Category: Tournament Results

It has been said that, ‘Rome was not built in a day.’ And so it is true for winning handball tournaments. At the one day Maryland State Singles 4-Wall Tournament held at Saverna Park Racquet and Fitness Club, a small tournament draw meant easier playing schedule but not necessarily easier competition. As always, the Open division was stocked with elite talent represented by ages ranging from the late 20s to late 40s. Next, the combined Masters & B division offered the smallest draw but was large on talent. The 60+ division was a tough bracket because the talent pool here was so evenly matched. Then there was the C division, a pool stocked with young up and coming talent.

On this day, my main concern was my own division, the Masters. My first round opponent was Randy Wolfe. I was focused and executed my game plan with precision as I took advantage of Randy’s lack of total mobility with well placed passing shots. With the outcome pretty much sealed, 21-5 and 21-6, I looked ahead to meeting Joe Berman in the Semifinal.

Having played as Joe’s partner and against him in doubles, I was well aware of his deft hands and surprising agility around the court. Joe is deadly up front with his ability to redirect the ball on extremely flat trajectories and pinched corner shots.

Stepping on the court for the first time against Joe in singles was not as intimidating as one might imagine. I just had to figure out a way to keep him moving around the court.  The game started quickly and I immediately found myself in a deep hole. It took half a game to settle down and adjust to the glass back wall. No matter how often one plays in the glass courts, it always takes some getting used to. But as it turned out, the glass was not the problem, it was my head in a fog and Joe’s lob serves to the left. But I adjusted and settled in to score 10 points before succumbing in the first game.

Hoping to rally from the momentum of my first game second half revival, I was confident that I could make a run of it and force a tie breaker. With Joe’s back being an issue, the longer I kept him on the court, the better my chances. Unfortunately, my plans were quickly dashed as Joe darted out to a commanding lead. My mind’s bravado turned into a whimper on the court and before I blinked, the game and match was over. I congratulated Joe for his fine play and wished him well against his next opponent.

That next opponent was none other than Roger Berry who battled a younger, less experienced Oscar Diaz. But from the glimpses of their second game and the final scores from the match (21-14 and 21-15), Oscar held his own. Later in conversations with the gallery, Oscar was informed as to exactly who he was pitted against in his match. Even through his amazement of Roger’s talent, his relative youth and pride could not accept the magnitude of the lesson he was afforded by going toe-to-toe with one of the finest players to play our game.

So Joe and Roger met in the Masters final on court one in plain view of all who chose to watch. Roger’s effortless and tireless precision was on full display. His slaps of the ball leaves the crispest sounds, likened to a snapped towel often heard in team locker rooms.  Roger glides around the court with the efficiency of a well oiled machine. Every shot he takes is measured and the results always seem to be the same: point or side out. There is no wasted effort with this player. Joe gave his all in the first game, but had to climb back too far after Roger had raced out to what turned out to be an insurmountable lead, game at 21-12.

The second game became a foregone conclusion as Roger edged around the court and surgically manipulated the ball to quick kills and precise passing shots. To Joe’s credit, with his back ailing, he never quit, and at times, in both games showed why he is such a formidable player and opponent. Game at 21-5 and match as Roger claims another championship.

As the Open division took shape toward the finals, there were several intriguing matches to report. Logan Foley v. Eric Smith battled to a spilt of the first two games, the first going to Eric 21-16 and Logan taking the second, 21-3. The tie breaker had Logan in a commanding lead of 10-4 only to see Eric fight back, but eventually losing at 9. Logan next faced the formidable Dan Zimet who waited after his first round bye. Dan and Logan battled with great tenacity with Dan taking the match in the minimum two games, 21-15 and 21-12.

On the other side of the bracket, Dave Bardwell was able to quickly dispatch Adam Berwitz, 21-2 and 21-4. This was Adam’s first tournament in over 4 years. Fresh from his victory, Dave looked to face Alan Frank. The first game was relatively fast as Dave kept Alan at bay with his quick kills and great command of his left handed shots, 21-9. The second game was anything but quick. Scoring was sparse and side outs were numerous. Some rallies were long, but the majority was short and resulted in the frequent side outs.  Although Dave forged ahead and remained there, it was an epic battle. Both warriors determined to vanquish the other. Calling this match as a referee, it was difficult at times to break the action to make a necessary call. And as a true champion that Alan is, even though down one game and battling to remain in contention in the second, he showed why he has been champion so many times. With Dave at match point, Alan chipped away at the lead until he drew within a point of evening the game. But after getting Dave out twice, on subsequent serves, Alan could not muster a winner for the equalizer. After a frustrating side out, Alan could not return Dave’s volley and the long battle ended at 21-19.

 Dave now faced Dan in the Open finals. Dan wasted no time frustrating Dave with his flat hopping serves to the right. Each one seemed to befuddle Dave and soon the score was 13 to 2. Dan continued to pour it on and put away the game with ease, allowing Dave just a single point for the rest of the game.
The second game saw fortunes reversed for Dan as he labored on the short end of many points. Dave had righted the ship and for the moment seemingly to have solved Dan’s devastating serve. Dave moved Dan around with his variety of shots as he often rallied off Dan’s serves. In what seemed like the blink of an eye, the game was over with Dave on top, 21-5.

With the tie breaker looming, both players took their respective between game breaks to gather themselves and refocus. Back on the court, Dan wasted no time to reestablish his dominant serve that kept Dave on his heels. Whether it was Dave’s fatigue or other factors, Dan was relentless and jumped out to a 6-1 lead which he expanded to 9-1 before Dave ran off 3 points to narrow the margin at 9-4. Following the side out to break Dave’s mini run, Dan closed out the match with two quick points. With the gallery cheering and calling for “more,” both players walked off the court to the deserved applause.

The 60+ division for this tournament pitted long time friends against each other. In the group, familiarity with each other’s game only added to the intrigue of the match ups. Paul Healey battled Joe Pleszkoch for the right to face Dan Ho. While on the other side of the draw, Dave Hinkleman and Charlie Parsons slapped it around to earn a match with Bob Bardwell. Healey battle from a first game lost, 8-21 to take the second game at 21-17 and then runaway with the tie breaker 11-3.  Hinkleman with his crafty shot making skills handled Charlie, 21-8 and 21-2.

In one semifinal, Ho handled Healey 21-16 and 21-11. In the other match, Bardwell bested Hinkleman, 21-7 and 21-15. The finals shaped up to be a repeat of last year’s match up, Ho v. Bardwell. That was an epic battle as neither player relented. Unfortunately, this year’s rematch did not live up to the hype as Bardwell dictated the pace and tempo of both games and easily won the match 21-7 and 21-3. As Ho said later, “I had no answer for anything he sent my way.” I am sure this is not the last time these two fine players will meet inside the box!

The C division consisted of young and older developing players. In their round robin format, the scores from games often seem one-sided. But this is just one day along the road of developing and those scores can change quickly. It is great to know that the torch is being passed and that with perseverance, it will stay lit. Congratulations to all the newcomers and to the eventual champion.

So how long did it take Rome to be built? Well, that answer can be found in the historical records. But in handball, building the body of work to become a champion can be measured in small increments. Sometimes it is the positive result of a rally or seemingly impossible dig, but these are the building blocks used to carve out the path and to erect the structure that wards off all foes and vanquish all who approach on any given day or days. The building continues.
 

This turned out to be a wonderful experience from start to finish. This was our first exposure on a national level. And from the moment we stepped into the tournament venue, I realized, "Hey, you are not in Kansas anymore." The atmosphere was alive with the sounds of hard rubber balls being bounced against floor boards with their resounding thump and against plaster walls that echo the crisp thwacks that so characterize our sport. Old friends, rivals and acquaintances exchanged greetings in the form of handshakes and hugs. And because the contingency of Maryland/Virginia/Washington DC/Pennsylvania players was so evident, I immediately felt comfortable and at home.

With our first match not scheduled until late Friday afternoon, this gave us ample time to watch other players go about their business in trying to stave off elimination and advance to the next day or next round. With so many matches taking place at once, the sampling of age brackets and styles of play offer a smorgasbord of viewing pleasure. By way of explanation for the uninitiated, Masters level events for handball feature players in age ranges from 35+ to 85+ and perhaps beyond if there are enough able bodies to compete. If there are enough players, a 10 year span is further broken down into 5 year segments, eg. (50+ would have players aged 50-54 (or older) and 55+ would have players aged 55-59 (or older)). The details of draws is perhaps too complex to explain here. But suffice it to say, draws are structured to create the most competitive divisions and matches that culminate in finals that should bring the greatest excitement and viewing pleasure to even the casual observer of our sport. At this and other tournaments, all the brackets are posted and awareness of your potential opponent(s) serves to either rattle the nerves or boost the confidence. But no matter what, rarely are matches won or lost at the sight of the draw. As it is often said, this is why they play the game.
 
Familiarity with one's opponent can at times offer the psychological edge depending on which end of the "handled" spectrum you fall. Our first opponents were not unknown to us and our strategy for this first match was simply to play solid handball and not beat ourselves. With focus and determination, we controlled the match and won with relative ease, 21-1 and 21-6. Based on our draw, this meant we were on to the semifinals and a scheduled match for late Saturday afternoon.
At a national tournament, unless entered in more than one event or draw, only one match is scheduled per day. This format is helpful both physically and mentally. The pressures can be tremendous both on the body and the mind, and rest and relaxation tend to be the best salve, bathed in beverages of choice which were in ample supply.
 
As a big fan of handball, I could watch games all day. These Masters as played out was a game watchers paradise. From watching my favorite players compete to getting first time glimpses of the likes of David Chapman, who has dominated our sport for nearly 2 decades, I got my money's worth. To say the least, Chapman is a superior player. His skills, though legendary are truly amazing to witness. His precision and timing draw collective awes from the large gatherings observing his matches. In two separate matches, I watched as two fine players left their feet to dive after what seemed like reachable bounces, only to have the ball hop or hook suddenly away from their reach in either direction. The inevitable thud of futility created by the diving player in combination with such sharp hooks creates a rending image as of a heart being ripped from the chest.

Chapman along with his partner competed in two draws of which the Open was the most challenging. Because of only 4 teams, this bracket competed in a round-robin format (each team plays the other team at least once). The opening match pitted the Chapman team against the Bardwell brothers (David and Will). There was no lack of drama as the Bardwells gave their all by answering kills with rekills and took the first game down to the wire, but lost at 20. The second game was as intense and saw David Bardwell open a gash across his right eyebrow while diving for a well placed shot. During the medical time out, the flow of blood was stemmed enough for the match to continue with as much intensity as before. But on this night, Chapman, from his knees, on left side of the front court, sliced a perfectly placed soft, foot high shot that seemed to float to quick a death along the right side wall…game at 19 and match. The match definitely had the crowd in a buzz.

Continuing in the Open division, the next day's match of interest pitted another strong handball family of Rick Anderson and his son Lee against the Chapman team. As always, Rick's game inside the short line is an amazing display of quickness, dexterity and precision. To say the least, Rick gave Chapman fits in the front of the court and they both thrilled the crowd with dazzling displays of blinding gets and angled kills. With Lee calmly anchoring the back court, the Andersons outdid the Bardwells and pushed the Chapman team harder by taking the first game at 21-14. Chapman fought back to win the second game 21-10 and therefore forced the tie-breaker. Continuing from the second game, in tie-breaker, Chapman took control by taking most of the shots and relegating his partner to a moving spectator. In the end, Chapman proved too strong for the Andersons and won the game 11-5.
 
Bruce and I were relaxed for our Saturday match. Our familiarity one half of the team we were about to face made our strategy and approach less stressed but no less intense. The first game found us recording points off Bruce's variety of serves or short rallies that may have been generated from weak returns. Sensing an advantage, we pressed harder and ended the first game quickly, 21-2. In the second game, I found the serving groove and managed two great run of points that broke the match wide open after some early low digit ties. We never let up on our opponents and rode the victory at 21-7 into the Sunday finals.
 
Before our Sunday finals, earlier finals from other brackets were scheduled. Within these brackets, the promise of exquisite handball was in the offing. Admittedly, I am a homer and root for the players I know and admire. Among these are Alan Frank and Dan Zimet. I love the way these two esteemed Masters conduct themselves on and off the court. Perhaps, I even gush and heap my praises to an embarrassing level when I pen their exploits. But to witness their on the court feats at any level is sheer joy.
 
The finals of the 40+ event found Zimet and Frank pitted against an injured but unbowed Andy Rousseau and Mark Occhipinti. Long rallies and equally long run of points defined the match. Tensions ran high among the competitors who know each others game from either prior partnerships or competitive meets. Bodies collided with each other and often the floor in magnificent displays of agility and determination, but in the end, Frank and Zimet prevailed and once again showed the handball world the effectiveness of their pairing.
 
Having very little time to revel in his latest national title that will no doubt add to his already legendary status, Frank was about to team up with Joe Berman in the 45+ division. Their opponents were the Canadian team of Denis Gringas and Luc Gosselin. Although I had only seen segments of matches from this tournament showcasing the Canadian's skills, I knew they would present a formidable challenge to Frank and Berman. The first game, the Canadians leapt out a 12-2 lead forcing Frank and Berman to dig deep. According Berman, the team kept their composure as they battled back to take the game 21-16. Perhaps the spirit of the Canadians may have been broken, because Frank Berman kept pouring on the pressure by continuing an incredible run of unanswered points into the second game. Berman, whom I have had the pleasure of going into battle with on the the 3-wall courts, displayed his own tenacity and deceptively quick hands to the kill. As always, Frank gets, digs and thrives from the back, always ready and able to retrieve. So much so was their team work that the Canadians had no answer for their efforts as Frank and Berman closed out the second game at 21-11 to take the match.
 
Meanwhile, a few courts down the line, Bruce and I enter the court 6, perhaps anxious, but focused and prepared to meet our opponents Norman Wilson and Jeffery Patterson. I am as excited to be in the finals as ever but I am confident we belong and would do our best to show ourselves and bring home the gold, as they say.
 
The first game found the teams evenly matched with neither team edging too far ahead. There were several ties and lead changes until we forged ahead 11-9. The game turned, and quickly. With Norm serving to me, a string of 7 or 8 points were recorded. By the time I adjusted to the hook serve, the damage had been done and we were only managed 3 more points before they closed the books on the first game.
 
The second game started similar to the first, but we found ourselves in a deep hole. And even after Jeff aggravated an old malady, we were unable to capitalize. Our rallies were often cut short and we could not put together successful scoring runs while I served. So the gold eluded us in our first national exposure as we were bested 21-14, 21-13.
 
I started this by saying we sought glory and I can close by saying that I am very proud of our accomplishments. We left the Allentown venue with our heads held high and our spirits bolstered from the great experience. I smile as I write this because I know what I saw, heard, felt and how I played will be treasured as so many "first times" are. But it was not just the first, but the quality of the experience.
 
It has been a long handball road for me getting to Allentown. Along the way, there have been voices, helping hands and feet to ease the journey. No matter what the outcome may have been, it was handball, and it was pleasurable.
To the national and local organizers (Randy Wolfe and team), thank you for making this first time experience a delight I wish to repeat.
 
Peter

Handball is a simple game.

Handball is a simple game played on many levels and within those levels lies many layers of complexity. At the Maryland State Doubles Tournament held in Saverna Park, the simplicity of our game was on display on every court and every level. As a fan and a player, I wish I could watch every game on every court, but logistics and reality dampens that pleasure. With so many games going on at once, we often choose a match with either our favorite players or the one with the finest display of skills and competition. With that in mind, I will try to recapture slices and glimpses of matches starting with my own saga as the day unfolded.

My partner Bruce and I were drawn in the 40s bracket that became combined 40/50s. As I looked over the draw, there were no walk-overs or easy pickings to be had. The path to glory was fortified with teams of players with both regional and national championship experience. Our opponents in the first round was Tony Winter and Dean Dimidio. Having played against Tony in 3-wall, we know of his tenacity and his relentless ball tracking ability. How that translates to the indoor 4-wall venue was about to be revealed. Thanks to the insight of several players who had played him in 4-wall, I had a hint as to what was in store. We knew nothing of Dean's skills but surmised if he was playing with Tony, he was no slouch. 

Winter and Dimidio served first and loss serve without scoring a point. We in turn, scored one before side out. There was the slightest feel of nervous energy that always creeps into tournament situations. After numerous side outs, Winter and Dimidio blasted away in waves of points and we were down at 14-2 before scoring another point. At 19 we managed to get 4 more before Dimidio and Winter finished us off. 

After the break, we had some momentum going into the second game and it showed as we battled to a 9-9 tie in a game that seemed destined to go down to the final point tied or at least closely contested. What worked in the first game for Winter and Dimidio failed repeatedly in the second game. In the first game their strategy was to serve to me defending the right side. For some inexplicable reason, I was just not focused enough to adequately handle anything they threw at me. I was frustrated by my lack of concentration and slight physical tightness. This was not nervous energy but a just not being physically loose. Admittedly, these days, it takes me awhile to get going. Arrrgh! Early in the second game, consecutive kills and passing shots for return of serves forced Winter and Dimidio to serve almost exclusively to Bruce. Bruce handle their serves and kept us in the match. The match turned at 9-9, when on our serve, I hit my first serve into the ground. This upset me tremendously and I immediately called time out before Bruce could get his serve in. On reflection, this was a tactical error. But in my haste to quell my frustration from my service gaff, I inadvertently killed the flow of our momentum. When we returned to the court, Bruce lost his serve on a brief rally and Winter and Dimidio found new life that propelled them to a 21-9 victory. 

In one semifinal match, Winter and Dimidio battled the team of Joe Berman and Rob Landy to take the 11 point tie breaker. In the finals, they met their match in the team of the ubiquitous Mr. Anderson (Rick) and George Alicea-Ruiz. Having played against both these players separately in 3-wall, I was not surprised by the outcome even though, I always root for the team that eliminates me from contention. There is a salve of sort to know that you lost to the eventual champ. I have written those lines before, but for the moment it is solace as I hoe the road in my progress. 

Though my progress has been noted through my steady improvement of play, there are still thousands of shots I have not seen and thousand of shots left for me to make. As I started out by saying, handball is a simple game, I must elaborate further by saying, the ball, when manipulated skillfully, rips the simplicity apart if you are on the defending side. If you have an answer for these repeated skillful manipulations, then from your perspective the game remains simply. Then again, if you are overmatched by an opponent, the revelation will no doubt result in a conundrum and confounded complexity.

As always, I had the pleasure of refereeing a couple of matches. It always makes me smile to hold the clip board, call the score and try to stay out of the way. When you are refereeing doubles games more so than singles, you must concentrate and follow the ball as it travels through the thicket of players. Ability and skill sometimes dictate whether a called is made or you let play continue. It can be a minefield of judgment within the rules as you try to keep the game flowing and stay out of the way. Make the call and stick with it unless overruled by players.  And sometimes, we miss a call with no predisposed notion of partiality. But being a ref helps me understand the game better. As a spectator, we all are referees, but until you hold that clip board, your opinion is just simply a personal view. 

Bruce and I faired slightly better in the consolation round as we readily handled the team of Joe Pleszkoch and Charlie Parsons. Waiting for us in the next match was the Bossung brothers, John and Steve. I was quite familiar with Steve's skill set. In combination with John, they were mirror images of one another. Though we had fun and battled hard, the Bossungs bested us in the minimum two games and sent us to the showers so we could later become spectators to semi and final rounds of several divisions.

There was a classic battle in the 60s division final. Long time partners Dave Hinkelman and Dan Ho went toe-to-toe against Bob Bardwell and Mike Razz. Although Hinkleman and Ho breezed through the first game at one, Bardwell and Razz clawed their back into the match to take it to the tie breaker. From all accounts, this was a classic grind ’em out battle between familiar opponents. In the end, at 10-10, Ho served to Razz, a dramatic change from the game strategy, and the ball hooked enough to befuddle Razz and ended the match.  

As always, the Open division provides the highest level of skills on display. From the vantage point of a spectator and judging the reaction of others, there were exquisite matches and moments within those matches. In my estimation the semifinals of both sides of the Open draw created intensity and excitement that defines our game and makes me humble and glad that I play. On the side that I witnessed the most, Lee and Eric Anderson were pitted against the venerable (smile) team of Alan Frank and Dan Zimet. After battling to a standstill via a split of the first two games, the 11 point tie breaker ramped up the boisterous urgings of the Andersons, led skillfully by the ever tenacious Lee. At 9-8 in favor of the Andersons, the players and the crowd were treated to amazing gets and crafty shot making that created repeated side outs. At 9-9, Frank and Zimet slipped into a zone that their years of partnering have afforded them. Without elaborating on what it is they have, I have witnessed what I call the "the knowing look" between them when they say, 'Let's finish this.' And just like that, a brilliant passing shot by Dan dragged Eric beyond his athletic best to create match point. And after a fierce rally the epic battle was settled. The crowd roared with sustained applause and the opponents hugged singularly and as a group, heads held high, knowing that this day, only the score made the difference.

In the Open final, Alan and Dan were matched against a younger team of Keith Vassal and Raul Retian who managed to slip by Jay Miller and the stalwart and crafty Rick Anderson. From what I heard as I refereed part of a match in the adjacent court, this too was a match worthy of being the finals. The finals was almost anticlimactic. It did not match the intensity of the aforementioned semis, but it had its moments of sweet shot making by both sides. Vassal has what seems to be an unorthodox almost awkward looking swing, but his shots often translate to effective kills. It was fun to watch how the experienced team of Zimet and Frank dictated both pace and outcome of the match. 'Let's finish this, Al!' was transmitted before this match begun, as Vassal and Retian were dispatched with classy ease.

Another great tournament run by the Maryland Handball Association. As always, I cannot end without kudos to Nathaniel Frank for his organizing skills and other contributions to our simple game.

The 3-wall Nationals are over and we had quite a turnout from the Mid-Atlantic this year.  This was a tough year for our local troupe in terms of titles as the fewest trophies – 3 – were brought back than in previous years.  That being said, local players made a great impact and went deep into a number of draws.  Local players were in the finals of 3 age brackets, the 35+, 45+, and 55+.  There were some huge wins, some heartbreaking losses, and as always great support from the crowd who calls Centennial North home.

The Mid-Atlantic has struggled to put in a solid appearance in the Open division, but this year Josh Ho had one of the best victories of the tournament.  His first round win over Kendall Lewis 21-20, 21-15 was a milestone victory and showed us that his conditioning and extra play this year made a difference.  Both Josh and Lee Anderson lost in the quarterfinals of the A singles in heartbreaking fashion – both losing in tie-breakers on what turned out to be a very tough Friday.

Alan Frank and Dan Zimet won the 45+ and 35+ singles and then slammed by teaming up to win the 35+ doubles for the 3^rd year in a row.  Alan had the best showing of the tournament, defeating a very tough opponent, Ray Graham, in the semi-finals.  Ray had beaten Chris Roberts in two games the previous day, and showed why as his offense was extremely consistent.  After losing a close first game Alan made some adjustment and with superior conditioning kept Ray on the court and wore him down.  The final was against Pete Service, who many of us will recall kept Alan from winning his 10^th National title when the Masters Singles was held in Maryland by beating him in an 11-9 tie-breaker in 2006.  This year Alan turned the tide.  After closing out the first game 21-20, Alan lost a big lead in game 2 and fell 21-17 to force a tie-breaker.  Alan jumped to a 7-0 lead, only to watch Service creep back and forge a 9-7 lead with his serve-and-shoot game.  Alan was able to make it to 10, but great defense by Service held him at the number for 3 service innings until a left-handed cross-court dump kill ended this very exciting match.  The drama of the 45+ division was not felt in the 35+ final, where Dan Zimet defeated Chris Jennings in two lopsided games.  Jennings, who took the first game from Zimet in the final two years ago, brought the family and a few sleepless nights may have cost him.  In the 35+ doubles, it was the semi-finals that brought the most intrigue as a very tough team of Tyler Hamel and Grant Jennings played Frank and Zimet after our local guys had played their singles finals.  Zimet cranked up his game to win in two, but the points were hard-fought.  To the surprise of many, Service and Jennings fell in two games to Harris/Lynch, who took advantage of both players having endured tough losses to Zimet and Frank earlier that day.

Jay Miller had a heartbreaking Friday loss to Kevin Hill.  Both players seemed a bit physically out of sorts in this match, as Jay seemed to have a pull in his calf and Kevin struggled with endurance.  Jay kept him on the court, but Kevin just would not go away and after splitting two games it was Hill closing out the match 11-10.  This tie-breaker match would not be the last as Miller teamed up with Rick Anderson in the 40+ and played two tie-break matches.  They won the first over Hill and Clemens, giving Miller a bit of revenge for his earlier defeat.  But the tide would go the other way in the semi-finals.  Ahead 9-7 in the tie-breaker, Zamora laid down three straight roll-out ace serves to get to 10-9.  Coming in from a time-out, Zamora’s partner Danny Saenz was delight to see another great serve that, when weakly returned, was rolled out in the left corner by Zamora.  But Anderson was not done with tie-break matches either!  In another tightly fought contest, Anderson teamed with Marc Penick and were matched against our very own Bob Dyke and Ken Greco.  After a 21-20 win, Dyke and Greco let the match go in the second game and fell at 6.  The tie-breaker seemed as though it would go to whomever was able to make that one critical shot at the right time.  On this day it was Dyke/Greco, who pulled it out 11-10.  Greco/Dyke went on to win another tie-breaker the very next day in the quarterfinals of the 50+, but ran into a buzzsaw in the semis against last year’s champion team of Corrigan Kirk.  This seemed to be a year of heartbreak losses for Rick Anderson and Jay Miller, who will hopefully return next year for revenge.

Many were hopefully but not sure what to expect from Bob Bardwell, whose victory in the 60+ singles last year made a splash that he was unable to defend due to an ailing right arm.  Teaming with Hinkelman in the 60+ doubles, they struggled after a decisive first game victory and fell local players Thode and Hilsinger.

Mort Frank and Lou Buckingham were showing excellent promise with their decisive first round win.  However a trip to the finals was not meant to be.  Despite playing a great match in the semi-finals, amassing more points against the eventual champions than any other team, they were unable to close out a tight second game and fell 21-11, 21-18.

Maryland had another great tournament win in the 55+, as Murzy Jhabvala fought and won in a frustratingly good first round opponent in Ted Pritchard.  He then faced top seeded Alan Serrill, an opponent with many weapons including solid conditioning and a wicked spinning lefty serve.  Murzy completely overwhelmed Sherrill with his deep passing game down to walls, decisively winning in two games 21-3, 21-5.  A picture of Murzy’s match was listed with a picture on the USHA website!  The final proved a difficult challenge as Conneely seemed to have an answer for everything Murzy threw at him.

The youngest representative of Maryland, Nathaniel Frank, had a nice showing in the 13 and under.  His much improved game showed as he tallied 8 points against a tough opponent in Steve Matiasek.  Nathaniel’s increased play was evidenced by more consistent serves and a much improved ability to keep the ball in play.

Joe Pleszkoch was our sole representative in the 60+ singles, but had a difficult tournament.  After a solid first round win he faced Greg Raya, and after amassing more points in the first game than any other player would in both games (9) Raya clamped tight to close out the match.  Unfortunately, the team of Plesckoch and Mort Frank seemed to struggle with court position and determining their roles and lost in the first round.  Lou Buckingham also won his first round in the 75+ before losing to the eventual winner.

Top seeded Will Bardwell and Erik Anderson were looking forward to this year’s B Doubles, having missed out on playing together last year when Eric withdrew after getting blasted in the eye by a shot from Sean Lenning in the Open.  Unfortunately, Will and Eric never got on track.  After a decisive win in their first round, they struggled with consistency and never got their serves in track in the quarterfinals.  Will and Eric both commented that neither could recall a time when they served worse.

Dan Ho made a strong showing in the 50+ B singles event with his improved kill shots.  He progressed to the semifinals losing to Ivan Elliott in a close tiebreaker 11-8. 

Pat Lowery doubled up on singles events, competing in both the 40+ and 50+ B singles events.  Lowery fell at the hands of local singles sparring partner Dan Ho in the quarterfinals of the 50+ B.  In the 40+ B singles, he marched to the finals but lost in 2 games. 

            The 2007 Eastern Regional 3-Wall tournament was help on August 18 and 19, and featured 62 players from the Mid-Atlantic and Florida.  In atypical fashion, Saturday was a cool, sunny day far different from the oven-like temperatures of the previous few years.  While last year brought a number of forfeits due to the heart, this year many of the finals were rained out on Sunday.  Several matches were rescheduled, others went indoors, and unfortunately the A Singles needed to be cancelled.  Catering was provided by Bill Littleton, and Sharon Parsons was responsible for the embroidered tournament towel received by all entrants.  Charlie Parsons created an overhang that saved us from the sun on Saturday and protected us from the rain on Sunday.  Nathaniel Frank took on the challenge of organizing the tournament entries and did a tremendous job with court assignments.  Special thanks to Alan Frank for again taking on the responsibility of creating the draw.

           

The Open Singles featured an unusual first round as a local Maryland player was scheduled to play an out of town player in each of the four quarterfinal matches.  The semi-finals on the top of the draw featured the talent of Jurel Bastidas against top-seeded Dan Zimet.  Bastidas jumped to an early lead in both games but was unable to hold off Zimet, who came back to win 21-14, 21-11.  The bottom of the draw featured the return of Kendal Lewis, who took the time to drive in from North Carolina with his son Kavon.  Lewis faced Alvaro Rebaza, and after winning the first game 21-10 Alvaro held Kendal at match point to force a tie-breaker.  Rebaza made it to the finals with a tight 11-7 victory.  In the final, Zimet was able to get up early in both games and won 21-9, 21-10.

            Will Bardwell and Lee Anderson proved that their No Frills victory earlier this summer was no fluke, as they made it to the finals through a tough lower half of the draw by defeating Angel/Bastidas in a tie-breaker and then cruised past Ho/Lewis 4, 11 in the semi-final.  Lewis and Ho had their own troubles in the first round, escaping Adam Zimet and Alvaro Rebaza in a tie-breaker after losing the first game.  Dan Zimet and Alan Frank, who have traditionally elected to play with different partners in the Eastern Regional, joined together to practice for the upcoming Nationals.  Their path to the finals was smoother, winning handily over Murray and List and then surviving a tough second game against Rick Anderson and Jay Miller.  After cruising in the first game, Miller became very steady in the deep court and Anderson’s classic front court game turned red hot.  However, they were unable to hold off Zimet/Frank, who won 5, 16.  The final was delayed a week due to the rain-out on Sunday, and Anderson/Bardwell seemed to lack the fire and spirit that has carried them to victories summer.  Unable to return Zimet’s serve, they fell behind quickly in the first game and were unable to recover.  The second game was more closely contested, but ended in the same result as Zimet and Frank won the division by scores in the low teens.

            The Master’s Singles final, won by Alan Frank over David List, was a contest far tougher than the scores indicated as Frank prevailed 21-7, 21-12.  List plays a solid game punctuated by few hand errors, outstanding conditioning, and solid power.  Perhaps Frank’s knowledge of these courts was the difference, as he broke away in the first game on a long service inning punctuated by a series of unreturnable aces each hitting the fence just past the long-line.  Frank’s road to the final included a very tough second game against the improved 3-wall play of Jay Miller, whose tenacious retrieving and ability to put the ball away make him a dangerous part of any draw.  List’s road to the final required him to get past the spirited play of Tony Winter, who was unable to match Lists physical prowess this year and fell at 13 and 9.

            The 50+ singles was played indoors and proved one of the tightest finals with Tim Murray emerging from the 3-seed to win 21-8, 9-21, 11-9.  A man of few words, Murzy summarized the match as, “You can say it was a hard fought indoor battle and he came out on top.”  Murray’s road to the final was helped by the toughest contender in the division, as Dan Ho needed a tie-breaker to win his play-in match against Danny Yee, and then held Ken Greco at match point to prevail in the quarterfinals 15-21, 21-20, 11-9.  Murray was prepared to pounce after an easier match against Jerry Yee, prevailing in the semifinal 15 and 16.  Pat Lowery seemed unable to press Murzy out of his game plan in the other semi-final, which usually calls for an overhand serve and then deep passes down the wall.

                The 50+ doubles featured 4 teams each with players who have won National titles.  On the top of the draw, Roger Berry and Rick Anderson seemed to have the upper hand throughout the match by keeping both Steve Alicandro and Tony Winter scrambling for retrieves during grueling rallies.  After an adjustment, Bob Bardwell and Dave Hinkelman made it to game point before falling 21-9, 21-20 against Bob Dyke and Ken Greco.  In the final Anderson/Berry were able to survive the aggressive 4-wall offensive play of Bob Dyke and Ken Greco by scores of 21-8 and 21-18.  Both Anderson and Greco took their normal control of the front court, picking off many short balls and ending the volleys with unreturnable (and sometimes unexpected) kill-shots. Dyke and
Berry did their best to fight off the tough glass back-wall and not give too many soft shots to the other team.  Dyke pointed out that this match took place on Anderson’s 50^th birthday.  Welcome to the Golden Masters, Rick!

            With a number of players unable to compete in this year’s 60+ division due to injury, the field was open for someone to take advantage.  That person was George Fambro, who made it to the finals in both the singles and doubles.   In the singles, Fambro took out Joe Pleszkoch in the semifinals in two hard fought games, using his lanky reach and speed to keep the ball away from Pleszkoch’s dangerous power.  Graham Palmore started his march to the finals with a decisive win over 2^nd seeded Healey, then dispatching Norris in two games in the semi-final.  Fambro started strong but seemed to run out of answers as Palmore came back from an early Fambro lead and never looked back, winning 21-10, 21-4. 

            The 60 doubles final developed into a match of which team had the better service game.  In the first game, the team of Pleszkoch/Greenwald dominated with superb serving by Greenwald and the always strong overall left side play of Pleszkoch.  “Greenwald’s wicked serves down the left sidewall were a thing of beauty,” said Fambro.

In the second game, after a strategic timeout by Fambro with Pleszkoch/Greenwald leading, Fambro’s serve started to dominate with aces and driving right side serves to Greenwald.  Healey’s consistent left side play kept Pleszkoch in the backcourt, which allowed Fambro to play his very effective frontcourt game when Pleszkoch/Greenwald were able to return his serves.  A win set the stage for a tie-breaker.  In the tiebreaker, Fambro’s service game continued to dominate.  Again, aces and driving right and left side serves kept Pleszkoch/Greenwald from on their heels as Healey/Fambro prevailed 14-21, 21-10  and 11-5.

            The B Doubles was a round-robin event featuring numerous tie-breaker matches as all teams seemed evenly matched.  Eventually, John Coughlan’s overall solid game and power proved the difference as he teamed up with Bryan Nelson for the victory.  Their fiercest competition drove in from Philadelphia, as Peart and Woodward took them to 21-18, 18-21, and then 11-9.  It was great having a Nelson back in the tournament, and we hope to see Bryan continue to develop his game.

            Unfortunately, the A Singles was left unfinished as Danny Silva waited for the rains to stop on Sunday but eventually had to make his way back to Queens.  John Coughlan won his semi-final with two big games over Tim Fry.  Meanwhile, Silva beat Adam Zimet in two games as well.  Hopefully these two will get the chance to make the final happen at some point in the future.

            The Eastern Regional remains an excellent event and the draw is always filled with players preparing for the Nationals, looking to challenge themselves after a summer outdoors, and looking to enjoy the hospitality organized by the combined effort of the MHA Executive Committee.  The MHA works hard to accommodate schedules, get matches out on time, and prepare hospitality for players as well as guests.  As the Maryland Handball Commissioner I would like to express my thanks to the many players and their families who make the trip to Ellicott City, Maryland each year two-weeks prior to Labor Day.  I would also like to point out that these events would not happen without the volunteer efforts of both the MHA and the players who referee matches.

 

Division	Singles		Doubles
Open	Zimet d Rebaza	9, 10	Zimet/Frank d  Anderson/Bardwell	9, 12
A/B	Coughlan tie Silva	Not Played	Coughlan/Nelson	Round robin
40+	Frank d List	7, 12
50+	Murray d Murzy	8, (9), 9	Berry/Anderson d Dyke/Greco	8, 18
60+	Palmore d Fambro	10, 4	Fambro/Healey d Greenwald/Pleszkoch	(14), 10, 5