Writer's note 9/23/2024. This went unpublished despite being written in May. Our defensive numbers for Summit for the 2024 season took a bit of a nosedive this year. I may update some of my thoughts below relative to the changing schematic landscape but I haven't looked through concrete league-wide data to see if defense got worse across the league or if it was just us.
Please review my UFA vs USAU men's club series intro for a contextual framework for what's below.
The basic idea is that I'm weighing the pros and cons of various criteria between USAU men's elite club and the structure and play in the Ultimate Frisbee Association (UFA).
Strategy Differences and Offensive Tilt
I hear the opinion that the UFA field size tilts the game further in favor of the offense and that defense is too hard/non existent. My role on Bravo and Summit is defensive strategy. Bravo and Summit are both defense first teams. We pride ourselves on our ability to pressure every matchup we face and we certainly work hard to put together a clean product. I could not disagree more with this take about the UFA. For context we have 20+ player overlap between Bravo and Summit.
Here's some data for defense:
Ok, TK - yeah that's fine and dandy, but there's some bad teams in the UFA, so those Summit break numbers are probably a bit inflated by those games. True, here's some more data:
Yes, the Summit numbers are slightly inflated by some of the weaker competition but against playoff competition, break percentages are right at the same level as Bravo's nationals games.
Successful breaks do not completely capture "defense," but for me it is a pretty reasonable metric to consider what defensive success looks like. A counter-argument is that a higher break percentage in the UFA could be related to the ability to take a timeout and sub players - leading to a higher conversion rate of breaks, not necessarily better defense. Summit (strangely) has converted breaks at a lower rate when we take a timeout and sub rather letting the lines play it out - so at least for us, that's not true.
Another reasonable question is Summit relatively better than UFA playoff teams than Bravo vs USAU nationals teams - that's possible I suppose but not sure my data backs that up either. Summit's win % in that playoff data is 58.33% whereas Bravo's is 77%. From being on the ground in all these games and crafting the defensive strategy, I actually feel like defense in UFA is a bit easier (hot take!). That's largely tied to the availability of film, data, and prep time.
In UFA, I can put together an opposing player scouting profile in 30 minutes. I can easily flip to games they were in and see roughly what role they played. I can pull completion %, huck %, their throwing charts; I can make inferences about their role in the offense based on stats, then back it up with info from film.
Doing that in club is hugely time consuming and a lot of scouting in club is based on the eye-test and reputation, which has value but often can be misleading or privy to bias. The games that are streamed tend to be games with a higher profile which is good for scouting stars, but harder for scouting role players.
I've also heard the take the play in the UFA is just sloppier so it's less about defense and more about bad offense. Let's look at a some data on turnovers. There isn't a lot of concrete club data beyond flawed counting stats from nationals. But the cleanest club game I have ever been a part of was pool play Bravo vs Truck Stop at 2022 nationals. Bravo lost that game 12-15 but it was an incredible performance from both teams offensively: 6 total turnovers despite significant wind. That's 1 turnover every 4.5 points or so.
The cleanest UFA game in recent memory is last year's playoff game between DC and NY. There were 14 total turns between the two teams with NY winning 24-19. That's 1 turn every 3 points or so. So some of the cleanest O games in Club have fewer turnovers than some of the cleanest UFA, sure, but 1 turnover every 3 points scored doesn't sound like a sloppy mess to me. Heck our semi finals game vs Machine in 2023 had 8 turnovers in a single point - I just don't think that argument holds water, at least for the top UFA teams.
All the games I referenced above are outliers, sure, but realistically there's nothing else to really compare with a broader data pool on because there's no externally available data for club teams. I track a lot of specifics for Bravo with some internally created pieces and there are some tools out there like Ulti Analytics, but realistically so much of what we think about club is rooted in 'feel.'
I push back heavily on the notion that offense is too easy in the UFA or that overall play from the top teams is sloppier than club. Good defensive teams are good at defense in club and USAU. Good offensive teams are good at offense in club and USAU.
The biggest difference for me is perception: lower-level teams are showcased just as much in the UFA as good teams are in club because everything is filmed. At club nationals we see the 16 best teams battling it out and that's where a lot of the standard is set for what top tier US play looks like in each division. However, with all due respect, tuning in any Detroit game is like watching a mid-tier regionals team play in club and despite the level of play, I can still watch 12 Detroit games every year. However, folks reference the play of bad teams in the UFA as a part of the UFA, whereas lower-level teams in club don't factor in with that the overall club game looks like from a sloppiness or level of skill standpoint.
If every series club game was streamed would we use that whole library of data to talk about what strategy works or doesn't work or make broad inferences about the club game?
I also do want to make sure and address the concrete differences (other than officiation, that's a separate entry) as well.
Field Width (larger UFA width and length)
A lot of my thoughts on the larger field is implied above. It is hard to play D with that extra ~13 yards of width but as my data hopefully indicates you can still play good defense. Things that work in club don't work as well or the same in UFA - but that doesn't mean there aren't options. Does more space make it inherently harder? Maybe it does, but I think the advantages that UFA brings from the single game structure and stats/film resources balance that out to where it's comparable if not tilted in favor of UFA - at least for those who utilize what's available.
Double Teams (allowable in UFA)
Candidly, the Summit suck at doubling. We see other teams have success with it, but we have gotten maybe 2 turns off of doubles in 2.5 years and usually it just leads to use getting beat badly elsewhere. I don't really like the rule in a vacuum - high risk, high reward - doesn't really align with how we approach D on Summit in general. The biggest issue I have with doubles is that that both players are almost always in illegal marking positions and fouls are rarely called (I'll talk more about this in the officiation section). So as far as this being a tool to 'balance' out the additional field width for defense - we don't use it. Other teams do. It's just a fun tactic to consider certainly - more options on tactics, in my opinion, is not a bad thing nor do I believe it damages the integrity of the game as long as it is officiated appropriately.
Shorter Pulls (new in 2023 for UFA)
As of 2023, the UFA pulling team does so from the brick. I think this is an awesome change. Even at the elite levels in club a lot of pulls go out of bounds - starting centered from the brick is a huge advantage. There are some 99th percentile pullers that can truly leverage an advantage for elite teams (Christian Foster for example) with incredible pulling, but mostly offenses get pretty reasonable setups to start their sets. Additionally, pulls are significantly effected by wind conditions further exacerbating decreased level of play as these conditions mount.
I think about a stiff upwind/downwind game. It's already much harder to score upwind than downwind. What further tilts this is it's also easier to pin a team further back with a downwind pull. I'm all for players showcasing high level talents in the wind, but for a lot of folks, even elite players, wind has a disproportionate impact on the game. I'd rather mitigate that wherever possible and a shorter pull length helps that out.
I also think that more tactical options are better! There are now a ton more viable ways to attack an opposing team with a pull. Blades, double helix floaters with 100% coverage, sideline rollers. All of these things are more prevalent in the UFA and that is a good thing - it forces teams to adjust and adapt. There are less "clean-motion" pull play options that work when there's often more defensive pressure right off the bat. I don't see this as a band aid for this bigger field, I see this as a great way to encourage teams to play less scripted offense, which for me is more interesting and exciting to strategize against and to watch. My absolute two favorite players to watch in the world are the Cardenas twins and it's in largely part because they play such a free-flow offensive style.
I also like the rule that if it rolls out the back it comes in on the back line. I don't think is a disproportionally punitive rule - I think all it does is make sure you're mindful about fielding the pull with multiple players. Instead of five people jogging into position, you have four. I like that you reward pullers who have the skill to land it and roll it out the back in that way, and the shorter pull length makes that pool of pullers who can do that larger.
Time-out Subs (players are allowed to sub on timeouts and stall count is reduced)
I mentioned that for whatever reason Summit has not found a lot of success with this specific tactic but again I think it's a great rule. Why not give folks more dynamic options with what to do? I'll acknowledge that there's an argument for encouraging a fully rounded player - you can't have a D specialist with has no offensive skills - but I still think this is a rule USAU should adopt. Allow players and coaches more tactical options. Timeouts are silly and boring right now in club.
Moving After Stoppages
This isn't totally feasible in club because of the self-officiation rules, but it's a hugely positive thing in my opinion. It's a significant advantage to force the offense to come to a stop. Folks who think that club teams don't leverage intentional fouling to force players to choose between playing through and calling the foul and having offense stagnate are sorely mistaken. A certain level of contact just happens and feels a bit like an unwritten rule in the elite men's game right now, and some teams push that threshold more than others.
Whistles and fouls in the UFA don't completely solve that problem, mostly because players still stop or slow even though they don't need to, but the movement piece is definitely something that at least somewhat mitigates the beneficial impacts of fouling on the game (along with yardage - I'll elaborate in the officiation section).
Timed Quarters vs Games to a Score
I do understand, within the confines of a tournament, why games to a score with a time cap make sense. We need to have games end roughly at the same time. It would also be more infrastructure needed to track time appropriately: clocks, timekeepers etc. But dang, you know what's awesome about timed game? It adds depth to strategy and tactics.
For an offense, you don't just think about scoring, you also have to think about scoring with varying pace. If our team generally takes 42 seconds to score a point but there's 55 seconds on the clock, how do we make adjustments to eat up that time. That adds tactical depth. We run different sets, schemes and personnel packages depending on how much time is on the clock on both sides of the ball.
That being said, I would very much like the UFA to adopt the WUL end of quarter rule. I hate jump balls. It's not a safe setting. I'd rather the clock going to 0 trigger a final possession situation rather than a heave at a bunch of bodies in the endzone.
The devil's advocate in me also has to say that the end of regulation play in the Salt Lake / Minnesota game at championship weekend last year was one of the most exciting Ultimate plays I have ever seen.
I'll update the links as I release new entries.
Part 1 - Accessibility for Fans and Season Format
Part 2 - Strategy Differences and Offensive Tilt
Part 3 - Referees vs Self-Officiated/Observers
Part 4 - Accessibility for Players and Coaches
Part 5 - Grassroots vs Financially Motivated
No comments:
Post a Comment