Lendl/Murray - Is It Working?

First topic message reminder :

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?

socal1976 wrote: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.

See that I can agree with. Murray was blooming nicely under Gilbert. Murray had an all round game and all he needed was a decent serve just to take the pressure of his ability to return serve so well. Gilbert can be annoying and in your face, but he has a proven track record.

Interesting comments from Boris Becker today. He said he has watched Murray and can clearly see he's struggling physically with the back injury and thinks that it's pointless playing at RG and he should consider pulling out.

We don't know how bad it is of course, but apparently he struggled movement wise again today against Gulbis and list in straights.

Being as even in good shape he would be unlikely to win RG, do people think Becker is right? Should he pull out to recover for a slam he CAN win on grass? He will lose a lot of points, but what's more important, slams or points?

I personally think he may get a good recovery period anyway, as in current form and with the injury he might be out by the second week.

Well if he is struggling physically he should skip RG. I think Andy would look at the Clay season as not as impressive as last year, but I think most would agree that Wimbledon and US Open remain the best chance of that Slam. If it is bad and has the potential to become worse, pull out and rest up.

Annacone became Fed's coach in August 2010 and it arguably took a year before we saw the consistent benefits, i.e. no-one argues that the GOAT of the last 6 months has been at his best since 2008/9 or perhaps even 2007

I want to see Andy under Lendl on his favoured hard courts, from July onwards to make a proper judgement

Sadly, Andy has little true confidence on clay and hence only needs a niggle to disrupt his mindset, i.e. the bad back is more responsible than Lendl's coaching for his poor clay court season

Danny_1982 wrote:Interesting comments from Boris Becker today. He said he has watched Murray and can clearly see he's struggling physically with the back injury and thinks that it's pointless playing at RG and he should consider pulling out.

We don't know how bad it is of course, but apparently he struggled movement wise again today against Gulbis and list in straights.

Being as even in good shape he would be unlikely to win RG, do people think Becker is right? Should he pull out to recover for a slam he CAN win on grass? He will lose a lot of points, but what's more important, slams or points?

I personally think he may get a good recovery period anyway, as in current form and with the injury he might be out by the second week.

Good info. If this is the case, he should simply pull out. A back that has been troubling him for so long is already going to interfere with Wimbledon and if he plays RG - I'll be surprised if he was back to his best for the US Open

One thing about Andy we can admire is that he always tries and turn up - but often it's ridiculous to do so. US Open 09 is a classic example of what happens and the subsequent effect (he basically entered the O2, out of synch with his peers due to his early Autumn lay off) was significant

Spot on. And those championing Brad Gilbert well Andy still never won that coveted slam under him and aruably his slam form got better when he dispensed with Gilbert.

One thing about Andy we can admire is that he always tries and turn up - but often it's ridiculous to do so. US Open 09 is a classic example of what happens and the subsequent effect (he basically entered the O2, out of synch with his peers due to his early Autumn lay off) was significant

Agree with that. MC 2011 is a classic example and RG 2011 last year too when he pulled up against Berrer.

My gut feeling is that he won't want to pull out and that he won't much to the annoyance of his fans who know that a 'fully' fit Andy on Grass and HC will yield better outcomes.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

One thing about Andy we can admire is that he always tries and turn up - but often it's ridiculous to do so. US Open 09 is a classic example of what happens and the subsequent effect (he basically entered the O2, out of synch with his peers due to his early Autumn lay off) was significant

Agree with that. MC 2011 is a classic example and RG 2011 last year too when he pulled up against Berrer.

My gut feeling is that he won't want to pull out and that he won't much to the annoyance of his fans who know that a 'fully' fit Andy on Grass and HC will yield better outcomes.

Then it's going to be painful viewing!! (quite literally!!)

I suppose the added pressure not to pull out is that he has a heck of a lot of points to defend.

But unless Tsonga wins the thing, it's not going to affect his ranking. But I see what you mean - he does have a lot to defend from Queens all the way through to the O2

I agree with CC. He will consider the points he has to defend.

Though if he did pull out, I could imagine a certain poster calling him a wimp

At this current time now with back injury I'd be pleasantly pleased and surprised if he reaches the quarter-finals at RG.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I agree with CC. He will consider the points he has to defend

I disagree. I don't think he operates like that. I've never got the impression that his points are a big thing - other than when he's close to moving up. He'll also be confident enough to think that he could defend them anyway, i.e. a bet the possibility of getting caught hasn't occurred to him. His motivation will be the old fashioned (and daft) British view that you ignore injuries and plough on regardless - so you're not letting anyone down (i.e. fans etc)

legendkillarV2 wrote:Though if he did pull out, I could imagine a certain poster calling him a wimp

Agree with that!!

I disagree. I don't think he operates like that. I've never got the impression that his points are a big thing - other than when he's close to moving up. He'll also be confident enough to think that he could defend them anyway, i.e. a bet the possibility of getting caught hasn't occurred to him. His motivation will be the old fashioned (and daft) British view that you ignore injuries and plough on regardless - so you're not letting anyone down (i.e. fans etc)

Not so sure there. I agree in respect he is a bit old fashioned and gets on with the job, but when you are making a decision to pull out of tournament you consider the whole view and not the just the health aspect. Like CC said with the points, if he pulls out, he then has to look to other tournaments to make up the shortfall of points. Take last year at the back end when he wanted to finish 3rd in the world. Mathematically he knew he could do it with the points on offer and damn well nearly done it had it not been for a certain Federer and the purple patch he was on.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

I disagree. I don't think he operates like that. I've never got the impression that his points are a big thing - other than when he's close to moving up. He'll also be confident enough to think that he could defend them anyway, i.e. a bet the possibility of getting caught hasn't occurred to him. His motivation will be the old fashioned (and daft) British view that you ignore injuries and plough on regardless - so you're not letting anyone down (i.e. fans etc)

Not so sure there. I agree in respect he is a bit old fashioned and gets on with the job, but when you are making a decision to pull out of tournament you consider the whole view and not the just the health aspect. Like CC said with the points, if he pulls out, he then has to look to other tournaments to make up the shortfall of points. Take last year at the back end when he wanted to finish 3rd in the world. Mathematically he knew he could do it with the points on offer and damn well nearly done it had it not been for a certain Federer and the purple patch he was on.

Ironically it was more Murray's injury at the O2 that meant he didn't end up at No.3 (assuming that a fit Murray would have got through the round robin)

I think you are correct

He does think to the points as has frequently spoken of his desire to move up the rankings and has set himself targets as well. The injury he has may purely be magnified on clay as movement is everything on the surface and may not be so troublesome on grass or hard court....well I hope that is the case.

We are lucky to have the opportunity to watch three great players - Fed, Rafa, and Djoko - in the same era, competing so passionately for grand slams.

Poor Murray, he would have won a few titles if he were to be competing in a different era.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Spot on. And those championing Brad Gilbert well Andy still never won that coveted slam under him and aruably his slam form got better when he dispensed with Gilbert.

Yes Craig but he made great strides under gilbert, I think he first broke into the top ten with gilbert as his coach. Plus Gilbert coached Murray when he was still a prospect of course after gilbert leaves murray is going to continue to get better as he reaches his physical prime. But if you look back over the entire course of Andy's career he made his most rapid progress and developed the most technically in that short period of time with gilbert. He grew and climbed the rankings more than immediately before or after his involvement with gilbert. I think if he stuck with him and built a close relationship who knows, but I can't see Gilbert doing a worse job than corretja or miles. One thing that helped Andy is that Gilbert is american and understands American sports which some of the throwing sports like baseball and football have a lot of technical cross over to tennis. I think in general in the states one area where American players are helped is in the close correlation between the throwing sports and serving. Baseball and football look for guys with live arms and shoulders and train them to get that shoulder snap that translates directly to hitting a big first serve. If you took an NFL quarterback or baseball pitcher I am sure you could train them to hit monster first serves with minimal effort because effectively hitting a first serve is the same thing as throwing your racquet face at the ball. And just like european and latin american kids grow up kicking a ball American kids grow up throwing footballs and baseballs.

Leff wrote:We are lucky to have the opportunity to watch three great players - Fed, Rafa, and Djoko - in the same era, competing so passionately for grand slams.

Poor Murray, he would have won a few titles if he were to be competing in a different era.

What? Like some Wimbledons with Sampras about, or USOs against McEnroe or Agassi, or maybe some French against Borg?

Ooh so those players were actually better than Fed then? Hold the phone then folks perhaps Fed isn't the GOAT and if we are talking clay then Nadal surpasses everyone else's achievements on that surface - past or present.

Socal, Murray was tipped/destined for the top ten before Gilbert came along and am sure he would have got there with or without Gilbert in his camp in my honest opinion.

Socal, Murray was tipped/destined for the top ten before Gilbert came along and am sure he would have got there with or without Gilbert in his camp in my honest opinion.

CC I am not so sure. At the time he made his breakthrough at Queens and Wimbledon 2005 what was clear was how good his return was and also how impressive his groundstrokes were for an 18 year old Brit.

I agree with socal on the whole progress thing.

Maclaghan set him back in terms of how he played. Under Gilbert he attacked and also had some meat behind that serve.

The thing is Craig he is 25 so I think it is also premature to say Andy played with Federer or Nadal or Djokovic. Let's say for arguments sake Andy achieves 2-3 Slams, I have no doubt this period (not era) will be looked back on as the strongest in the mens game because of the rest of the field in equal measures had the talent to win a Slam but couldn't because of an elite group of players.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Ooh so those players were actually better than Fed then? Hold the phone then folks perhaps Fed isn't the GOAT and if we are talking clay then Nadal surpasses everyone else's achievements on that surface - past or present.

Socal, Murray was tipped/destined for the top ten before Gilbert came along and am sure he would have got there with or without Gilbert in his camp in my honest opinion.

Illogical, Craig. Murray isn't as good as Fedeer or Nadal. The thing is he also isn't anywhere as good as Sampras, Borg, McEnroe or Agassi. Or Becker, Edberg, Connors, Lendl.

No requirement for a realignment of Fed v the others, just a need to recognise that Andy would struggle massively to win Slams against other greats in other eras too.

With Gilbert though did he really improve Andy's serve. I'd like to see serving stats evidence of that during Gilbert's time with him. One thing is sure - Andy's slam record improved once Gilbert left.

Bogbrush that may well be true but likewise that is supposition. Put it this way it couldn't have been any harder.

Supposition? You mean like 'Murray would have won Slams in another era'?

I do wonder how Murray would've fared at Wimbledon in 90's given his return is just short of Agassi's standards.

Bogbrush. It is surely disingenuous, given Andy's great record in the other events to doubt that Murray would have won a Slam if he wasn't in the same era as three great Slam winners

Of course we will never know and we can all have a bit of doubt - but he has been as good or better than a fair few who have won a Slam and I'm not certain about Becker

Fed's recent upsurge has of course made you a little bit harsher than you normally are

He would struggle against other "greats", we know. Fortunately, there weren't three at the same time who contested virtually every slam for years, without ever wilting

Can we also recognise that his career is not over, yet. For instance Agassi went "walkabouts" for two or three years in the mid 90's, when there was only Sampras as 'serial' finalist

Yes bogbrush and there are spells when Sampras, Lendl, Borg, Connors and McEnroe were either not around or past their best. Those players do not transcend fifty or sixty years of tennis you know.

Bantroban and Craig,

1. My list of players wasn't exhaustive.
2. Now we get the switch around from calling my assessment speculative, to regarding its ok to speculatively assess Murray as a Slam winner in bygone days.

In my opinion, in 90's conditions Murray would have no chance of making a semi at the French or Wimbledon. USO would have been his thing, but I don't fancy him to be honest. Not with those big technical deficiencies.

CaledonianCraig wrote:With Gilbert though did he really improve Andy's serve. I'd like to see serving stats evidence of that during Gilbert's time with him. One thing is sure - Andy's slam record improved once Gilbert left.

Bogbrush that may well be true but likewise that is supposition. Put it this way it couldn't have been any harder.

I don't know about the stats from back then. But I do remember Andy's serve getting a lot better almost immediately after hiring gilbert. I remember early, early on in Andy's career he didn't really get very many free points on serve. And then gilbert came in and the first thing he talked about was how he kept having to encourage murray to go for more on his first serve. During that period I do remember just from watching the matches that all of sudden the first serve became something that murray started getting a lot of free points with and hitting into the 130s with. Where beforehand he really wasn't doing that. Now granted I am sure part of that is murray getting overrall stronger but as annoying as the man is gilbert actually does know a lot about tennis and competing. He was one of the least talented players who always managed a high ranking and you would watch his match and look at his ranking and swear that something just wasn't right.

Bogbrush I see what you are saying about speculating but please you cannot tell me that every slam winner, even the one slam wonders are/were better/more talented than Murray. Hence if they dug one out beating farcless talented players than Fed and Nadal to win one it is really silly to suggest Andy couldn't have done so as well.

CC,

Stats from 2007

Doha - Average first serves 64.8%
Australian Open - Average first serves 57%
San Jose - Average first serves 51%
Memphis - Average first serves 46.5%
Indian Wells - Average first serves 55%
Miami - Average first serves 57.6%
Rome - Average first serves 46%
Hamburg - Average first serves 68%
Montreal - Average first serves 60%
Cincinnati - Average first serves 48%
US Open - Average first serves 52.33%
Metz - Average first serves 56.6%
Moscow - Average first serves 52.5%
Madrid - Average first serves 54%
St Petersburg - Average first serves 51.6%
Paris - Average first serves 51.33%

Average First Serve for the season 54.51%

He played 57 matches that season and missed a portion through his wrist injury.

I can't be arsed to do anymore stats tonight

Why would Andy not have excelled in fast 90's conditions? A bomb of a first serve, the weakness of the 2nd serve partially negated by the speedy surface, outstanding return to negate the big servers, good technique at the net, good movement, superb improvisational skills...

I don't agree that he would have been lost in those conditions, I believe he'd have been quite successful. Good enough to be a slam or multiple slam winner? That is subjective, and could easily be argued either way.

One thing is absolutely certain... Never in the history of tennis have 3 men dominated slams the way the top 3 do in this era. Again, it could be argued that this is because this era is as good as its ever been, or because from 4 downwards is weaker than it usually is.

Personally, I think it's the former. But I can't argue it with any great conviction because it is - and always will be - 100% subjective.

Cheers legend much appreciated. At first glance they are not a lot different to today's stats I'd guess.

CC,

Well you can see the vast improvement at Doha and then it was downhill and then picked up gradually and then the wrist injury occured and even when he came back it was always going to be difficult for him to reach the 60-65 brackets.

bogbrush wrote:Bantroban and Craig,
Not with those big technical deficiencies.

You've lost me. I'll give you the forehand - which if was only at the standard of Berdych's would have given him a Slam by now. But what else? And doesn't one of the best return games we've ever seen compensate for this

Let's be honest here, you're just coming from it from a smug Fed fan perspective. I've seen the Tennis of the 90's and it was pretty poor fair - only livened up when Agassi decided that he wanted to be a consistent contender

Face it - you think that Nadal has oodles of "Technical deficiencies"

Will you or Tenez ever learn that Fed is a majestic freak of nature and we need to stop judging others in comparison to him

Aye, technically Federer has a bit of a weakness on the one-handed backhand. Doesn't stop him becoming a great player though.

Brad Gilbert, Aug 2008 wrote:...He is now doing a lot of things I was asking him to, like being much more aggressive and stop hitting so many damn drop shots; stop playing what I call possum tennis. He likes to get on the ropes, but he is the kind of fighter who has the capability to get into the centre of the ring and throw blows. If he plays more like that then great things are going to happen because he has great talent....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/aug/28/tennis.andymurray

Brad Gilbert appointed as coach to Andy Murray Aug 2006, at expense of LTA who were paying Brad £750,000-a-year.
Brad Gilbert fired by Andy Murray Nov 2007.

LTA reassign £750,000-a-year coach Brad Gilbert to Bogdanovic.

Andrew Murray, Nov 2007 wrote:"Despite being injured for almost four months this year, I am pleased with my 2007 results and am very grateful for the help that the LTA have given me by providing Brad Gilbert as a coach. But the time has come to move on to the next stage of my career. I am ranked 11 in the world and can now afford to pay my own way and so will now hire a team of experts each to fulfil a specified role in the development of my tennis and fitness."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/tennis/7094177.stm

Murrays team of experts have turned him into the player we see today.

bogbrush wrote:

Leff wrote:We are lucky to have the opportunity to watch three great players - Fed, Rafa, and Djoko - in the same era, competing so passionately for grand slams.

Poor Murray, he would have won a few titles if he were to be competing in a different era.

What? Like some Wimbledons with Sampras about, or USOs against McEnroe or Agassi, or maybe some French against Borg?

IMHO, Murray is at least as good as some of the players who managed to win grand slam tournaments - Stan Smith, Jan Kodes, Pat Cash, Stich, Krajicek, Ivanisevic, Leyton Hewitt, Gaudio, Albert Costa, Kuerten, Moya, Bruguera, Kafelnikov, Andres Gomez, Michael Chang, Pat Rafter, Thomas Johansson, Petr Korda, Brian Teacher, Johan Kriek, Gerulitis, Tanner, and Mark Edmondson, to name a few.

He could have won a major or two in a different era.

Nowadays, there no chance of having a fellow like Cedric Pioline in the final, unless all of the three superstars are eliminated before final.

Exactly Leff. Although some here will see that as heiracy.

I think everyone can see that Murray is superior to Rod Laver. Whereas Laver tended to play in black and white, Murray brings that extra colour dimension into his play.

Nore Staat wrote:I think everyone can see that Murray is superior to Rod Laver. Whereas Laver tended to play in black and white, Murray brings that extra colour dimension into his play.

Nope Nore Staat people aren't saying that (well not me).

CC: My view is that it doesn't matter what we think about his comments, it is about what Murray himself thinks about his comments and whether this gives us any insight into his future direction.

If Murray says this "I would have been a multi-slam champion in any other era", in order to reduce the pressure on himself the next time he plays the top three - then for me that would be a good tactic.

If Murray is saying this and it is causing him not to work on his technical weakneses in training (because he feels what's the point), then that would be a poor decision. I think he tends to fall into this mentality after the Australian Open (well at least for AO2010 and AO2011).

Others are suggesting he is spending too much of his training period on improving his strength and fitness, and not enough of his training period on the technical aspects of his game. I think this is how I am seeing it. I would guess his current back issue was something that arose in the gym rather than on the courts.

Back injuries will happen at anytime. I have known people to injure their back getting out of an armchair to switch the television over. As for his training regime - how can we know what he is spending too much/not enough time on. That is guess work. The area Andy lacks in is his serve stats and not all out attacking strategy coupled with the lack of self-belief at crunch times. Those failings are ones not shared by Federer, Nadal and Djokovic hence why they have slams galore and Andy doesn't.

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC,

Stats from 2007

Doha - Average first serves 64.8%
Australian Open - Average first serves 57%
San Jose - Average first serves 51%
Memphis - Average first serves 46.5%
Indian Wells - Average first serves 55%
Miami - Average first serves 57.6%
Rome - Average first serves 46%
Hamburg - Average first serves 68%
Montreal - Average first serves 60%
Cincinnati - Average first serves 48%
US Open - Average first serves 52.33%
Metz - Average first serves 56.6%
Moscow - Average first serves 52.5%
Madrid - Average first serves 54%
St Petersburg - Average first serves 51.6%
Paris - Average first serves 51.33%

Average First Serve for the season 54.51%

He played 57 matches that season and missed a portion through his wrist injury.

I can't be arsed to do anymore stats tonight

Well going by the ATP site these are Andy's serve stat averages:-

2005 1st Serve = 51% year's average

2006 1st Serve = 53% year's average

2007 1st Serve = 54% year's average (Gilbert's year)

2008 1st Serve = 57% year's average

2009 1st Serve = 58% year's average

2010 1st Serve = 54% year's average

2011 1st Serve = 59% year's average

2012 1st Serve = 59% year's average (so far)

So you see no massive leap in serve average when Gilbert was in charge and if anything it has got better in the last couple of years and as we know his slam record has improved since dispensing with Gilbert. How did Bogdanovic do under Gilbert?

Craig, I wasn't talking about percentage he got more free points on the serve. To me when he worked with gilbert that shot developed to where he was hitting more aces and getting more unreturnables. I think Gilbert has a long track record of success with good players. Maybe he would have made a difference maybe he wouldn't we are talking hypos here. But I just find it hard to believe that a real top coach like Gilbo, killer cahill, or stefanki wouldn't have done a much better job over the years than miles.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC,

Stats from 2007

Doha - Average first serves 64.8%
Australian Open - Average first serves 57%
San Jose - Average first serves 51%
Memphis - Average first serves 46.5%
Indian Wells - Average first serves 55%
Miami - Average first serves 57.6%
Rome - Average first serves 46%
Hamburg - Average first serves 68%
Montreal - Average first serves 60%
Cincinnati - Average first serves 48%
US Open - Average first serves 52.33%
Metz - Average first serves 56.6%
Moscow - Average first serves 52.5%
Madrid - Average first serves 54%
St Petersburg - Average first serves 51.6%
Paris - Average first serves 51.33%

Average First Serve for the season 54.51%

He played 57 matches that season and missed a portion through his wrist injury.

I can't be arsed to do anymore stats tonight

Well going by the ATP site these are Andy's serve stat averages:-

2005 1st Serve = 51% year's average

2006 1st Serve = 53% year's average

2007 1st Serve = 54% year's average (Gilbert's year)

2008 1st Serve = 57% year's average

2009 1st Serve = 58% year's average

2010 1st Serve = 54% year's average

2011 1st Serve = 59% year's average

2012 1st Serve = 59% year's average (so far)

So you see no massive leap in serve average when Gilbert was in charge and if anything it has got better in the last couple of years and as we know his slam record has improved since dispensing with Gilbert. How did Bogdanovic do under Gilbert?

Some very intriguing stats there Craig

Another 6-7% and imagine the potential then

In my opinion it was a partnership that was very volatile and Andy's anger often spilt out onto court. In recent times this side of his game has improved a lot. Also if you look at all of the stats of Andy's from his time with Gilbert there is nothing really jaw-dropping there compared to the test of his career and obviously he has improved a lot in slams post-Gilbert. Now I am not denying Gilbert's calibre as a coach but sometimes some partnerships are destined not to reap results. It is akin in ways to Chelsea. For years they brought in the highest paid and highest rated managers in the world in a bid to win the Champions League and all of them failed. They then appoint Di Matteo who, by comparison had no big-time management experience but he could reach the players far better than those supposedly 'better managers.

I just believe craig that Murray has been hurt by having a relatively inexperienced group of coaches around him. Dani Vallverdue and miles aren't really of the highest level reputation wise. If you look at Nadal and Djoko both have been immeasurably helped by their involvement with their top coaches and even another tier of really top pros underneath Vajda and uncle toni. Where as Andy hasn't had that. Even Corteja and Lendl are great players dabbling in coaching. Cahill worked a bit with Andy but was unwilling to work full time with him, I think Andy probably should have pursued that route if Lendl made it clear he wasn't fully committed. To me it doesn't seem like the great man has been that fully committed.

If Murray wins today, Lendl can take some credit.

Did anyone ever re-visit this towards the end of last year LK? Seems to me it certainly was too early to Question Lendl's involvement at the time.