As I often do when I write for these pages, I try to bring the game to light from my experiences and perspectives and by reporting on the outstanding play of others. In that light, I begin this installment, somewhat belatedly, on the Maryland State Doubles Tournament held in December 2010.
Fear is a distressing emotion aroused by a perceived threat. It is a basic survival mechanism occurring in response to specific stimuli such as pain or the threat of danger. In short, fear is the ability to recognize danger and flee from it or fight; also known as the ‘Fight or Flight’ response. However, fear should be distinguished from the related emotional state of anxiety which typically occurs without any external threat.
How do we overcome the often debilitating and sometimes crippling effects of anxiety on the handball court? I asked one of the best players I know if he still gets anxious when he plays, and he responded by saying, “Every time.” His candid response surprised me somewhat. But even the greatest of actors admittedly still get stage fright. Our conversation naturally expanded beyond just the anxiety factors and opened another aspect of the game, the mental attitude.
Much has been written on the subject of mental toughness and the ability to overcome our own anxieties in life, not just in contrived situations such as sport or a less than life and death contest. I can offer nothing new on the subject, but I can say that playing with less anxiety or fear can add a few extra points and give you the edge needed to best an opponent, any opponent. Unchecked emotional anxiety is often draining and paralyzing. I am sure we have all experienced some form of this emotion on the handball court.
Since anxiety is an integral part of the human countenance, keeping it in balance is part of the key to overcoming its deleterious effects. If you studied before the exam, there is usually less anxiety when the command to begin is given. If you prepare for handball the same way, when the opening score of zero serves zero is called, the level of anxiety should equalize as you settle in to face your opponent on equal terms. After the ball is served and the rally starts, hopefully the only opponent will be the one trying to score against you.
The Maryland State doubles tournament had a small but intriguing draw that resulted in smaller division pairings. Because of the smaller draws, simultaneous matches left very little viewing opportunities. So I report here on the results and the small glimpses of the matches that I witnessed.
With all due respect to the Open players and their relative youthfulness and noted skill, the most intriguing division for this tournament was the 40/50 Masters division. As often is with state and local tournaments, opponents are often familiar players who we practice against or play with often. Any draw featuring Rick Anderson or Roger Berry as a team promises a formidable hurdle to perspective opponents. Needless to say, my playing partner Bruce Cohen and I were pitted against the Rick and Roger brigade for our opening round match within this division. This was a rematch of sorts from a few months earlier when the 3-wall Eastern Regional draw found us on the losing end of a rout. That outdoor match was quick and surgical as we only managed 4 points in each game.
Our approach to the current meet was to forget about past history and just play hard. And that we did. The opening game was taut. Every point was contested. Rick and I played the front while Bruce and Roger shared duties in the back. My battles with Rick up front, though valiant, almost always ended with Rick winning the rally. Though frustrating in outcome, I thoroughly enjoyed the moments I had hoped to budge Rick from his front court dominance. It is hard to win at an opponent’s game, especially one he plays so well. In spite of my own hubris in taking on Rick up front, Bruce and I managed to keep the game within reach and winnable. But with the match at 12-14, Rick and Roger found the champions gear and separated themselves from us by delivering “gorgeous” serves and winning all the rallies. We lost the game at 12, but if nothing, made Rick and Roger sweat.
We had hoped to build on the first game’s momentum to race out to an early second game lead. We did edge forward to 4-0, but that lead soon dissipated. Though we stayed close for the next few side outs and points, we were unable to muster much of a rally and lost the game and match 21-7. It was a nice showing, but it takes more than making an opponent sweat to beat them. It also takes winning 21 points from your opponent before he does the same to you.
Rick and Roger next faced the long standing doubles duo of Rick Compton and Bob Humphreys. Though they played hard, Rick and Roger dismissed the dynamic duo 21-8, 21-7. The win placed Rick and Roger in the final.
On the other side of the bracket, simultaneous matches were being played to determine the other finalist pair. Joe Berman and George Alicea-Ruiz pairing had no trouble handling two younger and somewhat inexperienced Jose Cruz and Joe Gritter from Pennsylvania. At 21-4, 21-6, Berman and Alicea-Ruiz awaited the winner of Keith Neihart and William Vargas taking on Bob Dyke and Bob Maguire. From what little I saw of the second game of this match, it was a furious battle. And by the final tally of the match, 21-19, 21-13, it was also hard fought.
Dyke and Maguire was no match for Berman and Alicea-Ruiz. At 21-4, 21-9, control by Berman and Alicea-Ruiz seems clear.
With Rick and Roger facing off against Berman and Alicea-Ruiz in the finals, smart money, if wagering was held, would more than likely been placed on Rick and Roger. There were beautiful points and the varying styles of the four players provided a numerous opportunities for brilliant shot making in the form of kills and rekills. Berman’s deceptive quickness is always on display up front while his partner Alicea-Ruiz seems to be everywhere the ball happens to be. And even though the first game was convincingly won by Rick and Roger as I witnessed and by the score, 21-12, there was enough hard fought points to indicate that the match was far from over.
In game two, Berman and Alecia-Ruiz must have completed gelling as a team. They not only reversed the score on Rick on Roger, but it seemed they managed to outplay them on most rallies according to eyewitness accounts. I unfortunately was otherwise occupied and missed this very exciting game for its momentum shifting effect. By winning 21-7, Berman and Alicea-Ruiz would play the always exciting 11-point tie-breaker to determine the championship.
Rick and Roger earned the right to serve first, but did not gain much from the seeming advantage. Throughout the match, Alicea-Ruiz commanded a serve from the middle of the service box that hopped and skipped like a puppet on a string. As the match wore on, the serve became more precise and gave trouble to Rick and Roger. It was this serve that Alicea-Ruiz used to open up the tie breaker, leading 6-2. The points started to follow each crack shot that resulted from the service set up or service winner. And finally, what I consider a thing of beauty, Alicea-Ruiz off a short rally from the back wall, rending the court straight down the middle with an exclamatory rollout to end the game and match at 11-2. This was both unexpected and definitive. It was even called an “upset” by one astute viewer. No matter what, it was great fun to watch great handball.
Admittedly, as mentioned before, I did not have the pleasure of viewing as many matches I would have liked. Watching tournament handball is a great pleasure to me and is always part of the handball mystique. The game looks different and seems easier as a player/spectator. But as most of us realize, until you step onto the court, what your opponent and the ball does is completely unpredictable.
The pairings of 55/60 bracket made the draw seemingly wide open. Based on reputations and pass performance, top seeding went to the teams of Dave Hinkleman and Dan Ho and Bob Bardwell and Jerry Yee. Of note, in the division, Carl Lady and Richard Swope teamed. This may have been Richard’s last tournament. From the posted results, Lady and Swope played well and lost to Hinkleman and Ho in a semifinal, 21-12, 21-9. While on the other half of the bracket, Bardwell and Yee eased through their first round opponents 21-8, 21-2 and in their semifinal match bested the team of Oscar Fitzgerald and Steve Metzger, 21-6, 21-7. Again from the posted results, it seems that Fitzgerald and Metzger gave their all in their opening round match as they were pushed to 11-10 tie breaker by Joe Pleszkoch and Bob Woodward.
With finals featuring Hinkleman and Ho versus Bardwell and Yee, it was a match of familiar opponents. These players are known for their long rallies and relentless play. Anyone who witnessed this match was in for a treat and a long handball match. Walk away, take in another match and come back to find the score has hardly changed. During each game, scoring came in bunches from either team as a server would get on a roll. In the end, for all the action, the stronger pairing of Bardwell and Yee bested Hinkleman and Ho for the championship, 21-13, 21-17. Although it was a team effort, Yee later commented with a grin that he found the victory over Ho sweet after losing in singles to him at the 3-wall nationals in late summer in Toledo, OH.
Of the remaining divisions to report on, the Open division was the smallest and featured only 3 teams. Lee and Eric Anderson paired and faced off against a team of Josh Ho and Logan Foley. The Anderson brothers showed early dominance by taking game one 21-3. Ho and Foley valiantly fought back and kept the second game within reach but failed to convert on a few opportunities and lost the game and the match 21-16. With the round Robin format in play, to round out the division, the esteemed pairing of Dan Zimet and Alan Frank awaited Ho and Foley. Experience and skill of Zimet and Frank was too much for the younger Ho and Foley. As a result, 21-9, 21-5 win eliminated Ho and Foley and pitted the Andersons against Zimet and Frank for the final.
This is not the first time these pairs have met, whether playing friendly matches or in our local tournament. Their play against each other tends to bring out the best game each has to offer. Personalities and prowess are always on display when these dynamos of the sport clash. Who is to say what goes through the mind when going up against legends of the sports. Calling Zimet and Frank legends in their own time is a right they have individually and collectively earned. As a fan, I love to watch them play and to relate their battles from which they usually emerge victorious. So facing a younger and eager Anderson team perhaps adds to the Zimet/Frank advantage and may have accounted for the relatively easy victory by Zimet and Frank in the first game, 21-10. The second game found the Andersons focused and determined as they dove, lunged, and retrieved at every shot. They worked hard while Zimet and Frank steadily maintained their aura of cool mechanics and a demeanor of never a moments panic. With this team, timeouts are always at the right moment and they always seem to return from said time out with the solutions to whatever might have put them off course. Brilliant and consistent play is their winning strategy. Though the Andersons made the second game exciting and pushed the legends to the brink, they could not force the tie breaker and in the end succumbed, 21-19.
Two other divisions were part of this tournament. First, the Novice division featured players new to our came. Many of these players traveled a long way to participate and compete. Their efforts are to be commended, encouraged and supported. Having said that, I never seem to have the time at tournaments to catch their matches; but I fully applaud those who do. The champions emerging from the round robin format of this division was the team of Cheyleen Cruz and Herman Cruz.
The C/70+ division featured some pairings of young and old together. It is always intriguing to watch as young and eager meet finesse and guile. The results are sometimes unpredictable, but nonetheless fun as I imagine seeing the games played out that produced the eventual champions Tony Velez and Ray Persaud Jr.
To complete this wrap up, the winner of the 40/50 dropdown found a youthful team of Jose Cruz and Joe Gritter besting Bruce Cohen and yours truly, 21-3, 21-19. What Cruz and Gritter lacked in experience, they made up in tenacity and a healthy dose of emerging skill sets. To be in position to win the bracket, Cruz and Gritter battled Keith Neihart and William Vargas in a marathon match 18-21, 21-16, and 11-6 in the tiebreaker. From all accounts, Cruz and Gritter were noted for their tenacious comeback in one of the games.
The other dropdown bracket, 55/60 produced the champion team of Jack Coughlan and Elliott Greenwald besting Bob Woodward and Joe Pleszkoch, 21-10, 21-18.
Most would agree that the pleasure of handball resides in the playing. Playing the game well adds a certain layer to the pleasure. And to compare one pleasure to another, in my opinion is not entirely balanced. Even though we watch and play the sport, the pleasure derived for each event is entirely unique. When I write about handball, for me this is another pleasure and hopefully, as you read these words, you expand the pleasurable world of handball. Thanks.