Does Everyone Love Lendl Now?

By taking on his new coaching role has Lendl made one of the biggest PR coups ever?

From being perhaps the most unpopular multi slam winners in recent history he has managed to turn things round completely. He has founded a new fan base amongst British tennis supporters. Even his old rivals McEnroe and Wilander have been singing his praises. Everyone has now realised that instead of being dour and miserable he has a great sense of humour and his knowledge and wisdom have also increased dramatically.

It has yet to be seen if Lendl will have a positive effect on Murray's career. But for Lendl the partnership has already been a complete success.

Iagree hawkeye, it has put him back in the public consciousness and people are seeing that he is different off court. Good for him.

Right where do we start?

'Complete success'? Are you for real?

I am trying really hard to discuss your logic, but articles like this highlight the lack of knowledge you have.

Lendl will benefit it to no end because coaching the 4th best player in the world with no prior experience as your first job is bound to lift your profile. Look at Macglagan now coaching Baghdatis, would he have got that role if he had not worked with Murray? No

Let's not get carried away by throwing such turd comments out there such as 'Complete Success' because he has barely been in the post for a month.

He didn't need to work with Murray to gain PR. Who ever said he was looking for it? Pure and utter speculation and assumption on you behalf.

So in terms of his knowledge, are you saying he had no knowledge of tennis? Because that succeeds 'Complete Success' as the worst comment in this article.

Has he told you personally that he has become one with Zen and told you his wisdom has increased since becoming a coach?

Ivan - Great player, nice guy

I only read the OP very superficially. Of course PR wasn't Lendls goal but there is no doubt his profile has increased with the general public. Also many will not be aware of his off court persona which they now are.

I didn't closely read the bit about increased knowledge and wisdom find it a bit odd. He has always been known as extremely knowledgeable and hard working. Can you clarify what you mean hawkeye?

He will clearly not consider the partnership a complete success until it has had the desired effect. I hope it does.

hawkeye wrote:By taking on his new coaching role has Lendl made one of the biggest PR coups ever?

By allying himself with Mr SourPuss I'm not sure this can be called one of the biggest PR coups ever. It could be one of the worst ever PR disasters.

hawkeye wrote:... From being perhaps the most unpopular multi slam winners in recent history he has managed to turn things round completely. He has founded a new fan base amongst British tennis supporters. Even his old rivals McEnroe and Wilander have been singing his praises. ...

I think it will take a lot more for Ivan Lendl's unpopularity to be turned around considering the depths of its starting point. McEnroe and Wilander are just old f&rt$ and no-one ever listens to them.

hawkeye wrote:... Everyone has now realised that instead of being dour and miserable he has a great sense of humour and his knowledge and wisdom have also increased dramatically. ...

I think everyone realises he is still an old sourpuss, despite the ramblings of a few alcohol fueled (allegedly) BBC sports reporters on a jolly in sunny Aussieland.

hawkeye wrote: ... But for Lendl the partnership has already been a complete success.

I would say it has been a complete failure so far as he will never overcome his sourpuss tag by allying himself with Mr Sourpuss.

Don't hold back will you Nore!

Unless people walk around with a big grin on their faces, Nore Staat obviously has an issue with it

Just for you Nore

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHR_b-pl5dA

http://tinyurl.com/7p7djtw

carriege4

I got a fright when watching that first video... I thought it was going to be Lendl...

You have reminded me that not only does everyone love Lendl now but they go out of their way to take nice pictures of him too. Many in the media eye would be envious of his nice treatment.

Or he is just more relaxed when he is not on court....................

If you find a genuine smile scary I would avoid this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-s8MlzzN9U

Terrifying stuff

I have only ever seen snippets on youtube of lendl and even his interview on letterman was amusing and interesting but i find this interview with overend fascinating. Obviously he is holding the cards very close to his chest but he appears very intelligent and really genuinely enthusiastic and excited about this role he has undertaken cant wait for Aus and more lendl interviews!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/16550769.stm
sorry forgot to post it :P

Some seemed shocked that Lendl is arguably the most rounded personality, Tennis has produced

Those who bother to look beyond the headline (autocrat, robotic, sullen, unsmiling etc) already know this

banbrotam wrote:Some seemed shocked that Lendl is arguably the most rounded personality, Tennis has produced

Those who bother to look beyond the headline (autocrat, robotic, sullen, unsmiling etc) already know this

But what I'm saying is the headlines have changed. Since Lendl got his new job there have been no references to him being "autocratic, robotic, sullen, unsmiling etc". The player being written about now bears no resemblance to the one from the old headlines.

Just noticed there is interview with Lendl in The Times this morning... will have to read it.

carriege4

That baby video made me smile. Some people are just naturals in front of the camera. They have no need for PR.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/9010834/Australian-Open-2012-Boris-Becker-says-Ivan-Lendl-and-Andy-Murray-can-be-a-dream-team.html

Becker seems positive.

carrieg4 wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/9010834/Australian-Open-2012-Boris-Becker-says-Ivan-Lendl-and-Andy-Murray-can-be-a-dream-team.html

Becker seems positive.

Boris

Ivan

Andy

hawkeye (must try harder to be positive when writing anything about Andy )

I like this bit from the article carrieg4 linked

With people he does not like or respect, Ivan can be a handful. But when he is
comfortable, among his friends or family, he is thoroughly charming. In
fact, he is a guy who loves to laugh, although I have to admit that his idea
of a practical joke isn’t everybody’s cup of tea. He would enjoy making you
suffer mentally or physically, though it was all done in good humour.


The rest of the article is all very positive. However I think being made to suffer mentally and physically would be worse and not better if it was done in "good humour". I would like to hear more from Boris "off mike".

sportslover

This article was very positive about Lendl. Where have I said anything negative about Andy. I think your a little quick to present those angry blue thumbs down things.

hawkeye wrote:

Where have I said anything negative about Andy.

See your previous 14 I think anti-Murray rants all freely available here in the tennis section.

I've now seen a number tennis experts say they think this has the making of an excellent appointment - Boris Becker, John McEnroe, Darren Cahill and Tony Roche. I, therefore, see no need for aspertions to be cast before Lendl has been given the chance.

PS Rusedski things it is a good appointment as well hawkeye. Yes your hero backs it as well.

banbrotam wrote:Some seemed shocked that Lendl is arguably the most rounded personality, Tennis has produced

Those who bother to look beyond the headline (autocrat, robotic, sullen, unsmiling etc) already know this

Really? Even his wife and manager spoke about (during his playing days) his 'monstrous' side, at which point they just kept out of his way until it passed. Maybe he's mellowed since he quit, but more rounded than any other tennis player? That seems a bit unlikely.

It's amazing how different his image was in the US/UK press. He had a much better image in the continental media.

I personally think he always behaved well on the court and was much less rotten than a Connors for instance. Besides McEnroe who was no angel, I don;t remember reading a biography of a decent player (not the likes of Cash or Mc) saying anything bad about him.

Having bad or "monstrous" days doesn't say much. I would not believe wht the press would say. He was the guy coming from the communist countries and therefore had to have that bad image. Utter non-sense and I read every of his interviews when he was at the top ad I cannot remember him saying anything bad about players or falling as low as Pat and Mc in his book.

Tenez wrote:It's amazing how different his image was in the US/UK press. He had a much better image in the continental media.

I personally think he always behaved well on the court and was much less rotten than a Connors for instance. Besides McEnroe who was no angel, I don;t remember reading a biography of a decent player (not the likes of Cash or Mc) saying anything bad about him.

Having bad or "monstrous" days doesn't say much. I would not believe wht the press would say. He was the guy coming from the communist countries and therefore had to have that bad image. Utter non-sense and I read every of his interviews when he was at the top ad I cannot remember him saying anything bad about players or falling as low as Pat and Mc in his book.

I agree. Although his playing days were in my childhood I always took the headlines with a pinch of salt. The UK / US media love to label someone and are not that bothered about finding out the reality before they do. In interviews he always came across as intelligent, reserved and committed to being the best he could be. Nothing wrong with that at all.

How was he perceived on the continent? It is amazing how different it can be.

Tenez wrote:I don;t remember reading a biography of a decent player (not the likes of Cash or Mc) saying anything bad about him.

Becker?

Also, Alan Mills's book (the Wimbledon referee) has a few stories of Wimby officials (and Billie Jean King!) being on the receiving end of Lendl's outbursts. Not as bad as some other players, but hardly an angel, with quite a temper to be reckoned with.

Becker? Well that can only works in Lendl's favour then. Becker was the worst bully on court and abuseof gamesmanship on court after Connors.

Lendl was with Borg the first real professional player. He could not care less about those fights on and off courts. As I said, that was during my fanboy years of tennis and I coudl read endlessly about their lives.

This image of Lendl being angry behind the door is an easy one to build. The fact is on the court, under the heaviest pressure his behavious has always been impeccable.

NOT having a go here Tenez just looking for clarification. You admire Lendl for his professionalism (I agree). Examples of his professionalism included controlling all aspects of his game including his diet, his racquets, training rigorously etc.. Some modern players are merely progressing this yet you appear to be against them. Once again not having a go, just trying to understand your position.

Tenez wrote:Becker? Well that can only works in Lendl's favour then. Becker was the worst bully on court and abuseof gamesmanship on court after Connors.

Lendl was with Borg the first real professional player. He could not care less about those fights on and off courts. As I said, that was during my fanboy years of tennis and I coudl read endlessly about their lives.

This image of Lendl being angry behind the door is an easy one to build. The fact is on the court, under the heaviest pressure his behavious has always been impeccable.

No, there's videos on YT of him losing his temper on court. In Mills' book he recalls Lendl calling a lineswoman 'blind and deaf', sneering at one umpire 'You do you think you are?' and shouting at Gerry Armstrong 'I hate your guts' (these were 3 different matches).
And that's just Wimby.

carrieg4 wrote:NOT having a go here Tenez just looking for clarification. You admire Lendl for his professionalism (I agree). Examples of his professionalism included controlling all aspects of his game including his diet, his racquets, training rigorously etc.. Some modern players are merely progressing this yet you appear to be against them. Once again not having a go, just trying to understand your position.

Sure no problem. And as said many times I was a big fan of Borg and Coria who were of the physical/retriever kind. The key is I need to see obvious talent. Borg's footwork, Coria was an amazing striker of the ball, cat like. And Lendl never based his game on his physique. His talent was being able to hit winners at will. He had a very risky game and that explains why he was a bit weak mentally, especially as the match dragged on. He understood that pulling risky winners in important pressure points required perfect physical conditions. So after losing a few finals, especially v Connors he understood he had to be fitter so he could play his risky game without the fear of lacking oxygene after a couple of long rallies. But his physique was built as a way to support of his original game longer.

That is the key difference with other physical players who essentially relied on their physique and more precisely the modern players version whose objective is to simply take the game to a physical battle. A moonball is not about scoreing a point but to prevent an easy attack. It's an easy shot, anybody can do a moonball, but it's very hard to pull winners from, so it invites to rally or force into mistakes.

I would not mind that as much if the physique side of the game was still human-like like it was in the 80s. But now it's just absurd and knowing that all phyiscal sports have doping issues I am in no illusion that tennis is a safe heaven in that matter. Nowadays if a player bases his game on his physique, there is matter for concern and a fair sense of observation can give you a few convincing clues.

JuliusHMarx wrote:
No, there's videos on YT of him losing his temper on court. In Mills' book he recalls Lendl calling a lineswoman 'blind and deaf', sneering at one umpire 'You do you think you are?' and shouting at Gerry Armstrong 'I hate your guts' (these were 3 different matches).
And that's just Wimby.

Well, yes, but put that in perspective with what Connors, Mc, Pat Cash, Becker and so on and you realise it;s pretty mild. You can also pick a couple of clips where Federer was aggressive towards referees. In high pressure moments, you are bound to have a few moments like that in your career, especially in an era which was not so concerned about the politically correct. I am surprised you remember that and seem to hold it against him yet have forgiven all the appauling behaviour of Mc, Conors and Becker. But obviously it has a lot to do about who we supported when younger.

I am extremely sensitive to bad behaviour on court and this is why Conors and Becker are my most disliked players. I could forgive McEnroe cause I did not read obvious gamesmanship but more a difficulty of keeping his temper in check..and I know it cost him more than it helped him....which is not the case of Connors and Becker.

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:
No, there's videos on YT of him losing his temper on court. In Mills' book he recalls Lendl calling a lineswoman 'blind and deaf', sneering at one umpire 'You do you think you are?' and shouting at Gerry Armstrong 'I hate your guts' (these were 3 different matches).
And that's just Wimby.

Well, yes, but put that in perspective with what Connors, Mc, Pat Cash, Becker and so on and you realise it;s pretty mild. You can also pick a couple of clips where Federer was aggressive towards referees. In high pressure moments, you are bound to have a few moments like that in your career, especially in an era which was not so concerned about the politically correct. I am surprised you remember that and seem to hold it against him yet have forgiven all the appauling behaviour of Mc, Conors and Becker. But obviously it has a lot to do about who we supported when younger.

I am extremely sensitive to bad behaviour on court and this is why Conors and Becker are my most disliked players. I could forgive McEnroe cause I did not read obvious gamesmanship but more a difficulty of keeping his temper in check..and I know it cost him more than it helped him....which is not the case of Connors and Becker.

Don't get me wrong - I accept that Mc, Connors etc misbehaved very badly at times. But I don't look at Lendl with rose-tinted glasses and regard his behaviour as 'impeccable'.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Don't get me wrong - I accept that Mc, Connors etc misbehaved very badly at times. But I don't look at Lendl with rose-tinted glasses and regard his behaviour as 'impeccable'.

I don't look at him with rose-t glasses either cause I think the reason he came back to tennis was because he probably got badly affected by the crisis. He would not have come back, especially to be a coach, had it not been for money reasons. I however consider his behaviour on court as close as impeccable as it could be for such a wild era and for having spent such a long career at the top with so little trace of bad behaviour.

I wish him good luck with his adventrure with Murray but I would be surprised if it last over a year.

Tenez wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Don't get me wrong - I accept that Mc, Connors etc misbehaved very badly at times. But I don't look at Lendl with rose-tinted glasses and regard his behaviour as 'impeccable'.

I don't look at him with rose-t glasses either cause I think the reason he came back to tennis was because he probably got badly affected by the crisis. He would not have come back, especially to be a coach, had it not been for money reasons. I however consider his behaviour on court as close as impeccable as it could be for such a wild era and for having spent such a long career at the top with so little trace of bad behaviour.

I wish him good luck with his adventrure with Murray but I would be surprised if it last over a year.

I get the message that he is more driven by achievement than money. By all accounts he is secure financially and his academy is doing fine. He was highly competitive as a tennis player, translated that into golf (less successfully) and is now getting itchy feet. Once a competitior, always a competitor. The only difference is now it is through someone else.

Tenez wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:NOT having a go here Tenez just looking for clarification. You admire Lendl for his professionalism (I agree). Examples of his professionalism included controlling all aspects of his game including his diet, his racquets, training rigorously etc.. Some modern players are merely progressing this yet you appear to be against them. Once again not having a go, just trying to understand your position.

Sure no problem. And as said many times I was a big fan of Borg and Coria who were of the physical/retriever kind. The key is I need to see obvious talent. Borg's footwork, Coria was an amazing striker of the ball, cat like. And Lendl never based his game on his physique. His talent was being able to hit winners at will. He had a very risky game and that explains why he was a bit weak mentally, especially as the match dragged on. He understood that pulling risky winners in important pressure points required perfect physical conditions. So after losing a few finals, especially v Connors he understood he had to be fitter so he could play his risky game without the fear of lacking oxygene after a couple of long rallies. But his physique was built as a way to support of his original game longer.

That is the key difference with other physical players who essentially relied on their physique and more precisely the modern players version whose objective is to simply take the game to a physical battle. A moonball is not about scoreing a point but to prevent an easy attack. It's an easy shot, anybody can do a moonball, but it's very hard to pull winners from, so it invites to rally or force into mistakes.

I would not mind that as much if the physique side of the game was still human-like like it was in the 80s. But now it's just absurd and knowing that all phyiscal sports have doping issues I am in no illusion that tennis is a safe heaven in that matter. Nowadays if a player bases his game on his physique, there is matter for concern and a fair sense of observation can give you a few convincing clues.

Thanks Tenez, I don't necessarily agree but I do understand. I haven't yet read Rafa's autobiography but, judging by what Murray wrote in his, I would be very surprised if AM was using anything untoward.

No his return to tennis was quite sudden. When he did he admitted he never watched the game in his 18 years of retirement. He just discovered who Federer was.

They all have had money but they have a way of life, big expenses and like most, money invested. We know what happened to invested money over the last 4 years.

I cannot imagine a great champion living his competition through another one. Roche could not care much about Federer despite having a lot of the job cut out and a nice player to watch and talk to.

Clearly money to me. He is only 54? and he realises that he will need much more money to live the life he's had thus far.

carriege4

I would be surprised too if any of the top players were using anything untoward. But Murray does himself no favours when he keeps repeating that in order to improve he needs to get physically stronger. I don't think any of the others say anything like that and also I don't think that is the way to make improvements.

He is 51 and apparently very financially secure with a successful academy and a nice family life. Of course competitors live through others - after a certain age you have no choice. He was known as a great tennis player and now has the oppportunity to be known as the man who provided the first male British GS champion in three quarters of a century. What a way to consolidate his reputation for all time.

hawkeye wrote:carriege4

I would be surprised too if any of the top players were using anything untoward. But Murray does himself no favours when he keeps repeating that in order to improve he needs to get physically stronger. I don't think any of the others say anything like that and also I don't think that is the way to make improvements.

Nope, he just says he has to work harder and get stronger. He doesn't specify physical or mental. Key difference.

carrieg4 wrote:Thanks Tenez, I don't necessarily agree but I do understand. I haven't yet read Rafa's autobiography but, judging by what Murray wrote in his, I would be very surprised if AM was using anything untoward.

I hope they aren't but if you happened to know that top players use drugs, you would too, well I would cause it's that or you end up a nobody and you life is a kind of wasted. You cannot afford to waste all those years of hard work and get beaten by someone who cut corners. And worse yuo know that the big star is protected by the ATP and though caught, they won't punish but if yuo are a nobody they might give you in.

It's not an easy situation. It's better to have rose-tinted glasses and enjoy the AO without worrying too much about it.

Tenez wrote:I hope they aren't but if you happened to know that top players use drugs, you would too, well I would cause it's that or you end up a nobody and you life is a kind of wasted. You cannot afford to waste all those years of hard work and get beaten by someone who cut corners.

That is what Murray was pretty emphatic about - it is better to lose fairly than win unfairly. I hope all the others feel the same and would be very disappointed to find otherwise.

Just had to add this quote from Murray about how everyone loves Lendl

But every player that's a little bit older than me comes up and says:
'I'm so happy you're working with Ivan. He was my idol, I love that guy.
Everyone loved him, all the players loved him, everyone respects him.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/tennis/lendl-should-be-missing-piece-in-murrays-jigsaw-6289901.html

Well put it this way if everyone has been going up to Andy saying that then that is what Andy will feel so perhaps Lendl isn't such a big bad wolf as you think hawkeye.

CaladonianCraig

I don't know much about Lendl. He played during a time when I had little interest in mens tennis. Until recently he wasn't a player that was talked about much despite the 8 slams. When he was talked about though he didn't get much "love". Unlike now. I'm sure Lendl is enjoying it.

As Tenez pointed out earlier (and for once I agree) it was clear Lendl would be painted as the bad boy by the press as he was the dark, mysterious figure from the old Eastern Bloc who came to challenge the dominance of the good guys ie US players from the good guys part of the world. SIMPLES.

CaledonianCraig wrote:As Tenez pointed out earlier (and for once I agree) it was clear Lendl would be painted as the bad boy by the press as he was the dark, mysterious figure from the old Eastern Bloc who came to challenge the dominance of the good guys ie US players from the good guys part of the world. SIMPLES.

So the real Ivan was lovable all along? He just had a bad press? Its good for him he's getting such a good press now then.

Who is lovable? Mac was hated by many but as a pundit he has become much more favourablybseen as has Connors. They blew their bad boy image out of the water so it is safe to presume Ivan can and probably already has going by various reports.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Who is lovable? Mac was hated by many but as a pundit he has become much more favourablybseen as has Connors. They blew their bad boy image out of the water so it is safe to presume Ivan can and probably already has going by various reports.

lendl always had a stern and brusque look about him on court so its no surprise that he is more relaxed off court. his on court demeanor didnt do him any harm