View Single Post
Old 02-15-2013, 05:10 PM   #34
Mustard
Talk Tennis Guru
 
Mustard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Cwmbran, Wales
Posts: 23,415
Default

I've never understood the argument that a player who carries on playing as their results decline "damages their legacy". Any results they have made in the past are not removed by playing on.

For example, I've heard some people say that Connors should have retired after 1984. Why? What he did up to 1984 will always be there whether he had stopped at the end of 1984 or carried on well into the 1990s, as he did. I believe that by squeezing every last drop out of his potential, surely he increased his legacy all the more.

Last edited by Mustard : 02-15-2013 at 05:14 PM.
Mustard is offline   Reply With Quote