Tim Henman's passing shots *masterpiece*

[duney]

At least Sampras had the balls to run up to the net

[SoooBlue]

People will never stop with the inane debates. People just need to accept that Henman played fantastic, beautiful, graceful grass court tennis during arguably the toughest grass court era in history. Henman was no choker, he simply ran into on fire players during every one of his great Wimbledon runs.

By the way, that was a beautiful slice approach by Sampras on the second point and an even better return, now that is top quality grass court tennis.

[bigheadbob37]

@SoooBlue i love henman for playing beautiful tennis if he had a bigger serve he would of won a grand slam

[777McLovin777]

and just to add reading these other comments im a huge federer fan and pretty much dislike nadal but you cant denie rafa truely dominates federer on clay without much effort..... and its not federer not playing his best or in his prime its nadal being unstoppable on the red stuff

[777McLovin777]

i dont give a shit if tim never won any majors... he was always my favourite as a kid and his matches were always exciting... hed be winning 2 sets to 0 and in an hour it would be 2-2 and hed be losing in the final set hahaha i just loved tim hes the definition of the world ledgend.... if someone offered me fed vs nadal or fed vs tim id take the second option all day everyday

[markymark201186]

come on tim

[weatherallc05]

such a shame he never got to the final, he came so close but he was up against sampras . always a tough one

[molly0000000s]

And it's this passing shot ability that lead to him becoming a several times decorated champion.

[Lundahlium]

Never did anything. As if he was the king of grass. 

[04mucklowd]

One of the things that I will remember about Sampras, is just how borring he was to watch. The most Boring player ever!!

[symba]

2001 , he beat the emerging federer that had beaten Sampras in the quarters, but ended up loosing to Goran in a rain stopped match, year after he lost to leyton in the semis, those where his chances........

[Mojojito00]

i love watching Henman play. However sometimes it can get really irritating when you root for him, because he hardly wins. He's pretty good at serve and volley, but not as good as players like Sampras and Krajicek. I hope there are more pros who play this style nowadays

[FiNdLaY47]

henmans a spud

[andy4226uk]

I miss the days when tennis players actually came into the net :-(

[MrPenuswilliams1980]

Haha the only two passing shots of henman in the whole match.

[SquallTWF]

Sampras owned! =D

[Nick410s]

The description reads "Henman owning Sampras," but Sampras won the match. Nice!

[pistolpete58]

who won this match?

[remnant24]

And yet, Sampras went on to win the match... and the championship.

[SERRANO520]

no! Safin was the only one who can beat Federer at his prime! nadal was only beating federer when TMF is starting to degrade at his prime..

[BrotherTree1]

murray will only do as well as henman as a result.

[serappia]

tim henman, a pathetic little wimp

[Critchy39]

Viagra, proud sponser of Tim Henman.

For people who can only get a semi

[ih8mcfly]

what a player henman could become; deffinately 1 for the future, bring a grand slam to the UK!

[flyingjibberish]

Henman played both Pete and Roger in their primes. Henman claimed Roger was the tougher opponent:-)

[clivebull1]

God I miss these years! Long live Henmania! What might have been in 2001... brings a tear to my eye.

[warriorprince1010]

Tim is hopless and was never going to win wimbeldon.

[pzujc]

Lololololol.... Ok this debate is getting quite heated so I'm gonna argue that nadal is the only player who can really beat federer at his top level..... Henman murray Sampras.... Forget it..... Nadal is the only one who can beat a federer IN HIS PRIME!!!!

[Henman5]

What about Safin for example?

[dmx19999994]

but safin only if he plays at his very best and thats once a year

[OneWingDuck]

@Henman5 Very good point, although, Nadal has beaten him so many more times.

[mysteriekiller]

@Henman5 Safin , Nalbandian and Nadal

[cescyfooty123]

@Henman5 this video is kinda rubbish sorry but most of it is henman trying to get in a decent serve and replays.

[demondayzzz]

@Henman5 that was like once!!! his record vs federer is reallly bad, like roddick bad. sure he was a top player, but one win where federer blew 2 matchpoints doesn't mean that he had any better chance in his prime vs federer than his record suggests. i'm not sure you can say federer was in his "prime" for most of the nadal matches either, but that 5 setter in Monte carlo i think was clearly one where nadal took the best of federer and still won. maybe the AO final/ wimbledon too.

[MulletMan3108]

@demondayzzz AO 09? no way - his serving was very poor. and wimby 08 - wasnt his year at all. im surprised he even won the us open

[demondayzzz]

@MulletMan3108 AO- his serving was atrocious in the final but apart from that he was on top form till he got tired out in the 5th.

same with the wimbledon final, his overall level was really high, he just scoffed some break points as he usually does v nadal.

i guess what i'm basing his "top level" on is the quality of his play during the rallies more than the serving etc. as for the us 08 even though his only tough match was against andreev, u could tell he wanted that tournament REALLY badly

[Henman5]

@demondayzzz Safin played the way he can for no more than four years - 2000, 2001, 2004 and 2005. During that period he faced Federer twice at GS events and won once. He had a lot of troubles with injuries in the other years (I think he missed the whole 2003 season because of that) and after the 2005 Australian Open he also started having problems with his motivation. That's why his record is that bad, not because he doesn't have the game (like in the Roddick case).

[demondayzzz]

@Henman5 safin's record is 2-10, with 8 matches being in the quarters or better, safin winning one in 2002 and the AO 05 match, so it's not like too many of their matches came with safin in a total funk. there were a ton of 7-6 sets because of safin's serve etc. so even playing relatively badly he could keep the scoreline close but even then it wasn't really "close". both safin/roddick have game, but unfortunately for them it's too compatible with federer's game

[Henman5]

@demondayzzz About Nadal - he started beating Federer back in 2004. What do you mean he wasn't in his prime? And the 5 setter was in Rome, not Monte Carlo. ;)

[demondayzzz]

@Henman5 eh, i have a weird definition of prime, i think it means top level of play as well. Fed may have been in his "prime" but most of the matches were on clay, not fed's prime surface. from watching most those matches fed was way off, with tons of errors, choking breakpoints away, serving poorly etc. obv to nadal's credit as well, but i can only think of a few occasions where federer reached his top level vs nadal, like the 1st 4 sets of the Ao match, parts of the wimby match, rome etc.

[SamCoreJ]

@demondayzzz

So you'll give Federer full credit for winning on hard court, but when Nadal wins on clay it counts for less because its not Federers prime surface? Come on mate, you are coming across as quite bias. Federer made the final of the French 4 years in a row. I think we can safely say he was playing great tennis on clay. The only person that could beat him was Nadal. Nadal has to be given full credit for that.

[demondayzzz]

@SamCoreJ clay is not fed's best surface, fast courts are. i'll give nadal full credit for being the best clay player ever, he earned each of his wins, but very few times can you say that federer was playing at his peak level of play against nadal, that's all i'm saying. 

[soydeespana]

@Henman5 demondayzzz is absolutely right . Marat is a great player , but that was just one match .I don't think that he would do the same thing for federer if they met in 2006 or 2007 as nadal did . Nadal brought the best out of federer every time they met at the french and schooled him in 2008 . Also he beat an unstoppable federer in 2006 at the the dubai final . As for the final in rome nadal wasn't at his best .

[SamCoreJ]

@demondayzzz

Nadal and Federer have shared a few years of their prime together, and Nadal has come out on top. Federer was dominant before Nadal came of age, and also before Djokovic came along. His dip in success is more about the standard of competition getting a lot, lot stronger, not about him being past his prime.

[demondayzzz]

@SamCoreJ nadal barely made it to any hardcourt finals with fed, only one hc slam final, federer made it to pretty much every clay final. Federer's won more slams since nadal's come along than before. his semifinal streak means he's been pretty consistent even against improving opposition, he's just too old to focus on every tournament so he limits it to the big ones. also djokovic has barely "come along" yet, though he well could if he keeps it up.

[SamCoreJ]

@demondayzzz

I was talking about Nadal vs Federer matches, in response to your comment that Federer wasn't in his prime for most of their matches. In the Slam finals, Nadal has got the better of Federer over all. Also, Nadal suffers from injury and there is little doubt that he would have won more slams if it wasn't for that. Federer is without doubt the greatest of all time, but to say Nadal came along and knocked him off the top because Federer was past this prime is not right.

[demondayzzz]

@SamCoreJ it's not injury that has limited nadal from meeting federer in hardcourt slams, it's losing to blake, ferrer, tsonga, murray, etc. he still has only reached 2 hard court finals. additionally fed's prime lasted till he got mono in 2008. the mono obviously has something to do with it but you can't say he was at his prime as consistently after that. not nadal's fault but that's the way it is, coinciding with nadal getting better/stronger/more experienced.

[SamCoreJ]

@demondayzzz

I don't disagree with everything your saying, but your bias towards Federer makes me want to even it out. If Federer can't be at his 'prime level' on clay because its not his best surface, then Nadal can't be at this 'prime level' on hard or grass because they are not his best surface. Yet... Nadal has beaten Federer in slam finals on both those surfaces, Federer has never beaten Nadal on clay in a slam.

Bottom line, both greats who fully deserve everything they have achieved.

[demondayzzz]

@SamCoreJ fed has reached many more finals on the other surf than nadal, and v nadal his grass rec is 2-1 and his hc record is 0-1 for slams. that's not enough to determine anything except that nadal hasn't done his part in getting to more Fs. i don't say fed CAN"T be in his prime on clay, that rome 5 setter and glimpses here and there in the french and his 2 or 3 clay wins means he can reach a high level on clay, it's just more often than not it's an error/choke fest- therefore not his prime.

[SamCoreJ]

Its not even that Federer isn't good on clay. Federer won 25 out of 28 grand slam matches on clay. He won every match at the French Open for 4 years except when he player one player. Hes great on clay, its just that Nadal is better. You can't just ignore those matches and claim Federer wasn't in his prime. Federer also won 67 out of 70 grand slam matches around those French Open loses. He couldn't have been more in his prime.

[demondayzzz]

@SamCoreJ again, ur looking at the whole "era" while i'm looking at the individual matches on clay, which by and far, were not examples of federer playing well. his matches v nadal on clay are literally hundreds of unforced errors, backhand shanks, probably a 10% break point conversion, epic chokes,bad serving, etc. how is that his "prime" compared to a roddick beatdown at the AO or even his wins against nadal in shanghai or other matches he was untouchable?

[SamCoreJ]

You can't accept that Nadal made Federer play that way can you? You are obviously a massive Federer fan, but try to be objective. Nadal was in Federers head in those finals, and Federer couldn't handle him. I remember in I think the 2008 final, Federer looked lost. Its not because he had an off day and wasn't in his prime, its because Nadal was simply too good and Federer couldn't handle it. Tennis is not just played on the court, its also played in the head.

[demondayzzz]

@SamCoreJ i did not even try to deny that nadal had a part to play in that. all i'm saying, is that federer wasn't in his prime level of play for most of their matches. end of. credit to nadal for that or not, the fact remains the same, for whatever its worth.

Also if you think Federer didn't have an off day in that last FO final you obviously have never seen him play. That was the worst match from him i've ever seen, and that doesn't mean that nadal wasn't great as usual.

[SamCoreJ]

@demondayzzz

If player A knows how to knock player B off their game, to then take credit away from player A by saying player B didn't play their best is a contradiction.

[demondayzzz]

@SamCoreJ no one is taking credit away from anyone. If B is knocked off his game he CAN"T be at his best. no contradiction there.

[SamCoreJ]

@demondayzzz

Right. Because his best wasn't good enough.

[demondayzzz]

@SamCoreJ first of all, it's not that federer is incapable of his BEST against Nadal, he has beaten him a few times on clay and come close in Rome, where he was at his best. as for the other matches, if you think federer shanking 50 bh's, wasting dozens of breakpoints with slices into the net etc. is his BEST then i am arguing with a retard.

[SamCoreJ]

He has beaten Nadal twice on clay. Was Nadal at his best then? Do you consider that or is this just about the worship of Roger Federer? He only played like that in the French final because Nadal was another level and he couldn't own him liked he owned every other player.

Your bias towards Federer is overwhelming. Its almost like debating with someone religious.

End.

[demondayzzz]

@SamCoreJ this "discussion" was about fed's prime, not nadal's. you don't know how to stick to an argument. that's more a quality of someone religious. i've given nadal all the credit in the world, he is actually my 2nd favorite player now that agassi is gone. which is irrelevant because i was correct in my original point, federer has rarely reached his prime level against nadal on clay. THAT"S IT. i wasn't arguing about the why, the consequences, etc. the rest was all you i'm afraid.

end? end.

[SamCoreJ]

@demondayzzz

Don't know how to stick an argument? We just had a 5 setter there. I only wanted a quick knock!

[DestroyerAlexandros]

@pzujc Dude you are talking bullshit. Mats Wilander, 7-time Slam winner said that the 100% Sampras beats the 100% Federer any day of the week. BUT the 90% Federer beats the 90% Sampras and that's why Federer is so good - because he can bring that 90% more often than anybody else.

[novakmyhero]

@pzujc mate do u know shit about tennis?? nope didnt think so faggot

[Pundit2k]

@pzujc I think Nadal on this best day can beat Federer at his prime on a mediocre day. At his prime Federer on the best day is unbeatable by any player who has ever lived.

[oisashko]

@pzujc so you really put murray and henman together with sampras....hahahhahahaha, after saying that you are no longer allowed to argue about tennis

[oisashko]

@pzujc how the hell can you put murray and henman in the same sentence with sampras

[pzujc]

@oisashko jesus christ, im making a point not a comparison! how the hell can you disregard henman, murray and sampras when your no better?

[pzujc]

@oisashko Jesus Christ, i'm making a point not a comprison! How the hell can you disregard murray and sampras when your no better?

[bo0oho0o]

@pzujc Sorry but there isn't a single tennis player able to beat Roger Federer in his prime, Nadal comes closest though.

[fade2black2610]

@bo0oho0o So when Roger was playing "in his prime," he never got beaten be anybody?! Wow, I didn't know that...

[kumar01234]

@pzujc

murray leads in the federer vs murray rivalry 8-6

and sampras was the one who taught federer all about grass courts. sampras taught federer everything he knows about grass but not everything sampras knows about grass.

and what about djokovic

[kumar01234]

@pzujc

and del potro

[adronias]

Some of the comments on this video are so over-the-top retarded. Tim Henman was a very good serve volleyer, but his game had a lot of weaknesses. All of his victories against Fed came when Fed was young. He didn't really step up his game and start dominating until he was about 23. I cheered on Tim as much as anybody, but he's not in the same league as Fed, Nadal or Murray. Even he would acknowledge that.

[Henman5]

2 out of the 6 victories Henman has against Federer came after Roger won his first GS title. Also, at Wimby in 2001 Federer has just defeated Sampras in the previous round, before losing to Tim in the quarters.

[unirug]

Tim had class!

and carried this countryUK

for a good decade in Tennis ok

he was there.different times nowadays

[dmx19999994]

please dont put murray in the same league as fed and nadal

[adronias]

Here we go, another armchair donkey commentator who knows fuckall about tennis, except, Murray has never won a slam, oh gosh, so obviously nadal and fed must be out of his league... Idiot. Tennis is more than just four tournaments a year. Last year Murray won more tournaments than any other player. His stats were magnificent, particularly on return. Get a clue, you know-fuck-all.

[affenkeks]

@adronias well he certainly is of the same league as Murray... Good top 5 player, but not at all a candidate for nr.1 oder multiple GS titels...

[JordanHBKDX]

Tim is the only one who has beaten Roger for 5 straight times

[Henman5]

No, he has 4 wins in a row. Nadal is the only one who has beaten Federer for 5 straight times, but if we don't count the Federer - Henman match in Miami '02, where Tim retired because of a silly neck injury, the wins are six in a row and this is a record, yes. :)

[bragunovskoie]

Nalbandian has 5 wins in a row against roger too.

[Zozim57]

@JordanHBKDX

Nalbandian beat Federer 5 straight times as well. The first 5 encounters.

[MrMofo4eva]

believe it or not tim henman is better than federer by far he is the best ever in the game i think hahahahahaha

[ervan141]

this is Pete Sampras you now...not Roger...but anyway Roger is the best....lol:)))

[redfieldsnake]

yes he have owned federer this time because federer has start his pro career. But now who is the best player of history ?

[clivebull1]

tim henman?

[awesomerepublican]

Interesting how these short clips of videos that depict Sampras losing points come out of the woodwork AFTER the man retires and left us with a career filled with achievement that is second only to Federer.

Too little too late in terms of trying to smear the man; Sampras's legacy is already cemented in history.

[wind1357]

I actually like Tim Henman. He just relies on not using power too much.

[mrginge08]

all i got to say is....GO ON TIM !!! legend

he did not need to win anything he was a national hero

[OnlineDrummer147]

Wow. Skills Henman!

[Critchy39]

Underachiever! So, these people saying that are idiots who know naff all about tennis.

He did not hit the ball hard, his serve wasnt massive, he relied totally on these passing shots.

6 grand slams semi-finals (including one on clay! (eat your heart out murray).

He was an over achiever. stupid brits just put too much pressure on a player who was never gonna win wimby with sampras and federer about

[Henman5]

Henman had one of the best serves in his time. Serve is not only power, but placement too and Henman's serve one of the most difficult to "read". Without a good serve you can't achieve such results that he had on grass. Also, Henman has the best volleys in the history of tennis, a very good slice and flat backhand and solide forehand. I agree he should have won much more.

[TheTopspin77]

"... Henman has the best volleys in the history of tennis.." You are kidding right? Henman was a very good volleyer, but there is no way he is better than McEnroe, Edberg, Sampras, Rafter, Becker or Federer in the volleying dept.. By the way , all of the people I mentioned were great volleyers and they won grand slam titles, which Mr. Henman could never do.

[Henman5]

We are talking only about volleys, not about Grand Slam titles won. Sampras and Federer are the two best players of all time, but no way there are better volleyers than Henman! Federer is not even a natural volleyer, he's always said that he is a baseliner. Rafter and Edberg - ok, but i prefer Henman's volleys, this is just my opinion.

[TheTopspin77]

No problem. I understand what you are saying. Henman was an exceptional volleyer and you might be right about him being better at it than Federer and Sampras but I still don't think the best of all time. Laver had superb volleys but you are entitled to your opinion.

[adronias]

You're having a laugh. Sampras made a career out of serve volleying. nobody volleyed better. Federer doesn't, henman certainly didn't.

[Henman5]

Pete's serve and volley was so successful because of his unbelievable serve which is the best ever in the history of tennis. Of course he also had phenomenal volleys. but when we talk only about them and not about SERVE & volley tactic, I think Henman is a little bit better.

[SlashLesPaul321]

no, his game was his serve and volley, he was not known for his passing shots, he beat sampras at wimbledon, and in his hey day, beat federer easy, he was inside the top 10 for years, and is the best english player england have seen since fred perry.

[sattfield]

Good old Henman, the perennial underachiever.

[SUPERMEGAQUINTON]

i wouldn't say he was an unachiver i mean i think he got 4th in the world at one point. he just never won wimbledon

[THthefirst]

4th in the world, made £20m out of tennis, hardly underacheiving. Chelsea didn't win the prem last season but they're not a bad side

[quest8899]

sampras knocked henman out in 2 wimbledon semis, 98 and 99.

[facefilms87]

murray is definately henmans successor as great britians biggest prospect, i remember watching this game i hated sampras for making henman lose but sampras was a great player for his time

[jimbobjimminy]

The man is a God.

He MADE my teenage years watching tennis

[campell73]

Murray >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Henman.

[HenryDiscipline]

Heman could have won wimbledon, but he forgot to pray.

[drumdave182]

henman is the best tennis player there has ever been

[dual4aces]

ur nuts for sayng that

[sparkyinbath]

er, no. i think you might be mistaken. Possibly the dullest player thats ever been but certainly not the best.

[bdd96]

You stupid or stupid?

[ih8mcfly]

henman is probably the greatest player of all time

[doctorHOUSE]

fuck off

[ih8mcfly]

henman has the speed, power, accelaration, accuracy and stamina, deffinately one of the greatest players to ever grace this sport.

[LuMzz01]

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[imyourutube]

The simple fact is that the closest Tim Henman will ever get to the wimbledon final is commentating on it :P

[oliver12345678910908]

And last year he didn't even get through the whole two weeks!

[5scarfac3]

ahh the days wen henman wernt tht bad

[HC7680]

henman's so unpredictable, i love it :)

[mroshanali]

Henman had a classic Serve and amazing Volley!

[cartanrider]

henman's a legend, added a dimension to the game with his serve and volley and although he never won wimbledon the fever and ecstasy was incredible (was this his year? sadly it never was)

[doctorHOUSE]

henman's shit isn't even worth fertilising the wimbledon grass

he is no legend, thats a status reserved for federer, nadal, sampras, bjorn borg

[clivebull1]

long live henmania! a comeback in 2010 anyone?

[ductrung3993]

Federer played shots that's 10 times better than that frequently

[Henman5]

Yes, but tennis in the 90s was very different than now. The grass at Wimbledon was much faster, the racquets were different and it was very rare that you can see passing shots like these two, especially in a row!

[quest8899]

Nadal also hit some nice passing shots at Wimbledon.

[incredibleXMan]

Typical henman, unable to get a first serve in.

[djpuetness]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "owning" would have to mean "Winning." These may have been the two best points Henman played all match, but last time I checked, this was Wimbledon, and Sampras beat Henman every single time they played there...Henman was owned.

[riessypiecy]

Sorry to break it to you but very rarely will Tim Henman own Sampras. Don't get me wrong though, Henman is a good player.