Murray hires Ivan Lendl as new full time coach

Murray has hired Ivan Lendl as a new full time coach! He is to take his position with immediate effect, a few weeks before the Aus Open.

This is what he had to say on facebook:
'Very happy to announce that Ivan Lendl is my new full time coach. His impact on the game is unquestionable and he brings experience and knowledge that few others have, particularly in major tournaments. Happy New Year '

What do you think???

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/16372414.stm
amazing news!

Great news, well played Murray.

Great news!

just a word from lendl as well!
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/tennis/4031052/Andy-Murray-appoints-Ivan-Lendl-as-his-full-time-coach.html

Good choice - He needs someone with the experience and stature of the likes of Lendl. Boris Becker suggested that this would be a good match up way back in the spring.

Lets hope it works out.

I think it is an excellent choice. It is also good that Ivan Lendl also suffered a lot of pain early in his career losing slam finals before he turned that around. Lets hope he can pass on the secret to Andy Murray. Hopefully, the start of a very successful partnership and just what Andy needs.

What other top players has he coached ?

Has Lendl coached anyone before? If not, it does seem a strange choice, but hopefully an inspired one!
Doubt we'll see lots of smiles from either of them.

In terms of coaching, Andy doesn't need a lot of work done on his all-round game as he has all the shots. Where he could do with help is on the mental side of the game and how to approach slam finals. Lendl's career mirrored Andy's in that he lost slam finals but turned it around and that is what Andy needs to know so perhaps Ivan Lendl can help him out in that area and get him to implement a more aggressive game plan.

I think Murray just needs an inspiration and Lendl can provide that. Doesn't matter which top player he has coached before. Murray has been coached enough in his career to with make the partnership with Lendl work.

I read an article after the Asian swing where he said he was looking to add someone 'with a bit more experience at the big tournaments' to his coaching team. Was begining to think he had changed his mind about that. I see it as a positive move which might just add that missing ingredient to take him to the next level. Time will tell though.

Great choice.

This is fascinating news (if its not another hoax). I can't imagine how it will work and don't really know what to think. But I feel excited at the prospect of seeing them work together. I wonder if they will give a joint interview.

I love tennis...

It will be interesting to see Ivan in the box with Andy doing his usual stuff, including affectionate looks and sweet nothings directed at his own box when things are not going in his favour. That will prove IL's mettle. Best wishes to both the great players.

Not sure I understand the pleb reference to Lendl in the poll, as that word is a shortened version of plebeian or vulgar commoner, a non-entity ? How one could describe Lendl in that light is weird.

Anyway, its great news for Murray. Ivan has not coached anyone before, but this would not constitute "coaching" per se, more a mentor for Andy to feast upon his Slam experience. Also, Andy needs to have someone court side to help his mental edge and the stony face of Ivan the terrible might be enough to curb his tantrums.

I'm presuming that's a light-hearted jibe at the fact that there are a number of people on this board (and others) that despite having no real practical experience of the sport, they always seem to think they know better than a seasoned professional.

It certainly wasn't an attack on Lendl.

djlovesyou wrote:I'm presuming that's a light-hearted jibe at the fact that there are a number of people on this board (and others) that despite having no real practical experience of the sport, they always seem to think they know better than a seasoned professional.

It certainly wasn't an attack on Lendl.

Precisely

I would try to explain it better than that, but I simply can't.

Fantastic news!

Murray has fallen at the last step 3 times, so who better to get him over the line than someone with such a similar story?

As mentioned above, he may have no coaching experience... But we're not talking about someone teaching Andy the game or any new shots, he has most of them already (in my opinion anyway). He just needs to be mentally strong enough to produce when it matters.

Lendl has that experience, both of the winning and the losing of slams finals.

I think it is an absolutely fantastic appointment!

I hope you're right DJ.

Barring no unusual upsets, I hope to see Andy get to the semi's at least in Brisbane and hopefully meet Simon in the final, but Murray's taking a different route to the AO this year, not playing the Hopman Cup either, so it may bode well for him having a new coach into the bargain.

Jubbahey wrote:I hope you're right DJ.

Yes DJ is right.

It is good to see Andy finally make up his mind regarding a coach. Lendl as a player advisor is perhaps the persona that Andy chose, rather than a tennis coach.

If the choice was purely made on the basis of Lendl's slam chronological progression and record, IMVHO, it makes less sense. Pretty sure Andy would have looked at the overall package rather than just this aspect alone.

Let us wait and see how the relationship and it's dynamics work.

It must be a relief for Andy to announce the choice of a coach.

This is somewhat of a massive gamble. I am somewhat perplexed that people are that naive to say "He is a seasoned pro and knows the game"

Er if that was the case then all pro's would be top coaches!!!!

I would be the first and hopefully not the last to say that Lendl would not be my first choice. I wish he had hired him after the WTF which gives himself time to know Andy's set up.

Intriguing to see how this un-folds.

legendkillar wrote:This is somewhat of a massive gamble. I am somewhat perplexed that people are that naive to say "He is a seasoned pro and knows the game"

Er if that was the case then all pro's would be top coaches!!!!

I would be the first and hopefully not the last to say that Lendl would not be my first choice. I wish he had hired him after the WTF which gives himself time to know Andy's set up.

Intriguing to see how this un-folds.

Players like Murray, just need someone with the knowhow to guide them through crucial stages of the Tennis calender. Thinking that Lendl is going to be a coach in the traditional sense is wrong - he'll be like all the others are to their men, key advisors - giving vital tweaks where needed. After all it isn't as though Murray's a million miles from winning a slam

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:This is somewhat of a massive gamble. I am somewhat perplexed that people are that naive to say "He is a seasoned pro and knows the game"

Er if that was the case then all pro's would be top coaches!!!!

I would be the first and hopefully not the last to say that Lendl would not be my first choice. I wish he had hired him after the WTF which gives himself time to know Andy's set up.

Intriguing to see how this un-folds.

Players like Murray, just need someone with the knowhow to guide them through crucial stages of the Tennis calender. Thinking that Lendl is going to be a coach in the traditional sense is wrong - he'll be like all the others are to their men, key advisors - giving vital tweaks where needed. After all it isn't as though Murray's a million miles from winning a slam

From a tennis perspective, the only thing I could see Lendl bringing is a different mindset in big pressure matches. If you look at when Roddick hired Connors and Roddick almost became a Connors clone and his serve went down the toilet. I just hope that Lendl does not try to impose himself too much on Murray as it might lead to a parting of ways.

There are some that consider this to be a well massive gamble innit.

It is good to recall that in 2011 without a full time coach Andy Murray had his best set of results at grand slam tournaments. The main qualities currently lacking in his game at slam tournaments, and needed in his attempt to make the next step, are precisely the qualities that characterised Ivan Lendl's game.

Nore Staat wrote:There are some that consider this to be a well massive gamble innit.

It is good to recall that in 2011 without a full time coach Andy Murray had his best set of results at grand slam tournaments. The main qualities currently lacking in his game at slam tournaments, and needed in his attempt to make the next step, are precisely the qualities that characterised Ivan Lendl's game.

Would you agree that such qualities are also harder to imbibe, especially from someone like Lendl? People forget Lendl's locker-room persona.

Also, if it was simple, many other players, would have also been slam winners?

laverfan wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:There are some that consider this to be a well massive gamble innit.

It is good to recall that in 2011 without a full time coach Andy Murray had his best set of results at grand slam tournaments. The main qualities currently lacking in his game at slam tournaments, and needed in his attempt to make the next step, are precisely the qualities that characterised Ivan Lendl's game.

Would you agree that such qualities are also harder to imbibe, especially from someone like Lendl? People forget Lendl's locker-room persona.

Also, if it was simple, many other players, would have also been slam winners?

I agree LF

There seems to be the perception that Grand Slam winners can create new Grand Slam winners.

Like I said, it is a massive gamble to appoint someone who has no 'coaching' experience. Yes he can work on Murray's 'mentality' on court, but in terms of any 'technical' adjustments that are required in Murray's game, like a more potent second serve and more power on the FH.

Would have Federer appointed say McEnroe over Annacone to improve his net play?

But I believe legend killar and LF (happy new year to you both) that, in my opinion Andy doesn't need to be coached in how to play certain shots etc as that area of his game is spot on. His inability to win a slam is down to his inability to bring the correct mindset and game plan into slam finals. This was a problem Ivan Lendl also had so he has maximum experience in the areas that Andy needs the help. Put it this way - I cannot see this partnership doing Andy any harm and here's hoping it unlocks the door to a slam win in 2012.

I think it's great news that he has a full time coach again. Personally, I would have preferred Cahill but he isn't available

I can definitely see the benefits Lendl can bring to his game and am encouraged by Murrays comment that one of the reasons he hired him was for his "honesty". He has taken a long time and put a lot of thought into his decision so I am hoping he knows stuff that we don't!

laverfan wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:... The main qualities currently lacking in his game at slam tournaments, and needed in his attempt to make the next step, are precisely the qualities that characterised Ivan Lendl's game.

Would you agree that such qualities are also harder to imbibe, especially from someone like Lendl? People forget Lendl's locker-room persona. ...

I don’t know much about imbibing except perhaps Barley water, and I don’t know anything about imbibing from Lendl, although I will point out he left the locker-room some time ago.

I didn’t appoint Lendl, Murray did. One can be certain that Andy Murray would have thought long and hard about this appointment. He would have sought advice from those around him and further afield, e.g. from Darren Cahill, Judy Murray, Gregg Rusedski, John Lloyd, Hawkeye etc, and have had trial sessions and discussions with Ivan Lendl before making the decision.

Murray is just over 24 and a half years old and it is not certain that any “coach” will be able to make significant changes to Murray’s game, since he lacks the time to master them. Consider Todd Martin and Novak Djokovic: ""He tried to change [my serve], but it was all too complicated in the end and now I'm back to the old one," said Djokovic.” So the coach has primarily to work with what Murray already has and to help him to improve that (evolution not revolution). Perhaps he will work on the mental side of the game, the preparation, the focus, the concentration, the strategy, the “go to” options within a match to adapt to changing conditions. He might also work on the fitness, the recuperation between points, the sharpening up of the technique (serving etc).

In my comment I said that Lendl had the attributes that Murray lacked. Whether Murray is capable of gaining these attributes is ultimately associated with Murray’s remaining capacity for development. Even with these attributes he still may not be good enough to win a slam, because he is facing three of the greatest Tennis players, in terms of talent, physicality, consistency, mental concentration and determination, that have ever played the game to date (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic_6.1_SRB_2011).

Age is against Federer. So Murray would be expected to surpass him sooner or later, at some point during the remainder of his career. But who knows who else will appear on the scene in the next few years. An “inform” Berdych, Tsonga, Soderling, Del Potro already pose a very significant challenge to Murray in his slam quest.

Although Murray has shown huge swings in consistency (e.g. after AO 2010, and AO 2011), he has been sufficiently consistent over the season to remain in the top five of the men’s ATP ranking for over three years. There is no doubting his success in establishing a top level tennis career. This success has shown that he is more than capable of making the correct choices that his talent and temperament afford him.

Whether he can make the next step, to actually be competitive in a slam final and to win, is unclear - no matter who the coach might be. It ultimately depends on his own talent and temperament – and the talent and temperament of those he is competing against.

laverfan wrote:...Also, if it was simple, many other players, would have also been slam winners?

I am not sure what you mean by “if it was simple”. It isn’t simple. Andy Murray might not have sufficient talent relative to his opponents to ever win a tournament slam title. However he has shown that except for the current top three players, he would have already won several slams.

He has shown that he can beat the top three in a best of three sets match. He has shown he can beat the top three in a best of five set match when they are below par through “injury”. He has shown that he can waste a lot of energy remonstrating with himself during a match. He has shown that his serve can desert him during a match. He has shown he can start a match terribly and continue in the same vein to lose. He has shown he can lose meekly to the top players after being highly competitive in the first set or two.

Anyway this is just my current point of view, which is subject to change depending on further developments and information. It might not "work out" with Lendl, it might not "work out" with anyone, but it must be reassuring to know that a tennis great believes in you and is prepared to devote his time acting as your full time coach.


So who will start a thread explaining why Murray should have chosen Gregg Rusedski as his next full time coach? Is it all part of a wider conspiracy to exclude Gregg from top notch tennis? Should Gregg take February off to prepare for the Wimbledon commentary?

Is now really a good time to join 606 v2? Was 2006 a stronger era for strawberries and cream than 2011? Should baseline tennis be played closer to the net? Should Women’s tennis be allowed? How pumped is Nadal? Has Federer gained knowledge of pharmaceuticals from his parents? Was the Gillette ad. faked? Was Judy at the grassy knoll? Did Djokovics parents come from Area 51? So many questions, so many debates!

Right I’m off to imbibe some more Barley water. Happy New Year to all!

CaledonianCraig wrote:But I believe legend killar and LF (happy new year to you both) that, in my opinion Andy doesn't need to be coached in how to play certain shots etc as that area of his game is spot on. His inability to win a slam is down to his inability to bring the correct mindset and game plan into slam finals. This was a problem Ivan Lendl also had so he has maximum experience in the areas that Andy needs the help. Put it this way - I cannot see this partnership doing Andy any harm and here's hoping it unlocks the door to a slam win in 2012.

Craig, happy new year to you too. Andy needs to work on the second serve and FH. There is no way he can win a Slam without these area's being improved upon dramatically. Whilst I respect what Lendl brings to the table within respect to the mindset in big pressure matches, Andy needs a coach who can help develop his game and that it to the next level. Why does Andy speak of 'improvement' season upon season? If you conducted a poll as to who fans would like to have seen as Andy's coach, I am sure Cahill would've topped the list. Look at the impact Annacone is his having on Federer's game and how much improvement has been shown in his netplay firstly and also his FH consistency.

I am hoping Lendl can have a positive effect on Murray I really do, but for me I just think if you look at the list of Grand Slam winners: Federer, Sampras, Nadal, Agassi, Lendl, Borg, Laver. Did they hire former professionals with Grand Slam success to enhance their abilities and successes at Grand Slam events? Nope.

I want it to work, I really do. I am just not convinced is all.

With respect though and as others have pointed out, Andy has proven he has the tools to reach slam finals so his all-round game stands up. He has not won a slam because for reasons only known to him he fails to bring his A game onto court and to beat the top guys in slam finals that is a no no. Now as we know Lendl went through the same traumas early in his career so he can offer his experience in areas that others can't as they haven't went through similar experiences. Hopefully, he can also get Andy to play a more aggressive game from the start of the tournaments instead of trying to switch on the attacking game too late.

The reason he has failed in the Slam finals is because he gives himself too much time to settle. Take the 2010 AO Final where Federer attacked him from the off and the 1st set in that match was a clear example that Federer knew how to take the match to Andy. Djokovic did the same recently in the 2011 AO Final. Andy in both finals gave himself too much time to click into gear. When you are a set down against the very best, it takes something quite extrordinary to pull yourself back into a match and to make it more of a fight. It is not his lack of an A game in finals that lets him down. Federer, Nadal, Djokovic all have weapons that set them aside from the rest and their A game is much better than Andy's. What does Andy have that they don't?

Look at past coaches he has had. Petchy. Gilbert brought him on leaps and bounds. Maclagan certainly helped 'settle' Andy and that partnership brought 2 Grand Slam finals and his highest ranking of 2 in the world. Corretja was meant to bring out a better Clay game, yet without a coach Andy brought out the best season he has had.

Andy needs to up his second serve % and attack more with the FH. These are attributes that only an experienced coach can help him with. There is no doubt Andy has the tools Craig, I am not disputing that. His game needs sharpening and refinement. I am surprised Andy never moved for Annacone when he became available and also that he did not pursue Cahill as much as he should've.

Nore Staat

"He would have sought advice from those around him and further afield,
e.g. from Darren Cahill, Judy Murray, Gregg Rusedski, John Lloyd,
Hawkeye etc"

Ha ha! I have to confess that Murray didn't seek my advice before this appointment. If he had I would have been honoured and would have told him to "go for it". But then I'm not so sure I should be entirely trusted...

I think on balance he perhaps would be better off in this instance seeking advice from legendkiller.

hawkeye wrote:Nore Staat

"He would have sought advice from those around him and further afield,
e.g. from Darren Cahill, Judy Murray, Gregg Rusedski, John Lloyd,
Hawkeye etc"

Ha ha! I have to confess that Murray didn't seek my advice before this appointment. If he had I would have been honoured and would have told him to "go for it". But then I'm not so sure I should be entirely trusted...

I think on balance he perhaps would be better off in this instance seeking advice from legendkiller.

why thank you for the vote of confidence.

I would advise him to go down the McEnroe route and be a pain in the arss with the crowd, players and umpires alike

Sorry but I'll disagree on a few things such as how well he did under previous coaches. The past year certainly slam-wise has been Andy's best year to date and he hasn't even had a coach. His best years weren't under Gilbert and he was widely recognised as one of the best coaches in the business. I really see Lendl playing a more advisory role and tuning his mental approach to finals. I do agree about his slow starts and basically is what I was saying earlier for a need to be more aggressive from the start of tournaments so his aggressive game and shots are well worn in and well practised instead of him trying to switch that part of his game on like a light switch at the final stages of slams.

legendkillar wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Nore Staat

"He would have sought advice from those around him and further afield,
e.g. from Darren Cahill, Judy Murray, Gregg Rusedski, John Lloyd,
Hawkeye etc"

Ha ha! I have to confess that Murray didn't seek my advice before this appointment. If he had I would have been honoured and would have told him to "go for it". But then I'm not so sure I should be entirely trusted...

I think on balance he perhaps would be better off in this instance seeking advice from legendkiller.

why thank you for the vote of confidence.

I would advise him to go down the McEnroe route and be a pain in the arss with the crowd, players and umpires alike

Ha ha! (again) I don't think he needs you to tell him that...

CaledonianCraig wrote:Sorry but I'll disagree on a few things such as how well he did under previous coaches. The past year certainly slam-wise has been Andy's best year to date and he hasn't even had a coach. His best years weren't under Gilbert and he was widely recognised as one of the best coaches in the business. I really see Lendl playing a more advisory role and tuning his mental approach to finals. I do agree about his slow starts and basically is what I was saying earlier for a need to be more aggressive from the start of tournaments so his aggressive game and shots are well worn in and well practised instead of him trying to switch that part of his game on like a light switch at the final stages of slams.

So his progression from 2006-2007 was not something that was better than under Macglagan? How much improvement did he make under Macglagan then compared with Gilbert? For me the work Gilbert did with Murray goes un-noticed and un-credited. How about Roddick? Who did he win his only Slam with despite making 4 Slam finals under someone else? How about Agassi? Murray would not have got where he is now without Gilbert. Yes Murray has had his best season, but let's not diminish the work that was put in from the start under Gilbert.

I agree that Lendl will be more of an 'Advisor' than a 'Coach' but I think that Andy clearly has autonomy over his 'game'

In terms of his position a 3 time Slam finalist and that Lendl has been there, but also has Agassi too which I wonder if he was ever approached by Murray. I want to see Andy replicate his Clay form from this season gone. Play like that on the Hardcourts, he could very well win a Slam.

Yes but the point is that his best year slam-wise was the year he did not have a coach at all. That isn't to say Gilbert's involvement wasn't worthwhile but also shows that Andy's game is solid enough even without a coach but aspects of his game that need addressing can't really be coached into him but with Lendl who came through similar traumas to Andy is the ideal choice to advise him. Sure Agassi could have done the same job but why not Lendl? Tony Roche (ex-coach to Lendl) thinks it is an excellent appointment calling Lendl a great student of the game so I am not going to argue with that. Besides I cannot see the appointment being anything less than a boost.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes but the point is that his best year slam-wise was the year he did not have a coach at all. That isn't to say Gilbert's involvement wasn't worthwhile but also shows that Andy's game is solid enough even without a coach but aspects of his game that need addressing can't really be coached into him but with Lendl who came through similar traumas to Andy is the ideal choice to advise him. Sure Agassi could have done the same job but why not Lendl? Tony Roche (ex-coach to Lendl) thinks it is an excellent appointment calling Lendl a great student of the game so I am not going to argue with that. Besides I cannot see the appointment being anything less than a boost.

See that sentence is something that is concerns me. Who is going to learn the most from this partnership? Murray or Lendl?

I don't think someone's first coaching role should be that of a World No.4. I look at it this way. Macglagan got more from his working time with Murray than what Andy did. I think Andy needs a coach that will give him more, than vice versa.

Whilst my views will not change the decision made, I just hope that Murray can win some Slams and get that monkey off his back. If Lendl is a part of that, even better

I think you are misinterpreting the word student in the context it was used by Roche. As a student of the game I am sure he is meaning that Lendl studies all aspects of the game studiously and is in to analysing styles etc as well.

I wouldn't say it was mis-interpretating the word. I just think that Lendl will be 'learning' on the job. Like LF said earlier, despite experience as a player and the successes too does not constitute being an experienced coach. I think whilst it is being herrolded as a good decision, it should be met with extreme caution. Djokovic and Roddick would testify to that.

Yes and on the other side of the coin having an experienced coach (Gilbert rated on of the best in the world with a proven record) never clinched Andy a slam. Like I have said Andy doesn't need a coach how to tell him how to play shots etc as he has all the shots in the book already. What he needs is someone who can iron out his mental approach to slam finals (his only failing in his career to date). Now I'd presume Andy has spent a lot of time in Ivan's presence recently and thought long and hard about the choice before making it and must feel Ivan has something that others don't have. In hindsight I am glad it isn't Agassi as he does have a somewhat chequered past what with his revelations in his biography so I am happy enough with Ivan Lendl. Like I said I cannot see the appointment being anything less than beneficiary to Andy but will it get him that elusive slam? Time will tell.

I wouldn't be concerned with Agassi's past. Like LF said Lendl wasn't the most popular guy in the locker room. My concern with Agassi would be his dislike for the game. Like I said Andy needs to work on the second serve and the FH. A view shared by many. It is not the mindset that has cost him Slam finals, much rather the execution of a game plan that can keep him in matches.

Who else coach is out there that Andy could appoint? Cahill the only recognised coach turned him down.

Just to clarify that Cahill couldn't commit to the job full-time due to other commitments such as his TV work and work in the States. Being a coach is not a popularity contest in any case and sure I read/heard somewhere that the reason he was seen as unpopular was that he was from the Eastern Bloc at a time when the USA dominated tennis and he tended to keep himself to himself. Surely, though it is in his mindset if for some reason come slam finals he cannot implement a winning game plan. After all he has the shots etc to beat anyone when he is on his game apart from in slam finals so he does have a good enough game but not the right approach/ mental frame of mind/ game plan call it what you will when it matters in those slam finals.

CC... Happy New Year to you, Hawkeye, NS and others here.

Couple of positives -

1. Decision regarding needing a coach - check
2. Who to select as coach - check
3. Desire to progress beyond curent level - check

I think of coaches as molding a player, very similar to a potter-on-a-wheel. Each previous coach shapes and leaves a legacy for the next one to come. I agree with LK that Petchey, Gilbert, McLagan have given Andy a foundation. Major structural changes can be painful, as Djokovic's example shows.

Lendl's playing career is an exceptional one, while this is his first foray in coaching/mentoring/nurturing ( for HE ). Both will learn a lot from each other.

From a technical standpoint, just an observation, Lendl is an SHBH, while Andy is a DHBH. Wonder how such basic discussions will go. Tsonga now uses both SHBH and DHBH. Will Andy try something similar?

Both (Andy and Lendl) have advocated and practiced fitness regimens which are exceptional. Hence that department is well taken care of.

"Murray said, "I liked what he said and how he felt about my game. I think he has obviously got a lot of experience. I also think he has been through a lot of the same things that I have been through, so I am sure he can help me mentally with certain things. And also just his eye for the game; he obviously understands tennis very well."

The sense of identity and identification with Lendl is a definite positive.


"And he was just a very honest guy as well, which is very important because not everybody is like that. A lot of people are maybe too nice sometimes, they just don’t want to upset you or say the wrong thing. But he was very honest, very open and that was important."

Perhaps, this will lay the foundation for mutual respect, which may have been lacking in previous relationships.


"The best coaches don’t always make the best players and the best players don’t make the best coaches. So I think that is something that I am sure will be a challenge for Ivan and he seemed quite excited by that as well."

Honest and ready for the journey.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/News/Tennis/2012/01/1/Brisbane-Sunday-Murray-To-Work-With-Lendl.aspx

I'd agree pretty much with all of that Laver Fan. Excellent post. No guarantees it will get him that slam but it is an exciting appointment as far as I am concerned.

CC... if having Lendl in his box is what makes Andy win his first slam, it would be absolutely fantastic.

It is not easy to win a slam, especially with Fedalovic around.

I think Andy has the 'right' team in place which is why there hasn't been many if any changes for the last 4 years. The Lendl appointment is one of intrigue and will be one of great interest going into the season. Andy's commitment to his continuous conditioning has been superb. That has really been what has kept him at the top end of the game for these last 3 years. Obtaining the necessary fitness and conditioning and maintaining it has been remarkable.

Looking at Lendl's first Grand Slam final defeats: Borg, Connors, Wilander. Almost like the Federer, Nadal, Djokovic of Andy's time. I would be so intrigued to hear what Lendl will say to Andy in terms of how he turned around his own Grand Slam fortunes.