View Full Version : Henman or Rusedski? Who is the better?

Mr Topspin
02-08-2006, 06:28 AM
Both players have been as high as 4 in the world. Both have won Paris masters titles and both have been British No 1 at a point in their careers; that is where the similarities end.

Tim Henman has won 11 ATP titles, lost 16 finals, won 4 doubles titles, has finished in the top 10 5 times and has finished 8 times in the top 20. He was 0-7 in finals for 2 years between 1998-2000 before winning his 1st British ATP title in Brighton, England He has reached the semifinals of three grand slams (OZ Open, F Open and Wimbledon). His record at Wimbledon is remarkable. Tim has made the QF 8 times and has 4 SF to his credit. Tim has been British no 1 for 9 years and has surpasssed $1 million in prize money for six straight years. And has a 7-2 record over Rusedski.

Greg Rusedski has finished in the top 50 for 10 straight times. He has won 15 titles, lost 12 finals and won 3 doubles titles. He has won at leat 1 title in the last 5 years. He finished in the top 10 in 1997 reaching career high 6 finals winning 2 and reaching US Open final losing to Rafter. In 1998 he recorded the then fastest serve 149mph and won his most prestigeous title, Paris masters defeating Sampras. Greg's grand slam highlights are 4th round appearances at both OZ and the F Open. He has also reached 1 Wimbledon QF and was a finalist at the US Open. It is worth noting that Rusedski has had numerous foot and shoulder injuries which manifested in late 1999 and continued up untill 2003. Greg has missed around 16 months of his career nursing injuries. He missed 9 months of 2003 recovering from cartilage surgery. Amazingly Greg has always rebounded well from injuries usually rslting in top 50 finishes and or title wins.

So I put it to fellow posters who do you think has been the better player? Who do you think has had the most distinguished career? Or who was, has and continues to be your favourite and why?

Personally i feel it's a tough call. I feel that Rusedski has been on a downward spiral after suffering injuries from 1999 and has never captured his peak 97-98 form. However, he has always rebounded well. Tim on the other hand has had the more distingiushed career but has never had to contend with the intermittent injuries that plagued Greg's career. So for me it is a tough call.

02-08-2006, 08:11 AM
they both equally suck!! Long live murray:p

02-08-2006, 08:45 AM
Gotta go with babbette on this one....although Henman is certainly more palatable than Rusedski.

02-08-2006, 10:03 AM
If someone offered me Rusdedski's career or Henman's, I would definitely take Henman's. Henman has battled shoulder injuries also.

Richie Rich
02-08-2006, 10:10 AM
i dunno - rusedski made us open finals. henman wimbledon/french semis. henman won a couple masters didn't he? guess have to go with henman.

02-08-2006, 10:17 AM
When they are both playing at their peak, Henman looks better, and is a more interesting player to watch.
Henman is one of few players who can play really exciting, interesting tennis

Max G.
02-08-2006, 11:11 AM
i dunno - rusedski made us open finals. henman wimbledon/french semis. henman won a couple masters didn't he? guess have to go with henman.

He's won one. So has Rusedski.

02-08-2006, 11:24 AM
Rusedski, for sure;)

02-08-2006, 11:52 AM
They are both totally uninspiring. When Henman was World Nr 9 and they asked him whether he would retire, he answered that he would only do so if the 8 players before him did so (I never understood that logic...) Well, now that he has slipped into the 50s or so, surely it is time??!!

02-08-2006, 12:29 PM
Henman by far. Better record in GS's and better head to head. More interesting player too watch as well- Rusedski bores me.

02-08-2006, 12:38 PM
Henman is a fantastically gifted player who spent the early part of his career not knowing how to make the best of his ability. Rusedski has made the most of his more limited abilities so on that logic you'd go with greg for perhaps fullfilling hs potential and more. But, i'm gonna go with Henman as he's the better player!

02-08-2006, 12:55 PM
They're both about equally same.

02-08-2006, 02:05 PM
I think Henman is a more complete player and Rusdeski the more explosive.

Rusedski served his way into the top 5 and the US Open final in 1997. Henman has had to rely more on tactics and match strategy. He had a good serve before shoulder surgery but not as big as Rusedski's.

Henman is more comfortable from the baseline and has a much better return game. Ivo Karlovic is very similar to Greg: big serve, come up on everything and chip the return. Not too aggresive.

Over the years, Henman has proven to be more consistent, especially at Wimbledon. Greg only seems to have one or two big results a year. Last year he got the to SF at the Masters in Montreal and won Newport. Outside of that he didn't do much. Plus, Greg's never been a factor on clay. Henman has had better luck there.

Moose Malloy
02-08-2006, 02:15 PM
Can't believe Rusedski never made the semis at Wimbledon. What a choker.

02-08-2006, 03:06 PM
didnt henman make the 04 us open semis (loosing to fed) correct me if im wrong cus im not sure if that match was the semis or the quarters

Max G.
02-08-2006, 03:11 PM
Yeah, it was the semis.

Greg and Karlovic are similar in that they have big serves, but Karlovic takes that to a much greater extreme... with Rusedski, I feel that he's comfortable at net (and not just coming in because he's tall and can reach everything) and can actually work his way in to net from the baseline, though not very well. Karlovic... feels like all serve, not much of a slice backhand even.

02-08-2006, 03:26 PM
i think henman

02-08-2006, 05:22 PM
To me Henman is better, more complete. Rudsedski has a terrible backhand, in fact he uses the slice 90% of the times with his BH

02-08-2006, 05:42 PM
Henman, b/c of him Slazenger lives on....

02-08-2006, 07:43 PM
Henman is way better. Watching Rusedki play baseline makes me think of headless chickens. Then I look at Rusedski's hairdo, and I truly wish he were headless.