It was Robson ridge for a few days when she made the third round.
How about Djokovic dungheap or Petra Protrudence i.e. it gets named every year after the champions.
I just know it as where you get the charity resale tickets - I see little point going to Wimbledon just to watch it on a big screen when you can do that in several places in London now.
On Google Maps it's known as Murray Mound, and has been since he won Wimbledon.
I've called it Murray Mound since Henman retired. And will always call it Murray Mound. Surely as he won Wimbledon he deserves something at the club named after him!
I suppose some people persist in using Henman Hill cos he's posh and English and Andy isn't.
And of course Henman failed at Wimbledon. A very English man's thing to do!
Henman was always looked on as the 3rd or 4th favouriite to win when it came to the semi final stage anyway.
Nobody ever expected him topple Sampras then Ivanisevich one year or Sampras then Agassi the next to win it, and Hewitt was thought if as being favourite to beat Henman in straight sets in the semis which he did. Taking a set or 2 off such fellas was considered a remarkable achievement for Henman. Taking 3 sets off Sampras, Ivanisevich, Becker, Agassi and Rafter was thought of as being to tall an order for Henman.
Sampras was near invincible at Wimbledon 1993 to 2000 other than 1996. Becker, Ivsnisevich and Agassi of the time fell victim to Sampras in the same fashion would all have been routinely despatched by Sampras in the semis had they faced him then rather than in the final.
Henman reaching the Wimbledon semi finals on 4 occasions but beaten by the superior player each time is no dismal failure at all.
Without a shadow of a doubt Murray is a great British Wimbledon champion. He was totally mobbed despite what some people believe otherwise. And Murray's great achievements are celebrated across the whole of the united kingdom despite what some people want to believe.
Only a fool seriously believes that Murray down south only received the reaction of just another Wimbledon men's singles champion.
I'm not sure that's true. It was a handy alliteration that the BBC used because it was easier to say than it's proper name. It remains the 'easiest' to say, but it has been used far more to watch Murray matches than Henman ones, and those of other players, so it does seem a bit daft to keep calling it that. I've noticed that this year they tended to call it 'the hill'. I think if they could decide on a single Murray-based name, it would have stuck, but swinging between Murray Mound/Mount/Field doesn't work.
When people call it 'Henman Hill' these days, it feels a bit patronising. Same when they try to turn it into Robson Green, or Heather Hill and any of the Murray-based ones.
If the BBC can't bring themselves to use it's proper name, they should really find a name for it that reflects that's where people sit with their picnic to watch the big match of the day.
Just for info, as Henman Hill is not where the old number 1 court was situated.
The old court one is now the huge players area where you see the balcony overlooking court 3 (which used to be the old court 2), the media centre is beyond the players area, after which you get to Henman Hill which is situated in the Aorangi Park area.
Wimbledon has developed so much over the past 20 years, they are so much more advanced than any of the other GS venues. Kudos to Wimbledon!:cool:
Of course to add,
The current no1 Court was opened in 1997. At the time Henman was I think no 2 in Britain (Greg was no 1). However a design feature of no1 Court is the big screen, and the use of a slope to view the screen from.
So when Tim or Greg played on Centre Court (which is the court the shown on the screen, I don't think they show other courts), people would go to the slope to see the British lads and thus the name.
Though Wimbledon may put a new show court on the Wimbledon golf course site, since no1 Court was built another venue as sprung from the desert so to speak. Indian Wells California, the no1 Court (16,000) the second largest tennis capacity in the world was built opened in 2000, this year a second major show court was opened. (about 40th in the world) 8,000 capaciiy
Although kudos to Wimbledon with courts 2 (4000) and 3 (2000) working in a small space.
Does annoy me a little when people slag Henman off, OK he hasnt won two Grand Slam titles and an Olympic gold like Murray has, but he has reached Grand Slam semi finals (and not just at Wimbledon) and won a Masters event, not many British players have done both those things. Hardly "rubbish".
That is what I would class as a high class tennis player indeed.
Other than Henman there was nothing else to shout about in terms of British tennis at the time.
Murray is a great champion but Henman should not be forgotten. For there to have been a high class tennis player in Tim followed by a great champion in Andy is as good as it will ever get for British tennis fans. And neither Tim or Andy were a product of the LTA. We should cherish Andy and Tim previously because things will never be anywhere near this good again in terms of British tennis once Andy retires.
Good posts. I think that people forget that Tim probably overachieved during his career. He hadn't got that little spark of ruthlessness or singlemindedness coupled with the extra something that makes great Champions. That he was a very good player worthy of the top ten throughout most of his playing life is testament to the gruelling training he put in. It'll always be "Henman Hill" to me.
Andy is in a different league. On his day he can produce exquisite tennis and has an ability to read the game that you cant teach. Of course he can also play like a plonker who looks like he hasn't made the top hundred, but that's the cross us Andy fans have had to bear.
This reminds me that one DS member, can't think who it was now, was caught up in the middle of the big 'flash mob' on Henman Hill at the Olympic tennis.......:o
You pervert swing. I didn't even know they'd done a flashmob. I thought it was going to be in the nud. (It's way too early for my brain, I've only just woken up!
You pervert swing. I didn't even know they'd done a flashmob. I thought it was going to be in the nud. (It's way too early for my brain, I've only just woken up!
what do you mean.......me, a pervert ?
It wasn't me that was hoping it would be in the nude...........:p
Take care talls, I do keep up with you on FB even though I don't post much.......:)
I agree, earning a reputed eight million quid and winning pretty much nothing, deserves some sort of acknowledgement.
"There's hope for all of us."
A masters 1000 series and 11 ATP tour wins overall, 6 grand slam semi appearances is far more than winning pretty much nothing.
Less than 1% of the field can win a grand slam title anyway. Winning any grand slam title is no easy feat, so even though Henman never won one (over 99% in tennis history have never won a grand slam title and at least 95% have never won an ATP title of any description) he did extremely well all things considering. Even the Murray of today would have had a difficult task to beat Sampras then Agassi/Ivanisevich/Becker back to back to win a Wimbledon title back then in the late 1990's up to 2000.
You would think Henman was only marginally better than Jeremy Bates or Andrew Castle the way some people go on.
A masters 1000 series and 11 ATP tour wins overall, 6 grand slam semi appearances is far more than winning pretty much nothing.
Less than 1% of the field can win a grand slam title anyway. Winning any grand slam title is no easy feat, so even though Henman never won one (over 99% in tennis history have never won a grand slam title and at least 95% have never won an ATP title of any description) he did extremely well all things considering. Even the Murray of today would have had a difficult task to beat Sampras then Agassi/Ivanisevich/Becker back to back to win a Wimbledon title back then in the late 1990's up to 2000.
You would think Henman was only marginally better than Jeremy Bates or Andrew Castle the way some people go on.
Sadly tennis players are judged by most by their performances in "Grand Slams"
I bet you Henman would swop all his achievements for just one "Grand Slam" victory, but not the money of course. ATP tour events go unnoticed by the majority of the public.
He's a great ambassador for the All England Club and now part of their hierarchy, a good commentator. I can see him possibly even going into politics like Seb Coe. He has the same sort of demeanor.
Sadly tennis players are judged by most by their performances in "Grand Slams"
I bet you Henman would swop all his achievements for just one "Grand Slam" victory, but not the money of course. ATP tour events go unnoticed by the majority of the public.
He's a great ambassador for the All England Club and now part of their hierarchy, a good commentator. I can see him possibly even going into politics like Seb Coe. He has the same sort of demeanor.
There were always just 2 or 3 others who were superior to Henman on the Wimbledon grass, but they also made the semis as well as him. Sampras 1993 to 2000 (except 1996) was superior to everybody else anyway.
I don't ever recall anybody (let alone everybody) at the time forecasting Henman to topple Sampras then Agassi or Ivanisevich back to back to become Wimbledon champion. He was always the 3rd or 4th favourite of the 4 semi finalists every time he reached them and everybody said he was.
To defeat Sampras and then Agassi, Ivanisevich or Becker would have been an extremely difficult task for anybody of past eras or the present if they played in the 1993 to 2000 era (apart from 1996. Murray's only great chance if he was around then would have been 1996 and he could very well have won. Anybody who suggests that Murray would have toppled Sampras then Agsssi in 1999 or Sampras then Ivanisevich in 2000 to become Wimbledon champion would be talking complete nonsense because Sampras was near invincible on the lightning fast grass at the time for a start).
There are many tennis players around the world who are considered their heroes just for winning 1 or 2 standard tour events and a sprinkling of other standard tour quarter and semi finals appearance and just made the top 30, yet in the Uk Henman is treated as a disgrace for never becoming Wimbledon champion but proving to do far better than some of those top 30 at best players on other parts of the world.
There were always just 2 or 3 others who were superior to Henman on the Wimbledon grass, but they also made the semis as well as him. Sampras 1993 to 2000 (except 1996) was superior to everybody else anyway.
I don't ever recall anybody (let alone everybody) at the time forecasting Henman to topple Sampras then Agassi or Ivanisevich back to back to become Wimbledon champion. He was always the 3rd or 4th favourite of the 4 semi finalists every time he reached them and everybody said he was.
To defeat Sampras and then Agassi, Ivanisevich or Becker would have been an extremely difficult task for anybody of past eras or the present if they played in the 1993 to 2000 era (apart from 1996. Murray's only great chance if he was around then would have been 1996 and he could very well have won. Anybody who suggests that Murray would have toppled Sampras then Agsssi in 1999 or Sampras then Ivanisevich in 2000 to become Wimbledon champion would be talking complete nonsense because Sampras was near invincible on the lightning fast grass at the time for a start).
There are many tennis players around the world who are considered their heroes just for winning 1 or 2 standard tour events and a sprinkling of other standard tour quarter and semi finals appearance and just made the top 30, yet in the Uk Henman is treated as a disgrace for never becoming Wimbledon champion but proving to do far better than some of those top 30 at best players on other parts of the world.
Unfortunately the public only respond to "winners of important events" as they see them.
How many could name one of Henman's ATP victories?
Henman's burden was the build up he was given each year by the press and the BBC, with the inevitable disappointments and subsequent press coverage of "failure."
But I expect, as Libarace once said, "He cried all the way to the bank."
Those who think that Agassi, Becker and Ivanisevich (Murray or Nadal of today) would have been Wimbledon champion if they faced Sampras in the semis in 1993 to 1995 and 1997 to 2000, they are thoughts which are complete nonsense.
Those who lay Heman partly culpable for Sampras high 7 Wimbledon title haul are pathetic. Sampras was 100% responsible everybody else (Henman included) was 0% culpable.
Henman would never have satisfied the cynics even if he ever won a grand slam title.
If he won Wimbledon in 2001 they would have said "But he didn't beat Sampras did he." If he won the US Open or Australian Open but not Wimbledon they would have said "Oh, but it wasn't Wimbledon was it." Or " Oh it was a complete fluke he hever had to beat anybody."
Henman would never have satisfied the cynics even if he ever won a grand slam title.
If he won Wimbledon in 2001 they would have said "But he didn't beat Sampras did he." If he won the US Open or Australian Open but not Wimbledon they would have said "Oh, but it wasn't Wimbledon was it." Or " Oh it was a complete fluke he hever had to beat anybody."
Hmm..
That's an opinion, but not one I share, every year as far as I can remember, everyone was willing him on to do well at Wimbledon. Sometimes he'd have a good result which got everyone's hopes up and then apparently "capitulate" in the next round.
I don't think either the BBC or Press helped, as it put an enormous amount of pressure on him. Some can handle it, maybe he couldn't. But he was always a "gentleman," perhaps that was part of the problem?
Hmm..
That's an opinion, but not one I share, every year as far as I can remember, everyone was willing him on to do well at Wimbledon. Sometimes he'd have a good result which got everyone's hopes up and then apparently "capitulate" in the next round.
I don't think either the BBC or Press helped, as it put an enormous amount of pressure on him. Some can handle it, maybe he couldn't. But he was always a "gentleman," perhaps that was part of the problem?
Nobody said Henman would defeat Sampras and Agassi/Ivanisevich back to back to become Wimbledon champion either of those years as that was a near impossible proposition for Henman as it was beyond his cspabilities. Making it to the semis and then taking a set off Sampras (twice) and also a couple off Ivanisevich was a great achievement for Henman.
But let's be honest nobody past or present would have defeated Sampras in the 1993 to 1995 and 1997 to 2000 semis or final in the form Sampras was in at the time on the lightning fast Wimbledon grass.
To suggest that Becker, Ivanisevich or Agassi would have beaten Sampras on the days Sampras beat Henman to stop Sampras becoming 7 times Wimbledon champion is complete nonsense. They could not beat Sampras in the finals so with Sampras in the exact same great form in the semis would not beaten Sampras in the semis either.
At the time to become Wimbledon champion you needed to have a 75%+ first serve in serving constantly at 140 to 160 mph, a fast reliable fast second serve with above 60% of them in, and also dig deep to successfully recover from 0/40 or 15/40 with a barrage of huge first serves almost every time you required. Henman just did not have the weaponry to become Wimbledon champion.
Losing to the near invincible Sampras was not what one would seriously call Henman capitulating. It was fully expected, the superior player won but Henman gave it his very best shot, it just wasn't enough to take 3 sets either time. All but one player lost to Sampras 1993 to 2000 (one solitary match at that) after all.
It's no easy feat to win any grand slam title. Only a tiny percentage have succeeded.
On Google Maps it's known as Murray Mound, and has been since he won Wimbledon.
I've called it Murray Mound since Henman retired. And will always call it Murray Mound. Surely as he won Wimbledon he deserves something at the club named after him!
I suppose some people persist in using Henman Hill cos he's posh and English and Andy isn't.
And of course Henman failed at Wimbledon. A very English man's thing to do!
Henman Hill and Murray Mound on Google Maps both redirect to Aorangi Terrace, its real name.
But Henman Hill was its first colloquial name and that should stay. You can't keep on renaming things every time someone new comes along and its original name is a mouthful! It also sounds 'nicer' than Murray Mound.
Henman Hill is what it is and if he'd been Scottish, it would still have been Henman Hill.
It wasn't me that was hoping it would be in the nude...........:p
Take care talls, I do keep up with you on FB even though I don't post much.......:)
Thanks swing. What do you think of my Rocker Dog? People treat you so differently in a wheelchair (I don't know if it's ignorance or embarrassment, probably the latter) so at least he'd be a talking point. I WONT be ignored, >:(
Enjoy your cycling. I was riveted by the two documentaries on Lance Armstrong. I just hope none of the top tennis guys are doping. That would break my heart.
Nobody said Henman would defeat Sampras and Agassi/Ivanisevich back to back to become Wimbledon champion either of those years as that was a near impossible proposition for Henman as it was beyond his cspabilities. Making it to the semis and then taking a set off Sampras (twice) and also a couple off Ivanisevich was a great achievement for Henman.
But let's be honest nobody past or present would have defeated Sampras in the 1993 to 1995 and 1997 to 2000 semis or final in the form Sampras was in at the time on the lightning fast Wimbledon grass.
To suggest that Becker, Ivanisevich or Agassi would have beaten Sampras on the days Sampras beat Henman to stop Sampras becoming 7 times Wimbledon champion is complete nonsense. They could not beat Sampras in the finals so with Sampras in the exact same great form in the semis would not beaten Sampras in the semis either.
At the time to become Wimbledon champion you needed to have a 75%+ first serve in serving constantly at 140 to 160 mph, a fast reliable fast second serve with above 60% of them in, and also dig deep to successfully recover from 0/40 or 15/40 with a barrage of huge first serves almost every time you required. Henman just did not have the weaponry to become Wimbledon champion.
Losing to the near invincible Sampras was not what one would seriously call Henman capitulating. It was fully expected, the superior player won but Henman gave it his very best shot, it just wasn't enough to take 3 sets either time. All but one player lost to Sampras 1993 to 2000 (one solitary match at that) after all.
It's no easy feat to win any grand slam title. Only a tiny percentage have succeeded.
I didn't suggest Henman capitulated to Sampras.
But there were a few to whom he lost which came as a bit of a surprise.
I didn't suggest Henman capitulated to Sampras.
But there were a few to whom he lost which came as a bit of a surprise.
Of course it wasn't a case of just Sampras being too hot to handle for Henman at Wimbledon.
1996 to 2001 (his best was 1998 to 2001) when it was fast surface coincuded at a time when he had to beat 3 or 4 few big serve volleys at the closing stages, and to beat 7 players over best of 5 sets in a fortnight was a tall order.
Philippousis and Ivanisevich who were big serve volleyers were also just too powerful for Henman to overcome.
And Hewitt in 2002 was no surprising loss either. Hewitt (who dserves far more respect than he gets on tennis forums (2 grand slam titles Hewitt won was not just marginally better achievement than the one off grand slam winners. 2 grand slam titles are a truly excellent achievement for anybody which Murray has also achieved.)) was an authentic world number one. Everybody at the time said Hewitt was the favourite to beat Henman in that semi final. Henman was certainly not expected to beat Hewitt.
Henman rarely suffered a bad defeat to what people look on as an average player at Wimbledon. He may have suffered some away from Wimbledon but everybody in the top 10 at the time suffered their fair share of bad losses to seemingly average players in the grand slams. Even Sampras and Agassi did as well.
Of course it wasn't a case of just Sampras being too hot to handle for Henman at Wimbledon.
1996 to 2001 (his best was 1998 to 2001) when it was fast surface coincuded at a time when he had to beat 3 or 4 few big serve volleys at the closing stages, and to beat 7 players over best of 5 sets in a fortnight was a tall order.
Philippousis and Ivanisevich who were big serve volleyers were also just too powerful for Henman to overcome.
And Hewitt in 2002 was no surprising loss either. Hewitt (who dserves far more respect than he gets on tennis forums (2 grand slam titles Hewitt won was not just marginally better achievement than the one off grand slam winners. 2 grand slam titles are a truly excellent achievement for anybody which Murray has also achieved.)) was an authentic world number one. Everybody at the time said Hewitt was the favourite to beat Henman in that semi final. Henman was certainly not expected to beat Hewitt.
Henman rarely suffered a bad defeat to what people look on as an average player at Wimbledon. He may have suffered some away from Wimbledon but everybody in the top 10 at the time suffered their fair share of bad losses to seemingly average players in the grand slams. Even Sampras and Agassi did as well.
Comments
It was Robson ridge for a few days when she made the third round.
How about Djokovic dungheap or Petra Protrudence i.e. it gets named every year after the champions.
I just know it as where you get the charity resale tickets - I see little point going to Wimbledon just to watch it on a big screen when you can do that in several places in London now.
Henman was always looked on as the 3rd or 4th favouriite to win when it came to the semi final stage anyway.
Nobody ever expected him topple Sampras then Ivanisevich one year or Sampras then Agassi the next to win it, and Hewitt was thought if as being favourite to beat Henman in straight sets in the semis which he did. Taking a set or 2 off such fellas was considered a remarkable achievement for Henman. Taking 3 sets off Sampras, Ivanisevich, Becker, Agassi and Rafter was thought of as being to tall an order for Henman.
Sampras was near invincible at Wimbledon 1993 to 2000 other than 1996. Becker, Ivsnisevich and Agassi of the time fell victim to Sampras in the same fashion would all have been routinely despatched by Sampras in the semis had they faced him then rather than in the final.
Without a shadow of a doubt Murray is a great British Wimbledon champion. He was totally mobbed despite what some people believe otherwise. And Murray's great achievements are celebrated across the whole of the united kingdom despite what some people want to believe.
Only a fool seriously believes that Murray down south only received the reaction of just another Wimbledon men's singles champion.
Think about this.
If it wasn't named because of Henman back then it would not have been named because of anybody since.
Flukie does not seem like a genuine tennis or general sports fan who will only watch tennis for 2 weeks per year again once Murray retires.
When people call it 'Henman Hill' these days, it feels a bit patronising. Same when they try to turn it into Robson Green, or Heather Hill and any of the Murray-based ones.
If the BBC can't bring themselves to use it's proper name, they should really find a name for it that reflects that's where people sit with their picnic to watch the big match of the day.
Of course to add,
The current no1 Court was opened in 1997. At the time Henman was I think no 2 in Britain (Greg was no 1). However a design feature of no1 Court is the big screen, and the use of a slope to view the screen from.
So when Tim or Greg played on Centre Court (which is the court the shown on the screen, I don't think they show other courts), people would go to the slope to see the British lads and thus the name.
Though Wimbledon may put a new show court on the Wimbledon golf course site, since no1 Court was built another venue as sprung from the desert so to speak. Indian Wells California, the no1 Court (16,000) the second largest tennis capacity in the world was built opened in 2000, this year a second major show court was opened. (about 40th in the world) 8,000 capaciiy
Although kudos to Wimbledon with courts 2 (4000) and 3 (2000) working in a small space.
.
Andy is in a different league. On his day he can produce exquisite tennis and has an ability to read the game that you cant teach. Of course he can also play like a plonker who looks like he hasn't made the top hundred, but that's the cross us Andy fans have had to bear.
You pervert swing. I didn't even know they'd done a flashmob. I thought it was going to be in the nud.
what do you mean.......me, a pervert ?
It wasn't me that was hoping it would be in the nude...........:p
Take care talls, I do keep up with you on FB even though I don't post much.......:)
I agree, earning a reputed eight million quid and winning pretty much nothing, deserves some sort of acknowledgement.
"There's hope for all of us."
A masters 1000 series and 11 ATP tour wins overall, 6 grand slam semi appearances is far more than winning pretty much nothing.
Less than 1% of the field can win a grand slam title anyway. Winning any grand slam title is no easy feat, so even though Henman never won one (over 99% in tennis history have never won a grand slam title and at least 95% have never won an ATP title of any description) he did extremely well all things considering. Even the Murray of today would have had a difficult task to beat Sampras then Agassi/Ivanisevich/Becker back to back to win a Wimbledon title back then in the late 1990's up to 2000.
You would think Henman was only marginally better than Jeremy Bates or Andrew Castle the way some people go on.
Sadly tennis players are judged by most by their performances in "Grand Slams"
I bet you Henman would swop all his achievements for just one "Grand Slam" victory, but not the money of course. ATP tour events go unnoticed by the majority of the public.
He's a great ambassador for the All England Club and now part of their hierarchy, a good commentator. I can see him possibly even going into politics like Seb Coe. He has the same sort of demeanor.
There were always just 2 or 3 others who were superior to Henman on the Wimbledon grass, but they also made the semis as well as him. Sampras 1993 to 2000 (except 1996) was superior to everybody else anyway.
I don't ever recall anybody (let alone everybody) at the time forecasting Henman to topple Sampras then Agassi or Ivanisevich back to back to become Wimbledon champion. He was always the 3rd or 4th favourite of the 4 semi finalists every time he reached them and everybody said he was.
To defeat Sampras and then Agassi, Ivanisevich or Becker would have been an extremely difficult task for anybody of past eras or the present if they played in the 1993 to 2000 era (apart from 1996. Murray's only great chance if he was around then would have been 1996 and he could very well have won. Anybody who suggests that Murray would have toppled Sampras then Agsssi in 1999 or Sampras then Ivanisevich in 2000 to become Wimbledon champion would be talking complete nonsense because Sampras was near invincible on the lightning fast grass at the time for a start).
There are many tennis players around the world who are considered their heroes just for winning 1 or 2 standard tour events and a sprinkling of other standard tour quarter and semi finals appearance and just made the top 30, yet in the Uk Henman is treated as a disgrace for never becoming Wimbledon champion but proving to do far better than some of those top 30 at best players on other parts of the world.
Unfortunately the public only respond to "winners of important events" as they see them.
How many could name one of Henman's ATP victories?
Henman's burden was the build up he was given each year by the press and the BBC, with the inevitable disappointments and subsequent press coverage of "failure."
But I expect, as Libarace once said, "He cried all the way to the bank."
Those who lay Heman partly culpable for Sampras high 7 Wimbledon title haul are pathetic. Sampras was 100% responsible everybody else (Henman included) was 0% culpable.
If he won Wimbledon in 2001 they would have said "But he didn't beat Sampras did he." If he won the US Open or Australian Open but not Wimbledon they would have said "Oh, but it wasn't Wimbledon was it." Or " Oh it was a complete fluke he hever had to beat anybody."
Hmm..
That's an opinion, but not one I share, every year as far as I can remember, everyone was willing him on to do well at Wimbledon. Sometimes he'd have a good result which got everyone's hopes up and then apparently "capitulate" in the next round.
I don't think either the BBC or Press helped, as it put an enormous amount of pressure on him. Some can handle it, maybe he couldn't. But he was always a "gentleman," perhaps that was part of the problem?
Nobody said Henman would defeat Sampras and Agassi/Ivanisevich back to back to become Wimbledon champion either of those years as that was a near impossible proposition for Henman as it was beyond his cspabilities. Making it to the semis and then taking a set off Sampras (twice) and also a couple off Ivanisevich was a great achievement for Henman.
But let's be honest nobody past or present would have defeated Sampras in the 1993 to 1995 and 1997 to 2000 semis or final in the form Sampras was in at the time on the lightning fast Wimbledon grass.
To suggest that Becker, Ivanisevich or Agassi would have beaten Sampras on the days Sampras beat Henman to stop Sampras becoming 7 times Wimbledon champion is complete nonsense. They could not beat Sampras in the finals so with Sampras in the exact same great form in the semis would not beaten Sampras in the semis either.
At the time to become Wimbledon champion you needed to have a 75%+ first serve in serving constantly at 140 to 160 mph, a fast reliable fast second serve with above 60% of them in, and also dig deep to successfully recover from 0/40 or 15/40 with a barrage of huge first serves almost every time you required. Henman just did not have the weaponry to become Wimbledon champion.
Losing to the near invincible Sampras was not what one would seriously call Henman capitulating. It was fully expected, the superior player won but Henman gave it his very best shot, it just wasn't enough to take 3 sets either time. All but one player lost to Sampras 1993 to 2000 (one solitary match at that) after all.
It's no easy feat to win any grand slam title. Only a tiny percentage have succeeded.
Henman Hill and Murray Mound on Google Maps both redirect to Aorangi Terrace, its real name.
But Henman Hill was its first colloquial name and that should stay. You can't keep on renaming things every time someone new comes along and its original name is a mouthful! It also sounds 'nicer' than Murray Mound.
Henman Hill is what it is and if he'd been Scottish, it would still have been Henman Hill.
Thanks swing. What do you think of my Rocker Dog? People treat you so differently in a wheelchair (I don't know if it's ignorance or embarrassment, probably the latter) so at least he'd be a talking point. I WONT be ignored, >:(
Enjoy your cycling. I was riveted by the two documentaries on Lance Armstrong.
I didn't suggest Henman capitulated to Sampras.
But there were a few to whom he lost which came as a bit of a surprise.
Of course it wasn't a case of just Sampras being too hot to handle for Henman at Wimbledon.
1996 to 2001 (his best was 1998 to 2001) when it was fast surface coincuded at a time when he had to beat 3 or 4 few big serve volleys at the closing stages, and to beat 7 players over best of 5 sets in a fortnight was a tall order.
Philippousis and Ivanisevich who were big serve volleyers were also just too powerful for Henman to overcome.
And Hewitt in 2002 was no surprising loss either. Hewitt (who dserves far more respect than he gets on tennis forums (2 grand slam titles Hewitt won was not just marginally better achievement than the one off grand slam winners. 2 grand slam titles are a truly excellent achievement for anybody which Murray has also achieved.)) was an authentic world number one. Everybody at the time said Hewitt was the favourite to beat Henman in that semi final. Henman was certainly not expected to beat Hewitt.
Henman rarely suffered a bad defeat to what people look on as an average player at Wimbledon. He may have suffered some away from Wimbledon but everybody in the top 10 at the time suffered their fair share of bad losses to seemingly average players in the grand slams. Even Sampras and Agassi did as well.
Cool.........:cool:
Weren't Lopez and Tursonof others he went out to?
Except when he did overcome them, like in 2004 when he beat Phillipousis he then lost to Mario Ancic who was unseeded.
The year before he beat Nalbandian then lost another match he should have won against Grosjean.
That's the sort of matches Doghouse Riley is referring to, not matches against Sampras and Ivanisevic.
2001 to 2004 was no vacuum era and certainly no weak era. It's no easy feat.