The art of building and maintaining a world-class fencing team extends far beyond technical training and tactical preparation. It requires careful orchestration of team dynamics, strategic development of young talent, and the ability to make tough decisions that balance immediate results with long-term success. In this second part of our conversation with Alexander Gorbachuk, we delve deep into the nuances of team management at the highest level of competitive fencing. From handling critical moments in major competitions to the delicate balance of developing young talent while maintaining peak performance, Gorbachuk’s insights reveal the complex interplay of factors that contribute to sustained success at the elite level.

This is a Part 2 of a three parts interview. You can read the Part 1 of the interview with Alexander Gorbachuk here.

Managing Critical Moments

Igor Chirashnya: 44:44 is such an ill-fated number. In fact, in any weapon type, 14:14, 44:44 – it’s a difficult situation. How does the Japanese team, which has been in such situations so often, handle it? How do you prepare people psychologically? Because there’s really no technique and tactics anymore, it’s mainly psychology.

Alexandr Gorbachuk: This is psychology, yes. Naturally, I studied each person, how psychologically stable they are in different situations. Throughout the entire qualification cycle, everyone anchored bouts for us. It wasn’t just Kano finishing – literally everyone finished – both young Komata and Matsumoto, and naturally Yamada and Kano. I gave everyone a chance and watched everyone.

And, as I think, the best psychological state is a well-polished parry-riposte or a good attack that should be there. You need to practice it, train it, and you must be confident in your action and technique. That’s all.

IC: There’s this group of five opening contenders – Kano, Yamada, Minobe, Komata, and Matsumoto, who, in principle, each of them, except maybe Yamada and Kano, the other three were competing for two spots. Who among them is most suitable specifically for closing?

AG: Matsumoto. Why? First, he’s young. I trust young people more because they don’t yet have that fear that has formed against the background of some leadership, that “I’m a leader, people are watching me, I need to prove, maintain this level of fencing.” But young people still want to, they’re excited, they have lots of desire, they do what you taught them.

Plus good physique, tall height, long arm – also a very important factor. And Matsumoto has proven himself multiple times. There were moments when at some tournament we went out to fence with Egypt, I think, in the lower bracket. He went out – minus 9 – it was with El-Sayed, and won that bout. That’s already an indication that this is a young man who can perform heroics, which Kano, Yamada, and Minobe have done repeatedly. They’ve all performed some heroics where they saved the team, accumulated large numbers of points.

The Science of Team Selection

IC: Now he’s not going. That is, the strongest, most responsible anchor – in principle, such a task is probably the most responsible of all fighters – he’s the one not going. And Kano came out to anchor in the final match of the Paris Olympics, despite not anchoring the quarter- and semi-finals.

AG: I put Yamada as an anchor in the first match. I built it differently, I didn’t let Kano finish. Yamada finished with Limardo. Then Yamada finished with the Czechs in the semi-final – pulled through, and brought us into the final. Although we gave him, I think, plus 3 or 4, and he minus 1, in the end plus 5 he finished. And there I changed because I already saw that Yamada had sat down a bit, and he had an elbow injury, he was totally down both mentally and physically. And, plus, Kano, naturally, he is the leader – so I gave him the opportunity.

IC: Was it right to change Yamada in the last bout if he gave such results in the previous one? Several questions. First: doesn’t this demoralize Yamada himself? And the second question, which I find very interesting from a tactical point of view. He reached some psychological condition, fencing previous matches. And now comes another person – a person who already achieved everything a few days before this, there’s no such thirst, such hunger anymore.

AG: Well, I understand the questions, but you need to know the guys and live with them for a long time, know everyone’s psychology. Yamada himself is a bit fearful. He grew up without a father, his mother raised him, and the main upbringing was mine. There were some tough situations when I kicked him out of training, there were many small conflicts where he tried to get offended at me.

But before Paris, there was a moment when I specifically told him that if you’re going to train and behave like this, you simply won’t go to the Olympic Games. He was even second number there, but there was a moment when I kicked him out and said: “You won’t go if you don’t follow the program that’s needed, behave like this, and fall out of the general plan’s framework.”

Yamada is talented but lacks leadership character. He’s like a talented showman, that’s how you can call him. He always liked to show off, make beautiful touches, laugh during the bout. But he’s talented, of course, he’s a very talented fencer.

As for Kano – he’s a machine, probably comparable to some very expensive Swiss watches. He never even had thoughts that “I’m an Olympic champion” or “I won some tournament,” and because of this would allow himself some small slacks, or weakness. Kano is a bulldog who, if he stepped onto the strip, has no thought that he will give weakness and lose. He doesn’t have such thoughts. If he stepped onto the strip, this would be a gladiator, and as such he would fight till the end in any level of competition he is in, being it the Japanese Championship, combat practice in training – he will kill everyone in combat practice in training, and of course any international tournament such as World Cups or Olympic Games. Kano is the most reliable machine you can imagine.

The Swiss Watch of Fencing

IC: So he earned his championship status?

AG: Yes. This is the only person who, over the last five-six years hasn’t had even a single bad lesson. It’s paradoxical, I sometimes wonder and even don’t understand it myself – he hasn’t had a single bad lesson. There are people – Yamada, Minobe, Komata, Matsumoto – come one day, worked out, everything’s working fantastic, just great, we ran through all schemes, all techniques, everything works fine! But three days later, some of them comes a bit tired, fingers weakened – bang, miss, passé – and I need to lengthen the lesson, changing something to adapt to their condition, putting more in line, putting in the touch, polishing techniques.

Kano – never. Give him this – he is as reliable as a Swiss watch. I was surprised and then asked him: “Do you ever get tired? Your fingers must get tired, shoulders, brain must explode, your computer inside it must hang up there – something should sometimes give in to tiredness!” You know, my lessons are close to combat, at high speeds, and at these speeds a fencer needs to choose, roughly speaking, 4-5 options. He needs to choose a technique and distance at maximum speed. And Kano never made mistakes in the lesson. This was a paradox.

Twenty minutes was enough for me to take him for a lesson. Usually I work with others for 30-40 minutes in a lesson, but with Kano I ran the entire plan in 20 minutes, he didn’t make a single mistake. I say: “Go. Why torture you anymore in the lesson if you see everything, execute everything,and everything is just perfect?” This is the only person who hasn’t had a single bad lesson in the last five years.

Team Communication and Strategy

IC: Did the guys know about the order in the final match that would be different from the previous ones? At what moment did they find out about it?

AG: This was already after we made it to the final. I came and told the guys that now Kano would finish with the Hungarians. That’s when they knew.

IC: But were they surprised or was it clear that this was right?

AG: Nobody was surprised, absolutely.

IC: So for them this was the most correct setup?

AG: Nobody was surprised, but then I see everything, these signals, and they give me signals too. Yamada, when he already started grabbing his elbow, showed me with his whole appearance that it’s already hard for him, that he might lose this last bout. He shows me. Naturally. I understand everything, of course. But even if he hadn’t shown me, I would have still put Kano. And you saw it in the final too – Yamada didn’t even win a single bout against the Hungarians. He was already just worn down. With Yurka [last bout against the Czech team in the Semi-Final] this was the last peak, an incredible match where he laid out all emotions. Losing minus one, he broke this bout and snatched it, brought us into the final, and that’s all. In that match he gave it all.

If I had a second substitution, honestly, I would have replaced Yamada, even without knowing that he would fence poorly with the Hungarians. He just gave it everything to bring us to the final, and it was a great achievement. I would have brought back Minobe if I had such an opportunity.

IC: But the Olympic Games don’t allow this.

AG: No, they don’t.

Olympic Rules and Their Impact

IC: By the way, this is a good question: in all competitions you can make a reverse substitution in team event. The only competition where you can’t is the Olympic Games. From a coaching perspective, how do you view this? Obviously it’s a complicating factor, but does it make it more interesting, more unpredictable, or does it just unfairly worsen the team’s situation?

AG: I think it would probably be more interesting to change back and forth because we fence back and forth in all tournaments in team competitions. We’re used to this scheme. Coaches combine, strategize, adjust some fencers against their opponent based on many factors. I think it should be like this at the Olympics too. This will probably add some interest anyway. Yes, maybe somewhere someone makes mistakes, it doesn’t matter. This can strengthen teams. If the coach thinks this person always suits this style of the opponent, and another one suits that style, why not? If we fence like this in all competitions, the same way we should fence in the Olympic Games too.

IC: So this is a rule you’d like to change?

AG: Yes, absolutely!

IC: And why doesn’t anyone talk about this? And these are FIE rules, not Olympic Committee rules. What does the Olympic Committee understand about fencing?

AG: Of course, yes, FIE. Probably we need to gather, talk about it. Maybe they talked little about it, maybe it suited people. I don’t know. But we’re already moving forward. Before you could only substitute for injury, now we can change without such a serious reason or pretense of injury. Maybe the next step will be reverse substitution. One day, I hope, anyway.

This interview has been edited down to keep it at a readable length and split into three parts. Parts 1 of this interview can be read here and Part 3 of the interview will follow. This interview was approaved by Coach Alexander Gorbachuk for publication.

AFM is so grateful to Coach Alexander Gorbachuk for his time and openness. His candid answers provide a lot of material for thoughts.