Is Everyone Just Too Nice To Andy?

One of the things that Murray is hoping to get from his new coach Ivan Lendl is a bit of honesty.

"A lot of people are maybe too nice sometimes, they just don’t
want to upset you or say the wrong thing"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/8987420/Andy-Murray-wants-new-coach-Ivan-Lendl-to-be-his-coach-for-the-long-term-and-to-be-honest-about-his-performances.html

I do know he likes to surround himself with friends and family but I'm a little surprised that they are all so scared to upset him or "say the wrong thing". I do also think he may have a bit of a selective memory too as there have been a few times were he has reacted badly (got upset) when the media has offered constructive criticism (said the wrong thing).

I don't think Lendl has been brought in to help with the technical problems in Murrays game so it's presumably the other areas that Murray is hoping Lendl will not be too nice about. I don't think it requires 8 slam wins to identify that it might help if Murray could control his on court behaviour and play more aggressively. In fact he's already had free advice from a 16 slam winner about playing more aggresively.

Will Lendl be able to say the wrong things and if he is will Murray get upset. When its obvious why does it need Lendl to say it?

Other players might benefit from Lendl's advice about gym work and fitness but IMO this is not something Murray requires. This could be something that Lendl and Murray will agree on. I have a sneaky suspicion they both might enjoy this aspect of the coaching relationship. It will be the nice bit.

Has Murray perhaps unwittingly appointed yet another person to be nice to him?

Hawkeye,

I have to say that at times your Andy articles have left me wanting to slap you silly at times, but for once and I do mean once I agree with you on one thing. Andy does not need a coach who's strength has been his fitness and conditioning.

However, I disagree that Lendl can bring in 'technical' improvements given the laverfan picked up on both players having very different styles of groundstrokes.

I don't think in the past Andy has been surrounded by 'Yes' people. Macglagan was one of them and as was Correjta. Gilbert was clearly too 'strong' minded for Andy's liking. I am surprised by the criticism of Gilbert on this forum given his resume and his success as a coach.

I can't see Lendl being being a 'yes' person. If Andy is silly enough to actually argue with Lendl on any aspect of mental preparation or mindset in pressure match situations, he isn't going to advance to that next level in Slam success. I hope that Andy is willing to listen to Lendl should he provide any advice on technical points of his game.

I have mentioned time and time again that Andy needs to be aggressive and that the FH needs to have a depth and consistency with it and also the 2nd serve needs major improvement. Andy at this moment in time has not got the game for a Slam title given the standards set by Federer, Nadal and more recently Djokovic. He has to add another dimension to his game.

Andy being a 3 time finalist in Grand Slams should be looking to his peers and looking at the progression from contender to Grand Slam winner and then beyond that by adding to that initial Slam success and what they did to stay at the top of the pinnacle of their game.

legendkiller

Is that how you talk to people in real life! What kind of forum would it be if I responded in kind?

Please read what others say before being critical. I didn't say Lendl was brought in for technical improvements in fact if you had read more carefully without threatening violence you would have seen that I said the opposite. I do think that Murray has technical weaknesses in his game but I'm not sure that a coach could do much about them at this stage of his career. By hiring Lendl I think this shows that Murray is not going to attempt changes.

The quote from Murray himself suggests that he thinks too many people have been afraid to disagree with him. So you disagree with him?

There are as I said obvious areas that Murray could improve. All he has to do is listen. If he can only listen if he pays an 8 time slam holder to tell him what others have told him for free. Its an expensive option but it could be as effective as the cheaper one. Whether improving these areas would be enough to win a slam is another question.

Thats if Lendl and Murray don't just spend time in the gym being nice to each other...

hawkeye wrote:legendkiller

Is that how you talk to people in real life! What kind of forum would it be if I responded in kind?

Please read what others say before being critical. I didn't say Lendl was brought in for technical improvements in fact if you had read more carefully without threatening violence you would have seen that I said the opposite. I do think that Murray has technical weaknesses in his game but I'm not sure that a coach could do much about them at this stage of his career. By hiring Lendl I think this shows that Murray is not going to attempt changes.

The quote from Murray himself suggests that he thinks too many people have been afraid to disagree with him. So you disagree with him?

There are as I said obvious areas that Murray could improve. All he has to do is listen. If he can only listen if he pays an 8 time slam holder to tell him what others have told him for free. Its an expensive option but it could be as effective as the cheaper one. Whether improving these areas would be enough to win a slam is another question.

Thats if Lendl and Murray don't just spend time in the gym being nice to each other...

Hawkeye,

You stated he needs to be aggressive. This whether you like to admit it or not is actually a technical area. A defensive minded player will not become an attacking force overnight. See Wilander.

What people have agreed with him? Would Gilbert kiss the Murray arss? Not likely. Maclagan as I said was very much a yes man and did not since their parting of ways ever suggest ways in which Andy could adopt his game. Correjta another coach who hasn't said anything about helping or suggesting Murray needed to adopt his game.

Please make sure you do not make assumptions that everyone who has worked with Murray has been a 'yes' person!

hawkeye wrote:One of the things that Murray is hoping to get from his new coach ...

"A lot of people are maybe too nice sometimes, they just don’t
want to upset you or say the wrong thing" ...

If Murray wanted someone to upset him and say "the wrong thing", then I personally believe he should have employed Hawkeye rather than Lendl - as I'm sure Hawkeye would have been willing to do this for a fraction of the costs.

Yes, I think it is well known that working with Andy is "difficult", and many have said it is like stepping on egg shells when being around him. The "fear" is because they don't want to be sacked (non-family) or receive withering replies from him (as in his brother). It has been said that Andy is very much his "own man". With Lendl he is encountering someone who doesn't need his money and who is one of the all time greats. Andy would obviously like his own career to follow a similar trajectory to that of Ivan Lendls .

Well, Andy didn't say he was talking about anyone in his current team or that he'd previously worked with. But I'd agree that other than Brad Gilbert, they haven't been in the position to be to totally blunt with him.

However, surely no coach can be totally honest either. If we accept that confidence is a big part of the game, and Djokovic certainly seemed to demonstrate this, then building confidence must surely involve talking up the player's chances rather than talking them down. OK, included in this will be advice on the tactics to win, but no coach could say before a match "if Roger/Rafa/Nole bring their A game, you haven't got a chance!"

Hopefully, the honesty does come in the training blocks, in advance of slams, about what needs to change & be worked on. I'd agree that working on the on-court behaviour would be a big help, but I'm not sure how this could be worked on in a training block.

Andy has been on the tour long enough both coach-less and with a variety of coaches to understand what he can gain from this relationship. He wouldn't be prepared to pay for Lendl if he thought he could get the same benefit from listening to some pundits.

Interesting comments.

Gilbert may have been brave enough to say the wrong thing to Murray but from what I remember it didn't do either much good. Murray got hurt and didn't listen and poor Gilbert got a public telling off. Although I shouldn't really say "poor" Gilbert as he was getting paid loads (I think it was a million pounds!) by the LTA so he probably laughed all the way to the bank.

It was probably easier for Murray to not listen to Gilbert because he wasn't paying for his services out of his own pocket. (It would be a nice gesture if Murray made a donation to the LTA to cover the cost of hiring Gilbert now that he has earnt a bit... but thats a different story). The difference with Lendl is that Murray will be paying for his services himself. It might just make his advice appear valuable enough to listen to.

IMO playing aggressively can involve technical changes to the game but thats more difficult with a mature player. Murray could play more aggresively with the tools that he's got but it would involve a change in mindset. I dont think this is an easy thing to do but it is the sort of thing a good coach could work on.

Should Lendl be honest and tell Murray that if Roger/Rafa/Nole bring their A game he hasn't got a chance? I think he should. But he should also tell him they don't always bring their A game. Murray gets way too down on himself when he gets fairly beaten. A bit more honesty would help him get over a loss and move on. Something he appears to find very difficult.

Nore Staat. I'm no coach but I would be more than happy to tell Murray the obvious. If he paid me enough he could even shout at me in public. I would be careful to make sure that I had a water tight contract that he couldn't wriggle out of before I said anything that might upset him though...

I am bit suprised by the above comments.

You think Gilbert was on millions of pounds and thus does not entitle to any public sympathy for the way things ended with Andy? This makes it easier for Gilbert to be more blunt with Andy? Brad has the CV to say to Andy I have coached players to Slam success. So the guy knows what he is doing. For him to tell Agassi he wasn't good enough to even compete at Challenger level when Agassi was in a slump!! I am sure again his salary was the reason

In terms of Andy making a donation to the LTA, do you think Nadal might want to make a donation to all those physio's he calls on for MTO's without actual 'treatment'?

To suggest that Lendl should tell Andy, 'you know what, even if you play to 100% your A game cannot compete with the top 3'? So would that very comment kind of kill their working relationship before it begun? Possibly if not, yes it would.

I am so glad your not a career advisor. I can only assume you work for the Tories 'Everything will be ok despite us sticking our fingers up at everyone' or a bank 'We didn't cause this financial mess'

Remember my slap you silly remark? That springs to mind with that ridiculous post above!

Andy Murray wrote:A lot of people are maybe too nice sometimes, they just don’t want to upset you or say the wrong thing

It's not just what's being said, but also what's being listened to Andy...
Like others have stated, Gilbert probably said the "wrong thing" already but it didn't help.
Hopefully Lendl's appointment signals that Andy is willing to listen now!

legendkiller

Hopefully poor Lendl won't get the same reaction as I did from you when he attempts to tell Murray the wrong things. I take it you don't like Nadal?

Hawkeye,

There is no right or wrong thing to say to Andy. The key is to preapre Andy for matches and opponents he faces.

The last Grand Slam final I can recall where both players were playing their A game was Federer v Agassi US Open 2005. Nadal has made a career of beating Federer into submission, then actually playing an 'A' game. Djokovic has done the same to Nadal, but possibly in a less 'boring' manner.

I like Nadal, I have never said I dislike him.

That said like some Federer fans, I dislike Nadal fans who spend so much time with retarded articles to annoy Murray fans.

But for you, I will bash Nadal as and when I can as I will like to ruin your experience on here like you try to do with fans on this forum.

Hawkeye

Just to clarify - Gilbert was not brought in at Murray's instigation. He was part of the whole LTA throw money at top coaches thing. Originally he was going to be working with several players but it changed to being just Murray later. Plus, there was an article (poss in financial times) a couple of years ago estimating how much money his wins had brought into GB tennis coffers -wish I could find it because it was really good. Overall he has done his bit financially for LTA. Maybe he should charge the LTA for all the players he flies out for his training blocks to use his physio / trainers and facilities he has paid for - (obviously joking here).

In terms of listening to coaches the Gilbert situation was pretty different. Murray was 18/19 at the time so far less mature and he was travelling just with Gilbert which can be a very intense relationship which is where Murray struggled. The relationship really broke down over Murray's serious wrist injury. Gilbert did not appreciate the severity of the injury and the psychological implications so couldn't understand why Murray wasn't over it quicker. I'm paraphrasing that last bit -it was basically a misunderstanding and the two get on well now. I am not trying to say Murray was blameless merely that the partnership wasn't a good fit at that stage of his career.

In the current scenario Murray still has his physio and fitness team so it will not just be a 1-1 relationship 24/7 where you always spend the evening together, eat together etc. Obviously Murray has matured a great deal so the dynamic will be different. In terms of telling him that he doesn't have a chance if Fedalovic bring their A game - I think he should concentrate on getting Murray to bring his A game to a GS final which is something that hasn't happened yet. Then we could see what would happen.

prostaff85 wrote:... Like others have stated, Gilbert probably said the "wrong thing" already but it didn't help. … Hopefully Lendl's appointment signals that Andy is willing to listen now!

carrieg4 wrote:... In terms of listening to coaches the Gilbert situation was pretty different. Murray was 18/19 at the time so far less mature and he was travelling just with Gilbert which can be a very intense relationship which is where Murray struggled. The relationship really broke down over Murray's serious wrist injury. Gilbert did not appreciate the severity of the injury and the psychological implications so couldn't understand why Murray wasn't over it quicker. I'm paraphrasing that last bit -it was basically a misunderstanding and the two get on well now. I am not trying to say Murray was blameless merely that the partnership wasn't a good fit at that stage of his career....

I kind of go along with Carrieg4's argument. A player requires different things at different stages of their careers. They also develop in terms of maturity. Although Gilbert did seem to help Murray at first it seemed the relationship soured - basically I don't think Murray was "ready" for Gilbert. But whatever the reason, the facts are it didn't work out between Gilbert and Murray.

Now certainly Murray has been a success. But it "seemed" he could have made an even bigger impact by now, although he could have also “disappeared” like his brother (a grand slam champion in the mixed doubles). It seems possible that Murray has missed an opportunity to really tighten up his game these past 18 months, appearing to stagnate in terms of quality of play and on-court demeanour. But he did it his way and maybe it was best for him and for his psychology that he did it this way - he is still in the top 4.

Anyway, his mindset seems a little different now, and probably brought on by seeing the massive progress Djokovic has made. So he will try to emulate Djokovics success and is now bringing in someone he respects and thinks he can work with to help him do this. I should add that Murray seems like a very intelligent person and probably requires very good arguments for him to try things he is not comfortable with.

legendkillar wrote:Hawkeye, ... I dislike Nadal fans who spend so much time with ... articles to annoy Murray fans. ...

I’m not sure I see Hawkeye as anti-murray; more like a disenchanted Murray supporter.

legendkillar wrote:do you think Nadal might want to make a donation to all those physio's he calls on for MTO's without actual 'treatment'?

I can only assume you work for the Tories 'Everything will be ok despite us sticking our fingers up at everyone'

Remember my slap you silly remark? That springs to mind with that ridiculous post above!

LK - I didnt particularly enjoy reading your last post for a number of reasons.
1) whats the relevance of that 1st point - why did you need to openly accuse Nadal of MTO cheating?
2) do we need to get into political affiliations and bashing of electorate on this forum? By default some 30-40% of people on here wont like or agree with that sentiment at all
3) Isnt the use of a "slap you" comment abit distasteful even though this is just an internet forum? Hawkeye like you is entitled to voice their opinion, no matter how daft or sensible, without an expression of physical reprisal
You may judge me as being harsh on your comments but IMO I felt they were abit OTT.

Back to Murray, I dont think he was ready for Brad's advice at that stage in his career, and as others have said I suspect their personalities didnt gel either. What Brad was or wasnt being paid is irrelevant. The LTA thought it important enough to fund him to achieve tennis goals. Clearly in the conversation with Lendl he has liked what he heard - I cant see that Lendl will have told Murray how great he is with no thought on improving some things...so clearly Andy is now receptive to more constructive appraisal. I suspect Lendl wont go anywhere near technicalities, but will work on his mental positioning when facing the top 3 in slams as thats where Andy has the biggest problem. In this regard, Lendl may be able to tell Murray some things which he wont like but will know are true - only Andy knows whats going through his mind when facing the top 3, and the fact he's not won many sets, let alone matches, in slam semi's or finals of late. Lendl knows he has to change Andy's mindset - and the only way to do this is get inside his head...this is much tougher than working on technique and requires really close working from both players. It's a brave decision by Andy to "Let someone in" as what worked for Lendl may not work for Andy, after all I dont exactly see them as similar characters. But then they say opposites attract...will be interesting to see how Andy fares at AO.

lydian wrote:It's a brave decision by Andy to "Let someone in" as what worked for Lendl may not work for Andy, after all I dont exactly see them as similar characters. But then they say opposites attract...will be interesting to see how Andy fares at AO.

It is certainly an interesting partnership in terms of personalities. Although Murray is fairly dour when interviewed (through shyness I think rather than lacking humour) his on court persona is quite undisciplined at times completely unlike Llendl. I think the rigid control and the inscrutable body language that the Czech brought to his games would be a good model for Andy to emulate - it's one thing if negative behaviour works for your game, a la McEnroe, but it appears to have a wholly detrimental effect on Murray and a very positive effect on his opponent.

Happy New Year everyone btw - hope it's a good one for us all!

First match under Lendl has been won

time please wrote: ... Happy New Year everyone btw - hope it's a good one for us all!

Congratulations on reaching (and passing) your 1000th comment!

Nore Staat wrote:

time please wrote: ... Happy New Year everyone btw - hope it's a good one for us all!

Congratulations on reaching (and passing) your 1000th comment!

Hi Nore - thanks, I just noticed that I had passed the 1000 mark. There is plenty more waffle where all that came from

lydian wrote:

legendkillar wrote:do you think Nadal might want to make a donation to all those physio's he calls on for MTO's without actual 'treatment'?

I can only assume you work for the Tories 'Everything will be ok despite us sticking our fingers up at everyone'

Remember my slap you silly remark? That springs to mind with that ridiculous post above!

LK - I didnt particularly enjoy reading your last post for a number of reasons.
1) whats the relevance of that 1st point - why did you need to openly accuse Nadal of MTO cheating?
2) do we need to get into political affiliations and bashing of electorate on this forum? By default some 30-40% of people on here wont like or agree with that sentiment at all
3) Isnt the use of a "slap you" comment abit distasteful even though this is just an internet forum? Hawkeye like you is entitled to voice their opinion, no matter how daft or sensible, without an expression of physical reprisal
You may judge me as being harsh on your comments but IMO I felt they were abit OTT.

lydian,

Will you bear that in mind when you 'debate' with Tenez? I am assuming you jumped on this like a fly on the brown stuff because of Nadal. Learn sarcasm!

I must admit I find your post somewhat contradictory given your past exploits which others have 'overlooked'

The saying 'people in the glass houses shouldn't throw stones' springs to mind

Actually there are similarities as follows;-

1) It's an error to imply that Lendl wasn't undisciplined. Until his maiden Slam, he was very undisciplined in Slams and frequently 'lost it' mentally and far more spectacularly than Andy did. Anyone can go and see the two US Open finals that the lost to Connors (82/83). Jimbo actually "bageld" Lendl for the his 3rd set, during the 83' win!!! Not certain how disciplined that showed Ivan to be

2) Lendl had a much misunderstood on court personality that was at odds with him off. Dour, intense, unsmiling. Sound familiar?

3) Mentally, Lendl allowed the then current 'legend' (Mac) to get in his head and undermine him, particularly at Slams as did Connors with notorious affect at those two Slam finals. One of the smartest things Fed did in the 2010 Aus Final was discuss how long it was since we Brits had lifted a Slam and how he would hate to be in Andy's shoes. Fed at his deliciously conniving best!! And he's always knocked Andy in a similar way (although not as bad) as the two legends from the 80's

4) The most obvious link, initial (we hope for Andy!!) repeated Slam failure


For me this is more than enough for there to be a big mutual respect and the fact that Lendl has the best forehand in the mens game, for around 10 years and this is Andy's weakest part of his game - is great news as just another miniscule improvement in this will make a difference

So it's a great link up - but Andy of course still has to do the work

Very interesting thesis there Bantro.

I think the pressure on Lendl to have an immediate effect might be high, due to Andy's age. If you were a first time coach would you prefer coaching an 18 year old or a 24 year old?

I have always been intrigued to Ivan's mindset after his 4th Slam final defeat. Agassi's book was great, he admitted he mentally lost it before he even stepped on court. His first French Open final defeat was a real eye opener when he alluded to pressure which wasn't there and how he 'sabotaged' his own performance.

Also, I think people are getting carried away with the 'will Andy listen' or ' can anyone stand up to Andy' type comments

In his early years, he probably didn't want someone interfering with his game too much, i.e. telling him he needed to do this better of that better etc - simply because his rise was fine enough what on earth would he gain? He's always being determined not to be turned into some kind of manufactured ball basher and significantly insisted, even during last years terrible spell, that he was going to play his Tennis the way he wanted to give him pleasure and if that meant compromises so be it. It was quite a telling statement (of course I'm paraphrasing) and one that actually worried me - but I admired him for sticking to what he wanted to (Incidentally, whilst some on here seem to think that Andy's career has been a failure so far - it's being an amazing success, far better than we could hope when we first heard about him 7 years ago)

I think he then decided to try it alone, working on improving the forehand etc and of course he had a good 2011. However, the defeat against Nadal at the US Open (easily the most disappointing) probably then opened him up to the idea of having a proper coach - but one who could help with the final step

Hence, talk about him not liking strong minded coaches and using Gilbert as an example is irrelevant. He's now 4 years older and has chosen to do this. That's a big difference. And considering that they've been in talks for a while (since IW some say) shows that this isn't a desperate measure, ill thought out - but a logical next step, which should be praised

Interesting post banbrotam - I think Andy is wise not to have people interfering with his natural game too much. Indeed I do question that it is possible to alter a player's game significantly and retain their effectiveness - coaching should be about tweaking and enhancing little things to work with a player's natural rhythm. My concern watching Andy over the last few years is that he has, in his admiration for, tried to emulate Rafa too much and has neglected some of his natural strategic ploys - as I don't play to any great level myself I may not be appreciating some of the finer points as well as others on the board, but the last is my impression of the way his game has been moving.

I would think, that to be most effective, Llendl will work in a consultative role exploring the strengths of Murray's natural game and making those work as much to his advantage as an exhaustive gym schedule and a propensity to think that other players hold the magic key to success (gluten free diets comes to mind) rather than looking within his own considerable arsenal.

legendkillar wrote:Very interesting thesis there Bantro.

I think the pressure on Lendl to have an immediate effect might be high, due to Andy's age. If you were a first time coach would you prefer coaching an 18 year old or a 24 year old?

I have always been intrigued to Ivan's mindset after his 4th Slam final defeat. Agassi's book was great, he admitted he mentally lost it before he even stepped on court. His first French Open final defeat was a real eye opener when he alluded to pressure which wasn't there and how he 'sabotaged' his own performance.

But he actually nearly lost the 5th final. I remember watching on BBC 2, my man Mac serenely making a mug of Lendl for the first two sets. Then the Beeb (who were a useless then as they are now) went off air for an hour (British Tiddlywinks Championships or something!!) came back and it was as though we were at a different event at a different time, with two different players. I actually think Mac got complacent - similarly to Fed at US 09. Amazing that Lendl would then go on to win 7 more and Mac none after that year!!

It shows how things can change, look at Nole last year and hence if a player can just make these little improvements anything can happen

Going back to the Gilbert theme. He when first working with Agassi taught him the mentality that you didn't need to bash the ball, but just draw the error from the player and then once into the match and broken the players offence, go on the attack. Something Agassi praises Gilbert for. Agassi was 21 when he started to work with Gilbert. Take Roddick. When he had his run at Wimbledon 2001, his serve was powderpuff at best, his groundtrokes too soft and fitness was an issue. Gilbert came on board when Roddick was 20 and added some much needed oommppph to his game, but also retaining stamina in energy sapping rallies when playing the likes of Hewitt. Gilbert is not 'irrelevent' to the argument what so ever. You can draw parallels to the Young Roddick and Young Murray. Both needing the same attributes to improve their games. Remember Murray v Nadal AO 07? Andy was hitting Nadal off the court and the last time he played near that was US Open 08 against him.

Murray decided he needed to be more defensive and hence one of the factors he parted ways with Gilbert and brought Maclagan and his own team on board. Agassi had his own team when he hired Gilbert and as did Roddick. If Murray had the same back then, things may be different now.

Back to Lendl, l am fascinated to see what he can add to Murray's game whether it be mental or physical.

time please wrote:Interesting post banbrotam - I think Andy is wise not to have people interfering with his natural game too much. Indeed I do question that it is possible to alter a player's game significantly and retain their effectiveness - coaching should be about tweaking and enhancing little things to work with a player's natural rhythm. My concern watching Andy over the last few years is that he has, in his admiration for, tried to emulate Rafa too much and has neglected some of his natural strategic ploys - as I don't play to any great level myself I may not be appreciating some of the finer points as well as others on the board, but the last is my impression of the way his game has been moving.

I would think, that to be most effective, Llendl will work in a consultative role exploring the strengths of Murray's natural game and making those work as much to his advantage as an exhaustive gym schedule and a propensity to think that other players hold the magic key to success (gluten free diets comes to mind) rather than looking within his own considerable arsenal.

Correct. Andy at his worst, tries to be a version of Del Potro. At his best (last set today) he shows wonderful 'power touch' - that only Fed does better. I've no interest in him becoming a power player and fortunately neither is he. However, more power at the right time is probably what's needed

banbrotam wrote:

legendkillar wrote:Very interesting thesis there Bantro.

I think the pressure on Lendl to have an immediate effect might be high, due to Andy's age. If you were a first time coach would you prefer coaching an 18 year old or a 24 year old?

I have always been intrigued to Ivan's mindset after his 4th Slam final defeat. Agassi's book was great, he admitted he mentally lost it before he even stepped on court. His first French Open final defeat was a real eye opener when he alluded to pressure which wasn't there and how he 'sabotaged' his own performance.

But he actually nearly lost the 5th final. I remember watching on BBC 2, my man Mac serenely making a mug of Lendl for the first two sets. Then the Beeb (who were a useless then as they are now) went off air for an hour (British Tiddlywinks Championships or something!!) came back and it was as though we were at a different event at a different time, with two different players. I actually think Mac got complacent - similarly to Fed at US 09. Amazing that Lendl would then go on to win 7 more and Mac none after that year!!

It shows how things can change, look at Nole last year and hence if a player can just make these little improvements anything can happen

If Nole struggles for form and as does Nadal, I can Andy with a real opportunity. The value of Lendl will then be realised. Persistence and perseverance will be the order of the day, something which you rightly pointed out when Lendl went on to win his Slams.

legendkillar wrote:lydian,

Will you bear that in mind when you 'debate' with Tenez? I am assuming you jumped on this like a fly on the brown stuff because of Nadal. Learn sarcasm!

I must admit I find your post somewhat contradictory given your past exploits which others have 'overlooked'

The saying 'people in the glass houses shouldn't throw stones' springs to mind

Nothing to do with Nadal actually but thanks for the interesting reply.

lydian wrote:

legendkillar wrote:lydian,

Will you bear that in mind when you 'debate' with Tenez? I am assuming you jumped on this like a fly on the brown stuff because of Nadal. Learn sarcasm!

I must admit I find your post somewhat contradictory given your past exploits which others have 'overlooked'

The saying 'people in the glass houses shouldn't throw stones' springs to mind

Nothing to do with Nadal actually but thanks for the interesting reply.

I found your comments more interesting to be honest.

The implication is that it is ok for someone to speculate the earnings of someone and then imply that because of their position of their 'pay' is not equal to any considerate sympathy. Also that one of our tennis players should 'donate' to the very entity that is 'paid' by the public purse to create and nuture talent. So tell me that treating those comments with disdain like I have is not allowed?

Not to do with Nadal? So if you have read my comments before, have I ever accused him of cheating? Nope. Who was one the first posters defending Nadal during his match with Del Potro at Wimbledon during his MTO? Any guesses?

I well understood the implications of what hawkeye was saying and didnt agree with much of it for the record. Its not about Nadal fans sticking together, I'm not on this forum to be a tribal member/follower, never have been. For a while I felt like the only Nadal fan on here! I just felt the 'give you a slap' and essentially tarring Conservative voters as being uncaring comments were uncalled for. But its no big thing I guess.

lydian wrote:I well understood the implications of what hawkeye was saying and didnt agree with much of it for the record. Its not about Nadal fans sticking together, I'm not on this forum to be a tribal member/follower, never have been. For a while I felt like the only Nadal fan on here! I just felt the 'give you a slap' and essentially tarring Conservative voters as being uncaring comments were uncalled for. But its no big thing I guess.

I said in my comment that her views 'have me wanting to slap her silly' that is not 'i'm going to'

As for tarring Tory voters. Do they make policies? Nope. Hence why I never vote because 'your not getting what you pay for' manefesto's each party releases. I can't say that the Tories have delivered anything. My Mum being a Tory voter says the same thing.

As for the Nadal comments. I am for one sick of the bashing he takes here. VMP herself has admitted not liking it, so I don't see her logic in trying to annoy Murray fans with her Anti-Murray articles time after time. If he dropped litter in the streets, she would type up an article demanding Greenpeace whip him!

What annoys me was that November was a great month for this forum in everyone getting on, then a month later the same crap comes up and it is war again!

legendkiller

I think someone who has more money than they can ever spend should pay back the LTA for the coach they provided him with. This is money that could be spent providing children (who might not otherwise be able) a chance to play on a tennis court. This makes me a right wing tory? This is a tennis site so I don't really want to explain things here. I suggest you go elsewhere to learn about politics.

I would hope that moderators would suggest that you go elsewhere if you want to "slap people silly".

LK, I'm not into "wars" and agree this board has been getting a little "frothy" of late. My comments are also not meant as a personal attack, I know you are a very considered and long standing poster on here. I just thought those comments were a little out of character and can understand if you had become exasperated "arguing" on this thread.

No tory voters dont make policy. Clearly. But they do vote for parties that propose to do so. In that regard voters are advocates of the party they vote for...to slate the tory government as sticking two fingers up to everyone could, to me, be interpreted as a slight on those that vote for them.

There is too much Nadal bashing on here. You'd think he was the harbinger of doom sometimes.

Ok, lets drop this line of discussion, I dont want to make an enemy of you. Perhaps I should have just said nothing. Sorry. But it wasnt a personal attack as such, just those comments seemed a little out of place but I now understand where you were coming from.

hawkeye wrote:legendkiller

I think someone who has more money than they can ever spend should pay back the LTA for the coach they provided him with. This is money that could be spent providing children (who might not otherwise be able) a chance to play on a tennis court. This makes me a right wing tory? This is a tennis site so I don't really want to explain things here. I suggest you go elsewhere to learn about politics.

I would hope that moderators would suggest that you go elsewhere if you want to "slap people silly".

Hawkeye

Andy Murray pays his taxes. More than me no doubt and more than you. Taxes fund most of the LTA. So why should he pay for his coach? How about you donate 10% of you career earnings to the government for using their schools

lydian,

Indeed we should draw a line under this and move and try to restore some good to this forum

lydian

So its ok to threaten to "slap me silly"! In some ways I am more offended by your endorsment of the threat than the threat itself.

laverfan

I know all about taxes! I just don't come here to discuss them

This is definately not the way to change anyones views.

This article was very interesting......

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1056576/LTA-beat-slump-Murray-effect-wins-25m-sponsorship-deal.html

hawkeye, dont get carried away, all I said was that I understood LK's explanation - dont take any endorsement + or - from that please.

Come on, let's move on, nothing good will come out of persisting rancour.

lydian

Ok I won't get carried away. I want to discuss things not get side tracked into a sort of fist fight...