Which thought is more ridiculous? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Which thought is more ridiculous?

KarstenBraasch#1
05-26-2004, 03:31 PM
Vote!

Sjengster
05-26-2004, 04:10 PM
TBE will tell you that they're both equally ridiculous, but I'd wager most people on here would pick one over the other.

Marrahorra
05-26-2004, 04:41 PM
Tim should have won the 2001 Wimbledon. He was playing so well... just unlucky that it rained when it did... that meant that he didnt have time to get back into the rythym of returning Goran's serve... also the rain made the courts harder to return serve.

And another bit of bad luck in the 4th set tiebreak... Goran's serve out at 5-5 .. called in thanks to flaws with the line-judge machine. Then Goran produces a good return by chance to take the set.

Having said that, Goran was due some luck at long last. And I rooted for him at the time.

But objectively speaking that shows just how close Tim was to winning his home tournament and why the thought of him triumphing isn't laughable.

Horatio Caine
05-26-2004, 05:03 PM
This thread is absolutely pathetic. Henman has got the talent to win a Grand Slam right now, something which he has had since 2001/2002. He has been unlucky at times, especially with Goran (God was on his side) in 2001 and had he won that match he would've beaten Rafter, mainly because of what would have been a verfy vociferous crowd.

Every sane person who watches tennis knows that Henman is a favourite at Wimbledon - he gets a high seed to avoid the real tough players early on and his game is suited to the grass more than others. If he manages to get a bit of luck this year and be put in the opposite side of the draw to Federer then he has good chance. The fact that the man has been to 4 semis obviously means he has the talent to win it and therefore your thread is quite meaningless. And of course he has a chance to win the French Open - he is competing in it and as long as he is in the tournament then he can win it. :rolleyes:

Sjengster
05-26-2004, 05:37 PM
It's not Federer he has to avoid in his half, it's Hewitt. If Federer and Hewitt get put in the opposite half to Henman, he can at least hope that Federer will take out Hewitt before meeting him in the final. Make no mistake, if Henman and Federer get put in the same half and are due to meet before the winner meets Hewitt, the Potato will be laughing all the way to the title.

joeb_uk
05-26-2004, 05:41 PM
The fact that the man has been to 4 semis obviously means he has the talent to win it and therefore your thread is quite meaningless

jez you have to admit, getting to the final, and also winning it are totally different. so it doesnt mean he automatically can win it because he has got to the semis

Horatio Caine
05-26-2004, 05:43 PM
Yeah Sjengster you're right - i forgot Hewitt. How could i forget the man who has haunted Henman! I think Hewitt isn't as dominant a force today though and Tim could take him out. However, it is all in Tim's head - he now fears Hewitt more than ever so i guess Henman should stick his head down a toilet if Hewitt is drawn in his part of the draw!

joeb_uk
05-26-2004, 05:44 PM
yep, hewitt is struggling but i still think he is tims problem. although fed has actually beaten tim now, and with alot of ease

Horatio Caine
05-26-2004, 05:47 PM
If Henman puts himself into the latter stages of Wimbledon this year and has recovered from this mysterious illness, i think he can win. So long as Hewitt and Federer are not in his half. If he meets either of them in the final then i think the crowd will win it for him more than anything else.

Sjengster
05-26-2004, 05:47 PM
To be honest, I don't see any way in which Henman can beat Hewitt, and especially not on grass, which is somewhat ironic. Yes, he's the real danger, him and Nalbandian because of the quality of their returns. Federer, Roddick, Ferrero? All very beatable on grass. This is by no means saying he is guaranteed to beat them at Wimbledon, but he has the right game to play all of them on the surface.

Havok
05-26-2004, 05:59 PM
Tough decision :sad:

Vechelaux
05-26-2004, 06:19 PM
:rolleyes:

Henman has been consistently good for years. Stupid thread.

Horatio Caine
05-26-2004, 06:24 PM
:rolleyes:

Henman has been consistently good for years. Stupid thread.

:worship: Thank you for your support!

CooCooCachoo
05-26-2004, 07:28 PM
Tim has not been really, really consistent all the time. But in the broader perspective, he is definitely one of the most consistent players out there. But consistency in his case doesn't mean that he will win Grand Slam titles. He is good for quarter finals, a semi final if he is lucky, but nothing more. I hope he does better. I voted for Wimbledon, as I think he will find better grass court players to beat him there and that he is more likely to tackle those players on clay. I don't think either will happen.

Leo
05-26-2004, 09:07 PM
Henman almost lost to Cyril Saulnier on clay. He is by no mean a definite to make the second week in this year's RG. Anyway, he consistently performs better at Wimbledon, and if he ever wins a Slam, which I strongly doubt, then it will come there at the AELTC.

BmxBandit
05-26-2004, 10:48 PM
Henman almost lost to Cyril Saulnier on clay. He is by no mean a definite to make the second week in this year's RG. Anyway, he consistently performs better at Wimbledon, and if he ever wins a Slam, which I strongly doubt, then it will come there at the AELTC.

Yet he cruised through the second round...

TennisLurker
05-26-2004, 10:51 PM
I think henman has a chance at the us open too, it would be interesting if he wins the us open during his career and not wimbledon.

would the british media consider him a failure if that happens?

Horatio Caine
05-26-2004, 11:18 PM
I think henman has a chance at the us open too, it would be interesting if he wins the us open during his career and not wimbledon.

would the british media consider him a failure if that happens?

At least he can't lose to Roddick in round 1! :tape: