Nationals 2007 review
So now that I have a little distance from Nationals, woo-hoo! I'm going to Worlds baby! More relevant is that I have received my ultimate magazine AND my Ultivillage CD (great work as always Rob).
Since the magazine came out, the DoG masters list has been woofin' up the finals stats of course. We duplicated our 1995 success by having only 3 turnovers in the finals, again all by the offense. As I was just remarking earlier today, I was the one who opened the spigot with an inside out over Alec Ewalds head early on (they did NOT score on this turnover, which is the only personal stat that matters...). I mentioned that I provide a valuable service to the team by turning it over first so that others don't have to stress about being the first. And my ego is big enough to handle the damage. But maybe that's why I have shifted from trying to start games on O to starting on D. Maybe I want the D to screw up first. I'll have to think about that. I also broke the plexiglass shield and scored the second to last goal without cutting myself. I even scored the last offensive goal in the semis against Troubled Past. Maybe I should recast myself as a cutter. Nah!
It was sort of cool having all of the stats on the same page in the magazine. Now I know it wasn't quite as windy on Saturday afternoon as it was Sunday, but c'mon. In the masters final, there were 11 total turnovers, 3 by DoG and 8 by Surly. In the open final, 44 (23/21), in the mixed, 54 (30/24) and in the women's, 41 (24/17) go women. I attribute the fewer turnovers in the women's final to the mismatched nature of the teams, winning 15-6 yet still combining for 41 turnovers. As for the mixed stats, well, you probably suspect how I feel about that.
So, I had to take another look at the DVDs. It was much nicer watching the masters final on the big screen than squinting at the UVTv, although Jim and I remarked how easy it was to recognize people on the field by how they move, regardless of the fidelity of the video. The masters final's coverage began from the crows nest at Tourney Central because the main cameras were covering the men's semis. This was actually a cool vantage point because you could see the play developing on the field a little more. That is probably the main objection that I have to much of the Ultivillage footage in that it is often very hard to see what is happening away from the disc. It almost seems like they should have had a crows nest video also, and used the closeup stuff more for the replays on good plays. Although they did have the steel structures on the sideline, it still wasn't that 'widescreen'. Regardless, the masters final didn't look too dissimilar to the Open final. I would say that Surly played much more of the huck n hope than we did. We hucked it maybe 2 or 3 times, one of which resulted in a turnover to Eric Carr. Otherwise, we played pretty conservatively, at least compared to the current game trend.
The reason I wanted to watch the video was to see if I could see any big differences between the two games. One of the reasons there probably weren't more turnovers in our game is that we had only 1 MTP (multi-turnover point) and that was on my turnover when Alec got it back with a layout block. Otherwise, every (rare) turnover resulted in a goal for the other team. Watching the open game, it was embarrassing the number of MTPs. I saw the Open game live and the video was a great refresh. By half time, this was definitely Bravo's game to lose, and lose they did. They came out of half and scored to make it 9-6 and then proceeded to have the disc multiple times per point, whether on offense or defense, and couldn't put it in. Both Sockeye and Bravo had UGLY turnovers. Silly drops, silly hucks to nowhere that were thrown literally just as the guy was beginning his cut, so by the time he turned around to track the disc, the wind had taken it off the original line and he had no chance. It was also surprising the number of open people that were looked off on both teams. The teams did not appear to adjust their game plan to the conditions at all.
I'm not sure what, if anything, I'm trying to conclude (besides that DoG is dead, long live DoG masters, 1 of 3, etc.), I just wanted to point out the disparities between the two games and bemoan the ascendancy of the huck n hope, I guess. Yes, it makes for good viewing, but hell, I'd rather just win, ya know?
Since the magazine came out, the DoG masters list has been woofin' up the finals stats of course. We duplicated our 1995 success by having only 3 turnovers in the finals, again all by the offense. As I was just remarking earlier today, I was the one who opened the spigot with an inside out over Alec Ewalds head early on (they did NOT score on this turnover, which is the only personal stat that matters...). I mentioned that I provide a valuable service to the team by turning it over first so that others don't have to stress about being the first. And my ego is big enough to handle the damage. But maybe that's why I have shifted from trying to start games on O to starting on D. Maybe I want the D to screw up first. I'll have to think about that. I also broke the plexiglass shield and scored the second to last goal without cutting myself. I even scored the last offensive goal in the semis against Troubled Past. Maybe I should recast myself as a cutter. Nah!
It was sort of cool having all of the stats on the same page in the magazine. Now I know it wasn't quite as windy on Saturday afternoon as it was Sunday, but c'mon. In the masters final, there were 11 total turnovers, 3 by DoG and 8 by Surly. In the open final, 44 (23/21), in the mixed, 54 (30/24) and in the women's, 41 (24/17) go women. I attribute the fewer turnovers in the women's final to the mismatched nature of the teams, winning 15-6 yet still combining for 41 turnovers. As for the mixed stats, well, you probably suspect how I feel about that.
So, I had to take another look at the DVDs. It was much nicer watching the masters final on the big screen than squinting at the UVTv, although Jim and I remarked how easy it was to recognize people on the field by how they move, regardless of the fidelity of the video. The masters final's coverage began from the crows nest at Tourney Central because the main cameras were covering the men's semis. This was actually a cool vantage point because you could see the play developing on the field a little more. That is probably the main objection that I have to much of the Ultivillage footage in that it is often very hard to see what is happening away from the disc. It almost seems like they should have had a crows nest video also, and used the closeup stuff more for the replays on good plays. Although they did have the steel structures on the sideline, it still wasn't that 'widescreen'. Regardless, the masters final didn't look too dissimilar to the Open final. I would say that Surly played much more of the huck n hope than we did. We hucked it maybe 2 or 3 times, one of which resulted in a turnover to Eric Carr. Otherwise, we played pretty conservatively, at least compared to the current game trend.
The reason I wanted to watch the video was to see if I could see any big differences between the two games. One of the reasons there probably weren't more turnovers in our game is that we had only 1 MTP (multi-turnover point) and that was on my turnover when Alec got it back with a layout block. Otherwise, every (rare) turnover resulted in a goal for the other team. Watching the open game, it was embarrassing the number of MTPs. I saw the Open game live and the video was a great refresh. By half time, this was definitely Bravo's game to lose, and lose they did. They came out of half and scored to make it 9-6 and then proceeded to have the disc multiple times per point, whether on offense or defense, and couldn't put it in. Both Sockeye and Bravo had UGLY turnovers. Silly drops, silly hucks to nowhere that were thrown literally just as the guy was beginning his cut, so by the time he turned around to track the disc, the wind had taken it off the original line and he had no chance. It was also surprising the number of open people that were looked off on both teams. The teams did not appear to adjust their game plan to the conditions at all.
I'm not sure what, if anything, I'm trying to conclude (besides that DoG is dead, long live DoG masters, 1 of 3, etc.), I just wanted to point out the disparities between the two games and bemoan the ascendancy of the huck n hope, I guess. Yes, it makes for good viewing, but hell, I'd rather just win, ya know?
posted by Alex de Frondeville at 4:31 PM
5 Comments:
"although Jim and I remarked how easy it was to recognize people on the field by how they move, regardless of the fidelity of the video."
this is something that always shocks me. At tournaments where you can get a reasonable view of all of the fields, you can pick your teammates out immediately.
Some of them have weird flicks, some of them run really oddly. Some just look goofy no matter what part of them is moving.
I think there is some truth buried in there about how we recognize fellow humans (or even other familiar animals) but I'm not knowledgeable/bored enough to unpack and investigate.
That is probably the main objection that I have to much of the Ultivillage footage in that it is often very hard to see what is happening away from the disc. It almost seems like they should have had a crows nest video also, and used the closeup stuff more for the replays on good plays.
I completely agree, but for the most part Rob is standing on top of a ladder (non-Nationals events). No idea how much those scaffolds cost, but they can't be cheap and they can't be cheap to lug around. We'll get there though.
1995 Open Finals:
DoG over Sockeye, 21-10
Three turnovers in 31 points of Ultimate.
2007 Masters Finals:
DoG Masters over Troubled Past, 15-9
Three turnovers in 24 points of Ultimate.
degs: Don't get me wrong. I love the work Rob is doing. But I feel that even alone and standing on a top of a ladder he could zoom out a little more. I'm talking more about capturing the flow rather than the individual plays. With a multi-camera setup, I think that should be de rigueur. With a single camera, I guess he is determining that if he has to pick one or the other, people want the exciting plays more than the flow. That would be an interesting poll to do somewhere.
ben h.: You meant to say DoG Masters over Surly 15-9. More importantly, what is the observation you are trying to make? That we have lost our efficiency because we didn't have TWO turnovers in fewer points?
I wish there had been video of our quarters and semis games also. Those were incredibly exciting games where we were down in both halves. I would be curious to see how the defensive stats and turnover stats for those games played out. Even given the closeness of the score, I recall very few MTPs in quarters or semis, although our O definitely gave up more points in each game.
I thought Dave H was being complimentary.
And as I pointed out elsewhere, the parallels are even bigger. All three turnovers were by the O, the D played an unremarkable if not below average defensive game, and the D scored every time they got it. (I guess there is another parallel to the 2002 semi, with all three turns by the O again, albeit with 3 breaks there, vs 2 in 2007 and 1 in 1995.)
I guess my newfound conclusion is that you win games with defensive offense, provided you can get some turnovers.
Post a Comment
<< Home