Armstronglivs wrote:
Whi is this we? wrote:
Stay home devastated, oldtimer.
Happily, the only devastated old-timer here is Williams.
When you're coming back a loss in a GS final is a sweet stepping stone. And if 37 is old where does that leave you?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Whi is this we? wrote:
Stay home devastated, oldtimer.
Happily, the only devastated old-timer here is Williams.
When you're coming back a loss in a GS final is a sweet stepping stone. And if 37 is old where does that leave you?
Who is this we? wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Happily, the only devastated old-timer here is Williams.
When you're coming back a loss in a GS final is a sweet stepping stone. And if 37 is old where does that leave you?
We can see how much she enjoys losing. And she keeps losing. But you would know what that feels like.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Who is this we? wrote:
When you're coming back a loss in a GS final is a sweet stepping stone. And if 37 is old where does that leave you?
We can see how much she enjoys losing. And she keeps losing. But you would know what that feels like.
Yep, but one must have the nads to actually compete in order to lose. Then the wins are that much sweeter. But you've never done either.
65 year old lawn bowler wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
We can see how much she enjoys losing. And she keeps losing. But you would know what that feels like.
Yep, but one must have the nads to actually compete in order to lose. Then the wins are that much sweeter. But you've never done either.
50% of the population says you're wrong. But keep stroking yours if it makes you feel better.
A 19 year old Canadian seems to have answered the OP's question. And the answer is negative.
Armstronglivs wrote:
65 year old lawn bowler wrote:
Yep, but one must have the nads to actually compete in order to lose. Then the wins are that much sweeter. But you've never done either.
50% of the population says you're wrong. But keep stroking yours if it makes you feel better.
We know which 50 % you sit in now. Stay dry.
Armstronglivs wrote:
A 19 year old Canadian seems to have answered the OP's question. And the answer is negative.
Is this how your brain actually works?
larry the logician wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
A 19 year old Canadian seems to have answered the OP's question. And the answer is negative.
Is this how your brain actually works?
Has just lost to a teenage newbie, and since her last win - of any sort - almost 3 years ago has lost every slam since to a different player. How does having a perfect losing record for almost 3 years make her the "best ever"? Don't bother - we know already how your brain "works.
Rod Laver's withered Sack wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
50% of the population says you're wrong. But keep stroking yours if it makes you feel better.
We know which 50 % you sit in now. Stay dry.
And here we have the wit of an orangutan. Dullards - like you - never know that about themselves.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Rod Laver's withered Sack wrote:
We know which 50 % you sit in now. Stay dry.
And here we have the wit of an orangutan. Dullards - like you - never know that about themselves.
65 years old and still working on your first one liner. I guess you can still dream.
Armstronglivs wrote:
larry the logician wrote:
Is this how your brain actually works?
Has just lost to a teenage newbie, and since her last win - of any sort - almost 3 years ago has lost every slam since to a different player. How does having a perfect losing record for almost 3 years make her the "best ever"? Don't bother - we know already how your brain "works.
Because a whole career is the picture, moran.
Herb Elliott was not actually the greatest either wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Has just lost to a teenage newbie, and since her last win - of any sort - almost 3 years ago has lost every slam since to a different player. How does having a perfect losing record for almost 3 years make her the "best ever"? Don't bother - we know already how your brain "works.
Because a whole career is the picture, moran.
How many other top sportswomen that could be considered the best ever in an individual female sports would have a losing record for a near 3 year period, which in her case is zero tournament wins? Zilch. How can that be the "best ever"? In any sport? That's in addition to the fact that she still doesn't have as many slams as Margaret Court, so she's not even the best female tennis player, let alone the best measured against other sports. Your ignorance is spectacular.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Herb Elliott was not actually the greatest either wrote:
Because a whole career is the picture, moran.
How many other top sportswomen that could be considered the best ever in an individual female sports would have a losing record for a near 3 year period, which in her case is zero tournament wins? Zilch. How can that be the "best ever"? In any sport? That's in addition to the fact that she still doesn't have as many slams as Margaret Court, so she's not even the best female tennis player, let alone the best measured against other sports. Your ignorance is spectacular.
of course a conversation about one of the greatest stories in American history would descend into an incoherent racist manifesto on this website.
facepalm* wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
How many other top sportswomen that could be considered the best ever in an individual female sports would have a losing record for a near 3 year period, which in her case is zero tournament wins? Zilch. How can that be the "best ever"? In any sport? That's in addition to the fact that she still doesn't have as many slams as Margaret Court, so she's not even the best female tennis player, let alone the best measured against other sports. Your ignorance is spectacular.
of course a conversation about one of the greatest stories in American history would descend into an incoherent racist manifesto on this website.
You wouldn't be William's coach, by any chance?
Armstronglivs wrote:
Herb Elliott was not actually the greatest either wrote:
Because a whole career is the picture, moran.
How many other top sportswomen that could be considered the best ever in an individual female sports would have a losing record for a near 3 year period, which in her case is zero tournament wins? Zilch. How can that be the "best ever"? In any sport? That's in addition to the fact that she still doesn't have as many slams as Margaret Court, so she's not even the best female tennis player, let alone the best measured against other sports. Your ignorance is spectacular.
None because no other woman has attained a record sufficient to even be in that position for comparison.
Pete Sampras was still the GOAT in the waning years of his career despite being manhandled by the young Federer etc
Margaret Court...lol
Moran
She stands alone wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
How many other top sportswomen that could be considered the best ever in an individual female sports would have a losing record for a near 3 year period, which in her case is zero tournament wins? Zilch. How can that be the "best ever"? In any sport? That's in addition to the fact that she still doesn't have as many slams as Margaret Court, so she's not even the best female tennis player, let alone the best measured against other sports. Your ignorance is spectacular.
None because no other woman has attained a record sufficient to even be in that position for comparison.
Pete Sampras was still the GOAT in the waning years of his career despite being manhandled by the young Federer etc
Margaret Court...lol
Moran
You don't know anything about tennis. Sampras was a great player but Rod Laver was still regarded as the ultimate benchmark, because he achieved the Grand Slam - 4 majors in one year - twice, which no one else has done. If Margaret Court's achievements weren't the standard in women's tennis then Williams wouldn't have been under so much pressure to equal her record of 24 slams. Regardless of what you think of Margaret Court, a record is a record. At 38, Williams won't make it - even with the ped's that have helped her continue long past her use-by date in the sport. If you want to look for the best in women's sport, try someone who hasn't built up a substantial track-record of losses. Blankers-Koen would be a start. There are likely others, who lost but rarely.
Armstronglivs wrote:
You don't know anything about tennis. Sampras was a great player but Rod Laver was still regarded as the ultimate benchmark, because he achieved the Grand Slam - 4 majors in one year - twice, which no one else has done. If Margaret Court's achievements weren't the standard in women's tennis then Williams wouldn't have been under so much pressure to equal her record of 24 slams. Regardless of what you think of Margaret Court, a record is a record. At 38, Williams won't make it - even with the ped's that have helped her continue long past her use-by date in the sport. If you want to look for the best in women's sport, try someone who hasn't built up a substantial track-record of losses. Blankers-Koen would be a start. There are likely others, who lost but rarely.
Nope. You're just being a Homer.
Laver and Court have long since been surpassed by multiple players.
Laver started getting schooled when he was not really old at all but that didn't diminish him either.
Sampras is certainly in the conversation for greatest ever along with today's big 3 and Laver. Those 5 are clearly in the discussion and no order has yet been solidified.
One must clearly hate Serena for not acknowledging her greatness coupled with longevity. Losing in the finals these last few years has not tarnished her image. Young phenoms have come and gone but Serena keeps rolling along.
I've been a big Federer fan and always rooted against Nadal and I also never liked Serena but if you're a fan you have to acknowledge their greatness.
whenyouwishywishy wrote:
Yes, and Serena wouldacouldashoulda but she don't have the 25 majors necessary to be the GOAT. You lose.
^simpleton's take^
FakeNews466368 wrote:
Serena isn’t even the best female tennis player of all time.
Steffi Graf?
Serena $92+ Million in winnings is incredible. GOAT pro female tennis player.