Bronze all the way for Russia then. Beyond the euphoria and surprise of this morning's competition there doesn't really seem to be much to write home about.
Let's consider a timeline of the competition : before, during and after.
The promise of a return to the Worlds stage by Viktoria Komova gave Russia a feeling of optimism pre-Russia Cup. However, Viktoria's performance at this important competition gave little reason for celebration. Yes, she had retrieved many of her bar skills, and her beautiful flight still stood out as world-beating. But under today's Code, that matters little. Bent legs during her giants and a tendency to brush the lower bar are deductible faults that still remained; after a two year break, why weren't these problems addressed? No upgrades from Viktoria, no beam, no vault and no World Championships. It seems almost inconceivable that she will now make it back onto the Russian team after an absence of more than two years, at least as an all rounder.
Mustafina, meanwhile, had undergone her own injury hell for long enough. Investigations in the Munich clinic that is now a second home for many Russian gymnasts revealed nothing serious, but a procedure relieved the heel pain enough for Aliya to look revived and refreshed at the Russia Cup. Furthermore, a now mature Aliya was obviously providing caring motivational leadership for her younger team mates. It became clear that once again Aliya would come to the rescue of a struggling team.
So in the context of the unavailability and unreadiness of two* of its Olympic stars, the Rodionenkos' strategy was to blood some up and coming young talent - Sosnitskaya, Spiridinova and Kharenkova, who in the spring had won the European beam title - and to complete the team with more experienced, reliable girls - this time Kramarenko, who had competed at the 2008 Olympics, and veteran of the 2010 gold medal winning team, Nabiyeva. Nabiyeva herself had toyed with retirement earlier that year, preferring to move forward with her happy life as a coach and student in her home city of St Petersburg; but the lure of another competition proved too great to resist.
The team that prepared for Nanning was, largely, the only one available to Russia. The demographic of Russian women's gymnastics is highly complicated at present, thanks to a slump in government funding and, hence, in youth participation during the Yeltsin years. So the fact that only a few gymnasts are available to the team is a fact of life; there is not much that the coaches can do about that. And it is a good thing to bring through youngsters at this stage of the Olympic cycle - how else to develop strength in depth than to give new gymnasts a chance to compete at the highest level?
Yet the strategy adopted by the team coaches seemed to be predicated on the assumption that Russia would need its veterans to win. This strategy was to balance the insecurity of youth with the maturity of experience; not a bad idea, except for that the main aim seemed to be to keep the gymnasts calm and avoid making mistakes. Perhaps a good way of securing bronze, but not a good way of fighting for gold or silver.
And surely, this was exactly the time when a new generation should enter to challenge and overtake the long standing champions. For example, in 2010 Alexandrov had led a young team to win the World Championships. Half of his gymnasts - Mustafina, Nabiyeva and Dementyeva - were first year seniors who had not competed at worlds level before; the most experienced gymnast, Semyonova, had made her Worlds debut in 2007. With Komova and Grishina due to turn senior over the following two years, it was clear that the new generation was rapidly taking over.
In women's gymnastics, few World Champions continue to win medals at the very top level for more than two or three years. There are always exceptions, of course - Khorkina is one example - but to expect all gymnasts to emulate Khorkina is clearly unrealistic. If the Russians' plans for Rio come to fruition, and all their currently active London Olympians participate, it will be a miracle - the team will have a collective senior experience of 24 years - Mustafina six, Komova five, Paseka four, Afanasyeva nine.
More to the point, the youngsters should now be challenging these gymnastically elderly ladies and making it difficult for them to participate in the training squad, let alone be selected for World Championships. I would love to see Afanasyeva and Mustafina at their third and second Olympics, respectively. But I would hope that they would be there to lead an exciting, vibrant young team who were at least their gymnastic equals. It doesn't seem to be too much to ask, considering the level, if not volume, of talent available to Russia.
Before the Championships then, we had a happy looking team, well balanced and obviously emotionally secure and confident within themselves. The Russian coaches had set modest expectations of them; the consensus was that there was really only Mustafina who would contend for medals. Gainsayers suggested the team might be poor enough to finish in fifth place, but that was an extreme view. The team selection was a solid one, with a good distribution of talent across the apparatus, and even though there was a clear weakness on floor, a reasonable show was expected.
DURINGA reasonable show was exactly what we got from the Russians in Nanning. In podium training and in qualifications the team managed to avoid meltdown, anyway. The girls had the worst draw of any of the big four countries, competing qualifications in the first subdivision, beginning on floor. This made World Champion Mustafina almost the first gymnast to compete in the entire WAG competition and, as things turned out, she was also the last.
The young Russian gymnasts are a delight. Spiridinova is an enchanting gymnast, beautiful in line and technique and clearly able to perform her routines on floor, beam and bars with something approaching ease. She embodies the Russian enigma - an up and coming gymnast who has the basics to a fine point of perfection, then stops. Anna Rodionova, who was in contention for this team but didn't quite make it thanks to a small injury, is a similar gymnast.
The Russian system has always had such beautiful, rather erratic gymnasts. I am not comparing like exactly with like, but Kazakhstan-born Natalia Ilienko, 1981 World Floor Champion, was a remarkably unreliable, remarkably talented gymnast. World Champion Natalia Yurchenko's career was marked by unfortunate falls until good luck collided with her in 1983. These gymnasts shared the fundamentally strong basics of such gymnasts as Spiridinova and Rodionova but were tempered by a system that understood that in order to be able to win, one must risk. Their stunningly original programmes were put together not to provide a comfortable nights' sleep for their coaches, but to challenge for gold medals wherever they went and whenever they competed. The rather lowly expectations of this year's Russian team were that they would do enough to finish in the top 24 and hence qualify to compete at next year's World Championships, in turn a qualifying event for the Rio Olympics. The two Natalias were expected to fight for gold, wherever and whenever they competed, and because it was expected of them, they expected it of themselves.
One could say that the circumstances in which the gymnasts compete today are much different, not least the 6-3-3 format which emphasises the need for reliability; and the relative lack of strength in depth in Russia, which means that the coaches are trying their best to maintain the health and strength of their gymnasts for another day. Russia and the Soviet Union are far from a direct like for like comparison as the Soviet Union covered not only Russia, but also Ukraine, Belarus and a total of 11 other countries. So the talent and resources base on which they drew was far greater. Nevertheless, the fundamental laws of training are the same. I remember reading an interview with Alexander Alexandrov, about two years ago, in which he explained that the time to develop a gymnast's programme was during her early years in the sport. The gymnast would generally only be able to do at the age of 20 what she could do at a much younger age. This is rather worrying for the up and coming Russian youngsters, few of whom have much in the way of ground breaking difficulty in their routines, let alone the expectation that they will eventually become Olympic champions.
There is also the question of why the team were playing a safety game when the targets were so meagre; surely now, when 24th is all that is needed, would be a time to test the young gymnasts and give them some experience? Some of the selections for the team final seemed questionable. For example, why not give Alla Sosnitskaya, the team's second all arounder, the opportunity to compete on beam in the place of Kramarenko? Her scoring potential was greater and in the end putting trust in the greater reliability of a veteran was misplaced; it is easy for anyone to fall from the beam as poor Katya did. Newcomer Alla Sosnitskaya was clearly determined to show her grit at these Championships and could have contributed on the apparatus. If not Sosnitskaya, why not Spiridinova? One day she must confront her nerves on this apparatus and realise how talented she is. The Russians are strong on beam; the coaches need to have confidence in their youngsters, before the youngsters can have confidence in themselves.
Nevertheless, I think that the team's performance was a good one; my criticism is not of the gymnasts, but of the safety-first strategy and the suggestion that gymnasts new to the senior team aren't capable of delivering good gymnastics, when clearly they are. Kharenkova, for example, had a shaky beginning in beam qualifications, but her performance in finals was great, judging by the 15+ score she achieved. Yet elsewhere, principally on floor, the feisty girl from Rostov-on-Don seems to have taken a backwards step since 2012; why is this? It is symptomatic of a system that has regularly failed to see its talented juniors reach their full potential; only in 2010, 2011 and 2012 has the transition from junior to senior appeared to realise the promise of the young. Where is Shelgunova, why does Rodionova so steadfastly remain in the shadows; why are so few of the youngsters performing more difficult routines than their predecessors? It's all very well focussing on the need for reliability and consistency when the programme of difficulty isn't good enough to win gold; the gymnasts will only learn to do difficult things by practice. If top difficulty is the expected norm, few will question it and the most capable will emerge. As World Champion Yuri Korolev once famously said, 'he who does not risk, cannot win'.
Of course Queen Mustafina's final day performance put a smile on my face, as well as young Dasha's bronze on bars. But we do have to remember - these were bronze medals from a team that, historically, technically and strategically, should be targeting gold. Vaitsekhovskaya reported Alexandrov as saying that a gymnast cannot live on her past triumphs; the training of last year can only stand her in good stead for a year, two at most. I would venture to argue that this applies to teams as well as individuals. Relying on veterans to shore up the team for two or three years, without finding a new level of fitness and difficulty, is as likely to be a recipe for failure for the team as a whole as for the individuals concerned. Despite the desire to be optimistic, to enjoy Aliya's enjoyment of her good fortune, the truth of the matter is that standards have fallen and Russia is now a bronze medal winning team, rather than a potential competitor for gold.
Mustafina says she is going to seek upgrades, but that it will be difficult for her at her advanced age; she is perhaps seeking a new personal coach to help her on the road to Rio. But what is the rest of the team doing? How many more times will they need Nabiyeva to come out of retirement?
AN (IMPORTANT) ASIDEI want at this point to pay tribute to Russia's main rival, the USA. At present, no one can compete with them. Simone Biles is a magnificent gymnast: powerful, strong and original. I'm going to shock you all by saying that I think that the way she performs her particular brand of gymnastics is artistic.expressive, innovative - and unrepeatable by anyone but her. She is quite the most phenomenal, talented and spontaneous gymnast I have seen in many a year. I like Kyla Ross rather less; she is the product of this Code, more typical of the American school, a careful, accurate gymnast who makes very few errors, but who is less than inspirational in her presentation and originality. Nevertheless, she has deserved the medals she has won at this competition because she satisfies the requirements of the Code, and makes so few errors.
If things continue on this trajectory, the USA will easily win gold in Rio as a team and in the all around, vault and floor. The Chinese might continue to win on bars, and beam will be as open as it always is. Leaving a lovely, but slightly disappointing array of bronze medals for our girls to peck away at.
But, you see, I would hate gymnastics to be all about tumbling and Simone Biles, because I don't think there will be another Simone for another forty years at least and I think that her form of artistry is unique to her. We need Russia for its heritage, philosophy, technical coaching and guts, to compete effectively at the very top level, to round out the picture of artistic gymnastics, before all gymnasts look like poor imitations of Ross or Biles. Russia's nearest equivalent to Biles, Produnova, never had the self assurance of this year's World Champion, but she did bring at least equal power and innovation to the arena, enriched by the expressiveness and technique of the classical tradition that is fundamental to all graceful forms of movement. This is the unique talent of Russia - the ability to combine fierce acrobatic power and originality with stunning artistry and technique; the two are not mutually exclusive. It is called virtuosity - a very rare, if not completely absent quality in today's gymnastics.
One further point I should add as an aside is that the environment in which the Russians are competing is far from good. Even Bruno Grandi has commented that there is a need to overhaul the marking to encourage more rounded, artistic performances by the girls, where difficulty is not the only determinant of medals. But this was a Grandi speech at a competition press conference, and it is hardly unlike our President to make wild promises that then disappear like a wisp of steam over a boiling kettle, or that if enacted contribute still further confusion and compromise to the creaking Code of Points. It is unlikely without a wholesale review and change of philosophy, that any short term solution enacted by the FIG will result in an improvement in standards before Rio.
AFTERI'm not talking about the Banquet ...
If the Russians respond to their defeat - yes, defeat - in Nanning in the right way, this might be considered to be a turning point in their development as significant as the defeat of the Soviet team in 1979. There is much more work to be done than in 1979, but there is one year more in which to complete the necessary transformation.
The Russian team will now go home and have a well deserved break. I expect there will be a flurry of interviews by Aliya and the Rodionenkos and then silence will fall. I hope we will see some of the gymnasts at the Voronin Cup in December, if it is running.
Putinhas just announced new plans for the funding of sport in Russia from 2016, including measures to promote mass participation in sport and physical culture. They are also recognising the organisation of sporting mega events as a key capability. I haven't seen any mention of gymnastics in any of the press; this probably isn't surprising as artistic gymnastics is rather small fry in the Russian Federation. But I will keep my ear to the ground. I very much hope that VTB Bank's sponsorship of the sport continues, and that the Ministry of Sport also continues to support gymnastics as it has over the past few years.
I may be alone in considering this week's events to amount to a defeat;
Andrei Rodionenko certainly disagrees with me, having summarised the competition as 'a success' for the Russian gymnasts; even if there were mistakes, that's only because the gymnasts are human. It is hard to disagree. But he too recognises the need for increased difficulty amongst the team:
We will all have to work very productively in the lead up to the Rio Olympics. We plan to significantly complicate our programmes, and raise the base level of our combinations. Gymnastics is developing very rapidly. There is especially a boom observed in the men's gymnastics. Competition is growing rapidly, and it will be even harder. Next year the eight Olympic teams will be selected and it will take an incredible effort for all teams who wish to participate.
I only hope that their incredible efforts will take effect in time to qualify for Rio.
Will there be any lambs to the slaughter as a result of this week's competition? Influential voices have been raised, but frankly I doubt there will be any movement. If the Rodionenkos were to leave, who could take their place? Could a change in strategy be effected sufficiently swiftly to make a substantial change to both the programme and conditioning of the gymnasts before Rio? What if the Rodionenkos are right, and a conservative approach is more prudent than risking going for gold?
We will just have to wait and see.
* Three if one counts the injured Paseka, and four if one thinks of the disappeared Grishina.
