Peter Corrigan: Henman hampered by his own courtiers

When Henmania was unplugged from the mains on Friday evening I felt, for the first time, a tingle of regret. Normally, when this annual fan-fest comes to an end, I heave a sigh of relief. Much as I love all manifestations of sporting enthusiasm I am not overwhelmed by demonstrations of support comprising mainly of matronly sighs and girlish squeals.

This year, however, I felt distinctly upset for the two components of this hysteria-based phenomenon. Tim Henman deserves praise for his gutsily determined, if occasionally spluttering, progress to his fourth semi-final in five years. And his colourful and noisily loyal supporters deserve far more than the extraordinary accusations made against them of a jingoistic lack of sportsmanship.

If Henman achieved nothing else at Wimbledon he did more than enough to jettison the burden of cheap jibes that have seen him variously described in terms ranging from a "bottler" to a "big girl's blouse". Even yesterday a tabloid that knows all about under-performing labelled him "Wet, Wet, Wet".

At a tournament in which big names have been mercilessly assassinated by a squad of comparatively unknown hitmen, it has been a struggle for anyone to stay alive. Henman provided many alarms and excursions but even reaching the semi-final was an achievement.

Can you imagine what the viewing figures and the general interest in Wimbledon would have been if he and Greg Rusedski had met the early fate of Pete Sampras and Andre Agassi? Henman's defeat by Lleyton Hewitt had the strong whiff of annihilation about it but never once did you sense that he was giving up the fight. He was up against a superior force and although he played his best tennis of the tournament even that wasn't good enough.

But, if he suffered a severe shortage of justifiable complaints about the outcome, there is certainly good reason for him to question the decision by the All England Club to make the Wimbledon courts slower this year. The club have not admitted this but experts believe that they have taken deliberate steps to combat the serve- and-volleyers by sapping the speed out of the grass surfaces. How they have achieved this is not clear but it is also alleged that they have added to the plot by doctoring the ball so that it fluffs up after two or three games and doesn't have the same zip.

Martina Navratilova has observed that court conditions have changed so that advantage has move from from the serve-and-volleyers to the baseliners. Other players have agreed that a definite change has taken place which accounts for the reduction in the number of aces in this year's tournament.

Many in the game would welcome this switch of emphasis. Slowing down the pace of the ball means more rallies and a wider range of shots. It makes for more exciting tennis but why the All England Club should choose this year to make the change when our best candidate to win the men's single title since 1936 is a serve-and-volleyer is another query against the savvy of this odd body.

Henman, to whom I have warmed considerably over the past two weeks, has already confirmed with undue politeness that "the courts are not as fast, to say the least". He may not have subdued Hewitt whatever the state of the surface but it does seem that he was handicapped by his own side.

Meanwhile, Henman's much-maligned supporters offered Hewitt his full ration of acclaim as the victor while ensuring that Henman walked out of the tournament accompanied by their final voicing of loyalty. Centre Court crowds have never been my favourite sporting audience. Too many of them are corporate guests who leave their seats unoccupied while they dally in the hospitality marquees and there is a significant representation of those who are there more for the occasion than the tennis.

How can anyone complain, therefore, about people of all ages prepared to dress up, however ridiculously, queue up and cough up a load of money in order to offer wholehearted support to their favourites?

You cannot take Wimbledon out of the context of this summer. We have had the Queen's Jubilee, which brought a large and genuine expression of national pride. We have had the World Cup, which produced marvellous crowd scenes especially from South Korea. England's progress was followed avidly in homes, offices, factories and pubs. I cannot recall anyone complaining that threequarters of the nation were a touch too biased towards their own country.

And yet, Henman's fans at Wimbledon have been accused of an intolerable level of xenophobia. One of the most remarkable opinions I heard on this subject was when the veteran actor Christopher Lee, late of the Hammer House of Horror, was interviewed by Radio 5 Live. After confessing that it was the first time in 25 years he had been to Wimbledon, Lee launched a tirade against what he described as the despicable practice of cheering when Henman's opponent lost a point.

Without pausing to consider the contribution Henman might have made to his opponent's miss and that his fans are entitled to celebrate the acquisition of a point, Lee went on to offer this as further evidence of the decline of this once great country. Presumably, Lee was present as a guest occupying one of the privileged seats they always seem to have spare for minor celebrities and while he is entitled to air his views he may not be in the best position to criticise those who've been queueing all night in the rain and cold for their right to be present.

I suppose this world of difference between those enjoying the luxury of being able to pop out between sets for a glass of champagne and a cucumber sandwich with the crusts cut off and those who have to fight and grovel for their place is all part of the Wimbledon tradition. It is also part of the old order Lee pines for.

Might the Wimbledon underclass be better catered for in future? I'm sure they would appreciate improved overnight queueing facilities, with better stewarding to keep out queue-crashers. As for Henman, I am sure he'll be back with a few new ideas. My only criticism of his contribution this year is that he is not cut out for all this fist-clenching and face-contorting. If you are not a nasty bit of work at heart it is not something you can fake.

Sometimes, a cold-eyed imperturbability is much more effective and menacing. He should adopt the inscrutability of his father who, on the numerous occasions the camera was turned to him, looked like he'd been dragged along to see his son appear in the school's production of Hamlet.

Sky's new £95m deal with the Football League to show over 300 live matches during the next three seasons has been greeted with relief by most hard-pressed clubs but denounced as insufficient by others.

I suggest the disgruntled should not compare it with the £189.5m they were diddled out of by ITV Digital. If that ill-fated deal had not taken place the new one would have seemed excellent.

Not for one moment do I suggest that the League should stop chasing the owners of ITV Digital through the courts to recover some of the money they have been immorally deprived of, but they should take a more positive approach to the future.

Moreover, they should view the exposure they are to receive on Sky not as just a revenue resource but an opportunity to add some new zest and appeal to their competition. Their present League programmes are too long and throw up too many meaningless matches. Splitting the season into two and creating regional divisions for the first half with the leading clubs moving up to compete on a national basis the second half would generate more interest and offer new sponsorship possibilities.

I have such a plan I first suggested 25 years ago. I must see if I can find it.