I am convinced that many of our readers, both in the United States and globally, would be interested in learning a bit more about what is going on in handball in Canada. Not too long ago, Canada tended to be a perennial participant with respectable performances in the World Championships, especially for women, but in recent years it has been quieter. So the traditions are there; what about the future?

Ward Hrabi has been the President of the Canadian Team Handball Federation for about 7 years now. His handball background also includes a period as an IHF referee, with nominations to Junior World Championships, and he remains active as a referee, coach and player “for the fun of it”. Elections are coming up in the new year in his Federation and he has told me he is ready to make himself available for yet another 2-year term.

[i]CA: Ward, how did your long involvement with handball get started? Isn’t a ‘normal’ young man in Canada supposed to get into ice hockey instead?[/i]

WH: Here in Winnipeg I was able to play handball in both grade school and high school, so I got hooked at a young age. And then I just continued: I was a player, I got into coaching and refereeing, and I got involved in starting developmental programs, including mini-handball. So with that I also started working for the handball federation in the Manitoba province.

[i]CA: How would you describe the obstacles and opportunities for handball in Canada?[/i]

WH: In many ways the situation is similar to that in the U.S. There is a lack of traditions for handball, so most schools and sports facilities have courts that are too small for full-size handball court, and for most teachers it is an unknown sport. The competition with the other major team sports is overwhelming. On the other hand, it is an easy sport to learn and an inexpensive sport to play. So once people get exposed to it, they enjoy it and get interested. What seems to attract them is not just the simplicity but also the speed and the physical contact.

[i]CA: What about the resources available to your federation for nationwide activities and for making handball known and popular?[/i]

WH: This is another major problem area. Unlike earlier days when we enjoyed at least a very modest funding, we currently get no financial support whatsoever from the government or from the Olympic Committee. They tend to focus on the individual sports instead of the team sports, as the return on the money in terms of medals and image is much cheaper and easier when one supports some hand-picked individual athletes. So we depend on membership fees from our Provincial Federations, a few corporate sponsors, private donations, revenue from sales of merchandize and then, frankly, the sacrifice of the athletes.

[i]CA: You mention ‘provincial federations’; that’s your basic structure in the national federation, isn’t it? Is this approach advantageous or does it have drawbacks?[/i]

WH: It is the natural approach for us, and I generally find it to be working well. The handball people in the different provinces tend to know their particular circumstances quite well, and they are prepared to work hard for their cause. But it is especially noteworthy that the more developed provincial federations show a lot of solidarity with those who are less developed and have limited resources. Those who are ahead provide both technical support and financial support through the CTHF’s budget process. They pay higher membership fees, although this also yields them more voting power in national federation matters.

[i]CA: Tell me a bit more about the different provinces![/i]

WH; Quebec has always been a stronghold, especially after the impetus of the 1976 Olympics, and Alberta has a solid base and is growing rapidly. Manitoba and Saskatchewan used to be the ‘up and coming’ ones but have stagnated. Conversely, traditional powers Ontario and British Columbia almost ‘dropped off the charts’ for a while but are now coming back strong. The other provinces are smaller and lagging in development so far.

[i]CA: So the rather limited resources of the national federation go primarily towards development and grassroots activities in those provinces that need it the most?[/i]

WH: Yes, indeed. We provide training opportunities and educational material for coaches and referees, and we help initiate competition activities. We spend very little on administration and overhead, as we have an office with only one staff member. And, while it is regrettable, all the activities for the national teams, both training camps and international events, are essentially paid for by the players themselves. This of course is tough, both for the younger ones, and for older ones who have jobs but often lose their income while spending their time on handball events.

[i]CA: What about the intensity of competition activities?[/i]

WH: It varies from province to province, but some have high school leagues locally and others have a regular club competition throughout the season. In most provinces, there is a concentration in the major population centers, and a truly province-wide approach would not be realistic. There are also some inter-province tournaments during the course of the year, and clubs have traditionally participated in events across the border in the U.S., on the West Coast, in New York City and in the West Point tournament, and more recently in an exchange between Winnipeg/Manitoba and Minneapolis down south.

[i]CA: On that Canadian – U.S. aspect, do you see a scope for increased collaboration and joint activities?[/i]

WH: The new regime in USATH has undoubtedly had its hands full in recent time, establishing new national programs and a new regional structure. But I would think that over time there will be an increased focus on U.S.-Canadian collaboration. I see good opportunities for pooling our resources in some areas of our work, such as training courses and international contacts. And it would seem that there is a great potential for expanding cross-border competition. Many of our population centers are located within a short distance of the border with the U.S., so such north-south travel might be less expensive and cumbersome than east-west travel which often is over long distances. So at the club or regional level, there should be good opportunities for more tournaments and exchanges.

[i]CA: What about Canadian-U.S. collaboration in an international or continental perspective?[/i]

WH: I think we have traditionally had a very good collaboration, because we find ourselves in similar circumstances in many ways. We are major sports countries where the traditions for handball are limited, but the scope for growth then is virtually unlimited. The importance of supporting this potential has not always been understood, or at least it has not been acted upon, by the International Handball Federation. (Sometimes, due the links between Quebec and France, we have had more help from the French Federation). We are also somewhat isolated from key countries in our huge continental federation, in terms of travel distances, language, culture and tradition. Therefore, it seems especially important to stick together. The same goes for Greenland, of course.

[i]CA: Does this mean that the Canadian Federation supports the recent USATH initiative to break away from the PanAmerican Team Handball Federation, together with some other neighbors, in order to form a more homogenous and convenient continental configuration?[/i]

WH: Yes, we have formally decided to support this initiative. It has the potential to create advantages for all involved. We only hope that the neighbors, especially key handball countries such as Mexico and Puerto Rico will view the situation the same way, and we also hope that our Latin American friends down south will have the right appreciation for this initiative and will not misunderstand our motives. Similarly, while a revised structure always creates the need for new solutions regarding representation in the IHF, qualifying slots for World Championships etc., we do hope that the IHF will see the longer-term advantages and will lend its broad support.

[i]CA: On that note, I want to thank Ward for sharing these interesting insights with our readers, and I wish Ward and his Canadian handball colleagues the best of luck for 2010 and the future beyond! Of course, while it does not include handball, the sports world will soon focus its attention on Canada, when the Winter Olympic Games get started in Vancouver![/i]

Many of you will scratch your heads in trying to figure out what the acronym ‘GRTP’ stands for. I cannot blame you: it is mostly known by the insiders in the world of refereeing. But it stands for ‘[u]Global Referee Training Program’[/u], and I think you will be interested in hearing a bit about it.

Traditionally, the IHF always had a tough time recruiting talents for the level of international referees from most of the countries outside Europe. These countries generally do not have many resources to train young referees. Similarly, most countries in all continents used to be in the habit of identifying candidates for the international level in the age bracket of 30-40, so that in the past the typical age of IHF referees would be about 35-50.

It was, of course, becoming increasingly problematic that not enough countries could supply candidates. And then the age structure was becoming a problem for a couple of reasons. First, with the increasing demand on the top referees, with many more matches per year, it was becoming evident that not many can stay on to the mandatory retirement age of 50; for work or family reasons, they need to retire at a younger age. Then the stronger emphasis on the fitness of the referees, in line with increasing speed and physical action in a game, was also becoming a reason for a focus on a younger age bracket. Realistically, the career of an IHF referee would now more typically be something like 30-43. (In football, FIFA has a mandatory retirement age at 45!)

The idea of some form of a GRTP had always been supported by the IHF President. However, this support was offset by the impact of micromanagement. About 5 years ago, rather than further debating the precise procedures and methods, the Referee Commission found it possible to move ahead with a particular approach that we believed in, figuring that actual success would lead to retroactive agreement on the details. And the success was soon noticeable, not just in terms of a flow of viable candidates of the right age and from a broad spectrum of countries, but also in terms of a nice and enthusiastic collaboration from the federations concerned.

Since 2005, well over 20 GRTP courses have been held in 4 different continents. Most of the courses outside Europe are for the identification of candidates and initial training. Annually, there are then some major youth tournaments in Europe used as a basis for further training and testing of the candidates. The viable candidates tend to need 2 or 3 courses before they can be seen as beginning to meet the standards for an IHF referee. The testing includes not just match performances and fitness, but also English proficiency and social competence. After all, these young referees are not placed on the IHF List just as an honor or as an indication of talent for the longer term; they must be ready to handle a Junior World Championship typically within a year or so.

Looking at the results in terms of numbers, the quick progress of the GRTP is really astounding. For the 2009-10 season, there are about 80 couples on the IHF List, and almost exactly three quarters of them have come up through the GRTP in recent years. So the overall turnover on the List has been tremendous, something that is partly due to a much higher rate of rate of retirements than had been expected, and partly because the progress of the new talents has enabled the IHF to release some older referees who had begun to stagnate or decline. In other words, the success of the GRTP has really been very fortunate and timely.

The success has not just been noticeable in terms of numbers. The best part of the experience was the widespread praise from coaches and other team officials in connection with the Junior and Youth World Championships this past summer. The assessment was that the standard of refereeing at this type of events was higher than ever. Even more remarkable is that 13 of the 16 couples nominated for the just concluding Women’s World Championship are GRTP ‘graduates’, and the same goes for 7 of the 12 couples nominated for the Men’s European Championship. This experience should really provide a lot of encouragement for future recruits. It is possible, through hard work and determination, to combine one’s talents with the IHF’s support into a strong and rewarding international career.

The only surprising and disappointing note is that some of the countries that in the past, prior to the introduction of the GRTP, always tended to supply good IHF referees, now seem to have become complacent or have not quite understood the new methods and procedures. In some cases, they are stuck in the traditions of giving priority to older referees. The countries I am referring to are mainly to be found among traditional handball countries in ‘western’ Europe, whereas, in nice contrast, almost all countries in ‘eastern’ Europe have quickly taken advantage of the GRTP route. The progress in the other continents has also been remarkable. So, please, ‘wake up’ those of you who must realize that my finger is pointing at you!

It is of course very nice if young referees with relatively limited international experience are already capable of handling the biggest events. But this is not a cause for complacency and relaxation. The experience in the Women’s World Championship has been generally positive, albeit with the usual sprinkling of sudden shakiness, just as among the teams. But this does [u]not[/u] mean that these referees have already become an established ‘elite’. They have climbed quickly to this level, and most of them met the expectations of the IHF and of the teams. But it is a well-known fact that [u]nobody can get firmly established at the top without a lot more experience and, especially, a lot of hard work, year after year[/u].

IHF must now shift gear and focus more on continued [u]nurturing of the already existing talents[/u], i.e., more on solidifying the quality than on just increasing the quantity of GRTP graduates beyond what is really needed. And the respective [u]national and continental federations must also provide strong support[/u]. The top group needs constant coaching and supervision. One particular concern is the lack of continuous international match experience for the non-European members the emerging elite group. For them it is not realistic to remain competitive solely on the basis of the games available within their own respective continents. IHF and the federations in Europe must be willing to offer them frequent opportunities in a systematic manner!

Previous installments focused more on the Sydney Olympics and on the progress of handball in Australia and Oceania. The links are:

Part 1: https://teamhandballnews.com/2009/11/alex-gavrilovic-a-true-fighter-for-the-global-progress-of-handball-part-1/

Part 2: https://teamhandballnews.com/2009/12/alex-gavrilovic-a-true-fighter-for-the-global-progress-of-handball-part-2-of-3/

[i]CA: I am sure that the Londoners are happy to be able to draw on your experience, but what made you decide to get involved in the Olympics a second time? Isn’t there a risk that nothing can ever beat the experience of doing it the first time and furthermore in your own country?[/i]

AG: As elated as I was with my own performance and achievements in Sydney 2000, I felt that handball in the English-speaking world has not generally benefited from Olympics in such countries. As you commented earlier, handball in the USA, and I can certainly confirm similarly in Australia, has not blossomed as a consequence of either Atlanta 1996 or Sydney 2000. These were valuable opportunities which appear to have largely been under-utilised by the sport. There are clear similarities between Sydney 2000 and London 2012, for example in terms of the challenges to prepare handball for an Olympic Games in a nation where handball is not a dominant sport, the challenges to attract spectator and media interest in the sport and in the importance of ensuring that a lasting legacy is achieved as a result of hosting the Olympics.

Accordingly, I felt that my experience in Sydney and my knowledge of the lessons learned and opportunities to come, would be of assistance to LOCOG and British Handball in particular and to handball in English-speaking nations in general. Hence my interest in being involved in London. At a personal level, the opportunity to exceed my achievements in Sydney in another country at another Olympic Games was a challenge I could not resist.

You may be right, I might find that nothing can beat the Sydney 2000 experience at a personal level, but I have so far found that my involvement with London 2012 has regenerated my enthusiasm for the sport and made me even more determined to do whatever I can to promote handball and to make it a truly “world sport”.

[i]CA: At this time, with less than 3 years to go, how do you see the comparison of where the preparations are at, as between Sydney and London, both in handball and overall?[/i]

AG: My impression is that LOCOG is generally substantially in advance of where Sydney was at the same stage in its preparation for the Olympics. What a wonderful coincidence that London, like Sydney, has an area, virtually in the heart of the city, to develop an Olympic site! That handball will be in a “permanent” structure destined to remain a legacy sporting venue is a great boost for the sport. Whilst I am not yet full-time with LOCOG (and due to start there in January 2010) I have had a good deal of contact with them and I am enjoying the opportunity to input into many aspects of the organisation, including the design and construction of the venue’s functional areas, since 2008. Additionally and importantly, I have already had an opportunity to establish a working relationship with the British Handball Association, via Paul Goodwin in particular. I am very comfortable with where planning and construction are for handball at the moment. I think that London 2012 is already doing a great job and achieving major milestones as an organisation.

[i]CA: Especially from a handball standpoint, what do you see as the main remaining challenges for being able to put on a good show in 2012?[/i]

AG: There are of course many challenges in putting on a complex event like an Olympic handball event; however, in no particular order, the challenges include: ensuring that the venue meets the sport’s needs; identifying, recruiting, training and managing a workforce of around 200+ staff and volunteers for the handball competition; managing the expectations and needs of the IHF leading up to, during and after the Olympics; ensuring that there is a strong legacy for handball in the English-speaking world after London 2012; bringing the sport of handball to the media and people of Britain: making them more knowledgeable and aware of the sport and ensuring that attendance at the Olympics exceeds expectations; creating an environment for a technically perfect international handball competition; pushing the boundaries of the presentation of the sport during the Olympics to ensure the best possible spectator experience and impact.

[i]CA: As many of the challenges listed by Alex are really formidable, it really should be reassuring to all of us to have someone like Alex lined up for the absolutely critical job as Competition Manager. There is no risk that he will underestimate the task, he clearly has the best possible experience, and I think you can hear how his enthusiasm is coming through loud and clear. At this point, I will simply thank Alex for making himself available in such a generous manner and we all wish him the very best of luck with the preparations and for a successful event in 2012.[/i]

A World Championship serves many purposes, so there are inevitably conflicting objectives and views regarding the best format. Almost any format will help us determine the medal winners in a fair manner. But beyond that, there are many different opinions.

Some argue that a World Championship with x teams should have as it overriding objective the participation of the x best teams in the world. (It seems to me that football could argue that they come close to that, but no one has explained how this could be easily achieved in a sport like handball). Others note that the main thing is to have close and exciting games between evenly matched teams, for the sake of attractive TV coverage and good PR for our sport. But many remind us that we are talking about a [u]World[/u] Championship and that all continents must have a chance to participate fully.

Unfortunately, there has been too little debate about how these seemingly conflicting objectives could come together under one particular format. Most of the ‘debate’ has focused on whether 24 teams should be divided into 6 groups of 4 or into 4 groups of 6. Sorry, but this is just a bit too ‘myopic’. If experienced people came together, surely many interesting ideas could come out of a thorough and uninhibited brainstorming. I am prepared to offer one particular idea, without any claims that it is the ‘best’ idea, let alone the only idea. But at least it shows that one can find ways of combining objectives.

The teams from the non-European continents want to participate in THE World Championship. They do not want to be told to go and play in a ‘B’ World Championship. They want to see and learn from the top teams. But they are sometimes a bit naïve: I read that the players from Thailand saw it as’ the best thing that had ever happened to them’ that they had had the chance to play against Russia, even if they lost 8-45. I am afraid that nobody else is interested in, or helped by, such a game. This is not why we organize a World Championship.

But there are stronger teams, ‘just below the top’, from all continents, who genuinely want to have a chance to play against solid teams from other continents, where the winners advance to the final stages and games against the real top teams. These teams deserve such a chance. And it should happen within the framework of one big event.

The top teams, who often also have many of the top individual players, who are already ‘stretched to the limit’ in their club teams, probably would not mind an event that is somewhat shortened for them and where they avoid some of the most one-sided games. So what does this point to?

The idea would be to keep 24 teams (qualifying in the same way as the 24 teams who are now in China) but to allow 8 top teams to go directly to a ‘main round’, saving 4-5 days for them. These would be the highest-seeded teams, but with the caveat that Africa, America, and Asia would need to be represented among the 8, so typically there would be the top 5 Europeans and 3 Continental champions.

The teams ranked 9-24 would play in 4 preliminary groups of 4, with more or less the current seeding procedures, so that the teams would get to play teams from the other continents. The best two in each group would advance to the main round, while the lowest two would go to a President’s Cup for the places 17-24, ensuring them enough games in total to make the experience worthwhile.

In the ‘main round’, there would again be 4 groups of 4, with 2 of the 8 top teams in each group, together with 2 each of the other 8 teams that had just shown (the days before, not one or two years before) that they were the most competitive ones of the remainder, deserving an opportunity to play against the top teams for a chance at the absolute top positions. This ‘main round’ format with 4×4 teams then lends itself to many different possibilities for the final stage, with quarterfinals, with 2 semifinal groups or whatever you want.

This gives ALL the 24 teams a chance, not just to play until the end, but to move towards the final round IF they really are good enough. It eliminates some of the worst one-sided games and conversely, it leads to proportionately many more games where the result is extremely important. Again, I have no vested interest in this specific approach, but I do believe it shows that new, useful ideas can come up if one only really tries.

Feedback would be appreciated, including your own alternative ideas!
Chime in our our Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Team-Handball-News/108817968908