Tennis Channel's "100 Greatest of All Time"

Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Tony48, Mar 20, 2012.

  1. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Hana´s talent was second to none, just the same as Hingis.Just that Martina was far more consistent menthally and tactichally and reached nº 1 status - undisputedly- while Hana always felt short of that.hana, though, was more athletic than Martina ( but Martina´s anticipation sense was unique)
     
  2. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    I agree with you on Hana's talent. However she was a giant headcase and wildly inconsistent. I agree with you on the Hingis comparision. One thing in Hana's favor was she was not as easily overpowered as the smallish Hingis, and had a much stronger serve. Still there is no doubt Hingis had the better career by a huge margin and has to rank much higher.
     
  3. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Martina´s sense of anticipation worked extremely well against power players like Seles,Davenport and the 2 Williams....but I agree Mandlikova had a bteer first serve, and was extremely athletic.it is curious because Hingis always knew which shot to play in advance, while Hana, who had great shotmaking talent ( much ,much superior to Evert´s and Austin´s, who were monoshot players and possibly better than Navratilova), made many judgement mistakes and came out with the worst choice...
     
  4. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Very true. She had almost too much talent for her own good. Tracy Austin broke it down that when she had a shot in a certain spot in the court she just played the same topspin forehand to the same spot, while Hana would try something extra complicated when it wasnt needed. I dont even like Austin's game at all and loved Hana's but still objectively speaking Hana never made the same impact Austin did from 1979-1981 (despite that in many ways those were also Hana's best years, well achievements wise anyway, tennis wise Hana's best was 1985-1987).

    Martina H. had huge trouble with prime Davenport in 98-2000, winning only 4 of 13 matches. She got out at the right time, before having to even face peak Serena, or much more of prime Venus. Her sense of anticipation, timing, and masterful ball control worked very well vs power players of Pierce, pre peak Venus, and Seles level, but the kind of power late 90s Davenport, and early 2000s Venus and Serena was the next level altogether and just too much without a stronger serve and stronger forehand than she had. What she would have needed was to undergone a similar revolution as Henin put herself through in 2003, with murderous physical training to overcome the lack of size, and technical work done on both the serve and forehand. From 2000 onwards she never beat Venus on a fast court again, and her last 3 matches ever with Serena in late 2001 and 2002 she was badly thumped, getting 4 and 5 games in two of them.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 8, 2012
  5. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Could be.I don´t agree Austin made bigger impact to Hanna.They made similar impact although Mandlikova outclasses Austin in the Slam accounting department.

    Martina was ultrasmart, extremelly gifted and her mind was unique.She would have adjusted to the Davenport and Williams game, and she beat them a lot of times.I see no major problem for her there.In any case, and that is my opinion, watching her talent ( and Kournikova´s, too) flow on a court, is worthy 10 times the best Williams match.There is not even contest here.IMHO.
     
  6. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Austin reached #1 and was in serious consideration by TPTB for Player of the Year in both 1980 and 1981 (which ultimately went to Chris, except the WTA Player of the Year in 1980 was Austin). She had a real rivalry with both Evert and Navratilova, and a youth rivalry with Jaeger which was highly hyped. Mandlikova was never in contention for the #1 ranking, was never in any consideration for Player of the Year, and was part of none of the games major rivalries. She was a challenger to Martina and Chris, but not a real rival, and Shriver was never good enough to be her rival either. That is how Austin had more impact.

    As for Hingis she was majorly losing ground by the time she retired in 2002. She had enough talent to adjust but only if she were willing to put in the work, harder than she had ever worked before, and I dont think she was.
     
  7. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Hana beat Evert at 1981 RG and martina at 1981 Wimbledon.Austin was never heard again of after 1982, she was done.Hana beat Evert and Martina at the 1985 USO, similar to what tracy did in the 1979 open.if Austin had lasted longer, Mandlikova more consistent and Jaeger and Shriver had improved and climbed ti next echelon, I think 1980-1985 would have been a great, unique tennis era for women.At least until Graf and Seles had taken the command in the second half of the 80´s.

    You´d have 3 top baseline players and 3 offensive players going at each other.And Hanika,Bunge,Kohde,Sukova,Jordan,allen,Jausovec,Ruzici,Turnbull and Fromholtz would have provided an excellent group of second stringers.

    But Tracy was spent as soon as Jaeger, Shriver never climbed that echelon...and Mandlikova just decided to play her best very ocasionnally...
     
  8. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    All true. The Martina era was the great era that never was. If the players you mentioned had all fulfilled their potential they showed when young it would have been a much stronger time for the game. The biggest beneficiary was Martina who lost only 3 matches total in 1983-1984 vs the mostly scrub field, with only a rather lethargic and declining Chris (who she had temporarily figured out to a T, to the point Sukova was a harder opponent for her than Evert) and Hana on her A-game days (which were hardly ever in the 82-84 period) as competition. It got much better in 85 with Hana and Evert both playing alot better, and Graf and Sabatini starting to emerge, but the the few years previous to that were just awful.
     
  9. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    Yes, I agree.In 1980 and 1981 it looked like the best possible world for women´s tennis.Old stars like Goolagong winning Wimbledon, Wade and King still very tough to beat, Evert coming back after a mediocre 1979, Martina and Tracy at the top.. and Mandlikova ( and in a lesser degree Jaeger and Shriver) storming...plus Ruzici making the finals of FO, Hanika next year, Fromholtz and Tunbull reaching semis, Stevens,Jausovec,Barker,Reid,Jordan,Potter,Bunge and marsikova...it was really great looking and mixing up with the Borg,Connors,Lendl,Mac,Vilas,Tanner,Gerulaitis group tennis definitley was exploding.

    But, from 1982 onwards, as far as women concerned, things changed dramatically.Mandlikova was letargic, Jaeger and Austin retiring,Shriver was never a real champion and, what is worst, the second stringers just faded away.What was left? a superdominant Navratilova and a declining Evert.Not until Graf showed up, and Mandlikova and Evert returned to great playing, could we enjoy another era of good female´s tennis.
     
  10. pmerk34

    pmerk34 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    5,208
    Location:
    L. Island, NY
    Evert was not declining she was steadily getting better it's just that Martina was far ahead of her for a while.
     
  11. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    You may be right.Evert had to be patient to increase her tennis level to a point where she could again be a real test for Martina, not merely fodder.
     
  12. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    In mid 84 onwards she began getting better again, and even raised her fitness and added new things to compete with Martina again. In 1982 and 1983 no way in hell was that the case though. She was pretty bad those years for her standards.
     
  13. NadalAgassi

    NadalAgassi Guest

    Just saw the breakdown of the womens list:


    IMO Overranked:

    Graf #1- She should be #3 or #4, not #1

    King #5- Definitely far too high. Should be below Serena, Lenglen, Connolly, Wills, and possibly Seles. Must have gotten some brownie points for her off court contributions. Also how can she be so close to Court who was her contemporary and crushed her and achieved about twice as much in both singles and doubles vs the exact same field.

    Seles #7- No way should she be above Lenglen, Connolly, or Moody.

    Venus #8- No way should she be above Lenglen, Connolly, or Moody.

    Henin #10- No way should she be above Connolly or Moody.

    The last 3 are a common theme and an obvious diss at the so called pre historic players and their achievements. It is obvious the voters decided the achievements of Lenglen and Wills especialy dont mean as much because of when they took place which is unfair reasoning.

    Martina Hingis #13- Too high. Should not be above Bueno or Gibson

    Evonne Goolagong #14- Too high. Should not be above Bueno or Gibson. Tally inflated by the weak depleted Aussie Open titles run.

    Lindsay Davenport #17- Too high. Should not be above Clijsters or Sanchez Vicario.

    Jennifer Capriati #22- WAY too high. Should not be above Marble, Osborne Du Pont, Wade, Mandlikova, Sharapova, Betz, Mallorey, Fry, Chambers, possibly even Mauresmo and Pierce. Most overrated player on list by far.


    Now underrated:

    Lenglen #9- Much too low. The women lost only 1 match in 7 years.

    Connolly #11- Too low. Basically a Seles clone in the 50s with a similar what if case but dominated much more than Seles since she was virtually unbeatable on grass (the surface Seles could win squat all on).

    Wills Moody #12- Too low. Like Lenglen lost only 1 match in about 7 years. Phenomenal.

    Bueno and Gibson- #15 and #16- Too low, only since neither should be below Hingis or Goolagong.

    Amelie Mauresmo- #35- Too low, shouldnt be below people like Sabatini and Cooper. Should be about on par with Capriati.

    Haydon Jones- #39- WAY too low. By far the most underrated player on the list. Should be higher than her countrywomen Wade who ended up at #25.
     
  14. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,210
    Forgot about Virginia Ruzici, the inspiration for the Williams Sisters.
     
  15. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    I agree with you on almost everything except:

    Arantxa is too high, she should be around 25 or 30 ( and no Conchita?)
    Bueno and Lenglen too down and the 2 Williams and Seles TOO HIGH.Connolly at 13 is also a joke to me.

    It is pretty biassed in favour of current or recent past players, but then again, allthose ALL TIME LISTS are, since nobody saw 1920,1930 and 1940´s players and just very few watched 1950´s, 1960´s and 1970´s tennis...may be half the pool would have seen 1980´s and 1990´s.and 90% is just 2000´s....

    Rest is pretty much OK
     
  16. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    ReallY? I don´t think their game is anthing close to similar...
     
  17. tennis_pro

    tennis_pro G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2011
    Messages:
    16,820
    Location:
    Poland, eating bigos and żeberka
  18. darrinbaker00

    darrinbaker00 Professional

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,007
    Location:
    Berkeley, CA
    When Richard Williams watched Virginia Ruzici collect a $50,000 check for winning the 1978 Roland Garros title, he decided to (a) teach himself the game, and (b) hide his wife's birth control pills. The rest, as they say, is history.
     
  19. Ronaldo

    Ronaldo G.O.A.T.

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2004
    Messages:
    14,210
    Good lord, wonder which player inspired Dr. Walter Bartoli?
     
  20. cknobman

    cknobman Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2007
    Messages:
    6,097
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia
    Monica Seles of course ;)
     
  21. kiki

    kiki Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2010
    Messages:
    18,714
    jajajaja-That´s a great story¡¡¡ So Ruzici could still claim some % of Williams incomes? That would surely overcome her own on court earnings.
     
  22. Anti-Fedal

    Anti-Fedal Professional

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2013
    Messages:
    1,094
    What a disgraceful list that deserves to be ridiculed and treated with contempt.

    Pancho not good enough to make the top 20, Emerson ahead of Rosewall, Agassi at #7 and Hewitt ahead of Vines.

    And these clowns who made this are considered experts... LOL
     
  23. pmerk34

    pmerk34 Legend

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2007
    Messages:
    5,208
    Location:
    L. Island, NY
    I saw Mandlikova play numerous times on television. I keep reading on these boards here how "talented" she was. Yes, she had the ability to improvise and was a good athlete. She also couldn't maintain a rally of more than 8 shots half the time and was pathetic when she played Steffi Graf. I thin streaky is a better word.
     

Share This Page