PDA

View Full Version : Mandlikova and Sanchez Vicario-how to compare their careers?


anointedone
07-24-2007, 02:13 PM
Hana Mandlikova managed to win 4 slams in the era of Navratilova and Evert. Sanchez Vicario managed to win 4 slams in the era of Graf and Seles. Mandlikova was known for her stunning talent, but inconsistent performances. Sanchez Vicario was known for her dogged determination, enormous heart and fighting spirit, and getting the absolute most out of very good but not top notch talent. Mandlikova is by far the more talented player, but Sanchez Vicario maxed out her potential far more then Mandlikova. How would you compare these two.

jaggy
07-25-2007, 07:55 AM
I met Hana once in Eastbourne at a tennis camp kind of place and she was really nice to talk to.

ktownva
07-25-2007, 08:09 AM
I would have to go with Mandlikova, especially since her results were during Martina & Chris in their primes. Had she played in the same era as Sanchez-Vic she probably would have won more than 4 slams. The 85 US Open Final against Martina was one of the best women's matches of the decade. Her backhand stab volley winner on match point was a great end to a tense 3rd set.

Moose Malloy
07-25-2007, 09:51 AM
Sanchez won 3 of her 4 slams after Seles got stabbed. Seles owned Sanchez, do the match.

The 85 US Open Final against Martina was one of the best women's matches of the decade. Her backhand stab volley winner on match point was a great end to a tense 3rd set.

Yeah, most match points are pretty boring(yet they always get shown on highlight reels)
That shot was something special, esp in a 3rd set tiebreak in a major final.

Borat72
07-25-2007, 11:27 AM
Hana Mandlikova managed to win 4 slams in the era of Navratilova and Evert. Sanchez Vicario managed to win 4 slams in the era of Graf and Seles. Mandlikova was known for her stunning talent, but inconsistent performances. Sanchez Vicario was known for her dogged determination, enormous heart and fighting spirit, and getting the absolute most out of very good but not top notch talent. Mandlikova is by far the more talented player, but Sanchez Vicario maxed out her potential far more then Mandlikova. How would you compare these two.

Sanchez was extremely talented in the determination, fighting spirit, mental fortitude, grittiness, stamina, foot work, retrieving ability departments. Mandlikova didn't have those talents.
She could strike a beautiful ball, though.

Borat72
07-25-2007, 11:35 AM
Sanchez won 3 of her 4 slams after Seles got stabbed. Seles owned Sanchez, do the match. ....

Mandlikova - being 24-26 years old - lost 6 of 7 matches aganst a 16-18 year old Graf. Graf struggled a lot more against Sanchez in later years.
Sanchez made 12 slam finals, Mandlikova only 8.
Arantxa hands down!

bluetrain4
07-25-2007, 11:48 AM
Hana Mandlikova managed to win 4 slams in the era of Navratilova and Evert. Sanchez Vicario managed to win 4 slams in the era of Graf and Seles. Mandlikova was known for her stunning talent, but inconsistent performances. Sanchez Vicario was known for her dogged determination, enormous heart and fighting spirit, and getting the absolute most out of very good but not top notch talent. Mandlikova is by far the more talented player, but Sanchez Vicario maxed out her potential far more then Mandlikova. How would you compare these two.

You've answered your own question. Your analysis is spot on.

bluetrain4
07-25-2007, 11:54 AM
If I had to compare, I'd say Mandlikova underachieved slightly, while Sanchez overachieved.

Again, I see that innate "talent" is sometimes respected more than determination, guile, and other intangibles. But, those are just as much of a "talent" as a wide variety of shots and beautiful strokes. No one thinks of those intangibles as being innate because we all assume that a player can obtain them at any moment upon some realization that their talents are being squandered.

But, it usually doesn't happen. We're still waiting for Safin, for example, to get focused and put a consistent brain behind those strokes. Won't happen. Gonzo had a brief epiphany, but it seems to be over for now. Not that an undisciplined, extremely talented player can't become a mental giant: see, Agassi, Andre. But, most of the time, it won't happen.

Borat72
07-25-2007, 01:51 PM
If I had to compare, I'd say Mandlikova underachieved slightly, while Sanchez overachieved.

Again, I see that innate "talent" is sometimes respected more than determination, guile, and other intangibles. But, those are just as much of a "talent" as a wide variety of shots and beautiful strokes. No one thinks of those intangibles as being innate because we all assume that a player can obtain them at any moment upon some realization that their talents are being squandered.

But, it usually doesn't happen. We're still waiting for Safin, for example, to get focused and put a consistent brain behind those strokes. Won't happen. Gonzo had a brief epiphany, but it seems to be over for now. Not that an undisciplined, extremely talented player can't become a mental giant: see, Agassi, Andre. But, most of the time, it won't happen.


Yes, having stamina, determination and focus is having talent as well.
Some have it, some don't. I never understood why some people think only the ability to hit artistic shots is "talent".

CEvertFan
07-25-2007, 02:51 PM
I would have to say that Mandlikova was definitely the more talented of the two in terms of pure shotmaking ability and had wins over both Evert and Navratilova while those two all time greats were in their prime, but Sanchez-Vicario had the more consistent career and in 1994-95 gave Steffi Graf, who was still in her prime, all she could handle for a good portion of those two years. My vote goes with Arantxa for making the very most out of what talent she possessed, but it's a very close call.

Seles definitely owned Arantxa before the stabbing but had a couple of losses to Arantxa once she came back including the FO final of '98. Evert and Navratilova have pretty one sided winning records against Mandlikova even though she did get the occasional win over both on the big stage.

Final head to heads for Mandlikova:
vs Evert 19-7 for Evert
vs Navratilova 29-7 for Navratilova

Final head to heads for Sanchez-Vicario:
vs. Graf 28-8 for Graf
vs. Seles 20-3 for Seles

They have pretty similar records vs. the very best of their era.

CEvertFan
07-25-2007, 09:29 PM
It always brings a smile to my face every time I hear/read about the story when Mandlikova was talking all kinds of smack about how she would destroy Evert in the '84 Wimbledon semis because in her opinion Evert wasn't as good as she was especially on grass and then Chris destroyed her instead 6-1, 6-2. Evert always got especially riled and determined if someone was talking s**t about her.

suwanee4712
07-26-2007, 02:28 PM
Hana - 4 slams (2 Australians on grass, 1 French on clay, 1 US Open on hard)
Aranxta - 4 slams (3 French on clay, 1 US Open on hard)

Hana's wins over C&M - 14 (7 vs. Martina, 7 vs. Chris)
Arantxa's wins over S&M - 11 (8 vs. Steffi, 3 vs. Monica)

Hana's wins over Martina in slams - 4 (2 US Open, 1 Wimbledon, 1 A Open)
Hana's wins over Chris in slams - 3 (1 French, 1 Wimbledon, 1 US Open

Arantxta's wins over Steffi in slams - 4 (2 French, 2 US Open)
Arantxta's wins over Monica in slams - 1 (1 French)

Aranxta - 29 tour titles in 17 years
Hana - 27 tour titles in 12 years


----------------------------------

Looks pretty close to me. I won't blame anyone for favoring Aranxta because she was #1 and more conistent than Hana. But realistically, I don't think that Arantxa would be much more than a 1 slam wonder had Monica not been stabbed. And she would've never reached #1. So she was fiesty, tenacious, and also opportunistic. Which are all great qualities to have. But she also caught a huge break.

Though it is strange that Hana still has only 2 fewer regular tour titles than Aranxta does in 5 less years. You would think that Aranxta's consistency would've won her more titles than that. Given that fact, if I had to pick which record I'd rather have, I'd pick Hana's.

I also think that Hana represented a threat to C&M regardless of surface or how they were playing. While with Arantxa, she needed more help. She needed S&M to be off and surface did make a big difference for her.

If I had to pick one of the two to play a match for my life decided on effort, I'd go with Aranxta by a mile. If I had to pick one based on how good they were on their best day, it would be Hana by 2 miles.

If I gave Aranxta the advantage of playing Hana on clay, I'd like Hana's chances of winning MUCH better than I would Aranxta's chances of beating Hana on grass or indoors.

I don't think the comparison of how each did vs. Steffi means much. Hana's peak was finished in the spring of 1987. At that point, she was 1-2 vs. Steffi. After that came a heel injury, a hamstring injury, her recurring back problems, an abortion that caused her to miss Wimbledon, and a divorce. She was never the same after that. Still, as poorly as her last full year on the tour was, Hana still was good enough to have a set point on Steffi in San Antonio. I have no doubts that Steffi would've had a healthy series record vs. Hana under even the best of circumstances for Hana. But the 1-9 record is very skewed given the timing and circumstances.

federerfanatic
07-26-2007, 03:07 PM
It is interesting how much better Aranxta did vs Steffi then against Monica. When comparing one must remember Aranxta played almost entirely the retrievers role when she played one of those two much more powerful hitting and agressive women. So I think that what it was is mainly because against Graf she had the bit of reprieve to go to the backhand. She could often run down 1 or 2 huge shots from Monica or Steffi in a row, not always but often. However with Steffi those 1 or 2 huge shots almost always came from the forehand alone, and she could then try to get it to the backhand somehow and get back into the rally. Against Monica if she got those 1 or 2 huge shots back there was no reprieve going to a forehand or backhand, you would then get a 3rd or 4th huge shot, and it would be too much.

Warriorroger
07-26-2007, 05:14 PM
It is interesting how much better Aranxta did vs Steffi then against Monica. When comparing one must remember Aranxta played almost entirely the retrievers role when she played one of those two much more powerful hitting and agressive women. So I think that what it was is mainly because against Graf she had the bit of reprieve to go to the backhand. She could often run down 1 or 2 huge shots from Monica or Steffi in a row, not always but often. However with Steffi those 1 or 2 huge shots almost always came from the forehand alone, and she could then try to get it to the backhand somehow and get back into the rally. Against Monica if she got those 1 or 2 huge shots back there was no reprieve going to a forehand or backhand, you would then get a 3rd or 4th huge shot, and it would be too much.

Graf played her 36 times! Of course she has more loses.

Borat72
07-26-2007, 07:38 PM
It is interesting how much better Aranxta did vs Steffi then against Monica. ....

Simple answer:
Sanchez peaked in 1993/95 when Seles was out.
Subtract all the Sanchez-Graf matches from that time and you get a 21-4 H2H in favour of Graf. Similar to the 20-3 Seles-Sanchez H2H.

navratilovafan
07-26-2007, 11:06 PM
Simple answer:
Sanchez peaked in 1993/95 when Seles was out.
Subtract all the Sanchez-Graf matches from that time and you get a 21-4 H2H in favour of Graf. Similar to the 20-3 Seles-Sanchez H2H.

Good point.

navratilovafan
07-26-2007, 11:13 PM
I would have to say that Mandlikova was definitely the more talented of the two in terms of pure shotmaking ability and had wins over both Evert and Navratilova while those two all time greats were in their prime, but Sanchez-Vicario had the more consistent career and in 1994-95 gave Steffi Graf, who was still in her prime, all she could handle for a good portion of those two years. My vote goes with Arantxa for making the very most out of what talent she possessed, but it's a very close call.

Seles definitely owned Arantxa before the stabbing but had a couple of losses to Arantxa once she came back including the FO final of '98. Evert and Navratilova have pretty one sided winning records against Mandlikova even though she did get the occasional win over both on the big stage.

Final head to heads for Mandlikova:
vs Evert 19-7 for Evert
vs Navratilova 29-7 for Navratilova

Final head to heads for Sanchez-Vicario:
vs. Graf 28-8 for Graf
vs. Seles 20-3 for Seles

They have pretty similar records vs. the very best of their era.

That is basically how I feel comparing them. Hana is the more gifted shotmaker, but even with what she accomplished being still quite impressive being in the Evert-Navratilova era, still she was considered somewhat an underachiever by many. Sanchez Vicario was a bit of an overachiever in alot of ways. She got absolutely the most she could out of her career and game, which I rarely hear said about Hana, who probably had the much higher potential of the two.

You are right it is an extremely close call. There are so many arguments both ways.

I will say though the head to heads you mentioned vs the two greatest of their respective eras are in Hana's favor though. A 19-7 vs Evert, is slightly better then the 28-8 vs Graf; while a 29-7 vs Navratilova, is far clearly superior to a 20-3 vs Seles.

Mandikova reminds me of Goolagong, in that many people say they were two of the greatest talents but underachived, despite accomplishing a great deal at a very tough period in the time of Court, King, Evert, and Navratilova. Both were very fluid players and natural athletes, who went for alot of low risk fancy shots which worked against them alot. However the personalities of Goolagong and Mandlikova are so completely different, that while they both probably underachived I would think the reasons for that are very different from the other.

navratilovafan
07-26-2007, 11:17 PM
It always brings a smile to my face every time I hear/read about the story when Mandlikova was talking all kinds of smack about how she would destroy Evert in the '84 Wimbledon semis because in her opinion Evert wasn't as good as she was especially on grass and then Chris destroyed her instead 6-1, 6-2. Evert always got especially riled and determined if someone was talking s**t about her.

Yes I remember that too. Hana also said before her semi with Chris Evert that she felt she had "a good chance to beat Martina in the final." She was even looking past Evert to the final with Navratilova already. Being confident is one thing, but that is way over the top. Complete state of delusion about her place on the pecking order in womens tennis. Also to say it publicly, it is one thing to say those things to her own private little camp. However she should have known a champion like Evert would get riled up by that, and really just use it as impetus to smack her behind as good as possible. Which of course she did.

CEvertFan
07-27-2007, 01:59 AM
Yes I remember that too. Hana also said before her semi with Chris Evert that she felt she had "a good chance to beat Martina in the final." She was even looking past Evert to the final with Navratilova already. Being confident is one thing, but that is way over the top. Complete state of delusion about her place on the pecking order in womens tennis. Also to say it publicly, it is one thing to say those things to her own private little camp. However she should have known a champion like Evert would get riled up by that, and really just use it as impetus to smack her behind as good as possible. Which of course she did.

After that drubbing from Evert, Hana said in her book that she felt that Chris intentionally tried to humiliate her by beating her so badly and because Chris made her wait to walk off the court. In those days both players had to leave Centre Court together because they had to bow/curtsy to the Royal Box. If I had been in Evert's position, I would have made her wait too. ;)

The same thing happened with Shriver at Wimbledon/Newport 1985. Here's an excerpt of a quote about it on a great Evert fansite:

Pam Shriver, back then ranked 3 or 4, Chris #1, was complaining to the press that she never got to play Chris, but always Martina, inferring she could possibly win more if she got to play Chris instead. She had not played Chris in almost 3 years. I think she had lost in the semis or quarters of Wimbledon to Martina and made the comment then. So a month later, they got to play in the Newport finals. It was on grass, Pam’s favorite, and she went up 2-0. But Chris was on one of those ‘I will not give you one point’ frames of mind when she thought someone had been “out of line” as Pam had been in suggesting she would beat Chris. From 0-2, Chris lost only 3 more games, and won 6-4 , 6-1 with some of the best tennis I ever saw her play. When she got riled, there was no one who could beat her.

CEvertFan
07-27-2007, 02:16 AM
That is basically how I feel comparing them. Hana is the more gifted shotmaker, but even with what she accomplished being still quite impressive being in the Evert-Navratilova era, still she was considered somewhat an underachiever by many. Sanchez Vicario was a bit of an overachiever in alot of ways. She got absolutely the most she could out of her career and game, which I rarely hear said about Hana, who probably had the much higher potential of the two.

You are right it is an extremely close call. There are so many arguments both ways.

I will say though the head to heads you mentioned vs the two greatest of their respective eras are in Hana's favor though. A 19-7 vs Evert, is slightly better then the 28-8 vs Graf; while a 29-7 vs Navratilova, is far clearly superior to a 20-3 vs Seles.

Mandikova reminds me of Goolagong, in that many people say they were two of the greatest talents but underachived, despite accomplishing a great deal at a very tough period in the time of Court, King, Evert, and Navratilova. Both were very fluid players and natural athletes, who went for alot of low risk fancy shots which worked against them alot. However the personalities of Goolagong and Mandlikova are so completely different, that while they both probably underachived I would think the reasons for that are very different from the other.

My main reason for going with Arantxa over Hana is that even though Steffi Graf was in her prime, Arantxa still managed to grab the #1 ranking. Hana never even came close to doing that, heck she never even threatened Evert for the #2 ranking. I would say that Arantxa put herself forward to the greatest degree possible that she could to fill the void left by Seles' absence and she made things interesting when it could just as easily have been 3 more "Grand Slams" for Graf. I do agree though that things might have been very different for Sanchez-Vicario if Seles hadn't been out of the game for so long, as she had much more trouble against Seles' power off BOTH sides as opposed to just the power of the Graf forehand.

My favorite ASV match is her US Open win in '94, which wasn't her best surface. Sheer persistence and footspeed and tireless retrieving won the day, which always did drive Graf nuts as Steffi always liked to end the points quickly.

suwanee4712
07-27-2007, 07:46 AM
Some people in this world get a free pass on some things. And, I'm sorry, but Chris Evert is one of them. As gracious as she could be and as wonderful an example as she set for people out on the court, she was not perfect.

Chris was a master manipulator. And she was also described once as a psychological predator in the locker room. She had an admitted hard time being friends with people that she was threatened by on the court. Which even extends to her friendship with Martina, which changed from 1982-1984 when Martina surpassed her. That's not unusual for athletes. But she clearly was willing to use whatever advantages she could against other players. Hana did not speak very good English. She did not handle the press well by her own admission. And she all too often fell in the trap of taking whatever bait the press offered her for juicy quotes or in creating a story where there wasn't one. Chris knew that about Hana. And she used it to her advantage.

Hana, to my knowledge, never said anything about Chris during that tournament. Martina was the focus of everyone - the players and media. Because she was in the stratosphere way above everyone else in womens tennis, including Chris. The press was asking Hana questions about Martina, not Chris. Hana said she thought she could beat Martina. She was in Chris' half of the draw, so that obviously means that if she played Martina, it would be in the finals.

Now Evert fans jump up and down and scream and holler that Hana was overlooking Chris. And maybe she did underestimate her. But Hana was clearly upset by what she correctly saw the media doing in the buildup to that match. She kept saying in her press conferences to write down exactly what she was saying and don't put words into her mouth. They were making a story where there really wasn't one. It happens all the time - especially at Wimbledon. Which is why she skipped the postmatch press conference saying that it didn't matter what she said, they were going to write whatever they wanted anyway. And they did.

But think about Hana's attitude. Did she have a reason to feel that she could beat Martina in the final? 5 of her last 6 matches vs. Martina went 3 sets. She beat Martina earlier that year to end Martina's long winning streak. And Hana was the last person to beat Martina at Wimbledon. Sounds like reason enough to believe she could beat Martina to me.

Now compare that to how Chris was doing against Martina. She was getting rolled out in straight sets, mostly under an hour, and even on her best surface, clay. Chris was clearly better than anyone else by record, but she was not the biggest threat to Martina at that moment. Martina wanted to play Chris in the final. Whether or not she would admit that, you know it's the truth because she knew that on form she would beat Chris. She was not as confident about Hana.

I recently got ahold of NBC's coverage of the 3rd round at Wimbledon that year. They split time between Chris' match with Croft and Hana's match with Tanvier. During Hana's match, Enberg and Collins say that they feel that Hana is Martina's biggest threat. So this was not something that Hana cooked up in her head. Although I do find it interesting that in the warmups of the final Collins is backtracking all over himself in the wake of Chris' flawless match vs. Hana. Almost as if he hadn't said what he did just one week before.

Should Hana just go into a match with Martina or Chris and let them roll over her simply because of who they are? I don't think so. That's what seperated Hana from most other players. Arrogance or not, she knew she could beat Martina and Chris and had already done so. She had a right to think the way that she did. But it was up to her to go out on court and back it up. Which she did 14 times and on some very big occasions. Maybe that's what really tweaked Martina and Chris about Hana during their time of dominance?

I'll also say this. If Hana was a man, no one would've batted an eye at her for expressing confidence in herself. But in womens tennis it was different back in those days. As Ted Tinling put it, all the top players were "*****es" on some level. That's what got them to the top.

And by the way, I love Martina, Chris, and Hana. All 3 had their moments both good and bad. But they were all overly sensitive at times. And all 3 had egos the size of Texas. There were bound to be some clashes.

BTURNER
07-27-2007, 03:32 PM
That is basically how I feel comparing them. Hana is the more gifted shotmaker, but even with what she accomplished being still quite impressive being in the Evert-Navratilova era, still she was considered somewhat an underachiever by many. Sanchez Vicario was a bit of an overachiever in alot of ways. She got absolutely the most she could out of her career and game, which I rarely hear said about Hana, who probably had the much higher potential of the two.

You are right it is an extremely close call. There are so many arguments both ways.

I will say though the head to heads you mentioned vs the two greatest of their respective eras are in Hana's favor though. A 19-7 vs Evert, is slightly better then the 28-8 vs Graf; while a 29-7 vs Navratilova, is far clearly superior to a 20-3 vs Seles.

Mandikova reminds me of Goolagong, in that many people say they were two of the greatest talents but underachived, despite accomplishing a great deal at a very tough period in the time of Court, King, Evert, and Navratilova. Both were very fluid players and natural athletes, who went for alot of low risk fancy shots which worked against them alot. However the personalities of Goolagong and Mandlikova are so completely different, that while they both probably underachived I would think the reasons for that are very different from the other.

Hana had a tougher time getting consistently through to the semis and finals than Sanchez. A lot more surprise losses to journeywomen. In part it was due to a more fragile mind and body. Hana had a lot more injuries.

CEvertFan
07-28-2007, 03:20 PM
That is basically how I feel comparing them. Hana is the more gifted shotmaker, but even with what she accomplished being still quite impressive being in the Evert-Navratilova era, still she was considered somewhat an underachiever by many. Sanchez Vicario was a bit of an overachiever in alot of ways. She got absolutely the most she could out of her career and game, which I rarely hear said about Hana, who probably had the much higher potential of the two.

You are right it is an extremely close call. There are so many arguments both ways.

I will say though the head to heads you mentioned vs the two greatest of their respective eras are in Hana's favor though. A 19-7 vs Evert, is slightly better then the 28-8 vs Graf; while a 29-7 vs Navratilova, is far clearly superior to a 20-3 vs Seles.

Mandikova reminds me of Goolagong, in that many people say they were two of the greatest talents but underachived, despite accomplishing a great deal at a very tough period in the time of Court, King, Evert, and Navratilova. Both were very fluid players and natural athletes, who went for alot of low risk fancy shots which worked against them alot. However the personalities of Goolagong and Mandlikova are so completely different, that while they both probably underachived I would think the reasons for that are very different from the other.

I wouldn't rank Goolagong with Mandlikova as I think she was a better player than Hana. Evonne won more majors during a period when there were quite a few more greats than just Chris and Martina playing the game and did quite well for herself. I would say that the 70's was probably the toughest time for a woman pro to win majors because there were way more than a few women who had a decent legitimate shot at winning a major unlike most of the 80's where it became the Chris/Martina show. Evonne is also only one of a couple of women to come back and win a major (1980 Wimbledon) after becoming a mother, which Margaret Court did as well. It is true that Goolagong had her concentration issues sometimes, which the press dubbed her "walkabouts", but I think she was more consistent than Hana overall.

grafrules
08-27-2007, 09:10 PM
Mandlikova I think should be ahead. They both have 4 slam titles. Sanchez has 30 singles titles to 27 for Hana. I am not sure how you would compare them in tier one or tier two titles and things like that since the circuit was different in the 80s then now.

However Hana should be ahead since she was great on all surfaces more then Sanchez. Hana beat Evert at the French Open and that was her worst surface, and won that French Open. She won the first ever Australian Open on hard courts, and the U.S Open on hard courts. She won the Australian Open on grass once in a bit of a weaker field. Sanchez never won Wimbledon the way Hana won the French Open, yeah she came close but coming close does not give you the trophy.

She won the U.S Open on hard courts by beating Evert and Navratilova both in the semi and then the final. Sanchez has never had back to back wins like that to win a slam. The 2 slam finals she beat Steffi in to win she beat Mary Joe Fernandez and a going downhill Sabatini in the semis. The slam she beat Seles in the final to win was the French Open and she beat Davenport who hates clay in the semis

Wuornos
09-06-2007, 04:19 AM
On the Marsh Rating system I use to evaluate past players the breakdown is as follows.

Arantxa Sánchez Vicario won 4 majors, appeared in a further 8 finals and lost in the semi finals of majors on 10 occasions. Hana Mandlikova won 4 majors appeared in a further 4 finals and lost in 6 semi finals. Therfore their total achievement points are 122 and 92 respectively. we must therefore consider Arantxa as the player with the highler level of total achievement.

Looking at the spread of their successes, Hana's major successes were spreadover a slightly longer period. The spread factors were calculated as 3.66 to Arantxa and 3.50 to Hana. Using this to multiply there achievement points we calculate their level of dominance against their peers. This gives Aranxa a Ddominance of 447 points and Hana a dominance of 322 points.. we can therefore say that Arantxa was not only more succesful but was also more dominant of her peers at her peak.

Lokking at the opposition Hana had to compete against both Martina and Chris Evert, while Arantxa had Steffi and to a lesser extent, Monica. This is where Hana catches up a bit. The opposition adjuster which is derived weighted peer dominance factors gives Hana 4.19 compared with 3.18 for Arantxa. Multiplying their dominance ratings by these factors gives overall ratings of Arantxa 1419 and Hana 1349.

In conclusion you would have to rate Arantxa as slightly the better player on her performance record. Hana may well have had more talent but her lack of consistency cost her dear.

Arantxa Sánchez Vicario's score of 1419 places her 6th on the list of women singles players of the open era.

Hana Mandlíková score of 1349 places her 9th on the list of women singles players of the open era.

suwanee4712
09-06-2007, 07:20 AM
I just don't buy it. Look at what Hana did when she got the semis of a grand slam. Her strike rate is 50%. Unlike Sanchez, she never lost to a Shriver, a Jaeger, or a Kohde (Sanchez lost to Novotna (2), Pierce, Sukova, Fernandez in SF and F) in the SF or F of a slam. It took Martina and Chris to beat her. Plus Hana has a total of 7 wins over M&C in grand slam play (4-6 vs. M, 3-10 vs. C) plus a 1-1 record vs. Steffi in grand slam play. That's *8* wins over 3 of anybody's top 4 players in the modern era. That doesn't even count her wins over lesser slam winners like Wade and Austin.

It comes down to competition. Hana had to face and beat the best of the best. Had Chris retired after the 1984 US Open as she said she might had she won, then that changes Hana's seeding, plus it removes her biggest obstacle in grand slam play. Her grand slam total probably goes up by 2 or 3 slams - or the same amount of slams that Sanchez's total went up when Monica was removed from the game.

This is just my unqualified opinion, but Hana played far fewer slams than Sanchez did, yet she has more wins vs. the greatest of the greatest, and more varied slam success in terms of site and surface. The comparison of competition tells me that Sanchez had to cross over hills to win her slams. Comparetively speaking, Hana had to climb mountains.

CEvertFan
09-06-2007, 11:52 AM
I just don't buy it. Look at what Hana did when she got the semis of a grand slam. Her strike rate is 50%. Unlike Sanchez, she never lost to a Shriver, a Jaeger, or a Kohde (Sanchez lost to Novotna (2), Pierce, Sukova, Fernandez in SF and F) in the SF or F of a slam. It took Martina and Chris to beat her. Plus Hana has a total of 7 wins over M&C in grand slam play (4-6 vs. M, 3-10 vs. C) plus a 1-1 record vs. Steffi in grand slam play. That's *8* wins over 3 of anybody's top 4 players in the modern era. That doesn't even count her wins over lesser slam winners like Wade and Austin.

It comes down to competition. Hana had to face and beat the best of the best. Had Chris retired after the 1984 US Open as she said she might had she won, then that changes Hana's seeding, plus it removes her biggest obstacle in grand slam play. Her grand slam total probably goes up by 2 or 3 slams - or the same amount of slams that Sanchez's total went up when Monica was removed from the game.

This is just my unqualified opinion, but Hana played far fewer slams than Sanchez did, yet she has more wins vs. the greatest of the greatest, and more varied slam success in terms of site and surface. The comparison of competition tells me that Sanchez had to cross over hills to win her slams. Comparetively speaking, Hana had to climb mountains.

I would have to agree with you on this although it's a very close call. Hana faced stiffer competition because she had to contend with Austin, Evert and Navratilova but Arantxa had Graf and Seles to contend with and also took the #1 ranking away from a Steffi still in her prime and they both wound up with 4 Slam titles each. IMO, if Arantxa's record against Seles had been better or if she had won Wimbledon or the Aussie Open then I would have to go with her but that didn't happen, so Hana wins this battle by a hair. ;)

grafrules
09-06-2007, 07:49 PM
Both are great players and as a Graf fan I respect the exciting rivalry Sanchez Vicario developed vs Graf, helping to fill the void from the Seles tragedy. However I still have to give Hana the nod.

First of all many of you including CEvertFan have noted that you see the Seles stabbing as casting some doubt over Steffi's achievements and one of the strong cases against her being the best ever. That is a perfectly reasonable point of view, however if that is your stance, wouldnt this also raise doubt over Sanchez Vicario's winning 4 slams if you are being consistent. Sanchez had won only 1 slam prior to that, winning the other 3 after. Needless to say Sanchez Vicario's chances of beating Seles to win slams are far less then Graf's chances. In fact as I mentioned earlier Sanchez Vicario seemed to match up much better with Graf then Seles, and was able to be much more competitive with Graf then Seles. Seles pretty much owned her even after her return, Sanchez's big win over Seles in the 98 French Open final notwithstanding.

Sanchez never really pulled off a double off anything like two such great players as Martina and Chris to win a slam. Hana did beat Chris in the semis, Martina in the final, both in their primes, to win the 85 U.S Open. That was the only time she did that, but she seemed to have more of that magnitude of win in the semis or finals then Sanchez Vicario. Hana also beat Martina in the final to win the 87 Australian Open. Hana beat Chris in the semis in winning the 81 French Open, on clay her supposed worst surface. Hana beat Martina in the Wimbledon semis in 1981, and Chris in the Wimbledon semis in 1986, just couldnt pull off that double either time to win that elusive Wimbledon. Sanchez Vicario to her credit has beaten Graf 4 times in a Grand Slam event, 89 French Open final, 91 French Open semis, 92 U.S Open quarters, 94 U.S Open final. However she never beat Navratilova in a Grand Slam event, even as Martina got alot older. She did beat Chris Evert early on at the 88 French Open, where Chris was clearly not in her prime anymore but Sanchez was also not in her prime yet, so still a great win, especialy considering the limited opportunities they would have to play each in a big event. She only beat Seles in the 98 French Open final, as many have pointed out a diminished version of Seles by then, although still a consistent top 5 player and major contender during those years, and Seles had just destroyed Hingis in the semis in one of her best post-stabbing late round Slam matches, so still a big win.

However when you look closer at Sanchez's slam wins they dont quite match Hana's as far as who she had to beat. I already mentioned Hana doing the Chris-Martina double to win her U.S Open, taking down Martina in the final to win her 2nd Australian Open, and Chris in the semis to win her first French Open. Sanchez Vicario won her first French Open beating Graf in the final. Her 2nd Slam, another French Open, was beating Martinez in the semis, Pierce in the final. Still high quality players, especialy on clay but obviously not anywhere near the magnitude of win as of Chris or Martina on a hard court, or Chris on clay. To be fair to Sanchez Vicario Pierce was absolutely on fire that French Open, destroying everyone including one of her best matches ever vs Graf in the semis, however my point still stands. Then to win her U.S Open she beat Graf in the final, but while Sanchez Vicario deserves alot of credit for that win, Graf did have an obvious back injury in the final. To win her final French Open Sanchez Vicario beat Seles in the final, but as others have noted the diminished post-stabbing Seles, not Seles in her prime. So her semi and final wins collectively, compared to Hana's, not as many of the same magnitude as Hana's quite.

Some compassion might go out to Sanchez Vicario since she lost a couple incredibly close and tough finals to Graf, and yet the result still goes down as the runner up, similar to if she were more soundly beaten. That is sport though.

Hana deserves credit for winning a Slam on her worst surface too. Something Sanchez Vicario didnt quite pull off despite some valiant efforts.

conway
08-21-2014, 10:39 PM
An interesting comparision. I know many like to say without the Seles stabbing Sanchez might be only a 1 or 2 slam winner (although nobody really knows this for sure). However what is left unsaid, and is easier to speculate as it is not based on projecting a whole period of time that didn't happen, is that Hana would most likely only be a 1 or 2 slam winner if the 4 slams were all regularly played by anyone (health permitting) as they were in Sanchez's era onwards.

Hana won the 1980 Australian Open with a very weak draw, and many absences, including the 2 best players at the time- Evert and Austin. She won the 1987 Australian Open with a big win over Navratilova in the final, but what would her odds of a title be if both Graf and Evert had played as well (neither did). Her 1981 French Open title is hard to say anything against when she beat Chris Evert in the semis, but Austin who owned her at that point time time skipped the event (again nothing to do with an injury, but the infrequent participation of these 2 slams by all top players then). Back then many top players skipped the Australian and French, which would never have happened in Sanchez's era.

So really I don't see Sanchez's 4 slams any differently than Hana's.

Hana's big edge is 7 wins over Navratilova and Evert in slams. An astonishing feat on her behalf, given how dominant Navratilova and Evert were in their era. Sanchez Vicario though is no slouch with 4 wins over Steffi Graf in slams, and 2 other matches that were all time epics (95 Wimbledon, 96 French). She also beat Seles in the final to win 1 of her 4 slams, not peak Seles of course, but it is not like all of Hana's wins over Martina in majors were total peak either (eg- 80 U.S Open).

One poor aspect of Sanchez Vicario is looking at many of her head to heads with top players, besides Graf. She trails Hingis 2-18, an older (mostly) Navratilova 3-12, and Seles 3-17. It appears the only legend type player she could fare respectably against was Graf.

I think playing in the same era, Sanchez would usually be ranked higher due to her consistency, greater luck in staying healthy, and her desire to play all out each match and tournament. Hana would be the scarier opponent for most greats in the late rounds of a major though, except for Steffi Graf who would much prefer to play prime Hana than Sanchez who was always a thorn for her.

kiki
08-22-2014, 01:25 AM
Hana Mandlikova managed to win 4 slams in the era of Navratilova and Evert. Sanchez Vicario managed to win 4 slams in the era of Graf and Seles. Mandlikova was known for her stunning talent, but inconsistent performances. Sanchez Vicario was known for her dogged determination, enormous heart and fighting spirit, and getting the absolute most out of very good but not top notch talent. Mandlikova is by far the more talented player, but Sanchez Vicario maxed out her potential far more then Mandlikova. How would you compare these two.
Easiest comparative ever

ASV is the greatest overachiever in female' s tennis and Mandlikova the greatest underachiever
Austin and Sabatini come next

kiki
08-22-2014, 01:27 AM
I would have to go with Mandlikova, especially since her results were during Martina & Chris in their primes. Had she played in the same era as Sanchez-Vic she probably would have won more than 4 slams. The 85 US Open Final against Martina was one of the best women's matches of the decade. Her backhand stab volley winner on match point was a great end to a tense 3rd set.

Did both ever meet?

conway
08-22-2014, 06:08 PM
Easiest comparative ever

ASV is the greatest overachiever in female' s tennis and Mandlikova the greatest underachiever
Austin and Sabatini come next

What you said does not make it obvious at all Hana is better. The truth is probably that Hana SHOULD have been a much better tennis player than Sanchez. The truth also is that they ended up being roughly about equaly good since Hana did not end up being anywhere near as great a player as her talent had potential to be, and Sanchez ended up making her something a way better player than her talent should have allowed. Sabatini for instance is much more talented than Sanchez, but Sanchez is a way better player than her in the end despite that. Hana was someone with the talent of a 10 slam winner who won only 4 slams, and Sanchez was someone with the talent of a 0 or 1 slam winner who won 4 slams.

It is like comparing Hewitt to Safin. Everyone knows Safin has literally over twice the talent. Yet despite that they were ultimately about equally good, and Hewitt was probably better in fact. The same thing with Sanchez and Hana.

I would need some to think on who was ultimately the better player and who had the better career. Not really sure right now.

conway
08-22-2014, 08:14 PM
Now with more time to think on it, how they compared as players:

Overall baseline play- edge Sanchez
Overall net play- edge Hana
Overall offense- huge edge Hana
Overall defense- huge edge Sanchez
Consistency- huge edge Sanchez
Mental game- huge edge Sanchez
Tactical game- edge Sanchez
Overall athleticsm- tied
Higher peak level play- edge Mandilikova
Overall movement- edge Sanchez

I don't think all things considered Hana was the better player of the two, despite her superior talent.

Now more to the thread topic who had the better career.

Slam titles- 4 vs 4. Sanchez's put into proper context with the Seles stabbing perhaps, but Hana's too due to multiple key absences at both Australian Opens she won, neither which would she have likely won otherwise.

Slam finals- 12 to 8 for Sanchez.

Tournament wins- I believe they are almost virtually tied here.

Time at #1- Sanchez was #1, Hana was never higher than #3. Even if Sanchez might not have reached #1 without the Seles stabbing (impossible to say), she still edges here as she was ranked above Graf at one point, while Hana could never get above Martina or Chris in the rankings.

Year End Championship titles- neither have one.

Overall I would give Sanchez the slight edge due to all her slam finals, and I believe much more consistent and better overall slam performances. That plus briefly getting to #1, and being the best player of the year 1994 despite Graf's bogus #1 ranking for the year. Both played and did well in doubles, but IIRC Sanchez did better here too.

conway
08-22-2014, 08:17 PM
I wouldn't rank Goolagong with Mandlikova as I think she was a better player than Hana. Evonne won more majors during a period when there were quite a few more greats than just Chris and Martina playing the game and did quite well for herself. I would say that the 70's was probably the toughest time for a woman pro to win majors because there were way more than a few women who had a decent legitimate shot at winning a major unlike most of the 80's where it became the Chris/Martina show. Evonne is also only one of a couple of women to come back and win a major (1980 Wimbledon) after becoming a mother, which Margaret Court did as well. It is true that Goolagong had her concentration issues sometimes, which the press dubbed her "walkabouts", but I think she was more consistent than Hana overall.

Evonne's slam count is heavily inflated by the illegitimate Australian Open of the time, but then again so is Hana's, so Evonne still has the edge. I still think Evonne is overrated by anyone who talks about her being as a possible top 10 all time though. She didn't win a single slam outside the bogus Australian Open between 1971 and 1980. A lot of people forget this fact.

kiki
08-31-2014, 12:17 AM
Evonne's slam count is heavily inflated by the illegitimate Australian Open of the time, but then again so is Hana's, so Evonne still has the edge. I still think Evonne is overrated by anyone who talks about her being as a possible top 10 all time though. She didn't win a single slam outside the bogus Australian Open between 1971 and 1980. A lot of people forget this fact.

two VS Champs

PDJ
09-02-2014, 04:19 AM
I'd go with ASV as personally prefer to see a fighter. That said, if you threw Goolagong in to the mix, as others have, I'd go with her for pure artistry- I always found Mandlikova too sullen.

PDJ
09-02-2014, 04:24 AM
Evonne's slam count is heavily inflated by the illegitimate Australian Open of the time, but then again so is Hana's, so Evonne still has the edge. I still think Evonne is overrated by anyone who talks about her being as a possible top 10 all time though. She didn't win a single slam outside the bogus Australian Open between 1971 and 1980. A lot of people forget this fact.

Fair points, but the fact Cawley was unable to play the French during her best years- was she banned?- should also be remembered.

conway
09-02-2014, 05:16 AM
Fair points, but the fact Cawley was unable to play the French during her best years- was she banned?- should also be remembered.

Not really. She never beat Evert on clay after 73, so had everyone participated in the French she still wouldn't have won another. She missed it for the same reason Chris skipped 76-78, WTT commitments. She even lost to Billie Jean King in a French Open final.

PDJ
09-02-2014, 06:34 AM
Not really. She never beat Evert on clay after 73, so had everyone participated in the French she still wouldn't have won another. She missed it for the same reason Chris skipped 76-78, WTT commitments. She even lost to Billie Jean King in a French Open final.

I'm pretty sure she was banned at some point

conway
09-02-2014, 06:45 AM
I'm pretty sure she was banned at some point

You may be right on that, but even if so she probably was going to skip the French the years everyone who was anyone (apart from Barker in 76 perhaps) skipped the French from 76-78. And even if she didn't going 0-9 or 0-10 on clay vs Evert after 73, and the general slam unworthy fields of the 76-78 French Opens (similar to what the Australian Open was like every year around then) her wins would be lesser valued the same way her Australian Open titles already should be/mostly are. She obviously likely wasn't going to win the French the years Evert played and won it like 74, 75, 79, 80, given her last ever win over Evert on clay being in 73 like I said. She did play the French 71 (won), 72 (lost to King), 73 (lost to Court) so that doesn't leave us any other years to consider.

PDJ
09-02-2014, 10:40 AM
I think Cawley was banned in 74 (as was Connors). I think it fair to say that she would have had a reasonable chance as this was the year of Evert's first major win - albeit quickly followed by another at Wimbledon. I think the charm of Cawley is that she doesn't seem to have minded losing as long as she played well. And tennis was better for it in her case.

AngieB
09-02-2014, 11:51 PM
Chris was a master manipulator. And she was also described once as a psychological predator in the locker room. She had an admitted hard time being friends with people that she was threatened by on the court. Which even extends to her friendship with Martina, which changed from 1982-1984 when Martina surpassed her.
This really needs cleaned-up. In "Unmatched" ESPN's 30 for 30 documentary where Chris and Martina participated together to explain their rivalry, Chris and Martina explained in detail what happened.

Pre-1977, Martina and Chris often practiced together. That changed after Navratilova easily beat Chris in the finals of the 1976 Virginia Slims of Houston, then Chris barely beat Martina in the 1976 Wimbledon semifinals 6-4 in the 3rd set, followed by Martina easily beating Chris at the 1976 Virginia Slims of Washington after Wimbledon. While Chris and Martina teamed to win the 1976 Wimbledon doubles, Chris explained she felt playing doubles and practicing with Martina was helping Martina learn her game, so she stopped playing doubles with her and practicing as often. They continued to remain friends. You could see this after Martina defeated Chris for her first Wimbledon win in 1978, and the warm embrace they gave one another. Martina remarked that was one of her most favorite moments after winning any Wimbledon.

Chris and Martina both eluded to external forces affecting their friendship from 1982-1984, more specifically, Nancy Lieberman that encouraged Martina to dislike Chris in order to beat her more consistently. That changed 1985 going forward as their friendship warmed.

To place all the friendship woes between Chris and Martina on Chris' back, simply isn't fair. Tennis is a very competitive sport and both women at different periods during their careers recognized the pitfalls of being too close of friends with competitors during difficult times and made adjustments accordingly.

#PTL

AngieB

suwanee4712
09-03-2014, 06:09 AM
My comments were a general statement, not a commentary on Chris' relationship with Martina, though I referenced it.. They are based on what many players who beat Chris at one time or another said about her, and what Chris herself said after a few years of retirement.

My favorite player had a reputation for practicing gamesmanship and for not being friendly to players that she felt threatened by, and it was a deserved reputation. But what gets lost in the shuffle is that despite whether a player has a popular image or a negative one, the top players use everything, and I mean everything to their advantage even against their friends. Chris was immaculately fair both on court and in the public eye. But like Martina, Hana, Aranxta, BJK, etc. things could be different in the locker room. They were all first class intimidators. Chris might've been more subtle than others, but she got her point across before she stepped out onto the court.

The truth is these players were all human beings, more complicated than most. It's partially the result of living with, travelling with the very same people that want to beat you up and take your lunch money. It's not a normal way to live, and Chris has said many times that she's glad that she doesn't have to live that kind of life anymore.

This doesn't mean that Chris didn't have a good heart. There are many stories of her kindness and compassion towards others, including her opponents.

But on the subject of Martina, I would say that Nancy Lieberman takes too much of the blame, though I'm sure she never cared. Dennis Ralston was doing the exact same thing, in trying to change Chris' relationship with Martina, it's just that unlike Nancy, he was never a topic of interest for the press. I think some here will remember his reputation on tour. Take no prisoners! His win at all costs style was a big part of the reason why McEnroe stopped playing mixed doubles.

PDJ
09-04-2014, 07:58 AM
I'm a huge fan of Evert, but it was well known that she chose doubles partners who had caused her some problems previously at singles. Seems intelligent to me- work them out (99% of the time) & move on. There are few selfless champions. There are also few real champions. Evert is one of the latter, VERY few.