Tim Henman: "There's no reason why Andy Murray can't win Wimbledon" Seriously, Tim...

gold soundz

gold soundz

Professional
Apparently Tim Henman is blind to the fact that there are extremely good grass court players, such as Roddick and Nadal, playing in Wimbledon, let alone the fact that the greatest player of all time is there too playing on his best surface. I mean seriously, what kind of a comment is that. This has got to be one of the hardest times to win Wimbledon with so many great players. To say that there is 'no reason' at all why Murray can't win is taking it a step too far. There are definitely a few reasons, the largest and most obvious being Roger Federer. If Murray were playing Wimbledon 2002 I could agree with his statement.

Here's the article http://www.timeslive.co.za/sport/tennis/article485363.ece/Henman-jumps-on-Murray-bandwagon
 
And the article itself clearly states Henman's quote saying Federer and Nadal are the top contenders. He's not saying Murray's the favorite: he's saying Murray is a contender, someone who could feasibly win it. And I agree.
 
Bryan Swartz said:
And the article itself clearly states Henman's quote saying Federer and Nadal are the top contenders. He's not saying Murray's the favorite: he's saying Murray is a contender, someone who could feasibly win it. And I agree.
Click to expand...

Look at the quote though. He's saying there's no reason why he can't win.
 
What is so strange about that? There IS no reason he can't win. By disagreeing you are saying "Murray CANNOT win." Period. Sure he is not the favorite, but that doesn't mean "he can't win." Not trying to be snarky, but this is english 1 here. There is nothing incorrect with what Tim said. Murray has plenty of tools. He just has to use them correctly.
 
TennisandMusic said:
What is so strange about that? There IS no reason he can't win. By disagreeing you are saying "Murray CANNOT win." Period. Sure he is not the favorite, but that doesn't mean "he can't win." Not trying to be snarky, but this is english 1 here. There is nothing incorrect with what Tim said. Murray has plenty of tools. He just has to use them correctly.
Click to expand...

Why would Henman say this at all then. That's like saying regarding myself 'I see no reason why I can't win Wimbledon'. It's physically possible that I can, but obviously I won't.
 
"There's no reason why Andy Murray can't win Wimbledon," Henman told British media as the pressure starts to mount. "He's still top five in the world and grass is a good surface for him.

"I don't think it will take him a lot of time to make the transition from the French Open. After Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal he's definitely in the next bracket of those who could challenge."

Henman's saying what we all know - anything is possible, and Murray's got as good a shot as anyone not named Nadal/Fed. Last year who'd have thought Roddick would have come as close as he did at winning. Nothing wrong with what he said. If he says Murray has no shot, he looks like a total moron, but I'm sure people on here would be building Henman tributes.
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
"There's no reason why Andy Murray can't win Wimbledon," Henman told British media as the pressure starts to mount. "He's still top five in the world and grass is a good surface for him.

"I don't think it will take him a lot of time to make the transition from the French Open. After Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal he's definitely in the next bracket of those who could challenge."

Henman's saying what we all know - anything is possible, and Murray's got as good a shot as anyone not named Nadal/Fed. Last year who'd have thought Roddick would have come as close as he did at winning. Nothing wrong with what he said. If he says Murray has no shot, he looks like a total moron, but I'm sure people on here would be building Henman tributes.
Click to expand...

So you don't think Nadal and Roddick (let alone Federer) are reasons to stop him from winning Wimbledon? So they're just not there?
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
"There's no reason why Andy Murray can't win Wimbledon," Henman told British media as the pressure starts to mount. "He's still top five in the world and grass is a good surface for him.

"I don't think it will take him a lot of time to make the transition from the French Open. After Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal he's definitely in the next bracket of those who could challenge."

Henman's saying what we all know - anything is possible, and Murray's got as good a shot as anyone not named Nadal/Fed. Last year who'd have thought Roddick would have come as close as he did at winning. Nothing wrong with what he said. If he says Murray has no shot, he looks like a total moron, but I'm sure people on here would be building Henman tributes.
Click to expand...

:lol: One of the funniest things I've read on here in awhile.
 
gold soundz said:
Why would Henman say this at all then. That's like saying regarding myself 'I see no reason why I can't win Wimbledon'. It's physically possible that I can, but obviously I won't.
Click to expand...

It is impossible for you to win Wimbledon, you're not in the draw. :)
 
mtr1 said:
It is impossible for you to win Wimbledon, you're not in the draw. :)
Click to expand...

Lol. True. This post is definitely more reasonable than than the other replies in this thread so far. OK so replace me then with say Donald Young. 'There's no reason why Donald Young can't win Wimbledon.' Maybe it's very technically true, but realistically it's not.
 
gold soundz said:
So you don't think Nadal and Roddick (let alone Federer) are reasons to stop him from winning Wimbledon? So they're just not there?
Click to expand...

I don't think you have great comprehension skills.

Henman is saying Murray is one of the 4-5 big contenders on grass that seriously has a shot of winning it. He put Fed and Nadal ahead, but Murray and Roddick are certainly both in the conversation.

Say someone says "I see no reason why Nadal can't win Wimbledon". By your logic we should say "well aren't Fed, Roddick, Murray reasons". And so on.

He's saying Murray's a great contender, and with the right draw and if he plays his best, he certainly has a shot at the title. Nothing wrong with what he said, at least for those that have remedial comprehension skills.

Are YOU (the OP) saying Murray should have no shot? He's beaten Rafa in slams twice. He's beaten Roddick at Wimby before. He has a relatively good record vs Fed (albeit not in slams). He made SF last year and won Queens as well. But I guess according to you, he has as good a shot at winning as you and I, is that what you think? :?
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
I don't think you have great comprehension skills.

Henman is saying Murray is one of the 4-5 big contenders on grass that seriously has a shot of winning it. He put Fed and Nadal ahead, but Murray and Roddick are certainly both in the conversation.

Say someone says "I see no reason why Nadal can't win Wimbledon". By your logic we should say "well aren't Fed, Roddick, Murray reasons". And so on.

He's saying Murray's a great contender, and with the right draw and if he plays his best, he certainly has a shot at the title. Nothing wrong with what he said, at least for those that have remedial comprehension skills.

Are YOU (the OP) saying Murray should have no shot? He's beaten Rafa in slams twice. He's beaten Roddick at Wimby before. He has a relatively good record vs Fed (albeit not in slams). He made SF last year and won Queens as well. But I guess according to you, he has as good a shot at winning as you and I, is that what you think? :?
Click to expand...

I think it would be correct for someone who has the opinion that Murray is going to win Wimbledon to say that. For example, I think Federer has the best chance so I can say 'There's no reason why Federer can't win Wimbledon'. With Murray though, I see several reasons why he can't. Tim Henman is implying that there are no reasons why he can't win (these reasons being players such as Federer).
 
Nothing wrong with what Henman said. A few points here and there Murray would have beaten Roddick in four. Roddick was a bit lucky that day. I would say Federer is the clear favorite, followed by Murray and then Nadal.
 
Spider said:
Nothing wrong with what Henman said. A few points here and there Murray would have beaten Roddick in four. Roddick was a bit lucky that day. I would say Federer is the clear favorite, followed by Murray and then Nadal.
Click to expand...

So if Fed's the clear favorite, how can you say that there's no reason that Murray can't win? Federer's a huge reason and you just implied that by saying he's the clear favorite.
 
gold soundz said:
So why didn't he just say this instead?? That's a very reasonable and realistic statement. The one he actually made though has unrealistic implications.
Click to expand...

It's the same thing. As harsh as it sounds, I gotta agree with JBF#1 on this one...I just don't think you're understanding what he means. It's really not a controversial statement whatsoever...

Are you scared Federer won't win or something? You keep bringing him up as "the" reason...
 
gold soundz said:
Lol. True. This post is definitely more reasonable than than the other replies in this thread so far. OK so replace me then with say Donald Young. 'There's no reason why Donald Young can't win Wimbledon.' Maybe it's very technically true, but realistically it's not.
Click to expand...
maybe you're over-looking the fact that DY has never beaten anybody near the top 20. There are many reasons why he can't win wimbledon (ie not having the necessary physical or mental skills)

henman was simply say there is no reason that would make it IMPOSSIBLE for murray to win. after all he can beat nadal and federer as he has already shown. these two 'reasons' do make his chances a lot slimmer though.
 
okdude1992 said:
maybe you're over-looking the fact that DY has never beaten anybody near the top 20. henman was simply say there is no reason that would make it IMPOSSIBLE for murray to win. after all he can beat nadal and federer as he has already shown. these two 'reasons' do make his chances a lot slimmer though.
Click to expand...

Ok. Maybe you guys (and Henman) actually think he has a chance over say 20% against Federer on grass whilst I don't. I think that may be the difference.
 
TennisandMusic said:
It's the same thing. As harsh as it sounds, I gotta agree with JBF#1 on this one...I just don't think you're understanding what he means. It's really not a controversial statement whatsoever...

Are you scared Federer won't win or something? You keep bringing him up as "the" reason...
Click to expand...

Ok. I just don't think it was worded right if you're all suggesting that he simply implied that Murray is merely one of the top 5 favorites to win. I just think that he didn't say/imply that. Oh and I'm not going for Federer at all, I just think there's no way he'd lose to Murray at a Grand Slam in the next couple of years, let alone at Wimbledon on grass.
 
Spider said:
Nothing wrong with what Henman said. A few points here and there Murray would have beaten Roddick in four. Roddick was a bit lucky that day. I would say Federer is the clear favorite, followed by Murray and then Nadal.
Click to expand...

no way. remember the 2008 final? nadal is definately second favorite behind fed. then roddick and murray tied for third favorite
 
gold soundz said:
So if Fed's the clear favorite, how can you say that there's no reason that Murray can't win? Federer's a huge reason and you just implied that by saying he's the clear favorite.
Click to expand...

Nadal was the clear favorite to win RG 09, but Fed ended up winning it anyway. Federer can be beaten and Murray will have chances to win Wimbledon this year.
 
gold soundz said:
Ok. I just don't think it was worded right if you're all suggesting that he simply implied that Murray is merely one of the top 5 favorites to win. I just think that he didn't say/imply that. Oh and I'm not going for Federer at all, I just think there's no way he'd lose to Murray at a Grand Slam in the next couple of years, let alone at Wimbledon on grass.
Click to expand...

i see. so you really just disagree with henman. while most of us agree with him.

IMO murray DOES have a chance to beat federer as long as that match isn't the final.
 
Spider said:
Nadal was the clear favorite to win RG 09, but Fed ended up winning it anyway. Federer can be beaten and Murray will have chances to win Wimbledon this year.
Click to expand...

But 99.9% of people wouldn't have thought before the 09 FO that Nadal would have lost. Henman is saying this before.
 
okdude1992 said:
i see. so you really just disagree with henman. while most of us agree with him.

IMO murray DOES have a chance to beat federer as long as that match isn't the final.
Click to expand...

lol ok. I strongly disagree with this. IMO Federer would straight set Murray at Wimbledon no matter which round.
 
gold soundz said:
Ok. I just don't think it was worded right if you're all suggesting that he simply implied that Murray is merely one of the top 5 favorites to win. I just think that he didn't say/imply that. Oh and I'm not going for Federer at all, I just think there's no way he'd lose to Murray at a Grand Slam in the next couple of years, let alone at Wimbledon on grass.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you seem to have comprehension problems. Everyone else in the thread could see what Henman was saying except for you...me thinks you are the problem. :rolleyes:
 
gold soundz said:
Roddick's way better on grass than Murray IMO.
Click to expand...

i think not. roddick played one of his best agressive matches ever against murray last year (and again in the final). yet it was still a tight 4 setter. this year if roddick cannot regain that same outstanding form they are at least on the same level.
 
TennisandMusic said:
It's the same thing. As harsh as it sounds, I gotta agree with JBF#1 on this one...I just don't think you're understanding what he means. It's really not a controversial statement whatsoever...

Are you scared Federer won't win or something? You keep bringing him up as "the" reason...
Click to expand...

lol, why's it got to be harsh? I don't disagree w/ you that much, do I? I feel like you're reasonable most of the time...:?
 
jamesblakefan#1 said:
Like I said, you seem to have comprehension problems. Everyone else in the thread could see what Henman was saying except for you...me thinks you are the problem. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

OK maybe that's true. I don't mind if I'm the only one who can't see that someone saying 'There's no reason why Murray can't win Wimbledon' actually means 'Murray is a top 5 contender for Wimbledon'.
 
gold soundz said:
OK maybe that's true. I don't mind if I'm the only one who can't see that someone saying 'There's no reason why Murray can't win Wimbledon' actually means 'Murray is a top 5 contender for Wimbledon'.
Click to expand...

it doesn't mean that per se. it means him winning isn't out of the question.
 
okdude1992 said:
it doesn't mean that per se. it means him winning isn't out of the question.
Click to expand...

Lol, ok so now 'There's no reason why he can't win Wimbledon' means 'Winning isn't out of the question'. To me the former simply implies that there's nothing in his way of winning.
 
gold soundz said:
Lol. True. This post is definitely more reasonable than than the other replies in this thread so far. OK so replace me then with say Donald Young. 'There's no reason why Donald Young can't win Wimbledon.' Maybe it's very technically true, but realistically it's not.
Click to expand...

DY has actually won Wimbledon.

The statement is adequately vague, I don't know what the problem is with it. People like you probably would have said the same about someone saying JMDP could win the USO before it happened. Murray can win Wimbledon and it wouldn't be a surprise that rocked the tennis world. I'd say he is a reasonable 4th favourite after Federer, Nadal and Roddick.
 
cucio said:
DY has actually won Wimbledon.

The statement is adequately vague, I don't know what the problem is with it. People like you probably would have said the same about someone saying JMDP could win the USO before it happened. Murray can win Wimbledon and it wouldn't be a surprise that rocked the tennis world. I'd say he is a reasonable 4th favourite after Federer, Nadal and Roddick.
Click to expand...

Ok, yeah basically the difference is that you wouldn't be surprised if Murray won Wimbledon and I would be extremely surprised since Roddick, Nadal, many other great players, and most importantly Federer are still around.
 
Since you seem bent over on picking on a certain phrasing, let's turn it around. Give me one single reason why Murray CAN'T win Wimbledon. If you can't, Tim is right.
 
cucio said:
Since you seem bent over on picking on a certain phrasing, let's turn it aound. Give me one single reason why Murray CAN'T win Wimbledon. If you can't, Tim is right.
Click to expand...

Lol, you kidding? Do you mean very specifically though, like to do with his game, technically, tactically? The very simple answer is: Roger Federer is around and he is a much better player on grass and would win.
 
The OP's confusing "there's no reason why Murray can't win Wimbledon" (i.e it's within the bounds of possibility that Murray can win owing to his ability/career achievements) with "there's no reason why Murray won't win Wimbledon", (i.e. it's not possible for him to lose).
 
gold soundz said:
If Murray were playing Wimbledon 2002 I could agree with his statement.


If Murray was playing Wimbledon 2002 he would have lost to an in prime Hewitt just like Henman did. And you can add lleyton to that list of players who can take Murray in this years tournament. theirs still life left in the aussie fighter! COME ON!!
Click to expand...
 
It's a weird one this year, Federer and Murray both haven't played well since Australia. Roddick hasn't played properly for awhile, Djokovic hasn't looked too good either.

These things are going to have to start changing sooner or later, at this moment in time it's impossible to say which of them (if any) will truely turn up for Wimbledon.
 
....is the OP ********? Murray can beat Federer, Nadal, Roddick and Djokovic. Why? Because he has done it before. His chances might not be incredibly high of winning but there is still a chance it can happen. Hell Donald Young can win Wimbledon....his chances are like .0000000000000000000000001% but its still not an absolute zero meaning yeah he has a shot.
 
This is a ridiculous thread. What is so confusing about what Henman said? All he meant was that Murray has a great chance to win Wimbledon if he's on his game.
 
I am with the op on this one, Murray has absolutely 0 chance of winning Wimbledon.

Ive said it before and ill say it again, pushers don't win grand slams.

Add to that the fact that murray is a mental midget when he can see a slam trophy and he is a massive underdog to even make the quarters.

Expectations should have some basis and unless Murray is handed the easiest draw in the history of wimbledon (even easier then murrays last year) there should be no expectation from the media.
 
Let's face it. Murray is the third fave to win the Championship. Never close to Federer or Nadal, but still the third. Assuming that, you no-one can surely state that he can't win it. Quite the contrary, he can. Will he? That's another question.
 
I think Gold Soundz is maybe quite young to have never heard that expression before and understand what it means.

It means tennis-wise there's no major issue with Murray's game that would rule him out of a chance of winning (unlike other lower-ranked players who clearly have much bigger deficiencies in their game that would effectively make them too inferior to be considered amongst the potential favourites).

Henman is 100% correct.
 
gold soundz said:
Apparently Tim Henman is blind to the fact that there are extremely good grass court players, such as Roddick and Nadal, playing in Wimbledon, let alone the fact that the greatest player of all time is there too playing on his best surface. I mean seriously, what kind of a comment is that. This has got to be one of the hardest times to win Wimbledon with so many great players. To say that there is 'no reason' at all why Murray can't win is taking it a step too far. There are definitely a few reasons, the largest and most obvious being Roger Federer. If Murray were playing Wimbledon 2002 I could agree with his statement.

Here's the article http://www.timeslive.co.za/sport/tennis/article485363.ece/Henman-jumps-on-Murray-bandwagon
Click to expand...

Henman played well at Wimbledon and played hard - he just wasn't good enough. Murray once had words with Juan Martin Del Potro.
 
Gould soundz is doing a good job at covering his real identity (Anaconda) with all this Roddick loving and silliness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

babbette
Henman:"Murray can win Wimbledon"
Replies
40
Views
2K
ACE of Hearts
ACE of Hearts
A
Tiger Tim
Replies
17
Views
1K
Feña14
Feña14
BeatlesFan
Genius Tim Henman predicts the next player to win his 1st slam
2
Replies
66
Views
2K
SonnyT
S
Phil
Tim Henman pre-Oz Open (Article)
Replies
5
Views
1K
rhubarb
R
BreakPoint
Why doesn't Henman make Wimbledon his final Slam?
Replies
22
Views
2K
Tennis Fan
Tennis Fan
Back
Top