posted Sep 10, 2007

It may be so that Justine withdraws from tournaments earlier, but the fact still remains that prior to the argument about tournaments played, or are being played, it was one about Justine versus Serena that we started up... as I recall you were the one that started to get agressive and pick minor faults in what were fairly valid points that I was making. You have turned this into an argument rather than a debate as you are determined to reject any input that I put in despite them actually showing that in the original debate, that being Serena vs Justine that we had going, the fact that Justine plays more tournaments than Serena actually backs up my point that because Justine plays more than Serena, Serena would be expected to have less titles...especially considering that Justine has played 160 more matches than Serena in her career. Why you have suddenly turned this into an argument where by you are trying to compare Justine to all top 10 players is beyond me as we aren't trying to assess their legacies or lack of them...

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 10, 2007

And what is worse is when you try to argue that I have a lack of facts when I seem to recall that in virtually every one of my posts I have stated facts that are relevant to the debate. Whether you agree with my views and my take on the issue is another matter but certainly don't try and throw what are facts back in my face just to try and back up your views which are, at times, somewhat invalid to the point.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 10, 2007

Oh and please read my posts more carefully in future. You comment about Justine playing less than Serena from 1999-2002 was completely wayward of what I was talking about as I clearly stated that Justine should have won more if she was an all time great WHEN SERENA WAS OFF INJURED DURING THE 2005-2006 SEASONS. If you had read that you would realise that your point about Justine now playing 13 tournaments a year is not applicable to the discussion as Serena plays MUCH less than that and has still managed to win 2 Slams in that time despite masses of injuries.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 10, 2007

The words rubbish, insane and idiocy seem to be getting tossed around like confetti here, yet trying to compare players exactly is what deserves those comments, except maybe in the case of Federer who is so completely dominant and superior that the discussion would be totally irrelevant. But for any others, it is pointless because they are too close and there are too many unknowns and variables-no one knows for instance whether Serena would have won more if she played more. Maybe Venus might have played more and affected results-you see it's just speculation without any real facts. to back it up. What could be a reasonably fair assessment is to say that these three are the most dominant and successful of their era.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 10, 2007

Agreed. Although you can't disagree that you can, to date, compare their careers and come to a conclusion based on what has happened and not what might have had circumstances been different, or even more importantly, what might happen in the future.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 10, 2007

Serena, Venus and Justine have all been great Champions. They play fantastic tennis at times and at others can seem very ordinary. What I hope for the future is that they all play to their full potential and create a fascinating tussle at the top of the womens game which has been lacking due to Venus and Serena's lack of match-play and therefore fitness, ready to take on the bigger players.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 12, 2007

It's great to see a winner whose tennis style is so good to watch....

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 13, 2007

I stop reading the the comments above as they were not worth reading. This, however, is accurate and -rational-. Thankfully.

:::::::::::::::::
What could be a reasonably fair assessment is to say that these three are the most dominant and successful of their era.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 13, 2007

Despite the fact drivevolley9 that you were the one actually creating most of the arguments with pointless comments... slightly hypocritical I think.

add comment | complain about this comment

posted Sep 14, 2007

Hardly 'pointless'. I corrected factual errors and provided clarification in response an expressly (and apparently) poor understanding of certain players' tournament playing schedules and stated commitments. Much of what had been written contained little actual factual substance, which meant that the 'argument(s)' (as expressed) ineluctably lacked any weight or credibility. It does no-one any favour to discuss/write on a topic for which they have a less than an adequate comprehension.

And still the contributor continues....

And let's be clear here; the thread comprised constructive and informative debate until a certain contributor began making disparaging and personalised comment, attempting to bully others into accepting his own particular view.

Such behaviour would not be totally unacceptable in a university debating situation; i'm not sure why it is (seemingly) acceptable here.

add comment | complain about this comment