Forgive a white belt for chiming in but I saw something interesting from Stephen Kesting on the subject that I thought was apropos. I'll spit out my opinion humbly so that I can be corrected by those who know more because the subject is interesting to me and I'm still early in my career: there's still time to fix my game.
Stephen Kesting:
"Try ranking these positions in order of how much you know about them:
Closed guard
Open guard
Half guard
Side mount
Knee mount
Full mount
Rear mount
This ordered list then becomes a handy tool to decide which techniques to practice, and what positions you should start your sparring in.
Remember, usually you make your fastest progress by working your weakest area!"
He continues:
"When we take consider those three types of skills for each of the major positions, we end up with 24 skill sets:
Closed guard submissions
Closed guard passes
Closed guard sweeps
Open guard submissions
Open guard passes
Open guard sweeps
Half guard submissions
Half guard passes
Half guard sweeps
Side mount submissions
Side mount transitions
Side mount escapes
Knee mount submissions
Knee mount transitions
Knee mount escapes
Full mount submissions
Full mount transitions
Full mount escapes
Rear mount submissions
Rear mount transitions
Rear mount escapes
Turtle submissions
Turtle transitions
Turtle escapes
Now I don't normally assign homework, but I want you to try this. Go down that list again and figure out if you know at least two techniques for each area."
We would of course need to add the truck if you want to be competitive against your fellows. And I suspect we would be fools to ignore the importance of the standup / takedown game.
Strategic game planning: find weaknesses and fix them. Find strong points and plot paths from weak positions to get to your strong points.
Tactical game planning: I suspect if your game is sharp and you've developed a group of skills that work well together and you're always trying to flow from strength to strength and avoid weak spots, if you're doing a better job of that than your opponents, then come tournament time, you'll come in with an advantage. I suspect that you cannot come in with a game plan against a specific opponent (the way that Eddie was undoubtedly able to against Royler) unless you know who you will face. That may or may not happen at a tournament.
So to some degree, whatever tactical plan you have worked out in the moment, much of that is likely to not go to plan. "No plan survives first contact with the enemy" they say. But your strategic framework, the skills you've developed, the flows you've practiced and practiced...they're still there and they are innate (for better or worse).
It seems to me then that the tactical aspect is in being calm and recognizing that your opponent is shutting down your game and that you need to find a way to bail.
Something like that.
Does that make sense? That's my strategy, so it would be good to know if it's crap.
In short (and by way of analogy), I suspect Eddie vs Royler was more a strategic victory than a tactical one. Each opponent had 10 YEARS to figure their opponent out, fix their game, evolve their game. One dominated, the other got dominated by a game that seemed foreign to him and that he had no answer for.
That's the kind of game we want to develop, yes?
