Murray Got Lucky But Won't Win Another Slam Anytime Soon
Discussion
Justices said:
As for Lendl, yes there is obviously some input but Andy was always going to win a slam this year regardless. I would question hiring someone who lost 5 Slam finals to help me get my first one that's for sure. Lendl, in my opinion, just happened to be a good face that was hired in time for the party. The man that's always put in the phenomenal hard work week in, week out is the one that doesn't get even half the credit he deserves in public. Everyone on tour knows who really does what in each player's setup. What is presented to the public is often something very different.
I don't carry a torch for Lendl and in truth didn't like him that much when he was playing (although I certainly respected him). However, from the outside he does appear to have made a difference to Murray albeit his influence has probably been more on the mind - and perhaps the tactics - than the ability to hit the ball. Murray himself has also been quick to acknowledge Lendl's influence and he should know better than anyone whether Lendl's brought anything to the party; if he hasn't - and the success this year would have come anyway - why hire and/or retain him? In terms of Lendl having lost Grand Slam finals, could that actually have been part of the rationale for hiring him in the sense he knew what it was like to lose the first four he played in (as Murray had done) but also knew what it took to turn it round and then go on to win several? I suspect if Murray can finish his career with as many Slams to his name as Lendl (eight I believe?) he'll be quite happy!
Justices said:
Nope. Neither, thankfully. Just know the game and players far better than most. I've called virtually every step of Andy's and other players because I am confident I know very well what they are capable. In terms of their physical ability, mental ability and of course the other deciding factor in success, their hunger, I just know who has it and who doesn't.
...but for 3 years you called it wrong fella. Only at the 12th attempt did you get it right.
Whereas I on the other hand called it correctly 11 of the 12 times.
my two penny's worth:
sorry but Djoker was not at his best; he hates the wind, had no days rest.
I wonder if 2011 Djoker was his peak and whether we will see it again as he is certainly not the player he was in 2011 or perhaps the other players have got his number this year and it just took time to adjust, just like Nadal in 2010 (he changed his strings and thus was creating even more spin which players took time to adjust to)? Djoker is every bit as fit as Murray as is Nadal when not injured.
I can certainly see Murray winning several more slams and perhaps we are entering the Murray peak year and 2013 will be Murray 2.0
To say Lendl has had none or little impact is just rubbish, he has added the final few percent both on his 2nd serve, forehand and most importantly the mental side: both attitude and game plan (the few percent is all that was needed and is perhaps the most important).
Murray is a changed man, gone is the childish spoilt crap that made me dislike him so much. You could see him almost reverting back in this match and almost goping back to defensive pusher Murray mode but checking himself and pushing forward with the new Murray, this is all down to Lendl not taking any of his crap and he is someone Murray can look up to and respect (been there done that, you haven't, so listen to me sonny)
sorry but Djoker was not at his best; he hates the wind, had no days rest.
I wonder if 2011 Djoker was his peak and whether we will see it again as he is certainly not the player he was in 2011 or perhaps the other players have got his number this year and it just took time to adjust, just like Nadal in 2010 (he changed his strings and thus was creating even more spin which players took time to adjust to)? Djoker is every bit as fit as Murray as is Nadal when not injured.
I can certainly see Murray winning several more slams and perhaps we are entering the Murray peak year and 2013 will be Murray 2.0
To say Lendl has had none or little impact is just rubbish, he has added the final few percent both on his 2nd serve, forehand and most importantly the mental side: both attitude and game plan (the few percent is all that was needed and is perhaps the most important).
Murray is a changed man, gone is the childish spoilt crap that made me dislike him so much. You could see him almost reverting back in this match and almost goping back to defensive pusher Murray mode but checking himself and pushing forward with the new Murray, this is all down to Lendl not taking any of his crap and he is someone Murray can look up to and respect (been there done that, you haven't, so listen to me sonny)
Justices said:
Nope. Neither, thankfully. Just know the game and players far better than most. I've called virtually every step of Andy's and other players because I am confident I know very well what they are capable. In terms of their physical ability, mental ability and of course the other deciding factor in success, their hunger, I just know who has it and who doesn't.
That must be tongue in cheek surely ?. If not then that statement beggars belief.Do you have a ranking ?. I'm not as clued up on tennis as most of the posters here but Murray made a point in an interview last night, I don't know if it is true or not but if it is then surely it adds some weight to his mental struggle in trying to win his 1st slam title.
He said that when Federer, nadal and I think Djokovic won their 1st slam titles they won against players who had not already won a slam title so his task to win has been harder as he has always come up against a slam winner or multiple slam winner.
He said that when Federer, nadal and I think Djokovic won their 1st slam titles they won against players who had not already won a slam title so his task to win has been harder as he has always come up against a slam winner or multiple slam winner.
Robbo66 said:
That must be tongue in cheek surely ?. If not then that statement beggars belief.Do you have a ranking ?.
- 1 at my house I'll have you know, and I'd wager #1 on my street too without having to break too much of a sweat.
im, I only needed Andy to win once and, as I said, it was only a matter of time before it happened. Small details, slight refinements and a little more focus made the difference. I hoped it would've happened at the 2012 Aussie but unfortunately he was a few points short, but really should have won that semi. Of course, Andy came up short but crucially he learned and improved each time which culminated in him getting a well-earned Slam. Novak not having a rest day has nothing to do with Andy. The other guy not being fit enough has nothing to do with Andy. You can only compete with the man standing on the other side of the net. Andy has played a few big matches mid-way through draws, the 2011 US Open and the 2011 & 2012 French Opens had some almighty 5-setters but when he came up short, nobody claimed Nadal got by because Andy might have been tired. These guys are fit beyond belief, they can handle it in their stride and don't make excuses so nobody else should.
chippy17 said:
To say Lendl has had none or little impact is just rubbish, he has added the final few percent both on his 2nd serve, forehand and most importantly the mental side: both attitude and game plan (the few percent is all that was needed and is perhaps the most important).
Murray always had the game plans for each opponent. Every round, every match, there was a plan. It's never a case of him going out on court and seeing how things turn out halfway through the match, this is a serious business and the machine is well-oiled. Whether he chose to follow it, Aussie Open 2011 final a perfect example of him going against the structured plan, is a different matter. It took a few big losses for it to sink in that straying from the plan when things weren't going his way would lead result he didn't want. Form the plan, practice the plan, implement the plan, stick to the plan and the odds will be in your favour. Walk out on court without structure and you are at the mercy of the gods who will not give you a second look. The gods being Roger, Novak and Nadal.Justices said:
chippy17 said:
To say Lendl has had none or little impact is just rubbish, he has added the final few percent both on his 2nd serve, forehand and most importantly the mental side: both attitude and game plan (the few percent is all that was needed and is perhaps the most important).
Murray always had the game plans for each opponent. Every round, every match, there was a plan. It's never a case of him going out on court and seeing how things turn out halfway through the match, this is a serious business and the machine is well-oiled. Whether he chose to follow it, Aussie Open 2011 final a perfect example of him going against the structured plan, is a different matter. It took a few big losses for it to sink in that straying from the plan when things weren't going his way would lead result he didn't want. Form the plan, practice the plan, implement the plan, stick to the plan and the odds will be in your favour. Walk out on court without structure and you are at the mercy of the gods who will not give you a second look. The gods being Roger, Novak and Nadal.plan in AO11 was not working
taaffy said:
I'm not as clued up on tennis as most of the posters here but Murray made a point in an interview last night, I don't know if it is true or not but if it is then surely it adds some weight to his mental struggle in trying to win his 1st slam title.
He said that when Federer, nadal and I think Djokovic won their 1st slam titles they won against players who had not already won a slam title so his task to win has been harder as he has always come up against a slam winner or multiple slam winner.
well technically this is true:He said that when Federer, nadal and I think Djokovic won their 1st slam titles they won against players who had not already won a slam title so his task to win has been harder as he has always come up against a slam winner or multiple slam winner.
Fed had philipousis.
Djoker had Tsonga
Nadal had Mariano Puerta
but for example:
Nadal had to beat Fed in the semi at RG in 2005, to get to the final. Djoker had to beat Fed in semi at the AO in 2008 just to make the final there...
Justices said:
Well everyone is free to draw they own conclusions on the Lendl issue. It's not that he does nothing, it's that Andy would have won regardless.....
Well we'll never know that one way or the other will we? However, the facts are that pre-Lendl Murray had played in three Grand Slam finals and failed to win a set in any of them (and from memory never looked like winning a set in any of them either). Lendl then comes into his corner and he loses a fourth GS final; however, this time he gives a much better account of himself and had he not been playing an on-form Federer might well have won (so basically a huge improvement over his previous GS final showings). He then wins Olympic gold playing some excellent tennis and follows that up by winning his first Grand Slam. You may say it's just coincidence that all this happened when Lendl joined "Team Murray" but somehow I think not!Justices said:
Robbo66 said:
That must be tongue in cheek surely ?. If not then that statement beggars belief.Do you have a ranking ?.
- 1 at my house I'll have you know, and I'd wager #1 on my street too without having to break too much of a sweat.
JNW1 said:
Justices said:
As for Lendl.. no. Once again it's ALL down to Dani Vallverdu, but Lendl being a former Slam champion makes for a better headline.
I agree with most of your post but not the comment above! I think it would be completely wrong to try to give Lendl all the credit for Murray's recent success but to say it's "ALL down to Dani Vallverdu" implies Lendl's contributed nothing and surely that can't be right? Murray himself has been quick to acknowledge the part Lendl's played and the improvement in his performances this year have been clear for all to see. Just a coincidence it's happened since Lendl arrived in his corner? Possible but I suspect the truth is that Lendl has been the missing piece in the jigsaw; of course he's only part of "Team Murray" but on the evidence of 2012 he's proved a pretty important part!Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff