Firstly that is not my opinion. That is the clear obvious mass opinion. I didn't even state my opinion.
The problem with your arguments is they lack all objection. You don't debate using both sides. You just take the side you want and accept it, and the side you don't want is automatically rubbish. Davenport, Cronin whoever they are all trolls. Wilander supports your argument so he must be correct, yet I go elsewhere and people will me Wilander is a terrible journalist, so it's just opinion depending on what you want to believe. It also weakens your arguments when you don't actually address say Davenport's points and instead just launch personal attacks which are irrelevant to the issue (eg. calling someone autistic is highly offensive, and not really something to be joked about).
Your points that go into deep technical analysis are mostly correct. It takes time to repair the damage, probably everyone will agree on that, but why did she allow her game to become so damaged in the first place. It's impossible to really judge if what she is doing right now is correct, we don't have the hindsight of 18 months time. But it is clear mistakes have taken place back when she was at the top of the game, it's those mistakes that have created the problems she has now. How many players have ever peaked, slumped for multiple years, then got back to where they were at their peak without being injured or retiring. The conclusion to take from that is it is mental as opposed to necessarily a physical reason for not being able to compete at the level you were before.
This point "Along with the prejudiced opinions of what qualifies success out of the conversation?". Out of interest are you saying then that you classify how Caroline is doing right now is success?
There is nothing offensive about being 'autistic'. Nor am i joking... We are nearly all of that condition to a degree, and it is just degrees of, that qualify as one as 'clinically diagnosable' or not. Further It is perfectly valid to describe the symptomatic condition of an organasation or body with easily comunicable metaphores.
No Wilander does not support my argument. Wilander explained the process of developement in a neutral and objective manner. He suggested that the allowed internationals were the place to 'experiment' and loose rather than bring changes online at important events in the manner that Caroline did (and not within discussion about any particlar player). He also highlighted the pitfalls of actually switching raquets rather than painting your own (something a little dificult to do if one is square and ther other round).
No, Cronin does not have an equally valid opinion, he relinquished that when he persisted with a clear bias and prefference toward a certain playing style (and player) foregoing objectivity.
No, Davenport doese not have a valid opinion, she relinquished that in the same manner as Cronin as a player, and has obvious malice. Further it is my contention that she is soundbighting to suit her employers, and target audiences demands.
Perhaps these 'others' like to hear there favorites talked up?
Re the technical chnages. Allow to decline? It's rarely intentional. You strive to improve and sometimes it backfires. You play on at a disadvantage fullfilling your obligations, You move on. You strive to improve. At no point in the process is there a need or justification for blame.
I find our use of the word 'slumped' rather disingenuous. She has like every player at the top lost some matches, some to rank out siders, who hasn't? If your form elludes you you go on, you strive to rebuild it. Sometimes its a mental issue (striker not scoring), other times there is a technical basis to the drop in form. Sometimes a mix of both with oposition tactics thrown in too. You move on. You strive to improve.
Do I think Caroline is a success? Imho, yes, a huge success... She remains at the top of her profession competeing in all the elite events. Do I think she can do better? Yes. I think she will allways need to play at 110% to beat some of the other players on their best form with her gamestyle, but I think she potential to improve both technically and tactically, and become a wiser, more shrewd, and entertaining player to follow. I only started following her (I was a wimbledon regular in the days of borg and Wade, but lost all love of tennis with the rise of power tennis and two point rallies) because she was a home girl and has allways pleasured us with her growth and many transformations. Untimately she has more than exceeded my origional expectations, and as a fan I'm happy to support any choices she makes. She is a fighter and an overachiever, but Nobody has the right to expect more from somebody than they themselves have achieved. She is not an object, or a robot... I don't share the gloom, or support the need form recrimination. I don't bugrude her some well earned fun either.