Quoting Buddhist texts instead of answering the question just makes you look like you're obfuscating to avoid the issue. And your counter-question didn't "attack" my point, it avoided it. In fact all you did was repeat my question, but refocused on an irrelevant third variable (the French Open). If my argument [sic] was so worthy of attack, you shouldn't have used it yourself.Buddha, Sutta Pitaka:
"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."
Your question has a point, a my counter-question attacks your point. Now, you need to make counter-argument.
In 1975 it was likely that Borg would win at least one US Open by 1981 but we know what happened. So, I think Novak would not swap two slams for one FO.
However, there's no need for you to procrastinate further. Your studious avoidance of my original question ~ especially when you're willing to answer your own ~ tells me what I want to know.