Wiggins...
Comments
-
sampras38 wrote:Wheelspinner wrote:Wiggins & TDF = Tim Henman & Wimbledon. (Or maybe Andy Murray in current day?)
Arguably has the talent to do it, always good to watch, but never quite gets the job done.
And the thing is with Heman, and to some extent Murray, neither player ever proclaimed to be the next Wimbledon Champion. The media and pundits were/are the ones making all the promises (particularly in Murray's case). It used to frustrate the hell out of me when people used to slate Henman, and most of the comments came from people who don't really understand the sport. The guy was by far our most successful player so far, with regular semi final appearences in slams (one year he reached the semis of all 4). Unfortunately he was in an era with the likes of Sampras, Goran, hewitt etc, and he usually went out in the latter stages to one of those guys. Hardly an under-achiever and not everyone can win a slam. And with Murray he will have to contend with Nadal and Federer, who in slam's are probably 2 of the all time best ever.
That wasn't aimed at you by the way, just generally.
Henman often lost to the eventual winner. Not his fault that the LTA could not produce anyone anywhere near as good so all hopes rested on him. His biggest chance was in 2001 but they went off just as he was getting into his stride. Ok so luck shouldnt come into it but in a close match you want to capitalise on your advantage as much as possible and he had one taken away.0 -
mroli wrote:Harsh on Murray too - Henman was good, but probably overachieved. Murray has the capability of beating the best players even when they are having good days. He has reached no 2 in the World, has reached 2 different Grand Slam finals and is still very young. To call him an underachiever is fricking harsh - he has already won many more Masters events than Henman and only suffers from the fact he isn't as consistent (or consistently excellent) as Nadal and Federer.
£1million is nothing for Sky to spend on Wiggo, if they are spending that amount of money which I doubt, He is the Uk's no1 GT rider and that's what Sky wanted.
I also think if Murray had Henman's temperement he'd be an even better player, whereas at the moment he's young with perhaps a little still to learn about the mental side of the game. Henman also didn't really start achieving until he was older than Murray, and hopefully Murray will end up winning a Slam at some point. Great in best of 3's and Master's but not quite ruthless enough to do it on the bigger stages where the likes of Nadal and Federer raise their games.0 -
Cumulonimbus wrote:sampras38 wrote:Wheelspinner wrote:Wiggins & TDF = Tim Henman & Wimbledon. (Or maybe Andy Murray in current day?)
Arguably has the talent to do it, always good to watch, but never quite gets the job done.
And the thing is with Heman, and to some extent Murray, neither player ever proclaimed to be the next Wimbledon Champion. The media and pundits were/are the ones making all the promises (particularly in Murray's case). It used to frustrate the hell out of me when people used to slate Henman, and most of the comments came from people who don't really understand the sport. The guy was by far our most successful player so far, with regular semi final appearences in slams (one year he reached the semis of all 4). Unfortunately he was in an era with the likes of Sampras, Goran, hewitt etc, and he usually went out in the latter stages to one of those guys. Hardly an under-achiever and not everyone can win a slam. And with Murray he will have to contend with Nadal and Federer, who in slam's are probably 2 of the all time best ever.
That wasn't aimed at you by the way, just generally.
Henman often lost to the eventual winner. Not his fault that the LTA could not produce anyone anywhere near as good so all hopes rested on him. His biggest chance was in 2001 but they went off just as he was getting into his stride. Ok so luck shouldnt come into it but in a close match you want to capitalise on your advantage as much as possible and he had one taken away.
Agreed on the 2001 chance and I remember watching the Goran match when they had the delays. It was my stag weekend and if it wasn't for the rain break he probably would have beaten Goran.0 -
Let's face it Henman was turd in all the slams with the exception of wimbledon, where his now obsolete serve and volley style was still just about effective on a grass court and practiced by few.
Yes he was our best player for a long time but the media hype that would whip up for 2 weeks a year, when middle england woke up and became big tennis fans (when they could not give a rats arse the rest of the year), was always ridiculous.
The same isnt quite true for wiggo, but you can bet that in the coming season he will be wheeled out repeatedly in front of the sky news cameras and be asked about his chances of winning the TDF. Like henman was, he is the best we have (in GC terms) at the moment and when the summer race comes along you can guarantee expectation will not equal the reality.0 -
Re-sign for Wigan lad....................perhaps then you'll get to the end of the pier......................0
-
If people (or someone) thinks Wiggins is in RM's league then please have a read of RM's palmares..............then tell me again.
Oh do me a favour.................
Mind you I used that Kellogs Start stuff and all it gave me was wind......................thanks Robert...........0 -
Let's face it Henman was turd
I agree.0 -
itisaboutthebike wrote:Let's face it Henman was turd
I agree.
No, he definitely wasn't. To be in the top ten for the best part of a decade in sport as global and competitive as tennis, you have to be very, very good.Twitter: @RichN950 -
RichN95 wrote:itisaboutthebike wrote:Let's face it Henman was turd
I agree.
No, he definitely wasn't. To be in the top ten for the best part of a decade in sport as global and competitive as tennis, you have to be very, very good.
Agreed, saying Henman was rubbish is a bit like saying Tyler Farrar is rubbish, just because he can't beat Cav."I have a lovely photo of a Camargue horse but will not post it now" (Frenchfighter - July 2013)0 -
RichN95 wrote:itisaboutthebike wrote:Let's face it Henman was turd
I agree.
No, he definitely wasn't. To be in the top ten for the best part of a decade in sport as global and competitive as tennis, you have to be very, very good.
No, to be in the top 10 in tennis you need to play a lot of smaller tournaments and rack up the ranking points - look at the position in the women's game where Serena Williams can win all the GS titles she likes but still not be ranked Number 1 because another player is playing every tournament she can. Not saying you don't have to be good to get to the top in any sport but that the ranking system doesn't necessarily reflect true ability.
As for Wiggins, likeable bloke but a bit disappointed he's sold out what made him likeable - the partying, good humour, decent results and outspokenness - for a bit of Lance worship and a fat contract. I'm sure many would say that's not a bad deal but I am surprised that, after his comments about Vino & Ricco he's become so Lancelicky. And crediting Armstrong with being responsible for cyclists getting fact pay cheques ignores a) the contribution of Lemond to getting cyclists recognised as 'worthy' sportsmen and b) the way Vaughters helped him to be in a position to get a fat contract. The fact that the latter 2 are in the forefront of the 'clean' camp is just coincidence I'm sure
Just hope the real worth of some of the real UK GT prospects starts to be recognised - after all, Wiggins is no spring chicken 0 -
EPC06 wrote:Let's face it Henman was turd in all the slams with the exception of wimbledon, where his now obsolete serve and volley style was still just about effective on a grass court and practiced by few.
Yes he was our best player for a long time but the media hype that would whip up for 2 weeks a year, when middle england woke up and became big tennis fans (when they could not give a rats ars* the rest of the year), was always ridiculous.
The same isnt quite true for wiggo, but you can bet that in the coming season he will be wheeled out repeatedly in front of the sky news cameras and be asked about his chances of winning the TDF. Like henman was, he is the best we have (in GC terms) at the moment and when the summer race comes along you can guarantee expectation will not equal the reality.
Do you watch much tennis?
I don't think you can refer to Henman.s performances at Wimbledon as Turd.0 -
micron wrote:RichN95 wrote:itisaboutthebike wrote:Let's face it Henman was turd
I agree.
No, he definitely wasn't. To be in the top ten for the best part of a decade in sport as global and competitive as tennis, you have to be very, very good.
No, to be in the top 10 in tennis you need to play a lot of smaller tournaments and rack up the ranking points - look at the position in the women's game where Serena Williams can win all the GS titles she likes but still not be ranked Number 1 because another player is playing every tournament she can. Not saying you don't have to be good to get to the top in any sport but that the ranking system doesn't necessarily reflect true ability.
As for Wiggins, likeable bloke but a bit disappointed he's sold out what made him likeable - the partying, good humour, decent results and outspokenness - for a bit of Lance worship and a fat contract. I'm sure many would say that's not a bad deal but I am surprised that, after his comments about Vino & Ricco he's become so Lancelicky. And crediting Armstrong with being responsible for cyclists getting fact pay cheques ignores a) the contribution of Lemond to getting cyclists recognised as 'worthy' sportsmen and b) the way Vaughters helped him to be in a position to get a fat contract. The fact that the latter 2 are in the forefront of the 'clean' camp is just coincidence I'm sure
Just hope the real worth of some of the real UK GT prospects starts to be recognised - after all, Wiggins is no spring chicken
Someone who is not world class does not get to semi finals of 4 Slams on different surfaces.0 -
sampras38 wrote:micron wrote:RichN95 wrote:itisaboutthebike wrote:Let's face it Henman was turd
I agree.
No, he definitely wasn't. To be in the top ten for the best part of a decade in sport as global and competitive as tennis, you have to be very, very good.
No, to be in the top 10 in tennis you need to play a lot of smaller tournaments and rack up the ranking points - look at the position in the women's game where Serena Williams can win all the GS titles she likes but still not be ranked Number 1 because another player is playing every tournament she can. Not saying you don't have to be good to get to the top in any sport but that the ranking system doesn't necessarily reflect true ability.
As for Wiggins, likeable bloke but a bit disappointed he's sold out what made him likeable - the partying, good humour, decent results and outspokenness - for a bit of Lance worship and a fat contract. I'm sure many would say that's not a bad deal but I am surprised that, after his comments about Vino & Ricco he's become so Lancelicky. And crediting Armstrong with being responsible for cyclists getting fact pay cheques ignores a) the contribution of Lemond to getting cyclists recognised as 'worthy' sportsmen and b) the way Vaughters helped him to be in a position to get a fat contract. The fact that the latter 2 are in the forefront of the 'clean' camp is just coincidence I'm sure
Just hope the real worth of some of the real UK GT prospects starts to be recognised - after all, Wiggins is no spring chicken
Someone who is not world class does not get to semi finals of 4 Slams on different surfaces.
Agreed, although Tiger Tim never got to the SF in Australia - best result was 4th Round.0 -
pedro118118 wrote:sampras38 wrote:micron wrote:RichN95 wrote:itisaboutthebike wrote:Let's face it Henman was turd
I agree.
No, he definitely wasn't. To be in the top ten for the best part of a decade in sport as global and competitive as tennis, you have to be very, very good.
No, to be in the top 10 in tennis you need to play a lot of smaller tournaments and rack up the ranking points - look at the position in the women's game where Serena Williams can win all the GS titles she likes but still not be ranked Number 1 because another player is playing every tournament she can. Not saying you don't have to be good to get to the top in any sport but that the ranking system doesn't necessarily reflect true ability.
As for Wiggins, likeable bloke but a bit disappointed he's sold out what made him likeable - the partying, good humour, decent results and outspokenness - for a bit of Lance worship and a fat contract. I'm sure many would say that's not a bad deal but I am surprised that, after his comments about Vino & Ricco he's become so Lancelicky. And crediting Armstrong with being responsible for cyclists getting fact pay cheques ignores a) the contribution of Lemond to getting cyclists recognised as 'worthy' sportsmen and b) the way Vaughters helped him to be in a position to get a fat contract. The fact that the latter 2 are in the forefront of the 'clean' camp is just coincidence I'm sure
Just hope the real worth of some of the real UK GT prospects starts to be recognised - after all, Wiggins is no spring chicken
Someone who is not world class does not get to semi finals of 4 Slams on different surfaces.
Agreed, although Tiger Tim never got to the SF in Australia - best result was 4th Round.
OK, minor slip up, but in case anyone else thinks he was crap they should read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Henman0 -
It's that great British quirk though isn't it? If you are one of the best in the world but don't win the only event the ignorant majority have actually heard of then you are 'crap'. Frank Bruno had the mick taken out of him for years and yet was one of the very best heavyweight boxers and probably better than the current crop, Tim Henman was 'crap' despite being in the worlds top 4 and winning millions in prize money, Monty was a 'crap' golfer as he didn't win a major, people even had digs at Paula Radcliffe at the Athens Olympics. On the other hand the likes of Eddie the Eagle become public heroes, possibly justifiably as anyone with the nerve to do what he did has my admiration, because they are genuinely nowhere near the best in their sport but are "plucky Brits". Of course, the worst thing you can possibly be as a British sportsperson is the best in the world with a ruthless winning personality and no 'charisma' as you will then be hated!0
-
Pross wrote:It's that great British quirk though isn't it? If you are one of the best in the world but don't win the only event the ignorant majority have actually heard of then you are 'crap'.
Oh come on Tim didn't win anything of note or get to a final
Case closed'Do not compare your bike to others, for always there will be greater and lesser bikes'0 -
josame wrote:Pross wrote:It's that great British quirk though isn't it? If you are one of the best in the world but don't win the only event the ignorant majority have actually heard of then you are 'crap'.
Oh come on Tim didn't win anything of note or get to a final
Case closed
I wish I was that bad at tennis! I suspect his bank account is more healthy than mine and ultimately that is the purpose of professional sport - he probably couldn't care less what some arm chair critic who has never achieve anything of note in sport (or their field of work) thinks.0 -
anyone in the top 10 in the world at anything is world class surely"Unfortunately these days a lot of people don’t understand the real quality of a bike" Ernesto Colnago0
-
gsk82 wrote:anyone in the top 10 in the world at anything is world class surely
+1 not many people make it to the top 1000 even in their chosen profession or hobby. It does annoy me when someone spends a large part of their sporting life in the top 5 or 10 and gets classed as "crap" because they haven't won one of the "big" events.0 -
Pross wrote:It's that great British quirk though isn't it? If you are one of the best in the world but don't win the only event the ignorant majority have actually heard of then you are 'crap'. Frank Bruno had the mick taken out of him for years and yet was one of the very best heavyweight boxers and probably better than the current crop, Tim Henman was 'crap' despite being in the worlds top 4 and winning millions in prize money, Monty was a 'crap' golfer as he didn't win a major, people even had digs at Paula Radcliffe at the Athens Olympics. On the other hand the likes of Eddie the Eagle become public heroes, possibly justifiably as anyone with the nerve to do what he did has my admiration, because they are genuinely nowhere near the best in their sport but are "plucky Brits". Of course, the worst thing you can possibly be as a British sportsperson is the best in the world with a ruthless winning personality and no 'charisma' as you will then be hated!
Bang on..0 -
josame wrote:Pross wrote:It's that great British quirk though isn't it? If you are one of the best in the world but don't win the only event the ignorant majority have actually heard of then you are 'crap'.
Oh come on Tim didn't win anything of note or get to a final
Case closed
Did you know that outside of the Slams he holds a head to head lead over Federer?
And don't tell me Fed wasn't playing well because it wasn't a Slam.0 -
Lordy, I'd better send Tim Henman an apology, for stirring up so much ill-will.
FWIW, the comparison was not intended to be dismissive of the talents of either Henman OR Wiggins. They are both brilliant athletes, but winning Wimbledon, or any other Slam, was just slightly beyond Tim's grasp, and the TdF (or any GT) is, IMHO, beyond Wiggins. I'll happily watch him try and prove me wrong any day, (although as an Australian I'd prefer to see Evans get there first!) I just don't believe he can win a Grand Tour.
In tennis, Andy Murray is a different story. If he doesn't win a Grand Slam or three, it will be a serious waste of talent, worthy of the term "major choker". Spare me the he's still young crap too. He's 24. Nadal is 25 and has 9 Slams, plus a few other trinkets in the cupboard. Federer had 6 Slams before he turned 25. Even Djokovic who is 23, won a Slam 2 years ago. Hewitt won both his Slams before he was 22, and he surely doesn't have the raw talent of Murray. The top pros these days don't last much beyond their late 20s, if that, in terms of being competitive, so Murray had better get a move on. Hell, Federer is not even 30 yet, and people think he's OLD...Open One+ BMC TE29 Seven 622SL On One Scandal Cervelo RS0 -
Pross wrote:gsk82 wrote:anyone in the top 10 in the world at anything is world class surely
+1 not many people make it to the top 1000 even in their chosen profession or hobby. It does annoy me when someone spends a large part of their sporting life in the top 5 or 10 and gets classed as "crap" because they haven't won one of the "big" events.
Yep, spot on. It was really annoying the criticism that Henman used to get, Henman made the very best of his talent, particularly at Wimbledon. His achievements there are not to be sniffed at with the many semis, often losing to Sampras. 2001 was the one year he ought to have got to the final. In his later years Wimbledon seemed to be less serve & volley based.
He was just short of being the very best and nailing slam, but world class he certainly was. Murray though is that level above, top 4 for 3 years now, his just his luck that he's playing at the time of Nadal & Federer, two of the very best players ever. He's still got opportunities to win Slam, US & Aussie Open will remain his better chances.
There's no comparison between Wiggins as a road stage rider with either Henman or Murray. Wiggins has had one decent result, no more, no less.0 -
Wheelspinner wrote:Lordy, I'd better send Tim Henman an apology, for stirring up so much ill-will.
FWIW, the comparison was not intended to be dismissive of the talents of either Henman OR Wiggins. They are both brilliant athletes, but winning Wimbledon, or any other Slam, was just slightly beyond Tim's grasp, and the TdF (or any GT) is, IMHO, beyond Wiggins. I'll happily watch him try and prove me wrong any day, (although as an Australian I'd prefer to see Evans get there first!) I just don't believe he can win a Grand Tour.
In tennis, Andy Murray is a different story. If he doesn't win a Grand Slam or three, it will be a serious waste of talent, worthy of the term "major choker". Spare me the he's still young crap too. He's 24. Nadal is 25 and has 9 Slams, plus a few other trinkets in the cupboard. Federer had 6 Slams before he turned 25. Even Djokovic who is 23, won a Slam 2 years ago. Hewitt won both his Slams before he was 22, and he surely doesn't have the raw talent of Murray. The top pros these days don't last much beyond their late 20s, if that, in terms of being competitive, so Murray had better get a move on. Hell, Federer is not even 30 yet, and people think he's OLD...
I personally think Murray missed his chance when he lost to Fed in the US Open Final. He's an awesome talent but you need more than that to win a Slam. A strong head, a good draw and possibly even some luck. For me, Murray isn't strong enough mentally to win a Slam. He plays well for periods but he doesn't seem ruthless enough to me. Fed probably hasn't got that much left but you still have Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro (when he gets back to full fitness).0 -
Wheelspinner wrote:Lordy, I'd better send Tim Henman an apology, for stirring up so much ill-will.
FWIW, the comparison was not intended to be dismissive of the talents of either Henman OR Wiggins. They are both brilliant athletes, but winning Wimbledon, or any other Slam, was just slightly beyond Tim's grasp, and the TdF (or any GT) is, IMHO, beyond Wiggins. I'll happily watch him try and prove me wrong any day, (although as an Australian I'd prefer to see Evans get there first!) I just don't believe he can win a Grand Tour.
In tennis, Andy Murray is a different story. If he doesn't win a Grand Slam or three, it will be a serious waste of talent, worthy of the term "major choker". Spare me the he's still young crap too. He's 24. Nadal is 25 and has 9 Slams, plus a few other trinkets in the cupboard. Federer had 6 Slams before he turned 25. Even Djokovic who is 23, won a Slam 2 years ago. Hewitt won both his Slams before he was 22, and he surely doesn't have the raw talent of Murray. The top pros these days don't last much beyond their late 20s, if that, in terms of being competitive, so Murray had better get a move on. Hell, Federer is not even 30 yet, and people think he's OLD...
Not sure Nadal is absolutely the best counter-example to cite here.___________________
Strava is not Zen.0 -
Someone remind me.... what was this post about? :shock: :shock:0
