2011 No Frills Write-Up
In March of 2011, I participated in two state 4-wall singles tournaments, held in Pennsylvania and Maryland respectively. Although there were exciting matches from both tournaments to report on, I simply let those reporting opportunities slip by. But as I go forward, I offer my congratulations to all participants, especially those who medaled either as champions or finalists.
As anyone who has played the 3-wall game successfully will know, aggressiveness coupled with precise ball placement is a key element of the game. The style of play in 3-wall is unforgiving in that there are limited second chances because of the lack of a back wall. As the outdoor 3-wall season begins, many of the players who had been playing indoors still might have lingering effects of the 4-wall mind set to play the back wall. There is definitely some period of adjustment to retool the mechanics for the 3-wall game. The frequency of play on the 3-wall courts sharpens the instincts required for the game. Although this may seem obvious, it is not. Until one steps on the court and have to cover the additional distances demanded by the openness of the dimensions, the absence of the back wall becomes glaringly obvious. Keeping the ball in front of you and high along the side walls increase the chances of success in this game.
That said; let us turn our attention to the recently held June 11, 2011 No Frills 3-Wall doubles tournament in Columbia, Maryland. The past several incarnations of this annual event has served as an opening benchmark to gage or assess one’s 3-wall game as the summer and play begin heating up. The ultimate goal for playing 3-wall for many of the participants is to take their game to the national stage in Toledo, OH over the Labor Day weekend. As I reported on that experience last year (my first), I hope to get back to that revered place and show progress in my game and outcomes. Well, it all starts here with No Frills and hopefully builds to the August Eastern Regional also held in Columbia, MD and then on to Toledo a few weeks later.
This was a smaller than usual turn out for the No Frills event. Perhaps the date change presented conflicts for some who usually participated. For those of us who entered the tournament, we found ourselves in melded age Divisions which allowed for balanced bracket draws or round robin play.
The Open Division consisted of three teams who would battle each other in the round robin format. The team of Logan Foley and Adam Zimet faced off against Josh Osburn and Adam Berwitz. The first game found Osburn and Berwitz playing from behind early and never really settled in to challenge the sharper playing opponents. The 21-11 score in favor of Foley and Zimet reflects the outcome. The second game of the match played differently as Osburn and Berwitz reacted sharper and kept the game close, but in the end lost 21-20 to end the match. The next round robin match found Osburn and Berwitz facing the dynamic 3-wall pairing of Alan Frank and Dan Zimet. As game as Osburn and Berwitz were, they were no match for Frank and Zimet as the 21-5, 21-7 score shows. With two loses, Osburn and Berwitz were eliminated from competition, leaving Foley and A. Zimet to face Frank and D. Zimet in the final.
Foley and A. Zimet clearly out played Frank and D. Zimet in the first game and won the contest on some hard fought points, 21-17. But like true champions on all levels that the team of Frank and D. Zimet are, for the second game of the match, they stepped up their level play and simply stymied Foley and A. Zimet. The 21-2 shelling evened the match and forced a deciding 11-point tiebreaker. In the tiebreaker, Frank and D. Zimet established control and where never threatened as they finished off their opponents 11-5 to win yet another championship in their long history as collaborative partners.
An intriguing Division combined as a result of the small field was the 45 + bracket. I fall in this Division based on age and skill. The match ups were intriguing for sheer elegance, and in one pairing, a matter of happenstance. Most of the bracket featured players in their 50s and at least two of the players are in their 60s. So how does this translate? Well, as usual Bruce Cohen and myself find our team in the unenviable position, either up against the number one seed or in a play-in slot, which always pits you against the number one seed should you triumph in the play-in round. It is a role that I have worked diligently to change because there is no getting around the fact that seeding in our tournaments is fairly based on past performance. Win and get a better seed, get knocked out early and get seeded last. This is truly an incentive. With this in mind, Bruce and I approached playing Bob Maguire and Pat Lowery with a singular focus and intensity. Our first game was a test of wills as it was a test of endurance. Bruce and I won some crucial points and kept the contest close and then managed to pile up points in mini runs leading to a triumph at 21-16.
The outcome may have been surprising to some, but we were confident in our play and looked forward to the second game. Maguire and Lowery made a strategic adjustment by switching playing sides. Unfortunately, Bruce and I did not adjust to their adjustment. And even after two time outs, we seemed stymied by their strategy. The result was a 21-2 drubbing that would lead to the 11-point tiebreaker. As in the punctuated loss, we remained befuddled and never really applied ourselves or our own proven strategy as Maguire and Lowery poured on the points to make quick work and show us the exit from competition. We can only build on the first game success and work to eliminate the failures to make critical adjustments for future strategies. It is as humbling to win as it is to lose, but more so to lose in my estimation. Although letdowns are inevitable when playing sports, stepping up one’s game at crucial moments may result in better outcomes.
Maguire and Lowery next faced Roger Berry and Joe Berman. As the number one seeded team, Berry and Berman bring a proven and complimentary skill set to the game. Together as a team, Berry and Berman make the game look simple and often force their opponents into physical and mental errors. While Berman dominates the front court, Berry steadily expands and contracts the entire court from side to side and front to back. Berry’s ease of motion style is often deceptive in that it packs precision and power, two of the keys to successful champions. Needless to say, Berry and Berman executed flawlessly as they kept Maguire and Lowery on the periphery of points throughout the match. In the end, 21-9 and 21-5 was a good indication of the mastery over a determined Maguire and Lowery.
On the other side of the draw, a late development saw the unlikely pairing of Bob Bardwell and Alan Frank after Bardwell’s scheduled partner Tony Winter withdrew for medical reasons. Bardwell and Frank faced off against Ray Estevez and Bob Dyke. With Frank playing his style of a ‘man-possessed,’ as he anticipates as good as anyone playing the game today, he and Bardwell kept Estevez and Dyke befuddled in both games of the match. No matter what these two fine players threw at Bardwell and Frank, there were always emphatic and resounding answers that culminated in a 21-6, 21-13 match victory.
The final was set and Berry and Berman seem to relish the unexpected challenge of having to battle Frank and an always tenacious “Bullet” Bob Bardwell. The first game found Berry and Berman scoring at will and capitalizing on unforced errors by the defending team, resulting in a 21-7 victory. From the onset of the second game of the match, any astute observer of handball could see that there was both a physical and mental adjustment by the team of Frank and Bardwell. There was a fury and aggressiveness unleashed by Frank and Bardwell that seem to keep Berry and Berman on their heels. Points were quick as rallies where ended as soon as they begun. The 21-6 score only tells part of the domination by the victors. In a sense, beyond the score, the games were almost mirror images of each other. The ensuing tiebreaker played out like a scripted drama. Although Frank and Bardwell fell behind at times, they always seemed to catch up and managed to pull ahead at 10-9. With Berman serving, he used the deadly crack serve that finds the seam between the floor and wall just mere inches from the short line, to even the score at 10-10. Finding success in the tried and true, Berman blistered the ball to an almost identical spot as the previous serve and abruptly ended the contest. The appreciative crowd applauded as the four warriors exchanged courtesies fixed to our sport.
The 55/60 Division put together a tough bracket of equally skilled and talented players. The opening or play-in round saw Joe Pleszkoch and Bob Woodward (Woody) pitted against Earl Savino and Tony Truman. Although these teams have had 4-wall success separately in past endeavors, only one pairing could emerge victorious from this match. In the end, Pleszkoch and Woody proved too strong and bested Savino and Truman, 21-11, 21-8.
Facing next the number one seeded Dan Ho and Ken Greco, Pleszkoch and Woody had their collective hands full. Ho’s quickness and Greco’s strong court presence kept Pleszkoch and Woody at bay for both games of the match allowing only 6 points in each contest.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the draw, a marathon battle developed as George Fambro and Gerry Kittner slugged it out against Murzy Jhabvala and Steve Alicandro. Although Fambro and Kittner had never teamed before, good handball players can find ways to adjust and adapt when playing together. There were no easy points as rallies were expanded by get after incredible get. The games were close with only slight separation of the teams throughout. In the end, Jhabvala and Alicandro had stronger finishing instincts that resulted in 21-14 and 21-16 victories. This match win led to a final show down against Ho and Greco.
Although points came quicker in this contest for Jhabvala and Alicandro than their aforementioned match, Ho and Greco managed to keep the game from spiraling out of control by ending scoring runs and repeated potential long rallies. This strategy kept the games close and brought Ho and Greco the championship at 21-16, 21-16.
In the 65+ Division, three teams of Alan Brandt and Mike Fitelson, Tony Truman and Eli Zimet, and Mort Frank and Charles Parsons played in a round robin format to determine a champion. Frank and Parsons bested Brandt and Fitelson, while each team was then separately bested by Truman and Zimet who emerged as champions. What this age Division might lack in quickness and speed is certainly balanced by craftiness and finesse. More often than not, as one observes play within these older divisions, many games are won by the team that mounts massive scoring runs. It was an observed pattern that repeated itself in some of the matches for this event.
The B Division featured a mix of young and old, both in age and experience. The growth and improvement in the games of Nathaniel Frank and Sam Worchesky must be acknowledged as they step up to the B Division. And although these two young prospects have markedly improved, during this round robin format of play in their bracket, they were bested in three rounds by Brad and Steve Taulbee, then by Ray Persaud Senior and Junior, and David Fleming and Chris Simeti. Although Fleming and Simeti took a game from the Persauds, but lost an 11-4 tiebreaker, they did win one match; leading to a family affair final, Persaud v. Taulbee. In the final, playing with persistence was not enough for the Persauds because at the end of the day, the Taulbees ruled, 21-17, 21-8.
Last but not least, there was play in the C Division. This bracket also featured round robin of three teams of players who show promise and desire for the game. Audrey Mihalcin and Jacob Reinhard formed one mixed doubles pair and Amanda Blanchard and Daniel Andrews another, the bracket was rounded out by the eventual champions, Chris Persaud and Jadon Ramsing.
At this moment, these players show tremendous potential but lack the experience to play with consistency. Of note or perhaps just coincidence, reflected in the scores from the 3 matches posted, a pattern emerged; after first game lost of low single digits, the losing team improved to post competitive scores in the high teens.
As with most things we do, handball being no exception, practice and repetition helps with improvement. For some, talent and athleticism is a gift, while others try to compensate with desire and effort. At the C level Division, all these elements are at play. As more advanced players observe these beginners, we must not only encourage them but play with and against them so that they have opportunities to improve, as we all have by this method, through the years.