Four Elements

Individual sports are defined and molded by the fundamental rules that govern the game. Basketball is a largely vertical and physical activity. Get tall, strong teammates. Likewise, volleyball players are generally vertically oriented (either by height or leaping ability). These are the outcomes of rules. If a volleyball court was enlarged 3 meters in every direction, then foot-speed would suddenly be an important factor. Consider how the 3-point line and the forward pass have formed the modern versions of basketball and football.

Ultimate is likewise shaped by rules. The dimensions of the field, the amount of contact allowed, and various smaller advantages given to the offense have created the style of play we know today.

I am sometimes shocked by how little most ultimate players think about the fundamental essence of the game. I play for an elite men’s club and, no doubt, compete with and against people who have not given 10 minutes of their lives to deeply, seriously analyzing the game. Pondering the horizontal offense or drawing Xs and Os does not count. I’m referring to something deeper. I hesitate to call them strategies because that almost sounds too specific.

In my estimation there are 4 important philosophies that are fundamental to ultimate. At first glance they are pretty simplistic. But, so are the principles that spawned the pick-and-roll, Wildcat, and triple threat.

These are neatly divided into O and D. I’ll attempt to flesh them out in subsequent posts. Briefly, they are:

Offensively
1. The Split.
2. Offense is easy.

Defensively
1. Shrink the field
2. Let the O turn it

1. The Split

Imagine we’re playing a chess game. I move my knight into a position where I can take two of your pieces. You have one move and must decide which piece is less valuable. You can’t save both. You’re split. The decision of which piece to give up is made easier in chess because pieces are often assigned a point value (Pawn: 1, Rook: 5, Queen: 9, etc).

Likewise, in ultimate, defenders cannot cover all positions and must give something up. I think of this as “The Split.” A common example of this is the vertical stack. It’s an offensive structure that puts defenders in The Split. They cannot take away all places on the field. Generally, they choose to stay on the live-side and give up the break-side. This bet is hedged by the marker, who is attempting to limit throws to the break-side.

An ultimate field is huge. Anyone who has gone 1v1 against a cutter or dump in open space knows how hard it is to cover all areas. It’s not a matter of being faster or in better shape. I have smoked much more athletic people and been beaten by geriatric masters players because of this fundamental principle.

So, design your offenses in ways that force defenders to make difficult decisions and exploit poor choices. Running harder, jumping higher and precision throws are not strategies that put your defenders into The Split. If you can design an offense that systematically encourages as many 1v1 matchups as possible, you’ll have the best chance of creating chances for defenders to chose poorly.

2. Easy-peasy

Offense is easier than most people realize.

Imagine this scenario: I put your O team on the line and offer $13,000 dollars* if you can advance the disc 70 yards against a comparable defense. What’s your strategy? Would you leave $13k to chance and throw up a jump-ball to your best receiver? Or, would you throw 15 high percentage passes until you scored?

Obviously you go for the most probable play, especially from the rationality of your armchair. But, most often this logic is not manifested in crucial games.

Few people would claim that jump-balls and fingertip layouts are the best method for scoring. But, players and fans love to see Beau sky a pile of defenders for the win.

The keys to a solid offense are intangible and few spectators will ever discern a wise decision that saves possession and wins the point. The human mind is very good at observing material events, but counterfactual thinking does not come naturally. It’s very difficult to recognize what DOESN’T happen: restraint—the tempting throw a player chooses not to take.

-------------------------------
*$13,000 dollars is not an entirely baseless figure. From my recollection, Club Nationals cost me about $500 (in 2006, on a college budget). From a team standpoint, Nationals has a value of at least $13k (500x~27). Thus, in the hypothetical Game-to-go, double-game-point, each team should be willing to pay $13k to win it. And, a poor throw could be that costly.

3. "Shrink" the field

Adding players to a limited space creates difficulties for the offense in at least three ways.

1. There is a greater chance that a defender might poach a D. In a wide-open field it’s easy for throwers to recognize possible threats. With limited space this becomes more difficult.

2. The advantage per throw is diminished. For instance, on a huge field an in-cut might gain 30 yards, while in a small space it only advances the disc 15 yards. Similarly, a swing in a large space gives the offense a totally new look and the defense must adjust significantly. On a mini field the defense can maintain their positioning with very little adjustment.

3. The possible aspects of attack are limited. Play mini for 2 games and I can guarantee you’ll see at least 1 huck go out the back of the endzone. The smaller field takes away the huck option. “Shrinking” the field limits those margins for error.

So, what good are these hypotheticals? We can’t physically shrink the field, but we can position ourselves in ways that effectively shrink the field. A mark is one attempt to halve the field. Adding more people to a limited space is another.

Recognize that not all offensive players are real threats at all times. If your opponent is 2 seconds, or 2 throws, away from a position of engagement, you should be 2 seconds, or two throws, away. This is the fundamental aspect of team defense. It increases efficacy because individuals can take risks (layout, force handlers downfield) with confidence that they will be covered if their player takes off.

You might say this defensive philosophy advocates lazy poaching. A contraire mon player. True team defense is much harder than simplistic man-to-man.

The phrase “in-your-face-lockdown-D” has an idealistic appeal to it. But, if you’re not taking anything away from a viable threat, then you’re not doing enough. How many times have you seen a defender resting with his cutter near away from the play? Once again, get into a position where you can disrupt the O.