Shock!! Horror!! Lendl DOES have a sense of humour

Extract from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/andymurray/9000543/Andy-Murray-cruises-to-Brisbane-title-and-pays-tribute-to-sense-of-humour-and-work-ethic-of-new-coach-Ivan-Lendl.html

“We’ve spent six or seven days together, really enjoyed it and got on well,” Murray said, sounding almost smitten. “He has a similar sense of humour to me in many respects. He’s got a lot of great stories from when he played. Pretty much all of the ex-players I’ve spoken to this week, guys like Todd Woodbridge and John Fitzgerald, talked about the stuff he used to get up to in the locker room, playing practical jokes and things he said to certain people.
“So he’s a funny guy — and an interesting character. But he’s also very hard-working, and he’s going to give me a great opportunity to play my best tennis this year.”

Erm. So that's sorts out those who think that Ivan was / is some kind of one-dimensional autocrat, with an inability to be "magnanimous"

Maybe, we can now see what attracts these two to each other - Mutual respect for the Slam struggle. Mutual frustration at being constantly misunderstood

Do you think a sense of humour is a requirement for the job?

hawkeye wrote:Do you think a sense of humour is a requirement for the job?

Not the only requirement, or even the most important requirement, but it's a requirement and an important one for sure.

barrystar wrote:

hawkeye wrote:Do you think a sense of humour is a requirement for the job?

Not the only requirement, or even the most important requirement, but it's a requirement and an important one for sure.

Ditto! Show me a boss without a sense of humour and I'll show you a poor boss

Yes banbro I am sure that they would be most concerned if they thought that some of the "forum type posters" thought that neither of them had a sense of humour!!

Both take their work seriously but off court I am sure they are fun guys to be with, bit like some of the 606v2 posters

Two good interviews of Lendl - he's OK

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2004/aug/29/tennis.richardevans

http://www.cricketvoice.com/cricketforum2/index.php?topic=21004.0

Good shout, Barrystar. I actually read this myself a few years ago (The Guardian one)

It amuses me how people can be so taken in by an image of someone that refects about 10% of their life (and that's whilst playing) - but I suppose it's understandable given the North Korean reaction to their great golf playing Presidents death

lol....when he says "similar sense of humour to me in many respects"...that could be interpreted in many ways!

But Lendl created an on-court persona of seriousness that didnt necessarily match his off-court one, I think he'll be good for Murray because this isnt about humour per se...its about injecting some on-court steeliness into Murray at the crunch moments. The humour may break down the barriers to allow Murray to be receptive to him.

banbrotam interesting one.

Firstly, Lendl certainly looks very different from that tall, gaunt figure I remember from the 80s.

Secondly, perhaps it's fair to say that whilst his personality/sense of humour didn't go down well with the likes of Cash & McEnroe they, in turn, probably got right up his nose too.

Whether or not he's the right choice for Andy and their compatability? Well only time will tell. One thing is for sure though. He's always had a very strong work ethic and I can't see him tolerating Andy ever mentally throwing in the towel in a slam final as he has been previously accused of doing.

From the start I thought this was a great move by Murray;

1. He needs a man who he has to defer to. Ivan won it all, broke records and did it so if Andy thinks he knows better than Lendl he has no hope. That is great for Murray.

2. Lendl is a winner and never shied away from adverserial relationships. Connors and McEnroe hated him, and only JC really got on top of him psychologically. I am hoping to see Murray do stuff like (i) tell the Umpire mid-match to sort out Nadal and/or Djokovic for time wasting - it will work wonders for winding them up on court, (ii) find some way to irritate Federer. Screw Cash, Lendl was always 10 times the player he ever was.

3. Lendl was generally able to keep his on-court emotions positive and focussed. I really hope to see Murray do likewise, when he disintigrates into his Napoleon Dynamite persona I always know he's basically had it.

All in all, this could be just what he needs.

"He needs a man who he has to defer to. Ivan won it all, broke records and did it so if Andy thinks he knows better than Lendl he has no hope. That is great for Murray."

bogbrush I agree. If Andy really defers to Lendl and is prepared to listen to him then I think it'll be great for his tennis.

If not it'll be a disaster of titanic proportions!

Glad to see Murray/Lendl off to a good start. Brisbane and counting.

bb - I agree.

There's so much that Lendl can give to Murray if the latter will listen. If you read the Kimmage interview from the Sunday Times I link to above you can see several parallels between Murray's situation and Lendl's before his big break in 1984. Lendl can say "I faced all that, this is how I got myself prepared to succeed". For the first time in his life Murray has made a fully adult choice to go with someone who has experience beyond his at the top echelons and who he has no choice but to respect.

Even if on reflection it is more to do with the development of Murray himself as a player and as a man than what Lendl can do for him I think it's a big step forward.

I think we're generally agreed, that it's a good move - if Andy listens. Which I think he will

Whether it means that elusive Slam...........................

newballs wrote:"He needs a man who he has to defer to. Ivan won it all, broke records and did it so if Andy thinks he knows better than Lendl he has no hope. That is great for Murray."

bogbrush I agree. If Andy really defers to Lendl and is prepared to listen to him then I think it'll be great for his tennis.

If not it'll be a disaster of titanic proportions!

He will hit an iceberg with the loss of 1,517 lives?

Nore Staat I wasn't being that literal.

Mind you even his mum would be struggling to deal with the fall out.

A rather stupid comment from newballs but hey this is 606v2!

Now you bring his mother into it, I suppose you are now trying to apply some sort of humour?

sportslover thanks for the compliment.

A throwaway comment which I suppose got the same treatment in return.

barrystar wrote:bb - I agree.

There's so much that Lendl can give to Murray if the latter will listen. If you read the Kimmage interview from the Sunday Times I link to above you can see several parallels between Murray's situation and Lendl's before his big break in 1984. Lendl can say "I faced all that, this is how I got myself prepared to succeed". For the first time in his life Murray has made a fully adult choice to go with someone who has experience beyond his at the top echelons and who he has no choice but to respect.

Even if on reflection it is more to do with the development of Murray himself as a player and as a man than what Lendl can do for him I think it's a big step forward.

I am not convinced Lendl has much to bring on the table...besides his sense of humour of course.

First it's seems that Lendl only returned to tennis after what 15 years? cause he probably needs money following those market collapses. He started first trying to get commentator jobs, then joined the senior tour to get some popularity and deals. I am not sure he is passionate about it anymore. He was not even watching tennis all those years after he stopped.

Secondly they had completely different approach to the game those 2. Lendl was a risk taker needing all his fitness to pull deadly winners over the distance. Only by getting fitter did he manage to acquire the confidence to rally a bit more before having to go for broke. Murray is at the opposite of teh spectrum. He is already extremely fit and what he needs is a more incisive shots. Maybe Lendl can help him there (technique) but Lendl's FH was such a natural shot played he developed since childhood. I doubt it is something he can transfer and not sure it can be transferred now that technology is different.

Finally I don't think you can share or buy the experience of winning slams. It's a unique experience and is lived differently by all past slam winners. Gaudio's experience is very different to Agassi who in turn is very different to Pete.

It's quite astonishing in fact that all slams winners (it seems in the mens at least) won their first slam without the help of a slam winner.

Having said that there is a beginning for everything and Murray might win his first slam with Slam winning coach and their partnership might be successful but I cannot see any obvious reason why this partnership would work.

Tenez it may well be the case that Lendl has been away from the professional game a long time playing golf but he must still have insight and advice to offer from his wealth of experience.

Andy - for all his strengths and weaknesses- hasn't had someone for any length of time who has been there, seen it and done it. Lendl has and for that alone surely is worth a try.

If I were Murray I would have put lots of work on my FH. He was stopped 3 times last year by Nadal but with a FH he would have saved lots of running and most like;y won those 3 matches like Djoko does.

Hopefully Lendl will tell him just that.

If any one wants a little insight into a technique that has hardly changed for over 40 years, then.....

"Another exercise was called witnessing-a technique for coping with a negative emotion or an anxiety-provoking situation. As Lendl drove to an autographing session at a cocktail party one evening, he described how it worked. "I try to get outside of my mind and simply observe what Ivan is doing. So right now, I say to myself, 'Ivan has just made a left turn. He's driving into the club; he's looking at the BMW ahead, which has brake lights on. Now he's putting his foot on his brake, because he sees a policeman who is going to check to ask where is going. He is not looking forward to this cocktail party at all, but he is going to try to make the best out of it. Now the policeman is waving him on, and he is parking his car.
The same exercise can obviously be applied to tennis. "Say you're nervous before a match," Lendl explains. "You admit it to yourself. You say, "S---, Ivan is nervous today. But he's going to snap out of it.' You describe what you are feeling, and then you let go of it. And it's over." Or, as Castori puts it, "The negativity passes because you haven't been judging the situation, you've just been observing it."

If Ivan can pass that kind of transition to Murray, then what bad can come of it.

Jubbahey wrote:If any one wants a little insight into a technique that has hardly changed for over 40 years, then.....

"Another exercise was called witnessing-a technique for coping with a negative emotion or an anxiety-provoking situation. As Lendl drove to an autographing session at a cocktail party one evening, he described how it worked. "I try to get outside of my mind and simply observe what Ivan is doing. So right now, I say to myself, 'Ivan has just made a left turn. He's driving into the club; he's looking at the BMW ahead, which has brake lights on. Now he's putting his foot on his brake, because he sees a policeman who is going to check to ask where is going. He is not looking forward to this cocktail party at all, but he is going to try to make the best out of it. Now the policeman is waving him on, and he is parking his car.
The same exercise can obviously be applied to tennis. "Say you're nervous before a match," Lendl explains. "You admit it to yourself. You say, "S---, Ivan is nervous today. But he's going to snap out of it.' You describe what you are feeling, and then you let go of it. And it's over." Or, as Castori puts it, "The negativity passes because you haven't been judging the situation, you've just been observing it."

If Ivan can pass that kind of transition to Murray, then what bad can come of it.

I don't know about Andy... but I think I understand. How do I sign up for the AO!

Sign up here Hawkeye....

https://twitter.com/#!/AustralianOpen

The biggest thing Murray can gain is to break this habit of flaying himself alive on court. If you imagine someone brilliant at psyching out his opponent, Murray does the opposite. If he could turn this damge around and start inflicting it on his opponent this would be very interesting.

For instance, when Nadal is serving and has got up to 30-35 seconds, put your hand up and walk over to the Umpire and ask that he gets the service sorted inside the rules. Stand there with your hands on your hips insisting. Keep talking about the rules. Ask for the tournament referree unless he agrees. If he tells you you'll get a warning ask "what for -asking for the rules to be implemented?" or suchlike.
There'd be huge glares from across the net, which is part of the point. If it happens again go at the changeover and demand the referee.

Mac and Connors used to do all this stuff and certainly Connors was very tactical about it. He'd be all over Nadal for this sort of thing if he was playing him, plus he'd be making sure to disturb those bottles after changeovers. The sport has become rather namby pamby recently and it would be a wake up call for some players.

The technique of observation that Lendl apparently used would be interesting. Lendl was actually quite fragile, mentally, at least certainly for quite a long time, and something happened to move him on.

bogbrush wrote:For instance, when Nadal is serving and has got up to 30-35 seconds, put your hand up and walk over to the Umpire and ask that he gets the service sorted inside the rules. Stand there with your hands on your hips insisting. Keep talking about the rules.

Ah - we always come to that don't we?

Wish it was that simple.

Tenez wrote:

bogbrush wrote:For instance, when Nadal is serving and has got up to 30-35 seconds, put your hand up and walk over to the Umpire and ask that he gets the service sorted inside the rules. Stand there with your hands on your hips insisting. Keep talking about the rules.

Ah - we always come to that don't we?

Wish it was that simple.

I think it actually is that simple.

That said, I'm not proposing this to sort the game out but rather as an alternative route for Murray to gain advantage over his opponents. I reckon Jimmy Connors used this tactic to tilt the balance in many a big match. He certainly beat Lendl in at least one USO final by mentally overwhelming him (using the crowd big time).
Lendl himself was no stranger to going to the Umpire to tell him to sort his opponent out (invariably McEnroe)

bogbrush wrote:

The technique of observation that Lendl apparently used would be interesting. Lendl was actually quite fragile, mentally, at least certainly for quite a long time, and something happened to move him on.

Yes he got fitter. That's when he started to get more solid mentally. He had a very risky game (one of the first player to whacj the ball with a small frame) so it was always going to be a fragile game. Becoming fitter was teh key to move around and steady his nerves.

I am not sure Murray has teh same problems.

bogbrush wrote:.

That said, I'm not proposing this to sort the game out but rather as an alternative route for Murray to gain advantage over his opponents. I reckon Jimmy Connors used this tactic to tilt the balance in many a big match. He certainly beat Lendl in at least one USO final by mentally overwhelming him (using the crowd big time).
Lendl himself was no stranger to going to the Umpire to tell him to sort his opponent out (invariably McEnroe)

Certainly but Connors was playing at home and that helped. I am not sure Murray woudl make friends doing that v Nadal. That is the problem they are all facing. It's because we (at least a large majority) don;t mind it that much that Nadal can afford to break the rule on every point.

We have seen the players pretty often making sign to the referee but they are discret and are cautious not to do it too much. The top players belong to a circus show and they are not free to do what they want.

Totally agree, Murray's big weakness is his body language and dwelling on bad shots.

He'd be better served to just smile or laugh at bad shots, far less damaging than showing your opponent that you are flustered. He'd gain a lot by employing the services of Bob Rotella or someone like that.

super_realist wrote:Totally agree, Murray's big weakness is his body language and dwelling on bad shots.

He'd be better served to just smile or laugh at bad shots, far less damaging than showing your opponent that you are flustered. He'd gain a lot by employing the services of Bob Rotella or someone like that.

You reckon Bob can fix it?