Saturday, March 23, 2013

2013 PSP Dallas Layout

More so than usual the lynchpin to playing this layout is the offset Home [the Can in the pink field] because it played a key role both on the D-wire and across the field as the most effective contain and deny position on the field. And it was this tension that caused some teams to double the Can with regularity.
Note that all the doritos are positioned within one 12.5 foot wide column. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, for the support player to protect the wire lead when both players are in the doritos. And that means if you intend to try and contain your opponent's ability to push the D-wire support needs to be somewhere other than on the wire. The two primary support positions are the offset Home (Can) and the MT (at the 40' line.) Both are capable of contesting movement between the D2, D3 and the Fifty Dorito. (To counter that effort at containment Dynasty frequently pushed two players onto the D-wire giving them a two gun to one advantage in their attack.)
One result as the matches were played and the days passed was that teams used alternate positions to try and control D-wire movement. On the diagram you will see purple dots and arrowed lines from the other common bunkers used to contain D-wire movement and attack. At this point it's important to take note two things: the degree of difficulty involved in denying D-wire movement while staying alive and the Big Picture.
The Big Picture is the D-wire literally demanded to be the strong side of the field as it was a high risk decision to go strong side on the snake side as the extra numbers could very quickly turn the field down the D-wire without a comparable risk of the same happening on the snake side. And snake side attacks were further blunted when teams would commit a player in one of the alternate contain bunkers to play the crossfield lane(s).
Let's move on to snake side contain from the offset Home. With the technical snake populating the snake side of the field with low elevation props it made running the corner higher risk than normal and any review of the matches played indicates a number of teams almost abandoned running the corner OTB, choosing instead to fill it later or not at all. Take note of the pink zone between the two insert Aztecs. This is the zone we preferred to shoot from Home for a couple of reasons. Much of the time teams slow played the snake side because it was also their weak-side and that meant more often than not somebody was running or diving through that zone every breakout. Shooting that zone also meant any time a team attempted to get to the snake we were on that lane too--and we kept shooting the gap between the two Aztecs in order to slow the opponent's rotations. If Aztec one couldn't make his next bump then the Home couldn't fill so they either sat in the bunkers we wanted them in or they changed plans and/or gave us better opportunities to get eliminations from bigger more risky movements.

Now let's look at the counters. On the D-wire speed could kill. It could also win the race to the fifty. If one team is already in the bunker the opponent is left to decide when and how to attack but in the meantime doesn't have use of that position on the field--so the more aggressive the attack up the D-wire the better. (Although that too was eventually blunted by the numerous crossfield lanes being brought into play.) In dealing with the Home directly take a look at the top of the diagram and the positions designated in blue with blue arrows. In taking as primaries the Can or the MT or even the D1 it was possible to either delay or choose a path that allowed for shooting a lane back at the opponent's Home (Can) or into the gap between the Home and the doritos. Additionally an aggressive run to D1, staying on one's feet and wrapping the bunker allowed for a very aggressive attack on the Home or an opportunity to catch a player making the bump from Home up to the MT. Also, in filling either the snake corner or the second Aztec both positions had an immediate opportunity to attack the Home, especially if it was being doubled.

That's the foundation for how and why the layout played the way it did. If you have any additional questions post them up in comments or drop me a line in the mailbag and I'll answer as many as I can or at least I'll answer the good ones.


plovell29 said...

Did you find any A-play to be effective? Also, did you ever utilize the tall cake in the middle of the field to be an off-the-break bunker, and then a quick bump to a 40 or 50 line bunker? If so, what did you think of the move? Last question; it seemed like when someone made it to the snake corner they were able to be a big threat to any snake side bunker. Is it worth the risk to try and get there?

Baca Loco said...

When using the A as a primary or quick secondary the issue is always can you get a quick kill or kills. If not it's usually not worthwhile. On the Dallas layout it wasn't in the playbook.

Yes and yes. As an occasional change of pace and way to get an extra gun up OTB perhaps with the added option of a little misdirection when it came to a quick secondary it was okay.

Depends on how much of a risk you judged it to be. We ran a specific play to get a read on what lane(s) our opponents were shooting and found we could take the corner most of the time relatively safely. It also turned out not to be too difficult to take as a secondary.

Anonymous said...

Do you think Dynasty's win was a fluke, or are they back on top?

Did they do anything different with the layout that gave them an edge?

Baca Loco said...

No, the win wasn't a fluke but I also expect each event to be a real war. Teams can play very good paintball and still not win. The win means Dynasty is relevant again for sure.

Not really except when they got in trouble or needed fast points they attacked up the center and made it work repeatedly.

Anonymous said...

Billy was really missed on the snake side wasn't he? Anything else that you can really hit on that you'll be paying attention between now and MAO?

Would you have played Keith and Timmy Propst as much as they did in the finals (if you were still coaching Damage)?

Baca Loco said...

It's always a plus to have a seasoned pro available so on that count we missed Billy. Even so I thought we were competitive. Meter was solid, Jesse did a good job in spots and we mixed in some occasional Archie along with Zack.
Oh sure. It's a long list but it begins with cleaning up the tiny mental mistakes.

I've no intention of second guessing Kevin's choices. Lots of things may look "obvious" in hindsight. I will say one thing most fans and even our favorite talking heads seldom remark on is the absolute necessity of reliable consistent role players--and Timmy these days is the very definition of reliable consistent role player. In part because he's still just as capable of playing anywhere else on the field effectively as required.

Mike said...

Opinion on new look Impact?

And also are you surprised by Infamous' inspired play facing the adversity and roster issues they had? (Patient injured, Aviles had to miss the event, Siewers to Impact)

Baca Loco said...

Nope. :)

Maybe a little but it's not uncommon for teams facing adversity to pull it together and overcome--at least for a while.

If we ever see a truly fast field could be a different outcome.

Anonymous said...

Will we ever really see a "truly fast field" though? Seems like two guns in the corners crossed up shooting 13 pods is the style of the day (to the detriment of webcast watchers everywhere).

What would a "truly fast field" look like in your estimation, coach? I'm very curious, because I'd love to see the same thing. We were told that added bunkers and a shortened field would speed up games, but it seems as though it was a lukewarm effect.

Baca Loco said...

Fair question. As long as the "technical" snake continues to drive field design it will be difficult given that half the field is intended to be played on your knees or crawling.

sdawg said...

The other issue is just the matter of the Race-to 7 format. Matty and Co. on the webcast love to point out that statistically teams rarely recover from the dreaded 3-point deficit. That factor would support overly cautious, conservative play, because if your team takes too many risks, you could end up an insurmountable 3 points behind. With only two teams advancing from each bracket, slow play seems more prudent. With the "true X-ball" format of 20-minute halves and no score limit, teams could recover from a deficit and be willing to take more risks.

Baca Loco said...

Hard to disagree with that either but every breakout is fairly high risk and I remain convinced that sufficiently competent players can be taught to play a faster game.
Look at what Dynasty did in Dallas when they absolutely positively do or die take no prisoners had to have points. Regardless of other considerations they made it happen.