You have to want to get better.

There's always room for improvement, you know.  It's the biggest room in the house.

- Louise Heath Leber

In previous posts, I have talked about giving players frameworks which allow them to evaluate their individual performance.  The assumption behind the importance of this framework is that players actually want to get better and are willing to change their play in order to do so.

If you do not actually want to get better, however, then having this framework will do nothing for you.  In fact, nothing that I've written about will do anything for you.  The individual goals, understanding why things happen, defensive philosophies, etc. are all useless if you don't want to get better.

There is a place for players who don't want to get better.  There are many actually.  They are known as pickup games and other people's teams.  The ultimate that is played there is perfectly fine.  It is not, however, the type of ultimate that I am interested in.

On my team though, I have no use for you unless you want to get better.  And, as soon as I stop wanting to get better, I can promise you that I will have no use for myself.

The Principle of Defense: Defending receivers

You know, you should write a song about this. You could call it "I got punched in the nose for sticking my face in other people's business". 
-Glen Gulia

When the disc is at rest, the defense is able to hold the advantage over the offense.  When the disc is in motion, the defense cannot hold the advantage over the offense.

In my previous post, I revealed what the first principle of defense suggested for marking the disc. In this post, I will talk about what the first principle of defense suggests for field defenders marking receivers.

Field defense is simple.  You just have to stick your face in other people's business.  Hopefully, you won't get punched in the nose.

Another casualty of great field defending.

The defender's job is to directly contest whatever the receiver is trying to do.  If the receiver is looking to make an in-cut to the forehand side, the defender needs to position himself in such a way as to make that particular cut impossible or at least highly unattractive to the receiver.  This holds for deep cuts and handler cuts just the same.

The assumption here is that the defender has a reasonable idea of what the receiver is trying to do.  Field defense is a great deal more about the defender's mind than it is about his body.  The body must be able to execute the plan created by the defender's mind, of course.  But having that plan first is essential.  Obviously, if the receiver is attempting to stand on the shoulders of the thrower, then the defender need not contest that and should plan on doing something else (poaching the main passing lanes, for example).

Why do we defend receivers?

We defend receivers to stop the offense from moving the disc easily.  Moving the disc easily leads to the offense scoring and this is, by definition, a failure on the part of the defense as a whole. Please note that our goal in defending receivers cannot be to stop the offense from moving the disc completely.  This cannot be our goal because it goes against the nature of the game of ultimate.  The rules under which we play define a game that is offensively dominated.  We should accept this when we sign up to defend.  

I think that it is important to have realistic goals in any facet of ultimate because failure tends to breed failure.  We have all felt the wind go out of our sails defensively as a force gets broken repeatedly and the offense gets an easy score.  The second (and third and fourth, etc) break is easier than the first because we feel that defense has failed in its goal of "not getting broken".  As I've previously written, that goal sucks (for many reasons, but in this case it sucks because it is fundamentally outside the defense's control).  We must respect our own motivation by giving ourselves goals whose achievement we can control.

Every field defender knows after every cut whether or not he allowed the offense to move the disc easily.  If he didn't allow an easy throw to his receiver, then that defender has done his job (I am ignoring team defensive concepts about responsibility at this time).  This knowledge along with an understanding of his individual defensive goal provides a framework which allows the defender to constantly evaluate his defense. 

How do we defend receivers?

We get it.  We know that our receiver wants to make an in-cut to the forehand side.  We know that it is our goal to make this difficult for the receiver.  But, what tactics do we use to accomplish this goal?  There are two main tactics that we use.

1. We position ourselves in such a way as to physically direct the receiver away from the in-cut to the force side.  Put more simply, we get into our defensive crouch directly between the receiver and where he wants to go.  And, we orient ourselves in such a way as to have a distinct advantage in an all out race between defender and receiver to the receiver's target area.  

But, you say, it's a big field and there are literally hundreds of square feet where the receiver could go to achieve his goal (IE catching the disc).  I agree.  The receiver has a great advantage over the field defender in that he can improvise his tactics to achieve his goal.  Thankfully, all of his improvisations must start somewhere.  And that somewhere is where we set up in our defensive crouch.

Put into practice, this means that we set up in very close proximity to the receiver between him and his goal.  We should be close enough to touch him without fully extending our arm.  This close setup allows us to immediately cut down on his improvisation abilities as he cannot, without fouling us, make his initial move toward his target area.  

It always astounds me how rarely defenders set up in this position.  We all understand how devastating a receivers first step can be and how easy it is for him to get us going in one direction only to turn in another direction and leave us behind.  And yet, we rarely position ourselves so as to stop him from starting his move the way he wants to. 

As a receiver, I hate when a defender sets up close to me.  It makes me uncomfortable.  My discomfort cannot help but make me cut worse than I would if I were able to comfortably begin my cut.  A close defender also makes me rethink me goal.  If I was planning on an in-cut and a defender sets up close to me in a position between me and my target area, I will at least consider taking the easy way out and making a different cut.

This hesitancy of the receiver to commit to his initial tactic (his best or most comfortable cut) is a victory for the field defender.  It is an important victory both because it can screw up an offense and because it takes little physical effort from the field defender to achieve.

The close-talker set up perfectly on Jerry, who was looking to make an in-cut toward the couch.

2) We constantly readjust our defensive setup as the disc moves to account for the receiver's changing target areas.  Receivers are not robots.  If you succeed in taking away their first step by setting up in great defensive position, they are not going to power down for the rest of the point.  You still have to play defense.

He'll stop if you cut him off, but your receiver won't.

This means that your receiver will probably still attempt to make his cut even though you are in the way.  He will fake other cuts to get you off-balance.  He will pretend that the disc has already been thrown to make you turn your head.  He will run directly at you to get you on your heels. And then, after all of these things, he will sprint like a madman to his target area.  

You will, at all times and through all manner of fakes, remember your goal.  Your goal is to make it difficult for your man to easily catch the disc.  Your goal is NOT to make every cut difficult for the receiver.  This knowledge will allow you to ignore the receiver's fakes.  If he starts sprinting deep, you will certainly follow him and you will sprint to keep up.  But, your goal will not be to beat him to the endzone.  Your goal will still be make the in-cut to the force side difficult.

As you chase him, you will actively work to keep yourself between him and his simple potential target area (the forehand side roughly 15 yards from the disc).  You do this because at any moment he will likely turn around and cut back to that area.  Thankfully, because of your superior positioning and your mental discipline, you will be waiting for him to do this and be right in his way.  If he creates space between the two of you, such that you are no longer directly in his way, your positioning will still give you an advantage because you will still be closer to his target area than he is.

Remember, you cannot make it impossible for him to in-cut to the forehand side, but you can make it exceedingly difficult.

At this point, I'm sure many of you are thinking, but what about when the thrower decides to throw it deep to the receiver I'm taking the in-cut away from? Am I just supposed to allow myself to get burned?  The answer is twofold.  

First, your teammate who is marking the disc is putting a flat active mark on the thrower.  This marking style makes the deep throw much more difficult than a traditional forehand force because the thrower does not have a free throw that he can rip without fear.  Instead, the thrower must pivot out very wide if he wants to throw deep.  This wide pivot leads to shorter and generally lower quality hucks.

Secondly, even though you anticipate that the receiver you're marking is targeting the space 15 yards downfield of the thrower on the forehand side, you are still close to the receiver as he sprints toward the endzone.  It would take an astoundingly good throw to allow the receiver to take advantage of the steps he has on you.  And given the flat active mark on the thrower, such a throw is highly unlikely. 

Lastly, you will have help from team defense.  Not every field defender's receiver will be cutting at the same time.  Not every field defender will have to follow his receiver all over the field.  You are not playing alone.  You will have help deep from your teammates.  I will go into how exactly this help works in future posts.

The Principle of Defense: Marking the thrower

Objects in motion tend to stay in motion.  Objects at rest tend to stay at rest.

-Sir Isaac Newton

When the disc is at rest, the defense is able to hold the advantage over the offense.  When the disc is in motion, the defense cannot hold the advantage over the offense.

The reasoning behind this principle is simple.  Field defense is a game of angles.  When field defenders have a steady vertex (IE the thrower) from which to calculate their angles on the receivers, it is possible for them to wrest the advantage from the offense for short periods of time. Conversely, when field defenders cannot find the vertex (IE the thrower) because the disc is constantly being shifted to different points on the field, then they cannot calculate proper angles on the receivers and are left to guess.  This leads to confusion as people rarely guess the same and eventually results in a full defensive breakdown.

(Note: I am NOT saying that when the disc is at rest, the defense DOES hold the advantage over the offense.  I'm only stating that it is possible for the defense to hold the advantage only when the disc is at rest.)  

How the defense is able to hold the advantage will be discussed in greater depth in future posts. For now, I'll say that it has to do with communication, positional awareness, switching, and anticipation.

What I'm going to talk about in this post is what the defense can do to make sure the disc stays at rest for longer periods of time.  I'm referring a flat mark (aka straight up force) with a very active marker.  Flat means that the marker faces up to the thrower squarely in front of him (similar to fundamental basketball defense).  Active means that the marker moves his feet in order to change both the closeness of his mark and his position from side to side as he mirror the thrower's pivots. Active also means that the defender is moving his arms to force the thrower to constantly reassess what throws are available to him at a given time.

Maybe you wouldn't have a giant red question mark floating near your head if you would adopt a proper defensive stance.

The flat active mark provides a possible defensive advantage for two main reasons.

1. Due to the flatness, there is no free throw to either the forehand or backhand side.  This causes the thrower to have to work harder in order to gain yardage.  This harder work for yardage means the thrower must spend more time with the disc in his hands.  This additional time with a stationary disc means the field defenders can zero in on the precise angles of their receivers.

2. Due to the activeness, the thrower is made to feel uncomfortable and pressured.  The discomfort and pressure felt by a thrower will often cause him to throw poorly due to panicked throwing mechanics rather than smooth throwing mechanics.  These panic throws have a much higher turnover percentage than a standard throw.

Additionally, experience shows that discomfort and pressure lead to an elevated heart rate, which in turn leads to poor decision making.  Once again, throws made as a result of a poor decision have a much higher turnover percentage than throws made as a result of a typical decision.

So, why doesn't everybody play with a flat active mark?

In short, it's really hard.  Getting into a proper defensive stance, moving your feet, anticipating throws with your hands, and changing the depth of your mark, all take a great deal of energy, commitment, and focus.  It is much easier to halfheartedly "hold the force" and pray somebody else makes a play or that the offense commits an unforced error.  Additionally, if your field defenders aren't willing to put in a similar effort to the one you're making on the mark, then all of your hard work is wasted.

What does the flat active mark cost (aka what do we lose by playing this way)?

1. The force.  I think that I've shown in previous posts why this isn't a big deal, but it would be disingenuous for me to ignore it.  A throw is equally likely to come from either forehand or backhand.

2. Energy.  This mark does not work when the marker goes halfway.  A tired team cannot play this style of defense.

3. Downtime. This is related to #2 above, but should be highlighted on its own.  The flat active mark only works when all field defenders are on their game working as hard as the marker.  The intensity of the mental commitment to this style of defense cannot be overemphasized.  It is hard.  Really hard.

Is it worth it?

Yes.  Defense like this destroys opposing teams physically because they have to work for every throw. Of greater importance, however, is the damage that this defense does to opposing teams mentally.  The constant pressure of intense defense causes most players to melt.  They either quit trying to win or start fighting with one another. 

The Myth of the Force

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived, and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.

-John Fitzgerald Kennedy

The force can have a strong influence on the weak minded.

-Old Ben Kenobi

Here's the truth: the force doesn't work.  I know what you're thinking.  You're thinking: "LIAR! I've seen the force work with my own eyes.  I've played on teams where holding the force has gotten us tons of great Ds."  Be patient and I will try to explain the difference between what you've seen and what you think you've seen.

What you've seen

A team assembles on the line and is about to pull.  The puller looks around after everybody decides who their covering and says, "force home."  Then, after several defenders remind each other which way "home" is, the disc gets pulled.  The point then plays out with typical passive marking on throwers and receivers.   

Typical marking technique displayed with panache.

But, low and behold, at the non-elite level about 65% of the time, the disc gets turned over. (Notice that I did not write: the defense forces a turn.  I didn't write that because that only happens about 5% of the time.  The other 6o% of turns just come from offensive throwing and catching mistakes.)  The defenders feel good about themselves 65% of the time because they have done they're job.  They didn't allow the offense to score.  And, unfortunately, because of human nature, they create a narrative about what happened when they were on defense.

This narrative goes something like this: whenever we're on defense and there is a turn, then it was because our defense did something right; and whenever the offense scores on us, then it was because we either got unlucky or because the defense "broke down."  The trouble with this narrative is that it doesn't accurately describe what happened.  

But, it doesn't make anybody feel good to say: whenever we're on defense and there is a turn, then it was probably a random occurence; and whenever the offense scores on us, then it was probably a random occurence.

Sadly, the second narrative is much closer to what is really happening.  But, let's leave this alone for now.  Instead, we'll focus on what results from our belief in the first narrative, which is a blind faith in whatever strategy the defense was engaged in when the offense turned the disc.  And, since most teams play a standard man to man defense with a force forehand, this force forehand gets credited for all of those turns.  This causes everybody to become more attatched to the force forehand defense because of it's "success".  Therefore, teams play force forehand almost exclusively on defense and cycle self-perpetuates.

The above is the myth of the force.  It is a pervasive, yet flimsy, fallacy.  We could just as easily show that having defenders who all wear red shirts causes turns because whenever all of our defenders wear red shirts the offense turns the disc 65% of the time.   Both the red shirt fallacy and the force myth are examples of specious reasoning.

What has actually happened

Let's examine the typical first throw of a point once the defense has pulled disc out of bounds and given themselves time to walk/jog down the field and setup the force on the offense.  The handler on offense sets up at the brick in the center of the field and the marker establishes a nice passive mark allowing a clear throw to the forehand side.  The defenders marking the receivers in the stack setup on the forehand side of their receivers in a passive attempt to direct their receivers to cut to the break side.  The receivers, of course, do not cooperate and immediately run past their markers to the force side for the easy catch.

If at any point during this fruitless exercise the marker on the thrower were to glance over his shoulder to check his defensive support, he would  be greated by the nauseating vision of wide open receivers with defenders trailing after them.

The field defense from the marker's point of view.

It should be obvious that no matter what the result of the initial throw is: the force has failed.  It has failed at the point of attack: the marker is allowing a free throw to the force side.  And it has failed in the field: the field defenders have provided little to no resistence to the receivers in getting to force side.  If the initial throw sails over the head of the open force-side receiver, we can all agree that the turn was caused as much by the force as it was by the red shirts worn by the defenders.

But what if the disc is miraculously d'ed by a speedy field defender.  Can this exquisite defensive result be attributed to the force?  Probably not.  As we said previously, the force allowed the thrower to make a perfectly comfortable forehand throw, so that cannot factor into the D.  What about the field defender's ability to get to the disc before the receiver?  Did the force allow him to gain that extra step?  Maybe.  But, more likely, that defender's superior speed would have shown itself without the force.  

Some might object that the true power of the force is not felt until the disc is "forced" to the open side sideline.  They might continue that when the disc is on the sideline, the force allows the defense to radically shrink the field and causes the offense to make more mistakes.  In truth, I agree with this.  

Of course, the tough thing for the forcing defense is that even bumbling offenses know that the force sideline is dangerous territory.  Even the most obtuse handler will actively work to get a break when he approaches the force sidelin, which spoils the force defense's advantage and creates a slew of positioning problems if the break is continued across the field.

Both sidelines should feel like this for offenses.

In the next post, I will explore defense beyond the constraints of the force.

Marking the disc

Active evil is better than passive good.

-William Blake

Here's how most "markers" stand when they are playing "defense".

"Yeah, I can talk... I'm just forcing forehand."

Note the upright, yet relaxed posture, the feet positioned close together, and the hands near the sides.  As you can see, the man above is passive.  He has no intention of stopping that couch from throwing the green pillow into the street.  He is standing in such a way, however, that if you had never played ultimate before, you might think that he is stopping the couch from throwing backhand past him.  And, if the couch is a typical thrower, this marker's stance may indeed "prevent" the break.  Not that the marker is doing anything to actively prevent the break.  But, the couch is conditioned to "take the easy throw".  In fact, if the couch would pivot, the break throw becomes just as easy as the force thrown.  In short, the marker isn't actually doing anything and is wasting his time.

How do we mark the disc?

This guy is like a fire drill, get low and go.

Jordan's body position in this pic is close to perfect.  He bends his knees, spreads his feet, and is ready to go from side to side.  He is being actively evil (at least toward the offensive player).  He seems to be forcing forehand (to his left).  His left hand is out in the passing activelyharassing the passing option.  Active harassment of the passing lane does not mean that he keeps his hand stationary so the thrower can calculate the angles above and below it.  Active harassment means his left hand is moving, reacting to potential throws and trying to block them.  His right hand is raised to stop the high release backhand or scoober.  What the picture does not show, but what is probably most important, is that Jordan's feet are constantly moving, sliding, and readjusting, as he repositions his body to gain maximum defensive advantage.

This point is so important that it is getting its own paragraph.  A good marker is constantly moving his feet.  Even if the thrower is standing completely still, a good marker realizes that he must worry the throwers perspective on potential throws.  Now an important caveat, a good marker does not lunge.  Jordan in the picture above knows that in order to maintain solid marking position, he must keep his head above his hips.  If he were to lunge and the thrower were faking, Jordan would find himself wildly out of position.  

You might, at this point, be asking how I can contend that Jordan is able to actively harass the passing lanes without lunging.  Won't the offensive player just pivot and throw around him, you chide.  Well... just because Jordan does not lunge doesn't mean that he is stationary.  Jordan moves his feet, taking tiny side-to-side slide steps (almost like little hops on his toes), in order to stay squarely in front of the the thrower.

Why do we mark the disc?

Many people will tell you that the point of marking the disc is to force the thrower to make a certain throw (usually to the forehand side).  Unfortunately, in practice, this is next to impossible against a real thrower because a real thrower loves to break the mark with hammers, scoobers, and high releases.  Also because a real thrower will pivot, if you move to stop all possible breaks you will open his inside out throws which, if allowed, defeat the whole purpose of the force anyway as they are a break throw for good yardage.  

Against a mediocre or poor thrower, just forcing them to make a certain throw uncontested is really letting them off the hook.  It's not nice, but defense isn't supposed to be nice.  Defense is mean.  Get used to it.

Don't let this guy off the hook by forcing forehand.

The reason we mark the disc is to harass throws.  Ultimate is a game that is stacked in favor of the offense already.  On defense, we don't need to give throwers any more help.  We can harass throws (and even get some blocks) best by playing our thrower straight up or slightly shading to one side or the other, not by giving an entire set of throws (forehand or backhand) a free pass.

I think the notion of the "force" has been over-emphasized and has been used (like so many other principles) to allow players to be lazy on the mark.

Why does everything seem scripted?

Never solve a problem from its original perspective.

-Charles Thompson

The above quote goes a long way toward explaining why most of the ultimate I see looks horrible. There, I said it.  And I'll keep saying because I'm the one who is playing most of the ultimate I see.

*pumps fist in admission of solipsism*

To be more clear and less pithy, most of the ultimate I see looks horrible in that it does not seem like a struggle between two teams with each directly contesting what the other is trying to do.  It instead seems like a group of people amiably failing to do what they are supposed to.  I'll give a couple concrete examples.  The marker is on the disc forcing forehand, but rarely does he seem able to actually "hold the force" or contest the throw.  That's okay, however, as the thrower isn't actually trying to take advantage of the markers incompetence.  The thrower instead, 9 times out of 10, goes along with the marking defender's ineffectual force and throws a forehand.  Which should leave the defense in an advantageous position because the markers are on the receivers 'forcing' toward the backhand side of the field, but rarely does the receiver feel forced in any direction and so the receiver is easily able to catch the disc on the forehand side.

The above scenario plays out countless times during games.  Of course, certain markers actually hold the force and challenge throws, certain defenders take cuts away and challenge receivers, certain throwers look to expose holes in the marker or in the defense as a whole, and certain receivers cut so as to get away from their defenders and create space for others.  The question is: why aren't all players doing these things at all times?

The answer, kudos again to Charles Thompson, comes from how most of us were taught to "solve the problem" of competition while playing ultimate.  The ultimate we were taught was a friendly game that was about running around and having fun.  It was more finger painting than football.  It was laid back, chilled out, and had none of the ugliness of traditional competition.  And we liked it.  It was a nice place to learn.  Nobody yelled if you made a mistake.  For the most part, nobody even cared.

Chilly O, brah.

It was from this perspective that most of us learned the game.  And because of this, even if we learned where to stand, where to cut, how to get open, how to throw, how to mark, how to defend a cut, etc.  We did not learn why we did these things.  The how without the why left a canyon-sized hole in our games.

Your best game is down there somewhere.

And then, there's the elephant in the room: competitive aggression.  As in, you want to throw the disc, but I'm not going to let you by moving my feet making you work.  Or, you want to make the easy down the line cut, but I'm going to stop you by putting my body in your way.  There is an idea in ultimate that we should be nice at all times.  This notion of niceness and playing cooperatively is thought of by most players as the highest virtue in ultimate: the Spirit of the Game.  The fact that the Spirit of the Game (SOG) in no way encourages cooperative play doesn't seem to matter.  Sadly, SOG gets used to justify lazy players and bad athletes.  Real SOG boils down to 3 things for me: 

1. Learn the rules

2. Don't break the rules

3. Respect the hell out of your opponent

Nowhere in my understanding of SOG is it suggested that playing your ass off on both sides of the disc is frowned upon.  Yet, so few players (ie none) do it that seeing it is tantamount to spotting a black swan.

Plays his ass off both ways.

Everything seems scripted on the field because most players don't know why they are doing whatever it is they are doing.  And, in the rare case that they do know why, their teammates don't know why and this negates the knowledgeable player's advantage.  This only encourages a player who should (and does) know better to play lazily and creates bad habits for him.

What is the solution to this fog of uncertainty?  For my team in the Spring, the solution will be having each player understand why he is doing whatever he is doing at any given time and why everyone else is doing what they are doing at a given time.   

I am hopeful that the "whys" will fill this blog in the future.

Mission Statement

The purpose of this blog is twofold.  First, I need to get some of my basic offensive and defensive ideas down.  Secondly, I'd like to get some reaction from others in response to my ideas.  

I will try to assume very little in terms of strategy or tactics.  Partially, this is an intellectual exercise to see if I understand and can explain things to my own satisfaction.  Equally important, however, is the logical examination of what is considered to be "common knowledge" or "common sense" in ultimate.

Ultimate is not a mature sport.  By this, I mean that there are no definitive principles practiced by professional players.  There are only ideas, some good and some not so good.  I'd like to examine these ideas and possibly add to the good ones.

I will do this from the perspective of a non-elite Open club team.