PDA

View Full Version : Anyone feel sorry for Henman?


defensive4
03-02-2007, 07:39 AM
Hes been close many times to winning a Gs, but has never done so.....and now his chances are gone, kaput.

The Grand Slam
03-02-2007, 08:09 AM
No... read Phil's signature.

pound cat
03-02-2007, 08:10 AM
Hes been close many times to winning a Gs, but has never done so.....and now his chances are gone, kaput.

Slams? heck he's only won 1 masters ..and that was a couple of years ago.

Henman is good, but he's not quite goood enough. But nevertheless he's made a good career out of tennis and doesn't deserve pity or understanding IMO.

federerfanatic
03-02-2007, 08:14 AM
No he wasnt even good enough to reach a slam final so why should one feel sorry for him not winning a slam. Todd Martin who lost 2 slam finals to Sampras and Agassi and was very close to winning the Agassi final was more unfortunate. Medvedev who was up 2 sets to 0 on Agassi in the French Open final but choked and lost was more unfortunate. LeConte had much more talent then Henman but never did it, and he did make the French Open final once but lost to backboard Wilander. Corretja who lost 2 French Open finals and won Masters titles on clay, and even on hard courts was more unfortunate. Phillipousis who lost 2 slam finals to Rafter and Federer, and might have beaten winner Sampras in the 99 quarters without being injured was more unfortunate to not win one.

Henman had good opportunities reaching 4 straight semis, even facing a diminished Ivanisevic in one but couldnt even reach the final. There are people I feel more sorry for not winning a slam then Henman, and people more worthy of one who never won one then him.

diegaa
03-02-2007, 08:19 AM
No he wasnt even good enough to reach a slam final so why should one feel sorry for him not winning a slam. Todd Martin who lost 2 slam finals to Sampras and Agassi and was very close to winning the Agassi final was more unfortunate. Medvedev who was up 2 sets to 0 on Agassi in the French Open final but choked and lost was more unfortunate. LeConte had much more talent then Henman but never did it, and he did make the French Open final once but lost to backboard Wilander. Corretja who lost 2 French Open finals and won Masters titles on clay, and even on hard courts was more unfortunate. Phillipousis who lost 2 slam finals to Rafter and Federer, and might have beaten winner Sampras in the 99 quarters without being injured was more unfortunate to not win one.

Henman had good opportunities reaching 4 straight semis, even facing a diminished Ivanisevic in one but couldnt even reach the final. There are people I feel more sorry for not winning a slam then Henman, and people more worthy of one who never won one then him.


well said. henman is/was a very good player. But if he wasnt a S&V almost nobody would remember him after a couple of years of his retirement

federerfanatic
03-02-2007, 08:26 AM
well said. henman is/was a very good player. But if he wasnt a S&P almost nobody would remember him after a couple of years of his retirement

Yeah I didnt intend to sound mean towards Henman. He had a very good career and was one of the very good players of his time. However there are quite a few better, or atleast more deserving based on occurences, guys that never won a slam then him. If he had one it wouldnt have bothered me, in fact at Wimbledon it would have been nice, but he just isnt a player I think it is a true misfortune he didnt win one either.

You are right if he wasnt one of the few players of his style still existing when he retired, people wouldnt even mention him a couple years after he is gone.

dubsplayer
03-02-2007, 09:31 AM
No. Not in the least.

fastdunn
03-02-2007, 10:27 AM
Hes been close many times to winning a Gs, but has never done so.....and now his chances are gone, kaput.

In a way, he is not so lucky. By the time, he matured with his serve
and volley game, ATP surfaces got slowed and didn't really need serve
and volley. (He publically expressed his frustration over the ball Wimbledon
was using, for example. If I were in his position, I would get frustrated too).

Rafter, Ivanesvic and Sampras all could use serve-and-volley/all court game
to score slams sometime between late 90's to 2002 before it gets too slow.

Henman was a bit younger. By the time he got to the dinner table,
no food was left.

Of course, Henman had all court game to survive in any condition but
Federer arrived (right after Sampras retired...).

In a way, similar fate as Dent's serve and volley game...

federerfanatic
03-02-2007, 10:32 AM
In a way, he is not so lucky. By the time, he matured with his serve
and volley game, ATP surfaces got slowed and didn't really need serve
and volley.

Rafter, Ivanesvic and Sampras all could use serve-and-volley/all court game
to score slams sometime between late 90's to 2002 before it gets too slow.

Henman was a bit younger. By the time he got to the dinner table,
no food was left.

Of course, Henman had all court game to survive in any condition but
Federer arrived (right after Sampras retired...).

In a way, similar fate as Dent's serve and volley game...

I think it is wrong to say he hadnt matured his serve and volley game by the time they slowed the courts. Henman made 4 Wimbledon semis out of 5 years from 1998-2002, I would say that shows he had matured while the courts were fast, he could not have that consistently made the last 4 at his favorite slam otherwise. He simply was not good enough to beat the players who always beat him in grand slams-Sampras, Federer, Agassi, Phillipousis(who still never won a slam), Rafter(same style game), Hewitt, etc....at the right times to win a grand slam. There isnt much mystery.

Henman just wasnt quite good enough in the end to win a slam vs the people he was playing, on the faster court of before, or on the current slowed courts. A player like Dent isnt even close to good enough to hope to win a slam title, it has nothing to do with his game style, or the slowed courts. Not just any serve-volley player will win a slam title if the courts are fast enough.

Henman is just under 2 years younger then Rafter, but Rafter was a later bloomer, and both emerged as contenders at the same time in 1997. The fact Rafter chose to retire while still in his prime, and Henman chooses to play on past his prime as a diminished player-nothing to do with surface speed at this point, probably gives a different perception to when Henman matured as a player, and when Rafter did, which really was no different at all.

ATXtennisaddict
03-02-2007, 10:36 AM
That's the career for most pros. Nothing to feel sorry about, they got paid.

JohnS
03-02-2007, 10:43 AM
He's one of those guys that should have won one and only one GS, (Him along with M. Philloupousis (sp), Coria, etc...) I feel because he was one of my Fav. players, smart and classy on court. He was just missing another weapon that could of helped him win a GS. Such as a bigger serve or one weapon from the backcourt. He wasnt a big guy either, so that didnt help him put more action on the ball off of his serves or groundies. He was very quick and agile in his prime but that wasnt enough.

Still, when Wimby comes around: "Go Tim!!!"
Hopefully Wimby wont shaft him again like last year and allow him to play Federer in the first couple round. He ran into Fed alot in either the first or second rounds later year.

Nick Irons
03-02-2007, 10:47 AM
I have always pulled for Tim to win Wimby; just once.

Too bad that all of the Brits hopes are pinned on a Scotsman. I did a quick ATP Top 100 look at current Great Britain players; there are 2 in the Top 100

Murray (on the way up and a Scot)
Henman (surely on the way out)

Just when you think the Americans Mens game is in bad shape; just take a look over there. Jeez, even the Aussies only have one inside the TOP 100

fastdunn
03-02-2007, 10:56 AM
I agree. I'm just saying he could be a bit luckier....
He probably is not that good.
I thought he could be good enough to score a slam between 1999-2002.

I think it is wrong to say he hadnt matured his serve and volley game by the time they slowed the courts. Henman made 4 Wimbledon semis out of 5 years from 1998-2002, I would say that shows he had matured while the courts were fast, he could not have that consistently made the last 4 at his favorite slam otherwise. He simply was not good enough to beat the players who always beat him in grand slams-Sampras, Federer, Agassi, Phillipousis(who still never won a slam), Rafter(same style game), Hewitt, etc....at the right times to win a grand slam. There isnt much mystery.

Henman just wasnt quite good enough in the end to win a slam vs the people he was playing, on the faster court of before, or on the current slowed courts. A player like Dent isnt even close to good enough to hope to win a slam title, it has nothing to do with his game style, or the slowed courts. Not just any serve-volley player will win a slam title if the courts are fast enough.

Henman is just under 2 years younger then Rafter, but Rafter was a later bloomer, and both emerged as contenders at the same time in 1997. The fact Rafter chose to retire while still in his prime, and Henman chooses to play on past his prime as a diminished player-nothing to do with surface speed at this point, probably gives a different perception to when Henman matured as a player, and when Rafter did, which really was no different at all.

federerfanatic
03-02-2007, 11:16 AM
I agree. I'm just saying he could be a bit luckier....
He probably is not that good.
I thought he could be good enough to score a slam between 1999-2002.

Ok I see your point then. If he was unlucky one time I can pinpoint it was really the 2001 Wimbledon semis with Ivanisevic when there was a rain delay when Henman was up 2 sets to 1 and Ivanisevic was losing it mentaly. The rain delay allowed him to regroup and fight back and win. I still believe Rafter would have won the final over Henman but no way to know for sure, I am almost certain Henman would have beaten Ivanisevic in that semi without the rain delay though.

2004 he was playing some of his best tennis ever so may have been unlucky that year the courts were slower, but then again Federer was there in every slam but the French, so even if the old faster courts might have given Henman a better chance vs Fed, it still would have been very tough to win out in the end. For most of these recent years of 2003-now though, with 2004 the only exception, he isnt even as good a player anymore as the player he was in 97-2002 who still couldnt reach a slam final on those faster courts they used to have then.

Warriorroger
03-02-2007, 11:28 AM
Yeah I feel sorry for him tenniswise. I enjoyed watching him play, funnily enough I liked his game on clay a lot. Beatiful classic stiker of the ball.

The Gorilla
03-02-2007, 11:41 AM
henman isn't biologically old, he's still one of the fastest players in the world and still has plenty of stamina, he gave fed a good game last year, beaten 6 4, 6 3, 7 5.

jamumafa
03-02-2007, 11:57 AM
Come on Josh Goodall, let's go son

hoosierbr
03-02-2007, 03:20 PM
I feel sorry for Henman inasmuch as he never got the respect he deserved from the British press. His accomplishments and career as a whole are more than respectable and he gave the UK more then a decade of excellent tennis. What did he get in return? Ridicule for not winning Wimbledon.

Considering that he was at his best when Sampras was dominating and had a renassaince of sorts when Fed started dominating there wasn't much left except for 2001 and 2002. Both times he reached the SF. 2001 was his big shot and he choked, although had the weather cooperated he probably would have won.

It's really too bad to see him as almost forgotten now that Andy Murray is starting to shine. I suppose it doesn't matter that Murray heaps praise on Henman for his influence and guidance.

Pushmaster
03-03-2007, 08:41 AM
I would have liked to have seen Henman win a Wimbledon title because grass is his best surface, but he still has had a career that most any tennis player would die for. So no, I feel no pity for him.

BlackSheep
03-03-2007, 09:30 AM
Not really...

lefty10spro
03-03-2007, 12:23 PM
Luck has nothing to do with it. Tim's forehand is shaky and his gorgeous volleys were tuff to produce after coming in behind an average serve. I'd say he did quite well with some glaring weaknesses.

The Gorilla
03-03-2007, 01:23 PM
he has an above average serve, slightly better than Federer's, though certainly not an amazing serve like sampras.

Shahar26
03-03-2007, 03:00 PM
I think this sums it up....


http://www.fuzzysignal.com/tennis/cartoons/henmania.gif

chiru
03-03-2007, 06:02 PM
dang, that link is pretty mean, accurate, but mean. I kind of feel bad for all of the players the came up with their best tennis when the greats were around. As great a player as Agassi was, he would have certainly been in the GOAT contention had Sampras not been around. I dont think that i feel bad for them so much as I feel angry that crappy players cleanup in the interim. my very best example is hewitt, who, in my opinion, was one of the crappiest long term (well kind of long term) no 1's ive ever seen. It's really pathetic to me that this kind of play won him a wimbledon title and as a sampras fan im even more ashamed to say that slow poke pete (at least at that age) got his *** handed to him in 01 uso. So in that regard i feel sorry for guys like henman, who imo are better players than hewitt (certainly on grass of wimbledon) and they just peaked at the wrong time. but i guess, the same could be said of guys like rosewall and roche (wouldn't it blow playing a guy who won 2 grand slams?)

The Gorilla
03-03-2007, 06:23 PM
rosewall was arguably better than laver.

jaggy
03-04-2007, 10:30 AM
I have always pulled for Tim to win Wimby; just once.

Too bad that all of the Brits hopes are pinned on a Scotsman. I did a quick ATP Top 100 look at current Great Britain players; there are 2 in the Top 100

Murray (on the way up and a Scot)
Henman (surely on the way out)

Just when you think the Americans Mens game is in bad shape; just take a look over there. Jeez, even the Aussies only have one inside the TOP 100

Can you share why you think it's too bad for "all of the Brits" that Murray is Scottish?

The Gorilla
03-04-2007, 11:27 AM
Can you share why you think it's too bad for "all of the Brits" that Murray is Scottish?

scots hate tennis, the english love tennis, scotland doesn't care about murray, neither does wales, only engerland.

federerfanatic
03-04-2007, 11:37 AM
he has an above average serve, slightly better than Federer's, though certainly not an amazing serve like sampras.

So now Henman has a slightly better serve then Federer, the Gorilla moron strikes again. :p Slightly better volley maybe, slightly better serve, ROTFL!!!

croatian sensation
03-04-2007, 11:52 AM
I feel sorry for him...not cause he never won a Slam- most players don't, but cause the British put so much pressure at him. Poor Timmy. It's not his fault Britain didn't have a home champ at Wimby in decades. I like his game...s&v is always nice to watch.

Pete.Sampras.
03-04-2007, 11:53 AM
Yes, I feel sorry for Henman somehow. I always hoped that someday he would be able to win Wimbledon, especially after my all-time-favourites Sampras and Becker were gone.

And now there's Murray and Henman is not the only one on the island anymore... too bad :-(

pow
03-04-2007, 12:00 PM
I feel sorry for people that are in the top 50-100 range. So close, yet so far away.

Nick Irons
03-04-2007, 12:03 PM
Can you share why you think it's too bad for "all of the Brits" that Murray is Scottish?

(say slowly and enunciate clearly for the slower ones)

Be - cause. He. Is. Not. Brit - ish.

Osteo UK
03-04-2007, 12:06 PM
(say slowly and enunciate clearly for the slower ones)

Be - cause. He. Is. Not. Brit - ish.

Be-ing Scot-tish means that you are Brit-ish too.

;)

Nick Irons
03-04-2007, 12:09 PM
Be-ing Scot-tish means that you are Brit-ish too.

;)


Tell that to the Scots :-D

Osteo UK
03-04-2007, 12:19 PM
Tell that to the Scots :-D

Fair comment!

Most of us English see as equals as being Brits together with the Welsh and Scots (Great Britain & Northern Ireland is the United Kingdom) and even support their football (soccer) teams in the World Cup.

You would think that as we've put up with their Scottish Prime Minister (Blair), they'd feel sorry for us by now. :mrgreen:

Nick Irons
03-04-2007, 12:19 PM
On topic: I only feel a tiny, tiny bit sorry for Henman because of the pressure he
has had but seriously, the guy is much richer than I probably ever will be, has played against awesome players and gets to play tennis for a living.

I agree

Think of all the Champions in tennis and then compare that number with the ones that just quite didn't get there. Am I upset that lil Timmy has made $11,487,997 in 13 years of travelling to exotic locales, seeing the world, haging with the fine tennis groupie girls, being worhipped in England, having endorsements deals up the yinyay ? And then retiring in his mid 30's to chill ?

Poor lil guy.

Nick Irons
03-04-2007, 12:20 PM
Fair comment!

Most of us English see as equals as being Brits together with the Welsh and Scots (Great Britain & Northern Ireland is the United Kingdom) and even support their football (soccer) teams in the World Cup.

You would think that as we've put up with their Scottish Prime Minister (Blair), they'd feel sorry for us by now. :mrgreen:

LOL

I know I know

I'm always playing with that comment. I have a buddy from Ireland and from Wales and we always talk about that dynamic

Osteo UK
03-04-2007, 12:29 PM
And back on topic...

Henman was a nice, quiet guy that was forced by the tabloid press to be someone he wasn't, with that laughable clenched fist celebration. He was too middle-class for the rags.

Rusdeski (for a man who was Canadian for a lot of his life), carried the role of a Brit better than most. When Greg won he was "our Greg" with the tabloids ... when he lost, he was "Canadian-born Rusedski".

If it's not been mentioned already, Rusedski won more titles than Tim, both reaching no.4 as I recall. If Murray wasn't British (let's not start that off again!), I wouldn't like him, but we all tend to support our own.

But let's not beat about the bush... Murray is a miserable teenage git.

Breaker
03-04-2007, 12:55 PM
dang, that link is pretty mean, accurate, but mean. I kind of feel bad for all of the players the came up with their best tennis when the greats were around. As great a player as Agassi was, he would have certainly been in the GOAT contention had Sampras not been around. I dont think that i feel bad for them so much as I feel angry that crappy players cleanup in the interim. my very best example is hewitt, who, in my opinion, was one of the crappiest long term (well kind of long term) no 1's ive ever seen. It's really pathetic to me that this kind of play won him a wimbledon title and as a sampras fan im even more ashamed to say that slow poke pete (at least at that age) got his *** handed to him in 01 uso. So in that regard i feel sorry for guys like henman, who imo are better players than hewitt (certainly on grass of wimbledon) and they just peaked at the wrong time. but i guess, the same could be said of guys like rosewall and roche (wouldn't it blow playing a guy who won 2 grand slams?)

http://www.atptennis.com/5/en/players/headtohead/default.asp?playernum1=H432&playernum2=H336

Hewitt is miles ahead of 'Tiger' Tim and even stopped him from reaching the Wimby final, being 4-0 on grass against him.

caulcano
03-05-2007, 02:29 AM
I feel sorry for Henman inasmuch as he never got the respect he deserved from the British press. His accomplishments and career as a whole are more than respectable and he gave the UK more then a decade of excellent tennis. What did he get in return? Ridicule for not winning Wimbledon.

I disagree. He always got respected by the British press & backed him to win 100% everytime. I'm sure it put a lot on pressure on him and that maybe his downfall, too much expectation. He's still admired & I can't remember anytime he has gotten ridiculed for not winning WIMB.

Osteo UK
03-05-2007, 07:35 AM
I disagree. He always got respected by the British press & backed him to win 100% everytime. I'm sure it put a lot on pressure on him and that maybe his downfall, too much expectation. He's still admired & I can't remember anytime he has gotten ridiculed for not winning WIMB.

Sadly I would have to disagree, as Henman (wrongly) has been a running joke in the press. An easy target to have a go at is just what we like.

Living over here, and being a Brit, there is no doubt in my mind that our British press and the public in general see Tim Henman as a failure and a serial "choker"- but that's the British mind-set, as we're not blessed with the brightest of minds.

Very sad as he did exceptionally well.

chair ump
03-05-2007, 07:47 AM
Call me crazy, but I believe Henman has over-achieved during his career...could he have won more titles? Surely. However, we're dealing with a guy who has no real weapons to speak of, and has continually navigated his way to the top of the game over the years. Good on ya' Tim...Keep playing as long as possible.

Kaptain Karl
03-05-2007, 12:20 PM
[Henman] has an above average serve, slightly better than Federer's....

... and later ...

rosewall was arguably better than laver.Either one ... pretty funny.

- KK

hoosierbr
03-05-2007, 01:11 PM
I disagree. He always got respected by the British press & backed him to win 100% everytime. I'm sure it put a lot on pressure on him and that maybe his downfall, too much expectation. He's still admired & I can't remember anytime he has gotten ridiculed for not winning WIMB.


It was 2001 or 2002 I think when before his SF one of the papers ran a story with the headline saying something like "Tim, if you choke this time we'll never forgive you." And that's respect and 100% backing?

Don't think you'll find many objective UK tennis fans who'll agree with you about the British press giving Henman nothing but kudos.

Shahar26
03-05-2007, 01:14 PM
It was 2001 or 2002 I think when before his SF one of the papers ran a story with the headline saying something like "Tim, if you choke this time we'll never forgive you." And that's respect and 100% backing?

Don't think you'll find many objective UK tennis fans who'll agree with you about the British press giving Henman nothing but kudos.

I don't think the British press is is giving anyone kudos, all they care about are scandals and cheap photos, which is why the England football team is crap and being managed by a Donkey, instead of a qualified coach who was scarred away by the press...

Osteo UK
03-05-2007, 01:55 PM
I don't think the British press is is giving anyone kudos, all they care about are scandals and cheap photos, which is why the England football team is crap and being managed by a Donkey, instead of a qualified coach who was scarred away by the press...

I'd love to argue ... but you're right. The press are what we call "sh*t-stirrers" and we seem to have delusions of grandeur in that we *think* we have a right to be at the top of many sports, but by and large, we're either lucky when we win or generally hopeless.... but we still think we deserve to be the best.

It's mad.

NamRanger
03-06-2007, 09:07 PM
He was born in the wrong era, that's the only reason why I would feel sorry for him :(

federerfanatic
03-06-2007, 09:58 PM
Which era would Henman have been luckier to have won Wimbledon in though? Born around the same time as either Sampras or Federer, instead of sometime in between them, he would still have gotten owned by either of them at Wimbledon year after year, fast grass or slow grass. He would not have beaten either Edberg or Becker to win it had he born around when they were either. Nor would he have won Wimbledon during the McEnroe reign there, or the Borg reign before that, or the Emerson/Newcombe/Laver period before that.

Nick Irons
03-06-2007, 10:03 PM
Henman has never been destined to win Wimby

Period

NamRanger
03-07-2007, 04:14 AM
Which era would Henman have been luckier to have won Wimbledon in though? Born around the same time as either Sampras or Federer, instead of sometime in between them, he would still have gotten owned by either of them at Wimbledon year after year, fast grass or slow grass. He would not have beaten either Edberg or Becker to win it had he born around when they were either. Nor would he have won Wimbledon during the McEnroe reign there, or the Borg reign before that, or the Emerson/Newcombe/Laver period before that.


Henman would have stood a much better chance in the eras of before Sampras, he got to the semis of Wimbledon multiple times for a reason.

federerfanatic
03-07-2007, 06:12 AM
Henman would have stood a much better chance in the eras of before Sampras, he got to the semis of Wimbledon multiple times for a reason.

Well I feel Becker or Edberg would have always been there to stop him in the era before Sampras. I dont recall Henman ever beating a multi-slam winner at a grand slam, if you can think of a single example feel free to remind me. With that in mind I also doubt he would have been the one to peak himself and stop 1 of them as Stich and Agassi did when they won Wimbledons. Also if he got a golden opportunity with those guys cleared from his path he would have likely squandered it just as he did in 2001, and to a lesser extent 2002.

You are right he got to the semis 4 times for a reason. Very good player on grass. He also lost in 4 semis in 5 years, for a good reason, and not only Sampras. He just was never quite good enough, he didnt have that extra mental fortitude, or that weapon quite big enough to push him over the top.