Has anyone noticed this.... When Henman played Niemenen in the first round of Wimbledon 2005 he only just managed to beat him, yet people were slating Henman cos of the fact he didn't whitewash a relatively unknown player... No one really gave him credit for coming back from the brink of defeat! And as we all know now, Niemenen is not an unknown anymore. In fact a top 30 player now.

And again... Tim ends up losing a close match with Tursunov in the next round, people say that he lost to someone unknown, and yet again Tursunov a year or so later proved he is not an unknown anymore and he is a top 30 player.

Then... Wimbledon 2006, Tim plays Robin Soderling and beat him in 5 sets, people say again... "He only just managed to beat an unknown player" And what happened? A year or so later Robin Sodering is a top 30 player and proves he is a very good player, just as Niemenen and Tursunov have done! What is it about the last 2 Wimbledons and Tim beating players that people have called unknowns and they have gone and shot up the rankings :wacko: I was thinking about this the other day, it's pretty strange!

It's almost like a 5 set match at Wimbledon with Tim makes them shoot up the rankins somehow :blink:

More saliently, these 'nobodies' that a past-it Henman struggled against now being in the top 30 is irrefutable proof of a weak era.

Depends how you see it, I guess :shrug:

Yeah, Henman must be really past it then. Wasnt he as high as 5 in the late Nineties ?

It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that Niemenen and Tursunov were great players anyway, they both played very well against Tim. I for one wasn't surprised when they went on to greater success. I was surprised at how many times Tim lost to Tursnov mind :wacko: At least he got him back at Queen last year :D

Serena, Tim has always been one of those players who has a habit of losing to certain players-Hewitt, Sampras-Tursunov is just another of those example. He has great style but mentally is very predictable, double faulting at crucial moments etc.
BTW when and where is the pic of Graf/Serena from

It's from the US Open 2006 I think, this fun day for kids, where Serena and Steffi did classes for some of the kids...or something to that effect :D

Shame Serena was too busy doing that when she should've been practising though :rolleyes:

Well I dont think it shows it is a weak era, I think it shows more that Tursunov, Niemenen and Soderling were in fact very good players and people just wrote them off as relative unknowns who Henman struggled to beat. When in fact he should have been given more credit for actually coming back against them and winning.

i know this is a separate thread but i can't resist peak Serean v Peak Graf on medium hard court-who would win?

For my money i'ld go with Serena-although she's far from consistent in terms of injury etc when she's at her best i think she would dictate, leaving Graf sturggling to get a foothold in the match. Obviously Graf had a long and great career but when she's at her best i think Serena is so totally dominant that matches are hers to lose. I think her return is underated, she's one of the best ever in the female game i reckon.

Ye I do tend to agree, peak Serena vs. peak Graf Id give the nod to Serena on every surface but clay.

Then again it's not really fair to campare different eras I suppose ;) :shrug:

no it's not fair, but fun to speculate!

yes it is :D do you think Steffi would beat Serena on clay then?

but everyone in England knows that there are only the really famous players, you know, the ones who win Wimbledon...

and Tim, who doesn't and is therefore crap... :wacko:

Sadly Lex that is what quite a lot of people say who dont know anything much about tennis, some people who watch Wimbledon for those 2 weeks of the year think that Wimbledon is the only tennis tournament :wacko: :wacko: They dont understand that there is the other 50 weeks of the year!