Wimbledon 2011

Murray has already surpassed anything Henman achieved. He'll win a slam at some point.
 
Another Henman as in so much hype, so much anticipation, yet will go on to win nothing. He won't win Wimbledon for one, which is what everyone really wants.
 
He'll never win Wimbledon. I would be 90% sure he will win either Aussie or US Open at some stage in his career because (1) Hes reached the final of both before and hard court is his best surface (2) These tournaments occur thousands of miles away from Britain therefore will not be fazed with the ridiculous expectations and delusion of the BBC/media over here.
 
Henman? the fact henman is some sort of hero whilst Murray is looked at as a failure is bizarre. Murray has already achieved far greater things than Henman ever dreamed of.

Murray will win a slam.


a) Nobody thinks of Henman as a hero.

b) To say that Murray reaching a couple of grandslam finals is more than Henman ever dreamed of is a bit silly really, isn't it?
 
a) Nobody thinks of Henman as a hero.

b) To say that Murray reaching a couple of grandslam finals is more than Henman ever dreamed of is a bit silly really, isn't it?

Its not though. Murray has reached 3 Grand Slam finals, been world number 2, won 17 career titles all by the age of 24. Henman never made one grand slam final, only won 11 career titles and reached world number 4 at the highest. Arguably Murray has already done much better than Henman in half of his career against arguably an era of much tougher opposition.
 
Its not though. Murray has reached 3 Grand Slam finals, been world number 2, won 17 career titles all by the age of 24. Henman never made one grand slam final, only won 11 career titles and reached world number 4 at the highest. Arguably Murray has already done much better than Henman in half of his career against arguably an era of much tougher opposition.

..but he's not won a grandslam.
 
..but he's not won a grandslam.

And where does this become relevant in the argument? You were questioning Murrays achievements as what Henman could only dream of. Im sure Henman dreamed of making a GS final. Turns out he failed at the semi final stage 6 times. Murrays surpassed that, making it 3 times. At 24.
 
And where does this become relevant in the argument? You were questioning Murrays achievements as what Henman could only dream of. Im sure Henman dreamed of making a GS final. Turns out he failed at the semi final stage 6 times. Murrays surpassed that, making it 3 times. At 24.

Players dream of winning grandslams, not losing in the final or winning tour titles. You can be sure Murray would trade all of that for the Wimbledon trophy.
 
OK fair point. I disagree with all these people saying hes the next Henman though because hes not, hes a far superior player and I still reckon he will win a grandslam at some stage.
 
Whether he's the next Henman or not is obviously subject to opinion, but ultimately he'll be judged on how many grandslams he wins. Nobody ever remembers the guy who came close, only the winners. If Murray doesn't win at least one slam he'll be labeled as big a failure as Henman ever was.
 
Wow couple of great shots there by Kvitova, break up again.
 
..but he's not won a grandslam.

But he's a far superior player than Henman, and his career so far bares that out considerably. Henman never reached the final of any grandslam, and only ever came close at Wimbledon, he was next to useless in the others (oddly Rusedski did, despite being the lesser of the two, on hard court where his service game was more rewarding, but he never got past the Quarters anywhere else, ever again) whereas Murray is already only 1 SF off equalling Henman's record there, which he will undoubtedly do, whilst far surpassing his record in the other slams by a distance. He's also already got 6 more career titles and been ranked No2.

Henman would cut off his nose to have Murray's career...In a second.
 
But he's a far superior player than Henman, and his career so far bares that out considerably. Henman never reached the final of any grandslam, and only ever came close at Wimbledon, he was next to useless in the others (oddly Rusedski did, despite being the lesser of the two, on hard court where his service game was more rewarding, but he never got past the Quarters anywhere else, ever again) whereas Murray is already only 1 SF off equalling Henman's record there, which he will undoubtedly do, whilst far surpassing his record in the other slams by a distance. He's also already got 6 more career titles and been ranked No2.

Henman would cut off his nose to have Murray's career...In a second.

Unrelated question: assuming you've watched these recent tennis games, do you still think the women deserve equal pay to the men here?
 
Well done Kvitova! I know some of these womens players are a flash in the pan and disappear into oblivion but you just get the feeling this ones gonna stick around for a bit. Got a good power game to match up against Clijsters and the Williams sisters aswell.
 
Sharapova: There is only one winner at the end of they day. Thats what makes this tournament so special.

:D
 
Unrelated question: assuming you've watched these recent tennis games, do you still think the women deserve equal pay to the men here?

Yes.

I'm assuming you read my reasons why in the CE forum? (https://www.redcafe.net/9934817-post51.html)

The women's game is no where near as entertaining as the mens, but it's not really a question of that. You can't start changing prize money on that basis (IMO)...otherwise it becomes hugely subjective every year (or every era.)...I admit there are many valid reasons why people think they shouldn't, and I wouldn't dismiss them. It comes a little unstuck in things like Women's football, where the money isn't - and shouldn't be - the same because the game doesn't generate nearly as much revenue. But in Tennis, where the mens and womens game are so intertwined, I think it's fair.
 
Even the women in my life agree that it shouldn't be equal pay. I'm not that truly bothered by it, but we had a ton of people at some family thing and it came on when Serena or someone won in like 40 minutes compared to Federer doing a similar demolition job but in twice the time....and then yeah the discussion randomly came up.
 
It's all relative. Women in general aren't as physically suited to that sort of endurance as men, or at least not without the quality suffering. It would be torture watching the likes of Schiavone and Safina play four or five hours of increasingly low-quality tennis just because it was seen to the appropriate that they play the same number of sets.

There's also the fiscal argument as they don't generate even half of what the men's tour does in terms of revenue. But then you have to go down the road of giving less prize money to the less popular male players as they won't have generated the same amount as the likes of a Federer or a Nadal.
 
Men play far more tennis and more importantly are the bigger draw, they sell more tickets and get more viewers, so I don't think prize money should be equal.
 
It's all relative. Women in general aren't as physically suited to that sort of endurance as men, or at least not without the quality suffering. It would be torture watching the likes of Schiavone and Safina play four or five hours of increasingly low-quality tennis just because it was seen to the appropriate that they play the same number of sets.

There's also the fiscal argument as they don't generate even half of what the men's tour does in terms of revenue. But then you have to go down the road of giving less prize money to the less popular male players as they won't have generated the same amount as the likes of a Federer or a Nadal.

Or the road of making women play less for their food, drink, electricity, mortages etc just because they aren't as physically suited to their jobs as men.

There are many relative things obviously, and it doesn't work in everything (a female hod carrier not physically suited to doing it shouldn't just be given the job because of equal opportunities) but while women are still paid less than men in many many professions across the board I think it's a worthwhile thing to promote.
 
Or the road of making women play less for their food, drink, electricity, mortages etc just because they aren't as physically suited to their jobs as men.

There are many relative things obviously, and it doesn't work in everything (a female hod carrier not physically suited to doing it shouldn't just be given the job because of equal opportunities) but while women are still paid less than men in many many professions across the board I think it's a worthwhile thing to promote.

For me it's not so much an affirmative action type of thing as it is the fact that by paying them less you're holding them to standards that are impossible to achieve. I think it's impossible to imagine them ever being able to compete on an equal footing with men but the reasons for that are out of their control. They're still the best the sport has to offer and accordingly they should be paid the same (though I agree with the argument that equality of treatment should generally be premised on equality of achievement, it's far too simplistic an argument to make in a case like this).