MoL is reading Nadal’s biography. Interesting how a gawky, clumsy kid afraid of sleeping in the dark (still) transforms himself into a court warrior hell-bent on winning, knowing his game is not as good as the best of his rivals (he is not a natural player). The obvious answers for his success are: the example of famous sporting relatives; a loving, extended family and social conservatism; a bootcamp uncle trainer who gave him tennis tough love. On top of that, MoL suggests “playstation transformation” is what separates Nadal from previous champions: the will to objectify and transmogrify into a human computer-robot (at terrible cost in terms of physical injuries) chasing down shots, calculating split-second angles, racket as laser gun. Nadal is perhaps the first post-human tennis champion, reverting afterwards to timid, self-effacing, well-brought up young man and perfect example. Watchwords: endurance; playing through pain; mental toughness, more mental toughness. Winning is all, then winning again. He tells us (which we knew already) that at his level the margins are so tight results come down to a couple of seconds and points, and the one who wants it more wins. The rest is tennis fodder. I wonder what he would make of the MoL sporting manual whose first rule is: Failure is everything. MoL is willing to challenge Nadal to a game: he wins; MoL loses; everybody happy. That said, Nadal shows signs of being (dangerously) susceptible to MoL thinking when he talks in his book of fear of winning, and when he announced at the post-match press conference after winning this week in New York: Everybody loses. Good thinking!