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.