USA Ultimate

The Huddle, Issue #15: Role Players

Every Ultimate team is a different collection of different types of talent. How coaches and captains manage that talent can be the deciding factor in a season. Are your players sure of what they are supposed to do on the field? Are they ready to fill specific roles, and to devote their energy where it is most beneficial?

 

We asked our authors to discuss the search for, the value in, and use of role players.

 

• Roles Can Be Difficult To Observe
  
  
  
  • Apart from specific match-ups on defense that require certain roles (being tall and fast, or short and quick), there are lots of roles in zone defenses and in some offensive sets. The best example I can think of is the marker on a trap-side zone defense. This is the position that anchors the zone when it is within 5 yards of the sideline, and can make or break the scheme. This person has the opportunity to take away more options that any other defensive player on the field. As the mark applies more pressure, there is a cascade behind them that allows the defense to take away other opportunities. For example, if the mark is able to remove cross-field hammers, the far-side defender(s) can play more to the middle of the field, allowing the players in the middle of the field to push closer to the open side threats.
    
    Should players train to be more versatile? I don't think there is an absolute answer here. In a vacuum of information I would argue that as a player looking to make a team, you should invest in improving at all aspects of the game. Simply put; offensive lines still need to play defense, and defensive lines need to score after they get a turn in order to be successful. The world's best thrower would be hard pressed to make the roster of an elite team if they couldn't play decent match-up defense. You can argue that offensive lines don't need to be great at defense, especially if they don't turn the disc over, but you'd have to seriously question the wisdom of a defensive line with seven people unable to throw the disc.
    
    If you are a player trying to make it onto a team that generally lacks a skill, or you are in charge of recruiting for a team that lacks a certain skill, by all means, train or recruit to address that weakness. As a team this means figuring out, before you pick your team, how you want to play the game. As a player this means trying to figure out, or asking the team leaders, what the team needs in a player.
    
    Regarding important roles, I don't really know if any trends will emerge. However, I think there is a real opportunity for teams to improve by recruiting or training players to be smarter about their decisions, and to recognize opportunities earlier. There are some pretty significant hurdles to training athletes to make better decisions, but it is even harder to recruit smart players. For example, teaching the concept of creating space for a teammate to take advantage of is a fundamentally good thing. However, it is very hard to teach, is rarely recognized on a team as being important, and even more rarely rewarded when a teams is picking their roster.
    
    I think the newly instituted roster limits gives increased hope for all-around players, especially if the limit drops much further. With fewer spots on the roster, the argument for filling those spots with players that are proficient at both offense and defense becomes stronger. In an extreme example, if the roster limit was 14 and your roster was evenly split between defensive and offensive specialists, you'd be pretty hosed if somebody got hurt, or was off their game that day. A roster with a couple people that could fit into any hole would be more desirable.
     
  • JEFF EASTHAM-ANDERSON
• Build From Versatile, Athletic Players
  
  
  
  • Not everyone can be great at everything and some become very good at a few things. There are times where we have a few players who are very, very good at a particular position - whether defensive or offensive. For example, I have been on teams where we have a few players who sole purpose in life is to give the handlers on the other team h***. That is their job, and is why they are on the team. Now, I do not think these players should not be allowed to work on their offensive game or guarding downfield players. But, when it is go time, those players should be excited that they have a special gift to give to their team. The role player is important because it allows players to focus, when it matters, on individual tasks.
    
    Should teams look for new players that fit certain roles? Personally, I think it depends on the player. I have met and/or played with a few special players who can be more versatile and should never be limited to a constrained role. Usually those players are the "no-brainers" to make the team. After a team has solidified those recruits, then I think it is necessary to find players that can fill certain roles well that currently are unfullfilled on the team.
    
    The physical defensive player and the athletic receiver are roles that I see becoming more important in the next 5 years at the top levels of the game.
    
    In a way, I see very skilled throwers becoming less of an emphasis as the game grows. The crowd appears to be more enthralled by fantastic layout grabs and skies rather than pretty, perfect, no drama throws. That does not mean I necessarily agree with it, but I think we are in for more turnover ultimate than ever before in the next four years.
    
    I absolutely think there is hope for the all-around player. But, instead of being 1 in 10 like the last twenty years, it may be more like 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 in the next five to twenty years.
     
  • LINDSEY HACK
• Needs Of The Team And The Individual
  
  
  
  • Role players are valuable to any successful team. More than valuable, they may be essential. This is typically because they have the ability to throw their whole effort into a part of the game that the stars don't have the effort for. An obvious example of this is a marker in the zone. Marking takes a lot of effort, and is very tiring both because of chasing the disc around, but also because working hard on the mark takes a lot of energy. However, a zone can fall apart if the marks are not sprinting to the disc or being aggressive on the mark. Marking in zone is one of the more obvious examples of a specific role player, but almost any zone position can have a specialist, and even some offensive positions can be limited to the point of being a specific role.
    
    I think it is a great benefit for someone to fill specific roles, but this is also very dependent on the needs of the team and the expectations of an individual. I think it is wise for players to continuously expand their toolbox of tricks to make themselves more diverse. However, as a full season progresses, it benefits the team (and the individual) to start to focus on what has become their niche on the team. In other words, it would make no sense for a college player in January to decide that he is going to be the marker in the zone when he should be improving all aspects of his game (throwing, man defense, etc). But maybe by the time Sectionals comes around he should realize where his strengths lie and how he can best help the team succeed. By keeping up all his skills early in the season he might realize that there are others that are better suited to marking, or the captains can give more direction about what each individual should rely on. When picking a team, I think most teams would prefer the all-around player who can then fit into the teams needs as the season progresses. Certainly if someone is absolutely exceptional at a particular thing, they should play towards that strength, but I think that teams would generally prefer well-rounded players over specialists.
    
    In the next five years I see the role of someone who can shut down the other team's handler being very important. Good handlers know how to juke, get you off-footed, use space and keep you on your heels well enough to make guarding them tough. Also, teams rely on their handlers to be available for easy resets and to push the disc up the field. A person who can limit the effectiveness of the other team's top handler can create a few breaks for their defense. This may mean that each team has a stable of two or three of these guys who, depending on the opponent, fill that role of primary defender.
    
    In terms of less important roles, I think the deep receiver is going to become a thing of the past. Now so many strong athletes are playing defense that having the one guy who is tall, fast and jumps really well isn't enough for you to just jack it to him without pause. More and more that guy is being guarded by an equally tall, fast and great jumper. Knowing how to set up cuts in flow, exploit a poach, or create space for teammates are going to be more valued skills than raw athleticism.
     
  • GREG HUSAK
• Use All Of Your Players
  
  
  
  • I believe that what makes a team successful is its ability to use all of its players. Most good teams have a few superstars- those players that are game-changers and whose absence can really hurt the team's chances. However, the difference between good teams and great teams, I believe, lies in how the team utilizes its role players. Ultimate is truly a team sport, and if the top players on a team aren't supported by a solid and confident group of role players, the team will have many exploitable weaknesses.
    
    For clarity, I'm defining a role player as someone who doesn't have top-notch skills in every facet of their game (although hopefully they have top-notch skills in at least one part of their game, or else they're unlikely to get on the field much!).
    
    So how do you use and build up your role players? First of all, everyone on the team must be given a role that plays to their strengths. Secondly, everyone must know exactly what their role is (and isn't!). If everyone on the team is asked to do the same things, and expected to achieve to the same degree, then some people are being set up to fail- you'll be asking them to do things that they're not able to do. And with failure comes lack of confidence, which causes more failure, etc. Instead, the team strategy should be designed to maximize the number of times players are put in situations in which they are likely to succeed. This means the strategy should depend on which players are on the field, and conversely, which players are on the field should depend on your strategy for that point. If your strength is being a great receiver, you should be expected to cut deep a lot, but then the team should make sure you have a high-percentage option to throw to. If your strength is as a big thrower, you might be expected to take more risks with your throws than other team members. If everyone is clear as to what they are and aren't expected to do, people will be able to set themselves up to succeed as much as possible.
    
    So how do players ever improve, if they're only asked to do the things they're already good at? This is a very important question to address, since pigeon-holing players into very specific roles can lead to them getting frustrated and bored, or at the very least to slowing their improvement. On our team, we divide the season into two halves. In the first half of the season, everyone is encouraged to work on expanding their game. We focus a lot on fundamentals, and teach the same things to everyone. This doesn't mean that everyone has a green light to go crazy. Rather, people are encouraged to work on things that are just outside their comfort zones, so that they push the envelope and work on expanding their repertoire. In the second half of the season, we ask people to take stock of where they are. The team leadership works with individuals to clearly outline roles and expectations that will enable the team and the individuals to maximize their rate of success.
     
  • PERI KURSHAN
• Roles From Necessity
  
  
  
  • This is an interesting topic as the need for specialized roles has been born more out of necessity than out of desire in Vancouver.
    
    Historically, the top players on Furious have been the players who excel at multiple aspects of the game. These players have been able to fulfill multiple roles, and truly have a very strong all-around game. Ultimate's fast pace of play combined with multiple turnovers and unforeseen situations, calls for players on the field to be able to adapt and excel regardless of the circumstances.
    
    However, it is impossible to field a team of 7 "Al-Bobs"* every O or D line. Over the years, as the top players on Furious have retired, our team has been forced to move to specialized positions in order to continue to compete with the other top teams. This is a short term and problematic fix. I am sure that other teams have faced a situation where a player who is tall and who plays good defense is inserted into the lineup as a starting line defensive lane cutter—even if they are a poor thrower. We try to hide their weaknesses by surrounding them with more all-around players who can shoulder the offensive load on a turnover.
    
    The same holds true on the other side of the disc. Teams are forced to play offensive players who are talented throwers—at the expense of athleticism and defensive ability. However, unless more high-level games go the route of the 2002 Semis with DoG and Furious (5 turnovers combined)—teams that rely on highly specialized personnel will eventually be exposed and struggle to compete for the UPA Championship.
    
    In short, it is very important to work to become an all-around player. If you are relying on one part of your game to make a team, or to be on a starting lineup, or to win championships then you are not giving yourself the best chance for success. It is too easy for one part of your game to escape you on the big day, and you may need to rely on some of your other skills to get the job done.
     
  • KIRK SAVAGE
• What Is A Role Player?
  
  
  
  • We've all seen certain players take over games, throwing hucks, getting lay out Ds, or getting open against good defenders. These players are revered. What is a role player? Everyone else.
    
    I avoid using the term "role player" because it implies a value judgment on those players who don't get the glory. The player who throws hucks isn't a role player. The player who uses his mark to stop the hucks is a role player. You might not notice the second guy but he's why his team wins games (instead you think the thrower "just had a bad game").
    
    The year Sub Zero went to semifinals their offense featured a slow player with bad throws whose job it was to set the stack and burn poaches. He played every O point and most points he didn't touch the disc. Because of him the primary cutter had a cutting lane. Sub Zero acknowledged this guy's contribution in the huddle, even though to other teams he was a joke. Had he not gotten credit for his role, he might have gotten greedy for the cutting lane. On every team, a few players will garner the attention and draw the cameras. The rest of us need to find ways to contribute quietly. How a team treats the players who don't get the glory affects the team's performance.
    
    Players should not be fitted to roles for strategic purposes. The role should be fitted to the player. Strategy in Ultimate and especially in college Ultimate is reactionary. In the 1990s almost all college teams played a vertical stack with two handlers. In the 2000s the Hodags brought the split-stack with three handlers and dominated. Today split-stack or some variant is widely used. People saw what worked and copied it. The thing is, split stack worked for the Hodags because it played to their strengths and because they understood it. As a strategy it is not in itself better than the vertical. As defenses adjust to the split and horizontal stacks, the vertical will come back. Every year 90% of college teams run approximately the same zone. A few teams did not get the memo, and they dream up their own zone. If these novel zones use the strengths of their players, they can surprise other teams. In Ultimate, roles are not platonic forms; they can be molded to the situation and to the player. A successful team uses whatever strategy best fits its players.
    
    One of my first captains saw me working tirelessly to fix my weaknesses. "Don't do that," he said. "Spend 70% of your energy improving your strengths." He was right. I'll never win a game jumping. But I might win a game marking. Every player needs to excel in something, even if it's something subtle. When the player deploys that skill, his confidence grows, he'll relax, he'll play within himself, and the team will benefit. What he does won't get him on Clip of the Day. But he has developed a strength that he can count on in big moments. To develop a player, make him focus on his strengths. Then create a role for those strengths. As a team, celebrate his strengths. When he gets called a "role player," he'll just laugh. He knows what he's contributing.
     
  • CHARLIE REZNIKOFF
• Using The Best Part Of Each Player
  
  
  
  • The best example of a role player on Riot is Michelle Bowlen. Michelle is very tall (5'11"), well-trained in fundamentals and particularly smart (Fulbright Scholar!). She doesn't have the best break-mark throws in the game and can't guard every quick little handler. However, she is the scariest mark I've ever seen in a 1-3-3. Luckily, we play in bad weather conditions at Sectionals, Regionals and Nationals (usually) so we can run a lot of zone. We will often put Michelle in just to run the 1 in the 1-3-3 for one point and then do it again the next time we're on defense.
    
    I believe that the best players all start with a superpower. Michelle's is her zone mark. Surge is really fast. Vivian can throw anywhere on the field at anytime. This is a great starting point for each player, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't all also continue to work on reading the disc, downfield defense or dump cuts. In a game, we will always use a player's specialty, but the more well-rounded they are around that, the better they will be able to perform in multiple situations.
    
    In the next 5 years at the level of elite women's ultimate, I see the most use for the combination of two roles within one player. For example, someone who can throw anywhere at will, but is also a very athletic defender. Right now there are lots of athletes and lots of throwers, but rarely are these combined (Deb Cussen is the prototype). I think that there will always be roles for all-around players. I would still suggest that all-around players work on something that they want to be their superpower—playing defense on the other teams tallest player, winning every disc in the air, or being able to make 10 cuts at top speed during one point—but then also developing other parts of their game to make themselves the best all-around defender as possible and to be as difficult to guard as possible.
     
  • MIRANDA ROTH
• Is There Any Hope For The Specialist?
  
  
  
  • I started playing for Seattle's Sockeye in the Spring of 2007. Among the great athletes and throwers and minds one thing stood out the most—an almost singular obsession on beating their main rival, Vancouver's Furious George. Throwers needed to have five options because at nationals, against Furious, you could be sure four would not be open. Three-step separations were not enough, because Oscar and Alex could make it one. Running trap zone? With Savage and Cruickshank with the disc? Not likely. Any man-to-man against a cutter like MG would need a lot of help on the mark.
    
    Cool story Hansel, but what's the point? That Seattle team had players who using solely what they do best could walk to semis at nationals. Disc to Ben to CK x 15 x 5. But what would happen when they got there? What happens when that team comes up against another that can stop their best option?
    
    If you can beat a team going to your number one option over and over again then that team, relative to yours, is bad. Either they don't have the personnel to match your athleticism, experience, or whatever it is you are beating them with, or they are not smart enough to make that necessary adjustment to stop getting beat. Either way; they're bad. So bad, in fact, that you probably would be able to beat that team using any strategy you choose—what's winning the game isn't just your one play or move, rather it's your 'specialty' combined with the threat of everything else you could do.
    
    Think about elimination games between two close teams—how many times does one team actually use their 'specialty'? The top handler throwing long to the best receiver works, if they are both playing great, maybe three times. Significant, yes, but they still need 12 other ways to score. Deeps will be backed (defender positioned between the player and the endzone), and throwers will be faced straight-up. The best one-on-one defenders, who already get beat plenty, can stop only their assignment; there are six others. This applies just as well to team's specializing in using players solely to their strengths: Teams that live on breaking the mark find non-mark defenders adjusting to the dead side. A team's best defensive line playing their best defense will generate maybe two or three additional blocks a game - which probably isn't enough as it is, and they only have those seven players to score.
    
    During those games, being a 'specialist' in this sport really means that other parts of you game will be proportionally easier. The better your specialty, the more your opponent will give up to stop it, but remember—good teams always will be able to. Then what? The backed deep threat will be given cuts back to the disc. But to be effective, first their cut has to be well-timed, and then they have to be able to throw the disc somewhere. Being able to make well-timed cuts either away or back to the disc, and being able to throw afterwards? Sounds fairly all-around to me. A great zone defensive team will soon find the opposing team's best throwers making the majority of the throws, and be forced to defend person-to-person, necessitating the ability to do both. The best mark-breaker will be countered not only with better marks, but also more effort preventing them from catching the disc, either by greater athleticism in their defender, poaching, or both. Again, both the players and teams involved are all dependent on both their relative strengths and weaknesses. Against a good team, neither the team nor individual is good enough to rely on their specialty alone.
    
    Of course conversely, the better your opponent, the less they will need to sacrifice in order to take away your strength. Further, its easier for your opponent to focus on stopping your strength than your next options. Seattle knew that while relying on their best option would work early in tournaments, in those last two games, there would be teams with players that could stop it. What led to their successes was their singular focus on beating teams with players able to stop what they otherwise would do. Or, in other words, becoming an all-around team, filled with all-around players.
     
  • SETH WIGGINS