14 Questions to Ivan Lendl
By Bruno Ziauddin – Weltwoche.ch
94 titles, 270 weeks as number one: Ivan Lendl was one of the greatest tennis players in the world. Despite Federer’s epic defeat in Wimbledon, it’s too soon to write the Swiss off.
Q: The word, uttered by many people to describe the Wimbledon final is: madness.
Ivan Lendl: To tell you the truth: it was one of the few times I was really looking forward to following a match on tv. Sadly, I couldn’t watch the end of it.
Q: How so?
IL: Because I agreed to go to my daughter's golf training. So, some time after the first rain break, I had to leave the house.
Q: Have you seen enough to call it the “greatest match of all time”?
IL: I followed the rest of the match on my Blackberry via the live-ticker and the next morning, I read everything about it what was written about the match, especially the Czech online media. So, after all that, I believe that I can answer that question with a yes.
Q: Some of the rallies looked like a video game.
IL: You’re probably thinking about the situation in the third set, when Nadal was running back and hitting the shot with his back turned to the game. But I don’t like that sort of comparison. Roger and Rafael are simply two fantastic athletes.
Q: Did Federer lose the match or did Nadal win it?
IL: When two players play a lousy match, there can only be a loser at the end of it. The level shown by these two was so high that you simply can’t talk about a loser. Nadal won that match.
Q: But in the second set, Federer didn’t use a lot of opportunities.
IL: Or the opponent didn’t allow him to use them. Nadal has improved a lot in the last two years: the backhand, the serve, how he conducts himself when he’s in the defensive.
Q: Still, there seems to have been a psychological moment. Nadal has entered Federer’s mind, as tennis players like to say.
IL: In Hamburg, he was leading 5-1, In Monte Carlo 4-0 and now in Wimbledon 4-1 and he could have won those sets. From the outside, it’s difficult to judge what that does to a player. But, it is possible that it has had a negative impact on Roger’s behavior and a positive one on Nadal.
Q: Possible or without a doubt?
IL: No, not without a doubt. It depends on the character. I don’t know Roger that well. You could tell yourself: “Damn, I didn’t take my chances” or “Great, I’m playing so well that I have chances. Sooner or later, I’m going to use one of them.”
Q: Your worst defeat was the one in the 1987 Wimbledon final against Pat Cash. You were the number one and the favorite who lost his last opportunity to win this tournament. Who do you feel at a moment like that?
IL: Bad.
Q: Could you be a bit more specific?
IL: Very bad.
Q: And Federer, will he recover from his Wimbledon Waterloo?
IL: Every professional player must always be prepared for both: triumph and defeat. You have to be prepared to use the energy of a victory to get even stronger and more confident. And you have to be prepared to learn the right lessons from a defeat for future victories.
Q: What would those lessons be for Federer?
IL: It’s my policy to not take a position in public when talking about specific technical aspects in the game of a player.
Q: The Swiss former top player Marc Rosset…
IL: …I remember him. He beat me three times.
Q: Marc Rosset advises Federer to work on his serve so that he can gain direct points more often. Furthermore, he quickly has to try to hit the ball with more power and to play more aggressively.
IL: If I were his coach, there would definitely be three to four things I would look into with Roger. But he has enough competent people around him to support him. And above all, he’s a champion. Those who write him off are making a mistake. A big mistake.