Pressure Defence

[UKLaxfan]

There was a great game last night in the NCAA Div I when Syracuse played Cornell in Ithaca, NY

This was a rematch of last years championship game and bizarrely followed similar lines, Cornell were 7-5 up in the 4th Quarter and Syracuse were putting pressure on the ball all over the field. Eventually Syracuse fought their way back into the game and scored the winner with 0.1 seconds left. Personally I believe the ball crossed the line after time had elapsed but the officials gave the goal, Syracuse wins 8-7.

There is a game recap available (FREE) at http://www.suathletics.com/showcase/#mediaarchive

In the clip they show a crucial turnover caused by Syracuse when the game was 7-7 and Cornell were stalling behind the Cuse goal, there are 4 Cornell players behind the cage and there are 4 Cuse defenders marking them sealing off all available outlet passes for the ball carrier who eventually turns over the possession.

This got me to thinking why don't more English teams play Pressure Defence?

I have watched a number of International games over the years and one common denominator when watching England play lacrosse is that they never cope well when playing against pressure defence. When a team extends it's defence and plays sideline to sideline and sealing off adjacent passes English players look really uncomfortable and lack for ideas how to break it down.

Obviously one main reason for this is that no teams in the Premiership play Pressure Defence but this makes no sense as players struggle to play against it Internationally.... So why is it that nobody wants to play that style?

1) Coaching:
Is it simply because most teams in the Premiership don't have a qualified Coach?
But even if they don't have a coach at all, surely the players who have International experience know how hard it is to play against and could bring it back to their Club team and domestic play?

2) Practice:
Is it because no team practices regularly enough or with all their 1st Team players present that they can't practice it in training and so don't risk it in games.

3) Athleticism:
Is it because no team is athletic enough to play Pressure Defence, the age profile of the Premiership in NEMLA is a lot different to that of NCAA Div I and so are the speed & fitness profiles?
Again though speed and fitness are relative in games in the Premiership, you don't have to be a NCAA Div I athlete as you are not playing against them, you just need to be faster & fitter than your opponent to play Pressure Defence successfully.

4) Risk Averse:
This is the saddest and also most likely answer to why mobody plays Pressure Defence.
Is it because nobody wants to try something different because if it doesn't work they will get shouted at for making mistakes, or even if they do try it for a little while and concede a couple of goals they will give up on it because they believe the System doesn't work rather than just a defender got beat that can happen in any game situation?

This may also be the reason why Teams don't play Zone Defence (6v6) or don't have different styles of offence.

The is an Inertia to change and a comfort in taking the path of least resistance.

IMHO this is why all the teams in the Premiership play the same homogenous style of lacrosse, soft defence and sliding from the crease & motion offence and dodging down the alley on attack.

Rochdale were the possible exception to this under Coach Richard Gartside and looked what happened to them
They got to the Flags Final beating Heaton Mersey (2nd in Prem) at Mersey on the way.

I hope more teams are willing to play different styles of lacrosse and challenge the status quo even if it is only so they have a Plan B when things are going against them

As for the International Game I hope England are practicing vs a Pressure Defence otherwise History will repeat itself, and all the work on offence will get thown out of the window once the actual games start because defences won't just sit back and let you play in Blue Group games.

Good Luck to the boys you've got your work cut out for you


PS: Highlight of Syracuse winning Goal and why you should play hard to the final whistle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqUiBoyr67Q

[Tom_Southampton]

When I got to shout about such things at Southampton I was really keen to be able to play a defence that was flexible enough to do that when needed, and was keen to play with back zones and the like. But without the same mid/d lineup each week you can't really make much progress. Add to this, without a coach (imo) to tell players they aren't doing things right and explain/bollock/bench them its hard to enforce on the feild.
I'm always suprised at how rarely when a team is down by 1-2 with a couple of minutes to play they are often happy for the opposition to keep the ball, it seems obvious to me that a slightly more 'cavalier' defense is worth while at that point.

[UKLaxfan]

When I got to shout about such things at Southampton I was really keen to be able to play a defence that was flexible enough to do that when needed, and was keen to play with back zones and the like. But without the same mid/d lineup each week you can't really make much progress. Add to this, without a coach (imo) to tell players they aren't doing things right and explain/bollock/bench them its hard to enforce on the feild.
I'm always suprised at how rarely when a team is down by 1-2 with a couple of minutes to play they are often happy for the opposition to keep the ball, it seems obvious to me that a slightly more 'cavalier' defense is worth while at that point.

It's not necessarily cavalier, you can chose your match-ups and where to press out on the field.

The best counter argument I've heard is there is no need to play Pressure Defence and that the opposition will simply throw the ball away anyway without pressure

this has some veracity but is a sad indictment of the standard of play in our game.

Like anything else the more you practice it the better you will become at it, but there has to be a will to try new styles of playing.

[webby]

I don't know much about the Prem, but from my experience...

Training - training once a week with varied players makes it difficult to instil a system, especially with players who have never played that system before. Things like pressure defence or zone defence need to be drilled into players heads, both on and off the field (e.g. watching videos, reading articles etc) which doesn't seem to happen. Being able to switch in and out of systems also needs a lot of practice with a team that gels.

Lack of a proper coach who can step out and look at things from the outside and offer advice/criticism/praise.

People stuck in a rut - players learn to play a system when they start playing lacrosse, and get so used to it that anything else is just alien and fails.

We suffer with all of the above. Anything other than man-on-man soft defence, either sliding from adjacents or through the crease, causes problems. Eve take away defence on the other team's weakest player causes problems!

Whenever I have played Ashton (either firsts or the A team) they always seemed to play a 6 v 6 zone in defence, which caused problems for our attack at first as we weren't used to it. A decent team will know how to break this up (e.g. switch into a 1-4-1), but Ashton never seemed to switch out of their zone to adjust, and according to the players I have spoken to, it is what they have always played and therefore what they're used to.

Even in attack we suffer instilling anything other than a 2-3-1 or 1-3-2 because people aren't used it. But then again, we're not a Premiership side

The best fluid adjustment of a system, whether offensive or defensive, I have seen this year has been Durham Uni, as they all understood what they needed to do and why, and were so well drilled it just happened without a hitch. Then again, in reference to the original topic, they were never in a situation where they needed to play pressure d!

[whopead]

Not training regularly and with different players doesnt help the cause

Risk is also definatley a factor as is sometimes why play pressure when we can stay tight and stop the feeding teams (of which there are a few in our division.

Giving up outside shots is usually the prefered option over being beaten at the crease.

Also with 13 players pressure defence can become very tiring quickly...less energy is expended with the slides.

[UKLaxfan]

Not training regularly and with different players doesnt help the cause

Risk is also definatley a factor as is sometimes why play pressure when we can stay tight and stop the feeding teams (of which there are a few in our division.

Giving up outside shots is usually the prefered option over being beaten at the crease.

Also with 13 players pressure defence can become very tiring quickly...less energy is expended with the slides.

The whole philosophy of Pressure Defense is to force the opposition into doing something they don't want to do, which creates turnovers. Once you have regained possession you can play your offense at any tempo you want.

if you face an opponent who has players who are poor stick handlers or who are slow and poor dodgers, and let's face it there are usually one or more of those on most teams, then instead of matching up your best defender with their best attacker which is what usually happens.

Your best defender matches up with their weakest player, this has two advantages
1) Your best defender can sit on the crease being the first slide as his man isn't a threat
2) When the opponents weakest player gets the ball, you can lock off the adjacent passes forcing him to try dodge your best defender or run away

The other time to use it is when the opponent is stalling and simply passing the ball around the outside not going to goal.
You can create a turnover with the domino effect, apply some pressure to the first pass, more pressure to the second pass leading to a rushed or poor pass until eventually the defender arrives at the attackman as the ball gets there and can make a stick or body check.

Anytime a team has more speed than an opponent or is fitter then they should use Pressure Defense as a weapon to take advantage of that.
You are daring the opponent to be able to run past you and go to goal, or if nothing else you are forcing them to run even if it's away from you.

If you play that style regularly throughout a game eventually the difference in fitness will show and you will give your team the best chance of success.

There is no point in being the fitter and faster team if you allow your opponent to play at walking pace, also playing slow down lacrosse will reduce the number of possessions in a game which in turn will lead to a lower scoring game.

There is much more chance of an upset if there are fewer goals in a game, it much more likely to cause an upset 5-4 rather than 19-18.

The aim of the game is to win by scoring more goals than your opponent not just to sit back and hope your opponent makes mistakes and turns the ball over. If you have an advantage in speed and fitness go out and prove it and play defense actively,

[greggyB_boardman]

Sheffield uni played a pressure defence against boardman in the semi, or at least at times.

And it worked with the sheffield winning quite comfortably in the end, mainly due to the turnovers boardmans attack gave up.

[6x6]

Pressuring the ball works well in basketball too and has the same goal as pointed out by UKlaxfan. Good teams that can employ a full court press disrupt the team from taking their time walking the ball up and then getting set in their normal offense. This creates turnovers and fast breaks.

Sure this may create easy baskets at times when the press is defeated but more often than not the team that is not used to handling the pressure will turn it over.

Next, not to change the subject but as Whopead brought it up, can someone please explain to this outsider why there is a 13 man rule? Is it that there are just not that many available players? Is it a matter of fairness? How long has this been in effect and will this limit ever be raised? From my undeducated view it seems as though having a 13 player cap would tend to limit growth of the game.

[whopead]

I believe it was voted for a while back. Standing around on the sidelines in the rain and cold didnt seem to be very p[opular. 13 players meant less standing around and more playing.

At least i think that is why this rule appeared.

[UKLaxfan]

Pressuring the ball works well in basketball too and has the same goal as pointed out by UKlaxfan. Good teams that can employ a full court press disrupt the team from taking their time walking the ball up and then getting set in their normal offense. This creates turnovers and fast breaks.

Sure this may create easy baskets at times when the press is defeated but more often than not the team that is not used to handling the pressure will turn it over.

Next, not to change the subject but as Whopead brought it up, can someone please explain to this outsider why there is a 13 man rule? Is it that there are just not that many available players? Is it a matter of fairness? How long has this been in effect and will this limit ever be raised? From my undeducated view it seems as though having a 13 player cap would tend to limit growth of the game.

I've been reading some old lacrosse magazines and there was a lot of opposition on going from 12-a-side to 10-a-side and later on from going from 10 Man teams to 13 Man Squads with substitutions.

Lacrosse in the UK is very much a players game and sitting on the sideline was seen as the ruination of the game by some.

There are still some who believe that it should have stayed as a 10-a-side game where fitness was very much a factor and midfielders played at both ends of the pitch.

[DanSawyer]

Old thread, but interesting topic!
On the 13 man squad point - playing in the South (no such rule) I remember playing on teams 16-18 players. Now that may be fine at the international level but we had no coach calling the shots and thew attackers and defenders played the whole game. At the start of each quarter the starting line-up came back on and the rest of us queued for a turn. People waited for so long that they determined to stay on for a while. The net effect was that you could quite easily sit out a whole quarter and by simple maths you can see that it was pretty easy to be on the pitch for considerably less than 10 minutes in a 80 minute game. This just wasn't worth taking most of Saturday away from my family to stand in the p***ing rain and was a large part of why I stopped playing for a couple of seasons.

Now that may be fair enough - they were training hard and did very well in league and flags with that system. But I used to dream of 13 man squads. I may not have made the team as often but when I did I'd have got more game time.

[laxwill11]

thats for teams to work out for themselves. the alternative is that with a 16 man team, but 13 man squad, 3 people dont get any gametime whatsoever (and probably leave the sport) - if regulated properly, everyone should get enough of a run out to make it worthwhile. if you're at the critical point of no-one really getting enough gametime, you're probably at the point of a 2nd team (which is exactly what happened at Cardiff)

[dmiddie]

The whole question of increasing squad sizes has been debated over and over again, but surely the benefits of having the ability to run larger squad sizes must outweigh the negatives? Lacrosse is an impact game, with sepecialist roles rather than multi-purpose.

Advantages
1. More able to have strategic plays, specialist players.
2. Fits with the 'international' game.
3. Helps clubs/ teams to 'accommodate' more players without having to try to run an extra team which gradually dies during the course of the season.
4. Allows the introduction of developing players on higher teams without the risk of over-exposure and pressure at higher levels.
5. Potentially faster, higher tempo games rather than the game slowing as the subs get tired!

Disadvantages
1. Less game time for some players.

If the rules were adapted to accommodate larger squad sizes from the 1st Team downwards it doesn't mean you have to use it!! Why is it that in tournaments, teams always utilise a larger squad size e.g. the Festival teams all played with more than 13 players even though they only played one game per day.

[DanSawyer]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that setup, just that it got in my way as an occasional player and it may be why the northern rules were changed. Ultimately the solution is to have proper bench management and specialist etc.

[UKLaxfan]

Pressure Defence (original topic) is one of many features of the game that can happen with larger squad sizes but can't happen with 13-a-side

One of the biggest differences between International Lacrosse and English Lacrosse is the pace of the game,

Pressure Defence
Motion Offence
Transition Lacrosse
Run & Gun
Two-man game / Cutting & Picking Off ball.

All these things have one thing in common, and that is all players need to be able to run when you are on the field.

One of the fail safes of English Lacrosse is everyone standing around and usually both teams calling "Hold" when they get the ball off on offense.

Larger squad sizes does not have to mean less Game Experience...

If managed correctly, your actual playing time on the field will be less

but the pace and speed of your running while on the field will be more

so you work harder and recover on the sideline not on the field.

The problems occur when you have increased squad size and yet you play and the same slow tempo, so at the end of the game
nobody feels like they have been part of the game. (or even needs a shower).

Watch Japan, USA, Canada (or the Aussies in last few games) and they are aggressive all over the field and push transition when they have the ball.

[young_trig]

UKlaxfan, I noticed at the worlds that all teams tending to clear the ball through their long-sticks and middies.
Many times I would see the goalkeeper prefer to pass a long ball to defender rather than take the ball forward themselves. It was always pretty much effective but there were times (such as Japan) when i felt that they put themsleves under pressure by passing the ball too much and staying back, rather than than the goalkeeper running it.

What are the main reasons for clearing the ball this way? Is it deemed that the goalkeeper coming forward is too much of a risk considering the pace of the counter-transition should they lose the ball?

[UKLaxfan]

UKlaxfan, I noticed at the worlds that all teams tending to clear the ball through their long-sticks and middies.
Many times I would see the goalkeeper prefer to pass a long ball to defender rather than take the ball forward themselves. It was always pretty much effective but there were times (such as Japan) when i felt that they put themsleves under pressure by passing the ball too much and staying back, rather than than the goalkeeper running it.

What are the main reasons for clearing the ball this way? Is it deemed that the goalkeeper coming forward is too much of a risk considering the pace of the counter-transition should they lose the ball?

The great thing about the World Games is that you can go back and review all the games at www.247.tv

I hadn't picked up on this specifically from the goalies perspective.

One thing I did notice with Japan was their willingness to give the pass to the man in front of them, pole-to-pole, SSDM-to-Pole or Pole-to-SSDM

The ball moves faster than the man. Japan played with a flair and a willingness to exploit transition that embodied the spirit of the game.

Canada in scrimmage games and in early rounds showed a willingness to give up a 10 yd shot for an 8 yd shot and to give up an 8 yd shot for a 5 yd shot.
the extra pass or the "One More" pass was a joy to behold and highlighted Canada's stick skills & ability to catch anything in traffic.

Ultimately as in all these strategies it's Risk vs Reward but you more you play them the lower the risk and the more likely their probability of reward.

On the clear like every other aspect of the game, if you can catch your opponent off guard you can exploit an advantage

[young_trig]

One thing I did notice with Japan was their willingness to give the pass to the man in front of them, pole-to-pole, SSDM-to-Pole or Pole-to-SSDM

The ball moves faster than the man. Japan played with a flair and a willingness to exploit transition that embodied the spirit of the game.

I noticed that too. Where most short-sticks will run the ball up the field, Japan would instead pass it forward, then catch up to the play and recieve the ball back. Quite often you would see them pass it from the defensive restrainer to an attacker running back from the offensive restrainer, who would then pass it to another forward moving player. 3 quick passes (forward, back, forward) and they would have created themselves a great off-set fast break oppurtunity. Reminded me very much of football players using passing triangles to get the player forward in a dangerous position.

It was also great to watch the subbing through the centre of midfield, rather than through the gate. I'd had it explained to me before but its always easier to understand when you can actually see it.

If only the worlds were on our doorstep every time!

[davewilliams]

I have watched a number of International games over the years and one common denominator when watching England play lacrosse is that they never cope well when playing against pressure defence. When a team extends it's defence and plays sideline to sideline and sealing off adjacent passes English players look really uncomfortable and lack for ideas how to break it down.

.. defences won't just sit back and let you play in Blue Group games.

USA put a full-field press on England during their group game and possession became hard to retain. Walls have ears, UKLF!

[DanSawyer]

Are there any decent explanations of the pressure defence, preferably with pretty pictures that the youth of today will be able to follow?
We've been working a backer zone at Chichester Uni but it's been pretty passive and I want to introduce more of an element of aggression to it!