Too Hard on Mauresmo?

[Kieran]

I totally agree, Nehmeth. Although I don't think Navratilova would have been better. I don't see her (or McEnroe) being coaches to great players.

Very few thought Lendl would be good for Andy either. Navratilova would never have put up with the whiney baby act we've seen since Ivan's departure. Just saying.

Gloria Connors would slam the ball into her young child when he came to the net and tell him to "get used to it". Poor Andy would be reduced to wearing adult diapers if a resurrected Gloria were to coach him. :snicker

My only caveat with Martina is, I don't think of her as being able to focus totally and selflessly on anyone else. I lump her in with Mac on this, because actually since I first saw the two of them in the 70's, I thought of them as being similar, down to the lefty S&V stuff, but also emotionally. I adored Martina as a player, but I don't see her as a coach.

But then again, as you say, nobody saw Lendl as a coach...

 

[nehmeth]

Just curious, but after Murray shook hands with Nadal, he went over to his box and shook hands with Mauresmo. The screen kept showing her on and off during the match. I didn't notice Bjorkman. Was he there? Is was a bit annoying the way they kept showing Mauresmo by the way.

Jonas' hair is dark brown now - not blonde anymore. He slipped my notice too, but the commentators said he was there in Madrid. I had to go hunt and found the link that confirmed it.

Obviously by federburg's link, Andy states that he is a feminist. That type of commentary and the physical gesture in front of all the cameras actually helped me form my opinion. She simply didn't work out, hence the many protestations to the otherwise as she prepares to exit the picture.

 

[Federberg]

Maybe Murray is just playing well? And neither Bjorkman nor Mauresmo had anything revolutionary to tell him before the Nadal match? Just a thought.

I actually subscribe to this view point. I certainly don't buy the idea she's done anything wrong. If Murray wants to credit her the fair play to him, and congratulations to her. But he's the one who actually has to go out on the court and produce

 

[Federberg]

Just curious, but after Murray shook hands with Nadal, he went over to his box and shook hands with Mauresmo. The screen kept showing her on and off during the match. I didn't notice Bjorkman. Was he there? Is was a bit annoying the way they kept showing Mauresmo by the way.

Jonas' hair is dark brown now - not blonde anymore. He slipped my notice too, but the commentators said he was there in Madrid. I had to go hunt and found the link that confirmed it.

Obviously by federburg's link, Andy states that he is a feminist. That type of commentary and the physical gesture in front of all the cameras actually helped me form my opinion. She simply didn't work out, hence the many protestations to the otherwise as she prepares to exit the picture.

Lol! I have a horrible feeling you're seeing 2 plus 2 and coming up with 5 there. Why would he have an agenda? Marketing? Maybe.. but taking his actions and comments at face value is surely the most likely truth here

 

[Kirijax]

Maybe Murray is just playing well? And neither Bjorkman nor Mauresmo had anything revolutionary to tell him before the Nadal match? Just a thought.

I actually subscribe to this view point. I certainly don't buy the idea she's done anything wrong. If Murray wants to credit her the fair play to him, and congratulations to her. But he's the one who actually has to go out on the court and produce

I think it's too soon for Bjorkman to have that much of an effect on Murray's game yet. But Murray did seem a LOT more aggressive at Madrid than I had seen him all year. Just feeling good in general can change your play can't it?

 

[nehmeth]

Just curious, but after Murray shook hands with Nadal, he went over to his box and shook hands with Mauresmo. The screen kept showing her on and off during the match. I didn't notice Bjorkman. Was he there? Is was a bit annoying the way they kept showing Mauresmo by the way.

Jonas' hair is dark brown now - not blonde anymore. He slipped my notice too, but the commentators said he was there in Madrid. I had to go hunt and found the link that confirmed it.

Obviously by federburg's link, Andy states that he is a feminist. That type of commentary and the physical gesture in front of all the cameras actually helped me form my opinion. She simply didn't work out, hence the many protestations to the otherwise as she prepares to exit the picture.

Lol! I have a horrible feeling you're seeing 2 plus 2 and coming up with 5 there. Why would he have an agenda? Marketing? Maybe.. but taking his actions and comments at face value is surely the most likely truth here

With no facts yourself, you just take the superior tone and mock. Nice.

I guess you've never been much in politics or marketing - and tennis is much about marketing by the way. When there needs to be a shift made to a bad decision, and acknowledging the bad decision could have serious fallout? Actually the way through is to talk up the person while you make the changes. That's how it's done all the time.

Andy was asked about his choice when he first brought her on board. Over and over again the issue of her being a woman was addressed and debated. If Murray came out and just said - she didn't work out?? :nono That would not play well in the press or anywhere else. Everything team Murray has done has been by the book. He will have plausible deniability moving forward. Win, win for Andy.

 

[brokenshoelace]

A lot of assumptions going on here. Which is totally fine as long as they're being put forth like a theory rather than a near fact. I'd say the same about Rafa's alleged yips.

 

[Federberg]

Jonas' hair is dark brown now - not blonde anymore. He slipped my notice too, but the commentators said he was there in Madrid. I had to go hunt and found the link that confirmed it.

Obviously by federburg's link, Andy states that he is a feminist. That type of commentary and the physical gesture in front of all the cameras actually helped me form my opinion. She simply didn't work out, hence the many protestations to the otherwise as she prepares to exit the picture.

Lol! I have a horrible feeling you're seeing 2 plus 2 and coming up with 5 there. Why would he have an agenda? Marketing? Maybe.. but taking his actions and comments at face value is surely the most likely truth here

With no facts yourself, you just take the superior tone and mock. Nice.

I guess you've never been much in politics or marketing - and tennis is much about marketing by the way. When there needs to be a shift made to a bad decision, and acknowledging the bad decision could have serious fallout? Actually the way through is to talk up the person while you make the changes. That's how it's done all the time.

Andy was asked about his choice when he first brought her on board. Over and over again the issue of her being a woman was addressed and debated. If Murray came out and just said - she didn't work out?? :nono That would not play well in the press or anywhere else. Everything team Murray has done has been by the book. He will have plausible deniability moving forward. Win, win for Andy.

I'm the first one to be cynical in most cases. Perhaps my sniffer is off in this case, but I honestly don't see it. Purely because I simply don't see that anything has been wrong with Murray's comeback from injury. It's been slow yes, but aren't we just overestimating how good he actually is? Anyway I certainly wasn't mocking you. Just disagreeing is all No harm no foul

 

[nehmeth]

A lot of assumptions going on here. Which is totally fine as long as they're being put forth like a theory.. I'd say the same about Rafa's alleged yips.

Just my opinions, my observations BS, yips and all

 

[Riotbeard]

Bjorkman was the one who was there in Munich and he was also there in Madrid. The (successful and sustained) offensive play from Murray I would credit to him.

Riotbeard you should have ended your thread title with an exclamation point rather than a question mark. You aren't inviting discussion as much as you are cheerleading. :nono

To me she was a lousy choice, and not because she was a woman or a lesbian. Navratilova would have been a great coach for him and she would have kicked is whiney arse into shape a lot better and a lot quicker - in my opinion

links:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/tennis/32582143

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-3070801/Andy-Murray-joined-new-coach-Jonas-Bjorkman-prepares-Madrid-Open-match-against-Philipp-Kohlschreiber.html

You are wrong about Madrid. Mauresmo was clearly seen sitting in the box. She was there at the Aussie open, where Andy punch himself out in the third set against Novak. Still catching up, but wanted make sure that was clear. Bjorkman might have been there, but it seems ridiculous to give credit to the coach who had been there a few weeks and not the one there for a year. Likewise Bjorkman showed up when Andy had been the second best player for months, and novak was not competing. Andy also beat a piss-poor rafa. Hardly prestigious company this season.

 

[nehmeth]

I'm the first one to be cynical in most cases. Perhaps my sniffer is off in this case, but I honestly don't see it. Purely because I simply don't see that anything has been wrong with Murray's comeback from injury. It's been slow yes, but aren't we just overestimating how good he actually is?

Let's look at one everybody could see. Todd Martin coaching Novak Djokovic. Martin meant well, but he completely screwed Novak's serve and the Serb lost a year of his best tennis as a result. Here's what Novak said when they parted.

"Todd is a fantastic person. He has so much experience and was willing to share everything with me. There are no hard feelings but we just decided it was not working. It was probably a question of understanding what kind of person I am.”

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/04/12/djokovic-splits-coach-martin/

Did Novak say, "He completely f-d up my serve and made me less competitive."? No, even though that was the obvious case. Even when it's that horrendous, there is a huge amount of talking the person up that goes on. This case with Mauresmo was something even more delicate as gender was involved in all of this. That's why I said, the overly effusive comments from Murray, the "I'm a feminist" statement, the big show in front of the cameras... that's all by the playbook. It could be sincere, but I personally don't buy it.

B.S. made a good point that Andy may have come along this well without any coach. I am not a fan of Murray at all, but he displayed long windows of superior tennis under Lendl. Did Amelie help his game at all? Make it better? Not that I can see.

Bjorkman comes on board and the guy wins 2 clay court titles - something he's never done before. You say Amelie via Skype. That's fine.

 

[nehmeth]

Bjorkman was the one who was there in Munich and he was also there in Madrid. The (successful and sustained) offensive play from Murray I would credit to him.

Riotbeard you should have ended your thread title with an exclamation point rather than a question mark. You aren't inviting discussion as much as you are cheerleading. :nono

To me she was a lousy choice, and not because she was a woman or a lesbian. Navratilova would have been a great coach for him and she would have kicked is whiney arse into shape a lot better and a lot quicker - in my opinion

links:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/tennis/32582143

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-3070801/Andy-Murray-joined-new-coach-Jonas-Bjorkman-prepares-Madrid-Open-match-against-Philipp-Kohlschreiber.html

You are wrong about Madrid. Mauresmo was clearly seen sitting in the box. She was there at the Aussie open, where Andy punch himself out in the third set against Novak. Still catching up, but wanted make sure that was clear. Bjorkman might have been there, but it seems ridiculous to give credit to the coach who had been there a few weeks and not the one there for a year. Likewise Bjorkman showed up when Andy had been the second best player for months, and novak was not competing. Andy also beat a piss-poor rafa. Hardly prestigious company this season.

Again, I know you posted this thread as a rah-rah to support Mauresmo. You should have put an exclamation point on your thread title. I never said Mauresmo wasn't at Madrid. She wasn't at Munich.

 

[Riotbeard]

If Murray came out and just said - she didn't work out?? :nono That would not play well in the press or anywhere else. Everything team Murray has done has been by the book. He will have plausible deniability moving forward. Win, win for Andy.

But she has worked out? Or at least prove that she hasn't. I mean Andy went from crap, post surgery (ranked around 7-8 right to now closing in on #2). He had a decent fall winning his first post surgery tournaments, then makes a slam final this year and gives his best non-lendl slam final performance, makes his first masters final in some time in Miami, then wins his first clay tournament, then first clay masters and first big tournament in years. All under Mauresmo as head coach.

I would say my Mauresmo comments were pretty measured and hardly "cheer-leading." Just that people didn't give her much of a chance and this year, some good results are materializing, certainly in line with Andy's norm (which is below the big 3). I don't think you are sexist for thinking she is a bad choice. But your main argument has been: She's lousy (just a statement not an argument), "she didn't work out" (not upheld by facts), and Bjorkman turned around the whole Murray system in a week and a half and deserves sole credit and don't acknowledge that Mauresmo was in the box all of Madrid.

I mean have your hunch by all means, but you are really aggressively critical based purely on conjecture completely lacking in even a light factual basis. Don't act like everyone who thinks Mauresmo has done a decent job is a part of a marketing conspiracy.

 

[Riotbeard]

Bjorkman was the one who was there in Munich and he was also there in Madrid. The (successful and sustained) offensive play from Murray I would credit to him.

Riotbeard you should have ended your thread title with an exclamation point rather than a question mark. You aren't inviting discussion as much as you are cheerleading. :nono

To me she was a lousy choice, and not because she was a woman or a lesbian. Navratilova would have been a great coach for him and she would have kicked is whiney arse into shape a lot better and a lot quicker - in my opinion

links:
http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/tennis/32582143

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/tennis/article-3070801/Andy-Murray-joined-new-coach-Jonas-Bjorkman-prepares-Madrid-Open-match-against-Philipp-Kohlschreiber.html

You are wrong about Madrid. Mauresmo was clearly seen sitting in the box. She was there at the Aussie open, where Andy punch himself out in the third set against Novak. Still catching up, but wanted make sure that was clear. Bjorkman might have been there, but it seems ridiculous to give credit to the coach who had been there a few weeks and not the one there for a year. Likewise Bjorkman showed up when Andy had been the second best player for months, and novak was not competing. Andy also beat a piss-poor rafa. Hardly prestigious company this season.

Again, I know you posted this thread as a rah-rah to support Mauresmo. You should have put an exclamation point on your thread title. I never said Mauresmo wasn't at Madrid. She wasn't at Munich.

Who cares about munich. He beat a bunch of nobodies at a 250.

 

[Federberg]

I'm the first one to be cynical in most cases. Perhaps my sniffer is off in this case, but I honestly don't see it. Purely because I simply don't see that anything has been wrong with Murray's comeback from injury. It's been slow yes, but aren't we just overestimating how good he actually is?

Let's look at one everybody could see. Todd Martin coaching Novak Djokovic. Martin meant well, but he completely screwed Novak's serve and the Serb lost a year of his best tennis as a result. Here's what Novak said when they parted.

"Todd is a fantastic person. He has so much experience and was willing to share everything with me. There are no hard feelings but we just decided it was not working. It was probably a question of understanding what kind of person I am.”

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/04/12/djokovic-splits-coach-martin/

Did Novak say, "He completely f-d up my serve and made me less competitive."? No, even though that was the obvious case.

B.S. made a good point that Andy may have come along this well without any coach. I am not a fan of Murray at all, but he displayed long windows of superior tennis under Lendl. Did Amelie help his game at all? Make it better? Not that I can see.

Bjorkman comes on board and the guy wins 2 clay court titles - something he's never done before. You say Amelie via Skype. That's fine.

I want to be clear about this... I'm simply saying that there is no evidence that Amelie has caused him harm. There has been a clear progression under her (so far as I can see) resulting in a runner u at the AO. Some of his results last year were very ropey, but could have simply been confidence issues I really don't know. What I find strange is that now that his results have picked up, some people are willing to credit Jonas and not give Amelie her due. As I don't have access to what's going on behind the scenes it strikes me as odd. I really don't know. What I do know is that Andy has credited Amelie for the improvement in his game.

For my part, I have noticed something different about him. Under Lendl he was far more aggressive on the forehand which we all agreed was good. Recently, he has been more willing to use his backhand as a weapon, to a far greater extent (again.. in my view) than when Lendl was coaching him. To me this is entirely the right way to go about things for him. His forehand is never going to a real weapon, but if he can get to a stage where he can use his rock solid backhand as a weapon he'll be the better player for it. I don't think this strategic change is something that happens over a few weeks or even months. This is a progression that takes time, particularly for a counter-attacker like Andy. It makes more sense to me, to credit Amelie for that, than anyone else (if indeed it's not simply him maturing into his strengths).

Certainly, to me, it seems odd to blame the bad on one coach and the good on another without anything substantive backing up those assertions. Just my opinion

PS, I really don't know what the Todd Martin experience has to do with this. Apples and oranges for me

 

[Riotbeard]

I'm the first one to be cynical in most cases. Perhaps my sniffer is off in this case, but I honestly don't see it. Purely because I simply don't see that anything has been wrong with Murray's comeback from injury. It's been slow yes, but aren't we just overestimating how good he actually is?

Let's look at one everybody could see. Todd Martin coaching Novak Djokovic. Martin meant well, but he completely screwed Novak's serve and the Serb lost a year of his best tennis as a result. Here's what Novak said when they parted.

"Todd is a fantastic person. He has so much experience and was willing to share everything with me. There are no hard feelings but we just decided it was not working. It was probably a question of understanding what kind of person I am.”

http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/04/12/djokovic-splits-coach-martin/

Did Novak say, "He completely f-d up my serve and made me less competitive."? No, even though that was the obvious case. Even when it's that horrendous, there is a huge amount of talking the person up that goes on. This case with Mauresmo was something even more delicate as gender was involved in all of this

B.S. made a good point that Andy may have come along this well without any coach. I am not a fan of Murray at all, but he displayed long windows of superior tennis under Lendl. Did Amelie help his game at all? Make it better? Not that I can see.

Bjorkman comes on board and the guy wins 2 clay court titles - something he's never done before. You say Amelie via Skype. That's fine.

Todd Martin has absolutely nothing to do with Amelie Mauresmo. What part of Andy's game started failing like Novak's serve? Andy has been playing pretty aggressive a lot this season. He punched himself out playing aggressive at the AO final.

How is saying people have been to hard on her a ra-ra thread. Have your suspicions by all means. We all have suspicions and conjectures, but you are simply presenting an argument that is all conjecture and ad-hoc attacks on anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[nehmeth]

Todd Martin has absolutely nothing to do with Amelie Mauresmo. What part of Andy's game started failing like Novak's serve? Andy has been playing pretty aggressive a lot this season. He punched himself out playing aggressive at the AO final.

How is saying people have been to hard on her a ra-ra thread. Have your suspicions by all means. We all have suspicions and conjectures, but you are simply presenting an argument that is all conjecture and ad-hoc attacks on anyone who disagrees with you.

As I stated above, Martin is an obvious case of something that went badly wrong. Even though it was as horrible as it was - the words used, were still totally affirming, nothing about poor coaching or mechanics... 'he just didn't understand me'.

I wasn't comparing Martin and Mauresmo was I? No I was comparing the wording during a transition of someone who obviously did not work, with the wording about someone whom I personally believe team Murray may have realized wasn't their best choice.

I think someone better suited could have gotten him on track quicker and without those horrid bouts of running tirades with himself on court. But that's just conjecture, without which there would be no boards.

 

[Riotbeard]

Todd Martin has absolutely nothing to do with Amelie Mauresmo. What part of Andy's game started failing like Novak's serve? Andy has been playing pretty aggressive a lot this season. He punched himself out playing aggressive at the AO final.

How is saying people have been to hard on her a ra-ra thread. Have your suspicions by all means. We all have suspicions and conjectures, but you are simply presenting an argument that is all conjecture and ad-hoc attacks on anyone who disagrees with you.

As I stated above, Martin is an obvious case of something that went badly wrong. Even though it was as horrible as it was - the words used, were still totally affirming, nothing about poor coaching or mechanics... 'he just didn't understand me'.

I wasn't comparing Martin and Mauresmo was I? No I was comparing the wording during a transition of someone who obviously did not work, with the wording about someone whom I personally believe team Murray may have realized wasn't their best choice.

I think someone better suited could have gotten him on track quicker and without those horrid bouts of running tirades with himself on court. But that's just conjecture, without which there would be no boards.

Fair enough. Although, there is no evidence Murray or his team thinks she didn't work out. The end (or intermission) of their coaching relationship is due to her pregnancy (or conspiracy). It is a weird time though to end if not for pregnancy, considering he has had sustained good results under her during the last couple months. The time to fire her would have been the off-season, when Andy still didn't have much to show for their coaching relationship.

 

[nehmeth]

But she has worked out? Or at least prove that she hasn't. I mean Andy went from crap, post surgery (ranked around 7-8 right to now closing in on #2).

With Nadal playing as he has been and Roger aging... with or without Mauresmo Andy should be at #3, closing in on #2. You can't prove to me she's been an asset . Certainly not by him simply getting back to where he's always been.

 

[Riotbeard]

But she has worked out? Or at least prove that she hasn't. I mean Andy went from crap, post surgery (ranked around 7-8 right to now closing in on #2).

With Nadal playing as he has been and Roger aging... with or without Mauresmo Andy should be at #3, closing in on #2. You can't prove to me she's been an asset . Certainly not by him simply getting back to where he's always been.

Of course not. All we have is the record of his results which are good by Murray's standards. We are just giving her the benefit of the doubt that I would give any other coach, and going off what Andy says. You are the one creating an argument that A. Contradicts the players own stated opinion, and B. doesn't give her the general credit for being the coach there for the wins. I think results are at least circumstantial evidence, which all you can really have for any coach. Novak's approaches are a bit better, but there is no evidence that would hold up in court that Becker is responsible for his results, but we give him the benefit of the doubt...