I must admit I don't 'get' Lendl as a coach either. But if it works then it's great and good choice Andy.

I'm not a great advocate of assuming that sportsmen & women go on to be great coaches in their own sport. Any more than they go on to be great commentators...

But benefit of the doubt and all that.

Ratty wrote:

---

So if he has got where he is through being a defensive counter-puncher, what makes you think that being more aggressive will make him a better player? To me, it seems more likely that it will make him a worse player.

---

I didn't actually make any comment on that specifically, more just generally about considering ways to improve.

But if you're interested (  ) in truth I thought for a very long time that Andy was getting on perfectly well with his general style and for a while argued against the suggestion that he really needed to become more attacking. He was getting high in the rankings that way, which is largely why I wasn't concerned.

As it is, I think most people would say in the last year or two that he has actually become rather more attacking,  basically good controlled agression, as compared to two or three years ago when he was generally much more passive. 

The last year brought his best overall Slam resuts.  I think there is a good arguement that the generally more aggresive play he has shown has helped him bring that to Slams and that has helped him there.     

However, having watched him enough in major matches, particularly Slam defeats, I do now think that there is a weight of evidence that at crucial points he reverts to being too passive for the situation ( unlike Djokovic who seems to seize his opportunities more ).  I do think there is something in him that makes him revert too often, say at a crucial  break point, to looking for an opponent making an error rather than taking a chance to really impose himself on the point.  At times this unnecessary passiveness extents over a period.

I think many of us will recall at Wimbledon when he did probably overforce on an important point ( well actually just overhit one ball ) against Nadal, but he appeared to many to be playing the right way.  Missing that one ball seemed to bring real self dount as to his strategy and confusion can breed mistakes, which seemed to be what subsequently happened. To me, what Andy needs is to me more sure of his strategy in the most important matches, and I do think that is the controlled ( not over ) aggresion that he has displayed successfully in the last year or so,  He also needs to have faith in his strategy and certainly not be put off it by say one errant shot.

Like everyone else, I don't know if the Lendl appointment will work or not.  But I can see that a guy who has been there and done it and can pass on what helped him strategy wise and indeed maybe mentally wise could well be a real help.

Do you seriously think that most of us here are not unaware that it hasn't been exactly the best time for Andy to have broken through ?

All I was essentially saying was that im my opinion there are still things that Andy needs to look at how he plays in Slams.  In my view being a bit more aggressive has made him more consistent in Slams, so that already to me is positive change.  But I do think that he still goes away from that and becomes too passive at important times, and this is very much to his detriment.  If you don't think there are things he could improve on, and indeed don't think he has made some improvements in the last year or two, rather than sit happy with a game that was winning him some Masters and getting him very highly ranked, then I just simply disagree with you.

I think he needs to examine remaining issues and bringing in Lendl might help.  There are of course no guarantees.  But some changes to his strategy /  mindset may help to improve the odds more in his favour.

Sorry, I am a bit repeating myself, but I'm not sure you've entirely got where I was coming from.

Anyway, if Fed and / or Nadal becomes less of a major factor, I again think folk might just notice that, take it in the the round that that will clearly help his chances, and not just jump to the conclusions that you suggest.  I'm sorry you think folks' general reasoning powers are so poor. 

Chance and circumstance play a part, a particularly big part when you're in the Federer / Nadal / Djokovic era, but you can still take steps to improve yourself.  It seems that you would prefer him to just carry on as is and wait till there should be less competition around at the highest level.  I just simply disagree with that.  Also, whilst you could be right about Nadal you could also be quite wrong, and even Fed could quite easily have a couple of very good years left in him.

In my view you've taken this chance theory and just gone with it too strongly, particularly when related to sport, and particularly here when I think there are improvements that can be made to Andy's game. Hey, apart from strategy I've never talked about Andy so long without mentioning his serve  

To quote that introduction by Daniel Kahneman :

"A recurrent theme of this book is that luck plays a large role in every story of success; it is almost always easy to identify a small change in the story that would have turned a remarkable achievement into a mediocre outcome"

Seems reasonable, I might even say obvious. Andy's whole life to date will have included many junctions where different paths could have been taken and I am sure some possibilities would not have left him anything like as good a player as he is now, so to me it's not just Fed / Nadal / Djokovic, it's the whole story.  I don't actually find that quote particularly illuminating or profound. He is where is, the good and the bad luck playing a "large role",  but I don't see how on earth that precludes him from taking further steps to try and maximise his chances, having reached this point in his career.

Anyway apologies I haven't made reference to any great works myself, but I do think it can be too easy to point to some words and / or theory and let them to some extent override other truths which are clear to the unread.  For instance, Andy's Slam defeats have more to them than "simple bad luck" whatever you might be reading into this "Occam's Razor".

Common sense  -  moi  

steven wrote:

---

OEM has a really good interview with Lendl in the Thunderer today btw - huge enthusiasm for the challenge ahead comes across.

---

Oh dear, I suspect I'm now being contrary just for the sake of it, but ...

... what useful information can one really gather from an interview reported in a newspaper? After all, I think all of us could probably sketch out most of Harman's piece without even reading it (I haven't).    

You see, Neil has a job, which is to help fill a newspaper with entertaining writing. He won't be doing his job if he writes a boring story, however true it might be. For example, he might have found Ivan to be VERY DULL INDEED. But unless he puts some sort of interesting spin on Ivan's dullness, his salary won't be paid for much longer. And of course, if he's rude about Ivan, that is going to cause him serious "access" problems so long as Ivan is Andy's coach. 

So, the only rational thing for Neil to do is to write a really positive piece, with lots of puff about Ivan's enthusiasm for (ahem) "the challenge ahead". Which it sounds like he's done. 

But what - of interest and usefulness - this tells us, is likely to be diddly squat.

Sorry, honestly!

I hadn't clue either about GOW and had googled and found God of War ( related to a game apparently, I'm no gamer ).  Seemed quite appropriate.

Or Goddess of War