posted Jan 5, 2009

In ten years' time we will be able to compare the careers of Henman and Murray in total objectivity.

However, Murray has already reached higher in his short time as a professional than Henman did in over ten years.

Two Masters trophies, a GS final and year end number 4. And he's only two tournament wins away from equalling Henman's total career haul.

Years as 'British Number One' are irrelevant, as I was probably British Number Ten despite only playing squash.

Because of these factors I cannot see him not picking up at least one GS. He can win Wimbledon for sure - he has the perfect game for grass and he's getting stronger all the time.

But as Will pointed out, setting expectations of what he should be achieving in any given year is pointless, even slightly silly.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 5, 2009

dangerfield2,

I'm not looking to start an argument, but you're missing the point.

I am not comparing the two in any terms except that they have both come close to winning a slam, but (so far in Murrays case) failed.

I am more of a Murray fan than I ever was a Henman fan, but even Murray has the sense to acknowledge (publicly at least) that he has a long way to go before he has achieved as much in tennis as Henman did. And by that I do not simply mean achievements ON court.

In short, wind your neck in.


Jules_USA,

totally agree - I didn't say he would have won, I said I believed he would - in my opinion.

Despite the fact he should have been more mentally resilient when rain did interrupt the semi, had it not rained, I think he would have been crowned champion.

Just my opinion, but the point I was making is that being 'good enough' doesn't neccessarily equate to winning the title.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 5, 2009

The problem he has is getting his recovery time down OR increasing his ability to play winners. Because he still is spending too much time on court.

He also needs to increase the robustness of his second serve.

If he can address these then Murray is on the cusp of greatness.

He clearly is now on par with Nadal on hard courts and I suspect that he also now has the edge over Fed.

The bigger threat may not yet have shown his face. Some guy said Tsonga, and it might well be someone like this that blossoms this year.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 5, 2009

'Just my opinion, but the point I was making is that being 'good enough' doesn't neccessarily equate to winning the title.'

There are always about five or six players who can win it. But, as you say, some of them need a bit of luck - with fitness, rain, a good draw etc.

Some of them don't need the luck because they are just that much better than the rest. This was the case with Federer for about five years. Until Nadal began challenging him in the past couple of Wimbledons, Federer was making shorter work of the people in the semis and finals than he was of the guys he played in the early rounds.

Similarly, there were a few years when McEnroe was just too good for anyone.

People like Murray, who aren't quite in the top top bracket yet, are good enough to win a major but will indeed need some luck on the way.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 5, 2009

i'm not bothered if murray wins a slam or not, I respect him as a world class player, but he is dull, dull as a long grey day !!

Sorry !! :>)

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 5, 2009

I think Murray has a very good chance at the AO and the US Open this year. His hard court form over the last few months has been amazing, especially since he's now had multiple wins over the top 3. however, his chances at the French and Wimbledon are much lower as Nadal & Fed are still far ahead on these surfaces.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 5, 2009

Too true, he is on the way to greatness, the next 2 years should be the most exciting in British tennis history, the girls are coming through fast too.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 6, 2009

bore off the 'murray is boring' clan!

snake 77, your comments say more about yourself than our best tennis hope. what are you wanting? he started his career with personality then the press jumped on him, since then he has developed his press skills and his tennis has improved at the same time. Its realy annoys me that people attack our best sports stars for all the wrong reasons, I know everyone is entitled to their opinions but please be a little more positive and let our sports stars lighten up your boring life!

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 6, 2009

It is ridiculous to compare Henman and Murray. Yes, Murray has won two Masters titles and Henman just one. BUT: Let's not forget that Henman won in Paris in 2003 defeating Nikolay Davydenko, Sebastian Grosjean, Gustavo Kuerten, Roger Federer, Andy Roddick and Andrei Pavel in the final. And he dropped just one set the whole tournament! Also, Henman has won two Basel titles and Basel is one of the most prestigious tournaments on the tour, even though it is not a Masters. Henman beat in the finals in 1998 and 2001 Andre Agassi and Roger Federer with nearly perfect tennis! And don't say that Federer was too young cause the same year he beat Pete Sampras at Wimbledon with some brilliant tennis and he was already in the top ten! And, last - Henman finished 7 or 8 years in a row as a top ten player and he reached the second week at Wimbledon 9 consecutive years (only one defeat before the quarters). He also reached the semis at the French and US Open and for the moment Murray has only one win in a Grand Slam quarterfinal (but players like Clement, Schuettler, Baghdatis and Gonzalez have achieved the same,are they better than Henman?). And I don't think the era now is better. Henman played against Sampras, Agassi, Rafter, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Stich, Federer, Safin (a great talant, one of the greatest I have ever seen), Hewitt (his form in 2001 and 2002 was phenomenal),etc. Murray plays against Federer, who's not that Federer from 2004,2005 and 2006, who defeated Henman in the later stages of some big tournaments (including the US Open 2004), Nadal, Djokovic and... who else? Who? These are the only real Grand Slam contenders and natural champions and this is the truth.

And another thing for Murray - one of his Masters titles came in Cincinatti which is a tournament that is just before the US Open and 90% of the top players are not motivated playing there (I can give many examples - Federer '08, '04, Djokovic '07, etc.). And in Madrid Murray defeated... Gilles Simon in the final?!? So, for the moment Henman is a far better player than Murray and even Andy admits that. It is just phenomenal to be in the top of the rankings for so long, every player will tell you that.

And to compare Henman and Rusedski is even funnier - in his whole career Rusedski played only one good Grand Slam tournament and this was the US Open in 1997 - in the semis he played against... BJORKMAN! (and was down two sets to one). Except this final, his best achievement in the Slams is ONE QF at Wimbledon (Pioline beat him comfortably in four sets, and he saved a matchball against Johnathan Stark in the third round). And his head-to-head record with Henman is.... ))

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Jan 8, 2009

Of course there are. Lots of them. Then there are lots more who think he could do this in a 'slam'

Bit of a duff question really.

add comment | complain about this comment