British Davis Cup coach Peter Lundgren has been given a leave of absence by the Lawn Tennis Association for "personal reasons".

The Swede was reported to have slurred his words when he spoke in front of fellow coaches at a conference at the LTA's headquarters last weekend.

Head of men's tennis Paul Hutchins refused to explain what had happened.

But he revealed Lundgren was taking a leave of absence until Britain's Davis Cup tie against Croatia in September.

Lundgren became Britain's Davis Cup coach last October. He had previously worked with Roger Federer and Marat Safin.




- so in other words he was drunk. Why don't they just say that?!

I think I'd be drunk too if I was coaching dross such as Alex Bogdanovic.

because it's rather embarrassing for the LTA to have hired a very prestigious coach only to discover that he's a bit of a drunkard...(*tries not to get CC sued for libel*)....allegedly :unsure:

The LTA are an embarrassment anyway, a little bit more here won't make much difference.

Harsh words Chris ;) When I read that he slurred his words, I didn't think that he may have been drunk, I thought that he had said something which had offended someone or said something that someone else had taken the wrong way... Maybe he was drunk though, who knows :shrug:

I wouldnt say boggo was dross :P I think he is a good player actually.

When you go from coaching the likes of Safin and Federer to coaching Goodall and Bogdanovic, maybe the bottle provided some comfort for him .... :blink:

What was really bad about this was that they susepended him shortly before one of our guys had a match. it was the most important of his career, and he had no coach. I can't remember this guy's name now ..... but he hit out and said it affected his performance. That was a stupid thing to do. :angry:

On his slurring though, they need to be careful here as people slur for other reasons than having got drunk, such as illness, effects of medication.

The BBC report is here

Whilst I do feel sorry for Goodall, I do have more sympathy with Hutchins. But it was 10 minutes before the match - if Lundgren was gonna say something in those 10 minutes that was gonna turn the match around for Goodall then i'd be very surprised. But supposing they'd kept Lundgren on for that match and then relieved him of his duties - if Goodall had won he'd have still gone in to his next match without a coach.

It's been said by a lot of people over the last few days (becker, Henman, Draper and now Murray) but I think a lot of British players just want someone to blame.

Well there is definitely a blame culture going round, but not every complaint can be lumped into that. If one puts oneself in Goodall's shoes, a decision like that beign told to him shortly before a match would definitely have an effect. He's only human after all. If that played on his mind then it would certainly affect his performance. I'm not saying he'd have won, I think that highly unilkey, but he might have given a better account of himself. And having his coach on court might have made him feel supported. Even some of the top players look as though they need their coach presence as a mental crutch, especially some of the women.

The interesting thing about Goodall is his recent record - in 2006 he came up the rankings to a career high ranking in the low 200's but he has not pushed on, his record in challenger tournaments this year is W1 L8, he has had 2 previous Wimbledon wildcards but never progressed, this year he has only beaten one person ranked higher than him but has lost to pleny ranked much lower than him, and he is 21.

He was treated unwisely, but I am afraid that those stats suggest (by the high standards of a touring pro) someone who is a good-for-nothing loser who should be dropped immediately from funding by the LTA. Not pushing on in 2007 shows that he did not deserve a wildcard, and a true fighter would have said to himself 10 minutes before a match, "right, I've got my gameplan, I'll do this for Peter". Not Goodall, he did the usual of losing to someone ranked higher than him and said that he was distracted by the sacking of his coach beforehand. This despite Hutchins saying that he did not follow Lundgren's advice, or make use of him, during Queen's week.

On balance for me the most useful aspect of this episode is the fact that it has highlighted the existence of a leech who should be shaken off from the body of the LTA.

roflmao roflmao roflmao

I'm not saying he is any good, just that I can see where he is coming from. If they are gonna shake him off as a leech and nto give him WCs then there are plenty more players we coudl say the same about.

Oh yes - I have not even started yet - BS rules for a Wildcard for british no-hopers:

1. You must be ranked at least 250

2. If you have shown improvement during the 12 months immediatly prior to Wimbledon and consistently beat those ranked above you on the lesser circuits

3. You get a maximum of 2 wildcards, 3 in exceptional circumstances (i.e. coming back from injury)

4. Once you reach the age of 21 there is a presumption against giving you a wildcard.

5. You must have shown an ability to win consistently on the level immediately below ATP/WTA (not GB Futures tournaments).

I don't know how many WC's would have been handed out this year on that basis. Goodall and Boggo would not have survived the cut, nor would Kheothvang or whatever she's called.

If they have to earn their way into Wimbledon, maybe, just maybe, they'd play a bit harder...

I agree with all the flack they've been getting and next year is set to get tougher.

Yeah Boggo has had 7 WCs is it and 7 1st round exits? :o I must say this year I thought Boggo might bo better but normal service was resumed. We should definitely IMO give our own players a chance to experience the slam environment and see what the top level play is like but we need to be more selective in that respect. Maybe we should aim at newer players? I don't know the answer but I think we must introudce a more competitive attitude by making a number of players earn their wildcards.

The LTA are giving them experience of the repetitive total gubbing environment - which is pointless, expensive, and embarrassing as well as a disincentive.

I don't see any reason why a player should get such experience just because he is british unless it is likely to be of some use to him or her (rather than telling stories of 'how I played at Wimbledon' and how it has a special atmosphere &c &c). It's only going to be use to them when they have shown a desire for hard work coupled with aptitude, and an ability to beat higher-ranked players. That they are 'ready for the next step'. If they have been wiping their feet on the same bloody step for the last 5 years and are beginning to wear a hole in it, but are still enjoying WC's 'as of right' something is wrong. As Becker said, in the vast majority of cases if you are going to do it we have seen that by the time you are 21.

If there's nobody appropriate, give out the WC's to deserving overseas players who have worked their arses off.

Don't other countries give their WCs to home players predominantly? I still maintain it is useful experience for them, of course provided that they are going to work hard and use this to their advantage. A first round exit is not always a wasted exit, I agree in most cases at present it probably is, but there will be players who take a lot from that and work hard accordingly such as Murray. De Bakker interestingly had a first round exit, shoudl he be judged in the same breath as the Brits who di dthe same?

The way Wimbledon hands out wildcards to Brits just rewards them for mediocrity. Once you've got to 21, you shouldn't need wildcards. Make them qualify like everyone else has to.

A first round exit may be a valuable experience, as may be two, but three? Has boggo been helped by his many gubbings at Wimbledon?

France, Australia, and the US have far more players deserving of WC's than we do, and have done so for as long as I can remember. As and when they are faced with the dishevelled mob of no-hopers that the LTA doles out the candy to here then the problem will no doubt change.

We give them out to the same old candidates year-in, year-out because there is nobody coming up to give them to. You mentioned Murray, but he is an example of someone who should get a card, on the way up, working hard and, best of all, younger than 20. If, instead of shooting up to the top 10, he was no bumbling about at about 140 and had lost every match at wimbledon, at the age of 20 we would be thinking that he was running out of last chances fast.

Henman may have won Wimbledon if the LTA hadn't hand in a WC to a foreigner in the name of Ivanisevic. No wonder they only want to hand them to the Brits now. ;)

:D :D :D Great humour!

I don't think we should use age as a cut off point. Generally speaking players are on their way by this age, but there are often late developers out there. I'm not 100% sure but didn;t Wayne Arthurs start performing in his mid 20s? h emay have turned pro late.

Speaking of the cut off point fo 21, Tsonga is 22 I believe and a good choice.