You will notice upon reading my post that I'm talking about who is "the best," not about who deserves to be there based on results over a one year period. I think that when a player has missed an important part of the season and still manages to win two big events (which is more than any of the other stars who had the opportunity to defend their chances in ALL the majors) it makes a lot of sense to conclude that she's the best.
Originally Posted by Grand Slam
How can someone who was out for the most important period of the season deserve to be number one? It doesn't make sense.