All Star Team, an increasingly boring concept in its current form

Posted on March 8, 2011 by Christer Ahl

It is generally positive to try to create some PR around a Championship by creating awards and other forms of recognition for deserving persons. The most common concept has been the nomination of an All Star Team, together with a Most Valuable Player (MVP). But the concept has become increasingly boring, with a combination of predictability, strange choices and politics.

There tend to be persons available who have the necessary expertise to select the nominees, but the criteria are always unclear. For instance, how much attention should be paid to goal scoring? How important is it to get a perfect fit for each of the 6 court player positions, even if this means that a deserving player is left out? Should one go more for longevity, i.e., players who are already established stars, or should one try to find some emerging stars? And how much does one need to think about spreading the nominations over the top four or five teams, with an extra slot for the gold medal winners and/or a special recognition for the host team?

Moreover, the selection process can make the whole situation anticlimactic. If, as now was the case in Sweden, the team is announced immediately before the two medal games, it is clear that nothing that happens in the finals could change the outcome. This is really a bit strange but perhaps necessary for practical reasons. And this may be why the MVP is sometimes, like now in Sweden, left off the All Star Team. Is seems that this is by definition impossible, but at least it opens up one more place. And when now Karabatic showed in the final how important he is to the French team, it seemed that he was a most appropriate choice for MVP. But perhaps that selection could wait until after the finals?

This time there were reactions of surprise and disagreement, when some of the members of the All Star Teams were announced. Surely Norway had better candidates than someone who was simply their reliable 7-meter shooter! And did really many think that Doder was the best choice from the Swedish team? And if now Balic and Vori did not deserve to be included, was it necessary to have a Croatian, if Zrnic somehow was the best choice. And conversely, how could the Danish wing players be left out, and was there really nobody deserving on the Spanish team? Perhaps one should have demonstratively refrained from choosing a pivot, considering that this must be the weakest year for pivots in a very long time!?

It came to my mind during the late stages in Sweden that one could perhaps create more excitement by introducing a different type of All Star Team, either in addition to the normal one or instead of the traditional approach. For me, one of the most exciting aspects of the whole Championship was to observe the many new, younger players who had a dominating or surprising role on their respective teams. This time there were plenty of them, as many of the top teams are undergoing a bit of a generation change. I also heard many experts and ordinary spectators talk with excitement about these players.

So perhaps what we should have is some kind of ‘Newcomers’ or ‘Discovery’ All Star Team. Not one with a lot of rigid rules regarding age or previous experience, but one based on the excitement and surprises caused by these emerging top players. Perhaps one should call them ‘Future All Stars’. And one might not need to have exactly 7 players, one for each basic position. Perhaps one could select more freely up to 10 such players regardless of position. I really do think this would create more genuine excitement and debate! And people always seem to find it interesting to speculate about the future, rather than discussing if the All Stars from last time deserve to be nominated yet again…

Rivals Croatia and Serbia on opposite trajectories?

Posted on March 6, 2011 by Christer Ahl

Serbia vs Croatia at the 2011 WC

After the independence, Croatia and (to a lesser extent) Slovenia immediately became important participants in the Men’s World Championships. Later on, FYR Macedonia has twice participated in a respectable way, and it is beginning to look as if Montenegro might soon be able to join in. Bosnia can now point to a nice success at the club level, by having a team qualify for the last 16 in the EHF Champions League. Meanwhile, the Serbs (albeit as Yugoslavia) had great success in 1999 and 2001, and then had good showings again in 2005 and 2009.

But as the world of handball has come to recognize, the super power has been Croatia, with Olympic gold twice and also one gold and three silver medals in the World Championships between 1995 and 2009. Clearly the success has largely depended on the star power in the form of players such as Balic, Dzomba, Goluza, Lackovic, Metlicic, Sola and Vori, just to mention a few. It seemed in 2009, even though it was a disappointment to all Croatians that the expected gold turned into silver, that a new generation was also beginning to be ready to step in, more or less guaranteeing top positions also for many years to come.

In this year’s Championship, however, one had reason to begin to doubt what was happening to the idea of a new generation. Far too much depended on the Balic-Vori axis, and especially the absence of Metlicic seemed to be a severe handicap. Lackovic and Alilovic did not reach their level of recent years, and many observers questioned the inclusion of Zrnic on the All-Star team. Was it because Croatia simply had to have someone on the team and because Balic/Vori did not deserve it, or was it because Zrnic had such success with his 7-meter throws? But the biggest letdown was clearly the performance of Balic. He often looked tired and frustrated, seemingly unable to shine in the absence of a good supporting cast. He even demonstratively left the game and sat sulking on the bench in some critical moments.

Serbia played in the same group as Croatia both in the preliminary round and in the main round. Their chances seemed to have been downplayed by the international media. The prevailing expert opinion was that they did not have enough top players on the team, with only Ilic, Vujin and possibly someone else being worthy of special mention. But the Serbs really went about business with tremendous spirit and team cohesiveness. In many games it was really refreshing to watch them and their positive attitude. It was not just the special battle in the game against Croatia that created such a spark.

While the Serbian team in the end lost a bit of their energy or edge, they managed to convince many of the experts that here we have a team to be reckoned with over the next few years. They displayed strong technical skills and their coaching staff brought out good tactical elements in the tradition of the best of the Serb teams of the past. The scoring strength is clearly there, and the goalkeeping did not turn out to be the weak spot that some had anticipated. All in all, it is obvious that there is an adequate pool of players to draw from, not just to keep the rivalry with Croatia going, but perhaps enough to put Serbia on a more positive trajectory at a point in time when the Croatians need to show that they have the capacity to manage a generation change successfully.

EHF Game(s) of the Week: Barcelona at Celje (Live and with English Language Commentary) and Veszprem at Montpellier

Posted on March 4, 2011 by John Ryan

Nikola Karabatic and Montpellier will battle Veszprem in a Group B showdown

Barcelona at Celje

OK, there’s only one official game of the week with live English commentary from Tom O’Brannagain. That would be the Group A match between Slovenia’s, Celje and Barcelona. With Barcelona locked into a third place seed, however, it’s debatable as to how good of match it will be. Barca is clearly the better side but they won’t have any incentive to win. Celje, on the other hand will be fully motivated as they are currently tied with France’s Chambery for the fourth place seed. A win guarantees that Celje will advance, but they will also qualify if Chambery loses to Rhein-Neckar. As the Chambery match starts 30 minutes ahead of time, don’t be surprised if there is some scoreboard watching in Slovenia.

The match is at 6:00 PM (Central European Time), 12:00 Noon (U.S. East Coast) on Saturday, 5 March. Barcelona is a 3 goal favorite.

On Demand broadcast at ehfTV: http://www.ehftv.com/ec/cl/men/2010-11/video/001451

There is also a televised tape delayed broadcast on the MHz Network in the U.S. at 4:00 PM (U.S. East Coast) on Sunday 6 March. For information on how you can watch MHZ see this: http://www.mhznetworks.org/mhzworldview/carriage/

Interview with Celje right wing Gasper Marguc: http://www.ehfcl.com/men/2010-11/article/13725/Margu%C4%8D%3A+%22As+big+as+the+universe%21%22

Veszprem at Montpellier

The unofficial game of the week is clearly the Group B showdown between Montpellier and Veszprem for first place. Veszprem won in Hungary 27-26, so Montpellier will need to win by 2 goals (or just 1 goal if they keep Veszprem under 26). There’s a lot of incentive to finish first as the potential round of 16 opponents on the fourth rung are a significant step down from the third rung. Not to mention the first seed opponents are also guaranteed not to meet each other until the Final Four in Cologne, thus avoiding a potential quarter-final pairing vs. Kiel or Ciudad Real. Montpellier definitely has the edge here, but with Michael Guigou out and Vid Kavticnik questionable due to injuries, Karabatic will need to carry the load in this match.

The match is at 5.30 PM (Central European Time), 11:30 Noon (U.S. East Coast) on Sunday, 6 March. Montpellier is a 3 goal favorite.

On Demand broadcast at ehfTV: http://www.ehftv.com/ec/cl/men/2010-11/video/001456

EHF: Interview with Veszprem backcourt player,Gabor Csaszar: http://www.ehfcl.com/men/2010-11/article/13724/Cs%C3%A1sz%C3%A1r+to+steal+points+in+France

Audio recording links are below. Open the on demand video in one window and then click on the podcast link. I do a countdown of the ehfTV clock in the lower left hand of the screen. Pause the audio when I start the countdown and then play the video. Then unpause the audio when you get to the appropriate time on the clock.

Promoting Team Handball in the U.S. (Part 1): Las Vegas Rugby 7s Tournament: Undoubtedly, a model to follow

Posted on February 28, 2011 by John Ryan

Team USA takes the field in front of 25,000 fans

As frequent readers are well aware, I’ve written a number of pieces on the sport of Rugby and how its challenges to develop in the U.S. are similar to that of Team Handball. Both are sports with similarities with sports Americans already excel at and follow passionately (basketball for Team Handball; American Football for Rugby). And both sports are very popular in parts of the world (Scandinavia, the Balkans and Germany for Team Handball; the British Commonwealth for Rugby) but are minor sports in the U.S. And finally, both sports have passionate followers in the U.S., who dream that one day their sport will crack into the big time and become part of the American sports landscape.

I live in Las Vegas, a town full of dreamers, and a couple weekends ago I saw and heard firsthand how Rugby is maybe, just maybe, turning that dream into a reality. It was the second year that the USA 7s tournament was held in Las Vegas as part of the International Rugby Board’s (IRB) World Series for Rugby 7s. A crowd of around 25,000 attended each day of the 2 day event held at Sam Boyd stadium on the outskirts of Vegas. This may not seem like much of a crowd, but I can attest that it’s more than the UNLV football team often draws and without doubt you’ll be hard pressed to see spectators anywhere having more fun. The event has a party time atmosphere with expats from many nations dressed up in costumes or their nation’s colors. Outside the stadium is a festival area with rugby drills for the kids, assorted booths with national food dishes. And as it’s an all day event, let’s just say that if fans start drinking beer before noon most of them are going to be in a good mood come nightfall.

But aside from the festive mood onsite an even more important indication of Rugby’s growth was the presence of NBC sports at the event. In all, 5 hours of coverage (much of it live) was broadcast over the airwaves to every corner of the United States and 17 hours of coverage was available to much of the nation via the NBC Universal Sports online platform. I’m not an expert on TV broadcasting, but based on the equipment, numbers of trailers and personnel running around NBC didn’t cut any corners on their production. TV coverage like this alone, isn’t going to turn the U.S. into a Rugby power overnight, but there’s no denying that nationwide exposure like this is a godsend to a niche sport.

Here are a couple of audio excerpts from NBC’s broadcast. It doesn’t take much to imagine a Team Handball broadcast and the same type of Olympic advertisement for our sport.

[display_podcast]

From time to time I’ve gotten into verbal and written forum spats with members of the U.S. Team Handball community that pooh-pooh the importance of TV exposure. The standard argument is that it’s a diversion of scarce resources (time and money) that would be better spent on grass roots development. My counter argument is that it’s a numbers game and we sorely need new fans and players to support our grass roots programs and TV is the best way to grow those numbers. Heck, you might even find a real gem of a player who takes a liking to a game he’s never seen before. Last summer during the USA National Team – LA match in Chicago I whimsically made such a point on the Comcast broadcast. Essentially issuing a challenge to anyone watching that if they think they can play this game better contact the U.S. Federation for a tryout. For those of you who like to pooh-pooh the possibility of finding such a player, I suggest you check out this audio interview of Miles Craigwell, a former NFL player who saw a broadcast last year of Rugby 7’s, got in touch with the USA Rugby Federation and 8 months later started several matches for the U.S in Vegas.

I’ll be the first to tell you that Rugby 7s is a much simpler game to learn than Team Handball, but we could still use a few more Miles Craigwells showing some interest in our sport. And as I’ve argued many times before, we still need to have the grassroots programs in place. Because, if you do your promotion well, you need to be ready to handle all those newcomers.

But, are we doing our promotion of Team Handball as well as we could? As I soaked in the enormity of this event for Rugby, I couldn’t help but contemplate “how is Rugby doing this?” and “why can’t something similar be done for Team Handball?” In part 2 of this series I’ll tackle that very question.

Universal Sports (3 Feb 2011): Craigwell a football player turned rugby star: http://www.universalsports.com/blogs/blog=thescrum/postid=514632.html

The Economist (3 Feb 2011) Rugby in America: Worth a try: More and more Americans are being converted to the sport: http://www.economist.com/node/18070557?story_id=18070557&fsrc=rss

THN (11 Feb 2011): https://teamhandballnews.com/2011/02/nbc-to-broadcast-5-hours-of-7-on-7-olympic-team-sport/

IHF By-Law Proposals: Important changes seem to be emerging

Posted on February 27, 2011 by Christer Ahl

Almost a year ago, I wrote several articles severely criticizing the then emerging proposals for changes in the IHF By-Laws. These changes were planned to be discussed and adopted at the IHF Congress in Rome last April, but this Congress had to be postponed due to the ash cloud spreading over Europe. Instead, the proposals will now be put forward at an IHF Congress in Marrakech in the first week of May this year.

My main points of criticism (see article dated April 11, 2010) were: (1) ‘indications of a heavy-handed shift of power in favor of the IHF, at the expense of all other levels and members in the international handball family’, and (2) ‘a major expansion of the personal power of the President’. As I noted, ‘this would run counter to all sound and modern principles for the management and decision-making in an international sports organization or, for that matter, in any democratic institution’.

I am pleased to convey to our readers that it now seems that important changes are being put forward on precisely the two main points above. Much of the debate a year ago was between EHF representatives and the IHF, and it now appears that it may be a quiet resumption of that dialog which has led to a positive break-through. From several sources I am getting the information that, although there is no revised version of the overall proposals available at this time, there is indeed an IHF Council decision to adopt key modifications.

It appears that an elimination of the excesses in terms of ‘a power grab’ has been undertaken, and that the intended shift of authority from continents to the IHF regarding responsibility for certain key events has been stopped. More specifically, this involves the long-standing dispute regarding the responsibility for organizing qualification events to World Championships and Olympic Games. This is not just a matter of principle and prestige, but potentially also a huge financial issue, involving the revenues from such events.

While there are several other aspects of the initial proposals for new By-Laws that preferably should be changed, this presumably means that key continental representatives in the IHF are now more satisfied with the revised version at least regarding the relations between the IHF and its stakeholders and regarding the personal powers of the President. The latter had become even more of an issue after the President convinced the IHF Council to convert his role from that of an elected volunteer to a full-time employee.

It may be premature to celebrate, but at least this movement away from what appeared to be hardened positions must be seen as a small triumph, not just for the people directly involved but for the entire international handball family. While I am eagerly looking forward to the opportunity to read the revised version of the proposals, I want to congratulate those who worked hard to create a positive momentum. I am also pleased that the IHF President was able to find a way of moving towards a compromise.

THN (21 Mar 2010): President Moustafa’s proposals for new IHF Statutes would legitimize his dictatorship and despotism — who will stop this madness?? https://teamhandballnews.com/2010/03/president-moustafa-proposals-for-new-ihf-statutes-would-legitimize-his-dictatorship-and-despotism-who-will-stop-this-madness/

THN (11 Apr 2010): Changes in IHF By-Laws/Statutes: What is the issue?: https://teamhandballnews.com/2010/04/changes-in-ihf-by-lawsstatutes-what-is-the-issue/

EHF Game of the Week: Valladolid at Pick Szeged (Live and with English Language Commentary)

Posted on February 26, 2011 by John Ryan

Szeged's Frantisek Sulc

Another Group C match is served up for this week’s game of the week. Spanish side Valladolid travels to Hungary to take on Szeged. Both sides are likely to advance to the round of 16, but still have strong motivation to win. A win in Hungary would pretty much lock up second place for Valladolid and give them an outside opportunity to win the group. Meanwhile, a Szeged win will qualify them for the round of 16 and put them in third place with a possibility of even moving up to second.

The match is at 6:00 PM (Central European Time), 12:00 Noon (U.S. East Coast) on Saturday, 26 February. Valladolid is a 1.5 goal favorite

EHF Website interview with Pick Szeged’s Frantisek Sulc: http://www.ehfcl.com/men/2010-11/article/13698/%C5%A0ulc%3A+%22Szeged+live+for+handball%22

Live Broadcast link: http://www.ehftv.com/ec/cl/men/2010-11/live/high/001438

On Demand broadcast at ehfTV: http://www.ehftv.com/ec/cl/men/2010-11/video/001438

There is also a tape delayed broadcast on the MHz Network in the U.S. at 4:00 PM (U.S. East Coast). For information on how you can watch MHZ see this: http://www.mhznetworks.org/mhzworldview/carriage/

USA Team Handball Announces New National Team Pool Criteria

Posted on February 25, 2011 by John Ryan

USA Team Handball recently posted updated National Team Pool Criteria for prospective National Team players. Some of the criteria appears to be simply a more structured rehash of criteria that has been previously used to assess and identify players. There are the usual battery of physical tests and handball skills identified, but there are also some new requirements that caught my eye.

For instance, some basic minimums were identified in terms of matches and practices each year. A relatively modest number of matches is required (15), but a fairly substantial number of practices are now required (48 court and 72 non court). This may seem rather simple to our European readers, but I suspect that there are very few club teams in the U.S. meeting the 48/year requirement.

More noteworthy, is a requirement for senior players to relocate to designated Regional or National Centers of Excellence by June 1, 2012(#5, page 13). Section 5 goes further to highlight that the process for selecting these locations is planned for the first half of 2011 and that preliminary plan is to re-establish a residency program (either walk-in or live-in). As far as I know, this is the first written indication that USA Team Handball was going to take this significant step. More details will hopefully be coming soon in regards to the specifics of such a program and how it will fit into the current practice of encouraging European Club participation.

Also added is a requirement off the court in terms of being an Ambassador for the sport with options to support development through recruiting, refereeing and fundraising. An appropriate requirement, in my opinion, for a sport that needs as many people promoting it as possible.

But what really caught my eye, were the closing comments in the “Athlete Development Pipeline Model” document:

Finally, as uncomfortable, inconvenient and uncanny it may feel, there is absolutely no science based nor practice based evidence of a “fast track” for high achievers to become masters in their fields. To the contrary, as Malcolm Gladwell in his bestseller “Outliers” put it (sic): “researchers and practitioners in variety of fields have settled on what they believe is the magic number of for true expertise: ten thousand hours.”

“The 10,000 – HOUR RULE” sends very clear and strong message to us all involved in handball. Handball must evolve into year around activity.

A table is then provided which tabulates what this mean in terms of 25 day month (assume you 4 or 5 days off) over a 12 year span (2.77 hours/day) or 16 year span (1.56 hours/day). I’ll have a follow on commentary about the 10,000 hour rule. But suffice it to say, this is a very telling stat that speaks volumes as to the historic lack of U.S. success and the challenge of developing handball experts who pick up the sport in their late teens.

USATH: Live the Olympic Dream: Tryout for Team Handball!: http://usateamhandball.org/news/2011/02/23/live-the-olympic-dream-tryout-for-team-handball/40313?ngb_id=42

USATH: National Team Pool Criteria: http://usateamhandball.org/national-teams/national-team-pool-criteria

USATH: USA Team Handball Athlete Development Pipeline Model: http://usateamhandball.org/assets/documents/attached_file/filename/38081/USATH_Athlete_Development_Pipeline_Model_Application_Guidelines.pdf

New rules for punishing players are good – but only if the referees use them

Posted on February 24, 2011 by Christer Ahl

I have earlier commented on the overall good performances of the World Championship referees. But I have also noted that there were concerns about inconsistencies from one game to another and from one referee couple to another. Separately I wrote about the beneficial and irreplaceable impact of experience and the reality that many of the elite referees today are relatively young and inexperienced.

The specific area where inconsistencies and inexperience could be observed was the way in which the referees utilized the recently modified (or clarified) rules for punishment of players in situations that go beyond the ‘routine’ fouls. I am talking about the new emphasis placed on having players sent off for 2 minutes without a prior warning (or before the team reaches the limit of three yellow cards). This was always possible, but the 2010 rules specify that this should be seen as a normal decision and not an extreme one. Moreover, very useful criteria are provided for fouls that should be seen as belonging in this category. The same thing applies for the serious fouls that should lead to an immediate disqualification.

This is a very welcome and necessary improvement in the rules, but it works only if the referees have the judgment and the courage to apply them correctly and consistently!! It seems that there are too many examples, both in World Championship, in the recently resumed EHF Champions League and in national leagues, where the referees are too timid or hesitant. Perhaps the traditional insistence on using the yellow cards systematically, three per team in the early part of the game, has become so ingrained that the referees use this old approach a bit like robots, without really considering whether a particular fouls deserves a more harsh action.

Alternatively, the referees in some situations may be too hesitant because they worry that they then set too high a level for the punishments early in the game, and that this will lead to an untenable situation as the game progresses. But what they should instead be thinking about is the preventive aspect. Most players are smart enough to make the same distinction as the rule book does; they will appreciate that a particular action simply went too far and warrants a more severe reaction. And if the players do not get this signal, chances are that the actions will escalate and the game will get out of hand.

Similarly, referees may hesitate to give a direct red card, especially early in the game. This may be even more likely if it involves a key player, and the referees start thinking about the impact for the team and perhaps the crowd reaction. But for many years now, we have had a definition of a disqualification that should make it much easier for the referees to apply the rules as intended. Some decades ago, we still had the same concept that makes a red card so drastic in football, i.e., that the team has to play short-handed for the rest of the game. But in handball we allow the player to be replaced on the court after two minutes, precisely because we want the disqualification to be a way of getting the cynical and dangerous players out of the game, without unduly punishing the team and distorting the entire game.

This means that, just like in the case of the direct 2 minutes, there must be no excuse for the referees when it comes to showing the red card in a situation where a player’s health is endangered and where a player simply has been too reckless. It should not be a question of courage, because it is not such a drastic punishment. I can have more understanding if it is a matter of a failing instinct, related to a lack of experience with games at a very difficult level. Here the responsibility must be shared between the young referees who aim to join the elite category and the supervisors/instructors who must use their position to help clarify the necessary instincts and actions.

I am glad to see now that EHF is strengthening its capacity for high-level education of referees through the use of new technology. They have started collaboration with FIBA Europe and are introducing a new super-efficient software that would greatly facilitate the feedback efforts for both the instructors and the referees through a web-based approach. (Apparently, it is also connected to a broader system for the game reports, statistics etc.). I hope, or assume, that the IHF will quickly follow this example!

Europe vs. the Rest of the World – How many teams in the World Championships?

Posted on February 22, 2011 by Christer Ahl

This is common topic for discussions before, during and after a Championship. Clearly, each continent wants to protect its rights and its participation. Of course, there are many different views about the underlying principles. Should we try to get as close as possible to having the 24 best teams in the world, or should we recognize that this is a World event where each continent must have a chance to take part and be seen? What is the right balance?

The debate tends to start when the qualification events are finished, also in other continents but especially in Europe. There are always some “traditional” powers that fall by the wayside, like Russia, Slovenia, or Switzerland in the case of 2011. How could it be that they are “left out” while some “clearly weaker” teams from other continents get to participate…? And then the discussions resume when the draw of the Championship groups become known: how could it be that this team from continent X is ranked so high and gets such a favorable draw, while that other team from continent Y gets such a difficult group because of its lower ranking etc.

Then the event starts and some seemingly unexpected results are noted. How could it be that Austria is showing such weak form in comparison to what they did in the 2010 EURO? And how come that both Egypt and Tunisia are so mediocre? And what happened to Slovakia after their seemingly promising start? Is it really possible that Asia does not have a better men’s team than Korea? And what happened to Romania’s expected return to the top? Of course, the Australians are fun to watch, but when will they ever win a game again?

I am sure that I will set myself up for screams of protest, but my focus is inevitably on the quality of the weaker European participants. The Europeans are so fond of noting that the European Championship with its 16 teams is tougher than a World Championship, “because there are no teams from the other continents!” But did Austria, Romania and Slovakia really did bring any qualities that we needed to see in a World Championship, so was there really any justification for their taking up spaces?

In my opinion, we need to make sure that at least the top 12 teams are all present and get a chance to compete for the top positions, but beyond that it is the really the non-European countries who are more in the need of being present. They do not have a strong equivalent of the European Championship and they need this one chance to compete in a top event. By contrast, Europe’s teams number 12-16 belongs in their continental top events, but that should really be enough for them.

Immediately the Europeans will ask: but which other teams deserve to replace the weaker Europeans? Well, the reality is that handball is perhaps currently where football was 20-30 years ago. At the most, the other continents in most years have about two teams each that are really (or reasonably) competitive. In football you can easily find four or five. So perhaps the real answer is that nobody else deserves those extra slots. Perhaps we moved to fast to 24 teams and perhaps 20 would be about right. Of course, the problem is that 20 does not allow for an attractive format. Realistically, 24 is here to stay for a while.

So please be patient, and in a couple of weeks I will come back with some ideas for a compromise solution regarding a new format and a new distribution of slots! But do not relax, Europeans, because you might not be happy, and do not relax Australian friends. (Perhaps I might join those who say that your only way of getting real respect is to make the same change as in football and join the Asian qualifications…).

Do we really need more speed in the game at the top level?

Posted on February 20, 2011 by Christer Ahl

There have been suggestions, including from the IHF President, that changes in rules and attitudes would be needed to speed up the game and to create more excitement. Apart from focusing on this aspect when I watched the games in Sweden, I took the opportunity to ask some players, coaches, journalists and TV producers.

I have rarely heard such unanimous opinions on any technical topic in handball. Many very surprised at the question. They felt the issue at this time is that the emphasis on pure speed and quick action may have gone too far. For instance, they noted that there are now many more fast counterattacks than just 10-20 years ago. And the rules changes that allow for a throw-off, after a goal, to be taken more quickly have really been effective. There is now a lot of pressure on the team that scored to get back on defense, and the mere “threat” of a rapid restart creates a bit of drama. Similarly, only in some tactical situations are there any delays caused by substitutions. Teams are now used to (and forced to) handling it very efficiently.

So from the standpoint of coaches and players, the main argument was instead that a further emphasis on speed would have a negative effect on ball handling and technical skills. It would simply be impossible for players to maintain the same control as they have now. And the view was that the game is nicer to play and to watch with this degree of control. There was also a sense that the fitness of the players is generally as strong as it can reasonably get. A further push for speed would cause a change in physical preparation and training methods that would be not just undesirable but in fact unrealistic. It was also noted that the risk for injuries will probably increase with higher speed and constant action. A loss of overview and body control would tend to cause more collisions with defenseless players.

I also chatted with some spectators. Here the response was often that “we watch handball precisely because it has so much speed and action”. Some compared with basketball which they found boring in this respect. “We also need time to digest and celebrate what we see”, was another reaction. The only negative remark involved excessive stoppages for real or “fake” injuries. It was felt that some teams use this kind of tactics to slow the game down against a superior opponent.

The journalists I canvassed had roughly the same opinions as the ordinary spectators. The separate category of TV commentators and producers had their own special concern. They liked the speed of the game with counterattacks and quick ball movement. But they felt that the restarts were often too immediate to allow them the necessary time for commentary or for slow motion repetitions. So they would not be in favor of having a quicker turn-around in the game. Instead, their focus tended to be at the overall concept of time-outs, but of course only at the top level where TV broadcasts are common.

EHF Game of the Week: Chekhovskie Medvedi at Aalborg (Live and with English Language Commentary)

Posted on February 19, 2011 by John Ryan

After a long layoff the Champions League is back with leg 8 of Group Play. The featured match this week with English Commentary has Danish side Aalborg hosting Russian side Chekhovskie. Chekhovskie is tied for first place in Group C with 11 points while Aalborg is in last place with 4 points. Aalborg still can qualify for fourth place in the Group, but with only 3 matches to play they will need to start winning. Chekhovskie is also highly motivated as they will want to move ahead of Spanish side Valladolid in their bid to win the coveted first seed heading into knockout play.

The match is at 4:50 PM (Central European Time), 10:50 AM (U.S. East Coast) on Sunday, 20 February. Chekhovskie is a 3.5 goal favorite

EHF Website interview with left wing Timur Dibirov: Hungry for European handball: http://www.eurohandball.com/article/013676/Dibirov%3a+%22Hungry+for+European+handball%22

Live Broadcast link: http://www.ehftv.com/ec/cl/men/2010-11/live/high/001431

On Demand broadcast at ehfTV: http://www.ehftv.com/ec/cl/men/2010-11/video/001431

Iceland – what happened to the fighting spirit??

Posted on February 18, 2011 by Christer Ahl

The results from the preliminary round in the World Championship suggested smooth sailing for the Icelandic Viking ship. They brought the maximum of four points to the Main Round and seemed to have had a relatively easy time in most of their five games. It clearly looked as if it would be realistic to gain two or four more points in the Main Round, which then would help secure a place in the semi-finals.

But this was not to be. Of course, if one looks at the final ranking, a sixth place and a spot in the Olympic qualifying do not seem so bad. And one should not expect that the results from the 2008 Olympics and the 2010 European Championship could be repeated every time. But the issue is HOW it all happened!

One might say afterwards that perhaps winning the preliminary group so easily created an illusion, because this group is likely to have been the weakest one, with Austria, Brazil and Hungary playing below normal standard. But when an Icelandic team needs to get two-four points out of three games, then they normally get it. Or at the very least, they fight to the last drop of sweat (or blood!) to try to do so.

There have been many instances of this famous fighting spirit in the past. Personally, having been present, I remember primarily the final preliminary round match against France in the 2007 World Championship. Iceland had “messed up” against Ukraine and now absolutely needed to win against France to be in the Main Round. This seemed too big an obstacle, but the Icelandic team came at it with an attitude that just helped demolish the baffled French opponents, 32-24.

The player who for many years personified this attitude was Sigfus Sigurdsson. Being somewhat of a giant, he is a really friendly person off the court, but on the court he was always a “tiger”, amounting to a real challenge for both the opponents and the referees. His methods may sometimes have been a bit “borderline”, but he sure knew how to fire up his teammates.

This year’s team really seemed to miss Sigfus. In the critical opening game in the Main Round against a desperate German team, it was the Germans who took charge by playing an enormously spirited game. And after Iceland seemingly unnecessarily lost this game, it seemed as if any remaining fighting spirit was completely gone, so both the remaining two games against Spain and France were lost, as was the fifth place game against Croatia.

And it is not as if Iceland is without stars and players with substantial top club experience. They had no less than nine players with more than 100 games for Iceland, most of them also playing for top clubs in Germany and elsewhere. And they had Olafur Stefansson, a world-class player for many years, and a team leader with tremendous personality. But perhaps Olafur is no longer able to “carry” a team in the same way he was, and he is not really a Sigfus character.

Whichever team an international handball fan is supporting, there would always be a special fondness for these remarkable Icelandic players, who have done such a fantastic job in drawing on their limited resources in terms of overall population. The handball fanaticism is enormous there, and no other country (except Greenland!) has more handball players per capita. But all of us really have come to expect not just strong results and great player; above all we have come to enjoy that special fighting spirit. Let us hope it returns soon!

The pressure on the players in a World Championship

Posted on February 15, 2011 by Christer Ahl

One of the proud statements from the IHF apropos this topic was that this time there had been an additional rest day inserted, in recognition of the concerns about fatigue and related issues. The twelve teams who played in the Main Round typically had to play eight games in twelve days. For the majority of them there was also travel on one of the rest days. This is obviously a somewhat more intensive schedule than during the normal club season, but it is indeed a slight improvement over schedules in the past.

So how could one then summarize the different aspects related to the participation in World Championship for elite players who are already expressing concerns about the impact of the overall competition schedule? Well, there are indeed several different aspects. One involves the different practices in different countries regarding an adequate break in the league schedule, not just to accommodate the World Championship as such, but also to ensure adequate preparation and recuperation time for the players on the national teams. Here it seems that most countries value the role of the national team enough to allow a rather generous gap in the league schedule. But the opposite was really true in the case of Germany, where one could even observe an accelerated schedule immediately prior to what must be seen as a rather minimal break.

Then there is the tension between clubs and national teams, with the players themselves caught in the middle, regarding the fitness of a rather substantial number of key players, whose readiness to participate in the World Championship was debated heatedly up to the last moment. Some clubs felt that there was undue pressure on players who were not really healthy, and some national teams clearly held the opposite view. And sure enough, some players who had been noted as being only marginally fit indeed suffered relapses or new problems through their participation in Sweden. In some cases it is suggested that players kept playing even when they perhaps should have been kept off the court. There are now accusations about carelessness and inadequate concern for the longer-term health of these players.

Other players, whose health was never an issue prior to the event, happened to suffer the kind of injuries in Sweden that inevitably will happen during a period of intensive and hard-fought competition. And of course it involved some players who are key figures on their club teams. It may be of some consolation that the IHF for the first time provided insurance to keep the clubs whole, in terms of salary payments for periods during which the players are now unavailable for club duty. But this is likely to be a limited consolation for teams who are now entering the critical stage of both the league season and continental competitions such as the final phases of Champions League etc.

Another new feature was the permission to allow each team to use all its 16 players in each game, instead of having to rely on 14. While this may have created some peace of mind for the coaches, who had maximum flexibility in using their troops in each game, it is not likely to have had much impact in terms of reducing playing time for the star players or reducing the likelihood that risks with semi-injured played were avoided. For the most part, four-five players were sitting on the bench rarely getting out of their warm-up clothes and setting a foot on the court. The team will simply rely on their key players. In fact, a couple of experienced coaches commented that the only benefit of the new regulation was really that it helped avoid the awkward decision of which two players would have to be placed as spectators in the stands.

But there is one aspect that seemed to be relevant. When many teams had players unavailable due to injuries during, or from before, the event, it seems clear that those with the “deepest” teams had an edge. They were able to integrate newer players who were able to play important roles throughout the Championship, and/or they could trust their marginal players so fully that they put them in for entire games or long portions without any risk. This meant that they were able to rest their stars in some games where the outcome or the goal difference was not so important. In this way, as the Championship came down to the final stages, there was a noticeable difference between teams that had constantly had to rely on five-six players and those who had been able to spread out the burden somewhat.

However, generally speaking, one cannot get around that the stars are the stars. These are players that both the national teams and the club teams must draw on. And these are the players whom the spectators and TV/web viewers love to watch. They are the ones whose skills help create the necessary excitement around our sport. One can come up with new regulations and fine-tuning in the schedule; but in the end we must realize that there is a limit to the intensity with which our biggest assets can be utilized.