I dont know why most people rate Austin over Mandlikova all time. Didnt the Tennis Channel list also have her higher (maybe I am wrong on that, would need to check it again). Hana has double the # of majors, had a much longer career, and was clearly the more talented and complete player IMO. What Tracy did she did exceptionally well but she was so one dimensional. Watching her and Evert you can really complete what a complete player Chrissie is despite being predominantly a baseliner.
I guess Tracy's big edge is she reached #1 in the Chris and Martina era. However she did not a year at #1. I dont think that overcomes 2 more majors and more major finals in the same era. Wozniacki ended two straight years at #1 and people clearly dont give that the value of even 1 slam, given that players with 10 or more less titles who never reached #1 like Stosur and Na are even ranked above her by people. So how would reaching #1 for a bit be worth the value of 2 more slams. Hana also won slams on all surfaces which is a huge difference from Tracy who could only win big on hard courts and carpet, but there were no slams on carpet. Even had her career continued unscathed, while she may have won more majors than Hana's 4, she also probably would have never won a slam outside of hard courts (and actually given that she would probably never win a slam again once Graf began to dominate, and there was only 1 hard court slam from 82-87, her chances would be very limited).