Alix Ramsey's view:
Full article here:
http://sport.scotsman.com/tennis.cfm?id=296562006

Excerpt:

AS THE clock ticks past midnight and today moves into tomorrow, the new world rankings will be spat out from a computer in Florida. They will show no earth-shattering change - Roger Federer will still be the best in the world by some considerable margin - but a small shift in the earth's orbit will have been registered.

For the first time since 1999, the sainted Timothy Henry Henman will no longer be the best player in the land and, in his place, will stand A. Murray, of Dunblane, Scotland. While neither man wishes to make too big a song and dance about it, the moment is worth noting. To quote Bob Dylan, "the order is rapidly changing".

When Murray ended last year ranked 64 in the world, the sages advised a year of consolidation. When Murray stumbled out of the Australian Open in the first round, the same sages warned that this could be a difficult year for the young Scot. But, just two months into the new season, Murray has won his first title and has raced past Henman as Britain's best.

Such a lofty position should earn him a few extra quid on his endorsement contracts and guarantee him domestic bragging rights. But such is the respect between Britain's top three men that none of them is too bothered by who ranks as top dog. Murray only had to go one round further than Henman last week to take over at the top. When Henman lost to Murray's mate, Novak Djokovic, in the second round in Rotterdam, his days were numbered. When Murray battled past Rik De Voest in three sets in Memphis, the No.1 spot was his.

Even though he went on to lose to Robin Soderling in the quarter finals 6-1, 6-4 on Friday, felled at last by tiredness, he was assured of pride of place in the home pecking order. So what did that mean to Murray as he establishes himself as one of the main players on the tour?

"It won't change me as a person," was Murray's swift and simple response. "If you're No.1 in America then that's a huge achievement because you've got ten guys in the top 100. Or No.1 in Spain like Nadal because they've got so many good players. But in Britain, when there's only three or four guys who are near the top, it's not really that huge an achievement. So obviously I'd much rather get into the top ten. And if I was ranked ten and Tim was ranked two and Greg was four, I'd much rather be ranked like that than all of us be around 40 to 50.

"For me, anyway, Tim is still the best player in Britain. He's not had the best luck with his back and he's played pretty well when he's been feeling fit. If he can start playing well in Miami and Indian Wells and get a bit of momentum going, and play well round about Wimbledon time, I think he can still get back into the top 20. I don't think it's going to change our relationship with each other."

Only Greg Rusedski seemed ready to bust a gut to try and claim the British No.1 ranking at the end of last year, hauling himself off to Challenger events in the Ukraine in an attempt to bank a couple more ranking points. For Rusedski, though, there was more at stake than just a personal rivalry with Henman. He simply wanted to prove, after years spent battling career-threatening injuries and then a career-threatening drugs charge, that he was still here and he could still do it.

Henman, bad back and all, is not prepared to throw in the towel just yet, either. Reclaiming his position from Murray is the least of his worries at the moment - he, like Rusedski before him, wants to prove that he is not finished yet. According to Murray, that can only be good for all of them.

"It might be good for British tennis to have three guys who are around the same ranking," Murray said, "instead of having one, like Tim, at top ten, then Greg at 30 or 40 and then other guys outside the top 100. If we can all push each other together, I think it could be good for British tennis."