Lendl/Murray - Is It Working?

A week shy of 6 months since Andy Murray appointed Ivan Lendl as his full time coach. At the time I could recall that 6 months would be sufficient time to assess any significant changes in Murray's game or results. So far this year his match record is 22-7. For me what is concerning are the stats.

59% First serves in. Only Fish and Tipsarevic boast a weaker %.
72% Points won on 1st serve. The worst in the top 10.
53% Points won on 2nd serve. Tsonga and Fish boast slightly worse.
81% Service games won. Only Fish is worse off.

It is a concern that these stats don't even put him in the top 5 bracket.

Stats aside what changes have we seen in Andy's play that have been positive? What has been a step forward in his play? Honestly? I can't see anything that leaps out an improvement. I guess he backs and uses the FH more, but being such a weaker part of Andy's game I have been surprised by Murray's persistence to use it. Practice makes perfect, but not in a matchplay situation. The Berd has had Andy's number now and I think also Delpo may start to get the better of him should they meet.

It has been well documented of Lendl's absence during tournaments when Andy plays. Not sure what message this sends out. Andy has a close knit team and for Lendl not to feature quite prominently is another concern for me. It questions how much input Lendl is really having.

Andy is now 25 and the next four years are critical in the success of Andy's career. Andy last year had his best year to date and that was without a coach. I think if Andy's slump continues through the season I think he may start to have serious doubts whether Lendl was the best choice. I wonder if Andy and Lendl are getting along and whether this arrangement is working. My feeling is that come end of the season that Andy and Lendl will part ways.

What do you guys think?

Er.... Andy's not exactly had a bad season so far - 1 win, Slam SF with one of his best performances yet against Djoko, a subsequent win over Djoko, then only really a lacklustre clay season part disrupted by injury. Now OK he may well lose before the SF in RG. However we go on about how Nadal/Fed/Djoko are hard for Murray to beat over 5 sets. The truth is that for the rest of the players outside the top 10, Murray is also a really tough prospect over 5 sets. Therefore i don't expect him to go down easily unless its via injury.

I acknowledge it may well not work out, but you have to give a coach a bit of a chance - 6 months is hardly anything really.

Ermmmmm he has missed one tournament. Not hardily disrupting his season. Let's not blow a back injury our of proportion here. 6 months is enough for some improvement to be displayed. Look at Nigel Sears and the good work he has done with Ivanovic in less than a year.

Lendl has been absent from most events which does not promote the message of everything is working out to the benefit of Murray.

I think the yardstick to use for Murray has to be "in 2008, where was it thought he could be by now?".

It's got to be at the very lowest end of expectations set back then.

Lendl was a great player but exactly what qualification has he for improving another players standard? The prrof was to be in the eating, and I think lk is not unjustified in giving it a qualified thumbs down.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Ermmmmm he has missed one tournament. Not hardily disrupting his season. Let's not blow a back injury our of proportion here. 6 months is enough for some improvement to be displayed. Look at Nigel Sears and the good work he has done with Ivanovic in less than a year.

Lendl has been absent from most events which does not promote the message of everything is working out to the benefit of Murray.

So you don't thing a back injury might have had some bearing on his loss early in Rome? 6 months is enough time for improvement to be seen in some cases, but not ALL cases - i think the time for this thread is probably after the Olympics of even after the USO to be honest.

Good point there BB.

I just wonder if Lendl actually considered the commitment aspect to coaching? Look at other failed attempts with previous players like Connors and Martin for example.

I questioned the appointment from the start because apart from the 'Mental' aspect he could bring, his style of play is very much the same as Murray's so it is difficult to see what he could add? So much is made of whether Andy has the mentality to push through the Slam barrier.

I always felt it was a mistake when he didn't pounce on Annacone the moment he left the LTA.

Tom_____ wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Ermmmmm he has missed one tournament. Not hardily disrupting his season. Let's not blow a back injury our of proportion here. 6 months is enough for some improvement to be displayed. Look at Nigel Sears and the good work he has done with Ivanovic in less than a year.

Lendl has been absent from most events which does not promote the message of everything is working out to the benefit of Murray.

So you don't thing a back injury might have had some bearing on his loss early in Rome? 6 months is enough time for improvement to be seen in some cases, but not ALL cases - i think the time for this thread is probably after the Olympics of even after the USO to be honest.

Are you saying that 2 events constitute the Clay season?

What happened when Gilbert coached Murray? He shot up the rankings!

I don't think this thread is in anyway premature.

some fans choose to sit on the fence and others don't.

Knowing a little of Lendl´s history I would not say that the two are a match made in heaven. Lendl had a very very strict regime for himself when it came to practising. His work ethic was second to none He worked to the clock and demanded a lot of himself. He was very disciplined and I cannot imagine he has changed in that regard. I would guess that he makes the same demands of Murray how well that is received by Andy must surely reflect in his game. Murray appears more controlled temperementally whilst on court but something tells me that what you see is not always what you get. I haven´t seen much to impress at the moment but then if Andy has been injured it is hard to say

I dont think Lendl is the guy to bring out the creative 'Mecir' that lives deep within Andy. But then he himself doesnt seem to know whats best for him either...just drifting from one coach to the next hoping it will work. Murray needs to decide what type of player he wants to be then get a coach to enhance that. The problem isnt Lendl (or Gilbert or McLagan...), its Murray.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Tom_____ wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Ermmmmm he has missed one tournament. Not hardily disrupting his season. Let's not blow a back injury our of proportion here. 6 months is enough for some improvement to be displayed. Look at Nigel Sears and the good work he has done with Ivanovic in less than a year.

Lendl has been absent from most events which does not promote the message of everything is working out to the benefit of Murray.

So you don't thing a back injury might have had some bearing on his loss early in Rome? 6 months is enough time for improvement to be seen in some cases, but not ALL cases - i think the time for this thread is probably after the Olympics of even after the USO to be honest.

Are you saying that 2 events constitute the Clay season?

What happened when Gilbert coached Murray? He shot up the rankings!

I don't think this thread is in anyway premature.

some fans choose to sit on the fence and others don't.

No, i'm saying 2 events constitute part disruption to a clay season as i originally posted -its clearly written.

Also you could easily argue Murray shot up the rankings mainly because he was young and developing strength and stamina and then badly injured his wrist, screaming moron at Gilbert at the time for trying to make him play through it. The two clashed heavily and it didn't work out clearly.

My overall feeling regarding Lendl/Murray is that it may be necessary for Murray to take a step back in order to go forwards, my feeling is there may need a bit of time to figure out which direction to go in, especially because mental strength is a key ingredient needed. Therefore i personally expected this to take some time.

Sadly the "damage" was done in his early tennis years IMO if only he had had the correct coaching when he was a young boy ... Never get your mother to teach you to drive

Fair point lydian. I would argue that Murray is un-responsive to change. I can't imagine that Lendl would try and change anything drastically, Andy has faith in his game and I think consistency is the massive key. Lendl as you said was like a disciplined monk! I wonder if Andy has looked at the regime that Lendl adhered to and thought 'sod that!'

legendkillarV2 wrote:Fair point lydian. I would argue that Murray is un-responsive to change. I can't imagine that Lendl would try and change anything drastically, Andy has faith in his game and I think consistency is the massive key. Lendl as you said was like a disciplined monk! I wonder if Andy has looked at the regime that Lendl adhered to and thought 'sod that!'

Thanks LK it was actually what I was hinting at but you had the tennis balls to say it :D

One of the many frustrations of being a Murray fan HN.

The Lendl appointment was a massive gamble. For me it isn't working out. Lendl is not spending enough time court-side for me to have anything to work with when they get together. Watching a game court side and on the TV are 2 different things.

I think Andy knows it would take massive decision to dispense of Lendl's services. I wonder how much of the backlash of it being deemed a faliure in the press is what maybe making Andy slightly stubborn to make that decision.

I think he needs to really pursue Cahill and not take no for an answer.

Woah a moment before declaring Lendl and Murray partnership isn't working. They have had less than six months together and the one slam in that time saw him go out fighting against the No. 1 player in the world - an improvement on lame exits in the past. If his clay form is the reason for judging it isn't working well a niggling back injury is hardly condusive for improvement. I'll wait and judge post- US Open.

A week shy of 6 months. I said I would reserve judgment after 6 months.

This isn't a judgment based on the clay neither. The stats don't lie Craig. Not playing like a top 6 player in the world.

Again moving past the AO, he lost. He wasn't playing well leading up to that encounter neither.

My point is that under Lendl I don't think he can make any further progress. He needs someone that is going to explore the defficiencies in his game and attempt to straighten them out.

Well if you aren't judging him on clay then what are you judging him on? His post-Australian Open form was a good deal better than the same period last year - an improvement there certainly so only really leaves the clay to judge him on does it not? Now he has a disappointing clay season but this corresponds with a niggling back injury. Is that relevant? I would say so as three of his last four defeats have seen him win the first set then go on to lose perhaps when his back begins to trouble him. Clutching at straws? Perhaps but then again perhaps not.

Is there any reason why you choose to ignore the stats I provided?

Back to back 3 setters in the opening rounds of Brisbane, nervy 3 setters against Berrer, Nalbandian, Tipsarevic. Not including the defeats he has suffered.

Again quoting the back without clear proof that i has contributed to lack of form on Clay. Monsieur Federer won Rome when he wasn't 'fit'

Maybe the view from the fence is causing splinters?

There is a 'genuine' desire from both parties to work and improve. Cracking Fedalovic is a tough nut, and the tough non-Top 4 matches are not helping.

Injury, or not, IMVHO, if you pick up a racquet and show up in the court, you are ready. I, personally, was very disappointed in the Rome outing, that was after the Madrid injury break.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Is there any reason why you choose to ignore the stats I provided?

Back to back 3 setters in the opening rounds of Brisbane, nervy 3 setters against Berrer, Nalbandian, Tipsarevic. Not including the defeats he has suffered.

Again quoting the back without clear proof that i has contributed to lack of form on Clay. Monsieur Federer won Rome when he wasn't 'fit'

Maybe the view from the fence is causing splinters?

LK what were the stats for this period last year? ignoring the last two clay tournies, as he was injured and was then recovering form. My guess is that this year might not appear that bad next to last when he exited a few tournies very early. For me the big comparison between this year and last year is that in 2011 AO Murray lost tamely to Djoko in 3 sets looking negative and self loathing. Then this year he took Djoko to 5 sets, very nearly won and showed heart all the way through, then the next time they played he beat him. This is why i think you are being incredibly premature with this article, as its very hard to make a clear judgement based on what we have seen so far. Surely given that we have RG, Wimbers and Olympics just around the corner it is far more sensible to see what he produces over coming months and then have this debate afterwards.

No splinters on me legendkillar2. All I can say is United fans would be delighted you weren't chairman at Man. United in the mid-1980's when Fergie got off to a far from perfect start at United. He was given time and look what happened? I will reserve judgement on the Murray/Lendl partnership until after the US Open when we will have a far clearer picture.

CC if you want the stats for last year you know where to find them:

www.atpworldtour.com

Last year stats have no relevance to Lendl/Murray partnership. As LF said, if you have racquet and walk on court, your ready.

The Man Utd comparison is daft. A tennis players career is short. Very short. That's why decision for me is the most precise of any sport.

What have you seen Craig? Have you seen Lendl in stands? I know I haven't and that for me is not a good starting point for any coach. It needs someone that can give Andy the time and the expertise to refine his skills and become the better player. I am in for what is Andy's best interests and I think a more experienced coach is required.

All I can say is you haven't watched a portion of Andy's matches if you have never seen Lendl at his matches. Yes laverfan. I will reserve judgement thanks and will see how things go in the coming months as will those who want Lendl out as he won't be going anywhere soon.

There are definite improvements in the overall Lendl/Murray partnership. Is it translating into tangible 'more titles won' - perhaps not.

I am with you, Craig, and prefer to re-evaluate after 2012 is done and dusted.

6 months too little a time for evaluation, specifically considering how difficult it is to train Murray, give them a fair bit of time, its not about technique thats the issue its about execution of the strategy against top 3 an issue for Murray, so Lendl would be a great help on Murray's corner and he will be the guy who mill motivate Murray for the 1st win.

Yeah, so far initially I have been a bit underwhelmed by Andy's performance this season. I think Legend and craig both make some fair points. i will say this he does seem to be a bit more aggressive with the forehand and a bit more resilient in matches and periods that things aren't clicking. I also wouldn't say that Connors failed Roddick. I actually think Roddick improved a lot under connors, it was just that Roddick was at the end of his career and all jimmy could do was slow down the rot, he couldn't all of a sudden transform a 27 year old roddick.

With that being said we are now at the crucial juncture in Andy's career realistically if he doesn't win a slam in the next 2-3 years he never will. Each slam opportunity I think is getting bigger and bigger for Murray. Still I would like to see how andy plays at wimby and at least at the start of the US hardcourt season because he has had a bit of a knock and never really plays well on clay to begin with.

Can't disagree with any of what invisible and Socal said. Let's just wait and see.

hard to judge really when we don't know the full impact the back problem has had since the Oz Open. To me, it is more a concern that he has such a long term issue. If that isn't a factor then you would have to say that the only improvement was a better attitude post-Oz. There has been no improvement in his game which, indeed, appears to have gone backwards.

I would like to know whether Lendl is delegating to one of Murrays chums the day to day development/improvement in technique (esp. serving). I have been gravely concerned to hear reports of his on-court demeanour in recent tournaments, considering the vast improvement he showed in AO 2012.

I am hoping to see significance improvements from the start of the grass season onwards (AO 2012 demeanour plus improvements in technique/serve consistency).

Agree with Craig and socal here. His hard court performances have shown an improvement. Closer to the baseline (most of the time) hitting through his forehand more often, and - for the first time in ages - actually playing as we know he can against his 3 main rivals in a slam. That is the good stuff.

The bad? Well, I really wanted to see some changes to the serve. I was hoping he'd incorporate a slice serve more often, or try and take a few mph off his first serve to go for a higher percentage. Either that or work on finding a better second serve. Easier said than done of course, especially with a serving motion like Murray's which has so many moving body parts that it's tough to gain that consistency. But there seems to have been little improvement with the serve and that's disappointing.

In terms of his clay court results, I keep saying the same thing... He's nowhere near as good on this surface, last year was the exception not the rule. 1 win against top ten players EVER on clay says it all. Add the back injury to this and I'm not sure how much can be drawn into this stretch personally.

The real judgement is the slams. Murray has proved what he can do, but he hasn't brought it in slams against the big boys. That is where the partnership will be judged and rightly so. The AO was a step forward, the French will probably be a step backwards but he was never going to win it anyway. It's all about SW19 and Flushing Meadows.

So far theres been some good and some bad, but I'll be making my judgements after Wimbledon and the US open

Quite surprised by the passive views on here. But hey ho.

CC, I have watched all of Andy's matches, infact I have watched other players matches, maybe unlike yourself.

Socal. Roddick failed Roddick. He was dreadful under Connors. For some reason he had the notion he was going to be a Connors and unlike Connors didn't have the same fluid movement as Jimmy. Roddick was far too slow for the serve and volley and Against Federer in that final at the US Open 2006 he was passed down the line galore because he wasn't quick enough getting up to the net.

For me it is not working between Murray and Lendl and I certainly won't be posting should results not improve during the second half of the season and many a posters will be baying for blood.

Well lk you would have seen Lendl at matches then would you not? Heck there was even a thread on here saying how obsessed the TV cameras were with Lendl etc at a minimum of three or four of his tournaments.

So far since Lendl became involved 'results and performance-wise' I'd judge it like this:-

Australian Open at least saw Andy pushing Djokovic all the way and competing all the way unlike the previous year in the final in Melbourne against the same player.

Hard court form post-Melbourne this year was a definite improvement on last year at the same time which was disasterous.

Clay court season has been disappointing but lets not forget he has been dogged with a back injury which he never had last year. It is obviously bugging him enough for him to mention it in the press so is it fair to judge his form on clay this year with last year when he was completely fit?

The above reasons are why I am not ready to say the Lendl/Murray partnership is not working especially after just six months.

Now lk I'd be interested to know what you were expecting exactly by now? If it was improvement in things like serve stats then fair enough everyone would like to see that however did any of his coaches of the past have that sort of affect? I'd say not. That may be a handicap that no coach may ever be able to solve.

As for come the second half of the season why should posters be baying for blood? It is hardly an issue to have such a reaction is it? It is Andy's choice after all and not like anyone else has a say on it. They can have an opinion but at the end of the day it is Andy who makes the decisions.

It's all about the slams. There is no other judgement really, that's why Lendl has been hired. So far we've seen 1 slam, in which he put up his best slam performance (v Novak) since beating Rafa at AO quarters in 2010. That's a bit of progress.

When The partnership is assessed, it will be assessed in slam performances so it's only fair to wait until at least 2 of the 3 he can realistically win have passed. Some judgements can start to be formed after Wimbledon, but it can only really be fully assessed after US open in my view.

Spot on Danny. Even now non-Murray fans judge Murray on slams pointing to his lack of them to disqualify him from great players debate so lets stand by that now and judge him on slams.

Having Lendl on board is better than not having Lendl on board. From Murrays own comments before and during the AO, it sounded like Lendl would more or less be part time, providing Murray with steelly determination and confidence.

But for me it is looking like the same old Murray in terms of the technique and training habits. To be honest Murray must be the most sought after person everyone would like to help in training - he has shown plenty of talent, he has shown obvious weaknesses (that in principle can be corrected), and he could be Britains best bet for a male slam winner since ... Fred Perry 1936.

However despite all this he has surrounded himself with his chums, has only brought on Lendl in the past 6 months, after not having a permanent coach for two years ... and continues to be doing it his way (with the wordly advice from Lendl).

But I will judge whether there has been any change in technical ability at the end of the year, and hope his steelly determination and focus showed at the AO2012 is something he brings to each slam from now on.

With Roger Draper promise of having five or more players knocking at the door of a top twenty position by the end of 2011 not going according to plan it seems that I might take a lower level of interest in tennis than I have been doing.

Nore staat - do you not think the fact that he played the last slam on the baseline as opposed to 2 metres behind it, and the fact that he hit more forehand winners than Novak in that semi are two pretty huge changes to his big slam match approach?

Sure it has not been the same since the switch to clay, but it was never going to be. He is half the player on clay.

Murray should have kept his old team with Miles McClagan at the helm. He's lost his way since. The reason he fired him was because Miles didn't deliver the holy grail, however in the finals Murray has been guided to only Andrew himself is to blame for such insipid performances.

It's like Roberto Di Matteo and Chelsea. For years the Blues were hiring and firing high profile and successful coaches on megabucks but D Matteo proved that you CAN succeed with an inexperienced coach because if it's working it's working, why change it?

Murray got carried away and decided he needed a big name. Big name has come in and all I see is a gradual decline. Should bring Miles back and say sorry!

no way should he bring miles back he was the one who got him started on this path.

How dya mean? Miles was with Murray when he reached two GS finals was he not?

Danny_1982 wrote:Nore staat - do you not think the fact that he played the last slam on the baseline as opposed to 2 metres behind it, and the fact that he hit more forehand winners than Novak in that semi are two pretty huge changes to his big slam match approach?

Sure it has not been the same since the switch to clay, but it was never going to be. He is half the player on clay.

If Murray can show the same level of commitment and fight he showed at AO2012, at the other non-clay slams, then that will probably be good enough for me. If he can improve on his serve a little that would be even better. I think some get a little disappointed with Murray because the areas he could improve on seem plain to see, and some of his performances in the past have shown he is capable of winning a slam, once those technical weaknesses have been worked on.

sure but i think murray was more creative back then, more free flowing and i feel the path he took him on was heading down the 'nada' route of being overly physical, something that doesn't still quite suit him enough.

Lendl a bad choice, he only turns up at slams, I think he needed sum 1 like, Paul Annacone, like at Rome Annacone was there training & supporting Federer, while Murray was there, probs, just surrounded by his fitness team, all Murray talks about is fitness, when he should b working on how 2 put more power on is shots, look at is rivals, Novak change is diet & work on is serve, became a consisten champ, Federer got annacone has his coach, 2 keep him in the mix at trying 2 win slams, Nadal work on serve 2010, wins US open, 2011 add more grams 2 his racket 2 increase power, at the min Murray seen lost on the court.

King of Clay wrote:Lendl a bad choice, he only turns up at slams, I think he needed sum 1 like, Paul Annacone, like at Rome Annacone was there training & supporting Federer, while Murray was there, probs, just surrounded by his fitness team, all Murray talks about is fitness, when he should b working on how 2 put more power on is shots, look at is rivals, Novak change is diet & work on is serve, became a consisten champ, Federer got annacone has his coach, 2 keep him in the mix at trying 2 win slams, Nadal work on serve 2010, wins US open, 2011 add more grams 2 his racket 2 increase power, at the min Murray seen lost on the court.

Welcome to 606v2, KofC!

PS: to the Tennis forum, rather.

Hi Lavafan, like reading the Tennis & football forum.

King of Clay wrote:Hi Lavafan, like reading the Tennis & football forum.

Very nice. Hope you enjoy the topics here.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Quite surprised by the passive views on here. But hey ho.

CC, I have watched all of Andy's matches, infact I have watched other players matches, maybe unlike yourself.

Socal. Roddick failed Roddick. He was dreadful under Connors. For some reason he had the notion he was going to be a Connors and unlike Connors didn't have the same fluid movement as Jimmy. Roddick was far too slow for the serve and volley and Against Federer in that final at the US Open 2006 he was passed down the line galore because he wasn't quick enough getting up to the net.

For me it is not working between Murray and Lendl and I certainly won't be posting should results not improve during the second half of the season and many a posters will be baying for blood.

LK, you are mistaken, Roddick was not being coached connors in 2006 so what that have to do with connors coaching? Look at Roddick's results under jimmy and right after jimmy left and they were better than any point in his career barring 2003. Many people forget that Roddick in early 2010 nearly pulled off the miami and iw double getting to the final of one and beating Nadal and winning the other. Roddick in late 09 and early 2010 the jimmy period was a much better player than Roddick 03, remember his impressive run to wimby finals in 09? In 03, Roddick was one of the roughest around the edges players to ever win a slam that is why many thought he would go on to dominate. He had no backhand, no volleys, and was entirely too heavy. He played his best tennis under connors and early especially in 2010 with stepanki. Connors greatly helped Andy with his backhand up the line he had never had that shot at all and connors got it better. Too bad he could never teach Andy returning and volleying but that was just a case of too little too late.

Like I said Andy's real chances at a slam is not at RG so I'd like to see what happens at wimby and early US hardcourts. The reason being is that it was never going to be easy or an instantaneous thing where he started beating the guys ranked above him.

socal1976 wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Quite surprised by the passive views on here. But hey ho.

CC, I have watched all of Andy's matches, infact I have watched other players matches, maybe unlike yourself.

Socal. Roddick failed Roddick. He was dreadful under Connors. For some reason he had the notion he was going to be a Connors and unlike Connors didn't have the same fluid movement as Jimmy. Roddick was far too slow for the serve and volley and Against Federer in that final at the US Open 2006 he was passed down the line galore because he wasn't quick enough getting up to the net.

For me it is not working between Murray and Lendl and I certainly won't be posting should results not improve during the second half of the season and many a posters will be baying for blood.

LK, you are mistaken, Roddick was not being coached connors in 2006 so what that have to do with connors coaching? Look at Roddick's results under jimmy and right after jimmy left and they were better than any point in his career barring 2003. Many people forget that Roddick in early 2010 nearly pulled off the miami and iw double getting to the final of one and beating Nadal and winning the other. Roddick in late 09 and early 2010 the jimmy period was a much better player than Roddick 03, remember his impressive run to wimby finals in 09? In 03, Roddick was one of the roughest around the edges players to ever win a slam that is why many thought he would go on to dominate. He had no backhand, no volleys, and was entirely too heavy. He played his best tennis under connors and early especially in 2010 with stepanki. Connors greatly helped Andy with his backhand up the line he had never had that shot at all and connors got it better. Too bad he could never teach Andy returning and volleying but that was just a case of too little too late.

Like I said Andy's real chances at a slam is not at RG so I'd like to see what happens at wimby and early US hardcourts. The reason being is that it was never going to be easy or an instantaneous thing where he started beating the guys ranked above him.

On July 24, 2006, at the start of the Countrywide Classic tournament in Los Angeles, American tennis player Andy Roddick formally announced his partnership with Connors as his coach. On March 6, 2008, Roddick announced the end of that 19-month relationship.

Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Connors#Coaching

I don't know what Roddick your thinking of?

Yes, so connors started coaching Roddick in the summer of 06. Fair point. But I think, his backhand got better under connors. I just never had a very high opinion of Roddick early in his career. He really was wildly deficient in many areas but had the serve and forehand. He still is an awful returner. I think I could hold my serve the majority of times against Roddick.

Still Roddick played his best under stefanki, maybe Andy would have done better going more along the lines of a real full time experienced coach. Maybe someone like Cahill. The best improvement in Murray's career came under gilbert, I really don't know why he let gilbo go other than the fact gilbo is one of the most annoying people ever.

Connors wanted to mould Roddick into a more serve and volleyer. It was never going to work because Roddick was at his heaviest in weight because once Stefanki got on board her dropped 15lbs.

Roddick looked good in 2001. When Gilbert worked on his serve, it kinda hampered his progress to develop an all court game. His FH isn't great. He has a stable BH, but not one that I would associate with a player that was ranked number 1. He was an intense player, but lacked general solid groundstrokes that he could rely on if the serve broke down.