Have to whisper this I think, but is Andy Murray tuning into the new Henman as far as British tennis is concerned? I'm not an expert on much, if anything, but it seems to me that Andy is becoming the perennial 'nearly man' just as 'Tiger Tim' (has there ever been a sillier moniker?) did in years past?
He's clearly a better player in today's non-serve-and-volley game - a shame on both counts in my view - but is he really any nearer to winning a slam? Yes he's been to semis and to finals, but he's not really been close to winning the title (if that can be said of a two-horse race, and I think in his case it can). And whilst all of the top players say that 'it's only a matter of time' for Andy, time is not waiting for him and others seem to be either moving ahead of him, or coming up fast and overtaking him. Many top players also said the same about Tim.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love him to win (love it), and it is a shame for him that he is in an era when Rafa and Roger and Novak are playing stunning tennis, but it seems to me that whilst he has 99.9% of what it takes, it's the last 0.1% that delivers greatness. And if you think my comparison is silly, only Pete Sampras won more matches at Wimbledon than Henman during Tim's prime years.
I hope I'm wrong, but on the other hand I'm not sure what we Brits would make of a true tennis winner. There'd be mass confusion in Britain. The Scots would certainly claim him as all Scottish (quite rightly) and the English would then probably find a way to knock him down. We seem to prefer our winners really to be valiant losers if at all possible. We certainly would not want a Brit to be winning easily. That would be very poor form. But hey, we don't need to worry on that score do we?
No comments:
Post a Comment