Originally Posted by debra ˇ|:!
but that's the problem, it looked like he didn't know what to do! it's not like he was doing something and was missing, there was no apparent gameplan or anything. Kind of like at RG, why did Roger not do what he had done at Rome which was almost successful? He changed his tactics and looked a bit lost sometimes, that's how Andy was the other day. only difference is, and it's a big one i suppose, he had never lost to him.
It's all the more disappointing after having watched what he said the night before the match. night and day to what he displayed on court
Yeah, I know what you mean but think about this - and I am not insinuating that losing a set is the same as losing a match but Roger always seems to lose a set to Kiefer. There should be no logical reason for him to consistently lose a set to Keifer even though Roger owns him. Same goes for his matches against Ollie. Why does he always have difficult matches against Ollie even though Roger owns Ollie?
Andy is in a state of funk and that coupled with James knowing Andy's game very well contributed to this loss. I think he needs to start believing that no matter what, he has to win. He needs to realize that losing is not an option and every loss is an insult to his ability and his position as a top tennis player.
And to clarify, Andy has gone into this state where he is able to internalize his losses and just say, "Oh well, I couldn't do anything. He was the better player". This kind of defeatist attitude is what is holding him back. If losing was not an option for him, he would find ways to win. The same thing is happening to Roger against Nadal unfortunately. He didn't try anything different in the FO final (not even the play he used on Rome) because he had accepted that Nadal was the better player even before the match ended.