Is Lendl the most overrated coach of all time?

[Nadalgaenger]

Maybe he was underrated as a player but I am so tired of people acting like Lendl is the key ingredient to Murray's success. It's like claiming that Sampras and Fed would be nowhere without Annagoat.

Here's my two cents:
1) Lendl is extremely taciturn and phlegmatic. This MAY temper Murray's outbursts but it also means he is doing nothing to motivate Murray. Murray has enough cheerleaders anyway.
2) Has Lendl really made any obvious technical changes to Murray's game? I have not really seen anything obvious.
3) Coaches in general are highly overrated in general because half the commentators are coaches themselves and naturally want to promote themselves.

 

[ArcspacE]

Agreed entierly

 

[Minion]

Hahahahaha, good one. Saying Lendl is an overrated coach is like saying Nadal is an overrated clay court player, or Sampras had a mediocre serve.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Maybe it would be more cost efficient for Murray to have a Lendl doll manufactured that can be placed in his box and look permanently scary.

 

[jga111]

Maybe he was underrated as a player but I am so tired of people acting like Lendl is the key ingredient to Murray's success. It's like claiming that Sampras and Fed would be nowhere without Annagoat.

Here's my two cents:
1) Lendl is extremely taciturn and phlegmatic. This MAY temper Murray's outbursts but it also means he is doing nothing to motivate Murray. Murray has enough cheerleaders anyway.
2) Has Lendl really made any obvious technical changes to Murray's game? I have not really seen anything obvious.
3) Coaches in general are highly overrated in general because half the commentators are coaches themselves and naturally want to promote themselves.

I disagree. I'm not sure what it is but he has offered 'something' - an x factor that has made the difference for Murray seeing him win slams. Now it may even be just 'luck' as Murray facetiously remarked in his post-win interview. And if so, I'd take that any day of the week!

 

[Fedinkum]

Lendl > Uncle Toni

 

[tennis_pro]

Hell no.

Lndl gut

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Lendl > Uncle Toni

Disagree. People malign Tio Toni for not producing results with an aging Nadal but Toni has been with Nadal from the very beginning. It's a rare and cool thing I think--a coach that helps form a player and then oversees his run through 14 GS.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Federer played some of his best tennis without any official coach. Maybe he would have been better off had he never hired another one!

 

[base615]

Murray doesn't need a lot of technical changes (with the exception of his second serve) but he certainly does need his emotions moderated in order to not go into a death spiral when things aren't going his way.

If Lendl has worked out how to do that and possibly assist with the analytical side of the game - as evidenced by Murray's obvious understanding of Raonic' serve patterns - then he's done everything a coach needs to do to take Murray from runner up to winner. My understanding is that's his job and Delgado is the one who works with Murray day to day.

You can't really argue with the results. Murray can't seem to win a slam final without Lendl but he can with him.

 

[Fedinkum]

Fair enough, I give that one to you.

Disagree. People malign Tio Toni for not producing results with an aging Nadal but Toni has been with Nadal from the very beginning. It's a rare and cool thing I think--a coach that helps form a player and then oversees his run through 14 GS.

 

[ibbi]

I would think whatever changes he made to Murray were more mental than physical. The fact that under Lendl's guidance he fought the toughest fight of his life in Australia in 2012, made his first Wimbledon final, won the Olympics, the US Open, and then Wimbledon in such comprehensive fashion are all things I'd never have expected to see from Murray up until that point. Yes, some of those occurrences came about via other circumstances, but if you want to give total credit for Murray's accomplishments during that period to luck, we can at least agree that in the Lendl era Murray got more lucky than he ever has at any other time, so why not go back to it?

 

[D.Nalby12]

Yes. Lendl, Annacone and Rasheed for me are three top most overrated coaches around. Becker is grossly underrated, he rarely gets credit for Novak's success since 2014. Compared to that Lendl gets too much credit. Even many people now could see significant in Murray's game with just few weeks of coaching. Everyone seems to be convinced that even with having that draw (Raonic, Berdych), Murray wouldn't have won this Wimbledon if there hadn't been Lendl around. That is too much delusion.

 

[tennis_pro]

Agreed entierly

Why? Lendl has coached Murray in 3 seasons (not counting 2014 when Murray was coming back from surgery/injuries) and that covers every season in which Murray won a Slam. Even if it only was the mental part, Lendl has done wonders to Murray. Without him he still could be sitting at 0 Slams won out of 10 finals or something.

 

[tennis_pro]

Yes. Lendl, Annacone and Rasheed for me are three top most overrated coaches around. Becker is grossly underrated, he rarely gets credit for Novak's success since 2014. Compared to that Lendl gets too much credit. Even many people now could see significant in Murray's game with just few weeks of coaching. Everyone seems to be convinced that even with having that draw (Raonic, Berdych), Murray wouldn't have won this Wimbledon if there hadn't been Lendl around. That is too much delusion.

That's not true but you can't deny Murray's improvements in the last couple of weeks. He did a lot better in 2012/2013 compared to his previous seasons too. So either it's a huuuge coincidence or Lendl did a great job. I'm taking the second.

And Becker is by far the most overrated coach on duty. Djokovic did nothing better in 2014 compared to 2012-2013 under his guidance but kept losing in the Slams thanks to - you guessed it - the last few months of a strong era. He did improve his serve but outside of that he did nothing and he's taking full credit for Djokovic's results.

 

[silver55]

It might be of interest to read this item from the UK Independent. Towards the end of it there's mention of Lendl and what he brings to the team.
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...-reveals-how-he-keeps-him-going-a7131681.html

 

[D.Nalby12]

For one thing, I can give Lendl full credit for - that he is excellent decision maker who doesn't waste time in engaging tasks with odds staked against him. He saw a player (Murray) making semis of four Slam events in 2011, he saw some potential in him. He decided to coach him right when he was in middle of his physical peak. After coaching him for two years, he found Murray no longer in physical/mental shape post back surgery. He decided to ditch him without any hesitation thinking he is now useless. He could have chosen to help Murray instead to set his career on the track but he didn't. Meanwhile enjoyin the holidays, the other Top player who happens to be Czech asked him to coach but he denied. Reason - Not enough potential and the player already started declining. Two years past, his pupil somehow found the way to get in top form working with multiple coaches making 3 Slam finals within a period year and half only coming short to World #1. Again he sensed the the chance and decided to jump into the boat. Fortunately for him, in very first Slam working together, the players who denied his pupil 4/5 last Slams, lost earlier for various reasons. His pupil became huge favourite and expectedly won that Slam. All thanks to lucky stars and the efforts the early coaches and his pupil himself put to get in top form for a couple of years, Lendl strengthened his status on tour as "super coach". Very inspiring story, this is how successful people supposed to take decisions.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Murray doesn't need a lot of technical changes (with the exception of his second serve) but he certainly does need his emotions moderated in order to not go into a death spiral when things aren't going his way.

If Lendl has worked out how to do that and possibly assist with the analytical side of the game - as evidenced by Murray's obvious understanding of Raonic' serve patterns - then he's done everything a coach needs to do to take Murray from runner up to winner. My understanding is that's his job and Delgado is the one who works with Murray day to day.

You can't really argue with the results. Murray can't seem to win a slam final without Lendl but he can with him.

If Murray had played Raonic or Berdych for his first 10 GS finals then he'd have a lot more than 3 GS titles. He just had horrible luck.

 

[D.Nalby12]

That's not true but you can't deny Murray's improvements in the last couple of weeks. He did a lot better in 2012/2013 compared to his previous seasons too. So either it's a huuuge coincidence or Lendl did a great job. I'm taking the second.

Care to explain? Which improvements? I've not seen any. All he did in Wimbledon, that he was doing in last 18 months quite regularly - that is to beat everyone on tour except Federer/Djokovic. If there has been improvements, better to judge it against the players he has been failing recently or throughout his career more or less. Not against those he beats often.

Murray was far more consistent since Jan 2015 than he ever has been that includes he so called "peak" years. Statistically speaking his numbers are superior to 2012 (way better than 2013). Achievements wise 2016 has sealed the deal of his peak year (with 1 Slam, 2 Finals and masters title) although it's not over yet. So he played "a lot better" in 2012-13 is simply myth.

And Becker is by far the most overrated coach on duty. Djokovic did nothing better in 2014 compared to 2012-2013 under his guidance but kept losing in the Slams thanks to - you guessed it - the last few months of a strong era. He did improve his serve but outside of that he did nothing and he's taking full credit for Djokovic's results.

I need not to defend Djokovic here. His numbers speak themselves. You're embarrassing yourself such claims which has no factual basis. I don't think a coach can turn a player overnight, although he is ATG level potential. Novak's improvements technical as well as mental improvements are real which saw him becoming the most dominant player in Tennis History. So Becker deserves a little credit at least cause he helped his pupil to regain his glory days working with him in toughest period of his career when odds staked against him unlike Lendl who packed his bags at the moment he realised Murray is not winning Slam anymore and returned only when he found him in position to win a Slam. He deserves no credit in my opinion at least for this win.

 

[Noleberic123]

That's not true but you can't deny Murray's improvements in the last couple of weeks. He did a lot better in 2012/2013 compared to his previous seasons too. So either it's a huuuge coincidence or Lendl did a great job. I'm taking the second.

And Becker is by far the most overrated coach on duty. Djokovic did nothing better in 2014 compared to 2012-2013 under his guidance but kept losing in the Slams thanks to - you guessed it - the last few months of a strong era. He did improve his serve but outside of that he did nothing and he's taking full credit for Djokovic's results.

Deny his improvements in the last couple of weeks??? I have failed to see any. He won Wimbledon. But he did that with Djokovic losing early. You can't judge against players he has been beating regularly anyway.

He beats Djokovic in a slam. Then we can talk about Lendl

 

[sbengte]

Yes. Lendl, Annacone and Rasheed for me are three top most overrated coaches around. Becker is grossly underrated, he rarely gets credit for Novak's success since 2014. Compared to that Lendl gets too much credit. Even many people now could see significant in Murray's game with just few weeks of coaching. Everyone seems to be convinced that even with having that draw (Raonic, Berdych), Murray wouldn't have won this Wimbledon if there hadn't been Lendl around. That is too much delusion.

Oh please. Becker is underrated ? He was at the right place , right time. Novak of 2011 was the real deal. He went down for the next two years and his resurgence in 2014 was thanks to having a over the hill opponent as his main competition (Wimby 2014) that turned the tide and gave him back his mojo. Becker did squat to make Novak a better player than he already was. Maybe he started coming into the net more, I'll give him that, but that isn't the reason that propelled him into the kind of dominance in the last two years.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Do coaches get huge bonuses for their players winning GS titles? If so, Lendl jumped aboard at the right time.

 

[D.Nalby12]

In other @tennis_pro thinks, Novak's partnership over extended period (Two and half years) with Becker hasn't yielded any significant improvements although his results and statistical analysis of his game shows so. Novak didn't have to avoid any of his main rival, he defeated all of them them repeatedly and quite convincingly. Yet no improvements seen. His results can be easily dismissed as outcome of weak era While OTOH he can see significant improvements in Murray's game with few weeks of work with Lendl. Murray won Wimbledon title with facing a draw which was weakest in last 12 years. He avoided Djokovic and Federer. Yet no weak era talks, everything is outcome of improvements over few weeks. It doesn't get more ridiculous than this.

 

[Noleberic123]

Djokovic beats Federer: Weak Era

Murrat beats Raonic: Murray has improved

 

[sportmac]

No, he isn't. His only coaching experience says that when he's there slams are won.

The worst coach is Annacone. He jumped on three wagons that had already arrived and the horses were in the stable. The other one never left the stable.

Sampras, Federer, Henman. Two established all time greats and one established top 10'er. Nothing changed in any of their games after he arrived (except for the worse: Sampras). Federer only became a better volleyer after Edberg. He got Sampras to abandon one of the best all court games in history to rush the net (yeah, great coaching that) and Henman never got better.
Then there was Sloane.

 

[TupeloDanger]

Djokovic beats Federer: Weak Era
Murrat beats Raonic: Murray has improved

Both are correct. And it's still a weak era.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Djokovic beats Federer. Murray, Nadal, Wawrinka, Nishikori, Raonic, Berdych and pretty much everyone on tour for a year and half.: Weak Era

Murrat beats Raonic in one tournament: Murray has improved

Haha pretty much my thoughts. Little addition.

 

[Noleberic123]

Both are correct. And it's still a weak era.

TT users after French Open 2016: Murray is the worst world no.2 ever
TT users after Wimbledon 2016: Murray is GOAT

 

[Noleberic123]

Haha pretty much my thoughts. Little addition.

Ahaha very true!!

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

In other @tennis_pro thinks, Novak's partnership over extended period (Two and half years) with Becker hasn't yielded any significant improvements although his results and statistical analysis of his game shows so. Novak didn't have to avoid any of his main rival, he defeated all of them them repeatedly and quite convincingly. Yet no improvements seen. His results can be easily dismissed as outcome of weak era While OTOH he can see significant improvements in Murray's game with few weeks of work with Lendl. Murray won Wimbledon title with facing a draw which was weakest in last 12 years. He avoided Djokovic and Federer. Yet no weak era talks, everything is outcome of improvements over few weeks. It doesn't get more ridiculous than this.

You don't understand. Djokovic has been the same player all along since 2007 (and if anything, his level of play was actually better in 2007-08 than in 2015-16) and his results depend only on how good other players are, while those other players only depend on themselves.

 

[D.Nalby12]

You don't understand. Djokovic has been the same player all along since 2007 (and if anything, his level of play was actually better in 2007-08 than in 2015-16) and his results depend only on how good other players are, while those other players only depend on themselves.

After reading TP's posts a non Tennis fan might get fully convinced, Novak is Pizza boy from Serbia who accidentally became Tennis player and won so much all thanks to weak era!

 

[batz]

Deny his improvements in the last couple of weeks??? I have failed to see any. He won Wimbledon. But he did that with Djokovic losing early. You can't judge against players he has been beating regularly anyway.

He beats Djokovic in a slam. Then we can talk about Lendl

Like he did those 2 times during Lendl v1.0?

 

[Noleberic123]

You don't understand. Djokovic has been the same player all along since 2007 (and if anything, his level of play was actually better in 2007-08 than in 2015-16) and his results depend only on how good other players are, while those other players only depend on themselves.

Dude stop trying to deny the weak era. Baghdatis is the same as Murray 2015 at the AO. Grandpa Fed is Grandpa Fed. Murray is the worst world no.2 ever. Only when he wins a slam then he is legendary. Raomug. Wawonceayearrinka. Birdman.

 

[batz]

Here are the numbers:

UnLendlised Murray in slam finals is 0/6 - or zero percent if you prefer.

Lendlised Murray in slam finals is 3/5 - or sixty percent.

Feel free to argue that Lendl's impact on Murray's game is not material. But know that the data are very much against you.

 

[Noleberic123]

Like he did those 2 times during Lendl v1.0?

Yes. Precisely.

Murray improving in a few weeks time is ridiculous. Thats not how it works. It is going to take a few months if at all.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Here are the numbers:

UnLendlised Murray in slam finals is 0/6 - or zero percent if you prefer.

Lendlised Murray in slam finals is 3/5 - or sixty percent.

Feel free to argue that Lendl's impact on Murray's game is not material. But know that the data are very much against you.

You're right, but what is he actually DOING? He just sits there half dead during the match and gets massive $$$

 

[Noleberic123]

Here are the numbers:

UnLendlised Murray in slam finals is 0/6 - or zero percent if you prefer.

Lendlised Murray in slam finals is 3/5 - or sixty percent.

Feel free to argue that Lendl's impact on Murray's game is not material. But know that the data are very much against you.

I am going to argue that Murray would have won this Wimbledon with or without Ivan Lendl.

I love Murray.

 

[Noleberic123]

Delete

 

[RF-18]

Oh please. Becker is underrated ? He was at the right place , right time. Novak of 2011 was the real deal. He went down for the next two years and his resurgence in 2014 was thanks to having a over the hill opponent as his main competition (Wimby 2014) that turned the tide and gave him back his mojo. Becker did squat to make Novak a better player than he already was. Maybe he started coming into the net more, I'll give him that, but that isn't the reason that propelled him into the kind of dominance in the last two years.

The delusion is high in here. ''Becker did squat to make novak better player''. Damn.

 

[tennis_pro]

In other @tennis_pro thinks, Novak's partnership over extended period (Two and half years) with Becker hasn't yielded any significant improvements although his results and statistical analysis of his game shows so. Novak didn't have to avoid any of his main rival, he defeated all of them them repeatedly and quite convincingly. Yet no improvements seen. His results can be easily dismissed as outcome of weak era While OTOH he can see significant improvements in Murray's game with few weeks of work with Lendl. Murray won Wimbledon title with facing a draw which was weakest in last 12 years. He avoided Djokovic and Federer. Yet no weak era talks, everything is outcome of improvements over few weeks. It doesn't get more ridiculous than this.

Djokovic improved his serving over the last few years. The rest remained more or less the same. Becker is overrated.

Murray improved over the last 2-3 weeks compared to his previous form.

Deny it and laugh all you want.

 

[batz]

Yes. Precisely.

Murray improving in a few weeks time is ridiculous. Thats not how it works. It is going to take a few months if at all.

Why not? You're from Serbia, so I'm guessing you are a football fan (Red Star?). How many times have we seen the phenomenon whereby a new coach completely re-energises an under-performing team? Happens quite a lot right?

I'm guessing you haven't watched as much of Murray as I have mate, but trust me, Murray at Queen's and Wimbledon was a different guy to the one that had played so far this season. More aggressive with the FH much bigger, closer to the baseline, less energy expended on pointless rants, no grasping at phantom limb pains. If you check my history you'll see that I've been calling for Murray to get Ivan back at any price from about the time they split up.

Been watching Andy since he was ranked in the mid 300s - he is a different guy with Ivan at his back. I would argue that this is demonstrably true from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Djokovic improved his serving over the last few years. The rest remained more or less the same. Becker is overrated.

Murray improved over the last 2-3 weeks compared to his previous form.

Deny it and laugh all you want.

I'm not alone!

 

[tennis_pro]

Care to explain? Which improvements? I've not seen any. All he did in Wimbledon, that he was doing in last 18 months quite regularly - that is to beat everyone on tour except Federer/Djokovic. If there has been improvements, better to judge it against the players he has been failing recently or throughout his career more or less. Not against those he beats often.

Murray was far more consistent since Jan 2015 than he ever has been that includes he so called "peak" years. Statistically speaking his numbers are superior to 2012 (way better than 2013). Achievements wise 2016 has sealed the deal of his peak year (with 1 Slam, 2 Finals and masters title) although it's not over yet. So he played "a lot better" in 2012-13 is simply myth.



I need not to defend Djokovic here. His numbers speak themselves. You're embarrassing yourself such claims which has no factual basis. I don't think a coach can turn a player overnight, although he is ATG level potential. Novak's improvements technical as well as mental improvements are real which saw him becoming the most dominant player in Tennis History. So Becker deserves a little credit at least cause he helped his pupil to regain his glory days working with him in toughest period of his career when odds staked against him unlike Lendl who packed his bags at the moment he realised Murray is not winning Slam anymore and returned only when he found him in position to win a Slam. He deserves no credit in my opinion at least for this win.

You don't need factual basis to make claims. Nadal is a better volleyer than Federer based on stats. So thank you very much I'll keep "embarassing myself" based on what I see as opposed to other people who need hard evidence to prove anything.

 

[tennis_pro]

I'm not alone!

Because I care so much.

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

After reading TP's posts a non Tennis fan might get fully convinced, Novak is Pizza boy from Serbia who accidentally became Tennis player and won so much all thanks to weak era!

12 Slam wonder.

 

[batz]

You don't need factual basis to make claims. Nadal is a better volleyer than Federer based on stats. So thank you very much I'll keep "embarassing myself" based on what I see as opposed to other people who need hard evidence to prove anything.

You're right mate. You can prove anything with facts.

You don't drive a cab in London in your spare time by any chance?

 

[killerboi2]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/te...unsellor-Andy-Murray-coach-exactly-needs.html

This article is relevant here I think

 

[D.Nalby12]

You don't need factual basis to make claims. Nadal is a better volleyer than Federer based on stats. So thank you very much I'll keep "embarassing myself" based on what I see as opposed to other people who need hard evidence to prove anything.

Yes, you don't need factual basis to claim something but myths like weak era. I know, I know!

 

[Noleberic123]

Yes of course I am a Red Star fan. Why on earth would I be a Partizan fan??

Completely re-energises a team?? Football is different from Tennis you cannot compare. Fernando Santos worked for two years with this Portugal team before they became champions of Europe. Luis Enrique had an average season first half of the season with Barca when they went on to win the Treble in 2015. These things don't generally happen straight away. Leicester had a whole pre-season of hard work before they won the EPL

 

[Doctor/Lawyer Red Devil]

Why not? You're from Serbia, so I'm guessing you are a football fan (Red Star?). How many times have we seen the phenomenon whereby a new coach completely re-energises an under-performing team? Happens quite a lot right?

I'm guessing you haven't watched as much of Murray as I have mate, but trust me, Murray at Queen's and Wimbledon was a different guy to the one that had played so far this season. More aggressive with the FH much bigger, closer to the baseline, less energy expended on pointless rants, no grasping at phantom limb pains. If you check my history you'll see that I've been calling for Murray to get Ivan back at any price from about the time they split up.

Been watching Andy since he was ranked in the mid 300s - he is a different guy with Ivan at his back. I would argue that this is demonstrably true from both a qualitative and quantitative perspective.

Don't know about Queens. Several players pushed him there. He was a beast at Wimbledon though, I would have favored him to beat even Djokovic. That was clearly his best Slam performance ever.