I thought Andy was playing from ahead on score for most of the match, I could be wrong though. The match overall seemed to be on Andy's racket partly because, whatever Andy was doing it was not enabling Roger to get his forehand grooved, and so, Roger seemed to be the only one out there who was playing possum/old man's tennis, whereas Andy was consistently taking bigger stronger cuts off the ground more successfully and generally dictating the rallies offensively while not having to play a terribly great deal of stellar defense except in tiny spurts, say, whenever Roger good get a hold of and lace a couple of good shots in a row which were few and far between, it seemed to me. So, what I'm saying is that Andy kind of bossed his opponent about, and was clearly outplaying Roger from point to point (compare their total points won, where Andy grossly overshadowed Roger).
I've lost matches where most everything in my game was flowing as particular units--was volleying well, was serving well, was stroking from the back court well, etc--and my opponent never was able to hurt me, or string together three or more points in a row...but I still lost the match; so, good on Andy for pulling that match out, or for not letting it slip through his fingers. But whenever he serves 21 aces and hits something like 25 more winners per match than his opponent- especially in a guy like Federer who feeds off of hitting winners, then I would expect Andy to come through with stats like these, and so I would not know how to rationalize the statement that, by winning this match in particular he showed great mental strength because most of the time he was playing ahead on score while leading in every major statistical category throughout, which to me sort of evokes the statement that, it's easier to win when your'e outplaying your opponent.
Last edited by DeShaun : 01-27-2013 at 05:38 PM.