US Open QF Onwards

[Big Andy]

brilliant stuff.

I used to love watching Boris Becker and his all action style but this Federer chap seems to prowl about whilst the bloke at the other end is dashing about like a blue arsed fly. Everything he does seems effortless, what can this man achieve ?

fantastic !!

[jeffers]

Well done Federer, simply awesome

edtkh, we'll end our Henman discussion there as you are quite obviously clueless

As for bozzer, well

sorry to go back to the henman discussion but saying he has won x amount of prize money has nothing to do with if he is a good player or not.....

[edtkh]

edtkh, we'll end our Henman discussion there as you are quite obviously clueles

Yes, jeffers I said we shouldn't even have gone there in the first place because you were probably even more clueless...

[bozzers corner]

I had such a good point too - just didn't think the example thru - I'll sit on the argument until it happens again in the Aussie Open

[jeffers]

until what happens? You make another pathetic point that doesn't stand up?

[bozzers corner]

No - the 5th seed in the tourny 'excels' himself by getting to another quarter/semi and then loses.....

Makes me laugh how no one apart from the 10 people who post on this forum all the time are allowed to have an opinion about something (just look at the GC forum - new people come on and get slatted) - I have never come on here and posted about tennis gambling - merely that being the 5th seed, getting to the semi's is what should be expected and not an excellent performance - and thought Matt's comments about only having a valued opinion if you are a pro, to be a bit bizarre (I'm sure we all had an opinion on David James, but not all of us have been pro keepers)

Yes he has had a great year in a sport that he is only person in england of any note -- BUT when it comes down to it he does not have enough skill/mental attitude to win the biggest games (0 for 6 tells it's own story). So we appauld his play - but shouldn't let ourselves to get carried away.

People have come on here and said McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi say henman is good enought to win a slam - fair enough, why has he not then? (or even got to a final) --- plus this has very little weight as I'm sure they are not gonna come out and say he is rubbish cos of the backlash and bad PR (and I'm assuming Mac gets paid by the BBC) - look at Michael Johnson, slates a second rate sprinter and now may go to court because he was right.

Careers will be graded on how many major titles you win (think this is the same in all sports) - plain and simple - you simply can't argue with that.

[dave]

merely that being the 5th seed, getting to the semi's is what should be expected

No, the 5th seed is expected to reach the quarter finals. If he was expected to reach the semi-finals he would be seeded in the top 4

[Paul Ross]

I have to say, you simply can't slag Henman as being crap or a bottler, it is first class rubbish and anyone who disagrees is a fool.

Henman is short of being a slam winner, I'll agree with that, but not by much. Let's see how good english tennis will be when he retires.

[jeffers]

No - the 5th seed in the tourny 'excels' himself by getting to another quarter/semi and then loses.....

Dave is correct, the 5th seed is only "expected" to get to the Quarters.

Makes me laugh how no one apart from the 10 people who post on this forum all the time are allowed to have an opinion about something

What does "allowed" mean? uou can say what the hell you like as far as I'm concerned. At no point did I tell you you should stop giving your opinion.

just look at the GC forum - new people come on and get slatted

Wrong again.

and thought Matt's comments about only having a valued opinion if you are a pro, to be a bit bizarre

I don't agree with that either.

Yes he has had a great year in a sport that he is only person in england of any note

Wrong again, (making a habit of this, eh?) Greg Rusedski.

BUT when it comes down to it he does not have enough skill/mental attitude to win the biggest games

Wrong again. Henman won the Paris TMS last year, beating Grosjean, Kuerten, Federer and Roddick. Don't even begin to tell me those weren't big matches.

People have come on here and said McEnroe, Sampras, Agassi say henman is good enought to win a slam - fair enough, why has he not then?

Was Jimmy White good enough to win the Snooker World Championship? Is Jenson Button good enough to wint he F1 World Championship? The answer to both is yes, so why haven't they already?

Careers will be graded on how many major titles you win (think this is the same in all sports) - plain and simple - you simply can't argue with that.

You're right - but do you know what percentage of professionals ever win a Grand Slam? Probably not - which doesn't suprise me at all. Your argument doesn't stand up - I don't know if you are English or not - I hope to god you aren't, because Henman needs all the support he gets.

[Winrew]

Let's see how good english tennis will be when he retires.

This guy looks like he could have a bright future.

Andrew Murray swept past Sergiy Stakhovsky of Ukraine to become the first British winner of the boys' singles crown at the US Open on Sunday.
The 17-year-old Scot, seeded third, came through in straight sets 6-4 6-2 against the seventh seed to claim the first Grand Slam of his career.

Past winners of the title include Pat Cash, Stefan Edberg and Andy Roddick.
Murray was a survivor of the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 when a gunman walked into his school and shot dead 16 children and a teacher in 1996.

Looking at past winners,he is in good company.

[edtkh]

Dave is correct, the 5th seed is only "expected" to get to the Quarters.

Right, Johansson was 28th seed and he made the last 4 too. So once again, how much relevance is there to the rankings in question? Going by your logic, Ivanisevic should never have bloody won Wimbledon back in 2001! So how many slams have there been this year - or in any year for that matter - where the semis have comprised of the top 4 seeds? To suggest the top 4 seeds ought to make the semis of every slam is akin to suggesting the top 8 drivers for the F1 drivers' championship ought to finish in the same order at the end of this season as it was the previous season. How much logic is there to that? You draw your own conclusions...

Was Jimmy White good enough to win the Snooker World Championship? Is Jenson Button good enough to wint he F1 World Championship? The answer to both is yes, so why haven't they already?

Jenson Button good enough to win the F1 Drivers' title? Are you having a laugh or what? Assume every driver out there got the chance to ride in the same car for a season, I still wouldn't be convinced Jenson is any better than Montoya or Raikkonen(and I'm pretty sure many neutral, objective observers would share the same sentiments). Then again, that's not the point really. I mean, how do you define good enough? Yes, we can all accept Henman's a decent player(better than tonnes of clowns on the ATP tour), but if you're talking about Henman belonging in the exalted company that his ranking suggests he should I think we're better off believing Nader will win the upcoming US Presidential Elections.



Just because he's the best Brit around for tennis doesn't really put him right up there with the finest(I mean, will you consider Man United to have been the best club side in European football over the last 8 seasons? Afterall, they have been the most consistent side, qualifying for the quarters - at the very least - since 96/97 until last term. Yet, why's Real Madrid ranked above United in UEFA's ranking system?).

Once again, the crux of this debate really depends on which perspective you're coming from - and yes, we both look equally clueless depending on how you define class. Afterall, I don't see people the world over agreeing on just who the greatest footballer of all time is.

[jeffers]

Right, Johansson was 28th seed and he made the last 4 too. So once again, how much relevance is there to the rankings in question? Going by your logic, Ivanisevic should never have bloody won Wimbledon back in 2001! So how many slams have there been this year - or in any year for that matter - where the semis have comprised of the top 4 seeds?

That's not what I said. I suggest you read it again.

Jenson Button good enough to win the F1 Drivers' title? Are you having a laugh or what?

Err, no. Clearly you have no knowledge on Formula 1 either.

we both look equally clueless

No, because you fail to see my argument. What I'm saying is that Henman is a very, very good player - one capable of winning Grand Slams; one who has qualified for 6 Grand Slam semi-finals - not something which many players have achieved in the past. He has 11 ATP titles, and is a bonafide top 10 player. He has done nothin which deserves slagging off.

[edtkh]

That's not what I said. I suggest you read it again.

Well, if the 5th seed is only expected to get to the quarters, so who are those 'expected' to get to the semis if not the top 4 seeds?

Err, no. Clearly you have no knowledge on Formula 1 either.

If you did, I'm not so sure how you'd have thought someone might be even good enough to win the drivers' title when he hasn't even won a Grand Prix.

No, because you fail to see my argument. What I'm saying is that Henman is a very, very good player - one capable of winning Grand Slams; one who has qualified for 6 Grand Slam semi-finals - not something which many players have achieved in the past. He has 11 ATP titles, and is a bonafide top 10 player. He has done nothin which deserves slagging off.

Very, very good player? I'm not sure if I agreed with that. Well, if Henman's a very, very good player having failed to win a Grand Slam despite having taken part in 38 Grand Slams, what does that make Federer(won first slam at 17th attempt) and Hewitt(won first slam at 14th attempt)? I wouldn't disagree if you said he's had a great year, but for a career strewn with 3rd and 4th Round exits in Slams(with the exception of Wimbledon, where he's always had an exceptional record - well, maybe he'd be a great player if we merely considered his record at Wimbledon for his slams) until this year is hardly anything to suggest the makings of a great player. The state of British tennis may be poorer when he goes, but I doubt the rest of the world will miss him much when he goes given the calibre of players who have achieved more...

[bozzers corner]

I am english Jeffers - this is where I get into arguments a lot, I don't feel just cos your english I have to think your the dogs what's it's or have the god given right for me to support you (whole different debate on nationalism etc).

As for Greg come on - he ain't english and never will be - and think he has seen better days even if you class him as english.....but he has got to a final of a grand slam so guess we need to class him as english don't we......

Good eg of Jimmy White though kind of ilustrates my point about my feelings of henman to a tee.....doesn't get it done on the biggest stage of your sport (cue paul's disagreement.....)

Agree to disagree I think on this one :b

[jeffers]

Well, if the 5th seed is only expected to get to the quarters, so who are those 'expected' to get to the semis if not the top 4 seeds?

Agree to disagree I think bozzer, as this clown is clearly thick as fu*k, going on the comment above.

I think that Henman has done fantastically with what is a game based very much on a pretty old fashioned serve and volley game but there is no conceivable way that he could be classed as a “great” player in my view. He has failed to deliver at the times it mattered most at the highest levels (i.e the Slams). Saying that takes nothing away from him in terms of what he has achieved however in terms of career titles and hard cash earned. The word “great” in a sporting context is very much overused and abused in my view and should be dragged out only rarely to describe the Federer’s, Schumachers and Woods of the eras. Its like those stupid music polls that vote “Definitely Maybe” or whatever album is flavour of the year the best record of all time . Some appreciation of the historical context of a sports stars achievements must be made. If you want tennis greatness how about Paula Suarez and Virginia Pascual who yesterday won their 3rd ladies doubles slam of the year, their 3rd US Open doubles in 3 years and their 8th (I think of all time)? Amazingly I read an article recently in a US site that showed their slam success rate as only being 9th of all time for ladies which shows how deceptive the present can be (although in my view 9th of all time in anything is surely greatness ).

For Henman in this US Open versus anyone but the Federer’s, Hewitts and Roddicks of this world in that semi final you would have felt he had a chance. The problem is that these are the players you have to beat at the business end of a Grand Slam. Beating Federer six times previously is something I think not many people will manage in the next few years. The issue was beating him on Saturday. Its only fair to point out if you’re using Federer as a yardstick for greatness that Hewitt came up even shorter than Henman on the day. Henman has been a player who made the most of what he talents he had. He has had a great year and I think when he does retire he will have a lot to be proud of.

My opinion on Henman for what its work (opinions of course being like assholes in that everyone has one )

Very very good - Yes

A worthy current top 10 Player - Yes

An all time great - No (not that anyone here is claiming that I think)

[Paul Ross]

Very well put Cj.

[edtkh]

Agree to disagree I think bozzer, as this clown is clearly thick as fu*k, going on the comment above.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see a mug like you sprout nothing but absolute drivel...

[jeffers]

Well put CJ, I agree he's not an all time great, and I never said I thought he was - don't think I did anyway - very very good player yes, all time great no

Go away edtkh