Madeline wrote:

---

I think one of the main problems he has to solve is learning to win more easily in the earlier rounds, so he has more left at the finish of a long tournament. He plays big matches well - but he is not going to get to play the big players until he has overcome the lesser ones!

---

Madeline wrote:

---

No, but I think he might have won that second set which would have been better than being beaten in straight sets.

The problem is that since the introduction of Hawkeye, some of the umpires are reluctant to over-rule calls in case it is challenged and they look a fool. Carlos Bernardes never over-rules, even on lines right under his nose, on matches I have seen.

Mo Layhani (sp? I really must learn how to spell his name) is brave enough to over-rule, and is usually right when he does.

---

 Does anyone actually know how far out th ball was at 15-40. My first impression was that it was clearly out and I was surprised that Andy didn't challenge. I am also not a big fan of Bernardes. I much prefer Steve Ullrich to be in the chair.

OK, your New York correspondent located back to Edinburgh yesterday.

Re the final, it was the first time I have ever seen Federer live and some of his play was an absolute joy to watch.  I am a huge admirer of what Nadal gives to tennis and his attitude and fight, but there is something so much more about watching Federer and his variety ( which Andy does share to a great extent ) and his grace of movement ( which I think is uniquely Federer ).

On the match itself, undoubtably Andy didn't play to the level that he played v Nadal ( in many ways maybe that was maybe too much to expect ).  What was a bit disappointing is that he did drop quite a way from that level.

I thought his plan of campaign seemed right, i.e. mix it up more than he did against Nadal, in ways that he has v Federer before. 

Unfortunately, one thing that I thought was very noticeable and have seen only breiefly commented on above ( though was maybe not so clear from TV as agianst being there, did I mention before I was there   ) was that Andy's length through the match was a bit patchy.  When he did get the ball consistently very deep, Federer quite often made errors and his timing went.  I just wish Andy could have maintained a consistently deeper level.  As it is was, as well as reducing Federer's error potential, it often allowed him to step up and dictate much more.

Andy's serve was also clearly not at the exceptional, for him, Nadal level, but was more like what we know.  It is a pity that he couldn't have reproduced such a serving performance one more time. As it is, third set in particular, Federer reallty started to step into the Murray second serve, which was always a danger. 

Andy and Fed are both excellent anticipators and returners, though it was surprising that for whatever reason they both only managed 3 aces against around 20 for each in their semis.  As it was Andy never really got the cushion of some easy service games as he did against Nadal.  

I don't really see that the schedule had much of an effect at all.  Basically Andy didn't play Thursday or Friday, played 2 1/2 sets on Saturday and 1 1/2 sets on Sunday.  Yes, Federer had a full day off before the final ( unusual for a US Open ) but not really an issue to my mind.  I still actually think that great though Andy played v Nadal, there is a chance that if that match had carried on on Saturday that Nadal could have gone on to win it in 5.  So, I think that more worked for Andy than against him.

There may have been some tiredness on display against Federer. but more an emotional tirednes  than a physical one , i.e. the whole occasion and playing Federer when he was back to playing so well almost draining him a bit.  If things had been going better, I am sure he could have played 5 sets quite easily.  I did notice, as has been mentioned, him grasping his leg on occasions, but never particularly noticed that his movement was effected and he was still moving often very well at the end.

Anyway, it was a great occasion to be able to attend.  And hell of a good timing on my part to time a holiday to New York and going to the US Open with Andy's first Grand Slam final appearance !!  It was a pleasure to to watch such a performance fropm Federer, the player when playing really well, I love most to watch. He undoubtably was back looking great in the final, although somehow yes one wondered if there was even one more gear he could go to, such was the easy quality of his tennis at time.  But naking it look easy is the hallmark of a truelly great player !

Andy has done just great these two weeks. Yes, not at his best in the final, but it will be a huge experience for him, and from what I observe, he learns from each experience he has, and I think he will be an even better player for just being in that final.  As it was on the day, he was quite well short of Federer, and I do think there was only ever one player going toi win on the day, even if Andy had played nearer hios Nadal standard,  though if he had manged to win the second set and got into Feder's mind.........  His speech at the end was very good ( for soemone who will never be the great orrator of our time ! ), gracious, slightly self deprecating and well received.

For the moment, just remember springtime. All  those who expressed doubts about the direction he was going ( including myself, though I was subsequently reconverted to the cause quite a while earlier than some  ).  All those concerns about his performances in mandatories as opposed to optionals, never beating either Nadal or Djokovic, never beyond the semis in a masters series tournament, never even beyond the last 16 in a Grand Slam tornament, never really yet breaking significantly into the top 10.

I say, be happy !!!   I look forward to watching Andy through the rest of 2008, and especially now 2009   !