2011 Australian Open: Day 5

So. Exhausted. Australian Open Radio is alternately highly entertaining and exceedingly annoying.

• "First name Trinidad, last name Tobago?"
• Following Tomas Berdych vs. Richard Gasquet is absolutely maddening.
  

2011 Australian Open: Days 1-4

I want to watch the Australian Open! It seems like there are some amazing things going on and I am missing them all!

• It looks like Rafael Nadal is putting on freaking clinics every time he steps onto the court. His matches might not be the most exciting, but who cares?
• I almost died last night when Kei Nishikori lost the third set 6-0. He seems to have a speech impediment (irrelevant, I know), but he's fun to follow. All aboard the Japanese Singular Mindset Bandwagon!
• Apparently, Todd Woodbridge sent the following text to Rennae Stubbs:
  

  "Is Kim Clijsters pregnant? She looks grumpy and her boobs are bigger."
  
  

• Oh, Dinara Safina...
• Jelena Jankovic, your ship has sailed.
• Jamie Murray is married now? Damn, Jankovic's ships are all sailing away.

1. Snow Country by Yasunari Kawabata

So weird to write "Yasunari Kawabata," instead of "Kawabata Yasunari" like I'm always used to saying and hearing. Anyway, in an effort to not fail my resolutions in the first week of the new year, I pushed myself to register for a card at the local library and get a start on the books I'd always been vaguely interested in reading. None of the books I'd actually been looking for were there, but as I perused the shelves in search of something I might have forgotten about, I came across Snow Country and Thousand Cranes, which I guess is sort of a good deal. Haha.

I'm pretty sure that the chances of my reading a Nobel Prize-worthy novel in Japanese are fairly low, so I decided to go for the next best thing. I wonder if Edward Seidensticker was as creepy as modern Japanophiles. I kind of feel bad saying that about a deceased, renowned scholar, though.

Anyway, Snow Country was surprisingly easy to get through, although the simplicity of the language and vocabulary actually forces the reader to slow down and consider each word. There's imagery and emotional introspection everywhere, and by extension I felt like I had to stop and consider my own emotions and my own experiences, even if I've never been a wealthy fat man in search of a mistress. The Nobel Prize committee referenced this subdued but keen emotion inherent in Kawabata's works:

The Nobel Prize in Literature 1968 was awarded to Yasunari Kawabata "for his narrative mastery, which with great sensibility expresses the essence of the Japanese mind".

I kind of find that hilarious. "Japanese" sounds so foreign and exotic here--imagine the committee giving the Prize to someone for "being French" or "imparting a sense of being Nigerian."

I can't decide whether Snow Country moves slowly or quickly--there isn't much action, but the character development progresses quite rapidly, and several years' worth of events are contained in 175 widely-spaced pages. There's something vaguely irritating about Shimamura, who does not work because he inherited money and instead abandons his wife and children in pursuit of a geisha named Komako. The thing is, though, he seems emotionally immature and incapable of actually acting upon his pursuit, and instead she is left always wanting more from him and living in fear that he will leave for what will be the last time. Shimamura's inability to truly connect with Komako is in some ways refreshing, because somehow that makes his transgressions and abandonment of responsibilities less abhorrent, but at the same time it is frustrating to read. I felt for Komako, maybe because a dead-end relationship is something I relate to very closely.

At the same time, Komako has very clear flaws as well, which prevents anybody from seeing her as purely a victim or a tragic heroine. Her work is less than ideal and honorable, and she is flighty, hysterical, and possibly an alcoholic. Just as I was pulled into feeling for her situation, I would be reminded that entertaining men and forging superficial relationships lie at the center of her profession.

The ending is vague and somewhat dissatisfying, but it goes well with the overall feeling of the story. Things are unclear and muddled, in stark contrast to the Milky Way and the clarity of Komako's skin. I wanted to shout at Shimamura to do something, anything, for the fire and for Yoko, but predictably he does not. Instead, Komako runs crazily to Yoko's fallen body, and it is this action vs. inaction that emphasizes the true gulf between the two main characters.

I think, all in all, I really did enjoy this novel. Kawabata's prose can take getting used to, but after a while the genius of his simplicity comes through and justifies the first--of only two--Nobel Prize ever awarded to Japanese author.

In the Midst of My Frustrations

"The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it." -Online Banking

Well Good For You

"Well to be honest, my PCRs always work."

Skate Canada 2010: From One Mess To Another

We all knew Trophée Eric Bompard wold more or less end up the way it did, right? Now that the Grand Prix events are finally and mercifully over, and all that's left is the Final in 10 days, I thought I would take the opportunity to look back on the competitions that I initially ignored out of concern for myself. First up: Skate Canada.

I will happily cover both the best and the worst, but in this case only the men's event is worth mentioning. Any event that Alissa Czisny can win (and that Fumie Suguri insists on entering) is possibly beyond 'worst' status, and both the pairs and ice dance events look too boring to even think about.

Of course I have to start with Patrick Chan. Two obvious things I did not realize about him: 1) He is still only 19 and 2) He is a two-time World silver medalist. One not-so-obvious thing I had to look up about him: 1) He is fully Chinese.

This program is remarkable for its ability to earn unearned points. How a skater can miss two of three required jumping passes and still score high enough for third place (even at a Grand Prix event) is beyond me. Even these commentators, who talk way too much, are initially at a loss for words after the missed triple Axel. I'll admit that he has good speed in his stroking and in his spins, but the magical Canadian bonus is just too much.

So actually, his placement is not beyond me. It's very easy: just keep on adding PCS points until the desired score and rank are reached. Of course the commentator says, "Three falls, and I'm not worried." Why should he be?

But my biggest problem? I'm so jaded that I can't even get angry about this.

Disguising an overused piece of music by changing the instruments and the tempo isn't fooling anyone except maybe the Canadians. The unbearably biased commentators proudly crowed that Patrick "answered another question" by landing a quad toe loop, which was admittedly very good, but moments later had to face the fact that their chosen boy was down on the ice yet again after a failed triple Axel. The ability of the commentators to continue to finding positive--and occasionally flatly wrong--things to say might be even more remarkable than the score this mess of a performance receives. Only one clean jumping pass in the entire program, and he skates away with a smile and a gold medal. "Still some rough edges"? That's putting it mildly, buddy.

Patrick Chan rivals Yuna Kim when it comes to blind adoration.

I am no fan of Nobunari Oda, seriously, but his knees are like butter. He doesn't have the excitement that Patrick Chan has, especially in Canada, but his jumps are to die for. Nobunari's costumes and music occasionally make me want to die, but that's another story.

The Russian commentators are so mercifully quiet...

I actually kind of like this costume, I think. I also like this music much better than his short program choice, but I'm afraid it's not exciting enough to help him disguise his sheer lack of artistry and musicality. He also has a strange free leg position on the entrance to his triple Axels, which I noticed just moments before he fell on one. There's not much else to say except that Nobunari deserved more, but it's just the way skating goes. At least now everybody knows that one fall is far more costly than four falls and five stepouts. The complete lack of emotion on his face as a mask for his utter confusion, disappointment, and annoyance is amazing.

By the way, if you watch the Gala, Nobunari is introduced as "He's a new dad, and the rising son of Japan!" Wow, no.

Do I approve of Adam Rippon's laughably fake attempts to portray Romeo? No, of course not. But his skating is so gorgeous I could almost overlook that. Once he got through the triple Axel I knew the rest would be smooth sailing, and it was.

His double-armed Lutz in the short program was a little less than pretty, but Adam's first Lutz in his free skate was pure beauty. I draw the line at that ugly one-armed three-jump combination, though. Just no. His knees aren't quite as soft as Nobunari's, but his increasingly evident gayness allows him to feel the music so much more. I'm not even going to bother comparing their placements, since it's obvious that their respective strengths are different, and in the end the only determinant in their markings was how to enable Patrick to win.

All in all, this was a fairly forgettable competition, minus the eye-roll outrage that was Patrick Chan. I guess I'm glad I watched it, a month late.

Milking It For All It's Worth

Like most people, last weekend I went to go see Part 1 of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. I am generally in agreement that it was one of the better, if not the best, of the movies so far, but this doesn't mean that it didn't have ridiculous or terrible moments. Unlike Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, this was actually a film that had to take place in the magical world instead of in any random setting with teenagers. Because I am not in the mood to put this in a cohesively flowing manner:

• There is just no way around it: Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint become less attractive with every passing movie. It is probably a bad sign for Radcliffe that he is more attractive in character than he is on the red carpet.
• When a close-up of Cornelius Fudge opened the movie, I knew it was all over--all I could see was Billy Mack from Love Actually. It's not quite the association that makes for dark and serious times.
  
• I know that this was taken straight from the book, but did any of the characters really find it all that surprising that their plan to move Harry from Privet Drive was discovered? It's not suspicious at all that seven pairs of people suddenly take off flying at once, or that a crazed one-eyed man is yelling "Ready! Set! GO!" at the top of his lungs in a quiet neighborhood. I can be all for theatrics, but come on.
• Radcliffe is an even more awkward dancer than I am. Also, it is puzzling to me that of all the scenes that the writers could have included courtesy of the doubled available film time, a dancing scene between Harry and Hermione was chosen. Character development? Maybe. But this over scenes that establish the threat towards Muggles, where the Dursleys went, what Hermione's parents are doing, and what Hogwarts is like now?
• Biggest tool ever: "My father will hear about this!"
• Why did Hermione and Harry wish each other a "Merry Christmas" instead of a "Happy Christmas"?
• The three actors who played the unfortunately chosen employees at the Ministry of Magic were surprisingly good. They didn't have the luxury of acting anything by voice, and yet Harry, Ron, and Hermione's emotions came through brilliantly. It was uncanny how they all vaguely looked like their counterparts.
• The writers may have been smart enough to have Harry make fun of Ron's description of the light hitting his heart, but still, no. Just no.
• Ginny Weasley's dress at the wedding was so beautiful. But asking Harry to zip her up in the middle of the kitchen? Surely she could have found another person and place.
• I understand that Hermione prepared ahead of time by packing the "essentials" into her purse, but the extent of the three friends' wardrobe while on the run rivals mine in my own apartment. Emma Watson might be fun to dress, but keeping Hermione trendy when she didn't even know it was Christmas Eve is an inconsistent move to say the least.
• In general, Watson outacts Radcliffe and Grint here, although it's not like that bar is particularly high.
• I love that Michael Gambon was credited in huge letters at the end.
• Dobby. =(
  

Skate America 2010: The Hair Contest Edition

Well, as promised, I decided to finally face the ongoing reality that is the Grand Prix, and actually watched the Men's Short Program in full. There was minimal nervousness and lots of weird aesthetic choices going on, so it was the perfect transition back into this crazy world.

First up was Daisuke Murakami, who currently is like a D-grade version (sorry) of the real Daisuke, and didn't leave much of an impression on me either way. The commentators, however, foreshadowed how high-quality their analysis would be by introducing him as "the first of great Japanese men here tonight." I'm all for patriotism and support, but come on. D-Daisuke did what he needed to do, but what with going first, the arena being almost empty, and just not knowing how to really perform, the program just kind of came and went. I also had no idea how this event would be scored, so his 67.01 didn't really mean much to me either.

Then came Armin Mahbanoozadeh, who I had been told became exponentially more good-looking over the past year. I guess they have a point, although not so much that it actually occurred to me to take a picture. His jumps were a bit iffier than D-Daisuke's, but his presentation was better (although the judges seem reversed on their opinion on this), and apparently that was enough to squeeze him right over D-Daisuke by 0.6. I believe the choice quote from the commentators for his performance was, "I don't think he needed to put his hand down on that [jump]." How would they know? This was also the first time this competition that I caught a glimpse of Priscilla Hill, which will soon gain significance.

Next was another Priscilla Hill student, Viktor Pfeifer. Was he attractive? Was he not? As I wavered on this assessment, his costume underwent this transformation:

Those yellow flaps were essentially all I needed to see before I decided to move on.

Unfortunately for him, the judges were even less enthralled, and hit him with a 55.01.

What is Stephen Carriere doing? This question applies to both his career and, more immediately, his stripes. Oh, the stripes. Going horizontally on his shirt, and vertically on one leg... take a look at this two-for-one picture:

Priscilla Hill was the first entrant in the night's hair contest, while Stephen looked like he'd stolen the skin off a zebra.

Stephen took a pretty hard-looking fall on his opening triple Axel, and his program never really took off from there. His spins sort of traveled and there wasn't much pop on anything, and Rafael also mentioned that his music had female connotations. I wouldn't know about that, but the fact that the music is so well-known is probably the only thing that made the performance memorable.

Shawn Sawyer occasionally looks like Ross Miner. The first thing I noticed was the gorgeous detailing on his jacket, and this was followed by a crazy spin position at the end of his program. I basically do not remember anything in between, other than a missed triple Axel.

Does this unnerve Evgeny Plushenko?

A 56.94 kind of face. But look at that detailing!

The last in the first group was Nan Song, about whom I really remember nothing except for the fact that he skated to Requiem for a Dream. Dear China, I know that your men's skating history is still trying to mature now, but this does not mean you need to copy every mistake the other federations have already made. No more. At least he didn't fall, and was proportionally awarded 62.21 for it.

Opening for the second group was Denis Ten, who tried to get his hair into the mix but simply did not do enough with it.













His program didn't do enough for me either, except prompt me to wonder after yet another failed triple Axel why Mao Asada's is considered the most problematic.



Adrian Schultheiss looks like Paul Bettany. That is all. It freaks me out because all I've ever seen Bettany in is The DaVinci Code and A Beautiful Mind, and they were not the most non-unsettling films. Actually, I liked A Beautiful Mind, but I really can't deal with The DaVinci Code. 63.71? Hey, why not. I can't see the protocols anyway.


Now, in general Adam Rippon tends to win any hair contest he enters, especially now that Charlie White's gone short, but I was not loving his curls this time. I was further not loving that he was using Romeo & Juliet music, which can be closely grouped with The Phantom of the Opera music which in turn can be closely grouped with Requiem for a Dream. Furthermore, he decided to act it out, complete with a diva-infused death at the end.


Although he badly stepped out of his triple Axel, there's no arguing with his Lutzes--pure gorgeousness. Perhaps he can transform the weird Adam-Mao rumors into a Lutz lesson. His 73.94 finally set the bar for what we should be expecting to see at this competition.

Memo to Kevin van der Perren: "3-time Olympian" is the kindest possible way to say that a skater is way too old to still be competing. Fortunately for him, this was one of his "on" nights for his jumps, although the rest of the program, as usual, simply didn't exist. 62.22? Whatever, NEXT.

And what a next it was. A-Daisuke, who apparently oh-so-desperately wants to be both World Hair Champion and World Figure Skating Champion, took to the ice with slicky hair and a top that seems to have lost approximately five buttons. A-Daisuke's first triple jump was so high I actually thought he was going for a quad, but he had a weird trip-like step after his triple Axel and a stepout on his triple flip. I won't say anything about his decision to try to be a Latin man, but this guy knows how to skate. 78.12 puts a nice distance between him and Adam.

The far-too-ardent Japanese fans were also out in full force (I swear some of them must have flown across the Pacific just for this), and one of them even threw a huge bunch of bananas at him. Literally.










I can't say I don't want those bananas, though. Brilliant choice.



The last skater of the night was Nobunari Oda, who still has yet to win anything big. Come on. Well, maybe the Hair Title:


The thing about Nobunari is that he has great jumps, but always has a huge mental failing at the most important moments (see: 2005 Japanese Nationals, 2010 Vancouver Olympics) and also can't seem to perform to the audience as A-Daisuke can. Despite his lack of performance ability, he didn't have any of the brief technical lapses in concentration that A-Daisuke did, and it was enough to put him in first place by a little over a point. I was actually expecting him to hover somewhere between A-Daisuke and Adam, but 79.28 it is.

The Perils of Public Transportation

I think this old woman was trying to be nice...?

"Would you like to sit on my lap?"

One Big WTF?

From Jon Wertheim's Twitter:

Nadal, federer, djokovic into atp london wtf....other spots up for grabs...
about 13 hours ago via ÜberTwitter

Well it really is, I suppose.

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.

Weird Encounters Are Genetic

So for whatever reason, I tend to have a lot of weird, random encounters with strangers or near-strangers. Take, for example, almost every job interview I've ever had. In the interest of not damaging any professional potential I might have, I'll leave those out for now. I also met a strange man who told me about his Korean lady companion who was suffering from stomach cancer that was quite obviously caused by MSG. Oh, and by the way, he writes a lot of poems, so I should stop by his place of work someday and pick up a volume. I suppose that is a story I could get into if I ever feel so inclined.

Anyway, I wasn't sure if these kinds of things happen to everyone, but now at least I know they also happen to my mother (even if it's just once):

Taxi Driver: Where are you from?
Mother: Japan.
Taxi Driver: Ah. I'm from Suriname. So do you play the piano?
Mother: No... but my children do.
Taxi Driver: Ah. All Japanese people play the piano. I know this because my girlfriend is Japanese. We see each other once a year! But soon we will get married.

Hygenic Times

"Was that your computer in the men's room?"

Some Incestual Complex

So today I went to Olive Garden for lunch, which was fine. As we left our table and headed for the exit, I realized I had forgotten my scarf. I went back to get it, except it wasn't there. A waiter saw me looking under and around the table, and asked me if I were looking for something.

Me: Yeah... I thought I left my scarf at the table, but I can't find it so I guess I must have left it somewhere else.
Waiter: Oh, that table? We already found your scarf and sent it up to the front desk.
Me: Oh really? Thank you.
Waiter: Yes, we gave it to your husband.
Me: ...my husband?

I suppose I could have enlightened him on the state of my love life, but I didn't really feel like getting too detailed in the aisle of an Olive Garden.

Waiter (beaming confidently): Yes, your husband.
Me: I see. Thanks...

I go back up to the front desk, and my worst fears are confirmed: my dad is holding my scarf.

This makes absolutely no sense to me, especially since my mother was there too. Really? I know Asians are supposed to be hard to tell apart, but come on.

2010 US Open: Day 15?

Despite the extra day of rest that Novak Djokovic luckily got, I'm still not convinced that he's shaken his reputation for being a choker (Djok Choke--god, too easy). He really showed some toughness in overcoming match points against Roger Federer, but he probably doesn't have what it takes to be so tough twice in a row on such a huge stage. I hope, anyway. Plus he was never the fittest of guys... he's probably still tired and will have problems.

Can Djokovic really only have retired from nine matches in his entire career? It seems like a lot more than that. And why would four of those retirements have come in Grand Slams, of all tournaments?

Geez, talk about a short fuse. Djokovic was only broken for 2-3 and already he’s destroyed a racquet. Usually I’m not so offended by racquet-breaking as my mother is (who is unconditionally aghast), but this one seems excessive and premature to me. At least he received a code violation for racquet abuse. Perhaps it’s an indication of Djokovic’s understanding of the limits of his own body… he worked so hard to save all of those break points, and he knows that if he doesn’t keep it close early, the chances of him coming back are fairly slim. After all, despite the cool weather, he already seems to be breathing quite heavily… maybe he shouldn’t spend his breath on grunting. I hope I didn’t just jinx anything for Nadal.

Nadal is 108-1 when winning the first set in Grand Slams? Talk about mental toughness and finding a way to hang on and impose. He also seems to do better in this match when I am not watching.

Djokovic looks surprisingly like his father, I’ve finally noticed. I suppose the proximity of his son’s face to his own, courtesy of his shirt, really helps with the comparison.

Ah yes, Nadal’s “amazing disaster” comment from some time ago. I guess I should look into modifying my own speech patterns, as I’ve definitely said “amazingly bad” and the like in the past, and I am neither the world number 1 at anything nor with the benefit of an endearing foreign accent.

Nadal seems to be making more unforced errors than usual, though I guess it’s not as concerning as it usually might be, seeing as Djokovic’s (ugly) shorts are flapping in the wind.

Wait, except... what the hell is going on with Nadal? Maybe I should stop watching. I still have faith though. And here comes the rain! Great...

The commentators weren't saying anything too interesting, so instead I'm going to quote nadalnews:

# Rafa breaks and my ass feels drier

# My ass is wet, Rafa lost the second set and Nole is on fire.

Well, we all know how that ended, so here are a few pictures to bring it all together:




Good thing ESPN aired that CBS logo.

2010 US Open: Day 11

This post, now that I look upon it, has nothing to do with actual tennis but could possibly be more entertaining.

Why do commentators insist on pronouncing "Rafael Nadal" as "Raf-ee-ell"? Who on earth is named Raf-ee-ell?

I'm not sure what bothers me more, people assuming Nadal will play in the finals or people discussing how Fernando Verdasco may win their quarterfinal match.

The day session today is kind of boring--actually, everything today is kind of boring, including the weather, except the Nadal vs. Verdasco match later tonight. So for lack of anything better to do, I am watching the mixed doubles final. (However I am, by the way, in the process of writing other things.) Bob Bryan just challenged the "in" call on his own serve... I've never seen that before.

According to Daren Cahill's research, Mary Joe Fernandez's fastest recorded serve was 107 mph, compared to Pam Shriver's 102 mph. This is driving Pam mad, which is beyond amusing. Daren's fastest serve, by the way, was 127 mph, which I believe is slower than Venus Williams' fastest recorded serve. Hee.

Mixed doubles has a funny dynamic to it, complete with sexist overtones. I love it. I actually love doubles, but you don't really get to see or follow much of it usually.

"That's not very good to do it in mixed. It's a little unfair to the woman." -Pam Shriver on the chest bump

Hrm... the Stanislas Wawrinka vs. Mikhail Youzhny match is far from actually interesting, but I have to say I've sort of developed a soft spot for them based on their pre-match tunnel interviews (as pointless and awkward as they are).

I love it when Cliff Drysdale thinks it's appropriate to say things like "Now this Australian is gonna be all over me like a rash." LOVE IT.

The commentators keep comparing the attitudes of the Youzhny and Wawrinka camps:









Dear Brad Gilbert, Mikhail ≠ Michael.

This is what happens when temperatures cool down:


The scoreline suggests that there is drama going on in the match, but since it's not actually that interesting I decided to mix things up a bit and watch some wheelchair tennis. It can be pretty inspiring, although Shingo Kunieda vs. Ronald Vink was kind of a bland wipeout (6-0, 6-0). Although it was played on Louis Armstrong, the atmosphere of the US Open is just not there in these matches. There are fewer ballkids, the stands are pretty much empty, and of course there just aren't those highlight reel-worthy shots.

However, there were at least four fans on hand for Kunieda:

The man in the blue and white track jacket was so excited, he took pictures of his daughter shaking hands with Kunieda then asked the boy to take a picture of him shaking Kunieda's hand. During the match and immediately after it seemed like Kunieda had a bit of top-player haughtiness (which he is, but that attitude is not attractive or justified in anyone), but afterwards he seemed to soften up and have a lot of fun with the fans. Cute!

Cliff needs to learn what "delight" actually means.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2010/sep/10/roger-federer-us-open

2010 US Open: Day 10 (Night)

The wind continues into the Caroline Wozniacki vs. Dominika Cibulkova match, so much so that the match is taking ages and ages because no one can get their ball toss right. Pam Shriver is in odd form tonight, making awkward, rambling comments left and right. She harped on Wozniacki's ponytail for much of the first half of the match--her hair wasn't braided and it was blowing all over her face--and while Pam had a point, "hair" unfortunately became a major theme of the commentary. We saw a clip featuring her hairstyle from her playing days... heard a comment about how she has more hair than Daren Cahill... and even moved to Donald Trump, who was sitting in Wozniacki's box. His hair, incidentally, was not blowing anywhere.

"There's some product in there... he had a plan tonight." -Chris Fowler

Pam then forgot (forgot?) that Donald Trump's show is called The Apprentice. Umm. She also had a near freakout in the commentators' box about she hates the sound of wind blowing through the microphone.

Cibulkova is also having near meltdowns on the court, looking rather grumpy, smacking her racquet on the ground, and swinging practice groundstrokes between points and games. On a side note, why do commentators keep calling her 5'1 instead of 5'3?

Anyway, it wasn't particularly pretty, but Wozniacki got the job done 6-2, 7-5. Steady as anything, she is. I will be quite disappointed and surprised if she does not make it to the final. The consistency of her game should be just enough to drive Vera Zvonareva mad.

For some reason Wozniacki turned bright red in the post-match studio interview when they started talking about Donald Trump, maybe because she said that Donald Trump called her agent (instead of his agent calling her agent). Seems like a minor detail to me, but haha. Everyone also keeps trying to shift her focus on winning the whole tournament (which is still two matches away) and becoming No. 1, both of which seem like unnecessary distractions if you subscribe to the Rafael Nadal school of thought.

I'm not really getting the upset vibe from Robin Soderling tonight.

Ugh. Why did ESPN just advertise the Rafael Nadal vs. Fernando Verdasco match as "Nadal seeking first US Open final"?

Federer is really playing unbelievably in these conditions. He just zoomed through the first two sets, and John and Patrick McEnroe have (reasonably) assumed that he is going to win. So instead of focusing really on the shots themselves, they've decided to see how fast this match can end. ESPN put up a timer--which is usually reserved for unusually long games--to see whether Federer could serve out the second set in under a minute. Somewhere around the 50-second mark, both McEnroes started urging "Quick, quick!" Hahaha.

2010 US Open: Day 9

I am thanking the powers that be for ESPN live streaming, since the one so widely advertised on the official US Open website does not work on my computer. I am a little less thankful for some of the commentators, such as the ones who were calling the Bryans' doubles match earlier today, but all in all it is good company as I prepare to pack up my life.

The Stanislas Wawrinka vs. Sam Querrey match was epic, and not being particularly invested in the result I didn't have much patience for watching it. I am glad to see that Wawrinka won, though, because I kind of feel he's due for a good result after whatever it was that happened to him between last season and now. Also, if I am going to get ahead of myself and start looking at Rafel Nadal's future rounds, I think that it is probably easier for him to defeat (an exhausted) Wawrinka or Mikhail Youzhny (who has beaten him in the past, I know) than an in-form Querrey. I'm not sure though.

Are these crazy stats or what?

Venus Williams is taking an eon and a half every time she serves against Francesca Schiavone. I don't care about the result of this match either, so watching this is for purely entertainment purposes. Particularly entertaining are some of the really wild misses Venus has been making so far.

By the way, in one word, Venus' dress is trashy. What is up with that back area, paired with an incompletely hidden black bra? That pink is just not a good color for anything except maybe Nastia Liukin's leotard.

I cannot believe Brad Gilbert just said "Verdasco hot sauce." Good thing for Gilbert that he's totally lovable. Actually now that I look into it, it seems that this phrase at least is not a Gilbert original. Hrmm.

I am having trouble watching the Kim Clijsters vs. Sam Stosur match because it seems that Clijsters starts to lose every time I turn on the TV.

Okay, there we go, she won! Now I can rewind the match, thanks to FiOS TV (ugh, I feel like a commercial), and calmly watch the last set and skip commercials at the same time. Perhaps by the time I finish with this, Rafael Nadal vs. Feliciano Lopez will have started, which would be quite perfect timing.

How ironic that an ace should take match point after so many successive breaks that I lost count (or, in the words of Cliff Drysdale, "breaks galore"). Although Clijsters made a mountain of unforced errors in this match, I really liked how she kept her head in the match and never had an actual meltdown. Her match against Venus Williams in the semifinals should be interesting, since it's also always a toss-up as to whether the Venus of her full capabilities will show up. It's no secret that really want Clijsters to get through, but at this point I'm kind of feeling Venus. We'll see.

As much I love Nadal, I kind of feel bad for Lopez right now. Except, actually, not, because he does need to keep losing. Unsurprisingly Nadal is playing at the speed of a three-toed sloth.

2010 US Open: Day 7

This was never meant to be a collection of the weirdest things that are said during the broadcasts, but indeed that is what these posts have become.

The US Open reports that at the tournament's halfway point, "115,682 hamburgers have been eaten." I'm not even going to go into how gross that is.

"This is big folks, 115,682-plus hamburgers, and we're not EVEN TALKING HOT DOGS YET!" -Dick Enberg

All through this morning, people were predicting a tight match between Ana Ivanovic and Kim Clijsters, and I have to admit I was a little concerned that Ivanovic might somehow ride her recent wave of good results and really hand it to Clijsters. At the same time, though, I more reasonably thought that the players Ivanovic had defeated so far in this tournament were second- or even third-tier at best, and that her confidence issues would resurface against a top player.

(I can never really figure out what Ivanovic's problem is, anyway--she lacks confidence in herself now that she's won a Grand Slam? Whatever. I guess it's difficult for me to relate because I played tennis for something not to stress about, and not for, say, a living, but still.)

At first it really did look like it would be a competitive match. Stats-wise, Ivanovic was initially playing the cleaner match, and although I expected that the first break in the first set (for 1-3) would immediately wreak havoc with her game, Ivanovic promptly broke back instead. Things did fall apart after that, though, and in the end it was nowhere near close. How she decides to move on from here should be interesting, but I for one don't really see her ever getting back to the top of the rankings. Near the top, maybe, but not the top.

"I can stay with her in the beginning of those first few games where she was playing really good tennis, if I could just stay with her and kind of just, make her doubt once in a while." -Kim Clijsters

It would probably help Ivanovic to not read this quote, hah...

Rafael Nadal looked like some kind of traffic cop or something today, but he still adorably won. Actually, Gilles Simon is kind of adorable too, just in a different way.

http://www.usopen.org/en_US/news/photos/2010-09-05/201009051283704201342.html?glryid=2010-09-05/201009051283705427618

Actually, what has annoyed me particularly in the past several days is the whole commentary on Nadal's English. What gives, people? His English is fine. No one would ever mistake him for a native, but he is certainly conversational, and even knows how to understand humor and be humorous. For anyone who has really studied a foreign language (and that rules out most of the United States, so don't even try), mastering humor is one of the most difficult things. The timing, the word choice, even a grasp of what is considered funny in one culture but boring or even offensive in another--these are all nuanced things that no one can teach. In his whirlwind life as one of the top two tennis players in the world, Nadal has found the time and motivation to improve both his textbook and colloquial English.

Ugh. I'm not the only one who hates Justin Gimelstob, right?

I'm trying to figure out why John Isner vs. Mikhail Youzhny was scheduled for the night session on Arthur Ashe. Sure, Isner is a popular American, but really? Rafael Nadal, Andy Murray (tear), Ana Ivanovic/Kim Clijsters, and Venus Williams all played during the day. All hail the power of CBS?

2010 US Open: Day 6

"Do you think they were motivated by her inspirational speech, or the fact that she's a blonde 20-year-old who happens to be pretty attractive?" -Jim Courier, on the Yale football team and Caroline Wozniacki

Janko Tipsarevic did NOT do what Andy Roddick told him to do, which was to not waste this Grand Slam opportunity by losing in the next round--or, more accurately, "Don't f---ing lose [this] time." True, Gael Monfils is no slouch of a player, but Roddick is probably groaning somewhere on a couch right now.

Jelena Jankovic needs to find a way to start winning. She used to be someone who could beat both Williams sisters, but now she can't seem to get out of the early rounds of anything. There's no need to be so exasperated by the wind (which admittedly was out of control) when it's been blowing the whole match and affecting both players equally. Come on.

I don't even want to talk about Kei Nishikori.

Meanwhile, the bagels keep coming (it IS New York, says Jon Wertheim). Now it's time for some excitement: Caroline Wozniacki vs. Maria Sharapova, and Ana Ivanovic vs. Kim Clijsters! The Ivanovic resurgence needs to end in this round (at least for the tournament, she can resurge some more after the US Open). I used to be a fan, but right now her weird explanations for her losses as well as the incongruence between her level of play and her fist-pump-with-a-yell celebrations make me want to see her lose. Sorry, that's mean.