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

[kiki]

Originally Posted by 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).

Avon and VSlims finals were non slam majors like WCT finals and Masters for men

[kiki]

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.

Great post and all is true, Hingis vs Mandlikova is the match I miss on any court

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by kiki

Great post and all is true, Hingis vs Mandlikova is the match I miss on any court

I love Hingis' court sense, anticipation, and variety of game. The match up I want to see would be 1985 Chris vs. 1997 Hingis.

[NadalAgassi]

I actually think game wise Hingis would be a pretty bad matchup for Chris. However Chris was so much tougher mentally (I dont mean in court smarts where Hingis was every bit as good, but in nerve and toughness under pressure) which would make it a tough call who would win.

[suwanee4712]

NadalAgassi, I personally would rank Austin over Hana based on what I know. She was tough as nails and was able to beat Martina and nearly run Chris out of the game. Should Hana have beaten Tracy more often than she did? I believe so given Hana's ability to take leads over her. But Tracy was so mentally tough. And when she was #1 I respected her as such.

However, I am convinced that had Tracy remained in the game she would've had to change a lot to stay in the top echalon with M and C. Physically, I don't know if she could've kept up with them. She might've been relegated to fighting Hana for third. With Steffi on the way Tracy would be in a tough position in terms of trying to get back to #1.

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I actually think game wise Hingis would be a pretty bad matchup for Chris. However Chris was so much tougher mentally (I dont mean in court smarts where Hingis was every bit as good, but in nerve and toughness under pressure) which would make it a tough call who would win.

It would've driven Chris nuts originally. But like with Tracy she would've risen to the occasion.

When nuclear war destroys everything else, **** roaches and Chris Evert will survive!

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

NadalAgassi, I personally would rank Austin over Hana based on what I know. She was tough as nails and was able to beat Martina and nearly run Chris out of the game. Should Hana have beaten Tracy more often than she did? I believe so given Hana's ability to take leads over her. But Tracy was so mentally tough. And when she was #1 I respected her as such.

However, I am convinced that had Tracy remained in the game she would've had to change a lot to stay in the top echalon with M and C. Physically, I don't know if she could've kept up with them. She might've been relegated to fighting Hana for third. With Steffi on the way Tracy would be in a tough position in terms of trying to get back to #1.

Interesting. You could be right but 4 majors to only 2 is a big difference for me. I know I am thinking more in the context of todays game than the game back then though, events like the Avon and Toyota Championships were to many people bigger than the Australian or even the French for awhile. Tracy did get to #1 and Hana never got higher than #3 though, that is also a big difference.

I often wondered if Tracy's decline in results in 1982 and 1983 was all her own physical decline or if it also was part that she was not being able to keep up with athletic progress in the game spurred by Navratilova and Mandilikova.

I do think people exagerrate the career she would have had if she stayed healthy though. Personally I think the 79-81 patch would have probably been the part of her career. I do think she could have reached 5 or 6 major titles, but I dont know if she would have ever got back to #1 ever again, and I certainly dont think she would have ever dominated the game.

[kiki]

In any case, after the quator Court,Evert,King and Goolagong in the 70´s, the big 4 of Chris and Martina plus young stars like Hana and Tracy is a great one for the beginning of the 80´s.Just as much as the male´s Borg,mac,Lendl and Connors.2 european born players vs 2 americans.great mixture of styles too.

[dangalak]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I actually think game wise Hingis would be a pretty bad matchup for Chris. However Chris was so much tougher mentally (I dont mean in court smarts where Hingis was every bit as good, but in nerve and toughness under pressure) which would make it a tough call who would win.

Because she couldn't overpower her?

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by dangalak

Because she couldn't overpower her?

Some thought Hingis at her best was a better version of Evert. Evert herself said so many times on air.

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Some thought Hingis at her best was a better version of Evert. Evert herself said so many times on air.

They were decidedly wrong on so many levels beyond talent and skill. . Mostly about the girl's basic sense of discipline, and drive and character. Chris Evert had a will to be champion, almost unmatched in history. That is what it takes to stay 1,2, or 3 in the world and never let your ranking fall below, for 16 straight years despite half a dozen stronger or faster players.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

They were decidedly wrong on so many levels beyond talent and skill. . Mostly about the girl's basic sense of discipline, and drive and character. Chris Evert had a will to be champion, almost unmatched in history. That is what it takes to stay 1,2, or 3 in the world and never let your ranking fall below, for 16 straight years despite half a dozen stronger or faster players.

Evert was more mature and well focused but Both had the soul of true champs
Tecnichally both had not too good serves,all time great 2 HBH and unique cleverness and capability to read the match.Hingis was much better a volleyer

[BTURNER]

Originally Posted by kiki

Evert was more mature and well focused but Both had the soul of true champs
Tecnichally both had not too good serves,all time great 2 HBH and unique cleverness and capability to read the match.Hingis was much better a volleyer

See I don't think Hingis had the soul of a champion, just the mind of one. I agree with the rest

[kiki]

Originally Posted by BTURNER

See I don't think Hingis had the soul of a champion, just the mind of one. I agree with the rest

I like the way you put it, but even if arrogant, Hingis was the fresh air tennis needed then and would need now.

[slowfox]

Originally Posted by kiki

I like the way you put it, but even if arrogant, Hingis was the fresh air tennis needed then and would need now.

The closest we got these days is probably Radwanska.

[PDJ]

Originally Posted by treblings

movement like Goolagong i would agree
Bueno, i´m happy to say i´m too young to have seen her play, other than on video
the comparison to Hingis i don´t see

I'd consider myself reasonably young: that said I saw Goolagong-Cawley play in her final year as a schoolboy, mandlikova many times and have hit with bueno numerous times when she's in London. And altho her movement obviously isn't what it was, the way she hits the ball is beyond stunning. Breathtaking. I wd say that Goolagong was comparable & mandlikova a lesser, but talented, version of them both.

[suwanee4712]

Originally Posted by PDJ

I'd consider myself reasonably young: that said I saw Goolagong-Cawley play in her final year as a schoolboy, mandlikova many times and have hit with bueno numerous times when she's in London. And altho her movement obviously isn't what it was, the way she hits the ball is beyond stunning. Breathtaking. I wd say that Goolagong was comparable & mandlikova a lesser, but talented, version of them both.

I've seen so little of Bueno. There's no doubt she was a great player with a great record. But I've heard contrasting descriptions of her. Most describe her as a graceful shotmaker similar to Evonne and Hana. Others refer to her as a great athlete that could hit any shot but not as smooth as the others. Which would you say is more acurate?

[gavna]

Austin was a beast on court and at 100% would blow Martina and Evert off the court. Austin was actually tougher than Evert - it was her Sciatic Nerve injury that started to slow her down and really ended her career. Austin was a freaking kid when she started winning slams - can you imagine a 100% healthy Austin playing until she was 30+?????. As for Mandlikova she was a head case.....had ALL the shots, power, placement...etc etc etc but her brain was a wet noodle.....just like Henri Leconte on the mens side she had the most talent but at times could not put it together. It was like she had so many shots to choose from it would overwhelm her.

[kiki]

Originally Posted by gavna

Austin was a beast on court and at 100% would blow Martina and Evert off the court. Austin was actually tougher than Evert - it was her Sciatic Nerve injury that started to slow her down and really ended her career. Austin was a freaking kid when she started winning slams - can you imagine a 100% healthy Austin playing until she was 30+?????. As for Mandlikova she was a head case.....had ALL the shots, power, placement...etc etc etc but her brain was a wet noodle.....just like Henri Leconte on the mens side she had the most talent but at times could not put it together. It was like she had so many shots to choose from it would overwhelm her.

Never forget while Leconte never won anything big, Mandlikova won 4 big events.

Austin was very good but she lacked some versatility and I don´t think she had anything left after 1981...not at Chris,Martina and Hana´s level.But she would have made it very interesting for a few more years.

[PDJ]

Originally Posted by suwanee4712

I've seen so little of Bueno. There's no doubt she was a great player with a great record. But I've heard contrasting descriptions of her. Most describe her as a graceful shotmaker similar to Evonne and Hana. Others refer to her as a great athlete that could hit any shot but not as smooth as the others. Which would you say is more acurate?

I would say that she hits the ball incredibly smoothly. I've never seen her miss time the ball or hit an unattractive shot. That said, Maria has little margin for error as she hits so close to the top of the net & practically always down on the ball so her opponent, in this case hitting partner, has to dig the ball up- it's hard work. I can only say, hand on heart, that she plays as if set to classical music: truly beautiful.