posted Sep 3, 2008

great title, and then you ruin it by comparing him to Henman. Murray and Henman are simply not comparable. Yeah you can go ahead and look at the stats, but it's different eras hence you can't make clear cut comparisons. And this is not even comparing their styles of play, which are almost like two extremes

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

Murrays a legend. Henmans a legend.

Without Tim there would be no Murray, remember Murray counts Tim as a hero and mentor.

Yes Murray will surpass Tim, but he hasn't done it yet, though at 21 he is very close, and will almost certainly trounce Tim's record.

Facilities in Britain were poor and these two were/are the only successful GB players in their era, Murray had to go abroad, so both have achieved a lot despite the system.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

Irrespective of their records / styles of play there is one huge difference between Andy Murray & Tim Henman.........."Tiger Tim" was always a Pussy Cat, Andy is an Alley Cat.

Murray will win a Grand Slam, maybe not this week, maybe not this year but it is going to happen. Henman never had the Balls.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

It wasnt the balls Elland more the bats and style of play - No footie tonight ?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

duggie

Oh dear, not tennis snobbery?

Just because I follow football doesn't mean I can't have a valid opinion on Tennis....or does it?

Do you really believe Henmam would have dug his way out from 2 sets down like Murray last week?

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 3, 2008

Oh dear, not tennis snobbery?
---------------------------------
Not really Elland just get bored with player bashing. Totally disrespectful and a bit daft to suggest that a player cant have a sccessful career if his name isnt Ronaldo.

Henman had a good career made loads of money and although never quite in the top ranks always tried his damndest. He was also a credit to the sport.

I think Murray will be a better/ more successful player, but can we not say so without the denigration ?

Very few will be a Laver or a Pele.

Of course you can have an opinion on tennis - whether its entirely valid , I leave to you.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 4, 2008

i agree that murray probably will win a grand slam at some point in his career but henman wasnt helped by the fact that wimbledon changed to slower courts and heavier balls which went against his serve volley game

whilst murray has done well to reach the semi and a new high of 4 in the world it indicates a lack of current depth in the mens game that he achieved the ranking by reaching 2 grand slam quarter finals ( i know roddick would of got the slot if he won tournament and jmdp beat murray but that would of meant beating djokovic, federer and nadal which is a very tough ask!)

for the record im going for a federer nadal final, nadal beating murray in 3 but losing to federer in 5 sets!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 4, 2008

Henman was a talented player, but he got everything he possibly could have got out of the skills he possessed. He came within a set of a Grand slam final, and he was at the very top of the mens game for a six year period between 1998 and 2004. But aside from his 2004 Year, which was great, he actually didn't do too well in the tournaments outside of Wimbledon, and that, as has already been stated, was the reason he hung around the top 10.

Andy Murray is a far superior player in terms of talent, what he needs to do now is utilize every little piece of what he possesses in order to take that next step, the one that Henman couldn't take, although incidentally one which a certain Mr Ruskedski did to make it to a Grand Slam Final.

Also just to say the Strength in depth now is far superior to that of 1998, its just fact. And if Murray played against Nadal like he did against Warwrinka then he could win as the fact is Nadal looks tired, as well he should. Also A-Rod might be the guy to come through the other side of the draw, if he's ever going to beat Federer at a Slam event the time is now.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 4, 2008

"But the three players Federer Nadal and Djkovic who are above Murray are far better than the players who were above Henman.
So in my view Murray has now overtaken Henman as beeing the better player. He also still has potential to be even better."

Does it matter much who was ahead of who?

surely it who you keep behind you that matters?

Murray is No.4, well done, but if some one wanted to make a counter point against your comment vs Henman they could simply point out that Murrays status is due to DavyDenko and Ferrer faultering and Roddick say being injured for one of his best slams rather than Murray actually establishing himself.

I actually think he is the 4th best player, but only just at the minute, he still needs to step it up further. I have previously pointed out though that if say Djoko were to fall tonight and Murray were to triumph over all you would see a 450+925 points swing between the two - 1375 points in one go would make Djokos spot the next target.

I feel your comment vs Henman are premature somewhat.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 4, 2008

Further to that, when Henman was toward the top, his main points tally were won in tournament also prefered by the top players. Nadal is a clay king and so any othe rclay players will have to play really well to get up the rankings and effectively steal some of his points. Henman doing that in an SV era was quite impressive in my book

add comment | complain about this comment