Statistics and play by play from US-Russia team sabre.
In a clear demonstration that I need to get a life, I watched the US-Russia Team Sabre match last night. Below are my notes. Please note that my recording begins with the score US 9, Russia 14.
Conventions:
A. Attack-short; B. riposte indicates an immediate riposte with minimal footwork (perhaps a flunge).
A. Attack-short; B attack indicates a longer attack begun after a short attack by the opponent.
Tempo-attack indicates an attack where both fencers attacked and there was very little time separating the start of the attacks. Where I felt it was clear who attacked first, I just note the attack.
Overall statistics:
Total actions: 85
Simultaneous actions: 19
Total touches: 66
Touches: US 35; Russia 31
Parry-ripostes: US 3; Russia 5
Attack or riposte after opponent’s short attack: US 7; Russia 6
Attack: US 12 ; Russia 7
Tempo attack: US 6; Russia 10
Close-out: US 1; Russia 3
Attack in prep: US 6; Russia 0.
Play by play:
(Start in the middle of the Lee-Yakimenkov bout)
US 9 Russia 14
Yak short, Lee prepares, Yak counter-attacks, Lee: 5-parry-riposte. Touch Lee.
Probably the most elegant touch in the bout.
US 10 Russia 14
Simultaneous.
Simultaneous.
Yak attack. Touch Yak.
US 10 Russia 15
(Rogers v. Charikov)
Charikov: direct attack. Touch Charikov.
US 10 Russia 16
Rogers tempo-attack. Touch Rogers. (Very difficult to see any advantage on Slo-Mo).
US 11 Russia 16
Simultaneous (looks like it should have been Charikov’s on Slo-Mo).
Charikov short-Rogers long attack. Touch Rogers.
US 12 Russia 16
Rogers short-Charikov attack. Touch Charikov
US 12 Russia 17
Rogers short; Charikov prepares; Rogers attacks in prep. Touch Rogers
US 13 Russia 17
Rogers short; Charikov attacks. Touch Charikov
US 13 Russia 18
Simultaneous
Simultaneous
Rogers attack.
US 14 Russia 18
Charikov short; Rogers attack/Charikov counter-attack (Rogers was VERY late finishing the attack—dubious call). Touch Rogers.
Sabreur -- so that's where you disappeared to. I had the feeling I didn't sell you on the sabre+hand theory in the other thread.
This is great work, and it's exactly the sort of thing that's useful for making analyses. I want something like this for men's foil. I think I'll try to make a worksheet so fencing-watchers (coaches, type-a personalities like me) can make checkmarks in a grid as they watch the fencing.
I did something like this for some of my students. Parry riposte (_) missed (_) hit location: ______, (_) score. It was VERY helpful.
Since you just went through this exercise, Sabreur, let me know if you have any ideas for how to structure the worksheet.
Also, if there was this kind of commentary during the bouts during slow-motion replays, it would make pretty good television.
Exactly! I had a guy at work today that knows I fence, who when we were in a meeting said that he really enjoyed watching the fencing -- he had never seen it before, and thought it was exciting. What he said that he liked most about it was the slo-mo replays, because from those he started to understand it.
Sabreur -- so that's where you disappeared to. I had the feeling I didn't sell you on the sabre+hand theory in the other thread.
This is great work, and it's exactly the sort of thing that's useful for making analyses. I want something like this for men's foil. I think I'll try to make a worksheet so fencing-watchers (coaches, type-a personalities like me) can make checkmarks in a grid as they watch the fencing.
I did something like this for some of my students. Parry riposte (_) missed (_) hit location: ______, (_) score. It was VERY helpful.
Since you just went through this exercise, Sabreur, let me know if you have any ideas for how to structure the worksheet.
Walter,
You need a way to categorize the actions leading up to the touch. I was sort of making my list up as I watched--I think I ended up with five or six different options:
Attack short, immediate riposte.
Attack short, long attack.
Attack.
Tempo-attack.
(Blade) parry-riposte.
Close-out.
Attack in preparation.
If I was generalizing for sabre, I'd add:
Point in line.
Beat/pris de fer.
Stop cut.
I didn't report any of these in the U.S.-Russia match, because I didn't see any that affected a touch.
For foil, it would be much more complicated, I think, because the preparation is so much more complicated--at least it appears that way to me.
It is very useful to see patterns emerging from touch to touch. For instance, in the Lee-Podz bout, there was one touch where Lee was short, Podz prepared and Lee scored on an attack in prep. The next touch, Lee was short, Podz prepared, Lee attempted an attack in prep, and Podz parried and riposted. To me, that indicates that Podz was ready when the same situation developed during the second point, expecting that Lee would again try the attack in prep. At lower levels, you probably could see the same pattern repeating itself several times--what is interesting at the top level is that both fencers change their approach so quickly.
Cheers, MR
Why sabre? Because you don't take heads with the point.
Hmm... Maybe Lee should have anticipated the false prep second intention by Podz and expected the parry-riposte.
What're people's suggestion for a solution? I'd say, counter-parry counter-riposte is too risky. Maybe a feint-disengage. Maybe another short attack in prep (which can then lead to a counter-parry counter-riposte with just a bit less risk).
I'm trying to make a quick-but-useful job of this, for the first draft.
Idea: A "bout worksheet." A person watching a bout can quickly record all actions, without having to rewind the video or ask the fencers to repeat what they did.
Conventions: Some icons and some text. After the first dozen actions, the sheet should be self-explanatory, so we don't want it weighted down with how-to's. Intuitive. Some text / icons will be gray, so the user can hurriedly mark over them (this will hurt photocopying). User can make their own conventions for using the worksheet.
Top of page:
Row 1: "BOUT SHEET", tournament name, date
Row 2: Weapon, Category (WS, MF, U-19 MF), Round (pool, 32, 16, 8...)
Row 3: Fencer left (+seed, country), Fencer right (+seed, country)
Row 4..n: The hard part, the per-action recording.
It will look a bit like this:
Split in two columns, actions from LEFT, actions from RIGHT.
(In the middle of the column split, a representation of the strip. User can hastily draw arrows showing starting/ending positions of fencers.)
(In the middle of the colunn split, a "(_) Simultaneous" box to show simul outcomes.)
On each side of column split (one for each fencer), the following inputs:
(_) Touch (touch awarded for this fencer?)
(_)(_) Lights (lights turned on)
(_) Target hit (representation of opposite fencer. Can be a dot (tip-hit), slash (cut), or a word ("wrist"))
Describing the actions -- user can put in one or more checkmarks for each section, to describe what happened from a fencer.
Foot actions: (just offensive, retreating is assumed)
(_) Short Attack
(_) Long attack
(_) March attack
(_) Attack ŕ tempo
(_) Attack fell short
Hand actions:
Offensive
(_) Direct
(_) Prise du Fer (offensive bind, coulé &etc.)
(_) Beat
(_) Feint {size: Sm Med Lg Huge} {feint to: ______}
Defensive (e.g., against an attacker)
(_) PiL (point in line)
(_) Parry
(_) Riposte
(_) Closeout (bind)
(_) Stoptime (stop hit, countertime)
Hit type:
(_) Hit (standard tip-hit or cut)
(_) Flick
(_) au Fer (through steel, wraparound or insistence thru parry)
(_) Remise
Lastly, each action will have a comment section to the right of the page.
I have it mostly layed out, am I missing anything?
Lastly, each action will have a comment section to the right of the page.
I have it mostly layed out, am I missing anything?
And someone fussed at me in the Water Cooler about how singing 'Amazing Grace' to the tune of the 'Gilligan's Island' theme was too much brain-strain...
Seriously, nifty idea to track something inherently difficult to track. Kudos to you! *toddles off to find something for a brain-strain-induced headache*
Seriously, nifty idea to track something inherently difficult to track. Kudos to you! *toddles off to find something for a brain-strain-induced headache*
Well, the idea was to make it a no-brainer. A coach/trainer/spy could carry around a whole notepad of these sheets, and quickly jot down the actions for easy review later.
I made DRAFT 1 (attached), and used it at an impromptu practice today. I was directing, and I tried to mark things down while making the call. (The simultanii were the easiest!)
The touch/lights section works fine. The "fencing strip" works nicely. It was even easy to mark where the hit landed on the fencer.
There were two main problems -- (1) the hand/foot actions are impossible to fill in quickly. (2) it doesn't show the sequence of actions.
Looking at my filled-out sheet, I notice that one side or the other is filled in. I think I'll have one set of foot/hand actions, and mark off whether fencer left or right did it. One row for attack, one row (optional) for defense. It's the concluding action that we're interested in anyway. That should allow more rows per sheet.
Well done, it looks really polished. (Not "Polished", as in made stupid, but "polished", as in smoothed out to perfection. If you were wondering.)
Only thing-did you find that alot of the actions were the same? I often use the same action at least 3 times during a bout, and against someone of lesser ability, as many as 10. Did you find this to be the case, or is it just my fencing level?
Only thing-did you find that alot of the actions were the same? I often use the same action at least 3 times during a bout, and against someone of lesser ability, as many as 10. Did you find this to be the case, or is it just my fencing level?
A lot of the actions indeed were the same... but then, the fencers were practicing certain things. I think it's okay: We're looking for patterns (actions that repeat), and also looking for subtle differences in the actions. In the end, it will be nice to know what Fencer A uses against fencers similar to Fencer B, and what the variations might be.
The problem with draft1 fill-out form was that I spent waaay too much time checking off attack, long attack, hits direct, with point. All this stuff is almost the default for most actions. The really useful info is like: target hit, lights turned on, size and direction of feints (the big-hand ones). I tried to address this in the next version.
DRAFT 2 is attached, a more streamlined version. Still has problems and typos. Feedback welcomed!
I like the bout sheet you have designed and commend you for doing this. I can see using something like this when scouting opponents in foil. One thing that I like to watch for is sequences of feints (and whether they employ coupes or disengages when changing lines) when my opponents are attacking and parry patterns when they are on defense. I suppose these can be noted in the blank area on the right.
Another thing that you might add is whether or not the fencer fenced with absense of blade. I expect that you would uncover different patterns when they do and when they don't.
If you see my little red rooster, please drag him home
If you see my little red rooster, please drag him home
There ain't no peace in the barnyard,
Since the little red rooster been gone
I didn't want to thread-jack with the fill-in form. I'll be starting a new thread when I have a new version. Back to the stats...
Overall statistics:
Total actions: 85
Simultaneous actions: 19
Total touches: 66
Touches: US 35; Russia 31
Parry-ripostes: US 3; Russia 5
Attack or riposte after opponent’s short attack: US 7; Russia 6
Attack: US 12 ; Russia 7
Tempo attack: US 6; Russia 10
Close-out: US 1; Russia 3
Attack in prep: US 6; Russia 0.
I started to gather some statistics on this match from the action-list, but it's all covered here. Pretty darn thorough job. Unscientific:
Total actions, 85. The various outcomes of doubling-out (simultaneous, tempo attacks awarded): 19+6+10 = 35, or ~41% of touches scored. I can see how this leads to the perception of crash-crash among non-fencing viewers.
In this team bout, tempo attacks amounted to ~18% of touches, e.g. nearly 1-in-5 touches were "subtle" or required adjudication from the director. I put this percentage down to the nature of the strategies employed by USA and Russia.
77% of actions lead to a touch being awarded, and this is probably better than foil. With the reduced block-timing, I'm sure this percentage will rise (for better or worse). The commentators and viewers (and the MSN article writer?) really want fencers to get the touches displayed by the box, and in that sense at least the box-timing it will be an improvement for viewability.
Attack/defense ratios
USA Parry ripostes+Close-out, 4, USA attacks 7+12+6+6=31. 8-to-1 rate on attack vs defense outcomes (unknown in regards to actions attempted). Russia Parry ripostes+Close-out, 8, Russia attacks 6+7+10=23. 3-to-1 rate on attack vs defense outcomes (unknown in regards to actions attempted).
It looks like Russia used its hand to negate strong USA attacks, and the USA played its strong game of attacking. Russia found zero of USA's preparations attackable, even though the USA was attacking 30% more often. Russian attacks were weak -- 6 attacks were hit on prep, and 23 got thru(?), so 6/(6+23 attempts) = 20% failure rate of attacks.
If these stats are an indicator, USA could bring up its strength with the hand. USA foot is already much better than Russia.
More on attacks:
Russia scored 6 by pulling distance and letting USA fall short. Of 12+6 attempted USA attacks, Russia caused 33% to fall short. USA scored 7 by letting Russia fall short. Of 7+7 Russian attempted attacks, USA caused 50% to fall short. (Supports USA athleticism notion.) (Also, these two stats, Attacks+Pulled-distance don't necessarily line up.)
This might also indicate that Russia was allowing more attacks, so to allow hand-solutions (where it had an edge). It might mean that USA is better than Russia at finding / making opportunities to attack, and that Russia was required to use the hand. Based on the stats, hand solutions are certainly less useful than foot solutions (but more useful to Russia than USA).
I'm not sure if I was right about the "finer sense of tempo" from European opponents. Certainly, Russia out-tempo'd USA 2:1, but attacks on prep also require some finesse. USA's nice attack on preparation result, however, could indicate hesitancy during Russian attacks. Actual tempo attacks are a head-to-head test of tempo where Russia came out ahead.
This is all skewed because (1) I put actions against each other that might not line up, and (2) we're missing 14 Russian touches, and 9 USA touches. Nonetheless, it's interesting to look at.
In all, these data seem to support USA as a team with good athleticism (foot) and attacks. Russia knew the game it had to play -- certainly in the last bout Smart vs Pozdniakov, you can see the Poz (tired? tactically smart?) eliminating the actions that he didn't want to fence with. The "degradation" strategy. At 41-41, he finishes like a craftsman, seemingly indifferent to the simultanii and unwilling to use virtuoso actions against Smart. At that point, any adrenaline-based run by Smart would've finished the Russian team, and Pozd nullified the possibility by doubling-out.
i think that overall, russia has better footwork, but that USA has a much higher ability to run its opponents down the strip, and score most of thier touches this way. Our athleticism is our strongest weapon, in my opinion. Almost everytime we attacked we scored and for the most part we pushed our opponents to the very end of the strip leaving them almost no choice but to attempt a parry.
Also we have a strong ability to pull large amounts of distance on our opponents at the last minute, exceeding the expectations of our opponent. Keith Smart does this NASTILY 2x in a row i beleive against the french with distance parries off the line, once taking a long jump back and the second time going OBSCENELY long.
poz. was excellent tactically in his last bout vs smart, that guys unbeleivable.
anyway, all that aside, i think that this shows that we (USA) are becoming strong in sabre, and in a few more years can be consistent contenders for top spots in competition.
I think you have to be very careful in suggesting that relying on athleticism is a wise strategy.
Six of the U.S. attacks were huge flunge attacks by Lee. Most, if I remember correctly, were from the start line, with little preparation, and caught the Russians in their "prepare and assess" phase. Smart pulled off one similar attack.
I think this kind of attack is a "flavor of the month." Works for a while until the sabre world figures out a good response. In this case, one of two things will work: either more aggressive preparation and attack--there are probably a lot of directors that would give a tempo attack against the flunge if you attacked into it and hit the flunger in mid-flight, or a very short preparation (perhaps disguised to appear longer) with a jump back. Lee was approaching the limits of the huge flunge thing, I think.
The Russians have a very balanced game, based on very good footwork, very good handwork and very refined tactical sense. To beat them consistently, you need the same base, because they can analyze and change to adapt to any "flavor of the month."
Jason Rogers impressed me as having the most rounded game--he thrashed Charikov 10-4, which was the bout that put the Americans back in the game. Charikov had an uncharacteristically weak outing against the Americans, also losing to Lee 5-2.
Probably a good idea to go back and watch the individual bouts and build numbers for each of them--I was going to do this, but ran out of time. I think you would find that each bout had its own flavor, and I would be careful about drawing conclusions based on the overall numbers.
Cheers, MR
Why sabre? Because you don't take heads with the point.
I think I'll try to make a worksheet so fencing-watchers (coaches, type-a personalities like me) can make checkmarks in a grid as they watch the fencing.
Originally Posted by vigia 
