If Henman didn't S&V would he be a better player?

[Golden Retriever]

I think Henman has no weapon to speak of and his only asset is S&V. Yes, S&V is risky and sometimes it is a 50/50 proposition but I think he would have less than a 50/50 chance to win if he was engaged in a baseline battle. S&V could mean he would never be a consistent performer but it is still a good strategy for Henman.

 

[TwistServe]

Heman would not be in top 50 without S&V

 

[Aonex]

From what I've read, Henman has been working hard at getting his baseline game better so that he doesn't have to charge at every point. He certainly wouldn't be the player he is if he just camped out on the baseline.

 

[Free_Martha]

Henman is playing the best tennis of his career right now. If he didn't S&V, he wouldn't be in the Top Ten. I like his game just fine the way it is.

 

[Nadal2]

Henman would certainly not be as high ranked if he didn't attack as much. Except for maybe Schuettler, there's no one in the top ten who he has a better ground game than. And going down the list, I don't see that many people who you can say Henman is a lot better than.
But I would say that what makes Henman a good player is how quick he is and how well he plays at the net. He also has shown that he can hit some good shots from the back of the court. But that's not his weapon, and he would be a much lower player than if he didn't come to the net.

 

[lofoblast]

absolutely NO!

 

[a verrry large duck]

Probably not, because his talent is in serving and volleying. It's up in the air what his potential at the baseline is, because he probably never developed it in any longer term fashion. He was probably serving and volleying under that wimbledon sky since he was 8 years old and that's all he knows to go to.

 

[dozu]

considering the physical ability he has, Henman has had a very good career. I think S&V is a better career path for young players to adopt.... with a high-risk S&V game it's easier to have some break-through and win some small tournaments, which is exactly what Henman have done. But to win 7 best out of 5 matches over 2 week period, then you need some true talent like Becker, JohnnyM, Edberg..... I don't consider Sampras as a S&Ver. He is a server.... I can put away the returns he gets after those bullet first serves.

 

[Nadal2]

Sampras wasn't a horrible volleyer. He wasn't the greatest, no, but part of the serve-and-volley game is the serve, and having a good serve can help your volleys, making them easier. And Sampras did come up to net on almost every serve at Wimbledon, where he won 7 of his 14 GS titles, so I suppose you could say that his serving-and-volleying won him as much as it did Becker, McEnroe, and Edberg.
But I would still call him more of an all-court player than a serve-and-volleyer. The same most certainly goes for Federer.