Chat with Mario O'Brien • hiveultimate.com

mario1 I asked Mario O’Brien what he thought of Hex strategies and had some positive back-and-forth with him. Mario is the Founder/CEO of RISE UP Ultimate + ULTACADEMY; Seattle Sockeye & Cascades O-handler; 2-time Manager Team USA Beach; SOTG gold medalist; International and local coach; and Team ERIC Coach), and he recently did an “Ask Me Anything” on /r/ultimate/:

[–]felix37 8 points 5 days ago

What are your thoughts on the hybrid Flexagon defence and flow-based Hex offence strategies? Or, if you’ve not heard about or seen them before, what’s your impression?

[–]riseupmario[S] 5 points 2 days ago*

hey felix I’ve taken a dive into your theories/ideas/structure several times. in general my impression is this (honesty/bluntness coming)…

it looks awesome. you’ve really gone to a lot of thinking through the pros/cons/strengths weaknesses. I really love the concepts and I can see the ‘why’ behind the what. which means you built it well.

that said, my honest impression, if you’re asking… Generally I think your offensive and defensive concepts would break down as soon as you put 7 elite players on the field against them, whether offensively or defensively.

Your O structure vs. zone is the closest to being great… It’s very very close to what many elite teams and players already do. 2 handlers, wings that spread the field, 3 downfield targets… So good job there.

But your O against person to person D, not gonna work IMO, doesn’t create space well, elite defenders too smart at limiting options, pressuring teams into tough situations.

Your D structure is basically Madison’s zone D look and IS very effective. so, you might say… madison Radicals are sweet! look how far they got in AUDL! to which my counterpoint would be… go back and look how much of their zone they played against us (Cascades, all elite competent players) in the audl semi. it was not a lot… and my guess is because they suspected we could pick it apart, which we also did when we played madison earlier this year at US open. To be clear the beat us at US open, they played better and earned it, but they did not beat us specifically with their zone, i felt like we sliced it pretty well. In the AUDL semifinal they stimied us so well for most of that game… but it wasn’t their 232 zone look, it was rhythm distractions and flash poaches and double teams. They crushed us, had a great plan, eventually we figured it out and minimized our errors.

In general, elite players pick apart zones or things that operate like zones. period. watch how much zone D you see in elite northamerican club. almost none (junk transition to man is not zone).

So yea, there you go, hope that was what you were looking for… really looking forward to some back and forth here cuz I can tell you really think through the game well and have some ideas that could really push the boundaries of the sport, and I really appreciate what you do with all the info you put out and the leading you do. would love to collab sometime.

[–]felix37 1 point 2 days ago

Hey Mario, thanks for the thorough response! Also keen for some back and forth and potential collab in the future.

I’d say Flex is more like a junk transition to smart man, than a zone. Recently when explaining it I’ve been playing down the 2-3-2 structure as it’s not applicable in the majority of situations – positions are entirely dependant upon how the offense are positioned. Flex is like hard person-D where you’re also heads-up and constantly looking for switches and sandwiches – all of your team is, all the time – and communicating about it non-stop. I feel this type of defence hasn’t been explored anywhere near as much it could be, or as much as it deserves to be – so even elite players picking it up would have to train ‘the basics’: dynamic sandwiching, pre-emptive switching, verbal & non-verbal communication – before they could start to reach their potential as a team. Perhaps players and coaches shy away from principle-based strategies because they are less black & white than rule-based strategies (don’t get broken, don’t get beaten open side), so harder to break down & give definitive analysis/feedback? Or perhaps they simply haven’t been explored yet because the time hasn’t come.

What if an elite team was playing (well-trained) Flex against an elite offence? Switches and sandwiches, when done right, advantage the defence and disadvantage the offence. The elite O would need to position and move in such a way that doesn’t allow the elite Flex D to switch or sandwich, so that they keep sente / the advantage. This is where I believe Mex offence comes in – the answer to the question nobody asked (yet)! If both teams are elite/ideal, then offence always wins.

At a high level, Mex isn’t needed, as I agree stack offences work out fine against person-D or junk transition, and zones can be picked apart if the teams are balanced – so my focus has switched to defence in recent months. For beginners and developing players though, the maximised options and opportunities in Mex open up far more of the game than stack offences. Being presented with so many options means players decision-making, knowledge of their own skillset, field vision and far more are constantly tested, and they have a greater number of opportunities, both on and off-disc, to get involved & make a difference in the game on their own terms – so they learn & develop much faster.

Anyway, Mex is currently a nice theory but kinda unprovable, so I try to avoid going on about it too much. The ‘rhythm distractions’ and ‘flash poaches’ you speak of sound a lot like Flex – how a defence should change throughout the course of the stall count is another area I’m exploring (dictating the tempo), and when defenders should choose to switch unexpectedly (could be ‘flash poaching’). Interested to hear your thoughts about any/all of this!

[–]riseupmario[S] 1 point 2 days ago

overall yea it all sounds like it could work, just a matter of refining and testing it. I’m a true believer in the idea of ‘anything strategically can work if everyone’s on the same and it’s executed well’. Just gotta keep self-evolving as much as possible.

In general my idea on switching/sandwiching is that it can and does work, situationally, but defenses that get overly switchy are too risky and against smart cutters and great handlers/throwers… you’re setting yourself up for 1 throw that breaks the ice and then never catching up. Fact: most top elite handlers break any mark they want, even the best marks, so if you blow a switch and leave someone open for a split second, they get the disc and boom everyone’s scrambling to catch up… and if you switch at the wrong time when the thrower’s mark is out of position, it’s several easy throws in a row.

Again, not saying it can’t be done, just telling you what I see at the top… and I’d say Sockeye is as experimental as any team out there in terms of trying new/unconventional things… maybe Japan has us beat ;)

[–]felix37 1 point 1 day ago

Re: the “ice-breaker throw” and the offensive flow that follows it – I’m starting to figure out some of the root causes behind flow, and I believe the Flex principles counter a good number of them.

When a poaching defender is not actively marking a player (or sandwiching 2v2/3v3 etc), they are giving other defenders false signals – indications by their positioning that they could switch / sandwich, but these signals are a trap.

If a team mate trusts the poacher with a switch / sandwich (due to a lack of communication) and then the poached player receives the disc, the conned team mate is now in a very bad position. Whilst the poacher goes to put the force on, the offence can easily initiate flow with the free player who was originally being marked by the conned team mate – 2v1 around the poacher.

The Flex principle “cover all offensive players as a team” discourages poaching, so makes the ‘ice-breaker’ throw – or at least the following flow – less likely. When everyone is on the same page and sticking to the principles, the situation feels under control and the pressure builds repeatedly (with every stall count).

Yellow-shorts poacher identified. In the middle, I refuse to be conned, communicate, and tighten up – discouraging any subsequent flow. (Source)

TLDR; if one player in Flex poaches and doesn’t communicate, the ‘ice-breaker’ throw is likely to happen and flow to be initiated. However, if all defenders stick to the 3rd principle [ cover all offensive players as a team ], then flow has to be initiated by a different defensive error – or just good offensive play.

I’m finding out more about these different defensive errors & good offensive plays each time I play Flex with a team who are all on the same page, and it’s good fun!

[–]riseupmario[S] 1 point 1 day ago

sweet. can’t wait to play against it ;) or play in it sometime!

Chatting to Mario helped me clarify my thoughts on & for the first time verbalise how poaching causes the progressive collapse of Flex D. I’ve now incorporated this specific example into the Flex theory clinic – it now feels like there is a frame in place, and we’re no longer fumbling in the dark trying to figure out & define ‘smart defence’; we’re working out what fills the frame & where the holes are. The task for the first time feels relatively finite.

I’ve got a lot of time for Sockeye – I hung out with them a little in Prague during WUCC 2010, I love a team that knows how to play hard, party, and isn’t afraid to innovate on the field and openly discuss new strategies and tactics.

To read Mario’s full AMA click here, and be sure to check out his new ULTACADEMY project.

Oliver Radini says:

January 28, 2018 at 3:01 pm

Interesting to see some thoughts about these different kind of setups, but just saying “it wouldn’t work at ‘elite’ level” isn’t really helpful. The only slight bit of useful information as to why that might be is that elite players are too good at limiting options. Let’s say we go along with that 100%. So how do stack offences get around the problem that ‘elite’ players are especially good at limiting options? I can’t really see how a defender being good at limiting options implies that the offence should use a stack. We could easily say the complete opposite, and say that it implies a hex. There you have more options to use, so limiting them would be less effective?

As much as I love hex, I’m open to some good reasoning about why it might not work. I’m still waiting to hear anyone actually be able to defend stacks from a strategic point of view.

Chat with Mario O’Brien

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Recent Posts

Pages

Categories

Archive