Murray's Clearly Not Turning Into Henman mark II

[Jasey@]

ViperPict said:

im said:

el stovey said:

im said:

el stovey said:

Did he steal your girlfriend at school or something?

Nah.

He just got trumpeted by everyone (including some on here - but mainly the media) as the 'real deal'.

If you're British and like to support British Tennis players, then surely he's the best player for decades. You don't honestly think Henman was better do you?

No I don't think Henman was better. Murray is clearly better, just not by much.

If he's not better by much, how can he be clearly better?!

Simple - he's won more pish tournaments than Henman did - but like Henman bottles it when it matters.

Edited by Jasey@ on Monday 24th January 08:43

[tonym911]

He has just mullered Melzer and the dangerous floater that is Soderling (and who would have been his next opponent) has just been put out. Getting quietly excited…

[im]

ViperPict said:

im said:

el stovey said:

im said:

el stovey said:

Did he steal your girlfriend at school or something?

Nah.

He just got trumpeted by everyone (including some on here - but mainly the media) as the 'real deal'.

If you're British and like to support British Tennis players, then surely he's the best player for decades. You don't honestly think Henman was better do you?

No I don't think Henman was better. Murray is clearly better, just not by much.

If he's not better by much, how can he be clearly better?!

He's reached at least one Slam final. I'm sure Tim didn't.

[im]

tonym911 said:

He has just mullered Melzer and the dangerous floater that is Soderling (and who would have been his next opponent) has just been put out. Getting quietly excited…

Don't - we've been here before.

[MiniMan64]

He's clearly better than Henman and if he's going to win a Slam it'll be on a hard court. He certainly has an issue when the pressures on but having players like Fed and Nadal around doesn't help although he's beaten both multiple times.

[im]

MiniMan64 said:

He's clearly better than Henman and if he's going to win a Slam it'll be on a hard court. He certainly has an issue when the pressures on but having players like Fed and Nadal around doesn't help although he's beaten both multiple times.

...and Henman would beat Sampras etc in the smaller tournaments.

[MiniMan64]

im said:

MiniMan64 said:

He's clearly better than Henman and if he's going to win a Slam it'll be on a hard court. He certainly has an issue when the pressures on but having players like Fed and Nadal around doesn't help although he's beaten both multiple times.

...and Henman would beat Sampras etc in the smaller tournaments.

Agreed. To be the best you've got to beat the best. He just needs to find that consistent form in the final stages of a Slam.

[elster]

im said:

ViperPict said:

im said:

el stovey said:

im said:

el stovey said:

Did he steal your girlfriend at school or something?

Nah.

He just got trumpeted by everyone (including some on here - but mainly the media) as the 'real deal'.

If you're British and like to support British Tennis players, then surely he's the best player for decades. You don't honestly think Henman was better do you?

No I don't think Henman was better. Murray is clearly better, just not by much.

If he's not better by much, how can he be clearly better?!

He's reached at least one Slam final. I'm sure Tim didn't.

2, so that is half.

[DJC]

I dont remember Henman beating Sampras that often in any tournament and certainly not to win them. So statos out there, how often did he manage it?

[ViperPict]

DJC said:

I dont remember Henman beating Sampras that often in any tournament and certainly not to win them. So statos out there, how often did he manage it?

And as good as he was, I don't think Sampras was in the league of Federer and Nadal...

[JNW1]

ViperPict said:

DJC said:

I dont remember Henman beating Sampras that often in any tournament and certainly not to win them. So statos out there, how often did he manage it?

And as good as he was, I don't think Sampras was in the league of Federer and Nadal...

Not so sure about that; at his best I think Sampras would have been a match for either on grass and possibly hardcourt as well. Little doubt Nadal would have the edge over him on clay but then I'm not sure there's ever been a better clay court player than Nadal; if there has I haven't seen him and sadly I can remember as far back as Borg in his prime!

[ViperPict]

JNW1 said:

ViperPict said:

DJC said:

I dont remember Henman beating Sampras that often in any tournament and certainly not to win them. So statos out there, how often did he manage it?

And as good as he was, I don't think Sampras was in the league of Federer and Nadal...

Not so sure about that; at his best I think Sampras would have been a match for either on grass and possibly hardcourt as well. Little doubt Nadal would have the edge over him on clay but then I'm not sure there's ever been a better clay court player than Nadal; if there has I haven't seen him and sadly I can remember as far back as Borg in his prime!

The levels of strength and fitness of the guys now is phenomenal. Perhaps if Sampras was playing now he'd be subject to the same training/nutrition/supplement regimes but Sampras from back then couldn't compete I don't think.

[im]

So...almost a shoe-in for the final...what could possibly go wrong this time?

[MiniMan64]

im said:

So...almost a shoe-in for the final...what could possibly go wrong this time?

I'll give you a clue, he's Swiss and wears silly gold blazers at Wimbledon.

[ViperPict]

im said:

So...almost a shoe-in for the final...what could possibly go wrong this time?

Wouldn't go that far - anyone beating Nadal is not half bad!

[deevlash]

true, but Nadal was injured.

[ViperPict]

deevlash said:

true, but Nadal was injured.

Indeed but even an injured Nadal is quite formidable!

[JNW1]

ViperPict said:

JNW1 said:

ViperPict said:

DJC said:

I dont remember Henman beating Sampras that often in any tournament and certainly not to win them. So statos out there, how often did he manage it?

And as good as he was, I don't think Sampras was in the league of Federer and Nadal...

Not so sure about that; at his best I think Sampras would have been a match for either on grass and possibly hardcourt as well. Little doubt Nadal would have the edge over him on clay but then I'm not sure there's ever been a better clay court player than Nadal; if there has I haven't seen him and sadly I can remember as far back as Borg in his prime!

The levels of strength and fitness of the guys now is phenomenal. Perhaps if Sampras was playing now he'd be subject to the same training/nutrition/supplement regimes but Sampras from back then couldn't compete I don't think.

This is where the comparison across era thing falls down! As you say, if Sampras was playing today he'd have the modern training methods used by the current players and IMO he'd still be up there with the best of them (especially on faster surfaces like grass). For all his ability Nadal certainly isn't a natural volleyer and even Federer tends to be more an aggressive baseliner than a serve and volleyer; therefore, I think Sampras at his best would have been a real handful for either at somewhere like Wimbledon.

On the Aussie Open I think Murray must be favourite to beat Ferrer but will be interesting who comes through from the other semi-final this morning; based on form thus far in the tournament I can see Djokovic beating Federer but we'll see!

[DJC]

Must admit Im not sure where this anti Sampras thing comes from. Nadal wouldnt have seen which way Sampras went at Wimbledon and Im not terribly sure he would fare much better against him at the US. Federer has the more natural game to take him on, I think they would probably end honours even at Wimbledon and the Fed to shade it elsewhere. Possibly.

But if we are going to talk across the eras then the games I want to see are Superbrat v The Fed.

[chippy17]

DJC said:

Must admit Im not sure where this anti Sampras thing comes from. Nadal wouldnt have seen which way Sampras went at Wimbledon and Im not terribly sure he would fare much better against him at the US. Federer has the more natural game to take him on, I think they would probably end honours even at Wimbledon and the Fed to shade it elsewhere. Possibly.

But if we are going to talk across the eras then the games I want to see are Superbrat v The Fed.

Agreed a lot of people seem to have a dislike of Sampras, he was/is one of the greatest players of all time and a decent chap...

I think you have it pretty spot on in theory there, utterly dominant on grass, almost as good on hard courts:

7 Wimbeldon, 5 US, 2 Aus, only failed (relatively speaking) on clay but very few players are good on all surfaces