Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 41 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
We hear it all the time. Murray won slams because he wouldn't have a meltdown with Lendl in his box. Lendl is the reason for Murray's success.

In the years leading up to Lendlray, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, Andy Murray won 2 Masters titles every season (8 total), beating Djokovic or Federer in at least one final each year.

In 2011, Murray had his best clay court season to date, and reached the semis or better in every slam, losing only to 2011Djokovic, and fresh off 3 slams, 2010Nadal.

Murray lost 3 slam finals to Djokovic and Federer before Lendl.

In 2012, with Lendl on board, Murray loses in a slam again to Nole. He also has one of his worst clay seasons, and loses 2 Masters finals to Novak.

But this time Murray makes the Wimbledon final, after not having to face Nadal or Roddick along the way. Andy loses another slam final, to Federer again, this time from a set up.

In 2012, Murray clinches his first slam in a hurricane, after choking away a 2 set lead. There is lots of shouting at himself and his box "My legs feel like jelly", but these are forgotten because he has that slam.

In 2013, Murray wins only one Masters, after saving match points against David Ferrer in a mugfest. He also throws away an Australian Open final against Novak.

He finally wins Wimbledon, after facing Janowicz in a semi, and nearly bowing out against grass king Verdasco in the quarters. He has a meltdown in that match, but it never happened under Lendl. And he nearly chokes away a 40-0 lead serving for the championship.




Does Murray win these two finals against Djokovic without Lendl? Nole on grass, and Nole in a hurricane?

Before, during and after Lendl, Murray reaches a peak of 2 in the world (currently second in the race).

In 2015, he reaches another slam final, in Australia, where he loses to Djokovic, just like he did before Lendl and during Lendl's coaching.

He is playing more aggressive than ever, even swatting aside once-problematic Berdych with ease.

Djokovic 3.0 is so far the only thing stopping Murray from getting more slams, not Lendl's golf career.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kat_YYZ

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
What explains the final set bagels to Djokovic this year, and the near double bagel loss to Fed at WTF?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
What explains the final set bagels to Djokovic this year, and the near double bagel loss to Fed at WTF?
The Aus Open was a clear meltdown.

In Miami, almost all the service games in that final set went to deuce, and it simply came down to tired minds. Even with 6-0, Murray lost by 7 points overall.

In the Fed match, Murray was serving at near 30% first serves? That was a joke. :worship:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
Lendlray would've spanked Faker in both their meetings this year lets be honest. Even the most rabid Fakertards should be able to admit this to themselves. Faker has been average at best this year.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 · (Edited)
Lendlray would have been down for grinding with Djokovic this year.

2015Murray is trying to hit through him, but after spending most of his career as a retriever, he is mentally collapsing from the effort it takes to break that wall down.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,527 Posts
What explains the final set bagels to Djokovic this year, and the near double bagel loss to Fed at WTF?
Not defending the AO at all, getting bagelled in a slam final is pathetic :facepalm:.

The WTF match was a bit of a weird one, I think it's clear that Murray took so much out of himself to qualify (6 straight weeks of playing) that when he actually arrived in London he was already physically spent. He made a poorly serving Nishikori look like Karlovic in his first match, edged out an atrocious Raonic in his second (who subsequently withdrew from the tournament with an injury).

Remember he needed to beat Fed in straights in his last match to advance in the tournament. As such when he started so horribly, going down a double break, the match essentially became an exhibition. I will concede that a player of Murray's stature should have tried to summon something if only for some scoreboard dignity, but he was playing terribly, and Federer wasn't making any errors.

The Miami bagel was a lot closer than it sounds. IIRC Murray had gamepoints in at least 3 games, he just couldn't win any of the longer rallies - which tends to be a bit of a recipe for disaster with him against Djokovic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
596 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Let's not forget that Murray has choked away big matches under Lendl too.

He gave Djokovic the Australian Open in 2013, because a feather landed on the court. Double fault, tiebreak, set, and match.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,527 Posts
Let's not forget that Murray has choked away big matches under Lendl too.

He gave Djokovic the Australian Open in 2013, because a feather landed on the court. Double fault, tiebreak, set, and match.
You are forgetting arguably one of the worst chokes in his career - Shanghai final 2012 :lol:.

For the record I agree that Lendl was just a right place, right time 'success' story. Murray benefited from Nadal dropping out the tour for a significant period and undoubtedly a very good draw at Wimbledon 2013.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,098 Posts
We hear it all the time. Murray won slams because he wouldn't have a meltdown with Lendl in his box. Lendl is the reason for Murray's success.
Nobody reasonable really believes this, it's just another silly narrative created by the media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fastgrass

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
oh come off it, obviously mentally Lendl's presence helped Murray a lot. it's not too surprising, not only was Lendl clearly good at advising Murray on how to handle those big moments in finals, but also knowing that you have a legendary player in your box supporting you definitely helped Andy with his head.

all I'm going to say is this- during Lendl's tenure in the Murray camp you would see Andy cursing and complaining WAY less on court. see him doing it a lot again now. I think its obvious that Murray knew that Lendl would not take that crap and that he couldn't do that if he wanted to keep Ivan as a coach

Lendl was tough and it paid great dividends in Murray's game because he was more mature and well handled on court. again, saw way less complaining / cursing / lack of concentration when Lendl was around. anyone denying that Lendl has a positive influence on Murray's tennis mind is crazy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,627 Posts
Nobody reasonable really believes this, it's just another silly narrative created by the media.
disagree, anyone who follows Murray matches closely can recognize that he 'melted down' and yelled a lot less often when Lendl was coaching him. both before and after he is far less controlled and full of concentration
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,147 Posts
I really do think Murray did better under Lendl when I look at it. In the three years he spent with him he started to produce good results. Lendl helped him work on his play-style and he benefited from it. Discount his comeback from injury at AO as that doesn't count that much. Unlike Edberg who has really improved Federer's game, and Becker for Djokovic, Mauresmo seems to be leading Murray backwards. The same ability is there, but he can't produce the goods without the right coaching.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,038 Posts
-Murray also had better win % or more wins against top ten players in 2008-2009 than 2012-13.

-Murray had more consistent results in masters tournaments and slams before 2012 but it was strong competition holding him from winning majors.

- Murray improved his game under Lendl but improvements were marginal, not like day and night difference between pre 2012 career like British media was making. We've honest Murray fans here who believe, his game regressed overall under Lendl.

- Murray won 2 slams and Olympic but it was mostly due lucky circumstances like hurricane in Uso Final, Delpo tiring Djokovic, Federer to the death in semis and Federer, Nadal losing early which opened draw nicely for him. Credit to Murray for being there and taking advantage but he did nothing special than he was doing before or now. Throw same draw and exhausted Djokovic/Federer in Final to 2011 Murray, he still wins Wimbledon/Olympic Gold.

- Expectedly Murray 2.0 version could not reach the estimated heights of achievements. He was single handedly supposed to end domination of Fedalovic after Wimbledon win. It didn't happen since his abilities were overrated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,098 Posts
disagree, anyone who follows Murray matches closely can recognize that he 'melted down' and yelled a lot less often when Lendl was coaching him. both before and after he is far less controlled and full of concentration
You've overstating Lendl's importance. In 2011, Murray went deep in all the Slams and only lost to Djokvoic in Australia and Nadal at the other Slams. It's easy to claim his USO 2012 win was due to Lendl, but would he have won that tournament if he had been given the same path he was given in 2011? Probably not, in fact he probably played better in the 2011 tournament.

Same for Wimbledon, not facing a strong Nadal and Federer definitely seems a much bigger factor than Lendl... the point is, Murray was already a top 4 player and made a couple of finals, it's not like he suddenly became a more capable player under Lendl. He'd most likely have won those tournaments anyway. These 'star coaches' are overrated in general,some people even try to make it out like Becker should be credited for Djokovic's success...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SliceAce

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,212 Posts
Lendl wasn't THAT important. If Lendl had been when he faced Djokovic in AO 2011 final (or Fed 2010) he would have lost too, and if he hadn't been when he faced him in the Wimbledon final, he would have won too. Just like he lost with Lendl against Federer in 2012. He had "easier" paths in slams with Lendl than without him, he didn't have to face Federer or Nadal in Wimbledon, and Djokovic on grass is far from unbeatable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,311 Posts
It's time for Murray fans to admit he has overachieved. He was probably good for one Wimbledon and he has won 2 slams. He might win more. The way he plays .... it was always going to be hard to win one after another against the top guys. He might get his chances against Fed again as the guy gets older and plays until he is 40. But against Nole, he will be second best. Heck, Andy sometimes struggles to beat even Ferrer
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,160 Posts
Lendlray would've spanked Faker in both their meetings this year lets be honest. Even the most rabid Fakertards should be able to admit this to themselves. Faker has been average at best this year.
Physically Sincerovic is 95% as good as ever, but his tennis is much more complete and Nole became more clutch at key points compared to the last 3 seasons. There could be made an argument that Djokovic is better now than in 2011, especially if he manages to win RG. In 2011 Djokovic just went for it, he was playing like there's no tomorrow, but at the moment Novak prefers to use wiser and less risking approach.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
6,753 Posts
You've overstating Lendl's importance. In 2011, Murray went deep in all the Slams and only lost to Djokvoic in Australia and Nadal at the other Slams. It's easy to claim his USO 2012 win was due to Lendl, but would he have won that tournament if he had been given the same path he was given in 2011? Probably not, in fact he probably played better in the 2011 tournament.

Same for Wimbledon, not facing a strong Nadal and Federer definitely seems a much bigger factor than Lendl... the point is, Murray was already a top 4 player and made a couple of finals, it's not like he suddenly became a more capable player under Lendl. He'd most likely have won those tournaments anyway. These 'star coaches' are overrated in general,some people even try to make it out like Becker should be credited for Djokovic's success...
You are probably correct, but imo sometimes the mere presence of such a figure (Ivan and Boris) in the stands is a contributory factor.
Ivan saw a lot of himself in Andy, and one of the main reasons he agreed to help.
Here's hoping Murray can turn things around this year, and he is not that far off.
Tennis needs him back at his best.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,477 Posts
Here's the difference between actual Murray team and Lendl -

Team Amelie - be good to yourself (hate us, abuse us, but be good to yourself..). Makes you win many unimportant matches, also a few more important ones, gets you deep in draws, plays you finals, pays the bill.

Lendl - be angry at yourself. Be mad, have the desire to kill your opponent, be a ball of nerves. But don't you dare say a word to me, r i'll kick your arse literally.
You'll lose some unimportant matches, maybe some finals, but you have so many of those already, while you want Slam tittles. This is how we get it.

If these have been Murray's primary goal with both teams (Amelie team - keep a solid level, pay the bills and Lendl team - win Slams whatever it takes), they've been achieved.

He couldn't achieve the same goals by shifting the teams with the goals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,096 Posts
Some of Murray's success was just about timing / circumstances, but Lendl did do a couple of things for him.

For one, he gave him a greater sense of discipline. Yeah he still yelled at himself and had fits on court, but he didn't dare try and use Lendl as an outlet or anything. There seemed to be a greater sense of responsibility in Andy.

But more importantly (and more accurately probably because I'm not a psychologist), Lendl instilled in Andy the confidence to play aggressively during the big points. That's what's so crucial that people tend to overlook. Some people say Lendl introduced Murray to attacking tennis, which isn't true. And some people say he made no changes at all. That isn't true either.

It's in the bigger moments of the match, when you could see Murray eager to use the forehand, drive the ball a bit more, and look to shorten the point that you can see where Ivan really helped out (before that, he was mostly passive under pressure). Just look at his key points v. Ferrer or Federer @ Wimbledon in '12, or in either of his Major runs. It really made a difference. Compare those points to how he played the entirety of the Federer match at AO 2010 (copious soft plays to the backhand), or all of the easy forehands he fluffed into the net against Djokovic last week in Miami (three in first set TB). No confidence in his ability to attack the ball from that wing.

Was it worth routinizing his game and foregoing things like his net play or touch for? I don't know, but he won a couple of Majors during that time so all is well.
 
1 - 20 of 41 Posts
Top