Andy Murray Likes Kissing Toes!

Andy Murray turned Gulbis upside down and wiped the court with him, winning 6-2, 7-5, 6-3. The official stats for the match recorded just 5 unforced errors from Murray. Even taking Wimbledon's generous statisticians into account, that's an exceptionally clean match.

Gulbis though, continues to disappoint. I didn't really expect him to beat Murray after the horrendous year he's had, but I'm really starting to question whether he'll ever live up to the lofty expectations I had for him. Despite his considerable power Gulbis wasn't able to hit through Murray, who chipped balls back into play and waited for Gulbis to make the mistake. Ernests agreed in his surprisingly honest press conference, giving away the secret to beating him: "I think before the match he exactly knew how he's gonna play against me. He took a really good tactic. He was giving me slice to my backhand, that kind of shot which I don't like, because I have to hit it, you know.

He hits the shot with no power. He breaks the rhythm of the game. Then I have to hit it. I can hit it once, twice, third time, then I make mistake. You know, I'm not consistent enough from the baseline to go long rallies.

He perfectly knew, and he slices very good. He didn't miss it. I think perfect tactic."

Okay Ernie, prepare yourself for an onslaught of slices to your backhand in the future. Speaking of press conferences, here's Murray explaining bets his team makes to keep training interesting:

Q. Can you tell us a little bit about the forfeits you've been handing down to members of your coaching team?

ANDY MURRAY: No, I don't hand them down to anyone. We play football, and whoever loses the game has to do whatever the forfeit is. But one of the parts of the forfeit is that when you lose, you know ‑‑ my fitness trainer was walking around with a cricket helmet on yesterday.

If someone asked you what it's for, you're not allowed to tell them that you've lost a bet. You just have to say that you like it and whatnot.

Q. Just on the forfeits, they're very funny. But who chooses them? Because you never seem to lose. Is it you who sort of says you have to do this or whatever?

ANDY MURRAY: No. Before the start of each game, we decide what the forfeit's gonna be. And then, yeah, I'm better than them, so I don't lose as much (smiling).

When we play for small forfeits I lose the games more, because [I] don't concentrate as much. It doesn't bother me like when we play for push‑ups and you have to kiss the other guy's toes. Like I'll lose them.

But if it's stuff like a cricket bat or you have to get lunch for everyone and stuff, I concentrate a bit harder.

So let me get this straight: you'd rather kiss another d00d's toes than walk around with a cricket bat?

Footloose

Roger Federer def. Andy Murray 6-2, 7-5, 6-2.

On Monday Roger Federer became the first man to win 5 straight US Opens since "Big" Bill Tilden in the 1920s (he said the 1920s!). That's pretty heady stuff, and puts Federer back on track to surpass Pete Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam titles (Federer's now at 13). It also saves his year and re-establishes Federer at the top of his game, halting the penstrokes of various sportswriters in the midst of writing his obituary.

If you're looking for objective analysis of the final you'll have to move on; nothing to see here. I was incapable of watching this match from anything other than a fanboy perspective. The first set you almost had to spot Federer; Murray was clearly tight in his first Grand Slam final appearance, and Federer came out with guns blazing. The second set was a hard fought affair and could/should have been tighter had Murray gotten the break that he deserved (TV replays confirmed one of Federer's shots was out on break point). Once Federer broke at 6-5 and served it out, the match was effectively over. Federer was able to fully relax and went into full-out attack mode, while the air went out of Murray. The set was not even as close as the scoreline, 6-2.

So then, how did Federer turn it around and get back to his vintage form, when Jim Courier stated that Federer was still recovering from mono and a step slow, even in this tournament? It's a good question; I'm not sure myself. The biggest difference between the dominant Federer of the past 4 years and the shaky Federer of the past 4 months has been his forehand. That shot was absolutely lethal; Federer could hit a winner from anywhere on court with it. No less an authority than John McEnroe deemed it the "biggest weapon in the history of the sport". This year though, Federer had been misfiring from that side, and the critics came out en masse. "His confidence is shot", "He needs to use a bigger racket" (Federer plays with the smallest racket head on tour, at 90 sq inches), and others. I thought an entry from his post-match presser proved illuminating:

Q. An argument could be made that you had the mono early on and it's taken you all this time really to fully recover. Do you think that's possible?

ROGER FEDERER: Possibly. I mean, I didn't feel like I was moving all that great still, you know, for the last couple of months. I thought it was okay, you know. I think I was okay on clay and on grass. Then when I came back to hardcourts, I think just my coordination was missing a little bit, because first of all, I haven't played on hardcourt for a while, and usually that comes back quite automatically, without me having to force the issue. But I didn't feel like it was all that great moving, especially in Cincy and Toronto.

I think there were some good moments at times, occasionally, as well as the Olympic Games. And I think here as the tournament went on, I started to feel like I was moving better and better. I think that was a good sign for me, and that also gave me a lot of confidence being able to know I could play defense and offense, because sometimes I just had the feeling I had to play offense because my defense was just not acceptable in my standpoint.

Andy Roddick once made the observation that everyone talks about Roger's ability on offense, but defensively "he has no peer". It's really an underrated aspect of his game (still). Federer is the rubber-band man out on court, ranging wide to slice back would-be winners and stretching for balls beyond the reach of most other players. With his movement, and by extension defense, compromised by the mono, Federer felt the need to press on the forehand and started missing. The resulting losses had to have hurt his confidence, which only exacerbated the problem. However, starting with the Djokovic match, Federer moved brilliantly, and he continued that pattern into the final. I did NOT think he moved all that well against Andreev, so it's interesting that he chalks up the poor movement to the mono. It will be interesting to see if his movement stays at this level now, and how he will fare in the indoor swing.

So what's the tennis forecast going to look like heading into 2009? Will Federer return to the #1 ranking and dominate again? I do think Federer will return to the top spot, but I don't think he will dominate as he did. And this may surprise you: I think Federer's return to the top will be less a function of his own play than the decline of Rafael Nadal. I can't imagine how Nadal's managed to play so well this year given the style of play he employs. Just looking at his schedule wears me out. He's been pushing so hard for so long to get past Federer and now that he's had his golden year I think he will have a hard time sustaining that drive. Hard thing to say about Nadal, but his body has to give out at some point, right? I think Federer's main competition for 2009 is going to be Djokovic, who has the ability to win without expending a lot of energy. Looking farther ahead, I'm not buying Marin Cilic; that forehand take-back is way too busy. But keep your eye on Ernests Gulbis. I'm predicting a Top-5 future for him, and maybe more.