Andy Murray: The Next Tim Henman

[hankash]

I made this post because I'm not getting why so many "experts" are choosing him to win the US Open. Granted, I know he's only 22, but what has he actually accomplished to be considered a favorite?

By age 22, the following players in the current era had actually won a Grand Slam to get the respect as being a favorite to winning a Grand Slam:

Federer: 1 Wimbledon title
Nadal: 4 French Opens titles, 1 Wimbledon title
Djokovic: 1 Australian Open title
Andy Roddick: 1 US Open Title

 

[joeri888]

So? As you can also see from your table, it doesn't say everything. Federer didn't win more than Djokovic or Roddick, and won LOTS less than Nadal, and look where he is now. In a league of his own.


By the way, being like Tim Henman is by no means a bad thing, although I'm sure Andy expects his career to be better.

 

[nfor304]

Murray has already achieved at 22 more than Henman did in his entire career.

 

[PimpMyGame]

Murray's career to date has been badly affected by his wrist injury and also his inability to step up to the required training because of a relatively late growth spurt. Comparing what others have done at the same age is no comparison at all IMO.

As regards AM being the next TH I disagree - although Tiger Tim was great to watch, I think that Murray is a much smarter player whose game is more suited to the here and now. Henman was always fighting a losing battle against the new breed of baseliners using stiff rackets and luxilon strings, and didn't have the skills to compete to the end. He was also unable to finish off fellow S&V'ers as they effectively powered him off the court and outlasted him.

I think Murray will win at least one slam, I don't think that he will win loads of them. But a Brit winning one will quite frankly be a quantum leap from what we've seen in the last 70 years.

 

[120mphBodyServe]

You've got to be kidding right?

 

[dropshot winner]

Didn't Henman hit lots of winners?

 

[jwbarrientos]

Andy >> Tim, for some us (include me please) Tim was a gentleman and Andy isn't.

Andy talent is great, he's so smart to change the game plan, the do whatever it takes to put in trouble opponents.

Andy has everything, but must win, for the record nobody gets #2 without having the material to get a GS.

 

[zagor]

No,I loved Henman's game but Murray is a better player,IMO he's bound to win a slam sooner or later.

 

[batz]

I made this post because I'm not getting why so many "experts" are choosing him to win the US Open. Granted, I know he's only 22, but what has he actually accomplished to be considered a favorite?

By age 22, the following players in the current era had actually won a Grand Slam to get the respect as being a favorite to winning a Grand Slam:

Federer: 1 Wimbledon title
Nadal: 4 French Opens titles, 1 Wimbledon title
Djokovic: 1 Australian Open title
Andy Roddick: 1 US Open Title

You seem to be making two points here; that Murray is only as good as Henman and that he should be winning slams before people see him as one of the favourites to win a slam.

We'll take the first one first.

By 22 years 4 months, Tim Henman had won zero titles, been to zero finals and had a career high ranking of 25. Murray has won 13 titles (4MS) made a slam final and is ranked 2 in the world. If Murra never plays another match he'll already have achieved much more than Henman did.

Now to the 2nd point.

You are struggling to understand why the guy who made last year's final, with the best hardcourt win/loss record this year, the only guy to win 2 hardcourt MS this year, ranked number 2 in the world is among the favourites to win? REALLY?

You do realise how logically incoherent the position that he should be winning slams before people see him as one of the favourites to win a slam is?

You are saying that until someone wins a slam, they can't be considered as capable of winning a slam. Despite the empirical evidence which shows that 100% of slam winners were at one time slamless and therefore lots of slamless people have won slams, you believe that only slam winners can be considered among the favourites to win a slam. OK.

 

[wyutani]

henman didnt even reach a final in a GS.

 

[fps]

Tim was barely top ten in his AGE GROUP in BRITAIN at 18 (Jonathan Overend BBC 5 Live tennis correspondant http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A26241211), he made a huge leap up and made the most of his talent, a spectacular achievement.

But Andy is far more talented- that's not being harsh on Tim, he was brilliant for the game here and gave us some great tennis- and has achieved more already than Tim has in his career. The two are as different as is possible on-court- game style (serve&volley vs grinder/counterpuncher/miscellaneous spin skullduggery), tactics (get to the net, shorten the point vs i could stay out here all day), physique (spindly vs marathon man), technique (1hander vs 2hander, Andy has every shot in the book and Tim didn't) - the only similarity really being that they play with a lot of heart.

I think the comparison with Henman is a lazy one, brought on by them both representing GB, sorry OP!

edit: he's a favourite because he's won masters series titles on hard and got the final here last year. 2nd seed sounds about right when you look at his record.

 

[Fedex]

I made this post because I'm not getting why so many "experts" are choosing him to win the US Open. Granted, I know he's only 22, but what has he actually accomplished to be considered a favorite?

By age 22, the following players in the current era had actually won a Grand Slam to get the respect as being a favorite to winning a Grand Slam:

Federer: 1 Wimbledon title
Nadal: 4 French Opens titles, 1 Wimbledon title
Djokovic: 1 Australian Open title
Andy Roddick: 1 US Open Title

Murray has already achieved at 22 more than Henman did in his entire career.

Murray's career to date has been badly affected by his wrist injury and also his inability to step up to the required training because of a relatively late growth spurt. Comparing what others have done at the same age is no comparison at all IMO.

As regards AM being the next TH I disagree - although Tiger Tim was great to watch, I think that Murray is a much smarter player whose game is more suited to the here and now. Henman was always fighting a losing battle against the new breed of baseliners using stiff rackets and luxilon strings, and didn't have the skills to compete to the end. He was also unable to finish off fellow S&V'ers as they effectively powered him off the court and outlasted him.

I think Murray will win at least one slam, I don't think that he will win loads of them. But a Brit winning one will quite frankly be a quantum leap from what we've seen in the last 70 years.

You seem to be making two points here; that Murray is only as good as Henman and that he should be winning slams before people see him as one of the favourites to win a slam.

We'll take the first one first.

By 22 years 4 months, Tim Henman had won zero titles, been to zero finals and had a career high ranking of 25. Murray has won 13 titles (4MS) made a slam final and is ranked 2 in the world. If Murra never plays another match he'll already have achieved much more than Henman did.

Now to the 2nd point.

You are struggling to understand why the guy who made last year's final, with the best hardcourt win/loss record this year, the only guy to win 2 hardcourt MS this year, ranked number 2 in the world is among the favourites to win? REALLY?

You do realise how logically incoherent the position that he should be winning slams before people see him as one of the favourites to win a slam is?

You are saying that until someone wins a slam, they can't be considered as capable of winning a slam. Despite the empirical evidence which shows that 100% of slam winners were at one time slamless and therefore lots of slamless people have won slams, you believe that only slam winners can be considered among the favourites to win a slam. OK.

Hankash - does that answer your question?

 

[joeri888]

You are saying that until someone wins a slam, they can't be considered as capable of winning a slam. Despite the empirical evidence which shows that 100% of slam winners were at one time slamless and therefore lots of slamless people have won slams, you believe that only slam winners can be considered among the favourites to win a slam. OK.

Favourite is something else than capable. IMO he should never ever ever have been the favourite over Federer in Australia. IMO, that was plain ridiculous. Just as it would be ridiculous to put Murray over Fed now imo (even if Federer had not beaten Murray at Cincy) Given that he is the second favourite, I see nothing wrong with that. He's def. among the people that have a good chance to win, but until he's proved he can do it, he's never the main contender imo.

 

[batz]

Favourite is something else than capable. IMO he should never ever ever have been the favourite over Federer in Australia. IMO, that was plain ridiculous. Just as it would be ridiculous to put Murray over Fed now imo (even if Federer had not beaten Murray at Cincy) Given that he is the second favourite, I see nothing wrong with that. He's def. among the people that have a good chance to win, but until he's proved he can do it, he's never the main contender imo.

The OP didn't talk about THE favourite, he talked about being A favourite. Every bookie in the world has Murray as 2nd favourite for the USO - and I agree with them. I also agree with you that Roger was always THE favourite to win in Australia.

 

[thejoe]

This thread amuses me. I'm not quite sure people remember who Tim Henman was if they're seriously trying to make this comparison.

 

[Spider]

If someone takes out Federer, Murray will surely win the US open this year. I think people have forgotten the semi final schooling a healthy Nadal got last year. Murray is a lot better, so expect a thrashing again.

 

[batz]

This thread amuses me. I'm not quite sure people remember who Tim Henman was if they're seriously trying to make this comparison.

Some people only see what they want to see joe.

I see Feli went out early again mate - no luck.

 

[thejoe]

Some people only see what they want to see joe.

I see Feli went out early again mate - no luck.

I know. Infuriating match to watch. He missed TWO overheads in the second set tiebreaker, and in the 4th set had 3 break points to go up 5-3. At best, he could have wrapped it up in 4.

How did Murray play? I was too tired to stay up, so listened to some of the 5 live coverage, but Overend seems pretty clueless for a correspondant.

 

[batz]

I know. Infuriating match to watch. He missed TWO overheads in the second set tiebreaker, and in the 4th set had 3 break points to go up 5-3. At best, he could have wrapped it up in 4.

How did Murray play? I was too tired to stay up, so listened to some of the 5 live coverage, but Overend seems pretty clueless for a correspondant.

He was solid enough but his passing shots still aren't clicking - he needs to find them if he is to stand any chance of making final, let alone winning. What was interesting is that he served and volleyed at least half a dozen times - more than he did in the entire Wimbledon tournament.

He's never going to look to come forward on every point; but he was more aggresive than he usually is.

 

[Clydey2times]

You seem to be making two points here; that Murray is only as good as Henman and that he should be winning slams before people see him as one of the favourites to win a slam.

We'll take the first one first.

By 22 years 4 months, Tim Henman had won zero titles, been to zero finals and had a career high ranking of 25. Murray has won 13 titles (4MS) made a slam final and is ranked 2 in the world. If Murra never plays another match he'll already have achieved much more than Henman did.

Now to the 2nd point.

You are struggling to understand why the guy who made last year's final, with the best hardcourt win/loss record this year, the only guy to win 2 hardcourt MS this year, ranked number 2 in the world is among the favourites to win? REALLY?

You do realise how logically incoherent the position that he should be winning slams before people see him as one of the favourites to win a slam is?

You are saying that until someone wins a slam, they can't be considered as capable of winning a slam. Despite the empirical evidence which shows that 100% of slam winners were at one time slamless and therefore lots of slamless people have won slams, you believe that only slam winners can be considered among the favourites to win a slam. OK.

I'm not going to lie to you. The logic and reason behind that post turned me on a little.

 

[zagor]

I'm not going to lie to you. The logic and reason of that post turned me on a little.

Okay,that's a bit too much information to share,we didn't really need to know that .

 

[Clydey2times]

Okay,that's a bit too much information to share,we didn't really need to know that .

I had to tell someone!

 

[Rhinosaur]

I remember when I first played last year's Virtua Tennis and Tim Henman was one of the players. Really? There's about 50 other players I would have put on that game over Henman.

I liked Henman, liked his game...but he's got to be one of the most overhyped players in the history of tennis.

 

[Cesc Fabregas]

Murray is obviously a better player than Henman, but lets not forget what a terrific player Henman was he had a nice game and also is a nice guy.

 

[batz]

Murray is obviously a better player than Henman, but lets not forget what a terrific player Henman was he had a nice game and also is a nice guy.

Amen to that.

Saying Murray is better in no way demeans all that Tim achieved - which was plenty.

 

[batz]

I'm not going to lie to you. The logic and reason behind that post turned me on a little.

you just took that too far.

 

[boris becker 1]

i am the same age as henman and knew him when when we grew up. at that time 14-16 Henman was around the 5th best in our age group and I was 7th or so. Jamie delgado(top 200 in world) was miles better than both of us.

for tim to end up number 4 in the world and 4 wimbledon sf and sf of roland garros and flushing meadows he overachieved quite a bit.


i first saw murray play at sanchez-casal academy in Barcelona when he was 15. from 13 on every coach in britain knew he was going to be top 10 in the world.

Even Tim has acknowledged Murray is already much better than him. Murray if he plays well has a better shot than anyone besides Federer, of winning this. he is 22 not 28. Fed has 3 years left, rafa ia always injured, and del potro has no fitness and doesn't match up well against murray anyway. murray will win multiple grand slams before his career is finished

 

[flyinghippos101]

Did you hear? Andy Murray has won more than one Masters Title and has already reached a higher ranking than Henman.

 

[grafselesfan]

Murray is obviously a better player than Henman, but lets not forget what a terrific player Henman was he had a nice game and also is a nice guy.

He had some bad luck at Wimbledon. Lost a couple tight 4 setters to Wimbledon King Sampras, then the rain delay in 2001 vs Ivanisevic when he was on the way to winning that semifinal. Then in 2002 they slow the courts down which just kills him with his playing style, and then runs into his ultra nemisis Hewitt in the semis on top of that on those slowed down courts. He actually has a late run of great form in 2004 but again has to play on these slowed grass courts, which explains how he did better at the U.S Open and even the French that year than Wimbledon.

 

[Feña14]

Favourite is something else than capable. IMO he should never ever ever have been the favourite over Federer in Australia. IMO, that was plain ridiculous. Just as it would be ridiculous to put Murray over Fed now imo (even if Federer had not beaten Murray at Cincy) Given that he is the second favourite, I see nothing wrong with that. He's def. among the people that have a good chance to win, but until he's proved he can do it, he's never the main contender imo.

What astounds me is that people STILL don't get why Murray was favourite with the bookies for the Australian Open.

He was favourite because people backed him with money, the odds reflected that! What's so hard to understand?

 

[stanfordtennis alum]

murray is a great player, my pick to be in this years finals