Tim Henman won 11 ATP Tour titles, got to six grand slam semi-finals (including one in Paris) and, at his peak, reached No. 4 in the world rankings.

Yet in the words of your editorial (Oxford Mail, August 24) he "never fulfilled his potential as a star player".

I appreciate this may represent the opinion of many armchair critics who are largely ignorant of the demands of the tennis circuit, but I would suggest that amongst those who are more fully involved in the sport he is seen as someone who consistently overachieved in his career.

Being realistic, Henman never had the physique, power or game of a Sampras, Agassi or Federer, but he nevertheless became our biggest male tennis star since Fred Perry in the 1930s and is anything but the 'loser' perceived by many.

He has carried a quite ridiculous burden of national expectation, but Britain's lack of success in tennis is hardly his fault, is it?

Given that Tim helped put Oxfordshire tennis on the map I would have thought that the Oxford Mail could have been a little less grudging in its editorial tribute on his forthcoming retirement.

ALAN J. FISHER, Witney Road, Finstock