Murray on Lendl: "I probably would have beaten him on grass"!

Funny interview from Murray:

Which former player would you most like to have had a chance to play? Simon Preece

"My coach, Ivan Lendl. No question. I hadn't watched many of his matches until I started working with him, then I started to watch some videos of his big matches. Now that I know him and have watched him a lot, he would be the most fun guy to go play. He was incredibly consistent, very rarely played a bad match, he did everything well - served well, good forehand, passed well, moved well.


Ivan Lendl, who won eight Grand Slams, coached Murray to his first last year</SPAN>

"He improved his volleys a lot towards the end of his career as well to try and win Wimbledon. That was the sort of guy he was. He could have won more Slams, for sure. He missed a French Open to prepare better for Wimbledon, and when he started playing the Aussie that was on grass too. If the Aussie was on hard courts, I think he would have won more. Would I have beaten him? Depends on the surface. I think on clay he would have beaten me, on grass I think I might have beaten him and on hard courts... it would have been a good match!

========================================================

..Also it woudl have been a good match on HC ...Does Murray realises he is talking about one of the greatest HC player (I would say top 2 or 3rd after Federer and maybe Pete)?

Murray says a lot of silly things and has an overinflated opinion of his ability.
From what I can remember, Lendl was a relentless player and his base-line tennis looked a bit out of place then and odd just like he was with his steely, no-smiling image etc.
But he was such a smart cookie and would eaten up most of today's generation for breakfast. Very nice backhand.

Doesn't that racquet he is holding in the photo look a bit weird, the neck is really short, like a child's one?

And the strange thing with Lendl was everyone wanted to know if he was going to win Wimbledon (almost as much as if he was ever going to smile, probably would had he won Wimbledon...).
And he never did.
Same as Henin.
And they both wanted it so much.

The main thing is that Lendl was Lendl. Sure he played in a probably less competitive era but he was winning everything but slams from a very early age and then many slams and got a record length at number 1. He was close to win wimbledon against the best SVers of the time. I am not sure how Murray could have got anywhere close to finals in that time....trained like players of the time and more so with natural gut where spin played a negligeable role.

WHat Lendl had and Murray hasn;t is the talent AND guts to hit a flat ball. Murray muscles the ball and that works fine today but back then it would not have made him a great player. They were all flat hitters on fast courts. The Brugueras and Berasategui were nowhere to be seen on grass at the time. You had great baseliners who coudl do something on grass but again they were flat hitters (Medvedev, Mecir).

I wonder whether they are really aware of the advantage the new strings have brought to their "power" games? I know Murray mentioned it recently but to which extend?...does he realise that having had a very tough 1st set v Llodra last year at the AO, it woudl have been it at least twice as hard with nat gut (despite being twice as muscly). He could not have sent such powerful spinny returns in Llodra's feet, A much easier ball to read, much less angles....I think it would have been pretty easy for Llodra if anything.....and for Lendl too.!

noleisthebest wrote:Doesn't that racquet he is holding in the photo look a bit weird, the neck is really short, like a child's one?

Being a fan of Lendl I bought it in my youth....Very ugly and weird racquet....but for the time....very good.

noleisthebest wrote:And the strange thing with Lendl was everyone wanted to know if he was going to win Wimbledon (almost as much as if he was ever going to smile, probably would had he won Wimbledon...).
And he never did.
Same as Henin.
And they both wanted it so much.

He missed his best chance by teaming up with Tony Roche. He told him to go to the net when frankly he could have from the back. He never felt natural for him to rush to the net systematically...while he was winning his points easily from the back. That was a clear error of judgement from him to listen to Roche.

Tenez wrote: I wonder whether they are really aware of the advantage the new strings have brought to their "power" games? I know Murray mentioned it recently but to which extend?...does he realise that having had a very tough 1st set v Llodra last year at the AO, it woudl have been it at least twice as hard with nat gut (despite being twice as muscly). He could not have sent such powerful spinny returns in Llodra's feet, A much easier ball to read, much less angles....I think it would have been pretty easy for Llodra if anything.....and for Lendl too.!

I have only recently realised that today's players, strangely enough know very little about older eras and technology. I get the feeling that Murray watches Lendl's match and think "I could've hit that ten times better".
The only way he'd understand is if he had to play in the same conditions.

He has even said during this AO how "everyone" tells him tennis today is great, rallies etc (when asked about speeding up of surfaces, actually I did post that part of interview somewhere, I don't know if you saw it). So he lives in some cuckoo-land where everyone must be telling him he is the best thing since sliced bread....no wonder he gets so down on himself when he starts losing.

tenez, so when lendl says andy is much more talented than he ever was, is he just saying it so Overend can get all giddy?

luvsports! wrote:tenez, so when lendl says andy is much more talented than he ever was, is he just saying it so Overend can get all giddy?

Didn't he say that Murray coudl win 8 slams too. It seems to me that Lendl never cared about his reputation. He was there more the money and the glory...but he never dwelt on the past as we know. He had the reputation of a hard worker not very talented. Being a fan I may not have been very objective but I think he was extremely talented. getting to a 5 setter versus Borg on clay at 20 or 21 was very impressive. When he took on golf his handicap was close to professionals. So clearly he was a natural for sport and you cannot paint the lines like he did hitting flat without being immensely talented. However like all sharp players his edge could easily be blunt by emotion and fitness and this is why he decided to work very hard. To allow himself to play his best tennis over 5 sets...and not to drag players into 5 setters...contrary to some current players. Lendl doesn;t care about his reputation I feel. He never cared about writing a book to defend himself against the nasty comments from Mc and Connors bio...so all in all I think he said that to boost Murray (it's his job after all) just to please Murray and the press.

The problem I have with Murray is that he may be very talented (he certainly has good hands as GP says) but he doesn;t bank on it to win, he banks on his fitness. That is teh main point I try to make when talking about talent v physique. When players get on court, they know very quickly who is teh fitter and how much talent they can deliver for how long. So when they know their fitness is not up to their opponent's they are actually forced to use or push even their talent. Murray hardly ever has to...except when playing Nadal and Djoko of course....but even there they decide to slug it out rather than to go for broke.

noleisthebest wrote:

Tenez wrote: I wonder whether they are really aware of the advantage the new strings have brought to their "power" games? I know Murray mentioned it recently but to which extend?...does he realise that having had a very tough 1st set v Llodra last year at the AO, it woudl have been it at least twice as hard with nat gut (despite being twice as muscly). He could not have sent such powerful spinny returns in Llodra's feet, A much easier ball to read, much less angles....I think it would have been pretty easy for Llodra if anything.....and for Lendl too.!

I have only recently realised that today's players, strangely enough know very little about older eras and technology. I get the feeling that Murray watches Lendl's match and think "I could've hit that ten times better".
The only way he'd understand is if he had to play in the same conditions.

He has even said during this AO how "everyone" tells him tennis today is great, rallies etc (when asked about speeding up of surfaces, actually I did post that part of interview somewhere, I don't know if you saw it). So he lives in some cuckoo-land where everyone must be telling him he is the best thing since sliced bread....no wonder he gets so down on himself when he starts losing.

LOL! I think they are quite aware but tehy also know that tennis has changed and the tour is certainly 100 times harder now than then. Those strings, as much as they make them look good by retrieving unretrievable ball, it actually makes life harder for them by making it such a physical sport with huge risk of injuries. In the past it was much simpler you either had the talent to hit and handle pace or you hadn't. There was not much else that coudl be done if you had not the natural reflexes to stand close to the baseline and return....well you coud always concentrate on the clay season but then we did not see you much for the rest of the season (Muster, Bruguera).

What makes you think Murray has good hands?

Well he has quick reflexes and good volleys when he dares to. He has a very good control on the ball for his lobs and drop shots and hardly ever misses smashes.

Plus his flat DHBH can be really good.

Tenez wrote:Well he has quick reflexes and good volleys when he dares to. He has a very good control on the ball for his lobs and drop shots and hardly ever misses smashes.

Plus his flat DHBH can be really good.

I think his volleys are really overrated. I don't count digs and little dinks across the net as volleys. I don't even remember seeing him volley in the last 6-7 months and those I remember were about 50/50.
When he does pull one off, the commentators sure make a fuss over it!

If he had good volleys, there's no reason for him not to move forward as he can set them up well with his slice BH.
Yes, his reflexes are good, reminds me of Nadal, as they move almost the same way now.

For me good hands compliment goes to those who have them and use them at the net as a part of their plan A game.

Yes but he has a good feel for the ball. He hardly ever makes stupid mistakes at the net.

Tenez wrote:Yes but he has a good feel for the ball. He hardly ever makes stupid mistakes at the net.

I didn't notice it.
On the contrary. He often does not know what to do, i.e. how to get to the net, zero transition game. But when he is there, all he does is instinctive which is sometimes good sometimes not, nothing special, at least from what I have seen.
Tsonga is a lot more natural there, but I never hear anyone compliment him....

I am certainly not saying that Murra has the best hands...but better than Lendl possibly.

noleisthebest wrote:Tsonga is a lot more natural there, but I never hear anyone compliment him....

I think people compliment Tsonga quite a bit in this regard. Obviously, the press talks more about the top 4 so maybe that is why you hear more about Murray. Also, you live in the UK so you are bound to get an extra dose of Murray commentary. And his volleying is quite good - certainly better than either Rafa's or Nole's.

..Also it woudl have been a good match on HC ...Does Murray realises he is talking about one of the greatest HC player (I would say top 2 or 3rd after Federer and maybe Pete)?

Bizarre statement indeed. He may have a case for grass and I mean may. The other surfaces a no no. For me I would rate Agassi and Pete above Lendl on HC. Yes he had that amazing run at the US Open, but I think Agassi took the baseline game to the next level, until HC's slowed down and everyone became a baseline grinder.

For me these comparative statements are something Andy needs to avoid. It is always murky. He should either just give Lendl his due until he has a record to match or just give it the silent treatment.

summerblues wrote:

noleisthebest wrote:Tsonga is a lot more natural there, but I never hear anyone compliment him....

I think people compliment Tsonga quite a bit in this regard. Obviously, the press talks more about the top 4 so maybe that is why you hear more about Murray. Also, you live in the UK so you are bound to get an extra dose of Murray commentary. And his volleying is quite good - certainly better than either Rafa's or Nole's.

I disagree.
If you are good at something - you use it simple as that. Nobody has a booming serve and hides it in the cupboard. Same with volleys.

legendkillar wrote:For me I would rate Agassi and Pete above Lendl on HC. Yes he had that amazing run at the US Open, but I think Agassi took the baseline game to the next level, until HC's slowed down and everyone became a baseline grinder.

Mmhh...Lendl has a much better record on HC including 1000s of tournament on cement US. He has a 6/2 H2H record against Agassi, very good record Courrier (similar game as Agassi) and a pretty decent H2H record v Sampras considering that he still challenged Pete at age 34. Consideing he was challenging Borg at 20 on clay...Lendl's record and longevity is largely underestimated....but Federer strangely enough always mentions him in the top 3 when talking about the greatest players ever.

Tenez wrote:

legendkillar wrote:For me I would rate Agassi and Pete above Lendl on HC. Yes he had that amazing run at the US Open, but I think Agassi took the baseline game to the next level, until HC's slowed down and everyone became a baseline grinder.

Mmhh...Lendl has a much better record on HC including 1000s of tournament on cement US. He has a 6/2 H2H record against Agassi, very good record Courrier (similar game as Agassi) and a pretty decent H2H record v Sampras considering that he still challenged Pete at age 34. Consideing he was challenging Borg at 20 on clay...Lendl's record and longevity is largely underestimated....but Federer strangely enough always mentions him in the top 3 when talking about the greatest players ever.

It is an interesting debate. I do think Lendl does not get the high praise and respect he deserves. For me though you had Agassi challenging Federer at 35 and we are talking of a guy who seemed conflicted with his commitment to the game. On clay yes Lendl wins hands down. On HC's I think it is a close run thing. I think I might need time to reflect on this and a re-think.

Well I was a fan of Lendl and nor of Agassi so I might not be the most objective one on the question.

However I think the records on HC tells quite a bit.

legendkillar wrote:
It is an interesting debate. I do think Lendl does not get the high praise and respect he deserves. For me though you had Agassi challenging Federer at 35 and we are talking of a guy who seemed conflicted with his commitment to the game. On clay yes Lendl wins hands down. On HC's I think it is a close run thing. I think I might need time to reflect on this and a re-think.

From memory, Lendl was always looked on as a mechanical player in those days compared to Mac the feel and soft-hand player, "scared" to come to the net unlike Becker etc etc. His tennis looks much better with historical perspective, though.

I think what is interesting they almost mirror each others fragility on the big stage. However, beyond that one became the imbodiment of consistency and the other just became too enigmatic and wasted most of his best years. Lendl was able to conquer his main rival in Wilander whereas Agassi struggled with Pete.

I was always a fan of the Agassi game, though I feel he wasted so much of his talent, but records aside I think there were things Agassi could do which were just wow.

noleisthebest wrote:I disagree.
If you are good at something - you use it simple as that. Nobody has a booming serve and hides it in the cupboard. Same with volleys.

But that is not quite true, and the comparison with serve is off the mark. The problem with volleys is that whether or not to use them depends on the conditions too, not only on your abilities. None of the top players - not even Fed - rely heavily on their volleys these days, no matter how good their volleying is.

Some of the weapons are just not so useful - so no matter how good you can use them you may still not use them much. At one point in the past, Federer very rarely played drop shots, even though he can play them very well. Similarly, no matter how well a player can slice their forehand, you will rarely see them doing it - simply because there are better weapons out there.

Also, I am not saying that Andy is the best volleyer out there. But he does volley quite well.