After the UM game I have been trying to wrap my head around this years team... because what I witnessing is just not normal.
I have coached many of game.. youth 10-17U. On the girls side (which is as competitive as anything... just a different level). In the younger ages... I would employ at the beginning of the game a 1-3-1 full court trap press... to test the opponent on the coaching and the players physical ability to break that press. (youth coaches know what I am talking about). If the opponent could recognize and break that press... I would never run it again because it is the easiest 2 points that the O can get. If the opponent did not know how to break it.... Game Over!!.. We would just get out of it and go into practice mode. If the game got close... just jump back into that 1-3-1 full trap and have a 80% success of creating a turnover and get an easy 2. Just the way it is..
I also believed that mini streaks win and losses games... and that 2-3 good or bad possessions win or loose games. Competition is just that damn good in conference and tournament play. I would try to take advantage of the streaks .... and the positive possessions
Now that was our Strategy........ Right, wrong, or indifferent. It worked at that place and that time..... As the teams aged you could not get continue with that strategy for most kids were coached up... understood the court, spacing, and what it took to beat specific D's ..... so we had to use other strategies to compete.. Some worked... Some didn't.. Had to learn and move on..
I brought my wife, baby daughter, her husband, and my 1 1/2 year old Grandson to the OSU game and watched a clinic.... a blowout.. Execution was one of the best I have ever seen. We all were like.. seriously??? Not in BIG games... (which is why we picked that game to be competitive). OSU looked like a 5 grade team against HS Varsity.. It was like .. OSU wasn't prepared.......Ok move on...... then it was Illinois.... Like really??? Ok twice... Blowout.. That doesn't happen often but I call it lucky.. Then it is NW... That makes 3 Blowouts... That is a "3 is a charm".... and quite frankly unheard of in conference play... It just doesn't happen.. Three blowouts conference wins... ??????? I still am not buying it but... I like this team.......... I like this team a ton!!!
A 3 point OT road loss @ Wisky... Big Deal.. that is conference play.. I expect that.....
At UM.. Another Blowout.. 28-0 run... 26 point road lead and the "All 4.0" team is on the court (on a road game @ Ann Arbor which is unheard of) to finish the game. Hell .... the Senior Team Manger in uniform for two weeks was out there at the end of the game.....
Gent's.. This is not our average team and quite frankly... not an average coach... (and I am 100% neutral on CTC). This is a team strategy of Shock and Awe.. and a group that can pull it off that strategy.. They are proving that on the court... Period
Shock and Awe.... : (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.
OSU = What just happened
ILL = OK Happened again
NW = "we (NW) were just the next one up"
@UM = a Master Strategy
This is 2016 IUBB IMVHO!!!!! The team of "Shock and Awe" and a VERY GOOD STRATEGY by the coach who recognizes its plusses and negitives..
OSU lost it's will to fight
ILL lost it's will to fight
NW lost it's will to fight
UM........... OBVIOUS was lost..... and then lost it's will to fight.
Let's just see how this "punch you in the mouth in the first 5 minutes" strategy plays out in the rest of the year... but for now, I love it.
Please read this military definition of "Shock and Awe" and let me know where I am missing the boat...
Congrats CTC and Players!!
Shock and Awe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Shock and Awe (disambiguation).
Shock and awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.[1][2] The doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 and is a product of theNational Defense University of the United States.[2][1]
Doctrine of rapid dominance[edit]
Rapid dominance is defined by its authors, Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade, as attempting
"to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary to fight or respond to our strategic policy ends through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe."[3]
Further, rapid dominance will
"impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on... [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels."[4]
Introducing the doctrine in a report to the United States' National Defense University in 1996, Ullman and Wade describe it as an attempt to develop a post-Cold Warmilitary doctrine for the United States. Rapid dominance and shock and awe, they write, may become a "revolutionary change" as the United States military is reduced in size and information technology is increasingly integrated into warfare.[5] Subsequent U.S. military authors have written that rapid dominance exploits the "superior technology, precision engagement, and information dominance" of the United States.[6]
Ullman and Wade identify four vital characteristics of rapid dominance:[7]
The doctrine of rapid dominance has evolved from the concept of "decisive force". Ulman and Wade contrast the two concepts in terms of objective, use of force, force size, scope, speed, casualties, and technique.
Civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure[edit]
Although Ullman and Wade claim that the need to "[m]inimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front", their doctrine of rapid dominance requires the capability to disrupt "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure",[8] and, in practice, "the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."[9]
Using as an example a theoretical invasion of Iraq 20 years after Operation Desert Storm, the authors claimed, "Shutting the country down would entail both the physical destruction of appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown and control of the flow of all vital information and associated commerce so rapidly as to achieve a level of national shock akin to the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese."[10]
Reiterating the example in an interview with CBS News several months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Ullman stated, "You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2, 3, 4, 5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."[11]
Historical applications[edit]
According to its original theorists, shock and awe renders an adversary unwilling to resist through overwhelming displays of power. Ullman cites the atomic bombings ofHiroshima and Nagasaki(Nagasaki is pictured) as an example of shock and awe.
Ullman and Wade argue that there have been military applications that fall within some of the concepts of shock and awe. They enumerate nine examples:
I have coached many of game.. youth 10-17U. On the girls side (which is as competitive as anything... just a different level). In the younger ages... I would employ at the beginning of the game a 1-3-1 full court trap press... to test the opponent on the coaching and the players physical ability to break that press. (youth coaches know what I am talking about). If the opponent could recognize and break that press... I would never run it again because it is the easiest 2 points that the O can get. If the opponent did not know how to break it.... Game Over!!.. We would just get out of it and go into practice mode. If the game got close... just jump back into that 1-3-1 full trap and have a 80% success of creating a turnover and get an easy 2. Just the way it is..
I also believed that mini streaks win and losses games... and that 2-3 good or bad possessions win or loose games. Competition is just that damn good in conference and tournament play. I would try to take advantage of the streaks .... and the positive possessions
Now that was our Strategy........ Right, wrong, or indifferent. It worked at that place and that time..... As the teams aged you could not get continue with that strategy for most kids were coached up... understood the court, spacing, and what it took to beat specific D's ..... so we had to use other strategies to compete.. Some worked... Some didn't.. Had to learn and move on..
I brought my wife, baby daughter, her husband, and my 1 1/2 year old Grandson to the OSU game and watched a clinic.... a blowout.. Execution was one of the best I have ever seen. We all were like.. seriously??? Not in BIG games... (which is why we picked that game to be competitive). OSU looked like a 5 grade team against HS Varsity.. It was like .. OSU wasn't prepared.......Ok move on...... then it was Illinois.... Like really??? Ok twice... Blowout.. That doesn't happen often but I call it lucky.. Then it is NW... That makes 3 Blowouts... That is a "3 is a charm".... and quite frankly unheard of in conference play... It just doesn't happen.. Three blowouts conference wins... ??????? I still am not buying it but... I like this team.......... I like this team a ton!!!
A 3 point OT road loss @ Wisky... Big Deal.. that is conference play.. I expect that.....
At UM.. Another Blowout.. 28-0 run... 26 point road lead and the "All 4.0" team is on the court (on a road game @ Ann Arbor which is unheard of) to finish the game. Hell .... the Senior Team Manger in uniform for two weeks was out there at the end of the game.....
Gent's.. This is not our average team and quite frankly... not an average coach... (and I am 100% neutral on CTC). This is a team strategy of Shock and Awe.. and a group that can pull it off that strategy.. They are proving that on the court... Period
Shock and Awe.... : (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.
OSU = What just happened
ILL = OK Happened again
NW = "we (NW) were just the next one up"
@UM = a Master Strategy
This is 2016 IUBB IMVHO!!!!! The team of "Shock and Awe" and a VERY GOOD STRATEGY by the coach who recognizes its plusses and negitives..
OSU lost it's will to fight
ILL lost it's will to fight
NW lost it's will to fight
UM........... OBVIOUS was lost..... and then lost it's will to fight.
Let's just see how this "punch you in the mouth in the first 5 minutes" strategy plays out in the rest of the year... but for now, I love it.
Please read this military definition of "Shock and Awe" and let me know where I am missing the boat...
Congrats CTC and Players!!
Shock and Awe
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other uses, see Shock and Awe (disambiguation).
Shock and awe (technically known as rapid dominance) is a military doctrine based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight.[1][2] The doctrine was written by Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade in 1996 and is a product of theNational Defense University of the United States.[2][1]
Doctrine of rapid dominance[edit]
Rapid dominance is defined by its authors, Harlan K. Ullman and James P. Wade, as attempting
"to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary to fight or respond to our strategic policy ends through imposing a regime of Shock and Awe."[3]
Further, rapid dominance will
"impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on... [to] seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels."[4]
Introducing the doctrine in a report to the United States' National Defense University in 1996, Ullman and Wade describe it as an attempt to develop a post-Cold Warmilitary doctrine for the United States. Rapid dominance and shock and awe, they write, may become a "revolutionary change" as the United States military is reduced in size and information technology is increasingly integrated into warfare.[5] Subsequent U.S. military authors have written that rapid dominance exploits the "superior technology, precision engagement, and information dominance" of the United States.[6]
Ullman and Wade identify four vital characteristics of rapid dominance:[7]
- near total or absolute knowledge and understanding of self, adversary, and environment;
- rapidity and timeliness in application;
- operational brilliance in execution; and
- (near) total control and signature management of the entire operational environment.
The doctrine of rapid dominance has evolved from the concept of "decisive force". Ulman and Wade contrast the two concepts in terms of objective, use of force, force size, scope, speed, casualties, and technique.
Civilian casualties and destruction of infrastructure[edit]
Although Ullman and Wade claim that the need to "[m]inimize civilian casualties, loss of life, and collateral damage" is a "political sensitivity [which needs] to be understood up front", their doctrine of rapid dominance requires the capability to disrupt "means of communication, transportation, food production, water supply, and other aspects of infrastructure",[8] and, in practice, "the appropriate balance of Shock and Awe must cause... the threat and fear of action that may shut down all or part of the adversary's society or render his ability to fight useless short of complete physical destruction."[9]
Using as an example a theoretical invasion of Iraq 20 years after Operation Desert Storm, the authors claimed, "Shutting the country down would entail both the physical destruction of appropriate infrastructure and the shutdown and control of the flow of all vital information and associated commerce so rapidly as to achieve a level of national shock akin to the effect that dropping nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had on the Japanese."[10]
Reiterating the example in an interview with CBS News several months before Operation Iraqi Freedom, Ullman stated, "You're sitting in Baghdad and all of a sudden you're the general and 30 of your division headquarters have been wiped out. You also take the city down. By that I mean you get rid of their power, water. In 2, 3, 4, 5 days they are physically, emotionally and psychologically exhausted."[11]
Historical applications[edit]
According to its original theorists, shock and awe renders an adversary unwilling to resist through overwhelming displays of power. Ullman cites the atomic bombings ofHiroshima and Nagasaki(Nagasaki is pictured) as an example of shock and awe.
Ullman and Wade argue that there have been military applications that fall within some of the concepts of shock and awe. They enumerate nine examples:
- Overwhelming force: The "application of massive or overwhelming force" to "disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy militarily impotent with as few casualties to ourselves and to noncombatants as possible."
- Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The establishment of shock and awe through "instant, nearly incomprehensible levels of massive destruction directed at influencing society writ large, meaning its leadership and public, rather than targeting directly against military or strategic objectives even with relatively few numbers or systems."
- Massive bombardment: Described as "precise destructive power largely against military targets and related sectors over time."
- Blitzkrieg: The "intent was to apply precise, surgical amounts of tightly focused force to achieve maximum leverage but with total economies of scale."
- Sun Tzu: The "selective, instant decapitation of military or societal targets to achieve shock and awe."
- Haitian example: "Imposing shock and awe through a show of force and indeed through deception, misinformation, and disinformation."
- The Roman legions: "Achieving shock and awe rests in the ability to deter and overpower an adversary through the adversary's perception and fear of his vulnerability and our own invincibility."
- Decay and default: "The imposition of societal breakdown over a lengthy period, but without the application of massive destruction."
