Ivan Lendl Appreciation Thread

Fifth Set

Professional
I like how they practically begged Lendl to smile a few minutes ago during the Murray US Open speech.

Lendl wouldn't do it. He wins again.
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Some of us wrote this as soon as their partnership was announced in January--Lendl is exactly what Murray needed, not so much gamewise, but on the mental approach and the way to deal with big moments. Murray needed someone he could look up to--and be cowed by, so he wouldn't fall back on his too-defensive game when things don't go his way.

Definitely a ground-breaking partnership for Murray, great job from both of them.

Now, of course, targetting #1 for 2013 is the next logical step, and he's got a good chance of getting it, at least sometime during the year. ;)
 
I ♥ Ivan. :)

Aside from Tony Roche, is there any other player who has won one of the slams, and then went on to coach a slam winner as well? (singles only)


Regards,
MDL
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
I ♥ Ivan. :)

Aside from Tony Roche, is there any other player who has won one of the slams, and then went on to coach a slam winner as well? (singles only)


Regards,
MDL
Not sure about that, but I don't think so. Actually, there's a kind of saying that goes "great players make poor (or awful) coaches" (it's probably an ego thing), but Tony Roche was the one who said that he thought Lendl would be a tremendous coach when the Murray-Lendl partnership became known. And, knowing Ivan's mind as he did, I'm pretty sure Roche knew what he was saying... ;)
 
Last edited:

UKTennis

New User
Some of us wrote this as soon as their partnership was announced in January--Lendl is exactly what Murray needed, not so much gamewise, but on the mental approach and the way to deal with big moments. Murray needed someone he could look up to--and be cowed by, so he wouldn't fall back on his too-defensive game when things don't go his way.

Definitely a ground-breaking partnership for Murray, great job from both of them.

Now, of course, targetting #1 for 2013 is the next logical step, and he's got a good chance of getting it, at least sometime during the year. ;)
Totally agree with this. Murray's mental game was massively improved this year, and although not up to the level of Nadal, Djokovic or Federer it may well get there next year now he's got the 'no slam' monkey off his back. Lendl should also tell Murray to stop pretending he has an injury every time he loses a few points, it's quite irritating.
 
Here's a grim thought: what if Lendl walks away now?

I think Lendl's biggest motivation for returning to the tour as a coach was in order to promote his tennis academy. Taking Murray to a slam victory after so many failures will add greatly to his cachet. But...

  • He stays on as Murray's coach, and Andy wins no more? The cachet is lost.
  • He leaves, and Andy wins no more? The cachet is increased even more.

Even if he leaves and Andy keeps winning, Ivan can still claim credit for the "new" Murray, and therefore won't lose any cachet that way. There's also a motivation from the point of view of A-Rod retiring, since the USTA might start hunting more urgently for the next generation of stars... and offer big bucks to any coach who can produce them. I think demand for hot coaches is going to spike in the USA post-Roddick. (It happened in Britain at the LTA.)

Disclaimer: the only option I've omitted from the above is what I hope and think will happen, that Lendl will stay on and Murray will keep winning, maybe even going for a shot at the #1 ranking at some point next year. Ivan is too driven to give up when the job's only half done. Also, I think he wants to win Wimbledon "by proxy", to make up for his disappointments as a player.


Regards,
MDL
 
Last edited:

coolblue123

Hall of Fame
Both Mr. Excitement's are two peas in a pod. No wonder they work well together.

Congrads to both. Lendl definitely has a big impact on Murray's game. Even NPR did a small segment on how Lendl has improved Murray's game. NPR mentioned that Lendl did two things:
- Improved Murray's attack strategy (especially with his forehand)
- Decreased his practices to preserve his shoulders during serves.

First time, I've heard decreasing practice translates to better results. Try and tell that to Nadal. =)
 

PhrygianDominant

Hall of Fame
I was right on this the moment it was announced. Lendl's stoicism, pragmaticism, and experience; along with having been more successful than murray so murray didn't have any ammunition to contradict, really helped him. Perfect match. Lendl for Coach GOAT and prodigy
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Disclaimer: the only option I've omitted from the above is what I hope and think will happen, that Lendl will stay on and Murray will keep winning, maybe even going for a shot at the #1 ranking at some point next year. Ivan is too driven to give up when the job's only half done. Also, I think he wants to win Wimbledon "by proxy", to make up for his disappointments as a player.
I think you can book this one. We'll see... ;)
 
BB.co.uk

Lendl comments....well spoken and clever man..

(black box on this page)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/tennis/19554926

I wonder what Lendl means when he says than his job is done
I actually love something he says early on: "[the media] would say Murray is 0-5 if he lost the Olympics, but because he won you say he is 0-4". He's promoting that antagonistic me-against-the-world mentality, which I think served him well when he was a player. And sometimes the best tennis I've seen Murray play has been when he's angry, like after a disputed line-call in a close match, or when there's a bit of an edge to the match.

More please, Ivan. I think part of me would prefer Murray to be a pantomime villain champion, rather than a popular winner. We have enough nice guys out there already. ;)

Also, note that the quote is "job done", not "job is done". The former is just a British colloquialism for completing a task, and was probably said by the journalist who wrote the article.

Regards,
MDL
 

merlinpinpin

Hall of Fame
Also, note that the quote is "job done", not "job is done". The former is just a British colloquialism for completing a task, and was probably said by the journalist who wrote the article.
Exactly. He didn't say, "My job is done (so I'll be going now)."

He said, "I didn't come here to have a good time - I came here to help Andy win. He did, so it's job done."

So it's actually "job done" for both of them, not for him alone. Also, the previous sentence says that:

"Hopefully, we're not anywhere near where Andy can get."

The next stages of the plan are obviously Wimbledon and the #1 ranking, in whatever order, and I don't think Ivan is planning on going away now. And Murray would have to be mad to get rid of him. The two have become a real force in the last few months, and I fully expect to see more of them in the next few years. ;)
 

PimpMyGame

Hall of Fame
An absolute master stroke to bring Ivan Lendl into Murray's team. If there was a deliberate ploy to call on IL's experience with regard to handling slam losses and turning them around into slam wins then someone deserves a slap on the back.

Also, let's not underestimate Judy Murray's input into her son's rise. I wouldn't be surprised if she is the one behind all the hiring and firing of AM's entourage.
 

namui

Rookie
I don't think Lendl improved only the mental toughness for Murray. I saw many of Lendl's patterns in Murray's plays. There are some improvement in terms of tactical maneuvers Lendl injected into Murray.
 

FloridaAG

Professional
Obviously it has been a good pairing and worked. Andy has had quite a year and broken through in a major way. He is so stubborn (Andy) that I think having one of the best players of all time who would not take his cr** and did not kiss his butt was a huge help. You could see and hear him in yesterday's match forcing himself to ignore his natural inclination which was too play even more passively and force himself to continue trying to dictate which is how he won
 

Stinkdyr

Professional
I was never a Lendl fan in that day. But you gotsta give credit, clearly the Ivan presence has helped Murray win his first.
 

kaku

Professional
I always knew the Lendl-Murray partnership would pay dividends. I know some people were doubting the partnership a few months in, especially during the clay season. But I remember Murray saying it would take around Wimbledon time to see the results of the work, and it did, with a Wimbledon Final, a Gold Medal, and now the USO title.
 

piteng

New User
yes murray does tend to dog it when a point doesnt go his way- ouch my leg, arm, head, etc. not very becoming

i think the ivan can correct
 

Beacon Hill

Hall of Fame
There were a lot of factors that allowed Murray to win the US Open:
1) Nadal not in the draw.
2) Federer losing in the quarters.
3) Berdych not playing well in semis.
4) Inclement weather in the final that made the outcome primarily about handling the wind rather than who the better overall player is.
5) Djokovic not at his best in the final.
None of these has anything to do with Lendl. He could have just as easily not been the champion, and we'll never know if he would have had the same result no matter who was his coach. He didn't dominate and he didn't seem like a completely changed player ready to begin dominating.

Murray won, he deserves the title and it's probably good for tennis that he won. But until Murray gets through a tough draw, beating the top players in their best form, stops screaming at his box when something goes wrong, and stops grabbing a limb in exaggerated pain when he loses a few points, I'm not convinced he's now mentally tough and on the road to several slams and No. 1.

Lendl seems like a good choice. But it just seems silly to say he's made all the difference and "I called this when Lendl was announced as coach." Let's wait and see.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
There were a lot of factors that allowed Murray to win the US Open:
1) Nadal not in the draw.
2) Federer losing in the quarters.
3) Berdych not playing well in semis.
4) Inclement weather in the final that made the outcome primarily about handling the wind rather than who the better overall player is.
5) Djokovic not at his best in the final.
Oh please don't forget to add that neither Lopez nor Cilic were at their best or that Raonic strangely failed to serve enough aces! :roll:

Nadal's absence from the draw may or may not have been a factor. That we can never know. But it was just as much a factor for Djokovic or Federer's chances as Murray's. Weather conditions are something ALL players have to contend with. If they can't handle them, then that is their look-out. The best players can overcome whatever conditions they are required to play in. Murray has played bad matches in the wind too.

Murray won, he deserves the title and it's probably good for tennis that he won. But until Murray gets through a tough draw, beating the top players in their best form, stops screaming at his box when something goes wrong, and stops grabbing a limb in exaggerated pain when he loses a few points, I'm not convinced he's now mentally tough and on the road to several slams and No. 1.
Oh please. Murray's draw was tougher than Federer's or Djokovic's. Berdych was the first tough player Federer had to face and he made a complete hash of it. That was his problem. Given that he fell flat on his face against Berdych, what makes you think he wouldn't have done the same against Murray, a guy he has lost to more often than not? Murray then went on to beat the guy who beat Federer and lost the first set to him arguably because of the same windy conditions that apparently affected Berdych in the next two. Then they played a tight 4th set that Berdych could have won but didn't because Murray was more clutch on the important points. End of story.

If you don't think Murray's mentally tough enough to win any more Slams after coming back from losing 2 sets in a row to win Monday night's final, then you probably never will.

This constant litany of ' Lucky Murray can only ever win when his opponents are either tired, injured, off-form, disinterested or absent ' will seemingly go on for ever in some people's minds! It can never be because he won it on his own merits, can it? Perish the thought!
 
Last edited:

batz

G.O.A.T.
There were a lot of factors that allowed Murray to win the US Open:
1) Nadal not in the draw.
2) Federer losing in the quarters.
3) Berdych not playing well in semis.
4) Inclement weather in the final that made the outcome primarily about handling the wind rather than who the better overall player is.
5) Djokovic not at his best in the final.
.

So it was nothing to do with how Murray played then? But let me guess, all the other times he didn't win a slam - that was down to Murray not being good enough - have I got that right?
 

Beacon Hill

Hall of Fame
Oh please don't forget to add that neither Lopez nor Cilic were at their best or that Raonic strangely failed to serve enough aces! :roll:

Nadal's absence from the draw may or may not have been a factor. That we can never know. But it was just as much a factor for Djokovic or Federer's chances as Murray's. Weather conditions are something ALL players have to contend with. If they can't handle them, then that is their look-out. The best players can overcome whatever conditions they are required to play in. Murray has played bad matches in the wind too.



Oh please. Murray's draw was tougher than Federer's or Djokovic's. Berdych was the first tough player Federer had to face and he made a complete hash of it. That was his problem. Given that he fell flat on his face against Berdych, what makes you think he wouldn't have done the same against Murray, a guy he has lost to more often than not? Murray then went on to beat the guy who beat Federer and lost the first set to him arguably because of the same windy conditions that apparently affected Berdych in the next two. Then they played a tight 4th set that Berdych could have won but didn't because Murray was more clutch on the important points. End of story.

If you don't think Murray's mentally tough enough to win any more Slams after coming back from losing 2 sets in a row to win Monday night's final, then you probably never will.

This constant litany of ' Lucky Murray can only ever win when his opponents are either tired, injured, off-form, disinterested or absent ' will seemingly go on for ever in some people's minds! It can never be because he won it on his own merits, can it? Perish the thought!
The thread is about Lendl's influence. I don't think this tournament proved much in that regard. As I pointed out, Murray won because of a lot of factors that had nothing to do with Lendl. He deserved the title and I'm happy for him. Maybe he would have won without Lendl. You're attributing things to me that didn't come from me.
 

Beacon Hill

Hall of Fame
So it was nothing to do with how Murray played then? But let me guess, all the other times he didn't win a slam - that was down to Murray not being good enough - have I got that right?
Wow - "nothing to do with how Murray played then?" - where did that come from? Murray's a good player. Do you think he'd have won if he met an on fire Federer in the semis? Djokovic at his very best? I doubt it. But that's how sports work. Murray won the matches and the others didn't. Good for him. Good for tennis. I hope he keeps improving. Right now I don't think his best is as good as other players at their best. And I don't think he's as mentally tough as he needs to be. It doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the title.
 

Defcon

Hall of Fame
I agree with Beacon. It's very easy to say in hindsight that you saw this coming, Lendl made it happen etc etc. it wasn't a convincing win by any means and Murray still hasn't shown that he can fight back.

You need a bit of luck to win your first slam and Murray definitely had that. If he wants to win more, he'll need to show he can beat the other 3 at their best as well. His game is too passive and at the mercy of others, relatively speaking.
 

nethawkwenatchee

Professional
Here's a grim thought: what if Lendl walks away now?

I think Lendl's biggest motivation for returning to the tour as a coach was in order to promote his tennis academy. Taking Murray to a slam victory after so many failures will add greatly to his cachet. But...

  • He stays on as Murray's coach, and Andy wins no more? The cachet is lost.
  • He leaves, and Andy wins no more? The cachet is increased even more.

Even if he leaves and Andy keeps winning, Ivan can still claim credit for the "new" Murray, and therefore won't lose any cachet that way. There's also a motivation from the point of view of A-Rod retiring, since the USTA might start hunting more urgently for the next generation of stars... and offer big bucks to any coach who can produce them. I think demand for hot coaches is going to spike in the USA post-Roddick. (It happened in Britain at the LTA.)

Disclaimer: the only option I've omitted from the above is what I hope and think will happen, that Lendl will stay on and Murray will keep winning, maybe even going for a shot at the #1 ranking at some point next year. Ivan is too driven to give up when the job's only half done. Also, I think he wants to win Wimbledon "by proxy", to make up for his disappointments as a player.


Regards,
MDL
You, my friend are a PR magnefisso!
 

Hawkeye7

Professional
Wow - "nothing to do with how Murray played then?" - where did that come from? Murray's a good player. Do you think he'd have won if he met an on fire Federer in the semis? Djokovic at his very best? I doubt it. But that's how sports work. Murray won the matches and the others didn't. Good for him. Good for tennis. I hope he keeps improving. Right now I don't think his best is as good as other players at their best. And I don't think he's as mentally tough as he needs to be. It doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the title.
It's very weird that Murray is the only player aside from Nadal who has a positive H2H against Federer. Federer obviously had a lot of off-days against him, but not against his other opponents of course.

Murray has always been a problem for Djokovic as well. He is now 1-5 on fast/mid-paced hard courts against him, with his only win coming in Madrid, 2006. Another coincidence?

Murray is the luckiest player to ever play the game. Look at how many Masters he fluked as well. Remarkable!
 
Last edited:

Peters

Professional
I know. I often sit here chuckling at the endless excuses people try and come up with on TT for why Murray has a better H2H than someone, why Murray won a slam, why Murray has 24 titles, etc, and on and on.

There's a hint of desperation on here to try to explain it. So much fear of admitting Murray's actually, y'know, a rather excellent tennis player.

And I think that desperation on TT will continue to increase over the next couple of years as he wins more slams. It's going to be fun watching this place squirm. :)
 

pmerk34

Legend
Ivan is not nice. he is not funny either
I would say humour is in the eye of the beholder. Some may like his brand of joking others may not.

As far as Ivan being a nice guy he seems to have softened a bit from what I see, hear and read. I agree that he was not a nice person during his paying days.
 
Last edited:

batz

G.O.A.T.
Wow - "nothing to do with how Murray played then?" - where did that come from? Murray's a good player. Do you think he'd have won if he met an on fire Federer in the semis? Djokovic at his very best? I doubt it. But that's how sports work. Murray won the matches and the others didn't. Good for him. Good for tennis. I hope he keeps improving. Right now I don't think his best is as good as other players at their best. And I don't think he's as mentally tough as he needs to be. It doesn't mean he doesn't deserve the title.
From the fact that 'the way he played' was not one of the factors that you listed as why he won?

If your Aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle - I'm sure that we could pull 'what ifs' out of the ether, like 'waht if Roger hadn't met someone from outside the top 30 in his first slam final'? But the fact is Murray didn't meeet an 'on-fire' Fed because Fed wasn't 'on fire'.

I appreciate your final paragraph and you do seem to be a very fair poster, but I'm just starting to get a bit scunnered at the over-analysis of Murray's win and the caveats that seem to be applied to it.
 

pmerk34

Legend
I agree with Beacon. It's very easy to say in hindsight that you saw this coming, Lendl made it happen etc etc. it wasn't a convincing win by any means and Murray still hasn't shown that he can fight back.

You need a bit of luck to win your first slam and Murray definitely had that. If he wants to win more, he'll need to show he can beat the other 3 at their best as well. His game is too passive and at the mercy of others, relatively speaking.
I think Lendl has improved Andy's mental approach. I do not think he would have handled the weather as well before and therefore would not have won his first US Open.
 

Bhagi Katbamna

Hall of Fame
I actually love something he says early on: "[the media] would say Murray is 0-5 if he lost the Olympics, but because he won you say he is 0-4". He's promoting that antagonistic me-against-the-world mentality, which I think served him well when he was a player. And sometimes the best tennis I've seen Murray play has been when he's angry, like after a disputed line-call in a close match, or when there's a bit of an edge to the match.

More please, Ivan. I think part of me would prefer Murray to be a pantomime villain champion, rather than a popular winner. We have enough nice guys out there already. ;)

Also, note that the quote is "job done", not "job is done". The former is just a British colloquialism for completing a task, and was probably said by the journalist who wrote the article.

Regards,
MDL
No. He's just saying that the media people are a$$es. They want controversy and conflict.
 
Top