Originally Posted by Mustard
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.
because many people have short memories or start watching from the decline period of the player .....
for instance, how many do you think would be impressed by sampras in 2001-02 .... great serve ok .. but can't return, can't stay with the younger guys from the baseline ......gets passed by them repeatedly at the net ... net play is a failing strategy against the new generation ... blah blah blah ..