Was Tim Henman good enough to win Wimbledon? This is what he thinks 🙌🏻

He'd have beaten Ivanisevic had it not rained, I think Goran even admitted this himself. Would Henman have beaten Rafter in the final? It's very possible.

Bit confused. Says he thinks he was good enough to win Wimbledon but there were always better players than him. By definition he wasn’t good enough then.

The man is a legend. I loved watching him at Wimbledon. I was sad for him that he never got to make it to a final but, as he said, he gave it his all.

If he was good enough he would have won, simple answer. He was not good enough.

Sorry Tim, you weren't good enough to win Wimbledon. Otherwise you would have made at least one final, which you didn't. You lost to Sampras, Ivanisevic and Hewitt, all who did win slams. You can't claim to be good enough when you lost every slam semi-final you played in.

Well he never won so technically he was never good enough to win Wimbledon 😂

a good exercise of self-promotion, Mr Henman...

He was never beating Sampras. But in 2001, if it didn’t rain he’d of beaten Ivanišević. That year it would have been Rafter in the final. Both serve/volley players. Beat him there before. Home adv he could have won that final for sure.

Unlucky for him he couldn’t play against Federer, Nadal, Djokovic 🫤

Yes - I mean, Pat Cash did it. Henman level was same. Maybe lacking killer mental instinct though

That piece of spittle dangling from his lip is distracting

They look a like more and more

Fair assessment I think. Best player each year - probably not. But he had a great shot beating Iva without the rain break. A very good player.

No. No he wasn’t

@Liamjacko

Was 2-1 up in sets to Ivanisevic in the semis and won the third set 6-0… that was the opportunity unfortunately. Still a legend!

Tiger maxed out everything he was but one Wimbledon final would have been nice.

If he was good enough to win Wimbledon then he would have won it But he failed to even make a final

I found it funny when he looked down on Dan Evans yesterday lol. You have to be in a really bad place in life to be shat on by Tim Henman of all people.

he lost to the eventual winner in all 4 semis, but he absolutely should have beaten ivanisevic and then rafter.

I agree he was a great example of a pro who absolutely maximised his talent. A real shame he never at least made a slam final. The year he lost to Goran was the year he could have won as he was the best player but got unlucky. His backhand volley was the best in the world.

Even with the advantages he got, he still wasn't good enough to win so no.

His big chance was scuppered by Alan Mills as referee. Goran owes him one.

good answer. Henman overachieved

He most definitely was. V good player. Tough era

Paper tiger tim

I didn’t think he had the extra it takes to win a slam.

In my opinion Caro he was at one point then he changed his game and went down hill. He stopped playing aggressive and believing in his shots.

Problem was the Sampras era. Never understand why Henman beating the then champion, Richard Krajicek, in 1997 seems forgotten nowadays, unbelievable at the time. Possibly 1996 was the missed opportunity.

2001 was his year. Fine margins.

If he was good enough he'd of won it. He didn't. Its not exactly rocket science.

Best federer 6x doing a lot of heavy lifting

Poor old Tim, I watched most of those semi finals. Always the nearly man!

He was, his serve wasn't.