Categories
Tournament Results

2012 Eastern Regionals Results

2012 Eastern Regional Tournament
Results

August 18-19, 2012

Download PDF Results

 

 *NOTE* If you are interested in joining the Maryland Handball Association's Fantasy Football League, please contact Nathaniel Frank at natybocow@yahoo.com. Last year's champion was Adam Zimet, and the entry is $25 per team. More information is available upon request.  

Categories
Tournament Results

2012 Eastern Regionals Write-Up

Even if you do not love or understand handball, you would have found the play at the 2012 Eastern Regional 3-wall event both scintillating and educational. August in the Maryland area can be brutal temperature wise. The high heat and humidity usually brings the threat of violent thunderstorms, a known spoiler to any outdoor event. And even though a late Friday night storm delayed the start of Saturday’s rounds, for this recent rendition, the venue at Centennial Park in Columbia, MD turned into almost picture perfect days for the Saturday preliminaries and selected Sunday finals.

As many of you know, I love to play and watch handball being played. To be at a tournament gives me the opportunity to do both. And as any handball player will tell you, the game always seems simpler from outside the “box.” The 20 x 40 dimensions have a unique way of expanding and collapsing to any and all participants, even more so in the 3-wall venue as the dimensions can extend lengthwise making the game more challenging and also fun. I wish I could view every game or match from start to finish, but that is not possible. But the contests that are viewed, often offer bright moments for our game. Taking away nothing from any level of play, the Open divisions as a general rule usually pack the most talent.

A smaller than usual turnout for the tournament did not shortchange the forged brackets of depth nor talent.  Play began with the Open bracket that featured the most players and the overall greater talent. With ages ranging between late 20s and early 50s, there were guarateed epic clashes in both the doubles and singles brackets of this division. Already loaded with a stellar class of Maryland players, New Yorkers, Billy O’Donnell (The Bus), Mike Schneider, Alvaro Rebaza and Victor LoPierre only added luster in rounding out this division.

Beginning play with singles matches, one opening round play-in game to reach the quaterfinals, Logan Foley faced a game Rebaza. A tight first game saw Rebaza winning, 21-18. Foley then dominated the second game with quick kills and quicker passing shots to even the match, 21-11. The tiebreaker found each player seeking the edge, using their particular strengths to forge ahead. In the end, Foley rallied and won the game, 11-7 and thus the match. The other play-in game to reach the quarterfinals featured Mark Ozgar against LoPierre. Ozgar and LoPierre may not have had much playing time lately, but that does not diminish their individual talents. But in the end, it was Ozgar who dominated this contest, 21-7 21-11.

Match 1 of the quarterfinals had O’Donnell pitted against Foley. With quickness and power, O’Donnell dispatched Foley, 21-8 to take the first game. Foley rebounded in the second game and adjusted to O’Donnell, but did not have enough to finish the job and lost the game and match, 21-16.

Lee Anderson and Josh Ho squared off in a battle of outstanding talent who are very familiar with each other’s game. Their play and styles though are quite different; Anderson at times displays a brash, over the top style while Ho quietly goes about his business like a silent assassin. A clash of styles and tenacity marked the first game. Neither player established dominance, but their skills and familiarity kept the match close. As the score indicates, it was a close game matched in intensity. At 21-19, Anderson triumphed. Ho wasted no time in establishing dominance in the second game, and with precision, silenced Anderson’s play, but not his vocalizations, 21-7. A taut tiebreaker ensued with Ho prevailing, 11-7. Ho would next be tested against The Bus.

O’Donnell wasted no time in dispatching Ho in the first game of their match. At 21-3, it would seem that Ho was destined for an early semifinal exit. But like all good players, adjustments are either made during games or between games. Ho adjusted and forced O’Donnell into another gear that eventually left Ho spent. As hard as he fought, Ho could not totally solve O’Donnell and lost the second game and the match, 21-14. O’Donnell reaches the final and awaits the attrition from the other half of the bracket.

Ozgar, having earlier vanquished LoPierre, earned the right to face Dan Zimet. Zimet is the consummate champion. He will beat you and you end up thanking him for the lesson. Ozgar gave his all but was out matched by the consistency that has come to mark the signature play of Zimet. At 21-7 and 21-13, Zimet secured a semifinal berth to await the winner of Andy Schad and Mike Schneider. Schad is known for his workman like efforts on the court. On the other hand, Schneider plays the game like he is out for a stroll. His long arms seem to pick and flick the ball effortlessly. His gazelle like movements and his trademark darkened eye guards complete the picture of coiled coolness. Schad, with his savvy play, managed to hold off the tenacity of Schneider and prevailed in the first game 21-17. Schneider unleashed a barrage of strokes to quickly even the match, 21-5 and forcing the always intense 11-point tiebreaker. As tiebreakers go, this shortened game was no different from most. Each opponent tried to seize momentum by running off a string of points or at least keep the match close. In the end, Schneider outlasted Schad, 11-8.

Schneider next faced Zimet in what was set up to be a grueling match. The first game did not disappoint as it came down to the wire with Zimet edging Schneider, 21-19. Perhaps the first game intensity sapped Schneider of his magic or buoyed Zimet to another level, but the second game was a picture of dominance by Zimet as he cruised to the final to face O’Donnell, 21-2.

With an overnight rest from Saturday’s intense showdowns, Zimet and O’Donnell faced off early Sunday morning under semi-overcast skies. As highly skilled and accomplished players, these two combatants displayed a raw intensity that resonated from the blistering kills and re-kills that punctuated their many brilliant exchanges. O’Donnell seemed to take great pleasure in extinguishing any fire that Zimet would show. Rallies, long or short, all seem to end the same way, punctuated by an emphatic kill or blistering passing shot. Prevailing 21-12, O’Donnell was primed for finishing off Zimet in two games. Zimet had other ideas. What worked well for O’Donnell in the first game seem to fail him in the second and gave Zimet a huge boost as he served and volleyed his way to a 21-13 win. A somewhat demoralized O’Donnell, perhaps realizing he had his hands full faced a renewed Zimet in the tiebreaker. O’Donnell forged ahead by a couple of points as the two men exchanged side outs in between. Soon though, Zimet found his stroke and like a racehorse down the stretch, distanced himself and glided to an 11-5 win and the championship.

The Open doubles bracket found most of the singles players pairing to form doubles teams. Only two of the singles players did not participate in doubles play, allowing Alan Frank to join his long time partner Dan Zimet, and Eric Anderson teaming with his brother Lee to enter the fray. Ho and Ozgar teamed against Rebaza and Schneider. And in one of the closest 2-game matches of the tournament, Rebaza and Schneider eked out a win 21-20, 21-18 to next face Zimet and Frank in one semifinal.

Over the years, many have had the pleasure of witnessing the dominance of Zimet and Frank as a doubles team. As a keen observer, I can almost predict what they are going to do and when they are going to do it. Playing against these two giants of the game is however another story as many also-rans and finalist will readily attest. With this in mind, Rebaza and Schneider had an uphill battle to start. The Zimet/Frank winning mystique is legendary, and on these home courts, they are almost unbeatable. Thus, by winning 21-12, 21-8, their mystique continued. A place in the finals secured, Zimet and Frank awaited the outcome of LoPierre and O’Donnell v. the Anderson brothers. With their strategy of keeping the ball away from O’Donnell, the Anderson Boys easily coasted to the final, 21-3, 21-11.

The Sunday final was the last scheduled match of the tournament. It had all the drama and anticipation as if there would have been hype. The Anderson Boys were amped, eager and anticipatory, while Zimet and Frank were all business. From the start, there were grunts and screams and the unmistakable sound of hard bodies slamming against concrete. As the match progressed, individually or in multiples, all four players found themselves, at some point being helped from the paved surface. Evidence in the form of blood, sweat and/or skin often remained after such incidents. Many exchanges, seemingly over, were revived by phenomenal digs and gets. And the action was not just limited to the floor, as on numerous occasions, Lee Anderson would defy gravity by hanging endlessly in the air, his body fully extended, as he skillfully returned a deep court ball from the top of the fence extending some ten feet beyond the marked playing surface of the courts. Game one was full of twists and turns as the drama culminated in a 21-20 victory for Zimet and Frank. Perhaps the Andersons knew how close they were to winning game one and rode that momentum to an easy 21-12 second game victory. Having the momentum going into the tiebreaker, the Andersons seemed to feel the surge needed to carry the day. They built an early lead and befuddled Zimet and Frank during their brief stints at the service line. Balls hopped, hooked and slid as if by magic and soon the Andersons had built a 6-0 lead. A side out prompted a Zimet/Frank time out with Zimet to serve after the 60 second break.

Zimet stepped into the service box and began a barrage of aces and service winners that could not be stopped even after the Andersons called two time outs. This was an unbelievable display of focused determination and skill. When Zimet was finally set down, the score was 9-6 in his favor. Visibly demoralized and stunned, the Andersons could only muster one more point for the game, as Zimet and Frank finished them off in convincing fashion.  The marathon match ended with appreciative applause from a highly entertained gallery of family, friends and players.

As highly entertaining as the Open division appeared, other brackets provided their fair share of drama and excitement. Two such brackets were the 40+/50+ Doubles and Singles draw consisting of 4 teams and 4 individuals respectively. In singles play, Bruce Cohen faced off against Ray Estevez in one match and yours truly (Peter Peart) played Jack Goldberg. The first game for Cohen and Estevez had an element of drama as Cohen kept it close with powerful servers and steady play. But in the end, Estevez with his unhurried demeanor, picture perfect strokes, and a wicked short serve, pulled away and won, 21-17. In the second game, just returning from vacation, a jet lagged Cohen could only muster 6 points, thus opening the door for Estevez to the finals. In the finals, Estevez would eventually face Peart who dispatched Goldberg, 21-5, 21-2. Against Estevez in the finals, Peart knew he had his hands full. Estevez is a steady player who is calculating and deliberate. Jumping out to a quick lead gave Peart a slight advantage, but he could not build on the lead as Estevez took every advantage in killing the ball while catching and passing Peart in the score. Peart fought hard but fell short in his efforts, 21-15. The second game was just the opposite of the first as Estevez jumped out to an early lead with a steady dose of short serves that either hit the side crotch inches from the short line or spun low along the side wall. These aces and service winners kept Peart off balance for most of the match. By the time Peart mounted a surge, the game, match and championship had slipped away with Estevez closing the door, 21-13.

In a third place game, Cohen defeated Goldberg, 21-10, 21-5.

On the doubles side of the division, Cohen and Estevez teamed up to face Rick Anderson and Roger Berry while Peart teamed with Gerry Kittner to face Alan Frank and Joe Berman. As doubles pairs go, Anderson and Berry are ideally matched. Each man has phenomenal skills that complement one another. Anderson, known for his cat like reflexes up front is also machine like in his execution, while Berry simple does everything well with seeming little or no effort.  So facing them, Cohen and Estevez were at an immediate disadvantage as the first game score would show, 21-2. The second game was more of a contest as Cohen and Estevez found cracks and chinks in the armor of Anderson and Berry and disrupted their steady play to make a contest. But in the end, the armor was only scratched as Anderson and Berry prevailed, 21-16. Similar to the team of Anderson and Berry, Frank and Berman create a dynamic of front and back court coverage that leaves very few openings to attack. This is was the daunting prospect facing Kittner and Peart. With the exception of points off serves, Peart and Kittner fell victims to Frank’s well placed ceiling or high arching returns or one of his many kills from his vast arsenal. And what Frank did not finish, Berman would put away from his front court position, showing quickness in killing and passing shots. At 21-7 and 21-5, Kittner and Peart were quietly humbled to have competed with tenacity in some of the brief skirmishes that developed throughout the match.

With Sunday finals set, Anderson and Berry would face off against Frank and Berman for yet another year.  Two evenly matched teams usually produce close games as was the case in the first game of the match. Two front court denizens (Anderson and Berman) against two backcourt technicians (Berry and Frank) produced fiery exchanges and lofty play. It was fun to watch Berry and Frank volley from the deep court as shot after shot would nick the front wall/ceiling crotch and come rocketing back along a side wall until one player or the other would be foiled by the perfect shot of its kind. The same scenario was offered up front as the exchanges between Anderson and Berman focused on keeping the ball low, sharp and at wicked angles away from the other player. Through tight exchanges the players fought, seeking the slightest edge with an opportunistic stab and slice to cut a lofty return and end a volley. In the end, Frank and Berman eked out the victory, 21-18. Game two was close at first until Frank and Berman steadily pulled away through serves and well placed shots that elicited both verbal and tacit approval from their opponents. At 21-10, Frank and Berman secured another solid win and the championship.

Continuing in the age bracket divisions, we pick up play within the 60+ Singles and Doubles divisions. In Singles play, three players, Charles Parsons, Rob Gordon and Paul Healy sparred in a round robin format (each player plays the other once). To say these players know each other well is an understatement as they play each other up to four times a week during the outdoor season. Beyond the familiarity, there is a competitive fire in each player. These games may not necessarily be about speed and power, but timing and precision in the shot making can produce some fun rallies. In Gordon’s two matches, he pushed his opponents into 11-point tiebreakers, silencing Parsons 21-19, 13-21 and 11-3 only to be silenced himself by Healy 16-21, 21-11 and 11-2. Against Parsons, Healy had an easy time at 21-6, 21-8 and by virtue of his two wins took the championship.

In Doubles play, entering 60 + age bracket for the first year, Bob Dyke reestablished a previous partnership with Ken Greco. Dyke and Greco combine to make a sharp team. Dyke uses his lankiness and power to keep the ball deep, yet kills with ease from anywhere on the court; while Greco is cut from the mold of the consummate front court player. Overwhelming Gordon and Healy, 21-2, 21-1, landed Dyke and Greco in the finals to await the outcome of Charlie White and Bob Woodward against Joe Pleszkoch and Dave Hinkleman. With Hinkleman plying his sleight of hand craft up front and Pleszkoch steady in the back, White and Woodward managed only 2 points in the first game, and even though showed life in the second, bowed out quietly, 21-12. Game though they may have been, Hinkleman and Pleszkoch was no match for Dyke and Greco, yielding, 21-3, 21-10. Perhaps in another venue, these champions will be put to a more arduous test.

To create fairness and completive atmosphere, tournaments often forge divisions in combining skill level players with older age bracket level players. At local tournament such as this, no one should feel slighted by such a setup. Out of this circumstance, the 60+/B Singles division was born. Young and vastly improved Nathaniel Frank was pitted against the older Bob Woodward and prevailed, 21-6, 21-13. Frank next faced the senior Bob Bardwell, who is known for his steady and serious tenacity on the court punctuated by a wry sense of humor.  In a classic battle of age versus youth, with age giving no ground to skill or agility, this shaped up to be a fun match. And the first game did not disappoint in that respect. Youth steadily pummeled the ball and won points at every opportunity to take a commanding lead 19-11. The experience of age in this instance took center stage in befuddling youth as age chipped away at score until it was tied. Riding the momentum, age slammed the door against youth to take the first game, 21-19. Finding youth’s vulnerability, age leaned against his weaknesses and finished the match 21-5, thus entering the finals.

The other half of the bracket had less exaggerated instances of age versus youth. One of the two quarterfinal matches featured an early 20s Joe Green versus the high school senior Sam Worchesky, a classmate of Nathaniel Frank. After splitting the first two games, with Worchesky winning the first, 21-11 and Green taking the second, 21-5, the always intense tiebreaker was set. In testament to Worchesky’s raw talent and growing skills, he kept Green on the ropes in a tight game until Green managed to overpower him, 11-8. Green would next face Dan Ho, who earlier battled converted one-waller, Chris Simeti, 21-8, 21-18. When given the opportunity, Simeti will use is kill shot making abilities to punish an opponent in the front court and this is how he pushed Ho around in their second game. But again, age and experience managed to triumph. Ho next faced Green in a marathon two game match. By all accounts, this was all out war where the older player outpointed the youngster, 21-19, 21-19. So in the battle of age versus youth, age may have one out, but youth served strong notice.

In an agreed to postponed final, a week later, Ho faced off against Bardwell. This match is a renewed rivalry that goes back years, both outdoor and indoor.  The first game saw Bardwell race out to an early lead as Ho seemed to be stuck in neutral. Punctuated by their trademark long rallies, the two players pushed each other into the deep court as often as possible. And even though Ho mounted a charge, his efforts fell short in trying to overcoming the lead built by Bardwell, 21-15. The second game began as the first as Bardwell again built an 8-0 lead. Buttressed by side outs, Ho chipped away to reach 7-8, prompting a time out from Bardwell. This proved to be a pivotal move by Bardwell because it seemed to kill whatever fire or momentum Ho began to establish. And even with numerous side outs between them, HO could only manage 3 more points for the rest of the game and match as Bardwell walked away with championship, 21-10. No matter the outcome, it is always both fun and exhausting to watch these two fine players battle each other to the finish.

In a B Doubles division, Simeti and Green teamed to face White and Woodward who appeared earlier in the 60 + division. The other match had Dave Fleming and Jack Goldberg facing Nathaniel Frank and Sam Worchesky. Simeti and Green combined to make quick work of White and Woodward, 21-10, 21-5. And in similar fashion, Frank and Worchesky handled Fleming and Goldberg, 21-5, 21-4. A youthful final saw a game Frank and Worchesky push Simeti and Green by taking the first game, 21-15 but losing the second, 21-10 and forced a tiebreaker. Winning 11-5, Simeti and Green seem to use their relative age difference to overpower the high school seniors.

Another amalgamation found young and old combining to form the 65+/C Doubles division. First time trying the 3-wall game, Peter Clerkin teamed with Amanda Blanchard, a transplant from upstate New York who does not play as regularly as she would like. Tim Virostek and Jadon Ramsing are high schoolers who are relatively new to the game. Showing their greater experience, Clerkin and Blanchard easily handled Virostek and Ramsing to next face Mort Frank and Charles Parsons. In another display of age versus youth, adding vast experience to the aged side, Frank and Parsons edged the mixed pair of Blanchard and Clerkin, 21-13, 21-17. Meanwhile, on the other side of the bracket, Jacob Greenberg and Brendan King, high schoolers,  played Eli Zimet and Tony Truman in another rendition of age versus youth. Age trumped youth in a lopsided contest, 21-2 and 21-6, resulting in an all 65+ finals.  Mort Frank and Parsons against Truman and Zimet may not have the level of speed and agility accorded to other divisions, but what is lacking in flair is made up for with finesse. Older players still can manipulate the ball with great skill, if it is within reach. The four finalists are equally matched in craftiness and cunning, so it is no surprise that they split the first two games, Frank and Parsons taking the first, 21-15 while Zimet and Truman, balanced the sheet, 21-10 in the second game. The tiebreaker found Zimet and Truman outlasting Parsons and Frank, 11-6.

The C Singles division found many of the young players from the above doubles pairings split to challenge each other. Brendan King defeated Jadon Ramsing, 21-15, 11-21 and 11-7. King would later be out matched by Peter Clerkin, 21-1 and 21-4. Clerkin would await the outcome of the other side of the bracket. Tim Virostek faced off against Jacob Greenberg, with Greenberg prevailing, 21-4 and 21-16. Greenberg next faced Amanda Blanchard who had early advanced by default over Galen Shi. Greenberg was too strong for Blanchard and won easily, 21-1 and 21-8 to face Clerkin in the final. Although new to the three wall arena, Clerkin’s skills proved too much for Greenberg as he prevailed (no score available). How many of us can say that the first time we attempted something that we walked away victorious? Perhaps this will encourage Clerkin to return and others to give 3-wall a try.

In the dropdown bracket, Ramsing outlasted Virostek in a one game consolation match, 31-21.

Though not as large as expected turnout as previous years, this year’s incarnation of the Eastern Regional 3-Wall tournament proved to be fun and fulfilling to both participants and spectators. For many of us, this tournament serves as warm up for the national 3-wall tournament being held in and around Toledo (Maumee), OH, Thursday August 30 to Monday September 3, 2012. For those making the journey, let us follow up our hard work, dedication and positive results with more of the same in Toledo.

On a personal note, I wish to thank my ardent supporters and fans, both of my court play and reporting in this medium. Your positive feedback and encouragement has been invaluable in spurring me on.  

Categories
Tournament Results

2012 No Frills Results

2012 No Frills Tournament Results

June 2, 2012

Download PDF Results Here

Categories
Tournament Results

2012 MD State Singles Results

2012 MD State Singles Tournament
Results

March 10, 2012

Download Results Here

Categories
Tournament Results

2011 MD State Doubles Tournament Results

 2011 MD State Doubles Tournament
Results

Download Results Here

Categories
Tournament Results

2011 MD State Doubles Write-Up

When I started writing about handball and elaborating about tournament results, it was a way for me not only to analyze the state of the game, but to also dissect the tactics and turns I believe it takes to win. In my own analysis, while I have seen others continue their winning ways and improving skill sets, I can readily say, I count myself among the improving masses. Sometimes scoring one or two more points better than the last outing against an opponent can be a benchmark of success as an individual and also as a team.

Although often said in jest, finding the right partner is the key to the doubles game. It proves true when we assess the success of long standing collaborations. But it is also true that good handball players can and often times find the winning edge with whomever they team up with. Also, to the keen observer of the game, the most successful doubles teams are the ones that establish trust and commitment to a particular strategy. The clairvoyant or psychic nature of the winning pairs will rarely create that awkward moment that we have all experienced on the court, when each member of the team looks to the other as if to say, “I thought you were going for that…” Instead, success can be measured in terms of clearly defined roles for each member of the partnership and if they act symbiotically to figuratively dot I’s and cross T’s.

In examining the latest incarnation of the Maryland State Doubles tournament held at Saverna Park, MD on Dec. 10, 2011, many of the characteristics described above for successful doubles pairings were on display in abundance as teams fought their way through their particular bracket. And although this tournament had a smaller than usual turnout, it was no less intriguing or exciting than in years past as four divisions competed initially, with a fifth formed as a dropdown bracket.

As always, the Open division usually features the most skillfully advanced players.  Eight players forming four teams competed in a round robin format. Josh Osburn teamed up with Mitch Kado, a visiting Japanese handball champion. Their opening round pitted them against perennial national and local champions, Dan Ziment and Alan Frank. Osburn is a fine player with a precise form that produces textbook kill shots on many occasions. Kado showed his talent in his precise shot making with seemingly soft, arching lofts to the front. In combination, the unpracticed team had court communication lapses that added to the perceived disadvantage against Zimet and Frank.  At 21-8 and 21-11, Osburn and Kado showed a competitive fire to be commended, but in the end it was not nearly enough to overcome the juggernaut pairing of Zimet and Frank.

Osburn and Kado next faced off against an intriguing pairing of Rick Anderson and his son Lee. Rick’s up front game is legendary and paired with Lee has had some noted success in recent tournaments. Lee’s game has improved immensely and remains steady even though at times, his on court volatility can be his main undoing.  For Osburn and Kado, the Anderson duo was flawless in their execution of symbiosis as Rick command the front with his signature drop shot kills that are painted along the expanse of the 20 foot front wall with sprinklings of pinches to either corner. These shots are not hit as much as they are directed to their designated spot with the sole intent of leaving opponents in desperation to retrieve. Where dad may use finesse, son uses raw power to punish the ball as well as his opponents as they reach too late for a screeching shot that often hooks as if on command. It proved difficult for Osburn and Kado to overcome such precision as they lost the match, 21-9 and 21-8.

When the third match of the day rolled around for Osburn and Kado, they faced Andy Schad and Logan Foley, a formidable pairing with a bit of team experience to boot, also playing their third match of this round robin Open.  The first game was tight as Osburn and Kado matched Schad and Foley stroke for stroke. No lead was safe or too big to overcome as Osburn and Kado edged their opponents 21-18. The second game would see Schad and Foley regain form and out play Osburn and Kado, 21-14 and force the always tension filled 11-point tiebreaker. Like the two previous games of the match, every point was contested and the final outcome was in doubt until the end when Osbun and Kado managed to eke out the victory, 11-8.

Prior to their third match, Schad and Foley opened their round robin play against Rick and Lee Anderson.  This was as scintillating a match as anyone could imagine. Starting early in the morning, in the first game, the players heated up to the challenge and pushed each other to the limit with Schad and Foley escaping, 21-20. In the second game, the Andersons, led by Lee’s heroics, blistered shot after shot and leaving no doubt as to the outcome, evening the match, 21-5. Riding high off the momentum from the second game victory, the Andersons made quick work by vanquishing Schad and Foley, 11-4 in the tiebreaker.

Schad and Foley would later play Zimet and Frank evenly and strong, only to coming up short in both games, 21-16.

With the Andersons and Zimet and Frank each winning their two matches, a showcase final was set. With the gallery stocked with spectators, these two teams squared off, Zimet and Frank with their reputation and history up against a brash Lee Anderson feeling his guns and steady Rick always a threat to end a point at any juncture in a rally. Like two heavy weights feeling each other out, at the early stages of the first game, the teams took turns forging ahead by a few points at a time. As the game wore on, the Andersons seem to gain momentum and confidence and Lee roamed the court and executed opportunistic kills and passing shots that left Zimet and Frank with no answers in response. What started out slowly, finished quickly as the Andersons pulled away to take the first game, 21-13. The second game found both teams fighting to gain a foothold and dominance. The Andersons surged ahead and forced Zimet and Frank to scramble and claw their way back into the match. Down a game, Zimet and Frank knew they had to win to reach a tiebreaker and the Andersons instinctively knew they did not want to face that scenario.  Up by a few points and closing in on the victory, the Andersons let Zimet and Frank inch their way closer. Knowledgeable fans murmured to each other about possible outcomes, including whether Lee would hold it together emotionally to seal the deal. Playing with his dad, Lee seemed to center himself to channel his emotions into his game and to let his often displayed volatility diffuse into well placed shots and diving athletic digs. With the final point won and the victory sealed, 21-19, Lee released his emotions in a championship embrace with his dad.

The 50+ bracket had the most teams (8) and was the only division that did not play a round robin format.  In addition to playing in the Open division, Rick Anderson teamed up with Roger Berry and came into the bracket as the number one seeded team. Whether indoor or outdoor, Berry and Anderson present steep challenges to any and all opponents. Berry, known for his smooth, energy conserving play will dissect with his precise shot making and his ability to move an opponent around the court. The complementary styles of this team make quick work out of most opponents. The seemingly effortless play of both men often adds to the frustrations of losing a match to this team.  Although Al Charbonneau and Jay Dennis played with intensity, their efforts where often minimized by either Berry or Anderson, resulting in a 12-8, 21-9 loss.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the bracket, the number two seed, Joe Berman and Bob Maguire faced off against Dave Flemming teaming up with Kevin Gibson. Berman is a tactician who moves deceptively well, contrary to his appearance. His hands are quick and exhibit power from anywhere on the court, but deals a craftiness and finesse in the front court that is a delight to watch.  With Maguire as his solid partner who lopes and leans with textbook motions, Flemming and Gibson, good players paired at the last minute, were at an extreme disadvantage as they could muster only 4 points in each game.

One of the middle seeds faced off in pairings of Keith Neihart and Jed Alexander against Dave Hinkleman and Dan Ho. Hinkleman and Ho have partnered for years and have shown successes locally and nationally. Unfortunately, Hinkleman played this tournament while still rehabilitating from knee replacement surgery that severely limited his mobility but definitely did not affect the deft touches of his dexterity up front. In other incarnations of play, Ho would motor around the court and keeping rallies going before Hinkleman could work his magic, but this was not in play on this occasion and they only managed 3 points in the first game. Neihart and Alexander make a solid pair and play well together at the club level. Neihart is quick up front and operates best in the front court with kills or re-kills and signature pinched corner winners. Alexander will use his left handed fist kills from the back court whenever he has the opportunity. With histories and circumstances in mind, it was no surprise that in the second game of the match, Hinkleman and Ho attempted to redeem themselves by battling hard, but came up short, 21-15.

To fill out the bracket, the final pairings of the first round pitted yours truly and my longtime doubles partner, Bruce Cohen against Bob Dyke and Rick Compton. Having faced Dyke and Compton before in other pairings, Cohen and Peart knew they had their hands full. But preparation and planning and some flawless execution allowed us to compete and keep the first game close. After grueling rallies and several pointless exchanges of side outs, Dyke and Compton found the extra gear to prevail, 21-18. Encouraged by the closeness of the first game, we thought going into the second game, we could win and force a tiebreaker. Unfortunately, our execution fell off and Dyke and Compton handled us, 21-11. Bruce and I had not totally executed our plan for this match, and in retrospect, had we done so, the outcome might have been different. As a result, the four winning teams advanced to the semifinal round, while the four teams failing to advance beyond the first round were reseeded in a dropdown bracket or consolation round.

Continuing play in the 50+ division, one semifinal game featured Berry and Anderson against Neihart and Alexander. At 21-3, 21-5, it is fair to say, Neihart and Alexander where overmatched against a pair of seasoned and efficient competitors. In the other semifinal, although pushed in the second game, Berman and Maguire proved too strong a team for Dyke and Compton who exited the tournament, 21-6, 21-14. The above results led to the ideal finals of the two top seeds, Berry and Anderson facing off against Berman and Maguire.

Admittedly not witnessing any of this match, but confident in my knowledge of the style of play of these contestants, I would imagine the games to have been fascinating to watch. With Berry and Anderson prevailing 21-17, 21-14, it is a reversal of the 2010 finals when Berry and Anderson fell to Berman who had then teamed up with George Alicea-Ruiz.

In the Dropdown 50+ bracket, one match had Al Charbonneau and Jay Dennis facing Hinkleman and Ho.  The competitive pair of Charbonneau and Dennis kept Hinkleman and Ho off balance in the first game but could not close the deal and lost 21-19. The second game was less of a challenge as Hinkleman and Ho advanced 21-11. The second match had Dave Flemming and Kevin Gibson squaring off against Bruce Cohen and Peter Peart.  Both games were close for the first few points, but in each game, Cohen and Peart managed to create separation afforded by scoring runs, and where never tied nor passed and prevailed, 21-15, 21-11.

Despite the rehab status of Hinkleman, he and Ho together are never to be taken lightly. Changing our strategy for the consolation rounds, Bruce and I continued to execute our full plan against our crafty and skilled opponent in this finals match. And though Hinkleman and Ho proved tenacious as always, in the first game we won, 21-17. The second game was a different story as we pushed relentlessly and held serve for long scoring runs and took the game and match, 21-6.

The four teams paired in the combined 65+ and 70+ bracket made for intriguing matchups in this round robin play. Against each other, these veteran players may not necessarily show as much mobility, but they certainly display court savvy and a storehouse of knowledge of the game. Lewis Moore and Wayne Beers teamed, and in facing the other three teams, incurred two losses and one victory by forfeit. They lost against a dynamic and long time collaborative pairing of King Stablein and Roy Weinstock, 21-6, 21-3. King and Roy, as they are known locally, ply a tried and true formula for doubles success; Roy hovers in the front court and picks off shots and softly bunts them to the front wall where the ball often flutters or trickles to a quiet death. Every other shot will find King knifing around the court to retrieve and deliver winning shots.  Also in a losing effort, 21-12 and 21-8, Moore and Beers played Carl Lady and Tony Truman.  In addition to the aforementioned win, Lady and Truman bested the team of Lew Buckingham and Ed Woerner, the senior most pairing in the bracket, 21-17, 21-15. Buckingham and Woerner later matched up against King and Roy and battled in a long match, taking the first game 21-19 only to lose the second, 21-9 and the tiebreaker, 11-3. Based on their steady play and total victories, Truman and Lady were crowned 70+ champions. To follow logically, since King and Roy had led a successful campaign throughout the round robin, they would face Lady and Truman to determine the overall champion of the bracket. King and Roy proved too strong in displaying their tried and true formulaic style of play and won the match with relative ease, 21-12, 21-7.

The B Division featured a broad mix of age and skill, including one mixed doubles pairing. Although some of the players in this bracket are new to the game of handball, many have shown promise and a steady rise in skill. There is a certain enthusiasm than can be found among the players in this bracket. With four teams featured, the two teams recording two victories apiece would face off to determine the champion. Nathaniel Frank and Chris Simeti teamed to face Chris Persaud and Donovan Pritchard.  Although this was a win for Frank and Simeti, 21-18, 21-16, Persaud and Donovan held their own, and perhaps with more seasoning and tournament experience, will be a strong part of the future of our game. Facing an older team that includes his father Ray Persaud, Sr and Kevin Gibson, Chris Persaud and Pritchard were simply overmatched but no less enthusiastic as son took delight whenever he scored against his father. After incurring this loss, 21-6, 21-13, Persaud and Pritchard did redeem themselves by taking on and besting the mixed pairing of Charles Parsons and Serenity Vidot, 21-15, 21-10. Although losing all three of their matches, Parsons and Vidot had their best showing against Persaud Sr and Gibson. In what must have been a surprise to some, after losing the first game of the match 21-3, Parsons and Vidot out played their opponents, 21-16, and forced the 11-point tiebreaker game. In the tiebreaker, Persaud Sr and Gibson wasted no time in erasing any doubt as to their superiority and cruised to victory, 11-1 and assuring a chance to play for the championship against Frank and Simeti who also triumphed over Parsons and Vidot. The showdown final between the team of Persaud Sr and Gibson and Frank and Simeti had elements of drama as both teams tried to exploit perceived weaknesses in one another. This resulted in hotly contested points in a well played match. Despite their strong effort, Frank and Simeti could not overcome the collective will and determination of Persaud Sr and Gibson, and fell 21-16, 21-14 to the B champions.

Thanks to the organizers for putting on another successful tournament that saw the unseating of perennial champs, the emergence of some players along with the marked improvement of others. Kudos to Rick Anderson, although not the only player competing in two divisions with two different partners in this one day event, but it was his teams that scored two championships in the top two divisions. No doubt, another feather in the cap of a man who has had a fine career in playing the game at such a high level; and who proves two of my opening points regarding doubles play: good players can play with anyone and win, but having the right partner certainly helps.

Categories
Tournament Results

2011 3-Wall Nationals Write-Up

“Welcome to Camelot.” This is how I was greeted by Ken Greco on my second trip to Toledo, OH for the start of the 61st annual 3- Wall National Handball tournament. Like how Camelot boasted of legends, warriors and romance, so does the site of this 3-wall tournament.  There are stories to be told of heroes and legends in existence and in the making. The romance is the sheer love of the game.

In 2010, my first trip to Toledo left me mesmerized and overwhelmed. I was enamored by the sight of so many handball players gathered in one venue that created a self-contained universe where handball ruled supreme on every level. Returning to find that universe intact and thriving filled me with pride and joy beyond belief. For anyone who loves the game, this pilgrimage is a must.

As the caravans and cavalcades converged on the venue known as the Lucas County Recreation Center, the smell of freshly grilled meats wafted through the air as the distinctive sound of balls smacking off concrete surfaces echoed above the buzz of the participants and spectators gathering for this five day feast of handball feats.

The participation of approximately 250 entrants left the organizers with the task of creating brackets and draws to set up the fairest competition possible. It takes a complex design to sort out players by both skill and in many cases, age levels broken down in 5 year increments starting at 35; this is considered the ‘seniors’ division while the ’masters’ divisions begin at 40. For non players who may read this, here is a simplified overview of how players are categorized to compete. In both Singles and Doubles competition, skill levels (men and women) from highest to lesser are Open, A, B, C and Novice (players new to the game or just learning to compete). If you are a winner on the national level in a lesser skill level, for future competitions you are only allowed to enter in a higher level, with the exception of the Open. In the Open, you may return to defend your title or try to win a title as long as you wish or can compete at that level.  In the age bracket divisions, as mentioned, within the 5-year increments, a player may play and remain in the senior or any masters division equal to or lower than his current age. That is to say, a player age 57 can apply to play in any division 35+ through 55+, but cannot play in the divisions 60 or above. Further to this, say, if you are age 42, you cannot apply to play in the division designated 45+. To further expand the competition, if participants warrant, there are B divisions formed within the age brackets. Finally, to be thorough, there are also junior divisions, for this tournament starting at 13 and under through 19 and under in two year increments. In the junior divisions there are occasions when boys and girls compete against each other. When your eligibility for the junior division runs out, a player can elevate to a skilled division suited to his or her level. In addition, at the national level, unless a player has signed up to play in more than one bracket (two maximum), he or she only plays one match per day.

As usual, a large contingency of players (along with their families and supporters) who ply and hone their 3-wall skills at the courts in Columbia, MD (collectively Marylander(s)), made the journey to Toledo again this year.  Individually and as a whole, the players from Columbia, dare I say, dominated play at this year’s tournament.  The dominance was so complete that in more than one event, players from Columbia were pitted against each other in a division final. Singles and doubles medalist by my count totaled 13 with several players winning either double gold or a gold and silver. By all accounts, every player who competed this year in Toledo felt they gave their best and elevated their game, with the ultimate measure being the crowning as a champion. Personally, I left Toledo feeling as pleased for myself as I am for this year’s crop of winners and competitors. I cannot say enough of to express my joy and elation to see great handball being played at all levels and to know that my handball family gave their all to emerge victorious in such a commanding fashion. Bravo men!

 For ease of flow, I will list the entire Columbia group here in no significant order except relatives are placed together delineated in a father/son(s) hierarchy: Mort Frank/Alan Frank/Nathaniel Frank; Elihu Zimet/Dan Zimet; Lew Buckingham (in-law)/Rick Anderson/Lee Anderson, Erik Anderson; Bob Bardwell/Dave Bardwell, Will Bardwell; Dan Ho/Josh Ho; Joe Berman; Joe Pleszkoch; Tony Winter; Ray Estevez; Bill Tebenhoff; Murzy Jhabvala; Joe Green; Bob Dyke; Jacob Reinhard; Pat Lowery, Tony Truman.

This tournament marked the introduction of a newly engineered ball for both men and women’s play. In comparison to the most recent ball in use, the new ball appears lighter in feel, easier on the hands at impact, sounds markedly different, duller in color and demonstrates varied properties for the all important elasticity or bounce. The bounce seems lively at first but quickly becomes less after a period of play. The new ball, if left unchanged definitely alters the 3-wall game in that the vaunted ceiling shots that often rocketed from court are now tamed and gives the alert and agile retriever a chance to track it down and return the shot.  This ball also presents surprises and allows additional creativity within a variety of shots.  It is hard to say how this ball will react to the variety indoor surfaces we often face in pickup games and competition. Needless to say, the new ball was a topic of conversation throughout the tournament. I would say there was a 50/50 spilt on likes and dislikes. But all agreed that the batch presented to us were too fragile at the moment and broke as easily as if they were eggs. And what is that white gooey substance that is present inside after breakage?

As always, I like to focus on the Open division (both singles and doubles) because as a group, this is where the best players often compete. From Columbia, Josh Ho competed in the Open singles; two years removed from being crowned champion in A singles and therefore was required to compete at the next level. Josh’s opening round match pitted him against Raul Retian, a good player who seemed less than tournament ready. Josh handled Raul with ease winning, 21-6 and 21-7. Any elation from this victory for Josh or his supporters would be tempered by the fact that Josh’s next opponent was none other than the number one seed and nationally second ranked David Chapman. At 36, Chapman is still capable of intimidating and dominating on and off the court. He rarely fails to live up to his reputation, good or bad. 

At the moment of truth, Josh faced down his opponent and seemed at bit nervous and hurried in his play. The first game was not indicative of how Josh plays and the score would reflect that fact, 21-6 in favor of Chapman.  Between games, Josh collected himself and showed a revitalized effort as the second game started. The score was close and Josh forged ahead 15-13 with the crowd clearly in his corner. Chapman seemed a bit flustered by the events unfolding. After a time out, Chapman regained control of the match to close out Josh, 21-15. Although, this was not a recognized victory for Josh, the scoring of points against such a highly regarded skilled payer is significant.

Josh later teamed up with Rick Anderson to compete in the Open doubles draw. In playing against a solid team of Billy O’Donnell and Mike Schneider, they battled valiantly but lost 21-7, 21-15. For O’Donnell and Schneider, this may have been a bit of revenge for their lost in the Eastern Regional’s (Columbia, MD) against Dan Zimet and Alan Frank two weeks earlier.

The Open division showcased young talent, both seasoned and raw. While watching these young men play, comments are often heard from others players, said in jest, but highly complementary that ‘…these guys play an entirely different game than we do.’ In many respects it is true, their speed and agility often confirm superior skills and produce a level of play that generally illicit a crescendo of ahs and sustained applause.  Every year the crop of talent in the Open division becomes deeper as games, minds and bodies mature. With seasoned pros like Chapman and Sean Lenning always ready to dominate, young gunners like Tyree Bastidas, Nikolai Nahorniak, Andy Nett, and Luis Moreno are always poised to unseat the reigning champ. Such was the case of Brauilo Ruiz who in an earlier round bested Billy O’Donnell, 21-15, 21-16 and was now ready to face Chapman in the quarterfinals. Most people watching would not have given even the slightest edge to Ruiz. But for the better part on an hour his skills frustrated Chapman and forced him into uncharacteristic errors that Ruiz was more than willing to capitalize on to end any threat of a Chapman rally or to continue his own torrent of point scoring. Having won the first game 21-10, the second game outcome 21-6 in favor of Ruiz was the completion of a classic upset. Perhaps it was the heat of the day or Ruiz was better prepared to face a known quantity and took advantage of every available opening.  That was to have been the highlight of Ruiz’s tournament because in the semifinals match against Nahorniak, his efforts seemed diminished as Nahorniak sent him exiting from the singles competition while cementing his own spot in the finals. Before facing Ruiz, Nahorniak squared off against another fine player, Luis Moreno. Their style of play, though similar, Nahorniak tends to show more power in his passing and kill shots. The two young stars battled in the first game that seemed to turn on a referee’s call that went against Moreno. The call rattled Moreno who lost his composure and focus and could not close the deal and lost 21-20. The second game, though close in score, clearly had Nahorniak in control as he went on to win, 21-15.

On the other half of the Open draw, other young men were waging their own battles for supremacy and to earn a way into the finals. Sean Lenning or Tyree Bastidas would more than likely emerge when the smoke cleared. Lenning had earlier dispatched Jurrell Bastidas and Mike Schneider on his path to meet Tyree in a semifinals matchup. It would perhaps have been sweet if one brother could avenge the loss suffered by the other.  But handball is not about vengeance so much as it is more about skills and the execution of those skills. In the match of Lenning vs. T. Bastidas, Lenning controlled the match with his disguised quickness and ease of execution. Many points ended on his signature corner kills.  The abrupt endings to short-lived rallies took away any scoring chances that Tyree could muster and Lenning advanced easily to the finals, 21-6 and 21-10. It is apparent that Lenning does not use the ceiling shot very much as part of his arsenal, because he does not believe in its effectiveness as part of his game. This is his opinion as I gathered from a conversation with him while watching a match together.

In the past, I have commented about Tyree, not only about his stellar play, but his lousy attitude on and off the court. In fairness to Tyree and his apparent found maturity, I am happy and pleased to see a fine young man on display in Toledo. His polite demeanor on and off the court warms my heart. In his youth, the Tyree we all saw and disliked was more like Tyree the tantrum tyrant. Now he is more like Tyree the tamed tiger. He is still passionate about the game, but does not let his emotions overwhelm or dictate his play.

Court demeanor and behavior on any level is as much part of the game as are well placed kill shots. I know that sometimes in the heat of battle, the fire and desire to win boils over into verbal and physical rage that can perhaps get ugly. We all use ways to exhort our own play, but we must never allow the exhortation to spill and devolve into ugliness. Unfortunately, when seeing this type of behavior demonstrated, it often overshadows fine play or other accomplishments on the court and simply leaves any observer cringing.

The men’s open final pitted a seasoned Sean Lenning against the rising gunner, Nikolai Nahorniak. The match and play was deserving of a final as the warriors dueled for supremacy. Both men displayed that easy quickness and agility that buttress their ambidextrous tenacity from any point on the court. The difference in this match came down to serves, with edge going to Lenning as he was able to hold off a persistent Nahorniak, 21-18, 21-17 to take the championship.

The men’s Open doubles bracket was again dominated by the Chapman and his tireless partner Bill Mehilos. This is a doubles pair that works so well at this level and in 3-wall play because Mehilos has the athleticism and agility of a panther. His deep gets from some 20 feet or more beyond the 40 feet ending of the court is pretty amazing as he skies to power returns to the high front wall, tight to the side wall, often making it difficult for an opponent to follow up with a decent return. Even though other pairings had excellent matches and successful campaigns within this bracket, it was the team of Suhn Lee and Marco Lemus who took down Sean Lenning paired with Luis Moreno and then Tyree and Jurrell Bastidas that earned the right to face off against Chapman and Mehilos.  Lee has a fine game that if given the chance will present problems for many a player in the Open division. But in the finals, Lee and Lemus could not withstand the craftiness of Chapman and Mehilos and finished second, 21-10 and 21-10.

From the Open division, we follow with play of participants in the A singles and doubles divisions. In singles, Lee Anderson and Dave Bardwell on opposite sides of the draw successfully worked their way through the bracket, fending off challenges along the way to meet in the finals. Playing out of Columbia Maryland, these two young men are quite familiar with each other’s skills. But as a championship match, it lacked the consistent level of skilled play that we have come to expect from Anderson. Bardwell was steady throughout as Anderson came apart emotionally. As mentioned earlier, demeanor and composure is as important on the court as the shots we take and make. The final score in favor of Bardwell, 21-6, 21-7 reflected as much one player’s skill and the other’s lack of control. Congratulations to Dave who now must seek glory in the Open division if he chooses to compete in the future. For Lee, the A division seems ripe for the taking, but holding it together and letting his skills shine will be the key to his future as a champion.

In the A doubles bracket, Dave Bardwell teamed up his brother Will and Lee Anderson teamed up with his brother Erik. Both teams were unfortunately seeded on the same side of the bracket and met in one of the semifinals match. Again familiarity of these players to each other meant the possibility of an intriguing matchup. The Andersons established control from the start and never looked back. This match took place after the A singles debacle for Lee who kept it together beautifully as he and Erik simply dominated.  Throughout the match, bodies often skidded across the concrete floor, with skinned knees and deft gets as bitter sweet rewards. At 21-8, 21-8, the Andersons would play the finals. Mike Dorneker and Ryan Bowler handled their half of the bracket to make the finals. The two teams played the first came evenly and tentatively, like two boxers in a sparring match. The Andersons, through their tentative play, lost the opening game 21-15. By the middle of the second game, the Andersons began showing their dominance and raced to a decisive victory, 21-6 to set up the 11-point tie breaker. As you will note, as I have throughout this retelling of this year’s Toledo tale, there seems to be a trend present; that by losing the first game of a match and then winning the second game a tie breaker, an edge is gained, perhaps psychological, to the most recent winner. Some may argue that momentum is an intangible, but we have seen the shifts in handball games and many sporting events. So the Andersons had the edge going in but Dorneker and Bowler would not lie down. So in a tight game, anything can turn the tide. With the score close or tied, the Andersons served and in a series of timely kills, including the championship point blasted in the right corner by Lee, the Andersons were crowned A doubles champs by winning 11-8 in the tiebreaker.

The 50 B singles division fielded the largest draw, equaling the men’s Open with 19 players each. The 50 Bs is a proving ground of sorts for players hoping to refine their game to reach and remain competitive at the next level (Masters). Each year the winner moves up and the returning players are reseeded according to how they fared the previous year. At present this is the division that suits my experience and skills at this level. As deep as this division is, there were two other players from Maryland entered, Dan Ho and Pat Lowery. In addition, players from last year’s draw were also seeded. My first round match was against Ed Courvette. In the first game, by serving and ending points quickly, I raced out to big lead and never stopped to look back, taking the game 21-1. The second game found Courvette staying close as he closed an early gap to stage a comeback. After regaining my own momentum, I closed out the game and match, 21-14.

Next up for me was a player unknown to me from Cincinnati, OH. Glenn Gartland turned out to be a tough opponent. In addition to battling Gartland, the searing heat and humidity at 2:30 in the afternoon scorched the courts and players alike. We both battled for points, with Gartland prevailing 21-17. Encouraged by the closeness of the first game, I fought hard to keep the next game under control while keeping the elements at bay. With both of us playing under and feeling the intensity of the conditions, every point would be at a premium. The match began to extend as neither Gartland nor I could muster the final charge to the finish. Without giving up, after a few long rallies, I felt the game and the match slipping away. And so it did as Gartland took the second game and the match, 21-17. Again, in the heat of battle, the enemy becomes a friend as respect is gained through a shared experience. Glenn and I would interact for the rest of the tournament as I encouraged him on his way to the finals. To get to the finals, Glenn met and defeated a valiant Dan Ho, another Maryland player whose vocabulary does not contain the word “quit.”  Ho took the first game from Gartland, 21-14. But in the second game, Gartland overcame Ho’s mastery and survived, 21-17. Whether it was momentum or better play, Gartland was able to stop Ho in the 11-point tie breaker at 5. Gartland next faced Ernie McGarry from Seattle, Washington who last year showed me an early exit from this bracket, but like Glenn, we remain close.  By indication of scores, McGarry had a fairly easy time handling his opponents until he met Gartland. Although somewhat evenly matched, Gartland prevailed, 21-14 and 21-15. In the finals, Gartland met Bob Clair, who lost in last year’s final of this event.  As the top seed in the bracket, Clair had an easy time advancing to the finals. In this half of the bracket, Pat Lowery another Marylander also played. Lowery, however, lost in a tough quarterfinal tie breaker against Glenn Paraskevin from Wisconsin. Paraskevin would later lose to Clair in the semifinals. Against Clair, Gartland showed resolve and tenacity as he took the first game 21-16. Having gone down this road before, Clair stormed back and took the second game 21-7. With the 11-point tie breaker looming, each contestant gathered themselves between games and dug deep to find the extra juice and resolve to win the tie breaker. And the trend of second game winners winning tie breaker emerge as Clair was crowned champion, 11-5.

In the 40 B singles, Pat Lowery also competed in a bracket with a smaller draw. Upon reaching the semifinal, Lowery had to withdraw because of injury. Before the injury, Lowery seemed poised to take this division; perhaps next year.

The B singles and doubles divisions, by far is the most diverse bracket in terms of the mix of players of varying age and skills. In singles, first timer Joe Green from Maryland fought valiantly in his openning round match, but eventualyl fell 21-19 and 21-6. My partner Bill Tebenhoff and I were entered in the doubles bracket of this division. Other Marylanders included Mort Frank and his grandson, Nathaniel and Erik Anderson and Will Bardwell were also entered. In addition, there were pairings of a father and son and also college aged young men who made for intriguing matchups. Tebenhoff and I played against a pair of college aged gunners. Our tenacity and experience were not enough to overcome their speed and power as Derrick Contreras and Mathew Anderson showed us the exit from the bracket, 21-14 and 21-15. In the next round, this team was eliminated by one of the teams making the finals. Mort Frank and Nathaniel Frank were also shown and early exit leaving Erik Anderson and Will Bardwell to carry the Maryland torch forward. And carry the torch they did, as this team marched through the bracket to the finals to face Micah Garcia and Chris Giannamore. After taking the first game 21-12, Anderson and Bardwell seemed to let up and allowed Garcia and Giannamore to dominate play and lost the game 21-10. So this brought them to the sudden death 11-point tie breaker. Will the trend of second game winner hold precedence again? Fortunately for Anderson and Bardwell, they regained their first game form and easily dispatched their opponents, 11-4 to win the championship of this division.

Perhaps you may wonder how Erik Anderson a recently crowned A player could still compete in the B division. Well, as the luck of the draw would have it, Erik applied to play in both divisions, which is allowed under the entry rules, so winning both, no matter the order is also allowed under the rules. Of course, next time if Erik chooses to compete, he must do so as an Open player.

The aforementioned Nathaniel Frank and his friend another Marylander, Jacob Reinhard were entered in the Junior 17 and under division. This division was split into two pool play groups and in each group round robin play took place. Frank triumphed in his pool group setting up a finals match with Brittyn Bidegain, the winner from the other pool group. Reinhard played well in the Bidegain pool group but did not fare as well as Frank. But Reinhard would later player in and win the consolation round.  In order to face off against Bidegain, Frank had to gut it out against Spencer Straw, a junior with amazing skills and deceptive motions with both hands. Straw shows a developed game that will only get better with maturity and seasoning. Straw seemingly can put the ball anywhere he chooses from anywhere on the court, especially up front.  Frank won the first game 21-17 and lost the second 21-20. With his supporters urging him own, Frank was able to hang on by the thinnest of margins as he eked out an 11-10 win in the taut tie breaker. Facing Bidegain, Frank had his work cut out for him. Bidegan’s petite stature belies the tenacity of her game. From the onset, Bidegain dictated play over Frank with either hand and never relented throughout the match. Bidegain exposed Frank’s glaring weakness, his left and exploited it on her way to 21-2, 21-3 championship.  Knowing Frank and his lineage, he will improve his left and return to perhaps face Bidegain or Straw in this same division again next year.

The masters divisions feature players who make up the core of our sport. Within each division, there are perennial champions and favorites who face off against each other, year after year for supremacy. With that in mind, it would require an inordinate amount of words to adequately elaborate on the matches for the masters’ brackets of this tournament’s draw.  Continuing, my focus remains on the Maryland players and their quest for glory in this year’s championships.

The 40 Men’s singles championship pitted Dan Zimet against Andy Schad. Again, this is a case of two players who spent the entire summer honing their skills against each other at the courts in Columbia, MD.  To meet in the finals is bitter sweet in a sense because someone has to come in second. I had the honor and pleasure of refereeing this match which gave me an unprecedented view of the action. This was a match punctuated with tremendous rallies and feats of athleticism that befits Zimet and Schad. As a seasoned champion on this stage, Zimet seemed to have the edge over Schad. But Schad has incredible skills, even though the 3-wall game might not be his strong forte. Those skills were on display as he out played Zimet in their first game, allowing 12 points. Battling the heat as well as each other in the second game, Zimet found his serve that skims low to the short line and often cracks out for aces or service winners. Schad had no answer and as the momentum shifted and Zimet took the second game 21-9. Earning the right to serve first in the tie breaker by virtue of a higher 2-game point total, Zimet continued his serving barrage and raced out to a 9-0 lead. After a few side outs, and Schad managing 3 points, Zimet earned yet another 3-wall title.

The match over, Zimet looked forward to his doubles dominance with long time collaborator, Alan Frank. To this observer and I admit bias, as doubles partners, Zimet and Frank are more than a formidable force. Putting it simply, they elegantly finish each other’s sentences. So in the 40s doubles division, this favored pair held their first two opponents to low single digits in round robin play to face off against Matt Osburn and Jim Karner who also had relatively easy wins in their matches (one by default).  As Frank and Zimet enter their playing zone, they become efficient and execute with laser like precision. As one of the opposing players between games of the finals was overheard saying while shaking his head, “You know these guys, they can’t be stopped.” And with that in mind, Frank and Zimet dispatched Osburn and Karner, 21-4, 21-9 to earn yet another 3-wall doubles title.

Frank would later team up with Mark Zamora to defend their title in the 45 doubles division. Bill Tebenhoff teamed up with Pat Boyd from Atlanta to compete in this division, but they were eliminated in the early round. Continuing where they left off from last year, Frank and Zamora showed their mastery over an opponent on their way to the finals by winning 21-1, 21-5. In the finals against Jim Wohl and Steven Dykes, Frank and Zamora played like a well oiled machine. Whether it was Zamora controlling the front with his signature soft or angular kills or Frank retrieving from all sides of the deep court, Wohl and Dykes had no defense against such precision and efficiency.  In the first game, the pair managed 7 points but was hard pressed to get 2 in the second game. So with the second consecutive championship for this pairing, Frank and Zamora seem poised to start a dynasty.

It is worth mentioning that Zamora played a memorable finals match in the 50 singles division against Peter Service. The first game was dominated by Zamora leading at one point, 13-0 he won easily, 20-9. As knowing sources commented, Service is a slow starter and would fight back. But as others later reported, Zamora continued to dominate and led 20-8 in the second game and needed just one point for the championship. Unexpectedly, Service came back and won the game 21-20 after being down, but certainly not out. Zamora related after, that he had emptied his tank but did not realize he had nothing left. Service took advantage and easily won the tie breaker 11-1 and thus taking the championship. As handball players, we all know that it sometimes seem harder to get that last one point than it is to get the first 20. But Zamora is champion and a warrior because within the next day or so, after this seemingly crushing defeat, he and Frank teamed up to win as described above.

The Men’s 50s doubles bracket featured two pairs of player from the Maryland group, Joe Berman and Tony Winter and Rick Anderson and Bob Dyke. This is a tough bracket of seasoned players who have won championships together or with other pairings. In their half of the bracket, Dyke and Anderson won comfortably in their first two matches to reach the semifinals. Facing Bret Williams and Matt Osburn, Dyke and Anderson had their hands full against the top seeds and could only muster 3 and 7 points in their games. This strong showing by Anderson and Dyke may hold promise for future collaborations. While on the other side of the draw, Berman (battling injuries) and Winter, worked their way to the semifinals against a fine team of Joe Ivy and Bob Bardeau who were currently the 2010 defending champions of the 55 doubles division.  Berman and Winter applied force against the craftiness of Bardeau and Ivy but lost the first game, 21-17. The second game started as a rain storm rolled into the area. With Berman and Winter up 18-13, play was halted as the rain pelted the courts.

During the delay, players stay dry by taking shelter in the front half of the courts which are protected by the concrete portion of the ceiling…

Description: IMG_1285.jpg

Some practice…

Description: IMG_1288.jpg

Some catch a few winks…

Description: IMG_1299.jpg

 After the rains cleared, an efficient team of volunteers used brooms, sponge rollers and squeegees to push excess water off the courts which were further dried by using the directed flames fueled by propane tanks.  The rain delay seemed to help Berman regain form lost due to his injury as he and Winter quickly closed out Bardeau and Ivy on 3 consecutive serves. The tie breaker seemed a matter of formality as Berman and Winter blanked their opponents 11-0. In the finals, Berman and Winter were over matched as Williams and Osburn maintained control throughout and easily won the championship 21-11, 21-3. Berman and Winter played well together because of their complimentary style, Berman in front, Winter in back. It would not be surprising if this pair remain formidable as contenders or eventual champions.

The Men’s 55 singles featured David Dohman, hall of famer and perennial champion. Also present in this division is the rangy Phil Kirk, also no stranger to championships. Marylander, Ray Estevez earned the distinction of meeting Kirk in a semifinal match. Estevez, though game, could not match Kirk’s long reaching arms and powerful serves. Kirk took the first game 21-11 but Estevez pushed hard in the second but succumbed in the end 21-15 sending Kirk to the finals. Although Dohman was pushed in his semifinal match by John Freidrich, he prevailed 21-16, 21-20 setting up a showdown with Kirk. These two men have played each other at many levels for years and their matches are always great crowd pleasers. Neither player disappointed their fans with Dohman outlasting Kirk, 21-14, 21-19 to earn yet another championship.

In the Men’s 55 doubles division, 3 or 4 of the competing teams were either current or former champions of this or a lower masters division.  Defending champions, Bardeau and Ivy after dispatching their quarterfinals opponents with ease, faced the formidable team of Ray Estevez and Scott Rosenthal. This match went to the 11-point tie breaker as Bardeau and Ivy one the first game, 21-13. But in the second game, Estevez and Rosenthal found their groove and curtailed Bardeau and Ivy, 21-5. And inevitable as it seems and reported here, with one or two exceptions so far, second game winners who force a tie breaker seem to triumph. And so it was, with Estevez and Rosenthal besting Bardeau and Ivy 11-7 to reach the finals. On the way to meeting another long time pairing of Dohman and Tim Sterrett in the other semifinals, Jim Corrigan and Phil Kirk stymied Bob Dyke and his partner Frank Lambrechts, 21-2, 21-8.  Usually Corrigan and Kirk meet Dohman and Sterrett in the finals of whatever division they both compete in. So perhaps, meeting the semifinals is a letdown for them. By virtue of the score, this was a typical match between these giants of the game. Once again, the two teams spilt games with the first going to Dohman and Sterrett, 21-14. Corrigan and Kirk roared back to win the second game, 21-9. By all accounts and the score, the scintillating tie breaker win goes to Corrigan and Kirk, reaching the finals, 11-10 against Estevez and Rosenthal. In the finals, experience won out over will as Corrigan and Kirk dominated in every phase of the match and winning, 21-9, 21-3. With their long history together combined with numerous successes, these two champions remain at the top of their game.

Toledo is more than about handball, it is about families, friends, food, and traditions. It is nice to be part of this continuing landscape of our game. After spending a couple of days or the whole tournament renewing and building friendships, you walk away knowing you were part of something special. I am happy to report, I met the casual as well as the diehard fan;  people who just love to watch handball being played and at any level. I consider myself a diehard fan of the game and get great pleasure from playing, watching the game being played and interacting with the players. In that light, I wish I could watch every game and every match being played.  At Toledo, there are usually 8 matches being played simultaneously. If scheduling is favorable, sometimes the desirable matches are being played, all on one side or the other and that makes viewing that much more fun.  As player, I know and appreciate how important it is to have fan support.  Special thanks to Nan for getting me there, cheering for me, and getting me home safe again. Most groups, especially the Maryland crew, are extremely supportive and encouraging. Whenever I am playing, having anyone or the entire group cheering for me definitely boosts my game. And in the event of a loss (or as Al Green the player says: “You did not lose, you finished second.”), familiar faces there to console, always helps to lessen the sting. And if you win, the hearty congrats lends the warm and fuzzy feeling we all know and love. Let us return to the action as the Marylanders continue this year’s dominance in their respective brackets.  

The Men’s 60 doubles draw had two teams made up of one Marylander each. Dan Ho and Ken Greco hoped to cement a 3-wall partnership put on display a few weeks earlier at the Eastern Regional 3-wall event held in Columbia, MD. While Murzy Jhabvala, returning to Toledo after a brief absence, teamed with John (Sean) Conneely. Like any of the 32 divisions or brackets at this year’s event, there may be easy matches, but overall, going forward and winning, you will be tested. Ho and Greco advanced to the quarterfinals only to be bounced by Larry Dohman and Robert Anderson. Jhabvala and Conneely held their own as they comfortably marched to the finals. In the finals, they would face Alan Sherrill and Vance McInnis. McInnis is a perennial champ in singles and teaming up with Sherrill provided a solid doubles tandem as they took the first game, 21-11. Jhabvala and Conneely reversed the tables and took the second game, 21-15. Will the trend of second game winners winning the 11-point tie breaker continue? As if by design, the trend does continue as Jhabvala and Conneely snatched the championship 11-6.

Physical and mental ability often dictate quality of play in handball at any level. This is why on occasion, an older player will choose to ply his skills among a younger set as seen in Toledo, but only briefly alluded to in this tournament summation.

The Men’s 65 singles had two Marylanders in the draw; Joe Pleszkoch and Bob Bardwell. Pleszkoch arrives at the quarterfinals after a 21-14, 21-15 opening round victory. Game one against Robert Braine, was lost, 21-9.  Pleszkoch battled back to take the next game, 21-8. Statistically, by my own count, the tie breaker should be won by Pleszkoch. However, stats do not win handball games as Braine prevailed 11-8 in a grueling contest. With Bardwell winning his quarterfinals contest, he next faced Braine. Bardwell is not a big man in stature, but he possesses a big game of relentlessness and tenacity that compliments his fine skills on the handball court. With that in mind, Bardwell barred the door against Braine by dismissing him, 21-4, and 21-6 to reach the final.  Bardwell would face Carl Valentino, whose silvery white shock of hair and Michigan State green attire gives him a certain cache of the bon vivant of the handball courts.  Valentino and Bardwell would push each other to the limit as the first game turned on Bardwell’s deft use of high arching shots that hug the side wall on their way beyond the confines of the court and often out of reach. The first game may have drained Valentino as an energized Bardwell served and volleyed his way to the title, 21-19 and 21-9.

 

In the 65 doubles, many of the same players would appear teamed with a respectable partner. Marylander Tony Truman, playing young, teamed with quotable Al Green while Joe Pleszkoch paired with Keith Thode.  Truman and Green, played into the quarterfinals, but lost that match, 21-8, 21-14 to the aforementioned Carl Valentino and his partner, Rick Graham. Valentino and Graham would eventually work their way to the finals. Meanwhile, Pleszkoch and Thode had an easy path to the semifinals to face Mike Meltzer and Bob Braine. Pleszkoch and Thode had their hands full facing Meltzer and Braine. As valiantly as they battled, Pleszkoch and Thode would fall, 21-14, 21-8. Meltzer and Braine bested a steady Valentino and Graham to win the championship 21-15, 21-14. Apparently Meltzer also won this title in 2010, but with a different partner.

In the 70 doubles division, Tony Truman, playing his age teamed up with first time Marylander, Elihu Zimet to win their quarterfinal match. In a tough semifinal match, Truman and Zimet won a tight first game, 21-19. Their opponents roared back by taking the second game, 21-3 thus setting up the decisive tie breaker. Ah, the trend, sidetracked briefly as reported above, was back on track as Truman and Zimet’s run to the finals was cut short, 11-2. The winning team eventually lost in the finals to George Miller and Kent Fusselman.

To round out the men’s divisions and the tales of Maryland players, the 75 doubles division had Mort Frank and his partner Mike Jennings reaching the semifinals round but lost to finalist Ralph Weil and Ben Marguglio. On the other side of the bracket, Lew Buckingham and his partner, Dick Sleeper came up against the aforementioned Al Green and his partner for this division, Bob Plater. By eliminating Sleeper and Buckingham, Green and Plater assured their place in the finals where they emerged as champions.

The ladies also competed at Toledo in the Open division in a smaller field than normal.  Tracy Davis went up against Megan Mehilos in the singles final. Megan defeated Sandy Ng 21-20, 21-12 to reach the finals; while Tracy’s opponent in her semifinals withdrew because of injury. Mehilos and Davis gave their all in this crowd pleasing duel. Mehilos wins the first game, 21-9. Davis storms back and takes the second game, 21-8. In the tie breaker, trends be damned, Mehilos overpowers Davis to win the game, 11-6 and the championship.

In the doubles round robin, Davis and NG teamed up and dominated less seasoned competition to easily take this championship.  In 2010 Ng teamed up with Samantha England to beat Davis teamed with Theresa McCourt.  So the old saying is true for Davis… ‘If you can’t beat them, join them!’

In Camelot, this year I felt welcomed to the round table of handball where gallantry and feats of magic where common place. My eyes and soul were sated not only by the pageantry of this tradition but by the scintillating play of the cast of characters who grace our sport.

I must also acknowledge the tournament directors who kept the matches flowing and the courts filled. And the all important volunteer staff who kept the water chilled, the kegs tapped and flowing and the food prepared, ready and delicious, all without whom this event would just be a bunch of people playing handball.

See you next year for the beer!

Description: IMG_1297.jpg

 

Categories
Tournament Results

2011 Eastern Regionals Results

2011 Eastern Regional Tournament Results

August 19-21, 2011

Download PDF results here

 

ALSO: An interesting look at the many handball families
present in the Maryland Handball community

Download PDF Here

Categories
Tournament Results

2011 Eastern Regionals Write-Up

The 2011 Eastern Regional 3-Wall Handball tournament was held on the weekend of August 19-21 at the courts in Columbia, Maryland. The organizers and hosts made every effort to create a competitive environment and friendly atmosphere. Also of note, and always a constant when planning an outdoor event, the weather looms large.  The threat of rain can quickly upset any well laid plans.

At the local level, players who face off against each other are often familiar with an opponent’s game. In exploring strengths and weaknesses, one might gain the slightest edge if these strategies are utilized consistently. But as they say, on paper, everything works to perfection; while in practice, there are so many variables at play.  Keeping that in mind for any level of handball, there can be interesting results to be sure as favorites do stumble on occasion. However, at this event there were few surprises as top seeds either waited for their respective opponents to battle their way through the draw or they themselves triumphed at every segment on the way to their crowning glory. Taking into consideration that so many matches are being contested simultaneously, it is not possible to accurately detail the ebb and flow of every game. There is no secret to reveal that what is written here comes from an understanding and love of the game, the players, and what is actually witnessed. Handball is a very simple game played with varying degrees of complexity by individuals who have developed skills to create court magic and masterpieces. At many instances, handball is perfection realized in winning a point, a game, a match, and ultimately a championship. We have all at one time or another tasted some aspect of that perfection.

When summarizing matches, there is so much that can be said about the player or the action, but there really is no substitute for being there to hear the varying sounds of hand-to-ball-to-wall; and to see the movement of bodies that can be simply described as poetry in motion.  The serve, the return, and the rally and varying stages of the game often explode like the sound of a powerful kill or flutters like the butterfly to a flower as power is muffled with  the softness of a guided drop shot to the front wall corner. More than the score, it is the point by point skirmishes that defines the game as sweat beads flash and fall while bodies and ball glide to rhythms so sweet, it stirs the soul oh so deep. Perhaps it is a state of nirvana for some. And on the way to this enlightenment, time evaporates like the endless vapors of breath exhaled in the intensity that is the moment as described in the paragraphs to follow.

 Because of the large draw of Open players in this year’s event, competition began on Friday afternoon and featured, in addition to the talented pool of players who play locally in Columbia, several players from Boston, New York and North Carolina who honored us with their presence.

Saturday’s Open singles matches were set up by winners of Friday’s play advancing to meet each other or higher seeded players. And so, Bostonian Eamon O’Leary eliminated Adam Zimet, 21-4 and 21-13 to meet Dan Zimet. Facing a younger opponent in O’leary, D. Zimet was also well aware of his skills. The battle between these two talented players was sharp and at times fever-pitched.  Athleticism and skill were being equally matched as seemingly improbable gets kept rallies alive. But despite D. Zimet’s great effort, O’Leary took the first game, 21-11. Zimet is a great self-motivator and often rebounds from points or game deficits after a time out or break. And so the second game began, with Zimet in control and keeping O’Leary at bay. The game was close and went back and forth until O’Leary emerged victorious, 21-18 and advancing to the semifinals.

On the same side of the bracket, Friday’s matches featured Andrew Schad against Will Bardwell, with Schad prevailing, 21-5 and 21-5. Also, Marc Ozgar, returning after an absence from regular play, went up against New Yorker, Mike Schneider. From the recorded score, this was a hard fought match as Ozgar took the first game, 21-19, lost the second 21-7 but managed to eke out a victory, 11-10 in the tiebreaker. The quarterfinal match of Schad against Ozgar was close as each player matched the strength of the other. In the end, Schad outlasted Ozgar, 21-15 and 21-9 and earned the right to face O’Leary in the semifinals. O’Leary appeared to have an easy time with Schad as he took the first game 21-9.  But Schad rebounded and took the intensely close second game, 21-19. Perhaps that second game effort left Schad spent because in the tiebreaker, O’Leary cruised to an 11-0 victory.

On the other half of the bracket, Friday play had Adam Berwitz against Lee Anderson and Josh Osburn against Dave Bardwell. Anderson bested Berwitz, 21-3 and 21-6. While Osburn fought hard against Bardwell, but fell, 21-10 and 21-15. Anderson next faced Kendell Lewis a former New Yorker who now lives in North Carolina. Kendell has consistently been a force on the courts for many years. His style of play, seemingly effortless belies his powerful and precise strokes. All this was on display as Lewis took the first game 21-13 and finished off Anderson in the second game, 21-2 to await the winner of Bardwell versus New Yorker Billy O’Donnell (The Bus). Bardwell is a superbly fit athlete who tends to overpower his opponents with quickness and agility, not to mention, fine handball skills. The Bus has great shot making ability, and with either hand he displays both power and finesse. The match up was a superb battle pitting strength against strength. Bardwell had his hands full and fought hard to gain the edge in some hard, long and exciting rallies, but fell just short as The Bus took the first game, 21-18. With the same intensity of the first game, both players showed a determination of unrelenting effort with different outcome for game two in favor of Bardwell, 21-17. The match deciding tiebreaker was tight until The Bus pulled away to win, 11-8.

The Sunday finals would find Boston versus New York or O’Leary against O’Donnell in a close match as two relatively young players dueled for supremacy.  O’Leary appeared to have the edge as he raced out to an early lead in the first game and never looked back, winning 21-7. O’Donnell, not lacking in tenacity, fought hard and gained control of the second game to win 21-15.  At a point in the second game or early in the tiebreaker, O’Donnell hurt his left shoulder, making it difficult for him to unleash the deadly weapon that is his left hand. Whether out of courtesy or respect, O’Leary discontinued serving to the left, a most effective serve throughout the match. This unexplained action seemed to energize O’Donnell who savored the gift of having the ball placed mostly to his right as he out gunned O’Leary to win the Open singles championship, 11-8.

In Open Doubles, some of the singles players teamed up to create formidable teams; among the  pairings, 3 brother teams consisting of Will and Dave Bardwell, Lee and Erik Anderson and Bobby and Marc Ozgar. Other pairings include O’Donnell and Schneider, perennial champs, Alan Frank and Dan Zimet, Rick Anderson and Adam Zimet, Josh Osburn and Adam Berwitz and O’Leary teaming with fellow Bostonian, Roland Langevin.

With matches set, O’Donnell/Schneider squared off against Anderson/Zimet resulting in 21-8 and 21-8 victory for O’Donnell/Schneider. The Andersons faced O’Leary/Langevin and bested them 21-11 and 21-9. The Andersons would now face O’Donnell/Schneider in a rugged battle of fire power and skills. There were no easy points in this match as bodies skidded off the concrete as often as the ball. Losing the first game 21-17, the Andersons were determined as ever to take the second game and push for the tiebreaker. As tight as the first game was, the second game was even tighter. Tried as they might, the Andersons could not muster the last 2 points necessary for a win and lost a heartbreaker, 21-19, sending O’Donnell/Schneider to the finals.

In the other half of the bracket, Frank/Zimet bested Osburn/Berwitz, 21-5 and 21-1 to meet the eventual winners of the Ozgars vs. the Bardwells. The Bardwells overwhelmed the Ozgars, 21-5 and 21-5 and geared up to face Frank/Zimet. The first game of the match lacked drama and competiveness that one might expect from a showdown of this caliber. Frank/Zimet wins easily, 21-2. In the second game, the intensity picked up as the Bardwells geared for a fight, but only scoring 12 points for their efforts, Frank/Zimet was in yet another finals.

Befitting of any, including this Open doubles finals, the two strongest teams faced off, with the edge going to Frank/Zimet because of experience and all important home court advantage. Frank and Zimet showed their usual sharpness and pressured the serve to the left side opponent of the O’DonnellSchneider team. That strategy worked superbly as they secured a 21-7 first game nod. The second game found O’DonnellSchneider implementing a strategy overheard between games. Their tact seemed effective against FrankZimet as the game remained close throughout.  Knowing how to win is a grand element in the FrankZimet collaboration. That element, combined with superior skills overcame a tenacious O’DonnellSchneider as victory was secured in a scintillating second game, 21-19 and another championship bestowed on Frank and Zimet.

As is almost standard with a state or regional tournaments, brackets are a combination of one or more age groups or one or more skill levels. This holds true for the 40+/50+ singles division. This is a small but strong field that I find myself in. My first round opponent was Roland Langevin, the Bostonian who also teamed up to play in the Open doubles. Langevin is a solid player who out played me in every aspect of our two games. With all respect to Langevin’s skills, the final scores, 21-7 and 21-5 did not reflect how well I am capable of playing. Langevin later met Joe Berman in the semifinals and was soundly defeated, 21-8 and 21-6. In the other half of the draw, Bill Tebbenhoff and Bob Maguire played an opening round match to determine who would meet George Alicea-Ruiz in the semifinals. Maguire proved too much for Tebbenhoff, taking the match 21-5 and 21-11. Against Alicea-Ruiz, Maguire had his hands full, but managed to keep the game close and pushed Alicea-Ruiz only to fall short, 21-20. Encouraged by the closeness of the first came, Maguire wasted no time and readily handled Alicea-Ruiz in the second game, 21-10. In the 11-point tiebreaker, both players played each point as if it was the last, with Alicea-Ruiz gaining a distinct advantage on serves and as a result, took the game and match, 11-5.

Berman and Alicea-Ruiz are players of contrasting styles, with Alicea-Ruiz more mobile, Berman plies his trade in the front court with amazingly quick hands directing well placed kills. With both players serving well, the first game came down to keeping each player out of his comfort zone. For his scoring opportunities, Alicea-Ruiz pushed Berman into the deep court to retrieve and then cut off his returns, thus stifling Berman’s chance to be in position to execute his signature kill shots from inside the short line. But Berman is a smart player who manages the court well and limited Alicea-Ruiz from pushing him deep and took the first game, 21-14. It seemed momentum from the first game flowed to the second as Berman made quick work of Alicea-Ruiz with crack servers and a hook serve to the deep right side. With Alicea-Ruiz having no answer for these weapons and no offense of his own, Berman took the second game and the championship, 21-2.

The 40/50 doubles for this tournament consisted of six teams with the two top seeds, Alan Frank/Joe Berman and Roger Berry/Rick Anderson poised in the semifinals. To earn the right to play Frank/Berman, George Alicea-Ruiz and Tony Winter went up against long time pairing of Rick Compton and Bob Humphreys. The match turned into a marathon as the first game saw Compton/Humphreys race out to a 16-3 lead and then Alicea-Ruiz/Winter woke up. They slowly pecked away until the lead evaporated. In between, the numerous side outs without scoring by either side made the game that much longer. The comeback stunned Compton/Humphreys as their lack of recent 3-wall play began to take its toll. Sensing an unraveling, Alicea-Ruiz/Winter pounced and snatched the game, 21-18. The second game was but a formality, as Compton/Humphreys was only able to muster 7 points, sending Alicea- Ruiz/Winter to semifinals against Frank/Berman. In a word, Frank/Berman overwhelmed Alicea-Ruiz/Winter. At 21-1 and 21-1 this strong pairing glided to the finals.

On the other half of the bracket, Bob Dyke and Bob Maguire teamed up to face Steve Estrada and yours truly.  Dyke/Maguire is a formidable pair and proved too tough for the Estarada pairing. We seemed to be playing in slow motion in response to Dyke/Maguire quickness; and the 21-9 and 21-10 defeat reflected our lethargic play. As a team, Estrada and I played well together and with some seasoning could make a better showing. In facing Berry/Anderson, Dyke/Maguire was up against seasoned discipline. Anderson never leaves the front court to defend and puts away most balls within his vast reach; while Berry is his usual deliberate steadiness as he carves out segments of the court to keep his opponent off balance with crisply flicked shots and kills. Dyke/Maguire could not decipher the Berry/Anderson mystique and quietly fell, 21-7 and 21-7. A showdown and repeat of the 2010 finals was now set. The match was played twice because rain disrupted the first attempt which I believe saw a split of the first two games. So instead of playing a tiebreaker after several days off, the players agreed to play the entire match from the beginning. From the score, Frank/Berman appeared to have little trouble besting Berry/Anderson, 21-5 and 21-8 to repeat as champions.

As a alternative to watching and following many matches, I often volunteer to referee matches at tournaments. Some see this as a mundane task and begrudgingly do it because it is required if you lose prior to the finals.  I find refereeing as a unique way to watch handball and learn the rules of the game. As a referee, you certainly do not want to be the focal point of the match. And one certainly hopes that the match does not turn on a poor or incorrect call. As a referee, one tries to be fair and certainly impartial. It is rare that a match is called where some call is not questioned by one player or the other. Fortunately, players can overrule the referee and that helps to keep any disparity in balance. The best part of refereeing is being close to the action, especially in the 3-wall game.  You watch as points develop and end. You see the intensity, elation and disappointment from ground level; as close to the game as is allowed without being a player. Whether it is a match featuring top notch talent or one showcasing beginners or lower skilled players, arbitrating potential infractions of the rules is equally important. And because handball players in general are honest and self-policing, being a referee is made that much easier by that fact. For example, numerous times in my experience, a player will call the double bounce on a retrieve, even if his body may have shielded the action from his opponent and the referee. This honesty is in part of what makes the sport great and refereeing less of chore than it might be. On some occasions a referee will make the right call, but the player(s) who may not benefit or are on the negative side of the call will cite his or her skill as a reason why that call might be unfair.  Resolving those situations is what refereeing can entail and each incident must be evaluated within the realm of good judgment. Even though the game in reference is called “perfect,” players and referees certainly are not.

As the action unfolded throughout this 3 day event, the 60 plus division’s players dueled each other in singles and doubles events. The singles matches featured five players of the qualifying age for this bracket. Charles Parsons bested Tony Truman in a 3 game opening round match, 9-21, 21-18 and 11-4. Parsons would now face Dan Ho in one semifinal. Ho was able to keep Parsons at bay and won 21-10 and 21-14. In the other semifinal match, George Fambro and Bob Bardwell tangled for the right to meet Ho in the finals. When the dust settled, Bardwell emerged victorious, 21-14 and 21-5. The final between these two equally tenacious rivals is a familiar tournament staple. Anyone who is aware of Maryland handball, know that these two fine players have faced off in many previous finals. With similar styles of play of keeping rallies alive, the games between these two players are often long affairs. As a referee and first hand witness, I was not bored and was drawn in by the volatility and skill of play.  The first game went to Bardwell 21-15 after long periods of scoring droughts precipitated by repeated sequences of side outs. Ho hoped to push Bardwell in the second game and possible force and third game tiebreaker. On this day, it was not to be as Bardwell took hold of the game early and scored in two lengthy run of points as Ho could find no answer to these barrages. Championship earned by Bardwell, 21-10.

In the doubles division of this bracket, although there were matchups of local and familiar players, most games were not close. But unfortunately, the final between the team of Dan Ho and Ken Greco versus, Joe Pleszkoch and Murzy Jhabvala was postponed because of rain.

At the skill levels, B and C divisions, a great many players participated. The B singles crown was earned by Max Guzman who out dueled fellow Pennsylvanian Joe Gritter in a tight matchup of rapidly developing talent. These two players are a small part of a contingency of players from the Harrisburg area who are being mentored by Dave Botero and the Hope in Handball organization. In the past couple of years, we have witnessed the rise of some of these individuals as they have participated in state and regional tournaments for both the 3 and 4 wall games. Their eagerness to play is both inspiring and infectious. With continued dedication, mentoring and encouragement, these new players will soon help carry the torch of our sport forward. Competition among these individuals can be fierce and unrelenting as anyone who has witnessed these matches will tell. Many of the matches in the B singles bracket went to tiebreakers.  To help shine the light on this developing talent pool, I will mention all the players in this division, including locals, Sam Worchesky, Nathaniel Frank, Chris Simeti and Joe Green, and part of the aforementioned Harrisburg crew, Ray Persaud, Senior and Junior and Tony Velez.

The B doubles bracket also featured many of the above mentioned players and more who teamed up to further hone talents and develop games. With the addition of Bill Tebbenhoff and Jerry Kittner, Bob Woodward and Dante Chinni, Dave Flemming and Kevin Kibson as pairings, this draw featured young and older players vying for supremacy. Joe Gritter and Tony Velez handled Woodward and Chinni to later battle new comers to the 3-wall game, Tebbenhoff and Kittner. In all fairness, many of this division’s players are new not only to the 3-wall game but also to handball. Tebbenhoff and Kittner are seasoned handball players and it was that seasoning that helped them overcome a younger and less experienced Gritter and Velez, 18-21, 21-12 and 11-10 to reach the finals. The other half of the draw saw  Joe Green and Chris Simeti successfully fended off Fleming and Gibson in a first round match and then went on to neutralize Joe Guzman and Dave Botero to reach the finals. Would age and experience win out over youth and quickness? That was the question surrounding the B doubles final. Tebbenhoff and Kittner wasted no time asserting their experience to establish leads in both games and never slowed the pace against their younger opponents in their race to the title, 21-9 and 21-12.

The C division (doubles and singles) is populated by players new to our sport or beginning to develop their skills. Of note, Sally Snyder, a mentor with the Hope for Handball organization and Amanda Blanchard who is relatively new to our area and the 3-wall game, joined the up and coming young juniors to fill out the singles and doubles brackets.  In the singles bracket, Chris Persaud and Jacob Rienhard battled their way to the finals, each enduring a match that went to a tiebreaker.  In their finals match up, a persistent and determined Persaud out lasted Reinhard to take the title. Each of these players mentioned and unmentioned, show a strong determination as they work their way up the handball ladder of success. As more advanced players, we should offer our support by giving them a game and offer a lesson, not only in skills but also in encouragement.

The doubles bracket of the C division found the singles players teaming up to ply their skills in a round robin format. Synder and Blanchard and Persaud and Will Martinez each won their matches against Reinhard and Daniel Andrews. When Synder and Blanchard faced off against Persaud and Martinez, it was in a single game to 31 easily won by Persaud and Martinez, thus securing the title. With Persaud slamming at this skill level and his joy shown playing the game, this young man has wonderful promise and potential. We should all keep an eye out for this brash 13 year old.

Finally, the 65+ doubles featured the elder statesmen of the Columbia courts. Mort Frank teamed with Elliot Greenwald against Tony Truman and Eli Zimet to produce a good match won by Frank and Greenwald, 21-19 and 21-15.

This tournament is usually the penultimate test before players take their games to Toledo, Ohio at the national level over the Labor Day weekend. For those whose tournament life is limited to this stage, this is their ultimate display of their skills as it is developed and hone throughout the summer. Through the heat, the sweat and intensity, we all meet on the 6 courts in Columbia and give our best while having fun. The fun does not stop as the 3-wall season wanes, but being in the great openness of the outdoors has a greater sense of fulfillment, as if to say, whether young or old: “I am outside and I hope this day will never end.”

Categories
Tournament Results

2011 No Frills Results

2011 No Frills Tournament Results

 June 11, 2011

Download Results Here