Dream Cup Results
TheDangerousNacho
Dream Cup besides knowing that Buzz beat Sockeye. I've tried looking
at a couple of the Japanese sites, but seeing as I have very limited
knowledge of Kanji it is making things difficult. So does anyone know
any of the other results?
Ray Illian
Just got back from Japan this morning, so I can chime in on the open
division, although I am hazy on some of the details. I suspect a more
detailed recap of the action and updates on the sockeye site will
follow shortly on (although a good portion of Sockeye is still in
Japan).
The tournament was huge in terms of number of teams (120+) and in
terms of the site. Each round was 50 minutes long (excluding the
finals) and you played to the time cap, not to a point cap. In one
particular match, the game ended mid point as the horn blew. Excluding
the finals, most of Sockeye's games ended to the tune of 15-4 or so,
with the most we scored being 18. I know that Fury had at least one
game where they scored 21. This format allowed 7-8 rounds per day and
we usually had 2-3 byes between games.
I'm fuzzy on the open tournament format, but I believe after the
college play-in bracket on Friday it was a 64 team single elimination
bracket over 2 days, with us and the Buzz Bullets on opposite sides of
the bracket. The Buzz Bullets absolutely crushed their opponents in
the games that I witnessed. I had heard from someone that the
disparity between BB and the rest of teams was so immense that
previous Dream Cups had low crowd attendances for the finals because
it was always such a trouncing.
I'm also fuzzy on team names and how everyone did, but I know we
played Vigi (masters team) in the semi finals (see Ultivillage's
COTD). They were skilled with the disc and ran hard, I suspect they'd
do quite well in the UPA master's division.
The finals was played a little differently, it was played to 15 or to
a 100 minute time cap, which ever happened first. This game drew a
large crowd and we were definitely not the crowd favorites (just in a
home team sense). The Buzz Bullets came out in their usual fine tuned
manner. We capitalized on a few mistakes by them early on to take half
8-6. They ran a transition zone for most of the first half. The second
half was almost all zone by them (I suspect we connected on enough
hucks to force them to change things up), despite the wind not really
being much of a factor. But with their smarts and speed, they don't
need wind to make their zone effective. They capitalized on some
mistakes by us, and also forced a number of turnovers with excellent
team defense and head's up play. It came down to 13-13, double game
point as the hard cap went off, with us pulling. They easily marched
the disc down and scored to take the game.
I was most impressed with their offense. They don't run anymore of a
"motion offense" than the top American/Canadian teams (I'd call it a
patient dump-swing-huck offense), but what struck me the most was
their decision making and execution. They used their speed to force
the defense to commit one way (say under or away), and would then
exploit this. Their hucks for the most part were pinpoint, and once
they had 3 steps on you, you weren't going to catch up to them.
Despite us knowing who their main throwers were, they did a good job
of being patient and waiting for the right opportunity to huck when
the marker was at a disadvantage or not present.
That's all I got for now, perhaps with some sleep I can comment
further.
Ray Illian
Seattle Sockeye #99
Gambler
the IC Ultimate blog if you're interested in reading more:
http://icultimate.blogspot.com/
seanc
> I just wrote a recap of the trip (mainly from Fury's perspective) for
> the IC Ultimate blog if you're interested in reading more:
great write-ups, gwen and ray!
thanks for the recaps and insights. can't wait for the ultivillage
footage and very much looking forward to worlds.
sean
Knappy
amazing event.
Not to stir any pots, but I would love to hear Fury/Sockeye players'
thoughts on this statement:
"The UPA has determined its bid goes to the winner of the UPA Club
Championships the year before and that team can add up to three
"ringers" on its roster for Worlds (a clause I don't think either
Sockeye or Fury are going to use this year)."
Gambler
If you're wondering about why the UPA chooses to send the winner of
nationals from the year before instead of an all-star team, these are
some potential reasons:
--the US teams have typically done well at WUGC and remained
competitive against other countries' all-star teams
--the expense and burden of selecting a US National team for all 6
divisions (the US currently only does this for the juniors girls and
boys and sends club teams for women's, open, mixed, and masters) has
not seemed worth having a stacked roster
--an all-star team would likely be unable to practice much together
and could fare more poorly than a club team that can practice together
regularly
All that said, there may come a time in the not so distant future
where a US club team won't be able to keep up with international all-
star teams and the UPA should consider changing its model.
If you're wondering about why the UPA allows teams to add up to three
"ringers," I'm not sure. The team is allowed to take anyone from its
2007 or 2008 UPA Series roster without counting in the ringer clause.
Fury hasn't added anyone to its Worlds roster besides those Series
players in 2000, 2004, or 2008, and I think that we were only
considering it for this year mainly in the context of picking up
players that had already played for Fury (in 2005 or 2006, for
instance). If one of the major advantages of sending a club team as
opposed to an all-star team is that you all get to be on the same page
and practice together, it doesn't make much sense to add ringers who
wouldn't be able to make the majority of practices or who wouldn't
already know your offense, defenses, and plays. Plus, those ringers
would likely be from your team's main competition...
My take on it,
Gwen
Rob
to pick up 5 out of region players from across the country. From what
I understand they do this in order to provide world's experience to
players who can then bring this back to their teams and help raise the
caliber of play nation wide. Plus we just want to beat you yanks. John
Hassel is good.
Rob
Knappy
ringers" clause. Some might argue that the US teams should take
advantage of this clause, with Japan's best now "catching up" to the
North American teams & the Canadian team's 5 ringer mandate.
Alternatively, as you wrote: "it doesn't make much sense to add
ringers who
wouldn't be able to make the majority of practices or who wouldn't
already know your offense, defenses, and plays."
Just wanted to hear thoughts on this. I really want to see the US
teams win at worlds. Sockeye & Fury are representing the US---my gut
feeling is that adding 3 superstars from other teams would be an
advantage.
Parinella
some ringers (Masters is allowed up to 5). Even though we're in a
different boat with respect to players being able to make the majority
of practices (we'll have only a few practices but will go to at least
three tournaments) and being part of the main competition (we're using
our 1994 playbook, so it's not like we'll be revealing any secrets),
we still have a concern about the players being able to fit in.
On a side note, because of the "on 2007 or 2008 roster" clause, the
effective pool of non-ringers is larger than the normal roster. Our
team typically had a turnover of 3-7 players each year.
Red
in the previous series? Also, isn't the 2008 roster basically
infinite, because Worlds is before any rosters are due for the series?
Meaning you could pick up whoever you felt like, and then just say
they got cut before your series roster is due.
Parinella
The UPA enforces this by saying anyone who isn't on the 2007 or 2008
fall roster and isn't listed as a ringer is ineligible to play on
someone else's team in 2008 fall. So yeah, if you want to screw
someone, you can pick them up for Worlds and then cut them and they
can't play with anyone else.