Aliya Mustafina plans to try out her skills on all four apparatus in this week's European Championships, says Valentina Rodionenko. Also going on all four apparatus will be newly crowned Russian Champion, Angelina Melnikova. Daria Spiridonova will compete bars, where Mustafina is also currently very strong.
In podium training today, Mustafina walked through a floor routine and was closely spotted by head coach Evgeny Grebyonkin. 2011 World floor champion, Ksenia Afanasyeva, did not warm up floor, looking on forlornly while her team mates, including Daria Spiridonova, practiced on her favourite piece. There is no news yet as to Afanasyeva's competitive status here in Bern.
Official start lists for the competition will be published late tomorrow. As with all competitions, believe what you see. This year's Europeans is a team competition with event finals and no official all around competition, although there will be significant interest in whoever can perform well on all four pieces, with Angelina Melnikova presumably competing alongside Britain's Ellie Downie and defending Euro champ, Giulia Steingrueber, for the highest total.
In my opinion, if Mustafina does go on floor, it will be because Afanasyeva can't compete. With all due respect to the former world champion, this could be bad news for Russia's prospects in the team final. Fewer than four weeks ago Andrei Rodionenko completely ruled out Mustafina's participation on floor, saying she would not be able to build enough stamina in the training time available to her. There are no miracles in gymnastics, although I will be willing all the girls to perform their best and maintain their good health.
Russia won today's team final at the European Gymnastics Championships with an impressively consistent performance - not one fall! Led by the charismatic David Belyavski, the team showed leadership over the entire field, finishing first in every apparatus except rings and high bar. It was a very close competition against Britain, who last won Europeans just before the Olympics in 2012. Russia's victory at the equivalent time in Olympic preparations leaves open the possibility that they could perform even better in Rio. Their team score of 271.378 was roughly half a point higher than Japan's winning score at the Glasgow World Championships last winter.
Russia's 'shock' events were pommels and vault; pommels showing a huge turn round in form as Russia has so very often faltered there. Not only did Britain feel the absence of their leader Max Whitlock on these pieces, it is true to say that Russia have also improved considerably. Their strategy of developing specialists with extraordinary levels of difficulty has so far paid off this year. They have also worked hard on team spirit and execution. The flowering of 19 year old Nikita Nagorny as a regular member of the senior team has added depth, and perhaps the youngster has also injected some energy and confidence into the team's blood vessels. As we progress to Rio, let's hope that all the gymnasts can stay healthy - and that, perhaps, Emin Garibov can return to full strength to reinforce the team's efforts on what is still a relative weakness, high bar. Russia left Ivan Stretovich at home this time, but who else is in reserve?; this is a magnificent team, but they do need more strength in depth.
No single member of the team competed all six apparatus, underlining the impression that this was a very cohesive and happy team effort. In the unofficial AA (noting that only three gymnasts competed six apparatus in the entire competition) Ukraine's Oleg Verniaiev came out on top, closely followed by Britain's Nile Wilson and Daniel Purvis. Allowing for the fact that they each missed their weakest pieces in today's competition, both Nagorny and Belyavski could, hypothetically speaking, have competed to the level of the top AA gymnasts here.
CONGRATULATIONS to the entire team - it was wonderful to see you defend your title in such style. It was a tense, tight competition and you all performed incredibly well under pressure.
I just wanted to add - 36 out of 36 clean routines in the top two teams - that has to be good for European gymnastics.
Full results here, including D scores - http://gym.longinestiming.com/File/00000F0200000002FFFFFFFFFFFFFF04
Lioudmilla Tourischeva, 1972 Olympic All Around champion in artistic gymnastics, was held up as an example of the ideal Soviet citizen. Here she coaches one of the Soviet Union's leading gymnasts from the 1980 Olympics, Natalia Shaposhnikova
The Soviet Union had a genius for lifting sport beyond the textbook, injecting the aesthetic where previously only goals had been in plain view. This was not only manifest in gymnastics. Do you remember the �Russian Five�, the players who elevated ice hockey to a creative sporting display, mesmerising their opponents and spectators with intricate patterns of play, so rhythmic and entertaining that they could have been set to music? In gymnastics, a sport where the aesthetic counted as much as the outcome, it was this ability to create spectacle out of competition that resulted in the most extraordinary athletic performances. The �Golden Era�, most commonly understood to cover the years from 1952-1992, was a time when the Soviet Union women�s team generally dominated the sport of gymnastics both competitively and in the popular imagination. During the latter years of this era, their male gymnasts also found a leading place in the sport. Since the breakdown of the Soviet Union, however, a different competitive dynamic has led to the globalised development of gymnastics as an altered sporting form, one where artistry matters less and substance matters more.
I have been asked to comment on what the main differences are between �Soviet� and �American� gymnastics. In this article I will attempt to provide as concise an understanding of my perceptions of this complex question as I can. Later, I will consider the process of change and its outcomes in terms of the form of the sport practiced today. To begin with, however, I will outline some of the general and more recent history, in order to contextualise the question.
Gymnastics goes back to the time of the Ancient Greeks. It is only relatively recently that the globalised phenomenon of artistic gymnastics has emerged and become popularised, by means of the mass media and, in the case of the Soviet Union, a political imperative. Artistic gymnastics is not the only competitive form of this sport, which has its origins in display, recreational, health and fitness and military. Rhythmic gymnastics, acrobatics and trampoline are all contested at World and European level. Each branch of the sport is in a constant state of flux.
When we speak of the �American� and �Soviet� eras we are in fact describing globalised forms of the sport predominant during the Soviet and post-Soviet eras rather than nationally delineating a competition between the two countries. The words 'American' and 'Soviet' are used here as labels to loosely describe a particular form of the sport. The choice of words indicates some of the power dynamics prevalent during the different eras of the sport. Just as Soviet gymnastics became globalised during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, so has 'American' gymnastics gradually been embraced by the world since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991. Gymnastics produced by America during the Soviet era and by Russia during the American era are equally influenced by the predominant sporting form of the time. (I use Russia as an example here as they are the main inheritors of the Soviet Union�s sporting legacy.) We are essentially speaking of two different sporting forms that have evolved from the same tradition, but which are responding to different conditions.
If I were to oversimplify the differences between the two sporting forms into a few words, I would say that American gymnastics is an athletic sport, while Soviet gymnastics was an aesthetic form of physical culture. In one case the athletes execute gymnastic and acrobatic moves with the aim of maximising their score, while in the latter the gymnasts perform whole routines with the aim of presenting an aesthetic to impress judges. It is about artistry, or the lack of artistry. More about this later. If I were to analyse in more depth, I would add that differences are manifest in the composition of routines, the manner of performance and in the methods of marking. There are processes by which this change has taken place, and there is an outcome. The influences which have driven this change are multifactorial. There are multiple perceptions of the way that these changes have influenced the sport. There is little that is simple and brief about the question : �what are the differences?�. But I will attempt to outline here, hopefully briefly, some of the things that I consider to be important.
My regular readers are not expecting me to give a glowing account of �American� gymnastics when they ask me for my opinion. I am widely known to have bewailed the loss of a certain artistry in contemporary gymnastics. But perhaps in 'American' gymnastics we are seeing a return to the more instrumental roots of gymnastics as a construct of sporting competition, one where measurement of goals counts more than judgement of performance. Rather than losing a dimension of the sport that was present in past �editions� we possessed something special and unique during the 'Soviet' era that sat outside the boundaries of what has historically and what is currently accepted as �sport�. In fact the more I consider it, the more I think that the �Soviet� era was an anomaly in gymnastics� and sports history for its imaginative interpretation of what sport could be. We will never travel backwards in time to that era again, because the public imagination of sport revolves around goals, targets and start values and those can�t be the entire picture when judgement of artistry and performance are concerned.
Gymnastics is different to other sports and needs a very particular environment to thrive as an artistic entity It is one of the very few sports where the very substance of movements counts, as well as the outcome of those movements (imagine Leicester City receiving a score for the aesthetic of their football, as well as for the goals they score). In this sense, gymnastics was tailor made for the Soviet Union, whose concept of physical culture (today rather disappointingly demoted to signify �health and fitness�) at one time provided an ethical and aesthetic framework within which sport sat. In this sense, sport went beyond the physical into the spiritual domain, expressing the best and highest endeavour of the human, who became superhuman in his efforts to overcome the physical constraints of space and time. Physical culture and sport thus became a cipher for the Soviet work ethic, a symbol of their moral invincibility in the wider world and a role model for ordinary Soviet citizens labouring in their workplace. Gymnastics directly fit the paradigm of physical culture because of its scope for mass participation as well as its capacity to demonstrate the aesthetic, spiritual and physical superiority of its athletes. I am not interpreting physical culture literally when I add that gymnastics learned from an association with the Russian influence of dance and circus. The Soviet Union used gymnastics to express and communicate something about the best of their culture. In so doing, regardless or perhaps because of their political exigencies, they created something unique and memorable.
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the idea of physical culture became less important, and investment in sport inevitably collapsed. It is a moot point whether the globalisation of gymnastics which has come in its wake is contingent upon a political vacuum, growing market interests in the power of sport to make money, or the mass migration of sports specialists and coaches from the Soviet Union. Arguably the declining interest in sport as physical culture set the ideological conditions for a return to a simpler interpretation of sport. As time passed, the IOC became more interested and concerned to show transparency in sports judging and diversity in sports participation. If the FIG wanted artistic gymnastics to remain as an Olympic sport, it was certainly driven to make some of the changes that have resulted in the overwhelming power of �American� gymnastics as a sporting form, if not the USA as the leading country in competition. It is true to say that USA has the best, most vigorous sporting infrastructure for gymnastics. They are organised and ambitious. They lobby, they speak the globalised language of sport and they have understood the concerns of the IOC. Thus America has grabbed the initiative and their gymnasts have become leaders. In that sense, the USA can effect the direction in which the sport develops and that is why we have the label �American gymnastics�.
If artistry and the absence of artistry are central to the argument of the differences between 'Soviet' and 'American' gymnastics, then I do have to return to this theme, which I have already written about extensively on this blog. It is timely for me to do so, as I have had some second thoughts about it since my last article. I have been frustrated when artistry has been pigeon holed to ideas of �toe point�, �line� and �ballet�, when consideration of its merits has been limited to a discussion of women�s floor exercise. The narrow use of choreography as a description of dance work on floor and the designation of dance as spins, leaps, turns, and connecting elements, listed in the Code of Points, are all lost opportunities when artistry is so much an integral quality of all gymnastics work. Gymnastics is about whole routines, not individual elements, and originality comes from free creativity, not picking movements out of a guidebook.
The differences are expressed eloquently by the semantic. For example, words such as accuracy, execution and difficulty are dominant in gymnastics� vocabulary today; yesterday, we spoke more of virtuosity, complexity and harmony. These differences in the way that the sport is described have a tangible effect on the way that the sport is constructed and the way that it is perceived. Accuracy, execution and difficulty all describe tangible entities that make up a gymnastics score. Virtuosity, complexity and harmony are all intangible ideas that, when translated into gymnastics action, can capture the public imagination and influence judges� scores.
Gymnastics exists on a spectrum from accuracy to virtuosity. The current Code values accuracy, a quality that the Americans value highly in their work. Soviet gymnastics, meanwhile, valued virtuosity, a quality of going beyond the textbook to perform a whole routine with consummate ease. Let�s think of artistry as a construct of the aesthetic that marries the explosive energy of acrobatics, grace and a quality of time and effortless, well delineated movement in the air, and something intangible that the gymnast expresses within the movement. Complexity comes from the whole routine as much as from the individual elements, and originality equally is expressed as the routine. Artistic gymnastics as a movement had all of this virtuosity during the Soviet era, that is now missing from the American era, when accuracy and the execution of individual elements and connections is of primary importance. This is what the Code of Points demands; there is no leeway for the gymnast who makes errors, or who has a low difficulty score. Equally, there is little scope for the gymnast who goes beyond the textbook to score extra points. The consummate artist who performs whole routines rather than the athlete who picks individual elements from the Code to maximise the value of his routines is the difference between Soviet and American era gymnastics. The difference is about whether sport is a branch of physical culture, or whether gymnastics is a branch of sport. At present, sport is winning.
I have finished for now, but there is just one further anomaly I would like to discuss � Simone Biles. For, although Simone is an American gymnast, both in terms of her birth and her style, she is one who performs her routines with virtuosity, in particular her floor and vault exercises. I am speaking not of a quality of toe point or line, for these are distinct weaknesses in Simone�s approach, but of the consummate ease and enjoyment by which she presents her original brand of gymnastics. For this reason and this reason only I suspend my disappointment in the American style. Simone is as unique in her approach to gymnastics as the whole of the Soviet Union once was. She will win big in Rio and I am looking forward to seeing her make history there. If, once upon a time, the Soviet Union led the rest of the world, now today America has the lead, and Russia is part of the rest of the world that is trying to catch up. I suppose that is sport.
Aliya Mustafina and team candidate Seda Tutkhalyan - both from Moscow
Five days left before the MAG European Championships open in Switzerland, and Russian gymnast Nikita Nagorny is posting videos of himself practicing a full twisting Roche vault - I wonder if he will compete it in Berne? The men's team seems fairly well prepared and ready to travel as announced some weeks ago - Kuksenkov, Belyavski, Ignatyev, Nagorny, Ablyazin. But the composition of the women's team, who will travel to their first major competition of 2016 next week, seems somewhat undecided. Will Natalia Kapitonova make her major senior debut in June, or will Seda Tutkhalyan, her dynamic yet unpredictable rival, grace Russia's team? Or will other gymnasts be brought into play; will further, unexpected, changes be made?
If head coach Valentina Rodionenko's recent announcement is to be believed, it is a simple case of replacing the injured Maria Paseka (a vault specialist) with Natalia Kapitonova (a strong bars worker who can also contribute on floor). The basis of this decision, Rodionenko contends, is Kapitonova's strong performance at Russian nationals, where she placed 6th all around, 4th on bars and 5th on floor.
When one considers that Kapitonova's closest rival for a place on the team, Seda Tutkhalyan, secured a gold on vault and silver all around at the same competition, it seems that the selection might not have been made on a purely straightforward basis according to the results. Yes, Kapitonova has more predictable results. This young girl from Penza is very stable and suffers few competition jitters. On the other hand Tutkhalyan suffered a significant breakdown in event finals at nationals, to finish in last place on two of her best events, beam and floor.
At the same time, there is less risk in Kapitonova's routines - and less risk equals not only less potential, but also less pressure to force those errors. Furthermore, Tutkhalyan's best moments come during team competition. Look back to her amazing performance on beam in the European Games last year. And since then, remember, Seda has added difficulty here (a full twisting double back pike dismount) and improved her uneven bars. Her floor and vault are both better than they were. Since coach Sergei Zelikson's appointment as tumbling coach at the national training centre, all of the Russian girls are landing their tumbles with more confidence, Seda as much as any, and her hard work and results add up to a significant scoring potential.
So I suppose it is fairly clear, I support Seda for a place on the Europeans team. When you think of excitement and fury, when you remember Russia's tradition of innovation and risk, think of Tutkhalyan, because she has the potential to be one of Russia's strongest team players. Alongside the brilliant Angelina Melnikova, she once again lights up Russia's ambitions in gymnastics. Led by veteran fighter Aliya Mustafina, this team could look to be the type that is prepared to do battle. Those who do not risk, cannot win.
But for the national coaches, any decision of who will make a team is far from straightforward. They have to take into account the expectations of the Russian Ministry of Sport and the Russian Olympic Committee, who are increasingly looking to gymnastics to fill the reputation gap left by recent doping scandals in many of their leading sports. This may well lead a preference for the more reliable gymnast, the one who enables the head coaches to predict results with greater accuracy. This is important when predictions shape expectations and when failed expectations might disappoint powerful people. There is also the need to balance the political scales internally as the various coaches and clubs of the gymnasts fight it out to see 'their' gymnast included on the team.
Aliya Mustafina comes from the CSKA club in Moscow. Her personal trainer, Sergei Starkin, comes from the Burtasy Club in Penza. Natalia Kapitonova trains at the same club in Penza where one of her personal coaches is Galina Starkina. Seda Tutkhalyan and Daria Spiridonova both train at the same club in Moscow - Sambo. Tutkhalyan's personal coach is Marina Ulyankina, Spiridonova is looked after by Tatiana Fomkina. Ksenia Afanasyeva hails from Tula where she is trained by Marina Nazarova Angelina Melnikova comes from Viktoria Komova's home club in Voronezh where she is coached by Sergei Denisovich
The relative pros and cons of each of these gymnasts are self evident to those of us who follow Russian gymnastics closely. There are very fine judgements to be made, and only the coaches really know who is doing best. The final decision will always be made at the last minute to exploit the possibilities of temporary changes in form; competition results are often only an indicator or a rough guide of who will make a team.
It is also true to say that in any situation working relationships and political dynamics will make a difference. Personal coaches and clubs stand to gain from their gymnasts' performance on the national team, so it is worth their engaging in a degree of lobbying when team decisions are being made, and the relative power of the teams will at least partly determine who makes the final cut. After all the brouhaha surrounding her coaching arrangements, I find it interesting that Mustafina is 'owned' not only by the long-standing and powerful CSKA (Central Army), but also by the rising stars of Russian gymnastics, the Burtasy Club in Penza. Burtasy is not only strong on a sporting level, it also stands up well as an example of good management. Head coach there, Valery Starkin (Sergei's father) has been elevated to a national training position on the Russian junior team, and his club has been commended and received financial awards from the Russian Ministry of Sport to pay for improved equipment and the like. Kapitonova's membership of the same team cannot count against her.
The Sambo club from Moscow is incredibly well represented on the national team (for example, Paseka is another one of their gymnasts) and their coaching team is very strong. Marina Ulyankina, of course, will be remembered as supporting the Rodionenkos post London Olympics during their reshuffle of the Russian coaching team that left (CSKA baby) Alexander Alexandrov out in the cold, effectively demoted from his position as head coach of WAG. Tatiana Fomkina has a long pedigree of top class gymnasts including the graceful Elena Anoshina.
It's natural that Moscow dominates the Russian WAG scene as for many years, during the post-Soviet era when sports funding was cut to a whisper, Moscow's local government was the only body paying much attention to gymnastics or giving it any money at all. However, with competition for places so tight, and one other Muscovite already a 'lock', it is plain that taking two gymnasts from the same team may smack of favouritism. Perhaps the Rodionenkos won't care about this; on the other hand they may wish to support the bubbling Penza club, and give Kapitonova a chance.
What decision will the Rodionenkos take? Who, besides the core of Mustafina, Afanasyeva and Melnikova will travel to Berne? The final decision is on a knife edge and will most likely be taken from between Tutkhalyan, Spiridonova and Kapitonova. But will sport be the only consideration?
Barely two weeks will elapse before the WAG European Championships begin in Berne, Switzerland, and the news we had been fearing has been confirmed : world vault gold medallist Maria Paseka is off the Russian team while she nurses a back injury. This leaves Russia significantly weakened for the coming competition, with co-star Viktoria Komova also missing from the line-up. It is a little disappointing, but it seems the right decision to rest the gymnasts so that they can be at their best when and where it really matters.
Who will replace Paseka? Valentina Rodionenko says that the youngster Natalia Kapitonova, who trains in Penza, has been chosen on the basis of her solid performances at national championships. Well, we will have to wait and see - these announcements often turn out to be unreliable.
I personally would prefer to see the dynamic Seda Tutkhalyan be given a chance at this level, but Kapitonova has certainly shown herself to be more reliable in recent competitions, and so is a predictable favourite with the ultra-careful Rodionenkos. Perhaps she will avoid error and keep a silver or bronze medal safe for the team, but she is not an out and out game changer like Tutkhalyan could be. Well, that is just my opinion, but maybe Natalia will prove me wrong!
The Russian WAG team for Berne will now be - Melnikova, Mustafina, Afanasyeva, Spiridonova, Kapitonova
I am trying to find details of TV coverage at the Europeans. Can anyone help?
Find junior and senior nominative registrations for European Gymnastics Championships 2016 here. Russian teams in the pictures attached. Remember these can change right up to the day of competition.
