kundalini wrote:

---

Maclagan: "I think he needs to try and be more attacking more of the time because then it becomes a habit.

"If it is not your usual style you can't - whether it is Andy or anyone else - suddenly turn things on in the final or semi-finals of a Grand Slam.

"The way you play is almost a way of life, rather than tactics. Look at Rafa, people talk about his tactics but I'm not so sure he has any. He has just got his way of playing and thinks 'well, I'm the best in the world and if I play my way, I am going to win most of the time' - which he does.

"That's where it is difficult for Andy because he does have options - he can rally and he can serve-volley - but it takes time to put either properly into place.

"But in my opinion the first set was great and I think he needs to ingrain that kind of aggressive approach into his regular style."

---

From what you have been saying over time, kundalini, I would expect you were heartily agreeing with Maclagan.

Myself and others have at times indicated that Andy has different ways he can play different opponents, eg. I recall him winning a Canadian Masters title against Djokovic for instance mixing it up, not playing particularly agressively and winning.  Some were happy ( probably most ) with that, some were not.  I was happy, I think in his long term interests, I may have been wrong back then.

At other less important times, against many opponents he can play passively and he knows they will self destruct.  In Slams he has played like that more than once and they have not self destructed but kept a high level, to his cost, Andy seemingly having difficulty changing his approach.

Of course, he has massive feel for the ball and great defensive ability.  you don't lose that and it can still differentiate him and help him out at many times.  Against an opponent like Nadal, yes he can maybe produce the unexpected from time to time. But I am more and more convinced that week in week out he should be generally playing with controlled agression, imposing hinmself more on the opposition.  If it doesn't work at times, stick with it.  The more he plays like that, the longer at a higher intensity, the more hopefully he can sustain it when it really matters, and that for him is now Grand Slams, and not particularly even say Masters.

Andy to me sees himself as some really gifted individual who can outfox folk with mixing up play, playing passively at times, letting some self destruct, winning almost a chess match more than a tennis match. He gets satisfaction from that, but his ultimate satisfaction would surely be winning a Grand Slam.  He has to play more regularly the way that will ultimately help him do that, the way he played the opening set against Nadal.

Yesterday was amazing.  As has been said he had it right for over a set, and I didn't thereafter see this supposed opverpushing. What we saw was maybe a guy in two minds, uncertain as to how he should be playing and uncertainty can breed mistakes.  Do I push this shortish ball aggresively into the corner or do I just slice it back ?  Oh, I've just put it into the net.

The one shot that so many folk saw as a turning point was not overaggression, aggression was what set up the chance and it is then his feel could have ended it in so many ways, basically though he just hit one poor careless shot, it happens, we've all seen worse and at more important points.  Gee, it wasn't even at BP, it was to set up two BPs, which the odds would probably of been on Nadal saving.  

If Andy really thinks that one shot came from over aggression, if he thinks a few subsequent errors were overagression rather than maybe a mixed up mind,  then someone really has to get hold of him.  Worryingly though, from what Maclagan says it looks as if he has tried, Andy is just so stubborn.

When he actually said in a further interview I heard this morning that he should of reeled back and gone more "passive", it was as if he was challenging his critics out there, it was almost as if he was deliberately using the word that he knows so many folk have an issue was.

No mate, if you played aggresively more often, you might be more used to occasionally shots going awry, and would learn to stick witb it.  There should be no need to rein back, to reevaluate or whatever with a passive period.  If you've got your tactics right and they have been shown to be right against an opponent that wasn't changing his tactics, then you should be able to stick with and have confidence in your own tactics.

I've probably said enough that I'm a huge supporter of Andy, but if he proves over the coming months / year to be ultra stubborn and not prepared to help himself be the best he can be why should he expect all his supporters to keep up their same level of support ?

Sorry, I've waffled on as I can do so much, probably a bit repettiively, but I just got on a bit of a roll there    

Anyway, can Andy win a Grand Slam ?   Yes, he can.  See first set.   Will he ?  Who knows.  See much of the remainder of the match.