2015: Review

[nehmeth]

The real problem of Muzz is that he is better player than his results say. He has probably the smarter game of the tour and the stronger legs though he looks sometimes too tired :nono but his attitud and how reacts depending how the match goes are not their friend, he plays and loses many times against himself and that's not best and positive way to win :s

If you mean an ATP player, no one is a better player than their results. The results measure not only their skill set, but the player's ability to think clearly and execute those shots under pressure. Results measure their ability to craft a winning game plan, or to adjust their game plan in the midst of the battle, and win. Results measure a player's consistency during a tournament, in a given year, and over a career.

 

[Great Hands]

Funny thing, I've watched Coric and Thiem play and am at a loss for why Coric is so hyped. He really doesn't have much firepower to speak of; his year win/loss is under .500 (26/28) Thiem strikes the ball much harder and overall has a greater upside (imo). Of the two, I was more impressed by what I've seen from him this year.

I agree with you. Coric is hyped, because he achieved such a high ranking at such an age, which is rare these days. But when you dissect his game, I am really not sure he will be such a great player as many think he will be.
What he has to him is his focus and his... grunting, which means he tries hard. I am simply not sold on him. I also like Thiem more.

Guys, I think you need to remember that Thiem is 3 YEARS older than Coric. The fact that you are comparing them in the same bracket at all is a compliment to Coric. You're talking about them as if they're the same age. Coric is a baby. Thiem is at the age where he SHOULD be starting to make some noise. At Thiem's age, all-time greats had already won slams, and even the much-criticised Andy Murray was in fact, by Thiem's age, the fourth best player in the world behind 3 all-time greats. Thiem is only at no. 19 in the world, behind makeweights. (Puts Murray's misfortune to be in such a tough era in perspective). By Thiem's age, Andy had already reached a slam final, losing only to GOAT-contender Federer after beating another GOAT-contender, Nadal, who was world no.1 and had won the last 2 slams, in the semi. The best Thiem has done, at the same age, is 4th round. This year, he went backwards and didn't make it past the 3rd round. And that's just comparing him to a 2-time slam winner, not an all-time great.

Just to be clear, I like both Coric and Thiem, but comparing a guy at 18 (turns 19 in a few days) to a guy at 22 on the same terms is unfair. To put it in perspective, when Thiem was Coric's age, he was ranked no.405 in the world! Coric is ranked 45!

Coric has an excellent all-around game, a good mental attitude/intensity, and looks like he has a good physique for tennis (even more so in a few years). I also really like Zverev. Coric and Zverev are the most excting younger players I have seen. They are both much younger than Thiem, so they have longer till they're elite players, but the match Coric and Zverev played at Cinci this year was one of the most entertaining and impressive matches featuring teeenagers I've seen in some time. Both have very complete games for players so young. If they are contesting grand slam finals one day, that'll be just fine by me.

 

[Great Hands]

Funny thing, I've watched Coric and Thiem play and am at a loss for why Coric is so hyped. He really doesn't have much firepower to speak of; his year win/loss is under .500 (26/28) Thiem strikes the ball much harder and overall has a greater upside (imo). Of the two, I was more impressed by what I've seen from him this year.

I agree with you. Coric is hyped, because he achieved such a high ranking at such an age, which is rare these days. But when you dissect his game, I am really not sure he will be such a great player as many think he will be.
What he has to him is his focus and his... grunting, which means he tries hard. I am simply not sold on him. I also like Thiem more.

Guys, I think you need to remember that Thiem is 3 YEARS older than Coric. The fact that you are comparing them in the same bracket at all is a compliment to Coric. You're talking about them as if they're the same age. Coric is a baby. Thiem is at the age where he SHOULD be starting to make some noise.

At Thiem's age, all-time greats had already won slams, and even the much-criticised Andy Murray was in fact, by Thiem's age, the fourth best player in the world behind 3 all-time greats. Thiem is only at no. 19 in the world, behind makeweights. (Puts Murray's misfortune to be in such a tough era in perspective). By Thiem's age, Andy had already reached a slam final, losing only to GOAT-contender Federer after beating another GOAT-contender, Nadal, who was world no.1 and had won the last 2 slams, in the semi. The best Thiem has done, at the same age, is 4th round. This year, he went backwards and didn't make it past the 3rd round. And that's just comparing him to a 2-time slam winner, not an all-time great.

Just to be clear, I like both Coric and Thiem, but comparing a guy at 18 (turns 19 in a few days) to a guy at 22 on the same terms is unfair. To put it in perspective, when Thiem was Coric's age, he was ranked no.405 in the world! Coric is ranked 45!

Coric has an excellent all-around game, a good mental attitude/intensity, and looks like he has a good physique for tennis (even more so in a few years). I also really like Zverev. Coric and Zverev are the most excting younger players I have seen. They are both much younger than Thiem, so they have longer till they're elite players, but the match Coric and Zverev played at Cinci this year was one of the most entertaining and impressive matches featuring teenagers I've seen in some time. Both have very complete games for players so young. If they are contesting grand slam finals one day, that'll be just fine by me.

 

[El Dude]

Thanks for doing that, Dude, it makes for very interesting reading...

I can't help myself - it is compulsive

p.s. I'll add in vs. Rafa in the above to round it out.

 

[Great Hands]

Funny thing, I've watched Coric and Thiem play and am at a loss for why Coric is so hyped. He really doesn't have much firepower to speak of; his year win/loss is under .500 (26/28) Thiem strikes the ball much harder and overall has a greater upside (imo). Of the two, I was more impressed by what I've seen from him this year.

I agree with you. Coric is hyped, because he achieved such a high ranking at such an age, which is rare these days. But when you dissect his game, I am really not sure he will be such a great player as many think he will be.
What he has to him is his focus and his... grunting, which means he tries hard. I am simply not sold on him. I also like Thiem more.

Guys, I think you need to remember that Thiem is 3 YEARS older than Coric. The fact that you are comparing them in the same bracket at all is a compliment to Coric. You're talking about them as if they're the same age. Coric is a baby. Thiem is at the age where he SHOULD be starting to make some noise.

I like both Coric and Thiem, but comparing a guy at 18 (turns 19 in a few days) to a guy at 22 on the same terms is unfair. To put it in perspective, when Thiem was Coric's age, he was ranked around no.400 in the world! Coric is ranked 45! I'd like to see where Coric is at 22, compared to where Thiem is now, before I would declare Thiem to be the better player.

 

[Great Hands]

About Murray, the results argument is very strong (as it should be), but watching him play you fell like he had a (perennial) number two written all over him. It seems that he would always yield to the dominant player of the occasion.

Exactly. I do not understand why some are disappointed in him this year, like Kieran for example.
He finished last year #6, now most likely will be finishing the year at a record #2 for him. How is that not good? He also had his best clay season ever and he won 2 masters, more than anyone not named Djokovic. Were folks expecting slams from him? IMO he is the classic dark horse, and I am sorry to say, but those 2 slams he won had an opportunistic flavor. And not because he defeated Novak in both and I am biased towards Novak.
But everyone knows that he won Wimbledon against a flat Nole who was not up for it after marathon battle against DelPotro, while he had an easy-breezy SF against Janowicz. And in the USO final, he just handled the wind a lot better than Nole.
His results in slam finals speak for themselves. He is the perennial runner up....
Also there was a rhetoric that once Murray has his monkey of his back of winning a slam, he will go on and win a slew of them. They just forgot who he is up against, some of the best players ever, who will always be better than Andy on an average day.

Thank you, thank you, thank you Herios! I agree with every word you say! I was about to write a post saying something similar, but you've summed it up very well!

And this is not to disparage Andy. He is a great player who deserved the slams he has won (indeed, in another era he may have won more), and he may yet win more, but he is not as good as Fedalovic, three of the greatest players ever (could be top 3 of the open era by the end of their careers), and thus he needs them to underperform to win.

 

[El Dude]

Yes, exactly Great Hands. I've got lots to say about this based upon some research I did for both my generations series and for an article I started writing earlier this year but shelved about "looking for the next great." Rather than totally derail this thread, I'll start a new one that touches on some of this.

 

[Great Hands]

Yes, exactly Great Hands. I've got lots to say about this based upon some research I did for both my generations series and for an article I started writing earlier this year but shelved about "looking for the next great." Rather than totally derail this thread, I'll start a new one that touches on some of this.

I'll look forward to reading that!

By the way, I'm also enjoying your generations series very much.

 

[Carol]

The real problem of Muzz is that he is better player than his results say. He has probably the smarter game of the tour and the stronger legs though he looks sometimes too tired :nono but his attitud and how reacts depending how the match goes are not their friend, he plays and loses many times against himself and that's not best and positive way to win :s

If you mean an ATP player, no one is a better player than their results. The results measure not only their skill set, but the player's ability to think clearly and execute those shots under pressure. Results measure their ability to craft a winning game plan, or to adjust their game plan in the midst of the battle, and win. Results measure a player's consistency during a tournament, in a given year, and over a career.

But the good results are termporary, sometimes they win but they can lose as well, depending their
present level, the best players sooner or later can go through deep rough patches, and then it depends of them how they can resolve the problem, sometimes changing or adding a coach or talking care with the diet or improving here or there and also psychologically like some players do. The tenth top players have enough game to win anytime (it doesn't matter who is our fav) but later it depends the attitud and confidence and trying always to improve theirselves

 

[nehmeth]

The real problem of Muzz is that he is better player than his results say. He has probably the smarter game of the tour and the stronger legs though he looks sometimes too tired :nono but his attitud and how reacts depending how the match goes are not their friend, he plays and loses many times against himself and that's not best and positive way to win :s

If you mean an ATP player, no one is a better player than their results. The results measure not only their skill set, but the player's ability to think clearly and execute those shots under pressure. Results measure their ability to craft a winning game plan, or to adjust their game plan in the midst of the battle, and win. Results measure a player's consistency during a tournament, in a given year, and over a career.

But the good results are termporary, sometimes they win but they can lose as well, depending their
present level, the best players sooner or later can go through deep rough patches, and then it depends of them how they can resolve the problem, sometimes changing or adding a coach or talking care with the diet or improving here or there and also psychologically like some players do. The ten top players have enough game to win anytime (it doesn't matter who is our fav) but later it depends the attitud and confidence and trying always to improve theirselves

You make my point for me Carol. You say the top ten players have enough game to win any time, but they do not. Professionals are measured by their results, not their athleticism or lovely strokes. Many hate Nadal's "ugly" game and love Roger's grace, but both of them have the results to make the statement they are two of the greatest players of all time.

It doesn't matter how nicely Muzza can hit on the practice court. He's a professional. If he can't bring it against the other top players, then he is not a better player than his results. Novak grew up in the shadow of Fedal and knew that if he was going to make his mark, he had to win against them. He did. Andy hasn't.

 

[herios]

Funny thing, I've watched Coric and Thiem play and am at a loss for why Coric is so hyped. He really doesn't have much firepower to speak of; his year win/loss is under .500 (26/28) Thiem strikes the ball much harder and overall has a greater upside (imo). Of the two, I was more impressed by what I've seen from him this year.

I agree with you. Coric is hyped, because he achieved such a high ranking at such an age, which is rare these days. But when you dissect his game, I am really not sure he will be such a great player as many think he will be.
What he has to him is his focus and his... grunting, which means he tries hard. I am simply not sold on him. I also like Thiem more.

Guys, I think you need to remember that Thiem is 3 YEARS older than Coric. The fact that you are comparing them in the same bracket at all is a compliment to Coric. You're talking about them as if they're the same age. Coric is a baby. Thiem is at the age where he SHOULD be starting to make some noise.

I like both Coric and Thiem, but comparing a guy at 18 (turns 19 in a few days) to a guy at 22 on the same terms is unfair. To put it in perspective, when Thiem was Coric's age, he was ranked around no.400 in the world! Coric is ranked 45! I'd like to see where Coric is at 22, compared to where Thiem is now, before I would declare Thiem to be the better player.

I will admit that you are perfectly right, in terms of comparing Thiem vs. Coric at this point. Borna should be developing for several more years. He's got definitely more to his potential than many of his peers, so let's see how he will improve. I will give him a full year to impress me

 

[Great Hands]

keiran made a commet in teh 2015 review thread that am was better under lendl than now.

['murray was better under lendl than this year' cooment]

hmmmm....

[let's compare 2012-13 andy with 2015 andy.]

how di murray win uso 2012? before the ifnal, his hgiest rnaked oppoent weas berdych - 2015 andy has beaten berdych all 3 times they have met this year. then he got to play a novak playing crap in the wind. once the wind died down, novak won the next 2 sets, but then he started cramping and andy won the 5th. given those cicrumstances, 2015 andy cld have won the uso too.

how did murray win wd13? he didn't have to face anyone of note till the final, and nd played wekll below par in that final.
given thsoe circumstances, 2015 murray cld have won wd too.

murray versus fed this year - only 2 matches. fed was a beast in cinci this year - not even novak could stop him. in fact, novak cldn't even get a set off him. hardly surpising andy didn't win that one. he wldn't have won that one under lendl etiher.

wd sf - fed played outstandingly in that match. as others have pointed out, murray played better in that match this year then he did in the 2012 f, when with lendl, but federer's play - with a new racket - coupled with hyper-aggressive apporoach - was much better than in 2012, certainyl than in the start of that final in 2012, when murray won the first set, as fed looked very nervy at that point.

And if fed has played in the olypmc9 final 2012 liek he did in the wd sf this year, am wld not have won that match either.

[so keiran, when you say andy was better against fed under lendl, there is no evidence for this. in 2014 andy was trno the same platyer, he was returnign from surgery.] so this year, they've only played twice, and fed played lights out both times. and when fed plays reallty well, andy's never been able to beat him, even under lendl. he's always beaten an underperforming fed. obvioxuly. unless you are suggesting that am is as good a player as roger federer when playing well. which wld be alaughable staemtnt, fan as i am of murray.
you also don't seem to realise, kieran, that murray used to beat fed by rallying with him from teh back fo the ocurt, becuase fed used to be content to do that against andy. the new fed is much mroe aggreisve, which makes him a much toguher matchuop for andy than he was in 2012-13. fed's bh is also much better - it was amzing in that wd sf this year - so andy's old takctic of playing to the bh to welitict errors - soemthing that worked under lendl in, for exmaple, the first set of teh wd f 2012 which andy won - didn't work at all in the sf this year. add to that that fed's new rakcet has given him the best servign of his career. fed's servign stats this year are the [/i] best he's ever had. which makes it harder for murray to get into his service games.

in other words, 2015 murray wld have had the wins over fed that 2012-13 murray had. and 2012-13 murray wldn't have beaten the fed that showed up for 2015 murray, in cicni and wd.

murray and rafa - they only played once this year, and murray won. rafa was nowhere near his best. not much to conclude from this. except, overall, murray had a better clay court season than he ever did with lendl, winning his first clay title and first clay masters.

even murray's lone masters win under lendl (less than he's won this year), was achieved, unlike the 2 murray has won this eyar, without having to beat fedalovic.
murray has also done better in iw, madird, canada shanghai and paris than he ever did under lendl. [he had a bettter clay season than unde lednl, winnig his first clay titles, inclduigna clay masters.] his results at teh ao and fo under lendl were the same or, in fact, less good than this year.
fianlly, murray may also finsih the year with fghier year end ranking than with lendl.






all on faster surfaces, fast hards or grass.
if 2015 murray had got to the uso final withou


andy's best result at ao under lendl - final, losing to novak in 4
andy's ao this year - final, losing to novak in 4

andy's besr result at iw under lendl - qf
andy's iw this year - sf

andy's best miami result under lendl - won, but he did so not having to beat fedalovic. 2015 ao would have won maimi2013.

andy's best fo result under lendl - sf
andy's fo result thsi year - sf

so far, andy has been doing as good or better than with lendl, but let's keep going...

 

[Great Hands]

I forgot Murray won 2 MS titles this year: Montreal slipped my mind. But as for a "slew of GS titles", I'm not sure who ever predicted that. Fact: he was better before Lendl left, and he was beating Roger more often than not, and holding his own against Novak.

hmmmm....

Let's compare 2012-13 Andy with 2015 Andy.

How dis Murray win USO 2012? Before the final, his highest ranked opponent was Berdych - 2015 Andy has beaten Berdych all 3 times they have met this year. Then he got to play a Novak playing crap in the wind. Once the wind died down, Novak won the next 2 sets, but then he started cramping and Andy won the 5th. Given those cicrumstances, 2015 Andy would have won the USO too.

How did Murray win WD 2013? He didn't have to face anyone of note till the final, facing players 2015 Andy would have also beaten. Then Novak, after a marathon semi, and struggling in the heat, played well below par in that final. Given thsoe circumstances, 2015 Murray wld have won WD too.

Murray versus Fed this year - only 2 matches to base our assessment on. Rather a small sample. Fed was a beast in Cinci this year - not even Novak could stop him. In fact, Novak couldn't even get a set off him. Hardly surprising Andy didn't win that one. He wouldn't have won that one under Lendl etiher.

WD SF - Fed played outstandingly in that match. As others have pointed out, Murray played better in that match this year then he did in the 2012 final, when with Lendl, but Federer's play - with a new racket - coupled with a hyper-aggressive apporoach - was much better than in 2012, certainly than in the start of that final in 2012, when Murray won the first set, as Fed looked very nervy at that point.

And if Fed has played in the Olympic final 2012 like he did in the WD SF this year, Murray would not have won that match either.

So this year, they've only played twice, and Fed played lights out both times. And when Fed plays really well, Andy's never been able to beat him, even under Lendl. He's always beaten an underperforming Fed. Obviously. Unless you are suggesting that Murray is as good a player as Roger Federer when playing well, which would be a laughable statement, fan as I am of Murray.

It's also important to note that Murray used to beat Fed by rallying with him from the back of the court, becuase Fed used to be content to do that against Andy. The new Fed is much more aggressive, which makes him a much tougher matchup for Andy than he was in 2012-13. Fed's BH is also much better - it was amzing in that WD SF this year - so Andy's old tactic of playing to the BH to elicit errors - something that worked under Lendl in, for example, the first set of the WD final 2012 which Andy won - didn't work at all in the SF this year. Add to that that Fed's new racket has given him the best serving of his career. Fed's serving stats this year are the best he's ever had. Fed' serving better now than when Murray was with Lendl, which makes it harder for Murray to get into his service games.

In other words, 2015 Murray wld have had the wins over Fed that 2012-13 Murray had. And 2012-13 Murray wouldn't have beaten the Fed that showed up for 2015 Murray, in Cinci and WD.

Murray and Rafa - they only played once this year, and Murray won. Rafa was nowhere near his best. Not much to conclude from this. except, overall, Murray had a better clay court season than he ever did with Lendl, winning his first clay titles including a clay Masters.

So I can't see much evidence that Andy was better under Lendl. The two grand slam wins and Olympics win I've covered above. Even Murray's lone masters win under Lendl (less than he's won this year), was achieved, unlike both the two Murray has won this year, without having to beat Fedalovic.

What esle? Murray has also done better in IW, Madrid, Canada, Shanghai and Paris than he ever did under Lendl. His results at the AO and FO under Lendl were the same or, in fact, less good than this year.

Finally, Murray may also finish the year with a higher year end ranking than with Lendl.

 

[Great Hands]

I forgot Murray won 2 MS titles this year: Montreal slipped my mind. But as for a "slew of GS titles", I'm not sure who ever predicted that. Fact: he was better before Lendl left, and he was beating Roger more often than not, and holding his own against Novak.

hmmmm....

Let's compare 2012-13 Andy with 2015 Andy.

How did Murray win USO 2012? Before the final, his highest ranked opponent was Berdych - 2015 Andy has beaten Berdych all 3 times they have met this year. Then he got to play a Novak playing crap in the wind. Once the wind died down, Novak won the next 2 sets, but then he started cramping and Andy won the 5th. Given those cicrumstances, 2015 Andy would have won the USO too.

How did Murray win WD 2013? He didn't have to face anyone of note till the final, facing players 2015 Andy would have also beaten. Then Novak, after a marathon semi, and struggling in the heat, played well below par in that final. Given those circumstances, 2015 Murray would have won WD too.

Murray versus Fed this year - only 2 matches to base our assessment on. Rather a small sample. Fed was a beast in Cinci this year - not even Novak could stop him. In fact, Novak couldn't even get a set off him. Hardly surprising Andy didn't win that one. He wouldn't have won that one under Lendl etiher.

WD SF - Fed played outstandingly in that match. As others have pointed out, Murray played better in that match this year then he did in the 2012 final, when with Lendl, but Federer's play - with a new racket - coupled with a hyper-aggressive apporoach - was much better than in 2012, certainly than in the start of that final in 2012, when Murray won the first set, as Fed looked very nervy at that point.

And if Fed has played in the Olympic final 2012 like he did in the WD SF this year, Murray would not have won that match either.

So this year, they've only played twice, and Fed played lights out both times. And when Fed plays really well, Andy's never been able to beat him, even under Lendl. He's always beaten an underperforming Fed. Obviously. Unless you are suggesting that Murray is as good a player as Roger Federer when playing well, which would be a laughable statement, fan as I am of Murray.

It's also important to note that Murray used to beat Fed by rallying with him from the back of the court, because Fed used to be content to do that against Andy. The new Fed is much more aggressive, which makes him a much tougher matchup for Andy than he was in 2012-13. Fed's BH is also much better - it was amazing in that WD SF this year - so Andy's old tactic of playing to the BH to elicit errors - something that worked under Lendl in, for example, the first set of the WD final 2012 which Andy won - didn't work at all in the SF this year. Add to that that Fed's new racket has given him the best serving of his career. Fed's serving stats this year are the best he's ever had. Fed' serving better now than when Murray was with Lendl, which makes it harder for Murray to get into his service games.

In other words, 2015 Murray would have had the wins over Fed that 2012-13 Murray had. And 2012-13 Murray wouldn't have beaten the Fed that showed up for 2015 Murray, in Cinci and WD.

Murray and Rafa - they only played once this year, and Murray won. Rafa was nowhere near his best. Not much to conclude from this. Except, overall, Murray had a better clay court season than he ever did with Lendl, winning his first clay titles including a clay Masters.

So I can't see much evidence that Andy was better under Lendl. The two grand slam wins and Olympics win I've covered above. Even Murray's lone Masters win under Lendl (less than he's won this year), was achieved, unlike both the two Murray has won this year, without having to beat Fedalovic.

What esle? Murray has also done better in IW, Madrid, Canada, Shanghai and Paris this year than he ever did under Lendl. His results at the AO and FO under Lendl were the same or, in fact, less good than this year.

i thin lendl helped andy a lot mentally. i think he ehlped make the leap from chaleneger to champion. what lendl did was imprve murray mentall so that he was able to cereate and take the opportunityes that came his way. but murray did also have things go his way a couple of times under Lendl, that helped him win a couple of big ones. Deservedly, as the only reason he hadn't won any big ones already was the extraordinary opposition.

 

[Great Hands]

I forgot Murray won 2 MS titles this year: Montreal slipped my mind. But as for a "slew of GS titles", I'm not sure who ever predicted that. Fact: he was better before Lendl left, and he was beating Roger more often than not, and holding his own against Novak.

hmmmm....

Let's compare 2012-13 Andy with 2015 Andy.

How did Murray win USO 2012? Before the final, his highest ranked opponent was Berdych - 2015 Andy has beaten Berdych all 3 times they have met this year. Then he got to play a Novak playing crap in the wind. Once the wind died down, Novak won the next 2 sets, but then he started cramping and Andy won the 5th. Given those cicrumstances, 2015 Andy would have won the USO too.

How did Murray win WD 2013? He didn't have to face anyone of note till the final, facing players 2015 Andy would have also beaten. Then Novak, after a marathon semi, and struggling in the heat, played well below par in that final. Given those circumstances, 2015 Murray would have won WD too.

Murray versus Fed this year - only 2 matches to base our assessment on. Rather a small sample. Fed was a beast in Cinci this year - not even Novak could stop him. In fact, Novak couldn't even get a set off him. Hardly surprising Andy didn't win that one. He wouldn't have won that one under Lendl either.

WD SF - Fed played outstandingly in that match. As others have pointed out, Murray played better in that match this year then he did in the 2012 final, when with Lendl. But Federer's play - with a new racket - coupled with a hyper-aggressive apporoach - was much better than in 2012, certainly than in the start of that final in 2012, when Murray won the first set, as Fed looked very nervy at that point.

And if Fed had played in the Olympic final 2012 like he did in the WD SF this year, Murray would not have won that match either.

So this year, they've only played twice, and Fed played lights out both times. And when Fed plays really well, Andy's never been able to beat him, even under Lendl. He's always beaten an underperforming Fed. Obviously. Unless you are suggesting that Murray is as good a player as Roger Federer when playing well, which would be a laughable statement, fan as I am of Murray.

It's also important to note that Murray used to beat Fed by rallying with him from the back of the court, because Fed used to be content to do that against Andy. The new Fed is much more aggressive, which makes him a much tougher matchup for Andy than he was in 2012-13. Fed's 'new racket BH' is also much better - it was amazing in that WD SF this year - so Andy's old tactic of playing to the BH to elicit errors - something that worked under Lendl in, for example, the first set of the WD final 2012 which Andy won - didn't work at all in the SF this year. Add to that that Fed's new racket has given him the best serving of his career. Fed's serving stats this year are the best he's ever had. Fed is serving better now than when Murray was with Lendl, which makes it harder for Murray to get into his service games.

In other words, 2015 Murray would have had the wins over Fed that 2012-13 Murray had. And 2012-13 Murray wouldn't have beaten the Fed that showed up for 2015 Murray, in WD and Cinci.

Murray and Rafa - they only played once this year, and Murray won. Rafa was nowhere near his best. Not much to conclude from this. Except, overall, Murray had a better clay court season than he ever did with Lendl, winning his first clay titles including a clay Masters.

So I can't see much evidence that Andy was better under Lendl. The two grand slam wins and Olympics win I've covered above. Even Murray's lone Masters win under Lendl (less than he's won this year), was achieved, unlike both the two Murray has won this year, without having to beat Fedalovic.

What else? Murray has also done better in IW, Madrid, Canada, and Paris this year than he ever did under Lendl. His results at the AO and FO under Lendl were the same or, in fact, less good than this year.

I think Lendl helped Andy a lot mentally. I think he helped Murray make the leap from challenger to champion. But Murray did also have things go his way a couple of times under Lendl, that helped him win a couple of big ones. Deservedly, as the only reason he hadn't won any big ones already was the extraordinary opposition.

 

[Kieran]

So I can't see much evidence that Andy was better under Lendl. The two grand slam wins and Olympics win I've covered above.

I think actually that these are less easy to sweep under the carpet. For example, you "covered" the Wimbledon final in 2013 by stating that "Novak, after a marathon semi, and struggling in the heat, played well below par in that final." This is a conjecture that's gained legs: that Novak was knackered after the semi against del Potro. I ain't buyin'. Novak dropped a calf, plain and simple, but Andy was the one facing even more pressure that day, and he held it together marvelously. Compare that with his showing in this years semi against Federer, where the blurb states (as you do) that "Fed played outstandingly in that match."

He did, but he was also allowed to by Andy nodding off at the business end of each of the sets. This is a habit Andy formed and perfected since Lendl left.

A further conjecture to say that "if Fed had played in the Olympic final 2012 like he did in the WD SF this year, Murray would not have won that match either." There's a few "if's" in your post, and usually hearing the word "if" used as an argument, I'm reminded either of the Spartans reply to Philip of Macedonia, or else, a dirty joke.

I'll tell you what the Spartans said, when told that "if Novak hadn't played so long against del Potro, and if Federer had played in one match the way he played in another match, and if Andy had faced better players en route to his big occasions, he wouldn't have won."

The Spartans said: "If."

Fact is, Andy was better under Lendl. He didn't go away in matches (or sets), he didn't give out to himself and his players box on court, he became aggressive and he understood what he had to do to hang tight in big matches. Lendl changed his natural inclinations (which are all coming back out again) and made him into someone who was closing in on Novak (remember we used to wonder if theirs was the next Big Rivalry :dodgy: ), and winning more than he was losing against Fed.

Now he barely wins games against a Federer who's getting older, and Novak dismisses him like he's a rookie. He's not so tough anymore, buddy. And I think it's because he was unfortunate with his back injury, which slowed his return to form, Lendl left at this time - and Murray made bad choices in his backroom staff...

EDIT: sorry, buddy, I only saw this bit after I posted:

I think Lendl helped Andy a lot mentally. I think he helped Murray make the leap from challenger to champion.

I agree, but I disagree with the next bit, where you say Murray was helped to win his big titles because things went his way. We could say that about most of the big titles won by other players too. For Andy, he actually was looking like a perennial loser until Lendl came along...

 

[Great Hands]

So I can't see much evidence that Andy was better under Lendl. The two grand slam wins and Olympics win I've covered above.

I think actually that these are less easy to sweep under the carpet. For example, you "covered" the Wimbledon final in 2013 by stating that "Novak, after a marathon semi, and struggling in the heat, played well below par in that final." This is a conjecture that's gained legs: that Novak was knackered after the semi against del Potro. I ain't buyin'. Novak dropped a calf, plain and simple, but Andy was the one facing even more pressure that day, and he held it together marvelously. Compare that with his showing in this years semi against Federer, where the blurb states (as you do) that "Fed played outstandingly in that match."

He did, but he was also allowed to by Andy nodding off at the business end of each of the sets. This is a habit Andy formed and perfected since Lendl left.

A further conjecture to say that "if Fed had played in the Olympic final 2012 like he did in the WD SF this year, Murray would not have won that match either." There's a few "if's" in your post, and usually hearing the word "if" used as an argument, I'm reminded either of the Spartans reply to Philip of Macedonia, or else, a dirty joke.

I'll tell you what the Spartans said, when told that "if Novak hadn't played so long against del Potro, and if Federer had played in one match the way he played in another match, and if Andy had faced better players en route to his big occasions, he wouldn't have won."

The Spartans said: "If."

Fact is, Andy was better under Lendl. He didn't go away in matches (or sets), he didn't give out to himself and his players box on court, he became aggressive and he understood what he had to do to hang tight in big matches. Lendl changed his natural inclinations (which are all coming back out again) and made him into someone who was closing in on Novak (remember we used to wonder if theirs was the next Big Rivalry :dodgy: ), and winning more than he was losing against Fed.

Now he barely wins games against a Federer who's getting older, and Novak dismisses him like he's a rookie. He's not so tough anymore, buddy. And I think it's because he was unfortunate with his back injury, which slowed his return to form, Lendl left at this time - and Murray made bad choices in his backroom staff...

EDIT: sorry, buddy, I only saw this bit after I posted:

I think Lendl helped Andy a lot mentally. I think he helped Murray make the leap from challenger to champion.

I agree, but I disagree with the next bit, where you say Murray was helped to win his big titles because things went his way. We could say that about most of the big titles won by other players too. For Andy, he actually was looking like a perennial loser until Lendl came along...

Oh, saw your edit halfway through writing my answer.

Yes, we agree on Lendl's importance. And Andy himself said he felt like a 'loser' before Lendl. But what I'm saying is that for Andy to win his big events, two things combined: an improved mental approach, and some things going his way. IMO, he needed both of those things to get his slams. Either one or the other was not going to be enough.

I take your points. The problem is you are playing the 'if' game too. You are saying 'if the Murray that had been with Lendl had played 2015 Federer he would have done better than 2015 Murray has done' etc

So we're both speculatin', cause there's nothing else we can do. We just see the evidence differently, that's all.

I'd love to put 2015 Murray into the 2012 USO final to show you that he would have won too, but I can't, dang it...

 

[Carol]

Lendl helped him to win his first GS but before and until 2010 Muzz had better h2h than Federer 8-6
What happened to him later? now they are 11-14 and when Roger is not playing his best anymore , very odd :huh:

 

[Great Hands]

Lendl helped him to win his first GS but before and until 2010 Muzz had better h2h than Federer 8-6
What happened to him later? now they are 11-14 and when Roger is not playing his best anymore , very odd :huh:

Whenever Federer has played aggresively and well, he has always beaten Andy, because he's a better player. But he used to be content to rally with Andy from the back of the court, and if he was having an off day, and shanking shots, especially on the BH, Murray had the perfect game to punish him. But Roger's new aggressive approach is a nightmare matchup for Andy. Roger is playing a completely different way against Andy now than he used to. And you say he is not playing his best, but some of his stats this year, like, as I mentioned, his serve, are the best he has ever had! Better even than '04-'07!

And both their matches this year were on fast surfaces. At, for example, the AO, Andy might have a better shot.

 

[Great Hands]

So I can't see much evidence that Andy was better under Lendl. The two grand slam wins and Olympics win I've covered above.

I think actually that these are less easy to sweep under the carpet. For example, you "covered" the Wimbledon final in 2013 by stating that "Novak, after a marathon semi, and struggling in the heat, played well below par in that final." This is a conjecture that's gained legs: that Novak was knackered after the semi against del Potro. I ain't buyin'. Novak dropped a calf, plain and simple, but Andy was the one facing even more pressure that day, and he held it together marvelously. Compare that with his showing in this years semi against Federer, where the blurb states (as you do) that "Fed played outstandingly in that match."

He did, but he was also allowed to by Andy nodding off at the business end of each of the sets. This is a habit Andy formed and perfected since Lendl left.

A further conjecture to say that "if Fed had played in the Olympic final 2012 like he did in the WD SF this year, Murray would not have won that match either." There's a few "if's" in your post, and usually hearing the word "if" used as an argument, I'm reminded either of the Spartans reply to Philip of Macedonia, or else, a dirty joke.

I'll tell you what the Spartans said, when told that "if Novak hadn't played so long against del Potro, and if Federer had played in one match the way he played in another match, and if Andy had faced better players en route to his big occasions, he wouldn't have won."

The Spartans said: "If."

Fact is, Andy was better under Lendl. He didn't go away in matches (or sets), he didn't give out to himself and his players box on court, he became aggressive and he understood what he had to do to hang tight in big matches. Lendl changed his natural inclinations (which are all coming back out again) and made him into someone who was closing in on Novak (remember we used to wonder if theirs was the next Big Rivalry :dodgy: ), and winning more than he was losing against Fed.

Now he barely wins games against a Federer who's getting older, and Novak dismisses him like he's a rookie. He's not so tough anymore, buddy. And I think it's because he was unfortunate with his back injury, which slowed his return to form, Lendl left at this time - and Murray made bad choices in his backroom staff...

EDIT: sorry, buddy, I only saw this bit after I posted:

I think Lendl helped Andy a lot mentally. I think he helped Murray make the leap from challenger to champion.

I agree, but I disagree with the next bit, where you say Murray was helped to win his big titles because things went his way. We could say that about most of the big titles won by other players too. For Andy, he actually was looking like a perennial loser until Lendl came along...

this is part of what i;'m trtying to address. you talk abnout fed getting older, refusing to ackewledge facts like he's had the best serving stats this year tha he's ever had. and he's playing in a newly aggressive style which is nightmare for andy. and as i say, fed played far less weel in the 2012 wd final than he did in the wd sf this year, and stiill beat the andy who had lednl in his corner.'. so the idea that 2012 murray could step onto court against the beast that was federe 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 perfect example to illustrate what i'm talking abotu.

novak underepfrmed in that match. he was a littel injured, apparently, he said. and no one can deny that novak didn';t play anywhere near his best in that match.

andy, onteh other hand, played great. he did everything you say he did under lendl. he was aggresive, and strong in the clutch. and he still onyl just squekaed to the win, by the skin of his teeth...

so what does this tell us? that even when andy plays really qwell, really aggrssively,a nd is mentally strong, he still needs novak to underpermform for him to win.
so if novak plays, well, he will beat andy. so we shldn't be surpsided when novak beats andy.

novak beat andy at this year's ao.
but novak beat andy at both aos when he was witgh lendl, too.

novak beat andy in the miami fianl this yeasr,
but novak beat andy in the miami final uinder lendl, too!

murray's iwns over novak under lendl - 2 on grass - olymics and wd, 2 on faster hards - dubai and uso - fast courts and windy.
2015 murray did not play novak on grass, fast hards, on in extreme wind. so there's no way of knowing what wld have happened there.

so where;s the evidnec that the andy under lednl wld have doen better against 2015 novak than 2015 andy?
there is none.