The Flanking Position and a 4 on 2 Fight

We had a recent practice that I sat out due to a broken thumb.  It was, however, actually a very valuable experience as I got the chance to watch the rest of the army fight.  Overall I thought it was a good practice, and that most of the fighters are gelling fairly well.  At this point its all about tweaking lots of little concepts, which is sort of what I try to attempt to do here.

For this post I thought I'd pick on a single example I saw in a field battle.  And for anyone reading, no,  I certainly don't intend to give away any military "secrets," which is why I'm picking on a small general concept to expand on.  =)


4 on 2 on the Flank

In one of the early field battles, both sides had sent out flankers.  The red team (I'll call them here) sent out two fighters to cover the left flank while the green team answered with 4 fighters (both sides with another 7-9 fighters on their team (not completely shown below)).

So the first question is, which side has the better flanking position?  Neither of them do, actually.  They've both gone wide and neither side has given up the outside position.  One might be inclined to say that green has the better position, but I would disagree with that statement.  Green has the numbers advantage on the flank, but they don't have the flanking advantage until the two red fighters are no longer there to slow them up.  What is pictured above are a bunch of fighters who are fighting straight on.

There is, however, great potential for a flanking advantage.  Its one I talked about in my analysis of last year's unbelted champions battle, and here it is.

Remember, you have two jobs when in charge of a flank.  Either a)  roll the flank or b) prevent the enemy from rolling yours.  When the two green fighters break off to attack the main unit, they'll likely succeed in rolling the flank of that unit.  If they stay intact with the "flanking unit," then they are preventing the enemy from rolling green's flank.

Red is in an interesting position.  Because of the 4on2 disadvantage (assuming similar ability levels), they have no chance of rolling green's flank, so their job is to protect red's flank.  In this position they actually want to stall the engagement.  Their goal is to, ideally, stay alive.  If they can't accomplish that goal, they should attempt to live as long as possible (full defense, back pedal, etc.), using just two fighters to tie up four green fighters.  FWIW, red did a very good job prolonging the fight in this scenario.

Okay, since green did not split off to attack the flank of the main unit, they are performing the job of holding the flank.  The problem is they are using up 4 fighters to do this, meaning that red now has a 7 on 5 advantage in the main unit (they had a 2on2 matchup on the other flank).  If green doesn't split, then they are obligated to win the engagement as quickly as possible, ideally without losing any fighters so that they can quickly rejoin the main unit that is undermanned.


The 4on2 Engagement

In prior blog posts I've covered the 2on1 as well as the 3on2.  I'd not considered covering the 4on2 as it should be a pretty straightforward fight with the team of 4 having a large advantage.  However, there is a difference between wining the engagement and winning it quickly.

The secret to this fight is "lanes."


What are Lanes?

If you've ever watched a football game, every so often one team kicks the ball off to the other team and then runs down the field and attempts to tackle the man with the ball.  When they do this, they are taught to maintain their "lanes."  What this means is that they run down the field and try to keep the entire field covered and not crossing over each other's lanes.  If they all run straight to the guy with the ball, they will obstruct each other and then leave parts of the field open that the ball carrier can freely run to.

When approaching a 4on2, the same concept applies.  One thing I've noticed as a pole fighter is that most aggressive shieldmen will move straight at their target without considering where the pole intends to move.  More often than not, they will move to a position that is slightly to the right of their opponent in an attempt to throw flat snaps and wraps at his shield side.

Notice, for example, what happened in this particular engagement.

Had they maintained their lanes, this is what the attack would have looked like.

Notice now that no one crosses in front of anyone else to get to the spot of the attack.  The two fighters in the middle stay in the middle while the fighters on the ends attempt to turn the corner on the red team.  No one should be thinking about going toward the fighters, but rather going toward their desired end position within the context of the group.

In order to do this, communication needs to happen up front.  The green team had plenty of time to see what they were facing.  I'll say this over and over again, move like a pack of wolves.  Be quick, but be smart about it.  This is one of the reasons why we do a lot of 2on1 drills in our practice.  Every now and then we'll get a new fighter who doesn't understand how to fight with a partner.  We'll call "lay on," and I'll literally stand in my spot and never engage the enemy just to see what my partner does.  More often than not, they run off without me, never once realizing that I wasn't with them anymore.

Small unit tactics requires everyone in the group to move and fight with a good understanding of what the others around them are doing.


How Could Green have been More Effective?

First of all, they should have gotten an idea of what their formation was going to be and who was going to do what job.  A simple, "Who's going to cover the outside?  Who's going to be in the middle?" once the battle was unfolding would have made a big difference.  Shields need to move in a manner that does not cut off other fighters.  Poles need to move in a manner that make the shields understand what they are doing.

As a pole, I personally like to lead out in front of the shields in this scenario.  I'll either go fast and hard to the right while throwing multiple blows at the back of the head and the kidney, or I'll pepper thrusts at the face to blind the opponent.

Another option, especially against the pole, is for the first person there to tie up the opponent's weapon while the other comes in for the kill.

If the poles aren't as experienced, they can also follow behind the shields, but still being aware of what their lanes are going to be.  Who's left?  Who's right?  Who's middle?


Concluding Thoughts

I've put a lot of thought into this scenario and have decided, if the fighter levels are even, that ultimately its best to split two fighters off to attack the flank of the main unit than to attempt to fight the 4on2.  Though the 4on2 should be a guaranteed victory, if the 2 go on full defense, they can really drag out the fight.  On the other hand, two fighters can instantly move on the flank of the main unit and force the fight to happen immediately.

One last piece that I noticed was that fighters were not attacking on the 45s aggressively enough.   The goal always needs to be to turn the corner on the opponent.  That really means to get out and around on them.  You should start at 45 degrees and then continue all the way around to their backs.

Melee Fighting from the Outside Position

Or you might call this Turn the Corner Part Two (electric bugaloo).

No sooner did I post my blog on Turning the Corner (here) did I see a video of a fight that looked like it was going to be a great example of turning the corner.  Instead, however, I saw a handful of critical positioning mistakes that were made that I can only guess were the result of lots of singles fighting and not enough melee experience.

I want to say upfront that the fighters were very, very good, but I did see some mistakes that would serve as a great example to write about (and for what its worth, I make mistakes all the time and have had outside observers point them out, to my benefit).


Fighting from the Outside Position

The concept is pretty simple.  All it means is that, generally speaking, you want to position yourself so that you are outside of the fight and facing in, while positioning your opponent so that his back is to the fight and facing out.

In the above diagram, every green fighter is in the outside position, while every red fighter is in the inside position.  Red is in a very bad position as each fighter has their back turned to the rest of the fight.  Any given red fighter will have no idea what is happening anywhere else in the fight.  Each red fighter is also within striking range of several green fighters, and any attempt to turn to face a different fighter will expose their side to an attack.  Finally, if a red fighter needs to retreat to safety, there is no where to go.

Each green fighter, on the other hand, can see the entire battle, has no risk of anyone attacking them from a different direction, can attack multiple opponents if the opportunity presents itself, and can retreat safely in any direction except for what is directly in front of them.

So now that I've presented this concept, allow me to walk through the battle I recently watched.


The Battle

To begin with, green has three shields and two poles, while red has two shields and three poles.

Already I like green's position better.  They have both flanks protected by shields, while red is holding their flanks with poles.   Green is also a little wider than red, which gives them advantages on the flanks, and green's right pole is in an aggressive position (he'll hit the shields before anyone can hit him).

The position that red is in is what I like to call "turtling up and getting ready to take a beating."  As I said in my last blog post, I only recommend this for new fighters.  When watching the 10 man unbelted team battles last Pennsic, for example, every team that took this position lost, and they lost in short order.  You are just giving the other team the outside position when you fight this tightly.  Unfortunately, its probably what they've been taught (and I know many of you reading this have always thought its the right way to fight.  I'm hoping to convince you otherwise).

Anyway, as the units approach, green begins to flank on both sides.

When I first saw this in the video, I thought, "Great!  This will be a great example of turning the corner.  Green is going to outflank and destroy these guys."

This is what I was expecting to happen next:

Look at the great outside position that green would have had in this fight.  The right side, in particular, could have been won quickly.  The shield is right handed and the pole wasn't moving out to meet him.  Here he'd either get around the pole for a wrap, or the pole would have to leave his right side completely exposed to the green pole.  The right most red shield would have no choice but to turn and face the green fighters on the right, leaving his back completely exposed to the fighters on the left.  Etc.

But instead, the following happened:

At this stage in the fight I'd say that the two green fighters on the left are in decent position.  The right is a different story.  The shield on the far right, instead of turning the corner, did exactly the opposite.  He hit hit the pole with his shield, and then turned his back completely to the rest of the fighting and backed himself toward the rest of the action.  I'd love to give credit to the red pole for taking the outside position, but the green shield literally shoved him into that position.

The shield in the middle was set up to out flank the unit to the left, but instead charged head first into the worst possible position that anyone could be in in this fight.  He charged right into the middle of a triad of two shields and a pole.

The pole on the right didn't do poorly, but he could have done better.  Instead of continuing to move around the flank with his shieldman and doubling up on the red pole, he stopped to fight the shield.  There was no pressing reason to do this as the shield had already established that he was going to stay back in the "turtle" and was not being aggressive.  In fact, green had every opportunity to turn this into a 5 on 2 battle, but instead charged themselves into dangerous positions.


So What Happened?

I have to do a little guesswork here, but it appeared to me that as soon as the two sides were about to engage, 3 of the green fighters went into singles mode.  By that I mean that they matched up with a fighter on the red team and fought them in a 1on1 fight with no concept of what the others around them were doing.  The 4th green fighter, on the other hand, wanted to crash through the shield wall, so he charged between the two shields.

Instead of doing this, I believe each team should have focussed on working together, maintaining the outside position, and looking for 2 on 1 opportunities to exploit.


Other Mistakes

The key mistakes in this battle were covered above.  Red began in an inferior "turtle" position, and green gave up their advantages by charging into the middle instead of around the outside.

There were some other mistakes that I witnessed after this point.  Though the green shield on the left began in a great flanking position and ended up killing the pole, he then charged into the middle of the fight leaving another red pole floating on the outside.  Fortunately for green, the pole stood there until people came to fight him.

On the right, the green pole had the opportunity to attack the side of the red pole, but he stayed focussed on the shield in front of him even though that shield was not putting any pressure on him.  Having said that, the red pole also had an easy attack to the side of the green pole, but never took it.  He stayed focussed on the shield in front of him.  To be fair, both poles corrected these mistakes quickly and attacked each other at the same time.

The last mistake I saw is one that I see time and time again.  The green and red poles were fighting each other.  A red shield ran into the fight and completely cut off the red pole, which was especially bad because he's right handed and was coming from the right.  He should have been able to step into the fight without disrupting his teammate and get an easy kill.  Instead, his teammate got killed while trying to maneuver back into position.

Summary

I think the biggest take aways from this example are simply to avoid charging into the middle of a battle (unless there is a clear advantage to doing so, such as an exposed weakness) and look to gain the outside position as much as possible.  Learning how to control the position of the battle will actually do wonders for your melee fighting.  This battle being an example, even most seasoned veteran fighters know very little about positioning within a melee.  As a result, they are very easy to steer into exactly the position you want them to be in.

Turn the Corner! - Lesson from Tuesday Night Fighter Practice

When you get the chance, turn the corner.  Turn it, turn it fast, turn it aggressively, turn it now!

Most SCA groups teach their guys to "stick together."  This is what I consider lesson 1.   Lesson 2 is to turn the corner.

Let me expand on this point.


Lets Build a Raft

I like the raft analogy as its one I learned in a philosophy class in college.  Sometimes we need to do things in our lives that are not the end result, but rather a tool to get us to the next step.

"Sticking together" is a tool to help fighters who flail about on their own in a melee.  A loose, disorganized group of fighters will get destroyed by a tight unit that knows how to stick together.  I've been watching a lot of newbie fighters at the last few practices, and they really do just get mowed down when they hang out in the field on their own.

So in order to solve this problem, you teach your fighters to "stick together," as this is the easiest way to build an effective unit out of a pack of ineffective fighters.

So we've got a bunch of fighters flailing about in the river and drowning.  Now we've pulled them all to shore and we got them to build a raft.  Great!  Now what?  Is that it?  One day at war camp and they teach you to stick together and move as a group.  Is that all you can ever hope to achieve as a melee fighter?

Once you've mastered "sticking together," you need to start to learn how to make an impact as an individual on the field.

You've Built the Raft.  Now Use It!  Step 1:  Turn the Corner

Turning the corner essentially means to get around the flank of whatever fighter, or groups of fighters you are facing.

Here's an example of a 4 on 4 situation that occurred last night:

The pole on the right actually has a fair amount of melee experience and felt very comfortable going a little wider than the front his opponents were setting.  Before I go any further I want to point out the perspective that I'm aiming for.  Maybe green could have charged, or maybe red could have charged, or maybe one command or another could have been called.

None of that happened, and often times none of that will happen.  Even if you drill your squad over and over again to have some sort of consistent unit tactic, you can't count on always fighting with that squad, and after initial impact, the command structure will always break down.

Regardless of what happens within either unit, the green pole fighter will always be in a position where he has the ability to think about how to handle the circumstances he is presented with.

In this particular case, the green pole went wide and the red unit allowed him to do it.  He then stepped just a little to the outside and attacked around the shield, and then right back into his unit.

This is actually a step in the right direction.  What he should do, in my opinion, is actually "turn the corner" of the red unit.

When this is done, red has three responses.  They can do nothing, which means that the red shield will quickly die (believe it or not, this is the most common response, which is why I'm such a big fan of turning the corner).

The red shield can rotate to defend against the green pole.

Though this is certainly better than just allowing the pole to hit him in the back of the head, this is still not a great position to be in.  Green is herding red into a corral such that their backs are facing each other, and they are exposing gaps that are hard to defend.

The best option for red is simply to deny the turn.

But Now They are Fighting One on One

Yes.  Yes they are.  Most SCA groups have a way to prevent that from happening.  They tell the red team that they are not allowed to leave the unit.  The problem is, then green will turn the corner on them and collapse that flank every time.

This problem is "solved" by telling green that they are not allowed to leave the unit, either.  I put the word "solved" in quotes because its not really a solution.  Whenever you restrict both sides to exactly the same tactical limitations, neither group will have the ability to exploit the other group's weaknesses.  If you remove the limitations of sticking together for one of the groups, which ever one is effective at turning the corner will have a big advantage in every battle.

The Big Picture

In order to turn the corner, you have to have fighters on the flanks that are experienced enough to do so.  There is a not so fine line between effectively working off of the boundaries of your unit, and flailing out on the field by yourself.

I'll contend that most SCA units would be best served by keeping the slower fighters (heavy troops) and the less experienced fighters in a tighter mass, but allowing faster and more experienced melee fighters to go out and attack the edges of the enemy (see my post on Advanced Jobs here.)

Anglesey and the Bog Troopers will often go with no core unit at all as we are all very experienced melee fighters (15-30 years for most members).  However, we had a recent event where we had a large enough number of newer fighters that we had to create a small unit of 2-3 new fighters with an experienced pole commanding them so that they could avoid "drowning in the river."  It took us a good several rounds of combat to recognize that they were just not able to pick up the flow of our skirmish tactics quickly.

Additional Note:

I should add, sometimes I will practice 3 on 3s, which often break down into 3 one on ones. Though this might be the most effective way to resolve the combat, it is not very good at learning how to work together. We will often restrict either side from leaving the group, but purely in the interest of trying to get used to fighting together, not because its the best tactic for that scenario.

Why We Win: Fifty Battles in One Day

I wanted to grab your attention.  I try hard not to use this blog to brag about my own skills, or that of Anglesey and the Bog Troopers (including Galatia, The Concusare, Head Clan, and often Clan Prechain who reside in northern Atlantia, among a few others), because it really doesn't accomplish much and it isn't the point of the blog.

I'll simply leave it at this:  we do very well for ourselves in melee, and we have a way about fighting that tends to be successful.  We also have a way that is radically different than just about any other successful melee group in the known world.


Who's Their Commander?

The names will remain anonymous, but I'd like to relay this story.  We were at an event and faced a household whose job is was to move through our unit.  They came up on a seemingly disorganized group of fighters in a loose formation, if the word "formation" can even be used.  Hmmm, they saw no shiny hats, no white belts, and not even a large number of shields.  They did what any group would do.  They charged.  They charged left, and failed.  They charged right, and failed.  They charged center, and failed.  Maybe if the knight could spot the commander and take him out, these fighters wouldn't know how to avoid the charges anymore.  But, he never could figure out who the commander was.

So after the day was over, he walked up to a very experienced knight who had been around forever and who was familiar with our group.  "Sir, can I ask for some advice?"  "Certainly, Sir.  What can I help you with?"  "Can you tell me who their commander is and how to pick him out on the field."  "Oh, of course I can.  You see, that's easy.  There is none."

Now some of you might be reading this and thinking, "Ahhhh, yes.  I know where he's going.  Everyone's a commander."  No.  No one is a commander.

And of course, this requires further explanation.


No Commander

What this specifically means is that there is not a person on the field who gives the order.  Of course we have people who yell out, "Watch the archer in the back," or, "Who's covering the left flank," or, "We need to worry about the guy in the blue," but that's not the same as being micromanaged and waiting for a play call to be made.

Think of it this way.  I work for a large engineering company.  I'm a grown man, have skills, experience, and an education, and have earned the trust of my managers.  Lets say I get an email with an important issue that comes up.  Do I wait for my manager to tell me what to do?  Or do I handle it in the best manner possible?

Now keep in mind, there is a huge difference between simply deciding to wing it with no commander or no plan, and actually building a unit of warriors who are capable of fighting this way.  We've been doing this for over 30 years and raise new fighters within our fight culture like a pack of wolves raise their pups.  This isn't something you can simply do at the next event.


Fifty Battles in One Day

First a little background on myself.  I currently work as an strategic business planner, but my education is engineering.  My former career, however, was teaching high school math as well as coaching basketball and track and field.  One of the things I learned through that experience is that teachers have the natural tendency to over explain the concepts they are trying to teach.  The more time you spend explaining, the more that cuts into time they could be working on math problems, or running through basketball drills.  Over the years I got my explanations shorter and shorter, and my teams got better and my students got smarter.  As an old physics professor once told me, "you don't learn physics with your ears.  You learn it with your arm," (i.e.  doing problems).

This weekend we had a practice war with about 25 fighters in total.  We fought from 1pm to 330 pm, taking breaks as needed.  We did exactly one scenario; an open field battle, and we did it about fifty times in that 2 and a half hour period.  How do we do this?  We don't start the day off with a tourney or any singles.  When we get 8 or more fighters on the field, we call lay on.  We fight until one team is dead, we get back to our sides, take about a minute to huddle and make adjustments, and then we call lay on again.  We do this until people start dropping out, and then we take a break.  Rinse and repeat.

Now let me try to put into context the effect that this has.  One of the fighters that fought with us that day wasn't particularly experienced.  In a normal sca practice, he'd be stuck in a shield wall and would get maybe 15-20 fights in.  Each time he'd be told to keep tight with the other shields and wait for the command to charge in one direction or another.  In essence, he would do fewer than 20 fights, and not be challenged to think for himself one time.  After a few years of this, I'd expect him to still not be very good.

Instead, this weekend we put him on the right flank and his job was to hold the right flank.  Sometimes a top level fighter would try to out flank him.  Sometimes two fighters would come right at him.  Sometimes a spear would try to poke at him at range.  Sometimes the entire unit moved away from him.  Etc. etc.  Each time he was challenged to think about what the best course of action would be.  He failed and he succeeded.  Each time he failed, a veteran fighter would tell him what he could have done differently.  If he succeeded, he was offered positive feedback.  I'll contend that he learned more about fighting in a melee in those 2 1/2 hours than he has in the last 3 years combined.

And when you do this, you learn a lot about yourself and a lot about the people you fight with.  You know what the big strong guy can do, and what the little fast guy can do, and what your spears can do, and what your poles can do, etc.


So What's This Look Like?

At the end of the day, we generally go wider than the enemy.  Tightly packed units are the norm in the sca, and we generally counter by going wide and enveloping.  Because of the kind of experience we have, each fighter can quickly figure out if a charge can be stopped, or if ground should be given where the chargers intend to hit, and we'd instead pinch on their weak points.  There is absolutely no way to do this if you need a commander to tell you what to do.

This weekend we started off in a line, and as the day progressed, and each side constantly made little adjustments to try to do a little better in the following battle, the flanks got wider and wider until we pretty much split into two units.  This is something I've harped on in many of my posts.  You simply can't let people around your flanks, and I believe that any unit that would fight fifty battles in a row against a team that's not forced to stay tight will eventually figure that out.  "Why do we keep losing?"  "Well, those two guys that keep running around our flank kill a lot of people in our backfield."

Ultimately there were two main strategies on the day.  Side A looked for the biggest weaknesses on side B and attack them.  Interestingly, side B looked for the strongest fighters on side A and tried to neutralize and kill them.

Advanced Jobs for Melee Fighters within the Unit

This post is partially inspired by a Southern Army practice we had recently.  I want to begin by stating up front that I think it was a good practice, and that it was very productive for all parties.  I also agree with most of the general concepts about how the units should work together.

I do, however, think that there was a major piece missing.  Maybe there wasn't time to cover it, or maybe it wasn't the proper venue to work on it.  The piece is, what the roles are of certain key positions within the unit.


Classic Shield Wall

Below is a basic set up of what I like to call the classic shield wall.  The shields are pressed tightly together and to the front of the unit.  The design of such a formation is to keep the unit together, press forward, charge, and run over anything that is weak and/or disorganized.

From here, the most basic tactics are simply to charge left, or to charge right.  This places more points of attack at the contact of engagement.  If you, for example, charge right, you can attack the right half of their unit with your entire unit.

The very simplest instruction to give to each member of the unit is to move in the direction that is called out, stick together, and react to the situation as it presents itself.......without leaving your unit.

While I think this is a great approach for 50% of the fighters (these are the fighters that *never* practice melee, and have very little experience fighting in general) I feel that it limits the effectiveness of more advanced fighters, and consequently the overall effectiveness of the unit.


Key Positions

In a classic shield wall, I've identified five key positions.  These are where you want to place your most experienced fighters, and each position has advanced duties to perform above and beyond simply moving with the unit.  These duties are best performed, in my opinion, if the fighters are allowed the ability to improvise and adapt to the battles as they unfold.

The five key positions are the left most fighter in the front rank, the right most fighter in the front rank (usually shields), the left most fighter in the second rank, the right most fighter in the second rank (shields or poles), and then free floating fighters in the second or third ranks.

I've neglected to include 4 and 5 in the diagram since their jobs are identical to 1 and 2.

Jobs for #1)  If the unit is charging left, the left most fighter in the front rank is tasked with being mobile and beating the opponent around the flank.  He has do identify at what point to impact the enemy.  If the enemy has some loose stragglers on their flank, he has to decide if he needs to peal off to deal with them, or if a fighter in the second rank will take on that task.  Most importantly, he normally does not have a fighter to protect the side he is leading with, so he has to be careful not to get killed as he leads the charge.

If the unit is charging right, his job now changes.  He is now in an even more dangerous position where he may end up with multiple fighters attacking him.  he needs to coordinate with the fighter in position #2 to determine which one of them is going to attempt to fend off the enemies chasing their flank, or if they will attempt to leave their enemies behind altogether.

Whatever the decisions are, it is something that must be thought about for fighters in this position.

Jobs for #2)  In my opinion, this is the more difficult position from a decision making standpoint.  If in the left most position of the second rank and charging left, this fighter may want to swing out wide and double team on the outside most fighter of the first rank they are attacking.  He may want to swing into the second rank in an attempt to quickly fold the flank, or he may want to swing even wider and into the backfield with no intent to engage, but rather to herd the opponent into a corral.

However, if the unit is charging right, the fighter in the #2 position has to decide either to attempt to hold off the flank that they are moving away from, or to move with the unit and leave fighter #1 to fend for himself.  If holding off, he can do so from the extreme left position of the unit, or he can even separate from the unit and move into the opponent's backfield slowing up their advance.

Jobs for #3)  I like to call this position the "free safety."  Some people call it a "reserve" but I've found that for most SCA fighters they interpret that to mean, "don't engage until its too late."  This fighter needs to read the battle as it unfolds and either move to the side that the unit is charging to in an attempt to lead out around the flank, move away from that direction in an attempt to shore up the weak side, or plug up in holes in the middle that may present themselves.

Below is an example of some of the options of some of these fighters.

In the above example, the unit is charging right.  The lead front shield, in this case, decides to cut in around the flank, which is the obvious choice since red has lost the battle for the flank.  The right most pole in the second rank now decides if he will attack in the gap between the two right most shields, come around the right flank, or go wide and into the backfield to put extra pressure on the right.

The left most pole in the second rank, however, is on "deny" duty.  The plan is set up to hit hard on the right, while not letting the left collapse (a "right hook").  The pole can either go right, in order to avoid a charging red, go left and try to hold the now weak left flank (this can be done by shaking the pole and looking menacing, attacking from a safe distance while moving away, or hitting them hard and standing them up), or go wide left and into the backfield to disrupt the unit.

The "free safety" in the back has to decide to either wait and see if the middle needs help, move right to assist on the attack, or move left to assist on the deny.  In this case since the right has already turned the flank, it would likely make more sense to either wait, or assist on the left.

The following result could look like this:

This puts aggressive pressure on the right, supports the left, while also herding red into a corral.  I personally think, provided that these key fighters can handle themselves on a battlefield, that this is a better position than the following:

Keep in mind, that though the unit looks cohesive in this scenario, look at what happens if red counters with a method similar to what I've been describing:

Summary

One point I want to emphasize is that what I am describing is no different than the standard tactics that most units teach.  I'm simply adding to it a few champion level fighters and putting them in key positions that allows them to maximize their effectiveness on the field, and this isn't anything new.  I've been using these very same tactics for decades, as have many of the people who I've fought with in that time.