I think this is an interesting topic mainly because I am very one-sided on this issue.
In my opinion there are at least 2 distinct ways of playing good ultimate: 1) intense 2) calculating. I think intense is a good word choice, and I don't think calculating is, but its better than cool, I think, and its better than calm.
here are the definitions.
Intense - you run your ass off constantly, layout (basically all the time), put up hucks, attempt risky breaks/hammers, thrive on emotion, and heopfully intimidate your opponent. Davind "carne" Miller was one of my first captains in this sport and he taught be to play this way and that is how I am. Very loud, very in your face, very, very intense
Calculating - you always make good decesions, rarely ever risk a turnover, throws are always buttery, cuts are always safe and well made, not a lot of flashy plays, silently take over games, not the person to look to for pump up speeches.
I think that there are virtues and draw backs to both of these and I just had a really tough practice highlighting my weaknesses as an intsense player.
First, intensity, I feel, is an exaggeration of emotion. If you are up and happy, you intimidate and modivate pertinent ultimate players (ie oppoenent and team mate, respectively). However, if you are down, you really bring people down with you. I am one of the captains of Colt .45 and I was chosen because I am the "motional heart of the team" (co-captains words, not mine) and today, I was down. It was hot, I had a lot of would be chopping block players on my team, my plantar faciitis was bugging, I had a bad practice. However, I think lesson learned, I think my playing style is still useful. I just need to pull myself out of the equation when I necessary, calm down and then come back with the fire and energy that I have when I am up. Either that or ingest some serious stimulants, ie red bull, monster, or speed. I do enjoy my intense field nature and as long as I don't scare off recruits, I am not going to change much. This is also one of the reasons I can not/will never play co-ed. I am wayyy to much of a vulgar ass to be on the field with PC men and sensitve women.
Now lets take a look at calculating. These are players that are always on top of their game. We have a guy, Kevin Garrity, easily the most consistent and reliable guy on our team. Maybe doesn't make the huge layout D or put up the huck, but the guy rarely turns it over. Now, I love to play with this kid, 1) cuz he can handle like I wish I could and 2) he balances me out and we have a nice little 1-2 punch to use.
However, the reason I bring this up is because there are alot of teams that are generally one of the other, especially in college. You have Florida and Colorado who I feel, are not intense teams. They are all business. They don't thrive on emotion, they don't cheer excessively, and they have players that like to be sullen, quiet, yet very dominate as players. Then you have intsense teams like Georgia and Wisconsin. Armies of yellign players that want high flying antics, in your face D and painful cheers of elation when they score on you.
I don't think that either system is clearly better than everyone else and they probably are just reflections of leadership, ie the captain is intense so the team is intense or the same for calculating.
I feel like this also brings up an interesting point about east versus west coast ultimate. Earlier I said that intsense was high risk, layout D, scare your opponents domination, and calculating is calm, cool, beat them mentally. I feel like the west coast, at least at some point in the last 5 years was the former with the east the latter. I suppose this boils down to DoG versus the Northwest because most other teams on the east coast aren't as calculating/good as DoG (Ring would be up their but they are about as intense as it gets) and the Northwest is intense in the high risk sense of the word. Now, 10 years ago, calculating disc got you victories because it relied on simple throws and quick. It might have been boring, but it worked and it got DoG 6 national titles and a world title in 2000. However, now that the throws and the athleticism of the west coast have come around and players liek Sam O'brien, Seth Wiggins, Sammy CK, Chase, Jimmy Chu, etc... have the throws but also the hucks, the bids and the intensity (as I define it) to get the victory. So what is the east coast to do? As for now they are attempting to build a Boston all-star squad which I think is hilarious. I love how Metal totally bailed on their quest to separate themselves from DoG to win a world title in 2008 (which isn't gonna happen) and are involved in this hugely public distillation process to make the best boston/east coast squad. I miss my west coast roots, so sorry, I am going against my NE brethen at the moment and hope this team goes down in flames not unlike DoG against the NW at nationals lat October. I guess my question is what sort of game plan will DoG/Metal/Whatever come up with? They have the legs now, are they gonna go for parinella 101 or maybe some risky stuff? Who knows?
I know I started this off with intensity and it turned into a west coast/east coast thing and I will conceed that any player that makes this Boston team will invariably be as intense as it gets. I suppose a better word for the wes/east coast mentality would be flashy vs patient. I like and hate both and I think teams must find some middle ground which is basically what is occuring at the highest levels of disc, ok, boring, anyone could have said that.
But I wanna end with an experience that I got to have this past year that I think is very very interesting. At yale this year we had 2 junior players come out as freshman for superfly. One from seattle, Drew, and one from Massachusetts, Ian. They were both products of elite coaching, ie the Sockeye clinics and Tiina Booth's amherst camp. What was awesome was that when you would watch them play, they were both such representations of east vs west coast disc. You had Drew who was a very flashy, I am gonna make myself look good player and then you had Ian who was gonna beat you on O and D with fundamental skills. What I find interesting is that the DoG dynasty ended about 7 years ago and the NW dominace started about 5 years ago and I think that now a days they could be better described as all around talented. But the ripple is whats cool. The trickle down to the juniors took a few years and it still shows a shadow of what ultimate was half a decade ago. I feel like ultimate is a bad ass sport because it is constantly in flux and the game changes so much. The evolution of the force, the flick, over the top throws, the stack, the spread, zone, all of it has evolved from the original game and some in the last 5 years, awesome!!! I just think it is kick ass that I get to see these two freshman go at it and I wonder where they will be in 4 years. Will they evolve, remain static, hopefully they improve, but what will the freshman be like when they are over the hill grad students. If Sockeye and DoG develop a common manner of play to compete, will these junior players find one as well. I suppose it is on the coaches and leaders of the teams they play on to allow for this growth and I hope they trade notes on their ultimate tactics. I can't wait.
match diesel
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Intensity vs calculating
Posted by Match at 6:38 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Then you have some juniors who have learned from both styles--kids from the west coast who attended NUTC, east cost kids who went to JEM, and some players who went to both. Needham HS, I think, is a pretty good example of a west-coast mentality on an east-coast team (at least, what I saw of them).
I've always thought of east coast ultimate as very aggressive (more Ring than DoG) but also conservative (more DoG than Ring), where as the Northwest seems to have a more wide open playing style (kind of - Rhino/Oregon and Revolver/Stanford are both more controlled teams) but a more relaxed personality.
Personally, coming from the east coast to play at Stanford, I don't see nearly as much aggression and outward fire as I did in east coast high school ultimate.
DoG's historical style wasn't so much "conservative" as it was "take what they give you." We often had first pass hucks, isos, big yardage cuts, if that's what was open. In fact, I'd say that our cutters preferred the deep look as their first option, and if that wasn't there, then we cut in.
I think that identifying styles with sides of the continent is to oversimplify, although difference in weather between the two coasts is noteworthy and accounts for a great deal of deep throwing decisions.
While I think that style of play has a certain regional dialect to it, leadership and specific individuals play a stronger role at the upper levels where tactics are chosen more intentionally than at the mezzo or lower levels. I’ve played on several teams over the years, but most of my experience was in Minneapolis (87 – 93) and with Sockeye (94 – 04).
Sockeye in the middle to late nineties was modeled after NY NY with regard to leadership, tactics and emotional disposition on the field, which were largely imported from NY by John Gewirtz. The changes he brought with him easily took hold, because most of the ultimate brains in Seattle had quit in protest two years earlier and a receptive leadership was in power. This resulted in catering to superstars, feeding the beast and a taking no prisoners mentality. We made more than our share of calls, played with high emotional intensity and ran practices with a great deal of discipline. We ran the O plays and defensive sets familiar to Northeasterners but new in the northwest.
Yet much of our offensive strategy was born locally. When there were only two bids per region, our largest concern, even as late as ‘97, was advancing out of our region. Consequently, our decision making style on O was designed to work best against our regional competitors (Oregon and SF), neither of which had much patience with the disc.
My recollection is that the west coast deep game stared with the Double Happiness big men who were talented enough to pull it off. I would also look to the personal style of play of Shank and MG, for example, and Furious’ emergence from the ether in the late 90’s. They had nothing to loose and a very short list of highly skilled players who couldn’t possibly pull off the requisite cuts and minutes of play for a conservative short game due. Finally, I would add that the development of the flat stack in Seattle and Vancouver was designed precisely to open up the downfield. Fortuitously, the flat stack facilitates a short game down the middle of the field by changing poaching opportunities.
-barney
Post a Comment