Was Mandlikova basically a lesser Navratilova, but with Evert's basline craft?

[NadalAgassi]

Hana had a 5-2 record vs Gaby I noticed. So perhaps that style of game wasnt so hard for her to play, but that type of game also changed the overall face and feel of the tour, which is probably the bigger significance. Gaby was also really young in all her losses to Hana so they never really met peak on peak, so hard to say if Hana found that game style hard or not, but probably not, or she would have already been losing to a young Gaby on clay.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

Well said. Hana was supremely gifted and later in her career became better at following a gameplan than she was ever given credit for. But her talent was both her strength and her weakness because she didn't know how to harness it. She lacked the focus and tunnel vision that Martina, Steffi, and Chris possessed. The pressure that comes with being such a wanted figure was something she did not handle well.

Maybe most of all, Hana sometimes found losing acceptable. To be an upper level great you have to hate losing with every fiber of your being. This was also what prevented Evonne from doing better but maybe for a different reason.

She didn't enjoy the weekly grind of the tour and it showed in her record at non-slam events. She lived for the slams and thats where 8 of her 15 wins vs. Martina, Chris, and Steffi came. I don't know of another player with that many wins vs. the best of the best without being a fellow member of that group.

I fully agree.In fact, only a megatalented player like her could beat AT MAJORS the trio of Evert,Navratilova and Graf, possibly the greatest trio for consecutive years that women´s tennis has ever seen ( although Bueno,Court,King are just almost as good IMO)

Some have compared her to Sabatini.Well, Hana and gabriela had the same menthal weakness, which I think comes from pressure (Mandlikova) and complex against Graf (Sabatini).Both curiously won their USO title playing S&V, and Sabatini showed will and maturity to come to the net as often as she did to beat Steffi when she was never expected to do so, and using a tactic she was never familiar with.

Hana could play S&V with the best (King,Navy,Court,Marble) for a whole year and, of course, is much more talented than the Argentinian.There is no possible comparison on the talent side.

[Moose Malloy]

But its the 1983 French match that I hope will one day be widely available. It was a real testament to Chris that she won that day because Hana killed Chris repeatedly in baseline duels, lobs, and drop shots.

its available here, you've made me curious to check it out

http://www.ricklovestennis.com/index...st/mandlikova/

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by Moose Malloy

its available here, you've made me curious to check it out

http://www.ricklovestennis.com/index...st/mandlikova/

By all means get Rick to send you a copy. The baseline patterns are excellent. The variety Hana uses is excellent while Chris grinds away like a machine matching Hana with hard flat strokes. Some baseline rallies are won by wrong footing Chris and some are won with nasty topsoin backhand drives down the line out of no where.

The diving backhand volley and roll was as good as anything that I ever saw Becker produce. Hana must have scored 10 times with the drop shot because so often Chris was pushed back on her heels by Hana's penetration.

But Chris wins because of her relentless perserverence, and, of course Hana plays a couple of really bad games at inoportune times. Though I prefer the results of Hana's 1981 French win or her 1985/1986 wins over Chris, this is my favorite match to watch between the two.

Also get the 1982 French win over Austin. Hana dominates much of the match only to make it more difficult than necessary. But its another great example of how good Hana could be on red clay against a baseliner.

[NadalAgassi]

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).

[BTURNER]

Looking at the scores of these matches from the list, it appears that on slower surfaces against great baseliners, Hana was worn down in that third set if it got that far. Mental or physical fatigue might have been the decisive factor after two sets of long rallies vs a Jaeger, Evert, or Austin, at least through '85. Those final sets on clay see a lot of 1-6 or 2-6 scores, while against s/vers like Martina, she hangs tougher. That problem is drifting by 85. Some of those clay scores do impress, but we also know that there were PLENTY of losses in 3rd or 4th rds against second raters on either side of them. Hana was not really a great clay courter. She was a woman capable of playing great clay court tennis. Above all, Hana was consistently -an enigma.

[kiki]

Austin was a superb baseliner, a pre Seles kind of player with less power but a sort of.However, being so good on the ground, she never won too much on clay and her record on grass,carpet and hard is far better.I think she just didn´t feel comfortable .Hanna was raised on clay, she was more of an attacking lass but she knew how to manouvre, how to slide, was very effective changing the rythim, the effects and used a good drop shot.If Mc Enroe had been able to play the kind of cc tennis hanna did in the 1981 FO, he would have probably one Rg title under his belt.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by kiki

Austin was a superb baseliner, a pre Seles kind of player with less power but a sort of.However, being so good on the ground, she never won too much on clay and her record on grass,carpet and hard is far better.I think she just didn´t feel comfortable .Hanna was raised on clay, she was more of an attacking lass but she knew how to manouvre, how to slide, was very effective changing the rythim, the effects and used a good drop shot.If Mc Enroe had been able to play the kind of cc tennis hanna did in the 1981 FO, he would have probably one Rg title under his belt.

Frankly, Austin's lack of success at RG specifically, says more about her high school final's schedule and her short shelf life, than her attributes, but otherwise your point is well taken on Hana. Austin would have done well there and maybe won one or two, had she actually played it before 1982. she was able to slide well enough in Italy in 1979, I don't think she lost the skill. Not saying she would have won any particular match or year, but it matters how hard you work to prepare that clay game, if you know you won't be showing up at the premier clay event no matter what. She got almost straight A's though, so she prepared for something. If you'll excuse the pun, she didn't practice sliding through high school

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

Frankly, Austin's lack of success at RG specifically, says more about her high school final's schedule and her short shelf life, than her attributes, but otherwise your point is well taken on Hana. Austin would have done well there and maybe won one or two, had she actually played it before 1982. she was able to slide well enough in Italy in 1979, I don't think she lost the skill. Not saying she would have won any particular match or year, but it matters how hard you work to prepare that clay game, if you know you won't be showing up at the premier clay event no matter what. She got almost straight A's though, so she prepared for something. If you'll excuse the pun, she didn't practice sliding through high school

Right about 79 Rome...Tracy was the first player to beat Evert on clay for 125 matches...that speaks volume of Evert supremacy on clay.

[suwanee4712]

A couple of other significant clay court matches for Hana in 1983 were her French win over Temesvari and her Fed Cup win over Jaeger. Both these matches highlight the intangibles that made Hana very good on red clay, namely her footwork and the ability to stay back or serve and volley.

The win over Temesvari was significant at the time because she was the hot name on clay that spring having already taken an otherwise dominant Martina to 3 sets and having lost only 2 or 3 games in her last 3 matches in winning the Italian. But Hana smothered her 6-2 6-1 and made it look as easy as it sounded.

The latter win over Jaeger came at a time when Andrea may have been playing the best tennis of her career. I believe it was also the first event for Hana after switching to graphite. There was noticeably more pop in her serve but she did struggle with finding her range at times. Still considering Hana's poor year winning the Fed Cup was her best moment, one of two straight Fed Cup titles on red clay.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

A couple of other significant clay court matches for Hana in 1983 were her French win over Temesvari and her Fed Cup win over Jaeger. Both these matches highlight the intangibles that made Hana very good on red clay, namely her footwork and the ability to stay back or serve and volley.

The win over Temesvari was significant at the time because she was the hot name on clay that spring having already taken an otherwise dominant Martina to 3 sets and having lost only 2 or 3 games in her last 3 matches in winning the Italian. But Hana smothered her 6-2 6-1 and made it look as easy as it sounded.

The latter win over Jaeger came at a time when Andrea may have been playing the best tennis of her career. I believe it was also the first event for Hana after switching to graphite. There was noticeably more pop in her serve but she did struggle with finding her range at times. Still considering Hana's poor year winning the Fed Cup was her best moment, one of two straight Fed Cup titles on red clay.

All true, but lets not leave the wrong impression. Hana won exactly 4 tournaments on clay. She beat someone named Strachonová in Barcelona, and Sabina Simmonds in Milan both in 1978 for two of them in her first year as a pro. In '79 she won Kitzbuhel over Hanika. Not exactly matches or events of stature. She won RG two years later and then nothing. I mean nothing for the rest of her career.

She got to 6 other finals on clay. She won precisely one set total in those 6 finals and that was to Martina. Hana retired vs Rucizi after loosing the first. She got blown completely off the court vs Evert in 2 finals, routined in one by Evert 3&3, blown off by Jaeger in another, and got her best score in 6 years in a final, loosing to Graf 3 & 4 in '87. She had serious problems clinching the deal on dirt in her prime. The list of her earlier rd losses is legion but I won't go there. As I said, She was capable of producing great clay court tennis, but she was far from a great clay courter. Your best wager was always that Hana would not win a clay title, or get within a set of it, no matter who else was in the draw, or how nondescript the venue.

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

All true, but lets not leave the wrong impression. Hana won exactly 4 tournaments on clay. She beat someone named Strachonová in Barcelona, and Sabina Simmonds in Milan both in 1978 for two of them in her first year as a pro. In '79 she won Kitzbuhel over Hanika. Not exactly matches or events of stature. She won RG two years later and then nothing. I mean nothing for the rest of her career.

She got to 6 other finals on clay. She won precisely one set total in those 6 finals and that was to Martina. Hana retired vs Rucizi after loosing the first. She got blown completely off the court vs Evert in 2 finals, routined in one by Evert 3&3, blown off by Jaeger in another, and got her best score in 6 years in a final, loosing to Graf 3 & 4 in '87. She had serious problems clinching the deal on dirt in her prime. The list of her earlier rd losses is legion but I won't go there. As I said, She was capable of producing great clay court tennis, but she was far from a great clay courter. Your best wager was always that Hana would not win a clay title, or get within a set of it, no matter who else was in the draw, or how nondescript the venue.

All true. And while Hana was playing I agreed with you, and interestingly enough with Hana who herself called clay her worst surface.

But about 15 years ago I started collecting her matches and studying her career from a hindsight perspective. I don't know if that lends any credibility to my opinions or if it discredits them.

I came to the conclusion that Hana wasn't particularly good on green clay. I can't think of any great victory that she had on that surface even though she did reach several finals. Green clay should've been a good surface for her as its faster than red clay and less heavy. But with Hana, nothing is that simple.

I know that the red clay season of 1981 was the beginning of her back problems, specifically Berlin. It was cold, damp, and heavy there and she started experiencing pain. I think that's why she curtailed her red clay schedule. She only played Berlin twice more when the WTA asked her to. She did play the Italian a little more which was usually hot and sunny. Her record there is good losing twice to Chris, but once was in 3 sets.

Obviously, her Paris record is what I base my opinion largely on. The inconsistent Hana was remarkably consistent there through 1986 suffering only one upset loss to Khode in the 85 QF. She has the wins over Chris and Steffi and the marvelous 3 set loss to Martina in 84.

I think she should've played more on red clay especially in southetn Europe. Had the Spanish clay events been as big as they are today they would've been perfect. I don't think she would've dominated them but likely would've done well.

I also believe had she beaten Chris in 83 that she would've won a second French title. Its more of a stretch to suggest she could've won the 84 French had she beaten Martina. But my point is she was quite good in Paris.

[SoBad]

Originally Posted by kiki

You and Evonne?

One day she walked up to me and gave me a jar of loose tobacco. She said: "here - I want you to have this".

[NadalAgassi]

Who is the best clay courter out of this group-Mandilikova, Conchita Martinez, Sabatini, or Hingis:

Hana- overall performances on regular clay circuit nothing on those others, yet is the only one with a French Open title, and by far the biggest wins at Roland Garros of those. Consistent and formidable performer at Roland Garros, only on rare occasion going down easily even to the best (eg- Evert in 86).

Sabatini- master of regular clay circuit, Premier title, Tier 1 titles, Tier 2 titles, one after another in prime. Frequent wins over Steffi Graf on regular clay circuit. Yet at Roland Garros a bunch of semifinal defeats and no big victories, just some near misses and dramatic losses to the big names. Admirable efforts at the 87 French vs Graf and 92 French vs Seles but came up short on both occasions, and even had she won would not have been a lock to win in either final.

Martinez- like Sabatini a master of the regular clay circuit, won Rome 4 years in a row. However unlike Sabatini her gravy period began rolling in after the Seles stabbing, and Graf cutting down her schedule and barely playing outside the slams due to her bad back. Also probably benefited from Sabatini's decline. At Roland Garros made only 1 final, years past her prime, which she then proceeded to lose in a winnable match vs Mary Pierce. Only big victory ever at RG was over an over the hill Sanchez Vicario at that 2000 French. Never beat Graf, Seles, Sabatini, even Pierce, or Sanchez in any other year, nor ever played Hingis, at the French. No wins over Graf or Seles on clay at all. I dont mean to give an unfair slant but you can tell Martinez isnt my choice I guess, lol! In fairness to her should mention eons past her prime in 2005 took the great Justine Henin, one of the 4 best clay courters of the last 40 years along with Evert, Graf, and Seles, to 3 sets in the 1st round.

Hingis- Great success on overall clay circuit but a bit less than Sabatini and Martinez, but much more than Hana. At Roland Garros was a super consisetent performer for years, finals or semis every year from 97-2001, but failed to win a single title, despite no truly great clay courter in their prime these years, and no dominant force on the circuit. Was arguably the favorite to win all 5 and won none.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by SoBad

One day she walked up to me and gave me a jar of loose tobacco. She said: "here - I want you to have this".

I think you have not recovered from the effects of that tobacco yet

[suwanee4712]

NadalAgassi, when you spell it out that way as an overall clay courter I would rank them : Sabatini, Martinez, Hingis, and Mandlikova.

But if you asked me to rank them on their French Open records it would go like this : Mandlikova, Hingis, Sabatini, Martinez.

If all of these players were in their prime and the top seeds at the French I would likely seed them Hingis, Mandlikova, Sabatini, and Martinez.

If I had to rank Hana's records at each of the slams based on # of quality finishes and consistency it would go like this: US Open, French Open, Australian Open, and Wimbledon

Maybe this exercise is the best proof to support BTurner's suggestion that Hana was not a great clay courter but capable of great things on clay?

Now if someone could make sense of Hana's Wimbledon record I would appreciate that.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

NadalAgassi, when you spell it out that way as an overall clay courter I would rank them : Sabatini, Martinez, Hingis, and Mandlikova.

But if you asked me to rank them on their French Open records it would go like this : Mandlikova, Hingis, Sabatini, Martinez.

If all of these players were in their prime and the top seeds at the French I would likely seed them Hingis, Mandlikova, Sabatini, and Martinez.

If I had to rank Hana's records at each of the slams based on # of quality finishes and consistency it would go like this: US Open, French Open, Australian Open, and Wimbledon

Maybe this exercise is the best proof to support BTurner's suggestion that Hana was not a great clay courter but capable of great things on clay?

Now if someone could make sense of Hana's Wimbledon record I would appreciate that.

Thanks for your answer. The way I see it would be:

Martinez- has a very good clay court game. Doesnt have a champions mentality though or quite a champions game in general.

Sabatini- Has a very good game and a great game for clay. Definitely the surface her game is best suited to, although when she became more a net rusher it became very well suited for faster courts too. Isnt super weak mentally but doesnt have the killer instinct to be totally clutch at the key moments. Maybe doesnt have the extra gear in her game to go to either.

Mandlikova- Super talented player whose game can translate to clay even though it isnt really her surface.

Hingis- the biggest mystery of Roland Garros history perhaps. Has both the game for clay, does have the champions mentality as all her time at #1 and all her big titles prove. Completely baffling she didnt win a French, still cant understand it. Probably should have won multiple. She seemed to be a chronic choker at Roland Garros.

[bluetrain4]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Thanks for your answer. The way I see it would be:

Martinez- has a very good clay court game. Doesnt have a champions mentality though or quite a champions game in general.

Sabatini- Has a very good game and a great game for clay. Definitely the surface her game is best suited to, although when she became more a net rusher it became very well suited for faster courts too. Isnt super weak mentally but doesnt have the killer instinct to be totally clutch at the key moments. Maybe doesnt have the extra gear in her game to go to either.

Mandlikova- Super talented player whose game can translate to clay even though it isnt really her surface.

Hingis- the biggest mystery of Roland Garros history perhaps. Has both the game for clay, does have the champions mentality as all her time at #1 and all her big titles prove. Completely baffling she didnt win a French, still cant understand it. Probably should have won multiple. She seemed to be a chronic choker at Roland Garros.

Kind of off topic, since I'm talking about Sabatini specifically, but I remember seeing some clips of her when she was very young and just staring to make her mark, and it was sort of mind boggling - excellent variety from the baseline - all sorts of different heights and spin, and some drives and slices mixed in. And, even though she didn't charge forward as much as she did later, she did come to net at times. A beautiful, well rounded, thoughtful game. And, I was struck by how much looser she was. You could literally see it. She seemed to get more and more uptight as she got older. Sabatini matches, like Mandlikova matches, are always fun to watch - and anything can happen. She really had some great matches in her prime with Navratilova, Graf, ASV, Seles, etc.

[Gizo]

I thought that Hingis was going to her get her RG title in 1998, when she was bidding to hold all 4 majors at the same time.

When she reached the semis, her route to the title was facing Seles in the semis who she had a 5-0 record against (with 2 wins on clay), and ASV in the final who she had a 5-1 record against (with a crushing win at RG the previous year).

Of course Seles's father had died of stomach cancer less than two weeks earlier so that was such tough time emotionally for her.

However in that semi she hit her groundstrokes so deep and hard, keeping her pinned back with her power and angles.

Hingis was prone to getting overpowed in a big RG match (Majoli had blown her off the court in the final the previous year).

[SoBad]

Originally Posted by kiki

I think you have not recovered from the effects of that tobacco yet

Why do you think that?