Not for Henman the rant and rave of a John McEnroe, or even an Andy Murray, but instead controlled anger as he summoned supervisor Thomas Karlberg to the court and asked just why haphazard officiating was ruining his chances.
By the time some form of explanation was offered, it was too late. But the abiding memory after being forced to accept the 6-3 3-6 6-2 defeat, a loss that will quite possibly haunt him for eight days before hitting his first ball at Wimbledon, is of the line-judge who first called a crucial forehand long and then, berated by a lusty Australian appeal, excruciatingly changed his mind.
Umpire Manuel Messina felt no compunction to overrule the dubious decision although Hawkeye technology, being used by BBC television, proved the ball had indeed touched the baseline and was therefore good. In a match lasting one and three-quarter hours, how important is just one point? In this case paramount, as Henman was a service break to the good in the final set but desperately trying to claw back the last of three break points.
And , though the professional in Henman makes him loathe to admit it, the line-judge’s indecision, combined with his own inability to regroup after suffering such an unjust blow, ultimately resulted in his demise. “The line calling was appalling today. There were probably seven or eight calls that were just mistakes. You lose all confidence,” he said. “When it comes on a break point like that, it obviously does have an impact. I wouldn’t say I then dealt with it very well because I think it frustrated me. He (Hewitt) started to turn the match around, and it ran away quickly.”
In the final Hewitt meets James Blake, who beat Andy Roddick 7-5 6-4. He will be no less verbal in his questioning of decisions than he was against Henman but regardless of his loud appeal at the line-judge, Hewitt insisted: “It was obviously pretty close. I thought it was as much out as in.”
Advertisement
Naturally the arguments will centre once more on whether Hawkeye technology, to largely eradicate such issues, should be adopted by the ATP. It is currently an individual matter for specific tournaments to legitimise the cost. Last December the Champion’s Tour Masters tournament at the Royal Albert Hall used a named sponsor, while at March’s Nasdaq 100 Open in Miami, the players insisted the adoption of the system was an overriding success.
Ironically, the Stella Artois Championships had a visit from a Hawkeye representative on Friday to investigate the logistics of using technology in future years. The major problem is the erection of the two giant screens required at either end of the court, but tournament official Jolyon Armstrong admitted: “We are very interested in the possibilities and look at the system with great enthusiasm, although it would be wrong to say what happened today has advanced the cause.”
Henman is in no doubt what should be done. He repeatedly looked up to commentators Chris Bailey and John Lloyd to learn, by way of a thumbs up or down, whether the dubious calls were correct or errant. When he demanded the presence of supervisor Karlberg he cited his own personal signaling system. “What can you do?” asked Henman of the respected veteran Swedish official. “Are you saying those two guys up there are lying?” Karlberg revealed he could have changed the line-judges if he saw fit. “It was a tough match with lots of pressure,” said the Swede. “The line-calling has been good all week and there was no reason for me to do anything. I can’t judge the line-calls from where I was sitting and I didn’t get a call from the umpire saying he was uncomfortable. Calls can go against you.”
Realising he could do no more than placate the Englishman, Karlberg could implore him to carry on with the match. Without arguing too much longer, Henman returned to the court and lost the last six games of the match, meaning that in three confrontations with Hewitt on the lawn of Baron’s Court, he has yet to win.
Losing to a player who today is bidding for a fourth Stella Artois title is not something that will niggle at Henman’s inner psyche, but the string of decisions that went against him is different and players demand expertise from umpires and officials. He readily absolved Hewitt of any suggestion of influencing the decision of the line-judge by his loud appeal but said: “I’m very much in favour of adopting Hawkeye. It’s a great tool for the fans as well. It’s good for their involvement, and I think they enjoy watching it. But when you’re in a match like this, where there are so many mistakes, it’s obviously going to clear up the vast majority of the issues.”
Advertisement
Only three months had elapsed since Henman finally ended his career-long losing steak against Hewitt with the 7-6 6-3 win in Miami. Mindful of the tactics he employed on that day, restraint was clearly his initial game plan. But while his intelligent approach had taken him past a clearly ageing Andre Agassi as well as Ramon Delgado, Nicolas Mahut and Dmitry Tursunov, a little more invention and aggression was needed to overcome Hewitt.
Hewitt still had the ability to pass at will whenever Henman ventured off the baseline but after losing his first set of the tournament, the Englishman became more adventurous. As his confidence grew, the number of points won by serve and volley mounted and good fortune with a net cord brought the break of serve that effectively squared the match.
The most exemplary Henman game of the week gave him an immediate break at the beginning of the third with a sublime backhand pass followed by a daring stop volley, a precise lob and a crashing forehand return. It was the sort of stuff that seemingly legitimised Henman’s claims that the good times were soon to return but two games later the line judge intervened. oAndy Murray, beaten in the first round of the Stella Artois Championships, has been awarded a wild card entry into next week’s Red Letter Days Open in Nottingham and faces Dmitry Tursunov in the first round.