USA Ultimate

The Huddle, Issue #7: Zone Defense

• The Wham!
  
  
  
  • 2001 in Sarasota was crazy. Hurricane Michelle was causing major havoc for most of the Mixed division's offenses. The wind started mild on Thursday and picked up through the week. One of my teammates on Trigger Hippy, Scott "the Kid" Runkel (who played for Boston back when they were Big Brother, and, as far as I know, was the original "the Kid" of the three that I know), along with Mike "the Wizard" Faris, came up with a zone to man to zone to man, etc. D called the Wham!, made specifically for Sarasota.
    
    In a nutshell, Wham! stands for Woman-Clam. A fluctuating D that changes from a lane-cluttering Clam, to a Man-to-Man depending on what gender has the disc and whether it's on the force sideline, or not.
    
    Sexist? Maybe. Effective? Absolutely! Everyone on the team needed to have some upper-level field awareness, and the sideline had to be loud, and quick to holler, "Man, Man, Man" then, "Wham, Wham, Wham" when a woman cutter (who was also not a strong handler) received the disc trapped on the sideline. A hard, trapping mark would rotatie to a 'no around' position (forcing sideline). A deep poacher and a pinching handler defender would usually force the thrower to make a difficult I/O throw upwind, or fire one down field to a deep poacher.
    
    Turnover, jailbreak, score. Repeat.
    
    It is very arguable that the skillset and talent has increased exponentially since 2001. However, for a team of cagey and wily veterans from the mountains, this was a veritable 'fatality' to the offense of teams running a vertical stack in 2001 with the wind howling and swirling in their face. Obviously, we still had to have the skills to score up and downwind.
    
    Would this be as effective now as it was then? Maybe: with a fast, athletic defense that has a great supporting sideline. It could be effective as a tempo changing defense to throw the offense out of their comfort zone.
     
  • JAIME ARAMBULA
• Addressing Zone Questions
  
  
  
  • From your experience, what zone configuration do you feel most confident in?
    
    In general I prefer a three man cup mainly because it can be used to disguise other types of defensive schemes teams may use, such as a zone to man. The specific setup I prefer for the three man cup is with the short deep playing very close to the cup, if not actually part of the cup, working as a unit to trap the disc on the sideline. Ideally the short deep will float into the cup as offensive players crash the cup, and falls out further when offensive players try to extend the cup.
    
    Why do you like this kind of zone? Specifically, what kinds of turnovers or blocks are you hoping to create?
    
    I like the zone because, and expect the turnovers to result due to:
    
    1. Causing the offensive team to throw and catch the disc as many times as possible. The more throws and catches the zone can cause, the more likely an errant throw or a drop becomes.
    2. Disallowing any and all throws threw the cup.
    3. Allowing, but make very difficult, around break mark throws from the handler. This causes the disc to go backwards which will allow the cup to recover.
    4. Trapping the disc on the sideline to cause a low percentage throw, and hopefully a turnover.
    5. Making the offensive team throw over the top of the cup as they are generally low percentage throws.
    
    In Your Favorite Zone, what are the weak points of the zone that they are likely exploiting?
    
    1. They are probably throwing hammers over the top and completing them. If so, it fits into the strategy and sometimes you have to tip your cap.
    2. They might be getting a continuation throw off when a handler breaks the mark with an around throw.
    
    What adjustments, from a team-wide standpoint, can you make?
    
    1. Start taking the around away and make the handler beat you on a different type of throw.
    2. Possibly drop the short deep a bit further outside of the cup.
    3. Bring the deep in closer.
    4. Bring the weakside wing closer to the middle of the field.
    
    If you had only enough time in one time-out to talk to a single player in your zone D, which position would that be? What might you tell them to adjust?
    
    To me, the sideline is the most important player in a zone D point. Remind everyone that they need to be talking (not yelling) to a specific player in the zone. Everyone should pick out a player to talk to so that the player is not receiving conflicting instructions.
    
    The on field player that I talk to most is the short-deep. He has to be very vocal to the wings and to the cup. He should be looking around, directing the cup as to threats so they can position themselves appropriately. He also must pass players off to the wings and deep, so the communication has to be excellent. I would remind him to be very active in vocalizing what he sees.
    
    The second person I would talk to would be the deep. The deep needs to be vocal to identify the threats to the short deep and the wings they can't see as the offensive player slips in back of the short deep and/or wings.
     
  • CHRIS ASHBROOK
• Zone Observations From The NYNY Days
  
  
  
  • Pike ran an imposing 1-3-3 for a number of years, a set that may or may not have morphed into a 4-man cup at times. Mike Jaeger (formerly of Michigan, currently of Sockeye) was great at the one spot.
    
    The Warrior squad I played for in 2001 ran a 1-3-3 as well and that look got us to Nationals. Rhett Russ also the right man for the one spot. I'm a fan of the 1-3-3. I also like a 4-man cup but that set is extremely difficult to run more than one or two times a game/tournament. With the right sideline and the right wind, it's a test to see what those back three can do.
    
    However, I'll go with the "2-3-2 configururation." In the semis of College Nationals in 1991, UNC-Wilmington was down 4-10 to Cornell at halftime. UNCW ended up winning 19-11. Much of what those UNC-W teams did at the time was done so at the altar of NYNY, especially our zone defense.
    
    NYNY ran their zone up wind or down wind, breezy or calm They always ran 2-3-2. It's been well-documented that we studied '89 finals tape. Down 14-16, NY slaps on the 2-3-2. 16 all. At 17 all, they roll 3 for 20-17. Final 21-19. In 1988 versus Sweden in a game to 17, Sweden is receiving and up 16-15. 2-3-2. 18-16 NYNY. In 1990 versus the Iguanas, the results were similar, and although their completion percentage was high, Southern Cal still lost by five. And again in 1993 at Worlds versus Rhino, NYNY I think was down 9-14 before their 2-3-2 won the game. (And certainly that game was a statement game for Rhino. They faced NYNY in the 92 semifinalss; NYNY with zero first half turns, and 2 for the game).
    
    And then the Greatest Game Ever Played: NY Cojones vs Boston, semifinals 1994. 2-3-2 from each team throughout much of the contest; obviously 1-3-3 and Clam from Boston as well. Cojones scores upwind vs zone to tie at 17s. Boston going upwind with no timeouts. 28 passes later they are up one and pulling downwind, game to 19. 2-3-2 set and Boston's cup: John Bar and Jethro points, and Lenny at the all-important middle-middle. 38 passes later, Lenny swats down a laser through the cup, game over.
    
    Great 2-3-2s aren't seen very often anymore. Perhaps this is due to the fashionable spread offenses or the 175 gram that nearly everyone can rip 90 yards. And maybe it's just because teams simply can't play it or the fact that DoG's "death to dump swing zone offense" has erased it as an option. Perhaps a little bit of all.
    
    The meat of the set begins with the cup. It's not random selection. NYNY role players earned their play time here and they were conditioned to play these positions: Andy Scheman, Walter van der Schraaf, Blair O'Conner, Paul Shields, Jon Gewirtz, Ken Dobyns. Scheman and O'Conner were meant to play the points and it's clear they resigned themselves to suffer until the point was over; good for one or two blocks a game.
    
    Dobyns and Walter, and Boston's Lenny Engel played the middle-middle position that always demonstrated why this set is called 2-THREE-2, and not 3-2-2. Those three along with Chain's Stu Downs were more than artistic in this slot. The middle-mid is the drummer, the venerable Charlie Watts.
    
    I think the short-deep is good for one sneaky block. One or two members of the cup will get a one block, but more than likely they will force a bad throw by playing the stall count. I don't want the deep-deep to get any blocks, unless it's coming under and he is the guy I talk to in the time-out. Too often you see a deep-deep come under with the O player ¼ to ½ in and then stop. A block is being given up here. Let the sideline call for help and get a wing to drop back.
    
    My team-wide adjustment: In a perfect world, I'd have a pair on each sideline talking to the wings. A1 is watching the field talking to the wing while A2 is looking across the field at the opposite wing and waiting for the time he has to tell A1 to tell their wing to drop back. Got that?
    
    The weaknesses are your wings getting sucked in, a deep-deep getting too cocky and baiting, or getting bored like a 6th grade goalie, and your points having their lower body give out on them. Break marks on high counts, lunging at fakes, and being out of step with the middle-mid; otherwise you'll have an overzealous handler jack a hammer for a block, a wing look upfield that second prior to his catch, or a popper run a give-and-go right in to the sod.
     
  • TULLY BEATTY
• A Tweak To The 1-3-3
  
  
  
  • With zone defenses, I tend to lean away from the old standards, reasoning that if most defenders know them, most offenses know how to play against them. Almost everyone has run a standard three-person cup, and every offense has seen one. In order to get a good offense out of its rhythm enough to generate turnovers, you need to either run a well-known zone better than other teams do, or you need to do something different.
    
    Here's something different: the formation is a 1-3-3, but with a few major changes. One marker, three defenders 5-10 yards downfield from the disc (aka "first wall"), and three more defenders 15-50 yards downfield from the disc (aka "second wall"). The spacing of the defenders in the second wall is largely dependent on where the threats are, and is similar to the backfield in most other zones.
    
    From the first wall, two players step up to form a 3-man cup with the marker. The break-side player from the first wall drops into the hole immediately behind the cup. If the disc then swings to the other side of the field, he/she steps up to become part of the cup, while his/her counterpart on the other side of the field drops into that same hole behind the cup. This requires more communication and awareness, but the cup players no longer have to chase the disc back and forth across the field—instead the composition of the cup changes as the disc moves. A good marker is essential—someone who can contain break throws, but will take a risk here and there when they smell blood.
    
    The defense traps the disc on both sidelines. Essentially, the marker is always forcing the disc to continue moving the same direction as the previous pass. So if the marker is forcing backhand, and gets broken by a crossfield swing, he/she just switches to forcing forehand, to keep the disc moving toward the opposite sideline. This is primarily to save energy—the marker never has to catch up to the disc to contain the flow. It also perpetuates the trap, as the easy continuation throw will usually be toward a sideline.
    
    Most of the turnovers generated by this zone will be from riskier throws off the sidelines. The trap uses the sideline to reduce the area that can be thrown to, and forces the offense to break through the zone just to maintain possession. My opinion is that at many levels, offenses have become patient enough that force-middle zones don't create turnovers. Unless the team has a really bad zone offense, or the conditions make it difficult just to complete passes (extreme wind, rain, snow), a force-middle zone is just going to slow the offense down. Trapping makes things hard, takes away the easy options, and can force turnovers even from skilled, patient teams.
    
    This zone has two main weaknesses. It's not designed to contain the disc in the middle of the field, so it's susceptible to handlers chipping the disc up the field with short two-yard gains. To prevent this, the middle player of the first wall needs to step up to make those short gains more difficult. It's also possible for the offense to gain yards by swinging to the weak side, then taking quick upfield shots before the defense adjusts. To combat this, the side players in the first wall need to move quickly when the disc swings. If run efficiently and aggressively, this defense can fluster offenses and create lots of turnovers, without exhausting your team's best zone D players. Lastly, it helps to have more than one alternative to man defense (either a transition or another zone set). That way, if the offense starts to figure out your zone, you can mix things up a bit to throw them off again.
     
  • MATT DUFORT
• What Should We Contain?
  
  
  
  • Zone Basics
    I've always been a fan of a good trapping zone, but in unpredictable winds even a very conservative and basic zone would produce turns. There are way too many specifics and permutations to cover in this forum, but below are three principles of a trapping zone.
    
    Basically, a trapping zone consists of three things. First, how are you going to allow the disc to move to a sideline. This is a combination of making it hard to move the disc in the middle, and making a lateral throw an easy pass without giving up too many yards.
    
    Second, how are you going to apply pressure once you are on the sideline. This typically involves shifting the cup to take away easy dumps, and shifting the remaining downfield defenders to the strong side so that the only remaining options are a short pass that looses yardage, or a long throw over many defenders to the weak side.
    
    Finally, how are you going to contain when the disc moves off sideline or downfield. A lateral throw can often be contained, but everyone needs to react and take away the next throw, and not the one that was just thrown. For downfield throws, the deep and wings can often be most effective by just covering a person, instead of an area. The primary goal is to prevent other downfield passes, then re-establish containment with zone coverage.
    
    Adjustments
    One adjustment would be to have a zone-to-man transition, or just run man a couple points. Once a team starts to figure a zone out, they will gain confidence through repetition. The easiest way to counter this is to give them and entirely different look for a few points. Unless you have an entirely different zone set, this usually means a zone to man transition, or just man for the entire point.
    
    If you had only enough time in one time-out to talk to a single player in your zone D, which position would that be? What might you tell them to adjust?
    The best person to talk to would be the short deep, or whoever the defender is that is right behind the cup. Most zones get hosed when the disc moves to the place you least want it to move. For a trapping zone this is upfield when it is in the middle, or across the entire field when it is trapped. The former is really the short deep's responsibility, as he is in the best position to joystick the cup defenders whose main objective is to make a wall and deny the middle of the field. Again, there are so many permutations, but essentially you will need to adjust your positioning to take away more of the middle, while giving the offense more of an opportunity to move laterally.
     
  • JEFF EASTHAM-ANDERSON
• Adjustments To The 2-3-2
  
  
  
  • Choosing a favorite zone depends on a few factors, including the personnel on my team, the personnel on the other team, the direction and strength of the wind, and the things the other team are doing that are working. Every team should have two different zone looks in their arsenal, ideally with a well practiced ability to transition out of the zone into a person defense. Choosing a zone is another question though, so I'll go with the classic—the 2-3-2. To make sure we're all thinking the same, the 2-3-2 is the name for what is usually thought of as the 'standard zone'—a three person cup made up of 2 points or markers and a top-of-the-cup or middle-middle, two wings and two deeps, usually deployed as a deep and a short-deep. I like this zone for a few reasons:
    
    1. The zone can be played very simply.
    It is easy to reduce the positions in the zone to very specific responsibilities. The cup can't let the disc through and up the middle; the wings have to prevent the disc from going up the sidelines after a swing; the deep has to protect from the long throws. The short-deep is a bit less specific, but has a very defined area of responsibility. Of course, there are more complexities than this when choosing when to take chances, how to trap or how to transition, but it is still easy to define responsibilities.
    
    2. It is easy to communicate.
    Because positions are well defined, it is easy for people both on and off the field to help the players in this zone with good directions. A well practiced team is able to do this with whatever zone that they are using, but the 2-3-2 has some very obvious, basic responsibilities that make this easy to do. With any zone (any D, really), communication is the key to success and this zone makes that easy.
    
    The 2-3-2 is really designed to force the other team to complete a lot of passes and get opportunistic blocks. At the top levels, teams aren't going to give the disc back a lot just because they have to throw a lot of passes. A very strong wind will help, but it still takes a bit more work. Many of the turns that I'm hoping to see will be due to impatience—trying something a bit tougher that gets blocked after a lot of throws that didn't get a lot. The other D's will be due to a change—someone on the defense doing something opportunistic that is a little different. For example, when everyone on the D does exactly what they are supposed to for 5-8 swings in a row, the offense may get a touch complacent. The wing then cheats in and swipes that next swing when the handler didn't quite look him or her off. This can be done all over the field, but it relies on the rest of the team being ready to cover up when the player takes a chance.
    
    Two weaknesses of the 2-3-2: First, if the disc gets downfield of the cup (either over the top or through the middle), the offense often has more players available than there are defenders. With three defenders in the cup behind the disc and likely one or both of the wings off toward the sidelines, it is common that the two deeps are contending with three offensive players. Adjustments for this can include the short-deep being very aggressive, almost joining the cup to make going through even that much harder or ensuring that the wings push towards the middle whenever possible. This forces the wings to recover very quickly if the disc swings. This is because the second key weakness is that on a swung disc, there aren't a lot of defenders over there until the cup catches up. Fortunately, there usually are enough defenders, as long as the wing and short deep shift with the swing. This article isn't really about how to play all of the positions, but as the throw up the sideline is the most dangerous throw against this zone, it is critical that the wing move to the sideline as the throw goes up. If the wing is in position, and the short-deep has moved over as well, the cup doesn't have to sprint with every throw. This enables the cup stay together as a unit longer and keeps them from tiring.
    
    Often, if a team is beating the zone, I encourage the team to get back to the basics of the zone—focus on the responsibilities listed above, as it is often a breakdown in the simple responsibilities that is creating the problem. Outside of that, I consider using a transition (zone-for-five), switching zones or alternating D's.
    
    If you had only enough time in one time-out to talk to a single player in your zone D, which position would that be? What might you tell them to adjust? It's hypothetical—so here are two answers: If the disc is going up the sideline for yards, I talk to the wing. This typically means that the wing isn't recovering to cover an offensive player on the sideline fast enough on a swing. I usually tell the wing to 'look for that person with your whole body' when the swing goes up. This means that, when the throw goes, the wing turns and runs while looking. If there is no one over there, there will be plenty of time to get back to where s/he was. If they are going through the middle (or over the top) of the cup, I talk to the short deep. Usually it involves telling this person to get more vocal (it's hypothetical, so I'm guessing here). If the short deep gets too quiet, not helping the cup adjust, then the disc can get through the middle more easily.
    
    As a final aside: I've tried to answer this question without getting into too many details about the difference between Women's, Open, and Mixed. I touched on Mixed specifics in Feature No. 1. I wouldn't change a lot of the basics of the 2-3-2 from Open to Women's. I might lean a bit more towards a 1-3-3 or a transition in Open though.
     
  • ADAM GOFF
• Redistribute Their Resources
  
  
  
  • I believe that it is impossible to design a zone (or any defense for that matter) that takes away everything. If I knew that zone I would never lose a game. I think the important thing about a zone is to make sure that everyone is clear of what the zone's objectives are, and when they are forced to make a decision on the field, they do it within the context of that zone.
    
    For instance, there might be a zone that encourages the other team to move side-to-side, swinging the disc but is stingy about the upfield. There might be another that really plugs up the short stuff and forces a huck. The defense only has a limited amount of resources (defenders) and so you have to decide how to distribute those resources throughout the field. The best zone is one that all the players understand and run well together.
    
    The zone I would choose would depend somewhat on the other team's strengths, but also on the best zone in our team's arsenal. Typically this has been a zone which puts resources up front, at the expense of fewer people helping on deep hucks. We might allow the disc to move side-to-side, even for short yards, but primarily stopping mid-range (10-20 yards) shots directly up field to receivers. Hopefully frustration will set in and the offense will decide to let one go on an ill-advised deep shot that we have a good chance at pulling down. If there is a bit of tricky wind, we may even get lucky with a relatively unforced error, brought on by the fact that the offense is throwing a lot of safe passes.
    
    Patient offenses may be able to wear the defense down and chip away up the field to score, or even exploit a seam and then have an advantage behind the defense (again, with resources put forward if the disc gets behind the wings there is a lot of open space). A good team should have a zone to complement their bread and butter, one which redistributes those resources on the field to take away something else. Typically though, if there is one position which could be easily adjusted to take away a different option it is the mark. By making the mark tighter/looser or having him shift to prevent/allow a swing the defense can take a different shape with some ease.
     
  • GREG HUSAK
• Trap Hard & Smart
  
  
  
  • A trap cup zone is a common and effective configuration in Mixed Ultimate. It looks to create pressure and mismatches at the disc. The handlers, who touch the disc most in zone offense, are depended upon by the rest of the team to be consistent and unflappable when working a zone D. An aggressive trap cup can serve to fluster and frustrate the handlers, whether it's because they themselves are having trouble moving the disc or because others are having trouble getting them the disc. When the handlers become uncomfortable, the rest of the offense snowballs along with them. Often a trap cup will focus on: (1) forcing in the direction where the wind is making the swing throws easier so that breaking the mark/cup back the other direction is very difficult and (2) forcing the disc to the sideline where there is a female handler and/or a weaker thrower (not necessarily a handler).
    
    In the presented scenario where the wind is unpredictable, the D will probably focus on (2). The idea is to put 1-2 people (usually men) in the cup who have exceptional marks and are difficult to get around. The defense is hoping to create hand and foot blocks (especially against female handlers where a difference in physical size lends itself more easily to these types of blocks) as well as force poor execution and/or decision-making that result in discs either getting turfed or caught in the wind. In addition, while the mark is making it tougher to get a throw off, the rest of the cup is creating even more of a challenge by taking away typical go-to throws (the dump, the crash, and the IO, for example). The first and most natural thing the offense will want to do is get it around the mark or through the cup since going over the top in these conditions would seemingly be a very low percentage choice. But with so much pressure on the thrower as well as on the other bailout positions, everyone crowds the disc, the field gets smaller, and then urgency and panic lead to blocks and turns.
    
    The downfield of this zone is usually set up with the men in the middle of the field and women on the wings. This is because the defenders in the middle of the field tend to have to cover more ground than the wings and men typically can do this more effectively. Your deep-deep should be the guy with speed and ups who can cover ground and pull high, floaty throws out of the air. Your short-deep is preferably quick and squirrelly due to the fact that most teams have their best cutter(s) popping; a highly reflexive layout trigger would also be an advantage at short-deep since throws up the middle are usually shorter and happen quickly, leaving little time to process and respond to them. Wings need to have a lot of field awareness since they have to cover their sideline as well as help out the short-deep and deep-deep depending on where the disc is, where the offense is cutting, and how the genders are set up. They have to communicate a lot with those defending the middle of the field so that everyone knows what their defensive priority is.
    
    As is obvious from the name of the configuration, the effectiveness of trap cup zone D depends largely on the cup. When the cup is moving, it has to do so as a unit to avoid opening up holes through it. There will almost always be men and women in the cup; therefore the members of the cup face the challenge of finding a happy medium in the pace that they run so they can both move quickly across the field and stay together. Also, the cup has to communicate effectively about when to put the trap on and who will be guarding what during the trap. If either of these points is not coordinated, the zone is more likely to fall apart. Getting the cup in sync takes practice, which is why having a handful of players who specialize at running the cup together will only help to make your zone stronger. But until this sort of oneness becomes natural for the cup, it is vulnerable.
    
    Depending on how the cup is being breached, a couple of things could need adjusting:
    
    1. The members of the cup might need to mark up differently on the handler(s)/those closest to the disc in order to take away the throw or move that is consistently breaking them. 2. The short-deep might need to communicate better where the cuts are coming in, direct the cup where to go, and plug whatever hole that might create. 3. The strong-side wing might need to step up to help out the cup and/or short-deep, which means that the deep-deep might need to drift to the strong-side to help out the wing, and the weak-side wing might need to pull back and pinch into the center a bit more to help out the deep-deep.
    
    If there was time to talk to just one player during a time-out, it would be to tell the mark what throw(s) from what player(s) are hurting us at the moment and to shift the appropriate way to take it away, thus hopefully re-establishing a feeling of discomfort and frustration at once again not allowing them to throw what they want. All other adjustments on the field domino from whatever the mark is doing. If you've prepared your zone well, everyone else on the field should know what to do and where to be based on how the mark positions himself.
     
  • KRIS KELLY
• The Four-Person Cup
  
  
  
  • For most of my teams (coaching and playing) we have been most comfortable in a 4-person cup recently. The goal with this zone is to prevent throws through the cup or around it with yardage gainers—we want to force the throws backward and we want to force a lot of them. I was taught to see this as a math problem—even the simplest throw will only be completed 99% of the time (.99 possibility of completion). Two of these same passes will be completed .99*.99 times (.9801 possibility of completing both passes). So you can easily see that with more passes, the chance of turnovers increases and, of course, if you or the conditions are forcing more difficult throws the completion rate for each pass goes down which translates to an increase in chance of turnover (i.e. the same throw on a windy/rainy day is only .8 possibility of completion).
    
    In addition to the math, I feel very comfortable with this zone with the personnel that I've had on my recent teams—lots of tall people with strong marks that are difficult to throw over. Sometimes we also run a variation of this in the 1-3-3 trapping zone that forces the same looks as the 4-person cup, but also encourages the disc to go toward typically weaker throwers (side poppers/wings instead of primary handlers) in a trap situation.
    
    In both of these zones, the weak points are always creating numbers advantages behind the cup/1-3. If two handlers can easily break it through a 4-person cup, then there is a 5 on 3 downfield advantage for the offense. If this happens, then we typically transition out immediately (on a yardage-gaining break), or after it happens more than once (on short breaks).
    
    From a team-wide standpoint, the adjustments that we like to make after teams start breaking through this is to transition to a similar but different zone—dropping one of the cuppers back into a very short short-deep position if they are gaining from short breaks or perhaps a box-and-one if one handler in particular is breaking through the zone repeatedly.
    
    Often times the positions that have to work the hardest and need the most feedback in both of my favorite zones are the wings—they are in charge of covering the most field and based on the offense we are playing against they will get very different looks. I think that the wings in the zone can make or break the defense—making it with hustle, communication, and awareness.
     
  • MIRANDA ROTH
• A Couple Of Thoughts On Zone D
  
  
  
  • A couple of quick thoughts.
    
    Sidelines are great for communication, but the people that need to be able to talk to each other are all on the field already. In a standard three-person cup, the communication streams are simple:
    • Deep talks to wings and short-deep
    • Short-deep talks to points and middle
    • Middle talks to points
    • Wings talk to their side's point
    
    With these streams, each player can adjust the positioning of the players they are covering for. If I am at short-deep, and have two players to cover, I can cover one by letting the middle-cup know which way to move, and I can cover the other player. I'll usually use the middle-cup to cover the player I am farther away from. This isn't just lazyness. They can cover in two steps what it would take me 8-9 full-speed committed steps to stop, and they can do it in less than half the time.
    
    This player has to trust me, though. If I say "right," I need them to physically move to their right by at least a step and a half. If they just look there, they can be assured that they will often look back at the thrower only to see that the disc is in that hole, flying by.
    
    I played in college with Josh Greenough, who was a dominating middle cup, and incredibly responsive. I could bait throws for him by waiting just a split-second longer to tell him about the threat. Instead of, "Josh, Right," I would wait..."Josh, Bid Right." He'd hit the air without looking, and the shocked handler might even hit him in the chest with it. Meanwhile, I'm moving to cover for Josh; if the handler pulled it back successfully and tries for that hole, I'm on it.
    
    One thing about zone D is that unless you run an upfield trap (trying to catch a wing on the sideline, for instance) you are probably keeping the disc in the hands of the best players on the other team. I've seen many teams go zone because the other team is scoring from one star to another, and this just lets those two stars play catch, but now without any pressure.
    
    I love using the same zone, but with different focuses on different points. Example: I'll use a 2-3-2 zone, with the cup attacking handler-to-handler throws, and the wings guarding the point-middle cup gaps. Here we are trying to give our points opportunities to get handblocks, and force them to go through the cup. Next point, same zone, but now are cup is glued to each other's hips, allowing no throws through, and the wings are very wide and flat. Now we are forcing many throws and tempting an over the top throw.
    
    If the other team scored once, they might well try to advance with the same tactics, playing right into our 'new' defensive set. Plus, this kind of approach gives individual players a solid grasp of what their defensive goals are.
    
    What does a good zone point look like? You better know before you run it. Are you trying to force hammers, or yardage-losing swings? How often do you expect the other team to score easily? The original Clam was a fantastic Zone D...and about every third time, they expected it to get roasted for an easy goal. The quick D points that it did generate, especially upwind, made it worthwhile. So, if you run it once and get schooled, does that mean that you should not come back to it? Depends on your expectations.
    
    Same with blocks; you need to know where you expect to get them. On cross-field hammers? Point-blocks? Drops on the 40th throw? Those players on your team that are not in the designated block-getter spots may play differently if they understand that their role is to generate block-getting oppportunities, and not necessarily take chances themselves. You can start running a 7-v-1 D on every throw, instead of lots of little 1-v-1's and 2-v-2's.
     
  • BEN WIGGINS