Russia Shows Heart at Rugby World Cup 2011

The Russians have stepped up to every challenge at Rugby World Cup 2011 with hearts the size of bears.

In tonight's match v Ireland, the work rate of Russian scrum half Alex Yanyushkin was nothing short of phenomenal. Actually, I'm not sure I've seen a scrum-half as tenacious at the scrum-base, breakdown or in open play as what Yanyushkin is....

Which is made all the more impressive for a man who stands 165cm tall, tips the scales at 75kg and is without doubt, the smallest man in the 2011 Rugby World Cup.

However, Yanyushin's ability to bring down the biggest men on the pitch with a decidedly effective jumper-wringing technique reminiscent of a tenacious terrier (think Jack Russell), is a timely reminder that these contests aren't really about the size (although I'm sure the Argentinians would disagree) of the fight, but the fight in the player that matters.

Sounds corny I know, but tenacious is a label that could also be slapped on the back of Melbourne Rebel and Yanyushkin's Russian team-mate, Adam Byrnes. Who holding the opposite end of the Russian measuring tape at squad weigh-ins, gave the Irish plenty of niggle and the Russians a certain degree of insight upfront.

Of all the Rugby World Cup games I have watched so far, the Russian's 'we refuse to get rattled by the scoreboard' performance was some of the most enjoyable rugby to date. Was it the most technically brilliant?

No. As you would expect of a team ranked 21 in the world, there are some key areas for skills development. Nor was it the smash and 'tickle' tactics that made it inspiring.

Rather, the commitment of the Bears to play to the very end and not give up... even when Ireland crossed for three tries in five minutes.

Lesser teams would have thrown their hands up in the air in defeat (and their pride along with it) and let the Irish run riot.

Which makes me wonder... are we witnessing the rise of Russian Rugby?

For all our sakes, let's hope so. But for now, it seems fitting to celebrate Yanyushkin's - the terrier in the bright green boots - posting into the Rugby Almanac as the first player to score a Rugby World Cup try in the Russian jersey!

With tickets in hand, and Nelson bound... даваи рoссия!

Storytelling at its purest

I love this...

 and yet it breaks my heart.

Art at its best.

O is for Online, not Owned.

For the past couple of weeks, I've been hearing, reading (accosted at every turn) by professional profiles of people who 'own' this business or that website.

At the risk of sounding a little crochety, I can't help thinking, 'stop with the spin already' and just tell me what you really want to say.  Because you're a single operator, working with and for yourself (and maybe a virtual assistant) and the idea that you 'own' your online business or media production company is a bit like me saying, I own my blog.

No, I possess a password which provides me with privileged access to a self-constructed profile created using open source software (blogger), which for the moment remains FOC, although could at any time (and without any prior warning) disappear from the indexed face of the world wide web.

Besides, isn't 'owning' a piece of the www a little like laying claim to a piece of George Street, just because you rent offices there? Maybe I'm missing the point, but while ownership was once a sign (and still is for some) a measure of success, online is about engagement, interactivity and laying claim to a cyber-territory or 'community' rather than owning a piece of paper, renting offices and installing a 'director of first impressions' to make you 'look the part'.

Online, stake your claim, but be yourself.  Transparency is key, or at least it should be.

Afterall, the 'Western web' is housed in approximately seven (7) primary locations and we don't have access to the much larger 'Eastern web' we that lies behind 'The Great Firewall of China'.

So the idea of 'owning' anything online seems a little ludicrous in the extreme, doesn't it...?

Netiquette

I consider access to my network a privilege. To de-friend once is excusable.
Just as they are in person, stumbles in the online social sphere are to be expected and assisted. That is how we learn afterall. But a little word of warning re: the defriend: STOP.

Take time to consider how your actions could be interpreted...

Imagine for a moment, the Australian Wallabies have just played the All Blacks in Hong Kong and you're an expat living in Hong Kong. Because of your high profile in Asian banking you are invited (along with a 100 other corporates) to the official after-match function with both teams.

Now this is an exciting prospect for you, because not only do you as an individual get to indulge your great love of a game you used to play, quite well and actually speak to the top professionals doing what you tried but never could, you also have an invaluable opportunity to schmooze with like-minded individuals in a safe environment, free from prying media eyes - a so called private public space - if you will. You also have a potential client along for the ride who is suitably impressed just by having access to this world they consider is yours.

Now walk away from that potential client and go talk to someone else in the room.

You just defriended your potential lead. What effect do you think that will have on your business relationship?

Then imagine you are the potential client who just got de-friended. How does it feel? And more importantly, what do you think of that high profile banker? Do you want to nurture a relationship (business or otherwise) them?

Now I've had people of all ages tell me they use de-friend as a way of cleaning out their inbox, managing their contacts and for getting rid of the 'deadwood'. Then you look at their profiles and you see they have over 1000 'friends'. Really? A thousand of your closest buddies. Wow, birthday celebrations would get expensive!

But seriously, I use this point to highlight the role of considered action in online social networking communities like facebook.com - especially as it increasingly seems to be converging with the stated business network for professionals - www.linkedin.com where deleting someone as a contact - usually results in a passive aggressive phone call 'wanting to catch up'.

So, whether you are a whet behind the ears graduate or a bonafide dinosaur of the corporate world, take the time to STOP and CONSIDER the social networking IMPLICATIONS of a CLICK.

If you think it's appropriate to use and abuse connections, then the de-friend is your tool of choice. Conversely, if you are being used or abused by a connection within your community, then you have the right to extricate yourself from that abuse.

I prefer to associate with like-minded, well-mannered individuals and groups so whether it is in work or in play, for me, netiquette is a primary expectation.

So just like the ubiquitous global mass media space, community networks such as facebook, twitter and linkedin while increasingly convergent spaces, belonging to them remains a privilege not a right and social grace and poise valued assets.

Think twice before de-friending or conversely, being a little more selective who you 'friend'.

Random Thought: danah boyd

While the technological features are consistent, cultures that emerge around Social Networking sites (SNSs) are varied...

Nothing surprising there, right...?

This got me thinking...
What are the technological features that are consistent?
What is culture as opposed to a culture?
How does 'culture' manifest/ replicate on SNSs?
Is it significant for marketers, public relations practioners, journalists, organisations and individuals in general?

Knowledge Production: A Social Process

Jacques Derrida claims that the process of writing is fundamentally changed by the way we write. Marshall McLuhan on the other hand points to the medium as 'the massage', while German sociologist Niklas Luhmann opines 'man is not able to communicate; only communication is able to communicate'. Three different men, three different opinions. Nothing new about that. Or is there?



Academics define, debate and redefine modern society as it is, or how we as individuals interact with it continuously. Put into a 2011 context, does technology impact the content, delivery or consumption of content and if so how?



How has the process of knowledge production changed with the advent of social media? More specifically, what are the epistemic consequences of social software and information architecture?

WOH! Hang on! What the hec is social software?



Social software enables group interaction. A conduit to conversation. So information architecture must be the mechanics of delivery, yes? Well kind of...



Okay, so accepting the structure of things has changed, how have our conversations changed specifically? And by that I mean, how has our production of knowledge evolved?

From blackboards in lecture halls to death by powerpoint in the boardroom (or classroom!) to Skyping across timezones, the physical space and time of our conversations has evolved through and because of social media capability.

Blogs (just like this one!) and the rise of Wiki's sees the distribution of information and access to knowledge evolved both the classification of information (Luhmann), the way we engage with it and the dissemination process of information as knowledge beyond our local sphere.

McLuhan, Foucault and friends are a lot more accessible via youtube.com, wikipedia and the likes for the academic in training. And we know that what we see and read we need to take with a grain of salt (production and knowledge values are not expert) however, the entree to access is invaluable.

Schiltz, Truyen and Coppens(2007) in their article, Cutting the trees of knowledge: Social Software, Information Architecture and their epistemic consequences discuss how the nature of what is known seems to be changing. They use the example of a Linux expert and the expectations around what that in fact means. No longer is it assumed that the 'expert' contains all knowledge personally ('in his head'), although it is assumed that s/he has direct access to it, either via a social/ professional network or both.

Social networking systems and applications are changing the way we gather, store, disseminate and create knowledge. Aggregated suites of software such as Facebook.com and myspace.com are pervasive.

Why is it important in our production of knowledge again?


Social Media from Phil Guest on Vimeo.

The fundamental shift in communications practices is inter-related to the social network of the modern-day information society for which one way or another we can (and do! - Australian's are some of the largest consumers of social media in the world) democratically ENGAGE.

Importance of Environment

Recruitment: The necessary evil or the opportunity to fly?
How do you know if you're getting the right person for the job?

The more exposure I get, the less appealing some things become.
Everyone is saying the same things: the preferred packaging just differs significantly.

I recently asked a former colleague if anyone is actually doing anything new in marketing. He thought I was kidding.

Academic breaks are brilliant for a number of reasons, one of them being: perspective.

Why?

Marketing strategy and implementation methodologies are often limited by the professional paradigm. Perspective through a new kind of critical thinking liberates the communications professional from entrenched behaviours.

As technology continues to enable access to a plethora of informations, our products and services are also enabled with web tentacles (thanks to SEM and SEO) to diverse community groups. Not surprisingly, strategic communications strategies must evolve to ensure efficiency and harbour a new kind of relevance in our marketing communications.

Step One: Understanding the available technologies and using them.

Mums Embrace Social Media

Yesterday I was woken from my sick-bed by my mobile phone ringing.

Not firing on all cylinders, I was a little taken back at the panicked voice on the other end of the phone,  

'Darling! Are you alright? You haven't been on Twitter for 11 hours.'

Yes that's right, I have a Twit-stalker... MY MUM!

Guess I'm just lucky I can still pick up a phone and hear her voice on the other end.

But rest assured, this tale will be getting a run at my 20 year high school reunion next month.

A word of advice on the defriend

You have one shot at the de-friend, for which you can thank ignorance.
After that, etiquette ensues and the practice comes down to basic common courtesy.

A friend of mine recently started posting about how his number of Facebook 'friends' had started dropping (one a day) over two days. It was probably a technical glitch, but it did recall a time in the not too distant past when a number of people were telling me I 'spammed' their newsfeed.

As is generally the way with me, at first I laugh, then I process (possibly obsess), so their comments stuck with me and I studied their core meaning from as many variant angles as possible. So in search of the root cause, I looked at my facebook usage and the disconnect became obvious.

My use of facebook has changed significantly this year both in time and purpose. Most notably, my time online engaging with the plethora of informations contained and indexed on the world wide web has increased to hours a day, rather than hours a week.

Key learning #1: Tell people why you are here. This is especially important, if like me, you do access an inordinate amount of 'stuff' online and use your newsfeeds as a digital catalogue.

Really? Yes.
Why? When people don't understand your behaviour, they can deem it offensive and in consequence disconnect from your online community, so it makes sense to communicate your intended use of the space. Afterall, sometimes it's easy to forget that online 'friends' is a term interchangeable with 'followers' and 'fans'.

Personally, I consider access to my network a privilege. So being de-friended once, to my way of thinking, is excusable as stumbles in the online social sphere are to be expected - just as they are in person. However, a little word of warning: STOP and take the time to consider how a 'de-friend' could be interpreted.

Imagine for a moment, the Australian Wallabies have just played the All Blacks in Hong Kong and you're an expat living in Hong Kong. Because of your high profile in Asian banking you are invited (along with a 100 other corporates) to the official after-match function with both teams.  Now this is an exciting prospect for you, because not only do you as an individual get to indulge your great love of a game you used to play, quite well and actually speak to the top professionals doing what you tried but never could, you also have an invaluable opportunity to schmooze with like-minded individuals in a safe environment, free from prying media eyes - a so called private public space - if you will. You also have a potential client along for the ride who is suitably impressed just by having access to this world they consider is yours.

Now walk away from that potential client and go talk to someone else in the room.

You just defriended your potential lead. What effect do you think that will have on your business relationship?

Then imagine you are the potential client who just got de-friended. How does it feel? And more importantly, what do you think of that high profile banker? Do you want to nurture a relationship (business or otherwise) with them?

Now I've had people of all ages tell me they use de-friend as a way of cleaning out their inbox, managing their contacts and for getting rid of the 'deadwood'. Then you look at their profiles and you see they have over 1000 'friends'. Really? A thousand of your closest buddies. Wow, birthday celebrations would get expensive!

But seriously, I use this point to highlight the role of considered action in online social networking communities like facebook.com - especially as it increasingly seems to be converging with the stated business network for professionals - www.linkedin.com where deleting someone as a contact - usually results in a passive aggressive phone call 'wanting to catch up'.

So, whether you're a whet behind the ears graduate or a bonafide dinosaur of the corporate world, take the time to STOP and CONSIDER the social networking IMPLICATIONS of a CLICK.

If you think it's appropriate to use and abuse connections, then the de-friend is your tool of choice. Conversely, if you are being used or abused by a connection within your community, then you have the right to extricate yourself from that abuse.

I prefer to associate with like-minded, well-mannered individuals and groups so whether it is in work or in play for me, it is all about etiquette. So just like the ubiquitous global mass media space, community networks such as mine whether they exist on facebook, twitter and linkedin while increasingly convergent spaces, belonging to them remains a privilege not a right.

Social Networks: An Introduction

Literature Review of Jeroen Bruggeman's Social Networks: An introduction

Chapter 2: Representation and conceptualisation
Strength of social relations varies as a function of:

1. Emotional intensity;
2. Trust;
3. Time spent; and
4.  Reciprocity

(Granovetter 1973)

Convergence at its best: Beyonce style

Beyonce raises the bar yet again re: what constitutes best performance for generation next at the 2011 Billboard Awards
Is there anything this woman can't do? Enjoy.

Changing nature of media production and consumption in sport

As I revisit stumblings by high profile Australian athletes around the micro-blogging social media platform Twitter for the purposes of my current research, I look with fresh eyes at the Faggot Tweet: Sponsors Speak scandal of last year.

Refreshingly, my position on the relevance of context and content remains unchanged. If anything, I would further jump up and down on my strategic communicators tool box with the intention of seeing more support given to our elite athletes in navigating the new media channels.

In order for this to happen however, it's the administrators and communications professionals who need to stop. listen and learn from the tech team. It's the marketing communications leaders who need to patiently stumble through diciphering the tech team's codes and 'geek jargon', just as they have had to endure our homage to the acronym for the past 20 years.

People and business fundamentals haven't changed, technologies have. And with technology, new communications platforms have been consumed by information-hungry individuals and groups as the nature of association and information gathering has become more social. By this, I mean a global sharing process.

Not surprisingly, this change in the production and consumption of information now brings new, global and dynamic communications channels into the structured and controlled environment of corporate entities. This embedded disconnect does not have to be detrimental to the evolving relationship between corporate, team and individual brands, it just requires an entirely new approach which permits key players to not always get it right.

Stumbling isn't a problem for those businesses with strong key stakeholder engagement and support. So maybe the evolution towards transparency of communications through technology and the inherent nature of the new communications environment in the business of international sport, is more reflective of the health of key partner relationships than anything to actually do with sport performance.

While this is a sentence I never thought I'd write, it is undeniable, that when it comes to intra-organisational social media engagement in sport, the UFC is streaks ahead of the professional sporting pack.

Why football wants to ban Twittering...

Why football wants to ban Twittering...

If you love good sport, the code shouldn't matter

I hate cricket, but when I see a great catch, or someone caught behind I love the art  and skill of it. Why? Sport is a cultural product, and irrespective of the type or title, when performed by experts is nothing short of art in motion.

Sport creates a universe all of its own. A world with its own language, model citizens, groups and behaviours. Not all of them good or beneficial by traditional standards, but logical and intrinsic to the way that particular sport and its players and supporters have evolved.

If I was Matilda the Martian just landed in Oz around awards time, I'd think all footballers wore penguin suits at functions, wives and girlfriend's dress sense played a significant factor in the performance of cricket and AFL players and that AFL and Rugby league were by far the biggest sports in the world.

I wouldn't know that rugby league and union struggle with weekly crowd attendances, player contract renegotiations, media ownership and sponsorships. That football refers to the round-balled code, it's supporters cruising along to a tribal beat all of their own!

If I was Matilda the Martian, just arrived at the Sydney Football Stadium, Australia, I'd probably watch a game of rugby union in action with my telepathic-controlled lasers drawn, ready to defend myself within this formalised code of war. Either way, I'd certainly have a direct insight into the hearts, minds and spirits of the Australian consumer, because according to Kotler, Kartajaya and Setiawan(2010) in Marketing 3.0 - that's what the next generation of marketing is all about.

King stuns in An Impending Rupture of the Belly

It's not often I venture away from the books at the moment - such is the joy of being elbow deep in research. However, when I heard Juilliard graduate Stephen James King was supporting the local community theatre scene on his return from the US, trekking to Newtown was a no brainer.

In what proved to be a robust and surprisingly funny script - not what I was expecting from a piece titled An Impending Rupture of the Belly - strong performances were a feature of the evening, King was a stand out.

On stage for the full 90 minutes, the awkward pleasures and pains of King's character were artfully portayed - in a performance more suited to the Sydney or New York Theatre Companies. Not a huge surprise considering we are talking about the man who played King Lear in Juilliard's King Lear. 

One of the highlights of the evening for me, came in the knowledge that someone of King's international standing supports the local Sydney theatre scene with a dedicated performance at Newtown Theatre.

So if your idea of a good night at the theatre includes talent, timing and great storytelling, don't miss the opportunity to be artfully engrossed in King's world: An Impending Rupture of the Belly.

Jenkins and Fans

Meet the man who stole my post-it notes. 


That's right, the Cat in the Hat reading Henry Jenkins - one of the most fascinating minds when it comes to discussing all things sports and fandom - has single-handedly robbed me of my much-favoured Post It notes collection.


How is it so? I hear you ask. 


Well, it's quite simple really. Jenkins is one of those writers, who write eloquently on the ethnography of television fan communities and participatory culture.





In his book, Textual Poachers, Jenkins identifies at least five distinct (and often interconnected) dimensions of this culture and its:

1. relationship to a particular mode of reception
2. role in encouraging viewer activism
3. function as an interpretive community
4. particular traditions of cultural production
5. status as an alternative social community

Rugby as Hollywood Entertainment

After the fizzle of Invictus (which highlighted the critical importance for a screenwriter to understand the real backstory), there is a promising trailer promoting rugby in the movies.

Starring an Australian is a great start (we are top three in the world in the sport) and having Welsh-born dad along-side him is organically-producing rugby angst in itself (If you were ever lucky enough to experience an Australia v Wales test match at Cardiff before it became Millennium you'll know what I mean).


Anyone seen it, yet?

Congrats to Jess on Embrace

Oh well, better late than never! :)

GLOSSARY of TERMS

Network is:

• equivalent to the notion of graph in maths. It has a non-empty set of vertices ie: nodes & a (possibly empty) relation defined fro these nodes ie: set of ties
• Ties have many values, and there can be multiple relations

Organization is:

• a special purpose community ie: a K-component where people are in authority, working and information relations with each other.

Organizational field is:

• a community of organizations and individuals sharing a certain culture of norms, beliefs, and practices and a reputation system.

Social Capital is:

• a smorgasbord of network benefits, each with its conductive network topology. 
• all good social capital literature focuses on specific mechanisms that generate specific benefits.

- Jeroen Bruggeman (2008: 138) 

in Social Networks: An Introduction

Introducing Bert...

I just found this in the archives and rediscovered the joys of the telecommunications disconnect between hardware and the Australian data service network...

So imagine my surprise when wrapped up in all white - looking pretty schmiko too - I am unceremoniously thrown into a cardboard box and thrown about in the back of a van before being left on a chilly doorstep.

Finally placed on a busy kitchen bench I eagerly await the arrival of my new designated owner. It's 4pm and no sign of those noisy little people, so icons crossed, I haven't arrived in one of those loud, busy and complex houses with kids.  Three hours later, I light up with joy as I hear: "Tiff, There's a package for you on the bench".

First I hear the eager tear of cardboard before finally being wrapped adoringly in the warm embrace of a delicate hand.

Seventy-two hours later however, things have turned pear-shaped and I have gone from being the adored iPhone4 to Bert.

Why Bert, I hear you ask...?

Because for the past 72 hours whenever Tiff has asked me to do something that actually requires using the cellular data network, 9 times out of 10, I can't help but roll my icons sideways (she hasn't found my voice control function yet) as I try to communicate as best as my interface will allow to let her know, I know what she wants me to do and where she wants to go BERT NO SERVICE!

If only humans spoke iPhone...

Sports journalism at its best

This is why I love corporate media, PR-driven businesses and professional sport. The entertainment value is second to none.

Feeling relaxed, yet re-energized after my morning manipulations with Svetlana the former Ukrainian weightlifter come new age massage therapist, I half choked on my raisin toast when I read SportsDay - The Sydney Morning Herald's sports pages.

According to Manly Rugby League Club officials (keeping in mind this is a part of the world where I was first introduced to football inutero) their star player Brett Stewart - who was only recently acquitted of rape - is 'not guilty of anything other than being an outstanding citizen and great footballer' - quote, unquote.

While calling for the blood of NRL chief David Gallop, same said officials at the same press conference, go on to 'educate the media and Australian sports-loving public' of what happened at the 2009 Manly season launch (and no that is not a typo... a CEO of a multi-million dollar business is actually commenting on events, to the media, two years later as though it is news!).

It gets better...their spin (and people it is DEFINITELY spin!) went on to say that the 'outstanding citizen' that is Brett Stewart was 'asked to leave the main bar due to intoxication at around 6:00pm' on the evening (6pm is evening now yes?) of said event:

Who'd of thought that the Manly Bingo crowd - two years ago - were such a rowdy bunch!

But seriously, don't listen to what they're saying, watch them as they speak and I think the look on rugby league legend and now Manly coach, Des Hassler's face (far right) says it all...

btw - Svetlana was a beat up... Heath was the lovely sports masseuse this morning :)

Hypocrisy or Hype?

Nixon is a name historically shrouded in scandal but here in Oz our leading man - Ricky Nixon - has as much charisma as the Toxic Avenger.

Personal taste and attributes aside, I'm just not buying the latest PR-ladden 'personal issues and in need of rehab' plead.

Sorry Ricky, Tiger already rolled with that one and while it worked for him - for now - it took a dedicated and well rehearsed team a couple of weeks and a bucket-load of monetary manouvering rather than a break OS, to make that one fly.

Now I don't know Ricky Nixon, I've never met the guy and quite frankly, I don't particularly care what or who he does with and in his spare time.

The real carrot of interest here, is the amount of airtime this whole showcase has received. Which makes me wonder... what are we missing?

2010 showed the AFL - and all professional football codes for that matter - that young women are not all sugar and spice (which any parent of a teenage daughter could and would happily tell you) and that some of them will and do in fact lie and seek to cause havoc if star (and I use the term loosely) attention is not reciprocated.

Now, I don't profess to be the sharpest tool in the shed, but I know this is a somewhat sad by-product of fandom for some. I have personally watched as a young woman has stood a metre away from a group of professional and high profile athletes just waiting for one of them - any of them - to talk and show interest in her. And there was no indication of the crazy just by looking at her.

Now the psychologists could have a field day and while I actually felt sorry for her, experience tells me she is not the exception in some parts of the sports-loving community. What makes me curious in this instance is what they're not saying. Inspite of the extended airtime.

Why is a business like the AFL, so hell bent on dedicating the time and resources to these young girls? What is it that these girls know? do? Is there something that the powers don't want shared? Or is it just a case of big business looking after the little guy and seeing it as all part of a new approach to corporate social responsibility?

As with most official reports, it's not the words written, but the text edited out that's usually the most compelling.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see... if we can stay awake that long!

Australia Day @ The Australian Open

Well it's that time of the year again - when every Australian births a desire to be a pro tennis player...and I am no exception.

The Australian Open is one of the best tournaments in the world. Don't believe me? Ask the players.

However, experience tells me my shining WTP star has already started waning - it's semi-finals time - and let's be honest, I much prefer watching in this heat!

Besides, I've already got what I came for, the thrill of watching pro athletes perform at their best and a little either side of it.

As Rafael Nadal fell to countryman Ferrer last night, we were reminded of why we love sport. We love the drama of it. The highs and the lows.

Now the commentators do a great job of calling the game (Well done Jim, Bruce, Todd and Stubbsey) and hypothesising on the thoughts and feelings of the players, but I'd stake my life on the fact that Nadal wasn't thinking 'Oh no, I won't get the silverware', but rather 'If I keep playing, will it tear?', 'I can't get power through my serve', 'I've got 70% bi-lateral stretch', which is why he adapted his play accordingly and we knew he wasn't at his winning best.

Nadal knew he was out of the tournament the moment he felt the twinge. He's a pro. But just as his face and every missed shot proved, that doesn't stop the heart-break.

It's us in the stands - the spectators and the media - that think about the 'Four in a row', the prize-money and the wasted chance - not the pro... well not until he sits down and reality sets in.

Good sport is all emotion - that's what Henry Jenkins espouses - amongst other things - in his book The WOW Climax: Tracing the emotional impact of popular culture (2007). A thumping read if anyone has the time and inclination.

So while Nadal makes no excuses and his team tend to his wounds, we eagerly await the return of Federer to centre court... Why? Because such is the divide between a tennis enthusiast and a pro.