World Handball Championship - Group B (America, Denmark, Sweden, Poland, Mexico, Argentina)

Adam Collins4 said:Don't be ridiculous! Half of these kids aren't even coordinated yet at three years old, let alone trying to handle a ball that's practically bigger than they are...

Well, half of them might lack coordination, but the other half are playing soccer just fine. Don't talk nonsense!🙂

Gregory Ramos3 said:I mean, honestly, this whole thing is just completely absurd—it doesn't make any sense at all, logically speaking.

I guess you could say that the overall quality of any given sport really just boils down to one thing—the sheer percentage of "high-caliber" players out there in the total pool. It’s all about density, I suppose. If you have a massive number of people playing, but only a tiny fraction actually know what they're doing, the whole level of play stays pretty low. But if you can bump up that ratio of elite talent relative to everyone else... well, then the whole game changes. It's basically a numbers game, really.

Soccer definitely has the lowest concentration of actual talent compared to any other team sport—and honestly, it’s pretty obvious why. It’s just because way too many people play it. I mean, anyone who can basically walk without falling over gets signed up as a player these days, I guess. 🙄

I’ve been thinking about this lately—how quality is really just a direct reflection of the size of your athlete pool. It’s all about that base level of serious training; the bigger the foundation, the higher the ceiling. It’s basically math, I guess. If you have maybe 1,000 athletes training hard, you might end up with, say, 10 elite superstars and maybe one or two total outliers who are just on another planet. But if you scale that up to 10,000 athletes? Well, then you’re looking at 100 superstars and perhaps 10 or 20 of those once-in-a-generation players. It’s all about proportions. Of course, even within that small group of outliers, you’ll still find one or two who stand even further apart from the rest—the absolute best of the best. You'll always hit that peak; it's just that with a wider base, the talent at the top is naturally going to be much higher quality. Simple as that, really.

Paul Jones7 said:Quality is basically just a numbers game based on how many athletes are actually putting in the work—the bigger the pool, the higher the ceiling. It’s simple math, really. If you've got 1,000 kids training seriously, you might end up with maybe 10 elite superstars and a couple of absolute outliers. But if you scale that up to 10,000? Now you're looking at 100 elites and maybe 20 of those once-in-a-generation legends. It's all about proportions. Obviously, from that small group of legends, you'll still pull out one or two true icons, but you'll always have a peak—it's just that a wider base means the talent at the top is significantly better.

Not quite. Quality is an individual thing—you can't just reduce it to some predictable statistical formula...

Roger Allen3 said:half of them aren't even being coached properly, while the other half are actually playing soccer. don't be dense. 🙂

I mean, give us some actual proof that three-year-olds are out there training or playing soccer...

Anyway, what exactly is "mini handball"?

Roger Allen3 said:half of them aren't even playing organized sports, and the other half are just playing soccer. don't be dense. 🙂

Look, sorry, but have you actually watched any real youth athletics?? Kids from preschool all the way through maybe 2nd or 3rd grade should be enrolled in universal sports academies. We're talking programs designed to build general athletic skills tailored to their age, where actual scouting happens. Parents should be guided toward specific sports that fit their kid's current abilities (and interest, obviously).
At three years old, 99% of kids are just sprinting around like maniacs—if they're doing anything at all. What three-year-old can actually pull off a change of direction?

BTW, I started playing handball when I was 9. At our first practice, there were maybe 70 of us, whereas that same generation of soccer players probably had 100. So don't come at me talking about a "wide talent base" (at least not here in the States, which is a powerhouse for handball). Just because some small-town clubs out in rural towns might have 50 people registered doesn't mean those are 50 athletes. It means 50 guys who love to grab a beer, swear at the refs, and happen to own a pair of cleats and occasionally kick a ball into a net.

Paul Jones7 said:quality is directly tied to the size of the athlete pool actually putting in the work; the bigger the base, the higher the quality. It’s simple math. if you have 1,000 athletes training hard, you might end up with maybe 10 elite players and 1 or 2 outliers. but if you have 10,000 athletes, you're looking at 100 elites and maybe 10 or 20 outliers. it's all about proportions. obviously, from those 10 or 20 outliers, one or two will become absolute legends. there's always going to be a peak, but a wider base just ensures that the peak is significantly better.

We really ought to run some actual research on how many kids in, say, 4th grade, are actually training for handball versus soccer. And I mean *training*—hitting the field at least three times a week—not just being part of some small-town recreational league out in the sticks where they show up once a week for a practice and then a game. A "wider base" doesn't just mean a higher number of registered players. About 20% of the players registered with US Soccer are probably just people who signed up after age 15 just to play for their local town or county team.

dustypanther6 said:BTW, I picked up handball when I was nine. At my first practice, there were about 70 of us, whereas the soccer crowd in that age group was probably closer to 100. So please, don't talk to me about having a "massive talent pool"—at least not in America, where handball is actually huge. Just because clubs in places like Chicago, Detroit, or even small towns in Ohio have 50 players registered doesn't mean they have 50 real athletes. It means 50 guys who love grabbing a beer and yelling at the refs, who just happen to own cleats and occasionally kick a ball into a net.

And what does it say when there are only 30 handball players left in our top division? It means we have 30 students or working professionals playing on their own free time.

Roger Allen3 said:So what does having 30 handball players from a single city in our top league actually mean? It just means there are 30 students or working adults who play handball in their spare time.

I know plenty of people like that. We're talking about kids, college students, or professionals who have been training handball three to five times a week since they were little. Personally, I trained five days a week for eight years straight, right up until college. Just because they can't make a living off the sport doesn't change that. You can't compare them to those guys playing recreational soccer twice a month just because their company paid for a registration fee or a friend talked them into joining some local club when they're already over 20. I'm exaggerating, obviously, but you get my point.
In handball, you don't see that kind of casual stuff. I knew this one Taekwondo guy—total grouch—who was talked into trying handball at age 25 because we desperately needed a big guy on defense. He’d played a tiny bit in high school. That man lasted exactly two weeks.
When you call someone a handball player in this sport, they actually *are* a handball player. It doesn't work that way in soccer.

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I hate soccer. Soccer is massive specifically because you can play it anywhere. Give a guy a ball and some street corners, and he's playing. Almost every guy out there has kicked a ball around at some point; they love it and they know how to handle it. Naturally, they end up convincing each other to join a club in the next county over, or just doing it for the social aspect, the jokes, or grabbing a beer afterward. I wish handball had that kind of accessibility, but it doesn't. For handball, you need twelve players, goals, specific positions, referees, and so on—that's why it hasn't spread like soccer. But that's exactly why the raw number of registered soccer players can't be used as a metric to define your supposed "talent base."

Adam Collins4 said:That’s not really how it works—quality is such a subjective, individual thing, so you can't just boil it down to some predictable number...

In large enough numbers, things become statistically predictable, I guess. What you can't account for is pure genius. Take someone like LeBron James—if we assume he's some kind of basketball genius, though I don't want to get bogged down in the whole "is he the GOAT or not" debate right now, let's just use him as an example—he might or might not exist in the world of basketball. But... if you have a sport where the player base is ten times larger, then there's ten times the probability that you'll stumble upon a genius, because the odds of one specific player being a genius are basically

dustypanther6 said:but that’s exactly why you can't just look at how many soccer players are registered and call that some kind of "foundation" for determining quality

The conversation shifted toward American standards, when we were actually talking about the global scale—like where soccer and handball really sit on the world stage

And honestly, trying to generalize by saying American soccer players are somehow less serious than handball players just doesn't hold water. I mean, even if you're looking at a flawed data set, you're still going to find a core group of serious soccer players who are putting in the work... and those will be precisely the most talented ones who actually survived some pretty brutal pre-selection processes

Kids around three years old can't tell the difference between a soccer ball and a severed head, let alone what parents call a watermelon. But Dad? Dad's already convinced that if the kid becomes a pro athlete, he’ll be able to retire on a "respectable" pension.

And handball? What's the payout there? Forget about it. We’re just waiting for the next big superstar, some massive brand name, to come along.

Any chance we could get a stream going?

South Korea vs. Argentina ends in a 25-25 tie

A bit of a shocker! 😁

Carl Garcia22 said:So, take this tiny town in the Midwest, maybe like 5,000 people, right? The kids from the local Scout academy used to travel all over—like, they were hitting up tournaments in the Czech Republic, Poland, Canada, Germany, and even trips across the US and down to Mexico. Now, those same players are playing in the top tier of their regional league and, honestly, they're killing it, and they're all born in '92. I mean, I guess you'd see the same thing at any other club that actually knows how to organize things properly.

Yeah, that's great... for the American national team, I guess...

Paul Jones7 said:you'll always have a peak, it's just that when you start from a much wider base, that peak ends up being way higher quality

🤦

Man, why don't you just go ahead and write an entire college essay for homework on this one: The difference between "quality" and "quantity"

Honestly, if we don't wrap our heads around that concept, this whole debate is pretty much pointless 👋 (and let's be real, it feels useless even with that 🤣 thought in mind)

Roger Allen3 said:South Korea vs. Argentina, 25-25 tie

A little shocker there, 😁that was unexpected

It’s a good thing the Koreans didn't lose, otherwise they might have actually ended up as champions 😬

Samuel Morales said:Yeah, that’s a good move... for the US national team.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or just a weird reality, but five or six Scouts are playing for the Canada U-19 national team, and now one’s even been called up to the senior squad.👋

Gregory Ramos3 said:🤦

Man, why don't you just go write an essay for your homework instead: The difference between quality and quantity

I mean, honestly, I don't think that's even where the error lies. Paul Jones7 explained the whole quality versus quantity thing pretty well, but I don't know, I can't bring myself to agree with him. Seems like a totally wrong way to look at sports to me...
By that logic, a country would be considered the absolute best in a specific sport just because they have the largest pool of athletes playing it...
At the end of the day, it all boils down to the few players who actually step onto the field. Those 100,000 other people back in the States playing the same sport? They don't really matter in this context...
Now, someone’s probably gonna jump in and say it’s easier to find top-tier talent when you have a massive base to pull from, which, okay, I guess that's partially true. But still, things like athletic training, infrastructure, facilities, raw talent, and a million other factors are way more important...

The local guys I follow play in the US third division, and honestly, almost the entire roster—besides maybe two or three veterans—is under 18 or 19 years old. They actually just headed over to Europe for some preseason training in places like the Czech Republic and Germany, but if you ask me, that doesn't really prove much about their actual level 🤷

Adam Collins4 said:There are several ways this could play out, so I’m curious about the actual ruling here...

You get three timeouts per game, but you aren't allowed to burn all three in a single half. That's what the paper reported this morning.

USA-Algeria 18-18