Tim Henman's loss to Mario Ancic - a real shame considering the circumstances...

This is another Wimbledon year where Tim had a very good chance of winning. He had a good draw up to the QF's, but unfortunately he just could not get past the big-serving Mario Ancic, an opponent he was expected to defeat, and on paper too. But as we all know anything can happen, and this kid played awesome, with some gutsy 2nd serves that kept him on top in the match, as well as being able to return Henman's 1st and 2nd serves fabulously, in the style of Lleyton Hewitt. Not bad for a guy of 6'5".

So once again Henman bows out of Wimbledon, and again this time losing to another player he should've beat on paper. Last year was Sebastien Grosjean. And now Mario Ancic. It's worrying, as Henman didn't even get as far to challenge the likes of Andy Roddick, Lleyton Hewitt and of course Roger Federer - the players to beat. So the reason why I think that this year could have been another great chance for Henman to win the title (including 2001), is because Tim Henman has a good record against Andy Roddick, and ESPECIALLY Roger Federer. Henman has beaten Federer in Wimbledon 2001...and that's after Federer took down Pete Sampras. Okay, so Federer may not have been as good as he now, but don't forget about that fact that months ago Henman won the Paris Masters title by taking down Roddick and Federer on route. And Henman again took down Federer in the QF of Rotterdam. (Henman was the only guy to end Federer's 16 match winning streak) Quite impressive. So seeing as this is grass, Henman would have had a great chance of beating Roddick. And the same goes for Roger Federer, as tennis is always a match-up issue of styles that can or cannot counter playstyles.

Henman has a much harder time against good S&V players simply because he gets less chances to excute his new weapons such as his new forehand and his brilliant chipping and charging. Pete Sampras was kinda hard deal with.

However he has a good game against decent baseliners (French Open run for example). This is because he can get into rallies, and slowly use his weapons to manipulate his game which will allow him to go chipping and charging - his best ability. And obviously it takes the pressure off him and allows more chances to break his opponent. The only player he cannot get the hang of is Lleyton Hewitt. But however this was years ago in 2002, and I think the much improved Henman of today has the ability to beat Hewitt.

In my opinion, Tim Henman is the only person who has the game to counter Roger Federer's game on grass. Roger Federer always has such an easy time against good baseliners, simply because the rallies allow him to pick whatever shot he wants to use in his arsenal, without being put on pressure. Ivo Karlovic put him on some pressure in the 4th round with his S&V game, but Ivo, apart from his serve, simply isn't good enough on his volleys and shot-making. However Tim Henman IS, and his brilliant S&V style can effectively stop Federer displaying most of his box of tricks. He's proved it, as mentioned in the 2nd paragraph. Pete Sampras came close to stopping Roger as well in 2001, but a missed slam-dunk from Sampras at his own break point basically cost him the match (remember that one?)

So yeah, in the end it is a real shame that Tim lost to Ancic, seeing as Federer knocked out Henman's bogeyman Lleyton Hewitt as well. And as mentioned, Henman has a good record against Roddick and Federer...who knows what could've happened.....

I really thought it was only Tim vs. Roger for Wimbledon. They are the top two on grass and I did not even think of the idea of Tim losing to Ancic! Tim does a great job though, and it's more than on the court but also all the craziness outside of it! I hope he really does win a slam, hopefully Wimbledon, very soon.

Indeed, however time is running out for the guy. He'd better win it quick...!

And I actually believe that today's Tim Henman would be better on a hard court rather than a grass court....because a hardcourt has obviously more bounce and would allow him to return better and use his new weapons much more.....grass on the other hand, lessens his chance to return.......anyone think the same or am I just crazy?

Indeed, however time is running out for the guy. He'd better win it quick...!

And I actually believe that today's Tim Henman would be better on a hard court rather than a grass court....because a hardcourt has obviously more bounce and would allow him to return better and use his new weapons much more.....grass on the other hand, lessens his chance to return.......anyone think the same or am I just crazy?
no, i have to disagree, he's never once passed r4 on hard courts at australian open/us open..........any good solid player having a great day beats him far too often ..........woodruff, chela, rosset, malisse, canas, golmard, ferreira
today v ancic he ran into a brick wall, ive never seen tim so shaken up, and basically it was because he played a greaT 1st set, with 1 unforced error, and he lost the set (v some1 i think tim expected to kinda roll over a little bit)

Well you never know...he was pretty unlucky to be drawn against eventual champion Andy Roddick in the US Open last year....but Canas is kinda his bogeyman....but then again it's still a loss...but I still feel he can do better, after all the run in Roland Garros must have made him believe in himself....unfortunately not for Mario Ancic....

@@ Henman has probably ~2 more years to achieve his dream... the clock is ticking but if he pulled it off it would be one of the greatest achievements after all his setbacks! >_<; I'll support him because he deserves Wimbledon but I still think his personality is pretty dull; when he won Paris-TMS he couldn't manage anything interesting to say in the post-match interview*!

@@ Henman has probably ~2 more years to achieve his dream... the clock is ticking but if he pulled it off it would be one of the greatest achievements after all his setbacks! >_<; I'll support him because he deserves Wimbledon but I still think his personality is pretty dull; when he won Paris-TMS he couldn't manage anything interesting to say in the post-match interview*!

But surely it's the tennis and the win that matters?

I have always been one of those Brits who, I hope, have had a realistic view of Henman - a very good player but one who would never reach the very peak. It was great to see him win the Paris Masters last year but I do think some of the leading players in that event had one eye on the forthcoming year end tournie.

I don't think Henman has the mental capacity to win a Slam final but I did have hopes that he could reach the Wimbledon one this year but where was the "improved" game everyone was talking about? He played 5 matches at Wimby and only played well in one of them and in that he was reasonably lucky as well. I wouldn't have been so disappointed had he lost against Scud because I was half expecting it but I still don't know what to make of his match against Ancic. Sure Mario played well but this was a dire performance from a player ranked No.6 in the world on his "favourite" surface. He was flat right from the beginning - it was almost as if the Phillippoussis match had been his final. With due respect, he hasn't really played well at Wimbledon now for several years despite reaching the quarters or semis.

It has always been said that he copes well with the pressure of Wimbledon but does he really? He actually had more chance against Coria in the FO semi than he had yesterday and looking at it has been in poor form on his supposedly best surface since losing that one. I wonder did his run in the French take far more out of him than anyone has thought because I really don't believe he's 100% physically?

I think any chance of even reaching the final has now gone. He keeps talking about his improved game and how he believes he can win Wimbledon but he increasingly sounds like a desperate man.

Without a question, he's our best post-war player and has achieved a pretty good level of success but, particularly in the Slams, he is losing far too often to players he should be able to beat and in the Aussie, French or US there isn't really the intense pressure on him. Take the Australian Open where he upped his game to oust Rusedski then with another open draw lost dismally to Bjorkman in the next round.

Again, I'm really baffled by his performance yesterday. There's no reason why he should not do well at the US Open this year but then he hasn't in the past and it's baffling why.

Yes, it is very very bad for Henman and his supporters. It will be very hard for him to do in the following years. but who knows, Goran won after 4 attempts and at the age of 30+.

i agtree with chris whiteside, altho that philippoussis win was a great win and a great evening, tim spent himself on those 2 tie breakers, and used up far to much mental stress or something...but ancic was far to good, totally suffocated hennman, and if you look at who beats henman at wimbledon usually, its those big serve volleyers (sampras, todd martin, stich, philippoussis , goran and now ancic)

i agtree with chris whiteside, altho that philippoussis win was a great win and a great evening, tim spent himself on those 2 tie breakers, and used up far to much mental stress or something...but ancic was far to good, totally suffocated hennman, and if you look at who beats henman at wimbledon usually, its those big serve volleyers (sampras, todd martin, stich, philippoussis , goran and now ancic)
:wavey: :cool:
Escude mate^^ do you think Hewitt fits the "big serve volleyers" mould :confused: ! Seemed to me that Rocky Llegs stuck mostly to the baseline & mixed up the passing shots with beautiful topspin offensive lobs :worship: when he crushed Henman 7-5,6-1,7-5... in 02 SF ;) :p

Hewitt can beat Henman on any surface, even the fasten wooden boards Hewitt would win.

:wavey: :cool:
Escude mate^^ do you think Hewitt fits the "big serve volleyers" mould :confused: ! Seemed to me that Rocky Llegs stuck mostly to the baseline & mixed up the passing shots with beautiful topspin offensive lobs :worship: when he crushed Henman 7-5,6-1,7-5... in 02 SF ;) :p
ure right, but that was 2002 and henman played wimbledon so unbelievably badly that year, he needed 5 sets to beat kratochvil and 4 sets to beat andre sa that year :lol: plus lleyton was ruthless in 01,02

Indeed, however time is running out for the guy. He'd better win it quick...!

And I actually believe that today's Tim Henman would be better on a hard court rather than a grass court....because a hardcourt has obviously more bounce and would allow him to return better and use his new weapons much more.....grass on the other hand, lessens his chance to return.......anyone think the same or am I just crazy?

No I don't think you're crazy because I am inclined to agree with you! I certainly think Tim has more chance of winning a Slam away from the pressure-cooker atmosphere of Wimbledon and the media here in England.

Indeed, however time is running out for the guy. He'd better win it quick...!

And I actually believe that today's Tim Henman would be better on a hard court rather than a grass court....because a hardcourt has obviously more bounce and would allow him to return better and use his new weapons much more.....grass on the other hand, lessens his chance to return.......anyone think the same or am I just crazy?

I don´t know why everybody is so certain Henman´s best surface is grass. He has no titles on grass, but has done very well on hardcourt and indoors (including titles and finals at TMS events). Of course his best Slam performances came at Wimbledon, but I agree with you that his performances on hardcourt should be equal or even better. But somehow I doubt he has the mental ability to win a Slam regardless of the surface.