In poker, many are taught that the ideal strategy is to play tight/aggressive. This means to play a less amount of hands, but to play those few hands in a very forceful manner.
At Barefak scrimmage tonight, it seemed to me that Fakulti's 'guard the unders' approach to stopping the in-cut was being hurt savagely by the opportunity it created for Barefoot's handlers to hammer to the weak side to score. And in Ultimate, that trade-off is sort of assumed - for whatever opportunity you deny the offence you are also giving them one, if not several, more.
The entire concept of a force, for example. Intentionally, there is a 'strong' side where cuts are directed and flow stilted but included also is a 'weak' side. An intentional - encouraged, assumed, fundamental - weakness in the defence. And let's face it. Marks do get broken. It could cost you the game at a higher level of play.
My ideal defence would play tight/aggressive. A straight up force - no such thing as a strong or weak side. Staying inside/outside your man limits his options in half (tight) but no matter where or what he cuts - deep or inside - he is chased down relentlessly never more than 2m away (aggressive).
T.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yeah but at heart everyone is a loose aggressive :)
So tight means rarely taking a risk? And aggressive means going with it when you do?
As I understand it, you are looking at 2 spectra:
1. common risks vs rare risks
2. playing risky vs conservative
In that case, staying 2m away from your man all the time is actually not aggressive. It is conservative. Aggressive would be be taking a big risk (ie a big poach, or having one really poachy defender, or risking a big mismatch, or throwing a risky pull).
Have I understood the analogy?
Owen, it's a good idea to check the times that I post - 12:02am generally means the post isn't to be taken all that seriously.
You are right, though, and you've given me food for thought for a later, perhaps more thought out?, post.
T.
The passive or aggressive, tight or loose styles from poker are difficult to apply to ultimate. I think the closest analogy you can get to ultimate is playing hard or a bit lazy, playing risky or conservatively.
Obviously playing hard is always going to be the better option. A fitter, faster and taller defense is always going to be better, other things being equal.
When it comes to defense there are two ways to get a D.
1. Play conservative, tight defense (like you mentioned), putting pressure on the O hoping they'll make a mistake.
2. Taking a risk that may leave a large hole in your defense, but also increase the possibility of a quick turnover.
Different situations may call for a different style, and a good team/player will be able to employ both. The most important thing is executing either style well. If you are not taking a risk, you must be putting on a lot of pressure. If you're not putting pressure on, you must be taking a worthwhile risk.
Post a Comment