I don't know if I should :lol: or
at this thread.
In these kinds of threads, the same things seem to come up over and over again. Some points are valid, some are grasping at straws. When discussing who is "the best player in the world" nothing beyond 52 weeks should matter. Who cares if somebody won a slam 3 years ago? That doesn't mean anything to who is the best player in the world now. Right now, I bet anybody in the top 10 could beat Martina Navritilova (sp?) so does that mean that they are better than her now? Of course. Oh but wait, Martina has won multiple slams and Mauresmo hasn't. Does that change anything? Of course not. Amelie is still a better player right now than Martina is right now. Oh but Martina's slams were a long time ago, what I'm talking about is just 3 years ago. WHO CARES? Being in good form 3 years ago has absolutely nothing to do with the form you're in now. Sure if you're talking best players ever then yeah of course, it makes a huge difference but if you're talking best players now, it doesn't matter.
Another thing is injury. How many times has somebody heard the phrase "if she wasn't injured"? I know I read it at least 10 times daily on this board. Yeah if she wasn't injured, Venus might have won 5 titles this year. But if my aunt and uncle has enrolled by 20 year old cousin in tennis lessons when she was younger and sent her to good coaches and entered her in tournaments or ever gave her a tennis racket, maybe she'd be number 1 in the world right now and we wouldn't be having this discussion. If a player in injured and hasn't played enough to raise her ranking, obviously at the moment she's not as good as the players ranked ahead of her who are healthy and able to play. Would she be ranked higher if she weren't injured? Maybe but if's and but's aren't going to get us anywhere.
And then you wonder why some V&S are hard on Kim and Justine; it's becuase of stupid ass fans of theirs like you.
And then some people wonder why Williams fans get a bad name
The only arguement against Kim and Justine that I've seen in here that I would actually consider valid is the h2h, even though that doesn't always tell the whole story ( i.e is Vera a better player than Venus?). Some people seem to think that because the head to head favors Venus, that makes all the other invalid arguements valid but it really doesn't. Results from 3 years ago aren't valid in figuring out who's the best player now. If Player A owned Player B three years ago and still owns her now, she's better because she owns her now, not because she owned her 3 years ago.