What are the prospects for the U.S. Men’s and Women’s to make it to Rio in 2016?

In Part 1 I addressed the basic question as to whether Residency Programs were a good strategy for our National Teams.  I concluded that if the programs were focused on developing younger athletes it could be a good thing, but if the program had too many athletes in the tail end of their careers it was a highly questionable strategy.  This installment, however, sets aside that conclusion and assumes that Residency Programs are definitely the way to go.  Instead, the question under consideration is simply, does it make sense to start these programs now?

Why don’t we already have Residency Programs in place?

To assess whether now is the right time to start Residency Programs it makes sense to first explore why we haven’t had programs for several years.  In fact, the last time the U.S. had a full-fledged residency program was 1996.  Following that Olympics, USA Team Handball’s budget dropped precipitously.  There simply was no way that Residency Programs could be maintained at the same level they had been maintained in Colorado Springs or Atlanta, so it was discontinued.  Later in 2004 a residency program was established for the women’s team in Cortland, NY, but it was an austere setup that was only a shadow of earlier programs and it closed down in 2007.

In 2008, a new federation was certified by the USOC and with substantial seed money being contributed by its primary backer, Dieter Esch one of the first questions I asked him and the newly installed General Manager, Steve Pastorino was whether they had any plans to restart Residency Programs and hire full time coaches.   The answer then and in subsequent years was always along the lines of “No plans at this point in time; Maybe on down the road.”  And, as we all know, “on down the road,” never materialized during the Esch-Pastorino era.  My informed speculation is that it was never started due to three primary reasons:

1. Olympic Qualification considerations:  It was assessed that qualifying for the 2012 Olympics was highly unlikely.
2. Financial considerations:  There simply wasn’t enough funding to establish a credible program and it was decided that resources would be better focused on grass roots efforts.
3. Planning considerations:  There were tentative plans for Residency Programs contingent on Chicago being selected as the host city for the 2016 Olympics.  When that didn’t materialize there was no backup plan readily in place.

In hindsight, those reasons actually appear to have been pretty valid for the most part.  The U.S. didn’t come close to qualifying so there’s little to suggest that a Residency Program for either the Men or Women would have put them over the top.  Funding could certainly have been diverted from some grass roots effort, but it still would have been a pretty austere setup that would have probably looked a lot like the Cortland program.  Finally, while Chicago didn’t get the Olympics the positive opportunities of setting up shop in a host city surely merited the decision to wait and see what would happen.

But, that was the decision 4 years ago.  Let’s take a look at each of these three considerations now in the context of the Federations decision to pull the trigger on residency programs.

Olympic Qualification Considerations

While Residency Programs aren’t necessarily established solely with the intent of Olympic Qualification it nevertheless is something that factors into the equation.  How much so is open for debate, but the Federation’s own words stating that the program is aimed at 2016 Olympic Qualifications suggest that it’s the major reason for the program.  If this emphasis is true, that carries lot of implications in terms of the program’s structure and how quickly it will need to move from a developmental program to one more focused on winning now or at least very soon.  Time is of the essence as the next PANAM Games, the most likely path for Olympic qualification are now less than 2.5 years away (July, 10-25, 2015).  Depending on the qualification format that means Team USA could be playing in qualification matches as early as December, 2014.  Here’s a quick look at the prospects for both the Men and the Women.

U.S. Men Prospects:  Can they beat Argentina?

Based on recent national team performances there is a lot to be done if the U.S. is going to be a serious contender for Olympic qualification.  The Men finished 7th out of 8 teams at the 2011 PANAM Games and lost 36-19 to Argentina, the Pan American qualifier.  This past June they faced Argentina again and lost 33-13 on their way to finishing 7th out of 9th at 2012 Pan American Championships.  With better training and more opportunities to play together the U.S. would have done better, but it’s hard to see them making up 20 goals without some quality additions to the roster.

In theory, those quality additions could be new crossover athletes from other sports that would get their training through a Residency Program.  The best case scenario I can envision is the Men’s Residency Program starting up this fall and having a half dozen players developing rapidly in to raw, but decent handball players.  Those players would then mix with the more experienced players playing in Europe to field a team at the summer 2014 Pan American Championships that still isn’t strong enough to beat Brazil and Argentina, but can upset Chile for 3rd place and qualification for the World Championships.  That same team would then parlay that World Championship experience in Jan 2015 to field a team on top of its game by July 2015.  I still think it’s highly unlikely that the U.S. would be good enough to beat both Brazil and Argentina, but with Brazil already qualified as Olympic host, it’s possible the U.S. could play Argentina in a semi-final match that decides the Pan American qualifier.   And in a one match scenario it is at least possible to envision a big upset.

But, let’s keep in mind this all assumes quite a bit.  For starters, with Argentina having several of their top players playing in top leagues in Europe they are likely to improve as a team.  Chile, likewise and don’t forget that Canada will have the home court advantage.   Not to mention the wildcard of a Cuban entry.   No, the reality is that even making the semifinals at this point in time is less than a 50-50 proposition.  And then actually beating Argentina?  Anything is possible 2.5 years out, but it’s hard not to look at it as anything but a long shot (perhaps 20-1) at this point in time.

U.S. Women:  Can they emerge as the best of the also rans?

The performance of the U.S. Women in recent years at first suggests there is no hope whatsoever for qualification.  They didn’t even qualify for the 2009 or 2011 Pan American Championships and while they squeaked into the 2011 PANAM Games they finished 8th out 8 teams, including a total defeat by the eventual champion Brazil, 50-10.

Sometimes, however, it’s not how good you are, but who you’re playing against.  Beating Brazil in 2.5 years is a near impossibility, but Brazil’s hosting of the Olympics throws them out of the equation.  At the same time Argentina which has been the consistent #2 has conveniently regressed back to the pack of the also rans.  While they’ve been able to hold on to second place in the past two competitions they’ve been trounced by Brazil and have had to fight off teams like the Dominican Republic and Cuba in the semifinals.  So if one uses the following logic from the PANAM Games results:  Argentina beat the Dominican Republic 19-18 and the Dominican Republic beat the U.S. 33-26 then the U.S. only has to get around 8 goals better.

While such logic if often faulty it does suggest that an improved women’s team would have a decent chance of qualifying.  But, before we get our hopes up too much let’s keep in mind that all of the also-ran teams have been beating the U.S. in recent competition and it would be foolhardy to assume that they won’t also improve with an Olympic bid on the line.

As I see it the best case scenario for the women is significantly different from the men.  In particular, I would assess that they don’t need just a few new players, but instead could use a significant roster overhaul.   This assessment is based on the results of the past few years and what appears to be several players in the player pool who are older and unlikely to improve significantly in another 2.5 years.  Of course, that’s just one man’s opinion and it will better to just take a look at the results at next month’s North American qualifier in Mexico and at the 2013 Pan American Championships this summer in the Dominican Republic.  In particular, these two events should paint a pretty good picture of where the U.S. stands among the also rans.

And if a roster overhaul is seen as necessary this is where a full-fledged Residency Program with some top notch cross over athletes could make a difference.  Comparing different eras can be a shaky proposition, but I think if the U.S. brought in some raw talent similar to what they brought into the program in the 80s and 90s, they could assemble a team in two years time that is capable of taking 2nd place in Toronto.  Certainly, there’s little doubt in my mind that the U.S. Women’s team from 88, 92, or 96 would take 2nd if they could magically time travel to participate in the event.

It wouldn’t be easy, though, with just two years to work with.  The U.S. would need to do some phenomenal recruiting and it would require sufficient funding so that it was a full-fledged program.  A program that could entice the right athletes to commit and provide them a training environment in which they could improve quickly.

So, if one looks at Residency Programs primarily with a focus on 2016 Olympic Qualification prospects it appears that it will do little to enhance the Men’s teams prospects, but could, in theory, give the Women’s team a chance to qualify.  But, is the U.S. currently capable of establishing and supporting full-fledged Residency Programs?  Or, can all we expect at this point in time is an austere setup that can’t quite do the job?  In the next part of this series, I’ll look at the funding considerations inherent in managing Residency Programs and try to answer those questions. Part 3

USA Team Handball is looking to start  up National Team residency programs again. Is that a good idea? Maybe, but not it it means going back to the future.

Several weeks ago the USA Team Handball made a couple of very significant announcements.  First on 27 December in a notice regarding open national team tryouts it was briefly mentioned that the U.S. intends to start a long-term flexible residency program aimed at 2016 Olympic qualifications.  Shortly thereafter it was announced that high performance coaches had been named to develop national teams.  After some additional dialogue with USA Team Handball I was then able to confirm that these coaches are full time hires, although Coach Latulippe is not arriving until later this year.

Tucked away amidst typical news items like the location for the club national championships some readers might not have fully realized the significance of these two announcements.  Make no mistake.  These are major developments and a clear signal that the Federation has decided to dedicate more resources to its national team programs.

On the one hand, I see these developments as a welcome sign that USA Team Handball is finally going to start taking its national teams more seriously.  The revolving door of coaches and the cobbling together of players a week or two before major events clearly was not working.  The U.S. was not competitive and the results were dismal.  Even worse the previous Federation sometimes decided to not even send our senior national teams to World Championship qualification tournaments and initially even resisted supporting PANAM Games qualification, the path to the Olympics.

On the other hand, though, I’ve got some serious concern as to whether the residency model is the right long term strategy for developing our national teams.  And, even if it is the right strategy, I’m skeptical as to whether now is the right time to start it.  Going further I’ve got even more doubts as to whether now is the time to hire full time coaches and whether we’ve hired coaches which match our current needs.  What follows is a devil’s advocate review of Federation plans with the intent of influencing what appears to be a still evolving program for our national teams.

Residency Program (Right Strategy?)

First a short explanation of what a residency program is or at least was in the past.  As the name implies U.S. National Team athletes essentially lived and trained together full time.  Athletes were housed in a dormitory setting and coaches conducted daily practices (often 2/day).  In many cases the athletes coming into the program were exceptional crossover athletes from other sports who were unfamiliar with Team Handball.  As such, the program was often focused on teaching those athletes fundamental handball techniques.  Typically, however as the U.S. approached an Olympics the rosters would settle and the dynamic would switch from individual development to putting together the best team possible.

There are several good points to be made about the residency model.  First off, this model clearly resulted in the best teams the U.S. has ever produced.  The U.S. was able to qualify for several Olympics, routinely beat other developing nations and while we still rarely beat European sides, we could put some scare into them on the way to some respectable score lines.  Additionally, the residency program provided a tangible aspirational goal for every young player in the U.S.

All that being said, let’s be totally clear and honest about how successful Team USA was with that model.  We never won a medal and sometimes didn’t even qualify for the Olympics.  Let’s face it; in many respects talking about the heydays of USA Team Handball is roughly the equivalent to talking about the heydays of the Los Angeles Clippers and the Montreal Expos.  Americans aspire to win, not for respectable score lines.

Next and probably most importantly, residency programs are not cheap and over the years a lot of money was spent on a few chosen athletes, many of whom have barely touched a handball since punching their Olympic ticket.  While at the same time far less funding was channeled to grass roots programs that may have resulted in the establishment of a broader player and fan base in this country to develop the athletes needed.

Yes, I’m talking about the never ending debate between grass roots and national teams.  National Team proponents will argue that our grass roots haven’t producing the talent needed to compete.  Grass roots proponents will argue that funding residency programs is simply throwing money away on a handful of athletes that aren’t going to win anyway.

Of course, both proponents are absolutely correct in many respects.  Back in 2009 I wrote a three part series titled, A Framework for National Team Success (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) that addresses these issues in greater detail.  In part 3, I identified six shortcomings of the residency model, many of which I had experienced firsthand.  Those shortcomings were

1. The athletes were often too old to warrant the spending of development resources:  Often the athletes were in their mid to late 20s
2. Lack of whole person development: Athletes didn’t have many opportunities beyond handball
3. Uneven Funding: Sometimes the funding wasn’t there to fully support it.
4. Lack of competition:  Practicing against each other can get real old
5. Unclear commitments (both from the Federation and athletes): Players didn’t know where they stood; sometimes athletes bailed out
6. Uneven player skills: Athletes would plateau when there weren’t better players to push them

(This is just a short synopsis; for a further explanation read the whole article)

What’s the Alternative?

Of course, if a residency program is not the right strategy it begs the question:  What’s the alternative?  Cobbling a team together a couple of weeks prior to an event, as I already pointed out, hasn’t worked for the U.S. very well.  Thing is though, that’s pretty much what the rest of the world does nowadays.  Long gone are the days when the former Eastern Bloc countries kept their national team players on a short leash.  On the men’s side, all of the players on world’s top national team are professional athletes with club commitments.   Training and playing with the national team is an important, but secondary part of their handball careers.  The same is mostly true with the women’s teams, albeit for less pay, with the possible exception of South Korea.

The nations with middling success (Argentina, Brazil, Tunisia, Egypt for the men; Brazil and Angola for the women) have teams with mixed rosters (some professional, some semi-professional and amateur).  The teams with very little success (USA, Canada, Great Britain and Australia to name a few) are almost entirely amateur.  And, adding to their level of difficulty is the reality that their domestic amateur competitions are also at a very low level.

These facts all point to a logical, inescapable conclusion:  If you want to have sustained national team success you’re going to have athletes capable of playing at a top professional level.  So, the right strategy has little to do with how a national team trains and prepares for competition.  Sure, it certainly is beneficial to train together, but the quality of the players is far more important.  Accordingly, the right strategy is all about identifying, recruiting and developing quality athletes.

For nations with a quality club system and a professional league everything is already done for them.  For other nations they can either try the quick fix (the residency program) or go for the long hard slog to develop the grass roots, which is by no means guaranteed to succeed either.

A Third Way?

But, perhaps there’s another way.  A Residency Program that eschews the quick fix and seeks to develop quality athletes for the long haul.  In part 3 of my earlier series I outlined a residency model with limited objectives that was focused on taking college age athletes and boosting their handball skills so that they could play competitively in Europe.  The rough pathway I envisioned was an 18-21 year old player training at a residency program then at at 22 making his/her way to Europe playing in the 2nd or 3rd division to start, continuing to improve his/her game and then making the ranks of top sides around age 27 or so.

I won’t say that the model I’ve identified is the definitive one. What I will state, definitively, though, is that going back to the future to a residency program that mirrors the ones put in place in the past is a highly questionable strategy.

As of right now, it’s unclear as to what the Federation plan or overall objective is.  In particular, will the residency program be the key element of an intense effort to qualify for the 2016 Olympics?  The Federation announcement indicates that it’s aimed at 2016 qualification, but its certainly possible to seek qualification with an eye wide open towards the more feasible prospects of qualifying in 2020 or even 2024.  A key indicator will be the ages of the athletes participating.  Other signs of intent will be the overall cost of the program and how much funding it siphons off from grassroots efforts.  To date, the U.S. Federation hasn’t released a whole lot of details other than to indicate that it will be “flexible” and that they would like to start the program in the fall of 2013.    Information will surely trickle out as the program moves closer to actually starting.

Which leads to the next question I’ll tackle in this series:  Does it make sense to start a residency program now? Part 2