Murray hires Ivan Lendl as new full time coach

by amritia3ee Sat Dec 31, 2011 3:35 pm

First topic message reminder :

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. Smile

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 Smile

'

What do you think???

by banbrotam Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:22 pm

laverfan

Happy New Year to you as well and as ever an excellent and correct analysis of the situation

legendkiller

Happy New Year to you as well. I think CaledonianCraig (greetings to you as well!) has a good point in as much that the ability / experience of the coach has had little to do with Andy's subsequent successes.

The problem with players with an abundance of natural ability, as Andy has, is that there is a danger of blunting that flair for a more 'robotic' player and hence I think he (Andy) has being acutely aware of that is the last thing he wants and hence was probably one of the main reasons he dispensed with Gilbert

Ironically, we could argue that if Andy doesn't want (and neither do we!!) to be a robotic player then maybe he should avoid Tennis's most 'robotic' player ever (arguably)

But that's where we overplay the impact a coach has on the Top players and where we can also see why Lendl is a great choice. If you note Andy's comments he talks more or less exclusively about the mental help it will give him. Indeed the most significant comment he made was "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"

You see a lot of buffoons assume that Andy likes having 'yes men' around him - anyone who bothers to understand his personality (as best we can being mere fans) will know that is the last thing he's ever wanted. He simply didn't respect Gilbert's Sergeant Major approach - that kind of Management is so 1970's that it deosn't work in any walk of life, believe me!!

Hence, he probably realised last year that he needs someone who won't be in awe of him - and he can respect. And he's now got this

by banbrotam Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:28 pm

legendkillar wrote: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.

But surely having a correct mindset makes the chance of executing a game plan greater? I actually think that he lost 3 finals because he was understandably knackered for the first one and then for the other two played against a winner who played some of the best finals Tennis ever seen. Someone commented that Fed's 2010 Aus Open final performance was the best since around 2006 and I tended to agree. As for Nole last year.................

by legendkillar Sun Jan 01, 2012 5:36 pm

banbrotam wrote:
legendkillar wrote: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.

But surely having a correct mindset makes the chance of executing a game plan greater? I actually think that he lost 3 finals because he was understandably knackered for the first one and then for the other two played against a winner who played some of the best finals Tennis ever seen. Someone commented that Fed's 2010 Aus Open final performance was the best since around 2006 and I tended to agree. As for Nole last year.................

I think again the 'mental' factor is being over-stated. Like I asked earlier what does Murray have that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic doesn't? If anyone can answer me that, I will put the the mental factor into the equation. His best chance of a Slam was against Federer at the US when both players were struggling physically. Like I said both Federer and Djokovic blitzed Murray in the first set of their respective matches. Like I said before Murray takes far too long to settle into matches. Take Wimbledon against Nadal he attacked Nadal from the off and then went kapoot when he missed the FH in the 2nd set to steal another break.

Why does Murray need Lendl to 'to be honest' when Big Mac and Becker does it for free when speaking of players chances at Slams and about their games? Erm

I think too many posters have no idea to how much input and influence a coach has.

by banbrotam Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:08 pm

Once Murray starts listening to the TV pundits, who admittedley don't even know him, then we may as well wait another 70 years for the next Slam Winner!!

Becker's knowledge of the game centers around his era, for goodness sake. Listen to him and he always tried to 'biggie up' his time when asked about now. In fairness, why shouldn't he - but when he comes out with nonsense that the era was as tough in his day which even Mac, by his words, realise is nonsense, then if I was Andy I'd find his comments more disrespectful than helpful

With regards to 'touch / skill' players like Mac, Fed, Murray and say Tsonga I think you overate the need for a coach. These type of 'brilliant or rubbish' type players who play instinctively often need help with the approach to say a few key matches and of course subtle refining of any weaknesses

by legendkillar Sun Jan 01, 2012 6:54 pm

So what will Lendl bring to table playing in the same era as Becker?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Becker by merit has 'earned' the right to an opinion! If that doesn't please Murray fans, then tough.

Name me a player who won a maiden Slam without a coach? Then I will agree the 'overstatement' for a coach.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:14 pm

Anybody seen an interview with Lendl yet? I would be very curious to know what he had to say about his new job.

by Calder106 Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:41 pm

Here is what Murray said in October.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/tennis-news/2011/10/18/high-flying-andy-murray-wants-mr-right-to-turn-him-into-major-sensation-86908-23496824/

He has decided that Lendl fits the criteria (although it is not clear if the role has changed with respect to the others in his team). Time will tell if it is the correct decision but IMO if he had stayed with the set up he had there would be less chance of him getting that elusive slam than there is now.

by legendkillar Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:44 pm

Lendl was linked with the post way back in the summer, so if he was the right choice given that he had no obligations or commitments, why has it taken this long to appoint him?

I wonder how many people turned it down before Lendl was chosen?

I am looking forward to seeing what this partnership will yield.

by Calder106 Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:01 pm

It's all conjecture. Looks like he would have wanted Cahill but couldn't get enough of his time. Did he ask others ? Who knows. The man who matters thinks an association with Lendl can take him forward. That's good enough for me. As you say LK I am also 'looking forward to seeing what this partnership will yield'

by invisiblecoolers Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:01 pm

This is an interesting choice, Murray clearly shows sign of trying different things to get the ultimate prize [Grandslam], hope the partnership works, good luck Murray.

by **JuliusHMarx** Sun Jan 01, 2012 8:12 pm

According to the Sunday Times, it was Lendl who first approached Murray's people some time ago (round the time of IW, when Murray was suffering some bad losses).

by hawkeye Sun Jan 01, 2012 10:47 pm

banbrotam wrote:

The problem with players with an abundance of natural ability, as Andy has, is that there is a danger of blunting that flair for a more 'robotic' player and hence I think he (Andy) has being acutely aware of that is the last thing he wants and hence was probably one of the main reasons he dispensed with Gilbert

Ironically, we could argue that if Andy doesn't want (and neither do we!!) to be a robotic player then maybe he should avoid Tennis's most 'robotic' player ever (arguably)

Having read this I thought of what could be an interesting poll. Who has the most talent? Lendl or Murray? I wonder what laverfan in her new capacity of moderator would think of this?

Happy new year and congratulations to you laverfan.

by Guest Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:46 am

banbrotam wrote:... Once Murray starts listening to the TV pundits, who admittedley don't even know him, then we may as well wait another 70 years for the next Slam Winner!!

Firstly, the last British singles slam winner was 34 years ago in the name of Virginia Wade - but maybe you are in the camp that doesn't rate womens tennis? The last British male singles winner was 75 years ago (Fred Perry). Since Fred Perry's last slam title we have had thirteen singles slam titles from the British women (Dorothy Round Little, Angela Mortimer, Shirley Brasher, Christine Truman, Ann Haydon-Jones, Sue Barker, Virginia Wade).

Secondly, O' Ye of little faith. If Andy Murray doesn't make it why "wait" 70 years? - why not look out for some of our other up-coming players: Heather Watson (junior slam winner), Laura Robson (junior slam winner), Eleanor Dean (15 years old returning from injury), Oliver Golding (junior slam winner), Liam Broady (junior slam finalist), George Morgan (junior slam semi-finalist), and Kyle Edmund (junior slam semi-finalist aged 16). Let's hope their coaching needs are well handled and they are well supported in the transition to the senior level. Heather Watson and Laura are starting out on their senior careers. Laura, still only 17 although she turns 18 later this month, has suffered a few injury setbacks and has already "fired" a coach.

by carrieg4 Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:42 am

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Anybody seen an interview with Lendl yet? I would be very curious to know what he had to say about his new job.

http://www1.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/7406009/

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:43 am

carrieg4 wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Anybody seen an interview with Lendl yet? I would be very curious to know what he had to say about his new job.

http://www1.skysports.com/tennis/news/12110/7406009/

Thanks carrieg4. Very essential but enough to give me a flavour of things to come. look forward to seeing the old tsar Ivan back in the circuit then!

by LuvSports! Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:56 am

jeremy kyle - gotta ask whyyyy oh why choose that name?!?!?

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:07 am

What's wrong with my pseudo?? I have always liked kitsch things.

Ask Bogbrush btw! Smile

by legendkillar Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:07 am

Nore Staat wrote:
banbrotam wrote:... Once Murray starts listening to the TV pundits, who admittedley don't even know him, then we may as well wait another 70 years for the next Slam Winner!!
Firstly, the last British singles slam winner was 34 years ago in the name of Virginia Wade - but maybe you are in the camp that doesn't rate womens tennis? The last British male singles winner was 75 years ago (Fred Perry). Since Fred Perry's last slam title we have had thirteen singles slam titles from the British women (Dorothy Round Little, Angela Mortimer, Shirley Brasher, Christine Truman, Ann Haydon-Jones, Sue Barker, Virginia Wade).

Secondly, O' Ye of little faith. If Andy Murray doesn't make it why "wait" 70 years? - why not look out for some of our other up-coming players: Heather Watson (junior slam winner), Laura Robson (junior slam winner), Eleanor Dean (15 years old returning from injury), Oliver Golding (junior slam winner), Liam Broady (junior slam finalist), George Morgan (junior slam semi-finalist), and Kyle Edmund (junior slam semi-finalist aged 16). Let's hope their coaching needs are well handled and they are well supported in the transition to the senior level. Heather Watson and Laura are starting out on their senior careers. Laura, still only 17 although she turns 18 later this month, has suffered a few injury setbacks and has already "fired" a coach.

Superb post NS. There is every chance that the current crop that are up and coming in British Tennis that could win a Slam in the years to come. As you have well pointed out that some have even like Murray himself won a junior slam and that also their coaching from now on in is critical.

There is no question that Murray is the closest we have at the moment to a British Slam winner, but that is not a fore gone conclusion that if Murray is to win a Slam that British Tennis will not produce another Slam winner beyond Murray.

by LuvSports! Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:39 am

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:What's wrong with my pseudo?? I have always liked kitsch things.

Ask Bogbrush btw!

I just loathe that man! So you like to go against the grain huh zehr interessant....

by banbrotam Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:09 pm

legendkillar wrote:So what will Lendl bring to table playing in the same era as Becker?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Becker by merit has 'earned' the right to an opinion! If that doesn't please Murray fans, then tough.

Name me a player who won a maiden Slam without a coach? Then I will agree the 'overstatement' for a coach.

I'm all for thoughtful, well researched comments from the punters. We get this from Mac and Willander who are not particular Murray fans - so please less of the digs, it comes across as petty when we're supposed be having a discussion. However, if you think Becker fits this bill - well that's up to you. I find him a lazy summariser, who doesn;t add anything new to the debate. He's typical of those who used to play the game who don't actually watch many of the matches anymore - something he admits!! Yet, you think we should listen to him Whistle

As around 98% of players have a coach, I don't see your point. I may as well ask how many players didn't win a Slam with a coach, such is the relevance

Let's agree to disagree on this matter - after all it is a debating forum

by banbrotam Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:12 pm

Nore Staat wrote:
banbrotam wrote:... Once Murray starts listening to the TV pundits, who admittedley don't even know him, then we may as well wait another 70 years for the next Slam Winner!!
Firstly, the last British singles slam winner was 34 years ago in the name of Virginia Wade - but maybe you are in the camp that doesn't rate womens tennis? The last British male singles winner was 75 years ago (Fred Perry). Since Fred Perry's last slam title we have had thirteen singles slam titles from the British women (Dorothy Round Little, Angela Mortimer, Shirley Brasher, Christine Truman, Ann Haydon-Jones, Sue Barker, Virginia Wade).

Secondly, O' Ye of little faith. If Andy Murray doesn't make it why "wait" 70 years? - why not look out for some of our other up-coming players: Heather Watson (junior slam winner), Laura Robson (junior slam winner), Eleanor Dean (15 years old returning from injury), Oliver Golding (junior slam winner), Liam Broady (junior slam finalist), George Morgan (junior slam semi-finalist), and Kyle Edmund (junior slam semi-finalist aged 16). Let's hope their coaching needs are well handled and they are well supported in the transition to the senior level. Heather Watson and Laura are starting out on their senior careers. Laura, still only 17 although she turns 18 later this month, has suffered a few injury setbacks and has already "fired" a coach.

Nore. You take me a tad too seriously. I was being glib to make a point and am fully aware that, rather like we did in swimming, we appear to be poised to do the same in Tennis - i.e. have a new golden era

by legendkillar Mon Jan 02, 2012 2:42 pm

banbrotam wrote:
legendkillar wrote:So what will Lendl bring to table playing in the same era as Becker?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Becker by merit has 'earned' the right to an opinion! If that doesn't please Murray fans, then tough.

Name me a player who won a maiden Slam without a coach? Then I will agree the 'overstatement' for a coach.

I'm all for thoughtful, well researched comments from the punters. We get this from Mac and Willander who are not particular Murray fans - so please less of the digs, it comes across as petty when we're supposed be having a discussion. However, if you think Becker fits this bill - well that's up to you. I find him a lazy summariser, who doesn;t add anything new to the debate. He's typical of those who used to play the game who don't actually watch many of the matches anymore - something he admits!! Yet, you think we should listen to him

As around 98% of players have a coach, I don't see your point. I may as well ask how many players didn't win a Slam with a coach, such is the relevance

Let's agree to disagree on this matter - after all it is a debating forum

The thing with Becker is that he watches Slams which is what is elluding Murray. He has said from the off that Murray is too negative. So the fact his position has never changed and the same with Wilander, I can't see why you dig them. Least they actually stick to their views unlike Cash, Cowan, Rusedski to name a few. Has Lendl been watching more tennis than Becker? We will never know.

My point with maiden Slam winners without a coach is a different matter to that of players who haven't won one with a coach. Murray is a player is 'expected' to win a Slam ahead of about 95% of players not tipped for any Slam success at all.

Like I said I am intrigued to see how this works.

Lendl was linked with this post back in the summer. Wasn't appointed then.

I will stand by my views that he wasn't my first choice.

by Jubbahey Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:46 pm

Deleted

by hawkeye Mon Jan 02, 2012 3:50 pm

hawkeye wrote:
banbrotam wrote:

The problem with players with an abundance of natural ability, as Andy has, is that there is a danger of blunting that flair for a more 'robotic' player and hence I think he (Andy) has being acutely aware of that is the last thing he wants and hence was probably one of the main reasons he dispensed with Gilbert

Ironically, we could argue that if Andy doesn't want (and neither do we!!) to be a robotic player then maybe he should avoid Tennis's most 'robotic' player ever (arguably)

Having read this I thought of what could be an interesting poll. Who has the most talent? Lendl or Murray? I wonder what laverfan in her new capacity of moderator would think of this?

Happy new year and congratulations to you laverfan.

Jubbahey

I got there before you. I was just being polite and waiting to see what our new moderator would think.

by Jubbahey Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:58 pm

????....got where before me....????

I'm not banbrotam you know, at least not in this universe.

by hawkeye Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:03 pm

Jubbehey?!

Why did you delete your last post questioning who out of Murray or Lendl had the most talent? Is it because you didn't like it that I wanted to ask the same question?

by **laverfan** Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:10 pm

hawkeye wrote:
Happy new year and congratulations to you laverfan.

Thanks.

My views have not altered overnight with that 'blue badge'. Wink

. I have shared my skepticism and optimism, both, regarding the new Lendl-Murray relationship.

Lendl brings a wealth of knowledge, even if there is a lack of 'coaching' (not captaincy Wink

) experience.

Eager anticipation of AO 2012 and what the new year brings in it's wake.

As Federer says, the 'Happy Slam' is almost here.

by **laverfan** Mon Jan 02, 2012 6:14 pm

hawkeye wrote:
who out of Murray or Lendl had the most talent?

Difficult to quantitatively measure 'talent'. Both, Lendl and Murray, have 'talent', IMVHO. Wink

by legendkillar Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:08 pm

I think a fair judgment should be made when Wimbledon comes round. I am skeptical yes, but Lendl has been given the opportunity to coach and given that Wimbledon would mark 6 months of them working together, results and obviously his play will determine how the pair have faired.

by carrieg4 Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:31 pm

Did anyone read the Neil Harman article re Lendl / Murray?

I missed it Sad

by CaledonianCraig Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:42 pm

legendkillar wrote:I think a fair judgment should be made when Wimbledon comes round. I am skeptical yes, but Lendl has been given the opportunity to coach and given that Wimbledon would mark 6 months of them working together, results and obviously his play will determine how the pair have faired.

Although nobody knows how this is going to pan out I don't think Lendl can be labelled a flop if he is slamless at the end of Wimbledon. After all Brad Gilbert couldn't coach Andy to a slam win but nobody called him a flop. I can't see the appointment having a bad affect on Andy's form in anyway. Remember that Cahill worked with Andy as well and still no slam for him.

by legendkillar Mon Jan 02, 2012 9:54 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillar wrote:I think a fair judgment should be made when Wimbledon comes round. I am skeptical yes, but Lendl has been given the opportunity to coach and given that Wimbledon would mark 6 months of them working together, results and obviously his play will determine how the pair have faired.

Although nobody knows how this is going to pan out I don't think Lendl can be labelled a flop if he is slamless at the end of Wimbledon. After all Brad Gilbert couldn't coach Andy to a slam win but nobody called him a flop. I can't see the appointment having a bad affect on Andy's form in anyway. Remember that Cahill worked with Andy as well and still no slam for him.

If Andy is slamless in 2012 I am not going to say Lendl 'flopped'

Should Andy fall down the rankings, I might have a different view.

by sportslover Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:21 pm

CaledonianCraig wrote:
legendkillar wrote:I think a fair judgment should be made when Wimbledon comes round. I am skeptical yes, but Lendl has been given the opportunity to coach and given that Wimbledon would mark 6 months of them working together, results and obviously his play will determine how the pair have faired.

Although nobody knows how this is going to pan out I don't think Lendl can be labelled a flop if he is slamless at the end of Wimbledon. After all Brad Gilbert couldn't coach Andy to a slam win but nobody called him a flop. I can't see the appointment having a bad affect on Andy's form in anyway. Remember that Cahill worked with Andy as well and still no slam for him.

I think rather than being concerned about how the Lendl/Murray relationship will work (lol) some posters should be concerned that there is no English player capable of even qualifying on a regular basis for a tour event far less winning a slam - the gap between Murray and the other "potential tour players"
is considerable to say the least.

by YvonneT Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:02 am

sportslover wrote:
I think rather than being concerned about how the Lendl/Murray relationship will work (lol) some posters should be concerned that there is no English player capable of even qualifying on a regular basis for a tour event far less winning a slam - the gap between Murray and the other "potential tour players"
is considerable to say the least.

This may be true, but I think Lendl and Murray are more concerned with the gap from him to the top 3, particularly 1 & 2.

by YvonneT Tue Jan 03, 2012 12:07 am

legendkillar wrote:I think a fair judgment should be made when Wimbledon comes round. I am skeptical yes, but Lendl has been given the opportunity to coach and given that Wimbledon would mark 6 months of them working together, results and obviously his play will determine how the pair have faired.

This seems fair - I'm skeptical too about whether Llendl is the right person, but acknowledging than he needs help to improve is a good step anyway. But after Wimbledon seems a good point to assess how it is working, not necessarily has he won a slam, but has he looked more likely to win at the SF & F stage than in the past. That gives enough time to see improvement.

by time please Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:40 am

Well it finally happens after all the speculation in the press. I hope it is a really positive thing for Andy's game but like Legend, I do wonder if Llendl is the right person with no previous coaching experience - as AM himself ponders 'great players don't necessarily make great coaches (and vice versa)'.

I think the one real positive to take from this is that Murray is clearly grateful (at this point) for Ivan's 'honesty' and hopefully the negative energy and body language from Andy on court is going to be one of the first things that is dropped from Andy's match play under the reign of the inscrutable Czech.

by Jubbahey Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:41 pm

They haven't even begun their partnership yet, not until after Brisbane, so it may be that they are only going to concentrate on the slams anyway, which is basically what Roche and Lendl did, with Roche living in Australia and not really touring with him.

I can live with that, let Andy do his usual stuff in the Masters' events etc and really get to grips with his game in the slams.

Works for me. Will do wonders for Andy.

by barrystar Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:51 pm

It's an excellent idea - there's obviously no guarantee it will work, but Lendl (as he says) knows very much what it's like to be in Andy's shoes and he is not someone to do launch into such a venture lightly (nor is Murray). The feeling is that both men have thought long and hard about this. The margins are so tight at the very top and I hope Lendl can help Murray to a few improvements on his forehand and the solidity of his serving and give him a sense that he is the man destined to win in those big slam matches - then who knows. I think Fed has said that if Murray wins one he could go on and harvest quite a few - I agree with that.

by Guest Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:22 pm

One of the best matches Murray played in 2011 was his semi-final loss to Djokovic 6-1, 3-6, 7-6 at the Rome Masters. At times in that match Murray looked the better player. If Murray can play like that in a best of five set match towards the end of a grand slam tournament, then I can see him winning a slam.

2011 GS matches
AO loses 6–4, 6–2, 6–3 to Djokovic in final.
FO loses 6-4, 7-5, 6-4 to Nadal in SF
Wim loses 5-7, 6-2, 6-2, 6-4 to Nadal in SF
USO loses 6-4, 6-2, 3-6, 6-2 to Nadal in SF

At least he won a set in his last two slam losses, so perhaps that is some progress.

by Jubbahey Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Barrystar.....I agree, I would have thought a lot of talks beforehand, on the phone I suppose, took place and I imagine a lot was talked about their respective positions and how they could partnership their talents into one machine. They both had top coaches in their lives, so its not completely new ground for Lendl and since Roche was essentially a motivator first and tweaker last, I think that's how Lendl will sink into his new role.

by time please Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:50 pm

carrieg4 wrote:Did anyone read the Neil Harman article re Lendl / Murray?

I missed it

This is one of the articles by Harman about the Lendl/Murray partnership Carrie. The other one doesn't really add anything new to the mix in the discussion ongoing on here, but I think the following is an interesting read because Harman interviews Lendl:

From The Times by Neil Harman

The phone went at the time he had promised to call, to the very second. If Andy Murray thinks that Ivan Lendl is not going to be on time, all the time, for however long their partnership lasts, he has employed the wrong man. Lendl’s decision to coach Murray was, the former world No 1 said, simply down to him regarding it as “the perfect fit”. He said that he had had plenty of other offers to occupy the front row of the players’ box, but the first time he was introduced to a teenage Murray when he was visiting the Nick Bollettieri academy in Florida, he sensed a chemistry.
When Murray phoned him two weeks ago, Lendl was intrigued as to how enthused he felt about receiving such a call. “We spoke for about 45 minutes, we compared notes and philosophies and that was the important thing for me, because I knew we believed in the same things,” Lendl told The Times last night. “I suggested we meet in person, which we did two more times, and those meetings reinforced my feelings.
“I know that we will get along very well. He wants to do well, he is willing to work hard and strive to do what it takes. He looks extremely fit. To me, this is like Groundhog Day, I have been in this movie. I was that player once, who needed something to help make it work, it was the same as I was before I hired Rochey \[the famed Australian coach and former grand-slam champion, Tony Roche\]. What happened then changed my career around.
“What excites me about this partnership? More than anything, it is simply that this is absolutely the best match-up. Everything has begun to fall into place already. “Our senses of humour are very similar and we have an understanding that we need to bring our best all the time if we want to achieve. I didn’t get everything I wanted from tennis, not everyone does, but it is about not wasting chances. It does not mean that it will work as we want it, but I believe it will.”
One wondered if they had spoken about Murray’s on-court demeanour, which has cost him badly at critical moments, especially in the grand-slam tournaments. “All that will be said to Andy on that subject will be said by me to him and to nobody else,” Lendl said. Lendl, who lands in Queensland on Friday, intends to work with Murray at the four grand-slam tournaments and “a handful” of other events this year in one of the most remarkable and open-ended relationships to have been forged in international tennis. “We will adjust as we go along, but you know me,” Lendl said. “When I am in something, I am in it totally.”
Although the statement issued by both men spoke of a “full-time” coaching appointment, Lendl, a father of five, will largely base his operation from his newly opened tennis and golf academy in Hilton Head Island, South Carolina, from where he will fly in and out as required.
Within five minutes of the announcement of their partnership, Lendl began trending on Twitter before the site crashed. Could it be that such an event in tennis could cause such an international tremor? It is quite a moment, not least for Murray, whose career has rarely included a dull moment.
The idea of stamping his mark on a big-name player has grown on Lendl since he decided, after ten years wrestling with a degenerative back problem and an inability to make a career on the golf circuit, to return to the ATP Champions Tour and got a taste for conflict again. When we spoke in Miami in March, it was clear he was exceedingly keen to coach and that one man’s progress and game fascinated him above all others.
Jerry Solomon, who has been Lendl’s manager and close friend for more than 30 years, was instrumental in brokering the deal with the XIX Entertainment company, which represents Murray, as well as David Beckham and Lewis Hamilton. “Although Ivan has not been sitting in a box with anybody, behind the scenes he’s been talking to players on a regular basis and been keeping very close tabs on a lot of people,” Solomon said.
“He is familiar with the trends of the sport, the styles, the people. It is not as if he has been way from the game doing nothing. He has an exciting perspective on where he sees the game going and he’s pretty excited about bringing all of that to bear in helping Andy try to reach his goals. I have already got the sense that they are a very good mix. Ivan wants to bring a whole fresh perspective to coaching, he’s ready for this and he is 150 per cent committed to doing everything he can to make it work.”
Once Murray, 24, had made it plain he wanted to work with Lendl, the most difficult element to the deal was whether the 51-year-old, who won eight grand-slam titles — the first at the French Open in 1984 — could square it with Samantha, his wife. Four of their five daughters are now at college, which makes the burdens on his wife less of a concern, his Ivan Lendl Academy is up and running with great vigour, and so it was agreed that whatever time away would be required, Lendl would be there. “There are a range of weeks that Ivan will work at tournaments with Andy, which will obviously involve the grand-slam events and some other of the bigger events,” Solomon said. “Ivan is impressed with the team that Andy already has around him, which has also been a vitally important consideration.”

by hawkeye Tue Jan 03, 2012 6:52 pm

Jubbahey

I think you may have missed my question to you so I'll ask again... Why did you delete your post questioning who out of Murray or Lendl
had the most talent? It was an interesting question. If it was because I had asked it too then I think it was a bit childish to remove your comment and then make out you didn't know what I was talking about. If you deleted it for another reason I apologise.

by amritia3ee Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:01 pm

hawkeye wrote:Jubbahey

I think you may have missed my question to you so I'll ask again... Why did you delete your post questioning who out of Murray or Lendl

It says reason for deleting beneath.

by carrieg4 Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:34 pm

Time Please

Thank you so much for posting that Hug

by Jubbahey Tue Jan 03, 2012 7:42 pm

Hawkeye, for a start I did not ask the same question as you, "who has the most talent" or want to put a poll up.
I was asking how similar were Lendl's and Murrays skills. thumbsup

I deleted the rest of the post as without the link, it was meaningless since it provided some info on Lendl's powers from his head and his heart and what other players/coaches thought of his talents. It also gave some interesting points/similarities regarding the shift in his attitudes and who helped him with those changes.

Why do you need to wait for Laverfan to give you the nod for a poll ?

Just do it, but it may be more fun to ask what people think are the defining moments in both mens careers that mirror each other.

by **laverfan** Tue Jan 03, 2012 9:07 pm

Jubbahey wrote:
Why do you need to wait for Laverfan to give you the nod for a poll ?

I think HE was probably offended a bit during the whole Fed Cup-Judy Murray discussion and a subsequent poll, whose need was questioned a bit.

To HE... I am a bit concerned that you need me to acquiesce for instigating a poll.

You do not need my permission, as long as it is a reasonable tennis-related poll, and the 606v2 tennis community deems it that way.

I am a moderator, not a censor.

A re-poll can be done by just bumping the original poll article. Wink

by hawkeye Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:37 pm

laverfan

Yes I was a bit sensitive after the reaction to my "Greg Rusedski v Leon Smith" poll. I still think it was a good topic but for some reason got a very negative reaction. Some of the comments on my article entitled "Is Everyone Just Too Nice To Andy" might further explain my sensitivity. But I now think I was wrong to ask for your acquiescence. I will try and be more bold in future...

Jubbahey

Fair enough.

I don't really know that much about Lendl as I didn't watch much mens tennis in the 90's. I do know that he worked hard at fitness and gym work. This is something that Murray is also interested in. After a loss he often says that he needs to get stronger. IMO that could be their similarity.

I do think Murray has more to learn from their differences though. Lendl I believe was very controlled emotionally during matches.

by **laverfan** Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:47 pm

hawkeye wrote:

Yes I was a bit sensitive after the reaction to my "Greg Rusedski v Leon Smith" poll. I still think it was a good topic but for some reason got a very negative reaction. Some of the comments on my article entitled "Is Everyone Just Too Nice To Andy" might further explain my sensitivity. But I now think I was wrong to ask for your acquiescence. I will try and be more bold in future...

Would be willing to accept a thousand apologies for such a transgression? I did give you one of these Hug

after that discussion, IIRC, all you had to do was ask! Wink

by hawkeye Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:55 pm

laverfan

Thankyou! Sometimes its tough being bold.

by **laverfan** Tue Jan 03, 2012 11:59 pm

hawkeye wrote:

I was a bit sensitive after the reaction to my "Greg Rusedski v Leon Smith" poll.

Thankyou! Sometimes its tough being bold.

You were quite bold to admit your 'sensitivity'. thumbsup

by Sponsored content

Is he a good choice as coach?