Wimbledon

[HangTime]

Henman was a talented player but you have to question his hunger and desire to get to the top of the game and the sacrifices that entails.

I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be questioned, but for me the answer is likely to be that he simply wasn't good enough, and no amount of hunger or desire would make up for that. Personally I don't believe Henman would have been capable of consistently winning slams no matter how much effort he put it, and he was clearly a tier below Sampras in terms of ability.

 

[V F]

Henman = Apollo Creed
Murray = Rocky

Look at Murray's hunger.

 

[garak112]

I'm not suggesting it shouldn't be questioned, but for me the answer is likely to be that he simply wasn't good enough, and no amount of hunger or desire would make up for that. Personally I don't believe Henman would have been capable of consistently winning slams no matter how much effort he put it, and he was clearly a tier below Sampras in terms of ability.

I always thought he had the ability to win a grand slam if everything else went right for him. That chance was the year he played Ivanisevic in the semi and lost (if he had won I think he would have won the tournament).

I have read quite a few interviews where he has admitted that the rain delay for the last set caused him to completely lose focus and succumb to the pressure of the occasion. His mental strength was one of the weaknesses of his game, and one that probably would have been addressed if he had gone off to a tennis academy in Spain at the age of 12 like Murray did.

He also seemed to lack a plan B a lot of the time. I remember matches where his opponent would change tactics and he would keep doing the same thing, hoping that somehow it would be enough.

Just my 2p though.

 

[Davey_Pitch]

I have read quite a few interviews where he has admitted that the rain delay for the last set caused him to completely lose focus and succumb to the pressure of the occasion. His mental strength was one of the weaknesses of his game, and one that probably would have been addressed if he had gone off to a tennis academy in Spain at the age of 12 like Murray did.

It would've been interesting to see how Tim would've done had he actually won that match and tournament. I think some players need that boost that a first Grand Slam gives them, and in most cases, they win it against someone who you actually expect them to beat. Federer won his first Wimbledon against Mark Philippoussis. Rafa won his first French Open against Mariano Puerta. Djokovic won his first Australian Open against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (unseeded at the time). Murray is pretty much the only male player recently (along with Del Potro in the US Open) who won their first Slam beating someone that was ranked higher than them. Had Tim had a similar situation where he faced someone in a Slam final he was better than, and won it, would that confidence have driven him on to more titles? It's a moot point now obviously, but it would've been interesting to see.

 

[FrankJH]

It would've been interesting to see how Tim would've done had he actually won that match and tournament. I think some players need that boost that a first Grand Slam gives them, and in most cases, they win it against someone who you actually expect them to beat. Federer won his first Wimbledon against Mark Philippoussis. Rafa won his first French Open against Mariano Puerta. Djokovic won his first Australian Open against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga (unseeded at the time). Murray is pretty much the only male player recently (along with Del Potro in the US Open) who won their first Slam beating someone that was ranked higher than them. Had Tim had a similar situation where he faced someone in a Slam final he was better than, and won it, would that confidence have driven him on to more titles? It's a moot point now obviously, but it would've been interesting to see.

spot on!!!

(although beating his best friend and a higher seed, Murray has recently mentioned this factor as giving him a psychological boost)

 

[Merlin5]

Not really. Andy Roddick was an incredible player, no one would deny that, yet he never won Wimbledon as he came up against a peak Roger Federer 3 times in the final. Henman's best surface was grass, so that was always likely to mean Wimbledon would be his best tournament, and every time he lost in the semi-final, he lost to the man who would go on to win the tournament (Sampras x2, Hewitt, and Ivanisevic). There is no shame in that.

Yes, Henman was a very good player, but not good enough. Roddick at least won a grand slam and became the number 1 player. Henman didn't win a single major championship, nor did he even reach the final of any noteworthy tournament.

Let's look at this way. If Henman played Murray's career, ie, all the same players and competitions Murray has beaten and won, would Henman have done better and become Wimbledon champion? I highly doubt it. And what does it matter if someone is regarded as a damn fine player if they never win at least one grand slam? Who really remembers the also rans?

 

[Davey_Pitch]

Yes, Henman was a very good player, but not good enough. Roddick at least won a grand slam and became the number 1 player. Henman didn't win a single major championship, nor did he even reach the final of any noteworthy tournament.

Let's look at this way. If Henman played Murray's career, ie, all the same players and competitions Murray has beaten and won, would Henman have done better and become Wimbledon champion? I highly doubt it. And what does it matter if someone is regarded as a damn fine player if they never win at least one grand slam? Who really remembers the also rans?

Erm, why are you comparing Henman to Murray? I haven't done so. Murray is a better player. I'm simply stating that Henman was nowhere near as bad as a lot of people try to make out.

And as for who remembers the also rans? I do.