How would a prime Henman do in this era?

[UKTennis]

Highest ranking of number 4 in the world in 2002 (from Wikipedia) and reached the semi final of every slam bar the Australian Open including a 4 time semi-finalist at Wimbledon. If Tsonga, Baghdatis, Soderling and Berdych can reach Slam finals in this era then I think Henman would have had a shot of doing so as well, although like those mentioned I don't think he would have won a final either. It would have been interesting to see Henman's serve and volley style against the baseliners of today. The likes of Stepanek and Llodra are the minority of today's era who serve and volley (and both are way past their prime) and I think Henman is a comfortably superior player to them both.

[The Bawss]

Henman would probably have had a worse career then he did in the 90s/early 2000s. The surfaces are simply too slow for S&V. He had the misfortune of coming up against prime Sampras at Wimbledon but facing Federer is a similarly daunting prospect (we have empirical evidence for Fed owning Henman anyway).

As much as I like Henman, I can't see his game being successful nowadays.

[tennis_pro]

50-80 % of what he achieved in the 90's/00's.

50% because surfaces on general are slower and Henman thrived on pace. 80 % because he wasn't a complete newbie on clay, just based on his 2004 FO run.

[UKTennis]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

Henman would probably have had a worse career then he did in the 90s/early 2000s. The surfaces are simply too slow for S&V. He had the misfortune of coming up against prime Sampras at Wimbledon but facing Federer is a similarly daunting prospect (we have empirical evidence for Fed owning Henman anyway).

As much as I like Henman, I can't see his game being successful nowadays.

Fed would have beaten Henman I agree, however Fed has destroyed practically every guy on tour bar Djokovic and Nadal (don't mention Berdych because a prime Fed would swat him aside regularly). So that isn't exactly a negative. I think from around 04-06 he may have had his best chance of a Slam, even though it would have almost certainly meant facing a prime Fed, anyone else would have been beatable. (But beating Fed would have been an extremely minimal chance, see Roddick). From 07 onwards you've then got the emergence of Nadal and Djokovic (and Murray), so things get tougher. There's no way for instance Henman would have beaten Nadal or Djokovic's in their respective peak years, yet Roddick reached the Wimbledon final in 09, Berdych in 2010 etc so there are openings.

How do you think Henman would have done at Wimbledon this year, if he were in Murray's part of the draw? Lose to Murray?

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by UKTennis

Fed would have beaten Henman I agree, however Fed has destroyed practically every guy on tour bar Djokovic and Nadal (don't mention Berdych because a prime Fed would swat him aside regularly). So that isn't exactly a negative. I think from around 04-06 he may have had his best chance of a Slam, even though it would have almost certainly meant facing a prime Fed, anyone else would have been beatable. (But beating Fed would have been an extremely minimal chance, see Roddick). From 07 onwards you've then got the emergence of Nadal and Djokovic (and Murray), so things get tougher. There's no way for instance Henman would have beaten Nadal or Djokovic's in their respective peak years, yet Roddick reached the Wimbledon final in 09, Berdych in 2010 etc so there are openings.

How do you think Henman would have done at Wimbledon this year, if he were in Murray's part of the draw? Lose to Murray?

I think he could have sliced and diced Murray. Would have been a tough match, probably 5 sets. Could go either way in my opinion.

[NadalAgassi]

Not well at all. This isnt the era of the underpowered serve and volleyer with a finesse game. In fact this would the worst era for such a player to try and fit in.

[NJ1]

Originally Posted by The Bawss

I think he could have sliced and diced Murray. Would have been a tough match, probably 5 sets. Could go either way in my opinion.

Couldn't disagree more. I think Murray has way too much of a rounded game combined with his power for Henman's wily tactics, and that slice backhand-only was horrific to watch. But Henman was a decent player, he may well have caused big problems for slow payers lacking touch like Berdych just as he did with Ivanisevic (who was better than the Berdman)

[UKTennis]

Originally Posted by NJ1

Couldn't disagree more. I think Murray has way too much of a rounded game combined with his power for Henman's wily tactics, and that slice backhand-only was horrific to watch. But Henman was a decent player, he may well have caused big problems for slow payers lacking touch like Berdych just as he did with Ivanisevic (who was better than the Berdman)

I'm not sure. Murray has a good record against ball bashers and power hitters, but he hasn't really ever played a top serve and volleyer like Henman. I think Henman could beat Murray, but I'd still put it 70-30% in Murray's favour.

[The Bawss]

Originally Posted by NJ1

Couldn't disagree more. I think Murray has way too much of a rounded game combined with his power for Henman's wily tactics, and that slice backhand-only was horrific to watch. But Henman was a decent player, he may well have caused big problems for slow payers lacking touch like Berdych just as he did with Ivanisevic (who was better than the Berdman)

If prime 2012 Murray can lose to Mahut on grass, he can damn well lose to Henman too.

[AnotherTennisProdigy]

He'd be the best volleyer on tour, not that it matter when winning at the moment.

[ahuimanu]

Originally Posted by UKTennis

Highest ranking of number 4 in the world in 2002 (from Wikipedia) and reached the semi final of every slam bar the Australian Open including a 4 time semi-finalist at Wimbledon. If Tsonga, Baghdatis, Soderling and Berdych can reach Slam finals in this era then I think Henman would have had a shot of doing so as well, although like those mentioned I don't think he would have won a final either. It would have been interesting to see Henman's serve and volley style against the baseliners of today. The likes of Stepanek and Llodra are the minority of today's era who serve and volley (and both are way past their prime) and I think Henman is a comfortably superior player to them both.

Think Henman would have to develop a stronger backcourt game and use the serve and volley as variety instead of the main course to survive today. Stepanek (like Haas) has adapted his game nicely by using court knowledge and touch to counter the pace of today's big hitters. Interestingly, I see Baghdatis trying to slug it out with the young guys these days and straying away from strengths (court knowledge, touch and consistency).

[Nostradamus]

He would be ranked around #30-40 in ATP tour. Just doesn't have the weapons like big forehand and huge serve. very athletic netgame but that doesn't cut it anymore in the tour.

[EndLy]

I'd have to agree with the majority of the previous posts. Henman would struggle in this environment. I view him very similarly to Stepanek or Llorda. Sure he has a better net game, but his ability at the baseline wouldn't keep him in the match. Not enough fire power behind anything. In today's game, it's evident the worst thing to specialize in is net play.

[NadalAgassi]

I think a player who plays the "BIG" attacking game like Sampras or Becker could do well today. Someone like Henman or even Rafter though no. They would be better suited to the 80s in fact than even when they played.

[TMF]

Just about any s/v player, Henman would do worse in this era.

[Max G.]

Same as before.

Look, everyone makes a mistake, I think, in thinking that a player's shots are an intrinsic part of who they are. Like, "Henman is a S&Ver, and S&Vers do worse now, so Henman would do worse now". But it's not like that. People pick their style to match what wins them matches when they're up-and-coming. If Henman came on to the scene today, he obviously wouldn't be a S&Ver! He'd be a baseliner like everyone else, and his shots and technique would be adjusted to fit in with that, with more spin on his groundies and less conservative grips and so on.

He'd probably be about the same as he was then. A talented player with nice athleticism and an all-around game, a little lacking in power, who mostly hangs out outside the top group but occasionally gives them trouble. Would probably sneak up to #5 on occasion but wouldn't stay there, would be a regular NEAR the top 10 but not consistently in it.

[Towser83]

Originally Posted by Max G.

Same as before.

Look, everyone makes a mistake, I think, in thinking that a player's shots are an intrinsic part of who they are. Like, "Henman is a S&Ver, and S&Vers do worse now, so Henman would do worse now". But it's not like that. People pick their style to match what wins them matches when they're up-and-coming. If Henman came on to the scene today, he obviously wouldn't be a S&Ver! He'd be a baseliner like everyone else, and his shots and technique would be adjusted to fit in with that, with more spin on his groundies and less conservative grips and so on.

He'd probably be about the same as he was then. A talented player with nice athleticism and an all-around game, a little lacking in power, who mostly hangs out outside the top group but occasionally gives them trouble. Would probably sneak up to #5 on occasion but wouldn't stay there, would be a regular NEAR the top 10 but not consistently in it.

ah but would he be as good a baseliner as he is a serve and volleyer? I don't think he would.

[TMF]

Originally Posted by Max G.

Same as before.

Look, everyone makes a mistake, I think, in thinking that a player's shots are an intrinsic part of who they are. Like, "Henman is a S&Ver, and S&Vers do worse now, so Henman would do worse now". But it's not like that. People pick their style to match what wins them matches when they're up-and-coming. If Henman came on to the scene today, he obviously wouldn't be a S&Ver! He'd be a baseliner like everyone else, and his shots and technique would be adjusted to fit in with that, with more spin on his groundies and less conservative grips and so on.

He'd probably be about the same as he was then. A talented player with nice athleticism and an all-around game, a little lacking in power, who mostly hangs out outside the top group but occasionally gives them trouble. Would probably sneak up to #5 on occasion but wouldn't stay there, would be a regular NEAR the top 10 but not consistently in it.

You could be right but that's not a guarantee if Henman would convert into a baseliner. Stepanek is still a s/v player. Taylor Dent comes in on every serve. Bjorkman and Santoro played s/v throughout their entire career in the 90s/00s. Mahut still hasn't change.

Who knows if Henman would be better had he became a baseliner. There are quality baseliners who isn't in the top 20(eg Bagdatis, Youznhy, Benneteau, Lopez...)

[Max G.]

Originally Posted by TMF

You could be right but that's not a guarantee if Henman would convert into a baseliner.

If he were playing today and were in his early 20s, he wouldn't "convert" to a baseliner. He would have never been a S&Ver in the first place. There's a reason that nobody's a serve-volleyer anymore, and that reason would have applied to Henman just as much as everyone else in the current crop of players.

[NadalAgassi]

LOL like Henman would ever be a top player playing exclusively from the baseline.