I also love how you've latched onto this argument, despite not even mentioning it until James did.  You admitted you simply believe Ronnie is the better player based purely on watching him.  Now you're going back on that because someone has forwarded another argument.

No, mate.  You can't just keep changing your argument.

I said your opinion was subjective, not mine.  I'm basing mine on not only who I think is better, but on achievements.  Yours is purely subjective.

What's wrong is that you admit it was subjective and then latch onto an argument you hadn't thought of.  Is your assertion that Ronnie is the best ever subjective or not?

Of course my opinion is subjective. A 'best ever' sort of comment is almost always opinion and subjective, thats why there are different opinions in many sports, including tennis. And thats how it should be - one of the joys of sport are the possibilities of different opinions. I'd also call your opinion subjective, because the way you interpret 'best' isn't that simple. Of course, once you say 'best' means most success and trophies, then its not subjective to say its Hendry, because that's fact.

So, basically, I don't see any problem with admitting its subjective, but still agreeing with another argument someone puts forward. If I believe Sampras is the best ever, thats opinion and subjective, but I can still put forward arguments supporting it, or agree to others arguments supporting it.

Its because I didn't really have any argument as such, it was more just my feelings from seeing them both play.
And yes, I'll agree to disagree.

Shut up, Space Ghost!