS, youth, college and club championships over the past decade as well as some of the World Championships. But despite that, there are going to be some oversights. Certainly some of the Northwest Open Regional games-to-go should be on the list, like JAM's 17-16 win over Furious in 2008 that kept Vancouver at home while JAM went on to win the UPA Championship. Or upstart Revolver's 11-8 win over Justice League in the 2nd place bracket in 2006. There possibly should be some College Regional games where the region only has one bid but has two or more potential contenders, like Wisconsin's 15-12 win over Carleton in 2006. Often regional games-to-go are more exciting than championships, but it rare that a regional game-to-go keeps a potential title contender at home. So, the large majority of these games are semis and final round games from UPA championship events.

Once again, I have links to media where I could find it. I'll add more if you post them in the comments.

10. 2001 UPA College Championships, Open 2nd Rd. Pool Play: UNC-Wilmington (17) – Carleton (16)

Beyond the Vagabonds win, this was easily the biggest upset of the decade. Loaded with talent including many of the players that would form the core of Sockeye for their championship run such as Phil Burkhardt, Sam O’Brien, Alex Nord, Jimmy Chu, and Chase Sparling-Beckley, Carleton, despite being the fourth seed, was many people’s favorites to win it all. UNCW, on the other hand was a small squad, twelve total players, with only three bona fide big names: Daniel “DQ” Qaurenta, Trey Snow, and Rhett Russ. Early in the game Snow broke his collarbone, but UNCW’s Tim Weigand and the rest of the UNCW “bench” stepped up to keep the game tight. Later in the weekend Nord would be named the 2001 Callahan winner, but Mike Gerics had been spending most of the college season touting Russ as the best player in the college division. Gerics claims were easy to laugh at but no one was laughing at double game point as Russ caught the game winner off of Nord’s tipped D. UNC-Wilmington then went on to lose to Wisconsin and UPenn thereby nullifying the actual impact of this game on elimination play. Despite that, this game sneaks into the top 10 of the decade.

Honorable Mention Upsets:
- 2002 UPA College Championship, Open Pre-Quarterfinals: UNC-Wilmington over Colorado (Score?)
- 2004 UPA Club Championships, 1st Rd. Pool Play: Pike (15) – Sockeye (12)

9. 2005 World Games, Finals: USA (13) vs. Australia (11)

The only game on this list played outside of the US is the one that made worldwide fans of the sport familiar with Australians Tom “Gaks” Rogacki and brothers Matthew and Anthony Dowle. After years of building Australia finally established themselves in the top tier of national programs with USA, Canada, and Japan. This game also included a high level of offensive efficiency as the USA only had five turnovers and Australia had seven. While the Aussies were able to complete a greatest for a goal, the US team (picked by application alone) was too much for them to handle. The US won their first World Games gold 13-11.

8. 2006 WFDF World Junior Ultimate Championships, Girls Finals: USA (14) - Canada (13)

If you find it hard to talk about a junior girls game in the same article as several of the best open and women’s club and college games of the decade, you must not have been in Boston for this spectacular display. The US had dominated Canada twice in pool play earlier in the week. They came in to the game with a cocky edge while Canada came in to the game having made some clear adjustments, taking the level of physicality up and tightening down the subbing. Future college and club stars Anne Mercier (Canada) and Georgia Bosscher (USA) battled point for point in a heated, physical match-up. The teams traded throughout with aggressive play, huge blocks, and occasionally heated discussion. The final point, at 18 minutes, was intense to the point of unbearable as the teams’ and crowd’s emotion swung drastically with every call and turnover. Claire Suver (USA) finally put the game away finding Patty King (USA) for a big forehand huck.

7. 2004 UPA Club Championships, Open Finals: Sockeye (16) – JAM (15)

Until their 2008 championship, San Francisco’s JAM had twice come within spitting distance of the cup. The first was in the brutal upwind/downwind final of 2001 against the Santa Barbara Condors which the Condors won 17-15 on the only upwind break of the game. The 2004 final featured the upstart Seattle Sockeye. Sockeye had recently added a lot of young talent that had returned to Seattle after college including Alex Nord, Sammy Chatterton-Kirchmeier, Jeremy Cram, Phil Burkhardt, and Chase Sparling-Beckley. This talent along with veterans Keith Monahan, Mike Caldwell and Roger Crafts carried Sockeye to their first championship. Sockeye led for most of the game behind great play by MC, including a greatest. JAM, down 11-9, pulled back in the lead to go up 14-13. JAM then had two opportunities to win the game on that point before Chase ripped one down over JAM’s Jim Schoettler before completing a pass to tie it up. Again, on double game (15-15) point, JAM turned it twice, both turns potential game winners from JAM’s Idris Nolan, before Chase pulled down a high-stall hammer from Roger Crafts for the game winner.

6. 2006 UPA College Championships, Women’s Semifinals: UCLA (17) – CU (16)

The biggest shame of this outstanding game was that there were not more people watching. Late on Saturday in Columbus the top two seeds out of the Southwest Region faced off in an epic game with the electricity and the emotion that makes sport magical. The two teams were closely matched. Over the 2006 season they had played each other three times, all in semifinals or finals of major tournaments, with CU holding a 2-1 edge and no team winning a game by more than 2 points. The two teams traded points and leads throughout the game as the intensity level ramped up. CU, led by fifth year seniors Alex Snyder and Carolyn Matthews battled against UCLA’s Pooja Shah and Anna “Mad Dog” Nazarov. UCLA edged out CU to qualify for the finals in their first trip to Nationals and in only their third year as a team. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HavMxQ0F5y4

5. 2005 Potlatch, Semifinals: Vagabonds (16) - Team USA (15)

I don’t care how you pick your National teams, they should not be beat by any squad of pick-ups, no matter how good. The one loss that the 2005 US team had was to a pick-up squad of mostly Oregon players with a few other northwesterners. What was striking about the Vagabonds was that each played at their highest possible level. Motivated by a mixture of a chip on their shoulder for not being on the team and the joy of playing the top players in front of a large crowd, Leslie Calder, Brian Snyder, Keith Monahan, Chelsea Putnam, Aaron Richards and the rest of the Vagabonds put on a display of talent that is rarely seen outside of UPA Club and WFDF World Championships.

4. 2005 UPA College Championships, Open Finals: Brown (15) – CU (14)

Amazingly, these two well matched teams had not played each other since 2002. But it didn’t take long for an old rivalry to be reestablished. This game featured incredible match-ups across the board including Beau Kittridge (CU) and Colin Mahoney (Brown), Colin “JV” Gottlieb (CU) and Dan MacArthur (Brown), Jolian Dahl (CU) and Neale Mahoney (Brown), Adam “Chicken” Simon (CU) and Ben “Raff” Wiseman (Brown), Jason “Muffin” Buckingham (CU) and Will Arnold (Brown), and of course 2004 Callahan winner, CU’s Josh “Richter” Ackley and 2005 Callahan winner, Brown’s Josh Ziperstein. Colorado opened up the game to an 8-5 half and looked to run away with the game at 9-5 but Brown clawed back to tie the game late behind hard, physical D and some CU miscues. This game also slowed during the middle due to a huge number of calls as neither team wanted to give any ground. The game’s outcome hinged on two incredible plays – a goal saving, twisting layout, help block by Brown’s Neale Mahoney on CU’s Josh Ackley and then Josh Ziperstein coming down with the high stall count bailout throw that had been mac’ed by multiple players to take the 14-13 lead for Brown. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C341hGSF1XY&feature=related

3. 2008 UPA Club Championships, Women’s Finals: Fury (15) – Riot (12)

This game has become the inspirational speech for all teams down at half. It is a symbol of the tough mental game of San Francisco’s Fury. And it is a reminder that no game is ever won until the final point is scored. There are not many who would have thought that any team, no matter how good, would be able to surmount a 10-1 deficit. That is the lead that Riot built behind the exceptional play of Miranda Roth, Val Dion, and Liz Duffy in the 2008 UPA Club Women’s Finals. But it only took one score from Fury to ignite a firestorm of scoring from Fury who, led by a huge stable of championship minded playmakers like Alicia “A1” White, Gwen Ambler, Alex Snyder, and Enessa Janes, went on to outscore Riot 14-2 over the remainder of the game to clinch Fury’s third consecutive UPA Club Championship and fourth (out of five) in the first decade of the century.

2. 2007 UPA Club Championships, Open Finals: Sockeye (15) - Johnny Bravo (13)

This game reigns as the most exciting Club Open final of the decade. Both teams were stacked with big, athletic, receivers including Sockeye’s Mike Caldwell, Alex Nord, and Chase Sparling-Beckley and Bravo’s Jolian Dahl, Dave Popiel and Beau Kittridge and neither team was afraid of taking chances. The two teams traded leads against a strong crosswind. Between an early Callahan goal by Adam “Chicken” Simon, a disc that Alex Nord picked off of JD Lobue’s back, and an incredible read and grab on the sideline on a wind-taken disc by Michael “Whit” Whitaker, this game had a little of everything. Sockeye, down 8-6 and halftime, tightened up the handler D in the second half and pulled ahead 12-11. Late in the game Nord broke his finger as Whit came sliding in to clean up another misthrow for a goal. At 14-13, Sam O’Brien (Sockeye) dropped a pull, but Mike Caldwell was able to get the disc back on a huge lay-out block and Sockeye put it in for a 15-13 win and their third championship of the decade.

1. 2002 UPA Club Championships, Open Semifinals: Furious George (17) – DoG (16)

There is not much to be said about this game that has not already been said. All you need to know is that in thirty-three points in a top-level, elimination play game there were only five turnovers. That is an unbelievable 86% offensive conversion rate between the two teams. Vancouver’s Furious, on their way to their first championship, bested the six-time champions, DoG, at their own game of possession offense. Dominant players, Jeff Cruickshank, Andrew Lugsdin, and Mike Grant, supplemented by 19 year olds Oscar Pottinger and Derek Alexander (fresh off of a World Championship with the Canadian Juniors team that summer) played the best game of the decade by giving up one fewer turnover than the boys from Boston.

Top 10 Plays of the Decade

2010-01-03T11:34:00.006-05:00

Ok, this is a little late (most top 10's of something or other should come out before the actual end of the time period and all), but here it is. I've got a couple more coming. This was inspired by this thread on RSD.

There are links to the plays (some video, some pictures). If you can take the time to find the others and post on the comments, I'll link them up.

10. Matty Lipscomb foul on Alex Nord (2000 UPA College Championships, semifinals: Colorado vs. Carleton)

At 14-14 game to 15, Carleton had possession 65 yards away from the upwind endzone and a spot in the finals against Brown University. This was one of the best rivalries of the late 90’s and early 2000’s with both teams playing in the same region up until the regional redraw in 1999. Colorado had never beaten Carleton in a UPA series game. Sam O’Brien puts up a long hanging forehand deep to Alex Nord, Carleton’s 6’5” receiver. Nord had two defenders on him as the disc was approaching and from across the field CU’s short, fiery defender, Matty Lipscomb, blazes in to the group. The disc goes over everyone’s head and Nord calls a foul. Nord is willing to send the disc back but Lipscomb insists on appealing to observer Mike Gerics, in perfect position. Gerics rules that Lipscomb undercut Nord. Nord takes possession and completes the game winner a few seconds later.

This play, notable not by the amazing play of the players involved but by the role of the observer, signaled to all the potential impact of observers on the outcome of games. Almost ten years later the question of how active observers should be is still being actively discussed and Mike Gerics is still pushing the role forward.

9. Derek Alexander to Oscar Pottinger to send Furious to 2002 finals(2002 UPA Club Championships, semifinals: Furious George vs. DoG)

Taken out of context, this play was not terribly exceptional. Derek Alexander completed a short backhand to an extended Oscar Pottinger (who was being guarded by a bidding Josh Ziperstein) for a score. But when you add the context: semifinals of the National championships in a game that many would call one of the top games all time, with only five total turnovers between the two teams, 16-16, and game to 17, Furious battling for their first UPA Championship and DoG trying to regain the title they owned for 6 years after two years of falling short. And throw in the fact that both the Furious players involved and the defender were all a mere 19 years old at the time and what you are left with is a climatic ending to an incredible game and a symbol of the potential impact on the growth of youth Ultimate on the sport.

8. Miranda Roth's catch on footblocked disc (2005 UPA College Championships, semifinals: University of Washington vs. Colorado University)

It is an unintentional slight that only one women’s play is included on this list. In an upwind/downwind semifinals in Coravallis, Oregon, Miranda Roth looked to throw an upwind IO forehand break being marked by CU’s Anne “Pogo” Pogoriler. Pogo gets a foot out and gets a huge footblock sending the disc fifteen feet in the air and behind Roth. Roth immediately turns, takes two steps and lays out to grab the disc blading into the ground. The bizarness of this play combined with Roth’s reaction time and phenomenal hand-eye coordination dropped the jaws of everyone watching.

7. Beau Kittridge jumping over guy on SDSU (2006 UPA SouthWest College Regionals, quarterfinals: Colorado vs. SDSU)

Unlike #9, this play needs no context at all. There was never a chance that Colorado was going to lose this game as they were cruising toward another Regional title. The defender, Dave “Flock” Runner, from San Diego State, at 5’7” was little more than a prop on a play that showcased the athleticism of Beau Kittridge and got Ultimate on its first top 10 on ESPN. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kst2yrNJolY

6. Alex Nord picking disc off of JD Lobue’s back (2007 UPA Club Championships, finals: Sockeye vs. Bravo)

In Sockeye’s championships in the middle of the decade it seemed that they always attracted crazy and exciting plays. And almost inevitably they wound up on the better half of these plays. In two consecutive championship finals (2006 and 2007) they retained possession when the disc landed on a player instead of the ground. This one had to be watched and rewatched to be believed. At 1-0 with Sockeye going upwind, a short forehand is thrown to Nord who is only a few yards outside Sockeye’s attacking endzone. Bravo’s JD Lobue and Hector Valdivia both have position on Nord; Valdivia on Nord’s left and JD laying out from the right. Valdivia makes the initial contact with the disc and then it appears to deflect off of his cleat before landing on Lobue’s back. Nord picks up the disc and throws the goal to a seemingly unaware Blaine Robins. http://www.the-huddle.org/features/2007-open-finals/1-0/

Honorable mention lucky catch:

- Disc landing on Matt “Skip” Sewell’s (Sockeye) legs in the 2006 UPA Club Finals (vs. Furious George) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v323qFYlEPY

5. Mike Caldwell’s greatests (2004 and 2006 UPA Club Championship, finals: Sockeye vs. JAM, Sockeye vs. Furious)

In the pantheon of highlight reel Sockeye playmakers of the 2000’s, there is only one player who completed a greatest in a club final. And this player completed not one but two greatest in finals. MC never received the same popular attention that many of his teammates on Sockeye did but it says something about your abilities when your teammates repeatedly put you in that position and even more that you are able to pull it off. In 2004, MC completed a greatest to Chase Sparling-Beckley to tie the game at 2’s against Furious. In 2006, it was MC again saving an out of bounds throw this time completing it to Moses Rifkin to take a 6-5 lead over Furious.

4. Chase Sparling-Beckley’s catch on Roger Crafts’ hammer (2004 UPA Club Championships, finals: Sockeye vs. Jam)

What was Roger Crafts thinking? 15-15 game to 16. Sockeye started the point on defense going upwind. Idris Nolan for JAM had already tallied two turnovers on game winning throws on the point. Crafts ended up with the disc forty yards outside of the upwind endzone and chooses a hammer into double coverage. Sparling-Beckley stabs it out of the air for the game winner – Seattle’s first championship and again JAM was left with a bitter end to the season.

3. Mike Caldwell’s Block in the 2007 Finals (2007 UPA Club Championships, finals: Sockeye vs. Bravo)

It is certainly another slight (albeit unintentional) to defenders everywhere to include only one defensive play on this list. This play stands out for not only the block itself, but the critical moment in the game and the wild play that both preceded and followed the play. Here’s the situation – Bravo is pulling to Sockeye down 13-14 and going upwind. Sam O'Brien drops the pull and Adam “Chicken” Simon picks up the disc about 10 yards outside the endzone with the opportunity to tie the game at 14s with Bravo going downwind. Colin “JV” Gottlieb cuts up the line from a handler position and Simon puts it up. MC explodes out for the block but macs it straight into the wind. The disc comes down in a crowd of Bravo receivers and Sockeye defenders before finding its way to the ground. The crowd then takes their first breath since the pull went up 20 seconds earlier. http://www.the-huddle.org/features/2007-open-finals/14-13/

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_2mPXDjXYUjc/SPUC3GcmdFI/AAAAAAAACPs/l1_BIqt7jLI/s1600-h/IMG_4045.JPG

Honorable mention defensive plays:

- Neale Mahoney’s (Brown) block on Josh “Richter” Ackley (Colorado) in 2005 UPA College Championship Finals

- Giora Proskurowski ‘s(Sockeye) on Ron Kublanza (Jam) in the 2004 UPA Club Championship Finals vs JAM

- Alex Nord’s (Sockeye) twisting block on Doug Moore (DoG) in 2006 UPA Club Championship quarterfinals http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/8154/img8960017vx.jpg

2. Josh Ziperstein’s catch after multiple macs (2005 UPA College Championships, finals: Brown vs. Colorado)

The 2005 finals was one of the best college games of the decade featuring two teams that matched up incredibly well and filled with current and future club stars. Brown had clawed back from a 9-5 deficit to tie the game at 13-13. On that point, Brown obtained possession and had the opportunity to gain their first lead of the game. Neale Mahoney ended up with the disc on the sideline and a high stall count. Unable to get the reset off against Jolian Dahl’s mark, Neale Mahoney put up a bailout to brother Colin Mahoney. Colin, covered by Kittridge was unable to come down with it. Brown’s Will Arnold and Colorado’s Jason Buckingham then vie for the disc but neither of them come up with it. Ziperstein, the 2005 Callahan winner, who trailed the play from the far side comes sliding in and comes up with the disc for the Brown lead as they eventually win the game 15-14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4FJiP9MA9U

1. Alex Nord’s catch over Mark Driver (2001 UPA College Championships, finals: Carleton vs. Colorado)

The pinnacle of one of the most storied rivalries in college Ultimate was the 2001 UPA College Championships. A rematch of the double game point 2000 College semifinals and frequent Regional championships before the split, Carleton and Colorado were loaded with talent that would make their mark on the Club division for the better part of the decade. The game was a dogfight and at 12-11 the game looked to be going down to the wire. Carleton’s Garret Westlake launches a huge hanging forehand deep to Alex Nord. Nord, being guarded by CU’s Mark Driver is out positioned; the disc is angling from right to left and Driver is on the left side. Nord goes up and over Driver, horizontally, making the grab and landing hard on his head, concussing himself and giving Carleton the 13-11 lead. The play said to everyone, “yes, I would have made the catch in 2000 had I not been fouled” and defined being “posterized” for that generation of players. 1:02 of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxvSJMhPEeA&feature=fvw

Thoughts from the Championships (mostly Open finals)

2009-11-09T20:12:00.003-05:00

I'm a little late to the game here with post-Nationals thoughts, but if you haven't yet you should check out the articles at U Catch, '87 til Infinity, and Match's blog. All of them have some interesting comments.

- I may need to rewatch Mike Payne's interview that was shown at halftime, but my impression of what Mike said was different than what I've been reading in other places. Match said that Mike indicated that they were going to sub deeply in the finals. I came away from the interview thinking that Mike had said that Revolver had been subbing deeply all tournament long so that their studs had the legs to run a bunch of points in the finals. I don't think this is crazy - with one game on one day I don't think going only 14 deep is necessarily bad strategy.

- What I do think is questionable was the length of Revolver's warm-up. Revolver was cleating up about two hours prior to game time. By the time Andrew and I interviewed Mike, they were already well into their warm-up. We then walked over to Chain and found only about half the guys lounging in the shade putting on their cleats. We were looking for AJ and he wasn't there so spent another few minutes looking for them and found another group of Chain guys lounging around behind the tournament HQ looking like they were in no hurry to get going. I'm guessing Chain's warm-up was about 45 minutes.

- Back to the interview with Mike Payne. I walked away from that interview dumbfounded that Revolver actually believed they could go toe-to-toe with Chain's athleticism but also excited to see what would happen with two teams that thought that they could win on athleticism.

- My question to AJ about Chain's offense was a bit tongue and cheek: "a common criticism of the Chain offense is that you just put it up to your athletic receivers. Is there anything more to your offense than that?" This has been a bit of an ongoing discussion between us. But I have to say, I loved his initial answer "that's a criticism?"

- On that note, I have to say I was wrong about Chain's style. I've been a vocal critic of Chain's offense since I left the team in '07. I loved saying that Chain only has one way to win and if that one way is shut down they don't know how to create other options (i.e. reverse the field and threaten the break side). But here's the thing, Chain's style works for the players that they have. (I'm going to mix in a little of AJs thoughts from another discussion this past Saturday night, so if you like anything about what I say here, credit goes to AJ). The goal of the game is to get the disc in the endzone. I love to talk about using the "width" of the field. A lot of that has to do with the fact that it's where I feel I'm valuable as a player. But "using the width" is a method to achieve a goal. Ultimately what a team wants to do is eat-up as many vertical yards on uncontested throws as possible - throwing to someone who has steps, ideally on the open side. The more margin for error the thrower has the higher the chance that you retain possession. Teams break the mark to set up the easy yardage gaining throws on the break side and to reduce the amount that downfield defenders can sit on the open side of their cutters. But break mark throws themselves are lower percentage and are typically not yardage gaining.

What Chain does well is open up huge, yardage gaining under cuts by threatening deep so well. In doing that they force teams to mark flatter opening up the width of the field if they choose to attack that way as well. Chain spaces well downfield - a lot of their deep cuts come from the middle of the field allowing the thrower to decide which side of the field to throw to.

Let me be clear, for a team that is significantly inferior athletically, there is no hope that the Chain style of offense will help them. But for teams with superior or similar levels of athleticism to their opponent the Chain offense works.

- This is the essence of what broke Revolver. Revolver thought they could play a Chain style game but beyond Beau (who Chain had good match-ups for) Revolver's O gave up athleticism on every single match-up. I see a lot of opining that it was the subbing that got Revolver. To me it was that their offense in the first half focused too much on the open side and not enough on breaking the mark. Had Revolver broken the mark more in the first half Chain's downfield would have had to respect that and given up more on the open side. As it was, Chain's athletic defenders were able to sit on the open side and generate turns.

- Ok, I'm not putting too much weight on the subbing, but do we have any points played stats here? I think Joel Wooten played all but one D point (13 points) while Beau played all but 5 or 6 total points (let's call it 20 points). Beau's D points were against Dylan who played every O point and maybe 3 or 4 D points (14 points). I'd guess the points played for Cahill and Mac are similar with Wiseman being a little less for Revolver. I don't think Revolver played too many points.

- Now, I do think that subbing might have led to a chemistry issue for Revolver. Unfortunately I didn't see enough of Revolver early in the tournament but since we know Revolver subbed deeper the rest of the tournament, it's a safe assumption that Revolver's D had very different personnel the rest of the weekend. Considering that Revolver's defensive offense was only 2 of 6 - that could have easily been a result of chemistry problems from their D line as much as Chain's o-line's d pressure.

- I hope that Chain's D-line gets the recognition they deserve. It's easy to talk about Zip, Dylan, Swanson (who had a great tourney), AJ (who seemed to get the disc at will), Asa, Jay, Cricket, and Paul V. As a commentator you often notice the O line guys since they touch the disc, throw and score goals. But Chain's d-line was off the hook. So on that note:

- Joel Wooten played Beau as well as anyone I've seen. He fronted him but was ready to go deep with him whenever the disc moved. Getting that early block seemed to immediately affect Revolver's confidence. Wooten and Colin Mahoney are the only two players in the game that can contain Beau.

- Mark Poole, Robert White, Robert Runner, and Peter Dempsey should be players that aspiring defenders look up to. Dempsey played tremendous dump defense in the second half. Pool and White were played great coverage D all game. And Runner was great on defense as well as anchoring the d-line's offense.

- Also, Josh Markette and Jason Simpson have been playing with Chain every season since the fall of 1998. At the time they weren't even getting out of the region. So, there's every reason to hold out hope if you are on the third or fourth best team out of a not so great region.

- Finally, I wasn't terribly excited initially about covering the Masters division in Sarasota. But I really enjoyed the play of all of the semifinalists and have to say that it was a treat watching DoG beat OLD SAG in the quarters on Friday afternoon. DoGs offense had two turnovers in that game and it was great to see the Count, Jim, Coop, Bim, and Simon among others working that classic DoG style offense. I realized while doing the voice over for the semis that it may be the last time that this core of guys would play in Sarasota together. So, thank you to them for so many great years of Ultimate.

- Oh, one last thing, Matt Kromer (coach of Brute Squad) texted me after the women's finals and said "Can we retape my interview? I meant to say that we are going to spot them 11 points, get their confidence up, and then see how things shake out." I'm not sure if there is anything you can do after a game like that but shake your head and chuckle. But congratulations to the Brute Squad women for making it that far and keeping Canada out of the finals. And congrats to Fury for winning - I love programs that can bottle championship magic.

Coaching Questions

2009-11-05T10:22:00.006-05:00

Recently Allen posted as a comment the following questions regarding coaches at UPA Club Nationals. They are all questions that have come up before, but given the breadth of commenters on this blog it might produce some insightful results if we re-hash those questions directly to this audience. I imagine that we could all take a stab at answering these questions in our own posts, with differing results. I'll try my best, keeping in mind that I have never coached a club team to UPA Nationals. Hopefully those with more insight can fill in the gaps of my answers.

(1) What are the coaches doing and how are they helping? (In both divisions the coaches are disproportionately working with top teams): I imagine that a bulk of elite coaching is system installment and getting people to avoid bad tendencies. I'm confident it changes from Open to Women's a bit, but I can't imagine Greg or Ted having to teach someone how to throw a pass. Maybe they tweak it a bit, but even that seems like something everyone knows how to do if they are playing at this level. When I was coaching with AJ we had enough coaches for me to only be a "throwing coach." It was nice because I didn't really care if we won or not, I would just take our players aside when they came off and got them to focus on a specific pass the made and how to make it better. Many coaches have to wear this and many other hats as they develop their players. I imagine the elite level coach can focus on overall strategies, match-ups, more global things as their players can micro-manage more than lower level players can.

(2): Why are women's teams more open to having coaches? Stu Downs wrote in a post here that coaches should be aware of a team's (and their own) ego before coaching. I've coached both genders at the college and high school level, and I've always had an easier time getting women to pay attention and buy into a system. When coaching men it was difficult to manage egos (often you need them to get the most out of your players), and early on it was also difficult to convince them that I know what it takes to win. Of course this would change depending on the school and level, but I feel pretty confident that it is easier for women to put their egos aside for a greater cause.

Second, I'll say that coaching makes more of a difference in women's sports. In the women's game the relative size of the field, the average ability of the throwers, the margin of error all make it so strategy can make a larger difference in a game than in the men's game. I've had more "great coaching" moments coaching women than coaching men. Situations where I look at a win and think about the adjustments we made and the effect it had.

(3) Why are the bulk of coaches men? Most coaches are asked to coach and are (in many ways) on a shorter leash than professional coaches. With no financial investment from an owner, a coach can be dismissed whenever players become dis-satisfied. This less the case at some High Schools, where coaches are paid by the administration, but a majority of coaches out there are at the mercy of their teams. With that being said, teams ask for coaches and maybe they just happen to ask men more than women. There are a number of successful female coaches (Jennifer Donnelly and Tiina Booth are the first that come to mind), but there are a disproportionate number of male coaches. Perhaps this is a similar ego problem, but it doesn't explain why so many women's teams have male coaches. I would ask the question: since the largest base of coaches is retired players, where are the retired female greats and what are they doing that isn't coaching?

I know there are better answers out there, so let's hear them.

This is off the record...

2009-11-02T20:50:00.003-05:00

First things first, if you have any feedback from the live webcast of any of the UPA games specifically regarding my commentating you can put it in the comments of this blog. I really do appreciate the criticism (even from you, Toad) as it helps me improve. And the praise is nice because it makes me feel good :).

So, for those of you that don't know me, I've been "involved" with Ultimate for a pretty long while. I first started playing the game in the fall of '93 at Paideia (HS) and went on to play for the US Juniors team in '94 and '96 and Brown from 1998 through 2002. During that time I played a lot - starting at Brown all five years. All that I was was an Ultimate player. My parents used to joke that I was getting a degree in Ultimate. In many respects it wasn't far from the truth.

After graduating I moved out to Colorado to work for the UPA running the youth program. I tried out and made Johnny Bravo in 2002. After my first season, I had a pretty serious skiing accident that left me in the hospital for a month. I lost thirty pounds and didn't regain it all for several months. I continued to play for Bravo through 2006 but was always working to regain the speed I had prior to the skiing accident and didn't play much or at all in big games for the team. I loved being a part of the team though, especially in 2006 when we made semis, and prided myself on my contributions to the team in less tangible ways - being a good sideline player, helping with scouting other teams, helping newer players understand and develop with their potential strengths, and working hard at the track or at practice.

During this time I also started to coach Ultimate. I coached for three years at Monarch HS.

After the 2006 season I moved back to Atlanta and tried out for Chain and made the team. At the time, I was probably playing the best Ultimate of my career. I wasn't quite as fast as I had been when I graduated college but in my eyes the game had slowed as I had gotten older and spent more time coaching and could really see what was happening on the field. But I found myself frustrated with my Chain experience for reasons I won't get into now and quit the team before the '07 series (as an aside, before my interview with Dylan Tunnel after the finals I told him that my first question was going to be "so, if I hadn't quit Chain, would I have been cut before this season?" His response - after a good laugh - "it's probably good that you left when you did." And he's probably right. I think with the talent they brought on over the last two years, there is little chance I would have made the team this season). I ended up observing at Nationals that year. In '07 I also began coaching at Paideia (first the JV Boys and then for the last two years the Varsity girls) and have spent the last three years on the UPA Board of Directors.

The following year I picked up with Bucket, a non-practicing team that finished 16th at Nationals in 2008. This year, I didn't know what I wanted to do so I told the Bucket leadership not to add me to the roster unless they didn't have anyone else who they wanted to play with them since the roster limit would be an issue. They ended up adding me just at the roster deadline when former Chain player, Sam Gainer fell through. I played Regionals but then chose not to play at Nationals for various reasons, one of which was because I was really interested in doing the Ultivillage commentating.

Ok, I'll now apologize for that very self-indulgent rant and get to the point of my post.

Somehow over the past seven years since graduating college I've moved almost completely from being an Ultimate player to something else all together - a hanger-on of sorts. I love the sport. I love the people. All of my closest friends are Ultimate players, but something hit me this weekend when I was doing the commentary for UltiVillage - I spend considerably more time talking about Ultimate than I do actually playing it. This transition hasn't been a fast one. It started when I started playing for Bravo and stopped playing a lot of points at tournaments. But it certainly was clear this year when I skipped Lei-Out, Poultry Days, Nationals and in two weeks the Brown tournament, Huck a hunk o' Burnin' Pumpkin (HHBP), to talk about Ultimate.

And even more strange has been the idea of moving in to the "Ultimate media." In 2002 I started writing articles for the UPA magazine and in 2005 started commentating for CSTV (later CBS College Sports) and for the past two Club Championships Ultivillage. I've started posting more frequently on this blog.

I really enjoy this aspect of the game - I feel like elite Ultimate at all levels is a very closed off thing and there are a lot of people who are hungry to understand the top level of the game more. To get beneath the surface. As a HS and College player I was always hungry for information and have had a long documented addiction to RSD. But as a player, I always found it hard to talk about the game. I couldn't make predictions or talk critically about teams or strategy when I played for Bravo or Chain without feeling like I was putting up locker room material or giving away information.

But what I find scary about this transition is how it will affect my relationships with players both friends and those I don't really know. If I'm talking to a friend of mine on a top team, is he or she not going to be open with me because of what I may later post on this blog or say in some commentary? Can I critique teams and players without putting friendships in jeopardy? Can I praise them without seeming like some ridiculous fanboy instead of a mutual friend?

In the Master's final webcast, I went off on how good a player I think Brian Snyder is. Now, I don't know Brian Snyder but I like the idea of a giving the spotlight to player who is really talented but isn't terribly well known because of the teams he has played on. But I'm pretty sure now it would be awkward to talk to Brian after the praise I lavished on a guy I don't really know. Perhaps I could just go over the top with the fanboy side of it and ask him to sign my face as an icebreaker.

It's weird, talking about the game almost necessitates being apart from it and the players. I guess I'm going to try and strike the balance between the two, but if it puts my relationships at risk, I'd pick those relationships over being a respected commentator on the game any day. Because, no matter how much I actually cleat up and play, in my heart I am an Ultimate player.

And so, if you're an Ultimate player - friend or acquaintance, and you want to talk with me about the game or your team but don't want me sharing your thoughts with the whole world, just use these five words "this is off the record..."

And I'm going to try to keep bringing more of Ultimate to everybody out there who, like me, is hungry to always know more about the game.

Questions Answered (Womens, Mixed, Masters, Open) and Friday Predictions

2009-10-29T21:19:00.004-04:00

Well, first, I'd like to point out that (so far) most of my questions were spot on. Specifically:

- Ozone could play with Riot (they were up most of the game)
- Showdown was able to beat Ozone after they lost a disappointing game to Riot
- Chase has come to play and Axis and MTF look like strong finals favorites
- AMP is not that good (meaning at the tier of Axis and MTF) and/or Bucket is better than most people think. I'll guarantee that if they meet again Bucket will not lose to AMP.
- The Beyondors are the clear team to beat in the Masters division. It's like watching an open team play masters teams.
- Despite Ironside dropping a game to Streetgang, all top four open seeds are going into the power pools with wins and look to have relatively easy roads to quarters.
- The two significant upsets came out of the Truck Stop - GOAT and Ring - JAM match-ups which I pegged as the ones to watch

What I didn't catch:

- Real Huck - surprise team of Thursday. Going 3-0 so far in pool play.

All in all, I'd say a pretty solid preview so far. There's a chance that CLX is at the MTF/Axis tier of teams (and I didn't see them play) but I'm guessing that they fall in to the Bucket/AMP tier.

Predictions for tomorrow:

Open:

- Pool E: Revolver, Ironside, Truck Stop, Double Wide
- Pool F: Chain, Sockeye, Ring of Fire, Bravo

Pre-quarters: JAM over DoubleWide, Bravo over GOAT

Women:

- Pool E: Riot, Capitals, Showdown, Zeitgeist
- Pool F: Fury, Brute Squad, Backhoe, Lady Condors

Pre-quarters: Zeitgeist over Traffic, Ozone over Lady Condors

Mixed:

- Pool E: MTF, CLX, Barrio, Quiet Coyote
- Pool F: Axis, AMP, Bucket, Doh!

Pre-quarters: Slow White over Quiet Coyote, Doh! over One Trick Pony

Masters:

- Pool A: Surly, Troubled Past, GLUM, Boneyard
- Pool B: Beyondors, Real Huck, Mileage, Old Sag

Quarters: Surly over OLD SAG, Troubled Past/Mileage (toss up), GLUM/Real Huck (toss up), Beyondors over Boneyard

For all of you Ultimate junkies out there, where am I wrong?

Nationals: What to Watch For (Womens, Mixed, Masters)

2009-10-25T10:10:00.005-04:00

First, sorry for the Southern focus of this post. It's easier to write about what you know.

Womens

While the odds on favorites for the finals are still Fury and Riot, I think for the first time since 2005 it's not inconceivable that we'll get a different match-up this year. These two titans of the decade and the top two seeds look significantly less invincible than in past years. Riot has won the season series between the two teams 3-2 and Fury-to-Riot transfer Gwen Ambler adds some significant firepower to the Seattle squad. I'll definitely be watching Riot to see how Gwen is fitting in to the Riot line-up. I'd expect adding Gwen would allow Miranda to have greater flexibility in her role and better match-ups generally.

For Fury, I'm most interested to see how Georgia Bosscher is fitting in. I've enjoyed watching Georgia's aggressive and confident play at the Youth and College level for years and am excited to see her take her game to one of the premier club teams. Despite being the 4th consecutive year a Riot-Fury final has a whole lot of great match-ups to watch - especially if we get a non-windy final with more man-to-man defense. And if we do get that final, we'll get to see if Gwen is able to change the balance of power or if Fury can still edge Riot out with a superior mental game.

Despite their low seed, I'm really hoping to see my hometown favorites Ozone make the finals and I believe they have the firepower to do it. They've been inconsistent this season with a good Labor Day, barely losing to Fury. They faltered against Showdown in the finals of Regionals - I was playing on the next field over and was not impressed by what Ozone was showing when I did look over. There was one point that lasted around 8 minutes with several turnovers by both teams in little wind. Ozone has a lot of big name players between Deb Cussen, Angela Lin, Shanye Crawford, and Katherine Wooten. Throw in some great young talent in Rare Air pick-up Heather Waugh and home grown future stars Sophie Darch and Haley Reese and if they are able to put the pieces together at the right times Ozone could make a run. The first opportunity is the first round Thursday morning when Ozone faces top-seeded Riot. This is probably the game of the tournament to watch this round. I have a hard time imagining Ozone winning consecutive games against Riot and Fury but if they can win against Riot on Thursday and put Riot and Fury on the same side of the Saturday bracket...

Capitals brings the only undefeated season to the table. That's not saying a whole lot since, beyond Brute Squad, they haven't seen any top tier talent. Beyond the gifted Anne Mercier I have no idea who these players are. So the question is, who are their playmakers and can they match those of Fury and Riots? We probably won't get an answer to that question until a likely Capitals/Ozone game in power pools on Friday morning. That game should shed some light on what will happen in the Riot/Capitals game which will likely be for the top seed at the tourney going in to Saturday.

Perhaps I'm putting too much weight on how good I think Ozone is and their Regional final win over Ozone, but I think Showdown is also better than seeded. Their season results are overall terrible, but my understanding is most of these were without Cara Crouch who is arguably the top player in the division currently. I'd love to watch them some to see where they fall. Unfortunately, they have a tough road. If they are unable to beat Riot or repeat their success against Ozone on Thursday they'll be trying to climb up from the power pools only to play Fury in quarters if they are able to do it. If they can pull of a repeat against Ozone, I could see Showdown possibly putting some pressure on the top seeds and making a run for semis. Ozone could be coming off of a disappointing loss to Riot which may make this easier for Showdown.

As for Brute Squad, Backhoe, Zeitgeist, and Traffic, frankly I expect them to be about as good as they are seeded. I am curious to see how good a coach Brutesquad's Matt Kromer is - currently he's dominating in today's game in our fantasy football league so that bodes well.

Mixed

I think the mixed division is a little more clear cut than it's been in past years.

The big question in Mixed is how seriously is Chase taking it? If he takes it seriously he will dominate and you can pencil Axis into the finals. But frankly at Chesapeake he appeared to lack focus. And somehow Axis lost to a less talented AMP team at Regionals. Axis isn't all about Chase either - Tyler Conger and Kevin Kusy are formidable players themselves, Conger being particularly hungry to show that he's a great player. He was the most impressive player on the field for Axis at Cheapeake.

Of course the Flycoons look good, but I don't plan to watch them play until at least the semis. I'm guessing they won't be involved in much drama until at least that point. They are athletic and skilled. Last year at one point while watching them play from a distance I was impressed by the middle-schooler they had out there playing big points - had to get closer to realize it was Tim Murray.

Finally, the other big questions for me in this division are: Is everybody going to request observers for Jukebox games? And are teams going to psyche themselves out when they play them because of all the talk on the interwebs about their style of play?

And can Bucket hold on to half time leads this year? They certainly have more talent than last year. I'll definitely try to catch a little of their game against AMP. At Chesapeake they were up 8-3 before giving the game away in the second half.

Masters

Masters gets more interesting every year. Maybe that's because as I get older I actually know who these guys are and saw them when they were dominating in the open division. The strange thing about Masters is that the newest players are typically the best so looking at past years' results is often misleading. And then there are so few masters tournaments that current year results aren't really helpful. So beyond the rosters, you don't have much to go on.

OK, the big one, is there really any chance that the Beyondors won't win this thing? I mean that roster looks like a quarterfinal open division roster to me. This team is stacked with talent, young, and have dominated divisions since they were in college together. Who seeded this team fourth?

That said, defending champions Surly don't look too bad either. They don't have the wealth of championships in college and open that the Beyondors bring but they've got a lot of former top tier open players including Eric "Turtle" Lonsdorf and Dave Boardman. But as noted, in Masters past results are no indication of future performance.

Like with most Canadian teams, I have no idea who GLUM is. Same goes for Mileage even though they are in my region (although I do know that big Tom Etchison is a serious deep threat and that Rex loves throwing to him). Both teams could be great or they could be average. I'll definitely be watching them early on to familiarize myself with their games and who their big players are.

Can DoG field a grandmasters roster of 20+ players with their masters team? I think so. They used to win open championships when their average age was masters eligible though. But at some point the physical decline quickens. As as side note, I think this is the first year that a college teammate of mine is playing in Masters. Yeesh... Go Josh Blouwolff!

Finally, Troubled Past is a little intriguing. With the old North Carolinian Brians (Snyder and Linkfield) and the Monohan brothers they've got some recognizable talent. I'm certainly curious to learn more about what they are bringing as well.

Games to watch in Masters:
Round 1: GLUM vs. DoG - Regional finals rematch and the loser will have a very tough row to hoe. This was a one point game in pool play at Regionals.

Round 2: Beyondors vs. O.L.D. S.A.G - Are the Beyondors that much better than the field? This will be our first indication.

Round 3: Take your pick of the 1v2 match-ups. I think Surly vs. Troubled Past will be the more interesting one.

Round 4: Definitely Surly vs. GLUM. Pool A looks to be significantly harder. And winning it (to distance yourselves from the expected pool B winner Beyondors) is critical.

Round 5: Troubled Past vs. DoG. Same comments as round 4.

Friday Quarters: I am keeping my fingers crossed for a 4th place finish for DoG because I would love to see a DoG/Beyondors quarters on Friday afternoon (or a 2nd/3rd place finish would work as well - I just think it's less likely). While most players in the other divisions and fans will be watching the typically uninteresting open pre-quarters game - this would be a classic throwback game to the late '90s/early 2000s.

Nationals: What to Watch For (Open)

2009-10-24T15:52:00.005-04:00

I'll be attending Nationals this year as a commentator for UltiVillage. My focus will be on the Master's division, but hopefully I'll get a chance to catch games in all of the divisions as there is intriguing competition and compelling storylines in each. What I'll be looking for in the open division:

Open

Day one of Open is generally uninteresting. Teams are typically well seeded, the top teams don't show everything they've got. Given the format, teams don't have any incentive to come out with their full guns until quarters. And if they come out with the guns before that, you can bet they won't make semis. So the big question on Thursday and Friday is who tightens up the roster to try and get a win to either make the power pools or avoid the play-in game. I expect the top four seeds to cruise to the quarters avoiding pre-quarters. The Thursday games I'm most interested in are: GOAT - Truckstop and JAM - Ring. I think all four of these teams have outside shots at semis but being tossed to the lower pools will make it virtually impossible. I can only recall two pre-quarters winners that were able to win their quarters game - Sockeye in 2004 (who ended up winning it all) and Bravo in 2008 (corrected).

I think if JAM can make power pools their shot at semis or further is very good. I'm not sure what JAM figured out on Saturday and Sunday last year but for three games they played the most beautiful Ultimate I'd seen since Furious in '02. It was true team Ultimate, efficiently identifying and moving the disc to their opponents weak spots regardless of player or position. If they've managed to bottle that and can get through a rough first day with Chain and Ring at 2-1, I'd be nervous if I were crossing over against them.

I'll also hope to catch some of Chain. I've watched a game and half of Chain's this fall and while very impressed with the athleticism they bring I have not been impressed with their style of play - in the finals of Regionals, they seemed to really constrict the field and narrow their cutters' space and rarely used the break side of the field. Despite this they possessed this disc, turning it over only twice on offense. AJ has assured me that Chain attacks both sides of the field. I'd like to take a closer look. Considering Chain's athleticism, teams aren't going to beat Chain if Chain can create good space for their cutters, move the disc quickly to change the angle of attack, and force downfield defenders to account for the full 40 yard width of the field.

I'm interested in watching a bit of Revolver. I saw their come from behind victory against Chain (down 8-3 and won 12-11) at Chesapeake. Obviously I got to see a lot of their defense, and while their handler D was impressive (I really enjoy watching Jit Bhattacharya guard and mark handlers) Chain made a lot of unforced errors. Of course in a comeback like that I got to see little of their O-line. I've generally loved the Revolver offense but am curious to see how Mac and Beau integrate into it. Does Revolver step back and create space for the two of them to just make it happen or do they continue to rotate their downfield threats by position - meaning that sometimes Beau is creating space for others and timing cuts as fill instead of primary cuts?

After watching Doublewide at Regionals, I frankly don't believe the hype around them. Outside of their win against Revolver at Labor Day, their season looks pretty mediocre. Kiran Thomas has got to be in the top 3 or 4 in terms of speed in the division and he dominated Chain's Rob White early in the Regional finals but as soon as Chain put Joel Wooten on him it seemed like DW's offense stalled out. So I'd like to see if DW has a second top tier offensive threat. Without that they'll have difficulty against teams with deep defensive talent.

I have seen no Ironside or Sockeye this season. I'm curious to see how Ironside is working without Fortunat in the middle of the O and how Hodag pick-ups Matt Rebholz and Jim Foster, Bravo transfer Adam Simon, and Sockeye transfer Seth Crockford are fitting in. Looking at the Ironside roster, I see more specialists and fewer complete threat players than the other top seeds but no Ultimate city has historically put pieces together better than Boston.

As for Sockeye, they are probably happy that the focus is not on them. Here's a team only two years removed from the Championship, with a still stacked roster, and it seems no one is talking about them. Last year they had the challenge of gearing up for the "triple peak" between Dream Cup, Worlds, and Nationals. This year they were able to focus their mental energy and training on a single goal. Sources say Sockeye's year began with some turmoil over personnel but that has smoothed out over time and they know as well as anyone that the only games that matter in a season are the ones in October. This is also the last year that the 1993 NOMS middle school all-stars will be playing together as CK has moved to Atlanta and looks to be playing with Chain next year. I'm curious to see the role CK is playing without being a regular at practices. It sounds like Sockeye may be employing more vert stack as well and I'd love to see how they are running it. Like most people I expect to see Chain and Revolver in the finals but it wouldn't be wise for any of these teams to sleep on the Fish.

Mixed, Masters, and Women's post to follow.

Watch Nationals coverage at UltiVillage!

Which teams have coaches?

2009-10-20T09:19:00.013-04:00

Of all the teams going to The Show, which have coaches and who are they? I'll update the post as people add comments.

Open Division:
1. Revolver -Chris McManus
2. Chain -No Coach
3. Ironside -Ted Munter and Greg Connelly
4. Sockeye -No Coach
5. Bravo
6. Doublewide
7. Jam
8. GOAT - No Coach
9. Truck Stop
10. Ring of Fire
11. Bodhi -No Coach
12. Madison Club
13. Machine -Brady Meisenhelder
14. Streetgang
15. Madcow
16. Pike

Women's Division
1. Riot -Karlinsky Brothers
2. Fury -Matty Tsang
3. Capitals
4. Brute Squad -Matt Kromer
5. Backhoe -Tully Beatty
6. Zeitgeist
7. Traffic -Cruikshank (Jeff?)
8. Showdown -Allen Clement
9. Ozone -No Coach
10. Lady Condors
11. Nemesis
12. Rare Air -Scott Gurst (limited roll)
13. Scandal
14. Safari -Cliff Smith
15. Pop
16. Wildcard

I took out the Master's and Mixed because we weren't getting any info on them, but things are shaping up nicely for Open and Women's. I'm fairly certain (especially with Gwen's help) that JD is coaching Zeitgeist, and then if someone is coaching Capitals all of the top 8 Women's teams have coaches. Meanwhile 2 of the top 4 Open teams have coaches, maybe as few as 2 of the top 8. In my personal experience with college I found it much easier to coach women than men, but presumably the reason for the discrepancy isn't because there aren't people willing to coach, but rather that Open teams don't actively search for coaches the way women do. Or I could be wrong. Thought?

Open Nationals Seedings

2009-10-12T09:33:00.003-04:00

Here’s my first shot at Open Nationals Seedings:

1. Revolver (NW1) – Revolver is the pretty easy 1 seed. They have to be ahead of Sockeye based on regional results and they are undefeated against Chain (2-0) and Ironside (1-0).

2-4 Ironside (NE1), Chain (S3), Sockeye (NW2) –Sockeye’s seeding depends on how much weight you decide to put on ECC results vs. Labor Day results. At ECC a banged up Sockeye lost to both Chain and Ironside. At Labor Day Sockeye rolled through the competition and as a result have the highest RRI of any team. I think the options for Sockeye are either give a lot of weight to Labor Day and make them the 2 seed overall, or give less weight to Labor Day and make them the 4 seed overall. I can’t think of any reason to put them at 3 in between Chain and Ironside. I’m putting Sockeye at 4, but I can understand 2. That leaves us Chain vs. Ironside. The two teams have had essentially identical seasons. Ironside beat Chain 15-11 at ECC, Chain beat Ironside at Chesapeake 13-8. Ironside has a slightly higher RRI than Chain, but Chain’s victory was at a more recent tournament. It’s close, but I think you have to go with Ironside as the 2 seed based on last year’s nationals results, Ironside eliminated Chain 15-10 in the semi-finals. Also, Ironside is 1 point away (15-14 loss to Revolver in ECC finals) from being the consensus 1 seed. So:

2 Ironside (NE1)
3 Chain (S1)
4 Sockeye (NW2)

5-6 Doublewide (S2) Johnny Bravo (SW1)
Doublewide and Bravo are 1-1 against each other. Both of their games against each other were on the same day at Colorado Cup with Doublewide winning 14-13 in the morning and Bravo winning 13-10 in the finals. If you only look at Colorado Cup it seems that you should go with Bravo 5 and Doublewide 6…but I think Labor Day (the only other tourney both teams attended) results push Doublewide over the top (DW finishes 2nd, Bravo finishes 5th). So:

5 Doublewide (S2)
6 Johnny Bravo (SW1)

7 Jam (NW3) – This seems like the spot for the defending champs (0-1 against DW, 0-2 against Bravo). Truck Stop’s regional victory over Ring helps Jam since Jam is 1-0 against TS and 0-1 against Ring).

8-10 Truck Stop (MA1), GOAT (NE2) Ring (MA2).
This grouping is a little messy with GOAT being 1-1 against both Truck Stop and Ring. Also GOAT’s wins over the two MA teams came earlier in the season than their two losses to the MA teams. So you could definitely make an argument that GOAT should be below both TS and Ring. The problem with going with GOAT at 10 is that it forces all three MA teams into pool A (Pike has to be 16). So, you have to push GOAT ahead of 1 or both of the MA teams. I’m going to push them ahead of Ring but not ahead of Truck Stop. It’s kind of arbitrary, but basically, I’m gonna disregard GOAT’s 1 point win over Truck Stop at the Boston Invite (in June) while still giving them credit for their win over Ring at ECC (in August). So:

8 Truck Stop (MA1)
9 GOAT (NE2)
10 Ring (MA2)

11-15 Bodhi (NE3), Madison (C1), Machine (C2), Madcow (C3), Streetgang (SW2)
This grouping is a huge mess. Bodhi and Streetgang have mixed results against the Central teams. Streetgang (1-0 against Madison, but 0-1 against Machine). Bodhi (2-0 against Madison, 0-1 against Machine, and 1-1 against Madcow). I’m not really sure the best way to handle this, but given the confusing results I think one strategy is to keep the Central teams out of the same pools (since we “know” the order of the central teams based on regionals) and let the games on Thursday sort out the best way to order the central teams in relation to the non-central teams. Bodhi is definitely the team that gets hosed the most doing it this way since we end up valuing Bodhi’s loss to Machine more than Bodhi’s 2 wins against Madison. If someone has a better plan for this grouping I’d love to hear it. So I’m gonna go with

11 Madison
12 Machine
13 Bodhi
14 Streetgang
15 Madcow

16 Pike – has no results against nationals teams this year, but has losses to South 6, NE8, NE9…as well as 2 losses to MA4 at regionals.

To sum up:
1. Revolver
2. Ironside
3 Chain
4 Sockeye
5 Doublewide
6 Johnny Bravo
7 Jam
8 Truck Stop
9 GOAT
10 Ring of Fire
11 Madison
12 Machine
13 Bodhi
14 Streetgang
15 Madcow
16 Pike

Which gives us the following pools:

A
Revolver
Truck Stop
GOAT
Pike

B
Ironside
Jam
Ring
Madcow

C
Chain
Johnny Bravo
Madison
Streetgang

D
Sockeye
Doublewide
Machine
Bodhi

Let me know what you think,

aj

Bottom 7 (when losing is your optimal strategy)

2009-10-07T21:43:00.008-04:00

This past weekend in the finals of the mixed division at South Regionals, Bucket jumped out to an early three break lead. Pulling at 7-4 I turn to a teammate and say,"if we score this point or the next one, Jukebox will start subbing deeper so they can rest their studs for the backdoor final." My teammate tells me I'm crazy, a team's got to play all out in a game to go . Jukebox ends up scoring that point and getting a break back on the following one to bring it to 7-6 before we take half 8-6, receiving to start the second half. Jukebox continues to sub tightly through the remainder of the game as we trade out to win 13-10. Jukebox then goes on to face Rival (in a game that has been written about elsewhere), a team they had beaten the previous day 11-4 and that on paper does not match up with them. At 6-6 in that backdoor final my teammate turns to me and says "maybe you were right." Jukebox ends up pulling the game out 15-14 (in controversial fashion) but I believe they could have locked up that second bid much easier by resting their top players in the front door game.

In most tournaments it's rarely a question if winning is your best strategy. But in some formats, particularly those where multiple teams advance to the next round are there times when losing is your best strategy? There are some obvious downsides to pursuing a losing strategy - the obvious one is that in most cases you are giving up an opportunity. In the Jukebox situation, sitting their studs in the second half means giving up the opportunity to take the front door bid and pinning all of their hopes on winning the backdoor one. Maybe a bigger downside than reducing your opportunity, there is a mental challenge to admitting defeat. How does it affect you and your team's mental game to at some point say "we have no chance in this game, let's rest up for the next one"? This can be discouraging to some, and it may be impossible to convince some teammates that losing is the best strategy. Finally, no one will ever fault a leader for trying to win. You try to win the front door and fail and then fail in the backdoor because you put your efforts in the front door and most people understand. But if you give up in the front door to put your efforts into the backdoor and then go on to lose the backdoor? ...well, I'll bet there'd be hell to pay for that one.

I don't have the games in front of me, but there were multiple situations in the late '90s in the Atlantic Coast college open division where the loser of the front door game to go would go on to lose in the backdoor game to go. Given UPA regional formats this is a frequent occurrence in two bid regions where the top three teams are around the same level and then there is a drop off. The front door finalists battle tooth and nail, while the back door finalist cleans up waiting for the front door loser to finish exhausting themselves in a tight finals game.

Another situation where I've experienced something similar is in the Club Nationals format. Club Nationals is a brutally long tournament where there are a handful of games that have little to no meaning beyond keeping a teams confidence up. As long as you are able to make quarters without going through the play-in game your chances are pretty much the same. In 2005, Bravo faced Jam in the final power pool game on Friday. The game was to determine who was the 2nd overall seed and who was the 4th overall seed going into the quarterfinals on Saturday. The winner had a marginally easier road in elimination play - either way though both teams would have to beat 3 good teams to win a title. The game was hard fought with Bravo subbing tightly throughout most of the second half. After we turned over three game point possessions Jam was able to punch in the goal on a sort-of greatest to win 17-16. Bravo was crushed. We had completely invested emotionally and physically. After the game finished the team acted like it had been completely eliminated from the tournament. Even though the champions the three previous years had each lost at least one game going in to bracket play, it felt like our season was over. At that point, playing DoG in the quarters and losing (15-8ish) felt like a simple formality. My take was that the investment in Thursday's Jam game had drained our ability to play. This probably was not a situation where we should have intentionally tried to lose, but in my estimation it was one in which we should have not put such weight on the game, subbed a little more openly, and kept better perspective of the long run goal. Others on the team have said that winning would have given us an easier game against Pike in the quarters and the mental boost from winning the tight game, winning the power pool, and beating a team we had frequently struggled against would have pushed our confidence and game to where we needed to be to make a run at the title. How should teams deal with games like this, both subbing wise and mentally?

In some situations, there is literally no format advantage gained from winning a game. In a four team pool if the 0-2 team plays the 2-0 team in the final round of pool play, the result of the game has no impact on the team's tournament match-ups going forward. In some situations, a team locks their pool play position up with point differential before winning a game such that points moving forward in that game have no practical impact on the teams chances in the tournament. One interesting situation like this occurred at 2008 UPA College Nationals. Pool D (as is often the case in this format where the 4, 5, 9, and 16 are in a pool together) was a mess going into the final game of pool play. The seeding stood like this:

D1. Michigan (1-1) (Loss to Georgia 13-15, Win against Harvard 15-12)
D2. Texas (0-2) (Loss to Harvard 16-17, Loss to Georgia 13-15)
D3. Georgia (3-0) (Win against Harvard 16-14)
D4. Harvard (1-2)

As it sat with the Michigan v. Texas game still to be played, Georgia had won the pool. In order to clinch second in the pool, Michigan had to beat Texas or lose by 1 point. Texas had to win by a point to clinch third in the pool, and two or more to clinch second. For Texas, at any point in the game the strategy was clear: win by as much as possible.

This game was an all out brawl with both teams going point for point. Harvard stood on the sideline, their day finished, knowing full well how the point differential worked out. They needed Michigan to win the game. At 13-13 Michigan held on offense to take the lead 14-13 and wrap-up the second seed. At this point, Michigan could gain nothing from fighting on. Like all of the teams in the pool they'd had a brutal day with all of the games being decided by three or fewer points. Michigan's top players including Will Neff, Dave Fumo, Ryan Purcell, and Ollie Honderd, were starting to show signs of wear only overcome by their competitive drive to win the game. Texas of course, had to continue to push. Without a win they'd be relegated to consolation, a bitter pill to end a promising season.

Michigan, either unaware of the situation, having decided that winning trumped the effort they would need to put in to win, or feeling like it was their duty to Harvard to play as hard as they could, kept their rotation at around 10 players. Neff, Fumo, Purcell and Honderd played almost every one of the remaining six points as the game dragged on to the final score of 17-16, with Michigan winning. And those six points looked like the hardest of the day for Michigan, long points with lots of turns. At one point Fumo got a goal saving lay-out block and landed hard on his hip. Neff was clearly struggling between points only to put his all in to each meaningless point.

Well, meaningless for Michigan. Michigan's win sent the Harvard team, watching on the sideline, into pure joy as they rode their own one point win over Texas in the first round to Saturday elimination play at Nationals falling to eventual champions Wisconsin in the quarters. Texas meanwhile, with 3 losses by a total of 4 points, wound up battling in the 9th place bracket. For Michigan, the fight at the end of the game seemed to have taken a real toll as they lost to Illinois, a team that Michigan had handled 15-11 in the finals of regionals, the following morning in the pre-quarter round.

I apologize for the length of this post. I thought it would be a good discussion following Martin's earlier one about when to play your top 7 and I've been wanting to write about that Michigan/Texas game for a while now. But I'm interested to know others' opinions on coaching/leading in situations like these. Have you ever found yourself in a winnable game but chose to pursue a losing strategy intentionally because of larger goals? What would you do in these types of scenarios? As a coach or captain, how did you communicate with your team so that they understood the choices being made?

Top Seven

2009-10-05T10:13:00.003-04:00

So I'm walking on the sidelines of the backdoor finals, feeling decent about the game. Our defense got one break early, but our defense gave it back just before the half to keep things on serve (our opponent's advantage). Now we're in the second half (8-9), and things are still on serve when I walk by AJ. He asked me something along the lines of "when it is time to go top seven." My first reaction was the honest one . . . we don't have a top seven. I wasn't trying to make some bold statement about our team and how we'll play everyone regardless of the situation. We just really don't have a top seven. Realizing that was a somewhat unsatisfactory answer I was able to give it a second try and say somewhere around 11. AJ thinks earlier, but I worry about going top seven too early, getting a small push and then not being able to finish it out because our top line is too tired.

Rival has always been a team that uses its depth. Part of playing mixed in Atlanta is that between Chain and now Bucket, we're not grabbing insane talent that just shows up. We've got to grow our talent, and deal with the fact that we are going to have relatively few players that are awesome everywhere on the field. We maybe have a top 4 or 5, but after that we've got a stable of people who could fill in those remaining two spots. As the game pushes on to 9-10, I go with AJ's advice and tell our sub-caller to put in the best line we got. We score the O (10-10) point, and then keep pretty much the same line in for D. They work hard, but are unable to get the block (10-11).

Many of those players (top-seven) are cores to the offense, and we just ran them hard on a unsuccessful defensive point. So they go out there and get broken. Then it happens again. Now they are even more tired, and we're running into problems. We're down (10-13) and our best offenders have run the last four points at the end of a nine game regionals and have to go produce again. Say what you want about how we should have run more track workouts, our people are tired and we have to come up with a solution. We put in other players for this O point. None of us are two way threats when cutting, and we're not the best defenders on the team (just ran the last 4 and one of them is about to tear his hamstring). I'll reference my other post about mixing it up, but we score this point with relative ease, putting us back on defense.

Now comes the big question: who do we put in one defense? We're down 11-13 in a game to 15 and our best defenders have just gotten a point rest. Surely this is a time when we put in our top seven and get the breaks we need. But when look at the line, I see some of our youngest, least experienced players out there and another captain who I don't think will be upset when I call him "not fast." Players on our sidelines are getting antsy asking "is this the best line we can put out there?" I'm curious myself, and look to our defensive captain (who is on that line) and he gives me the "it's cool" hand motion.

That D line, featuring a slow guy, two girls around 5'2" and two guys around 5'8", threw a 3-3-1 zone and got the turn then the break as that "slow guy" lays out on an in cut for the score. Then they keep the line and do it again. The game is tied 13-13 and our best line has just gotten 3 points of rest.

The lesson I take from that experience is that "top seven" is the best seven at the time, factoring strategy into the mix. We hadn't been very successful against their offense all game. The players we put in (while good) were no where near our best players, but they knew how to run this one D (that we put in for rare occasions). By mixing up the defense (which we had done before) with different personnel we maximized the confusion as their handlers held the disc for a long time looking all over the place. Maybe when you have a lineup of people that can't be stopped the idea of top seven becomes less situational, but there is no doubt in my mind that our defensive captain (Michael Wood) knew what he was doing and that was the best seven we could have put on the line at that time.

One last thought. This reminds me of a post on Zaz's blog about all racing for the same end point. Zaz points out that many teams seems to be playing the same style which turns the competition into who is the best athlete or at least who is the best at Style X. Throughout the game Wood had learned that we weren't necessarily going to beat them at Style X, so we switched it up and learned that they weren't very good at Style Y.

Offensive changes

2009-10-05T08:03:00.003-04:00

This is part of 3 different posts, but it's the first one so all the prep work is done here.

Unfortunately my team (Rival-Atl mixed) will not be attending the big show this year. We lost 14-15 in the backdoor game to go. I'll come back to that later. What I want to talk about now is some of the situations we were faced with as captains, especially on the Sunday of Regionals.

We had a huge amount of turnover from last year. Over 60% of the team wasn't on the rosters last year, and we went from having the oldest average age to probably the youngest in the country (we had a number of freshmen/sophomores in college as well as 4 high school players). The big question all season was whether or not we were going to be able to come together and play up to our potential. This was a particularly big question for our offense since none of our offensive players played those positions last year.

We struggled with offense all year, some times giving up 7 (!!) breaks in bracket play. I run the offense, so it was a tough puzzle for me to figure out. We tried line-up changes, but nothing seemed to work consistently. Towards sectionals we started to get things working, and we limited our breaks. Same with the Saturday at Regionals, up until we (pool 2 seed) played Jukebox Hero (pool 1 seed) and folded like a house of cards. Our offense looked inept, and we got rolled 11-4. This was still pool play, but we were out of the front door game to nationals and had to try to find a way to take the backdoor, which always seems to involve playing every team that has a chance.

Regionals was at home, so I got a chance to watch some tape from Above and Beyond, and read Jim's Mixing it up on offense. I decided that part of our problem offensively was that I was frequently using our "best cutter" as the first person out of the H-stack, and in general the sequences were too similar. My goal was to change that on Sunday, so we went in with a new offensive mentality. Almost every point we changed up the type of stack (vert, H, split, sideline) and we frequently put one of our handlers out in the string, with our "best cutter" back to handle.

On Sunday I believe we gave up a total of 6 breaks in 4 games. Never did we have sequential breaks and we went from being a team for whom pressure was put on the defense to stay on the field to a team that could bide our time until D could get us one. It was a satisfying experience, and it bodes well for the future since much of that line-up is young.

I can't directly explain what part of mixing things up strategy-wise tipped us over the edge. I think part of the problem previously was that as our main cutters got tired they would settle for bad away cuts, attempting to finish the point too early. I don't have a lineup of Zip and Fortch out there that can run full-tilt for a whole weekend and will be open no matter what. By shifting who our cutters were we gave up some options (no one fears me deep at 5'8" and 31 years old), but it also allowed our go to people to rest, or initiate from a different space. I should try to remember to do more of that in the future.

Team USA Interview--Dylan Tunnell (part 2)

2009-07-31T00:01:00.006-04:00

Here is the continuation of our interview with Dylan Tunnell. Ultimate Strategy & Coaching would like to thank him for his candidness and eagerness to participate in this piece.

You mentioned versatility as a key component of the Team USA selections. In your article for The Huddle, you talked about deep threats also needing to be able to throw. In recent years, is this something that you’ve consciously developed in your own game?

I've always tried to be a good thrower. I think my throws have just become more consistent in games within the last couple of years. Whether that was just a function of experience or something else I'm not sure.

As individual players, do you think Team USA was the most versatile of all the teams?

Yes. Although I would say that Japan was close. Canada and Australia both had a few well-rounded players but a number of people who played specific roles.

One of the weird things about the Japanese team was that most of their taller players handled and their shorter players were downfield cutters.

Considering all 20 players selected, was Team USA deeper than any other country’s team?

Yes and I don't think it would have been particularly close. Canada has two very strong teams in each division and after that they fall off a lot. I talked to a couple of the Australians about this and they gave me the impression that each of the cities in Australia has two or three good players. I think Japan may actually have the second-best depth. I know that Sockeye traveled there for a tournament and had a number of difficult games against teams other than just the Buzz Bullets.

Four years ago, someone else said something similar about what would have happened if the World Games rosters had been twice the size. Any indication on what is leading to the strength or growth of ultimate in Japan and Australia?

I can't say for sure. If I had to guess, I would say that because ultimate is such a fun sport to play, once you get a few people in a place who know what they're doing, are pretty cool, and are interested in teaching others to play, it’s pretty easy to get growth. I would also say that the increased accessibility of ultimate media online helps with growth. Players around the world can see videos of the top U.S. teams playing and can learn a lot from that.

Also, it’s worth noting that ahead of either Japan or Australia, ultimate is probably growing most quickly in Colombia. From what I understand it’s blowing up there. In Mejedin (sp?), where the 2013 World Games will be held, they have an entire ultimate-only field complex and stadium that have been built.

Are there any expatriates working with the Columbia program?

Seth Wiggins, from Team USA, has spent a good deal of time in Columbia teaching ultimate. He's going back down for a few more months soon.

It was noteworthy that outside of Japan and the host team, everyone was from English-speaking countries. I don’t think this has been the case in previous World Games. It will be interesting to see what the landscape is like in four years. Team Japan was all Buzz Bullets players, correct? Were their women from the same area?

I expect that unless they increase the number of teams to more than six, it will be the same teams minus Taiwan, plus Columbia. I think there is a chance that Sweden or Germany could knock off Great Britain.

Yes, I believe all of the Japanese guys were Buzz Bullets. I think the women came from the same team as well but I'm not sure.

What if the US had taken a similar approach, sending seven guys from Jam and six women from Fury? Could they have won it all? Do you think there is some merit to this approach, given what it took to have you all practice together?

I believe they could have won it all. As it was, there were three Jam guys and three Fury girls on the team. I think having a team made up of players from around the country, however, is a much better way of doing it. More teams and cities feel that they're being represented as the best players are spread out to some extent. If you have as many practices as we did there is plenty of time to develop chemistry. Although it was a big commitment for all of us, I'd be shocked if anyone said it wasn't worth it.

Besides, the WUGC that happens every four years is already for the team that wins the UPA Championship.

Given the circumstances, do you think buy-in is higher because of the level of commitment?

Well, I think no one would have tried out in the first place if he or she wasn't prepared for the commitment. There were a couple of players, Moses Rifkin and Jeff Graham, who applied and would have had had excellent chances of making the team but withdrew their names before tryouts because they couldn't make the commitment.

Physically, how does one prepare for an event like this? Especially since you were geographically separated from your team-mates and on the final roster there would be so few players.

Aside from the four practice weekends and two tournaments we went to as a team, we did a lot of stuff on our own. We were never given a team workout regimen but we had an online group where we would share our workouts with one another. Most people had someone to work with. The most challenging thing was finding opportunities to actually play ultimate in the late winter and early spring before club season had started. I scrimmaged Emory a few times.

What kind of workouts were people doing?

Most people were doing a mix of running either on the track or on grass in cleats and lifting weights. There were a lot of shuttle runs, sprints, agility drills, and other exercises that focused on explosiveness.

In one of last week’s updates, Matty Tsang said that Team USA had “very few true handlers.” Miranda Roth mentioned a similar issue with the 2005 team. Was preference give to athleticism over disc skills when selecting the final team?

I believe so. While I think that almost all of the players on the team could be only handlers, they are fast enough that they are better served as cutters and receivers most of the time.

Was this role adjustment something you all addressed in practice?

I never felt like we were short on handlers. More often I felt like it was a shame that some of the people who were having to handle weren't getting the opportunity to run the field.

Do you think the line between handler and cutter was blurred in the horizontal offense you all were running?

I felt like as we developed better and better chemistry there was a lot more switching between the positions. Someone would catch a pass on an in cut and one of the people who had been handling would run through and get downfield.

Despite the high-level of play, all the games looked very clean—Spirit of the Game looks to have been extremely well-represented. To what do you attribute this?

I felt like almost everyone on all the teams was pretty into the ideas of spirit and self-officiating. This may have been because everyone was anxious and to show our sport in the best light on the international stage but I think it was more likely genuine respect we had for one another. It felt like the cleanness of the games was a strong argument for self-officiating working at the highest levels of the sport.

I heard inklings that observers of some sort may be required for the next World Games but I hope full-fledged officiating isn't on the horizon. I think the fact is that when you have outsiders who aren't directly involved in the plays making calls, you're bound to have a less well-called game. Look at the NBA.

What role did the gray-shirted officials have during the matches—similar to that of the UPA Club Championships? Were the just making active line calls? One couldn’t tell from the video.

They were making no calls. Their main job was to give hand-signals to the public-address announcer about what calls were being made so he could relay it to the crowd. If players appealed to them, they were allowed to give advice on up/down and in/out calls, but their advice was not binding in any way. Players had final say on all calls.

Given the venue and the amenities afforded to all of you, it looks like ultimate was really showcased at the World Games. Do you think there is a future for ultimate at this level? I heard the Olympic Games representatives were impressed with what was displayed by all the teams and participants.

I would love to think that ultimate could be in the Olympics in the foreseeable future but I think there are a few big obstacles. For one, we are still a good number short on national governing bodies. For another, the Olympics are not too keen on adding more team sports because more athletes necessitates more money. I think the fact that ultimate is growing so quickly helps, however, and I believe the idea of Spirit of the Game fits in well with the Olympic ideals of diplomacy and peacemaking. That being said, I'd be surprised to see ultimate in the Olympics in the next 25 years. For the time being, the World Games are pretty sweet.

Was the stadium where you all played the same as for the opening ceremony? Was upwind-downwind a factor in the stadium?

Yes, it was the main stadium and it was awesome. The first two days were very windy—comparable to Sarasota. The last day was fairly still.

Even on video, the crowd noise was chilling. What was it like playing in that stadium during higher-attended games? Was a mental adjustment necessary?

It was awesome having the energy from the crowd. I think some people may have gotten jitters a bit early on but for me it just helped me keep up my level of intensity. It was surprisingly easy to tune out the distractions.

What about the ambassador experience? It looks like you all spent a lot of time interacting with the locals and the other teams.

It was pretty cool meeting the players on the other teams. After each game we'd have a circle with the people we just played and talk about the game and what it meant to us. As far as interacting with the locals, they really seemed to like us a lot. I think the fact that we were large and American had a lot to do with it. We were asked to sign a lot of autographs and have pictures taken with people. It was unlike anything I've experienced before.

Are there any drills Team USA did that you think our readers would be interested in learning about?

We did a lot more scrimmaging at our practices than drilling. Most of the drills we did were pretty straightforward. Stuff just to get our legs and throws going.

What would you say to someone watching the World Games coverage right now who wants to be on the next Team USA in four years?

Go for it. Play high-level ultimate as often as you can. In practice and games, match up against the best players whenever possible. Hit the track and the gym with a well rounded approach to improving athleticism. Throw. Throw. Throw. Good luck.

How does Team USA stay on top for four years from now?

I think ultimate in the United States keeps getting better and better. The other national teams will definitely improve but I feel confident there will be plenty of American players who are excited to make the commitment in 2013. I may be one of them.

Do you have any final impressions about the experience to share?

It was incredible. I got to play the most fun sport in the world with some of the best and most fun people I have ever known. I will cherish the memories for the rest of my life.

Team USA Interview--Dylan Tunnell (part 1)

2009-07-29T00:01:00.006-04:00

In only a decade of competitive play, Atlanta’s Dylan Tunnell has assembled an impressive ultimate resume, taking home bronze at Junior Worlds in 2000, winning the UPA Juniors Championship with Paideia Gruel in 2001 and 2002, and being Callahan Award candidate for University of Georgia in 2006 and 2007. He has made semifinals at both UPA College and Club Championships. This summer he competed at the 2009 World Games as part of Team USA, where they won gold. Currently, Dylan plays for Atlanta’s Chain Lightning and works as a firefighter for the City of Atlanta.

Congratulations and welcome home.

Thanks. It's good to be back but I'm definitely experiencing some withdrawal.

Withdrawal from which part—people, playing? How was it trying to bring together a group like that from all over the country?

Mostly withdrawal from the people. The people on the team were awesome and it sucks that we won’t get to be a team again. It was really pretty easy for us to come together. On field chemistry took a little while to develop but off the field we immediately bonded.

A big part of it was that we all shared a love of playing and that made it easy for everyone to buy in early on.

Can you identify a specific point in the season when this "buy in" happened?

I think it happened as early as the tryouts among everyone who was there—those who made the team and those who didn't.

Everyone seemed to be excited just to be a part of the process.

Had Team USA won its last pool-play game against Team Japan and all other results remained the same, then Team Japan would have advanced to the gold-medal game out of the three-way, head-to-head tie (with Team Canada and Team Australia) for second based on point deferential, correct?

Yes. Going into our first game with Japan we knew that no matter the result of the game we'd be playing them again for the gold, even if we lost.

Going into the tournament, did you all expect Team Australia to be your biggest competition, both because of the level of play that they have displayed in recent years and because you all had not faced them over the summer? What about Japan?

I think we expected Australia, Japan, and Canada to be our biggest competition in no particular order.

We knew each would provide different challenges match-up wise. Personally, I was most concerned about Japan because they are a small, quick team and a lot of our players were on the bigger side and not used to guarding little guys.

In preparing for the tournament, you all played Team Canada multiple times along with seeing Team Great Britain and Team Taipei at Poultry Days. In pool play, did you all have specific game plans for each team or did you start out the same and adapt later in the game?

We had some specific defenses we used against Canada and Australia to stop their long game. Against Japan we knew we had to stay very close on defense because they use big cross-field throws to the break side well. Also we knew we had a height advantage we could use against the Japanese. Otherwise we were pretty confident that if we went out and played our game we'd be successful. Against Great Britain and Japan we made a few in game adjustments to the defenses they were playing against our H-stack.

From the video, it looked like Team Great Britain played very tough defense on you all.

They did. That was without a doubt our most physical game of the tournament. The Brits played a gritty style and they were close to upsetting almost all of the top teams. They just couldn't quite put it all together.

What adjustments did you all make in between the two games with Japan? What about half-time adjustments in either game?

We made a few specific adjustments. Notably, they really try to get blocks on dump passes and succeeded a couple of times against us in the first game. We learned that if you pump-fake the throw, they'll bite hard and you can get an easy up line pass. Also, their downfield cutters don't do a lot of change of direction. If they start running, they're probably going to continue in that direction until they are thrown to or not. We learned to sell out in running with them on D. The biggest change for us was just that we were super focused and fired up for the finals. Even though we were trying hard in the first game, I think it was in the back of everyone's head that the game didn't really matter. The intensity of focus wasn't all there, I think for that reason.

Personally, I'm not sure I have ever felt as intensely focused as I did in that finals game.

One of the updates mentioned that people would prepare mentally for the matches in different ways. During the break, did you all do anything as a team to get up for the gold medal game?

I think losing to [Team Japan] in that first game served as a wake-up call for us. I'm not sure we would have been complacent had we won the first one but having lost it we were hungry to get back out there and redeem ourselves. We followed basically the same warm-up routine we used for the other games only before the finals everyone was extremely dialed in. I think we all felt like we were just waiting to get on the field to be able to unleash the energy that was building inside of us.

The best example of this for me was when I passed Beau in the hall and asked him how he was feeling. He said, "I feel like I'm ready to blow the fuck up. You can either sit back and watch me or help me do it." After that, I had no doubt that we were going to win.

Ultimate is still at the point where having a coach is not a given at even the highest levels of the sport. What influence did Greg Connelly have on both unifying the team and determining its style of play?

I think he was good about allowing a style of play evolve among us naturally rather than impose something he had in his head that not everyone would necessarily be comfortable with. The first practice or two he just let us play and then afterward asked people what they liked and based the offense off of that. He was aware that there were a lot of smart players on the team and that he didn't need to over-coach. The players had a lot of say in the way our game plan developed. I think what came out of that ended up working pretty well for us.

For a moment, to go back to what Beau said to you and what you said at the beginning about being bonded off the field . . . I don't know what competing at this level is like but it sounds like as a team you very much supported one another and this was key to your success—is this correct?

It really was. I think what made us a great team on the field more than anything was the love we had for each other. When we were out there we were playing for one another. For me, and I think for the rest of the people too, caring about teammates is the best motivating force you can have. That way, you don't get caught up in your own head because you're playing for something outside of yourself.

In the mixed game, teams are always searching for the best ways to use their men and their women. How did Team USA approach this issue? How did you all prepare for your opponents using different mixed-specific game-plans against you all?

To begin with, and I mean this in the least sexist way possible, our girls were so good it felt more like playing open than mixed. We didn't have a whole lot of plans that pertained specifically to our coed nature other than the obvious things like not having guys hanging out deep when women were making long cuts. Because about seven of the nine women on our full roster were more in the mold of downfield cutters we used our women more as receivers than as handlers. Some of the other teams used their women in more specialized ways but our women were versatile and adjusted well to whatever was thrown at them.

On defense, it looks like Team USA often played transition zone. Was this to counter horizontal-stack plays off the pull? Overall, were the conditions or opposition not right for whole points of zone defense?

Yeah, we played transition Z mainly to disrupt pull plays. Actually, that was the area in which being coed was the most difficult for us because we had to match up according to gender after the transition rather than just with the closest people. We got better at it but there were a couple of times in Kaohsiung when we messed it up. We didn't play much whole-point zone mainly because we thought our person D was very strong. Also our zone just wasn't that great. Go figure.

How did Team USA prepare for playing person-to-person defense in the mixed game? How was playing mixed ultimate at this level different than playing open? Did you all find yourselves employing different strategies and tactics than in the single-sex games?

It really wasn't that different from what I'm used to playing open. When matching up the men would figure out their matchups and the women theirs. Against some teams we realized that we might have better matchups with the women than the men or the reverse and look to exploit our advantage on offense but that was about the extent of it.

As players, what qualities were shared by the final selections? Physical ability is obvious but one thing I noticed from the videos was that everyone was excellent throwing against—and often breaking—strong marks.

A lot of times we did set up plays where we'd be throwing to opposite genders throughout our sequences but I think that may just have come out of trying to involve everyone.

I think all twenty of the players on the team were confident breaking the mark. In fact, the four guys who weren't on the final roster, Jared, Steven, Adam and Jolian were as good or better break-mark throwers as any of the final seven. I think the selections had more to do with versatility than anything else. I'm not really sure though. You could have taken any 13 of the 20 and made a great team.

You’re known as a receiver, but in the footage it looks like you played almost every defensive point and frequently handled the disc. Initially, how did Greg perceive you role on the team?

Everyone on the team was capable of either handling or going downfield. I almost always started downfield but sometimes after catching an in-cut pass whoever was behind the disc would go run and I'd stay back for a bit. I played a lot of D because I could pull and I think because I am fairly aggressive throwing the disc and catching hucks after a turnover. He never really told me why I was playing D. I just assumed those were the reasons.

From the footage one would think you pulled every disc.

Pretty much whenever I was on the field. Jolian pulled a lot before Taiwan though.

Given that there were only two short games in a day with a substantial break in between, what were the sub rotations like?

Except in the case of really short points it was mostly play a point-rest a point. Obviously one guy had to stay on from the point before but that got spread around. There was pretty equal playing time for everyone.

It was hot and humid as hell so even though games were short they were fairly exhausting,

Everyone was healthy through the three days? I don't remember seeing any Team USA players go off with injuries, but I heard about people suffering from heat exhaustion.

Deb hurt her ankle in the first game but was able to play in the rest. Gabe had a mild concussion that kept him out of half a game. One of our ladies got heat exhaustion in the first Japan game but was fine for the finals. We were pretty healthy all things considered.

Drill Baby, Drill!

2009-05-31T13:18:00.006-04:00

Yesterday I attended the Ozone try-outs. One of the girls I coach during the spring season is on the team and three others were trying out. The first drill the team ran to get everyone going was the standard "Endzone" or "Mushroom" drill. The past two years, we've run this well-known drill on Paideia but with a small variation - the goal thrower after throwing the goal, moves to the sideline to receive the disc back from the goal scorer while the next player from the front line steps out to set up a game-like reset* cut (starting 10-12 yards laterally from the thrower, driving up line and then coming back in order to receive the reset).

While I was watching the drill yesterday, every one of the Paideia Girls after throwing the goal automatically moved to the sideline before remembering that the drill was not the same. Seeing how all of them automatically executed an element of a drill without thinking reinforced the power of drills.

I was talking to Tiina Booth at HS Easterns while watching the Paideia Boys play Columbia HS. We were talking about goal setting for games (the Paideia girls set goals for each half of each game). She said that she used to do this but has stopped because it increases the amount of thinking that players need to do on the field and she doesn't want her players to think.

This to me, is the primary value of drills. Running well-designed drills over and over again eliminates the unnecessary thinking that results in mistakes and miscommunication on the Ultimate field. In order to eliminate thinking all together drills must be run to the point where they become boring and feel repetitive. Teams will often try to run a lot of different drills in order to keep players engaged, but the irony of it is that the keeping players engaged only happens when players think and as long as players have to think think your team will not receive the full benefit of the drill.

So, identify the skills and tactics that your team needs. Design as few drills as possible that train those skills and tactics. And run those drills until everyone gets bored with them- while focusing most on the ones that give you highest value for time spent. If everyone is bored with your drills and can execute them with their eyes closed or while having a conversation (or while trying to run another drill) you'll know that the lessons of your drill have become ingrained.

*Just so everyone is clear, whenever I say "reset" I mean "dump." I prefer the term because it doesn't have the somewhat negative connotation that "dump" has. "Dump" also implies that the disc goes backward when a good reset changes the attacking space of the offense by moving the disc laterally, or in some cases, upfield.

The BEST drill for players at all levels

2009-05-20T18:02:00.001-04:00

There are a handful of drills that I frequently use while coaching but none of them do I use more frequently and that have a higher return on time spent than the three-person marking drill.

There are a handful of criteria that drills need to meet to be great. The best drills:
- replicate an element of your team's offense or defense
- provide for a high number of touches to all players
- serve to also condition players
- can be challenging to players at different points in their development
- emphasize solid fundamentals

It is difficult for a drill to meet all of these criteria. When you are drilling a full team tactic that requires a full team or defense there may be only one disc for 7 or more players. When drilling some skills or strategies where you are trying to limit uncontrollables (particularly with players that haven't developed strong throwing skills) you may not even have a disc at all. When drilling a brand new skill or strategy you should probably limit the amount of conditioning as the focus of the drill should be squarely on the new skill or strategy.

Any drill that does not emphasize solid fundamentals should be thrown out immediately. Drills that encourage players to turn the wrong way when receiving a disc, throw to tight spaces, or make bad cuts (like short away cuts or horizontal cuts) should be immediately eliminated from a teams repertoire. I know this is going to come of as elitist, but anytime I see a team running the box drill (where players make short away cuts starting from right next to a thrower) I know that they are being poorly coached. This drill runs counter to every one of the criteria listed above. It shocks me that this drill is still being used. I'm sure if it has any impact at all it is negative.

So back to the three-person marking drill. The drill is straight-forward. Two players (one with a disc) stand 12-15 yards apart. Marker marks the thrower with the disc straight up with a stall coming in at 4. The thrower breaks the mark to the other player. The marker runs to mark the new thrower. This continues for a minute and half (time can be varied) at which point the marker switches out with one of the throwers.

The focus should be on the mark:
- Getting the butt low
- staying balanced: feet slightly wider than shoulder width apart and able to move in both directions at any time
- taking away throws with the feet and body by short, quick shuffling (not lunging) to get into position

And the thrower:
- Pivoting
- Faking
- Staying balanced
- Increasing extension/varying release points
- Not travelling

To increase focus on the marking aspects, this drill can be done with the mark having their hands behind their back so the only way they can take away throws is by shuffling in front of the thrower. What players will find is that considerably more work is done with their legs than their arms.

To increase focus on the throwing aspects, this drill can be done with the marker fouling the thrower. Throwers can learn about how to appropriately call "disc space" and "foul." More importantly, if a thrower can get comfortable throwing the disc while being fouled, they will be composed when they aren't being fouled and even more so when they are throwing to the open side.

Every practice I run begins with this drill. As soon as warm-ups and stretching is over my team knows to get a disc and a group of three. I usually run through it twice with two of the variations but sometimes will run through it three times. In the beginning of the season I typically run it with no hands and then normal. Towards the end of the season I run it normal and then fouling. In 10-15 minutes the team has broken a sweat and gotten in some conditioning and put in quality time on the most fundamental aspects of both offense and defense.

By the end of the season even the newest players feel comfortable with the disc and a mark and are fundamentally sound markers. The more experienced players have expanded their repertoire of breaks on both the backhand and forehand side and have developed additional release points and extended their release points away from their bodies. All players are able to instinctively call "disc space" and "foul" at appropriate times.

A significant part of the Paideia Girls success over the past two years is directly a result of this drill and how productive it is for the time that is invested into it.

The drill is not just good for HS Girls (although I would argue that it is particularly productive here), the Brown men used to run this drill at most every practice back in the early 2000s. It's also a great drill for small groups of players doing work-outs in the off-season as you only need 3 people to get the maximum out of it.

-Kyle

Fundamental Drills for Offense (question)

2009-05-01T11:33:00.003-04:00

Growing up in a straight stack (originally with no backfield reset) offense I feel pretty comfortable stating that the 2 drills that I find fundamental to that offense are the mushroom drill and the 3 line drill. Clearly there are more drills that can be done for a vertical offense, and there are many variants of these drills depending on how you want to run your offense. These 2 drills focus on the two main parts of the offense, resetting the disc and cutting downfield. I can easily explain the transition between those drills to play on the field for a young/new player.

I feel like I've been floundering with the horizontal offense. I can run it just fine, but coming up with drills that teach the basics of the offense has been difficult. Just like vertical I'm sure there are tons of variants of drills depending on how each teach specifically runs their H, but I was wondering what some common drills are that teams use to teach players how to cut in a horizontal offense. Especially stuff that people have tried with new players to get them to see the space created in an H-stack and learn how to cut in that space. Thanks.

Ga St Champs/Coaching in the Gaps

2009-04-25T19:46:00.002-04:00

I wasn't going to post after just one day of the boy's Georgia State Championships. I'm sure many people are currently focused on the college regional battles (I know I am). But after thinking about it there are a few points I would like to make.

The state of Georgia High School ultimate isn't as weak as the girls. While average disc skills were lacking (usually 1 or 2 handlers on a team except for the top 3), the athleticism present was impressive. We (Paideia) managed to go 4-0 and will have another 4 games tomorrow if all goes well (last round of pool play followed by quarters and up). This seems like a lot of games for high school boys on a hot weekend, but everyone else is in the same boat. I'd be happier just playing 2 or 3 games on Sunday.

Pool strength presented an interesting scenario that I can't believe I haven't thought of before. Our JV team (in the other pool) seems to feel like the other pool was stronger. This might be the case, which would mean that we have a tougher road ahead for us since we will see their 2-seed in the semis and their 1-seed in the finals after they have (presumably) an easier game. So I guess it pays off to be in the tougher pool (??) if you feel pretty good about advancing, especially if there are 3 quality teams. Again, I can't believe I haven't thought about this before.

Lastly, I again realized how much I love coaching/teaching during a bye. Our trap zone was not looking particularly good, so during the "bye" for lunch we gathered the guys around, drew up our trap zone, then went shirts and skins while we walked through the transition of the trap a few times. It is such a great time to learn because everyone is cleated up, you have direct references to experiences in the past games to remind people about things, then you can directly apply those lessons to a game where the opposing team doesn't always know what you are doing. As much as I (selfishly) think timeouts are meant for strategic adjustments, I think byes are for coaching (although scouting and hydrating should be in there as well).

Girls State Championships

2009-04-22T21:13:00.003-04:00

I got to coach at the Girls' Georgia State Championships today. The level of play in Georgia is still relatively low, and there aren't many teams. Groove (Paideia Girls) have dominated all of their high school opponents this season, and a good number of the college ones they have played. They are an excellent group of girls with incredible talent. That is why we were surprised to find ourselves down to a combo team from 2 high schools (told you there weren't many teams) 0-2 at the beginning of the game. Our squad was depleted, so we didn't have the handlers that we normally did, which presented a problem. We started on D with the wind blowing pretty strong cross-field. Our opponent ran zone and we fumbled the disc after a number of swing passes. This gave our opponent a short field and the scored. Same thing happened again next point. Our girls were starting to get frustrated. The only time they had been down 0-2 recently was when they were assessed 2 points, so we talked about it really quick between a points and settled down. We scored the next point and then we rattled off the next 12 doing basically the same thing (getting short field through zone and weak passing skills).

When coaching at Emory there came times where it was obvious that we needed to basically huck and play zone because of the wind. When completing passes becomes a variable the value of the field position gained by the huck increases. I'm glad the girls got their poise together and just completed passes the way then know how, but it made me realize that at the lower levels (perhaps with new players) offense is a burden that can really bury a team. It wasn't that our opponent's zone was so devastating that we couldn't beat it, we just weren't completing easy passes and giving them short yards (i.e. few passes) to a goal. Sometimes you just have to jack it to gain as many yards as possible and then hope that you can get a turn over down there so that you get the short field.

It is tough to get players with a bit of experience to buy into this at some point, perhaps because it doesn't feel like good ultimate. After all, how can hucking to no offender with 2 defenders poaching deep be a good thing? Don't we hope to not have to worry about completing the easy passes and playing keep away as long as it takes? Our opponent starting going to the same strategy (hucking) as the game got away from them, which was the right decision in my opinion. Again, I'm glad our girls ended up not having to switch to that strategy, but in the back of my head I kept wondering that if we didn't manage to pull it together and march it down the field to make the score 1-2 and get on defense ourselves would we have been willing to go with the huck & D strategy and would it have felt like defeat?

Lastly, I really can't say enough about these girls. Kyle has done an excellent job coaching them the past 2 (?) years. There are number of excellent seniors graduating this year which will be good for the college game, but the cupboard wont be bare when they leave since there is also a number of phenomenal sophomores and juniors behind them.

Paideia Cup Day 2

2009-04-19T18:03:00.002-04:00

The 2nd day of Paideia Cup is over and was filled with ups and downs. Due to potential downpour later that day the first round of the day was played yesterday. That meant that we went straight to semis today which has us play Columbia HS (Anthony Nunez). Columbia had a tough game against Grady High School (Susie Mercer) the previous day so we knew they were ready to play and prove themselves today. The game was a great game, ending with us on top after double game point (9-8).

A few thoughts on Columbia. Kyle had mentioned their resets being particular good, and that was evident. At first I through it was another instance of our marks being too flat, but the Columbia players knew how to clear the reset and then fill in from the front of the stack. The thrower would almost always throw quickly around our mark hitting the reset and then swinging the disc. Their constant resets made our downfield defense difficult. They also threw what I call the "soft" (inside) break very well. In particular #6 did a good job moving the disc back to the breakmark side with soft breaks. Last compliment (although there could be plenty) is the level of athleticism that some of their players brought to the game. Number 3 (Jordan?) and #13 were just few of a number of defenders that really worked our cutters making it difficult to advance the disc at times. Fortunately we advanced, getting a few Ds after making some adjustments.

The next game against Hopkins (Jake Raisanen) wasn't so lucky. Word on the street was that this team was big and fast, and they lived up to the hype. With a number of players over 6' our short line-up was really going to be tested. In addition to their height they had a number of seniors on that squad, which became evident in the first few points. Our offense struggled to get open against older athleticism, and they forced us into poor decisions by taking away the easy ones. When they had the disc it was clear that they had been playing together for years. They threw deep often, typically to players that had only a step or two, and frequently with risky passes (through lanes and around marks). Almost all of these hucks connected, and what impressed me was the confidence with which they released the disc. During the game I commented that they were throwing the way that I would throw to my oldest friends, where you just know they are about to cut to an area so you throw it early giving the defender almost no chance.

We lost the game to Hopkins 13-5, despite playing very well. Our boys fought hard and did what they could, but we were out matched physically and experientially. I don't think they are attending Easterns, but I wish that they would. I'll question whoever wins the "Eastern" title if they didn't beak Hopkins at some point during the year. I guess that is just part of the wacky Junior Nationals scene.

Lastly, from a coaching standpoint: Both of the teams we played today ran an (at times) isolation based sideline stack offense. Creating the one large lane out in front of the thrower. Our original defensive adjustments were pulling people off of the players in the middle of the stack to potentially help with the isolated cutter. This worked well, but they still would get some devastating deep hucks off. I wondered if we wouldn't have had success with forcing back towards the sideline stack and using the dump defender to frustrate the open side and have them swing the disc to the side of the field with the stack on it. Hopkins probably would have just switched their stack-side, but in the transition we may have gotten them to throw something they weren't comfortable with. Maybe we should have just forced middle.

Paideia Cup: Day 1

2009-04-18T18:06:00.001-04:00

Today was the first day of the Paideia Cup in Atlanta. It is a high school tournament that draws some of the best teams in the south east and up to New Jersey. The field was a little light compared to last year (where a Seattle combo team won it all), but it was still an illuminating experience for this first year high school coach.

We had been to Deep Freeze earlier this year, but it was a first tournament of the season and the competition was still covered in winter sleet. All three of the teams we played today (Page, HB Woodlawn/Yorktown, Red Bank) were well skilled and very intense. All had coaches, and clearly had an offensive scheme of some sort. We aren't exactly the most defensively diverse team out there (we run a zone . . . AND a man), however we were able to make defensive and offensive adjustments that really opened up the games. It seemed like other teams adjusted slowly to our tweaks, but those adjustments were happening. The teams that I've had the most success with were teams that were able to defensively make on opponent change from Plan A to Plan B. We were able to do that today, and it rallied us 3 wins by more than 8 points each.

The competition was very good (despite the somewhat lopsided scores), but it seems like playing against college teams has really paid off. We were so accustomed to getting few chances with the disc on defense that we learned to be more frugal with the disc after an opponent's turn. That was the difference in most of the games today. It wasn't that we were getting tons of blocks, but we didn't give them the disc back after getting possession. It was refreshing to see our players be that intelligent and patient. Our captains also did a (slightly) better job with subbing. We kept productive lines on offense, while getting our secondary players chances to get blocks on defense. As a result it seemed that everyone felt involved and was making plays. Morale was really high, but that is easy when you are winning.

Weather permitting we will play again tomorrow, so hopefully we will continue to play well and take home a title. I'm also hoping that we can teach the team one or two more defenses to try out. There was a time that a good poachy force middle would have wrecked a team.

Coaching at the elite level

2009-04-08T12:39:00.002-04:00

So . . . why don't top level teams have coaches?

I've run into this question often, and while I can easily cite why college and high school teams need coaches (have to develop players with potentially little experience in a short amount of time), I don't know why or if elite teams need coaches.

Perhaps I am just in the dark. I know that Fury is coached my Matty Tsang, but that has only been for the past three years and they have been kicking people's asses for a long time. I think Machine has a coach, but I can't name another team that has a coach (again, I will point to my possible ignorance).

I've constructed arguments around where the knowledge-base is in our sport. The smartest people in the sport are still playing. In some cases those are the younger players in the open division, but even our older/more experienced players are still on the field. Why would a great ultimate mind be trying to coach an open team when they could be playing masters. But surely there are people out there like me who's careers got cut short due to injury, what about those people? Maybe it is the financial commitment? I kind of find that hard to believe since people pay out of their own pockets to be a part of this community (at tournaments, UPA regs, etc.) we've established that we are willing to shell out coin to stay competitive and involved.

An interesting case against my points would be Stu Downs coaching the University of Georgia. Stu is definitely one of the most experienced and smartest people in the game, so it made sense that as his family developed and age (finally!) caught up to him he would stay involved as a coach. But in that case it was college, where the reasons to coach are much more obvious and the effect he would have is obvious as well.

This leads me to a second question: do elite teams even need coaches? My gut reaction is to say yes. A coach can orchestrate the game play, can see what the opponent is doing and create adjustments to maximize his/her team's chance of winning. There is nothing about ultimate that wouldn't benefit from that . . . but then again I've never played on an elite team. Surely those teams already have captains that do the things that I mentioned, so why bother with a coach?

So that's 2 questions I would love to hear so opinions on?

Why do most elite teams not have coaches?
Would elite teams benefit from coaches?

Ultivillage Videos

2009-04-08T12:20:00.003-04:00

I'm trying to live up to a bargain I made the Florida women's coach of posting more. I hope I am not boring people.

I just got 2 more videos from Ultivillage: 2008 UPA Championships and 2008 WFDF Championships. My first reaction was disappointment in the UPA video. They trimmed down to 1 DVD rather than 2, and it seems to be at the expense of content. There was no menu structure for pool play, and you didn't get a chance to see more of the games (even if only highlights). I'll comment them for going back to an elevated camera instead of the ground level cameras that have been used for the past few finals. They even used sideline cameras, which offer some great views of spacing and depth that end zone cameras can't give. Unfortunately the editing left a bit to e desired. The first half of the men's game the sideline cameras were almost always zoomed in on the thrower so close you couldn't even see the dump well. The second half was better, but they we to the end zone camera which was typically more zoomed out. The other problem I had was that the play felt stunted. We didn't see many pulls, and they disc would just magically appear on the field without any idea of what happened before. The commentary provided was good commentary, but it also felt stunted as there was no down time (between points and turnovers) for the commentators to add any color or discussion.

Contrast this with the excellent job in filming and editing for the WFDF video. The pool play and most finals were the same style Ultivillage has employed for the past few years, giving us a few extended plays during a game, but jumping from point to point. The finals (at least the men's) were excellent. There were three commentators (Match and 2 guys from blockstack.tv) that did an excellent job. The video was from an angle and elevated, with multiple cameras so they could bounce around as needed. But best of all we saw pretty much the whole game. The benefit of that, from a coaching standard, is huge. I can sit down the the kids and we can actually see what a team is doing on the field, we can discuss strategy and since there is relative down time between each point we can discuss before we have to start watching again. I would love to spend time this coming Tuesday (Tape Tuesdays) talking about Ironside's implementation of straight stack, but I can't see it on the videos. Or how Fury staged their incredible comeback, but the commentary doesn't add anything more than play by play. Instead we will be watching, and listening to the 2008 WFDF finals and talk about how team USA started calling fouls when they were down.

Hopefully Ultivillage (who I love for making these videos) will cover more events like WFDF and give us more stuff to talk about. I can watch highlights online, I buy the DVDs because I want to watch a full game and see as many of the games from a tournament as possible. I sent Rob an email to see if there was any way that I could get the full film from last years UPA finals . . . we'll see if that gets me anywhere.

Offensive Line-up

2009-03-31T19:29:00.003-04:00

I was talking with one of my players yesterday about what was needed to have a successful offense. At the time he was of the mind-set that you need to have your "best" seven players on the field for offense (even if some of them are prone to turn-overs). This led to a conversation of what people do you need on the field to have a successful offense. We didn't really get to a conclusion before we had to head our separate ways, but I spent some more time thinking about it and I came up with the following:

For our game at Paideia (lets of working the disc with a few hucks here and there) I feel like on an offensive point we need 2 dominant under cutters, 2 excellent handles/resets, 1 dominant deep threat and 2 people to fill the gaps. Those fills are the people that know what to do when the opponent starts to poach and can do the things needed to keep the offense going.
Too many cutters lead to clogged lanes, too many handles leaves the cutting lanes barren. Too many deep threats means fewer under cuts and if we don't have those fills then the small things never get done.

I would imagine as you go from team to team and level to level the composition changes, but it remains important for a coach to think about what he or she needs on the field to score. Most of the people reading this have probably already gone through these thoughts, but it was a valuable coaching experience for our young player who had never really thought about that element of strategy.

Kyle deserves most of the credit for the conversation between my player and I, because it was something I told him about the way Kyle calls subs that really started the ball rolling for this conversation.

High School Coaching

2009-03-27T19:23:00.003-04:00

I've spend the past few months being an assistant coach to the Paideia High School men's team (Gruel) and the women's team (Groove). It has been an interesting and rewarding experience for many reasons, not the least of which is that I am assisting my former head coach Michael Baccarini.

Much of my time has been spent holding a clipboard, finding times to talk strategy and technique with players on the side. The set-up at Paideia is very different than I had at Emory. Much more responsibility falls on the shoulders of the players, including subbing and strategy. The pros and cons of that system are pretty obvious, we have less control of what is going on, but the players develop their knowledge of the game which is valuable down the road.

It is also strange attending tournaments where we know we are at a huge disadvantage. We have attended 1 high school tournament (Deep Freeze) which was the week after try-outs. Ever since then we have been going to college tournaments (Southern and a B-team tournaments) where we know we are at a huge size/speed disadvantage. Fortunately we typically have as many years of playing experience (if not more) than our opponents, but it is tough telling a 5'4" freshman to go guard a 5'11" college junior and protect the open side.

It seems like the athletic discrepancy would force us to improve our strategy, which it does on some level, but the main mode of thought is "go our there and play better." Being a strategy junkie I find myself craving more time to go over the minutia of our offense or slight alterations we can make to our trap zone to capitalize on a players weakness. That leads me to my question for the panel:

What type of coach are you? Are you the micro-managing coach who calls every line and then tells everyone who to guard? Are you the coach that teaches at practice then sees if your babies can swim at tournaments? Lastly, is there a better/worse method of coaching depending on the level you are coaching at? I guess I'll go answer first.

Quick Natties Thoughts

2008-11-04T11:00:00.002-05:00

I might write more later when I recover...but here are some quick thoughts:

(1)Congrats to Jam and Ironside...the finals was really clean, both in terms of not so many turnovers and in the sense that it was noticeably lacking in cheating, and as a result the game finished in something like 100 minutes.
(2)If Dylan Tunnell isn't on the world games team it's pretty much a huge joke. Chain was 5-0 with Dylan and 0-2 without him this weekend....not an accident...completely changes the game when he's on the field.
(3)Josh McCarthy is a very deserving winner of the Farricker award, but I just wanted to give some props to Chain's nominee, Jason Simpson. Jason has a foot injury that makes even walking incredibly painful. He decided to put off surgery until next week so he could be there for his teammates. Despite the pain, Simpson still managed to be able to play a lot of meaningful points at Natties...and as always, Jason exhibited the class and sportsmanship that makes him such a respected competitor. So yeah, KD's right, Boston bias is effing this game.
(4)Buy a Chain Jersey or Disc
(5)Ugh. Really felt like we had a chance this year...gonna take a while to get over this one.

aj

Georgia Declines Conference1 Offer

2008-10-15T19:11:00.004-04:00

After much discussion, both internally and with our friends on other teams, Georgia has decided to decline Cultimate's offer to join Conference 1.

Here are our main concerns

(1) Logistically, Cultimate is in no-way set up to handle the complexities of the series. They simply don't have the proper infrastructure necessary to handle eligibility.
(2) As best as we can tell, the top 25, especially the teams outside the top 15, is more or less completely arbitrary. We're especially concerned about the lack of details provided about teams that are not in the initial top 25's ability to move into the series.
(3) The timing of this is very irritating. With less than 3 months until the start of the spring season, we feel like we are being forced into making a decision without full knowledge of the details. Why could this have not been presented to us earlier? What's wrong with waiting until next year to do this? Right now, Cultimate is all but guaranteeing that the 2009 Season is going to be in a state of chaos.
(4) People remember who wins the NBA Championship...no one cares who won the most ABA Titles.
(5) If Cultimate were just interested in expanding their series from last year, Georgia would be very interested in participating. Why is it so necessary for Cultimate to be in charge of the championship event?
(6) We have serious concerns about the price structuring of this event in future years. Currently, the teams are getting a pretty sweet deal to attend these events, what's to guarantee us that Cultimate won't substantially raise costs in the future?

This in no way is meant as bashing Cultimate, I think they are bringing up some very important ideas and are suggesting many needed changes. It's also quite possible that we would be willing to compete in a Conference1 series next year, if some of these difficulties can be worked out. Unfortunately, as currently proposed, we feel that the Conference1 series will not work out, and the timing of Cultimate's announcement leaves them no time to work through the logistical details.

In any event, for all of these reasons, Georgia will be attending sectionals this year, with the hope of advancing to regionals and beyond. We hope that other teams will join us, but respect that each program has to make the decision that is best for their program.

National Seedings

2008-10-14T20:44:00.002-04:00

Here's my thoughts on nationals seedings:

I think the top 3 seeds are pretty uncontroversial:
1 Sockeye
2 Johnny Bravo (1-0 against Ironside)
3 Ironside

The 4-10 section becomes difficult due to Chain’s loss to Doublewide. Here is how I would handle it:

4 Ring of Fire (1-0 against Revolver, 0-2 against GOAT)
5 Revolver (1-0 against SZ, 1-0 against GOAT, must be higher than Jam)
6 Jam (1-0 against SZ, 1-0 against DW, have losses to Condors and TS, but I think it’s a mistake to push them lower)
7 Sub Zero (1-0 against GOAT, 1-0 against DW)
8 GOAT (1-0 against DW)
9 Doublewide (has to be higher than Chain, 1-0 against Condors)
10 Chain (has to be lower than DW)

11 Condors (2-0 against Truck Stop)
12 Truck Stop (has wins over Jam, Revolver, and DW, so could possibly push them higher them DW, but that just pushes Chain even lower, which seems like an error, 1-0 against Machine).

13 Machine (1-0 against Bodhi, 1-0 against PoNY)

14 Bodhi
15 PoNY
16 El Diablo

aj

UPA Coaching Corp Requirements

2008-09-23T12:20:00.003-04:00

So, I just got an email forwarded to me from the UPA.
Here is what I consider the most objectionable part of the email:

During games at UPA Championship events where field access is restricted, teams with coaching staff are required to have at least one Level I Certified coach in order for coaching staff to have player-level field access.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of the UPA Coaching Corp. I think it's a nice program that is genuinely trying to help develop the sport. But, I think this new requirement seems a bit over the top.

My basic problem is this: It's not enough that I (and many other coaches like me) VOLUNTEER hours and hours of my (our) time trying to teach people how to play ultimate...now I'm required to pay the UPA if I have hopes that by VOLUNTEERING my time, I might help my team advance to the highest levels? This doesn't seem to be the ideal way to encourage people to coach.

aj

Looks like it's gonna be Al over Jim...who knew?

2008-04-11T20:06:00.002-04:00

So, I make a brief return to posting just to express my surprise at the state of the blogosphere. In the early days (pre-ultimate talk) it seemed like most of the blogs were going to follow the Parinella model, polite and respectful. George's blog, Zaz's blog, and Marshall's blog all seemed to follow that model. Even Idris' blog and this blog, which preceded Parinella's blog (and aren't quite as milk-toast as Jim's blog) utilized a similar tone.

But the recent addition of this blog has got me thinking. The new popular ultimate blogs (Match Diesel's and Karlinsky's) have followed the Count's Blog model--they're irreverent and usually pretty funny. Match Diesel's Blog is even sporting the Count's trademark flames.

I thought I was just imagining this trend until I saw Parinella post some of the old T-Man stuff in an obvious attempt claim these new wild blogs as his own.

I'm not fooled though...looks like it's Al over Jim in the battle for the future of ultimatetalk.

aj

...Luke's blog continues to resist categorization.

Open Seeds

2007-10-10T09:55:00.001-04:00

Experience has taught us that the single best indicator for success at nationals is the results of the previous year’s nationals. This isn’t a new idea; we’ve known this for as long as I’ve been playing. What’s interesting is that the previous year’s results have become and increasingly smaller factor in determining seeding. I think there are a few reasons for this: 1) the format gurus (ok, mostly just Tarr) have convinced us that seeds aren’t meant to be predictive 2) we now have access to a lot more regular season results 3) we have been influenced by the method for seeding college – where the amount of turnover makes the previous years results a lot less indicative of success.

Another factor which seems to be completely ignored is when teams bring less that full-strength squad to tournaments. From the standpoint of creating an algorithm, it’s not clear how you account for this. However, in ignoring the strength of the team that actually showed up to a tournament we are throwing away usual information.

I guess what I’m suggesting is that by not considering these two factors, our seeding is not as good as it could be—Chain has been in a pool with 2 semi-finalists the last 3 years. I will say the format at Club nationals is the best at minimizing the effects of initial seeding, but I think it’s naïve to claim that seeding doesn’t matter at nationals.

For these and other reasons, I’ve argued before that it might be time for the UPA to get rid of the prohibition on not seeding a team above a team it finished lower than at a series event.

That being said, here’s my shot at seeding:

The Top 3

Due to the above mentioned prohibition, there are 3 possible ways to seed the top 3. 1)Jam, Sockeye, Bravo. 2)Bravo, Jam, Sockeye, 3) Jam, Bravo, Sockeye. The third way makes the least sense to me. If you’re willing to say that Bravo’s season entitles them to a higher ranking than Sockeye, then certainly Bravo’s 3-1 record against Jam should entitle than to the 1 seed. That being said, I prefer the first seeding. I think you have to give credit to Jam for winning the hardest region.

4
Furious – the team has been in at least the semis for 8? years. Was strong at ECC before losing to Jam.

5
Sub Zero, If Goat wins NE regionals they are the obvious 5 seed, I think there loss pushes Zero up to 5. They’ve had a good season, only losing to teams above them with the exception of 1 loss to Goat.
6-9
6)Boston, 7)Goat, 8)Ring, 9)Condors. I honestly have no idea how to seed this group. Ring is 2-0 against Boston and 0-2 against Goat. Condors has no head-to-head games with this group. I’m gonna go with this seeding to avoid regional re-matches, but I think any shuffling within this group can be justified.

10-12
The three teams in this grouping are Rhino, Doublewide, and Truckstop. Rhino has a four point win over Doublewide, and Truckstop has a one point win over Rhino. I’m going to going to give credit to Rhino for making quarters last year and generally having a slightly better season than Truckstop, despite the 1 point Truckstop win. 10)Rhino, 11)Doublewide, 12)Truckstop.

13-
It’s kind of strange for me to say that Chain should be the 13 seed. This is the sixth year in a row Chain has been to nationals, and this will be the lowest we’ve ever been seeded. This, despite the fact they we’re coming off our best year ever, and added several strong players.
14-16
14) Machine – featuring a bunch of guys who wish they still played for Chain, and some new guy from the west coast.
15) Pike – the comeback kids.
16) Van Buren Boys – we were all a little nervous about the poor spirit in the mixed division spilling over into open when these guys decided to make the switch. After regionals, it seems like our fears were justified.

That gives me the following (obviously correct) seeds:
1. Jam
2. Sockeye
3. Bravo
4. Furious
5. Sub Zero
6. Boston
7. Goat
8. Ring
9. Condors
10. Rhino
11. Doublewide
12. Truck Stop
13. Chain
14. Machine
15. Pike
16. Van Buren Boys

Next Year versus Right Now

2007-05-10T12:02:00.000-04:00

I think it is harder to win a college title that it is to win the UPA championships. It feels like the open and womens divisions of club are inertial. It takes some time for a team to build up some inertia, but after that they can just keep rolling until they run out of steam and get replaced. In the college game you only have 5 years, and you are stuck with the players you have (much harder to transfer than just move cities).

With that in mind I feel that as a college coach I am always thinking about next year. Who is going to be picking up the disc? Who is going to be our defensive stopper? etc. So to what extent should a coach let that affect how they play their players at nationals?

We need to develop our talent for next year, but at the same time we have a good team and could potentially make a run and go deep . . . but probably not win.

My current mindset comes from something that I think Jim wrote about DoG at Nationals. On day 1 you just want to make it to your power pool. Day 2 you want to win one game. That will put you in the semis while avoiding a play-in, and at that point you have given yourselves a chance and it is time to start playing your best. I think at college nationals, if you have a shot of winning the pool you take it, but really you are playing to finish 2/3 and be in a preQuarter game. All the preQs are 2 v 3 games so the talent level shouldn't be that different if you come in at 3 versus coming in a 2. After winning your preQuarter game then you've given yourself a chance to win some big games.

So is the mindset to make sure you win your 1/2 games on Friday to advance then focus on talent development with the other 2/1 games for next year? Does having a large freshman class make the subbing lean more towards development for a future chance at the title? Does having a big senior class mean putting it all on the line with those players to give them their one big chance? How much of an affect does worrying about a strength bid have on the decisions? I know these are all subjective to the team, but I would like to hear other people's thoughts/experiences on the subject. Thanks.

On game tape

2007-04-26T12:40:00.000-04:00

I love watching game tape. Being a mostly defensive coach my goal is almost always to see what offenses a team runs, what they do with their dumps, who their main cutters are (and how they cut) and how they respond to a zone.

This weekend at regionals we will be watching tape on saturday night in preparation for sunday play. I was wondering what other things people have found useful to focus on while watching tape. I feel that game tape us under utilized in ultimate, not only because there isn't as much of it, but more because people either aren't looking for the right things, or aren't translating what they see into coaching points for their players well. Ideas?

On subbing

2007-04-26T12:14:00.000-04:00

I wonder if other coaches think about the psychological aspect of their subbing players when they call subs. We currently have a situation that I am waffling on and the reason why is because it is a situation where I think we should not play one of our best players on offense (reference Idris' post from a while ago?).

I have a player that is very good on both sides of the disc. She is a fast cutter who doesn't tire easily and she plays intelligent D. She is easily amongst our top seven players, however I find myself wanting to take her off of the starting O line because she is somewhat prone to drops. At the same time she also makes great catches at key moments.

My raionale is that she will be much more effective as a defensive starter who is expected to jump start the offense and move the disc on a turn that she would be as an offensive cutter. The team has plenty of offensive cutters, so she would be a tertiary target at best, but aside from that I wonder if her dropping the disc would have a lesser impact if we had already gotten a D.

On offense her drops can seem catastrophic since there is so much more pressure to score without a turnover. This leads to a stressful situation which I think increases her likeliness to drop the disc. On defense, while her drops may be costly, they shouldn't have the enormous impact they do on the other side of the disc because of the idea that defense doesn't have to be perfect. This should reduce the stress she feels and probably improve her catching.

So I guess the discussion I'm trying to start is whether or not anyone pays attention to their players generic mental state when scheming for that player or if people focus on putting their best players in at the most important times? Hell, if any discussion starts on this blog it would be a miracle.

CCC

2006-11-06T18:45:00.000-05:00

So I began my college men’s coaching career this weekend at CCC. After a first round loss to Ohio State, Barrett informed me that the alumni were restless. One loss and the UGA alumni are already calling for my head – a slightly different scenario than when I started with the Emory women, a team that had never won a game at sectionals. In those days, I received congratulatory emails from the alumni following every tournament.

We have only had 1 week of practice and this weekend really made me realize just how different coaching here is going to be. At this point, I could insert some generic comments about how different it is coaching men instead of women. But really, the main difference is that I’m coming into an already established program with a lot of players that already know how to play. My last couple of years at Emory, every player on the team had learned almost all of what they knew about ultimate from me and the other coaches. They all had been trained since they started to play in the Emory system and it was therefore pretty easy to make adjustments during the game. As I tried to explain to Barrett after our first round loss – you can’t really blame me – it’s not my fault Stu can’t recruit. In all seriousness, it is going to be a substantial challenge to convert these players into doing things the way I think they should be done. There is also the question of whether it would be more prudent to just leave things as they are given the recent success of the program. Honestly, I don’t know – obviously my belief is that the way I do things is better otherwise that wouldn’t be the way I do things…but if the team crashes and burns this year I’ll deserve all of the blame.

In general, I was pretty pleased with the level of effort from the men this weekend. They really do play incredibly hard. I think if we can clean up the offense a little bit, we’re gonna be pretty darn good.

My general thoughts about the weekend – Wisconsin is for real. This is probably surprising to exactly zero people, but I was incredibly impressed with them. There man-to-man defense was disgusting and they’re shockingly disciplined with the disc. I haven’t seen the west-coast teams yet, but it seems like right now the Hodags have to be the early favorites to win this year. Colorado also looks really good. The loss of Adam Simon is definitely noticeable, but they’re very big and athletic – they will create match-up nightmares for anyone.

I only got a chance to watch the semis and finals on the women’s side. Emory is greatly improved after a coaching change. Their top end players are exceptional and they have a few solid role players. Of course, I believe their system is strong. Their depth is still a big question though. In terms of the AC right now it looks like once again it’s some order of Georgia, Florida and Emory at the top. On the national scene, Wisconsin looked very good to me. Stanford seems to be in something of a rebuilding year, but it’s Stanford so they’ll be good.

Chain at Nationals

2006-11-03T18:33:00.000-05:00

There will undoubtedly be those who consider Chain’s success at nationals a fluke. Those who think Chain’s run was legitimate might still say that a single tournament is too small of a sample size to draw any worthwhile conclusions. I think both of these criticisms are at least potentially reasonable – let that serve as a caveat for what follows.

I think Chain’s success at 2006 Nationals was primarily the result of two strategic principles. The first is that relentless (perhaps reckless) aggression is a powerful strategy. The second is that the point at which the replacement value of a fresh tier two player exceeds the value of a fatigued tier one is somewhat closer to 60% of points played (for the tier one player) rather than 50% of points played.

In an earlier post, I defended the value of relentless aggression. There my argument was basically two-fold. First, I argued that The Rule demands that all things being equal, a player should throw a longer pass rather than a shorter pass. 2) I also made the more controversial claim the advantageous implications of the huck extend beyond the calculation of giving your team the highest percentage chance of scoring this goal. This claim is based on the fact that once a team believes you are crazy enough to huck at any point they will over commit to protecting the deep cut opening up the underneath. The nice thing about this second point is that it can extend to later games in a tournament/season without your team even having to bear the burden of the additonal turnovers early in a game. I think FG and Sockeye both currently benefit from (2) due to their reputation as mindless huckers.

In any event, we (the blogosphere, although not sure I’m still a member) have had this discussion and I don’t mean to rehash old territory. Another facet of our relentless aggression was an insistence on forcing the disc upfield whenever possible. A dump has to be considerably higher percentage than a 20 yard gainer if the dump is to be justified by The Rule. Honestly, I still don’t think HnH is optimal in perfect conditions, but this year’s nationals was far from perfect conditions. I think that anyone arguing that a possession style offense is optimal in this year’s conditions (with the exception of Sunday) is either bad at math or simply not being honest with themselves.

The second strategic principle can basically be restated as “you should play your studs more than you are now.” Jim posted on this subject with some fictional numbers a while ago, I’m too lazy to find the link now, sorry. At early tournaments this year we had three considerable comebacks at the end of games when we just put in our top 7 for several points in a row. This led us to make the conscious decision to play our studs more at nationals. It sounds pretty obvious, but the current dominant strategy of splitting O/D has led a lot of top players to play only about 50 percent of the points. In most situtaions, your studs could play more than 50 percent of the points without fatigue impacting their play to the extent that it would make sense to put in your next tier of player.

Obligatory AC Regional Write-Up

2006-05-01T11:34:00.000-04:00

Wow. I can’t believe this is my first post of 2006 – it doesn’t seem like it’s been that long since I’ve blogged. My absence is mostly attributable to two factors: 1) I haven’t had much to say 2) I’ve been insanely busy. I do have a few ideas for some new posts though, and Wood is probably getting pumped about some sort of silly coed nonsense, so hopefully it won’t be another five months before the next post. Alright, onto the obligatory regionals write-up…

Coming into regionals I thought that Florida and Georgia were clearly a step ahead of the rest of the region. The format definitely favored the Ho-Dawgs because Florida’s long bench becomes less of an advantage when the finals are the first game of the day. I expected that we (Emory) would be battling with UNC on Sunday for the third bid to nationals. I thought that NC State, Wake Forest and UVA would all be fighting to be alive on Sunday, but probably weren’t strong enough to finish in the top 3. As it turned out, I had definitely underestimated both Wake and State – both teams are very gritty – playing tough D and embracing the power of the long ball.

On Saturday we came out and took care of Davidson pretty quickly setting up a quarterfinals match-up with UVA. UVA is the one strong team in the AC region I have no career wins over and I was a little nervous when we only took half 8-7. We made a couple of defensive adjustments in the second half and were able to finish them off 15-9. Andrea Duran is huge for them and would definitely be on my all region ballot (if I got to vote).

That meant we were matched up with Florida in the Semis. Both teams were relatively clean offensively and the game only lasted 85 minutes – Florida 15 Emory 10. I actually thought we played pretty well in the game, but they were just too good. Florida doesn’t have the superstars that UGA does, but they are a lot more consistent. I could see UGA finding a way to lose in pre-quarters at natties or getting hot and making a run to finals. On the other hand, I think Florida is a very solid quarters team that could make semis with the right quarters match-up.

The biggest news from Saturday was definitely the earlier UNC elimination. Troy posted on RSD about the surprising UNC losses here. I was able to watch a decent chunk of both games, and I don’t really have much to add. I can’t say that I agree that UNC has the regions strongest starting 7, but I do agree that Hack is the scariest all around player in the region. UNC definitely didn’t look to be playing as well as I had seen them play earlier in the season, but you’ve got to give a lot of credit to both Wake and NC State. Both teams did a great job of gumming up UNC’s throwing lanes and then coming down with big huck after big huck. In any event, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t pulling for NC State to take down UNC in the last game of the day on Saturday.

The format on Sunday basically requires you to go 3-1 to claim the third bid to the show. There’s not much advantage to losing in one round over another because you’re going to have 4 games regardless. So, our plan for Sunday was to go with a really open rotation until we lost a game and then tighten things up. NC State jumped out on us early in the first round and put us away fairly easily. We did have a small late game run that helped our confidence for the rest of the day. As it turned out, losing that game ended up being a big advantage. We basically, didn’t have to run much in the first game against NC State, and our penalty for that was playing zone loving UVA rather than hard running (and still fresh) Wake. We were able to get up quickly on UVA and open up the rotation for the whole game again saving our legs. After we finished off UVA, I jogged over to find Wake and NCST embroiled in a classic Carolina style bloodbath, 11-10 game to 13. I found myself pumping my fist with every punt that sailed too long.

Wake ended up pulling it out and so we had a tired NC State next. They went up 2-0, but after a time-out we went on an 8-2 run to take half and never looked back. That meant we had to play Wake in the game to go. We came out playing well and started off 5-1 and I was thinking we were going to run away with it. Next thing I know we’re down 10-8 and we’re kind of scratching our heads trying to figure out what went wrong. I think the hardest time to be a coach is when you’re losing because you’re making unforced errors. It’s just so difficult to know what to say to your team. When you’re losing because the other team is doing something strategically, at least you can tell your team how to adjust to stop what they’re doing. But you can’t really come into the huddle and say, “stop dropping the disc.” Anyway, I’d love to say that I made some brilliant strategic adjustment that gave us the win, but basically we just cleaned it up and pulled it out 15-13. I really can’t say enough about how impressed I was with how much heart Wake showed. I honestly believe we have better athletes and better throwers than they do, but they were able to hang with us the whole time based on just a complete refusal to give up. It was pretty inspiring to watch.

Anyway, so we’re off to natties and I’m pretty pumped. Realistically, we can’t win nationals, so I’m just going to approach it like a two day practice – it will be a great learning experience for my young team.

Random notes/thoughts from the weekend

1) The triple elimination format creates some interesting decisions for coaches.
2) If there’s anything more annoying than unobservant observers, I can’t think of what it is at the moment.
3) I’m not usually one to hype my players, but Celine Sledge has got to be the AC Rookie of the Year.
4) You don’t get 25 out of 26 rosters in on time by accident – so nice work Lindsey Hack and her sectional coordinators (Julia Echterhoff et. al.)
5) AC South strongest (mixed) section in the country this year? All 5 AC bids to natties go to AC South

One Coach's Plan for a Semester

2005-12-19T11:49:00.000-05:00

Idris talked about why frisbee blogs are a good source of information (at the very least, I seem to be getting all my post ideas from Idris, whether that's good or bad), and I agree. I actually think it's a good first step in developing a solid base of knowledge that our sport needs before making the next step.

So...this weekend I laid out the plan for this semester for the college team I coach. I figured I'd post the general outline here, realizing that this is not the best plan for every team (or possibly even my team), but maybe there is a good idea in there somewhere that you can take, or maybe you can use it as a starting point. If anyone has any suggestions for changes/additions, I'd be interested in those as well.

Basics: We have 3 (3 hour) practices a week. Mondays and Thursdays are normal practice, on Tuesdays we scrimmage a local pickup team. We have a pretty small team, with 7-10 guys at practices, so the plan reflects that limitation.

Topics: A list of strategy/tactical points to cover, in the order I plan on teaching. The idea is to give at least one week's practice to each topic. In the past I've laid out how many weeks to spend on particular topics, but this year I've just got a list, if we need more than a week to cover it, we'll take it. Once I feel we've covered it enough, we'll move on to the next topic. The topics are pretty basic. It would be helpful to someday post specific discussion points and drills for each topic. One day hopefully. (Jim and Zaz's book is a good place to look for info on all these topics).

Dump-Swing/Dump Defense
Trap Dump/Dump Defense
Straight stack offense/Man Defense
Brick and set plays/Man Defense
Redzone offense/Man Defense
Redzone set plays/Man Defense
Zone offense/2-3-2
Zone offense/alternate zone defenses

If we get through all that we'll probably just review what we've done so far, or possibly look to add some new topics if need be (H-stack, more zone d's, more redzone setplays, etc.)

Practice Templates: A basic outline that we'll follow at every practice.

Monday:
Warmup
Speedwork (1-5 sprints/shuttles/starts/etc.)
10 Throw (10 flat backhands/forehands, 10 invert backhands/forehands, 10 outvert backhands/forehands, and 10 hammers)
1 Regular Drill (Not necessarily specific to the weekly topic, just working on general skills. ie 3 person marking drill, mushroom drill, throwing drill, etc.)
Discuss Weekly Topic (diagram on the whiteboard, hand out review material, answer questions)
Walk-through Weekly Topic
Weekly Topic Drills/Games
Intervals

Tuesday:
Warmup
10 Throw
Warmup Drill (whatever you prefer, I see a lot of mushroom, but we use a goto drill)
Weekly Topic reminder/team discussion
Scrimmage
Game/Weekly Topic Review and Questions
Intervals

Thursday:
Warmup
10 Throw
1 Regular Drill
Discuss Weekly Topic - answer questions
1-2 Weekly Topic Drills
2-3 Regular Drills
Game (ideally 7 on 7, more likely 3 on 3, hotbox, etc.)
Intervals

What strategy?

2005-12-13T12:10:00.000-05:00

I read this post by Idris, and it got me thinking about the low level of strategy in our sport. Take the idea that it is truly better (and I actually agree with this) to let a team learn how to flow and adjust on it's own, with little structure. This, to me, is a horrible indictment of the place our sport is at currently. In other, more established sports, you learn the fundamentals, how to make the x different cuts required in your sport, the right way to throw a ball.

Maybe I place football on too high a pedestal, but I'd love to have just a fraction of the strategy from football in Ultimate. How hard would it be to have a standard set of cuts, have players run the cuts, perhaps changing them based on a defensive 'hot read'? Is it simply a physics question? Does the disc move too slowly in the air to run a curl or post? I'd like to think we could just add on to the progression idea. I know player x is going to make cut y. I see how the defense is playing him, and know that he is going to switch to cut z. I can then make the throw to z before the player has even turned.

I know this happens, to a degree, at higher levels, but I don't think it's actual codified in the offense. There is so little consensus in our sport about the best way to do things, that we actually teach new players to try different (probably incorrect) things out because we're worried that we're wrong or we simply know that the next team a player is on will likely have a completely different philosophy. I'm not talking about the difference between the west coast offense and the run and shoot. At their core, those offenses are much more similar than what we do team to team, even if we're running the 'same offense.'

Teaching players to play dynamically makes your team better right now, and probably makes your players better over the next few years. But until we get to the point where we can teach players the right way to play, we're going to be stuck teaching them to play 15 different (non-optimal) ways and we're never going to have real strategy.

Strategy in our sport right now is limited to "create 2 on 1's", "get a step on your guy and jack it", "break the mark to get the defense on the wrong side of the field," etc. Maybe I'm silly to think that we can or should move to, "the defense is in an X coverage so I went to the Y hotroute to beat it."

What is the most advanced Ultimate offense out there? Does it work? and how 'advanced' is it really? What are the limitations in our sport that keep us from having more precise strategy?

Know what you want – Progression of Reads

2005-12-12T14:21:00.000-05:00

So you’ve spent hours going over the game film of your team, carefully noting every possible strength and weakness. You’ve come up with the perfectly tailored game plan that highlights each area of strength while hiding all potential weak spots. You are a titan of strategy; it’s just a matter of time before your true genius is recognized and you replace Parinella on ultimatetalk. So why in the hell does your team keep screwing it up?

It’s important for players to understand the real world implications of a certain strategy. It’s one thing for a player to sit in a class room and understand the ideal version of your evil plan when you draw it on the chalkboard. Being able to implement the plan on the field is another thing altogether. When drawn on the chalkboard, all the available options can be viewed pretty much simultaneously. In the real world, seeing the whole field in an instant is not a possibility (as an aside…I find the longer I play the more of the field I can “see” – it’s conceivable to me that some of the old-timers are able to see multiple options developing at the same time and are able to make choices based on that – in any event, I can pretty much guarantee that none of the players you coach can do this). As the designer of the offense, it’s your job to focus your player’s attention in the right place. A progression of reads is simply setting the order in which a player should look at a particular cut. For instance, in the Evil Plan Offense, upon receiving the disc a player should (1) look to hit the deep cutter, if that’s not there (2)look to hit the underneath continuation, if that’s not there (3) look to hit the break, if that’s not there (4) dump the frisbee. Of course, the progression of reads in your offense could look very different depending on what you’re trying to do.

The main point is this – you know what spaces your offense is best at attacking - prioritizing throw options leads to more shots into the spaces that you attack well and that is a good thing.

How much is a yard worth?

2005-12-05T14:46:00.000-05:00

I was reading through a bunch of the old stuff on my blog recently. It’s fun to see how some of my ideas have changed even in the short time (1 year) that I’ve been blogging. Anyway, in one of my first posts I said I was going to go through all of Billy Berrou’s stuff and pick out the good stuff. Jim beat me to the punch with this post. In Frank’s response to Jim he says something that’s interesting to me “First, take yardage completely out of the equation. It does not belong. Yardage is irrelevant…It's always about position.” In a sense, this is totally insane – you have to move forward (gain yardage) in order to score. However, it is true that it is oftentimes worthwhile to trade yardage to maintain possession and improve field position.

Anyway – here a couple of things I’m pretty sure I think about the value of a yard (relative to the value of field position and maintaining possession) –

1) The value of yardage decreases as the level of play increases.

2) The value of yardage decreases as conditions improve.

3) The value of yardage increases when a team is going downwind.

Here’s something I think I think about the value of yardage.

1) The value of yardage decreases the closer a team gets to the end zone.

Here’s something I’ll claim I think if people think it makes sense – otherwise I definitely don’t think it.

1) The value of yardage decreases when a team is going upwind.

CCC - Women's

2005-11-21T09:10:00.000-05:00

I’m officially out of new things to talk about, so I’m pretty much relegated to doing tournament write-ups. At least they haven’t started calling for my head (yet) over on ultimatetalk. When it inevitably does happen, I plan to take the road of seppuku, blocking the rss feed on my site before Idris can pull the plug. I’m currently printing, “Keep Luke on Ultimatetalk” stickers. If you email me your credit card number I’ll send you some.

Pretty much all of the AC region contenders were at CCC this weekend, and things are considerably more wide open than they have been in the past. Florida is for real and is the early frontrunner with their win this weekend, but I think seven teams have a chance of grabbing the AC’s bids to natties. UNC is probably the most athletic team in the region and will be very tough down the stretch. Emory is improving despite poor coaching. Wake Forest rolled over teams on Saturday before losing to a very smart Tufts team in the quarters. UGA’s record this weekend is not indicative of their strength. They basically played their rookies a whole bunch. They still have two Ozone players and will likely be adding a third in the spring. NCST and UVA both lost several key players from last year but both have strong young players. In general the region is very young this year. At this point, I’d say none of these teams are as strong as last year’s big four, and any number of teams could realistically come out on top in the end. Should be a fun spring in the AC.

I’d expect all of the out of region teams to be among the better teams in their respective regions as well. Tufts brought a fairly small squad down but did a good job of taking care of the frisbee. Their low numbers caught up with them late in the day on both Saturday and Sunday. Penn State has some really good top end players – Erin Crider made several big time plays. I’m sure they’ll be battling it out with Cornell for the ME title. I was impressed by Michigan’s handlers and with the Purdue losing everyone, they have to be the frontrunners in the GL. Texas A&M has some big athletes and likes hanging it up to them.

Last year I watched Iowa playing at CCC and thought, “this is a team that could easily make the semi-finals of nationals.” I didn’t really see a team like that at CCC this year. The teams were very good, but none of these teams is a truly elite team yet. Of course, it’s only November so there’s plenty of time for teams to take their games to the next level.

What can I say - they cheated us.

2005-11-08T15:56:00.000-05:00

Coming into Nationals if you had told me that we would be playing Ring in our second game on Saturday I would have been pretty pleased. I certainly wouldn’t have expected it to be the 13/14 game – more on that game in a bit.

I’m an obsessive weather.com checker the week of a tournament. I always like seeing how much wind is predicted. Usually I find myself hoping for just a little wind, but going into nationals I was praying for BIG wind. We had lost two of our main offensive cutters in the weeks prior to nationals – leaving us with a lot of handlers with no one to throw to. This isn’t exactly the ideal situation when your plan is to go BIG. In retrospect, it’s fairly obvious that we should have adjusted our game plan much earlier than we did.

Our first game was against Furious and it started off pretty well. We scored our first 4 offensive goals without a turnover. The Junkyard Dogs had generated two turnovers but were unable to convert. The offense got broken on the next point, and then they broke us again to take half 8-6. They scored their offensive point to make it 9-6, and we really weren’t able to get it going after that.

We put the FG loss behind us pretty quickly. I think everyone understood that DoG was the team we really needed to beat. The craziness over in C pool meant that the loser of our game against DoG would likely have the Condors in the lower bracket while the winner would have Twisted Metal in the upper bracket. The Junkyard Dogs came out on fire and we went up 4-1. We actually got the block with a chance to go up 5-1, but gave it up and they scored to make it 4-2. DoG battled back to 4-4 as we decided to hang it to our handlers with Colin (6’7ish) on them. I know Jim and Al always say that you shouldn’t be throwing to match-ups when you throw deep, but I don’t think this is exactly what they had in mind. We trade out and we take half 8-7 on serve. We continue to trade until 10-10 and then they break us 3 of the next 4 points and finish us off 15-12. Ziperstein was really outstanding in this game. He had three blocks against us, including getting one on me going deep. I think he tweaked his hamstring on Friday and wasn’t able to play many points on Saturday against Sockeye. Clearly he would have been a big help.

We squeaked by PBR in our final round of pool play to set up a match-up against Condors first thing on Friday morning.

Again, we started the day playing pretty well. We trade with Condors to 5-5 before breaking them. We trade to 7-6 and then they break us back to back times to take half 8-7 on serve. We trade to 9-9 and then have our third second half collapse of the weekend and get broken 5 times in a row. They close us out 15-10. Occasionally, you’re going to get broken and that’s ok. But it’s imperative that you don’t get broken multiple times in a row. All weekend long we really struggled to stop the bleeding. It’s easy to say “well we would have been fine if we had Dylan or make some similar excuse” but the truth is in all three games we lost we had really good opportunities to put our opponents in tough spots and we let them out too easily. That’s not to say that we should have won those games – I just mean we could have really forced our opponents to play as well as they were capable of playing if they wanted to win and we didn’t make teams do that.

After our loss to the condors we needed to beat Doublewide by 9 points in order to advance to pre-quarters. If we beat DW by less than 9 Condors would advance, if we lost to DW then DW would advance. Once Doublewide got to 7 we were officially eliminated, and they basically ran away with it.

If you’ve ever been to Tune-Up, you know that the farther you move away from the main tent, the worse the weekend has been. That’s kind of how I felt on Saturday morning as I started at the pavilion and walked past team after team warming up for progressively less meaningful games until I arrived at the LAST field in the complex, the home of the 13-16 bracket. The walk of shame – perhaps deserved, but definitely depressing. We had Vicious Cycle. Highlights from this game include me catching my first and most likely only Callahan goal at Natties. That’s really about all I remember.

All season long we’ve attempted to perfect the art of lulling our opponents to sleep. We have become fairly confident in our abilities believing that it would be impossible to lull us. After all you can’t really expect to lull a luller. In the end perhaps our hubris caught up with us as Ring undoubtedly lulled us in the battle for 13th place. While we were cheering on the Ozone ladies in their quarterfinals match-up, a Ring player came up to us and asked if we’d like to boat race for the coveted 13th spot. Like fools we immediately accepted. We should have known that no one would be crazy enough to challenge a team led by the Kid to a boat race for anything meaningful. Needless to say, when we returned to our field to retrieve our stuff, Ring was on the line assessing – the scoreboard read Ring 5 Chain 0.

Seeding Rules

2005-10-13T07:53:00.000-04:00

Is it time to get rid of the requirement that the team that finishes higher at regionals has to be seeded higher at nationals? It seems like this rule consistently forces seeding that doesn’t gel with the common sense perception of strength. I think it’s particularly silly in the scenario where the 2 and 3 seed don’t even play. In open this year, I don’t think there were any huge surprises at regionals, but it sounds like their might have been some craziness in coed. Anyway, there are examples of other sports that don’t force this requirement – The NCAA Basketball Tourney for instance – I was just wondering what people thought about this rule.

Post Tournament Depression (PTD)

2005-10-11T11:33:00.000-04:00

For a few years now, I've noticed an emotional change in the days following a tournament. I've spoken to a few others who about it and they've noticed similar things. Usually, the Monday after a physically and mentally taxing tournament, I'll exhibit several (generally mild) symptoms of clinical depression. Now, I may be overly sensitive to the subject since I have a psychology degree and since I've suffered through bouts of clinical depression in my life (ironically, Ultimate has been the best cure for me). I am not suggesting that Ultimate in general, or tournaments in particular cause clinical depression. Rather I have experienced what I describe as "Post Tournament Depression (PTD)" which is a mild, short duration (2-3 days) form of depression.

Here are a few of the symptoms I've noticed:

lack of energy
sad or withdrawn
irritable
difficulty completing simple tasks
difficulty focusing

The severity of the symptoms has more to do with how difficult the weekend was physically, moreso than whether the weekend was a success or not. Even 'fun' tournaments can cause PTD if I have to play a lot.

I've failed to find any studies on physical exhaustion causing temporary depression, so perhaps it's all in my head. It makes sense to me though, that a physically draining event could cause a person to feel depressed for a few days, while the body recovers. I do not mean to ignore the mentally exhausting aspect of the problem. I do think that a mentally taxing tournament can increase PTD symptoms, but I think physical exhaustion is the main cause.

So, does anyone else notice symptoms of depression in the days following a tournament? Do you just wait it out or have you come up with a way to bring yourself out of it?

Southern Regionals

2005-10-07T11:07:00.000-04:00

Tim writes, “The blogworld is silent.” I’m not sure why everyone’s stopped posting. Honestly, ultimatetalk.com is kind of in my head. It seems like ultimatetalk is geared toward serious discussions and I’ve been hesitant to clutter up that board with my pointless ramblings. I’ve been trying to figure out a way to block the RSS feed on individual posts so I can prevent my goofy posts from being syndicated, while still letting ultimatetalk pick up the “serious” ones (any ideas?). I think I could probably categorize all of my posts and then provide a separate RSS feed for each category, but blogger doesn’t support categories, and I don’t feel like moving the blog. Anyway, if you’re looking for some frisbee posts you should check out Tim’s blog, it’s a lot like the early days on The Count’s blog. The only other stuff that’s really going on is over in the comments of Zaz’s latest post (I used to think I was a nerd, but after reading a few comments, I realize I didn’t even understand the meaning of the word). That’s about enough of that - onto to the regionals write-up.

Last Tuesday, the score reporter was only showing 15 teams as going to regionals, and I was afraid were going to have the ugly 15 team format. Basically we would have had to play 3 games on Sunday instead of 1, so I was really hoping we could secure a 16th team. Thankfully we were able to grab a 16th so the modified triple elimination bracket was on.

Our first round was against Crude of Dallas United. Dallas has two teams and they apparently have a very good relationship. Crude calls themselves Grit’s B team. I’m not sure if they practice/have tryouts together, but I think it’s an interesting idea. I think maybe they did something similar in the Toronto area this year? I think it’s great to see the top team in an area working to develop the players on the second team. It’s going to guarantee that the top team always has the best players, but it seems like it can go a long way towards improving the depth of good players in an area. It will be interesting to see how things turn out in those areas in a few years. Crude had some good athletes but was a bit short on throwers and we were able to take care of business

Next up was Miami. In 2002 we actually lost in the second round to Miami and had to fight through the LONG road to natties. They still have some of the old Florida Combo guys and traditionally it hasn’t been pretty when we’ve played them. I was hoping they would lose in the game prior to this one because I wasn’t really excited about arguing for two hours. As it turned out it was pretty clean uneventful game.

Our final game of Saturday was against Vicious Cycle while Doublewide played Bulge in the other semifinal. Vicious Cycle has a couple of old-timers, but for the most part they’re super-young. Their studs are the studs of the University of Florida men’s team. The Junkyard Dogs pretty much dominated this game as we took half 8-2. In the second half we mostly traded to finish it off. There were no real highlights.

Thankfully the game was short and we got to watch the DW-Bulge game. This game was pretty contentious. Bulge got up by a couple of breaks and looked like they were going to take it, but DW went on a big run at the end. In the later stages a DW guy and a Bulge guy were jawing back and forth and the DW guy shoves the Bulge guy. The Bulge guy shouts “I will knock you out!” The consensus among the Chain sideline was that the Bulge guy would in fact have knocked the DW guy out had it not been broken up. In further proof that God loves the fans, Doublewide decides to immediately throw the big hanger to the two guys that had just been fighting. In an attempt to dispel the rumor that the disc never lies, the DW instigator comes down with the hanger over the Bulge guy.

Sunday morning brings a swirling, gusty wind for our finals game against Doublewide. The Junk Yard Dogs continue their impressive play breaking 3 times to Doublewide’s 1 and we take half 8-5. Highlights include Kid pimping the bejesus out of Max. I really felt bad for Max, as he read the disc perfectly and really did everything he could. Here’s a picture of me getting pimped to ease the pain.

After half, the O team goes into shut-down mode and we get broken 4 of our next 5 possessions and we’re down 11-9.We finally score to make it 11-10, and then the Junk Yard Dogs come out and break twice in a row to put us back up 12-11. We trade to 13-12 and then the JYD finish it 14-12. All and all a pretty ugly game, but we won so that’s good.

I skipped the VC-Doublewide game and went and watched the coed finals. Hang Time and Hot and Sweaty are both very strong. I would be pretty surprised if both teams didn’t make at least quarterfinals.

I was back at the open fields for the Bulge-VC game to go. It was a very fun game. The crowd was just about evenly divided between loud Bulge fans and loud VC fans. I had to leave at half-time to catch my flight, so I missed the bottle throwing. There were only 4-5 Chainiacs remaining at the fields when I left, and it was mostly GA Tech kids. Bottle throwing is more of a Dawg thing, so I’m gonna guess Chain didn’t throw the second bottle. I guess I’ll find out for sure at practice tomorrow.

In Defense of the (ok, maybe somewhat mindless) Huck

2005-09-23T09:10:00.000-04:00

In my recent travels through the blogosphere, I’ve noticed a trend to argue for possession based offenses and the threat they pose to top teams. In a sense, I definitely agree and I think you can perhaps point to Jam’s recent loss to Kaos and the Condors’ Labor Day loss to Rhino as possible examples of this. However, I think that newer players reading our blogs could be getting a bad impression of the huck. I also think we do a disservice to both our opponents and ourselves when we assume that the west coast teams are beating up on us simply because they have more Big Dumb Athletes (BDA) than we do.

When a team chooses the path of the huck they’ve chosen to be the aggressor. They’re taking it to the opponent saying, “we’re crazy and you better keep an eye on your end zone because the disc could be going there at any moment.”

It should be noted that the preachers of possession are not opposed to the huck. They have argued many times that the best pass is not necessarily the one with the least risk, but rather the pass that gives your team the highest percentage chance of scoring (I thought that might be too difficult of a calculation for most players to make - here). I think Parinella wrote that a huck with 60% completion rate is good enough in most scenarios (although I can’t seem to find it at the moment, so perhaps I’m making that up). I assume this number was based purely on “the numbers.” In other words, type .90 * .90 into your calculator and start hitting = it doesn’t take long for that number to be lower than .60. I’m arguing that the advantageous implications of the huck extend beyond the calculation of giving your team the highest percentage chance of scoring (this goal).

When a team completes a huck it has a psychological effect on the opponent. I try to make it a point to catch a huck in the first few points of the game because it really puts The Fear into a defender. No one likes to be scored on and there is something especially intimidating about getting taken to the rack. A confident defender won’t let it affect the way he plays defense, but often times a defender becomes so afraid of the deep game that he concedes the underneath. It also the case, that an incomplete huck is sometimes just as effective as opening up the underneath as a completed one. “this team is crazy – they’ll throw ANYTHING deep, I was beat on that last one, good thing the throw sucked. I’m not gonna give him a chance to beat me again.” In a sense, this is similar to Mooney’s discussion of using the 1-3-3, the defense that never works. The early no conscience huck trades short term efficiency for greater long term efficiency. In other words, this goal may be more difficult to score, but later goals will be easier to score if the opponent is afraid of the deep shot.

None of this even takes into account the “oops, we scored” factor of the huck. The fact is that terrible throws often times work out on the big away cut. The most compelling reason I’ve heard for this is Parinella’s discussion of temporal vs. spatial margins. A huck thrown at the correct moment has a huge spatial margin for error. When your BDA says, “just throw me ANYTHING in bounds,” he’s actually stumbled onto something.

Most games favor the side that is willing to be aggressive and ultimate is not really much different.

That’s about all I got on that, but here’s a digression into an alternate theory as to why the top aggressive teams may be susceptible to the possession based strategy. I actually think it’s the defensive strategy of the aggressive teams that is more vulnerable than the offensive strategy. I think you can fairly classify 6 of 8 of last year’s quarterfinalists as aggressive (no conscience hucking) teams. It’s not too surprising then that the defenses on these teams have evolved to stop the huck. The strategies that are most effective at stopping the huck (flat marking, backing downfield cutters) also happen to be particularly ineffective against a traditional dump-swing straight stack approach. If the aggressive teams do not make the necessary defensive adjustments, I think they are vulnerable to an efficient possession based team.

Obligatory Sectionals Report

2005-09-20T10:55:00.000-04:00

I’ve been insanely busy the last couple of weeks and I’m behind on my blog reading/writing. There are several recent additions to what blogosphere (I think we should all start using Luke’s term to avoid embarrassing situations like Parinella calling it Blogworld) I didn’t realize existed. Idris seems to be trying to maintain some semblance of order with his ultimatetalk.com. Our blog has to be particularly annoying to catalogue since it has multiple authors. Meanwhile, it appears that we’ll hit the 15,000 visit mark sometime this morning – not too bad for a blog that was just two guys talking to each other about frisbee. Recent posts have kind of gone astray from our original intent of talking about coaching and strategy. With the college season starting up again, I’m more focused on that kind of stuff and will probably start posting more strategy/coaching after the club season. Speaking of which, I’m going with Chain 15 DoG 3 in the finals of nationals…I believe they’re taking bets over on the Frisbee Spew Site, so get your money in now. On to the obligatory sectionals report…

Chain was first formed in 1981 (making Chain older than half the guys on our team) and has never lost a game at sectionals. With all the complaining that the DoG guys do, I thought perhaps they could understand how painful sectionals is, but then I realized they played Twisted Metal, and as such, they have absolutely no idea. This year was particularly bad as the traditional second team in our section, Tanasi, has gone coed. In the past, we’ve tried many gimmicks to try to force people to play seriously. One year we instituted the if you turn it over your benched rule. That was scrapped after a few points when it became clear that people were turning it over intentionally. Last year we flipped the script and made the rule if you turn it over you play for the rest of the game, and that was actually pretty effective. This year, with the Hammonds in charge, we brought out the alcohol. The rule was – if you turn it over you’ve got to buy the beer. This led to some pretty funny scenarios. In our second game a rookie was cutting in at full speed for Jay Hammond (easily the most obnoxious guy in ultimate) and Jay just absolutely fires the flick at him from like 7 or 8 yards as he turning to clear. Of course, the sideline is all over the poor guy when he can’t come up with the catch. At this point, it might make sense to note that if you’re thinking of modeling your team after Chain….it’s probably not the best idea. I was kind of afraid that some of our opponents would be insulted by our drinking/goofing off, but for the most part our opponents bought into the idea of a fun game and started showboating as well. We somehow get through pool play with no injuries and a 4-0 record.

We had to come back out on Sunday for the finals and we actually took the game pretty seriously and played hard. The one play of note came late in the game after we had caught a huck and called timeout on the goal line. We have this 16 year old Paideian, George Stubbs, that’s playing with us, and he’s been talking about this end zone play all year. Basically, you have a guy run off the back of the stack to the front cone, the thrower fakes the throw, the cutter makes the huge dive and the sideline and stack go nuts like the guy just made an incredible catch. Meanwhile, another cutter sneaks off to the other cone to catch the goal. So everything is going according to plan, George comes off the back with the HUGE layout, everyone goes nuts and their whole team turns to watch. Then my defender starts screaming, “Boston Surprise!” “Boston Surprise!” and sprints over to the break side fast enough to stop the goal. Of course, being alone in the middle of the end zone it might have made sense for me to say something, but instead I stood there amazed. I’ve never heard of this play and I certainly didn’t know what its name was. But this guy, 1)has heard of the play 2) recognized it as soon as he saw the guy layout 3)had enough presence of mind to sprint back over to the break side to stop the play 4)all the while yelling Boston Surprise! Boston Surprise! alerting his team to our evil plan. Crazy. I would have asked him to play with Chain, but he’s obviously way too intelligent.

Anyway, that’s about all I got.

Kangaroo vs Synthetic

2005-09-09T12:15:00.000-04:00

There are way too many posts on rsd and on blogs about cleats. Here's mine... I read a comment over on Frisbee Spew where Heacox says he prefers the synthetic uppers they are putting on cleats these days. During Summer League EOS, AJ trots out with his new cleats and shows them off. "Kangaroo," he says. Here is a gratuitous shot of AJ modeling his Puma Kings. AJ and I agree on one thing, coed sucks...no, wait. Kangaroo is King. The comfort scale in cleats goes like this (worst-best): synthetic, cow leather, and kangaroo leather.

I remember the first kangaroo leather cleats I got, some Adidas TRX 3's. I couldn't believe how good they felt. Then, of course, Adidas stopped making them. I switched to the Nike Talaria's, after hearing how amazing they were, and I was won over (not saying much since Adidas stopped making my beloved TRX 3's). I loved the traction I got and how light they felt. My feet paid the price though, as I started getting blisters and blackened toenails again. The Talaria's used Nike's synthetic upper, but I'd always had problems with Nike's so I just attributed it to that.

The Talaria's synthetic upper ripped after 3 tournaments. Thankfully, Nike has a great return policy. If your shoes tear or malfunction, within 3 years of their manufacture, Nike will 'replace' them. Generally this means they'll give you the MSRP of the cleats in the form of a Niketown.com gift certificate. Unfortunately, it takes a while to ship them there, have them inspect them, get the gift certificate, order the new cleats (hoping they have them online), and have them shipped. Regionals was coming up and I needed new cleats. I ended up getting lucky, I found a pair of Nike Mercurial Vapor K's. Basically the same shoe, but made from juicy Kangaroos. Gone are the blisters and the blackened toes. They've lasted longer than the Talarias too. The kangaroo stretches, which makes them more comfortable and durable than the synthetics. They are slightly heavier (.6 ounces), and a bitch to find though. I only wear mine at tournaments (I have an unlimited supply of Talarias from Nike for practice), and they're still going strong. I just bought a backup pair off Ebay.

Most of Adidas top-of-the-line cleats seem to be kangaroo, but Nike (and Gaia) seems to be sticking with the synthetics. I'm sure the Mercurial Vapors, Vapor TDs, Speed TDs, Super Speed Ds, Vapor Jet TDs and Total 90 IIIs are great and all, but I'll stick with my Mercurial Vapor Ks (if only to help the kangaroo population problem.)

Confidence

2005-09-06T15:23:00.000-04:00

I've got a few players who are currently having confidence problems. They've either had a run of bad luck, or made a few bad plays in a row and suddenly it gets in their heads. I'm trying to decide the best way to handle the situation. It's likely different for every player, but the way I see it you've got two basic ways to handle the situation. You can keep putting them in tough situations, situations they are currently having problems with, to show them that you have faith in them. Or, you can put them in situations they are more comfortable with and allow their confidence to return before putting them back in a situation they are having problems with.

I remember several years ago in summer league, I had back to back games where I had a key turnover late in the game. It got in my head so much that I didn't even want to be on the field. My captain at the time took me aside and told very nicely to get over it, that the team was going to need me playing to succeed, etc. It encouraged me to get back on the 'horse', and eventually I regained my confidence. I think an important part of it was that someone I respected showed they had confidence in me.

Does anyone else have any experiences with players (or yourself) having confidence issues?

The Numbers Game

2005-09-06T10:41:00.000-04:00

This weekend we were trying to figure out what jersey number yields the best team. In other words you take all of the 1’s on all of the teams and you put them all on the same team, all of the 2’s make another team, etc. – what number has the best team? Here are last year’s Championship Rosters for reference. It’s also kind of fun that certain types of players tend to gravitate to certain numbers. I’m not really sure what team would be best. The big ego 1’s have a strong squad, but have self-destruct written all over them. The 9’s have the deepest squad, drawing a player from every champies team. The 3’s and 7’s also have strong squads. Sadly, the 31’s only had 1 player at Nationals last year, but there's always next year.

0 for three 4

2005-08-30T10:38:00.000-04:00

So Chain went up to the Chesapeake Open this weekend. As expected we lost in the finals 15-14 to Ring. We definitely had some chances to take control of the game, but we didn’t really capitalize. Games against Ring really seem different to me than games against other teams. They’re just SO physical, I generally feel like I’ve been beaten up after I’m done playing them.

Anyway, all and all it was a decent weekend for us. We finally got the DoG off of our backs, absolutely crushing them, 15-14, in the final game of pool play. They were missing a few key players – unfortunately the absence of both Jim and Alex really cuts down on the potential cross blog schmack talk. I fully expect to read about it if they should get some revenge this weekend in Santa Cruz. Come to think of it, I haven’t had a lot of success against the other members of the frisbee blog world. Lukegot the better of us several times back in his Sockeye days, andIdris and Jam worked us over a few times as well. Thankfully, we were able to sneak past Zaz and Machine this weekend, which is good because it’s important to keep these upstart bloggers in their place.

Random Thoughts/Notes on the Weekend

*It’s kind of depressing to see former Chain players being big factors on other teams – Barrett (DoG), Brooks (Ring), Joel (Pike), Timmy (Machine), were all there this weekend – come back to Atlanta!
*When you stop doing something a lot you stop being good at it – I swear I used to be able to jump and play respectable defense – a summer league wasted playing dump has ruined my usual practice jumping for garbage passes, and two seasons of offense has me thinking “there’s always next point” when we turn it over.
*When we signed up for the Chesapeake Open we were promised “the sweetest fields on the East Coast.” The fields were something other than sweet, but the tournament was fine because there was plenty of water and the format wasn’t crazy. That’s really all I ask for in a tourney – water and a reasonable format.

Random Thoughts/Notes on the Blog
*You sent me a question – I haven’t answered it – sorry, I’m lazy…I’ll get around to it eventually. Some of these questions are pretty damned involved. I’m not sure I feel qualified to answer them. Of course that won’t stop me from making something up…I’m just saying.
*Wood – where have you gone? Come back and post again.

Expect More Get More

2005-08-23T10:00:00.000-04:00

Colleges are just starting to open up again which means frisbee practice is starting up again. I’m always a little torn at the beginning of each season. On the one hand I want to push the ladies to work so they can improve, but I’m always afraid of scaring off the new players. Here are some random thoughts about player retention.

One of my coaching mottos, stolen from Pete Carrill’s book The Smart Take from the Strong, is expect more get more. Carrill’s idea is that a coach should never allow a player to get complacent. We as coaches should continue to present new challenges for our players. Obviously, we need to be realistic with this - it’s not going to be helpful for us to make demands on a player that they can never achieve. But we want to always be pushing our players. I’ve had players tell me that I’m never satisfied with the way they play. I tell them that I’ll be satisfied when they’ve reached their maximum potential as a player – of course seeing as they’ve only played at most five years, they’ll probably reach this maximum potential long after they’re playing on my team. Last year, in appreciation of my approach to coaching, the ladies got me this book, which I think really sums up the amount of respect I get – but I digress.

In any event, it’s perhaps counterintuitive, but I actually think that starting the season with a serious attitude actually leads to higher player retention. When you think about what kind of people we’re trying to attract I think it makes more sense. The players who are going to be most successful are the players who are most interested in working hard. When we start off the season by just goofing off and trying to make sure everyone is having a good time we actually run off these types of people. Last year, I had a girl who had played field hockey her whole life quit the club field hockey team to play ultimate. The reason she gave was that they just weren’t hardcore enough. If we start the season with the attitude that we take what we do seriously we will attract the more serious people. Anyway, I’ll probably have run all the new players off by week two, but we’ll see how it goes.

Team USA Interview--Mike Namkung

2005-08-16T17:47:00.000-04:00

Mike has spent the majority of his decade-long club ultimate career playing for the Santa Barbara Condors. In addition to his extensive ultimate experience as a player and captain, he has coached youth ultimate for several years, which has included teaching ultimate clinics in Mexico and Cameroon. He is himself an artist who teaches language and visual arts in California.

How do you bring together some of the best players from all over the country into a cohesive team? Was team-building (as opposed to skill work) a major focus of the practice sessions? What did you learn from the Atlanta and Seattle teams you played against?

Ted did have us play a lot of monarch. But mostly we did skill work and scrimmaging at practices. It was not an official thing, but we did like each other and we partied together every time we got together—that helped bring the team together quite a bit. Playing Atlanta and Seattle teams mostly exposed what we needed to work on in terms of strategy and approach to competition. Nothing too specific, though.

What’s “monarch?” Miranda mentioned this as well.

Monarch is a game played with one, two or three soft cloth discs in an ultimate field end zone. It's basically a big game of tag. the boundaries of the game are the lines of the end zone. One person starts as "It." Just for the first tag, that person can run with the disc. When he hits someone else with it, now those two people are both It. They must pass the disc back and forth (no running with the disc) and work together to tag more people with it. If you are hit with the disc, or go out of bounds trying to avoid being hit, you join those who are It. Basically, the goal is the be the last person to elude the growing ranks of the Its. That person is the monarch, and if you play another game, she starts as It. Ted would always throw in a second (and sometimes a third) disc once there are lots of Its--then the game starts moving fast and you have to keep your eyes open for more than one attack. Good fun. We would play monarch a lot instead of doing drills to warm up for games.

How did Poultry Days and Potlatch help you all prepare for the World Games? What were the differences in the game you all played against Canada at Potlatch and the one you all played against them in Germany?

Of course [Poultry Days and Potlatch] helped us practice playing together in a tournament format. At Poultry Days no one really challenged us, so that tourney was more about us playing together and getting to know each other on the field better. Potlatch had a much higher level of teams, so we got to work more on adjusting to what other teams were, which was good practice for the World Games for sure. I don’t think there was much of a difference between our two games against Canada. If anything, playing them at Potlatch gave us confidence that we could beat them in Germany.

What were the strengths of the other teams at the World Games? What was Team USA's "edge" over the other invited teams? What was playing with such a small roster like? What made Australia so competitive? How did you all, as a team, approach their unexpected performance?

Our edge over other teams was our cohesiveness. We played as a team (used all of our men and women effectively) better than most other teams. I got the sense that all other teams were a little male dominated. Australia was the best at using women on the field, which is always the big challenge, cause there are fewer of them on the field, and guys tend to cut off women in coed because they play a much faster game. But even Australia ran their offense through their men mostly. We were the only team there that ran our offense through a woman handler (Deb). All other teams had their women almost exclusively downfield it seemed. Australia was good because they were composed of outstanding players, and they used all of their players effectively. And they were big. Four of their men must’ve been over 6’4” and their women were tall too. I wouldn’t say Australia’s performance was unexpected at all. Their men and women both did well at Worlds in Finland last year, and we expected them to bring it to us. So how we approached them was like how we approached all other teams—play our game and make strategic adjustments to counteract what they did well.

How was playing mixed ultimate at this level different than playing open? Did you all find yourselves employing different strategies and tactics than in the single-sex games? What was the spirit like at this level of competition? How did it compare to UPA Nationals or Worlds?

As I said, the biggest challenge with our team was that men and women move at different speeds—so it was a constant challenge to get our timing right when men threw to women or vice versa. It required a much greater awareness of how everyone was moving on the field. We tried using strategies that would help us with this, but in the end I don’t think we were doing anything drastically different from our single-sex games. being more aware of timing and spacing was the biggest thing.

Spirit at the World Games was great. Compared to Nationals or Worlds, it was a whole ‘nother world in terms of spirit. Very few arguments, and it seemed like much fewer calls, too.

Hall of Fame

2005-08-12T10:00:00.000-04:00

Martin and I spent the better part of our drive back from High Point talking about the ultimate Hall of Fame. Ultimate provides some unique challenges when it comes to figuring out who deserves to be enshrined. Martin and I came up with three big reasons people get inducted into various Sport Halls of Fame: 1) Championships 2) Crazy Big Stats 3) Changed the way the game was played at a particular position/dominated his position for an era. We pretty much know who was on the various Championship teams, so I think it will be an easy argument to get the top players from those teams into the Hall. The question of how you justify putting players in the Hall who weren’t on those top teams is more problematic. At this point ultimate has virtually zero recorded stats. Individual teams keep stats, but you can’t really use those as justification – there’s a big problem with knowing how good the data is from team to team. Beyond that, I question how meaningful the stats we keep really are. In terms of dominating a position for an era – that’s also a tough one. Ultimate really only has two positions at this point – handler and cutter.

In Atlanta we could only come up with one man (there’s probably a few women) who seemed like an obvious Hall of Famer – Stu Downs (if you’re reading sorry to make you the poster boy Stuart). We ran into a problem when we started to come up with a really strong argument to justify what seemed like our common sense view that Stu belongs in the hall. 1) He’s never won a championship. (Begin aside – Stu was on the Keg Workers when they won worlds, but there’s the question of whether that should count or not. This is especially true if you want to make the eligibility rule something like “a player becomes eligible for the Hall of Fame beginning five years after his final season in open/women’s.” If the eligibility rules view Masters as a game akin to Tennis’s Legends series it seems weird to give a player credit for a championship in that division - end aside).. Of course, he was able to get to natties numerous times and that should definitely count for something. 2) We don’t have any stats. 3) Maybe you could say Stu dominated the game at a specific position. He’s still one of the best middle middles around.

Another question we had was – could a player be eligible for the Hall purely based on what he/she did in the mixed division?

Anyway kind of a fun topic, if anybody has any thought let’s hear them.

Team USA interview--Miranda Roth

2005-08-12T09:00:00.000-04:00

Miranda Roth was originally selected as an alternate for Team USA in the 2005 World Games. When Kristen Unfried had to withdraw from the first team due to a knee injury requiring surgery, Miranda was selected by the team to replace her.

Miranda is a graduate of the renowned Paideia School ultimate program in Atlanta, received the Callahan Award in 2004 while playing for Carleton College and won the 2004 UPA Club Championships with Seattle Riot. In addition to coaching on the high school and college level, she volunteers for the Epilepsy Foundation Northwest and is better than Tom Rogacki at beer pong.

What was the team selection process? Were there tryouts?

We didn't have tryouts. I think the committee was watching us mostly at Club Nationals. They had mentioned that there might be tryouts, which I think there should have been, but they were never held.

What qualities did the selection committee emphasize?

I don't know about the selection committee. It was never really open info what they had judged us on. If I had to guess it would be something like spirit of the game, ability to work as part of a team, talent, athleticism and experience.

What effect did the roster limit have on who was selected?

I'm sure there were at least 30 people that could have made this team, especially considering there were 8 alternate spots. It was clear at all our practices that any of the alternates could have had a spot on the team, too. If I were to do it, I would have invited 30 people to a tryout, chosen 20 to practice together, then chosen the team and alternates later on in the process.

How was gender taken into account?

Well, there were 5 women on the team, 4 women alternates, 6 men on the team and 4 men alternates. Women did have a little bit easier time in terms of not having to play all the time, but there still weren't that many of us.

Practices--How do you bring together some of the best players from all over the country into a cohesive team?

We did a lot of scrimmaging at practices just so we could get as many reps as possible seeing where people liked to be and such. We still ended up with many awkward positioning things--like we really didn't have that many handlers or O players at all, but it worked out ok. I think playing monarch all the time helped, too.

Was team-building (as opposed to skill work) a major focus of the practice sessions?

Yeah, we definitely drank together at every opportunity. This was a huge part of team building in addition to the chalk talks, meetings and fun games we would have at practices. We also did a lot of [trash]-talking over email.

What did you learn from the Atlanta and Seattle teams you played against?

They sort of helped us get real with our playing. Chozone nearly beat us because we were playing like crap. We learned that we couldn't just walk through any game and expect to win because we were some all-star team. In Seattle, Rockeye was an easier game for us but it taught us how to play big in front of a crowd and put a game away when we had a lead.

Tournaments--How did Poultry Days and Potlatch help you all prepare for the World Games?

Poultry Days was very good in terms of team building (chicken dinners and getting drunk and nearly ending up in the lake, well one of our tents DID end up in the lake) and also respecting teams that weren't necessarily dangerous competition—lots of ambassador work. Potlatch was a good experience for lots of reasons. This team needed to lose at some point and luckily it happened at Potlatch instead of in Germany. It was a reality check that I wish hadn't had to happen, but I think it was for the best, though. Also at Potlatch we had a great game in the showcase against Canada but it was sweet to win that one.

What were the differences in the game you all played against Canada at Potlatch and the one you all played in Germany?

I think in Germany we came in with confidence and crushed whereas at Potlatch we were still unsure of ourselves and how we ranked against other national teams. We definitely were in Canada's collective head in Germany, which totally helped.

World Games--What were the strengths of the other teams?

Japan—quickness, very low throws.
Germany—spread offense.
Finland—solid women.
Canada—experience, spread offense.
Australia—height, talent, great throws, solid women.

What was Team USA's "edge" over the other invited teams?

I think the bottom of our roster was much better than the bottom of other teams rosters. And if you had taken the next 11 people from each country and had them played we would have killed everyone. Also, I think we had practiced and prepared a lot more than other teams.

What was playing with such a small roster like?

I think some individuals on our team had a very hard time with it. Some of our team is used to just playing O or D or being very specific role players. For me, it was actually fine because I had just come off the college season where I played almost every point.

What made Australia so competitive?

Their height was quite the obstacle. They had four guys as tall as Chase who could all jump. Not that our guys couldn't handle it—they did—but it was scary when you see Chase or Jeff get beat deep. They also had one very tall woman, Diana that was good and Sarah was amazing—she could run all day.

How did you all, as a team, approach their unexpected performance?

I think we were very lucky to have seen them play against Canada the first day. In this way we were able to take them seriously from the beginning and bring our best game. I think things might have been very different if we had seen them on day one.

How was playing mixed ultimate at this level different than playing women's?

It was actually a lot of fun. We did a lot of spread offense which I love and it was so great to be able to play with Chase, Zip and Bart especially. Chase, Zip and I have the Juniors ultimate disciplined cutting style and it is so easy to read off each other. Bart ("Lefty") has great throws and knows exactly how to time his throws to women. Sometimes it was a little stressful (at Poultry Days especially for some reason) to try to stay out of the way of huge guys on the other team.

Did you all find yourselves employing different strategies and tactics than in the single-sex games?

I think not many people had played spread offense before. We did that a ton and it worked really well for us. It is especially useful to set it up with a boy and a girl on each side so there can't be switches either way - seems like someone is always open. Plus we had big throwers that could throw basically whatever we cut for from the point position. We used some different plays, too, but nothing remarkable. We did a lot of transition defense that sometimes worked like a charm, but sometimes did not. It was tough to match up for gender on a transition.

What was the spirit like at this level of competition?

Unparalleled.

How did it compare to UPA Nationals or Worlds?

I think this was the most spirited tournament I’ve ever played in. Everyone was a little nervous having no referees in front of the Olympic officials, but they really weren't necessary. Really stellar spirit from everyone.

Team USA interview--Angela Lin

2005-08-11T15:25:00.000-04:00

Angela Lin is a captain of Atlanta team Ozone and has been playing with them for nearly a decade. In 2001 she won a UPA College Championship with the University of Georgia, and was runner-up for that year's Callahan Award. In her spare time, she enjoys sleeping, the outdoors and reading 'Dragonlance' novels.

Angela was selected from the pool of 61 female applicants as an alternate for the USA 2005 World Games' team. She recently had the oppourtunity to share with Ultimate Strategy & Coaching about her experience.

What are your thoughts on the team selection process? What qualities did the selection committee emphasize? What effect did the World Games’ roster limit have on who was selected? How was gender taken into account?

So, there weren't really tryouts. The selection committee made all the choices prior to us all getting together for the first time (in March). It's kind of up for debate whether this as the best way to go. I think the UPA had intended there to be a tryout period but ran out of time. In some ways having the delineation between "starters" and "alternates" was good—as an alternate, you knew what you were getting into from the start. In other ways, of course, it could've also been beneficial to be able to pick 11 people out of the 19 after seeing everybody play together. Regardless, everybody handled what potentially could've been a weird situation with respect for each of our teammates and with the team in mind.

Practices--How do you bring together some of the best players from all over the country into a cohesive team? Was team-building (as opposed to skill work) a major focus of the practice sessions? What did you learn from the Atlanta and Seattle teams you played against?

For me, it was cool to get to play with so many awesome players. I think that we all respected one another from the start. There were definitely times when people differed in opinion on stuff (how plays should be run or whatever), but we worked it out. Practices were mostly for learning and working on plays, getting used to playing with our new teammates, running a lot, getting used to coed . . . so, more skill stuff than team bonding. Although any time you practice with a group of people for 7 or 8 hours a day over several weekends, you're bonding with them. And of course, after hours, there was much more team bonding to be had—eating, drinking, pole dancing, jumping in cold lakes, chicken dinners at Poultry Days, bringing it every night at Potlatch.

Stuff we learned from Chozone and Rockeye (aka Team Russia)--Chozone brought it strong against us in some windy conditions. They were the first team we'd played against together. They weren't afraid. I was proud of Atlanta. Rockeye, though missing several of their own players playing on Team USA, was certainly strong, and we knew we couldn't [mess] around. I think one of the important things we learned starting in Atlanta and kept emphasizing throughout was that we had to be smart and play our game against every opponent. High percentage completions, dictating on defense, play hard, have fun, be a team. the simple stuff . . . which sometimes isn't so simple.

Tournaments—How did Poultry Days and Potlatch help Team USA prepare for the World Games?

Besides playing against teams in Atlanta and Seattle, Poultry Days and Potlatch were the only times we got to play all together and not against each other in scrimmages. Poultry Days wasn't all that competitive, but gave us some good bonding time. Potlatch—a lot of bonding too, plus teams fired up to beat us. And the showcase game there was super fun. There were times when only the starters played, so they could get a feel for what it'd be like without us alternates mucking things up =). Tournaments are always invaluable for any team.

How was playing mixed ultimate at this level different than playing women's? Did you all find yourselves employing different strategies and tactics than in the single-sex games?

Definitely different than Women’s. Guys are just different to throw to, cut for, have on the field, etc. We had to make adjustments because it was mixed, but we didn't spend too much time at practice deliberating over whether a woman/man should play here, there, wherever. Not saying it wasn't a concern, just that we didn't really focus on it. In our spread (4 downfield cutters, 2 on each side), we usually put a man and a woman on each side. And in an hourglass spread, we sometimes sent only women (3) downfield with a guy as the center if we were dominating the other team's women. In the stack, I think we had tried strategically placing men/women in certain positions in the stack, but I don't think we ever really stuck with that sort of structure because it didn't end up mattering.

0 for 3

2005-08-09T09:06:00.000-04:00

So after losing to Ring 17-16 at the Furniture City Shootout, Chain is officially 0-3 in tourney finals this year. We lost primarily because I went with the unorthodox decision of throwing to a member of the opposing team at double game point. For all of those reading in hopes of picking up some ultimate strategy advice – I’d suggest using the more traditional approach of throwing to your team. This marks the second time in my career that I’ve made the double game point, tournament ending turnover. It’s a pretty terrible feeling. The first occurred at Poultry Days 2001. After throwing away the final pass and then proceeding to get scored on, I was hanging out with my team at the pool. This incredibly cute little kid comes up to me and tugs on my shorts. He looks up at me with these huge eyes and asks, “Mister, mister, why did you cost your team the tournament?” I look up to see my teammates laughing hysterically in the corner - they had bribed this kid to come and harass me. It’s good to know that when you’re feeling down you can always count on your teammates to stop at nothing to make you feel worse.

Anyway, all and all it was a pretty decent weekend for us. We were up to 17 able bodied players for Sunday, which seemed pretty luxurious compared to the 11 we’ve taken to the last two tourneys. We got to work on some stuff and the competition was pretty respectable – especially on Sunday (Potomac, BAT, Ring).

Random thoughts/notes from the weekend –
* The D team claims that they are no longer Chain Lightning, which now apparently consists of only the O team, but rather the Junkyard Dogs. The split seems to be amenable to the O team as well, who never cared for being associated with those ruffians.
* Seems like every defender (read raping marker) is arguing that the foul occurred before the throw and is bringing the disc back. I’m not sure what the answer is, but this rule is going to be the biggest argument generator until something is changed.
* I had a very strange foul called on me this weekend. I juked towards the disc and then turned to take my guy to the rack. My defender steps on my heel, trips and calls foul on me as I’m running away. First, he argues that if I had fallen down and the disc had gone up I would have called a foul on him. His next argument is that I was too close to him and that was the result of the contact. I tried to explain that as the offensive player, I’m actually trying to get away from the defense, not get really close…In the end we just had to agree to disagree.

QoTW:Laying out – overrated?

2005-08-03T10:41:00.000-04:00

Am I the only one that thinks that laying out is the most overrated skill in ultimate? I’m not saying that there is never a time to dive; I just think people put too much emphasis on it. Offensively, you’re always advantaged if you can run the disc down and stay on your feet – you can get a throw off much more easily, and there’s an additional difficulty in catching the disc when you fling yourself to the ground. Defensively, I think that most successful diving blocks come when the defender is running perpendicular to flight path of the disc (usually on a dump, off-man block, or a diving block in the zone). You don’t really see many good players have defenders dive past them when they’re cutting back to the disc. Gratuitous diving in this situation just leads to open hucks and breaks.

Anyway, that’s about all I got on this – any thoughts? Is diving super important?

Mail Bag - Blister Prevention

2005-07-29T10:52:00.002-04:00

Today's installment of Mail bag comes from Jason Becker, coach of Francis Howell High School's Seven Sages Ultimate in St. Charles, Missouri.

Jason writes:

I have a question that I'd like to see addressed on the blog, although it doesn't specifically pertain to coaching, really.

I've heard lots of tricks and tactics that players use to avoid turning their feet to hamburger during hot summer tournaments. Everything from careful boot selection to a coat of Vaseline has been advanced--but what really works? As someone who is sick of sitting around for a week after tournaments, waiting for my poor little feet to heal, I'd really like to know how people deal with this annoyance.

Thanks for the blog. It's a fantastic resource for coaches in a sport with very little to go on (as of yet).

It is always nice to hear we are reaching the community, Jason. Now, on to your question.

Foot care, like sun protection, is an underrated part of tournament preparation. While the right footware is a topic worthy of its own discussion, there are many other things one can do to prevent blisters over the course of a grueling weekend of ultimate.

In high school, when I was doing six-mile cross-country training runs in the middle of the Atlanta summer, I would often develop blisters between my toes. My father, a long time runner himself, suggested I use Vaseline to reduce the friction on my feet, and it has never let me down for running or for ultimate. Before cleating up, I apply the Vaseline to all sides of my toes, the ball of the foot and around the heel. In addition, a little Vaseline is often more effective than a tape or bandage if you feel a blister coming on, because it won't come off when cutting or create additional friction in a new area.

Wearing proper socks, along with changing them regularly, will also aid in blister prevention. I prefer using Thorlo brand, specifically those made for tennis, as they have a lot of padding in the front of the foot that helps with the friction created by ultimate's footwork and cutting movements. Additionally, I often choose to wear a thin pair of liner-type socks underneath my thicker main socks (something I ported from playing soccer). While not only providing more cushion, this technique can also lead to a more secure boot fit which will prevent the foot from slipping inside the cleat, another problem that leads to blisters.

Changing your socks before every game can also help. A clean, dry pair of socks will go a long way towards avoiding the damp conditions that often cause blisters. If I am beginning play early in the day when the grass is still wet, I will also change my socks (and sometimes my cleats) in between warming-up and playing.

Some players will use a product such as Gold Bond Medicated Power to combat the potential dampness within their socks and shoes.

Finally, your blisters may be caused by a lack of padding and support in the cleats themselves. If your cleat has a flimsy insole, or one that has broken down over time, you may want to look into purchasing a pair of athletic insoles (I use those manufactured by Sof Sole) and fitting them into your boots. Athletic insloes can also improve cleat fit.

Jason, I hope I have touched on enough different methods of blister prevention here that you will be able to find one that works for you. Thanks for the question! I look forward to hearing comments from other visitors about what they have done as well.

College Divisions: Div II Nationals - Expansion of QotW

2005-07-25T13:06:00.000-04:00

Chimpo's Question of the Week has sparked a discussion on the implementation of a 2nd College Nationals. Where does the line get drawn? Are teams in a second division in that division there the whole year or is it only determined after sectionals/regionals? Are teams allowed to move up or down at will? Will a 2nd Nationals even work? The previous thread is about whether divisions are necessary due to the expansion of the college division, so rather than redirect the conversation of that thread, we can use this thread to discuss how a 2nd Nationals would have to work.

Recent comments by Dusty, Heacox, and Jim Palmer have talked about making a 2nd (Div II) Nationals and having the splot occur at that point rather than at the beginning of the season. Palmer and Dusty have made good points about how the split could occur right after regionals to allow teams that didn't make nationals to still get good competition and continue their season. Heacox pointed out that tournaments like that have existed in the past and have failed because of a lack of attendance.

It seems to me like what has been put forth is kind of like an NIT tournament, where a good finishing at regionals but failure to make nationals gets you an invitation. Extra invitations can be extended as needed to get a full field of teams. The difficulty of that system is travel and interest. UPA College Nationals happens too late in the year, and a 2nd "less important" Div II tournament would certainly be less likely to get teams if it were that late. College Nationals is 3 weeks after the last regionals, maybe if it was two weeks instead it would be easier to get interest because we would be past the last days of school (Dusty, care to comment on the timing of Nationals and the end of school dates, it has been a while since some of us have been in college?).

Another issue is travel. It is a lot to ask the loser of a nasty 2/3 game in New England to hop a plane to California to play in another tournament. While this will probably lead to them declining the bid (which opens a bid up for another team), wouldn't they be more likely to go if the tournament was closer to home, say in Maryland or Virginia? But then what about the teams from the west coast? A 2nd Invitation-only nationals will (like Heacox said) have poor nationwide attendance because of the burden on distant teams (like HS Nationals was for a while, or maybe still is).

Perhaps an alternate solution is to have multiple tournaments. 4 lets say. Each tournament caters to two regions, taking the next 12-16 teams from the regionals of those two regions. This allows for more cross-regional play against good, but apparently not the best of teams. In order to prevent over-repeating matchups you could even switch the pairings of the regionals yearly in order to expose more teams to each other. Although this isn't really another nationals (more like a super-regional), hopefully having it quickly after regionals, and always somewhat closer to the participating schools would increase attendance.

I'm sure there are lots of problems with this idea, and probably lots of better ideas so have at it people.

Martin

QoTW: College Divisions

2005-07-22T07:23:00.000-04:00

Today’s Question of the Week comes from Johnny Chimpo of Atlanta who writes:

i have a question for you and your bloggers:

Do you think it would be beneficial to create two or more divisions for college ultimate? As noted in an earlier post (the one about eligibility), smaller schools and private schools have a much harder time competing with large public schools or private schools with a well established reputations. Do you take the risk of less competition and divide the college game into two divisions? Three divisions? For both men and women?

I know this has been discussed before, but at what point do we create the divisions.

As I mentioned in the post you referred to, I think it’s just a matter of time before ultimate goes to multiple divisions. I think the question of whenexactly to go to multiple divisions is interesting. I also wonder how it would be implemented – in other words, do you just let teams play in whatever division they want to?

Some quick googling shows that only a few NCAA sports have all of their teams compete in the same division (I think just fencing, rifle, and skiing). Those sports have considerably fewer teams than ultimate (between 30-50).

Rugby is probably a better example, since it is also outside of the NCAA. Here is a link to their eligibility guidelines. They have two college divisions and three club divisions. From my quick reading, I think teams can choose which division they want to play in. It seems like a team can move from division to division from year to year, but I don’t see anything specific so I wouldn’t swear to it. A somewhat interesting sidenote here is that rugby also allows college players five years of eligibility – maybe this is where we got the idea?

Anyway, fun question. Anyone have any thoughts about this? Should we just leave all the teams together in the same division in the hopes of the Hoosiers scenario?

Insultimate

2005-07-21T08:41:00.000-04:00

First, a site note – thanks to everyone who has been emailing me questions and comments – no, I haven’t forgotten about you, I’m just lazy. I’ve received a lot of great stuff and I’d like to take the time to give it justice…so…yeah, I’ll get around to posting all of it on the site eventually. Sorry about the delay.

On a totally unrelated note, I was reading over on Parinella’s site about ultimate variants, and it reminded me of a game that we use to play when I was in college called Insultimate. I don’t think it actually teaches anything valuable but it is usually pretty amusing. As with most things, irresponsible consumption of adult beverages makes the game both more entertaining and more dangerous.

Field set up: Basically you have a scoring box and a clearing box about 20-30 yards apart, depending on how much you feel like running (shorter is usually better).

Basic Rules:
1) Five second stall count
2) Make it take it

Teams: The game is played with 3 teams of between 2-4 people. One team is on offense and two teams are on defense.

Object: The object of the game is for the offensive team to work the disc into the scoring zone against the two defensive teams.

The Insult: The game derives its name from the fact that if 2 defensive teams are unable to stop a single offensive team, they really deserve be insulted. After every goal, the defensive team starts the “insult stall count.” The scoring player has 10 seconds to insult one or all of the players on the field. There are two rules governing the insults: 1) the same insult can’t be used twice in the same game. 2) “you suck” is incredibly unoriginal and is not considered a legal insult. If a player (1) gets stalled without insulting, (2) repeats an insult, or (3) says “you suck” the disc is turned over.

Change of Possession: Following a turnover, the two defensive teams race to pick the disc up first. The offensive team is not allowed to pick-up the disc.

I’m sure I’m forgetting some of the rules, but that’s most of it.

Crunch! 1999

2005-07-20T14:56:00.000-04:00

This was inspired by Jim's post inquiringing about Mixed strategy (http://parinella.blogspot.com/2005/07/mixed-strategy.html).

In 1999 Crunch!, the Atlanta mixed team I played with, qualified for Jockey UPA Nationals and finished 8th overall (ironically losing to Holes & Poles in the placement game) on the strength of our spread offense, our junk defenses and picking the games we wanted to win.

Hale Brown was the mind behind implementing these strategies. On both offense and defense, the position you played was often determined by your sex. In the spread O, a woman would always catch the pull (usually Jen Christianson) and feed it to the middle handler (usually Hale), who would then look to get the disc to one of our top men who was playing the down field center. The play was either have the center come back to the disc and then throw the score to one of the women playing a deep wing (usually Beth Ann Hanson), or just have Hale huck it to the guy playing center because there was not a concern about poaches from the female defenders.

On defense I remember the two junk D sets we used most often. One involved putting women on one or two of the other team's best male handlers. One of our men played deep to take away the huck while the women concentrated on making the cut back to the disc difficult. We generally marked up on the three best handlers our opponents had while the remaining four players played zone. The idea was to get a poach turnover after the disc got into the hands of a weaker thrower.

The other D was a vice where you were always in one of four spots if you were a guy and three if you were a girl. The was a man as all-time mark forcing into a woman (essentially a two person cup), one man playing deep, another woman playing somewhat deep on the break side (the "hammer stopper"), and the remaing two men and one woman playing for the underneath cut to the force side.

All of this, while not revolutionary, was effective in the mixed division's second year. The final component of our success was winning the games that mattered. I believe we were pretty honest about other teams having better overall players than we did, and while I wouldn't say we threw any games, we defintely opend up the rotation in the second half of a lot of matches (or reined it in tight if the game was closer than expected), especially at Nationals. Hale, being format-inclined, always knew what games were crucial wins in order to advance as far as possible. I remember that somehow we lost to Trigger Hippy, Red Fish Blue Fish and Blind Date (from Boston) and still ended up in the quarter finals on Saturday (losing to eventualy champs Raleigh Llamas), while I don't remember any team we beat those three days.

Mail Bag - Where to put your Stud

2005-07-14T07:29:00.000-04:00

Today's reader mail comes from Seigs in Hanover, who writes:

My question really only applies to the men's college game. Here it goes: Is it better for your best all around player to cut or handle? Say you have one guy with the full toolbox--breaks, hucks, solid field sense--but he is also one of the best guys on the team when it comes to shaking his man downfield. Is it more effective to have a guy like this run the offense from the handler position or consistently get the disc for 20 yard gains?

I think this is an interesting question and I'm not sure that I have the best answer. I expect that this is a fairly common dilemma for college teams though, so hopefully some of our readers will post about how they've addressed it.

I think the answer is going to depend on a few things. First - what is your best player best at? All things being equal it makes sense to let people do what they're best at. Second - what is the supporting cast best at? If the supporting cast is heavily skewed either towards cutters or throwers it probably makes sense to have your stud help out in the area that you're weakest in.

Without knowing the answer to these questions, if you have one guy who is clearly your best thrower and your best cutter, you want to be getting him the disc a lot. But don't let him be lazy and just catch dump passes. Push him downfield, but encourage him to come back to the disc and bail out the offense if it's in trouble. If you feel like your non stud players are handlers who can throw decent medium range bombs, but don't really have great breaks, I think it might be time to break out some sort of spread/h-stack. Put your stud downfield where he can easily go to the house or come back underneath.

Anyway, I know this isn't the most thorough answer, sorry - good question though. I'm interested to hear how other people have dealt with this situation.

QoTW - Kick or Receive

2005-07-07T08:02:00.000-04:00

Assuming wind is not a factor – what do you prefer to do when you win the flip – kick or receive? Traditionally, I’ve been a fan of taking the ball. I’ve always thought of winning the flip and playing D as something college teams did. However, last year at Nationals (no wind) I think every team that won the flip against me selected to play D first. Anybody have any thoughts on this?

CTG - Flick Outline

2005-06-30T10:44:00.000-04:00

Alright, I’ve gotten a bunch of feedback, but I’m gonna need some more. My evil plan is to come up with an outline for each section, let you guys comment on it. Then write a draft and let you guys comment on it. After you’ve commented on the draft of each section, I’ll make changes and put together the CTG. We’ll see how it goes.

Anyway, here is a rough outline of how I’m thinking about writing the flick section of the CTG. What I want from you is – 1) do you agree with what I’m going to say? – is this the general consensus based on our discussions? 2) are there more topics to address in a particular section? If so what are they? 3) does the organization make sense? Should one topic be moved to a different section?

Just a warning: this is real rough – I didn’t necessarily write in complete sentences because this is just an outline. I’ll clean it up by the time I post a draft.

I. Beginners
A. Grip – encourage some version of the power grip – 2 fingers on the rim. Some folks don’t hate the split grip, but I think the majority opinion has been why waste time with it.
B. Stance – I’m thinking let’s go ahead and put them in the stance I talked about in part III of this series – in other words pivot foot pointing straight non pivot foot forward and open to somewhere between 45-70 degrees. I debated on whether or not this is too much to handle when you’re first learning, but I think it’s fine.
C. Isolation – At this point it’s primarily about generating wrist snap – Focus on this. Don’t let the player use her arm/body to throw. Make them use their wrist snap! One suggested way to do this is to have a new player hold her arm out fully extended and only allow her to throw with her wrist.
D. Drills – 1) throw with a partner. Anyone have another drill that’s good for super new players?
E. Desired Skills – 1) Player is consistently holding the disc correctly 2) Player is consistently standing correctly when throwing. 3) Player has good wrist snap. The player may be throwing the disc too hard or spraying it around, but she is consistently generating a good amount of spin.

II. Intermediate
A. Using Arm/Body – At this point your players are generating good wrist snap and you want to help them generate more power and consistency. Through the course of these discussions we’ve heard some different ways to teach using the arm. We’ve all got our favorite catch phrases – Martin tells players to “pull from the hip” as a way to teach players to get their arms back and away from their bodies” Tarr teaches “lead with your elbow” to encourage proper arm motion. I like both of these and will probably steal them for the guide. Any objections/better suggestions? The drills suggested for teaching this were the sitting and throwing drill and kneeling and throwing drill. In the sitting and throwing drill you have player sit Indian style and throw back and forth. This prevents them from generating power with their legs and forces them to use their arms. I’m not sure if we’ve talked about the kneeling and throwing drill, but it’s another one I stole from Baccarini. Basically you have your right handed player kneel on her left knee and put her right knee up with her right foot on the ground. Does this make sense? It’s like football players in a post game huddle – when they’re on one knee? I’ll have to come up with a better description prior to finishing the guide, but anyway, basically you have your player reach around their outstretched knee and throw. Baccarini likes it because it forces players to get their arm away from their body.

For encouraging use of the body/torso all I’ve got right now is Tim Halt’s mantra of “lead with the hip.” Anyone have anything else here? Drills?
B. Throwing curves – This is about the time when I like to start talking about the different ways to make the disc curve and when to use each curve. Prior to this point, I pretty much preach keeping the disc flat, but I don’t worry if the disc turns over a little bit in either direction. I think my favorite drill for teaching this is the drill the philosophically minded Dawgs call “Nietzsche’s.” Basically it is a two person lead pass throwing drill. Each player forms one point of an imaginary triangle. The player without the disc runs to third point of the triangle and the player with the disc throws a lead pass to the cutter. The former thrower then runs to the point of the triangle no longer occupied and receives a lead pass from the new thrower etc. You (the wise coach) have they players go through one set for each throw (IO Flick, OI Flick, IO Backhand, OI Backhand). The drill also works on fitness as it requires a lot of running.
C. Pivoting/Extension
I like to start talking about pivoting when I start talking about the different curves. The reason for this is that I like to talk about using the throws that have the same curve (e.g. IO flick/around backhand) in conjunction with each other via pivoting. Maybe this isn’t the right place to talk about extension? – it seems to go together with pivoting, but I’m not sure I have a great way to explain what I want players to do in terms of extension – basically I think you want to be able to get as out as possible while still maintaining balance and the ability to quickly pivot back to the complementary throw (Aside – I see a lot of college players who extend way too far – if you extend so far that you’re off balance and can only realistically threaten one throw what have you gained?). If anyone has a better place for this let me know. For drills here – Martin has the Tai Chi drill that I really like – basically he has the girls mimic his go through a series of pivots and fakes that works on maintaining balance while pivoting and getting extension. I’ll have a better explanation of this one by the time this makes it into the guide. The other one I like is just to have players pair up – give one player a disc and tell the other person to mark them. Basically you just say disc in and one player pivots and pretends to throw while the other person marks them. Any other drills for this?

D. Desired skills 1)Player can reliably uses arm/torso to assist in the throwing of forehands 2)Player can consistently throw flicks with all curves and knows what curve to use in what situation 3) Player pivots well and gets extension when throwing without losing balance.

III. Advanced

I’m not sure how I want to organize this. It might make sense to organize the guide such that there are 5 sections two sections for beginning/intermediate flicks 2 sections for beginning and intermediate backhands and then 1 advanced section that addresses both flick and backhand at the same time.

I’m also not sure what else I want to put in this section. I’ll definitely talk about breaking the mark. Maybe talk about how conditions effect throwing?- Throw like X when going upwind and Y when going downwind? Hucking?

Mail Bag - Cutting

2005-06-28T14:38:00.000-04:00

Today’s question comes from Crystal in Maryland

So I was reading various posts about getting open on a defender. It seems that with a good read on your defender and a good fake to get them going in one direction, you can always get open. It makes sense, but I've run into many situations where faking one way (i.e. deep or break) isn't bought cause the defender knows that isn't a viable option. Basically, they know that the only way to go is for an in-cut. My question is how do you get open on an in cut when they're positioned to defend that cut (and do it without ending right on top of the thrower)?

First, Crystal – Good to hear from you. Hope all is well and good luck with the upcoming move. As usual, I’ve pretty much stolen my theory from someone else, so I’ll point you in the direction of the source material. In 1999, Parinella wrote an article that addresses the basic rules of offense. His book contains an updated version of his theory.

Parinella’s first two basic principles of offense are:
1. Take what they give you
2. If you really want something they're not giving you, try to fake them into giving it to you.

According to the principle of taking what they give you, if you’re being fronted (as you describe in your question) you should look to attack the away cutting space. It sounds like what’s making your situation difficult is that you’re only threatening one space. In a previous post, I talk about finding a “sweet spot” where you can viably threaten two cutting spaces. If you’re not viably threatening the deep space, presumably it’s because you’re too far away from the thrower. My suggestion, in this situation, would be to take a few steps toward the disc while you're moving into the cutting lane and then cut hard back towards the disc. When your defender turns her hips to commit to the in-cut, turn and take her to the house. I like to think about the set-up for a cut as opening up a window for the thrower to put the disc in. By running back to the frisbee you’re effectively opening up the throwing window behind you. At the beginning of your scenario you may have been 30 yards away from the disc, meaning your thrower was going to have to throw the bejesus out of it if you were going to be open on the deep one. Now after your hard run back towards the disc you may only be 12-15 yards away from the thrower when you turn and head for the house. This makes the throw much easier.

Parinella’s second basic principle of offense is “if you really want something they’re not giving you, try to fake them into giving it to you." In the scenario you describe where the defender is just absolutely determined to stop the underneath cut you’re probably better off not trying to overpower them to get the disc. Generally, I’d rather set myself to catch a big swing and punish them for over committing to the open side in-cut. However, if you’re just absolutely set on getting the disc on the in-cut I like to use the z-cut in this situation. The idea behind the z-cut is to mimic the standard v cut and take advantage of the defender when they cover the cut like the standard v cut. In most cases, when a defender is camping out underneath you, she expects you to make a few steps towards her and then turn and run in the opposite direction. With the z cut you want to take 5 or 6 lazy jog steps toward your defender then turn and go as hard as you can for 2-5 steps in the opposite direction before stopping and sprinting back towards the disc. Hopefully, you can be stopping to come back to the disc while she is still accelerating to run with the deep cut.

The final thing here is sometimes you’re just not in the best position to make the next cut. If you feel like you’re in a position where getting the disc is going to be exceedingly difficult, actively get out of the way of teammates who are in better position to make the next cut.

QotW: Worst Coaching Moment

2005-06-27T09:12:00.000-04:00

A few weeks ago we talked about coaching highlights. That started me thinking about my most unpleasant coaching experiences. I have a tendency to curse way too much on the Ultimate field. My first year coaching Southern Poly, we were playing at Terminus in the last game Saturday to make the 'upper fields'. I don't remember what happened exactly, but I wasn't pleased with it and I let loose with a flurry of f-bombs. I turn around and see one of my player's parents sitting right behind me. I apologized to the player after the game, and although he said they were used to worse from his highschool baseball coach, I still regret it and wish I'd have apologized to them directly.

Have you ever gotten so wrapped up in a game that you slip and do something you end up regretting? Maybe you've yelled at a player, or encouraged some form of bad spirit by one of your players, or even just not corrected a player for an unspirited act.

Why I hate Mixed

2005-06-24T09:37:00.000-04:00

Maybe hate is too strong of a word. I don’t have a problem with people playing mixed if that’s what they want to do. I guess I just don’t like playing mixed. But more than that I think if you’re interested in ever becoming a really good ultimate player you shouldn’t learn how to play by playing mixed. Part of this is that the divisions have different levels of talent, but I think it’s more than that. I’m saying, even independent of the talent disparity in the divisions, you can’t ever be really good if all you ever do is play mixed. Wow, that sounds incredibly arrogant…let me try an analogy. When coaching, I teach my kids to play straight stack rather than a horizontal stack. I think a lot of colleges run the horizontal stack because you can get away with not paying attention to what your teammates are doing. It’s definitely conceivable, it may even be probable, that my team would have more success with a horizontal stack at this stage in their development, but I still teach them the straight stack. I want them to have to think about what their teammates are doing in order to succeed. . I guess, I just think that’s what good ultimate players do, and I want my kids to be good ultimate players not just good runners. I feel like mixed breeds some of the same problems as running exclusively h-stack. There is much more available space to cut into than in open because of the fact that half of the players on the field can’t really help out on a throw to a man. As a result, players never learn to think about their teammates when cutting.

One thing I’m always struck by when playing mixed is how much harder it is to play man to man defense. When I’m playing defense one of the first thing I try to figure out is where my help is. Assume I’m playing in a 3-4 coed game and one of the other team’s men is holding the disc, the other man is his dump, meanwhile I’m stuck covering the guy downfield. There’s no incentive for the guy I’m covering to worry about his teammates if he wants to get open. For all intents and purposes it’s me and him alone downfield. There’s no need for him to learn how to time his cuts because he’s always cutting out on an island. I think a lot of men who play exclusively mixed learn how to get open only by over-powering their opponent. In the last couple of years, we’ve had several athletic young guys that have come to tryout for Chain, who have only played mixed. Almost to a man, they’ve stuck out as being dumb cutters (to stick out as being a dumb cutter on a team as dumb as Chain…that’s truly impressive). It seems like all they want to do is juke and then run as hard as they can in one direction. They go to weird places on the field and look at you like why aren’t you throwing it – I assume this is just because there are more places to deliver the frisbee to in mixed due to the fact that players can cover less field.

I don’t like playing mixed because the game just feels disjointed and slow to me. But the real reason I have a strong distaste for mixed is that I think it stunts the development of a lot of potentially very strong players. I really wish the young players who don’t make Chain, but have the potential to make Chain in the future, would be play on a second men’s team rather than playing mixed. Anyway, I still think most of you mixed folks are nice people – hopefully, I wasn’t too obnoxious in this one.

MTV Offense

2005-06-23T14:10:00.000-04:00

Ok, not really MTV. I stumbled across the "Empty V" offense last year while searching the web for 'ultimate frisbee strategy offense'. I keep wanting to try it but have never had the opportunity. Basically, it looks like a spread offense with two diagonal (V-shaped) lanes. The purpose is to give the thrower more "offensive opportunities." Russell Young apparentally came up with the offense. I'll let you check out his page on the Empty V for a full description of the offense. I'm curious what everyone thinks of the offense. Has anyone run anything similar before? He's got some other interesting ideas on his site including disliking the force, stack, and zones (w/cups). I'm also starting to wonder what an MTV offense would look like.