What is better ? Transition or OD

[Adanacslax]

I play box in BC and am moving into my first year of intermediate. I have played A all my life and have played transition, but now in intermediate the coaches want players to play OD and i was just wondering what people thought was a better system ?

[laxgoalieking]

some people say that transition is better for breaks but i think o/d is better to get the odd man break.

[Hooligan]

It depends. Minute men (or ODs) will be able to create more fast breaks, but this means that you need 15 really good players going both ways. If you have at least 15 good transition guys (or the equivalent of 3 lines of quality players) this is possible.

If you don't, transition is better since you don't need anymore than maybe 1 or 2 guys who can take the ball from D to O, and vice versa.

[RedBird1]

I'd say O/D if your teams knows how to run it properly or the coach knows how to implement it properly. If run perfectly its great and makes the game full of fast breaks which is what box is supposed to be like. Transition always works tho. Its like playin basketball.

[laxgoalieking]

o/d is like a porsha 911-fast and exciting
transition is like a pontiac sunfir- boring and slow

[#15Roadies]

What do you mean by "transition?" There is lots of "transition" in O/D and pure O/D will not get you as many fast breaks as say the Fast Break system or a combo offence with set D, O & transition guys.

[laxgoalieking]

i think he ment transition where one line goes up and down the floor.

[laxpimp]

I say transition- it takes a stronger athlete (I think) to able play offence than defence after spriting up/down the floor. Plus, being able to say you play transition is cool- you can tell people that you're killing a team at both ends of the box.

[RockStar]

At high levels O/D is more effective because it makes sense to have your top shooters and playmakers running the set offense. You also have your best D-men reserved for that job. It takes real discipline to do this system right, though....the biggest thing is for the attackers to get their asses off the floor as soon as the ball is lost and can't be recovered.

Also, it's proven that speed kills. If you have a few quick D-men that can finish shots well (See Steenhuis, Driscoll, Jalbert, among others), they should never be held back from running and shooting. A 2-on-1 or 3-on-2 break is almost always a better scoring chance than a 5-on-5 set play.

[slinkyspine]

my team plays a combination. Basicly we have 3 ofensive minded palyers and 2 d mionded. but we play man to man so everyone has a guy on d and on O unless you doing you se job in a play. which are air called

[#15Roadies]

What you are calling "transition" is actually the Fast Break system more or less described by Jim Hinkson based upon his work with Mr. Lacrosse - the late, great, Jim Bishop.

"Transition" strictly speaking is the moment the ball is moved from offence to defence and visa versa. In an O-D system like they play in the NLL, offensive transition is the point where the ball is carried from the defensive end to the offensive end, usually by a "transition" specialist (aka "midfielder" the Tolls & Steenhuises of the world). The defensive transition usually requires a midfielder trying to slow down the offensive man to get the defensive unit on the floor. In the NLL, most players are so disciplined that the transition from O-D is pretty quick, with the midfielder defenders hitting the floor first if required. Sometimes the transition is the hurry-up-and-slow-down style so the O can setup properly.

Fast Break is when the entire unit on the floor moves from D to O very quickly in an effort to get an odd man situation. FB is built around speed and precise team execution (usually really good passing) for the primary break to exploit a weak defensive transition. On the secondary break (when the odd man situation doesn't pan out, or the teams even up in the defensive end) minor players are usually involved in playing the motion offence. Some teams are adept at quickly bringing a player or two off the floor and replacing them with players going out the front door. This will gain 20 feet or so for the breaking team and works especially well in the second period (or when the goalie is at the far end).

You can have fast breaks on an O-D system of course and you can have the hurry-up-and-slow-down breaks on a Fast Break system. Usually coaches will try to employ a combination offence depending on where the players are in their development. 'A' level kids generally have the knowledge and experience to fully work the combo.

Which system is better?

I think having fresh D legs is the best way to face an offence, however making line changes on the defensive transition is one method for doing that on the FB system. If you have really good midfielders (aka transition guys) you can use the O-D system effectively to take away an FB team's speed. Combo systems can play it anyway you want, but sometimes will sacrifice speed for some defensive help and can become vulnerable to the speed guys and then it comes down to coaches try to matching up players. Two evenly matched teams trying to out-duel each other on the player match-ups makes for the best kind of box lacrosse there is.

[Adanacslax]

Yeah, I personally like transition more because it leaves the opportunity for a fast break, as well as gives you the opportunity to catch offensive players on D which are easy one on one opportunities. I think that more teams will start to move back to transition as the years progress because it is what the players coming out of minor are used to as opposed to OD.

[dougm]

i think the players on the roster determine the style. if your forwards can't bother to play defense or your defenders can't hit the side of a barn then playing transition will leave you severly shortchanged. if you go o/d you better get players on & off the floor or else you'll be playing w/ half load on the floor. either system requires the right players & temperment - lacking either one make the system argument moot.

[laxgoalieking]

it also depends on who you are playing if your playing a transition ga,e against a o/d you'll be able to get more fast breaks down the floor,but they will be able too beat you back up the floor.and vicecersa.for example:my team(C) played new market1(B)we played o/d to offset their o/d but they kepped beating us down floor so wehn we switched to transition between 1st-2nd we were able to beat them to their end,but oo bad our shooter suck and we only score 2 on like 8 oddman rushes.

[#15Roadies]

Doug, I think I would also add that the O-D system requires the right kinds of coaches as well.

I think the older the players get the more disparity there is between those that are good defenders, good runners or good shooters. More importantly, lacrosse becomes more of a team game, requiring team effort rather than the usual one or two player superstar offence of the younger set.

There is a big beef up here about playing O-D with minor lacrosse players and I say that is hooey. I believe all kids should learn to play all aspects of the game, but up until a certain point. O-D gives some kids, who otherwise would not be too successful at the run 'n gun game, a chance to fully participate to their own satisfaction. I had kids last year that just wanted to play defence and some kids who just wanted to play offence because those positions addressed their own skills and capabilities. As a coach, sure I want to expand their horizons, but as a team game there are checks and balances to be had.

Besides, any good O-D coach knows that your midfielder's & forwards can (and should) easily form a FB line if so required. :)

[TweeK]

I think that coaches who use both at the right time is the best thing out there, if a team/coaches/players can learn to do both and make quick changes during a game it might be usefull, because if the other teams sees what your doing there obviously going to counter-it. but if you have both it makes it lots harder, sorta making them gamble.

[regulate34]

i think having a set ofence and set d fence taks some of the speed out of box and it also takes away the fast breaks

[RockStar]

I hate the thought of rigid O/D being played in minor box, especially before Midget and below A-level rep.

That said, if it wasn't working, coaches wouldn't instill it.

I guess the right system depends on the team you have.

If your guys are quick, in good shape, and can shoot, two-way play is the way to go.

If you're stuck with only a handful of good shooters, or a bunch of big guys with stone-hands, you might have to cook up an O/D system.

[regulate34]

for my box team last year (i play midget A1) we would run both ways unless we were in a close game then we would have our powerplay on ofence and our shortman and a spare playing D it worked out fine wen its close you want you top scorers with the ball and your best defence to stop the otherteam
but wen you doo that if your not thinking you can get fast breaked on the change and you have to be very aware of how many plyers are on the floor

by the way i played D/short man but i am pretty good on ofence i got a great shot but i need work on my movement

[Gary-Gait]

o/d is like a porsha 911-fast and exciting
transition is like a pontiac sunfir- boring and slow

Hahaha, love it.

[mikecoyle]

I play box in BC and am moving into my first year of intermediate. I have played A all my life and have played transition, but now in intermediate the coaches want players to play OD and i was just wondering what people thought was a better system ?
I think it depends on what kind of team you are up against.

[KnightsLAXDad]

o/d is like a porsha 911-fast and exciting
transition is like a pontiac sunfir- boring and slow

I disagree. Most times what ends up happening on O/D is there is no fast break so the ball carrier holds up and waits for the line change. Then a few more seconds to get the play going. I think O/D takes away flow from the game it always stop and start.

[mikecoyle]

I disagree. Most times what ends up happening on O/D is there is no fast break so the ball carrier holds up and waits for the line change. Then a few more seconds to get the play going. I think O/D takes away flow from the game it always stop and start.
Well when you are trying to win the game and planning how to do that the last thing on youre mind is keeping the flow of the game going for the crowd.Who cares what the flow is,whatever system works against a certain team............use it!

[KnightsLAXDad]

Perhaps I am waxing nostalgic here, but it's my opinion as a lacrosse fan. I'd much rather pay to see a transition game played (remember that at Jr B and above, fans pay to see games and it's what help keeps clubs afloat) than O/D. I still love the game, but I'd rather see a well executed transition game.

I agree 100% with Rockstar that O/D should not be played in minor box. Save it for at least midget.

[mikecoyle]

Ya! Funny stuff! eh?

[mikecoyle]

Perhaps I am waxing nostalgic here, but it's my opinion as a lacrosse fan. I'd much rather pay to see a transition game played (remember that at Jr B and above, fans pay to see games and it's what help keeps clubs afloat) than O/D. I still love the game, but I'd rather see a well executed transition game.

I agree 100% with Rockstar that O/D should not be played in minor box. Save it for at least midget.
I can see that it is important to keep the people coming to the games however............in the dressing room the focus is winning!