Did you know there is a golf course right next to Wimbledon All England Club? I saw it when I visited Wimbledon last week. I never knew there was a golf course on the other side of the road.
You never see the golf course when they do the aerial shots.
This has nothing to do with the name of the hill, but I felt I needed to mention about the golf.
Apparently the land for the golf course was bought by Wimbledon and they don't intend to renew the lease, or may even terminate the lease early, so at some point in the future, the golf course will turn into extra tennis courts and infrastructure to support the Wimbledon tennis tournament.
The article was in the Daily Mail, so was mainly speculation, but it is likely to include extra courts, so they can move the qualifying rounds there, plus more places to eat, a hotel and open space. The Mail speculated on what the open space might be called, so it is relevant to this thread!
Regarding Henman, he experienced the advantages and disadvantages of Wimbledon/grass being his best surface. This meant that invariably he would play his best tennis in front of his home crowd, and would generally beat everyone ranked below him, and sometimes those above him. However, he still wasn't quite good enough to win, so he had the pressure of coming close in front of a home crowd that would get frustrated that he fell at the final hurdle, not realising that he was already 'over-achieving' by getting to the semi-finals so often.
I'm not sure if it's the Canadian thing, but Greg is generally considered less successful, despite making the final of a slam, one Masters title and having the same peak ranking. Except for that final, which wasn't at Wimbledon, he wasn't as successful at slams, so it's probably fair.
Tim was a solid top ten player, mainly in the bottom half, but briefly making it to #4. That deserves a lot of respect, but I suppose with Greg being around in the same era, and Murray coming along so soon afterwards, makes Tim's achievements appear more ordinary. It was good for British tennis, but a bit of a shame for Henman that just as he was retiring, all of the attention was diverted to young Andy Murray who quickly became someone who was expected to have a better career.
That said, I maintain it's still a bit weird to have a hill named (albeit unofficially) after a player who was good, but not great, when a much better one came along just afterwards. It was fine while people were watching Henman on the hill, but feels a bit patronising when someone says it now.
Did you know there is a golf course right next to Wimbledon All England Club? I saw it when I visited Wimbledon last week. I never knew there was a golf course on the other side of the road.
You never see the golf course when they do the aerial shots.
This has nothing to do with the name of the hill, but I felt I needed to mention about the golf.
It's owned by the AELTC. If they want to expand, that's where they will go (with a tunnel under the road).
It's called Henman Hill because it belongs to the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club and they can call it anything they like.
& England can have (a possible ?) Anthem called Jerusalem which doesn't have a particular nationalist sentiment to it as well.Trouble is a % of English people don't even bother checking that out before deciding to adopt it
6 grand slam semi finals outweigh any so called failure in losing to Ivanisevich, Hewitt and Grosjean. And those losses to Ivanisevich were in the semis and they went on to win the whole thing. 3 of the 4 Wimbledon semis he made in fact he was beaten by the eventual champion. Plus there was a quarter final loss to Sampras at Wimbledon where Sampras also went on to win the whole thing.
Phillipousis was no abysmal loss either. But just because Philipoussuis or Grosjean did not win the whole thing does not make them a terrible loss. No bad player has ever made a Wimbledon men's quarter final and then gone on to win the quarter final match before.
Apparently the land for the golf course was bought by Wimbledon and they don't intend to renew the lease, or may even terminate the lease early, so at some point in the future, the golf course will turn into extra tennis courts and infrastructure to support the Wimbledon tennis tournament.
The article was in the Daily Mail, so was mainly speculation, but it is likely to include extra courts, so they can move the qualifying rounds there, plus more places to eat, a hotel and open space. The Mail speculated on what the open space might be called, so it is relevant to this thread!
Regarding Henman, he experienced the advantages and disadvantages of Wimbledon/grass being his best surface. This meant that invariably he would play his best tennis in front of his home crowd, and would generally beat everyone ranked below him, and sometimes those above him. However, he still wasn't quite good enough to win, so he had the pressure of coming close in front of a home crowd that would get frustrated that he fell at the final hurdle, not realising that he was already 'over-achieving' by getting to the semi-finals so often.
I'm not sure if it's the Canadian thing, but Greg is generally considered less successful, despite making the final of a slam, one Masters title and having the same peak ranking. Except for that final, which wasn't at Wimbledon, he wasn't as successful at slams, so it's probably fair.
Tim was a solid top ten player, mainly in the bottom half, but briefly making it to #4. That deserves a lot of respect, but I suppose with Greg being around in the same era, and Murray coming along so soon afterwards, makes Tim's achievements appear more ordinary. It was good for British tennis, but a bit of a shame for Henman that just as he was retiring, all of the attention was diverted to young Andy Murray who quickly became someone who was expected to have a better career.
That said, I maintain it's still a bit weird to have a hill named (albeit unofficially) after a player who was good, but not great, when a much better one came along just afterwards. It was fine while people were watching Henman on the hill, but feels a bit patronising when someone says it now.
There was no focus and virtually zero support for Rusedski even in the Wimbledon championships following the 1997 US Open final he made.
The focus only ever switched to him once Henman got knocked out of a grand slam while he was still in the competition. Even then the reception towards him was lukewarm apart from when he made the 1997 US Open final. It would have been the Canadian thing.
Comments
You never see the golf course when they do the aerial shots.
This has nothing to do with the name of the hill, but I felt I needed to mention about the golf.
The article was in the Daily Mail, so was mainly speculation, but it is likely to include extra courts, so they can move the qualifying rounds there, plus more places to eat, a hotel and open space. The Mail speculated on what the open space might be called, so it is relevant to this thread!
Regarding Henman, he experienced the advantages and disadvantages of Wimbledon/grass being his best surface. This meant that invariably he would play his best tennis in front of his home crowd, and would generally beat everyone ranked below him, and sometimes those above him. However, he still wasn't quite good enough to win, so he had the pressure of coming close in front of a home crowd that would get frustrated that he fell at the final hurdle, not realising that he was already 'over-achieving' by getting to the semi-finals so often.
I'm not sure if it's the Canadian thing, but Greg is generally considered less successful, despite making the final of a slam, one Masters title and having the same peak ranking. Except for that final, which wasn't at Wimbledon, he wasn't as successful at slams, so it's probably fair.
Tim was a solid top ten player, mainly in the bottom half, but briefly making it to #4. That deserves a lot of respect, but I suppose with Greg being around in the same era, and Murray coming along so soon afterwards, makes Tim's achievements appear more ordinary. It was good for British tennis, but a bit of a shame for Henman that just as he was retiring, all of the attention was diverted to young Andy Murray who quickly became someone who was expected to have a better career.
That said, I maintain it's still a bit weird to have a hill named (albeit unofficially) after a player who was good, but not great, when a much better one came along just afterwards. It was fine while people were watching Henman on the hill, but feels a bit patronising when someone says it now.
It's owned by the AELTC. If they want to expand, that's where they will go (with a tunnel under the road).
This is the Daily Mail speculating:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2664602/New-Wimbledon-All-England-Club-reveals-plan-massive-expansion-include-new-court-hotel-statue-Andy-Murray-rejecting-new-lease-golf-course-used-Ant-Dec.html
Or Rusedski Rockies (after the bit in British Colombia of course ;-) )
It's called Henman Hill because it belongs to the All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club and they can call it anything they like.
& England can have (a possible ?) Anthem called Jerusalem which doesn't have a particular nationalist sentiment to it as well.Trouble is a % of English people don't even bother checking that out before deciding to adopt it
The don't call it that, the media and the public do.
Phillipousis was no abysmal loss either. But just because Philipoussuis or Grosjean did not win the whole thing does not make them a terrible loss. No bad player has ever made a Wimbledon men's quarter final and then gone on to win the quarter final match before.
There was no focus and virtually zero support for Rusedski even in the Wimbledon championships following the 1997 US Open final he made.
The focus only ever switched to him once Henman got knocked out of a grand slam while he was still in the competition. Even then the reception towards him was lukewarm apart from when he made the 1997 US Open final. It would have been the Canadian thing.