Adjusting my deep game
I scored a lot of goals at Nationals (the most for HoS).
From our horizontal set up I had the freedom to cut deep at will and a bunch of throwers prepared to put it to me.
But when I had to play teams again, it seemed that now it's not only Johnny Mac that knows I want to cut deep!
When we replayed Chilly and I-Beam I got Gak and Gav on D. Both stood on the deep side of me and let me cut in. At first I tried to just engage them and keep them busy so that the other cutters could cut. But that wasn't working so well, maybe because I had been hogging all the deep cuts previously. I then tried to take more in cuts and then look to get a deep shot off. Maybe because of the extra pressure from the D, none of these shots really came off and I started to loose it a bit. I started talking to myself and telling myself that the D had figured me out - all they had to do was force me in and watch me turn it over. So I tried to "prove them wrong" by cutting in and then punishing them with my throws. But I had gotten into my own head too much and was trying to "punish" them too eagerly and ended up just turning it over more!!!
Eventually, but too late, I think I figured it out - the point is longer than the first few passes. I was trying to score too quickly. I then just took the easy in cut and dished the disc off quickly and reset. Then after a few more passes and faked cuts I found that the deep option opened up again. Hopefully I can remember this the next time I have top quality D on me. Or maybe I just need to practice cutting like this regardless of the D? We'll see.
Individual D pressure
I found I applied much more pressure on D when I was marking better players. Mainly because I was more focused. But maybe I should be that focused on all players and therefore help generate more pressure across the field. That's my goal for the future. I need to make sure though that I check in with the disc more often. When I was really focused on playing D I got too focused on the actual player. Andrew Flemming had a good analogy regarding traffic lights that I need to remember.
Team D pressure
HoS had some amazing runs on D. Once they got a few D's the pressure just started to build. And the confidence. The D team just knew that they could go out there and get a D. And they did. Again and again. And then they scored. It was incredible. Sadly when they failed, the O team didn't hold up their end of the bargain. Too often we let the D team down by not scoring when it counted and letting the oppositions D team go on a run.
In my opinion the rules and design of Ultimate from a technical stand point favour the O. All you have to do is keep passing the disc up the field until you score. The other team can't bump you to get the disc. It should be easy. But when it comes to the crunch, at the end of high level, high pressure games, the D has the advantage. And it all comes down to the mental game. Somehow teams need to work out how to better prepare for this type of pressure.
Value of smaller role players
Like most sports, Ultimate seems to celebrate the more flashy types of players - those who get the big blocks, catch the goals, throw the hucks. And like most sports I think we under appreciate the contribution of the smaller role players. Those players who continually keep the structure right, make that fill cut when needed and stop those offensive resets on D. Sometimes on HoS we would call "Crunch" lines with the majority of our flashy players. Now it could be that we lacked some cohesion from not playing together enough, but I also think that the lack of these smaller role players made life hard.
It would be great if we could come up with a way to recognise and acknowledge those smaller role players.
2009 Rules
Overall I think the introduction of the 2009 rules went really well. When they were used properly it made the game much smoother. Sadly some players still don't quite understand - especially about the travel rule. Very soon WFDF will approve a bunch of supporting documents to help people understand and learn the rules better and I will post more about those when they are released.
One thing that did become apparent to me was the value that could be added by having rule advisers. I have often discussed with US players about the relative merits of Observers and I am still not convinced they are required. I am keen though to actually try a game with observers and have put my hand up to observe a game in the future (not at a major tournament though).
However I think there could be a role for rule advisers. Which is pretty much what I was all weekend. If people weren't sure what a rule was or what the correct interpretation was, they asked me. I never gave my opinion on what had actually happened in a play, I only described the rule that was relevant to that particular incident and left the players to make the final decision. Too often players make calls that are actually not based on the rules or don't even understand basic rules. This could be easily overcome with rule advisers - especially for semis/finals at big tournies.
