Japanese Nationals 2010: Interview with Nobuo Sato

http://report.nirenoki.net/satou_1226.htm
Coach Nobuo Sato, December 26, 2010
After the Ladies' Free Skate

On Asada, On Kozuka

Q. Asada "overcame a great mountain" to achieve this result--what do you think of it?
A. I think it's a mental issue. I think that she was insecure about what she had been doing, but here, she gained the ability to skate with confidence.

Q. What was the reason she was able to change her insecurity into confidence?
A. I think it's that she's becoming able to do each jump the way she wants/imagines them.

Q. Is the quality of her jumps increasing?
A. Really, it's been recent, all of a sudden. While I was at the Grand Prix Final, it seems that something changed a little, and when I came back and started working again from the basics, everything just clicked.

Q. Is it more about carefully building upon her training bit by bit, rather than some kind of impetus?
A. Yes. Bit by bit things started changing, and recently her jumps became successful eight, nine times out of ten, and I think her confidence started to grow.

Q. Maybe it's because her increased success rate in practice has created confidence, but I think that her facial expression has become brighter?
A. Yes, that's true. In fact, she herself says this clearly.

Q. Is it her strength, that she became able (to do her jumps) at the most important competition?
A. Yes that's exactly right. From my perspective, I was thinking that it would be ideal if we had another month or so. For everything to suddenly come together now--I see it as a sign of her mental and emotional strength.

Q. Watching her before the start of the free skate at this competition, did you feel calm?
A. No, not at all. I'm the one who's astonished, but really, I just watched her and thought, '(Her) willpower and inner strength is not of an ordinary person.'

Q. After her program, you were looking up at the ceiling rinkside--at that moment, what were you feeling?
A. I was the one who was surprised, and I thought, 'Just as expected (of her)--what an incredible person.'

Q. What was the one area that you pointed to as essential, the one part you were concerned with most?
A. I apologize that this is going to turn into an extremely pragmatic explanation, but of course I had raised the issue of not making mistakes on her jumps as a first priority, and today, there was one small mistake in a 'boring' section, but I think that maybe something like that is just too bad/can't be helped, so today I'm satisfied.

Q. So you mean that in the middle of this improving and then not and then improving again, today was about positives?
A. Yes. I think that today ended with a good result for her.

Q. So the fact that she could put out a good performance today, will it help build her confidence even in practices from now?
A. That's true, yes. I think that will happen, without a doubt.

Q. Her stubbornly attempting the triple Axel in the short program--were you against it until the very end?
A. (laughs) Based on many past examples and what I've experienced, I still think it's in fact a bad tactic. But if she is going to work up her nerve (to attempt it), then what does the thinking of an old person matter. So I expected this one thing from her brimming energy, and with courage the decision was made.

Q. So in that sense, you mean that your and Asada's opinions were in agreement?
A. Yes.

Q. Have you ever wondered whether she would say, "I want to attempt two triple Axels"?
A. Well that, in a word--yes.

Q. So it's been half a year since starting the process of correcting her jumps in June--
A. It was September.
Note: The interviewer asked this question because it was announced that Asada started reworking her jumps in June. For Sato, Asada began this process in September, when she became his student.

Q. Taking June as when she began making a conscious effort to rework her jumps, she said that because she's spent this half year building upon her training things have been improving. Was this time very important?
A. I think much more time is necessary. And so, to put it frankly, that she could perform so well today is a huge surprise to me.

Q. Even more?
A. And so, from here I'm thinking that we want to work to raise her overall level a little. I don't know if things will break again, and I think that in some ways it's a gamble. But there's nothing we can do than endure and overcome it.

Q. This "reworking" was said to still involve fumbling around, but how far have things come now?
A. Things may very much still be at the level of appearances.

Q. How far has the "reworking" process as you ideally imagine it come?
A. I think we're still at the entrance.

Q. What does that mean?
A. If she skates with power, she'll generate more speed. And that will affect many things that are essential to jumps. And so, if we approach this with courage, how far can we go? I think it will take one year, two years. In the end, we can only take things one step at a time. But I still want to try.

Q. Are you very happy that this obstacle (i.e. Nationals, skating a clean program) has been overcome?
A. I am happy, and I am surprised.

Q. Can you compare her finished form to someone?
A. It's not that we hold someone as our goal, but rather that we're seeking what I want her to be like, based on my sense of things. However, I want to change things bit by bit, while taking care that things don't become a matter of simply what I want. Still, that bit by bit is scary.

Q. Based on today, is there sort of a specific goal for next time?
A. No, I think that the way she skates will be the same. I think that even if she becomes a little stronger and has more speed, it'll be a matter of a few percentage points.

Q. This reworking of her jumps, will you get into it again after the season is over? Or will you immediately continue the process after this?
A. I want to start things again right after this.

Q. Is continuing to compete an important thing?
A. Indeed, I think it is an important thing. Even if things are successful in practice, I think it's important to train while checking on how things are going by testing them in these situations and atmospheres.

Q. In important competitions from now on, what will be the key to bringing out her strength like today's?
A. I think it's only practice.

Q. Is this the confidence that is fostered through training?
A. I'll start slowly incorporating things that I refrained from saying before. This will require courage on my part.

Q. Yesterday, Kozuka said that practicing with Asada is a huge reason for his rapid progress--how are things from a coach's point of view? What is the synergistic effect?
A. There is a lot. For Kozuka, it's, "She is still practicing, and that much--I have to as well," and for Asada, it's "How can I achieve (his) speed?" There are things like this between them, both ways, so there is a lot of synergistic benefit.

Q. This is about Kozuka--do you think that he's changed a lot since last year?
A. I don't think so. Except, the parts that I would wonder, 'Will things soon start falling apart from here?' have stopped crumbling--I think this aspect is the biggest change. As a result I think that this has channeled into his self-confidence. Because he's a little scatterbrained he can get carried away--so in this sense, I think you can ask, 'Maybe he's really changed?' Still, I don't think there has been a large change fundamentally.

Q. How was doing things a little differently, such as going to Canada by himself to train?
A. Up until now, he's coasted on things that people around him have created for him, but he ignored that, and instead of riding in a taxi with his parents, he rode on a bus by himself, and I think that he must have had a lot of fun experiences, but of course he struggled by himself as well. He worked hard and was encouraged and supported by many people, and I think he learned a lot. I think that in some ways this was been more of a plus than actually learning things in practice.

I Spy...

...a spectacular set of typos.

NHK Trophy 2010: Thank God For the Time Difference

Usually, the 13- or 14-hour time difference between the East Coast and Japan creates a lot of logistic difficulties in my life, but for once this halfway-around-the-world business is proving to be quite helpful. In fact, it may directly contribute to the survival of my heart past the age of say, 25.

Although a lot of different headlines find their way into the rotation that is all Yahoo! pages, I definitely was not expecting to see 「真央『思い切りやる』３回転半ぶっつけ本番」when I went to go check my Japanese e-mail. First of all, I did not know that anyone other than my mother actually used ぶっつけ本番. Second of all ,WHAT?

浅田は練習でも成功していない、演技後半に３回転半ジャンプ（トリプルアクセル）を入れるプログラムにぶっつけ本番で挑むことを誓った。

I have the utmost respect for and faith in Nobuo Sato, but seriously? This free skate plan might be even more idiotic than Tatiana Tarasova's grand schemes for using the triple Axel. Isn't Mao supposed to be working on her other jumps so she doesn't have to set up for certain disaster, and in the second half of her program no less? I am so, so glad that this will all happen while I am asleep. Lord.

In fact, my love for Mao and her successes is such that I am glad for the time difference even after seeing pictures like this:

http://photography.ice-dance.com/2010-11/2010NHK/Dance/Practice/ThursPM/10NHK-PrThPM-0317-DW-LC.jpg.php

Sometimes, I can hardly comprehend their existence. They may just be the team that singularly redeems the Short Dance.

And so... I am soon going to bed. See you, Short Program, during some downtime (HAH) at work.

And So It Ends

A brilliant bit of practical tracking and anticipation-building.

He may be a politician through and through, but this is beyond real.

Also, I'm sorry if this is incredibly inappropriate, especially considering I took advantage of BBC's generosity for many hours, but the people commenting on the rescue scene had more than a touch of toolishness.

All Cliches Aside

Tonight I have seen the face of courage.


Am I the only person who was concerned that the shaft had to be kicked into place as it began its descent?


BBC is getting its up-to-date information based on the Chilean Mining Minister's tweets. Unbelievable. I don't know whether to be impressed or hysterically amused.

Okay. There is no way BBC could not tell that Florencio Avalos' child is a boy. Of course this pales in comparison to everything, but really...

What Was That About Japan?

Oh ho, United States. Looks like you can't keep track of of your dead people either.

72,000 stimulus payments went to dead people
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER (AP)

WASHINGTON – More than 89,000 stimulus payments of $250 each went to people who were either dead or in prison, a government investigator says in a new report.

The payments, which were part of last year's massive economic recovery package, were meant to increase consumer spending to help stimulate the economy.

But about $18 million went to nearly 72,000 people who were dead, according to the report by the Social Security Administration's inspector general. The report estimates that a little more than half of those payments were returned.

An additional $4.3 million went to more than 17,000 prison inmates, the report said. Most of the inmates, it turns out, were eligible to get the payments because they were newly incarcerated and had been receiving Social Security before they were locked up.

In all, the $250 payments were sent to about 52 million people who receive either Social Security or Supplemental Security Income, at a cost of about $13 billion. Other federal retirees also received the payments, but they were not part of the inspector general's review.

Social Security spokesman Mark Lassiter said, "Inaccurate payments are unacceptable. Social Security's Recovery Act payments were 99.8 percent accurate and we quickly collected the majority of the inaccurate payments. Each year we make payments to a small number of deceased recipients usually because we have not yet received reports of their deaths."

The inspector general for the Social Security Administration has been performing an audit to make sure no checks went to ineligible recipients. The latest report was dated Sept. 24 but was just recently posted to the agency's website.

People were eligible for payments if they were getting benefits during any one of the three months before the law was passed in February 2009.

Dead people were ineligible to get the payments. But, the report said, there is no provision in the law to recover payments incorrectly sent to dead people.

"Based on the failure of the SSA to properly check its records, and Congress' failure to fully think through the provisions needed to govern these payments, SSA lost $22.3 million in American tax dollars," said Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. "These findings are yet another example of congressional stupidity and a lack of accountability."

The Social Security Administration said that despite tight deadlines, workers accurately processed more than 99.8 percent of the 52 million stimulus payments.

"We worked with Treasury, developed new processes, and began issuing (payments) about 30 days earlier than the legislatively mandated deadline," the agency said in a written response included in the inspector general's report. "This was a major accomplishment for our agency."

The inspector general's report said that if similar payments are authorized in the future, prison inmates should be ineligible and the government should be able to recover payments made to dead people.

The Social Security Administration agreed with the recommendations.

The Magical Uncle Toni

So apparently a French tennis magazine published an interview with Toni Nadal, and Men's Tennis Forum has a translation. I suppose I could read the original interview and practice my French a bit, but this method is far easier. :) I've bolded the parts I found particularly funny or interesting, and taken out the translator's original emphases.

Interview with Toni Nadal

Tennis Magazine (Fr), n°413, Octobre 2010

In a way – and this is not to put him down – he’s part of the scenery: Toni is essential in the landscape of world tennis. Everybody obviously knows the uncle and trainer of the world n°1 but what do we really know about the man, who is rarely seen without a cap as if it’s a protection and who has the debonair style of a tennis “professor” we’d all like to have? Not much. So, for once we’d like to listen to a trainer – and not just any trainer! – to decode with him the mechanisms that have allowed him to, stone by stone, build one of the biggest phenomena in the history of the sport. By applying a healthy discourse that has education and work as the lead motives, “uncle Toni” takes us along with him on the path to the incredible destiny of the Nadals. Through this interview, we gradually acquire a better understanding of how Rafa became Rafa….

Tennis Magazine: Toni, everybody knows you as the uncle and coach of Rafael Nadal but they know less about your own background. You’ve celebrated your 50th birthday this year (T.M.: he was born on February 17, 1960 in Manacor). Could you briefly describe this half-century?
Toni Nadal: What can I say (smiles)? Like everybody in the family, I was born in Mallorca and I still live there, in Porto Cristo I have three children, one girl and two boys aged 9, 7 and 6. I was the second-born in the family after Sebastian, father of Rafael. I have two other brothers (T.M.: one of which is Miguel Angel, former football player at FC Barcelona) and a sister, quite a bit younger. As you know, we are a very sports-minded family but I was the first to play tennis. I tried a lot of sports, including football of course, but also swimming, table tennis (ping pong) which is the sport in which I managed quite well since I was the junior champion of the Balearic Islands. From the age of 14, I started playing tennis.

T.M.: What triggered your interest in the sport?
Toni: In 1972, I was able to go to the Masters that took place in Barcelona. That year, I saw Ilie Nastase win and he became my idol. So, I started to play in the Tennis Club of Manacor, Rafa’s current club and I’ve been a member since 1974.

T.M.: Quickly, you reached a very good level, by the way…
Toni: Let’s not exaggerate. Let’s say that I had a good regional or national level. I reached group A in the 2nd Spanish category (T.M.: Still, this category grouped the 30 best Spanish players). After that, I no longer disputed a lot of tournaments because I was also studying in Barcelona. I followed law studies because that’s what my father wanted and also history because that interested me more. In a broader perspective, I wasn’t very passionate about those studies. I couldn’t see myself getting a job in it because I could quickly see that I didn’t have the potential.

T.M.: What sort of player were you?
Toni: I had the same style as José Higueras (smiles). I made very few mistakes and I was physically good. The problem was that I did not have a strong shot. I lacked aggressiveness. My backhand was correct but my forehand wasn’t very good.

T.M.: How did you earn a living before becoming Rafa’s coach?
Toni: I was interested in sports so I ended up getting a trainer’s degree and I started to teach in the club in Manacor. Before becoming a football pro, my brother Miguel was in that club as well and he was very good at it because he became the junior champion of the Balearic Islands. There were quite a few very good juniors. Our tennis school has an excellent quality, it’s one of the best on the Balearic Islands.

T.M.: And then, Rafa came…
Toni: Rafa was a very good youngster amongst others. I first started to train him in the tennis school where he started in 1990 at the age of 4. It’s only a couple of years later so it seems, in 1996 or in 1997, that I started to focus only on training Rafa. But that was not because we had decided that he would become a professional player. It was too early for that. It was a decision made because it was easier that way. Rafa started to play in a lot of tournaments and he needed somebody to accompany him. Rafa’s dad preferred me to do that and he also backed it financially.

T.M.: So, you took charge of little Rafa and perhaps, you made the most important decision of his life: to let him play with his left hand whereas he’s a natural right-hander.
Toni: No! That’s a legend… But it’s really not the truth. At the start, he played with two hands but using one hand to direct. I had the impression that he was stronger on his left side than on his right side. So, I figured that he was left-handed; it’s as simple as that. Besides, even if he ate with his right hand, he also played football with his left foot. However, at no point did I tell him: “He needs to play with his left hand because that way, he will be much stronger.” However, since I’m not completely stupid, I simply advised him to use his strongest hand. That’s it. Besides, I don’t think that it’s that much more advantageous to be left-handed. Just look at the world’s best players: there are not many of them there. No, the only thing I did advise Rafa was that at the age of 10, he needed to stop playing his forehand with two hands because no top player had a two-handed forehand and I couldn’t imagine my nephew being the first. So, this is all there is to this story. Would Rafa be as strong now if he used his right hand? That’s something we don’t know and we will never know.

T.M.: So, when you started to train only with Rafa, was your first job a huge technical task?
Toni: No, not really. If you want to work in a healthy way with somebody, the first task is to make him responsible. Even as a kid, Rafa had to be the master of his own tennis decisions. After that, my philosophy as a coach is not to tell a player: “You have to hit that ball this or that way because that’s the way that shot is played.” That’s wrong and you can see how so many players have so many different techniques. I will rather tell a player: “It doesn’t matter how you take that ball, but you need to hit it there with this speed and that sort of effect.” What I mean is that you have to look beyond technique. First of all, you need to know and understand the game. In fact, the work is mostly done on a mental decision-making way. With Rafa, I always set him short term goals. Every day, he needed to be better than the previous one. That’s more important than technique. So, I obviously worked a lot on pure technique as well because otherwise, you wouldn’t be a coach!

T.M.: Do you still use the same training methods now with Rafa?
Toni: Yes. But after all, you need to adapt your philosophy to the type of player you’re working with. If I was training Federer, I would probably do more technical work because his game depends a lot on technique and you need to maintain that. Federer is not the sort of player to do leg work (running) all day long.

T.M.: Would you love to train Federer?
Toni: No, that’s not what I wanted to say (smiles). You know, when Rafa retires, I don’t think that I could train another player. It would be difficult. I think that I’ll go back to training youngsters.

T.M.: Rafa's game is more characteristic game than others, less academic. Is that due to the fact that you gave him more freedom on a technical level?
Toni: Hard to say. Rafa has a very thorough foundation on a technical level. As time passed, he has developed his own game and indeed, it’s a lot different that the game style of others. Since we played a lot on clay, I focused on his forehand, his topspin and his consistency. For me, those were the three most important points.

T.M.: Another point that is without a doubt at least as important for you as a trainer but also as his uncle is the upbringing. Today, people applaud him specifically for his perfect upbringing.
Toni: Yes, that’s true. It’s been essential for two reasons. Firstly, it’s a lot easier to work with somebody who has an exemplary behavior. Secondly, like you said, it’s because Rafa is my nephew. I didn’t want people to have a bad image of him. Having said that, I didn’t do much work in this department. Rafa has always been an easy boy. I don’t remember him misbehaving on a court once; he has never broken a racquet in his life. Generally speaking, I think that people neglect the upbringing all too often. I remember what Ricardo Piatti, trainer of Ivan Ljubicic, once said during a colloquium in Italy: “The problem today is that if you ask a father if he’d prefer to see his son to become the Roland Garros champion rather than a well brought up kid, he’s pick the first option.” Besides, it’s easier to win Roland Garros if you have a good upbringing because that implies that you have discipline, that you can listen and that you can accept your mistakes.

T.M.: Is it true that when he was a kid, you made your nephew believe that you had magical powers?
Toni: Yes (smiles). Rafa was the little boy in the family and everybody always had so much fun with him. As a joke, I made him believe all sorts of things: that I was a star at AC Milan, that I had won the Tour de France five times with a moped (laughs)…Indeed, I also told him that I had magical powers. One day, he must have been about 7 or 8, we lacked a player in the 12-year group to compete in a team event. I took him along with us and to reassure him, I told him that he didn’t need to worry if the match went badly because I have the ability to make it rain. It was winter. So, when the match got tight at the start, it started to rain and then, Rafa turned to me and said: “It’s alright, you can make it stop now, I’m going to win!” Another time, we were watching a match of Ivan Lendl on TV. It was a replay of an older match during which Lendl retired. Rafa didn’t know that. So, at the exact moment when Lendl retired, I told him: “Alright, I’m going to make Lendl lose.” He couldn’t believe his eyes. I have a lot of examples like that.

T.M.: When you think back to those moments and you look at him now with his incredible achievements, isn’t it you who can’t believe your eyes now?
Toni: I am surprised by his career, yes. Because I look around us and I see a lot of players who are just as good as he is: Murray, Djokovic, Gasquet, for example…These are players who perhaps have an easier touch of the ball. And yet, Rafa has by far the best career. So, you ask me whether I’m surprised. Yes, I am. I’ll go even further, I don’t understand it.

T.M.: But don’t you think that Rafa has something more than the others in this regard?
Toni: Perhaps so, yes. He has an incredible game intensity and a good mentality. I think that he has a better mental control than the others.

T.M.: At the start of his career, a lot of people said: “his game is too intense, it won’t last…”
Toni: (interrupts) But a lot of people talk without understanding what they’re talking about.

T.M.: So, you don’t share this opinion?
Toni: No. You basically need to understand one thing. When he arrived on tour, he was very young and not really ready for all of it. He made his debut among the 200 best players of the world at the end of 2002 and we didn’t foresee that to happen this quickly. However, suddenly, he needed to step it up to keep up with the tour. All year long, Rafa had to play against adults whereas he was just a boy. In those circumstances, the only thing he could do on court was to run and to run everywhere. It’s true that in the beginning of his career, he did nothing but that. However, this is the image that has stuck with him often without people noticing that gradually, his game was evolving. Today, if you really look at him, he doesn’t run any more than the other players on court. So, it’s true that his forehand is not as fast as Söderling’s because he has learned to play with more topspin. However, just look at the last Roland Garros final and you will see that Rafa ran much less than Söderling. Same when you look at the semi-final in Wimbledon against Murray but in a different context. That must mean that his tennis is good, no? If Rafa had started out on tour later than he has, when he was already fully formed, people would surely not have said this about him.

T.M.: What about the future? Will you work on evolving his game some more?
Toni: (thinks) The most important thing is to make sure that you do something better than how you did it on the previous day. Because if you stop improving, you’re dead. So, rather than evolving, I would call it improvement.

T.M.: Does it make you sad that people talk more about his physique and his mental ability than about his technique and his talent?
Toni: Today, people want to talk about everything but without going deeper into the matter. You need to look at things more carefully and with more objectivity. Certain people have said that Rafa doesn’t have a very good technique. But what is that, technique? Is it hitting the ball very hard and with a beautiful movement but once out of every two hits, it lands outside the court? Is it to have a very good forehand, a very good serve but no backhand? No. For me, technique is about being able to place the ball wherever you want it to land with no matter what shot. This is what Rafa can do. So, perhaps he doesn’t have the same technique as Federer, but he does have an excellent technique. A good forehand, a good backhand that he can slice, a correct volley… He has a hand that allows him to do a lot of things.

T.M.: Basically, don’t you have the impression that Rafa’s talent is often underestimated?
Toni: I don’t know. People can think whatever they want anyway. It’s not a problem for me. I do think that they overestimate his physique. If you compare him with French players like Monfils or Tsonga, I’d say that they have a better physique, they’re more strongly built. They say that Rafa is always there to hit the ball but I think that this has more to do with his excellent anticipation skills and a very good perception of the game.

T.M.: You say that you don’t attach a lot of importance to what others say about Rafa. However, you were affected last year with how they whistled at Rafa in Roland Garros… (Note: in 2009, the year of his first (and so far only) defeat in the 1/8 final against Robin Söderling, the public firmly supported the Swede)
Toni: I’m not saying that I don’t attach a lot of importance to it, I’m saying that people are entitled to think whatever they want. I think that the Roland Garros public was very incorrect that day. In sports, it’s good to cheer for somebody’s victory but it’s not normal to wish defeat on somebody else. I’ve often repeated it to my nephew, who is a keen supporter of Real Madrid as you know, that I understand that he wants Real to win but I always told him that he should not wish defeat on Barcelona. I know that a lot of fans are like that but I think it’s a rather dumb way of going about it. Anyway, we’re not brought up like that in our family, that’s not what we’ve been taught. It’s for that reason that I was shocked by the way the Parisian public acted and even more so for three reasons: Firstly because Rafa has always been a very correct player, secondly because he was the defending Roland Garros champion and thirdly, because he’s given a lot to that public by giving many autographs and such. So, to support Söderling, yes. No problem. But to whistle at Rafa, no.

T.M.: Have you forgiven the Parisian public these days?
Toni: I don’t have to forgive them for anything. This is my opinion on what happened, that’s all. This year, things were better, much better.

T.M.: How far do you see Rafa going from this point on?
Toni: I have no idea. If he happens to win no more tournaments, we’re not going to make a projection about it. Our only goal is to play well, to improve ourselves. That’s the best way to reach serenity: to do the things as best as you can. Rafa has the opportunity to do professionally something he loves above all else. It’s up to him to do his best and that’s easier to do when you love what you’re doing. Beyond that, we’re not focused on accumulating Grand Slam tournaments because that’s not entirely up to us. You have other players to deal with. The work we put in it is the only thing that depends totally on us.

T.M.: Do you think that Rafa will be able to play until he’s 35 for instance?
Toni: No, I don’t think so. A lot of people predicted him to have a short career and this career is already going strong for 8 years now. But anyway, you have to consider that he started on tour when he was very young and I think that by the age of 27 or 28, fatigue will start to set in. We’ll see.

T.M.: How do you explain that you Nadals have such strong minds?
Toni: I think that a lot has to do with upbringing. One of the key elements that’s instilled on us is that in life, you have to face difficulties head-on. You can’t think like a child that everything is beautiful. There will always be problems and you need to take them on. In tennis, like in life, you have to accept your mistakes, realize that you have to learn a lot in order to do less and you have to put in the necessary work to get there. This is what we’ve always done with Rafa. From when he was little, I made it so that things didn’t always go smoothly. So, unlike other kids today, he has learned that things don’t always happen the easy way, not right away. We had to deal with a lot of problems together like his serve which was really not good at the start. That’s a key ingredient in sports, no? Tennis means hitting the ball back and forth over the net, there is no other signification. However, tennis becomes a passion when you measure the mental effort it requires, when you sum up all the difficulties you've encountered and when you gradually, step by step, start to rise above these obstacles. This is a good summary of Rafa’s career. Whatever happens in the future, I can assure you that he’ll leave a happy and satisfied man with all that he has accomplished.

Hah... the part about his "magical powers" is just brilliant. Beyond that, though, I have a few questions... The media always makes it seem as if it's the three Nadal brothers--Sebastian, Toni, and Miguel Angel--but now there is a fourth brother and a sister? Who are they, and what do they do? And Monfils is "more strongly built" than Nadal? Really? Tsonga, yes--he looks like Muhammad Ali, through and through--but Monfils always looks so thin and kind of fragile.

It's quite intriguing that Uncle Toni includes Gasquet in his list of players who hit the ball as well as his nephew. A while ago, Jon Wertheim claimed that in a vacuum, Gasquet was possibly just as talented as Federer, and that they were far more talented than Nadal--who in fact could not be considered talented. I disagreed with this then and I still do now, but I think it says something (frustration?) that these experts all ignore the other players ranked between the top and Gasquet when they name the best ball-strikers. I can't quite figure out whether Murray, Djokovic, and Gasquet (I do like how Federer is respectfully left out) hit the ball as well as Nadal, but the point is--and Toni does sort of reference this in the next answer--Nadal's mentality not only allows him to maintain his intensity throughout, but allows him to go for the most impressive of shots at any given time. Murray is too gloomy to do that, Djokovic can't breathe enough to do that, and, well, Gasquet...

It was kind of dissatisfying and satisfying to read Uncle Toni questioning what exactly "technique" is. While reading the interview I was actually struggling to define what "technique" is so I would have a better idea of how the theory behind Nadal's training might differ from that behind others' regimes, but I guess it turns out no one really has a definite idea after all.

"You have to learn a lot to do less" is a really interesting phrase. I guess what it means is that all of the hard work that goes in at first is repaid later, when things become easier than they otherwise would have been. Nadal's trademark work ethic and mental strength seems to reflect this thinking. Uncle Toni is more philosophical than I would have imagined.

Great interview, great man, great player. I knew I loved France.

Can You Imagine?

I received this in an e-mail several months ago at the height of finals period, and it was just too good to not share somehow. It took me a while to think of putting it here, but now it is forever preserved.

Themes in Tennis

For the past several years I have religiously followed Jon Wertheim's column, which provides very professional and reasoned insights into the world of tennis. (Having two of my comments posted in his column has been two of the highlights of my tennis fan life, although I have yet to get in a question. Also, the fact that Wertheim graduated from Yale, went to law school, and now writes for Sports Illustrated gives me hope that one day I will in fact be able to do what I love, although right now my dream job would be to be a figure skating agent, and that's not very likely.)

ANYWAY--Ironically I was first introduced to it through Yahoo! Sports, which has since stopped linking to his articles. It's a shame, really, but it fits right in with Yahoo's general decline, particularly in its journalistic standards--I mean, Chris Chase's Busted Racquet is all they can seem to come up with now. I'm not even going to bother linking that.

Aside from the week-to-week analysis of match results, controversies, player trajectories, player psyches, and whatnot, Wertheim's column periodically provides a sustained discussion on several recurring themes. These themes are generally negative--where's the fun in prolonging a debate on something positive, right?--and overlap with the more temporal analysis. A question on the truth behind Serena Williams' foot injury, for example, will lead to an examination of her honesty and commitment in general, which in turn will lead to a discussion on burnout, long seasons, and scheduling.

The point is, of the various issues facing tennis today, two have particularly caught my attention, and I've been trying to organize my thoughts for some time now. ESPN's excessive coverage of the Little League World Series forced me to really start thinking, which has brought me here. And so...

TV Coverage

Okay, I understand. Tennis is not an especially mainstream sport--many people would probably be hard-pressed to name all of the Grand Slams--and televising lower-level tournaments simply is not profitable or practical. Actually, I would have understood that, if ESPN didn't air endless hours of poker, which I would argue isn't even a sport. Or fishing. That may be a sport, but surely more people follow tennis than fishing. But whatever.

I would have put up with ESPN's decisions until they decided to provide live coverage of the Little League World Series. It's not even the actual Little League World Series--it's the United States Regional Playoffs. That's right, while Rafael Nadal and Andy Murray--the No. 1 and No. 4 tennis players in the world, respectively--played each other in the semifinals of a Masters 1000, viewers were subject to North/South Dakota vs. Missouri. Honestly, what the hell. The only people who want to watch a Little League game are AT the Little League game. At least that semifinal was simultaneously streamed live online--the 3-set match between Tomas Berdych and Roger Federer was unavailable anywhere.

The U.S. National Championships for gymnastics, which took place this past weekend, were not covered at all, while the Kim Clijsters-Maria Sharapova final was on tape delay. Really? I know that tennis needs to get its act together and make itself more marketable (and stop the infighting), but seriously. Jon Wertheim is beyond right.

The Hall of Fame

A few years ago, I was talking to one of my friends about baseball and in particular the Yankees. This would be funny to anyone who knows me because I know so little about baseball, although I have been able to pick up a little here and there simply by virtue of living by two major baseball franchises (and courtesy of my dad's business connection-provided tickets). In any case Paul O'Neill's name came up in the conversation.

"Oh, I've heard of Paul O'Neill," I said, happily. (I was probably a little too happy--who's the tennis equivalent of Paul O'Neill? Andy Roddick? I have no idea.)

"Yeah, yeah," my friend said, nodding thoughtfully. "O'Neill was a decent player. Very good, actually. Not Hall of Fame material, I would say--but very good."

"Not Hall of Fame material"? This made me think. Although the standards for admission into the Hall of Fame should be more rigorous than what I'm about to suggest, I feel that an informal barometer for whether a player belongs in the Hall of Fame is whether the average non-fan would recognize his/her name. There are exceptions, of course, in both directions: a fan favorite, a crowd-pleaser may not have the credentials (Maria Sharapova comes to mind) while a quieter figure could exert more on the history or the evolution of the game (perhaps a Justine Henin, or someone who broke racial barriers). But in general, one would hope that a Hall of Fame would be exclusive enough to recognize only the best of the best, those who managed to capture the attention of even the most apathetic.

On Being High Strung and Stupid

Yet another article, this time by Tom Perrotta in The Atlantic, analyzes Ana Ivanovic's inexplicable (or not-so-inexplicable) downfall from the top of women's tennis. It's a quick and engaging read, but one paragraph in particular stood out:

I asked Sian Beilock, a psychologist at the University of Chicago and the author of the forthcoming book Choke, how world-class athletes like Ivanovic, who have spent thousands of hours perfecting a skill, could flail so helplessly. Her answer was deceptively simple: they’re thinking too much. To hit a 120-mph serve, a player must allow the body to do what it has been trained to do. Thinking mid-serve causes “paralysis by analysis,” an attack on performance by the prefrontal cortex, which, in an attempt to control closely synchronized neural activities and muscle twitches, instead sabotages them. “We all know how to shuffle down the stairs,” Beilock told me. “But if I ask you to think about how your knee is bending while you do it, there’s a good chance you’ll fall on your face.”

This instantly reminded me of the ヘキサゴン episode that aired some time before the 26時間テレビ, in which a physicist (I believe) was called into the studio to explain how the オバカさん really might not be so stupid after all. That is, he too talked about how thinking and focusing could actually result in poorer (physical) performance. Essentially, overthinking the task at hand could divert brain "power," or resources, from the task itself. They demonstrated this by asking two ヘキサゴン members at a time to press a button in front of them as soon as a light lit up; they compared not only reaction times based on whether the member was acting "normal" or acting "stupid" (basically forcefully zoning out), but also reaction times between members. Sure enough, reaction times were faster when they were acting stupid, and amusingly, the オバカさん were much faster than the smarter members.

The fastest? 辻希美ちゃん, in the normal and "stupid" states (apparently it makes no difference), and 上地雄輔さん. LOL.

Superheroes, or Crazy and Compulsive?

Several days ago the March-April issue of the Harvard Magazine was released online, and one of the articles, "Nonstop," details the lives of over-scheduled Harvard students. At the beginning of the article, before any analysis by deans and other academic experts as well as by the writer Craig Lamberg himself, are a number of specific examples that Lambert finds particularly illustrative. Here is the opening paragraph:

You wake up each morning with a fever; you feel like a shadow of yourself. But no time for sickness today—the Adams House intramural crew has one of its thrice-weekly practices at 6 A.M., and you…will…row. Some mornings, you watch the sunrise from Lamont Library after hitting your study groove there around 11 the night before and bushwhacking through assignments during the quiet time between 3 A.M. and 5. The rower and late-night scholar is Becky Cooper ’10.

In fact, even just the first clause would be sufficient to establish the problems underlying this article; "You wake up each morning with a fever"? Really?

The article goes on to describe Cooper as "super-active" and Harvard undergraduates overall as "superheroes" that do "3,000 things at 150 percent." Words such as "astonishing" and "unbelievable" are tossed around as laudatory adjectives. What I cannot understand is why the article consistently refuses to address the fact that the lifestyle led by Cooper and the other highlighted students is unhealthy, and why officials such as Judith Kidd (former associate dean for student life and activities) can only say "They are unbelievably achieving." David Friedrich says, "Yes, it can often be frenetic and [done] with an eye toward résumés, but learning outside the classroom through extracurricular opportunities is a vital part of the undergraduate experience here." So vital that these "superheroes" are almost chronically sick?

I understand what Cooper means by feeling as if every moment at Harvard needs to be utilized to the fullest extent. While I do not always do that, it is an admirable and ambitious goal that recognizes the unique array of opportunities the campus offers. Yet more important is a person's health and his/her future--it is simply not reasonable to "wake up each morning with a fever." There is something seriously wrong with a person who thinks that lifestyle is sustainable or okay, and an environment that fosters that kind of behavior. Why does the article not take a hard look at the attitudes that drive Harvard students to overschedule themselves the way they do, and the administrators who look the other way?

For the article to feature these students as if they are in some way superior and exceptionally gifted is simply irresponsible journalism. There is nothing wrong--in fact I might argue that there is something exceptionally mature--about prioritizing adequate nutrition and sleep, taking the basic number of classes, and joining a reasonable number of activities. After all of this is over, will every moment of the whirlwind that is Cooper's four years really have made a difference? Or will it all have been one long blur, while Olivia Goldhill will be the one to come away with memories?

"People are going nonstop, and there are a lot of negative implications. You don’t have time to dedicate to your friends or to yourself—or to thoughts that you haven’t been taught to think."

For all of the intelligence that is supposed to exist within these venerable gates, Goldhill may be the only one who understands anything at all.

Thank You, ISU... Finally

The ISU has finally come to its long-overdue senses and announced plans to change the way underrotated jumps are scored. According to the article on Yahoo! JAPAN these discussions have been in the works for a while, but unsurprisingly they held everything off until (2 days after) the Olympics.

While the automatic -3 GOE rule seems to have been lifted this season (I can't seem to find the actual rules anywhere, but this article mentions that a negative GOE is no longer mandated), this new set of rules is supposed to encourage more technical innovation. Instead of automatically scoring an underrotated triple jump as a double, the new set of rules would take a base value somewhere in between the double and triple.

Although this seems to be a step in the right direction, it still remains to be seen whether they will decide to use a more robust method to determine whether something is underrotated. The current use of one camera makes underrotation calls extremely ambiguous, and there will probably be continued controversy over what was underrotated and what was not. It will be interesting to see what happens to skating next...

回転不足で「中間点」導入へ＝高難度ジャンプ挑戦を促進−国際スケート連盟〔五輪〕

（時事通信） 2/28 2:33 コメント数：117件

　【バンクーバー時事】フィギュアスケートで回転不足とされたジャ ンプの基礎点について、国際スケート連盟（ISU）が来季から「中間点」に相当するルールを導入する見通しであることが26日、分かった。五輪終了を受 け、6月のISU総会での改正に向けた詰めの議論が行われる。
　現行ルールでは回転不足のジャンプは1回転少ないジャンプと見なされて大幅な減点になるが、その減点幅を縮小し、難度の高いジャンプへの挑戦を促すのが狙い。ISU技術委員会関係者によると、以前から話し合いが続けられていた。
　例えば、バンクーバー五輪女子銀メダリストの浅田真央（中京大）が得意とするトリプルアクセル（3回転半ジャンプ＝基礎点8．2点）は、回転不足と判定 されると2回転半の基礎点（3．5点）しか付かない。新ルールが導入されれば、二つの基礎点の間の点数が得られることになる。
　近年は高難度のジャンプに対するルール緩和が行われてきた。昨季はトリプルアクセルと4回転の基礎点が引き上げられ、今季からは回転不足のジャンプに対してジャッジが評価点（GOE）を必ずしも減点する必要がなくなった。
　それでも、今回の五輪では、女子でトリプルアクセルを計3度跳んだ浅田が金妍児（韓国）に大差で敗れ、男子では4回転を跳ばなかったエバン・ライサチェク（米国）が優勝した。

In the Land of PC

As it pours outside and I wait for my cells to transform (which really isn't as cool as it might sound):

This has been bothering me for the past several days, ever since it made the mainstream news. Apparently the Australian Aborigines are offended by Oksana Domnina & Maxim Shabalin's OD, which is based on an aboriginal theme. Of course the news would use the photograph of the moment with the most outrageous expressions from Oksana, meant to elicit politically correct outrage:

Copyright AP, I believe.

However there are several problematic points with the Australian Aborigines' anger, and theirs as well as the general public's reveals their ignorance about ice dancing. Without addressing any specific complaint that the Australian Aborigines', ice dancing and ice skating as a whole is as much theatre as it is sport. And I mean that in the most respectful way possible. Although the ones giving the marks are ultimately the judges, who are sitting immediately rinkside, the audience and its reaction is a huge component of ice dance.

To this end, the makeup and costumes of ice skaters in general is often exaggerated (see: Miki Ando) because it helps drive the theme home while they skate at top speed (well, not all of them), especially to those sitting way at the top of the stands. Ice dancing, while highly technical and athletic, is usually the most theatrical of the diciplines and often borderline ridiculous (if not outright so). This Russian team in particular, compared to teams such as Tessa Virtue & Scott Moir and Meryl Davis & Charlie White, tends towards the more ridiculous on the ice dance spectrum and go for the costumes rather than dresses/shirt & pants. Oksana & Maxim's OD this year treats their theme no differently than they have past themes.

1. "We see it as stealing Aboriginal culture and it is yet another example of the Aboriginal people of Australia being exploited. It's been absolutely stolen without our permission and without consultation of the relevant dance groups within Aboriginal Australia. ... It's not just intellectual property. It's straight-out cultural theft." -Sol Bellear, New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council
   
   The moment someone exaggerates to this extent, they immediately start losing credibility.
   
   • There is no exploitation of Australian Aborigines occurring. There just isn't. Every year the music of various cultures and persons is used, and the process for using the aboriginal music was no different than for others. If anything, the music of a highly successful program can in fact benefit, with fans (re)discovering music or the movies from which they were taken. After Mao Asada's win at the World Championships in 2008, the piece for her long program was one of the most purchased songs in Japan.
     
   • Choosing a piece of music for a program does not involve consulting the composer; instead, the skaters credit appropriately and indicate whether it is a compilation of two different songs, original cuts, etc.
     
   • Oksana & Maxim did not steal an aboriginal dance. They used an aboriginal dance as inspiration for their OD, much like Tanith Belbin & Ben Agosoto with their Moldavian dance. As above, they did not claim that this was a dance conceived entirely of their own creativity, and nor did they claim that this dance was taken from a different source than "aborigine."
     
   
   
2. "Interest must be expressed in a way that is respectful. The ripping off of our art and songs is not, and nor is this depiction of my culture." -Bev Manton
   
   This, on the other hand, is much more reasonable and thoughtful, and I am sure she has a point. However, I still think that she does not fully understand the style of ice dance, and does not realize that many cultural pieces are "adapted" in exaggerated for the sport. If this is the first time she has fully looked at ice dance, then yes, the OD is probably offensive. The Internet was probably not the best sole source for research on this dance.
   
   
3. There was also a protest on the fact that the costumes involved bodysuits made to make Oksana & Maxim's skin look darker. I have not been able to find this complaint since, so perhaps whoever said it realized that this was a foolish one and withdrew. Kim Navarro & Brent Bommentre also wear dark-colored bodysuits for their Afro-Brazilian dance, and Brent goes as far as to wear a leather headpiece meant to emulate long hair: "As far as the headpiece is concerned, they were trying to find a way for me to have longer hair. I was really hesitant about hair extensions, and I can't grow my hair out fast enough to have dreds." Where's the protest on this one?
   
   
4. In addition, the "body paint" on the costumes has been criticized as looking as if "a 3-year-old child had drawn it on." -Stephen Page
   
   Perhaps to an Australian Aborigine, this is true. However, look at Maia & Alex Shibutani's OD costumes for this season, set to Japanese drum music:
   
   
   Copyright Michelle Harvath
   
   

   The Shibutanis are ethnically Japanese, so they would probably know a thing or two (or at least their parents would) about the culture. Yet their tops are stereotypically designed, and not at all like the solid, dark-colored, open front tops that one usually sees on traditional Japanese drummers. Yet in a world where most people have never seen a taiko performance, the point is made: this dance is Asian. Could the Russians have been more tasteful? Probably. But a point of the similar effect is made through their costumes, and that was reasonably their goal when they were designed.
   
   
5. "First of all, in the ISU rule book there is a list of dances which are allowed for use in the Original Dance competition. In black and white it states Aborigines Dances. When creating an 'Aborigines' dance, we were not suggesting a specific geographic region, but rather a tribute to a place and time before the 'modern civilization.' We had no intent to make the dance specifically 'Australian,' because we realize our limitations to fully understand all the intricacies." -Natalia Linichuk
   
   Well, no one can really know for sure what their intentions were, but she does have a persuasive point. This woman is a force to be reckoned with, evidently.
   

I also found IceNetwork's coverage of this controversy to be slightly distasteful and lacking in journalistic standards. This article, titled "In ice dance, it's a fine line between tribute an insult" and written by Lynn Rutherford, directly addresses the issue and uses the relevant quotes. It gives a clear context for the quotes from Tanith & Ben and Meryl & Charlie--they were asked "What do you think about the controversy over Oksana Domnina & Maxim Shabalin's Aboriginal dance?"--and both teams answered accordingly.

In particular, Meryl answered, "We can't speak for anyone else, but for us, knowing that we didn't know anything about Indian culture going in, it was very important for us to do the research and do the dance justice. We didn't want to offend anyone or do something that was completely off base." It might not be a journalistic masterpiece, but it's fine. Meryl & Charlie come off very well, good for them.

On the other hand, THIS article (Bollywood scores blockbuster in Spokane), published the same day and also written by Lynn Rutherford, reuses the quotes from the other article and without context. (It also uses a terrible pun, but whatever.)

"[Specialists they consulted] broke it down, we worked off the ice, and they helped us explore all the areas of Indian dance. We really didn't know anything about Indian culture going in. It was very important for us to do research to do the theme justice, and know that we were not going to do anything to offend anyone or do something that was completely off base."

This comes in the middle of a discussion of how the dance was conceived, and given the controversy that everyone knew about, it just sounds like a not-so-subtle swipe at the Russians. Well, turns out, Meryl wasn't directly talking about creating the OD after all. Or... maybe this is the original quote, the other article reused it, and she's a little catty. :) But given the nature of the comment and Meryl & Charlie's sportsmanship in general, the first interpretation makes more sense.

But all in all, whatever. Ice dancing is ridiculous, and everyone (should) know(s) that. By continuing this outrage, the Australian Aborigines are giving the OD the serious consideration they insist it doesn't deserve.

"What Does Skating Need? Another Tonya Harding" ...Really?

So this article in the New York Times, ostensibly written from Spokane, basically mocks all that is wrong with the state of figure skating today. Longman isn't wrong, really, although I don't necessarily agree with everything that he claims, and regardless his biting criticisms are just funny (if not mean). Below are some of the top lines:

• "Sasha Cohen is scheduled to be here, but she has always been more vamp than victor. She’ll try to reach the Olympics on muscle memory. Very sore muscle memory. One can often find more sustained training for a Fourth of July hot dog eating contest." Hah.
• "Of course, there is the apple-cheeked wholesomeness of Rachael Flatt, a teenage favorite here. But if she skated any slower, the championship would need crossing guards instead of judges. This is supposed to be a skating rink, not a school zone.
  Nice kid, smart, too, but how many times can one listen to stories about advanced placement courses? The eyes glaze over like Zambonied ice."
  
• "My condolences for the passing of your onetime bodyguard, Shawn Eckardt, whose résumé was as exotic as James Bond’s, and just as fictitious." I actually don't know anything about this Shawn Eckardt guy, but who could let this line go?
  
• "Ah, Johnny. At least we have his idiosyncrasies to warm our hearts. Remember the costume he described as “a Care Bear on acid”? One can only hope he will keep up the delicious weirdness."

I didn't post these quotes to be mean... but they're just too funny. And no, figure skating does not need another Tonya Harding.

I can't wait until this weekend!