Murray parts company with Mauresmo

First topic message reminder :

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.

Hi Lydian I think the breakdown has to be split into at least three (and possibly more) intervals.  Pre-lendl, lendl, post lendl (which also concides with post surgery).

Murray started out winning non slams tournaments. 250, 500, Masters.  But his performance in slams when he encountered Federer & Nadal were woeful.  After having won many non slam titles and establishing himself in the "top four" he then in an interview said he is going to move his focus away from these non-slam tournaments and onto the slams.

It seems to me it was this shift in attitude towards the slams and away from non slam events that was the main demarcation point as regards his relative success in the non-slam tournaments.

Another thing to consider is why Murray suffered post Australian blues after losing at the Australian open.  There was a number of successive years (all before the Lendl period) where this was strikingly evident (losing in the first match of the tournament played etc) ... however, and just as importantly, he always recovered to put in good performances at the French Open and Wimbledon (until he encountered Nadal or Federer or someone else playing exceptional tennis for five sets).

lydian wrote: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?

The moment you add caveats as influence to the outcome of someone's success, the floodgates open for wider speculation of other players achievements. Be careful

banbrotam wrote:

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

I agree banbro, I don't want to legislate his quirks and character traits away. And I actually think Murray does play opossum quite a bit with his opponents. I think it is subconscious but he starts wiggling his legs like he is hurt or breaking down, he starts cursing and moaning; and then all of sudden he goes on a late run in the set wins the last 4 games and he is back to whinging halfway through the next set. I like the differences in personality. I echo those who want a boring or cookie cutter personality of sports men. To be honest it was one of the reasons I couldn't warm to Roger as great as his game was he didn't have the kind of surface level fire and passion that would get you on his side.

Question: has Murray's focus on doing well at the slams come at the detriment of everything else...?

Probably yes.

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?

Don't think so. I think he wants to enjoy his tennis, as he didn't enjoy the 'high percentage, winning tennis' (his description) that Lendl had him playing.

However he did say today that he would consider a big name former player as his coach as he knows they "can give an advantage in the slams, in the big matches, in the big moments"

Winning tennis, or fun? He seems conflicted to me.

If Murray is looking for a big name tennis player he could go for Vlademyros Mavropoulos-Stoliarenko.
http://montrealgazette.com/sports/tennis/the-legendary-vlademyros-mavropoulos-stoliarenko

I think Murray is demanding at least 25 weeks a year + someone prepared to travel to all or most of his tournaments.  That is some commitment he is expecting for a multi-millionaire former tennis big name who probably has a family and spouse to keep contented, who probably has lots of other commitments in his / her life, plus who probably enjoys playing tennis on the senior tour.

Tennis is only fun when you win Danny like any competitive sport. When people are kissing your ass all the time and you are making more and more money and reporters are paying you tribute more so than asking you questions; well then tennis becomes a lot more fun. You can go out and smile and hit highlight reel shots all you like the only way for tennis, basketball, poker, boxing or whatever that is competitive at the highest levels type of sport its only fun when you are winning. As opposed to people asking you why you lost to Djokovic 1-12 or whatever and what is wrong with you mentally, then tennis becomes less fun.

No argument from me on that socal. But look at the below Murray quote right at the start of the Mauresmo relationship:

"Variety was something that maybe Ivan wasn’t that big on.

“He was very big on being aggressive and coming forward to finish points but Amélie played with a lot of variety herself. It worked well for her and, when it’s used properly, it can make a big difference.

“It’s been a big part of my game since I was young. I played like that when I was a kid and I did it as well when I came on to the Tour until I was 21, 22. But when I was starting to play winning tennis, high-percentage solid tennis, not making many mistakes, moving well, maybe I just got away from using that flair. That’s something I want to get back to and try to use in matches.”


So Lendl got him playing winning tennis, to use his tools for the purpose of winning the big titles he kept missing out on. And it worked. But Murray missed playing with flair, and so changed.

"When used properly it can make a big difference"

That's why he made the change. He recognised that's how his game needed to progress if he was to get to a position where he was consistently beating the top guys. It hasn't yet worked out, mainly due to Novak himself improving further but it was the right way to go.

temporary21 wrote: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

Opponents only usually start to get on top of him when his level dips though - see Monte Carlo for a good example. His level often dips because he loses concentration. He then gets frustrated because he knows it's his own mental failings which have let his opponent get on top.

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...

Have to agree with this. I'm also bemused by the idea he became some sort of mental fortress under Lendl. He lost Wim 12 because he missed an easy backhand and wasn't the same player after. Oz 13 he managed to get distracted by a feather. Even US12 he switched off mentally when 4-0 up in the 2nd set and faded miserably in sets 3 and 4. He's always had these issues and they are never going to change.

Exactly.
People need to stop deluding themselves Murray is as mentally strong as Nadal, Federer or Djokovic.
He just isn't, and no amount of training will close the gap.
Their peak vs. his peak was much higher.
Murray just needs to play the type of game he likes playing and hang in for when the big guys slip up.

Nore Staat wrote:If Murray is looking for a big name tennis player he could go for Vlademyros Mavropoulos-Stoliarenko.

The misconception and misunderstanding is quite amusing on here.

Murray for a period under Lendl was able to firm himself up mentally, the one thing he had during those Lendl days was extended and sustained periods of focus and concentration. The whole pointing to the sky thing was clearly symptom of this and kept him committed to a train of thought. 4 of examples of this in those Slam victories were against Lopez and Cillic at the US Open and against Verdasco and Janowicz at Wimbledon. Granted 3 of those matches he turned around from losing the first set, but he actually stayed channelled in his focus. To me it appeared there was no doubt in his mind that if he kept playing the way he did, the results would come and they did.

It's speculation as to what path Murray's career would've taken had he sustained that period of focus. What is clear is that during those 12 months between OG and Wimbledon, he was totally in a zone and bought into it. Even though it appears he has strayed from that to me shows a lack of discipline to maintain that.

It's why these Sports Psychologists make a mint from athletes to provide a crib sheet for them to read from.

Sure, he did well during 2012/13 but it was ultimately too hard for Murray to sustain a level of focus that simply didn't come naturally to him.
Sports psychologists can only work with what they have in front of them and sure Murray peaked tremendously well but to expect him to sustain that was unrealistic, you cant keep an artificial high going forever.

On other notes, I reckon Mats Wilander would be a good shout for Murray.
Very technical, great at the mental side, a strong personality, 7 time slam winner and knows his stuff.
Sorted

Guest82 wrote:...but I also think he would be the 2nd/3rd best player in the world if he coached himself.

I beg to differ. He cannot coach himself, IMVHO.

Guest82 wrote: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.

I will pick my favorite example, Federer pursued the Nadal route and got to the Rome 2006 final, as did Murray (slams) when he pursued the Nadal/Djokovic mould, before his back surgery.

Federer and Murray (of the late - the 'technique' talk), both realized, that the fitness route does not suit their natural gifts, and went away from it to focus on the games differently.

Murray's old habits are going to die a natural demise, but, case in point is the Madrid final.  Murray has a couple of weeks prior to RG. Wawrinka and Fedal will cause less problems for Djokovic, then someone less well known, like Tsonga, Monfils, Kyrgios, etc. . Murray is a bigger threat to Djokovic, than anyone else in the current form, Nadal's MC/Barcelona titles notwithstanding.

lydian wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:If Murray is looking for a big name tennis player he could go for Vlademyros Mavropoulos-Stoliarenko.

If Agassi will come out of his Tennis hiding, grab him.

I don't believe that mental strength is essentially a natural ability. Murray demonstrated all the signs in that period of someone that found like a zen like zone that enabled him to stay focused and concentrated. How he obtained that I don't know and it's hard to gauge how much influence Lendl had him subscribing to that and maintaining that. It worked at the end of the day.

Murray is similar to other players who have the same fragilities in focussing on his game and allowing the most simplistic external factors de-stabilise him. In the psychology field this is called the 'Beach Ball' effect in which something crops into the mind without warning or pretence and you lose focus and let something else occupy your mind.

Take Djokovic's match with Nadal at RG was it 2014 when he missed that smash? That was pressure that got to him that is different to the prolonged lapses that Murray encounters.

Sustained focus and concentration in any walk of life is really hard to maintain all the time. Some can shuffle back on track in a matter of moments whereas others tend to dwell more and take more time to get back on it.

I agree Wilander was one cool customer and if at all I never saw him lose it. Could help Murray.

laverfan wrote:

lydian wrote:

Nore Staat wrote:If Murray is looking for a big name tennis player he could go for Vlademyros Mavropoulos-Stoliarenko.

If Agassi will come out of his Tennis hiding, grab him.

Would not mind grabbing Steffi a little, for some 1 to 1 training

If Murray's weakness was mainly mental strength then why is his forehand and second serve so consistently under par.  If Murray's weakness was mainly mental strength, why haven't there been more examples where his mental strength was good AND he played lights out tennis.

How many of the past twelve losses out of thirteen against Djokovic was due to mental strength and how many was due to Djokovic being technically/physically/decision makingly better?  How many of the past twenty losses out of twenty five to the "top three + wawrinka" since 2013 was due to mental strength and how many due to relative weaknesses in his technical / physical  / on court decision making abilities.

What came first the egg of his tennis abilities versus the plucked chicken of his mind?  

Most elite players hate losing.   If Murray is losing or not PERFORMING how he thinks he should be performing then wouldn't this be expected to express itself mentally, expressed itself in rackets smashed, expressed in on court swearing.

It seems to me everyone is in agreement that when Murray's game is put under intense pressure his game breaks down.  Djokovic knows this.  Nadal knows this.  Federer knows this.

Another stat that I think is relevant is percentage correctness in hawkeye challenges.  It seems to me he is poor in making correct challenges compared to Djokovic, Nadal, Federer.  He just seems that little bit less aware of what is happening on the court.

Having finished this comment and looking back over it I get a tremendous sense of deja vu.  The only original aspect of the comment I think is the hawkeye challenge test.  That's a bit of empirical data yet to be scrutinised and interpreted.  The "plucked chicken of his mind" phrase I am quite pleased with.

Nore Staat wrote:If Murray's weakness was mainly mental strength then why is his forehand and second serve so consistently under par.  If Murray's weakness was mainly mental strength, why haven't there been more examples where his mental strength was good AND he played lights out tennis.

How many of the past twelve losses out of thirteen against Djokovic was due to mental strength and how many was due to Djokovic being technically/physically/decision makingly better?  How many of the past twenty losses out of twenty five to the "top three + wawrinka" since 2013 was due to mental strength and how many due to relative weaknesses in his technical / physical  / on court decision making abilities.

What came first the egg of his tennis abilities versus the plucked chicken of his mind?  

Most elite players hate losing.   If Murray is losing or not PERFORMING how he thinks he should be performing then wouldn't this be expected to express itself mentally, expressed itself in rackets smashed, expressed in on court swearing.

It seems to me everyone is in agreement that when Murray's game is put under intense pressure his game breaks down.  Djokovic knows this.  Nadal knows this.  Federer knows this.

Another stat that I think is relevant is percentage correctness in hawkeye challenges.  It seems to me he is poor in making correct challenges compared to Djokovic, Nadal, Federer.  He just seems that little bit less aware of what is happening on the court.

Having finished this comment and looking back over it I get a tremendous sense of deja vu.  The only original aspect of the comment I think is the hawkeye challenge test.  That's a bit of empirical data yet to be scrutinised and interpreted.  The "plucked chicken of his mind" phrase I am quite pleased with.

What a load of CRAP

Born Slippy wrote:"When used properly it can make a big difference"

That's why he made the change. He recognised that's how his game needed to progress if he was to get to a position where he was consistently beating the top guys. It hasn't yet worked out, mainly due to Novak himself improving further but it was the right way to go.

That is an important point if Djokovic had maintained his 2013 and 2014 form in 2015 and so far in 2016 Murray probably has another slam or two at this stage and people aren't calling him into question because he would arguably winning a couple of more of these big finals that he has been losing to Novak. Andy had the injury and during that period and the lengthy recovering form period Novak didn't stop getting better. I think his step up in level has to an extent maybe made Murray look worse off than he is.

laverfan wrote:

Guest82 wrote:...but I also think he would be the 2nd/3rd best player in the world if he coached himself.

I beg to differ. He cannot coach himself, IMVHO.

Guest82 wrote: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.

I will pick my favorite example, Federer pursued the Nadal route and got to the Rome 2006 final, as did Murray (slams) when he pursued the Nadal/Djokovic mould, before his back surgery.

Federer and Murray (of the late - the 'technique' talk), both realized, that the fitness route does not suit their natural gifts, and went away from it to focus on the games differently.

.

Murray and Federer did not injure themselves because they tried to get too fit. Can someone tell me what the hell too fit for a world class athlete is anyway? The online tennis bizarro world is the only place where you routinely here fans of sport comment that players are too fit and tried to get "too fit". You don't see football fans watching a game and saying god damn it this leftback is bombing down the pitch god he is fit, I wish he wasn't "too fit" and instead had a spare tire around his waist and smoked cigs at half time.

Apparently Andy did a Q&A today and was asked if he could hire any tennis legend who would it be? He answered Lendl.
Additionally, Lendl has somewhat left the door open to possibly coaching Murray again:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tennis/2016/05/10/ivan-lendl-leaves-the-door-open-for-andy-murray-reunion/

Saw a similar article in a different paper. So it looks like the 'sacking' theory suggested by NS is probably incorrect.

Calder106 wrote:Saw a  similar article in a different paper.  So it looks like the 'sacking' theory suggested by NS is probably incorrect.

Not my theory - it was Goran Ivanisevic's "theory" asserted as fact as reported by the esteemed BBC.  I just picked it up and showed it was consistent with some of Murray's own comments and post Lendl court style of play as raised by Lydian & Danny_1982 and others.  I would be interested in hearing Ivan Lendl's views on Ivanisevic's comments.  
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/30928690



PS: In the latest BBC article: Andy Murray: Ivan Lendl return as coach "not ruled out", we have the following comment:

BBC wrote:Analysis - BBC correspondent Russell Fuller
"Ivan Lendl is very unlikely to agree to spend 25 weeks a year on the road, but if Murray is prepared to compromise on the time they spend together, then the phone call may not be a wasted one. Lendl's part-time role with the USTA would not prove a stumbling block, although his family and his strong dislike of travelling might.

One takes on a "big name" former player for their experience and analyse and focused coaching - but you can't expect them to give up a significant portion of their life doing "donkey work".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/36271778

Well it's not unequivocal from Lendl...and Murray may well appreciate what Lendl brought after Amelie. Either way, it doesn't mean Goran was wrong, just that both parties may have come round to the idea of linking up again. After all, many a couple have got back together after a much more acrimonious divorce.

Again from the BBC article - they have quoted Murray as follows:

BBC quoting Andy Murray wrote:"I'd certainly consider it. I had fantastic results working with Ivan," the 28-year-old told BBC Sport.

"Both of us, I think, enjoyed it enough to at least consider that.

"Whether or not it's something that could work, I'm not sure. We'll have to wait and see - but I'm not against that idea at all."

This is Murray responding to an awkward but obvious reporters question whether he would consider getting back together with Lendl.  His response is political correct, neutral but framed within a negative response (use of double negative).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/36271778

Nore Staat wrote:

Calder106 wrote:Saw a  similar article in a different paper.  So it looks like the 'sacking' theory suggested by NS is probably incorrect.

Not my theory - it was Goran Ivanisevic's "theory" asserted as fact as reported by the esteemed BBC.  I just picked it up and showed it was consistent with some of Murray's own comments and post Lendl court style of play as raised by Lydian & Danny_1982 and others.  I would be interested in hearing Ivan Lendl's views on Ivanisevic's comments.  
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/30928690



PS: In the latest BBC article: Andy Murray: Ivan Lendl return as coach "not ruled out", we have the following comment:

BBC wrote:Analysis - BBC correspondent Russell Fuller
"Ivan Lendl is very unlikely to agree to spend 25 weeks a year on the road, but if Murray is prepared to compromise on the time they spend together, then the phone call may not be a wasted one. Lendl's part-time role with the USTA would not prove a stumbling block, although his family and his strong dislike of travelling might.

One takes on a "big name" former player for their experience and analyse and focused coaching - but you can't expect them to give up a significant portion of their life doing "donkey work".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/36271778

I would have thought a player would analyse what he/she think they need from a coach. Remember according to yourself Andy is poor at self-analysis ( I don't agree). So therefore may need to think that he needs a coach for more weeks than others.

The BBC article from Goran explicitly said that Murray 'let Lendl go' but you also previously linked a very similar article which said 'sacked' and you used the word again in this thread. I am still of the opinion that Murray wanted to continue with Lendl but as reported Ivan could not commit to the time/travel he required so they split. Surely if you are the person who is going to pay someone to do a job you have the right to say what the job requirements are and there is only so far you will be prepared to compromise.While I think something similar has happened with Mauresmo there could be more behind this one.

Hi Calder - my comments are consistent with the evidence and the actual words quoted by the BBC of Goran Ivanisevic. There is definitely more to the Murray - Lendl split than presented to the media at the time of their split. I am fine with you having a different opinion - the reality is probably somewhere in between but I am happy that the evidence as far as I am aware of it shifts the locus of the likelihood of the reality towards my view - but then you would say I would say that anyway.

For the time being I am now withdrawing myself from the debate because it is not that important and all the relevant information has been raised and presented in the various comments. Lets await Murray to make the next move with the announcement of his new coach. With or without a coach Murray is still at least a top four / five level performer with the potential of having a good run and winning another slam.

Mentioned Wilander as potential Murray coach the other day...came across this nice video about the guy and what he's up to these days.

This is a guy that 's tennis!

I genuinely thought you were joking about Wilander the other day. Would be an awful choice in just about every way for Murray. Nice guy but terrible analyst.

Not sure how many "big names" are out there for Murray if that is what he is looking for. The clip certainly suggests Wilander could work on Murray's court awareness, planning, mental strength. Murray has mentioned about tennis not being much fun - Wilander could certainly perhaps change that as well.

Hey BS??? ...are you the one joking?
I completely disagree.

Potential choice as Murray coach
http://www.tennis.co.uk/atp/5-contenders-to-be-andy-murrays-new-coach/7519735/#C7S6PqB3rBWjv6sb.97

A terrible analyst...?
e.g. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2934688/Mats-Wilander-maps-Andy-Murray-s-best-route-glory-against-Novak-Djokovic.html
"If Murray can keep the ball low to Djokovic’s forehand or backhand with his slice backhand, it’s a way for Murray to bide some time in the rally. Djokovic likes rhythm so change up the pace. To get Djokovic out of that comfort zone of going left and right across the baseline, he needs to bring him forward and backwards. You can’t beat him going left and right. That would be like that same match they played here a couple of years ago, it becomes physical and then Murray loses patience."

Again, terrible analyst? He predicted Murray to win USO12? http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/19338618
"My prediction for the U.S. Open is Andy Murray winning. I'm not saying that just because he won the Olympics, it's because I think that he's a different man. I think that Ivan Lendl has helped him tremendously. He's becoming better physically all the time, he hits his forehand better, but the biggest difference is emotionally. He's more even-keeled, he's more positive, and there's not as much pressure for him at the U.S. Open as there is at Wimbledon."

I could post countless in-depth videos of him analysing top players, how to play FHs, BHs, tactics...you name it. The guy runs tennis clinics all over the world.

He's the lead sought after analyst at ALL of the 4 slams and even has his own 1hr daily show at the French called "Game, Set and Mats" where he analyses the key matches of the day. He was Marat Safin's coach (built ranking from 10 to 2) and led Sweden DC teams to success. His tennis videos are highly detailed on technique and analysis. He was also known for his strong mentality being the driver behind all his slams...he also doesn't suffer fools and calls people out for bad attitudes or not trying all the time. Yes he's nice on TV interviews but don't mistake that for a second as a guy who doesn't know in-depth what he's talking about and has the kind of steely grit (he was 3-2 up vs Lendl in slam finals during both their primes...) that Murray could benefit greatly from. I'm very surprised you dismiss him so easily out of hand.

One aspect of Wilander I think can help Murray is that Wilander himself was a guy who later in his career went to a more attack and variety oriented game to his fitness and physicality game he played lets say up to age 24 or 25. I remember vividly the year he won three slams, and all the analysts were talking about how he was going a little bigger on serve and finishing off more points quicker at net. In his first incarnation as the man who out grinded Lendl at RG, he was singularly one of the dullest, defensive grinders in the history of the tour. I mean watching Mats and Ivan play on clay you would think that Ivan's game swashbuckling and joyful. I mean back then grinders aren't like today's grinders you could literally watch them play a whole match and not remember them hitting an out and out winner from the baseline (early 80s) most of their winners came on the pass or the really short ball, or they finished at net. I mean the late 70s early 80s grinder was true grinder, not like these Ferrer type of grinders who will hit winners from the baseline quite regularly (thanks technology).



That being said Wilander did sort of reinvent himself after a mid career slump which saw guys like Edberg and Becker become the new face of tennis and saw his results slump in the major tournaments. He moved in to finish off points quicker, went for a bit more on the first serve and all of sudden he was the king of the majors that year. In this way he may have vital experience in regards to the transition from a fitness/counterpunching style to a more varied all court game. I mean he was still Mats the brick wall, but he was much better and more able to go to plan B, which was Mats the opportunist volleyer.

PS I do agree with BS though he sounds like a dope on the broadcasts. I feel like he tries to be too different and controversial like he is trying to be the Swedish McEnroe or something without the Queens tough guy role. 7 out of 10 times when he tries to be really philosophical or observant he just ends up saying something sort of goofy. I frankly think he tries to gain a bit of exposure occasionally by saying things that aren't safe that maybe he hasn't fully fleshed out just to get a response. These quote Lydian puts up notwithstanding, he has said a lot of things that have made me just kind of roll my eyes. But its fair to say that I have had that reaction to most of the big name announcers at one time or the other although more with Mats than on average.

I think several questioned Boris Becker's ability to analyse anything outside of a restaurant broom cupboard.  But many have seen improvements in Djokovic's game since he appointed Becker.  Becker and Wilander, forming a small group of multi-slam winning former elite tennis players, one would expect them to be fairly knowledgeable in all aspects of the sport.  Just a theory.

I don't think those 2 posts add anything socal. So what about the grinding...he knew what it took to outfox opponents and anyone who wins 7 slams knows everything there is to know about the game.
But we're talking about his analysis of the game here and for me it's better than what you hear from just about every other past multi-slammer. Especially McEnroe who keeps coming up as a coach for Murray. Edberg never came across as the sharpest tool in the box but he's worked well with Federer.
Wilander was known for being a mental fortress, Murray would benefit from this...and he's someone I think Andy would get along with.
I've said before Andre is the perfect coach for Murray but there is no way he's going into coaching.

If we are to believe that Andy requires someone to channel his emotions, who better than Wilander. Can't say I remember him either losing it on court or folding mentally in a match. As NS eluded to. If Becker can move from bungling pundit to successful coach/consultant, I am sure Wilander can.

End of the day it is Andy who needs to buy into his new coach.

But at the end of the day do opinions here count for Jack? With all due respects.

After all I seem to recall Lendl's appointment was questioned and it turned Murray into a slam winner. We then had the questioning of Valverde leaving the Murray camp being a big loss and how Berdych would benefit and Murray would suffer - that hasn't panned out at all.

I don't recall people saying Andy's loss was Berdych's gain. I recall people were surprised from the jump up from hitting partner to coach.

legendkillarV2 wrote:I don't recall people saying Andy's loss was Berdych's gain. I recall people were surprised from the jump up from hitting partner to coach.

When Mauresmo was named and Vallverde left it was stated by posters here like Berdych had made a coup. I will hunt around and see if I can find the relevant thread but  it may take me some time due to volume of threads.

CC I did check the thread you are relating to. It's on page 7

Posters were surprised given that Danny and Jez seemed like mainstays in the team.

Never saw anyone who thought Berdych gained from this.

legendkillarV2 wrote:CC I did check the thread you are relating to. It's on page 7

Posters were surprised given that Danny and Jez seemed like mainstays in the team.

Never saw anyone who thought Berdych gained from this.

There are other threads dotted around lk. But if we do go on that thread then if it is like ones I found there was negativity on move by some and positivity on move by others but nobody actually tipped or suggested Mauresmo for the role prior to her getting it. Look at even recent threads and Lendl doesn't come out smelling of roses and if we delved back to his appointment it was not met with mass approval by any means.

All we can do is judge on results. Lendl took Murray from perennial slam runner-up to dual slam winner. Job done. Under Mauresmo there were no slam wins but slam finals and Davis Cup win and saw him cement the World No.2 ranking for 6 months and could have that for some time.

As for who the next coach should be? Well whoever Andy thinks will be best suited to solve his issues, bring something new to his game and toughen him up mentally at key times. Who that will be I have no idea.

Results? Is that the only barometer though? I think there are other things to measure the influence of a coach.

I don't see any issue as per se with posters floating names out there.

It depends on what area Andy is looking for a coach to come on board and contribute to.

CaledonianCraig wrote:But at the end of the day do opinions here count for Jack?

CaledonianCraig wrote:As for who the next coach should be? Well whoever Andy thinks will be best suited to solve his issues

CaledonianCraig wrote:Who that will be I have no idea.

With all respect CC those are counter-productive non-statements. What if every poster on here said: "Who's Murray's next coach? Well, whoever he wants it to be" or "Lets judge the next coach on results"? Then it would be a completely boring forum. Yes there is negativity and positivity...its the mods job to ensure it doesn't flow over. Otherwise, yes we all know we're ALL armchair warriors on here, none of us are linked to the professional game. But so what? It doesn't stop us having opinions and its fun to exchange opinions, things that push the boat forward, not to just comment on the fact there is a boat and its moving about on the water. That's not stating anything.

Tell us CC - who would you like to see as his coach and why? What "bring something new to his game" does he need? You're meant to be his biggest fan on here - so what do you think?

Also, I don't particularly remember any Berdych beneficiary comments either. Although - so what if there were? People get things wrong...opinions are opinions. Its what makes the world go round...otherwise its a very dry fact-based place. In any case, people are too quick to judge on Danny anyway - the slide of Berdy is not JUST down to the coach...players have to take a lot of the responsibility for their fate too!
At least Nadal was man enough to admit when things were going wrong that it was his fault, not his teams'. Perhaps Berdych just needs to man up, absorb the bagels and admit his failings and just get on with it. If Danny isn't right for him - and often reasons for things not working are complex - then move on. But lets not stifle the expression of opinion on here...if we feel A, B or C is the right man for Murray then lets have it out...if someone has a better idea or reasons why Wilander is a complete chump, great...but lets not say "Whoever Andy thinks is best is fine" and leave it there...

The thing about opinions they are there to be shared. I don't subscribe to the notion one is right and the other is wrong. The agree to disagree philosophy always comes in handy. Debating is a whole other animal

I'm a bit like CC in that Murray will hire the coach he feels best fits with the parameters he wants. Who that will be no one knows at present. Doesn't stop people suggesting and debating names like Wilander but it's not something that enthuses me. I could say Rasheed, Smith, Cahill and make a case for each but we don't know their availability and enthusiasm to spend the time Murray requires. His last two coaches have reportedly been let go because they were not able to keep meeting these requirements.

I do think that bringing Delgado in as an assistant coach has been a good move. It looks like he will do the work which Vallverdu was doing previously and travel with Murray most of the year. I think he likes that sort of stability in his team.

Agree Jamie was a good move. Very positive influence and a good friend...at the end of the day Murray has a dry British humour so he needs some homegrown close partners on the team.

I find it strange with some of the former pro's turn coaches who have parted ways with Murray (Lendl and Mauresmo) both stating that they are unable to commit to time required. Being former pro's they should know what life is like on tour and on the road.

Just hope whoever comes on board does commit to time Andy requires them to.

I was waiting and there were no opinions.  Then all of a sudden two opinions turned up together.  
There was one opinion that 2 + 2 = 5.  And there was another opinion that 2 + 2 = 22.  
There was certainly much to ponder, but I suspected one opinion was nearer to the truth than the other.