Tim Henman: a better player than everyone thinks
Now answer this: how many stars - that is, true greats - of yesteryear in any sport would turn out to watch one of the top players of today practising?
Not many in football (of whatever sort), or cricket, I’ll bet. Yet when it comes to Roger Federer, who’s just won the US Open tennis title (to add to his double Wimbledon and one Australian Open titles), you get names from the past such as John McEnroe, Ivan Lendl and Martina Navratilova who would be happy just to watch the guy warming up. (Navratilova was offered the chance to play mixed doubles in a tournament with Federer. “Really?” she said to the organiser. “How much do I have to pay you?”)
That’s because Federer is without doubt the most complete player the game has ever seen. I spent 1985 to 1992 watching pretty much every match at the French Open and Wimbledon from the press seats, and those were some of the great times. But Federer puts them in the shade. “I wish I could have played shots like those,” McEnroe said recently. This, from a guy who produced some of the best tennis ever seen - up to that time - in the 1980 Wimbledon final, 1981 US Open final and 1984 Wimbledon final.
So when Tim Henman loses in the semi to him (by the not-bad score of 6-3 6-4 6-4) it should be seen in context: a really good player (that’s Henman) being beaten by one who is truly sublime. Henman’s probably the best British player we’ll ever see, certainly the best in the past 50 years - unless the Scot who won the boy’s US Open, Andrew Murray, turns out even better. Though it has to be said that champions at the junior level don’t always turn into champions at the seniors.
More than that: Henman’s a really solid top 10 player, and has been for at least four years. That’s a very long time in the modern game. Yet people who have no idea what it takes to stay near the top in the face of increasing competition somehow get schadenfreude from his not surmounting the heights. Will Hutton had a go at analysing this in the Observer yesterday but it all turned into the usual pudding of globalisation and so on. The reality seems to be that in Britain we have a problem with sporting heroes. We prefer to define them by their failures than their successes. In the US, it’s the reverse.
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- McEnroe vs Borg: the 16th match.... in Tesco? And words on Henman (8 September 2007; score: 55.42%)
- iPod nano to shrink Apple's share of music player market. The hard drive bit, that is (15 September 2005; score: 27.86%)
- Two data points on the iPod's continuing popularity in the UK (19 October 2004; score: 26%)
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
September 13th, 2004 at 1:50 pm
So right about Federer. It’s a privilege to watch him play. Although the first and third sets were played at an unimaginable level, I was perhaps oddly wowed by the second set. He served under 50%, hit a bunch of unforced errors, and still won the set against the number three player in the world. I don’t think even the 1984-vintage McEnroe was that dominant.
Charles, if you enjoy playing as well as watching tennis, we should have a game some time.
September 13th, 2004 at 3:31 pm
Nice to see another big tennis fan. I’ve been playing since college days, and my wife is a converted fan. We watch every major and other tourney’s that are available on TV.
RE: Federer. I was shocked by his utter pasting of Hewitt. I simply didn’t think it was going to happen like that. In fact, I hesitatingly predicted a Hewitt victory. My wife said Federer.
I was stunned, in fact. And it occurred to me that what Roger has is effortlessness - like Sampras, like Michael Jordan and others considered the greatest at their games. At least to me, his play, while incredible, doesn’t seem intense like Agassi or Hewitt, so I was caught by the “he makes it look so easy it can’t be that good” trick.
But watching him hit angles that were unbelievable gave me a new sense of appreciation for him and his talent. Not to mention pummeling the greatest coverer of court - who just couldn’t cover it against Roger.
Johnny Mac, I believe, said he (Federer) is the most talented player he’s ever seen. Wow. I am loathe to agree with him because I was such a fan of Sampras. But I suppose if anyone can beat Pete’s 14 titles, it is Federer.
It’s just odd to see such incredible talent come along so soon after, IMHO, the greatest ever (Sampras) retires.
September 13th, 2004 at 4:47 pm
I have to say that Sampras never looked effortless to me; he always made it look like hard work. It was all built around a big serve; I prefer people whose games are built on more than being able to hit the first ball hard (even though my game relies on a big serve, and that you don’t win any big titles unless you have a fantastic return of serve). McEnroe did (still does) make it look like he’s just caressing the ball when he hits a volley, but it zips away. Federer though can imagine and execute shots that I, and pretty much any player, would never consider: crosscourt forehand from the middle of the baseline to the junction of the service box, say. (He hit one of those for a set point at Wimbledon, I think.) It’s like his tennis brain is on another level entirely, like an adult showing something to children.
September 13th, 2004 at 6:59 pm
Interesting, Charles. I do agree re: McEnroe - he was Mr. Finesse at the net. Loved watching Mac. Perhaps he’s the most interesting public tennis personality.
That Sampras had a big serve is true, that his second serve was often as big as his first is also true. That was from a tremendous, quiet confidence in his abilities. Few if any can do what Sampras did on the Server. Roddick? Not there, and if he can’t shake his demons, he’ll never get there no matter how many 152Mph serves he hits. Federer isn’t there yet, either.
There’s no doubt in my mind that Federer will become one of the greats should he remain healthy. Will he take the title lead from (or tie) Pete? That remains to be seen.
Watching Sampras play tennis was like watching Michael Jordan play hoops. Nobody has ever looked so good doing a leaping overhead slam. That was effortless, it was natural all-around talent … like Jordan. Here in the states those comparisons were drawn on-air and in print.
Of course, let it also be said that Federer modeled his game after his idol, Sampras. There are similarities without a doubt. But Federer is not Sampras - yet. Potential is wonderful, look at Kournikova. But unless there’s substance to back it up - over the long run, it won’t earn Roger the “best ever” title.
Not saying he won’t get it! He’s got lots of tennis left in him. It is an incredible beginning of a potentially great run for him. I guess I’m just not willing to say Roger is better than Pete just yet. Again. Potential is there, but not *fully* proven. There’s no doubt I will enjoy watching Roger for years to come.