In man-to-man defense, the effort of each individual defender is (or should be) constrained by his match-up. The mechanism of this constraint is the effort of the offensive player. This concept is simple (and yet I've managed to convolute it). No man-to-man defender makes a 70 yard sprint, unless the offensive player he's covering makes a nearly identical 70-yard sprint a moment before. Similarly, no throw marker is constantly adjusting and readjusting his defensive position unless the thrower is also constantly pivoting and faking. In this way, defensive effort is almost completely determined by offensive effort. This symmetry of offensive and defensive efforts has a certain beauty when you consider it.
However, I'd be a fool not to concede that this symmetry is the main reason why the offense has such an enormous advantage in Ultimate. Since even an ideal defender has to work at least as hard as his offensive counterpart, but the defender never knows exactly when or how the offensive player will move, the offensive player holds all the cards. Put another way, a great defender must prepare and commit to defending all likely offensive tactics and then actually defend the chosen tactic, while his offensive counterpart must merely select one and execute it.
In my opinion, the baseline goal of zone defense is to alter this dynamic between offense and defense (in a man-to-man defensive scheme). The goal of any zone should be to change the dynamic of the energy exchange (IE make the offensive player work harder than the defensive player). If a zone is not able to flip this dynamic to (at least slightly) benefit the defense, then there would seem to be little point in playing it.
How does a zone accomplish this goal?
The idea is to position field defenders and markers in such a way as to severely limit the options of a given thrower. This positioning should allow the zone field defenders to remain in relatively fixed positions while the offensive players scramble around trying to find the open spaces between/among the zone defenders. Obviously, the zone's ability to control the field space is inverse proportional to the offenses ability to move the disc. In other words, the more the disc moves, the less effective any zone can be and vice versa. In this way, we can see that the principle of defense (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) must be the guiding force behind a zone (as well as behind a man-to-man defense).
The positioning of defenders varies wildly from zone to zone, but most seem to boil down to this basic idea: offensive players far from the disc deserve less defensive personnel/attention than offensive players near the disc. This makes perfect sense as any long throw should give an attentive deep defender time to move toward toward the intended receiver. The ability to neutralize two offensive players with only one defender (in a given space) is crucial to the success of a zone. It gives the defense an extra man to play with. Typically this man is used as a supplementary marker.
A zone defense's success compared to man-to-man defense's success is directly attributed to this "extra" marker. The extent to which this "extra" marker is able to limit a thrower's options (IE increase a thrower's turn potential) is the extent to which the zone, as a whole, will be successful.
If the zone defense fundamentally alters who has the advantage (the symmetry) why don't more people play that as their first D?
ReplyDeleteZones can quickly break down leaving nothing in the path of the offense. Are zones fundamentally harder to play? Picking the symmetry seems like it wouldn't make it hard to play. "This is my territory, go find another place to be open receiver". Yet, experience tells us it is hard to play the zone well.
You are right that zone fundamentally alters the symmetry between offensive and defensive effort, but this in and of itself does not confer any advantage to the defense.
ReplyDeleteFor example, if the defense pulled and then sat down on the field, that would also fundamentally alter the symmetry. And yet we would not say that the resting defense had gained any particular advantage from this strategy.
Zones are vulnerable for the exact same reason that they are strong: positioning. What appears to be superior position when the disc is in a certain place becomes a disastrous position when the disc is moved to another place. If the zone is not able to shift with the disc, then it cannot hold any advantage.
I fear perhaps that I have not explained the concept of the "symmetry" between offense and defense properly. The "symmetry" of man to man defense is an equality of effort shared by receiver and the field defender. Given two players of roughly equal fitness, the battle should come down more to technique than anything else because each player while on defense would be looking to mirror the receiver's movements.
ReplyDeleteIf the receiver is lazy, the defender get a rest. In the aftermath, they are both fresh. If the receiver is super active (making numerous hard cuts), the defender must work hard. In the aftermath they are both tired. Note the equality in result for the two players. This is the "symmetry".
Not quite the idea of symmetry I had in mind I guess. But in a zone, the defense takes away nearly all desirable throws by virtue of standing (nearly) still (while the disc is still). All the while the offense moves much more than the defense.
ReplyDeleteOf course when the disc moves the defense must reposition itself with a large movement, all at once. Perhaps that is the inherent weakness. When the positioning does not move as one unit it is vulnerable at many points.
The principle of angles still holds there - just that multiple angles are exposed to multiple receivers that are (hopefully) in the new positions to get the disc.
And of course I'm ignoring the strawman argument of "we all just sit down". Lets only talk about symmetry around the disc.
Right. In a zone, the defense destroys the symmetry by standing nearly still in good position while the offense has to work hard(er) to find the open spaces.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with most zones I've played in is that most people either don't understand their positional responsibilities, don't understand the overall zone defense, or cannot move together as a defense in a coordinated response to the movement of the disc.
I'm not sure that the "sit down" defense is a straw man as much as it is a logical consequence of the point we were discussing. It would be the same if I described the defense sprinting like madmen all over the field while the offense was repeatedly dumping the disc. The disruption of symmetry cannot confer an advantage in and of itself unless it is accompanied by proper positioning.
Proper positioning is indeed the culprit, it seems even so in your man-to-man defensive schemes. Failing to understand positioning (and work hard at maintaining it) leaves wide open receivers.
ReplyDeleteIn a zone, if one fails, the team fails since the net of the zone falls apart. Perhaps that is why all our experiences tell us zone is harder to play than man-to-man. A man-to-man is more forgiving, especially since every throw is (theoretically) contested, unlike a zone where dumps are free (unless a line trap gets played). One made pass in a man-to-man is less threatening, of course if that isn't for the score.
It is certainly positioning more than anything else that determines whether any defense sinks or swims. However, the importance of defensive positioning is not the same for every defensive player. The closer a defender is to the disc, the more important his positioning. The farther a defender is from the disc, the less important his positioning.
ReplyDeletePut another way, there is a greater range in optimal positioning for defenders far from the disc than there is for players near to the disc.
For example, proper positioning for a marker is a matter of inches, but for a deep-deep is a matter of yards.
The zone also the defense the initiative to position themselves, instead of merely responding to the offense.
ReplyDeleteTo illustrate, I recall playing a team in a tournament which had a player whos was ~5'. As long as they played man, we just took him deep all day long.
Do you recall, Galen, if the 5 footer made any attempt to back his man? Or did he passively accept his abuse?
ReplyDeleteBecause, if I'm given the job of covering a 6"6' receiver, you'd better believe I'm going to give the under, body the hell out of him as he turns to go deep, and beat him to the spot of any deep throw. Unless this defender was completely inept, there has got to be a cushion that would allow him to get the deep disc before his mark.
I don't recall, it was several years ago.
ReplyDeleteRegardless, with that egregious a mismatch, there's no way to effectively play a man D.
In the event of such an egregious mismatch, man is going to require regular switches or consistent shutdown marks, both of which zone is fundamentally better equipped to handle.
In theory, zone allows the defenders to play to their strengths, rather than allowing the offense to attack weaknesses.
Galen,
ReplyDeleteI agree that zone can allow defenders to hide their weaknesses better than man to man. In man defense, a defender is forced to play all over the field. Zone, if played well, can limit specific defenders to specific tasks.
The downside of all of this is that in a zone a poor defender can completely destroy an entire defense much more than he can in man.