2015: Review

[Great Hands]

Now he barely wins games against a Federer who's getting older, and Novak dismisses him like he's a rookie.

This is part of what I'm trying to address. You talk about Fed getting older, refusing to acknowledge facts like he's had the best serving stats this year that he's ever had. And he's playing in a newly aggressive style which is nightmare for Andy. And as I say, Fed played less well in the 2012 WD final than he did in the WD SF this year, and still beat the Andy who had Lendl in his corner. So the idea that 2012 Murray could step onto court against the beast that was Federer in that WD SF this year and beat him is completely illogical.

Novak does not always 'dismiss him like he's a rookie'. He didn't in the Montreal Masters final this year. And that Montreal final is a perfect example to illustrate what I'm talking about.

Novak underperformed in that match. He was a little injured, apparently, he said. And no one can deny that Novak didn't play anywhere near his best in that match.

Andy, on the other hand, played great. He did everything you say he did under Lendl. He was aggressive, and strong in the clutch. See this analysis of the match here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/brain-game-montreal-final-2015-murray
And he still only just squeaked to the win, by the skin of his teeth...

So what does this tell us? That even when Andy plays really well, really aggressively, and is mentally strong - i.e. all the things you say he did better under Lendl - he still needs Novak to underperform for him to win. This is what that otherwise excellent article referenced above does not acknowledge.
So if Novak plays well, he will beat Andy. So we shouldn't be surprised when Novak beats Andy.

Novak beat Andy at this year's AO.
But Novak beat Andy at both AOs when he was with Lendl, too.

Novak beat Andy in the Miami final this year.
But Novak beat Andy in the Miami final under Lendl, too!

etc

Murray's wins over Novak under Lendl: 2 on grass - Olympics and WD, 2 on faster hards - Dubai and USO - the former very fast hards, the latter in extremely windy conditions.
2015 Murray did not play Novak on grass, fast hards, or in extreme wind. So there's no way of knowing what would have happened there. 2015 Murray only played Novak on clay and, all the others on medium-slower hards, which is Novak's forte, and a surface which is really bad for Murray in the Djokovic-Murray matchup. It is also, unfortunately for those of us who would like some more faster surfaces, the most common surface on the ATP tour.

So where's the evidence that the Andy under Lendl would have done better against 2015 Novak or 2015 Fed than 2015 Andy?
There is none.

 

[Riotbeard]

I think the moment of the year, even though it was painful to watch, was Stan taking the RG final. Brilliant tennis.

 

[Kieran]

Now he barely wins games against a Federer who's getting older, and Novak dismisses him like he's a rookie.

This is part of what I'm trying to address. You talk about Fed getting older, refusing to acknowledge facts like he's had the best serving stats this year that he's ever had. And he's playing in a newly aggressive style which is nightmare for Andy. And as I say, Fed played less well in the 2012 WD final than he did in the WD SF this year, and still beat the Andy who had Lendl in his corner. So the idea that 2012 Murray could step onto court against the beast that was Federer in that WD SF this year and beat him is completely illogical.

Novak does not always 'dismiss him like he's a rookie'. He didn't in the Montreal Masters final this year. And that Montreal final is a perfect example to illustrate what I'm talking about.

Novak underperformed in that match. He was a little injured, apparently, he said. And no one can deny that Novak didn't play anywhere near his best in that match.

Andy, on the other hand, played great. He did everything you say he did under Lendl. He was aggressive, and strong in the clutch. See this analysis of the match here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/brain-game-montreal-final-2015-murray
And he still only just squeaked to the win, by the skin of his teeth...

So what does this tell us? That even when Andy plays really well, really aggressively, and is mentally strong - i.e. all the things you say he did better under Lendl - he still needs Novak to underperform for him to win. This is what that otherwise excellent article referenced above does not acknowledge.
So if Novak plays well, he will beat Andy. So we shouldn't be surprised when Novak beats Andy.

Novak beat Andy at this year's AO.
But Novak beat Andy at both AOs when he was with Lendl, too.

Novak beat Andy in the Miami final this year.
But Novak beat Andy in the Miami final under Lendl, too!

etc

Murray's wins over Novak under Lendl: 2 on grass - Olympics and WD, 2 on faster hards - Dubai and USO - the former very fast hards, the latter in extremely windy conditions.
2015 Murray did not play Novak on grass, fast hards, or in extreme wind. So there's no way of knowing what would have happened there. 2015 Murray only played Novak on clay and, all the others on medium-slower hards, which is Novak's forte, and a surface which is really bad for Murray in the Djokovic-Murray matchup. It is also, unfortunately for those of us who would like some more faster surfaces, the most common surface on the ATP tour.

So where's the evidence that the Andy under Lendl would have done better against 2015 Novak or 2015 Fed than 2015 Andy?
There is none.

You're making a lot of excuses for Novak: he was tired, he was "a little injured," it was windy, and don't forget he had a runny nose. We could easily turn that around and say that since his back op, Andy hadn't been the man he was, therefore he loses easily.

Also, Federer plays a different game now: has Andy changed to counter this? Would he have, under Lendl? We don't know, but given that he actually changed for the better under Lendl and has since reverted to his old cranky self again since Lendl jilted him, I think it's likely he'd have made some useful adjustment - even if it was only lendl's old favourite, the body shot pole-axing the bloke at the net.

At the end you asked where's the evidence that Andy would have done better under Lendl? Well, where's the evidence that he wouldn't have done better?

 

[Kieran]

I think the moment of the year, even though it was painful to watch, was Stan taking the RG final. Brilliant tennis.

That was probably the single best performance of the season...

 

[Great Hands]

Now he barely wins games against a Federer who's getting older, and Novak dismisses him like he's a rookie.

This is part of what I'm trying to address. You talk about Fed getting older, refusing to acknowledge facts like he's had the best serving stats this year that he's ever had. And he's playing in a newly aggressive style which is nightmare for Andy. And as I say, Fed played less well in the 2012 WD final than he did in the WD SF this year, and still beat the Andy who had Lendl in his corner. So the idea that 2012 Murray could step onto court against the beast that was Federer in that WD SF this year and beat him is completely illogical.

Novak does not always 'dismiss him like he's a rookie'. He didn't in the Montreal Masters final this year. And that Montreal final is a perfect example to illustrate what I'm talking about.

Novak underperformed in that match. He was a little injured, apparently, he said. And no one can deny that Novak didn't play anywhere near his best in that match.

Andy, on the other hand, played great. He did everything you say he did under Lendl. He was aggressive, and strong in the clutch. See this analysis of the match here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/brain-game-montreal-final-2015-murray
And he still only just squeaked to the win, by the skin of his teeth...

So what does this tell us? That even when Andy plays really well, really aggressively, and is mentally strong - i.e. all the things you say he did better under Lendl - he still needs Novak to underperform for him to win. This is what that otherwise excellent article referenced above does not acknowledge.
So if Novak plays well, he will beat Andy. So we shouldn't be surprised when Novak beats Andy.

Novak beat Andy at this year's AO.
But Novak beat Andy at both AOs when he was with Lendl, too.

Novak beat Andy in the Miami final this year.
But Novak beat Andy in the Miami final under Lendl, too!

etc

Murray's wins over Novak under Lendl: 2 on grass - Olympics and WD, 2 on faster hards - Dubai and USO - the former very fast hards, the latter in extremely windy conditions.
2015 Murray did not play Novak on grass, fast hards, or in extreme wind. So there's no way of knowing what would have happened there. 2015 Murray only played Novak on clay and, all the others on medium-slower hards, which is Novak's forte, and a surface which is really bad for Murray in the Djokovic-Murray matchup. It is also, unfortunately for those of us who would like some more faster surfaces, the most common surface on the ATP tour.

So where's the evidence that the Andy under Lendl would have done better against 2015 Novak or 2015 Fed than 2015 Andy?
There is none.

You're making a lot of excuses for Novak: he was tired, he was "a little injured," it was windy, and don't forget he had a runny nose. We could easily turn that around and say that since his back op, Andy hadn't been the man he was, therefore he loses easily.

Also, Federer plays a different game now: has Andy changed to counter this? Would he have, under Lendl? We don't know, but given that he actually changed for the better under Lendl and has since reverted to his old cranky self again since Lendl jilted him, I think it's likely he'd have made some useful adjustment - even if it was only lendl's old favourite, the body shot pole-axing the bloke at the net.

At the end you asked where's the evidence that Andy would have done better under Lendl? Well, where's the evidence that he wouldn't have done better?

I'm not making excuses for Novak, I'm just pointing out that there are no matches that Murray has played this year against Novak that match the conditions under which he managed to beat Novak under Lendl.

The point is, the stance you have taken is more bizarre than mine. I am merely looking at what Andy has achieved in the past and saying that everything he has achieved this year, all the results, are completely predictable based on this. I have not been surprised by any of his reuslts this year, except him beating Novak in Montreal, I expected Novak to win that. But you are saying that Murray has disappointed this year by not doing things like beat an excellent, aggressive Federer, or an in-form Novak on a slower hard court. But Murray never did these things under Lendl either! So your claims are the more far fetched. You are surprised that he has not done this year things that he has never done before. What reasons do you have for expecting such things? The onus is on you to provide support for your claims, because they are the more strange...

I take your point that Andy could have changed under Lendl. We'll never know, of course.

 

[Riotbeard]

Now he barely wins games against a Federer who's getting older, and Novak dismisses him like he's a rookie.

This is part of what I'm trying to address. You talk about Fed getting older, refusing to acknowledge facts like he's had the best serving stats this year that he's ever had. And he's playing in a newly aggressive style which is nightmare for Andy. And as I say, Fed played less well in the 2012 WD final than he did in the WD SF this year, and still beat the Andy who had Lendl in his corner. So the idea that 2012 Murray could step onto court against the beast that was Federer in that WD SF this year and beat him is completely illogical.

Novak does not always 'dismiss him like he's a rookie'. He didn't in the Montreal Masters final this year. And that Montreal final is a perfect example to illustrate what I'm talking about.

Novak underperformed in that match. He was a little injured, apparently, he said. And no one can deny that Novak didn't play anywhere near his best in that match.

Andy, on the other hand, played great. He did everything you say he did under Lendl. He was aggressive, and strong in the clutch. See this analysis of the match here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/brain-game-montreal-final-2015-murray
And he still only just squeaked to the win, by the skin of his teeth...

So what does this tell us? That even when Andy plays really well, really aggressively, and is mentally strong - i.e. all the things you say he did better under Lendl - he still needs Novak to underperform for him to win. This is what that otherwise excellent article referenced above does not acknowledge.
So if Novak plays well, he will beat Andy. So we shouldn't be surprised when Novak beats Andy.

Novak beat Andy at this year's AO.
But Novak beat Andy at both AOs when he was with Lendl, too.

Novak beat Andy in the Miami final this year.
But Novak beat Andy in the Miami final under Lendl, too!

etc

Murray's wins over Novak under Lendl: 2 on grass - Olympics and WD, 2 on faster hards - Dubai and USO - the former very fast hards, the latter in extremely windy conditions.
2015 Murray did not play Novak on grass, fast hards, or in extreme wind. So there's no way of knowing what would have happened there. 2015 Murray only played Novak on clay and, all the others on medium-slower hards, which is Novak's forte, and a surface which is really bad for Murray in the Djokovic-Murray matchup. It is also, unfortunately for those of us who would like some more faster surfaces, the most common surface on the ATP tour.

So where's the evidence that the Andy under Lendl would have done better against 2015 Novak or 2015 Fed than 2015 Andy?
There is none.

You're making a lot of excuses for Novak: he was tired, he was "a little injured," it was windy, and don't forget he had a runny nose. We could easily turn that around and say that since his back op, Andy hadn't been the man he was, therefore he loses easily.

Also, Federer plays a different game now: has Andy changed to counter this? Would he have, under Lendl? We don't know, but given that he actually changed for the better under Lendl and has since reverted to his old cranky self again since Lendl jilted him, I think it's likely he'd have made some useful adjustment - even if it was only lendl's old favourite, the body shot pole-axing the bloke at the net.

At the end you asked where's the evidence that Andy would have done better under Lendl? Well, where's the evidence that he wouldn't have done better?

I actually agree with you Kieran. I have no interest in these types of excuses. Very rarely are two players at their absolute best in a match. Every player has profited off of so-so days for their opponents. When Novak straight-setted Andy at the 2011 AO, it was Andy's best tennis ever. What's the point, this is how tennis works. If Novak didn't play his best at the 2013 Wimbledon final that's his fault.

 

[Riotbeard]

This is part of what I'm trying to address. You talk about Fed getting older, refusing to acknowledge facts like he's had the best serving stats this year that he's ever had. And he's playing in a newly aggressive style which is nightmare for Andy. And as I say, Fed played less well in the 2012 WD final than he did in the WD SF this year, and still beat the Andy who had Lendl in his corner. So the idea that 2012 Murray could step onto court against the beast that was Federer in that WD SF this year and beat him is completely illogical.

Novak does not always 'dismiss him like he's a rookie'. He didn't in the Montreal Masters final this year. And that Montreal final is a perfect example to illustrate what I'm talking about.

Novak underperformed in that match. He was a little injured, apparently, he said. And no one can deny that Novak didn't play anywhere near his best in that match.

Andy, on the other hand, played great. He did everything you say he did under Lendl. He was aggressive, and strong in the clutch. See this analysis of the match here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/brain-game-montreal-final-2015-murray
And he still only just squeaked to the win, by the skin of his teeth...

So what does this tell us? That even when Andy plays really well, really aggressively, and is mentally strong - i.e. all the things you say he did better under Lendl - he still needs Novak to underperform for him to win. This is what that otherwise excellent article referenced above does not acknowledge.
So if Novak plays well, he will beat Andy. So we shouldn't be surprised when Novak beats Andy.

Novak beat Andy at this year's AO.
But Novak beat Andy at both AOs when he was with Lendl, too.

Novak beat Andy in the Miami final this year.
But Novak beat Andy in the Miami final under Lendl, too!

etc

Murray's wins over Novak under Lendl: 2 on grass - Olympics and WD, 2 on faster hards - Dubai and USO - the former very fast hards, the latter in extremely windy conditions.
2015 Murray did not play Novak on grass, fast hards, or in extreme wind. So there's no way of knowing what would have happened there. 2015 Murray only played Novak on clay and, all the others on medium-slower hards, which is Novak's forte, and a surface which is really bad for Murray in the Djokovic-Murray matchup. It is also, unfortunately for those of us who would like some more faster surfaces, the most common surface on the ATP tour.

So where's the evidence that the Andy under Lendl would have done better against 2015 Novak or 2015 Fed than 2015 Andy?
There is none.

You're making a lot of excuses for Novak: he was tired, he was "a little injured," it was windy, and don't forget he had a runny nose. We could easily turn that around and say that since his back op, Andy hadn't been the man he was, therefore he loses easily.

Also, Federer plays a different game now: has Andy changed to counter this? Would he have, under Lendl? We don't know, but given that he actually changed for the better under Lendl and has since reverted to his old cranky self again since Lendl jilted him, I think it's likely he'd have made some useful adjustment - even if it was only lendl's old favourite, the body shot pole-axing the bloke at the net.

At the end you asked where's the evidence that Andy would have done better under Lendl? Well, where's the evidence that he wouldn't have done better?

I'm not making excuses for Novak, I'm just pointing out that there are no matches that Murray has played this year against Novak that match the conditions under which he managed to beat Novak under Lendl.

The point is, the stance you have taken is more bizarre than mine. I am merely looking at what Andy has achieved in the past and saying that everything he has achieved this year, all the results, are completely predictable based on this. I have not been surprised by any of his reuslts this year, except him beating Novak in Montreal, I expected Novak to win that. But you are saying that Murray has disappointed this year by not doing things like beat an excellent, aggressive Federer, or an in-form Novak on a slower hard court. But Murray never did these things under Lendl either! So your claims are the more far fetched. You are surprised that he has not done this year things that he has never done before. What reasons do you have for expecting such things? The onus is on you to provide support for your claims, because they are the more strange...

I take your point that Andy could have changed under Lendl. We'll never know, of course.

I don't think it's that Andy lost these key matches, it's their routine nature. Andy has been weaker in my opinion against the best, with the exception of the RG semi's where he put up a great fight (maybe with the exception of the last set, but that is kinda complicated).

 

[Great Hands]

Kieran stated in his orignal post that andy has been disapointing this year. this surpsoed me, as andy has exceeded my expectations this year, as a fan, after 2014.

I never said it wasn't Novak's fault. The fact that Novak did not play his best tennis in, for example, the WD final, is not about making excuses for anything. It is simply a fact. I am using this fact to point out that Andy needs Novak to underperform to win. Because Novak is a better player. Or are you denying that Novak, a guy heading for all-time top 5 status at this rate, is a better tennis player than Andy? I'm surprised that this stance is such a controversial proposition. Has Berdych, for example, ever beaten Novak when he was at his best? No. Why? Because Novak is a better player. Same with Andy. It's not that complicated. But when Andy loses to Fedalovic, it seems he has 'failed' in some way in some people's eyes. Even though he trains really hard, sees a psychologist, does everything he can to succeed. It's never good enough for people. He's 'failed'. But Berdych, or Tsonga, or whoever loses to Novak? Everyone just accepts it as par for the course. No recriminations. The feeling seems to be that they're just not good enough anyway. Double standards of the highest order.

I always feel that Murray is castigated for not being as good as Fedalovic. He is 'disappointing' because if it. Well then Berdy and Jo-Willie and Grigor et al are equally disappointing. Or, maybe, like Andy, they're just not as good. That might be it.

kieran was the one who came out with the intial staemytn that murray is not as good now as he was under lendl. that made me think 'hmm, there's a statement without any real evidence tht is being expressed unchallenged. i' not saying he's worng. note that in all my repsonses, i have not said that murray is as good, just that i see little evidence to supoort this claim.

For the record, if next year at WD Murray and Djokovic play each other in the final, and Novak has played the longest ever SF in WD history, and the heat is scorching, and despite it being Andy's best surface, and his best surafce to play Novak, Novak beats him in straights, and with the last set being 6-0, I will be the first to hold my hands up and say 'Murray is not as good now as he was under Lendl'. But Murray hasn't had chances like he had under yet to compare to.

 

[Great Hands]

This is part of what I'm trying to address. You talk about Fed getting older, refusing to acknowledge facts like he's had the best serving stats this year that he's ever had. And he's playing in a newly aggressive style which is nightmare for Andy. And as I say, Fed played less well in the 2012 WD final than he did in the WD SF this year, and still beat the Andy who had Lendl in his corner. So the idea that 2012 Murray could step onto court against the beast that was Federer in that WD SF this year and beat him is completely illogical.

Novak does not always 'dismiss him like he's a rookie'. He didn't in the Montreal Masters final this year. And that Montreal final is a perfect example to illustrate what I'm talking about.

Novak underperformed in that match. He was a little injured, apparently, he said. And no one can deny that Novak didn't play anywhere near his best in that match.

Andy, on the other hand, played great. He did everything you say he did under Lendl. He was aggressive, and strong in the clutch. See this analysis of the match here: http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/news/brain-game-montreal-final-2015-murray
And he still only just squeaked to the win, by the skin of his teeth...

So what does this tell us? That even when Andy plays really well, really aggressively, and is mentally strong - i.e. all the things you say he did better under Lendl - he still needs Novak to underperform for him to win. This is what that otherwise excellent article referenced above does not acknowledge.
So if Novak plays well, he will beat Andy. So we shouldn't be surprised when Novak beats Andy.

Novak beat Andy at this year's AO.
But Novak beat Andy at both AOs when he was with Lendl, too.

Novak beat Andy in the Miami final this year.
But Novak beat Andy in the Miami final under Lendl, too!

etc

Murray's wins over Novak under Lendl: 2 on grass - Olympics and WD, 2 on faster hards - Dubai and USO - the former very fast hards, the latter in extremely windy conditions.
2015 Murray did not play Novak on grass, fast hards, or in extreme wind. So there's no way of knowing what would have happened there. 2015 Murray only played Novak on clay and, all the others on medium-slower hards, which is Novak's forte, and a surface which is really bad for Murray in the Djokovic-Murray matchup. It is also, unfortunately for those of us who would like some more faster surfaces, the most common surface on the ATP tour.

So where's the evidence that the Andy under Lendl would have done better against 2015 Novak or 2015 Fed than 2015 Andy?
There is none.

You're making a lot of excuses for Novak: he was tired, he was "a little injured," it was windy, and don't forget he had a runny nose. We could easily turn that around and say that since his back op, Andy hadn't been the man he was, therefore he loses easily.

Also, Federer plays a different game now: has Andy changed to counter this? Would he have, under Lendl? We don't know, but given that he actually changed for the better under Lendl and has since reverted to his old cranky self again since Lendl jilted him, I think it's likely he'd have made some useful adjustment - even if it was only lendl's old favourite, the body shot pole-axing the bloke at the net.

At the end you asked where's the evidence that Andy would have done better under Lendl? Well, where's the evidence that he wouldn't have done better?

I actually agree with you Kieran. I have no interest in these types of excuses. Very rarely are two players at their absolute best in a match. Every player has profited off of so-so days for their opponents. When Novak straight-setted Andy at the 2011 AO, it was Andy's best tennis ever. What's the point, this is how tennis works. If Novak didn't play his best at the 2013 Wimbledon final that's his fault.

I never said it wasn't Novak's fault. The fact that Novak did not play his best tennis in, for example, the WD final, is simply a fact. I am using this fact to point out that Andy needs Novak to underperform to win. Because Novak is a better player. Or are you denying that Novak, a guy heading for all-time top 5 status at this rate, is a better tennis player than Andy? I'm surprised that this stance is such a controversial proposition. Has Berdych, for example, ever beaten Novak when he was at his best? No. Why? Because Novak is a better player. Same with Andy. It's not that complicated.

For the record, if next year at WD Murray and Djokovic play each other in the final, and Novak has played the longest ever SF in WD history, and the heat is scorching, and despite it being Andy's best surface, and his best surface to play Novak, Novak beats him in straights, and with the last set being 6-0, I will be the first to hold my hands up and say 'Murray is not as good now as he was under Lendl'. But Murray hasn't had chances like he had under Lendl yet to compare to.

 

[Riotbeard]

You're making a lot of excuses for Novak: he was tired, he was "a little injured," it was windy, and don't forget he had a runny nose. We could easily turn that around and say that since his back op, Andy hadn't been the man he was, therefore he loses easily.

Also, Federer plays a different game now: has Andy changed to counter this? Would he have, under Lendl? We don't know, but given that he actually changed for the better under Lendl and has since reverted to his old cranky self again since Lendl jilted him, I think it's likely he'd have made some useful adjustment - even if it was only lendl's old favourite, the body shot pole-axing the bloke at the net.

At the end you asked where's the evidence that Andy would have done better under Lendl? Well, where's the evidence that he wouldn't have done better?

I actually agree with you Kieran. I have no interest in these types of excuses. Very rarely are two players at their absolute best in a match. Every player has profited off of so-so days for their opponents. When Novak straight-setted Andy at the 2011 AO, it was Andy's best tennis ever. What's the point, this is how tennis works. If Novak didn't play his best at the 2013 Wimbledon final that's his fault.

I never said it wasn't Novak's fault. The fact that Novak did not play his best tennis in, for example, the WD final, is simply a fact. I am using this fact to point out that Andy needs Novak to underperform to win. Because Novak is a better player. Or are you denying that Novak, a guy heading for all-time top 5 status at this rate, is a better tennis player than Andy? I'm surprised that this stance is such a controversial proposition. Has Berdych, for example, ever beaten Novak when he was at his best? No. Why? Because Novak is a better player. Same with Andy. It's not that complicated.

For the record, if next year at WD Murray and Djokovic play each other in the final, and Novak has played the longest ever SF in WD history, and the heat is scorching, and despite it being Andy's best surface, and his best surface to play Novak, Novak beats him in straights, and with the last set being 6-0, I will be the first to hold my hands up and say 'Murray is not as good now as he was under Lendl'. But Murray hasn't had chances like he had under Lendl yet to compare to.

I am saying it's a boring discussion, everybody profits from less good play from an opponent here or there, so has Novak. I don't get the point of the discussion? It was hot? I guess, but it's England! It's not like it was Australia. I live in New Orleans and am a Novak fan, but Andy was the better guy that day. So be it. Did Novak play his best, no. It wasn't even a contest though. Give Andy his credit. I am not convinced anything would have changed had Novak played a shorter semi.

Sorry, it's not you great hands, but these excuses get old. I don't like it when Rafa fans do it (or any other fandom). Let's just give credit to Andy. He played great. He can play better against top players than he has played post Lendl. It's not a coincidence, when he won his slams.

 

[Front242]

Actually Novak was up a break in every set in that Wimbledon 2013 final and the heat was unreal on centre court that day. Even this year it reached 41C at Kent and that same 41C imo feels way more oppressive than 40+ in the tropics.

 

[herios]

Lendl's contribution to Andy's success was valuable, but is exaggerated on these boards. During that period, when he was with Lendl, he was still the weakest link among the top 4, prone to upset more than the top 3. Plus as El Dude just showed with the stats, Andy played even better against Novak and Roger before teaming up to lendl.

 

[Riotbeard]

Lendl's contribution to Andy's success was valuable, but is exaggerated on these boards. During that period, when he was with Lendl, he was still the weakest link among the top 4, prone to upset more than the top 3. Plus as El Dude just showed with the stats, Andy played even better against Novak and Roger before teaming up to lendl.

Not at the big moments though...

 

[Kieran]

Lendl's contribution to Andy's success was valuable, but is exaggerated on these boards.

I'll tell you one thing for nothing, there'll be nobody exaggerating Amelie's contribution when she's gone... :lolz: :laydownlaughing

 

[Front242]

Personally I can't see why people blame coaches when it's not them out there playing. Murray is the only one in charge of his results.

 

[Kieran]

Personally I can't see why people blame coaches when it's not them out there playing. Murray is the only one in charge of his results.

Why have a coach, if the coach does nothing? The coach is important and can have a huge effect on a player. Yeah, the player is the one who ultimately has to perform, but having the right team gets the player in the right shape, mentally and physically...

 

[Riotbeard]

Personally I can't see why people blame coaches when it's not them out there playing. Murray is the only one in charge of his results.

I actually think it's Andy's fault that having a specific coach was so important to his competitiveness on court, but it still means Lendl was important to Andy winning those slams. I don't blame Mauresmo. I actually think she's done a pretty good job. Andy has won no slams under any of his other coaches, so it's not like she's done a particularly bad job. His results under Mauresmo are more the norm. The Lendl years were the anomaly.

 

[Kieran]

Personally I can't see why people blame coaches when it's not them out there playing. Murray is the only one in charge of his results.

I actually think it's Andy's fault that having a specific coach was so important to his competitiveness on court, but it still means Lendl was important to Andy winning those slams. I don't blame Mauresmo. I actually think she's done a pretty good job. Andy has won no slams under any of his other coaches, so it's not like she's done a particularly bad job. His results under Mauresmo are more the norm. The Lendl years were the anomaly.

Lendl told Murray from the beginning, he wouldn't put up with any of his BS, abusing his players box and staff during a match. Andy cut that out. It's now back in his act. The Lendl years were an anomaly, but maybe because Andy is a difficult lad to please. Lendl had a similar dark sense of humour, and once they clicked, everything fell into place. Coaches are hugely important, and getting the right fit can be hard.

I don't think Andy will get a better fit than Lendl, but you know, Ivan left him at a really bad time: he was just after his back op and he start shipping losses to the other top players, and he needed Lendl badly then. I think lendl looked at things differently, that it was too much hard work to get back to the old level again. Either way, I see today that Lendl is going to start work with the USTA...

 

[DarthFed]

Murray's main disappointment this year was the USO. I don't think Murray has a good chance at either AO or RG, especially against Nole. At Wimbledon he ran into a Federer who probably had his best ever match serving. Short of playing miraculous tennis and winning 3 tiebreaks he was not winning that match. If he had gotten past Roger that final would've been close to a pick'em.

The USO was different, weak loss to Anderson and if he managed to get past Federer in the semi he'd have had a legit chance in the final though I'd have favored Nole for sure. And the way Roger played up until the final he probably would've hit Murray off the court in the semis again. People talking the fatigue excuse for Nole at Wimby 2013 are ignoring the fact that Murray has always fared pretty decent against Novak on faster surfaces. On slow courts he is badly overmatched.

 

[Great Hands]

Murray's main disappointment this year was the USO. I don't think Murray has a good chance at either AO or RG, especially against Nole. At Wimbledon he ran into a Federer who probably had his best ever match serving. Short of playing miraculous tennis and winning 3 tiebreaks he was not winning that match. If he had gotten past Roger that final would've been close to a pick'em.

The USO was different, weak loss to Anderson and if he managed to get past Federer in the semi he'd have had a legit chance in the final though I'd have favored Nole for sure. And the way Roger played up until the final he probably would've hit Murray off the court in the semis again. People talking the fatigue excuse for Nole at Wimby 2013 are ignoring the fact that Murray has always fared pretty decent against Novak on faster surfaces. On slow courts he is badly overmatched.

i agreew ith evrrtyhitn you say ezxcpwet the uso part. murray's los to andwerosn was dispaointing, but if he'd got throught aht, he would have had to playu sttan in the qfs - a toug matchup for him , especialyl ath uso - they've played there twice before and stan own both times. and even if h'ed got through that, he'd have had to pl;ay an in form fed. i would hav been astonished if am had beaten fed at this year's uso. and then even if he'd won that, he wld have had to face novak. i mean, it was an aboslute nightmarwe drasw, with 3 mathces in a row where andy's opppnent wld have been a heavy favourite in my imo. the chances of andy winning the uso this year, givn his draw, were vitally nil.

i am a murray fan, i am just a realist. i know and underst5and his game.