The reason why Henman will not win Wimbledon [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

The reason why Henman will not win Wimbledon

KarstenBraasch#1
06-04-2004, 05:36 PM
... are his volleys.
His volleying is just not in the class of Edberg, BECKER, Rafter (and he didn't even win) and Sampras.

Maybe he should have become a baseline player, but I guess that's tough when you are British.

Aleksa's Laydee
06-04-2004, 05:40 PM
coming from me this is rare but i will defend tim here, he has excellent volleys, lets compare then with umm david nalbandians, they were useless today. Hands down hes one of THE best volleyer around and this comes from an ANTI henman supporter, so that says someit!!!

WyveN
06-04-2004, 05:49 PM
he wont win because he is not mentally tough enough, his big chance was in 2001/2002 but he folded

Layla
06-04-2004, 05:49 PM
... are his volleys.
His volleying is just not in the class of Edberg, BECKER, Rafter (and he didn't even win) and Sampras.

Maybe he should have become a baseline player, but I guess that's tough when you are British.

Are you serious? His volleys are superb. Wish I could say the same for his serve.

YoursTruly
06-04-2004, 05:50 PM
I think it would be sad if he were never to win Wimbledon

WyveN
06-04-2004, 05:52 PM
I think it would be sad if he were never to win Wimbledon

true, the poms wont get another player of his calibre for a while. Then again his fake British fans is the reason I am not a fan of Tim.

Buddy
06-04-2004, 05:52 PM
then find another person who does better volleys and AT WIMBLEDON too, pls!!!

Sorry... but I'm rooting for Timmy this time!!! about time he won it!!! :bounce:

Lee
06-04-2004, 05:53 PM
:lol: Tim's volley is better than Sampras for sure, especially his half-volley. And this comes from a Sampras fan.

jtipson
06-04-2004, 05:54 PM
... are his volleys.
His volleying is just not in the class of Edberg, BECKER, Rafter (and he didn't even win) and Sampras.


Probably not as good as Edberg, but so what? Henman's arguably the best volleyer in the men's game today.

And anyway, who says you have to have such a great volley to win? Look at Lleyton Hewitt.

Layla
06-04-2004, 05:57 PM
:lol: Tim's volley is better than Sampras for sure, especially his half-volley. And this comes from a Sampras fan.

:cool:

TennisLurker
06-04-2004, 06:00 PM
:lol: Tim's volley is better than Sampras for sure, especially his half-volley. And this comes from a Sampras fan.

I agree, and this comes from someone who didnt like sampras :p

On grass, he will get more cheap points with his serve, and easier volleys.
His volleys are not the reason why he has failed to win wimbledon.

Henman is excellent.

plum_juice10
06-04-2004, 06:02 PM
I think Tim does deserve to wim Wimbledon at least once before his career ends....I mean...he has got soo close so many times but just hasnt made it...maybe the confidence from RG will give him the confidence at Wimby????

little duck
06-04-2004, 06:02 PM
I think that Henman has the superb aproach to the net and a superb backhand volley (although he is not Edberg, I agree). But his forehand volley is not equaly good. He missed an easy volley against Coria in the last game, if I can remember. It was a volley that he shouldn't miss in his dreams if he is a volley player. So I do agree that Henman's volleying is less elite then some think.

tangerine_dream
06-04-2004, 06:09 PM
It never ceases to amaze me the number of people who are obsessed with Tim NOT winning Wimbledon.

Dirk
06-04-2004, 06:19 PM
He lost to Coria and made the semis of RG. Lay off for god's sake. I think during the next two years or maybe three Tim will be a Wimbly threat.

Neely
06-04-2004, 06:21 PM
maybe the reason why Tim is not winning Wimbledon is the fact that there are other players who compete for this Slam also or that there is too much pressure on him with all the Henmania in England.

But that's just a big fat LMAO for me that Tim's volleys are not good enough to win Wimbledon. As always, people just see all these blown volleys of the match against Coria and not the uncountable good and very difficult volleys and half-volleys he converted with unbelievable safety during the whole week (and partially against Coria, too).

If Hewitt who isn't a serve and volley player at all (but he actually has a quite good and above average feeling for it, but fact is it's not his style to play like that) can go for a 27-1 record on grass between Queen's 2001 and Wimbledon 2002, I'm sure that it's not the fault of Henman's "bad volleys".

As I said above, the reason why Henman probably could never win Wimbledon are different, but it's not his volley.

rue
06-04-2004, 06:24 PM
I think that Tim Henman has got a really good shot at finally winning Wimbledon, even if it is not this year, but before he retires he certainly can do so because he is playing the best tennis of his life right now.

Corey Feldman
06-04-2004, 06:29 PM
i cannot believe this guy who said tim cannot win wimbledon because of his volley! has he taken something ?...its like saying "i dont think coria can win the french open because of his ground strokes"

tim has used outstanding volleying to get even thru a FRENCH open field, nm him being unleashed in wimbledon this year yet, i can say, u dont have 4 wimbledon sf's, 1 paris open, vienna and 2 basel inoors from him playing the baseline tennis!

TheBoiledEgg
06-04-2004, 06:37 PM
Henman will still be British #1 when he's 50 :tape:

His volleys are the best in the game today
thats cos NO one else serves and volleys, and doesnt have a CLUE how do it.

Roger, yes you included.

Gonzalo81
06-04-2004, 06:38 PM
i cannot believe this guy who said tim cannot win wimbledon because of his volley! has he taken something ?...its like saying "i dont think coria can win the french open because of his ground strokes"

tim has used outstanding volleying to get even thru a FRENCH open field, nm him being unleashed in wimbledon this year yet, i can say, u dont have 4 wimbledon sf's, 1 paris open, vienna and 2 basel inoors from him playing the baseline tennis!

Agreed :cuckoo:

Dirk
06-04-2004, 06:46 PM
Roger doesn't have a clue to do it? Let me guess Eggy you do know how to do it? Funny Roger's clueless S&V game took him to a 12-0 grass record last year. Roger has won many points from S&V in his career. Of course he doesn't do too much of it anymore due to various reasons but expect to see it a lot more soon.

Peoples
06-04-2004, 06:49 PM
Are you serious? His volleys are superb. Wish I could say the same for his serve.
Exactly. In order to be more successful at his serve-volley style he needs a better serve like Sampras had.

KarstenBraasch#1
06-04-2004, 06:54 PM
He may be the best volleyer nowadays but, like Eggy said, that's because of lack of competition.

Fact is: he makes horrible errors at the net, and, as he relies so much on them, that's a bad thing.

To win Wimbledon, he must volley better. There might be other factors, but a thread title has to be short and attention-seeking.

Dirk
06-04-2004, 06:55 PM
Tim has amped up his serve speed since dumping Larri. I think he has a great game to win Wimbly. He has the perfect game for it but there are other factors that need to be included as well for him to win.

Sjengster
06-04-2004, 09:00 PM
Henman's volley errors are all down to his mental failings, if his volleys were poor technically he'd miss them all the time. No, as Layla said above it is the serve that is his Achilles heel. His fundamental problem is that his serve never has been and probably never will be quite big enough to get him consistent free points at important moments of a match. If he just had more pace behind it he would have a lot more easy volleys to put away, although I suppose it's inevitable that if he had a bigger serve then his net game would be less well-developed; e.g. Federer doesn't volley as well as Henman but has a much better serve to get him higher returns, so he's not having to dig volleys out off his shoelaces like Henman usually has to. It would help if he could actually make some first serves on big points too, but that's another issue.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is only one player who is absolutely guaranteed to prevent Henman winning the big W: Hewitt. Everyone else, I'm not arrogant enough to say he would beat them, but he has the game to beat all of them on grass. The only way he'd beat Hewitt would be to change his game completely, and that's pretty much impossible, certainly at this stage of his career. Agreed that he hasn't been strong enough mentally to take his opportunities, but the only semi where he was the better player in ranking terms and the favourite to win was of course the 2001 Ivanisevic match. Sampras and Hewitt on grass and now Coria on clay, they were just better players and always will be.

Lalitha
06-05-2004, 04:37 AM
... are his volleys.
His volleying is just not in the class of Edberg, BECKER, Rafter (and he didn't even win) and Sampras.

Maybe he should have become a baseline player, but I guess that's tough when you are British.

Henman has the technically correct volley.

Fedex
06-05-2004, 05:25 AM
This is NOT the reason. Henman is certainly the best volleyer on tour, and while thats not saying much, he IS a suberb volleyer. Better than Roger, better than everyone. Its other things like mentality that will prevent him winning it. He has the perfect game to win it and a great volley, so it has nothing to do with his game.

WyveN
06-05-2004, 05:45 AM
What Henman lacks is quite simply a effective serve. Of all the great s/v Wimbledon champions, he's got clearly the weakest serve. Sampras, Edberg, Becker, Ivanisevic,
even Rafter to some extent hit lots of aces and service winners, but Henman
usually has to volley. And while he is a very good volleyer, at least as good
as Rafter, it's clearly his weakness compared to big guns. What hurts him even more apart from lack of service power is that the first serve goes missing in tight situations and leaves him hopelessly exposed.

I like Henman's style and technique, I think it's more "classic" than
Rafter's, even though he tends to be a bit of a dull character otherwise.
Rumour is that he is too nice to win a Slam. However I don't consider him as
a real underachiever. I think he has pretty much reached his potential.

Someone in this thread mentioned that Henman is a better volleyer then Sampras, Henman admitted after one of the Wimbledon's losses that Sampras is the better volleyer under pressure.

Dirk
06-05-2004, 10:17 AM
I think Henman has done well for his career too. I can't believe he actually appears to be getting better with age. I think given the right draw he could win Wimbly even beating Roger along the way. I will wait for another 2 or 3 years before I dismiss his chances.

FryslanBoppe
06-05-2004, 10:18 AM
Henman is overhyped by the British media unfortunately searching out for a hero to win Wimbledon. He ran into Sampras a few times at Wimby and he didn't have the game to beat him.

Maybe it's the pressure and he just seems to be lacking one killer weapon, he volleys very well, but he has gone to pieces on his serve and served too many dfs at vital moments, and missed shots at the wrong moments.

He has the best chance now to win Wimbledon, but he needs everything working in his favour and not tense up in the critical moments, he has the game to do so, but not sure about the rest of it though.

G.O.
06-05-2004, 10:41 AM
You should be more worried about Andy, and let's not forget about that little bald guy.

FryslanBoppe
06-05-2004, 10:43 AM
You should be more worried about Andy, and let's not forget about that little bald guy.

At least you are consistent.

G.O.
06-05-2004, 10:44 AM
Well, that may change soon:)

sigmagirl91
06-05-2004, 03:52 PM
Well, that may change soon:)

Oh, so we SHOULD book that place for you at Charter? I'll call them, and tell them that you're coming....