Murray parts company with Mauresmo

Just announced - parting is "by mutual consent".

He's not won a slam with her, but he's had injury trouble, he's achieved some great wins and got to #2, and Djoko has been unplayable at the same time.

It's a bit like Guardiola and Bayern - the perception in some quarters that he's not been a success because of his failure to get beyond the Champions League semis may be placing the bar too high.

I think she has done ok with him. As you say it depends on how high the bar is set for determining what makes the relationship a success eg  Norman with Wawrinka seems a high kind of metric to compare with.

For me Andy seems a lot more lighter on the feet. Can that be attributed to Mauresmos influence? Who knows.

He hasn't gone backwards. So nothing to criticise really.

I think she has done some positive things for him, but I also think he would be the 2nd/3rd best player in the world if he coached himself.

I guess what he needs is someone to push him on to become Djokovic's equal, or at least pick up some titles from him. Who knows if that is even achievable given Djokovic's level.

Very little was achieved by her appointment in my opinion.

Lendl had a clear impact on Murray's game but I don't see how Andy's game has developed tactically or technically under Mauresmo.

He's shown some (very) recent technical improvements in his serve but that seems a slim reward for two years' work. For most of that period he has looked like he has been in a holding pattern. I also think some of his behaviour toward his box has been at an all time low, which suggests frustration and tactical confusion.

It will be interesting to see whom he appoints. Latest odds on his next coach:

3-1 Billie Jean King
7-2 Martina Navratilova
5-1 Emmeline Pankhurst
6-1 Boudicca
7-1 Judy Murray

Stayed up for Khan-Alvarez, so i slept through the Madrid final, but I thought Murray was playing well on the dirt, and would not want to rock the boat before the Grand Slam summer. On the other hand Murray has been a bit of a mess recently
#headsGone

12-1 lydian?

Just kidding.

Depends on Andy himself and what he wants out of a coach. At this stage of his career is he looking for a drastic approach to improvement? Would the improvement he seeks be one that adds longevity to his career?

So many things to consider. Also has he already hit his glass ceiling?

I guess I got my wish. She's definitely been a decent coach but never really pushed murray to go back to his variation style tennis. She was unfairly criticised for being too much of a woman sometimes, but that was never really a problem. She didn't really effect much change in the end of his style As I think we felt,he needed to beat novak.

He definitely needs some new input, as well as someone who will
Be there a lot more.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Also has he already hit his glass ceiling?

In some respects yes, in others no.

I don't think he has it in him to be a dominant number 1, for instance. He's an outstanding player but I think we'd all recognise that he doesn't have the extra something that his fellow 'Big 4' cohorts have/had. So I don't think a new coach will transform his standing in the game.

But he can definitely be a better player. I think success or failure of the new coach must be judged by technical improvement, a calm head on court, tactical clarity and a sense that Andy is not letting himself down in big matches.

5000 - 1 Claudio Ranieri

Think this has been on the cards since at least Miami. Haven't seen much of Monte Carlo or Madrid but wasn't sure if Mauresmo was there or not. The week prior to Rome he was practicing with Raonic and his coach Moya. Again don't know if Mauresmo was there.

Nothing against Mauresmo who worked with him as he came back from the early 2014 struggles after his back surgery. However as others have said it was difficult to see what she added to his game and the mental calmness Andy claimed she was giving him had not been much in evidence lately.

Be interesting to see who he goes to next. As Guest says he could probably coach himself to remain a top 4 player. It is that bit extra that he needs someone to bring which may get him winning slams again.

As an aside it was pleasing to hear that he had been putting a lot of thought and effort into improving his serve.

Haha LK...my services don't come cheap

Not a surprise - as discussed 2 key things have been pointed out...the increased need for variety and technical improvements. From Murrays recent pressers he's clearly been speaking to other coaches on how to achieve this - presumably because he couldn't get it from Amelie. That's has either frustrated her or shown him that she's not the one to take him forward. He needs a good technical coach who can make him aggressive and improve his use of variety. Cahill fits that bill but not sure he coached anymore outside the Adidas set up. Stan's team "Good to Great" are also very good too but doesn't fit Murrays profile.

It's going to be a tough choice for Murray.

JuliusHMarx wrote:5000 - 1 Claudio Ranieri

Hope you took those odds while they were still on offer JHM......?

They've just come to an agreement. Two year contract. Formal announcement tomorrow morning.

HM Murdock wrote:Very little was achieved by her appointment in my opinion.

Lendl had a clear impact on Murray's game but I don't see how Andy's game has developed tactically or technically under Mauresmo.

He's shown some (very) recent technical improvements in his serve but that seems a slim reward for two years' work. For most of that period he has looked like he has been in a holding pattern. I also think some of his behaviour toward his box has been at an all time low, which suggests frustration and tactical confusion.

It will be interesting to see whom he appoints. Latest odds on his next coach:

3-1 Billie Jean King
7-2 Martina Navratilova
5-1 Emmeline Pankhurst
6-1 Boudicca
7-1 Judy Murray

Agree, I never saw the sense in the appointment of a person who, as a player, was mentally fragile. Not with all Murray's on-court weirdness.

temporary21 wrote:I guess I got my wish. She's definitely been a decent coach but never really pushed murray to go back to his variation style tennis. She was unfairly criticised for being too much of a woman sometimes, but that was never really a problem. She didn't really effect much change in the end of his style As I think we felt,he needed to beat novak.

He definitely needs some new input, as well as someone who will
Be there a lot more.

That was never something Martina Hingis said about her.

Should she have been less a woman? Perhaps if she identified as non-binary trans it would have been better, and very 2016.

Difficult to know whether Murray benefitted having Mauresmo as coach rather than someone to hold his hand and reassure him like a surrogate mother or father.  What Lendl did was to act as analyser and coach and as a disciplined father figure and role model.  Lendl analysed Murray's biggest three weakness as to why Murray was losing the big matches in the slams and then worked to improve on those three aspects before reassessing.  It was very pragmatic, empirical and directed at winning the big matches.  It had nothing to do with what "Murray wanted to do", had nothing to do with ideology and theories of how the game should be played etc.

Ps: One could ask what Boris Becker is doing to help Djokovic - is he actually coaching Djokivic or is he just helping him with analysing his opponents, assessing match strategies and getting him feeling mentally strong and focussed.  One has to credit Djokovic for his all year round concentration.  He is not just focusing on the grand slams he is actually focussing on every single tournament he enters - hence his enormous points gap to the number two ranked player.

Good comment Nore. Lendl have what was needed, not maybe what was wanted. Suspect Amelie was more passive in her assertions.
On balance I don't think she added much, and wasn't in agreement with her appointment to begin with. Murray needs a guy who knows what it takes to win on the men's tour and understands technique well, as Andy is quite technique savvy. Magus Norman would be great for him - IF he parted ways with Stan. Maybe this opportunity will get a few coaches checking their availability as the opp of coaching a #2 player doesn't arise often. That said he can bide his time also...he's old and experienced enough to know what is basically needed in the interim, no use jumping at the first thing.

Nore Staat wrote:Ps: One could ask what Boris Becker is doing to help Djokovic - is he actually coaching Djokivic or is he just helping him with analysing his opponents, assessing match strategies and getting him feeling mentally strong and focussed.  One has to credit Djokovic for his all year round concentration.  He is not just focusing on the grand slams he is actually focussing on every single tournament he enters - hence his enormous points gap to the number two ranked player.

Clear technical improvements have happened under Becker's watch too. The serve and forehand are markedly better. The improvements in the serve alone have probably won Novak a slam or two.

Court positioning is consistently more aggressive. His volleys and even his smashes are noticeably better also. They are no longer the glaring liabilities they once were.

And although the reported conversations never strike me as especially insightful, Boris does seem to be able to calm Novak when he needs calming and build him up when he needs a pep talk.

I'd argue that the improvement in Novak under Becker is as great as the improvement in Andy under Lendl. Less noticeable perhaps, because Andy's improvement brought him across the threshold of finally winning a slam, but just as large.

Agree HMM, for all Becker's bluster on TV he's a savvy guy who knows his stuff technically and tactically. Djokovic's game has improved in almost every area you care to mention except for perhaps his BH but that was near perfection to begin with. Tennis is a skill based game and the guys have to work on their technique to stay current, never mind stay ahead. This is an area where I feel Nadal has been sorely lagging behind, his team cant bring anything new to him and he really needs a "supercoach" to complement the set up. Murray has also recognised he needs technical input and so we see him speaking to various coaches recently about court positioning, grips, serving. This indicates he knows what he needs, he's a smart cookie, and will select knowledge that fits into his puzzle. Longer term, he needs someone who can motivate him to pull it all together and then maintain it. But I have no idea who that person is...it shouldn't be a tennis celebrity coach for sure, he needs someone who really knows their stuff but has succeeded at the highest level too. Unfortunately, there aren't many of these ilk so Murray may be waiting a while...

It seems that murray works better with much more no nonsense types of coaches to help counterbalance his own personality type. That of course, doesn't have to be a man as Andy obviously doesn't view the opposite sex as weak or inferior. he has a great deal of respect for females as authority figured
What he needs is just someone no nonsense. Amelie was Maybe too passive s person.

Is kuzetsova around? I wonder if henin is bored away from tennis yet...

Quite - Djoko plays a more aggressive and varied game, and his front-court game is a useful string to his bow which can be used against even the best opponents at tight moments, rather than a relative weakness to be avoided, especially at times of stress.  

You can't imagine that Djoko would be satisfied in private with Boris coming up with the sort of superficial stuff that he says on TV - no doubt Boris is content to be lovable and daffy on TV and leave his real insight to his pupil*.  The facts that Boris is still v. much part of an outwardly happy camp and Djoko is playing the tennis of his life are pretty telling.

*Being daffy in public seems quite a thing for the Boris's of this world....

Neither a huge failure nor a huge success the Mauresmo period. But more towards failure from success due to no slams and no improvement.

By the way, interesting timing ahead of 2 slams. Makes me wonder here. Either someone else is already semi-lined up, that could be one explanation, or the other is a falling out or some reason they have had to separate rapidly.

Tbf. She was barely around at this point. As is her right with a kid to look after. There will be scant difference really. I think he has finally correctly realised he needs better and more specialist input to turn the novak match up around. He may as well start now

From Russell Fuller on the BBC website

"Murray has always maintained he needs to spend 25 weeks a year with his head coach, and - even if a final decision was only taken last week - it has become apparent over the last few months that as a new mum, Mauresmo would be unable to find that time. She trained with Murray in Dubai in December, but since January's Australian Open, has only been on coaching duty in Miami"

Not sure how accurate this is but had not noticed Mauresmo around recently. So if true it's no surprise they decided to split.

Probably the right call, whatever the work was that has been put in it hasn't resulted in the gap between Murray and the guy ranked above him to shrink, instead Djokovic is getting better faster than he is therefore the gap has increased and it brings questions about the success of the relationship. He has to find someone who helps him work out the issues with his second serve and FH. In the first set against Djokovic Murray was winning 17 percent of second serves. In sets 2 and 3 that number improved dramatically and he split those two sets and had his chances in the third, where the first set was a complete white wash. The second serve is better but the best players can still break it down in crucial stages of big matches.

kingraf wrote:Stayed up for Khan-Alvarez, so i slept through the Madrid final, but I thought Murray was playing well on the dirt, and would not want to rock the boat before the Grand Slam summer. On the other hand Murray has been a bit of a mess recently
#headsGone

I don't think he is rocking the boat though. Amelie wasn't present for either clay event so I suspect it was already a done deal. He's had Delgado with him for the clay season.

I think he needs the same things he needed at the time he appointed Lendl. More sustained mental intensity, better protect the second serve, more consistent aggressive court position.

I'm not sure Mauresmo can be called a success. After injury she helped him back to no 2, and getting to major finals, but in those matches Murray kept competing for 2+ hours, then just fading.

Lendl's style was apparently volume and repetition. Mauresmo's more focused but lighter and less intense. Is that a reason he has struggled to maintain a high level for long enough in big matches? Who knows.

I would go with a 'been there, done that' coach again. Someone with that mental steel. That's what is proven to get the best out of Andy. I don't think Andy wants that though. I think he wants a relationship where he's the boss.

In another thread it was reported one of Lendl's inside circle of friends Goran Isanivovic said as a matter of fact, that Andy Murray had sacked Lendl, saying it was a shame Murray had let Lendl go because his form had dramatically declined since.  This resulted in some arguments by a few 606v2 commentators saying they didn't believe what Goran said, or if true, it was a distortion of what they believed actually happened. Okay fair enough despite the evidence that Murray was adopting a different approach than the Lendl approach which was so successful - indicating Murray had had enough of Lendl & wanted to change his style of play.

Now someone else on the inside is pooh-poohing the idea that this separation of the ways between Murray and Mauresmo as just down to the fact that Mauresmo has had a child.  This time it is Patrick Mouratoglou, the coach of Serena Williams, who is saying that there is clearly more to this than the PR story being given out to the media:

Patrick Mouratoglou quoted by the BBC wrote: ... "Everyone knows everyone in the locker rooms and players' lounges  ... Obviously something was wrong."  The Frenchman told BBC Sport that tennis has "codes" which "everyone" knows "how to interpret" (the "codes" being the joint statements given by Mauresmo & Murray & their contents).  .... "The only time in his career when he could find this extra thing to win those matches against the top three and win Slams, the Olympics, was when he was with Ivan," ...  "But even if he's not able to make that little extra difference, with his level of play he should be most of the time in the top four."

Swedish former world number four Jonas Bjorkman also left Murray's coaching team in December.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/36252618

The inference being was that it was not working between Murray and Mauresmo and this was a convenient opportunity to end the relationship.  HM Murdoch assessment that Mauresmo hasn't really added anything technically new to Murray's game supports this view.

Does anyone have the story behind Jonas Bjorkman's appointment and subsequent parting of the ways?

I will consult my code breaker to find out what happened to Jonas

There is a bit of a pattern, though to be fair the real crime with Petchey was taking him on in the first place.

Seriously though; Petchey, Gilbert, McLagan, Lendl, Bjorkman, Mauresmo. Did I miss any? And I think not many ended happily. And before anyone lists all Federer or Djokovic's coaches, Djokovic has been with Vajda throughout and Federer really takes on "coaches" as collaborators / consultants rather than to manage his game.

I blame the parent.

Danny_1982 wrote:I think he needs the same things he needed at the time he appointed Lendl. More sustained mental intensity, better protect the second serve, more consistent aggressive court position.

I'm not sure Mauresmo can be called a success. After injury she helped him back to no 2, and getting to major finals, but in those matches Murray kept competing for 2+ hours, then just fading.

Lendl's style was apparently volume and repetition. Mauresmo's more focused but lighter and less intense. Is that a reason he has struggled to maintain a high level for long enough in big matches? Who knows.

I would go with a 'been there, done that' coach again. Someone with that mental steel. That's what is proven to get the best out of Andy. I don't think Andy wants that though. I think he wants a relationship where he's the boss.

Agree, but unless you are the guy who knows exactly what is needed and is consulting an expert to provide that precise thing (think Edberg for Federer), that's slightly counter productive.

Lendl might not have provided the answers he wanted, but on the face of it they were the answers he needed.

bogbrush wrote:There is a bit of a pattern, though to be fair the real crime with Petchey was taking him on in the first place.

Seriously though; Petchey, Gilbert, McLagan, Lendl, Bjorkman, Mauresmo. Did I miss any? And I think not many ended happily. And before anyone lists all Federer or Djokovic's coaches, Djokovic has been with Vajda throughout and Federer really takes on "coaches" as collaborators / consultants rather than to manage his game.

I blame the parent.

Think that chap there was the only one who demonstrated any real leadership and authoritative traits and the outcome was positive. The real steer there other than the experience of handling one's self on the big occasion was to improve Andy's attitude. Andy for a time responded to it and once he stopped, it went south again. It's classic syndrome of once one stops listening, the results tail off.

I think Djokovic's set up at the moment is perfect. Becker's contribution seems to have been varied (just stop him from any PR releases!)

I like the collaboration approach. Federer has got it right throughout his career (though Ljubicic is questionable).

Andy needs to ask himself what he wants from his coach. Identifying the area of his game that he thinks can go to the next level and what coach can contribute to that. What part of his game he is comfortable with right now and can self manage and what part of his game he thinks needs more management outside of himself.

Federer and Murray are very different though.

Federer was almost the finished article by 20 - technically perfect, just needed higher level conditioning really.
Murray was not the finished article by 20 - raw talent for sure but lots of technical issues, basic conditioning issues and higher level tactics needed.

So with all these areas of development, Murray basically brought on coaches as project leaders - they would provide specific input for a specific developmental phase of his career. When each "project" was complete he ended the contract to move onto the next project. I believe this is firmly how he sees coaches, maybe fuelled initially by his mother's direction. Maybe there are also deeper issues of not being able to sustain a relationship with a coach because of cold professional terms. Maybe this links back to his upbringing...who knows. But each coach was brought in for a specific reason.

The problem now is who wants to become his next project of "technical and variety mastery"...and who fits the bill?

^ The key factor with Federer though, was that the fitness work was the glue that brought his game together.

I remember Pierre Paganini (fitness coach) saying that Federer played with so much variety and improvisation, which in turn meant so many different movements, that the purpose of the fitness work was to sustain this natural style. They didn't want Federer to compromise tactically because his fitness was failing. It was all about boosting what was already in place.

Where Andy arguably went wrong is that the fitness became the end in itself.  It didn't support what was already in place, but rather it prompted a change in style.

That may or may not have been a bad thing. We can never know if the slams would have eventually arrived with his old style or whether the change in approach was necessary to achieve the success he has.

But I think it may have led to some confusion over what his natural style of play is. His natural gifts would seem to lean in one direction but the routine of his play for a period of years has been in another one.

That conflict between natural instinct and learned habit must be tricky to reconcile. In fact, who knows if that old style even comes naturally anymore?

I must say I thought his serve looked far better recently, especially the 2nd. If he's had a 2nd serve throughout his career he'd have won a lot more. It's an odd failing to have - a defective serve - it being the only shot that you have total control over.

When he's good he's really, really good.Sometimes I find it hard to work out why he can go so wrong.

bogbrush wrote:When he's good he's really, really good.Sometimes I find it hard to work out why he can go so wrong.

Because this is often not far below the surface:

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:When he's good he's really, really good.Sometimes I find it hard to work out why he can go so wrong.

Because this is often not far below the surface:

I never tired of that. I must admit I felt like that yesterday!

I think we've had this discussion before. people are very hyper critical of murray showing frustration, despite being in real terms a normal sort of reaction.

That almost complete disconnect with emotion that the top 3 have is very unusual. You won't be able to teach that, to have neither frustrstion nor nerves . he just needs someone who understands that inner bad voice and help channel it

temporary21 wrote:I think we've had this discussion before. people are very hyper critical of murray showing frustration, despite being in real terms a normal sort of reaction.

That almost complete disconnect with emotion that the top 3 have is very unusual. You won't be able to teach that, to have neither frustrstion nor nerves . he just needs someone who understands that inner bad voice and help channel it

It's only Federer and Nadal who appear to remain totally calm.

Novak goes totally beserk at times. Some of his tantrums are as bad, if not worse, than anything from Andy.

The difference is that he gets it out of his system and re-groups. Andy has a history of dragging himself down.

It's not hyper-critical to comment on Andy's temperament as it's a big hindrance to him reaching the full potential of his talent.

HM Murdock wrote:

bogbrush wrote:When he's good he's really, really good.Sometimes I find it hard to work out why he can go so wrong.

Because this is often not far below the surface:

I think Murray's antics and the affect on his game, are grossly over-rated. For every distracted angry man performance, i.e. Wimby QF of 2014, there's the muted four slam final defeats to Fed. Behaving himself, certainly didn't help him to beat Roger!! In fact one of his best defeats against him was their Aus match of 2013, where Andy was at his petulant best

My take on it is, that very few people like Murray's behaviour (I think it's great, except when it borders on autism (with respect) i.e. moaning about the tennis balls!!) and so assume that it must be bad for his game, as though such antics could never reap rewards

His matches with Berdych are a classic illustration of how irrelevant his behaviour is, previously to their last meeting Murray must have lost his rag during every one of their meetings, simply because he clearly has no real respect for him (in comparison on the Top 6). This resulted in defeats, where we were all told once again that it was costing him and he'd never win the big ones (blah blah) Plus of course plenty of wins - where people seem to have collective amnesia about the fact, there was an outburst

He's a highly passionate, emotional person with strong views about everything, this like Mac, will inevitably be marmite to people - but he actually wouldn't have achieved half he has done, without this edge

This type of expression is Murray's release valve...it never did McEnroe any harm. Not everyone is Borg.
Even Djokovic gets like this at times. If anything it makes Murray more interesting to watch...

Good point HMM on the change of style that the conditioning focus brought.
For sure, I've majored on the change that Paganini brought to Federer but yes it enhanced his game.

With Murray, it channelled him into less variation and because he could hang in ralleys even more, that became his truck.
It also signalled a loss of focus on technique (vs physical/tactical).
Its of note that he's now thinking about technique in many areas...and as BB says, his 2nd serve is way better...so better late than never but a shame he didn't focus on this element earlier too.

Tennis is a skill-based game, you cant lose focus on the skill basis!

As a guy who cites indentikit pristine behaviour as one of the reasons the modern game is too boring, I must applaud Andy's more mad antics.

My son & I initially called him "Napoleon Dynamite" when he first emerged - it was the fuzzy hair, the teenage looks and the whole "How was your day Andy?"; "Worst day of my life!! What do you think???!!!!" stuff.

HM Murdock wrote:

temporary21 wrote:I think we've had this discussion before. people are very hyper critical of murray showing frustration, despite being in real terms a normal sort of reaction.

That almost complete disconnect with emotion that the top 3 have is very unusual. You won't be able to teach that, to have neither frustrstion nor nerves . he just needs someone who understands that inner bad voice and help channel it

It's only Federer and Nadal who appear to remain totally calm.

Novak goes totally beserk at times. Some of his tantrums are as bad, if not worse, than anything from Andy.

The difference is that he gets it out of his system and re-groups. Andy has a history of dragging himself down.

It's not hyper-critical to comment on Andy's temperament as it's a big hindrance to him reaching the full potential of his talent.

Don't think it's the outbursts that totally cause him to lose focus. I find it's either a shot he misses that he expects to make on a big point or his opponent making a shot which he can't return.

His sinking without a trace exploits in my view happen quite quietly in matches. Not met with a f*ck or something.

temporary21 wrote:I think we've had this discussion before. people are very hyper critical of murray showing frustration, despite being in real terms a normal sort of reaction.

That almost complete disconnect with emotion that the top 3 have is very unusual. You won't be able to teach that, to have neither frustrstion nor nerves . he just needs someone who understands that inner bad voice and help channel it

Oh they all have the frustration and the nerves, and at various times they all show it. Federer can be a bag of nerves; Djokovic starts the hollow laughing and looking up; Nadal shows it in his face and the length of the forehand.

It was only with the Borg that resistance was futile.

People who reckon Murray's antics lose him matches, or even more amusingly, that he was somehow calm personified under Lendl, should go back and watch the 2012 US Open final again. He spends the first two sets shouting at himself every time he misses a shot...

I agree and also don't. Wisdom says that you blow up and then lose focus.

I say with Murray its the reverse...he loses focus, so blows up.

He's just not as mentally strong as the big 3...and no amount of training can make up the difference.

Its an innate skill to be able to zone in for a long period of time.

Nadal and Federer are the kings at this...they can zone in all match long.

Djokovic blows up but rarely loses his focus. If he does waver he tends to zone straight back.
How many times have you seen him lose serve only to break straight back? He does it often.

Murray tends to take a while to reach a mental peak in a match, then he'll sustain it, have a waver...and then its more random whether he'll come back to win or not (yes he did at USO12...but don't get me started on the wind...). But I'm certain that his waver points are what cause the blow ups, not the other way round. He kind of cant help it because that's who he is, he's just not as mentally strong as the other 3. His realisation of this also probably frustrates him in key matches.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Don't think it's the outbursts that totally cause him to lose focus. I find it's either a shot he misses that he expects to make on a big point or his opponent making a shot which he can't return.

His sinking without a trace exploits in my view happen quite quietly in matches. Not met with a f*ck or something.

The outbursts are not an issue (FWIW, I rather like them).

The problem is the frustation or anger that fuels them often takes too long to dissipate.

I rarely hear the word "chuntering" outside of the commentary of a Murray match!

Before the Lendl era Murray's post match interviews after a loss to a top player in an important tournament, or an unexpected loss to someone in a less important tournament generally took the same form.  He didn't know why he lost. Something wasn't working but he didn't know what that something was.  Or his legs felt like lead and he didn't know why.  He would need to go away and think about it.  Maybe he would never know the reason.

Cut to post match interview of a Nadal or a Federer after a disappointing loss and they would pinpoint exactly why they lost, whether there was something they could have done about it (often not at that time), and what if anything they need to work on.

The differences in the post match interviews after a loss indicated strongly that Murray is just poor at self-analysis compared to Nadal and Federer.  Their often visible better on court attitude is them analysing the match and themselves and the opponent as the match is occurring.  Murray's often visible worse attitude on the court reveals he tends not to be analysing the game and himself in any deep meaningful sense (when things are getting difficult for him on court).

All this does suggest when it comes to directing what needs to be done in training - him being the boss is the worst possible situation for Murray.  His post match interviews after those losses, his on court attitude - all indicate Murray is not good at self analysis, is NOT best placed to work out what needs to be done.  Hence the importance of a coach who is a good analyser of the player, and the importance of the coach of being "the boss".

Mad for Chelsea wrote:People who reckon Murray's antics lose him matches, or even more amusingly, that he was somehow calm personified under Lendl, should go back and watch the 2012 US Open final again. He spends the first two sets shouting at himself every time he misses a shot...

Does the extended moaning at his box tend to herald an improvement or a dip in his level?

Does it encourage or discourage his opponent?

I do agree there's some confounding. He loses and gets angry, ergo he loses because he's angry. It's not perfectly correlated. He was certainly plenty angry under Lendl but he won a lot then

He usually gets chuntery when he knows that the opponent is beginning to get in too of him and it's frudtrsting. That's probably the bigger reason

His lapses in matchez are probably not mainly due to temper, they are just natural human variation as you wear out and then get second winds, the big three dont dip like that because they are freakish
Basically. He's no more prone to lapse as any other normal sportsmen, in fact he's more even over a match in terms if level than most

You know people keep saying he's been successful under Amelia, and Lendl before that, i.e. from 2012 onwards. But is this really true?
Yes he won 2 slams and OG (although I still cannot look past the Djokovic-wind issue and an exhausted Federer at OG).
I'm also not including DC as that's a variable event and he's only ever lost 2 DC matches...1 in 2008 and 1 in 2014.

Those things aside, if we look at the overall 4 seasons from Lendl (2012-2015) and overall 4 seasons before Lendl (2008-2011) we see the following stats:

ATP 250/500 titles won
2008-2011: 13
2012-2015:  8 (& nothing in 2016)

ATP 1000 titles won
2008-2011: 8
2012-2015: 3 (& nothing in 2016)

Slams:
2008-2011: 0 (8 x SF/F/W)
2012-2015: 2 (9 x SF/F/W)

WTF finals:
2008-2011: 2 x SFs
2012-2015: 1 x SFs

Overall W:L %
2008-2011: 80%
2012-2015: 80%

Slam & Masters W:L %
2008-2011: slams - 80%, Masters - 75%
2012-2015: slams - 85%, Masters - 73%

The only stat that is UP is slams - more finals (5 vs 3), more titles (2 vs 0), higher W:L%. But it wasn't THAT bad before either.

Question: has Murray's focus on doing well at the slams come at the detriment of everything else...?
Question: is this why he wants to refocus on technique and variety? To get back to pre-2011 way of playing the game but with better technique?