Why do we use zone defence? We use zone defence if the other team is much more athletic, has weaker throwers or if it's very windy.
These arbitrary considerations for zone neglect some things:
Part of what a zone defence accomplishes is the tiring out 3-4 of your on-field players while giving at least 3 players on the other team (the handlers) a rest for the point.
Also there is the illusion that in wind, it is far harder to break the mark than it is to throw open side (up, down or crosswind) to a guarded cutter. This is flagrantly untrue.
Playing against Monash and Flinders on days 3-5 of uni games this year made me wish for points where I could just walk the disc in playing against a zone. Over the course of a five-day tournament zone defence becomes less and less viable.
2 comments:
I usually consider the opponents mix of players when choosing whether to go with zone or man. If they have one dominant player, zone will always work (even in no wind) because that player is always behind the disc rather than cutting. Also if they have 2 or 3 weaker players who they will just stick long, but won't punt it to them and then your wings can poach in on swings.
Last week the wind played virtually no part in deciding whether we (BUUF) played zone or man - it was what would force more turnovers out of them.
"We use zone defence if the other team is much more athletic, has weaker throwers or if it's very windy."
That's a simplistic analysis.
A zone defence can do a number of things
- shut good cutters out of the game
- make the offence make a lot of passes
- put a high degree of pressure on particular passes, or weaker throwers
- force the offence to change its style
- increase the chance of a turnover near the opponents endzone, or with the opponents struggling to match up after a turn
- stop the easy huck goal
- make throwers take particular sorts of risks
Different zones do different things. Just because the Puppy seems to be the zone of choice these days doesn't make it the only one.
Post a Comment