|
Re: [EWCP] Presents TwentyFour -- An FRC Statistics Blog
A reason you never see a strong, methodical defense develop is because defense is typically a tertiary objective for powerhouse teams and an emergency, all-or-nothing fallback for weaker teams.
Those that have the ability to play a multidimensional defense now choose to make as many offensive plays as possible, and those that "choose" to play defense are usually forced out of there intended strategy based on design choices that resulted in a robot too weak to play either side of the ball.
Another reason would be that when comparing the offense and defense in conventional sports to FRC, there are key differences in how you attack strategy. In a 3 on 3 ultimate frisbee game, there is one game piece, one goal for each team, and no other objective besides "put the game piece in your goal more than the other guys do for their goal" over a long lapse of time. In Ultimate Ascent, there are over 100 game pieces, four goals for each team, a time and resource-consuming secondary objective irrelevant to the primary, and must be played in a compressed period of time.
If you're developing a strategy that needs to be relevant in late round qualifications at CMP, you don't think "Man, we need to play some KILLER defense." Your strategy guys figure out how to score the most amount of points with the least amount of interference from the opposition. An FRC game has restrictions and key differences that make defense less than a red-headed stepchild in strategy discussions.
Good teams can build a robot to execute a desirable defensive strategy, but the parameters of an FRC game would coerce those teams to build a robot more geared towards putting up a lot of points efficiently.
|